Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 15

message: In case it was not clear, I've just tried to undo this edit:  in which someone inadvertently corrupted the new case template. Please take a look and make sure I restored the proper template. --woggly 08:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template fix

message: I noticed that voting has already started onwikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. The case was opened on 9 July 2006. The voting has not yet started on wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba that was openend on 7 July 2006. What is the time schedule for providing evidence? I am one of the two contributors involved in the latter and I have not finished providing evidence. I do understand that from a Wikipedia point of view the Israeli Apartheid article is more important than the Sathya Sai Baba article. Andries 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no order, really. Voting happens whenever an arbitrator decides to write up some proposals and start it. Generally it will go in some kind of order, but some things sit around for a disproportionate time period for a variety of reasons, or even no reason. I don't think it has to do with any judgment on importance of the subjects, though, certainly not on my part. Dmcdevit·t 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the order in treating cases?

message: Did someone make July a month of full moons or something?  By the way, would anyone mind if I archived some of this page?  It's a bit long these days. Thatcher131 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Not being an arbitrator or anything, I can't give you an "official" answer, but here's my $0.02 anyway:) Provided you mean this talk page, I would venture to guess that the Arbitrators and their lovely, but often overworked, clerks would be thrilled to have someone archive off anything that had gone, say, a month without any further comments. Cases & motions on the main RfAr page should be left to arbs or clerks to handle, but the talk page shouldn't be any trouble. Of course, now that I've said that, one of them will come along and scream "No touchy our talk page!"  Essjay (Talk) 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, now that you say that, I'll come along and agree with you. :-) Dmcdevit·t 15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking that to mean you agree with the first part and not the second part. :)  (I hope) Thatcher131 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A followup: EssjayBot II is online and has been approved to do archiving tasks; if the Committee would like, I can set it to archive this talk page. The basic scheme is, any section where the most recent timestamp is older than x days (where x is hardcoded) is archived. I've already got it doing WP:BN and WP:CHU along with their talk pages; I can set it up to do this talk page on whatever schedule the Committee would like, and following up on the section above, to take care of the "Requests for clarification" section as well, if desired. (I'd simply set it to an extended length of time, say, 20 days, to avoid it accidentally archiving RfArs.) Thoughts? Essjay (Talk) 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated, I'd say. Dmcdevit·t 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll set it up shortly. Is seven days long enough for this page, and do you want me to include the clarification section of RfAR (and on what schedule)? Essjay (Talk) 04:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full moon? 

message: On July 17, I wrote on this page, but never received a reply: "Will the ArbCom agree to read and consider evidence about this case if I present it?" I can't believe the ArbCom could stoop so low as to close a case without even hearing the defendant's evidence and arguments, without holding a discussion about it all. In the past I was at least offered a formal opportunity to do this, even if it had no effect or the time given was inadequate; have things now degenerated so much than a defendant can't even count on that much? Everyking 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I find this, from experience, to be all too believable. Natural justice it aint. David | Talk 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EK, it sounds a bit as if you were "waiting for an engraved invitation", as my mother used to say. I've participated in a few ArbCom cases and I've never asked permission to post evidence. And, to be honest, the few questions that I've ever asked of "the ArbCom" have also gone unanswered. I realize now that the ArbCom as a body can ony speak when they vote on a matter. I strongly suspect that, if you keep it short, the ArbCom members would still read your evidence. -Will Beback 05:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asking again

message: Can I ask if it is possible for a clerk to split an 'omnibus' case, into cases that seperate out the main points. for example the External links of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict appears to have at least two distinct sets of charges. The first being Tasc's rejection of mediation and continuing to edit war, the second the charges against me of 'mocking the mediation process'. It's hard to keep limited length statements when there are a series of charges being addressed, or new charges have been introduced in statements but not clearly defined. 
Alternativly, could a clerk go over this and try to enumerate the exact set of charges that have been brought up. --Barberio 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting cases 

message: This case is close to closing. The arbitrators below have voted.
#Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Would you like to help out by watching this case and closing it?  I can provide hands-on help and advice. I've checked to see if you're an involved party but you don't seem to be. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, might as well make myself useful. This week I left messages on the talk pages of several arbitrators that overlooked a vote on several cases. They both responded. Hope that is not being too pushy. FloNight talk 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd also be willing to help out as needed or even become a clerk formally, if you're interested. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're most welcome to help out in any way you feel able to.  Read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures for an indication of the kind of work that is involved.  Most of it is opening and closing cases.  Sometimes a workshop or evidence page needs to be cleaned up. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a case in is motion to close, how long do you wait after the 4th close vote to officially close the case? Thatcher131 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Subject of course to more detailed guidance from an Arbitrator or Tony, there is some discussion on closing procedure in the Arbitration Policy here, if you haven't already seen it. Newyorkbrad 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake/Proposed decision]]

message: *My removal of attack sections. Note this is a  spanning diff.
*Blanket removal
*My replacement of the statement
Having a link to the removed statement ensures that if someone wants to see what the fuss is about they can.  Maybe I'm wrong about it being a personal attack, for instance, and people can decide that for themselves.  Outright removal does not do that. - Aaron Brenneman 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the wrong link still, this was the original. I'd rather for obvious reasons not touch anyone else's comments. rootology (T) 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitration applications aren't about internal dramatics, they're about presenting a case to the arbitrators so that they can make up their mind.  I removed the section labelled "Statement by Cyde" because, by that time, it was actually a statement by someone who is not Cyde. An alternative would have been to relabel it, but this might have given undue evidence weight to what was said by Brenneman, which doesn't seem to pertain to the case at all. --Tony Sidaway 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain to me how the statement " I wouldn't say that either of them is a troll per se, but they have been known to lure the occasional passerby under their bridge and eat him." presents a case to the commitee, but that suggesting to the user that it's a personal attack and should be redacted is "dramatics."  Are you defending Cyde's personal attack, or simply taking offense at my removal of it? --Aaron Brenneman 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it was a personal attack or not it was very flippant, and as such, entirely inappropriate for an RfAr. Let alone from an admin. It does not matter whether it is true or not, its how it looks to others. In the same way parents are expected to be positive role models we should expect the same from admins, especialy in this forum. And if this kind of stuff is considered acceptable, why?  David D. (Talk) 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  To repeat myself, I removed the section because after editing it was actually a statement by a person who is not Cyde.  Your questions do not appear to address my stated reason for removal, Aaron. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its pretty obvious that Aaron removed it but left the title so Cyde could edit it if he wished. Fortunately he has done this. You seem to be chastising the messenger, strange. David D. (Talk) 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  So any change to a statement made by another user makes it unsuitable for inclusion on this page?  When presenting a case to the Committee it's important to preserve the format of the statement, is that what you are saying?  The information was all still there, all clearly attributed to Cyde. - brenneman {L} 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Cyde 

message: I am requesting arbitration on a language-choice dispute on the Paul Weyrich article. I've tried arguing my case that TheocracyWatch and the ADL cannot be used as verifiable sources for Mr. Weyrich's alleged ties to Dominionism because both have political agendas against Mr. Weyrich. I dispute the WP:V of the underlying articles. I have tried in vain to argue against their objectivity, but no one wishes to budge on the other side.
I have cited the following rule to no avail WP:RS:
"Partisan, religious and extremist websites
The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source.
Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources."
I don't mind if their criticisms are in the article, just as long as the language is attributed. I have tried and failed to achieve agreeable language with User:FeloniusMonk,User:KillerChihauhua,User: Guettarda,User: •Jim62sch• and User:
In response to a 1999 controversy covered by the press concerning a group of Wiccans in the United States military who were holding religious rituals and services on the grounds of the bases they were assigned to, Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and bar them from serving the military altogether. Weyrich, as president of the Free Congress Foundation, led a coalition of ten religious right organizations that attempted a Christian boycott on joining the military until all Wiccans were removed from the services, saying:
:The article is overreaching. Instead of attributing the above interpretation of Mr. Weyrich's words to a person or group, they seem to editorialize about his intentions. If a person reads the article in context, Mr. Weyrich's beef is the "official approval". Additionally, the First Amendment doesn't apply to the military, per case law.
"I am not a constitutional lawyer, but the sentence "Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First_Amendment" is misleading for reasons unrelated to either Weyrich or to Wicca. Wiccans in the U.S. armed forces, like their Muslim, Christian, or atheist counterparts, are already subject to restrictions on religious practice, for instance see Goldman v. Weinberger (475 U.S. 503 (1986))
... [SCOTUS] have repeatedly held that "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society." [475 U.S. 503, 507] Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 743 (1974). See also Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 300 (1983); Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 757 (1975); Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94 (1953). ... In the context of the present case, when evaluating whether military needs justify a particular restriction on religiously motivated conduct, courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest.
The passage describes FCF's opposition to what it calls "witchcraft rituals"[8] which the Court says Congress or the military could regulate for military personnel without imposing upon their free exercise of religion. Besides, the sentence is not necessary to introduce the passage, which is presumably intended to highlight religious intolerance on the part of Weyrich rather than the nuances of civil rights laws, and I'm fairly certain this is incorrect use of the word "exempt." -choster 15:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the word lists gives undue weight to TheocracyWatch's POV. I preferred an attributive word such as "argues" because the underlying article is unverifiable as to Mr. Weyrich's alleged espousal of Dominionism. There aren't any columns or Free Congress Foundation articles where the Dominionist viewpoint is explicitly espoused.
His Melkite religious background doesn't even fit with TheocracyWatch's own definition of Dominionism.
TheocracyWatch, which calls it "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and others consider this manifesto a virtual playbook for how the theocratic right in American politics can get and keep power.[7]
Referring to the Christian right as the "Theocratic right" is editorializing. They don't regard themselves as such, and they all would reject the idea of a theocracy, Mr Weyrich included. They all consider it a libelous accusation.
I changed it to Christian right, but my arguments that "theocratic right" was ignored. 
The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten the separation of church and state. 
The interpretation of what the separation of church and state means is open to interpretation and is therefore subjective. My rejected alternative was:"The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten its interpretation of the separation of church and state."
The Christian right has a different interpretation of the separation of church and state, which it sees as an institutional separation akin to banning something like the Church of England.
The issue is contentious and subjective, so I only thought it was appropriate to attribute whose interpretation was involved. It's a matter of opinion that the Christian right threatens that separation, not an incontrovertable fact.
[5] Weyrich has rejected allegations that he advocates theocracy saying, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry"[8] and dismisses the claim that the Christian right wishes to transform America into a theocracy.[9]
Additionally, I added a sentence where Weyrich says he wouldn't be part of a movement that would establish an Iran-style theocracy.
I have tried unsuccesfully to attain a resulution with the above-mentioned individuals. Instead of looking to resolve the issue peacefully, they have taken it upon themselves to make hay out of my learner's mistakes and seek to have me banned.
Therefore, I ask the arbitration committee to impose a solution to this impasse. I do not believe there has been so much as one good-faith effort on the part of the other parties to resolve this issue. 
A NPOV should mean unattributed opinions both Left and Right don't have a place in the article.--Pravknight 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance with the Paul Weyrich article

message: I would like to make a request but there is no more request template. — AKADriver ☎ 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Give me a minute. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hidden template has been altered or removed. 

message: One of the participants in the Rainbow Gathering case was named by e-mail address because he/she is not a registered Wikipedia user.  Including an active non-Wiki e-mail address on a majorly trafficked Wikipedia page can effectively sentence the addressee to a lifetime of spam, so I have redacted a portion of the e-mail address, to which I hope no one will object.  The full address is of course still available if needed by ArbCom through the page history.  By taking this ministerial step I am not becoming a party to the case or expressing any other interest in it. Newyorkbrad 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normal antispam measures are effective against that kind of thing.  I'd rather email addresses were not altered on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deleting off-wiki e-mail addresses on high-traffic pages appears to me to be common practice.  It must happen a dozen times a day at WP:HD, for example.  But based on your input I won't do it again. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-mail address redacted 

message: Has there already been a discussion whether this page should be formated the way WP:RfA is? That is, every case on its own subpage, and then subpages included into this page. So an interested user can watch only the case (s)he is interested in. --Dijxtra 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once a case is accepted it is moved to a subpage and several additional subpages established (/Evidence, /Workshop, and /Proposed decision).  I believe there is a deliberate decision not to make subpages for cases until they are accepted, as over half of all applications are declined. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the insight. --Dijxtra 11:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We sometimes have had to offload case applications to subpages; some applicants are very prolix and a 64kb application is not unknown.  This isn't that common, though. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting this page to subpages 

message: The WP:SRNC poll has concluded (with the exception of one state, and this minor dispute has nothing to do with article name). Therefore, mass page moves pursuant to WP:USSH will be taking place. Please do not block any of these users, as these moves are not controversial. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Highways poll concluded

message: I hate to be a bother, but how long does it normally take for Arbitration to be decided as a course, and how long does it take once started? I don't mind waiting, as, happily, there's been more-or-less of an agreement to put the main point of contention on hold until the arbitrators meet, so good things have happened out of it, but it'd be nice to know a very rough schedule. Adam Cuerden talk 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most cases are completed in 6-8 weeks, with a few finished in a month. FloNight 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: This page has been protected because of a request for arbitration concerning this article. The page has been preserved in this state for evidence purposes. It will remain protected until the end of the arbitration case.
This is a proposed template for use in cases where an article in mainspace is the subject of an ArbCom case; what do people think of it?? --Gold-Horn 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  Just because an article is named in a case doesn't mean other people can't edit responsibly, and articles should only be locked to prevent ongoing disruption, for which  and  work just fine.  Besides, some cases take 2-3 months to resolve, we don't want to leave an article protected for that long. Thatcher131 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history will have a version of the article with the needed evidence. No need to preserve it by protection. --FloNight 17:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May be worth noting that the user who proposed this has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet.  Ral315 (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for ArbCom 

message: Just wondering what the policy is regarding "Involved parties" statements: are short replies allowed, tolerated, prohibited? Obviously we don't want to turn them into a debate, but for example, it might be useful to ask for examples and sources to backup a statement?  --Iantresman 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add questions or comments to your own section.  Sometimes people use a bold label like Question for John or Reply to Jane.  Just don't edit in the other folk's sections. Thatcher131 21:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement replies

message: This case should be closed immediately as nonsense.  The editor contacted the unblock mailing list, claiming he has a right to post his opinions here because Wikipedia is a "quasi-governmental entity".  When I asked him where he got that idea, he did not reply.  Law school graduate, huh?  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a tad confused by the existence of the case as well - it's blatantly obvious the user was rightfully blocked. Cowman109Talk 00:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if Tony were still a clerk he probably would have whacked it right away.  Our new clerks are probably waiting for word from the arbitrators. Thatcher131 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur with Thatcher131.  The solution is for the arbitrators to quickly reject a "case" of this nature.  Of course it's understandable that the arbitrators may be focused on other matters just now. Newyorkbrad 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I saw this being edited last night, the only reason I didn't just delete it as trolling is that Gwernol had bothered to write up a response.  IMO the "case" should be thrown out as trolling, and Gwernol congratulated for exemplary adminning.  Antandrus  (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to go that far, but I agree that all Gwernol did was correctly do his job, and it wouldn't hurt for one or more members of the Arbcom to affirm that in the process of throwing that complaint out on its proverbial ass. PurplePlatypus 05:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And Mr. 4th arbitrator, you better vote "reject" as told above, 'cose otherwise two more busy arbitrators are needed to reject the damn thing. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Gwernol case

message: Recognizing that everyone's been busy, could a fourth arbitrator please vote to reject this so-called case so it can be closed and gotten off the page? Newyorkbrad 00:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Mr. 4th arbitrator, you better vote "reject" as told above, 'cose otherwise two more busy arbitrators are needed to reject the damn thing. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: * Should those people involved in a Request, provide "Clear and obvious examples" as described on the page "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case" in the section "What the ArbCom will and won't look at"
*How about on request? Without examples, it is difficult, to consider a reply. --Iantresman 17:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear and obvious examples

message: I opened the Pseudscience case as it has been 6 days since the 4th vote to accept.  FloNight is recused and I guess Drini and MGM are busy.  If MGM or Drini want to list themselves as clerk of the case that's fine with me. Thatcher131 11:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Thatcher131. A big job too, with all the extra comments. :- ) FloNight 18:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: In the past couple of weeks, several cases have been filed with argumentative casenames.  Dmcdevit has taken the lead in refactoring several of them to NPOV names.  Perhaps the instructions at the top of the page for filing a case should contain a sentence such as "The name of the case should be selected to inform the reader at a glance what the case is about, such as the name of an article whose content gives rise to the case.  The case name itself should not contain argumentative language." or something along those lines. Comments? Newyorkbrad 20:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh.  I dislike instruction creep because it discourages people from reading any of it. Things like that either an arbitrator or a clerk will fix.  You could add it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case though. Thatcher131 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Newyorkbrad 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could try adding it to the hidden case template. Thatcher131 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just a waste of time to try to file a case with a tendentious title. When the arbitrators start looking at the evidence in the case and find that the user the case is named after is the innocent party and the person who filed the case was the one breaking all the rules, a bad name is just more evidence. Fred Bauder 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case names - guidance in "how to file a case?" 

message: * Andres C.
* Kashk
* Larvatus
* Ruy Lopez
I suggest some consideration be given to removing some or all of these from probation as it is clearly no longer needed (if indeed it ever was in the first place). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well-behaved not very prolific editors on probation

message: Using my bot, I have generated a report of the votes for each of the cases in the voting phase yesterday:
* Vivaldi
* Kven
* Giano
* Honda_S2000
* Kosovo
* Ackoz
* Marudubshinki
* MONGO
These may be useful for the clerks. Still kind of experimental: report bugs on the bot's talk page. If these summaries are considered useful, I can update them regularly (e.g., once a day or so). Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot-generated summaries of proposed decisions 

message: I just added User:Thatcher131 to the list of clerks, as he apparently is one. He is still listed as a candidate in the pending applications page tho, and I can't find any indication that he actually has been accepted as a clerk by the committee (or by whoever is supposed to accept clerk applications). So, are the clerk subpages actually watched and/or edited by anyone anymore? I could simply move his application to the accepted section, but I'm somewhat hesitant without knowing who and where he was accepted. --Conti|✉ 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He still is not an official clerk as far as I know. As it says on this very page, he opened a case because I recused and no other clerk was available. . I suggest that you not edit Arbitration Committee pages unless you are sure about something, okay. FloNight 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, must've missed that, I reverted myself for now. There are enough candidates on the pendig applications page tho, so I wonder why there's a shortage of clerks in the first place. I'd like to help out, but the candidates page looks kinda dead. --Conti|✉ 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess the main reason for the shortage is that two clerks, including the most visibly active one, quit recently. Add that to the usual real-life things that make people take Wikibreaks, and it's easy to see why there might not be as many around as would be ideal. PurplePlatypus 18:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk subpages