Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 14 active Arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.


Contents

[edit] Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Banned users

1) A ban is a standing order that a particular person (and all his/her reincarnations) is not permitted to edit the English language Wikipedia web site.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Second choice, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Inaccurate. I will write up an accurate version shortly. --Deskana (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Prefer 1.1. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. In favor of 1.1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC) In favor of 1.1.
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. In favour of 1.1 James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Banned users

1.1) A ban is a last step in the dispute resolution process, resulting in a formal revocation of a user's privilege on the English language Wikipedia (or in the case of an article or topic ban, of a subset of pages on the English language Wikipedia). Bans are issued to individuals, not accounts, and as such a banned user may not edit anonymously, or under any account name, unless and until the ban is lifted.

Support:
  1. Per banning policy. --Deskana (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Did some copyediting. My colleagues can please check to make sure I didn't mess anything up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    I took out the last clause; it's a bit too confusing as written, and there's no particular need to debate the proper avenues of appeal here in any case. Kirill 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Fair enough. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Determination of sockpuppetry

2) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behavior are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Support:
  1. Note 'may', not 'must'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Deskana (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. and per Sam Blacketer Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support, but I am hoping that some additional guidance on related issues will be provided in the decision in the pending Mantanmoreland case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Include both. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. For both. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I oppose the inclusion of this principle in this case: its proper application is elsewhere. This principle is about the situation where, while there is no definitive answer as to exactly what is going on, there is no reasonable explanation other than sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. This is clearly not applicable here, where the range of reasonable explanations are not limited so. Alternative proposed below. --bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Per Thebainer; also, I think we need to revisit this previously standard wording.
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppetry

2.1) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability — and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize — is prohibited.

Support:
  1. This is the other boilerplate sockpuppetry principle, which seems more appropriate to use in this case. --bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    Is this in addition to, or a replacement of, proposed principle 2? If it's in addition, then this should go in before the current principle 2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    I've proposed it as a replacement, as I don't think the first principle is applicable here, but it could certainly work as an additional principle if that is preferred. --bainer (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support including both 2.1 and 2 in the decision (in that order per Sam). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support on the assumption that 2.1 goes in before, and in addition to, principle 2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Include both. Kirill 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Include both. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Both. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] AdilBaguirov is a banned user

1) AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs) was banned from Wikipedia for one year in the Armenia-Azerbaijan case on 11 April 2007. He was found to have evaded the ban by using sockpuppets and the ban was reset to run for one year from 27 June 2007.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Deskana (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Ehud Lesar

2) Ehud Lesar (talk · contribs) was registered as a new account on 28 March 2007. His first article space edit was not until 22 May 2007. In July 2007 he came under suspicion of being a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. As a result of evidence of similar edits gathered by Fedayee (talk · contribs), Ehud Lesar was blocked as a sockpuppet by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) on 9 January 2008. Khoikhoi noted in his block explanation "As someone who has dealt with Adil & his socks in the past, it is my best judgment that this user is a sockpuppet".

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Deskana (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Block disputed

3) Although several users were convinced by the evidence that Ehud Lesar was a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov, some users experienced in determining sockpuppetry and enforcing arbitration decisions were unconvinced. Dmcdevit, a former arbitrator, concluded that Ehud Lesar was unrelated to AdilBaguirov based on a checkuser request in July 2007. Thatcher, an arbitration committee clerk, closed a report at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard by noting that there was no evidence of sockpuppetry.

Support:
Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Deskana (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah it was disputed although, Dmcdevit's comment in December appears to be more in line with "inconclusive". Nevertheless.. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    I would support altering the wording to accommodate the concerns of Brad and Fayssal below; eg something like "insufficient evidence" or "no actionable evidence" rather than simply "no evidence". --bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 00:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC) In favor of 3.1
  2. Not accurate as written FloNight♥♥♥ 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. In favour of 3.1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Not 100% accurate. I believe the consensus of administrators who looked at this report was more along the lines of "no definite evidence either way" rather than "no evidence of sockpuppetry." Although I conclude below that there is insufficient concrete evidence of socking to uphold a ban of this user, I also don't want to leave the impression that respected administrators imposed blocks supported by "no evidence." Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    Proposing 3.1 instead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet status disputed

3.1) Although several experienced administrators and other users were convinced by the evidence that Ehud Lesar was a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov, others expressed doubts about the conclusion. The overall discussion among administrators was inconclusive.

Support:
  1. Per discussion on 3. I also don't see the need to name specific checkusers/administrators here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. On mature reflection, this is better. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Simpler to put it like this, per discussion here and elsewhere. --bainer (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Fine. Kirill 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Ehud Lesar has not been demonstrated to be a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov

4) Based on a complete review of the evidence presented, including user contributions, checkuser findings, and the comments of parties and others, the Arbitration Committee finds that the weight of the credible evidence does not support the allegation that Ehud Lesar is a sockpuppet of, or is otherwise closely connected with, AdilBagurov.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Not convinced this is Adil himself. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. I have carefully reviewed all the evidence in this case, as well as additional material submitted via e-mail. Based on a review of the record as a whole, I understand the reasons for suspicions and I am certain of the good faith of the administrators who blocked, but I am unable to conclude that sockpuppetry has been established by a sufficient weight of the credible evidence. As reflected in the remedies section below, this does not give the user carte blanche to engage in any form of disruptive editing. Also, I want to specifically note that the efforts of all editors who submitted good-faith evidence, on both sides, are appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with UC's change of section header. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Newyorkbrad said it all, as he does. --Deskana (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I have changed the title of this finding so that it better matches what the finding says.
  8. Switch to support. I think that this makes it more clear that we are not asserting something that we do not know to be true but rather resetting to the usual Wikipedia assumptions about an user. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I can't support a finding which asserts as a fact that Ehud Lesar is not a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov.
  2. I am not convinced of proof that someone is not a sockpuppet. They may merely be very very good at hiding it. I don't think that this is the case, but I'm not comfortable making a blanket statement that something is or is not the case. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    Note that the heading says "is not" but the text says "[the evidence] does not support". If the title matched the text here, would that be closer to your thinking? --bainer (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    It would be closer, yes, but this is framed as a way of settling the topic, something that I don't think we can realistically achieve. James F. (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
I carefully reviewed the comments of CUers, admins, and arbitrators discussing this case and can not support this Fof as written. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ehud Lesar is a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov

5) Based on a complete review of the evidence presented, including user contributions, and the comments of parties and others, the Arbitration Committee finds that there is sufficient credible evidence to support the allegation that Ehud Lesar is a sockpuppet of, or is otherwise closely connected with, AdilBaguirov.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Proposed as an alternate; however I disagree. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Insufficient evidence per 4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Insufficient evidence. --Deskana (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per the above. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per Brad. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I carefully reviewed the comments of CUers, admins, and arbitrators discussing this case and can not support this Fof as written. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The sockpuppetry accusations were made in good faith

6) The Arbitration Committee appreciates the efforts that are being made by editors to ensure that banned users are not editing under sockpuppet accounts, and recognises that the accusation of sockpuppetry with respect to User:Ehud Lesar was made in good faith, with the intention of protecting Wikipedia from harm.

Support:
  1. I do not think there was bad faith here. Deskana (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. This is a good and fair wording. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Fair enough. Kirill 02:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. True certainly of the administrators who blocked and of at least most editors who commented on both sides, though I am not going to try to look into the heart of each and every one. Therefore, changed "All" in the header to "The". Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. There is no evidence to the contrary and therefore there is no reason to believe accusations were made in bad faith. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Ehud Lesar unbanned

1) The indefinite block imposed upon Ehud Lesar is reversed. An arbitrator will perform the unblock and make a notation in his block log noting that the Committee found insufficient evidence of sockpuppetry to sustain the block. Ehud Lesar remains subject to any editing restrictions imposed upon him pursuant to the decision of the Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. If this remedy is enacted, I strongly urge Ehud Lesar to review our decisions in the two Armenia-Azerbaijan cases and take their guidance to heart before he resumes editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per FoF 4. --Deskana (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per Nyb. The content added by Ehud Lesar will be closely watched so I urge that Ehud Lesar to made quality additions based on Wikipedia core content policies. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ehud Lesar banned

2) Ehud Lesar is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely as a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. AdilBaguirov's ban is to be reset to run for one year from 11 January 2008.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Insufficient evidence per findings 4 and 5, but see comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per FoF 4. --Deskana (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

  • To note here that although I have found the evidence of identification of Ehud Lesar as a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov to be weak, there is nothing to show that allegations were made in bad faith or that there was user misconduct in raising concerns. This may be worth expressing in a finding, and I would be willing to hear the parties on the terms of such finding. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Now addressed in finding 6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to add that I strongly reject the suggestion, made on the workshop page here at least once, that the way for Ehud Lesar to clear his name is to disclose evidence of his real life identity, firstly because the burden of proof is on those seeking to establish sockpuppetry, and secondly because, like it or not, Wikipedia permits anonymous and pseudonymous editing and the community has historically taken a dim view of efforts to "out" editors. --bainer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well said. It, of course, remains an option for him should he wish to do so, but you're absolutely correct. --Deskana (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Passing are:

  • Proposed principles 1.1, 2.1 and 2 (as discussed above, they should appear in the decision in that order);
  • Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 3.1, 4, and 6; and
  • Proposed remedy 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Although another supporting vote on 2.1 would be nice.
  2. Close per UninvitedCompany. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Close, and also hoping another vote on 2.1 appears before the case is officially closed. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    It's here now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    I saw it. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Close. Kirill 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Close. Paul August ☎ 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)