This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	The Technical Barnstar
	For reviving User:Bibcode Bot! Thank you so much! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

For all of the talk page stalkers out there, when interacting with arbcom what is a reasonable period to wait for a response? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've approached them twice already and both times they've fumbled the ball? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Last time things got away from me(I ran out of time to spend on this) and by the time I was able to circle back there where half a dozen proposals and no clear path). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• In my opinion, it is reasonable to expect a response within 24 hours; if only to say that your electronic correspondence had been received. An actual answer should clearly take a bit longer though I would think if more than 2 weeks were needed that an interim message should be properly due, to explain that more time is needed and why. I've a hunch, however, that my expectations are no more than a laughable aside to the procedures manifest in actual practice; do tell.-- John Cline ( talk) 19:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The last time we visited (what I think is) this was August of last year. It was noted (at least by me) in that discussion that ArbCom fumbled the ball the first time. Though some members of ArbCom contributed to the discussion last year, ultimately they dropped it and nothing happened. I could be wrong; Δ may have received an email from ArbCom, but I'm not aware. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• ASAP would be reasonable in your case, given that every time for the past two/three years you've asked to be unbanned and we've all discussed it, ArbCom has done nothing. It's been over five years - why is this ridiculous ban still in place after all this time? Acalamari 19:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• I think if ArbCom fumbles the ball again, I'm inclined to submit an RFAR with all of ArbCom as THE named party in the title of the case. :) Maybe, just maybe, that would get their attention :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

We have now officially reached the two week point without a response. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Could try pinging all of ArbCom again. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) Yeah, this is really bizarre. Is there anyone on The Committee who could be putting the knockers on it? It seems, a la William Rees-Mogg, Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel? — fortuna velut luna 21:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I doubt that. "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to incompetence", or in this case reluctance. I think for the ArbCom members currently serving, it's a complex, thorny issue that is five years old now. To try to untangle it and come up with a reasoned and reasonable way forward is no small task. Yet of course, this is precisely what we have elected them to do and what they have so graciously volunteered to do. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

5 years is far too long a banishment especially after the original said 1 year appeal. This user has not been given the chance to just return to editing without restrictions as would be the fair and proper thing to do after all these years. If he screws up again, deal with any issues. Legacypac ( talk) 13:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Δ wishes to return as a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Whereas he was blocked in ___ 2012 by ArbComm action (link), the community believes that 5 years and __ months is long enough of a banishment and requests ArbComm lift all editing restrictions and waive any other requirements for return imposed on User:Δ forthwith. This RfC jointly proposed by editors A, B, C etc

There is my first draft. Comments and changes welcome. Legacypac ( talk) 00:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Acalamari: @ Anomie: @ Beetstra: @ BU Rob13: @ Callanecc: @ Casliber: @ Ched: @ Cyberpower678: @ DeltaQuad: @ DGG: @ Doug Weller: @ Drmies: @ Euryalus: @ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @ GorillaWarfare: @ Guy Macon: @ Hammersoft: @ Headbomb: @ John Cline: @ Keilana: @ Kelapstick: @ Kirill Lokshin: @ Ks0stm: @ MBisanz: @ Mkdw: @ MusikAnimal: @ Nagle: @ Newyorkbrad: @ Opabinia regalis: @ Slakr: @ SQL: @ The Earwig: @ Xaosflux:

This is not directed at anyone on ArbCom, but as an entity in itself. I have been interacting with ArbCom for a number of years now. In that time I have made several observations. They flat out have no standards in regards to communication. On average I am waiting at least 14 days before getting a response, and then only because I start making the rounds and prodding individual members. In the past ArbCom as applied a "Pocket Veto" to my appeal instead of reviewing the case. I have given ArbCom a 3-6 month outline of planned activities, and suggested restrictions for re-integration into the community. Given ArbCom's clear communication breakdown I am posting this to my talk page since that is the only remaining venue that I have available. I do make a request for those who will be involved in the discussion. If you have a request or proposed stipulation please make it specific and actionable. Overly vague and broad statements have caused issues because it is left up to personal interpretation on what is and isn't a violation.

A basic outline is:

1) "Topic Banned" from NFC enforcement, this does not prohibit discussion of said policy or reports based off of the policy, but does cover actions taken to enforce said policy.

2) One account restriction, with stipulations that a secondary bot account is permitted if BAG approved.

3) Large scale edits/running a bot has a 6 month ban. After which point bot activities revert to the Bot Approval Group.

4) My planned activities are fairly limited at this point to minor gnoming (fixing issues that I come across), refreshing myself with the culture and policy shifts since I was active. Documenting and addressing issues with the tools currently on the toolforge (aka WMF labs).

ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not quite sure why I'm being pinged. If you haven't gotten a reply, ARBCOM does needs to get their shit in gear, and if I were you, I'd ping every member of ARBCOM instead.

That being said, it's the summer. It's quite probable many, if not most of them are just busy with life/vacation. I know they're not being very speedy with the other ongoing cases. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the case history I thought it was prudent to ping both ArbCom, and BAG. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) It’s been more than five years since the ban wasn’t imposed. I was still a clueless editor back then. I think it’s time to let him back. I’ve had nothing but productive interactions with this user on IRC.— CYBERPOWER ( Around) 19:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that users who hold advance permissions and failing to respond to their action/inaction becomes a recent theme (see recent ANI), I think ArbCom can no longer drag its heels or play "I can't hear you". Taking weeks or months to respond to emails is conduct unbecoming of ArbCom members (if such a thing exists). OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Δ, just for your information, this has been under discussion (looking back the last email about it was yesterday), apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Hopefully something will be up soon. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 20:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally Δ, I am in the process of personally getting my shit together, and organizing some of the outstanding items that we still require action on. Hopefully this will expedite your (and other) requests which appear to be stuck in queue. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 20:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Email received July 7. Responded to July 19 with questions and comments after being internally discussed. Formal appeal received July 20. There are 18 internal emails regarding the formal appeal with the latest received yesterday. There's probably about 20-30 appeals currently being discussed. The issue isn't about simply responding, it's also about establishing a consensus among the active ArbCom. We could certainly improve response time, but anything better than a few days, we'd be just enacting things without consensus or very poorly and likely to no one's satisfaction. Mkdw ^talk 22:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)of response

• @ Mkdw: I wouldn't necessarily expect a resolution rapidly. I would expect some kind of response, even if it was a "High volume of calls, please hold" message. A reasonable secondary would be a back and forth with me being able to address issues that you guys foresee. In a back and forth process to get a resolution that will work for all parties involved, especially given that there have been glaring issues with wording in previous decisions. A binary appeal, reject situation is not conducive to problem resolution. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Yes, in regards to case updates we can do better. Mkdw ^talk 01:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks for a substantive response to an issue with a lot of history behind it is actually not that bad by our usual standards :) And considering that the substance of the response you were likely to get was going to be "write something up to post in public so people can weigh in on what if any restrictions they think are warranted", you just beat us to it. The plan was to post on AN to solicit feedback; is the above what you'd like to have posted there or do you want to expand/modify first? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the response lag, I know it could probably use a review of wording perhaps @ Guy Macon: could give it a once over but that is the gist of it. I have always been fairly straight forward with my statements. The only difficulty that I see having the discussion at ANI is my lack of ability to respond effectively. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Opabinia regalis: Since Guy has declined the review, go ahead and post as is. However I will be going offline in about 48 hours for about a week (Planned Trip) so my internet access/ability to respond/monitor/provide feedback will be non-existent until I get back. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Right now things are slow because a lot of people are at Wikimania or otherwise on vacation. Since you're also going to be unavailable soon, why not just wait till you get back so you can follow the discussion? I doubt it would take more than a week in any case. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Opabinia regalis: Sorry for the delay, post trip chaos and helping Headbomb have kept me busy. But I should be around now. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you please re-post here exactly the text you want to use for the AN discussion? In a new section or in a collapse box or something is fine. Thanks! Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• 5 years is at least enough for re-evaluation. I don't know how old he is, but 5 years can frequently be a huge difference when it comes to teenagers and college kids, at the very least. Anyway, given the substance of prior concerns/cases is predominantly whether Betacommand is making unsanctioned automated edits and dealing with complaints, the simplest solution would just be to change the sanctions to allow any admin to AE-block him without warning "up to a year" / whatever the going rate is for ACDS whenever he starts making a string of edits that a reasonable person would construe as automated; appeals then go to AE if requested. Ditto goes with any civility concerns or whatever else was raised in the cases before. Not sure why Arbcom would be so inactive on this, though... it looks like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3#Appeal_of_ban doesn't require them to come to any sort of real agreement internally, rather just to present the request to the community for discussion. Maybe that was for back when there was a WP:BASC? -- slakr^{\  talk /} 01:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As was pointed out above, ArbCom is not so inactive on this, nor has Betacommand/Delta been so inactive--note that the last sock block wasn't five yours ago, but rather December 2013--an editor with whom I interacted some, actually, and whom I defended more than once. Just saying. Drmies ( talk) 19:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to help, and I believe that my contributions would be useful, but I refuse to have anything to do with Arbcom. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#I believe that I am owed an apology. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom discussion

I have opened a discussion related to the above appeal at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#A related aside. Comments by others are welcome there. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 14:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That discussion was archived without action. One comment in that discussion caught my eye:

"considering how a recent unbanning exploded in the lap of ArbCom, have you ever considered posting a non-binding Request for Comment post at WP:AN or WP:ANI for select unban requests"

I saw no objections from any arbcom member, so let's do it. I suggest WP:AN. We will have to deal with random editors who have a made-up rule in their head saying that if a forum is not allowed to make a binding decision that this somehow magically creates a rule saying that we cannot post non-binding RfCs on the topic, but no such rule exists. See my Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy for a good example about how to word a non-binding RfC.

Who wants to write up the RfC? I can do it, but there are other editors here who are more familiar with the history involved. Δ, do you want to post a version of what you would like to see in an RfC here so we can use that as a starting point? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I find some of his tool useful even today. Is the suggestion that after 5 years all blocks and restrictions be lifted so he has a clean start? I'd favor that. 5 years is a very long punishment indeed. Legacypac ( talk) 15:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am currently waiting to see what Opabinia regalis recommends as the next step. Its only been a few hours since my post so I am going to give it some more time. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• @ Guy Macon, John Cline, Legacypac, and Opabinia regalis: Sorry, but why was Δ blocked? Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Betacommand (February 2012 -- well over five years ago)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive (March 2013) (I am including this because some people refer to it but fail to note that the conclusion was "There simply hasn't been enough evidence presented here"). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

In the time he has been blocked, kids who did not exist then are in Kindergarten. Rather than having him appeal, what about a group of interested editors together go to ANi and start a proposal to "reinstate beta with no restrictions on a clean statt basis" or some other better wording. If four or five editors cosign the proposal it will fly. Legacypac ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Alas, I know exactly what the response will be: "ANI does not have the authority to overturn arbcom." Thus my far better suggestion above (Post a a non-binding Request for Comment post at AN. See my Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy for a good example about how to word a non-binding RfC.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Give Δ another try. If he sticks to one username, and behaves acceptably, then OK. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe that these are Betacommand's known accounts (legitimate, not sockpuppets):

• Betacommand2 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Last edit: June 2008)
• Betacommand ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Last edit: July 2010)
• Δbot ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Last edit: February 2012, and we want bot edits to be done with a separate bot account))
• Δ ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Last edit: 3 days ago)

If I missed any, please let me know. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Δ, regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Checking some sockpuppet cats, would you like me to challenge any of them, or are they valid? (Note that we are mostly talking about accounts blocked in 2008 and 2009). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: None of the suspected are valid, however given the time lapse not sure its worth challenging. Any suggestions on how I should phrase the AN RfC? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I am getting pretty good at writing RfCs that pass. Sometime soon (this week, I hope) I will write up a draft, ask everyone here to comment/correct, then will post it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: Any progress report? Id rather not drag this out too long. If needed I can try to come up with something, not sure how well it will go over. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I got distracted by other things. I will post an RfC later today. My apologies. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy, why wouldn't you start off from the text provided by Betacommand at #Public Appeal, above? It sounds like he would accept an unban even with restrictions. Asking Arbcom to lift all restrictions is a bigger request. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Δ, At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC I have advocated a complete lifting of all restrictions on you. The consensus seems to be going towards lifting the ban but leaving some restrictions in place for another six months.

My question is a simple one, and I apologize for having to ask it, but are you going to hang me up to dry? Looking at the reactions of a minority of those who have commented on the RfC, I can confidently predict that your every edit will be scrutinized and that there will be complaints even if you do everything right (and many more complaints if you don't). It will be a huge temptation to respond in ways that will be used against you. You will be reported for minor infractions that would be ignored if I did them. And if you respond with even a hint of incivility or stray too close to whatever limits they impose your enemies will turn on me and say "See? You vouched for him, and look what happened!". Please, tell me that you understand and will not make me regret any of this.

Yes, I know that it is unfair holding you to a stricter standard than anyone else, but you need to be squeaky clean for at least six months. You need to use the preview button every time and carefully look for errors. You need to write neutral edit summaries, and you need to do that on every edit. And in many cases you need to ignore accusations and let someone else deal with them if they are false accusations. Please tell me that I am not going to look like a fool.

Again, I apologize for the tone of this post, but I had to ask. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: I am not going to hang you out to dry, I fully expected that there would be restrictions in place. I expect a degree of stalking and harassment as a matter of course, said actions will be denied of course, and even the blatant personal attacks that will be directed at me will for the most part be ignored when I try to raise the issue. However CIVIL will not be an issue, unless its taken to an unreasonable degree (IE calling out obvious vandalism is a personal attack on the editor who made the edit) The critical factors here will be clearly defining those restrictions and providing specific, actionable points. The current wording on 2A with regards to simi-automatic editing is too poorly worded to be followable. At what point to you consider something simi-auto? Is Twinkle forbidden? (its often used for basic page tagging, XfDs and so on) Is CharInsert forbidden (I use that as an example of a gadget that is both available in the Preferences, and something enabled by default for user)? How do I prove that I wasn't using something semi-automatically? (Its not actually possible to do so, since I am still pressing the save button myself) Those will be cases where as soon as someone makes that claim I am out of luck because unless I have a camera over my shoulder 24/7 recording myself editing I will be unable to prove my side of the issue. (See the Proving Non-Existence argument fallacy). I would also push for the ability of review in 6 months instead of a year. I know I am forgetting something, however I have a splitting headache, and real life issues that are requiring priority at the moment, if something else crosses my mind as the discussion unfolds I'll post here. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I am satisfied with your good faith. Thanks! And again sorry that I had to ask.

As can be seen from the comments section of 2A, I didn't write it. I am going to make a point to make sure that before this is over that any restrictions will be precisely defined. I will be putting more thought into this later, after the current RfC is closed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The RfC has been posted. Please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand.

Discussion about the draft RfC

THIS IS A DRAFT! PLEASE COMMENT SO WE CAN IMPROVE IT! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: looks like a good start, lets see if there is any more feedback. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

First thing is make the links point to their intended targets. Right now they're pointing to generic pages that give no insight on anything. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to point to. For example, Proposal #1 is a proposal that at some time in the future a motion lifting the ban be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. There won't be anything to point to until the Arbitration Committee decides to do that. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

that confused me too. We need to simplify this amd remove all the arbcomm speak. Make it easy for the casual editor to understand. Say why Delta is a valued contributor and say he served his time. Legacypac ( talk) 20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I am all for simplification, but perhaps not a good person to do the simplifying. Please feel free to edit the draft RfC as as you see fit.

I am hesitant to "Say why Delta is a valued contributor and say he served his time" in the proposals, which should be as neutral as possible. I expect one of the first support !votes to make those points, and I suspect that others will strongly agree. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I just made a few changes. Better? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Seems to be limited feedback, might as well go live. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• @ Legacypac: It would help if someone explained the reason why Δ was blocked. If things are as they seem to be from the discussions that I have waded through, give him a chance to re-start editing. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am about to give you the exact words from Arbcom, but before your read them, please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence for the other side of the story. A significant percentage of the community thought that it was Arbcom who was in the wrong. (You see a lot less of this since Arbcom statrted sanctioning users for presenting evidence that they don't want to hear. [1])

Here are the exact words from the Arbcom case:

"a substantial portion of his editing has consisted of repetitive minor edits, some or all of which have been performed via the use of automated or semi-automated editing tools."

"Numerous concerns have been raised in regards to Betacommand's editing, including both concerns with the substantive content of the edits as well as concerns with Betacommand's ability and willingness to communicate the purpose and nature of the edits to other users. In light of these concerns, the community has determined that some of Betacommand's editing is detrimental to the encyclopedia, and has imposed a series of sanctions on Betacommand's editing."

Here is a list of the restrictions, again quoting Arbcom:

"Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

"Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect."

"Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time."

"Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking."

"(Modified by motion) Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban."

Then, in the 2012 decision, Arbcom said

"In 2011, Betacommand has violated all of the community imposed sanctions. During the year Betacommand has:

• often performed tasks without approval from the community *
• often saved edits without reviewing them for problems *
• often performed tasks at edit-rates exceeding four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time *
• been blocked for incivility once (another block for incivility was overruled)"

...leading to the block and the promise (not kept, as far as I can tell) to "present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban" after a year. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: There was no such promise. Arbcom only said they would present a plan to the community "prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban". This leaves them the option of not modifying the ban, in which case they have not promised to present anything to the community. There is nothing in the language of the arbcom remedy which requires them to modify the ban any particular point in time. They have only promised that Betacommand could request a modification after one year. According to [2] it is not clear that any actual appeal was presented, at least not in 2016 or 2017. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 14:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)