< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Starwood Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:32, 15 January 2007 editEkajati (talk \| contribs)2,165 editsm →Motion to strike extreme bad faith accusations against []← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:34, 15 January 2007 edit undoEkajati (talk \| contribs)2,165 edits →Motion to strike extreme bad faith accusations against []Next edit →
Line 89:		Line 89:
	1) As far as I know, ] is not a party to this arbitration. He was not involved in the edit warring over Starwood links. Yes, he has been named as a possible sockpuppet, based on zero evidence I might add. I myself was repeatedly told that sockpuppet accusations prior to having had a checkuser run were in violation of ]. I see no evidence presented which links Jefferson Anderson to Starwood in any way. It appears to me that he proceeded correctly in good faith in an attempt to correct an issue with sources in an article. He discussed on the article talk page, he refrained from edit warring, and when his efforts were reverted by multiple editors, did the correct thing according to ] and opened a mediation request, which all of his opponents refused to participate in. In point of fact, unless J.A. is proven to be a sockpuppet, these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with Starwood. I feel a certain responsibility for this, since I requested that that issue be included in this arbitration. Since the sources he was concerned with have been removed from the articles in question, I have struck my request to expand the arbitration to include it.		1) As far as I know, ] is not a party to this arbitration. He was not involved in the edit warring over Starwood links. Yes, he has been named as a possible sockpuppet, based on zero evidence I might add. I myself was repeatedly told that sockpuppet accusations prior to having had a checkuser run were in violation of ]. I see no evidence presented which links Jefferson Anderson to Starwood in any way. It appears to me that he proceeded correctly in good faith in an attempt to correct an issue with sources in an article. He discussed on the article talk page, he refrained from edit warring, and when his efforts were reverted by multiple editors, did the correct thing according to ] and opened a mediation request, which all of his opponents refused to participate in. In point of fact, unless J.A. is proven to be a sockpuppet, these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with Starwood. I feel a certain responsibility for this, since I requested that that issue be included in this arbitration. Since the sources he was concerned with have been removed from the articles in question, I have struck my request to expand the arbitration to include it.

	I move that a checkuser be done immediately for Jefferson Anderson, and that if it proves negative, all reference to his actions be struck from evidence. They are being used to prove "harassment" by the parties on the Starwood side, without one shred of evidence that he is or was in any way involved with Starwood at all! If indeed he is not a sockpuppet, then his actions, which appear to be correct in any case, have nothing whatsoever to do with this case, and are being used as a distraction from the real issues. ] (]) 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)		I move that a checkuser be done immediately for Jefferson Anderson, and that if it proves negative, all reference to his actions be struck from evidence. They are being used to prove "harassment" by the parties on the Starwood side, without one shred of evidence that he is or was in any way involved with Starwood at all! If indeed he is not a sockpuppet, then his actions, which appear to be correct in any case, have nothing whatsoever to do with this case, and are being used as a distraction from the real issues. Not only that, but bringing him into this arbitration appears to be retaliatory. ] (]) 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''

Revision as of 16:34, 15 January 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion for CheckUser made by User:BostonMA

1) Motion to have ChechUser performed on the following accounts. On 5 Dec. Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) stated that he/she interprets the result of an RfC as permission to use sockpuppets. Immediately thereafter, Danuman Has (talk · contribs) account is created and replies immediately on the RfC page with

"Me, too. I completely agree with Hanuman Das. That's exactly what it means."

The User:Danuman Has account was blocked by User:Ars Scriptor, and User:BostonMA (i.e. myself) filed a Suspected Sockpuppet Report. User:Hanuman Das responded that it was all intended as a joke. User:Hanuman Das was subsequently indefinitely blocked by User:Redvers. I had suggested to User:Hanuman Das that he make a clear statement that he would not use sockpuppetry. Hanuman Das made such a statement , and I offered my opinion to User:Redvers that in light of that statement, I would support lifting the block . User:Redvers then lifted the block. User:Hanuman Das has since then stated that he has retired from Misplaced Pages. There is concern, however that he may have retired that account, but not retired from editting. Several new accounts have appeared recently which might well be controlled by the individual who used the User:Hanuman Das account. However, it is also possible that these accounts are controlled by other users involved in the conflict which led to this case.

Accounts to have checkuser

Possible principles:

Possible aternate accounts:

Motion made by BostonMA 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose - this is simply a fishing expedition with no reasons given for suspecting sockpuppetry. I would not object to a shorter list with specific evidence presented which suggests sockpuppetry, but this request seems rather broad. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse I strongly suspect some use of sockpuppets among these accounts and would like more definitive evidence one way or the other. The irony of Ekajati, whose evidence in this arbitration consists almost entirely of sockpuppet documentation, protesting this action seems rather acute to me. --Pigman 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - my point, as it seems to have escaped you, is that the type of evidence I've provided should be required to justify using checkuser. I'm adding Mattisse to the request though, as I am beginning to suspect that RasputinJSvengali is actually her sockpuppet intended to be used to suggest that Hanuman Das has not actually retired. The edit pattern of first harassing H.D. fits her M.O. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Conditionally Endorse, provided that the two users Mattisse and Timmy12 are added as possible principals as motioned below. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Conditionally Endorse, with same conditions as Ekajati. -999 (Talk) 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as per Ekajati & 999 Rosencomet 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as per User:BostonMA's original motion.WeniWidiWiki 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Add two users as possible principals to above Checkuser request

1) Add Mattisse and Timmy12 to the list of principals to be checked via checkuser in the previous motion. I am beginning to suspect that RasputinJSvengali is actually Mattisse's sockpuppet intended to be used to suggest that Hanuman Das has not actually retired. The edit pattern of first harassing H.D. fits her M.O. It's also possible that Timmy12 has not left but simply created a new account. It is just as likely that RasputinJSvengali is one of these two as it is that it might be Hanuman Das. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More likely, as Hanuman Das would never claim that Satanists were frequent attendees at Starwood. Also, on BostonMa's talk page, Matisse both argues against the deletion of these inputs, AND implies that the deletion of the entire Featured Speakers and Featured Entertainers sections was a "masterful stroke" to confuse the arbitrators on BEHALF of the people on the other side of this controversy from hers. (The edits in question seem to be designed to make trouble, as the very user name implies.) Rosencomet 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse -999 (Talk) 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as per Ekajati & 999 Rosencomet 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse which had Mattise and Timmy12 as unrelated. --Salix alba (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Salix alba. Flagellation is unnecessary when the horse is discorporate. --Pigman 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am not asking for a check between Mattisse and Timmy12, I know the checkuser was negative. I am asking for a check as to whether Timmy12 might be running any of the suspected sockpuppets such as RasputinJSvengali. That has not been checked. This is why I proposed adding Timmy12 as a possible principal, not as a possible sock. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Add User:LiftWaffen

A comment by Mattise suggests LiftWaffen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was blocked may not actually be a sock. If were doing a checkuser might as well throw the lot in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse, but I suspect too much time has passed. However, the fact that Mattisse is confused about whether or not this is her sock is, imo, dissembling. She has done the same for other socks, claiming they must have been one of her relatives to who she complained about edit warring. This defense has been seriously damaged by my evidence that shows that one of the confirmed socks, NLOleson, was created shortly before the edit war had started. That is, the use of socks was premeditated. This is the primary reason I think some administrative action should be taken against Mattisse. If she were but to publicly admit that the socks were hers, rather than blame them on her relatives, and publicly agree never to use socks again, I think the issue could be productively dropped. It is the continuing stance of what appears to me to be feigned ignorance that makes me worry that Mattisse has not taken away any "lessons learned" from this. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cease sockpuppet acusations

1) Once above checkuser have ben carried out, involved parties to cease further accusations of sockpuppetry against other parties. These acusations fall on the wrong side of WP:AGF, are getting to be a case of WP:POINT and disruptive of the community in general. --Salix alba (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse --BostonMA 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) removing endorse per concerns raised. Would definitely consider supporting an alternately worded resolution of the problem. --BostonMA 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, oh yes, endorse. --Pigman 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - WeniWidiWiki 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm withdrawing my endorsement for this particular motion because I'm concerned that the wording is ambiguous and too subject to interpretation. Is there a specific deadline after which pointing to any possible sockpuppet activity is off limits, no matter how blatant? Is it in perpetuity for all parties involved? However, I do agree with Salix's rationale for something like this, namely WP:AGF, WP:POINT, and community disruption, but I'd like a clearer statement. Perhaps I'm sensitive as well because I've recently experienced what I'm fairly sure was drive-by sock or meatpuppet activity from accounts listed in the Checkuser motion above. These incidents are detailed in my evidence. --Pigman 03:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think anyone is suggesting we throw all established wikipedia policies out the window, however, the incessant accusations and stalking which was evidenced by Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) going behind other users all over wikipedia and placing tags like This user was found to be a sock of XXXX behind every edit they ever made is the behaviour that needs to be dealt with by Arb com or at least swift admin action if it occurs again. (Especially, since no proof of sock-puppetry was forthcoming.) - WeniWidiWiki 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment When I first endorsed this, I was most certainly thinking of the history of months of sockpuppet accusations in this affair, I believe entirely from one group/side until the Checkuser motion above was placed. I sadly fail at WP:AGF in this instance because I fear this motion being used as a shield in the future. It's a sorry state when I feel some editors must now earn my assumption of good faith because I feel burned from past experiences with them. I know it's not a good or proper Wikipedian attitude yet it's there. *Sigh* --Pigman 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Paul Pigman, although perhaps the wording of the motion could be changed? I see two problems here, 1) it's unclear whether this prohibits the identification on potential new sockpuppet. If it does, it would end up enabling sockpuppetry as a user on either side could create a new sock and other parties would be prohibited from identifying the activity. 2) it is made clear on the WP:RFCU page that RFCU is not a magic bullet; that is, it can return a false negative for a sophisticated user who manages to use two computers (home and school or library) without slipping up. RFCU is only definitive when it yields positive results. Socks can also be identified by editing patterns even if RFCU is negative. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I see no reason to try to prevent accusations of an improper behavior without either demonstrating that it is not true, or an admission of that behavior on the part of the perpetrator, and a declaration that he/she will cease. Remember, we are not just talking about using sockpuppets, but creating work with them and then posting accusations attributing that work to other editors (as in the case of "Musart"), and requesting multiple citations under one name while deriding them as linkspam under another. Furthermore, if there is evidence that the behavior continues (as may be possible re: user:RasputinJSvengali), why should those trying to stop it be constrained? The principle of Assuming Good Faith does not mean "against all evidence to the contrary". That would not be reasonable. Rosencomet 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion to strike extreme bad faith accusations against Jefferson Anderson

1) As far as I know, Jefferson Anderson is not a party to this arbitration. He was not involved in the edit warring over Starwood links. Yes, he has been named as a possible sockpuppet, based on zero evidence I might add. I myself was repeatedly told that sockpuppet accusations prior to having had a checkuser run were in violation of WP:AGF. I see no evidence presented which links Jefferson Anderson to Starwood in any way. It appears to me that he proceeded correctly in good faith in an attempt to correct an issue with sources in an article. He discussed on the article talk page, he refrained from edit warring, and when his efforts were reverted by multiple editors, did the correct thing according to WP:DR and opened a mediation request, which all of his opponents refused to participate in. In point of fact, unless J.A. is proven to be a sockpuppet, these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with Starwood. I feel a certain responsibility for this, since I requested that that issue be included in this arbitration. Since the sources he was concerned with have been removed from the articles in question, I have struck my request to expand the arbitration to include it.

I move that a checkuser be done immediately for Jefferson Anderson, and that if it proves negative, all reference to his actions be struck from evidence. They are being used to prove "harassment" by the parties on the Starwood side, without one shred of evidence that he is or was in any way involved with Starwood at all! If indeed he is not a sockpuppet, then his actions, which appear to be correct in any case, have nothing whatsoever to do with this case, and are being used as a distraction from the real issues. Not only that, but bringing him into this arbitration appears to be retaliatory. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Linking to your own site is discouraged

1) By common consent, as stated in WP:EL, linking to your own site or a site which you control is strongly discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not have "my own site", nor do I control the ACE site in any way. The only links to that site were to satisfy repeated demands for citations by Matisse and her sock-puppets, citations that have been confirmed as proper for the purpose for which thay were used: to confirm that an appearance by that person at that event did indeed take place. Many of these have been taken down because it SEEMS that they are not required (although I still haven't seen a definative answer to this question). Rosencomet 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 22:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

2) By common consent, editors should be circumspect in editing topics where they have a vested interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree. But that's not the same as saying it is forbidden. I have tried to edit factually and with an objective point of view. However, this arbitration began with discussions about the appropriateness of certain kinds of internal and external links. This can be discussed without accusations of COI - a citation link is either necessary, acceptable, or improper, and an internal link is either acceptable or not, no matter who places it there. And I do not have a vested interest, in that I am a volunteer and not paid for my services. I have my own unrelated business. Rosencomet 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevant guideline at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest states: "If you have a conflict of interest, you should: 1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors". That seems stronger than requiring circumspection. WJBscribe 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Rosencomet's identity

1) User:Rosencomet is the Executive Director of ACE, LLC, a commercial enterprise which runs the for-profit Starwood and Winter Star events.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have stated that I am a director of ACE. There are several others. ACE is NOT a commercial enterprise nor are its events for-profit, as I have stated again and again. ALL INCOME GOES INTO PROGRAMMING, AND THERE ARE NO PAID OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES. However, I fail to see the issue: there are articles about for-profit and commercial enterprises all through Misplaced Pages: Xerox, IBM, Columbia Records, Adidas, Nabisco, etc. Rosencomet 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosencomet has violated guidelines

2) Rosencomet has violated the external links guideline by linking to his opwn site; Rosencomet has also violated community guidelines by adding content promoting a commercial enterprise in which he has a vested interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The only use I have made of external links was to satisfy demands for citations. The only links to the ACE site before these demands were to articles for which they were appropriate, such as ACE, Starwood, and WinterStar. It has already been stated that such citations were proper for that purpose in the mediation; the question remains whether the citation is REQUIRED, and when the appearance being cited is notable enough to be there. This, it seems, most parties agree should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, there was NO VIOLATION OF EXTERNAL LINK GUIDELINES.

I do not have a vested interest in this NON-COMMERCIAL enterprise, since I am not paid for my voluntary work. And the content I added was not promotional in nature, but factual contributions to the articles, along with the REST of the text I've been contributing to Misplaced Pages.

Look, for instance, at the Patricia Monaghan article, or the Harvey Wasserman article. These are notable authors, and I created good articles that have been added to by other editors. (For the most part, those on the other side of this issue have not contributed anything to the articles I've created except criticism, tags, deletions, and aspursions cast on my "motives". Hanuman Das, 999, and Ekajati have consistently striven to improve them and compensate for my amateur efforts in properly Wikifying them, and their criticisms have always been constructive and accompanied by help and advice.) To say that because a few words of these articles include a properly-cited appearance at an event that is notable enough to have its own article (and I hope I don't have to repeat all the reasons it is notable) constitutes "promotional content" is IMO short-sighted. Rosencomet 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

That Mattisse used alternate accounts in a prohibited way

1) That the serendiptious discovery by Rdsmith4 constitutes as valid discovery of alternate accounts as if an RFCU had been filed. Moreso, as the discovery was completely unexpected, the sockpuppet report actually suspecting another users as the puppetmaster. 2) That the evidence that Ekajati presents shows that the misuse of the altername accounts was premeditated. 3) That the manner of use constites a "good hand/bad hand" use; requesting citations with one account, then using the very same citations to recruit others to "fight spam." 4) That the subsequent referals by Mattisse to the work of her confirmed alternate accounts (as pointed out by Rosencomet) as if it were the work of Rosencomet constitutes a further violation of the intent of the prohibition of the use of sockpuppetry. 5) That the probable creation of additional accounts AFTER being unblocked by Rdsmith4 (evidence in the RfC againist Mattisse) combined with the subsequent referals mentioned in point 4 constitute a violation of her agreement with Rdsmith4 not to use sockpuppets again. 6) That these actions were directly responsible for the defensiveness of Rosencomet who rightly felt attacked on all sides from what turned out to be a single person which prevented him from taking the quoting of policy by other users seriously, i.e. these action poisoned the well of good faith, leading to significantly more and longer disruption to Misplaced Pages than would have been the case otherwise. 7) That Mattisse, through intentional actions, has been the cause of a significant disruption to Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:_

Proposed finding of fact. -999 (Talk) 05:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - good neutral description, 999! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - I truly feel that there would be less anger directed against me, and far less unnecessary work and dispute between many editors, if not for the intentional trouble-making evidenced above. The first criticism I got for mistakes I made as a newby were from Hanuman Das, who switched to being helpful when he saw I was well-meaning, and was aided by Salix Alba, 999, and Ekajati who all contributed to a better article. None of Matisse's actions led to anything but unpleasant interaction. Rosencomet 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It was only by mattise adding fact tags that I became aware of starwood etc. Fact tags, done well are basically to say thats there is a problem here. The better respose is to address the issue and find citations, rather than get into a big dispute about whether there should be a tag or not. I did feel the first fact tags on the starwood page were appropriate as there was a lot uncited in the article, I would not have given the article attention if it were not for the tags. They are rather a rough tool, but can help to bring improvment of articles and are good faith edits. --Salix alba (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - lacks objectivity and neutrality. In particular item 3 presents the adding of {{fact}} tags and the objection to link spam as good hand/bad hand usage. Tagging assertions with {{fact}} tags is neither a request for link spam nor does it justify the use of link spam. An editor who adds a {{fact}} tag to an assertion is not thereby precluded from subsequently objecting to an inappropriate link added as a reference to that assertion. --BostonMA 19:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

True, asking for a citation doesn't preclude you from evaluating the citation supplied as invalid. However, in this case there were DOZENS of citations requested by Mattisse and her socks challenging the simple fact that the people listed had appeared at the event, citations were supplied from the programs posted on the ACE website that were valid for that purpose (as later confirmed by the Mediation), then OTHER socks of Mattisse claimed that the NUMBER of citations was out of control, and that the INTENT of those supplying them was to "linkspam" and "google-bomb". She went on to rally other editors to help eliminate the excessive links under her own name, while actually ADDING to them with her own articles and links via sockpuppets that she ATTRIBUTED to "the Starwood people". This behavior, and doing it with phony names as if it were objections by multiple editors, is certainly "good hand/bad hand usage". Rosencomet 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. --BostonMA 13:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with BostonMA. --Pigman 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see the point in persuing this. This is very old news and just dredges up the past, preventing us from moving on. Yes Mattise did use sockpuppets, this was delt with by administrators at the time, resulting in a short block and since then she has refained from using puppets. Mattisse has largely disengaged from matters relating to starwood, only getting annoyed when anyone brings up the incident again.

It is time to focus on the matter at hand, the number of links to Starwood have been reduced somewhat and we are getting closer to a situation where most of the links are appropriate.

The question is now where do we go from here? How do we close this issue once and for all, so we can all get on with editing wikipedia in a civil manner. --Salix alba (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Salix alba on the issue of Mattisse's sockpuppets. I think the sockpuppet issue is a distraction from more central issues in this arbitration. However, it is important as it relates to harassment issues. Mattisse turned to sockpuppets to avoid harassment from editors "protecting" these articles and links. I have experienced harassment directly resulting from my opinions and actions on these articles, and I have seen others harassed for the same reasons by the same tag team of "protectors". It continues to be ugly and unpleasant to this day. I continue to contend that editors are avoiding these articles due to this harassment and that editing these articles in any manner is contentious and difficult far beyond their importance. These articles aren't about Palestine or abortion. We shouldn't have to fight to enter staked out territory on Misplaced Pages. --Pigman 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:_