92.62.1.5 (talk) |
Kirill Lokshin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
''Editors restricted from participating in certain discussions as a result of this case may apply to have those restrictions temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Proposed_decision#Suspension_of_restrictions] |
''Editors restricted from participating in certain discussions as a result of this case may apply to have those restrictions temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Proposed_decision#Suspension_of_restrictions] |
||
</blockquote> Since the primary function of these guidelines is to specify the allowed exceptions for J&S from the established principle in [[WP:NCGN]] about using the most widely recognized toponym, it's extremely important that the neutral-terminology side isn't excluded from the discussions at this late stage. By adding that clause, the ArbCom has shown a similar concern. I hereby humbly request permission to continue with that work. I also hope the courtesy will be shown to refrain from substantially changing the text of the proposed guidelines from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration&oldid=287650888#Draft_guidelines:_editable_version current version] until this request has been considered. [[User:MeteorMaker|MeteorMaker]] ([[User talk:MeteorMaker|talk]]) 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
</blockquote> Since the primary function of these guidelines is to specify the allowed exceptions for J&S from the established principle in [[WP:NCGN]] about using the most widely recognized toponym, it's extremely important that the neutral-terminology side isn't excluded from the discussions at this late stage. By adding that clause, the ArbCom has shown a similar concern. I hereby humbly request permission to continue with that work. I also hope the courtesy will be shown to refrain from substantially changing the text of the proposed guidelines from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration&oldid=287650888#Draft_guidelines:_editable_version current version] until this request has been considered. [[User:MeteorMaker|MeteorMaker]] ([[User talk:MeteorMaker|talk]]) 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:As a procedural matter, we won't be formally considering any applications until the restrictions which would make them relevant actually pass; but we'll proceed with your application once that occurs. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]] [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[pf]]]</sup> 13:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Linking common sense == |
== Linking common sense == |
Revision as of 13:38, 4 May 2009
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .
Unjustified remedies against Nickhh and Pedrito
The remedies against Nickhh (talk · contribs) and Pedrito (talk · contribs) are grossly unjustified when read together with the proposed findings. I cannot understand what has motivated the drafting arb to be so indifferent. If an editor has engaged in sustained or repeated edit-warring, without any other evidence of misbehaviour or problem editing that can amount to a finding, then a partial or full topic ban is not the way to go - particularly when that's what is being imposed on users who have findings that include links of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, editwarring, using Wiki as a battleground, incivility, etc. etc. Please make the necessary adjustments, either by adding extra links/diffs, proposing extra findings, or proposing remedies that are less restrictive on these users. Personally, I don't believe a finding nor remedy are necessary if that's all there is on these 2 - the community seems to be dealing with the behaviour in blocks of escalating duration, and there is no need for anything more. If I have somehow managed to miss something, please explain what it is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- As pointed out in the principles, edit-warring is not acceptable; everyone who edit-warred here has contributed to dragging out this dispute for months. The point of the remedies is to resolve the dispute (which they will, if only by making sure that none of the parties are capable of continuing it further), not to draw some scale of relative seriousness among different policy violations. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it's not acceptable - do you believe that in making this thread that I am advocating that it is? This community has always ensured that wherever possible, there will be no inequitable remedies, and this I'm afraid gives all appearances of going against that. Making different policy violations requires a more sweeping remedy to address all of it as a bundle and resolve the behavioural issues; obviously, merely engaging in one policy violation deserves a remedy that addresses just that behaviour, rather than a presumption of bad faith that the behaviour will extend to other policy violations whereby they should be banned from the area. Now I know there's 4 users where you've proposed a finding of edit-warring; I find insufficient evidence to suggest that these 2 will engage in further problematic behaviour outside of edit-warring, if at all. And then looking at how long ago some of these 'policy violations' have occurred is even more troubling and suggests we have members on the Committee advocating punitive sanctions, which is even worse than the behaviour itself because it goes against the spirit of wiki. So...this is a request for you to propose a remedy to that effect, or to provide the Fofs with more evidence (maybe there's some edit-summaries or comments I'm unaware of) - if you don't have any though, then there's something seriously wrong. How many more cases do we need to go through (let alone tolerate) before we establish the fact that some of the proposed decision making here is atrocious? I would've thought that 'none' would be the ideal answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- No edit warring has taken place since mid-February, and the main focus has consistently been on talk page discussions. There is one reason that the dispute has dragged out for months, and that is the stonewalling of what is by now in all likelihood the best-supported fact in Wikipedia history: that "Judea" and "Samaria" is non-standard, partisan terminology. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see no mention of IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the findings. The proposed decision does not suggest that IDIDNTHEARTHAT, stonewalling, disregard for content policies or guidelines and similar talkpage conduct were significant factors here. Kanguole 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, regardless of the fact that my username has been invoked here, I find this situation very disturbing. We had a dispute over some content/terminology across several articles, which about five different editors saw as a very real problem about WP:NPOV, WP:NCGN, nationalism on wikipedia etc rather than any real content dispute as such. As a result of that there was some limited edit warring and reams of talk page debate. That dispute was brought to ArbCom by one of those editors (User:Pedrito as it happens), in good faith, noting there was a problem and looking for some sort of resolution. At that point the edit wars were pretty much put on hold - by all those involved, mostly - and efforts were also made to come to some sort of collective agreement at WP:IPCOLL and elsewhere about the underlying dispute. Now while ArbCom will not rule directly on content, I did - perhaps naively - assume that there might be some genuine evaluation of what had been going on, and also some attempt to take a constructive approach to the problem, albeit with warnings about past conduct and the threat of future sanctions where necessary. From my point of view that would have involved some fairly harsh judgements about the stonewalling and policy-gaming being undertaken by some editors in favour of what is fairly obviously a minority/partisan terminology, of the sort that would see - and has seen - pretty swift action in any other context on wikipedia; as well as on baseless accusations of ethnic discrimination and anti-semitism. Failing that, at the least, as I say, some forward looking thinking, more concerned with how to resolve problems with content rather than punishing editors en masse, whichever "side" of a dispute they fell on. That would seem to be more important, surely, to those actually concerned with how this place functions as a repository of information.
- Instead we got a whole load of fairly draconian and blanket proposals on the workshop page, focused solely on allegedly egregious edit warring (seemingly based on little more than a glance at block logs) and suggesting pretty much sweeping topic bans for anyone who had been involved in the dispute, even those whose involvement was relatively limited, and regardless of the underlying issues which had been raised in evidence. Pretty much every one of those proposals, regardless of who they referred to, was met on that page with multiple "opposes" by uninvolved editors and by editors involved on the other "side" of the debate. Yet those proposals pretty much seem to have been cut and pasted here and appear to be heading for unanimous approval by arbitrators. Now forgive me, but who appointed or elected this tribunal to have such domineering executive and judicial powers, which can be exercised against the clear consensus of those other members of the community here who have commented? Why is this being done without any apparent attempt to analyse the problem brought before them, or any attempt to explain the reasoning behind their decisions? Are we talking about a situation where pages are being vandalised and wrecked as they appear to the average reader, which situation will continue without such drastic action? As noted elsewhere this kind of ruling will only deter the more casual and disinterested editors from entering controversial areas and hopefully being able to offer something approaching an outside and objective viewpoint - if you're just going to end up being treated as a troublemaker, undifferentiated from the most involved and extremist partisan, why bother? As I have said elsewhere, I would not miss being bounced out of I-P articles, but a) that's not the entire point; and b) I do not see why I and others should have to edit on other pages with a black mark hanging over us, or constantly wondering whether someone will leap up to claim that the CNN or The Middle East (nightclub) pages are in fact I-P articles. --Nickhh (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- ps: I might add that the proposed finding that User:MeteorMaker has used WP as an "ethnic battleground", as well as the suggestion above that all that is needed to "resolve the dispute" for the betterment of this encyclopedia is simply to smother the edit warring by blocking everyone, are both, well, a little dispiriting to say the least, and don't do much to inspire confidence in the process at work here.
Counter-productive effects of the proposed ArbCom decision
Problem | Effect on WP | Obvious solution | Contrary effect of proposed ArbCom decision | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1) | Two opposing terminologies exist, one universally regarded as neutral and standard, the other widely regarded as partisan and non-standard in English. | Articles contain terminology that is non-standardized (both across articles and globally), which confuses the reader and additionally creates the appearance that WP has taken sides in the conflict. | Create a placenames guidelines document that regulates the terminology. | The existing effort to create such a document has been hampered and possibly halted by banning the most well informed editors. |
2) | A coterie of editors stonewalls inclusion of singularly well-sourced information where sources show complete consensus. | At best, articles don't reflect facts that are in all other encyclopedias. At worst, factually incorrect and partisan information finds its way into the project instead. | Reprimands for willful disruption. | No mention at all is made of the problem (despite it being the centerpiece of the original case request), which allows this disruptive editing practice to be perpetuated by non-banned members of the coterie. |
3) | Certain editors show disregard for policies and guidelines, which is well-documented and has been going on for years. | Endless edit wars with other editors, which robs everybody of time and wears out policy-abiding editors. | Reprimands for willful disruption. | By banning the editors that stand up for policy, the ArbCom has created a situation where few will dare to report violations. |
4) | The project lacks editors with a scholarly approach. | Junk sources are used to support dubious claims, often for ideological reasons. In other cases, sources are cited that don't support the claims made at all. | Encourage editors who have demonstrated good sourcing practice. | One of the most knowledgeable editors the project has ever had in the I/P field is indef- |
5) | No framework exists for dealing with disruptions that cannot be expressed as simple diffs and don't fit into a small number of narrow categories. | A culture exists where certain editors routinely take advantage of this legal lacuna to edit against the spirit of the policies with impunity. | Create a precedent that leaves a forceful message that context will be considered and common sense applied in this and future ArbCom cases. | Several editors have been indef- |
MeteorMaker (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is no proposal to have Nishidani indefinitely-blocked. Nishidani can use those attributes you speak of outside this area of the project, and they will be able to return to this topical area in due course. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Terminology slip-up, my bad. "Block" changed to "topic ban" above, point still stands, since the I/P area is one of Nishidani's main areas of expertise and one in dire need of editors who hold source evaluation in high regard. The terms for lifting the restrictions are significantly more vague than in the original proposal, is that intentional? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Wording
I wonder whether my comment about the wording "stripped of" wasn't noticed. I believe it's of considerable importance in a situation such as this to avoid wording which can be interpreted as having negative connotations. There are other ways to say it, e.g. "the privileges are removed". It's a matter of considering the feelings of the person concerned. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the wording is intended to be negative—it's a serious sanction, after all, not a commendation. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, the wording seems intended to embarrass, humiliate and disgrace the subject. Regardless of the actual intention, that is how it seems, and that is how it is going to be perceived by many. And, as a number of people have pointed out, much of what is being thrown at Jay here has nothing to do with this case. I think that if this passes (regardless of the specific wording), many will conclude that "wikipolitics" has infected the arbitration process. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Many"? ... Maybe. But I think many more will conclude that the 2009 ArbCom is trying to lessen the effect of previous wikipolitics by removing one of the practitioners who brought the project into serious disrepute. I acknowledge in advance your disagreement, since you're part of the cadre of participants who continue to insist that Jayjg is a hero who has never done anything worthy of sanction. But most people, I suspect, see through that charade. Many of them, I suspect, won't say so as they are scared to actually speak out, having seen how vindictive some wikipartisans can be, but that doesn't mean there isn't a silent majority here that disagrees with you. I should start an anonymous survey or something. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kirill, for stating so clearly that your "remedies" are sublimated expressions of malice.67.170.86.62 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, the wording seems intended to embarrass, humiliate and disgrace the subject. Regardless of the actual intention, that is how it seems, and that is how it is going to be perceived by many. And, as a number of people have pointed out, much of what is being thrown at Jay here has nothing to do with this case. I think that if this passes (regardless of the specific wording), many will conclude that "wikipolitics" has infected the arbitration process. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- What most people will see is one functionary (Lar) proudly acknowledging off-wiki canvassing, expressly admitting that his motivation for Jayjg to be stripped of privileges is so that his wiki-battles will become easier, and gloating about it in Wikipedia Review - and getting away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist. If THAT does not bring the project into disrepute, nothing will. NoCal100 (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- {{Citation needed}} Because that's about the biggest distortion of reality I've seen in quiiiiite some time. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- per your request: [1] NoCal100 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that was a statement by me. You got that part right, anyway. None of the rest followed, though. But as Tznkai said, this is the wrong place for your campaign. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seemed like the right place for your campaign when you started it, didn't it? Do you deny that you acknowledge off-wiki canvassing in that reference? NoCal100 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I asked a number of people I trusted and respected at the time to go take a look at an RfA, read it, and make up their own mind, yes. That was in December 2007. Oddly, no one at that time replied that they felt there was any issue. Now, 16 months later with nary an intervening mention, one of the people I sent that note to decided to leak it to that anon. Wikipolitics. I agree with JoshuaZ when he says the rules on canvassing are inconsistent and need review. ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, we're making progress - you don't seem to deny that the reference I provided has you acknowledging off-wiki canvassing. So when you sad 'None of the rest followed', were you absentminded? forgetful? Deliberately misleading? And how is your asking a number of people you trust to go and vote the way you want on an RfA any different from Jayjg asking a number of people he trusts to go and edit the way he wants on an article? That, too, was a long time ago, and not relevant to this case. Yet for some reason, you're walking away scot-free. How do you explain that? NoCal100 (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I asked a number of people I trusted and respected at the time to go take a look at an RfA, read it, and make up their own mind, yes. That was in December 2007. Oddly, no one at that time replied that they felt there was any issue. Now, 16 months later with nary an intervening mention, one of the people I sent that note to decided to leak it to that anon. Wikipolitics. I agree with JoshuaZ when he says the rules on canvassing are inconsistent and need review. ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seemed like the right place for your campaign when you started it, didn't it? Do you deny that you acknowledge off-wiki canvassing in that reference? NoCal100 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that was a statement by me. You got that part right, anyway. None of the rest followed, though. But as Tznkai said, this is the wrong place for your campaign. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- per your request: [1] NoCal100 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- {{Citation needed}} Because that's about the biggest distortion of reality I've seen in quiiiiite some time. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- What most people will see is one functionary (Lar) proudly acknowledging off-wiki canvassing, expressly admitting that his motivation for Jayjg to be stripped of privileges is so that his wiki-battles will become easier, and gloating about it in Wikipedia Review - and getting away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist. If THAT does not bring the project into disrepute, nothing will. NoCal100 (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're confused, dear anon. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Topic ban wording
I've got some experience with enforcing topic bans, so let me give you some free advice.
- Topic bans should be bans on the topic, and should be spelled out as such: Articles on the topic, articles having substantially to do with the topic, policy pages having to do with the topic, edits that are about topic even outside of topic-banned pages , and talk pages of all of those pages.
- If you want to make an exception for article talk pages, make that a specific exception.
- Define the topic broadly. Its better to cover some ancillary articles than miss any. In addition, write out specifics before you write "broadly interpreted", "Articles having to do with Arab/Israeli conflict relations, history of any of the involved parties, activism relating the conflict, geographic, border, land, identity disputes and any and all other topics substantially related to the Arab/Israeli conflict"
- Topic bans have the unfortunate tendency of pushing banned writers to the fringe of the topic, where they are editing articles with lower visibility. Expect edits on Arab/Israeli activists, fictional characters, politicians who've taken money from particular lobby, obscure historical articles if they are not topic banned. No matter how broad the topic ban, articles that have some sort of ancillary relation will be targeted, often as some sort of taunting measure. This is part of the importance of keeping the topic broad, and to all edits, not articles.
- This is inviting a free for all at AE. Do you have any administrators lined up to help out? A go-to Arbitrator who can clarify the committee's intent? A list of administrators who 'shouldn't be involved?
- Keep your eye on the prize. The idea is to normalize the editing environment and keep these editors out of that area, but within Wikipedia. Be ready to come to their defense if they're being gamed, and be ready to back up administrators when the banned editors screw up.
--Tznkai (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would add to that, if this passes, get ready for some extra stress on the checkuser process... and for a general decrease in "trust" (in an area where trust is already difficult to come by), because checkuser cannot always produce a solid conclusion. If such a large number of active editors are banned from this large topic area, I predict that every "new" editor who shows up in this area will be suspected, by someone, of being a sockpuppet of one of the banned users. And quite possibly, some will be, but most won't be. It won't matter. The opportunities for neo-McCarthyist hysteria on Wikipedia are mind-boggling. People will be seeing sockpuppets under every bed and around every corner. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The way I see it is, that these socks won't have allies and long edit histories to hide behind. So the second they disrupt wikipedia, they can just be immediately banned for being disruptive (and whether they actually are socks or not is secondary). This will allow existing experts, such as the folks at WP:IPCOLL, as well as uninvolved editors to edit in a more relaxed environment. --ScWizard (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, but you might not be aware that one of those experts has countered the the massive evidence against his position with an ArbCom case proposal that "there is no point in checking sources" and the fact that it violates multiple policies with a proposal that we shouldn't be "sticking to rules and procedures". What I'm afraid will happen now, in the absence of editors in favor of neutral terminology and familiar with the subject, is that the partisan-terminology side sweeps the evidence under the carpet and hijacks the guidelines draft work. This has become a black farce. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding me. When I said "the experts at WP:IPCOLL" what I meant was the many people at the project who aren't parties to this case. I was under the impression that none of the collaborators were parties to this case, but apparently I was wrong.
- What I'm trying to say, is that there are many editors who are "experts" in this subject. And topic banning everyone who's that they've proposed to topic ban won't "drain the topic of talent" to such a terrible extent. Also there are many many editors who are in favor of "west bank" who aren't parties to this case. You and the few others with that opinion mentioned in this case getting topic banned won't seal a victory for the people on the other side of the content dispute. Instead it will allow the community to come to a consensus. --ScWizard (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, suffice it to say that I've lost a few illusions during this case, and I think you're in for a somewhat unpleasant surprise too if you actually believe that. If any neutral-terminology-favoring and policy-compliant editor feels encouraged to step forward and continue the work after seeing what happened to us five, I'll eat my wiki-hat. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, MeteorMaker, you are one of the few people involved in this case who should be banned. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- That opinion, fortunately, seems to be peculiar to 6SJ7. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, MeteorMaker, you are one of the few people involved in this case who should be banned. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, suffice it to say that I've lost a few illusions during this case, and I think you're in for a somewhat unpleasant surprise too if you actually believe that. If any neutral-terminology-favoring and policy-compliant editor feels encouraged to step forward and continue the work after seeing what happened to us five, I'll eat my wiki-hat. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding me. When I said "the experts at WP:IPCOLL" what I meant was the many people at the project who aren't parties to this case. I was under the impression that none of the collaborators were parties to this case, but apparently I was wrong.
- I understand your concern, but you might not be aware that one of those experts has countered the the massive evidence against his position with an ArbCom case proposal that "there is no point in checking sources" and the fact that it violates multiple policies with a proposal that we shouldn't be "sticking to rules and procedures". What I'm afraid will happen now, in the absence of editors in favor of neutral terminology and familiar with the subject, is that the partisan-terminology side sweeps the evidence under the carpet and hijacks the guidelines draft work. This has become a black farce. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The way I see it is, that these socks won't have allies and long edit histories to hide behind. So the second they disrupt wikipedia, they can just be immediately banned for being disruptive (and whether they actually are socks or not is secondary). This will allow existing experts, such as the folks at WP:IPCOLL, as well as uninvolved editors to edit in a more relaxed environment. --ScWizard (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines work
As Kirill promised when I voiced my concern that this proposed decision might have the effect that the guidelines draft work will be left entirely without topic-savvy editors in favor of keeping the terminology neutral, a clause has been added that addresses this problem:
Editors restricted from participating in certain discussions as a result of this case may apply to have those restrictions temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area. [2]
Since the primary function of these guidelines is to specify the allowed exceptions for J&S from the established principle in WP:NCGN about using the most widely recognized toponym, it's extremely important that the neutral-terminology side isn't excluded from the discussions at this late stage. By adding that clause, the ArbCom has shown a similar concern. I hereby humbly request permission to continue with that work. I also hope the courtesy will be shown to refrain from substantially changing the text of the proposed guidelines from the current version until this request has been considered. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- As a procedural matter, we won't be formally considering any applications until the restrictions which would make them relevant actually pass; but we'll proceed with your application once that occurs. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Linking common sense
I know not if we may, or should, make a minor edit, since the arbs are now signing. However, my view is that Proposed Principle Five is insufficiently informative and credible, without the a link where it leads; almost incredible, actually. I understand currently that ‘common sense’ is neither policy nor guideline, but it is where the decision points, and that point exists; without the link, it does not officially say so. The decision is forward-looking, people need the link to see that this undefinable exists. Comments? I can vet a recent good example, should anyone be interested. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Common sense tells us that resolution of this case was delayed a month by filibustering in order that enough "persuasion" could be brought bear on the adjudicators. Nothing else explains the the result achieved here, with the language of an extreme and condemned minority become main-stream in this place. congratulations all. 92.62.1.5 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)