UDWiki talk:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013

Archive?

So I try to look at zoomi's old cases and I get error messages for the actual evidence. I didn't try all of them, but I tried a few. Would this be information that was lost to a purge? --_K 02:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also are there any arbitration cases related to all this? I didn't notice any. --_K 02:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah history purge deleted everything prior to about August 2008. Most of the Izumi stuff was late 2007. I'm not aware of any Arbies cases. It was A/VB at the drop of a hat a lot back then. ~ _{02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)}

A/VD sites a lot of the cases, there's obviously no contributions for purge reasons but, there was no arbitration case. On the first case she was editing in false locations for where Mall Tour was going. On the second case she was intentionally falsifying Ridleybank and Barrville danger levels. The third was her editing deleting a users post on their group page, if I recall correctly. The fourth case was her using three different alts to edit the Lockettside Valkaries page. The fourth case is quite self explanatory but for simplicity's sake: she was again editing another groups page in this case to remove her group from a KoS list. The Fifth case is again self explanatory, it's the required escalation for sock puppetry. And the final escalation was again another case of alt abuse. Followed by exactly, now, 100 cases of alts made to circumvent bans. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, for all you Sysops involved in voting unsure about accuracy of alts. There's a work around to see what the old sysops saw since Special:Checkuser logs don't purge for a number of reasons. You can actually track the checked accounts through the log, though you can't get new information from those accounts, the offset I provided should put you right in the middle of some Izumi alt bannings and be neari the time-frame of all the nonsense. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and because of how the majority of the abuse was committed there's actually a really easy way to bulk verify a number of these but it takes some knowledge of IP addresses to know why the pattern could only be from alts. It's easy enough to spot if you're looking for it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried the link and got this: No such special page. You sure that isn't a sysop only ability? --_K 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is, which he said. —Aichon— 22:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, yeah on second reading I see that. --_K 22:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ban-Circumvention: Policy?

Hey y'all. Over on A/VB, Thad put up a case reporting Izumi (as Kitakaze) for circumventing the ban to make an account to comment on this case. No verdict has yet been taken; both sitting bureaucrats have agreed to postpone the ruling until after the ongoing vote here at A/DE. As Spiderzed said, it's technically ban avoidance, but we're letting it slide. In my brief sweep of the A/DE archive, I don't see any precedent of someone having made such an account before.

The difficulty arises in that the creation of the Kitakaze account seems to have come up in a couple of the votes against on this page, and has been causing some consternation on behalf of users. I was wondering what people's attitude would be toward a clarification of policy which allows a user up for an unban vote to create a temporary account, which could be used to comment on matters related to the vote but nothing else? How restrictive should it be (the unban case only, its talk page, user talk pages on the subject of the vote?) Presumably if the vote fails, the new account would be banned when voting closes (if it succeeds, it would probably be banned as well as the main account is unbanned).

Comments? Thoughts? Am I wasting time I should be spending on my thesis? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Work on your thesis Permabans often come with IP bans, which means we'd be forcing people into using proxies to create new accounts. There's a policy for that too. What the sops are doing with Izumi's a/vb case is technically incorrect imo but I don't think anyone cares that much. Make it a policy, however and watch all the perma banned people ask for an appeal just to get their alt account unbanned for two weeks. ~ _{05:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)}

There is no required time limit for coming to an A/VB verdict. We are just keeping the case on hold, as it might well be that the alt account issue becomes a moot point after a successful appeal. I consider the decision to go-slow on a particular case well within the discretion of the sys-op team. -- Spiderzed█ 06:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The only real precedence that applies, strangely enough, relates to Izumi. We've had "conversations" with his alts before, brief ones, discussing things quickly (ie. "why was i banned" "ur a cunt") before the ban was put in place. I think this is a bit lenient but logical as per Karek's comment on the main page. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh also Cornholioo appeared with a fake account once and we asked him to convince us he wasn't cornholioo, which he refused to do. The conversation happened on A/VB and he was eventually banned when he stopped responding to our lines of enquiry regarding his real IP, etc. I'm sure Aichon would remember the case (I might try and find it when i get back into the country later this week) A ZOMBIE ANT 07:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There's not really any difficulty here. If someone wants to get unbanned, they can find a person to act as their mouthpiece. They've lost the privilege of posting to the wiki, and Vapor is spot-on correct in saying that it's an idea that is ripe for abuse. This case is actually pretty open-and-shut: Izumi's alt deserves to be banned for a few reasons, not least of which is because the alt was created prior to the case, with the case being created in response to the presence of the alt.

That said, I've always preferred to apply common sense that's informed by the spirit of the rules to each situation, rather than parsing policies for specific phrasings that compel us to enforce useless WikiLaw. While we may consider ban evasion a form of vandalism, it's a form of administrative vandalism, rather than acting in bad faith in the typical sense. As such, so long as she doesn't do anything else, I'm willing to extend a little leniency for the time being (the fact that the alternative is dealing with a battle against Izumi's alts may predispose me a bit as well). Even so, Izumi is stretching it, posting on other pages and taking advantage of our leniency. That's balanced out a bit by the fact that Izumi is doing a fine job of inserting her foot into her mouth with each edit. I'd think you guys voting Against would want that to continue. ;) —Aichon— 07:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Common sense for a little used scenario beats massive policy with its own loopholes every time. --Rosslessness 08:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

^This. Things not specifically spelled out can, when reasonable, fall under the judgement clause. As this should. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 18:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, cool. No new policy proposal from me. But I am a little worried if someone in the future creates an alt account and sets up a De-Escalation, then demands not to be banned because of this precedent. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (Withdrawn; see below. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 07:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

They can demand all they want, but precedents only apply in situations that match (not to mention that future sysops can ignore the precedent if they feel we acted inappropriately). No one else has the sort of history with the wiki that Izumi has, which is a factor in my choice to handle it this way. As such, I seriously doubt that we'll have a matching situation later. —Aichon— 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a pretty unique circumstance. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 18:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Then why have any rules? Is it just so someone gets to be in charge? I love how sysops throw up precedents to ignore policy (see the inability to understand the word within) then claim that precedents mean nothing when they don't like them. Why not save time with a single policy: sysops can do the fuck ever that they want, it's what we are currently using but less wordy. --_K 22:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I like Kirsty. She's my favourite. --Rosslessness 22:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You lie. You know I'm annoying and asinine. --_K 22:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nup. You're alright, Cotton. And I definitlely think you have a good point here. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well (both with Kirsty being awesome and it being a good point). Broadly speaking, policies tell us how to run things. Precedents should be set that are in alignment with policy and its intent, and overturned when the opposite is true. When we get into gray areas that are outside of policy, sysops are granted leeway by the official guidelines, as Karek has pointed out, but even then the actions that sysops take should be made in a good faith effort to benefit the wiki. In this particular case, banning Izumi immediately would not bring about the most good for the wiki, and policy conspicuously omits placing time restrictions on such enforcement since there is a need for a little leeway in odd cases such as this one (in fact, there's plenty of precedent for delaying decisions temporarily or putting them off entirely for various reasons). That said, it's important to note that having a little leeway is not the same as having carte blanche decision-making power. —Aichon— 00:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That difference is why we never let an Amazing alt come back and "secretly" edit after a couple of years. There was at one point discussion among sysops about that. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be good judgement behind judgement calls. And preparedness to have your judgement questioned (usually via A/M). I'd hardly say sops get a free pass to do whatever the fuck they want. Same when going against precedent. Better have a preety good reason for it. Such is the life of psyophood. It's much more leanient these days, but we have enough WikiKnights around to keep the team honest. ~ _{00:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)}

Actually I think I'm the only person to ever bring someone to A/M over something that fell under the judgement policy. But hey, there's precedent cause I did! --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, Yon did it to me. ~ _{01:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)}

Ah, cool. Not alone then. Honestly it was always something we needed established as possible, for accountability's sake. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I'm getting at... From VB: "Agreed. Yes, it's a vandal account. We all know that. But its only crime so far is ban avoidance, not something more serious. We can let it slide for a few weeks while this stuff sorts itself out." But the policy for this is that the alt should be banned. Then someone mentions: oh by the way, you set a precedent. Then it's all: no, no this only applies to zoomi. Bullshit, it applies to anyone who gets banned and feels they can contribute to their appeal vote. But, this perfectly logical assumption gets this: "They can demand all they want, but precedents only apply in situations that match (not to mention that future sysops can ignore the precedent if they feel we acted inappropriately)." If there is some doubt of proper sysop action, one of the sysop team should start the misconduct circus. I've already mentioned this apparent double standard to precedents. So, let's get to what makes this so special... Zoomi is (based mostly on Karek) the second worst vandal in UD history. Why would there be some special rule for someone who completed ignored the rules but not a less severe vandal?

tl:dr you can't make rules for just one or two users, err I guess you can since that's what's happening --_K 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Second most prolific. I rate quality of vandalism over quantity, though she did go crazy on quite a few pages at one point. The reason we aren't banning her yet is that while this bid is going on she'll just make more alts to circumvent it and it'll just be a waste of everyone's time. Pretty much her consistent pattern of behavior when she's on admin pages. IIRC A couple years back we decided that we'd just let her say her piece then ban her account/IP as soon as the case was closed that way we weren't running 10 bans per case. The only other user with a similar consensus is 3pwv who, if banned during his spree, will just make more alts but if banned just after and reverted during will go away for many months with just having made the one account. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully that helps make sense of this somewhat unusual decision. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I think in this case, letting her talk isn't helping her case in others the vandal may be able to win votes. So, what you are saying is if you make the sysops do enough work, you get a special exception? Basically, if you break enough rules, the sysop team will just stop applying some of them to lessen their work load? But, if you just did some stupid things and weren't a complete ass about it later, fuck you you can't speak in your defense? Seems reasonable. --_K 01:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

See wikipedia:WP:SNOWBALL, in this case the snowball is that the comments are inevitably going to happen regardless of administrative action. In addition to that there's still enough newness to this function that standards and precedents aren't functionally present and there does seem to be some slight consensus developing towards allowing the banned user a venue to comment. Yours are the first significant objections and thus why continuing this discussion is worth while if only to provide actual debate on which way this should go in the future. So yay! We're building something worthwhile for potential future discussion and rulings on this very subject. I.e. on whether the ban control method applied to A/VB should be applied here, whether users should have a chance to speak for themselves on ban repeal, etc. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still with Kirsty on this. I don't see this case as exceptional, and, more importantly, I don't think other vandals will see it as exceptional either. It seems like if two of the "worst"/"most prolific" vandals have had a similar tactic of repeated account creation (using proxies) to circumvent bans, we should accept that we're probably going to come across this in the future on just such a case. If (as is very possible) this vote fails, and Izumi gets put up for another vote in 2015 or whenever, I feel pretty confident she'll make yet another account and we'll be asking all these questions again. To me it seems the simplest solution is either (1) to follow the letter of the law and ban Kitakaze, or (2) accept that this is, in fact, a precedent, and go from there. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just interested in seeing if she actually has changed. Seems like a reasonable thing to do, to allow a temporary amnesty (as long as no other vandalism occurs) on the ban evasion rules to allow the community to make an informed decision on someone who has been away so long -- boxy 05:13, 20 February 2013 (BST)

For #2, despite Kirsty's implied suggestion to the contrary, none of the sysops have said we are not setting precedent. What I said a few paragraphs back on this page is that we are setting a narrow precedent. If there's a similar case later on I don't see a problem in applying this precedent consistently in that case as well. Regarding #1, the account will be banned in accordance with the letter of the law if that ruling is still appropriate. However, we've opted to delay the enforcement of the ban in light of the current situation. There is an overwhelming amount of existing precedent for delaying enforcement (particularly for more serious cases) in situations where delaying the enforcement makes sense and won't have an impact on the wellbeing of the wiki (e.g. pull up almost any A/VB archive and do a Ctrl+F search for "wait"; you'll quickly find dozens of examples of waiting for additional opinions, waiting for more information, waiting for arbies, or waiting for misconduct before enforcing decisions that had already been made). In this case, so long as Izumi doesn't engage in harming the wiki with her alt, there's no harm in allowing the delay. —Aichon— 09:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What precedent you may or may not be setting seems contrary to common sense. Penalize minor vandals, award major vandals. I know there are other reasons, but those aside that is what is being said. All you are doing (despite someone saying earlier to not reward it) is rewarding vandals who avoid bans. I would think the most logical step (unless you wanna take a trip in the wayback machine with Mr. Peabody) is to allow all vandals by precedent to speak on their behalf, since it has already been allowed. If I was banned, saw this and wanted unbanned, I'd just make alts until you let me use one, since it's been shown and now acknowledged that will work. --_K 12:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also... (sorry to keep picking on you Aichon but you have the most exposition in your responses) "In this case, so long as Izumi doesn't engage in harming the wiki with her alt, there's no harm in allowing the delay. " this could be said of every permabanned user. I'm starting to think there shouldn't be a permaban for anything but bots. --_K 13:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

and nazis :P--User:Sexualharrison13:25, 20 February 2013

Letting a case simmer isn't a "reward", just as issuing bans isn't a "penalty". A/VB is just a venue to mend disruptions of and prevent danger to the wiki. At the current time, handing out a ban against Kitakaze wouldn't serve either purpose. -- Spiderzed█ 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

^^^^^THIS. So much this. I couldn't figure out a way to say that at 3am last night, so I gave up and went to bed, but this idea seems to be the fundamental divide in understanding right now. Tying it back in with what I said earlier and what Spider just repeated, our goal is to prevent harm to the wiki. In the case of Izumi, she's essentially been quiet for over two years, not getting into any more trouble or causing more damage, despite the fact that she could have easily done so, so there's a reasonable expectation that the trend will continue, just as there's a reasonable expectation that we'll cause unnecessary harm to the wiki by immediately enforcing the ban. That's the common sense in this situation. In the scenarios that Kirsty has been laying out for future possibilities, we wouldn't have any expectation that the permabanned user was here to be quiet and play nice, since they'd have created dozens of accounts with the intent of frustrating us into submission. As such, we'd expect that they were intent on causing harm, so we'd ban them immediately since it's the path that causes the least harm. That's the distinction, and that's why I said it'd be a hard scenario to replicate. —Aichon— 16:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, why ban ban-evasions accounts unless they cause problems? --_K 21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, letting a supposed banned user comment on the wiki for fear of reprisal is a reward. Ask the banned users who don't get special allowances. Look at this from the view of normal wiki user (or better yet one of the banned users who don't get rules ignored for them) not a mod. --_K 21:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Welp, since you've decided to take the A/M route, Kirsty, I'm done talking here. —Aichon— 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously now? You're taking the whole sysop roster to trial over this? Let me tell you something; my case is special because I have spent years trying to plead my case at every opportunity, something which someone without extreme patience can't understand. Yes I have evaded bans but not to cause any harm to the wiki. Eventually, after managing to keep a low enough profile it was deemed that it would be less harmful to let me speak than to waste time chasing sock accounts that weren't causing trouble to begin with. By remaining persistent in getting my voice heard and not vandalizing the wiki for so long, I had essentially proven that I was worthy of some level of trust. Granted, thin-ice kind of trust but still evidently the sysops have some confidence that I won't cause trouble, which I haven't. Kitakaze 22:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Because the policies shouldn't be broken for just you. All I'm asking is that the sysop team treat all users the same. Their refusal to do so and insistence on repeating the same reasoning is why that is happening. Also, you probably shouldn't question people voting for your unbanning until it's over, after that do as you please. Do you honestly think there should be special rules just for you? --_K 22:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I understand where you're coming from. It just feels like by not banning me right away they were kind of doing me a favor, since I wasn't bothering anybody. I don't want them to get punished for that. But yes I do agree that players should be treated equally, however since I'm on thin ice as it is I'll leave it at that. I don't want to destroy my chances of getting unbanned over some policy crusade that really isn't mine to fight. Kitakaze 23:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want them punished either. I just want it acknowledged as a precedent that permabanned users can speak on their behalf. Something most legal systems grant the accused or convicted. I'd be happy if they'd just say it's a precedent and vandal warn me for posting on misconduct, although I'd be less happy now that I had to document shit. :( --_K 23:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So basically instead of continuing the productive discussion we were having here towards exactly that you instead take everyone to misconduct to cause drama? Congratulations, you just significantly veered off course from doing that. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we have different opinions of productive. Anyways, I already early on invited the sysops listed to vote. Head on over and cast your vote. --_K 03:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Does Izumi get a vote?

Yes? ~ _{04:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}

I would think two, one for each alt. --_K 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Go home, Kursty, you're drunk. ~ _{05:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}

I do my best thinkin when I'm drunk. Also, I'm already home, not sure whose but I'm here. --_K 05:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No way. She's still a banned user and has lost all privileges. Only the A/DE vote itself can restore her full rights and privileges, and our giving her a small amount of leeway in enforcing a ban that she's due doesn't mean that she's any less banned as far as policy is concerned. —Aichon— 05:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The sock account should just be banned then. I know you all had best interests in mind but I think you should reconsider. If she needs a representative for the remainder of the case, I'll volunteer. ~ _{05:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}

I had a feeling you'd swing things this way, but if we do as you suggest, then, as Spidey has pointed out, we'll need to close this vote as well, because banning her account would reset the 6 month clock for permaban appeals. Doing that would clearly be contrary to the community's wishes. While that may follow the letter of the law, the law is there to serve the community, not the other way around. —Aichon— 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it just didn't settle particularly well with me to begin with but figured I'd let it go with it without much fuss. I hadn't thought of the 6 month thing. Oh well. Sucks to be you guys right now . Months and months without any real wikilawyering and then this. ~ _{06:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}

Maybe I am missing something but why would banning the sock reset the six month clock? Izumi has still been banned for at least six months. You would be banning the sock and continuing, not resetting the original permaban of the main. At least that is how I read it. -MHSstaff 06:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Because each sock banning counts as an escalation. Technically Izumi has over 100 permabans, and six other types of escalation. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But they have still been permabanned for at least six months, which satisfies the inclusion criteria for an appeal vote. Escalating the main over a four year or so period to have infinite+1 double-secret probation permabans does not change the fact that the account has also been continuously permabanned for four years. I get that there are reasons to slow-play the decision and to allow leeway because it is not exactly clear how these situations should be handled nor does it really matter in the grand scheme of things. But it seems (to me) that the idea that banning the sock automatically ends the appeal vote/process is an artificial handcuff. -MHSstaff 07:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it might seem strange and in cases not involving alts performing active vandalism or an unbroken string of ban evasion it might likely not be used. The idea behind it is that the vandal served the old escalation that normally would have come before permaban. It's mostly really just there as an artifact of the revision process grammatically. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

^^^^^^ This. Either she is a banned user with no editing privileges or she is not. It is one thing to let the account advocate here for removing the perma. It is another to let them enjoy the same privileges as another other use and let them actively edit on other user's talk pages. -MHSstaff 06:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Man, I'm not sure this wiki has seen this much action in forever! Is there a place to see such stats? You guys are clearly having a ball with this!--Sarah Silverman 19:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Policy Discussion Reboot

So the discussion above that I started, intending to discuss existence of past policies and possible creation of a future one, was only partly successful. It seems everyone now agrees (since the misconduct case has been withdrawn) that the Sysops didn't commit misconduct, but that where exactly that leaves us is unknown. I'm personally very uncomfortable with the limbo we're in, where it seems that this event sets different types of precedents depending on who you ask. Because of that, I'm restarting the discussion on actually proposing a new policy to clear it up. The way I see it, the policy options are either 1) to clarify that even under circumstances like this one, a banned user cannot make an alt to comment on administrative matters, and any such alt should be banned as normal; 2) a permabanned player can officially make an alternate account, for the duration of the de-perma vote, with restricted rights (i.e. no voting, no commenting off of the relevant A/DE pages, etc.); 3) say whatever and do nothing.

tl;dr I'm withdrawing my above attempt to declare my question answered and want to know: Should we make new policy? Why or why not? If so, what policy should it be? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 07:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think option 2) and limiting that access to the DE page would be reasonable.-MHSstaff 07:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

At the point when voting for a new policy would be over, the Izumi case would already be closed. How many potential future A/DE permaban revokal cases are there that could benefit from such a policy? -- Spiderzed█ 18:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm increasingly coming around on agreeing with this stance, after having had all of this discussion. I'm not there yet, and I'd have to give it some thought, but I'd be more open to considering it than I was a few days ago. —Aichon— 18:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think if we are going to allow users to comment with alts, yes we need a policy. If we don't, no need for policy. As for the precedent issue, I'm greatly to blame for that. In my new opinion, the precedent that was set is that sysops can delay or even ignore policy if the purpose is to allow input by the community. Zoomi and the fact it was DE are not important to the precedent. I still find rules based on "exceptions" to be horrible and tantamount to misconduct. But in this case, that was not the true intent, I think it just got thrown in the mix at some point. See Spidey's original reasoning. I've kinda 180'd at this point and now think it was the wrong decision for the right reasons. In looking at the permaban appeal policy, it seems as though it might have been possible to allow the DE to start and then immediately ban the vandal alt: A permabanned user must be permabanned for at least 6 months before they can have the ban appealed. Which could be interpreted to mean that once the appeal vote begins, it doesn't matter if an account is banned as the process has already begun? --_K 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I drafted a policy which can be found here and discussed further here. Thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)