Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Proposed decision

Just a comment, it would be an extremely bad idea to ban him from the deletion process, as he does a lot more research than many other people, IMHO. JeffBurdges 13:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be quite effective at totally eliminating all the problems that have led to this RFAR, though. Stifle (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Its better to just force him to be civil. You could ban him from actually voting if you liked, as one vote doesn't matter, but you really really should not ban him from commenting on the AfD.  He's often quite informative.  Just make him be polite.  JeffBurdges 18:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Would still not solve the problem. Incivility and personal attacks can be made just as easily in a comment than a vote. You can't just MAKE someone be polite, else Wikipedia would run a LOT smoother. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong with the proposed solution where admins apply 24 hours block for incivility quite liberally? My point is, the issue here is incivility in several parts of the wiki, not just deletion requests.  And it seems quite silly to ban people from parts of the wiki for a general problem.  An arbitration committee ruling that admins should apply 24 hour blocks for incivility means that he can't participate in any part of the wiki  as long as he's rude.  JeffBurdges 11:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the attention of arbitrators, FOF #3 isn't a complete sentence (try "Monicasdude's aggressive style of commenting on deletion debates by making assumptions of bad faith disrupts the deletion process."), and remedy #3 conflicts with enforcement #1 (in the matter of escalating blocks for repeat infringements). Stifle (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume the enforcement section is making a distinction between a parole (remedy 1) and a ban (remedy 2), but I could be reading too much into the wording here. Kirill Lok s h in 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Jeff Burdges. WP:AFD needs people willing to do the research to keep articles. It has plenty of people willing to vote delete without doing research. Ask him to be nicer, temp-block him if he doesn't, escalate if you have to, but don't start by blocking him from AFD. If you think about it, keeping a worthwhile article does as much service to the Wikipedia as writing it - researching one so it becomes a worthwhile article even more so. AnonEMouse 20:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Monicasdude does no research, all he does is arbitrarily remove any PROD tag he finds, then attcks the people who take the articles to AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with Monicasdude does engage in many attacks Jeff and AnonEMourse are correct in that Monicasdude really does often find sources and details that justify keeping. Now, if Monicasdude could just present them and not need to add comments about bad faith and such we would be fine. I strongly agree with Jeff's suggestion. JoshuaZ 03:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Here by the way, is a very recent example of Monicasdude's good research and I can find many more in his contribs list if anyone cares. JoshuaZ 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to disagree Zoe, Monicasdude does research PRODs, at least in the cases I've seen -- if there are examples where he has been arbitratily removing tags, please provide the references -- that would considerably change my opinion on the ban from the deletion process. Ironically, Monicasdude doens't take the few seconds to add the information/references he finds to the article -- this would considerably lower the number of his de-prods that get taken immediately to AfD and probably resolve a lot of the surrounding issues.  I do however completely agree that once an article is taken to AfD, or generally if he feels his judgement is being questioned, his civility is greatly lacking.  I would think the civility parole would cover that problem even during the deletion process. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * if there are examples where he has been arbitratily removing tags, please provide the references How about this, for Thomas Bonney, an article which makes not the slightest claim of notability: prod does not cite valid grounds for deletion . Perhaps some of his much-vaunted research skills could be spent on WP:BIO or even Speedy deletions. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

comments by Monicasdude
I find it impossible to understand how this edit summary can be considered an instance of incivility or associated with improper personal attacks:

''object to newbie-biting; slamming an article-in-progress one minute after a new user begins work is grossly uncivil. Give him a chance.'' (Finding 1, diff 3).

One minute after a relatively new user (age 13!) created the article, beginning with a template that experienced users might easily have difficulty with, an editor placed (inter alia) a PROD tag on the article. Unsurprisingly, the author stopped working on the article (but, fortunately, returned to finish it several days later.)

The PRODding editor went on to repeat the process on another just-created article; there, a more experienced editor went on writing the article, removing the inapt tags.

At no point did the editor who proposed deletion place any statements on the talk pages of the articles or authors involved.

I think it quite clear that the editor whose actions I accurately described in the edit summary did not treat the editors involved with appropriate civility. I find it surprising that members of the Arbitration Committee believe that describing and reversing such action is cause for punishment. [More to follow] Monicasdude 03:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on "civility"

 * Finding 1, item 7 presents an inappropriately phrased comment I made long ago, roughly three weeks after I began editing Wikipedia actively, in the course of a heated editing dispute. "Thuggery" was inapt shorthand, referring to an antagonistic editor's behavior in threatening/"warning" other users that he would revert any edits they made to an article unless they supported him in the dispute by removing changes I had made to which he objected. My words were, as I look back, poorly chosen, but the behavior of the other editor was far less civil, both in terms of statements and of actions.  Rather than re-presenting my view of that dispute, I would say that admin Theo Clarke summed up this stage of it quite well in connection with the relevant RFC, and I present his summary here.


 * Since that time, a remarkable number of far more uncivil comments and clear personal attacks have been directed at me in connection with the article involved and related matters, without provoking the response that has been directed at me, including comments like these:


 * "You're about the most selfish editor I've ever come across, afflicted with about the largest overestimation of his own skills. While I have conceded you know parts of the subject and have ability as a writer, you haven't had the slightest kind word for me. You're 100% about pride and total control."


 * "So long as this article is MDude's private reserve, that's how long it will be tedious and unrepresentative of Dylan's place in modern Folk and Rock and Roll."


 * It's pretty interesting, really, how you manage to convincingly sound like you know what you're talking about while the actual truth value of your statements hovers close to zero."


 * "Monicasdude is unfortunately one of these almost maniacally self-impressed guys who receive any comment shaded even slightly away from their own opinions as 'verbal assault'.", with an edit summary characterizing me as a "thinskinned dictator."


 * "while Monicasdude does seem to be fairly knowledgeable about Dylan's career, he is really obnoxious about editing... generally convinced, I suppose, that every edit of his is golden, and everyone else always wrong.", placed under heading "Dealing with self-important editor".


 * "Monicasdude just continues to be endlessly obnoxious over trite things."


 * "The sheer obnoxiousness of editor Monicasdude has certainly risen above the "ordinary rancor" of WP."

That's a small selection from a series of comments (eventually numbering well over 100) that went on for months, without any effective intervention with respect to civility

Frankly, I think that if an external observer reviews the entire series of comments (which continues to the present day, as here

[in progress, more to follow]

(I do not present one set of bad behaviors as though it would excuse the supposed bad behavior on my part. I present it to provide a context for discussion and to demonstrate that, in this context, the far less appropriate (and more extenxive) behavior of others involved in the editing dispute has been discounted or endorsed by several of those presenting a case against me here. This strongly suggests that those editors are not genuinely concerned with civility or other legitimate concerns, and that the complaint is essentially a pretext for suppressing opinions with which they disagree.)


 * Just try to be more courteous, honey catches more flies than vinegar. That said, I do no better than you, and obviously those you have contested with don't either. We are all sinners, but the arbitration case involves you and our decision is well-founded. Our comeupance will come some other day. Our decision is in no way based on whether we disagree with you regarding Bob Dylan. It is simply based on observed rudeness. Fred Bauder 05:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The question here has nothing to do with the correctness or incorrectness of my views concerning Dylan. The question I pose concerns the appropriateness of singling me out for condemnation when, in the same disputes cited by the Arbitration Committee, many of the involved parties who brought the case to arbitration have been more frequently and more severely uncivil and less willing to abide by the relevant project policies and guidelines. The Arbitration Committee has said in the past that it takes "jurisdiction," or whatever the Wikipedia equivalent is, over all the parties to a dispute, and indicated, I thought, that being the first to file a charge is not a shield for misbehavior.  This is hardly sound or fair practice, and its main effects will not be to improve the Wikipedia environment. Monicasdude 06:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't always dig deeply into all the infractions committed by every participant in a case. When we do it often generates grievous complaints, in the order of. "I complained about rudeness, he got off with a warning, but I got banned for a year". Maybe we are learning from experience. I don't want to expand the case at this point. Perhaps some other arbitrator may. Fred Bauder 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This dispute has never been about civility, and the Committee's failure to acknowledge that is telling. Since it should be evident to anyone who reviews all of the supposed instances of misbehavior on my part that the complainants have far more often and far more aggressively violated the standards you claim to hold me accountable under, with no legitimate purpose, the Committee's action clearly is taken to serve motives that it will not acknowledge, and it is fair to infer that its real concern is with the issues I have used the deletion process to raise about malignant, systematic bias and institutional insensivity in this project. That the Committee is willing to cite my strongly phrased, but entirely civil, condemnation of the use of hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled as grounds for punishment is far more reprehensible than any of the conduct it has chosen to fault me for. Monicasdude

Some comments on "good faith"
As many involved in business will remember, the standard, operating definition of "good faith" is, roughly, honesty in fact and conformity to prevailing standards in the trade. Sometimes an absence of an intent to deceive is added to this framework, but I think more often this is treated, perhaps more normatively than empirically, as part of the prevailing standards criterion. ("Good faith" and "malice" are not complementary concepts; there is a range of intermediate behavior which can be characterized as "bad faith" without being "malicious." Typically this occurs when an actor elects to disregard regard prevailing standards for motives which do not involve an intent to injure, but are not sufficient to justify defiance of the standards.)

I think that, at the very least, these principles are incorporated into whatever working definition of good faith Wikipedia employs (although the concept of "good faith" is not further defined as it applies to the project, although a rather poor article on the subject as it applies generally exists). In the context of Wikipedia, I believe that good faith requires, at the very least, 1) that editors speak honestly with regard to matters of fact, and either conform their editorial actions to applicable policies and guidelines, reasonably interpreted, or explain why they believe broader principles justify variance.

Applicable policy is quite clear. Wikipedia users are called on, whenever disputes may arise, to behave as though they begin with an assumption of good faith. However, as the policy goes on, Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. While the policy states that It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, there is no prohibition against against allegations or inferences of bad faith, and many discussions, particularly those arguing for deletion of articles, allege violations of Wikipedia policies in terms which make clear that bad faith is being alleged, with thin veils of implication.

If the applicable policy is to be employed to bar allegations and inferences, that should be made clearly and openly in the policy, and should be applied evenhandedly, without regard to any editor's positions regarding internal Wikipedia-political issues.

The Arbitration Committee has, quite clearly, confused inferences of bad faith with failures to assume, although the applicable policy clearly distinguished between the two concepts.


 * In finding 2, item 8, I describe an Afd nomination as "bad faith." I inferred bad faith from four factors: the nominator was an experienced editor; the nominator did not cite valid grounds for deletion; the nominator called for deletion on grounds that were rejected by consensus (the "redlink" argument); and the nominator personalized the debate by citing the identity of an editor involved (myself), in a manner which had no legitimate relevance to the Wikipedia deletion process. I therefore inferred bad faith; there is no basis for citing an assumption of bad faith.


 * Finding 2, item 9 is quite similar, except there the nominator additionally manifests an intent to deceive by misrepresenting the contents of the article. Calton stated that there was no basis for treating the subject as notable except that he "gave a bunch of money to his alma mater. That's it." Aside from grossly mischaracterizing the subject's philanthropical activities, the statement also ignored the subject's claim to notability as a figure in the American financial industry, through his long career and high positions in an important brokerage/financial services firm. I therefore inferred (not assumed) bad faith.


 * In finding 2, item 12, the nominator proposed deleting an article on invalid grounds (vanity alone), even though there was no bona fide dispute over the subject's notability or the accuracy, verifiability, or appropriateness of the article's text. I therefore perceived/inferred an absence of good faith, and characterized the nomination accordingly.

[More to follow. Until members of the Arbitration Committee had specified concerns out of the impossible-to-respond-to citations of "evidence," it had been impossible to reasonably state a position in this matter] Monicasdude 00:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's really pretty simple. While you are usually correct in your criticism of others, you don't give them credit for trying their best to do what is good for the project. Instead, you bad mouth them. Fred Bauder 01:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I really think it is fair to say that few if any of the comments that you have found objectionable are actually directed at editors who are "trying their best to do what is good for the project." The internal politics of Wikipedia are quite arcane, and difficult to characterize in releatively transparent terms; but it is clear to almost everyone reasonably familiar with the project that several specialized areas are as much arenas for Wikipedia-political disputes as they are for bona fide discussion of issues relating to the application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * Articles for Deletion is one of those areas. And one of the characteristic activities there is the almost incessant slamming of articles from new editors, who actually, indisputably, are trying their best to do what is good for the project. As I noted above, some of my comments on this point have been singled out for condemnation by Arbitration Committee members in the proposed decision.
 * And, while new editors doing their best are regularly being badmouthed, experienced editors whose actions do not conform to the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines (whether WP:BITE, the official deletion criteria, or something else) are too often unremarked on. The level of incivility directed at less experienced Wikipedia editors is substantial, and targets those who are most likely to be harmed by it (in terms of Wikipedia participation). In contrast, to the extent that comments I have made may have reached civility standards, they have (as I think you acknowledge) otherwise accurately reflected Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and have been directed at experienced, assertive (often combative) editors who are least likely to be harmed by it (again, in terms of Wikipedia participation).
 * What I think underlies the dissonance here is a marked difference in expectations. For whatever reasons, I generally have higher expectations for Wikipedia editors, particularly for active and experienced editors.  I don't think my expectations, at least with regard to editors participating in the deletion process, differ greatly from those expressed by Jimmy Wales in the mailing list comments I cited before.
 * And the record shows, I think rather clearly, that I have tried to hold myself to the same standards. For example, in response to issues raised in a dispute over the notability of stage actors, I nominated for deletion a range of articles relating to performers in the commercial sex trade (Playboy online models, erotic film performers, etc). Before making those nominations, I took care to check not only that the article involved included no significant claim or evidence of notability, but that standard resources (e.g., IMDB, Google) gave no significant support to notability claims. And I think that editors who would delete articles on subjects in more significant fields should exercise at least as much care.
 * (And one aside seems appropriate here. Several editors have made rather, well, unusual, comments regarding my recurring references to the Air Force Amy deletion discussion, conjuring up several entirely fictitious explanations of my motives for those references. Frankly, the Air Force Amy outcome was a gift from heaven in terms of deletion debates, a virtually unanimous consensus that her meager credentials amounted to notability that served as an effective blunt instrument for arguing the notability of performers with more substantial claims. As other editors have pointed out, there are clear precedents for such arguments, most prominently an older debate involving a quite minor Pokemon character represented only by a very short stub article.)  --(more to follow)
 * If members of the Arbitration Committee

-


 * The editor in the example you have given was wrong, and you were right to object to his PROD of an article that would have been better served by improving, if it was a subject that otherwise met the guidelines for inclusion. However, that does nothing to assuage the concerns of the community as shown in the scores of other provided evidence in the respective section of the RFAr (e.g. Your accusing the other voters of stupidity here). There is a good amount of what you've done in the past that I agree with and can clearly see your operation in good faith, but that doesn't justify your numerous actions in moments of extremity, where you have shown a disregard for good faith, civility, and WP:NPA; in addition to your construing every legitimate criticism of your actions as a personal attack. Kuzaar 15:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't call anyone "stupid" at the link you cite. I said the commenters hadn't taken the effort required to cast an intelligent vote. That's a comment on behavior, and since they were uniformly voting to delete a subject treated as notable by broadcast and print media, the central subject of a top 20 Amazon bestseller, I think that comment was well-taken. In comparison to the comments regularly made regarding articles seen as vanity, it was well within the range of comments treated by consensus as civil. Yet another piece of evidence of the double standard employed. This is not a dispute over civility, however it is framed, but an attempt to suppress a particular viewpoint. Monicasdude 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the fact remains that the assertion that the other editors' vote were not "intelligent" implies that their opinions or reasons for voting the way that they did are less valid than yours, and implies that their reasons as put forth in their vote (i.e. delete as advertisement) were not reasonably considered. Your tone was not only incivil and condescending but confrontative and as such did not serve to foster productive discussion. In no way am I trying to suggest that asserting your reasons for voting keep is not right, but snidely saying Did anybody here make the slightest effort to cast an intelligent "vote"? implies to me an interest in disparaging other editors, in addition to a disregard (concerning the article) to Wikipedia's policy on blatantly recognizable advertising. Kuzaar 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no policy which calls for the automatic deletion of an otherwise notable subject simply because the first article written on a subject is deemed to be advertising. That was rather explicitly recognized in the deletion debate. If there were such a policy, the article could have been speedied. As for my motives, exactly what leads you to the inference that my interest was in "disparaging other editors" rather than raising issues about inappropriate actions in the AfD process. Looks to me like a violation of WP:AGF, and certainly qualifies as one under the criteria recognized in the proposed decision. Double standard at work again. Monicasdude 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Monicasdude says things I wouldn't say, but a significant part of the "disruption" he causes in the deletion process is because certain people develop awfully thin skins whenever he is involved in the discussion. Somebody called one of my suggestions "utter nonsense" and I didn't run crying to mommy Arbcom.  I would certainly be in favor of a low-threshhold civility block rather than an outright ban.  Who else is going to give us edit summaries like (RV overzealous bot; Tawker, read this thing to sleep at night until it respects literature!). Thatcher131 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with you, Thatcher. The decisions currently being formulated by the Arbcom seem a little harsh, and I'm disinclined to see MD excluded from a section of the Wikipedia entirely; a civility block does seem a resolution more in line with justice (although I have found the image on User:Monicasdude's userpage to be a bit confrontative, but I do understand how easy it is to get hotheaded when involved in a dispute). Kuzaar 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances, I wouldn't expect anything less. Thatcher131 17:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarify I meant about the image on his user page. In the grand scheme of things Wikipedia is too insignificant for anyone to get hotheaded about anything.Thatcher131 18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, consider this. I've been involved with not only legitimate disputes with other Wikipedians operating in good faith along with people out to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia (e.g. linkspammers), but whether in or out of process I've never thought that the actions of others were about me; One must recognize that on Wikipedia policy and process are there for a reason, and as difficult as it can be to see from another person's take on things, anyone can make mistakes or even willfully commit wrongs while still operating in good faith. It's the duty of the various committees and institutions to see that wrongs are righted and actions taken to make sure that whatever brought it before them doesn't happen again. It's not something to get personally vexed about, it's just the inner workings of Wikipedia sorting themselves out. Kuzaar 17:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the fact that you called other user's votes to be unintelligent and apparently in bad faith, when they could just as easily have been objections to advertisement being on Wikipedia that I take issue with, and find possible evidence of bad-faith or confrontative comments in the AFDs you have been involved in. The recurring pattern of bad-faith assumptions on your part and inability to take criticism are the roots of the issues here, and the reason an Arbcom is reviewing the case. You could just as easily have said the same thing in a tone that did not hound other editors, and that's why I'm trying to keep the tone cool for future contributions. Kuzaar 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith, indeed
I've been mostly ignoring the proceedings, but seeing outright falsehoods like ''...except there the nominator additionally manifests an intent to deceive by misrepresenting the contents of the article. Calton stated that there was no basis for treating the subject as notable except that he "gave a bunch of money to his alma mater. That's it."'' leads me to comment.

Dude, do you believe yourself to be a mind reader? Or just have problems with English-language vocabulary? "Manifests"? You know my intent how? As an example of "bad faith", this is just about perfect.

I meant what I said, and what I said was accurate: the article said his claim to fame was giving money to his alma mater, for which they named some buildings after him, and as an otherwise non-descript high-level executive at a finance company. The article mentioned no actual philanthropic work (foundations, charity boards, etc.) and legacy at his company: any legacy he has came from his checkbook, not his work or accomplishments. That you're unwilling to accept this or even listen to it shouldn't be my problem. --Calton | Talk 03:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact is, nobody knows anyone elses intent (nless expressly stated), and only in certain situations is it apparent enough to make a well founded guess...that does not appear to have been one of them. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ban from deletion process
Two questions: Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) How long is this ban intended to last?
 * 2) Doesn't a ban from removing prod-tags run counter to the very spirit of prod? They are for uncontested deletions, if anybody has an objection to deletion, then they may remove it.


 * This may be wishful thinking, but I hope the delay in getting the fifth vote means that someone is having second thoughts about banning MD from the deletion process. It seems to me that if the goal is to maintain civility and not disrupt the deletion process, standard civility parole will accomplish the same goal.  MD claimed at one point that 80% of the articles he removes prod tags from survive AfD; if true, that is something wikipedia can not afford to lose.  Yes, there are times when MD is rough on other editors and there have been times when AfD discussions became more about him than about the articles.  The standard civility parole would allow admins to block MD when his comments get out of hand and either verge into incivility or start to disrupt the process.  (I would only ask that if the editor proposing or nominating for deletion is also an admin, that admin could not apply the block.) Thatcher131 13:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I think 80% of the perceived problem would go away if MD just stopped using the words "bad faith" and "speedy keep" and instead just re-stated his deprod reason. Thatcher131 13:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the bad from deletion is a bad idea, as I stated above. What I'd like to understand is why he's not also being banned from Bob Dylan or FACs.  Why are AfDs being singled out?  If anything, his participation in AfDs is more useful to the project than his participation in Bod Dylan.  It sounds like wikipedia has standard censures for uncivil people which are well understood, and likely sufficent.  JeffBurdges 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The civility parole that is already in the decision would apply to any article, including Bob Dylan. The deletion process was singled out for special attention  I supppose the Arbcom thinks he is particularly disruptive there, although I am not a mind reader. Thatcher131 14:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that the Workshop has no section on the ban from AfDs. I'll go ask one of them to run it through the workshop before finalizing it here. JeffBurdges 15:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another reason a complete deletion ban is a bad idea
I still think a complete deletion ban is a bad idea, but I've come to the realization, after having looked over a few other cases, that arbitration generally results in harsh penalties.. and I don't think this is unreasonable in general since youve got to act pretty badly to end up in arbitration at all. Too bad we'll lose him in AfD but oh well.. JeffBurdges 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Zoe on ANI
 * My response
 * The editor who prodded Bill Dedman first deleted references including the Boston Globe and the New York Times, and Monicasdude caught him Thatcher131 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. And only Monicasdude (cue heroic music) was able to do that, what with his unique research skills and eternal vigilance. What could we all have been thinking, standing in his way! --Calton | Talk 03:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but Monicasdude right now is the only person who does a lot of that. The question is what will benefit Wikipedia more, and it is hard for me (and a few otherse) to see how the encyclopedia benefits overall from banning Monicasdude from the deletion process. JoshuaZ 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Calton, if you do more of that, we'll feel much happier. Until then, just saying that any of us can isn't quite the same thing. AnonEMouse 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy with just a civility parole. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)