Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Workshop

Page size
Now 181K and still growing like topsy. A highly controversial subject, even more so given the news. How about splitting it up into Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Workshop/Findings of fact, Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Workshop/Remedies etc? David | Talk 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Might want to let a clerk do that. Thatcher131 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed article ban
I have proposed a simple 6 month topical ban on all editors (admin and non-admin) involved in contentious editing. This is in line with article and topical bans carried out in dozens of past cases, and would be automatic and non-controversial if these editors were not also admins. It will give the parties a chance to cool down, will prevent further disruption, and will allow new eyes to review the article without having to fight through old prejudices. Stating that admins are banned from using their admin tools on these articles is essentially pro forma because if they are banned from editing the articles period then its pretty clear that the ban would extend to administrative functions. This is also in line with the proposed administrative probation of Dbiv in the Irishpunktom case. I am not suggesting that any of these admins has performed his or her duties poorly; only that, like Dbiv in Irishpunktom, they used their sysop tools in furtherance of a content debate they were involved with.

Certainly wheel warring by admins is bad, but does it really justify a one or three month ban from all article space? In recent cases like Terryeo, Marcosantenzana, and Agapetos angel, topical bans were deemed sufficient, despite a much longer history of disruption. SPUI wasn't even banned at all, just warned and placed on probation. Look at the case of Conrad Devonshire over at WP:ANI. Having been caught creating abusive sock puppets, he makes a tearful apology and promises not to do it again, and gets a week-long block. Are SlimVirgin's actions in this dispute 4 times as bad as what Conrad was caught doing? If the public scorn at ANI is supposedly sufficient to redeem him, how much more severe is an official sanction in an Arbcom case? If a separate punitive block is needed to ram home the idea that reverting other admins is bad, it seems like 1, 2 and 3 days is more than sufficient. Frankly I wonder if some of the participants have started to lose their perspective. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Good night and good luck. Thatcher131 04:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so long as you understand that the proposal in the other case in relation to me is thoroughly unmerited ... David | Talk 08:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fred seems to be trying to establish an automatic one month ban for any single instance of wheel warring. At least, that's how I interpret his rationale, which he hasn't yet explained. I hope he does explain why he feels such long bans are appropriate. -- ChrisO 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
I have proposed Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Workshop. The wording is taken from a recent Arb case. It involved an adm and arb comm member repeatedly using their admin tool without consensus. In my judgment the remedy in that case was MORE than adequate to stop disruption and I think that it will be More than adequate to do the same here. Anything more, including article bans in much too harsh. FloNight  talk  12:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I was looking at the back and forth in the Irishpunktom case between Dmcdevit and Fred over Dbiv's conduct, and trying to find something in between a 3 month ban and a stern talking to. Clearly as this case shows (as do most in fact) its far better to deal with problems so that they never reach arbitration. Thatcher131 12:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that these administrators attempted formal mediation as the arb case was filed (and had it blocked by other parties in this case) shows me that this admonishment and reminder are adequate. FloNight   talk  12:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "The fact that these administrators attempted formal mediation as the arb case was filed" - to be precise, those administrators suggested formal mediation after the arb case was filed. I had actually suggested formal mediation on the talk page a few days before the wheel war and there was no response which suggests their 11th hour advocacy of mediation was opportunistic rather than principled. I think it's unfortunate that Humus et al sought mediation only after Humus' aribitrary and unilateral move and not prior to it - Humus' mood rather poisoned the atmosphere and I believe had there been a proposal of mediation without there first being a unilateral name change mediation would have had broader support. Also, that mediation was proposed only after an RFA cast the proposal in a different light, I think. Homey 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey created an article under a POV title in the first place, and Homey for weeks resisted any attempt at compromise... and now Homey hypocritically laments that "Humus' mood rather poisoned the atmosphere". ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The irony of this is that in the Irishpunktom case, myself and Irishpunktom have come to our own agreement to resolve the case and prevent any edit warring, and yet the Arbs seem to be insisting on continuing the case anyway. David | Talk 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note
I will await the ArbComs decision on my injunction request before further participating in this case. If that results in me being accused without defending myself, and being banned, put in probation, or whatever, so be it. I have no clue anymore what the scope is of the case, what to present, what the accusations are or whatever. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrative sanctions proposal dropped
After carefully considering the comments and the developing situation, I withdraw my proposals for administrative probation and either general or topically targeted administrative sanctions. I believe the appropriate remedy in this case is a topical ban for all involved editors, whatever their status.

The move war over Israeli aparthied was ugly and disruptive no matter what the status of the involved parties. In most ordinary Arbcom cases, a topical ban of a year is the usual remedy, to prevent further disruption. I proposed a 6 month ban but would have gone with 3 months, because the users involved are all experienced editors and/or admins, and I thought they would be quick to learn from this incident. However, I have seen comments on the workshop page that look like baiting, dubious checkuser requests, pot-stirring at WP:ANI, and proposed remedies that I would call trolling if I didn't know who posted them. Finally the situation at Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre convinces me that some of the editors involved in this situation just can not bring themselves to follow normal wikipedia practices of consensus and dispute resolution on these topics, even with an open Arbcom case covering the exact same issues hanging over their heads. At the same time the admins involved are all good admins in every other area, which is why I now support a plain old topical ban. (No, I don't want to define the scope, but it should certainly be wider than I would have thought 2 days ago.)

At this point I would argue for a short topical ban for editors who were involved in the edit war over Israeli aparthied only or Battle of Deir Yassin only, and a long topical ban for editors involved in both. Editors who are also admins would be prohibited from using admin functions with respect to articles they were banned from.

Then there is the question of whether to impose extra sanctions on admins who used admin-only tools to further the conflict. It would be useful to get a clear idea of what is meant by "wheel-warring", is that undoing any other admins edit, or is it limited to use of admin tools to undo another administrator action. It seems that Fred wants to impose heavy sanctions on admins who engaged in wheel-warring. If the goal is to prevent disruption, a topical ban would suffice. If the goal is to send a message that will stop all wheel warring anywhere, well, I'll leave that up to others. Thatcher131 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thatcher131, this seems overly harsh to some parties. The parties that were attempting to use mediation to resolve the dispute should not be treated the same as those that stopped it. Especially since the parties that refused mediation then recommended some pretty over the top remedies against those on the other side of the dispute. And even more so when the same parties file injunctions trying to stop comments, evidence, and remedies against them. IMO, other than a mildly worded caution or admonition that applies to all parties, the different parties need different remedies. -- FloNight  talk  01:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to fine tune it so that editors who bailed before the RfAr was filed get a lesser "remedy" than those who persisted, that's fine. However, people's comments on ANI, Deir Yassin, and the workshop page should also be taken into account. Thatcher131 01:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FloNight, I had suggested official mediation a few days before the movewar but my suggestion was ignored. I think you're putting too much stock in the request for mediation - it would have been more meaningful, and likely successful, had it occured instead of or at least before the parties proposing it decided to arbitrarily rename the article without consensus. That it only was offered *after* the move and indeed after the RFA was proposed suggests that it did not have the meaning or significance you are reading into it. I think offering mediation after the fact should be seen as a tactic rather than anything else.Homey 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Question for Jayjg
From the evidence page, 4-7-2006 20:11	Humus sapiens deleted "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" (Deleted to make way for move.) 4-7-2006 20:11	Humus sapiens moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid (NPOV title) 4-7-2006 20:18	Jayjg restored "Israeli apartheid" (9 revisions restored) 4-7-2006 21:55	ChrisO deleted "Israeli apartheid" (Deleted to make way for move.)

Why did you restore "Israeli apartheid" after Humus sapiens deleted it to allow the move? Didn't that create two versions of the same article? One thought I had was that maybe the article had a non-trivial edit history you wanted to keep, but shouldn't you have done a history merge in that case? If you hadn't restored it, ChrisO could have moved the article back without using his admin tools, which would have been move warring but not wheel warring. I'm not trying to be provocative, but I don't get it. (It looks like you and SlimVirgin each did again, later in the day.) Thatcher131 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayjg restored a redirect page I think, not the article contents. --Ben Houston 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, kind of. The log says restored 9 versions, or something like that.  If I move page A to page Allegations of A it turns A into a redirect with a blank history.  As long as A has a blank history, any editor can move Allegations of A back to A.  But if the A redirect has a longer history, the only way to move Allegations of A back to A is to get an admin to delete the redirected version of A and its history (although this may only be temporary).  This is what WP:RFPM is for, in fact.  In this case, as a consequence of Jayjg twice restoring old versions of Israeli apartheid, ChrisO had to (twice) delete Israeli apartheid before he could move Allegations of Israeli apartheid back to its original title, which made the moves wheel warring by an admin using admin tools rather than move warring by an ordinary editor without the use of admin tools.  It seems (from an ordinary move over redirect he performed) that Jayjg's preferred title was Allegations of Israeli apartheid, so one way to view Jayjg's actions is as an attempt to prevent the article from being moved back to the title he didn't like, by restoring the history.  Of course, it could also be explained as required by GDFL to preserve the edit history, or as a good faith effort to slow the move war (expecting that admins would stop wheel warring and non-admins couldn't move the page). Thatcher131 13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this. -- Dissident (Talk) 10:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed_decision. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Better yet, see this relevant article. Tom e rtalk  08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not poisoning the well. This is poisoning the well. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone really know what's going on here?
My head is swimming trying to make heads or tails out of what exactly is the purpose of this arbitration. Jay has asked whether this case is about the name, the content or the moves...it seems to me that nobody's bothered to even propose an answer...and that people are arguing about one or another of these issues, with responses coming back that seem to have more to do with one of the other topics...and something that's being completely ignored in all this is the closely related crap that's now the subject of a pending-consideration RfAr regarding User:HOTR. I find it difficult to believe that I'm the only one who'd like to know what exactly is the scope of this RfAr. (I also find it difficult to believe that I'm the only one who's appalled by the shockingly puerile behavior of some of the admins and respected editors involved in this mishegas...) Tom e rtalk  23:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been a very trying experience for all concerned. Basically we all need to start over on the right foot. Fred Bauder 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The state of these arbitration pages closely mirrors the nonsense that went on over the apartheid articles at the center of the dispute. The chaos in each case has been caused by the same parties, something I hope the Arbitration Committee will take note of. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should limit the discussion of everyone involved to a sandbox somewhere, and only their responses to specific questions be permitted on the drawing board. I realize this is quite a strong departure from how this normally works, but consideration of the real issues are being drowned out by a bunch of rhetoric and fingerpointing.  Even if this case were to also take on allegations of inappropriate use of admin tools, the consideration of evidence etc. could be conducted in a much less chaotic fashion if people were only allowed to speak when asked a question, and had to raise their hands before blurting out any other things they feel are of such paramount importance that they need to be considered firsterer.  Tom e rtalk  23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, starting over on the right foot can't involve drawing up a "factional behavior analysis" using a "normalized dot product", or Kim van der Linde supplying data about my edits for it,  not to mention filing yet another RfAr.  As I see it, this case and these pages are simply being used as a platform by troublemakers, as was the Israel apartheid article in the first place. SlimVirgin (talk)  23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree -- I think that the analysis didn't actually show very much that was conclusive. But I spent the time to do it so I posted it. It is a useful direction to move in as more sophisticated analyses are implemented.  I do think the RfA got totally out of hand and was incredibly unfocused -- and I would lay a lot of the blame on unfocused nature of it on HOTR and Zeq. I was fairly passive in the RfA since I haven't seen one before -- thus I didn't help the situation, but rather rolled with the flow this time -- but I could take more of a lead role in the future if we were looking for a more professional one. --Ben Houston 00:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Interestingly Homey, seems to agree. Using this a springboard for more trouble is a bad idea, although I support the edit analysis idea. Fred Bauder 23:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, please don't say anything to encourage the edit analysis nonsense. It's inherently flawed because it counts only the articles that people have edited together, but does not count the articles they haven't edited together, so the impression will necessarily be misleading. It's also unable to show whether those people tend to edit in cooperation or in opposition. All it has achieved so far is to exacerbate the hostility and to produce a list of editors interested in Middle East pages. Any one of us could have done that, and without the benefit of a "normalized dot product." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I only put a day and a half into the code - it will get better. Also, it should be possible to analyse who removed who text to show opposition -- and show who is responsible for most of the final contents of an article.  It should be possible to completely detect 3RR, even complex ones -- although I wouldn't suggest using this for 3RR reporting but to find when it occurs is useful.  The 30GB full english wikipedia download is a bit large though and I've had problems using the Special:Export functionality to get full article histories.  (Also those last two pages of user-user correlations did take into account the articles one user edited and the other didn't.  Hopefully, if I get the time, I can release it open source and have others contribute and scrutinize the methods involved -- I had two previous successful open source projects.)  --Ben Houston 01:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Slim, what it is instead, is deliberate subterfuge. The "factional behavior analysis" thing is part of transparent efforts to change the focus of this dispute cum investigation into a witchhunt for the cabal.  Obviously, the gist is "these editors are getting together and colluding [in smoke-filled drawingrooms, no doubt] to push their POV, and this normalized dot-product proves it!"  Kim's supplying data about your edits is frivolous and pointless, and the RfAr about Deir Yasin leaves me with little other choice but to finally realize that Kim believes ArbCom is her playground monitor.  Tom e rtalk  23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Her playground monitor and her playground. And given that she misused her admin tools at Deir Yassin massacre, taking it to the Arbitration Committee shows a worrying complacency. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the above accusation is SlimVirgin's opinion, and SlimVirgin and KimvandLinde have been in numerous conflicts as of late. --Ben Houston 00:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in no dispute with Kim van der Linde other than this one, and have no desire to be; she causes trouble everywhere she goes. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred...I fully support your wish to start over on the right foot. For me, however, what that entails is forgetting about all of the bad blood that's been developing recently when we try to figure out what to do with the article name/content. There are, however, a number of serious infractions esp. of WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA which need to be dealt with. If people agree to shake hands and move on, I still think a serious scolding is in order for several editors. What did you have in mind when you said we need to start over on the right foot? Tom e rtalk 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Homey -- who has opposed Fred's recent suggestion of an "amnesty" -- appears to have "left" Wikipedia. At the very least, his user page has been deleted, his talk page has been blanked (with an edit summary, written by an IP, stating "Have left Wikipedia," and a different IP has removed Homey's name from the list of administrators. It appears that both IP's are Homey or someone acting on his behalf.  I would suggest that this arbitration be put on hold, or something to that effect, for 24 (or 48) hours so everybody can see if anything new happens, and assess their positions accordingly.  6SJ7 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't sit around waiting on Homey. Unless his disappearance until Sept 5 has been explained to someone somewhere that I'm unaware of, if it's accepted I think his arbitration case should be reviewed and if he feels it's important enough, he can come back to make his case.  Otherwise he can be tried in absentia.  Dismissing or suspending this case, or failing to consider the RfAr filed concerning his abuse of admin tools, is a mistake.  There are plenty of other issues involved, the resolution of which can necessarily include sanction [or not] of Homey.  I realize this may sound like an assumption of bad faith on my part, but to me, it appears that Homey is just hiding out for 6 weeks waiting for this to blow over, and hoping nobody will have the energy to start the process up again upon his return.  His Userpage deletion remark is "leaving wikipedia", but his talk page wasn't deleted, and prior to its blanking, it said he was returning in early september (I believe it was Sept 6).  Tom e rtalk  00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tomer, I understand what you are saying (and by the way I agree wholeheartedly with your statement in starting this section), however, in light of the new statement that he "have [sic?] left Wikipedia", I am willing to assume good faith in that regard. (Just so everyone is clear, that was a bit of sardonic humor, I hope it is permitted.)  I understand that what appears to be permanent can become very temporary.  However, if indeed it is permanent, I am not sure that this arbitration needs to keep heading down the direction it has been heading, which in my opinion (and judging by your first comment above, yours as well) is not a good direction.  I intended no comment about the arbitration involving Homey's administrative powers; my comment was limited to this arbitration.  I am very concerned about some of what I have read over the past couple of days, and am simply suggesting a brief pause in the festivities.   6SJ7 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think starting on a new foot is appropriate. Whether or not Homey takes part is somewhat of a sideline, he was a major player but he was not the main reason for the case or the topic of it -- it was originally about the out of process moves, it would be nice to go back to that. --Ben Houston 00:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Homey's actions provided the context in which every subsequent event occurred. In any event, Fred's suggestion to end this arbitration with no sanctions being imposed on anyone seems worth considering.  As stated above, my comment concerns this particular arbitration ("Israeli apartheid") and no other.  6SJ7 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming that this proceeding has been properly chastening to admins who should have known better, a general amnesty seems like a good idea. I have no doubt that all this evidence can be ressurrected if the same groups of admins end up edit-warring or wheel-warring over another article. Thatcher131 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben: The "out of process moves" "issue" is something of a non-starter--not only does it have a horrific stench of process-mongering, but it is not the actual cause of the problem. At most, it's simply a symptom. I don't want to be accused of making a mountain out of what others are trying to portray as a molehill, but I think Jay's analysis [to *gak* *hack* use a Britishism...] was "spot on", that when it's convenient for some of the editors [read "admins"] involved, this entire dispute devolved into "process fetishism". Admins should know better. Admins should also be familiar with WP policies...and the "process fetishism" actually indicates that those admins who, IMHO, acted improperly, were fully cognizant of the relevant policies they were violating at will, and then backing up their [unmistakably and unforgivably POV] actions, with horribly warped misrepresentations of, or utterly unsupported [and, indeed, unsupportable] reinterpretations of, extant policies. At the very least, Kim and Homey, and quite probsibly [sic] ChrisO, made up policy as they went along [which is just fine--that's part of being bold...], but then [and this is the part that's completely unforgivable], they proceeded to block and revert at will based on their horribly inappropriate misreinterpretations of policy. I admit, I've gotten incredibly pissed off at people online before, especially when I was drunk [don't tell anyone I said that! :-p], but rather than back off and try to reach consensus with their "opponents", those three chose, instead, to attempt to intimidate non-admins into following their lead, and to editwar with other admins who attempted to stop their barrage of unmistakably POV edits and moves. THIS CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED.

Thatcher: I fully concur that amnesty is a good idea, but when I say "amnesty", I don't mean "forgive and forget", I mean "admonish, forgive and move on". As I have stated above [and keep in mind, I have not been at all involved in the warring that went on, I'm looking at the whole thing as an outside [and incredibly disgusted] observer...], this behavior requires at the very least, some level of admonition. Demeaning SlimVirgin's attempt to resolve this entire pot of stupidity by bringing it to mediation as "hastily put together", and other forms of bad-faith denigration, indicates to me that "one side" in the dispute is unwilling to compromise. Wikipedia, as I shouldn't have to remind anyone reading this page, operates according to the principle of consensus editing among interested editors, and the refusal to permit mediation, in my eyes, bespeaks a very [pisspoor, $}{i77y] inappropriate attitude by those editors who, apparently at least, decided that mediation was "beneath" them. I have no problem with the amnesty proposal, so long as it doesn't take the form of "let's act like this never happened". Don't mete out sanctions, fine. But Homey and Kim, and to a lesser extent ChrisO and Ben need a serious slap on the wrist for their conduct in this entire idiotic affair. I'd also support an admonition to JayJG, SlimVirgin, PinchasC and that whole crowd, to bring such matters to arbitration or at least mediation much sooner, in order that this sort of idiocy not be permitted to continue nearly as long as it did. Other than the fact that I feel ashamed for WP that so many editors whom I hold in such high regard have allowed this nonsense to bring them so low, that's all I'm going to say for now. Regards, Tom e rtalk 06:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

About bias
It is natural that we all draw conclusions based on our own experiences and well as what our friends tell us and what the experts say based on careful study. I submit there has been no careful scientific study of bias of Wikipedia with regard to the related yet different issues of Israel, Islam, zionism, the war on terrorism and so forth. I further submit that wikipedia is too big for anyone person to have an accurate conclusion based on their own experience. I further submit that what our friends tell us does not much improve our objectivity in this regard. I conclude that no one has an unbiased opinion on the status of wikipedia with regard to overall bias on these related issues and that each of us at best has an unbiased view of a particlular and small set of edits (not of articles - please understand the difference) that have occurred and of edits that should have occurred that did not or were reverted successfully up to the present. Someone who spent a lot of time dealing with the cartoons that some wanted deleted and were not or dealing with the inablity to rename Islamofascism might conclude bias against the Islamic world. Someone with constant exposure to over the top POV edits that need to be made NPOV in articles on these related areas might come away with an opinion based on which side had the most angry people who feel powerless and thus lash out rather than carefully construct a consensus. I think pointing fingers at anyone who has edited on these arbitration pages as being biased is not being helpful. WAS 4.250 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The point is that should you think one side or the other has gained a temporary advantage, that does not justify disruptive editing in order to nullify that. The point is not dependent on which side has apparently gained the advantage. Fred Bauder 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and this is  exactly why  a person that claim that such systematic bias exist without having a conclusive - wikipedia-wide - proof is only showing  his own  bias and there for should be judging in this case. Zeq 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fred, if you stated a finding or a principle or a remedy in the way you just stated it, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. I certainly wouldn't.  "If an editor believes that a group of editors has gained a temporary advantage in editing an article, that does not justify disruptive editing in order to nullify the perceived advantage."  How about that?  There might still be an issue as to what "disruptive editing" is, as everybody probably believes that "disruptive editing" is what the other guy does, not what they do themselves.  But leaving that aside, there is no problem.  The reason there is something of an uproar going on is that you have proposed a finding of fact that speaks of one specific side, stating that there is a "slight pro-Israel bias" or "some pro-Israel bias."  For those of us who do not believe this is the case, it might take some of the sting out of it if you referred to a "perception" of bias or something like that.   But I do not think you even have to do that.  Why not replace the proposed finding and remedy with what you have suggested above -- either worded the way I suggest, or some other way.  Just as long as it is evenhanded.  6SJ7 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)