|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arbitration Committee proceedings
No arbitrator motions are currently open. |
The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration. Please review the Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, /Admin enforcement requested, /Standing orders, /Template
Structure of this page
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:
- Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence in the standard /Template format elsewhere if you need to.
- You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
- Please sign and date at least your original submission with '~~~~'.
- New requests to the top, please.
The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other.
New requests
Radicalsubversiv and sockpuppets (most recently Rhobite and 172
Radicalsubversiv is the self-styled protector of left-wing POV on Wikipedia through POV editing, trolling, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, stalking, harassment and disruption. He and his sockpuppet Rhobite frequently patrol stories about political subjects, enforcing a heavily "radical subversive" political opinion in dozens, if not hundreds of articles.
It is submitted that Rhobite is the reasonable face of the Sockpuppet combination. Most seriously, Rhobite has administrator powers and frequently uses them to enforce the will of Radicalsubversiv, notably around articles with political content. Rhobite was recently the subject of an RfC on his abuse of power with a dozen different users testifying that his breach for "vandalism" was itself a breach of policy. The fact that Rhobite is essentially using blocks to enforce the will of his sockpuppet Radicalsubversiv makes this especially serious and worthy of arbitration.
Rhobite/Radicalsubversiv frequently condemn opinions inconsistent with their own as:
- Vandalism
- Disruption
Radicalsubversiv has revealed that he was a campaign worker for the failed Dean for America campaign and during that time edited the Howard Dean article in a grotesque and undisclosed conflict of interests.
I do not speak for Libertas, with whom I have had no interaction. Although I agree with any users who seek to diminish blatant left-wing POV from Wikipedia. And I encourage them.
It is not too much to say that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy in Wikipedia which it is submitted extends beyond the sockpuppet alliance of Radicalsubversiv and Rhobite. It includes many users who patrol articles on left-wing subjects and revert any change they perceive as unsympathetic to them while leaving the most blatant and partisan of contributions from the Left.
Radicalsubversiv has failed to take these allegations seriously[1] and seems to believe he is above scrutiny for acting in precisely the same manner he accuses others of acting. In that post he admits to the central charge of this arbitration, that he is acting in concert with sockpuppets and other POV users to enforce his will.
I particularly refer Arbitration members to the Dean Scream article which several sockpuppets of Radicalsubversiv persistently redirected without justification, culminating in Radicalsubversiv doing the same, effectively deleting the article without even a word of justification. The speech is certainly notable, embarassing to Radical's former employer Howard Dean, but is very famous with thousands of references on Google to it. This is just the most recent example of Radicalsubversiv asserting ownership of vast tracts of Wikipedia. It is this assertion of ownership that leads him into conflict with those who do not share his left POV.
Articles under the iron grip of Radicalsubversiv and his radical left views include:
- Marxian economics
- Howard Dean
- Democratic Party (United States)
- Students for a Democratic Society
- Hillary Rodham Clinton
- Simon Rosenberg (Radical's favored candidate for DNC chair}
- Hampshire College (major POV issues)
- American Federation of Labor
- Republican Party (United States
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
And these are just recent contributions. An arbitration would provide the opportunity for a detailed examination of Radicalsubversiv/Rhobite's POV editing.
Articles edited in concert between sockpuppets Rhobite and Radicalsubversiv include but are not limited to, there are dozens:
- United Nations
- Soviet Union
- Dean Scream
- Democratic Party(United States)
- Libertarian Party(United States) Reverting to each other's edits [2]
In one example, Rhobite[3] made a frivolous copyright violation on the Dean image which was clearly fair use in order to harass me for writing the Dean Scream article. And they deny being sockpuppets? It's laughable.
Rhobite also quoted at great length[4] about the Democratic party's ties with labor unions. On Radical's user page he goes on at length about his expertise in American labor unions. Coincidence?
Rhobite also deleted a NPOV tag in breach of Wikipedia guidelines, of course on the Democratic party article in which Radical/Rhobite have an obsessive interest.[5]
Rhobite/Radical also reverted without justification on dozens of occasions including one where he said the basis of his reversion was that it deleted a 'true statement'[6] Don't we all?
On another occasion, he deleted without explanation a sentence explaining President Kennedy's ties to organized crime, adultery and escalation of Vietnam diminished his popularity[7] claiming it was POV. I doubt there is even one employee of the Kennedy Library that would dispute this. But it doesn't suit his left-wing ownership of certain tracts of Wikipedia to have such usually undisputed truths reported. He even deleted [8] a Time cover of the late President's father and some forthright but undisputed descriptions of Joseph Kennedy's involvement with stock market rigging.
I won't and can't post every example of these two acting in concert. But the most amusing example involved the deletion of a vanity article about Michael Sherrards. Radical was VERY upset about the article for personal reasons that I will not elaborate on, and Rhobite rode into the rescue speedily deleting the article[9], again a personal abuse of admin powers.
I have evidence (which I will provide privately to the Arbitration Committee) that Radicalsubversiv and Rhobite are the same person. I am also told by email that 172 is also editing in a very similar manner to Radicalsubversiv, I will investigate that further also.
In the interim, I respectfully request:
- Mediation which I may succeed prior to arbitration
- Interim removal of Rhobite's administrative role pending investigation into the above allegations
- Indefinite blocking of Radicalsubversiv's many sockpuppets, which include but are not limited to Rhobite.
- An interim block of Radicalsubversiv and sockpuppets from political subjects while the arbitration is resolved.
Ollieplatt 10:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Response by Radicalsubversiv
This is a fairly good example of the kind of behavior I'm complaining about below. RadicalSubversiv E 10:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)
- Reject,
on the grounds of lack of evidence. Some evidence has now been provided, but I'm not seeing anything overly arbitration-worthy. Ambi 10:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Reject, no coherent evidence - David Gerard 10:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would have appreciated the verdict after the evidence is presented. Obviously the above two Arbitrators feel this is a luxury they can dispense with. Charming. What a disgrace. Two arbitrators, prior to my request being completed have already judged it. Deem this as a personal attack if you like: you're biased. Ollieplatt 10:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You're supposed to put something like evidence in the original request. That's why requests for arbitration typically go through mediation and/or an RFC first. This is the place of last resort - David Gerard 11:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have indicated a willingness to mediate or whatever but Radicalsubversiv and sockpuppets seem unwilling, and more particularly have used blocking powers. I suspect they will do this soon as the evidence mounts against him. Ollieplatt 11:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I note that you say you decided the matter before hearing the evidence. Most impressive. And further that while this is the last resort, you accept Radical/Rhobite's request with very little evidence, and no evidence whatsoever of mediation. You are in a hole, keep digging. Ollieplatt 11:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting turn of phrase. RadicalSubversiv E 11:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I note that you say you decided the matter before hearing the evidence. Most impressive. And further that while this is the last resort, you accept Radical/Rhobite's request with very little evidence, and no evidence whatsoever of mediation. You are in a hole, keep digging. Ollieplatt 11:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have indicated a willingness to mediate or whatever but Radicalsubversiv and sockpuppets seem unwilling, and more particularly have used blocking powers. I suspect they will do this soon as the evidence mounts against him. Ollieplatt 11:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You're supposed to put something like evidence in the original request. That's why requests for arbitration typically go through mediation and/or an RFC first. This is the place of last resort - David Gerard 11:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would have appreciated the verdict after the evidence is presented. Obviously the above two Arbitrators feel this is a luxury they can dispense with. Charming. What a disgrace. Two arbitrators, prior to my request being completed have already judged it. Deem this as a personal attack if you like: you're biased. Ollieplatt 10:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Libertas and sockpuppets (most recently Ollieplatt and Salazar)
Libertas has actively engaged in a campaign of POV editing, harassment, personal attacks, and other deliberately disruptive behavior, which resulted in an RFC certified by three users and signed by an additional five. Not long after that certification, Libertas disappeared while several new users appeared to resume similar behavior on the same articles and toward the same users. Ollieplatt engaged in some of the most blatantly inappropriate editing, while Salazar has made edits similar in content but otherwise acted in a less outrageous manner. Both users have demonstrated a remarkable degree of familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures.
Lest there be any question about the relationship between Libertas and these sockpuppets, consider Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States), where there have previously been no attempts made to (inaccurately) characterize Democrats generally as supporters of slavery. Libertas began efforts to include such language, and was repeatedly reverted by other editors, culminating in this edit, just before disappearing. Less than ten hours later, Salazar appeared and began editing Republican Party (United States) and eventually Democratic Party (United States). These edits mostly focused on changes to language about political principles and were less obviously unacceptable, but were still reverted by several editors as mostly inappropriate. Meanwhile, Ollieplatt appeared, first adding information concerning Democrats and the KKK, then joining in Salazar's editing on the political principles before finally returning to the slavery issue, which Salazar then did as well ([10]).
The specific accusations are far too numerous to go into detail about here, but the overall pattern seems to be an effort to provoke conflict by making blatantly POV edits to articles and then harassing the editors who reject them. Articles affected include Ron Paul, Soviet Union, Democratic Party (United States), Democratic centralism, Republican Party (United States), Andrew Villeneuve, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Howard Dean, Dean Scream, A Time for Choosing, Paul Wellstone, and Russ Feingold. Users targeted for personal attacks and harassment include Radicalsubversiv, 172, Rhobite, Paranoid, and Che y Marijuana. These include two frivolous RFCs (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Radicalsubversiv and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhobite admin), and a trail of personal attacks on user talk pages, article talk pages, and a VfD entry (Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion/Andrew Villeneuve).
Before the matter is raised, I have no interest in mediation in light of the intentionally abusive nature of the behavior in question and the ugly nature of the attacks that have been made against myself and other editors. Moreover, I request a wide-ranging temporary injunction:
- indefinitely blocking all sockpuppets, none of which exist for any legitimate reason
- prohibiting Libertas from editing in the main namespace
- granting administrators the discretionary authority to block new sockpuppets based on substantively similar edits or obvious intent to harass or provoke the users named here
The arbitration committee should also consider the similarity of this user's pattern of behavior, and a few of this user's edits (primarily on Ron Paul) to that of the permanently banned user Reithy.
RadicalSubversiv E 09:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Response by Ollieplatt
This is a fairly good example of the kind of behavior I'm complaining about above. Radical's childish determination to get his own way, acting in concert with fellow traveler editors and administrators and sockpuppets. Hope no one else is voting while I'm editing. Ollieplatt 10:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)
- Accept. Ambi 10:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Accept - David Gerard 10:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Everyking is a fine and outstanding editor on Wikipedia, which is why it dreads me to file an RfAr against him for a second time. I have no desire to chronicle this dispute which spans Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album), La La (song) and Pieces of Me (potentially even more). All I will say is that as the RfC against him which gathered support from at least two dozen editors states in mind-numbing detail, Everyking has a history of reverting against community opinion where Ashlee Simpson is concerned. About a dozen editors have tried at one time or another to fix the article up per objections against the article the three times it was placed on FAC; all of them were reverted by Everyking.
While Everyking stopped breaking the 3RR when it became enforceable, he began deviously "partially restoring content", which effectively meant reverting in stages. There have been two attempts at mediation with Everyking, but all of them have been abandoned. More effort has been placed into discussing this than I care to recount.
Is this an article content dispute? No. This is a dispute about Everyking's gaming of the 3RR and refusal to allow other editors to make substantial changes to "his" articles. 172 argues this dispute is no big deal; I beg to differ. Everyking may be an outstanding editor where Ashlee Simpson has nothing to do with the topic, but he's a close-minded stonewaller who wears down his opponents through attrition where Ashlee Simpson is even remotely involved. I can find no recourse but arbitration, as Everyking has not stopped his activities after the RfC (where he conspicuously neglected to even file a defence); instead, he has stepped them up. A quick glance at the history of Pieces of Me shows Everyking continues to ignore the community. Does this mean other editors are blameless? Of course not. But does this mean Everyking has not played a huge role in this? No. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- P.S.: Old discussion of my first RFAr is on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking. Johnleemk | Talk 08:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment only, but Everyking is currently blocked until "00:23, 2005 Jan 17", so isn't able to respond here. -- Netoholic @ 08:06, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/1/0)
- Accept. Neutralitytalk 07:51, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse. Ambi 07:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Accept - David Gerard 10:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. I was mildly active on the talk page for this at one point, so if any of the participants object to my involvement then I will consider changing this to recuse -- sannse (talk) 10:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Matters currently in Arbitration
- /Antifinnugor - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes and two abstentions on January 9, 2005. Evidence to /Antifinnugor/Evidence, please.
- /Rienzo - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on January 1, 2005. Evidence to /Rienzo/Evidence, please.
- /ArmchairVexillologistDon - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on December 14, 2004. Evidence to /ArmchairVexillologistDon/Evidence, please.
- /Chuck F - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on December 7, 2004. Evidence to /Chuck F/Evidence, please.
- /168.209.97.34 - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on December 2, 2004. Evidence to /168.209.97.34/Evidence, please.
- /IZAK - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on November 6, 2004. Evidence to /IZAK/Evidence, please.
- /172 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and two abstentions on August 30, 2004 (delayed due to overlap with previously running cases). Evidence to /172/Evidence, please.
Completed requests
- /HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg - Decided on 16 January 2005. HistoryBuffEr is blocked for 60 days ending 17 March 2005 and is restricted in editing Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles; personal attack parole also applies. Both parties are prohibited from removing adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and may not revert changes which are purely structural reorganisation.
- /CheeseDreams - Decided on 12 January 2005. CheeseDreams is banned from editing in general for eight days, and from editing Christianity-related articles for one year. A two revert per twenty-four hour period limitation is also applied.
- /Ciz - Decided on 10 January 2005. Ciz and all other accounts are banned from editing articles related to zoophilia and placed on personal attack parole.
- /Alberuni - Decided on 10 January 2005. Alberuni is banned for a period of one year; personal attack parole is also applied, as well as a requirement to discuss all reverts.
- /User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts - Decided on 6 Jan 2005. 66.20.28.21 and other accounts are not permitted to edit disputed articles without communication, in violation of NPOV policies, or in violation of original research policies.
- /Netoholic - Closed on 2 Jan 2005 with an open verdict as the major involved disputants have since resolved their differences.
- /Gene Poole vs. Samboy - Decided on 1 Jan 2005. No remedies passed. (Gene_Poole had recently left.)
- Snowspinner vs. Lir - Decided on 1 January, 2005. Lir is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. A standing order is also enacted indefinitely.
- VeryVerily - Closed on 27 Dec 2004, in light of /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily.
- Turrican and VeryVerily - Closed on 27 Dec 2004, in light of /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily.
- Shorne and Fred Bauder - Closed on 27 Dec 2004, in light of /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. Subject to reactivation should Shorne return
- /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily - Decided on 22 December, 2004. Shorne and VeryVerily banned for two weeks, Gzornenplatz and Ruy Lopez for one. Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VV placed on revert parole. Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VV limited to 1 revert per articles per 24 hours, and required to discuss all edits.
- /Arminius Closed without action taken on 16 December, 2004, after all participants requested the matter dropped.
- /Reithy Closed without action taken on 3 December, 2004, temporary injunction expires that date.
- /Cantus vs. Guanaco - Decided on 24 November, 2004. Cantus is limited to one revert per article per day and prohibited from editing Siberia or Clitoris. Guanaco must re-apply for adminship.
- /Irismeister 3 - Decided on 20 November, 2004.
- /Avala - Decided on 17 November, 2004.
- /Rex071404 2 - Decided on 16 November, 2004.
- /Lance6wins - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
- /Rex071404 - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
- /Jimmyvanthach - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
- /RickK vs. Guanaco (ab initio "The Matter of Michael") - Jimbo unbanning Michael made the matter mostly moot. The only remedy was to award Guanaco for creative problem solving.
- /RK - Decided October 14, 2004. RK is banned from Wikipedia for 4 months. Further, he is banned from all articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism for 1 year.
- /Orthogonal - Closed October 14, 2004, following his departure from Wikipedia. Subject to reactivation should he return.
- /JRR Trollkien - Closed October 2, 2004, with no findings of fact or decision. JRR Trollkien has long since left.
- /Kenneth Alan - Decided October 1, 2004, User:Kenneth Alan banned for one year. Enforcement provisions may be added before case is formally closed.
- /K1 - Closed on 28 Sep 2004 with an open verdictafter.
- /ChrisO and Levzur Closed on 20 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as Levzur has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
- /User:PolishPoliticians - Decided on 18 Sep 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.
- /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Decided on 12 Sep 2004.
- /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Decided on 30 Aug 2004.
- /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 26 Aug 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
- /Lir - Decided on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
- /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
- /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
- /Irismeister 2 - Decided on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Irismeister 2/Proposed decision.
- /Wik2 - Decided at /Wik2/Decided on 21 May 2004.
- /Paul Vogel - Decided on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Further discussion and proposals are available at /Paul Vogel/Proposals.
- /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
- /Irismeister - Decided on 31st March 2004 that Irismeister would be banned from editing all pages for ten days, and banned from editing Iridology indefinitely. Decision can be found at /Irismeister/Decision.
- /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
- /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
- /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th February 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
Rejected requests
- 82.124.1.82/Irismeister - Rejected (covered by current ban)
- Robert the Bruce - Rejected, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce
- Gzornenplatz - Rejected
- Vfp15 vs Noisy, Aaarrrggh and Adraeus - Rejected
- Jguk - Withdrawn
- Everyking - Withdrawn
- Alterego - Rejected.
- Slrubenstein - Rejected
- Arminius and Darrien - Rejected
- Quadell - Rejected, please follow the dispute resolution procedure rather than trying to taking this straight to Arbitration
- CheeseDreams - Rejected , please make requests precise, clear, and focussed.
- UninvitedCompany - Rejected, our temporary injunction holds.
- Jayjg - Rejected by 6 arbitrators, 1 recusal, 10 Nov 2004.
- Aranel - Rejected
- RickK - Rejected
- Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 - Rejected, consolidated with /Reithy
- Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro - Rejected - October 27, 2004, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro
- VeryVerily vs Gzornenplatz - Rejected
- Mintguy - Rejected
- Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected
- Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected - lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons.
- VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- Tim Starling - Rejected.
- User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien
- Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
- Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
- Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).
- Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
- Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
- Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
- WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
- Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
- Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
- Matter of Hephaestos - Rejected - due to lack of community desire or allegations. Case referred by Jimbo Feb 19, 2004, rejected Feb 26, 2004. Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos.
- Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
- John69 - Rejected - text archived at user talk:John69