Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) at 10:33, 12 July 2015 (→‎Abuse of COIN: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: decline as filed, two sets of editor issues need to go to ANI though). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Abuse of COIN   12 July 2015 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Abuse of COIN

Initiated by Atsme📞📧 at 01:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Atsme

I respectfully request an extension of the allowed word count as the information demonstrates behavioral patterns, sharp contrasts and double standards in advocacy editing, breaches of privacy, abuse of COIN, and cabal-like behavior.

Jytdog prepared and presented a case against me at COIN that was not only handled improperly, it was punitive. He conducted an intense investigation, probing deep into my RL off-wiki, and equally as deep on WP to uncover a discussion at ELN in 2011. I was still a newbie and trustingly disclosed my affiliation with Earthwave Society; a volunteer position as exec dir of a small educational nonprofit consisting of nothing but volunteers. I was also a founder of the organization with help from a group of biologists back in the 90s. I was unaware that my disclosure could possibly cause me harm until a more experienced editor advised me, suggesting that I contact the OS team to have it removed which I did. I'm not implying my disclosure was wrong rather that I should have handled it differently.

March 30, 2014 Came back after a 2 year hiatus and announced retirement. I discovered more RW info on WP. Someguy1221 and ronhjones removed it. I thought it was gone but as this case demonstrates, it was not. The mistakes I made as a newbie in 2011 are my own but I did not deserve what happened to me at COIN or what arose at Gabor B. Racz and David Gorski as a result.

  • Personal FB site Jytdog posted a link to a FB page in my suite of personal pages, but the ELs in question were linked to the official site for Earthwave Society. I have since removed the FB page because of RW exposure at COIN.
  • Jytdog had the declaration from 2011 and the notice of my retirement on my user page. A simple email from him or brief post on my TP would have sufficed if he had questions.

The evidence will demonstrate an agenda of ill-will behind Jytdog's actions. I asked him to remove the personal info but he refused. I attempted it myself but was reverted by User:Kevmin and User:Ca2james, July 5, 2015, July 5, 2015 and July 6, 2015, the latter two tags still remain despite other editors replacing the cited material and ELs. I contacted the OS team for help regarding my RW information. Risker was the OS admin on my id case and also closed the COIN case.

I'm of clear mind regarding my contributions to the handful of fish articles presented in the case at COIN. The edits were made after my retirement in 2014 and are compliant with WP:PAG.

  • Jytdog wrongfully listed Ambush predators which I never edited;
  • He also listed Gabor B. Racz based on my FB blog and probed deep into my personal information and domain registrations trying to find a link between me, Racz and Earthwave.

Arising from the COIN case in a patterned cabal-like fashion, a group of proj med editors (the majority of whom I've had prior disagreements) descended on the Racz BLP in a flurry, nominated it for reassessment, took control of it and reduced its readable prose by at least 1/3 to fit their POV and writing style, all without consensus. In contrast is the WP:OWN cabal-like behavior at David Gorski regarding NPOV and a SOAPBOX for skepticism. Diffs will example double standard and advocacy.

  • July 7, 2015 Alexbrn's edit summary stated, ...the lurking suspicion of a COI taint, and - with a flurry of recent edits - the article is now unstable. Couldn't be a clearer case for de-listing, really.
  • July 11, 2015, July 11, 2015 The irony of Alexbrn having COI issues of his own that were never declared..
  • July 7, 2015 Reviewer, Cwmhiraeth, stood by original GA assessment.
  • July 9, 2015 Jytdog's link to create more suspicion.
  • July 6, 2015 DGG's edits to Racz were riddled with errors.
  • July 10, 2015 Harsh unwarranted criticism by DGG
  • July 11, 2015 a sharp contrast of DGG's position and lack of editing to resolve advocacy issues that consume the BLP.
  • July 7, 2015, July 7, 2015 Jytdog added recruiting tag and wrongfully accused me of canvassing.
  • July 11, 2015 IP tag-teaming "second times a charm".
COIN being used for bullying and an excuse to probe
  • July 6, 2015 Casting aspersions - evidence of probing into GoDaddy domain registration.
  • July 6, 2015 Trying to satisfy doubts, I requested an update to the EWS website to reflect emeritus status.
  • July 8, 2015 At first, I only suspected Jytdog's motives were punitive or retaliatory. Emails will confirm. I asked if he would release them to be presented here.
  • July 7, 2015 An uninvolved editor also recognized case was mishandled and punitive.
The COIN close
  • July 5, 2015 First close by Risker, a true representation of the situation.
  • July 5, 2015 Updated close dismissing my retirement, believing I misrepresented involvement.
  • July 6, 2015 I asked Risker to reconsider.
  • July 6, 2015 The depth of Jytdog's probing into my personal life.
  • July 6, 2015 Risker told Jytdog that "he is not, under any circumstances, entitled to this level of personal information about anybody on Wikipedia, COI or not."
Jytdog's enjoyment of impunity as a volunteer at COIN

Our PAGs do not support infinite tethering to a disclosure or declaration of a volunteer position in an all-volunteer organization, emeritus status, or any other past affiliations. If I'm mistaken then it should apply across the board including experts, professionals, grant funded academia, advocates of causes, etc..

  1. Jytdog made a "self-declaration" as a biotech but did not name his affiliations or employer(s). User:Jytdog#Self-initiated_COI_Investigation
  2. He denies a COI or advocacy; the majority of his edits are highly controversial and include issues relating to human health.
  3. His comments off-wiki confirm his advocacy and possible COI in academia. The articles he edits reflect same and have raised numerous questions by others.
  • dated 2011 Jytdog: I support BIO’s advocacy and education efforts and believe they are important;
  • [1] jytdog says: May 28, 2013 at 2:42 am Thanks for responding Madelaine. I work in academia, and I find it laughable that people think academic scientists are somehow free of conflict. Academic science is pretty darn cut-throat – you live and die by getting grants awarded, and you get grants awarded if you are able to publish work based on your prior grant, and the more “relevant” you can make it, the better. I have seen paper after paper on good basic science strain to push its conclusions to find some direct tie to health. I have seen poor paper after poor paper too, do the same thing.

I ask that the ARBCOM give this case request careful consideration as it will further reveal important advocacy issues and the very disconcerting cabal-like behavior that GF editors are being subjected to, such as the intense probe into my personal life. PAGs that were designed to resolve disputes are being used abused to further support the goals of advocacies by ridding WP of all opposition...one editor at a time.

Response to Beyond My Ken

Perhaps I misunderstood the clerks. I thought I was supposed to name all whose names are mentioned in the case. Not just those who presented an issue. Atsme📞📧 03:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DGG

I struck the proj med reference. No, DGG, it wasn't about me not accepting criticism. Doc James made a list of things that were helpful, I addressed them. It was about you removing passages from a GA, and adding nonsensical mistakes, such as: "the Racz procedure for the treatment for lysis of adhesions from around entrapped nerves " Excuse me, but as I explained on the TP, lysis of adhesions is the treatment. You also removed the reason Racz fled Hungary while you were deleting big chunks of information without consensus. It was far from being an improvement of an already reviewed GA. I was aBanned for a week at Kombucha for a series of 2 reverts made a week apart. It's about double standards, cabal-like behavior, POV pushing and advocacies that are supported by groups of editors. You used to be a biotech at one time, didn't you? Atsme📞📧 06:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Capitalismojo

There was no copyvio. The fact that it appears to be a primary focus, I sent an email to the address listed for the author of the CV and the cited bio at the WIP to confirm public domain use. It's the weekend so I doubt I'll hear anything for at least a couple of days. Our PAGs suggest such a procedure anyway if there's doubt. There is fair use, and there are lists of credentials which is where the claimed copyvio is supposed to exist. Listing a person's credentials is not a copyvio. Atsme📞📧 07:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Andy The Grump

There has not been one instance I can recall in my interactions with ATG that he didn't revert my edits and discourage my participation. I'll just sum it up with his most recent reverts of a passage I added to improve an essay I created and co-authored: June 28, 2015, June 28, 2015 The end result was that I stopped editing the essay and AndyTheGrump got his way. Atsme📞📧 05:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Beyond My Ken

Atsme: Do I understand you correctly to be claiming that Jytdog, Alexbrn, Ca2james, Kevmin, Cwmhiraeth, Serialjoepsycho, Risker, Doc James, DGG, Someguy1221, and Ronhjones have formed a "cabal" (your word) to mistreat you, and that you have done nothing untoward whatsoever? BMK (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Non-party Capitalismojo

I've been watching this unfold over a variety of pages. The OP seems to have difficulty with WP:HEAR and understanding explanations of WP:COI. A series of experienced editors and admins including Doc James and DGG have been trying to advise and guide this editor on the COI issue/ puffery issues/ COPYVIO issues. [2] [3] [4] I think they have been remarkably gentle in correcting the OP's improper edits. She has taken this effort as a cabal out for revenge. She particulary has been unable to grasp that there is no outing when she has posted (and re-posted, and re-posted above) her own position as executive director of the Earthwave Society. I'd suggest rather than an ARBCOM case that a strong mentor be connected with the editor, preferably someone who can explain COI. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved AndyTheGrump

As has frequently been noted (see for example the arbitrators' opinions closing the Zeitgeist arbitration request above), the purpose of ArbCom is to resolve issues that the community has failed to resolve elsewhere. As far as I can see, the COIN discussion closed more of less in Atsme's favour, stating (correctly in my opinion) that there was no real COI issue involved, that we don't retrospectively apply a 2014 policy to 2011 edits, and that the appropriate course of action is to assess the Earthwave material by normal external links standards. Neither Atsme's claims of a 'cabal' acting against her in regard to the Racz biography, of other contributors violating COI policy, or anything else mentioned in her statement seem to have been discussed at ANI, or at any other form of dispute resolution. Accordingly, since the community has not had a chance to resolve the issues - or even had them brought to their collective attention - it would seem premature for ArbCom to take the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I describe myself as 'uninvolved', in that I've not been involved in the specific disputes Atsme describes in her submission. If this case is to be expanded per Jytdog to include the multiple other instances where Atsme has been in dispute with one person or another, I'm clearly 'involved' - though there would seem to be even weaker grounds for expanding this case to include such disputes here than there is for accepting Atsme's initial submission. If there is a general problem with Atsme's behaviour (I'll not offer an opinion, given my past disputes with her), it should be put to the community to resolve first - and only if the community can't do so should ArbCom become involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And a response to Atsme's comment on me:
I was not included in the initial submission, and frankly I fail to see what the dispute we had regarding the essay has got to do with any of it. And it is a matter of record that I repeatedly suggested that if she had a problem with my edits there, she should raise the matter at ANI. [5] That she chooses to raise the matter now, in an ArbCom submission on another subject entirely, may well support the general impression of a battlefield mentality - and if she wants do discuss the matter here, I will of course ask her to provide evidence for the claims she made at User talk:BDD, where she asserted that I had been "harassing/hounding/stalking" her, and that I was "exhibiting WP:OWN on the essay". Given that the statements are clearly untrue, I have little expectation that such evidence would be forthcoming. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

With regard to any COI I might have, I voluntarily disclosed my RW identity to an oversighter as described here. I'll disclose again to anyone at Arbcom if desired.

  • The COIN case about Atsme was closed with a finding of COI by Risker here. Atsme disclosed her relationship with Earthwave here in WP. The COIN filing was legit and her editing when she came back in 2014 was promotional for Earthwave by making their website the most-cited source in 2 of the animal articles she edited and adding ELs to it, despite a finding of no consensus to use it even for ELs in 2011. Atsme refers to the Facebook page of Earthwave as her "personal FBsite" above. As the founder and Executive Director of Earthwave, that small organization is indeed "hers". Her resistance to accepting her COI (which in the big picture of WP has only affected a few articles) and being this combative about it, is a snapshot of her attitude in WP. Never wrong, and fights like mad.
  • I suggest that Arbcom consider not accepting this case, but instead close it with a significant block for Atsme, as a disruptive editor who is unwilling to accept community WP:CONSENSUS. This is not happy, but that seems to be where we are.
  • I first encountered Atsme at the G. Edward Griffin article where she disrupted that article from her first edits in Dec 2014 until she finally gave up in March 2015, making 370 edits on Talk per her contribs to that article's Talk page, which included bringing sources like naturalnews to play up benefits and downplay risks of a FRINGE medical treatment, amygdalin. Walls of text making strong claims like this +4,967. Issues were raised at BLPN here and here, the Fringe Noticeboard twice here and here, and RSN here (you can see the kind of sources she brought) At none of which, did her views find support.
    • When she entered that article, I tried to warn her to take it easy here and here to no avail.
  • The next drama was her "COI ducks" essay, which the community found so wrong that it was snow-deleted here - it cast community consensus as conspiracy.
  • AndyTheGrump the close was correct in finding a COI, but incorrect in saying that the conflicted edits occurred in 2011. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Risker - we are just pulling up the edges of the COI editing that has gone on in the Westfield mall cases - see here. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

With respect to my edits: For the first, July 6, 2015, just what are the errors? I probably did make some typos--I often do. For the 2nd [6] and 3rd, [7] I stand by what I said. I am not surprised to be included here, for I do not automatically support Atsme everywhere, though I have supported her when I think she is right, as I did for some of the material challenged at the Gorski article-- in the very comment complained of here.

I am not to the best of my recollection a member of project med, excellent project though it is. Indeed, I have had sufficient disagreements with some of the regular med editors here, that I normally avoid med articles , except for bios and companies, my usual specialties in all fields. For one thing, I take a considerably more open attitude to the inclusion of articles on alt med people and subjects than most of them--but I take the same strict attitude as they do to NPOV in our coverage on those subjects.

As I see it, the principal problem is Atsme's refusal to accept legitimate criticism and to assert article ownership. As she apparently sees it, her approach to an article is always the right one. I leave it to others to decide if there is any realistic process of her changing. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Risker

I am very involved in another matter (ironically, one that involves a real violation of the same section of the Terms of Use) and will also be traveling in the near future, so I do not expect to make a full statement in this matter. However, I do wish to draw to the attention of the Committee this report at ANI involving Jytdog. Many of the articles involved have been present on Wikipedia for several years before there were any COI edits to them, and shopping mall articles are, often as not, considered to meet the GNG. There is a pattern of behaviour here, not simply isolated to this case. Risker (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brief reply to Jytdog

The terms of use are not retroactive. I've looked at a handful of the articles, and in many cases the majority of the article has been rewritten by completely non-conflicted editors. I've just removed a COI tag you put on one of them, alleging that the COI editor was a "major contributor". He made one edit - adding the address of the shopping mall - factual information that is not in conflict. And one edit, which I note still remains in the article, does not justify the addition of a COI tag to the top of the article. This kind of sloppiness has to stop. Risker (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That ANI link is crying out for a permanent link, but I can never find Bishonen's magic links page when I need it. If someone could make that a permalink, I'd appreciate it. Risker (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

 Done: permalinked to the (presently) current revision, Risker. LFaraone 04:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Risker (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I don't really know what to add as I'm not sure there's a real case here. The COIN that was opened against Atsme I found objectionable. It seemed like trying to win a trial on circumstantial evidence. Atsme has control of the Earthwave society facebook account. She used that account to plug her work work on the Racz article. This was used to suggest there was a COI with her and Racz. I can only question the competency of this. While there was a COI it was a minor one and it did not justify the use of the connected contributor template. While Atsme has a minor COI due to her relationship as the founder of Earthwave and the former executive. Her posting external links and using sources from Earthwave are the only actions that lead this to rise to a COI. If it's not been said and it's not already clear, Atsme, in the future you should refrain from this. That's a rather minor COI none the less. Any issues related to it could have been taken care of by taking them to Either WP:RSN or WP:ELN(where applicable). Going to these specifically would've allowed this situation to be handled with out the necessity of publically posting Atsme's private information.

Due to Atsme actually releasing this information publically in 2011 it's not technically outing, but this fact doesn't make it right. Jytdog you should use alot more care in the future and you'll should have stronger evidence. Allow me to make the suggestion that you that you temporarily stop volunteering at COIN and spend some time volunteering at the at the other notice boards so you are more familiar with them in the future. Also perhaps you and Atsme might consider agreeing to an interaction ban.

Atsme, Yes some of the contributors at the GAR have had issues with you in the recent past. That doesn't matter much. The article is GA criteria or not. Unless those participants are actually simply being frivolous in an attempt to have the article delisted there is no actual issue. I can only see one instance of that in the GA. I'll note that one of your supporters is also questionable. While I actively question if it was opened to be vindictive, I do feel you are being dealt a square hand. I had asked that all involved participants refrain from closing the article themselves and they have thus far respected that request.

Atsme I think in the back and forth between you and risker on their talk page they were trying to make the point that your actions betray you. Risker do correct me if I'm wrong. Atsme, I mention this because to the best of my knowledge Capitalismojo is a non-party here and their comments make me think of that same sentiment. Consider that you may need to just walk away from this for a little while and let your batteries recharge. There are other places on wikipedia that these individuals are not currently involved. After you calm down you may bring this article back to GA status or even FA status. My apologies for the long rant ARBCOM Admins.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes atsme sounds paranoid as hell but there's no reason to play it up Alexbrn. WP:GAR offers the following comments in relation to a community GAR: "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." This was opened up during a conduct dispute. Now don't get lost in the wording. The fact that it doesn't say conduct dispute means little. WP:PG discusses the importance of the spirit of the rules. The spirit of this guideline is simple to discern. The language Atsme has chosen (and actually often chooses) is over the top but her conspiracy theory has faint glow of credibility when you look at some of the facts. You'll see that Doc James had taken part in the COIN prior to opening the GAR. And correct me if I'm wrong Doc James but you have previously come face to face with (how do I put this lightly?) Atsme's exuberance before. Alexbrn look at your first contribution to the GAR [8]. Because it's unstable? You were the third person to comment after Doc James and Atsme and your first move was to have it delisted. With the current showing it's hard to believe that the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. It's hard to even pretend to assume good faith. While again I do feel that it was inappropriate to open this GAR I do have to credit Doc James. Doc James has made no frivolous claims imo.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kevmin

Im surprised to see myself listed, as the only interaction I had was to initially restore COI tags to the talkpages of Sturgeon ([9]) Paddlefish ([10]) and Alligator gar ([11]), the three of which happen to be on my watchlist in connection to my editing of them/related taxa to add paleontology information. I did not interact with user:Atsme after except to note on my talk page that the templates should not be removed until resolution was found in the COI case ([12]). I'm not sure how that was transformed into me being a part of cabal, and i will point out that 99.5% or more of my editing is the addition of Paleontology articles and I have never interacted with Atsme before.--Kevmin § 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc James

I work alot on the detection of copyright issues. I believe that not dealing with them exposes our movement to negative press. Ca2james has described the copyright issues that were previously present in the article well here [13]. We need mechanisms that check for copyright issues, especially before articles are promoted to GA/FA as exemplified by this and other cases.

Now the issues have been mostly fixed in this article. What I view as concerning is that statement by Atsme that "it was never copyright infringement"

With respect to Earthwave, Atsme should not be adding links from the site and should not edit content directly pertaining to it. Writing about fish I view as okay as long as they are using sources not related to Earthwave. The fact that Eartwave is used 7 times as a ref here by this user per [14], and is the most frequently used ref here Alligator_gar may require looking into. But not my interest so will leave it to others.

Would also be good for Atsme to make sure no further close paraphrasing has occurred in their other articles. I do not see enough here for an Arbcom case. The COIN has been closed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by alexbrn

Although this is called "abuse of COIN" the COI aspect here seems relatively straightforward: a post was made at COI/N and the case closed with the finding of a (minor) COI on Atsme's part.

The underlying issues are more troubling. Atsme appears to view anything that happens on WP that she doesn't like as a personal attack - as part of some grand conspiracy. With each new editor who enters the fray and doesn't share her views, the conspiracy is seen as growing. The absurd conclusion to this has already been anticipated by Atsme who has declared if arbcom find against her it will merely prove the unworthiness of Wikipedia: "if the unpredictability of ARBCOM gives them a free pass and me a block or ban, then at least I'll know where WP stands and I can move on to bigger and better things".[15] In Atsme's world Atsme is never at fault, it's always the cabal's fault. This conspiracist mindset has manifested itself in myriad disruptions.

Without some prior attempt at resolution by the community (probably at AN/I) this case is premature here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Abuse of COIN: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • obviously, I'm recusing from this. I have made a statement above & I shall give evidence if the case is accepted. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as proposed, and suggest ANI. There is too little in the COIN issue to warrant a case. There is some weight in the editor conduct concerns, but admin noticeboards are a better port of first call. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, certainly as filed I do not see that there is systematic abuse of the COI noticeboard, or anything approaching that, that needs investigating. What we actually have here is two editors, Atsme and Jytdog, who both have (independent but overlapping) issues regarding their editing and behaviour that need looking at individually, but it appears that ANI has not been tried yet so it needs to go there first. Jytdog I strongly suggest stepping away from COI issues until you have taken on board the community's concerns (expressed well by Risker) regarding your editing in the area, if you don't then I would not be surprised to see a topic ban proposed at AN/I. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=671091581"