Forum:Certain unfair RfA arguments...

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Certain unfair RfA arguments...
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 November 2010 by Gaz Lloyd.

I'll start off by saying that this is not a thread to discuss the meaning or configuration of All Editors Are Equal. There are a medley of other threads to do that on, take your brave self there. This thread will discuss how a certain argument on RfAs is unfair and is a discrimination of sorts (which, in turn, breaks our current policy of "AEAE"). I'd also like to say that I'm not singling anyone out who has used this argument.

On multiple RfAs, I've seen the argument claiming that the requester should not become an administrator because we already have so many administrators, 79 at the moment. 79 is a number well above average compared to other wikis, and thus, people think it is wrong in some way, enough to Oppose the request.

I find this to be horribly unfair, as per RuneScape:All editors are equal, everyone should have an equal right to request for adminship, regardless of other people's status. If a person can use the tools to their own editing advantage (and overall, for the wiki's advantage), then they should be given them provided that the requester is supported in other areas (attitude, counter-vandalism, etc, etc). It is discrimination to Oppose solely because of others status. Admins X, Y, and Z do not reflect the requester in any way, and should not be compared to the requester at all.

With this argument comes another common one, "he/she doesn't need the tools!"

Theoretically, the only person who needs the tools to keep the wiki under control would be the wiki's founder. All other administrators are extras recruited by the founder to help keep it under control (All admins are equal, of course, though). If Merovingian stayed active, he could run this wiki by himself without any other admin's help. Sure, it would be hard as hell, and it might not have reached the stage we're at now, but it would be possible. Nobody needs sysop tools. People want them so they can help more in their volunteer editing -- what Wikia is all about. If an requester can use the tools to better the wiki, then, again, they should be given them on the grounds that they are supported by the community in other areas.

The two above arguments of "Too many admins!" and "Doesn't need the tools" are unfair and not well thought out. I believe them to be very poor, but I'm not sure what should be done about it. I guess, at the moment, I'm just asking what the community thinks about this. I'd rather not throw out any ideas on how to handle these arguments without feedback, so no, there is not a proposal yet. There doesn't need to be a proposal, this is an important matter. Post away.

My original thoughts on this matter can be found here, I tried to reword it better on this thread.

Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 03:51, November 3, 2010 (UTC)


Discuss. - Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 03:52, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with you entirely. Matt (t) 03:54, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - An individual's need should certainly play a role in determining whether or not to sysop him or her. This is necessary to prevent the overextension of the sysop list for people who will never use the tools. Look at Rich Farmbrough for example. He had no need for sysop tools and is now just taking up space on the sysop list.

The wiki's need is as important as the individual's need. If the vandals are running amok, we need more countervandalism sysops. If the YG is filled with dead discussions, we need more sysops to close them. If the speedy deletion category is filled, we need sysops to delete the pages. If any of those scenarios was actually the case, that would be a nice argument on an RfA. Conversely, the opposite should be true when those conditions are not met (like right now).

The RfA process is for finding a reason not to sysop someone; if none can be found, a leap of faith is taken and the user is sysopped. Otherwise, if a reason can be found, we will not sysop the user. Environmental conditions are a vital part f that assessment. This is my in contrary to AEAE, which deals with weighting of opinions in discussions, because the user's opinion will be weighted the same regardless of whether he or she is a sysop. --LiquidTalk 04:06, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, but I think we're just cut off by one word... Too many people use the word "need" in "do they ____ sysop tools?". "Need" is incorrect. Nobody needs sysop tools, the RuneScape Wiki would still run while being mass vandalized, full of dead threads and undeleted spam. Yes, the RuneScape Wiki would lose most of it's readers, and we would not be the fansite we are at the moment, but it would run, nonetheless. I am thinking very literally here, but it's only to emphasize that nobody needs tools to be an editor at the RSW.
Instead of using the word "need", I believe it's a matter of "will they use" the tools. "Use". Not "need". There is quite a difference.
So yes, an individual's potential use of the tools should play a role in determining if a requester is given sysop tools or not. It's just a matter of using the tools, not needing them. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:21, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
Your comments regarding Rich are not only incorrect but offensive as well. While he uses the tools rarely, he does do so, and even a single use of the tools on behalf of the wiki means they were used properly. And there is no "space limit" on that list. I find your arguments ludicrous and unbecoming.--Degenret01 05:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is an interesting argument, and I agree with you. Being a person who reads most things but doesn't comment, I've seen many RfAs brought down due to the two things listed above, which is not fair. In a way, yes, there might be too many admins/sysops at the moment, but that's no reason not to admit new, good people who would do great with the tools. If there is a problem of "too many" of them, then we should go back and make sure that everyone who has the tools are actually using them, etc. I think it's sad to oppose someone an opportunity because so many other people already have been granted the opportunity. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:09, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Wonderfully said and explained, thanks for your comment. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:21, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The purpose of Wikia is volunteer editing to make Wikia money. I do believe that trust should be the basis of whether or not we sysop someone, however making everyone a sysop just really doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I feel like that if we made everyone a sysop we would be further separating the newer users from those with experience. Imagine if you just joined the wiki, and everyone was an "admin" leaving you one of the few people who isn't. Granted we would know that sysops mean nothing more than a standard user, but some of our newer users do not. This would in a way alienate them from the community, and maybe make a few of them think "I'm no good if I'm not an admin", which under our current system obviously isn't true, since we have several good users who are not sysops. This may create a desire to edit for all the wrong reasons. We should want to contribute to the wiki to create a source of information for our readers, not as a contest to see who can get admin fastest. Our readers are probably the important part of this wiki to keep it alive. While editing the wiki is fun at times, it would just be pointless with a lack of new ideas. Our IPs may not find the need to contribute if they see that we have a "trusted" group and an "untrusted group", because they might feel insignificant. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:16, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're overly exaggerating... Lol 79 out of thousands of users is not "everyone". Thousands of users out of thousands of users would be everyone. 79 users is a quite a few people, but only a little bit compared to our thousands of readers. I don't see how one would feel insignificant, it's not like our admins brag about their status in any way, nor do we try to make non-admins feel insignificant. We try to be friendly with our users, help them out... RS:AR? RS:UR?? We're a very friendly community, so I'll have to disagree with you on that. Also, I don't see how any common reader would even know we have 79 admins... people usually come to read and go, a fraction of our readers participate in the community, and a fraction of that fraction would find Special:ListUsers. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:28, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the amount of sysops we would have if we actually started to sysop just about anyone who had an RfA that had been around for a while. A large amount of the current editors who actually edit I trust. Out of our 79 or so sysops a large portion are inactive, and out of our thousands of editors most do not edit at all. So if we just started to give out sysops based solely on trust, we'd have a lot more sysops, and then maybe actually get to a higher sysop to contributing new editor ratio. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:33, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not only about trust, there are many other areas which the requester has to show in order to gain a common user's support... counter-vandalism, amount of edits, maturity, community participation... need I go on? We never give out sysop based solely on trust, and I don't understand what would make you think that we would start doing that. Even still, the sysop:new-editor ratio would be very low in the next five years. The admin counts grows very slowly; we only have around 1-3 RfAs every month (I've counted), and they might not even pass. Meanwhile, we get tens of new contributors every day. See the user creation log? Add in some simple math , that's 1*12=12 admins a year, as opposed to a whopping 25*365=9125 new contributors a year... of course these numbers vary greatly, but still, a very small to very big ratio. I promise you new contributors won't feel insignificant compared to our admin count. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:54, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
This is basically saying how most sysop requests are denied based on the argument that "We don't need anymore", once that mindset is gone, everyone and their grandmom will run for adminship because they know that if they use the tools even 3 times they will get it. This will raise the amount of RfAs up per month, and also increase their success ratio. While we may get several new users a day, but how many of them actually contribute? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:19, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Agree - Didn't see a proposal in here, but I agree that these arguments aren't really fair reasons to oppose an RfA. However, I really don't think it's an AEAE issue, as AEAE has absolutely nothing to do with becoming an admin. It refers to their opinion in a discussion. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:18, November 3, 2010 (UTC) 

Err, it does in this situation... if the first 79 users aren't opposed for # of sysops, but #80 is, then that is discrimination, which breaks AEAE. #80 should have an equal chance to request for adminship, regardless of the number or status of existing sysops. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
Go read AEAE. That's not even close to what it's about. It's about editors' opinions being equal. As such, sysops and regular users' opinions are supposed to be equal, so a sysop and a nonsysop are perfectly equal according to AEAE. That means that there is no way that not getting the same chance to be sysopped is a violation of AEAE, as in AEAE's eyes, there is no difference between a sysop and a nonsysop - in fact, that's the entire point of AEAE. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:52, November 3, 2010 (UTC) 
I've read the policy many times, I don't need to read it again, but even the policy's name should tell you that everyone has an equal chance and right to RfA. Let's read the nutshell:
This page in a nutshell: An editor's status, popularity, or in-game experience does not affect how they are treated and how their opinion is "weighed" in a discussion.
Read what I've boldened. Focus on that. The rest is a different matter, but words together, an editor's status does not affect how they are treated. What did I ask you guys? Why are requesters' regular user statuses (compared to admins) affecting how they are supported in RfAs? It fits perfectly, I know what AEAE is. AEAE doesn't only apply to weight in discussions. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:59, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support not limiting number of sysops - I see you beat Liquid to making a thread on this. Anyway, I'd like to highlight the enormous difference between opposing due to someone "not needing the tools", and opposing because the "wiki doesn't have a need for more sysops." I'll comment more on this tomorrow, it's been a long night. ʞooɔ 04:27, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are seperate arguments, it just seems common that they are used at the same time... based off of personal experience, of course... this thread doesn't try to combine them into one argument, I know they're seperate. I just decided to discuss them both in one thread. Nobody likes having 40 different threads in the YG like we did earlier this year -.- Just sayin'. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Opposing because the wiki has a lot of sysops is a terrible reason to oppose. If someone will use the tools well and can be trusted they should be able to get the tools. If they are not going to use them then there is a reason to oppose it as if they will not use the tools there is no reason for them to have the tools as all it could be seen as is they got it for the sake of getting adminship rather than because they will use the tools. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:26, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Super strong support - Simply put, "it's not fair". Also, just remember the major difference between the wiki not needing admins and the user not needing the tools. Yes, Cook said that, but I'm seconding it (I said that in IRC before he did though Lol). 222 talk 07:21, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm still waiting on Liquid's thread (if it will ever come out of his userspace) for my word-wall. Things that the user cannot control often flunk RfA's, such as the need theory and the "We have enough sysops" arguments. There are do's and don'ts that can also kill RfA's and the only thing I ever find in limiting the sysop group right is a power house, even though it's 40 sysops, it is somewhat diverse. I for one, do not want a group of elite users, whether or not they accept the fact that limiting entries creates this. Ryan PM 14:31, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Neat reading Okay, I know, we are not Wikipedia, not everything they do is right for us, yada yada yada. But anyone with even the smallest clue must recognize they get an awful lot right, or they would not be so nearly as huge and effective as they are. I will let their own argument on why limiting the tools based on need speak for me, for now anyhow. So for the record, this is taken directly from Wikipedias page

Doesn't need the tools

Wikipedia benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential.

While it's great if administrators are active and use the tools they have, a contributor who uses the administrators' tools once a month still benefits the community. If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose.

Editors who work with a certain process (e.g. AfD) may feel that any admin candidate must be experienced with that process. However, most editors focus on only a few types of contributions to Wikipedia, doing little or nothing in other areas, and for any given process, a substantial percentage of existing admins have no involvement with it. There are few, if any, processes, besides editing and interacting with other editors, that a potential admin absolutely must know.

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions

--Degenret01 15:01, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - First of all, how does saying the wiki doesn't need any more sysops violate rs:aeae when saying wiki doesn't need any more crats doesn't? What is the difference? Sysops can do a limited amount of things, and crats can do a very limited amount of things with their tools. That's all. Thus, if the wiki stops needing any more crats at one point, it should also stop needing any more sysops at a further point.

I also fail to see how sysopping someone will help the wiki when every sysop thing gets instantly done. They are going to make it 1 milisecond faster? Their sysop help will be completely negligible, and this is also proven by their need of sysop tools. Yes, I used the word NEED, and don't bother telling me to use another word, because you know exactly what I mean. What's the point of sysopping someone when they rarely need to block vandals, delete pages etc.? There is no point. Go get me someone with at least 1 need of sysop tool for day for the last few months, then fine, sysopping them is going to help, but sysopping someone that has needed the tools a few times over a long timespan is not going to help anything. It might even hurt, as it happened in the past. Were the admins who abused their tools not trusted? Of course they were. Getting people who aren't even going to improve anything to be sysops just increases the risk.

Also, what you are saying also suggests that sysop tools are a reward for hardwork, trustability etc. We have wikicapes for that, not privileges.

For the "only one sysops is enough" arguement, that doesn't even make any sense. For example, if it takes 1 day for a vandal to get blocked, then it's not enough. However, when half of the vandals are blocked even before they can be reported to the cvu, then we do not need another antivandal sysops. The same thing applies to all other tools. Everything gets instantly done already. I'm not saying the wiki should never ever have any more sysops though, I'm merely saying that we do not need any more sysops at the moment. This will change as other sysops go inactive, and things slow down.

Sorry for the textwall, bad_fetustalk 16:35, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support first, oppose second - While I disagree that limiting the number of sysops violates RS:AEAE, I still think it's a weak argument. If an individual can contribute positively to the wiki by having (and using) their sysop tools, then they should seriously be considered for adminship. On the other hand, saying that someone "doesn't need the tools" is, in my opinion, a valid argument. The phrase isn't to be taken literally. Of course they don't absolutely need the tools; it's not an urgent requisite. All that means is that they do not exhibit a great requirement for the tools to function better with the wiki based on their past edits. If someone isn't a great anti-vandal, doesn't do any maintenance, and doesn't participate in the YG a lot, then they don't show a need for the tools. However, someone who frequently does fight vandals and performs a great deal of maintenance may demonstrate a need for the tools by doing so. It's really just another way of saying, "I don't think you'll use the tools enough to warrant becoming a sysop." Suppa chuppa Talk 18:07, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Partical support - I agree with the first; there should be no limit on the number of administrators that this wiki can have. However, you are completely wrong on the second. If only one user had sysop tools, nothing would get done. A user displayes a need for the tools when they are constantly active in areas such as countervandalism and tagging things for deletion, as well as requesting changes to pages that can only be changed by admins. If they are doing those things, and are trusted, then there is no reason for them to not be an admin. However, if the user is not doing those things, then there is no reason for them to have the tools. ajr 18:12, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is a noble crusade (or point, I don't want to understate anything) that you raise here, but in all honesty it is in vain. The people who think that there are too many sysops/don't believe the person needs the tools will always oppose. No matter what anyone says or does, they will find another reason, another flaw, and put down their oppose still, and it will be recognized. There truly is no way to stop those who wish to oppose for those reasons; they will find others.

Anyways, I think I am a fair decision maker in RfAs, but there are sometimes where the aforementioned reasons pop into my head. The main obligation one with sysop tools has is too "protect and serve" the wiki. If a vandal comes along, a sysop crushes it. If there is something to be deleted, a sysop will delete it. There is such a case as "too many chefs in the kitchen" that can be applied in life. With the amount of active sysops we have, everything runs decently smooth and there are not any massive vandal attack.At this point, do I think we need any new sysops? No, no I do not, just due to the fact that everything is already smooth and operational. Do I say that no one should get sysop tools at the moment? No, I only say that there is a low demand for new sysops at the given time. (Sorry for the speech, but it's been on my mind as well.) Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 21:41, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Chaos's first point. There are a multitude of issues linked to need, and those relate directly to issues that people tend to agree that RfA's should be based around, such as judgment. --LiquidTalk 21:57, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If you are here opposing this argument, saying that the wiki really doesn't need more admins, go ahead and make a yew grove thread requesting that RS:RFA be closed down, that is pretty much what your trying to get across. If you won't do that, your argument is invalid, fullstop. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 22:30, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to bring up another common argument that isn't particularly significant but still annoys me: the number of CVU edits that the candidate has. Just because you rarely report vandals to the CVU doesn't mean that you never revert vandalism, because everyone knows that only those who need to be blocked should be reported. I know that I rarely block vandals because warnings stop them most of the time, but does that mean that I never revert vandalism? You could be the most awesome non-admin counter-vandalist on the wiki without having many CVU edits. Should we turn down a candidate simply because he or she has never had the opportunity (or luck, I should say) to revert any extremely blatant vandalism that warranted a CVU report, or because he or she believes in the power of warning templates?  Tien  23:10, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

I warned every vandal at least once before reporting to the cvu, and I still had over 300 reports when I filed my RfA. ajr 23:14, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
I never look at CVU edits exclusively. The power of edit reports is that it can tell you the number of times warning templates have been used. A combination of those figures is generally sufficient for a good decision. --LiquidTalk 23:23, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
Those opportunities presented themselves to you. Not everyone happens to be editing in the times during which malicious vandals decide to "edit" the wiki. Besides, you're extremely active as far as I'm aware.  Tien  23:30, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
Amount of vandalism reverted is irrelevant though. If you reported very few people, you have needed to use the tools only a few times. Warning does not require the tools. bad_fetustalk 09:29, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Adminship is stagnant. Letting excuses like "They don't need them!" or "There's already too many admins!" stop the pool of admins from taking in any new blood is frankly pathetic. How can we expect to get some much-needed change when the admins are all the same people and no new ones are made because there are "already enough" melonWatermelon slice.png 00:00, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Just wanna add that I strongly agree with Warthog, and Joeytje50 on this one. Especially Warthog. So much that I'm going to repost his post. If you are here opposing this argument, saying that the wiki really doesn't need more admins, go ahead and make a yew grove thread requesting that RS:RFA be closed down, that is pretty much what your trying to get across. If you won't do that, your argument is invalid, fullstop. Beautifully said. melonWatermelon slice.png 16:44, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that we shouldn't let the number of admins take a role in deciding whether a person should be sysoped or not. The number of sysops does not determine whether a potential candidate will be a good sysop. It is unfair to the whole RfA process when everybody just says "we don't need any more sysops-oppose." However, I don't quite agree with the "doesn't need the tools." We still need to make sure and evaluate the person's contributions to see whether or not they would perform any sysop duties.Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 03:53, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Else sysops are too far away for normal people, and it will create a sort of border between sysops and other people. When we limit the amount of sysops, being sysop will only be for the elites, which we, i mean I don't want. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:26, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Does this mean if this passes [[RuneScape:Quality not Quantity]] will be made? --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:53, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Err...what? ʞooɔ 01:14, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
...Why would it be? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:15, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm forced to assume that you're talking about a policy and/or essay saying that the quality of one's edits should determine how they are treated, not necessarily not how many times they have edited total. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:21, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't AEAE say that users should not be treated differently because of their edits (regardless of the quality?) ʞooɔ 01:42, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
AEAE says that a user's position should not be a factor in how heavily his or her opinion is weighted; it essentially means that before the strength of the arguments are considered, all the arguments start at the same base level. That is only marginally connected with user treatment. --LiquidTalk 02:10, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not implying that the quality of one's edits would reflect how we weigh his or her opinions, merely how we value that user as a contributor. I don't see a need for such an essay, though I do agree with the principal. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:41, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'll try to be bold and go against the community's point as much as possible. Is 79 a big number? No.

Not in the least.
— Estellise Sidos Heurassein

79 is the proof that we have a lack of moderating administrators who perform all of our deletion and vandal-blocking. 79 is not a large enough number to say "We have too many sysops.", at least, in my opinion. The saying "_ won't use the tools" or "_ doesn't absolutely need the tools" I find to be void from a viewpoint where each person's rights is like a city. The IP can do whatever a regular citizen can do. An autoconfirmed user can do things that someone with, say, the key to a city can do. Custodianship is for a mayor, and rollbacker rights are for warranted officers. Administrator tools can only be used by the governors, senators, parliament, or some other VIP person, etc. Bureaucrats are like presidents or prime ministers. My opinion is technically not breaking AEAE at this point. Only when we fawn over the "special" people do we actually need to look at the policy. RS:UCS is also in my favor. As Ajr says, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and as Chess says, it doesn't hurt. ----クールネシトーク 03:35, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

I love Tales of Vesperia. melonWatermelon slice.png 16:44, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - "Need" is something that a thing must have or it will not work (like a pond needing water, without its just a ground depression). The wiki needs nothing then it already has (a server, an editor, an admin). The wiki could use more than that but doesn't need more. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 06:50, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The consensus here is that "the wiki's need" for another sysop should not be used as an argument in an RfA, so users are asked to avoid using that argument against (or even for, if we ever get to that) a candidate, and such arguments may be considered void when the RfA is closed. There is no consensus for not allowing the "user doesn't need the tools" argument so status quo prevails - it is allowed. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 19:01, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Edit to the above: re-reading, supporting arguments about the wiki's need were not specifically mentioned and not part of the supported proposal, so it was presumptuous of me to assume that it was. Thus these will remain allowed, per status quo. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 02:16, January 7, 2011 (UTC)