Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:34, 8 January 2010 view sourceMBisanz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users126,668 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/0/0): tally← Previous edit Revision as of 23:11, 8 January 2010 view source Rlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/1/0/0): aNext edit →
Line 188: Line 188:
*'''Clerk note''' Just a note that we are aware it is at +4 and are coordinating the opening of the case, it should open in a day or two at most. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC) *'''Clerk note''' Just a note that we are aware it is at +4 and are coordinating the opening of the case, it should open in a day or two at most. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/1/0/0) === === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/1/0/0) ===
* '''Accept'''. I normally demand more pursuit of ], as arbitration is the last resort. However, indications that a matter cannot be resolved at the community level are a consideration as well. I am convinced that this matter requires the attention of the Arbitration Committee. I believe the community has had difficulty in parsing the topic and the behavior of involved editors. I also believe that arbitration, reputation of the process considered, would produce significantly less confusion, consternation, and drama overall than kicking this back to the community. I would see the scope as conflicts involving Lubavitcher topics, broadly construed, and the related behavioral issues. There are a number of conduct allegations that need to be examined, sorted out, and provided with a final determination. This is not inclusive of the broader Hasidim topic area, except as Chabad-related issues have been a focal point. Similarly, it is not inclusive of the broader conservative (small "c") Judaism topic area, except as above. ] (]) 16:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC) * '''Accept'''. I normally demand more pursuit of ], as arbitration is the last resort. However, indications that a matter cannot be resolved at the community level are a consideration as well. I am convinced that this matter requires the attention of the Arbitration Committee. I believe the community has had difficulty in parsing the topic and the behavior of involved editors. I also believe that arbitration, reputation of the process considered, would produce significantly less confusion, consternation, and drama overall than kicking this back to the community. I would see the scope as conflicts involving Lubavitcher topics, broadly construed, and the related behavioral issues. There are a number of conduct allegations that need to be examined, sorted out, and provided with a final determination. This is not inclusive of the broader Hasidim topic area, except as Chabad-related issues have been a focal point. Similarly, it is not inclusive of the broader conservative (small "c") Judaism topic area, except as above. ] (]) 16:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' I would have preferred more DR, but there's something we probably need to look at here. ] (]) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC) *'''Accept''' I would have preferred more DR, but there's something we probably need to look at here. ] (]) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Line 198: Line 198:
*'''Accept''', am on the opinion that eventually the behavioural issues will still wind up here anyway if we were to pass through DR. - ] 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC) *'''Accept''', am on the opinion that eventually the behavioural issues will still wind up here anyway if we were to pass through DR. - ] 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' - though noting that this doesn't appear to be a case that will take too long to sort out, a bit of orderly presentation of evidence and findings may help resolve current and subsequent disputes in this area. ] (]) 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC) *'''Accept''' - though noting that this doesn't appear to be a case that will take too long to sort out, a bit of orderly presentation of evidence and findings may help resolve current and subsequent disputes in this area. ] (]) 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' -<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:11, 8 January 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Chabad movement editors   5 January 2010 {{{votes}}}
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Chabad movement editors

Initiated by IZAK (talk) at 07:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that outside commentators on the COI page have been informed
Confirmation that outside admins who have commented have been informed


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Inactive Chabad movement admin
Inactive Chabad movement editors

The following are the many inactive Chabad editors whose editing patterns are continued violating WP:OWN, WP:COI, and frequently WP:NPA albeit more diplomatically and with greater skill, by the four most active Chabad editors cited in this RfA. There are many more that edit under anonymous IP addresses not cited here, based on the edit histories of three key articles: Chabad; Chabad messianism; Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC):

Confirmation that inactive Chabad movement editors have been informed

Statement by IZAK

A serious ongoing discussion about WP:COI violations by pro-Chabad editors remains unresolved in spite of a number of admins intervention, see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Some have already suggested arbitration . Other editors very familiar with Judaic issues on Misplaced Pages have voiced their own independent opinions, 11 so far, namely Users RK (talk · contribs); Joe407 (talk · contribs); Yoninah (talk · contribs); Jmabel (talk · contribs); Redaktor (talk · contribs); Yossiea (talk · contribs); Shuki (talk · contribs); Nsaum75 (talk · contribs) and diplomatic instructions to the pro-Chabad editors from DGG (talk · contribs); Avraham (talk · contribs) and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs).

The issues mainly revolve around the WP:OWN and WP:WAR defenses attitude of 4 pro-Chabad users at this time who expressly edit in a fashion that protects the Chabad movement’s POV and they resort to WP:WAR, WP:NPA and WP:LAWYER to protect their turf in key articles such as Chabad messianism and Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies they fight tooth and nail to keep out and control comments and edits the movement dislikes. The comprehensive complaints against them with diffs, going so far as calling to block them or at least to restrict their aggressive and obstructionist tactics, are at the COI discussion:

  1. User:Yehoishophot Oliver's pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
  2. User:Shlomke’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
  3. User:Zsero’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
  4. User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs

Instead of answering to the complaint the pro-Chabad editors have resorted to multiple violations of WP:NPA and obfuscation, going so far as to open their own frivolous not-to-the point red herring complaints that so far no admins have taken seriously at:

  1. Tendentious editing by User:IZAK
  2. User:IZAK's POV editing, violations of WP policy and diffs

Additional concerns about the direction the pro-Chabad editors are taking are expressed at:

  1. Why Misplaced Pages should NOT become just another Chabad website
  2. IZAK's Warning
  3. A query

The discussions are at a total impasse and the matter has been developing for a number of years, but have now boiled over following a series of AfDs that resulted in the merging or deletion of 5 out of 6 very minor topics concerning Chabad, but the situation over-all has been effecting many members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism and others who do NOT adhere to the official teachings, beliefs and policies of the Chabad ideology, but while not being opposed to it, who wish to edit and write about it in a more open and critical fashion from all points of view befitting an independent encyclopedia without being harrassed.

Therefore the situation is such that arbitration is the only choice, and following that there should be an official policy guideline stated for Chabad-related articles and pro-Chabad editors and users as exists for those about other tightly conformist groups such as applies to articles about Scientology and the LaRouche movement as examples. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah

I will expand on this when I have more time, but as a preliminary statement, I support the arbitration committee examining this case. The dispute has taken up a massive amount of space on COIN and has now spread across to ANI and it seems to be way beyond the ability of the community to address adequately. There is bad behaviour and very blatant NPA and CIVIL violations flying from both sides, very lengthy arguments and bickering which show no sign of ending and requests from admins to cease the incivility and personalising the dispute are ignored or rebuffed (see for example). I don't know if accusations of COI are with merit but I do believe that there is merit in concerns about the behaviour of editors in this subject area and that the community is unable to address the dispute adequately. So I endorse the request that the Committee accept this case to examine the behaviour and input of all parties. Sarah 11:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser

As I have stated in my first response (timewise) to the COI/N thread, I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I have been an adherent of this respected world-wide religious movement in Hasidic Judaism for approximately 19 years. Everybody has many POV's, and I am not an exception. Nevertheless I try, and I think with success, to refrain from making POV edits when editing on Misplaced Pages. I can show edits that clearly prove I am doing a very good job at that. Without claiming to be flawless, I think my edits are generally of acceptable-good quality. Including in the cases mentioned in/alluded to in the COI/N thread. Obviously, as any Wikipedian editor in good standing, I would have no problem with a third-party assessment of my behavior in this issue (or any other issue connected with my behavior on Misplaced Pages).

At the same time I think that any and all accusations of WP:COI and "conspiracies" are void. Such accusation may stem from insufficient understanding of the workings of this organisation (if it even may be called such). I also think that User:IZAK has been motivated largely by his own POV on Chabad-related issues, both in his recent posts on talk pages and noticeboards, as well as in his own edits regarding Judaism-related articles. In addition, his posts related to this issue have been quite belligerent in tone, which has been an additional reason for me to doubt his objective assessment of those issues.

I can not answer for the other editors being accused, whom I do not know in real-life. As to myself I can only say that I was not in need of a reminder of our POV guidelines. In conclusion, as I stated in this edit to the COI/N thread, I think that a general reminder of our POV guidelines to all five involved editors would be enough to consider this issue properly dealt with at this stage. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Comparing Chabad to Scientology is neither helpful nor accurate. Nevertheless, if adherents to certain religious beliefs dominate any articles about those beliefs to prevent any scholarly criticism from being added, that's a problem. On the other hand, if skeptics add non-scholarly criticism, that's also a problem. If editors cannot agree to work together collegially, then ArbCom should take the case. The community is poorly equiped to deal with teams of editors who protect each other and obstruct the formation of consensus on esoteric topics. There simply aren't enough editors interested in such topics to counterbalance those with belief-driven agendas. Jehochman 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To the involved editors
If this case goes to arbitration, chances are good that some or all of you will be sanctioned. Is that the result you really want? Wouldn't it be better to play nice with each other and take your content disagreements to mediation instead? We can't force you to use mediation. That's a choice you need to make voluntarily.
To Guy
If it looks like Chabadniks have been linkspamming, then WP:WPSPAM may be interested to hear about it. Jehochman 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I'm going to repeat something I've said elsewhere. The number of links to chabad.org appears to be out of all proportion to the significance of the Chabad Lubavitch movement. Many articles on topics related to Judaism in general but on which Chabad does not have a recognisably separate view, have links to pages on chabad.org. Over 1,000 links. An example: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport contains a link to "fight or light", an editorial by Yanki Tauber, who I do not think is a widely-cited authority. I brought this up some years back when it was pointed out to me during discussions over management of links to a site for a traditionalist Catholic website, an analogous situation since there, too, was reasonably neutral and even interesting content but by authors with no obvious authority outside the field of traditionalist catholicism, so apparently neutral information was presented but by a source of unknown authority and in the context of a great deal of rather biased information supportive of a fringe movement within the Catholic faith - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive56 (section: chabad.org) has a record of this discussion.

Discussions of Chabad on the noticeboards if anyone's interested. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jmabel

I do think it would be good for the arbitrators to take this up. I believe that Chabad/Lubavich and their views are becoming disproportionately represented in articles related to Judaism, and I don't think that the answer is just that people associated with every other tendency in Judaism need to be here pushing equally hard. I don't think people will be able to work this through without arbitration. - Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Atama

I am not an expert on Judaism, I have no real-life ties to any part of the religion and no opinion of various sects or philosophies within Judaism, and frankly not enough knowledge to form any opinion. To be honest, I've never heard of Chabad on- or off-wiki before the conflict of interest noticeboard complaint was issued, and I haven't had the need, time, or desire to learn anything about it since then. I am only involved in that I am a regular contributor to that noticeboard, and I've seen religion-based COI complaints raised multiple times. In my opinion, which is an opinion backed up by the majority of people I've seen commenting on that same board, religion is rarely a cause for a COI complaint, nor should it be. Nor should race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. If a person has a close connection to a religious organization (a particular church or temple, for example, or perhaps a commercial entity that supports a religious position) then such a claim may be valid. But discriminating against editors because of their religious beliefs should be a practice avoided by Misplaced Pages.

I made that assertion at the noticeboard, and I'll repeat it now. I asked IZAK whether or not any of the parties he complained about were promoting specific Chabad web sites they were known to be affiliated with, or displaying other clear conflicts of interest and he stated that they were not. I feel that the COI complaint was without merit and it was unfortunate that it caused so much undue drama at the noticeboard.

Having said that, there may indeed be an unbalanced amount of pro-Chabad POV being presented by certain editors. I reviewed a few of the initial examples that IZAK gave, and found little to substantiate his claims of POV-pushing or conspiracy. But there was a lot of uncivil pushback from the "other side" in the noticeboard discussion, including a characterization from Debresser that IZAK's complaints were "insane" which was supported by Zsero who called him "hysterical". Most of the other editors in the discussion seemed to be able to keep things civil.

Essentially, there may be some validity to POV complaints, no validity to COI complaints, and a number of problems with personal attacks and a general lack of civility. -- Atama頭 18:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Yossiea

I just want to say that I was involved in several "disputes" on wikipedia with regards to editing. The first one was with a user Daniel575 and his sockpuppets. The articles were "his" and any changes met with fierce resistance and name calling. Eventually, it led many to stay away from "his" articles and let him just have control over it. I think in many respects the same thing is happening with Chabad related articles. When people try to edit an article, it just gets too much for us to either defend or to deflect the hostility. Eventually, people will just forget it and let them run the show, which is what they want. Yossiea 14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Agreeing with Atama about the distinction between point of view and conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is not a function of personal belief: I once met a lawyer who defended tobacco companies from lawsuits back in the days when the industry won those cases. He was a nonsmoker who deplored smoking, but the job paid well.

In 2007 the COFS arbitration articulated that organizations bear an inherent responsibility for the appropriate use of their computers and Internet connections even when that equipment is operated by volunteers. Two years later that led to ArbCom blocking IP addresses from one religious organization. In that situation a tangible conflict of interest existed that was confirmed by originating IP addresses of unlogged edits, by checkuser evidence, and by the statements of the editors themselves: they were using official organizational equipment to edit articles about that organization. If those volunteers had been editing from home then their conduct would still have deserved individual sanction but COI would not have entered into it.

There appears to be no reason to believe that these editors are employed the Kehot Publication Society or a public relations firm, etc. If evidence exists of conflict of interest in the conventional sense then please do accept the proposed case immediately. But if no connections of that sort are apparent then this can return to the community. No formal dispute resolution has been attempted. There is nothing urgent here to require immediate arbitration; other than misfiled COIN discussions it appears that this has only come to the general community's attention through a single ANI thread. No wonder the community hasn't solved it yet.

There will be plenty of conflicts this year that the Committee won't be able to avoid. This one doesn't need to open this week, and may not need to open at all. Durova 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

I think the evidence presented by Izak is real enough,but I think it was being dealt with adequately in the ordinary way: calling attention to it by nominating articles for deletion, and, very often, getting them deleted. Requests for DR would have similarly dealt with problems of disproportionate content in articles. As for behavioral issues, yes, the other editors over-reacted to Izak, but he had previously reacted quite disproportionately to the problem. This does involve an organization known for its great efforts at publicity, and it is sometimes hard to distinguish its publicity for Orthodox Judaism from its publicity for it's particular version of Orthodox Judaism. But it is not an obscure cult with articles on obscure topics where a few people can influence the results. Nor does it engage in the tactics referred to by Durova. Maybe ArbCom should deal with it, because there are some behavioral elements on all sides that need looking into. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • I'm thinking of removing the "on Misplaced Pages" part of the title unless there is some good reason to keep it, since it's assumed if some topic is coming to arbcom, it is the topic's existence on WP that is the subject of the request. MBisanz 09:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    Feel free - your rationale is right Fritzpoll (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    Ok, I went ahead and renamed it to something that I hope makes it clear it deals with editors who are members of the Chabad movement and not the Chabad article. MBisanz 10:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Clerk note Just a note that we are aware it is at +4 and are coordinating the opening of the case, it should open in a day or two at most. MBisanz 04:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/1/0/0)

  • Accept. I normally demand more pursuit of dispute resolution options, as arbitration is the last resort. However, indications that a matter cannot be resolved at the community level are a consideration as well. I am convinced that this matter requires the attention of the Arbitration Committee. I believe the community has had difficulty in parsing the topic and the behavior of involved editors. I also believe that arbitration, reputation of the process considered, would produce significantly less confusion, consternation, and drama overall than kicking this back to the community. I would see the scope as conflicts involving Lubavitcher topics, broadly construed, and the related behavioral issues. There are a number of conduct allegations that need to be examined, sorted out, and provided with a final determination. This is not inclusive of the broader Hasidim topic area, except as Chabad-related issues have been a focal point. Similarly, it is not inclusive of the broader conservative (small "c") Judaism topic area, except as above. Vassyana (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept I would have preferred more DR, but there's something we probably need to look at here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept. There's some indication of severe behavioral concerns, and what links are provided above don't indicate that the community is having, or will have, much success in dealing with this. Hersfold 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've sifted through the COI/N subpage and read all statements here in detail but, try as I might, I cannot find anywhere in them a basis on which I could recuse. However, I'm more concerned than my colleagues with the lack of formal dispute resolution (i.e. not noticeboards) to date. Is there a reason that a conduct RFC surrounding the COI and POV-pushing accusations would not be expected to clarify this matter somewhat? Steve Smith (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Decline - I'm not persuaded that an RFC on both the content and conduct elements of this would be unhelpful. It's possible that there's a strong community consensus here that just hasn't been drawn out. Even if that's not the case, any ArbCom case would proceed better once the issues had been discussed and presented in the relatively orderly format of an RFC. Steve Smith (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept. This is a little light on prior resolution attempts, but the complexity of the situation leads me to believe that a case would be the least confusing way to handle the situation and provide the community with some tools going forward. I also agree with Vassyana about the limiting the scope to Chabad-related issues and the behavior problems that have been noted. Shell 15:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept - I see no agreement to collegial editing amongst this group, making this a suitable behavioural issue to warrant arbitration. More DR would be nice, but the reality is that the community isn't having much luck with this issues. Giving the community some tools to handle bloc disputes would be a good outcome of this case. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept, am on the opinion that eventually the behavioural issues will still wind up here anyway if we were to pass through DR. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept - though noting that this doesn't appear to be a case that will take too long to sort out, a bit of orderly presentation of evidence and findings may help resolve current and subsequent disputes in this area. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept - — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)