Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zpb52

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Zpb52

[edit]

Final (21/21/7) ended 03:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Zpb52 (talk · contribs) – also known as Zack, has been a member of the Wikipedia community for over a year and among his constantly proves himself be a quick and strong force against what seems to be the constant Vandalism of Wikipedia. As I (and quite possibly many members of WP:CVU) have come to find, Combatting vandalism is a race between the Wikipedians to build bigger and better vandalism clean articles, and the universe to build bigger and better vandalizing idiots; and there has been more than one day where it feels that the Universe is winning. While this statement may be a slight digression (I'm not a very good speech writer), my point is that I feel that granting Zack administrator status would greatly help us Wikipedians win this battle, through his honorable use of the tools and privileges granted to one with such a status. Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 02:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept and welcome the nomination. Thanks, Charlie! --Zpb52 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Charlie(@CIRL | talk) - Original Nomination
    Comment (I've already voted obviously) I'm not sure if this is proper form, I'd like to make a case for how I feel Zack responded properly (albiet a bit harshly) to the 5th question. Taking into consideration how the question was posed I too would intrepret the anon as probably being a vandal. My reasoning for this is that the anon in question 1) did not say where the copy paste job was from and 2) threatened to leave wikipedia for being reverted by a robot. If said user was experienced, I would assume that the user would be familiar with policies on proper procedures for deleting copyvio articles. If the user was really concerned with the copyvio and just inexperienced, I would assume that the user would have referenced where he feels the content is from and would more likely threaten legal action (instead of treatening to give up his chase) while continuing his fight. I too feel that the inital reaction may have been a bit harsh, however it seems to me that the anon was more than likely simply a vandal who knows that WP has no tolerance for copyrighted work being loaded here... Perhaps a better response in this case would have been a Talk message asking where the anon thinks the content was from, as well as a general overview and linking to procedures for removing copyvio articles, but I still stand by my nomination and support vote. --Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 04:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, very strong vandal fighter (saw him in action), good editor, seems to be a good admin material abakharev 05:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support Always good to see another Vandal Proof user. Edit count and time w/ project are OK. You say you want to fight vandals, and that’s what you’ve been doing. I would have preferred some involvement with AfD, RfA, or WP:AN. The critical thinking skills needed in those areas are different from fighting vandals, and are needed by an admin. Also, I could find no page edits or creations in your last 500 edits beyond Vandal Proof and some page moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
  4. Support I think you have the qualities, and you will work through the concerns raised here soon enough. Please keep a learning attitude at all times and diversify your work. Rama's Arrow 07:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Adminship is no big deal and this user seems trustworthy. DarthVader 13:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Good user. --Knucmo2 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Let him be given the admin-tools, and let his learn adminship by way of "on-the-job" training as an administrator. I am sure this shall not expose us to any risk, as wikipedia is perhaps facing greater risk from several others. --Bhadani 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support the_ed17(talk)Use these! 14:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (I'll leave a comment later, I have to go!)[reply]
  9. Support. I'm assuming on good faith that you will make an effort to read any policies you may have so far missed. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Friday, 12 May 2006 @ 15:08 UTC
  10. Weak support (changed from Neutral). Deserves the chance. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support seems a good editor. --Tone 16:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, excellent vandal fighter. Rjm656s 16:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support sheerly on the basis of his amazing counter-vandalism work. I'm assuming the toolservers are still having problems, as in looking through his contribution tree it's not registering hardly any of his edits that have so impressed me. I've seen this user add more users to AIV in the last week than anyone else I know, and all of the alerts he's posted (that I've seen) I totally supported blocking. Low participation in *fD's bother me a bit, but not all admins are involved in those aspects of Wikipedia--if he intends to continue doing what he's currently doing, I think he could stand to benefit quite a bit from administrator tools (especially blocking), and I don't see any evidence that he would abuse them. My only real concern would be that he seems a bit of a shoot-first, ask questions later kinda' guy (as are many, many admins), but I don't necessarily see decisiveness as much of a flaw when it comes to dealing with vandalism. Also, he seems to do a lot of obvious CSD tagging, and I would trust him to know how to use the delete button. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I no longer feel that I can support this user at this time. I may support in another month or so. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Definitely wouldn't abuse it. Steveo2 23:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Admin tools will help in RC patrol. Concerning your response to the fifth (follow-up) question below, however, I'd encourage you to consider a friendlier response... perhaps the anon just doesn't understand the process, and a warm note would go much further than another warning template. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to a reluctant oppose per the unsettling diffs provided by Freakofnurture... warning templates can be misplaced at times, but leaving warnings on well-known admin and bot pages is problematic. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm sorry, not sure what I did there, but not intended as a vote. I voted already.  :) Dlohcierekim 02:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC) :) Dlohcierekim 02:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that; I should have looked more closely. I simply saw this edit and interpreted it as a vote to support. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - definitely a worthy user. BTW, I feel that the questions should act as a guide for potential admins to hone their skills and experience in wiki policy, rather than as a barrier to their getting a mop. Brisvegas 07:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support seems like a good candidate --rogerd 21:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, good candidate. Royboycrashfan 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Moderate support per Dlohcierekim and AmiDaniel. Joe 22:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support - Will make a fine admin. Lou franklin 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per other users. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --All in 21:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, great editor, though low amount of project edits (currently under 250) shows that Zpb52 doesn't have enough involvement with the Wikipedian community. Also, I would like to see a greater use of edit summaries.--☆TBC☆ 04:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just by editing here you show participation with the community in trying to create a better encyclopedia. We're trying to build an encyclopaedia, not evaluate the encyclopaedia's policies. Discussion on talk pages is just as part of the community as Wikipedian project edits are. --Knucmo2 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but as Stifle mentioned below, low amount of participation in such projects like AfD suggests low knowledge of Wikipedia's policies--☆TBC☆ 06:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Edit summary use and project talk edits too low...but keep up the good work. I'll support next time.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Voice of All, participate more in *fD and I'll support in a few months. Also does not really seem to need admin tools; user uses VandalProof, which has rollback built in (and doesn't support admin rollback, AFAIK), and answer to question 1 doesn't really see any real need for the mop. Wikification and grammar corrections, while vital to Wikipedia, don't require admin tools. --Rory096 07:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, low amount of Wikipedia space edits suggests low knowledge of policy; recommend higher participation in AFD. More edit summaries, please. Reverting vandalism, RC patrol, and cleanup don't require adminship. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose per Voice of All. Kimchi.sg 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose per Kimchi.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose per question 5. I am gobsmacked that an anon editor who has tried to do the right thing in saving Wiki from a copyvio (and even explained it on the talk page so it's obviously not vandalism) would get smacked down with a blank3 (not even a blank1!), when they should be thanked for their action and given an apology for being incorrectly robotically reverted, a warm welcome, an encouragement to keep up the good work and a helpful explanation about the use of copyvio for the future. Well done Zpb52 for your vandalism work and I hope you will make an admin in the future, but in the meantime, please think about the potential effects of your actions on the person at receiving end... Tyrenius 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC) I have struck through "strong" as a gesture to the apology, as I would like to support this candidate for the vandal fighting, but I'm not won over by the explanation "I didn't get the feeling that the anonymous editor was "doing the right thing" by deleting copyvio." I feel an admin candidate should be able to read, understand and correctly interpret the question. It is also relevant that some very experienced editors edit as anon.Tyrenius 04:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to expand on Tyrenius' point, if he doesn't mind. I've been known to edit as an anon, particularly when making small changes like fixing typos and the like. All you can assume from seeing an anon is that they've not logged in; they could be someone who's been editing without a login for months, even years; they could be someone who is normally logged in but hasn't bothered this time around; they could be someone whose cookie got lost; they could be someone who's just found the encyclopaedia and hasn't worked out how to login yet. They're no less worthy of respect than any of the rest of us. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I don't like his answers to the questions: many of us became admins on the strength of our vandalism-fighting work, but I get the feeling that Zpb52 isn't fighting vandalism, but vandals. His correction on question 5 worries me more than his original answer; the original one could be (and has been) explained as merely misreading the question, but "Seriously, how many anonymous editors would do such a thing?" shows an attitude towards anons that I find worrisome. Also, (although this is not in itself a reason to oppose) he seems to share with many users the misconception that using a template (like {{blank3}} or {{bv}} or {{test}}) is synonymous with "warning a user". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for much the same reasons as most of those above (his original answer to Q5 also seemed to involve a misunderstanding of how to deal with a copyvio, in that he wouldn't just add the notice, but would first restore the page...). I'm also worried about the rising trend of editors, including admins, who think that edit summaries are only for things like reverting (and who react aggressively when asked to supply them). Perhaps with a bit more experience, but not now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per fuddlemark. Adminship is a public trust and not lightly held. Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Trust issues. Inexperience. --Masssiveego 00:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Tyrenius. Cynical 12:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per fuddlemark, lacks of experience. Needs more xFD participation, as well as higher edit summary usage. --Terence Ong 06:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, needs to exercise better control over his tools (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). The level of disruption "embarassment" would only be magnified if this Zpb52 began blocking the wrong people or deleting the wrong pages. Please, try to slow down a bit, and think about what you're doing. To put things in perspective, this project does have a couple of anti-vandalism bots running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (one of which operates on a sysop account), and from what I've seen, your use of this tool has led to more mistakes in the past few weeks than them combined. Having said all that, I'll add a bit of FYI: Vandals who register patently inappropriate usernames, post users' home phone numbers, or create egregious attack pages get blocked on sight, rather than wasting bytes and effort (even if it is fully automated) on warnings such as [9], [10], [11]. — May. 15, '06 [08:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Comment from nominee: Concerning User:Justinemery and your assumption that he would be blocked on sight for creating the article entitled "Arnold Schwarzenigger"...he was not blocked. In fact, he is still around [12] and has vandalized my userpage several times [13]. So, apparently, AIV notifications for guys like him are necessary, even though the admin (RadioKirk in this case) then blew it off, said he was "warned" [14] , and passed him over. I'll take your advice to slow down on VandalProof, but to say that alerting admins to blatant vandals like this is unnecessary and that the problem will take care of itself seems like bad advice from an admin, especially when the subject in question was reported and nothing was done. --Zpb52 15:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to say that "{{TestX}}", etc. warnings on the User_talk: pages of those particular vandals are not needed. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough with the three diffs I cited. — May. 16, '06 [04:27] <freak|talk>
    Comment. VandalProof, is a new tool that we must all be very careful using. (In gaining familiarity with it, I have reported myself to AIV a few times. Hopefully I never reported Curps! ) It is important to remember how powerful it is, to review every action we take with the thing, and to be prepared to immediately correct our errors. I’ve also made mistakes w/o vandal proof, so I think it is more the user than the tool that is at fault. Overall, VandalProof has improved my accuracy because I spend more time reading and thinking about what I‘m doing before I do it. I spend less time frantically pasting and typing and correcting my typos.  :) Dlohcierekim 12:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The Report to AIV function is a little bit odd to use when you're not familiar with how it works; it reports the "current user," which, when you're viewing a diff (even on a user talk page) is the user who last edited the page, not the talk page's owner. He's not the only one to have problems with this (in fact, many quite prominent users had difficulties with it), and, as it's clearly a problem, I've now made some changes in v1.2 to make how it works more clear and a bit more "idiot-proof." Keep in mind that VP is still in a quite early development stage, and there are many kinks that need to be worked out. What's important is that all mistakes, be they the result of the tool acting strange or user error, need to be swiftly corrected, which I believe all of these were. My help documentation is also quite incomplete at the moment, and, while I'm always available to answer questions, users may not know that certain questions need asking. I would, however, have preferred if Zpb52 had mentioned some of the problems he had with the tool either to me or on one of VP's forums, as he's now stated that a lot of his less-constructive edits resulted from the tool's malfunctioning; that way, I may have been able to make some issues more clear and perhaps prevented such problems from repeating themslelves. This is the first I've even heard of him having problems using VP, and it does make me a little insecure knowing that others may be having similar difficulties without anyone telling me about it. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up comment: On another note, in looking over the diffs provided, I do have to wonder how he managed some of those edits with VandalProof. The ones on his own talk page I could pass off as test edits, which don't bother me much, but some of the vandalism warnings do seem quite strange. I'd hope that Zpb52 might be able to explain some of them a little better... AmiDaniel (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per "I didn't get the feeling that the anonymous editor was "doing the right thing" by deleting copyvio. (Seriously, how many anonymous editors would do such a thing?)". Many anonymous editors are acting in good faith, and I've seen copyvio notices by anons, etc. Ral315 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - freak of nurture's diff list is pretty powerful evidence that the candidate misses the mark sometimes. His judgment needs to improve. - Richardcavell 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - per above. --GeorgeMoney T·C 01:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Freakofnurture and a few other points made above. You've done some good things, but don't think you're ready for admin tools just yet. Keep up the vandal fighting — against actual vandals — in the meantime. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose A bit too soon for me, and also lack of edit summaries is worrisome. A bit more experience and i'm sure he'll make a good Admin. Rockpocket (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Per above. DGX 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, per above. Naconkantari 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral—another tough one. Editor is strong on articles and user talk, where a quick perusal suggests a cool head; is a good vandal-fighter and most likely would not abuse the keys intentionally. Edit summary use is a serious concern; nothing in the first answer requires admin tools; and, grammar is fine while spelling needs work (okay, I'm half-kidding there). User should be a great admin someday, but I'm not convinced that day is here. Keep up the good work! RadioKirk talk to me 04:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Changed, see Support.[reply]
I must have been thinking about Kelsey Grammer. Sorry!--Zpb52 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral: Better use edit summaries more often for minor edits.--Jusjih 08:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Looks like a very committed vandal fighter, but possibly a little too quick to give warnings with VandalProof. I'll see if I can make up my mind later. --Elkman - (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, edit summary usage. Computerjoe's talk 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral because of the edit summary usage and the answer to the 5th question below. "I restore the page and put a blank3 warning on the anon's user talk page." Seems a bit harsh if the vandal didn't understand. Perhaps a more personal note would be much better, explaining what happened, and the Wikipeidia policy on blanking. —Mets501talk 01:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral You are a good vandal fighter, you can start listing vandals at WP:AIV, get involved with WP:AFD and other deletion projects, and also, get involved with the RFA. Those projects can get you started on the Project edits(I need to also). Best of all, please start using edit summaries. When vandal fighters are reverting, edit summaries help vandal fighters what to revert to. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 05:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Devoted, but strangely low edit count. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

--Viewing contribution data for user Zpb52 (over the 4278 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 428 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 12, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 10, February, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 39.55% Minor edits: 79.51%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 39.82% Minor article edits: 78.95%
Average edits per day (current): 10
Recognized significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 9.42%
Unique pages edited: 1393 | Average edits per page: 3.07 | Edits on top: 12.18%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 18.72%
Minor edits (non reverts): 38.52%
Marked reverts: 6.03%
Unmarked edits: 36.72%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 69.42% (2970) | Article talk: 2.71% (116)
User: 4.3% (184) | User talk: 13.18% (564)
Wikipedia: 5.8% (248) | Wikipedia talk: 0.02% (1)
Image: 2.78% (119)
Template: 1.22% (52)
Category: 0.26% (11)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.3% (13)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: First and foremost, I would continue my stringent fight against vandalism. Vandalism in any form is Wikipedia's number one threat, whether it be juvenile or organized. In the process of fighting vandalism, I would seek to wikify every page I come across. I am a stickler for proper grammar and I also believe in putting articles into their proper contexts. --Zpb52 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Two articles that I worked hard to create and maintain are Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center and Nashville Star. I have done extensive research on these articles, and continue to do so. I pay close attention to detail, including the placement of paragraphs and the placement of information within paragraphs. Though I need to utilize the preview button more (I'm trying!), I believe these articles show that I know how to write and maintain a Wikipedia article. --Zpb52 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I was involved, for a very short while, in the ongoing childish dispute between User:Chadbryant and the suspected sockpuppets of User:DickWitham. The dispute was mostly content-related, and I attempted to remain neutral and invoke the 3RR rule for users who continued to revert articles to support their POV statements. This resulted in my getting attacked from both sides of the dispute. I also had a content dispute with User:Mtstroud over the sign-on date of a television station (WZTV). I found a site elsewhere on the web that confirmed my edit, and I showed that site to User:Mtstroud and the third party involved, ending the dispute.--Zpb52 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional)
You are RcPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by TawkerBot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version has a note from the anon saying the article needs to be removed as a “cut and paste job from another site.” What do you do? :) Dlohcierekim 05:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would restore the page and add a copyvio template to it. --Zpb52 05:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far, so good. Follow up question from User:Dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional) When you hit save, you get an “Edit Conflict’” message. In comparing the two versions , you find the anon has again blanked the page. On the talk page you find a note again asserting that the decision to delete was the correct one. Anon goes on to express anger and perplexity over being reverted, “by a ROBOT!” The note closes with the statement, “IF THIS IS WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT, I’M OUTTA HERE.!” (sic) How do you respond? Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I restore the page and put a blank3 warning on the anon's user talk page. --Zpb52 16:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for answering this way. I agree with the concerns expressed above. I did not fully understand the question...I didn't get the feeling that the anonymous editor was "doing the right thing" by deleting copyvio. (Seriously, how many anonymous editors would do such a thing?) I wouldn't bite him, and I would be more civil in dealing with it. This hypothetical is one of those cases where it would be hard to determine what would happen...it would take a "real world" experience to fully understand and react to the situation. --Zpb52 03:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  :) Dlohcierekim 19:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Zpb52&oldid=1089730040"