Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 6 July 2008

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Injunction

Goodness me, that injunction would be a mad idea, as it would give free uncivility reign to Giano II if none of the 15 Arbs were online. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, the committee of admins idea that got 3 votes could be adopted as a temporary injunction but no, I don't think it would give free reign to Giano. Periods when they are not online are short and it would go harder for Giano if he was warned not to repeat because "we were going to tell". ArbCom members could publicly delegate their authority as well. So I see this as a workable measure. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest to the committee that, in the interests of transparency, any such request for blocking be posted on WP:AE or another page designated by Arbcom, and that any such authorisation to block be posted on-wiki, and be specific with respect to exactly the reason for the block? Risker (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it has always been an unwritten rule that you should not block Giano, why not make it official? _{1 != 2} 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not recused?

I'm amazed to see FT2 is still acting as an active arbitrator on this case. While I have my doubts about the legitimacy of Arbcom as a whole at this hour, and the question whether FT2 should remain part of it is obviously unresolved, I would have thought it a no-brainer that he ought to at least recuse himself from this case. Come on guys, everybody can see that this case is a direct spin-off of the FT2/OrangeMarlin/Arbcom mess. Giano was blocked for negative remarks in a discussion of FT2, on FT2's talkpage. That's what triggered the whole thing. I mean, seriously, how more blatantly involved can you get? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This case isn't about Giano... Viridae 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are speaking in jest or not. Please tell me you are; my irony meter must be out of order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It might have resulted from events around Giano, but is in no way related to his behaviour. Instead (at least as far as the request went) was about the behaviour of those named in the case title. Viridae 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano's only need to even be in this case would be to vacate or modify the IRC ruling, which could be done there as well as here. So could the temporary injunction. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Though Giano was named as a party on the initial request for arbitration, this case really has little to do with Giano. At this point I don't envisage a decision making any findings with respect to Giano; the focus is on the administrative actions. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod, but see above. I hope ArbCom chooses to modify the restriction, either via the IRC case motion, or via a new one here. Other than that, absolutely agree. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This "case" without a finding and a remedy that would not include Giano would be a major surprise to me. Not that surprises are rare, but all surprises I have got from this arbcom were bad surprises despite I long since lost my pink glasses. --Irpen 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the comments above miss the point of my initial posting. My point wasn't about Giano; I don't care if he is part of this or not. My point was about FT2. The whole kerfuffle was triggered in the immediate context of the FT2/Arbcom mess, and it is reasonable to believe that everybody's conduct, including that of the wheelwarring admins, was also motivated by that context. Therefore FT2 should recuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the connection personally. _{1 != 2} 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And was not I right to not expect surprised from ArbCom?  ? --Irpen 08:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That Giano criticized FT2 is irrelevant - there is ample precedent for the view of "you cannot select arbitrators for recusal by making personal attacks against them and then declaring them biased." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Avruch

Is it really fair to issue a remedy for Avruch? He made one sarcastic comment - of course, it didn't help the situation, but I'm not seeing any pattern of abuse that requires him to be officially admonished by the arbitration committee. If there was a long standing problem, I could totally understand, but one comment (that wasn't even that bad) doesn't strike me as grounds to be reprimanded. Just a thought anyway.... Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall a situation, before Avruch caused it. Giano (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't about the minor situation that led to your block - this is about the admins that wheel warred over it. Minor infringements by yourself and Avruch shouldn't be ruled upon here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, how very touchingly naive you are Ryan. Well I shall be accepting zero of the findings of this show trial, just as I did on the last occasion. Others must do as they see fit. However, I am pleased the Arbcom has the time on their hands to discuss these "minor" matters, and feels there is nothing more demanding of their time. Giano (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you view an "admonishment" as the Arbcom equivalent of a trout-slapping, then I think it is fair to say that Avruch deserves it for causing this mess. If it hadn't elevated itself into wheel warring we wouldn't be here. But it did, and we are, and it is certainly fair for Arbcom to say that what Avruch said was inappropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, admonishment is the most severe "warning" that arbcom can give out. Maybe a reminder would be better in these circumstaces, given that he's got no previous history of causing problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, Avruch now realises that it is best not to be a stirrer, and if one does want to stir a pot, then beware of the fat hitting the fire. Giano (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I've never paid much attention to hypothetical distinctions between "warnings", "reminders", "admonishments", etc. Perhaps you can discuss it with the members if you think it is really important. Though with my above comment in mind, it would be equally fair for Arbcom to comment on the inappropriateness of Giano's comments with respect to triggering this matter. Dragons flight (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::::"I think it is fair to say that Avruch deserves it for causing this mess." If he is being admonished for 'starting' this mess, then why is the action that he is being admonished for an edit that he made well after this mess was started? It appears otherwise - that the if the finding passes, some members of the ArbCom have zero sense of humor about the oft cited truism "There is no cabal.". And if such references are automically admonishable, the ArbCom better make a ruling to delete WP:CABAL-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have your timeline confused. Avruch said , Giano replied , and WMC cited Giano's reply as the reason for issuing the first block in this sequence. . Avruch's sarcastic comment directly precipitated the current dispute. Dragons flight (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's putting the cart before the horse to blame Avruch for Giano's reply and WMC's block. Giano had a choice about whether to reply; WMC had a choice whether to issue a block, but Avruch had no control over either of those actions. I think it's an incredible break with precedent for Arbcom to even mention an editor over a single comment. Meh, I suppose if Arbcom wants to keep randomly punishing people this is sensible. This shouldn't have come this far in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly. It is utterly unbelievable to see Avruch, an established user in good standing with no history of conduct issues, singled out for ArbCom-sanctioned criticism as the result of a single moderately sarcastic comment. The Committee can't really possibly believe that these unpredictable, seemingly random lightning strikes are a good idea, can they? Attaching blame to Avruch here is like saying that World War I was Franz Ferdinand's fault. MastCell  00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to

(). Avruch 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

Regrettable. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So

After less than twenty four hours we have a proposed decision all written up and ready to be voted on, and yet after almost two months (!) we have nothing here? What's so urgent about this case? Naerii 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because there are things that arbitrators are eager to have done and this case gives them an opportunity. That other case is much more difficult to solve to their plasure as well as to finally "address the problems of IRC to be done at a later point", or come clean from FT2 mess that they can't do for so long because they are still "busy intensely discussing". So busy they are discussing what to do re OM fall back that they took this case with a rare expediency, discussed it to a degree that they are ready with a decision to vote. --Irpen 19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they posted a final report about such issues already, Irpen, on the OM ArbCom page. SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that "report" and since it happens to be the same bunch of a carefully crafted bunch of evasive talk as we have seen before it cannot be persuasive. And before anyone would go along the "you will never be satisfied until you like the result" line, please take time to read this "report" yourself and find there anything but meaningless generalities. --Irpen 07:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not take thebainer's writing of proposals as evidence that the committee is near closing this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WMC/Wheel-warring

I just happened to notice that while there are findings of fact aimed at WMC's inappropriate extension of a block aimed at Giano, and then inappropriately reapplying the extended block (hmm.. sounds like reinstating the block after an unblock without discussion or consensus, no matter how dubious the unblock, constituted wheel warring, under ANY definition), the only proposed remedy is that he is not to have any further administrative action against Giano. Do you really think after touching Misplaced Pages's third rail (thanks, Risker for the reference, it fits!) and with the proposed remedies modifying the sanction against Giano, he'd WANT to have any further contact with him? So what we have here is the one person who EVERYONE can agree wheel-warred on this, again, that one line that should never be crossed by an administrator, and we're going to do... nothing? Maybe I'm jumping the gun here and there's more remedies coming, but there's a glaring hole here as it stands. SirFozzie (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for time

Per my pledge to stand up on behalf of fair process for any and all Wikipedians, I respectfully request that the arbitrators refrain from voting on this case until all of the parties have had adequate time to present evidence. That is, at least one week from the opening date or if all of the named parties agree that they are ready for voting to commence sooner. Named parties who are ready to see this case voted upon may sign below. Durova 22:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signatures:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Geogre (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I guess. I mean, I haven't paid any attention, as no one has tried to mediate anything with me. In fact, other than notifications of tribunal meetings, I haven't been asked anything, spoken to by a non-automated process, or anything, and I actually do things to celebrate holidays other than look obsessively at the teapot of storms. Geogre (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano's response is here. Durova 08:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• What additional evidence can there really be to provide? The facts of the case are pretty clear. Unless you mean "evidence" as "giving an opinion", which seems to be what the evidence page is mostly used for these days. Naerii 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Pointless obstruction. The relevant facts are in logs for all to see. Friday (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from negative assumptions. After my own case, which went to voting in under 24 hours with five arbitrators going on record before I could assemble half my evidence, I decided to speak up and request adequate time on behalf of other Wikipedians. Prior to this case, I did the same in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62 although I did not know Vanished User, and Physchim62 had been openly hostile toward me before the case opened. At Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33 I supported Giovanni's request for additional time, even though I had previously blocked him indefinitely. This is absolutely not pointless obstruction; it is principle. See below.

From Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Case handling:

Cases are sometimes allowed to take considerable time, even if (apparently) obvious. This is because often over time, if allowed to stand, new material will be added that otherwise would not have come to light. For this reason an arbitration case will often be allowed to stand open for a number of weeks, to ensure maximal opportunity for new information to be added.

Durova 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I agree..so long as more time doesn't mean that everyone with an axe to grind from previous matters shows up here to get some sort of "revenge". Cases open to long sometimes become festering dungheaps of "diffs" that are cherry picked to ensure that punitive actions are taken. But this is moving really fast....--MONGO 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the key is if we leave this open long enough someone will lose their cool, do something stupid, and thereby extend the case in new and fascinating directions. I understand Durova's concern here, but I think it's misplaced; long cases prolong the suffering for all involved. Arb cases are like mosquito bites; people can't help but scratch them. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If the named parties want voting to proceed this quickly they can say so with their signatures here. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Durova 00:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a complicated case factually; indeed, it's fairly straightforward, and even the parties agree on the substance of what happened. The question here is rather the characterisation of those facts: what do they constitute? In that kind of case, I don't see a problem in getting something out there that people can work from. I've posted what's a fairly minimalist proposed decision, and I fully expect that other arbitrators will offer their own proposals, and that people will continue making proposals on the workshop page. Having a proposed decision posted in no way means that minds are closed. --bainer (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding with that thoughtful comment. What I ask, basically, is that the Committee consider the situation you faced last weekend and extend the same understanding patience you asked of the community. If I've been informed correctly, at least some of the arbitrators had prior engagements and weren't very available on a moment's notice. I trust you all proceeded as quickly as you reasonably could; the named parties here are all dedicated volunteers and we can trust them to do the same. Durova 03:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting too soon simply gives the impression that due process is not being followed, and serves to prejudice the case. Rushing to voting has put the arbcom in disrepute multiple times. My case, the MatthewHoffman case is still discussed, given that the rush to vote and desysop me, before I had put up a word of evidence other than to say I would need some time due to illness and upcoming exams. The Orangemarlin controversy just this month centred around not allowing the user to provide evidence. Give the user at least a week to provide and polish his defense, or there is a strong risk putting arbcom in disrepute. Indeed, I'd say that a week minimum should be enshrined as an arbcom standard. I would therefore ask that Bainer deletes all proposals, or at least moves them to the Workshop, which would be an appropriate place for early thoughts on the case. - User:Vanished user 03:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That case dragged on for months; few cases were less of a rush to judgment, IMO. We left things open for a long time in an attempt to allow you to provide more evidence. I feel that you are holding on tightly to the belief that you were hard done by rather than accepting that you used admin tools inappropriately.

That proposals are posted does not mean that our minds are closed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, that case was suspended for the conduct RFC that ought to have preceded it. Despite being conducted on highly prejudicial terms, with an open arbitration case and several arbitrators already on record in favor of desysopping, the community's response was solidly in Vanished User's favor. It was clear that he would have no trouble passing RFA a second time--and how many administrators who actually use the tools could achieve that? The only effect this had on the Committee's decision was that when it proceeded with desysopping it attempted to keep him under the Committee's supervision, yet the decision itself was so poorly written that it did not actually prevent him from seeking the bit again by normal means. From start to finish it was a textbook example of how not to operate an arbitration case. In the Navy they study spectacular disasters for the purpose of "lessons learned". Rather than excusing that one, the Committee would do well to follow the Navy's example. Durova 09:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

After the committee had piled on to vote to desysop me before I had provided any evidence, had ignored dozens of emails I sent, refused to give me time to do exams - which cost me at least a couple grade levels - and after the Finding of Fact #9 incident, where half-a-dozen people were shouting that the diffs Kirril provided did not back the conclusions, to self-righteously declare that my failure to then use Christmas to provide evidence is a sign that this is all my fault is ridiculous. I will also note that I made every effort to learn from the experience up until the Finding of Fact #9 incident. I encourage anyone interested to read the case. User:Vanished user 13:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page the clerk placed Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. I did rather assume from that the the arbs would wait for the evidence before voting, that being a kind of due process thing, and I had hoped that they had learnt from the OM case that due process was a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though I agree mostly with what has been posted as the proposed decision, I still have some points to follow up. I was intending to do so this weekend. I agree with the calls here to allow at least a week for evidence submission. One of the points I want to make is that blocks of the sort WMC carried out rarely work if there has been little or no interaction previously. I am not aware that Giano and WMC have ever edited in the same areas, or "talked" to each other on-wiki. The point being that if you don't know an editor, it is best to start a more general discussion, or open dialogue with the editor, rather than reaching straight for the block button. I would like to be able to contrast the different approaches taken by WMC, Avruch and WJBscribe on seeing Giano's edit (there are presumably other people who saw the edits and did nothing at all on-wiki): WMC blocked; Avruch prepared an arbitration enforcement post, and WJBscribe reverted the edit and left a warning. Does no-one see a problem here in the way three different editors and admins can chose three such widely varying reactions? Admin actions can't always be consistent, but this is a very wide disparity. Admins need to try and ensure reactions to types of incidents are broadly similar, or at least demonstrate awareness of the alternatives (something I'm not sure WMC has demonstrated). Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We now have Having a proposed decision posted in no way means that minds are closed and That proposals are posted does not mean that our minds are closed. This is excuse making, and deliberate obfustication, rather reminiscent of the arbcomm non-statements in the ongoing FT2 affair. We're complaining about you *voting* before the evidence is posted. No one is going to have any confidence in your respect for process, or of your having learnt anything from the FT2 mess, if you're prepared to vote before the evidence is submitted. The votes made need to be struck out. Or is this going to be another FT2 "we didn't need to hear the evidence"? If thats really so, can we all stop pretending, and just let you get on with it? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please

I am very sympathetic to Giano in general, but may I say that an ArbCom resolution deploring sarcasm would be bloody stupid an absolutely brilliant idea. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to clarify whether this is sarcasm or not... I think a better principle would be that sarcasm can be unhelpful and should only be used with care. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, come on everyone? Sweep the whole mess under a rug & pretent none of it happened. Agree to disagree & go your seperate ways. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility is important, but I think that findings which further restrict the already narrow range of acceptable expression on Misplaced Pages are counterproductive. If someone can't handle an occasional mildly sarcastic comment, then they need a thicker skin - or at least the empathy not to consistently dish them out. MastCell  18:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question to Thebainer/arbs - decorum principle

Didn't we take "trolling" out of the list on more recent cases (eg; footnoted quotes)? There was some concern with the use of that term. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, "we"?

Anyway, it was taken out of that specific case because it wasn't applicable; in general, however, it's still appropriate.

James F. (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm...yeah right. I really shouldn't need to regurgitate the fact that principles are intended as absolute, and that it hasn't been applicable in some cases it has been used in. Nor the inappropriate way the term has been used by parties in this case. My bad, huh? (Please think again.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy 1 (any five administrators version)

Even if you don't think it would happen in any other case, you must know that five administrators are going to all agree to block Giano, in the midst of a massive discussion in which significantly more than five disagree thus starting the biggest wheel war in history with one side screaming "it only needs five of us" and the other screaming "but consensus!". Seriously, if you mean five administrators beats everything else then say so very clearly and if you don't then say that very clearly instead. It's going to happen. There is a small chance that none of the five will mention having agreed it on IRC. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I do disagree with the above comment, as I know that I am an administrator and I tend to oppose blocking/banning wherever reasonable, I also think that it might be better if the phrasing were adjusted in such a way that non-administrators of the Committee's choice might be considered as well. We have at least a few former admins who have either voluntarily given up that status or lost it on the basis of matters which might be unrelated to those of this case, and I think it might be a good idea to at least potentially include them, as well as any senior, trusted editors who have never sought adminship, in the potential pool as well. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to specify which version I meant but I still confused the issue. I meant 1 (currently the bainer's first choice). Not 1.1. 1 is the "any five administrators" version not the "designated administrators" version. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the IP above. Given that blocks of Giano regularly invite the comments of 15-20 admins and senior editors each time, it's entirely conceivable that consensus would be to not block but five admins of the group would favour blocking and...well... In fact, I have no doubt I could find five administrators right this minute who would block Giano indefinitely, without any further activity on his part and without a moment's hesitation, as long as they knew they'd all hang together. If a remedy along this line is going to pass, I am afraid it would need to be designated administrators and/or Arbcom members. Risker (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "the biggest wheel war in history with one side screaming "it only needs five of us" and the other screaming "but consensus!" - this would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Well, OK, it is still funny, but if it ever happened it would also be a very sad day. Carcharoth (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You raise a very good point 87; my intention was that consensus be the operative requirement, consensus in a discussion involving at least five administrators. A discussion at arbitration enforcement is the kind of thing I envisage. I've altered the wording; does this resolve the ambiguity? --bainer (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks 87.254.72.195 (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thought though, suppose some variant of 1 passes (1, 1.1 or 1.2) and then the next day an administrator unaware of any of this sees a comment by Giano that he regards as uncivil, and blocks him. Someone then points out this arbitration. What is the correct next step by the administrator - unblock and follow the special procedure, leave blocked while trying to get agreement through the special procedure, or say "I wasn't acting under the Arbcom restrictions, it's just like any other block"? Should the proper response be evident from the remedies or is it better to rely on sound administrator judgment? 87.254.72.195 (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Kirill Lokshin to remove himself from this case

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop#Request for Kirill Lokshin to remove himself from this case. --Irpen 08:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bullshit. Since you only involve yourself in a certain class of arbitration case, you may not be aware that in a great many cases, the only sensible, coherent evidence is that offered by the arbitrators. Often in cases which have likely fallen under your particular radar, the evidence presented by the parties is so tendentious, so steeped in the original dispute, or simply so incoherent, that the only decent evidence and summaries are those offered by the arbitrators on the workshop or proposed decision page. It is simply routine. Thatcher 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thatcher, respectfully request a refactor to something more genteel. Durova 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, my error. I should have said, "You truly are a very stupid ignorant person Irpen!" Thatcher 21:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
        • • Oohh, nice, Thatcher! First you describe Irpen's edit as bullshit—that possibly wasn't "genteel", but not particularly incivil, either. And then you "refactor" it into an egregious comment on Irpen the person. This is an excellent illustration of what Irpen was saying earlier—I forget where—about incivility residing in the kind of claim made, and not in the use of ungenteel words. Outstanding, really. You have enlightened us. I hope Irpen will enjoy the pedagogy rather than resent the insult. If he cries Personal Attack, you can expect Bishzilla to come warn you. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
        • Thatcher, I earnestly request that you reconsider. One of the findings in this case has to do with decorum. It does not bode well for the case clerk to be setting this example. Please refactor, or else I must request your recusal. Durova 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Bish, I agree with your sentiment (although not exactly with the expression of it). Thatcher, please respond. This isn't heading in a good direction. Durova 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Alas, my remark seems to have gone over the heads of its intended audience. I apologize for any offense I have caused. Thatcher 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
              • No, no, Thatcher. It was the fucking refactoring, not the remark. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC).