Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/KnightLago
|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
KnightLago
[edit]clerk
[edit]I am a little concerned at the prospect of another AC clerk running for arbcom itself. This is becoming something of a trend, and not a welcome one, as the skillsets needed are entirely different. If the trend continues we may find ever-increasing competition over clerking spots, as right now they would be appear to the praetorship to arbcom's consulship. Moreschi (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as a clerk, I find your logic completely nonsensical, and frankly offensive to clerks in general.
- For starters this is not a "trend" as only 5 out of 52 arbs have come from the clerking ranks. Your logic also fails to explain why so many current clerks (like myself) are NOT running.
- Secondly even if it was a trend, why would it be "unwelcome"? Clerks are experienced editors who are vetted by ArbCom for having the right temperament and good judgment. They then work extremely hard on difficult tasks that require numerous difficult judgement calls and are certainly not "mere housekeepers". To remain a clerk they must maintain a high standard of work, as (unlike any other position on WP) they can be dismissed by ArbCom without notice or appeal. Basically you seem to be saying that putting in long hours of thankless work for the benefit of the project should be regarded as a negative?
- Thirdly, there is no position in WP that specifically prepares someone for the Arbitrator role. FA work is even more dissimilar to Arb work than clerking, yet a number of candidates proudly cite their FA achievements (and rightly so). Should we now rule out those who work tirelessly on FA as having skills that are "too content-focused and inappropriate for ArbCom decision making"?
Manning (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- See here for a partial response. Moreschi (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Manning, you did run for ArbCom (and did quite well, I might add). Admittedly, this was before you became a clerk, but it does seem to point up the overlap between clerks and ArbCom candidates, in contradiction to your first point. In contrast to Moreschi, I don't see it as a major problem - it's good for people to get their feet wet and know what they're in for, and there are some clerks (e.g. Thatcher) whom I'd put at the top of my list for ArbCom if they were insane enough to run. On the other hand, I think the concern is that we're forming a sort of career civil service, and I can see at least the reasonableness of that concern even if I don't fully agree in this case. MastCell Talk 22:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I believe AGK has run for arbcom as well, and probably a few others who slip my memory. Actually, my friend, if we were forming a career civil service, that wouldn't be a problem. The British civil service, for all its faults, is apolitical (independent of party politics), and as a result, self-contained. That is, you don't make the step from civil servant to politician: there is a clear delineation between decision-enablers and decision-makers, and there always has been. What I am worried about is the office of clerk being used as a simple step up the ladder, and it is worth noting that NYB (clerk turned arbitrator par excellence) was, I believe, a clerk for a year before running for arbcom. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. I must have been blinded by our American civil service, which periodically needs to be cleansed of "commies" and "crazy libs" and restocked with "right-thinking Americans". MastCell Talk 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moreschi: You are mistaken. I have never entered a candidacy into an election to the arbitration committee. In fact, I haven't ran in any type of election for going on two years. If you'd like to refresh your memory as to which clerks have gone on to become arbitrators, check the "Retired/Former" list at WP:AC/C#List. From the top of my head, FloNight and Rlevse are others. AGK 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies for the slip. Jayvdb as well. Rlevse, like Brad, served as a clerk for a year or more before stepping up, and I suggest this to be good practice, as it shows true commitment to the clerking job in its own right. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moreschi: Is your objection to those who serve as clerks for a couple of months and then launch a committee bid, or simply to those who serve as clerks at all before running in the election? AGK 13:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- The former. Quite apart from anything else, we now have 3 clerks running, and all of you stand a good chance of getting elected. That's going to severely disrupt the efficiency of the clerking process: Coren, on my talk page, says that last year's elections had a similar result. Moreschi (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fair point. I'll propose to the other clerks that we take on more trainees as a matter of urgency. I would agree with Coren's observations: when we lose three or four (or even two) clerks on a permanent basis, it does impact on the efficiency of the clerking system. AGK 13:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The former. Quite apart from anything else, we now have 3 clerks running, and all of you stand a good chance of getting elected. That's going to severely disrupt the efficiency of the clerking process: Coren, on my talk page, says that last year's elections had a similar result. Moreschi (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moreschi: Is your objection to those who serve as clerks for a couple of months and then launch a committee bid, or simply to those who serve as clerks at all before running in the election? AGK 13:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies for the slip. Jayvdb as well. Rlevse, like Brad, served as a clerk for a year or more before stepping up, and I suggest this to be good practice, as it shows true commitment to the clerking job in its own right. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moreschi: You are mistaken. I have never entered a candidacy into an election to the arbitration committee. In fact, I haven't ran in any type of election for going on two years. If you'd like to refresh your memory as to which clerks have gone on to become arbitrators, check the "Retired/Former" list at WP:AC/C#List. From the top of my head, FloNight and Rlevse are others. AGK 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. I must have been blinded by our American civil service, which periodically needs to be cleansed of "commies" and "crazy libs" and restocked with "right-thinking Americans". MastCell Talk 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I believe AGK has run for arbcom as well, and probably a few others who slip my memory. Actually, my friend, if we were forming a career civil service, that wouldn't be a problem. The British civil service, for all its faults, is apolitical (independent of party politics), and as a result, self-contained. That is, you don't make the step from civil servant to politician: there is a clear delineation between decision-enablers and decision-makers, and there always has been. What I am worried about is the office of clerk being used as a simple step up the ladder, and it is worth noting that NYB (clerk turned arbitrator par excellence) was, I believe, a clerk for a year before running for arbcom. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Manning, you did run for ArbCom (and did quite well, I might add). Admittedly, this was before you became a clerk, but it does seem to point up the overlap between clerks and ArbCom candidates, in contradiction to your first point. In contrast to Moreschi, I don't see it as a major problem - it's good for people to get their feet wet and know what they're in for, and there are some clerks (e.g. Thatcher) whom I'd put at the top of my list for ArbCom if they were insane enough to run. On the other hand, I think the concern is that we're forming a sort of career civil service, and I can see at least the reasonableness of that concern even if I don't fully agree in this case. MastCell Talk 22:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- See here for a partial response. Moreschi (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- To say that some clerks go on to run in an election to the arbitration committee is a valid observation. A clerk works extensively and closely with the arbitrators, and so inevitably comes to identify where the committee's weaknesses lie. That some decide that, equipped with the resulting good consequence of where the arbitration process could be improved, they might be in a position to arbitrate effectively is not illogical, and it certainly has happened in a number of cases (eg FloNight, Newyorkbrad, and Rlevse). To say that those editors who run for a seat on the committee became a clerk only to jump up one step closer to election success, however, is not a valid nor a fair comment. (Any who do volunteer to be a clerk because they think it will bolster their chances of success in a later election to the committee are mistaken.) I for one became a clerk because I am good at keeping together the paperwork of an unwieldy process, and not because I wanted a "feather in my cap" for a future candidacy.
Two questions for Moreschi. First: if the community has elected such a high proportion of the clerks-turned-ACE-candidates, then who are we to criticise the practice? There clearly is something attractive to the community about candidates with experience of clerking, and it would be arrogant of us to say that what the community has opted for is foolish and mistaken. Second: what precisely is so objectionable about a candidate who chooses to serve as a clerk in order to gain experience for a planned committee candidacy? You might answer that it is status-seeking (widely agreed to be a Bad Thing), and I'd be inclined to partially agree with that. But I would also answer that it demonstrates a desire by the candidate to work for his seat; and people who are willing to jump through hoops for the community are usually the type of people who are good representatives. As Manning says: somebody who sets out to write some FAs before running for the committee is satisfying the community's desire for candidates with content experience. What is so wrong about somebody who sets out to get experience with the nitty-gritty of the arbitration machine?
I am sorry for the excessive length of this comment, but I have considered entering a candidacy in the election this year—so this is an issue I have a lot of thoughts about. The take home points are: five out of fifty-two is hardly "concerning trend"; and why exactly would it not be welcome? AGK 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- The burden here lies on the community. It's fine for any number of clerks to run for ArbCom, but the community needs to recognize that being a clerk is not in and of itself qualification committee membership. The community needs to critically evaluate the candidates' performance, both as clerks and outside their clerking roles. If clerkship has become or will become a stepping-stone to arbship, then it is, alas, because the community has allowed or will allow it to be so. I call on the community not to do this. The only stepping stone to the committee should be a pattern of good judgment. Whether this judgment is displayed in clerking duties or elsewhere is as irrelevant as whether the cat is black or white. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok my original argument above has been weakened by the recent candidacy of a few other clerks. Maybe there IS a bit too much of a pattern emerging. Still Heimstern makes a superb point above - The only stepping stone to the committee should be a pattern of good judgment. Whether this judgment is displayed in clerking duties or elsewhere is... irrelevant... Manning (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that being a clerk does not indicate suitability for the Committee. Doing a good job as a clerk does indicate several important points that may contribute to a broad analysis of the candidate(s) fitness for Committee membership. —Finn Casey * 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- IMO, experience as a clerk is ideal for acquiring part of the requisite skill-base of an arb. When I see that a candidate has been an effective clerk, I can relax about those aspects. However, the candidate still needs to be scrutinised in relation to the other parts of the skill-base. Tony (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that being a clerk does not indicate suitability for the Committee. Doing a good job as a clerk does indicate several important points that may contribute to a broad analysis of the candidate(s) fitness for Committee membership. —Finn Casey * 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The huge number of clerks running for the ArbCom worries me too. As well as promoting the kind of careerism Moreschi discusses, it promotes unwanted cabalism. It is a simple fact of human nature that people who become close will trust each other more and venerate each other's actions more, and it doesn't take much of that to get disastrous rulings caused by one arb's misreadings. We need independent minds analysing matters independently. I don't want the same group of like-minded chums filling up ArbCom (and think of how clerks are actually appointed). Group-think and lack of individuality are already too much of a problem in ArbCom. Well, those are my thoughts anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Deacon, there is almost nothing in your post that I am able to agree with.
- "Huge"—could you explain this, please?
- "Careerism"? So any experience in a responsible position in WP—admin or otherwise—is now framed as unhealthy?
- "like-minded chums"—Please supply evidence supporting your assumption that clerks, arbs, CUs, OSs, admins, featured-content officials, are "like-minded". In any case, is a like-minded approach to fighting vandalism and pedophile infiltration of parts of WP a problem?
- I am assuming that your comments, Deacon, and those of a few other people here, are motivated by good intentions. Tony (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Deacon, there is almost nothing in your post that I am able to agree with.
- Thanks for sharing your opinion with me Tony. I'll assume your comments too are motivated by good intentions. No closer to knowing why you disagree though ...
- "Huge"—could you explain this, please?
3+4 (if Manning runs) is "huge" relative to the number of actual clerks. You can read "large proportion of the" if you prefer.
- "Careerism"? So any experience in a responsible position in WP—admin or otherwise—is now framed as unhealthy
- "like-minded chums"—Please supply evidence supporting your assumption that clerks, arbs, CUs, OSs, admins, featured-content officials, are "like-minded". In any case, is a like-minded approach to fighting vandalism and pedophile infiltration of parts of WP a problem?
- Nope. Straw man, I didn't say that. Moreschi argues the point well above btw.
- "like-minded chums"—Please supply evidence supporting your assumption that clerks, arbs, CUs, OSs, admins, featured-content officials, are "like-minded". In any case, is a like-minded approach to fighting vandalism and pedophile infiltration of parts of WP a problem?
- 'Nother straw man. In any case, I only mentioned clerks and arbs. You added these other guys. If you actually want to know what I think, you can ask me without this kind of thing ...Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your opinion with me Tony. I'll assume your comments too are motivated by good intentions. No closer to knowing why you disagree though ...
- Deacon, there are actually 3 clerks running already (Seddon, KnightLago, AGK). This is not only a lot of clerks but also a lot of clerks relative to the actual number of total candidates. Groupthink may also be a danger: will one who has been a subordinate in the past always have the courage to stand up to those who were until recently his superiors? Our past clerks-turned-arbs were strong characters who had all been around a while, but for the future? Will clerks be able to think outside the arbitration box?
- Tony, the problem is not so much gaining experience, it's rapid acquiring of badges and hats in short order before going to the top. This has not happened in the past (well, it has, but none of the previous clerks-turned-arbitrators could be said to fit the description). My worry is about the future: that the clerking role will simply become a stepping stone to the top job. In the specific case of Seddon, I cannot see the point of him signing up to be a clerk in August only to run for ArbCom in November. That's no time allowed to gain any knowledge of how clerking should be done, let alone arbitrating. Clerking will suffer if this becomes a trend, and arbitration will suffer too. Moreschi (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moreschi, so which badge or hat is OK, in your view? FA and GA stars render one ineligible? Woe betide any admin who stands. And of course, Kirill and Coren are both tainted by having served already on the Committee, I guess. Incoming arbs should be limited to those who have never held office, let alone had anything to do with ArbCom, which makes them groupies.
I say let everyone stand and allow the voters to judge them on their skill-base. Tony (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moreschi, so which badge or hat is OK, in your view? FA and GA stars render one ineligible? Woe betide any admin who stands. And of course, Kirill and Coren are both tainted by having served already on the Committee, I guess. Incoming arbs should be limited to those who have never held office, let alone had anything to do with ArbCom, which makes them groupies.
Discussion of Silktork's comment
[edit]- You are correct that I have never participated in mediation. However, mediation is different than arbitration. The goal in mediation is "to try to resolve disputes, especially those involving content, to the mutual satisfaction of all." The Arbitration Committee does not deal in content, and very few arbitration cases end in mutual satisfaction due to what the committee is tasked with. Regarding the duties of a clerk, we do analyze evidence to determine if it falls within what the arbitrators consider evidence. We most certainly make decisions, the block you reference below is an example. Clerks also guide people through arbitration, and answer questions and help when appropriate. I am not directly comparing clerks to arbitrators, because arbitrators operate on an entirely different level, but we do some things you may not be aware of. Regarding the slightly contentious editing from February, I am the first person to admit when I make a mistake. In that case, my view was swayed by a news story. Upon realizing my error I admitted it, and acted to correct it. If I make a mistake as an arbitrator, I would do the same thing. Regarding the block of Kittybrewster, his or her unblock request was denied by an uninvolved administrator. My reasoning for the 72 hours is in the struck portion. After the block and denial of the unblock request, I gave Kittybrewster's the benefit of the doubt due to his or her apparent misunderstanding of the restriction and dropped the duration to time served. KnightLago (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of Future Perfect at Sunrise/Moreschi comments
[edit]- He was blocked for an edit summary of "blow me" in this edit. The edit took place after numerous warnings to all parties, and a final warning to all parties by Rlevse, the drafting arbitrator. KnightLago (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but how is "blow me" incivil? I don't know where Aramgar comes from, but it doesn't necessarily mean "suck my dick". Over here we have a fairly common saying - "I'll be blowed" - which is simply a politer form of "I'll be damned" or just "I'm amazed", and "blow me" could just be a back-formation (is that the right word?) from that. Even if he did mean "suck my dick" (which hardly matches up with the content of his post), it was hardly directed at anyone in particular...to block reasonably productive editors over one slip in an edit summary seems overly harsh - if indeed this was a slip. Moreschi (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I completely understand your point. However, in the midst of this case, I, along with another clerk, and two arbitrators who reviewed the situation felt that his edit summary was inappropriate. KnightLago (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- You have to laugh suppose it depends who the incivility is against, blow me always means suck my dick and to pretend otherwise is a laugh. BigDunc 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- What a deplorable display of group-think. "Somebody else also agreed with me, so it must be right" is not a type of argument we ever ought to accept from an arbitrator (but which, unfortunately, is heard already all too often from certain members of the present lot). As an arbitrator, you are supposed to form your own judgment, and stick with it. Pointing to somebody else's support when you don't have the balls to stand your own ground against an argumentative challenge just doesn't cut it. Of course, this just goes to confirm the overall picture I have of your performance back in that case: lack of sound power of judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did form my own judgment, and I stand by it. I have already explained why I blocked him above. I mentioned the other clerk and arbitrators to show that my judgment was later examined and supported by others. The exact situation occurred as follows: An arbitrator sent an email to the clerks' mailing list pointing to the edit. I had not seen it yet on wiki at that point. When I got the email, I went and reviewed the situation on my own, and then blocked the user. I sent an email back to the list saying it had been taken care of. A half hour later another clerk chimed in agreeing with the block. The same arbitrator replied about 5 minutes after that. Five and a half hours later another arbitrator replied supporting the block. I understand you were affected deeply by this case, but please assume good faith. KnightLago (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't implying you were acting out of group-think then. I am saying you display group-think by defending your decision with this lamest of arguments now. And no, I wouldn't for a moment believe your actions showed a lack of good faith. They show a lack of good judgment, is all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- In addition to the above, however, one problem about emergent group-think, which appears from the above description, may well be the use of the clerks mailing list itself. I am getting the impression, from this and some other cases, that the clerks list is vulnerable to being misused as a privileged channel for behind-the-scenes block shopping by arbitrators. This would be particularly problematic, because such block-shopping would be conducted in an inherently top-down atmosphere of authority, where the clerks are operating under a implicit assumption of deference and reduced own responsibility vis-a-vis the arbs. Perhaps blocks cooked up behind closed doors on the clerks list ought to be generally deprecated just like blocks cooked up on #wikipedia-en-admins? In the particular case we were discussing here, there was certainly no objective need for any behind-the-scenes discussion of it in the first place, certainly not for behind-the-scenes discussion being chosen as a cheap substitute for talking with the affected user first and foremost, before coming to a judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've moved this discussion here; please keep the adjacent page for brief comments only. Skomorokh 16:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- In addition to the above, however, one problem about emergent group-think, which appears from the above description, may well be the use of the clerks mailing list itself. I am getting the impression, from this and some other cases, that the clerks list is vulnerable to being misused as a privileged channel for behind-the-scenes block shopping by arbitrators. This would be particularly problematic, because such block-shopping would be conducted in an inherently top-down atmosphere of authority, where the clerks are operating under a implicit assumption of deference and reduced own responsibility vis-a-vis the arbs. Perhaps blocks cooked up behind closed doors on the clerks list ought to be generally deprecated just like blocks cooked up on #wikipedia-en-admins? In the particular case we were discussing here, there was certainly no objective need for any behind-the-scenes discussion of it in the first place, certainly not for behind-the-scenes discussion being chosen as a cheap substitute for talking with the affected user first and foremost, before coming to a judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't implying you were acting out of group-think then. I am saying you display group-think by defending your decision with this lamest of arguments now. And no, I wouldn't for a moment believe your actions showed a lack of good faith. They show a lack of good judgment, is all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did form my own judgment, and I stand by it. I have already explained why I blocked him above. I mentioned the other clerk and arbitrators to show that my judgment was later examined and supported by others. The exact situation occurred as follows: An arbitrator sent an email to the clerks' mailing list pointing to the edit. I had not seen it yet on wiki at that point. When I got the email, I went and reviewed the situation on my own, and then blocked the user. I sent an email back to the list saying it had been taken care of. A half hour later another clerk chimed in agreeing with the block. The same arbitrator replied about 5 minutes after that. Five and a half hours later another arbitrator replied supporting the block. I understand you were affected deeply by this case, but please assume good faith. KnightLago (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- What a deplorable display of group-think. "Somebody else also agreed with me, so it must be right" is not a type of argument we ever ought to accept from an arbitrator (but which, unfortunately, is heard already all too often from certain members of the present lot). As an arbitrator, you are supposed to form your own judgment, and stick with it. Pointing to somebody else's support when you don't have the balls to stand your own ground against an argumentative challenge just doesn't cut it. Of course, this just goes to confirm the overall picture I have of your performance back in that case: lack of sound power of judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- You have to laugh suppose it depends who the incivility is against, blow me always means suck my dick and to pretend otherwise is a laugh. BigDunc 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I completely understand your point. However, in the midst of this case, I, along with another clerk, and two arbitrators who reviewed the situation felt that his edit summary was inappropriate. KnightLago (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but how is "blow me" incivil? I don't know where Aramgar comes from, but it doesn't necessarily mean "suck my dick". Over here we have a fairly common saying - "I'll be blowed" - which is simply a politer form of "I'll be damned" or just "I'm amazed", and "blow me" could just be a back-formation (is that the right word?) from that. Even if he did mean "suck my dick" (which hardly matches up with the content of his post), it was hardly directed at anyone in particular...to block reasonably productive editors over one slip in an edit summary seems overly harsh - if indeed this was a slip. Moreschi (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- He was blocked for an edit summary of "blow me" in this edit. The edit took place after numerous warnings to all parties, and a final warning to all parties by Rlevse, the drafting arbitrator. KnightLago (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding group think, I think your impression from the comments you have found across cases is off base. Regarding, my judgment and the block of Aramgar, his edit summary was "blow me". I stand by my block. Regarding talking with users before making a judgment, I completely agree. A notable example is here. A party raised a question about what "nationalist ethnic essentialist" meant. Me, in my third and final year of pursuing a juris doctorate, and all the other users I asked, had no idea what it meant. So I did some research and asked, got a good response, and discounted the initial party's concern. Your analysis from my simple act of asking: I "[lack] the intellectual depth to understand typical content problems in contentious areas, and is therefore unable to appropriately read a situation." I understand you do not like me as a result of an arbitration case in which you were a party, that is fine as everyone is entitled to their opinions, but please do not insult my intelligence. KnightLago (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as saying "Blow me" being not uncivil, I can't imagine what planet folks live on who think that type of language is acceptable. Would you say that to your boss or your grandmother? I fully support that block. Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- A UK planet? Particularly that of an older generation? I explained my reasoning quite carefully: that is a bona fide civil expression of disbelief over here, albeit somewhat falling into disuse now. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit Analysis
[edit]A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/KnightLago. Franamax (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)