User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2

Starting off

Just putting this together as a possible step towards managing this area. Many of us have adminned in this area and there's hardly any improvement through the conventional processes, so this is a start.—SpacemanSpiff 04:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this. It is basically moving towards the 500/30 restriction for Gamergate stuff. That is apparently implemented using an edit filter, so we'll need to find someone who is capable of producing such a thing. It might be that some of the proposed solutions cannot be handled by a filter. There would also need to be someone around who is willing to add an article to the filter list without jumping through the hoops of a long discussion of the type found when blacklist/anti-spam measures are taken. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

I've notified Bishonen, Ponyo, and The Blade of the Northern Lights on this as they have done a fair bit of adminning activity in this space. I was thinking of asking Zad68 for feedback as this is a bit similar to the 500/30 restrictions on GG, but haven't done so as they haven't edited in a couple of months. Courtesy pings to others who have done a bit of adminning in this area recently: @Abecedare, Drmies, and Philg88:—SpacemanSpiff 08:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:? Their involvement seems usually to derive from AN3 patrolling. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: also: a relatively new admin who has been mopping the caste floors. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Having had a quick look at the edit filter thing it shouldn't be too difficult. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Put this page on my watchlist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To provide context, this is a proposal I intend to take to AE as it's just becoming a drain of time handling the same issues again and again -- maybe I'm the only one that feels that way, but hopefully this feedback loop will sort that out. —SpacemanSpiff 14:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I think in order to convince the community/ARBCOM of the need for this we need to add some example of pages where such restrictions would have been useful (Talk:Bhumihar?; User:Sitush would know better) And two questions:

Should AE be the only route to add an article to the probation list, or should it be like discretionary sanctions, where an uninvolved admin can do so (with any restriction being reviewable at AE/AN)?
Procedurally, if this is a modification of WP:ARBPIA, would the request need to be filed at WP:ARCA? On the other hand if this is an extension of WP:GS/Caste, would WP:AN be the right venue.

Abecedare (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar, Nair, Rajput, Jat, Mukkulathor, Agamudayar, Ezhava/Thiyya, Brahmins, List of members of X caste ... it goes on and on. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: I meant AE process not the discussion board, which would mean that uninvolved admins can impose the sanction. I don't see this as a modification of ARBIPA, the GG consensus was enforced through AE, since this is just a discretionary sanction that should automatically be covered.—SpacemanSpiff 15:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fully two cents' worth

Spaceman, you're absolutely not the only one that feels that way. There's a lot of socking, off-wiki canvassing and especially WP:CIR issues dogging this area. Incompetent new users need a lot of advice, and get it, but are often too suspicious of our intentions to accept it. Few things waste more time than that. I've come to realise people who edit Wikipedia with a caste agenda tend to assume anybody contradicting them has a caste agenda of their own, and in the more extreme cases, this is the lens through which they view all other editors. Both Sitush and I (of course Sitush more than me) have been accused of inflating the claims of our own caste and despising other castes… apparently Sitush is a brahmin — yes, I've seen that confidently asserted — and god knows what I am, but I seemingly have no respect for this that and the other caste (on a good day, I've heard of these castes, but usually not). I only admin the area, I don't edit it, and so it's water off a duck's back for me, but it must be terminally frustrating for the editors in the trenches, including the involved admins who edit the area and thus can't use tools in it. How they put up with it, and greet every newbie, including every "newbie", with civility and helpfulness (and extremely understandable occasional explosions) in the face of attacks is a mystery to me. We really do need to do something to help them.

Re your explanation to Abecedare above of "Standard AE process", that it means uninvolved admins can impose the sanction "if and when there's a necessity", that's fine IMO. I just hope the request for this is clear on that point, and leaves no room for a supposition that imposing article probation has to go via WP:AE. Because that wouldn't be even a little lightweight, just more bureaucracy and more bytes. Also, are you sure a blanket sanction for all caste articles would be a bad thing? (Or are you just sure arbcom wouldn't countenance it?)

Pity Zad is not active, his thoughts on this would have been valuable. Can somebody explain the filter thing in words of one syllable to me, please? I didn't know that the Gamergate 500/30 restriction, which Zad initiated, was implemented through a filter. Filter editing is Greek to me I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen Some magicians whip up some code (see here) that acts like a filter for every edit. If the edit passes through the conditions coded in the filter, it is saved. If the edit trips a condition in a filter various actions can be taken like denying the edit or reporting to AIV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{ec} with the spaceman — Oh, right, cool. Checking the log — plenty of catches there! But if you don't mind, what does "Actions taken: Warn" mean? Most of them, certainly the IPs, seem to have redlinked talkpages. Where are these warnings? Bishonen | talk 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, they come up when you click Save. With Gamergate the editor sees, "Sorry, editors with accounts that have fewer than 500 edits or are less than 30 days old may not edit the Gamergate controversy article, its Talk pages or subpages at this time. This page restriction is an Arbitration Enforcement action. We apologize if your edit was well-intended. Please gain experience editing other areas of Wikipedia before considering returning to this article. Thank you." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too only admin the area and being called a variety of castes/caste insults or being asked to indulge in activity that even when said in Sheldon Cooper's voice with his diction would sound vulgar doesn't affect me, but there are a lot of good faith editors who put in effort here and they shouldn't be forced to put up with this nonsense. To address your next point, I'm ambivalent. I think it'd be helpful to start with the major trouble spots and if it is an improvement we could add to other areas where it's found necessary. Also, the non-comprehensive Category:Social groups of India by state includes over a thousand such pages and I'm guessing we add at least 10-20 every month, so figuring out if there's a problem is a bit tedious. As for the edit filter, thanks Neil, I thought this was just an edit notice template telling people don't do it. —SpacemanSpiff 20:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The starting point should probably be those articles which remain troublesome even though they are subject to long-term (sometimes indefinite) semi-protection. Those tend not only regularly to attract the particularly tenacious clueless/IDHT types but also the long-term sock- and meat-farms. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an excellent idea, and I'm happy to support it. Personally I would avoid making it seem like too big a deal because I've found that being very aggressive with sanctions is the only way to get anything done, and while I obviously support judicious use of it there are a lot of pages that would gain substantial benefits without any significant detriments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just be prepared for substantial "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" pushback. The GG restriction is constantly challenged and it being a unique, isolated case is used as a rebuttal point. Applying the restriction more liberally is going to attract more attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed simplified remedy

Spaceman, I think your first two explanatory sections, "Background" and "Current issues", are great. Very informative. But on request, I'm suggesting a simplified version of the proposed remedy. I agree that what you have for that is overly complicated. Also, I think adding links to the Gamergate decision and the edit filter # 698 (our patterns) would be helpful to the AE reader.

Proposal

That the following caste articles should not be editable by accounts with fewer than 500 edits and age less than 30 days:

[List of articles: please help here]

These articles have remained troublesome even though they are subject to long-term (sometimes indefinite) semi-protection, and they tend to attract POV-pushing/less competent users as well as long-term sock- and meat-farms. [Obvious copyvio from one of Sitush's comments above, toning down the description of our problem users to be slightly more mealy-mouthed, per arbcom culture.] The 500/30 restriction is patterned on that instituted for Gamergate articles in May 2015, logged here.

That this restriction should be implemented through an edit filter similar to Filter #698.

Explanations

My previous suggestion of applying restrictions to all caste articles turned out to be unmanageable, because Category:Social groups of India is huge and has a lot of articles in it that don't really need article probation. Therefore I suggest instead that we present AE with a request for restrictions for a list of hotspot articles; a list which we can join forces in compiling, or alternatively just ask Sitush to create. :-)
There's too much detail in the proposed restrictions. AFAIK, Gamergate is doing all right with a straightforward 500 edits/30 days restriction, without any specifics about whether edits are trivial or not. Of course I see the advantage of such specifics, but the people at AE (admins and users who aren't necessarily au fait with the problems on caste articles) need to be able to take in the proposal without going cross-eyed. And if a new user down the road should pass the 500/30 bar by making a bunch of trivial edits during their first 30 days and then immediately start editing caste articles, it's my opinion that they could be blocked for gaming. Also, it's an advantage in itself if the details of the proposed restriction are recognizable from the well-known Gamergate restriction.

Questions

1) Should we refer to it as "article probation", a concept I barely understand? It sounds simpler without, and Zad didn't use that term when he logged the Gamergate thing.

2) Should we add a proposal re the future, such as that uninvolved admins be empowered to put further articles on the list? Or just keep it simple for now, and make a new AE request if/when more articles need to join the list? (I prefer the second, because I think it would make it easier for the AE crowd to decide, and sound less like we have a whole WP:OWNING scheme up our sleeves.)

Bishonen | talk 16:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

These changes seem reasonable, I'll do that if no one beats me to it. On to the questions -- fair enough, can remove that term; I would like to keep it as a future proposal too as the problems are not really individual article but topic, if you look at Vanniyar you'll see how the same issue gets replicated at multiple pages but I'm open to a change if you all feel that it'd be better to stick to a few articles and not worry about the future. —SpacemanSpiff 16:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another modification

Been bold and edited the draft proposal. My thinking:

I have changed the emphasis of the proposal from what was covered under the first bullet to that under the second, because I believe the ability for admins to intervene when problems flare up is more important than a static list of articles that currently may require such intervention. The latter list will perhaps be stale by the time this proposal goes to AE and (hopefully!) gets approved.
I have adopted the language of WP:CASTE to refer to "social goups" instead of caste in anticipation of wikilawyering about whether X is a caste, gotra, ethnicity, linguistic group etc.
For similar reasons, I have explicitly mentioned Indian and Pakistani, since such groups don't respect strict national boundaries (eg. Jat people). In fact, I would have preferred South Asian, or inclusion of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, but don't know if that would be permissible under WP:ARBIPA.
Changed the edit count requirements to 500 simply to match the GG sanctions. Anything in the ball-park would be fine with me.
I would like to mention Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar as examples of pages where such a remedy would have helped during past sock/meat-puppet influx, but don't know what the right place for that would be. Suggestions?

Overall, I think of the proposed remedy as just enhanced semi-protection to keep out SPAs driven to an article from off-wiki forums (similar to the problem seen in the GG area) and to encourage greater participation by non-SPA and experienced editors more beholden to wiki principles than personal caste identities. I expect that the circumstances under which the remedies are applied, and their duration, will follow WP:PP; that's the reason I haven't tried to spell them out explicitly.

Revert if my changes don't seem to be improvements. For the record here are the various proposals so far: Vanilla, Strawberry, Chocolate (And you thought I wound't take advantage of naming rights to subconsciously influence you all... :) ). Comments welcome. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reasonable. I think we can go with the examples in the discussion area. Pinging the others who have commented on this (pardon the notification if you've already seen on your watchlist): @Bishonen, NeilN, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Philg88, and Sitush:. We can probably take this to AE in a day or so if there aren't any further changes. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good. I agree we should mention example articles, it gets a bit abstract without that. Sitush has a more extensive list above (Bhumihar, Nair, Rajput, Jat, Mukkulathor, Agamudayar, Ezhava/Thiyya, Brahmins). We might select for this purpose the pages from that list that have had noticeable trouble longtime and also in the last month, and add them under the first "Current issues" point, to read "While the sanctions are helpful in dealing with stuff post facto, it does not prevent disruption and results in time and effort of editors and admins being wasted as well as bytes on ANI and other related forums. Examples of persistently troubled articles are X,Y,Z,Y, …". Bishonen | talk 17:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Talk:Nair is a current example, I've filed an SPI on it.—SpacemanSpiff 18:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ponyo for the check to clear this up, the example is at this SPI, but it's two different sets of sock puppets who have dominated the discussion at Talk:Nair for a while now.—SpacemanSpiff 21:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, and I think the idea of using Sitush's list is a sound one. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with whatever everyone else is happy with. That something is proposed is the main thing because the existing sanctions are insufficient to address the problems. Those problems are becoming increasingly soul-destroying to me: I spend far too much time reverting and re-arguing when I'd much rather create and expand. Sorry for not really adding much to this - I'm not around much at present and there is to some degree a chicken-and-egg situation relating to the issues these proposals attempts to address and my low activity. One thing I would like to see is something along the lines of "if someone is caught socking using multiple alternate accounts in a narrow caste-related area then they should be topic-banned from that area". It won't catch on, though, and the various proposals above probably achieve the same result without the aggravation of naming and shaming. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AE request

I was looking to file the AE request, but I couldn't for the love of a divine being change that template from a user request to a topic based discussion. I've therefore copied and substed the template over to User:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2/req_{changed to point in time link at 05:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)} in the hopes that we can fix it here and then copy over to AE. I think I've made the request ok now, it's at 471 words per my checking, but it'd be extremely beneficial if someone above my paygrade can take a look at it. @Bishonen and Abecedare:. —SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lord, that template, yes I remember trying to help somebody use it once and giving up. Why are we made to use these straightjackets? When I topic ban people per discretionary sanctions, I always notice with regret that I'm recommending them (of all people; they're even worse than I am with templates) to use the AE template if they want to appeal. I suggest we just remove all the irrelevant lines. Slash, slash. Bishonen | talk 04:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No problem there, I commented them out to ensure that others know what I was leaving out and if needed, add back. The cleaned out version is here. —SpacemanSpiff 05:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see your comment before I edited, sorry, I guess I overwrote those changes. Anyway, I've recently had a 100% pay raise donated by RexxS on my page, so I've taken a shot at a pineapple version. (Easily reverted.) I've boldly replaced the irrelevant "User against whom enforcement is requested" by the proposal itself, so it doesn't take so long to get to our actual errand. Or not? What do you think?

Not sure about mentioning our names in the intro, especially because the way it's framed doesn't leave room for Sitush, also because it's the Spaceman's brainchild which he should take credit for. Linking to this userpage discussion seems good (even though I doubt anybody will be interested enough to click on it), to avoid any impression that the proposal is the demonic birth of conspiracy in secret channels.

Then any of us who want to can complement the request by individual supports in the usual way, to illustrate our own experience. I for my part figure I'd mention I've been involved in the preparatory tweaking, then pretty much quote some bits of my first post on this page. It would be good to keep any supports snappy, leaving ourselves space to refute charges of elitism, hating IPs, and subverting "anybody can edit". (Though I really think your example with the Jatland wiki answers all that all by itself, Spaceman.)

Oh, and a detail: could "Caste articles and talk pages" be said more concisely as "Caste pages", or is that less clear? Bishonen | talk 08:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A couple of minor issues -- I'm doing this as an uninvolved admin not as an involved editor, that was clearer in the older version; the part of the template below the proposal should likely be restored as otherwise it'd be impossible for anyone to comment in this. Also, I'm sure there's some legalese somewhere that all parties have to be named in this, besides, IMHO it makes it a bit clear that it isn't just the ramblings of a lunatic :)

Did I zap the template part that was for comments? Sorry! Spaceman, please restore, and do change anything that risks making you look like the wild man of Borneo. I've no objection to the names, etc. Do you have anything, @Abecedare:, or are we good to go? Bishonen | talk 16:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Double fudge sundae. —SpacemanSpiff 18:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filed, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Caste articles and talk_pages. —SpacemanSpiff 05:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DS template

I've created the talk page template --{{Ds/talk caste}}. Can be placed on any "problem likely" article. If and when the sanctions are imposed the parameters can be added "|article=yes" and/or "|talk=yes" to indicate editing restrictions on the article/talk page. This will also place it in the categories Category:Wikipedia articles under discretionary sanctions (caste) by default, Category:Wikipedia articles under editing restrictions (caste) if the article parameter is chosen, Category:Wikipedia article talk pages under editing restrictions (caste) if the talk parameter is chosen. The latter two can be listed at WP:EDR as active sanctions. A live example of this is at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2/req‎ (at present I've used test categories X1, X2, X3 instead of the redlinks, so if you change the parameters you should notice a change in listing under X1 and/or X2 while X3 is default for all talk pages this template is on).—SpacemanSpiff 05:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

At this point (pending any objections and/or changes to EdJohnston's closure) I think we can start with implementing at Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar, and Talk:Nair per earlier discussions. Until a modified filter and template are available, I'd like to suggest the following:

Edit Filter #698 be updated to include the above five titles.
{{Ds/talk caste}} be placed on the four talk pages with the appropriate fields filled.
Sanctions logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#India-Pakistan under page level restrictions.
Work on a new {{Ds/Editing restrictions}} that would cover the article and talk page transclusion in different forms and all that other fancy jazz.
Work on new Edit Filter #XXX that would prevent edits from accounts less than 500edits/30days from editing pages that have {{Ds/Editing restrictions}} included.
Work on new Edit Filter #YYY that would prevent {{Ds/Editing restrictions}} being placed/changed on any page by anyone without a "sysop" flag.
Retire Edit Filter #698 in favor of #XXX and retire {{Ds/talk caste}} in favor of {{Ds/Editing restrictions}}

I don't see us placing any additional restrictions for 3-4 weeks (unless the Nair lockdown suddenly causes excess activity at Ezhava).

Pings: @MusikAnimal: for technical guidance, @Abecedare, Bishonen, NeilN, Philg88, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Sitush: for feedback. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan! Though we'll probably turn filter 698 into filter XXX, same difference. Could you link me to the discussion? I can take care of #1 now, and create a new abusefilter message similar to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-gamergate but more generic — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Caste_articles_and_talk_pages, EdJ's last comment in particular; hasn't closed yet, but it should if no one below the line suggests any modification in a day or so (and that's when we should do change #1 as well as #2, #3). —SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sounds good. But.. so, the talkpages of Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, and Bhumihar are going to have two new templates? {{tlx|Ds/talk caste}} plus {{tlx|Ds/Editing restrictions}} (not created yet, but will describe the actual 500/30 restrictions)? Why isn't the second one enough? (Surely the articles were already under discretionary sanctions because they're about ipa subjects.) On the other hand, perhaps it doesn't matter that I don't understand the technicalities of the implementation very well. On a good day, I think I do understand the purpose they serve. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No, {{Ds/Editing restrictions}} will replace {{Ds/talk caste}} and will serve a more general purpose in that it can be used across all ARB sanctions and not just ARBIPA should the sanctions be expanded to other areas (so, you wouldn't have to use one template for caste stuff, another for gamergate, another for ARBPIA etc etc), but MusikAnimal's current line of thought is that the template would have to be placed on the page that is being sanctioned (article or talk) and he'll work some magic such that on the article it'll show up as a new colored lock while on the talk page it'll show as a banner and all that. This would be a simpler solution in the longer term as you don't have to go looking for an Edit Filter Manager every time you place a sanction on some page (or remove one). Fixed the retirement schedule now. —SpacemanSpiff 18:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so when used on the article page you'll add the small=yes parameter, just like you do with {{pp}} to generate the padlock at the top right as opposed to a banner. On the talk page we'll use the same template but show the full banner. There will be yet another parameter that the edit filter will look for, perhaps restrict=yes that will impose the editing restrictions. This makes it possible for you to add the restriction to the talk page as well as the article, which I believe is the case for Gamergate. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the padlock we'll need a unique colour different from the current ones you see at WP:PROTECT. These icons come from Openclipart, and from a quick search it looks like we have limited options for other available colours: blue, gold and the rather humourous zebra stiped. Thoughts? I vote for gold — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? Isn't the regular Fully Protected padlock gold? On my screen it is. (I like the zebra.) Bishonen | talk 23:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The full protection is more of a bronze [1] — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think they're too much alike? It's only when they're side by side that I, at least, can distinguish them. Gold would have been an obvious choice when others were considering a padlock colour; don't you think the reason it's still going begging might be because of the risk of confusion with the bronze? Not that I actually object, you understand. If you think it's a good choice, I'm sure it is. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@MusikAnimal: If you want me to knock up a padlock in a unique colour in Illustrator then let me know. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A different padlock is at the example transclusion at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2/req. A wide variety is also available at Commons:Category:Padlock icons. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to distinguish the gold from the bronze, but we are better off not risking people thinking the article is full protected when it is not. How about the blue? From the Commons category I see this one and this one. Both are fairly unique. Or we could take Philg88 up on their offer to give us whatever colour we want. Either way, I think the design of the padlock should be inline with what we have at WP:PROTECT — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, what I meant was a unique colour based on those that already exist at WP:PROTECT (Yellowish?). Philg88 ^♦talk 21:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dark blue would work very well IMO, it's both noticable and recognizable from miles away. I guess the zebras are too playful? Bishonen | talk 13:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

That seems fine, this was the last instance of when the dark blue lock was discussed (or at least one that I could find) and it appears that there isn't any conflicting use on en.wiki. —SpacemanSpiff 13:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]