Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Archive 1

Momento and Rumiton have requested to join this mediation. These users are currently under a topic ban per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Remedies. However, the remedies also encourage the parties to that arbitration to "resume or restart mediation." Topic bans are a serious measure enacted to keep the peace in Wikipedia. Mediation is a way of helping editors to achieve agreement, interact civilly and, ultimately, to edit collaboratively. If mediation has a chance to succeed it should be encouraged. Accordingly, I would like to discuss the issue of their participation here. I suggest we begin with a statement from each of these editors as to how their participation would be useful in achieving the goals of mediation. Other participants are encouraged to join this discussion. Sunray (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Received an email notification from Sunray. It's not yet 5am here, so I will be up in about 2 hours and we will discuss this matter then. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 18:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Momento

ArbCom remedies state - "The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to resume or restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat and related articles."[1] I am one of the parties referred to and therefore feel I should be encouraged to participate in meditation. I am one of the most experienced Prem Rawat editors and I'm sure independent mediators will soon discover I have a lot to contribute to this mediation. If I abuse the process the simple solution is to ban me after I transgress and not before. And just to clarify, my ban is "from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages)", not "editing the articles or talk pages related to the topic" as WB claims. [2]Momento (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if Rumiton also wishes to comment. Sunray (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Rumiton

As does Momento, I feel I have much to offer the mediation process. I note that the section encouraging all parties to participate (excluding no one) was passed 13:0, while, for what it is worth, my banning decision was only 8:5.

Discussion

In the last ArbCom case, two users were banned from editing the articles or talk pages related to the topic. This mediation falls within that ban. They were both found to have used Wikipedia as a battleground. Because of their ban, they are not parties to this dispute. They may participate when their bans expire.   Will Beback  talk  16:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already posted a note on both mediators talkpage, as well as the banning admin's talkpage requesting a clarification for exactly that reason. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how user:Sandstein would fit into this. He helps out at WP:AE, but he didn't topic ban the users: that was done by the ArbCom. If necessary we can ask for a clarification from them.   Will Beback  talk  16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I added Sandstein because of this ban. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So, they are topic-banned, for abuses to the system, but we should allow them to help craft policy on how the rest of us should edit?! Even though any process we can define won't affect them in any way for the remainder of their year long ban? That doesn't make any sense to me. Surely no one expects this article to arrive at a state where everyone is happy with it forever so edits will be continual, and when their ban expires, I would encourage them to engage in the process as it is, at that time, not before. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are noted. There has been no decision on whether or not to include Momento and Rumiton in the mediation. The purpose of this page is to discuss the matter. Sunray (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is some precedent to the contrary I can't see how two editors who have no current capacity to contribute to the article(s) or the article(s) talk page(s) could coneivably be considered to be party to the Mediation. The fact that the two editors in question are topic banned for their appalling lack of civility over a sustained period, hardly marks them out for inclusion on the basis that their involvement would be likely to facilitate progress. Without there being precedent for the inclusion of banned editors, and without the mediators being very enthusiastic about pursuing that precendent, I can't find any reason " to be bold" in this context.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Until now, I have strenuously avoided discussion of particular editors, believing this to be tension producing and thus unproductive. However, I will provide an opinion in this matter, but from a general perspective based on principles.

Sunray has suggested that consideration should be given to including the banned editors in mediation, on the basis that “Mediation is a way of helping editors to achieve agreement, interact civilly and, ultimately, to edit collaboratively. If mediation has a chance to succeed it should be encouraged.”

I agree with his position that mediation should be encouraged wherever possible, to help achieve agreement and edit collaboratively, etc. However, this position has a presumption of good faith in respect of those engaged in the mediation process.

A lengthy arbitration process has occurred, twice, because collaborative editing has failed. The result of this arbitration has been a finding of fact that the nominated editors have failed to act in good faith. The remedies have specifically excluded the banned editors from all discussion in respect of Prem Rawat related articles, including talk pages, on the basis that the disruptive behaviour and lack of good faith has extended to discussions related to these topics.

As such, a presumption of good faith in respect of banned editors cannot be established until their ban has been completed. On this basis, I feel there is a strong case to argue that the principle of enabling mediation wherever possible is outweighed by the current banning being on the basis of demonstrated lack of good faith by the banned editors.

In addition, this mediation is effectively a formalised process for facilitating the discussions of the Prem Rawat talk pages, from which the nominated editors have been banned. As these editors have clearly been banned from the informal discussions of the Prem Rawat talk pages, then it would not be a reasonable argument to say that they should remained banned from informal discussions, but be permitted to participate in formal discussions.

There is a process for editors to request a review of topic bans with Arbcom, and the nominated editors are free to apply for a review. Should that review be successful, then I would anticipate that they should be free to participate in both informal discussion on the article talk pages, and formal discussions within the mediation pages. However, I cannot see any reasonable argument for them to be continually banned from informal discussions on the talk pages due to proven lack of good faith, yet be allowed to participate in the formal discussion in the mediation pages on the assumption that they will act in good faith. --Savlonn (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I find this development to be disruptive and an attempt to delay these proceedings by Momento and Rumiton. This demonstrates the typical behavior of these two editors that got them banned for a year, and I don't see any good faith in their approach here. And now they've got a whole page to vent? No way. Will somebody please block these editors already? I've been involved in the Rawat articles for around five years and based on past experiences with these two, all I see are them thumbing their noses at the ARBCOM, the mediators, and fellow editors. And it's every uncomfortable. Where's the good faith and civility in their actions that makes them deserving of a platform here? This is very disappointing. Can we please dispense with this matter now and move on to the mediation? Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel your discomfort. I must say, though, that no one has disrupted this mediation in any way whatsoever. Participants are adding their opening statements and things are moving ahead. The mediators will do their part to keep it that way. Mediation is somewhat different than arbitration, so let's all relax and participate as, and how, we see fit. All parties are encouraged to add their opening statements. This is a side issue. Sunray (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's disruptive and I'm perfectly relaxed. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to briefly summarize what I am getting from the above comments.

• Will Beback points out that in the last ArbCom case, two users were banned from editing the articles or talk pages related to the topic and is of the opinion that this mediation falls within that ban. They are not parties to this dispute and thus may participate when their bans expire.
• Maelefique says that since Memento and Rumiton are topic banned (which relates to their behaviour), they should not be allowed to craft the groundrules for editing the Rawat articles now, as those groundrules would not apply to them.
• Nik Wright2 supports this point, underscores concerns about civility and suggests that including them will not facilitate progress. NW2 also points to the lack of precedent for the inclusion of banned editors.
• Savlonn refers to the arbitration process which arose because collaborative editing had failed. A presumption of good faith thus cannot be established until the ban has been completed. S. also points out that mediation is a formalised process for facilitating discussion and questions whether is is reasonable to say that they should remained banned from informal discussions, but be permitted to participate in formal discussions. The process for review of topic bans with Arbcom is open to them.
• Sylviecyn is uncomfortable with the request and questions whether it is made in good faith.

Trusting that this is a fair summary. Sunray (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect characterization of my statement, Sunray. Sorry, but you misread me. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, would you be able to summarize your statement in one or two lines making sure that you assume good faith and focus on content, not the person? Sunray (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That's not possible. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, how is it reasonable to assume good faith, when the editors in question have already been shown to have been not operating in good faith by the ban that we're now talking about?? In this case, I think AGF would have to be augmented by SOD to be considered. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply, on these pages, we try to focus on content rather than the contributor. The mediators' role is to support this—but mediation usually only succeeds if participants make a real effort at it. Sometimes that means not replying, which, I understood, was Sylviecyn's choice. Sunray (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On this page, we're discussing adding two contributors, not adding content. To not discuss their previous behaviour is equivalent to not including sources for edits imo. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right that the contributors are the content here. There are ways of talking about the issue that are civil, assume good faith, and do not get into personal attacks. This involves use of neutral (non-judgmental) language. One can simply describe behaviour (make observations) without making judgments. Sunray (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Maelefique. We're not talking about content but behavior. It was the disruptive and bad behavior that got these two editors banned for a year. Is it just me or are we already going around in circles here and who precipitated these circles. Haha.  :) To Sunray and Steve: I would appreciate it if you could let me know what MedCom policy allows for mediators to circumvent very serious ARBCOM decisions such as two editors being banned for a whole year? Will you please point me to that written policy? Sunray's comment also brings up another question for me. How exactly (not generally, but precisely) does mediation possibly apply to COI issues, if mediation is only about article content and not about editors or their behavior? That doesn't make any logical sense to me. I'd appreciate knowing where the written policy on that is, too. My understanding of the mediation policy is that it's only about content not editors. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to what Sunray has said, the both of us acknowledge the concerns that all of you have presented. We are going to wait three days, to allow for Momento and Rumiton to make their case here, as to why they feel they should be included in the mediation. Once three days are up, we will discuss their comments, and your comments, and determine whether they will be included in the mediation. I'd like to emphasise that this is a side issue, and focus needs to remain on writing your opening statements, and getting mediation underway. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve did you leave out any reference to what Will said at the top of the section because you feel it's covered elsewhere, or did did you not notice his comments? --Maelefique ^(talk) 23:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I inadvertently omitted Will's comments. Now added. Sunray (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a tradition of topic-banned editors participating in mediation? If not then I think we'd need to get a clarification from the ArbCom before moving forward with considering their particiaption. IIRC, the users were specifcally banned from talk pages due to their previous disruption. I don't see anything in Momento's comment indicating he intends to act differently now.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right that there is no precedent for this. That shouldn't pose a problem however. In mediation, we often make decisions for which there is no precedent. One thing I would like to clarify is that the Arbitration Committee has no jurisdiction over mediations. They cannot insist that a mediation be conducted, or not conducted, or who the parties will be. The really important point, though, is that in mediation, we try very hard to make decisions by consensus. I think that all participants will find that worthwhile if they are willing to: a) put some effort into it, and, b) trust the process. Sunray (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I defer to the good judgment of those doing the mediating. However if the mediation becomes mired due to the participation of those who'd use the project as a battleground then this may result in "Prem Rawat 3: The Final Chapter". Let's avoid a sequel.   Will Beback  talk  09:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think even if Sunray, Steve, and TerryMacro were to suggest we include the banned editors, it looks to me like we've already achieved a consensus here, so far, it's a unanimous majority. They've wasted another 3 days, can we move on now? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not simply about numbers and also very importantly there is a duty to act fairly in this. The mediators need to ensure that everyone who has something to say has a chance to do so before the decision is made. As to delaying matters, my previous remarks may not have been clear. This is a side process. By that I mean that it in no way holds up the main event. Right now we are awaiting opening statements before we can proceed. We have four six statements to date. There are several more to come. If this is not clear, perhaps I should ping those participants about it. Sunray (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The statements do seem to be coming in now. Sunray (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere along the way, I've lost track of which editors are involved, how many statements we're waiting for, can a list of involved editors be added to the main page please? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's here. To get there from the main talk page, just click on "Project page" in the tab in the upper left-hand corner. Sunray (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Momento says above "And just to clarify, my ban is "from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages)", not "editing the articles or talk pages related to the topic"", I don't see the difference and I'm not sure that it matters; if he can't edit the article or discuss on the talk pages, what's the point in allowing him to help form a process for editing the article or discussion on the talk pages? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• The possibility of Momento's and Rumiton's wishing to participate was one (though not the only) reason why I asked at RFAR about the applicability of arbcom remedies to the mediation process. If we are now saying that the arbcom decisions have no jurisdiction over this process of mediation, and that the articles will not now be edited except through the process of mediation, then this means in effect that the arbcom process and all the effort invested in it by editors here was to some extent in vain. This is not ideal.
• On the other hand, most of you will be aware that during the arbitration case, I did everything I could to prevent Rumiton and Momento from being topic-banned. It's not the outcome I worked for. One thing that may be worth considering and that may speak in favour of Momento and Rumiton participating is that even a year will eventually end. More than three months of it have already passed. Whatever we may agree now without their input will likely only be a partial solution, with conflict renewed once Rumiton and Momento are back. Our work here – if successful in bringing about agreements – is likely to be of more lasting effect if they are involved. JN466 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles are open for editing except for those particular issues being actively mediated, if I understand the ground rules correctly. As for having a mediation with a lasting effect, much of the text that was agreed up in the last mediation, after extensive discussion and full consensus, has been changed since then, with much less discussion and consensus, and often with the endorsement or participation of the now-banned editors. So I don't see how the inclusion or exclusion of these editors will affect the long term stability of the topic. Rumiton has not bothered to write a comment, and Momento's statement is argumentative and Rumiton agrees with him rahter than actually suggesting how he can be helpful. These editors were banned for a reason. In general I don't think the project would benefit by having the self-selected Mediation Committee override the community-selected Arbitration Commitee, but that decision is probably best made by the members of those committees.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Jayen466's conclusions. I fully expect disruption to begin again as soon as Momento is allowed to edit again. That's been a constant pattern over many bans, I see no reason that would change (I may be wrong, but there's no evidence to think so). I, for one, would take 9 months of peaceful editing, over 9 months of arguments. Quite possibly, after going through this mediation, and having a relatively quiet 9 months, the active editors as a whole will become more cohesive, and thereby make it much simpler to deal with one or two disruptive editors, the exact opposite of Jayen466's conclusion. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Will has said about the articles being open for editing, except what is being mediated. I also think he is right about the "lasting effect." It depends on many factors.

I want to respond to what Jayen has said in his first paragraph, above. To clarify: I didn't say that ArbCom remedies do not apply here. They do. I said that ArbCom has no jurisdiction over the mediation. ArbCom would not rule that someone must or must not participate in a mediation. It is up to the Mediation Committee to decide that and Steve and I, as mediators have been delegated the responsibility of adding, or not adding, additional participants after the mediation has been formally accepted.

Jayen raises a key question about renewed conflict. We may want to include that as one of the issues for mediation. Sunray (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —

Decision

I seem to be having some trouble editing the above section, so before I deliver our decision, I will respond to a few comments directed to us. Sylvie, as Sunray noted above, the Arbitration Committee has no jurisdiction at the Mediation Committee. Who does and who doesn't participate remains the decision of the Mediation Committee. We also have the discretion on what to deal with in mediations, and we have agreed that COI issues will be addressed within this case. This was a call of judgment, rather than solely being based on policy.

Now, Sunray and myself have discussed this matter thoroughly, and we have come to a decision. We do not feel that the comments by Momento and Rumiton outweigh the concerns that the other parties have raised. The strength of argument each party was also considered. For this reason, we have decided to not grant the requests of Momento and Rumiton to join the mediation. We both now consider this to be the end of discussion in regards to this matter, and we would ask the parties who have not already written opening statements, to do so as soon as possible. Thanks, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How can you decide to make a decision without asking the people concerned for their input? At no point was I, or Rumiton, invited to respond to the comments of our accusers. According to Sunray's opening comments Rumiton and I were only invited to provide "a statement as to how our participation would be useful in achieving the goals of mediation. Other participants (not us) are encouraged to join this discussion". You have made a mockery of the mediation process. "Mediation must be an honest attempt on the part of all parties to resolve disputes", you have chosen to eliminate one party because another party doesn't like them. Two of the objectors are frequent posters on an anti-Rawat forum, one objector is an anti-Rawat SPA, another objector is an atheist and therefore must consider Rawat either deluded or a deliberate liar and WB hasn't told us his religious convictions. And another participant is the web master of the anti-Rawat forum. Did you honestly expect we would be welcome? If you're serious about mediation you cannot exclude one party because another party was given the opportunity to object and the objected party was not allowed the right to respond.Momento (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We feel that the both of you were given adequate chance to state why, as topic banned editors, you should be allowed to participate in this mediation. The other parties have given detailed rationales as to why we shouldn't allow you to participate, whereas you have stated why we must allow you to participate, and I'm afraid that is insufficient to satisfy the concerns that have been raised. You are free, at any time, to appeal your topic ban, but our decision is final. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Being banned from "editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages)" has nothing to do with this mediation. You allowed editors to object to our inclusion but didn't allow us to respond.Momento (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well. We will give you the chance to respond to the comments of the other parties. Their concerns have been summarized by Sunray in the above section. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

• Will Beback points out that in the last ArbCom case, two users were banned from editing the articles or talk pages related to the topic and is of the opinion that this mediation falls within that ban. They are not parties to this dispute and thus may participate when their bans expire. Incorrect. The ban is specifically for "editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages)" it does not prohibit mediation which is specifically encouraged
• Maelefique says that since Memento and Rumiton are topic banned (which relates to their behaviour), they should not be allowed to craft the groundrules for editing the Rawat articles now, as those groundrules would not apply to them. Irrelevant, this mediation is expressly about content, not "crafting ground rules for editing".
• Nik Wright2 supports this point, underscores concerns about civility and suggests that including them will not facilitate progress. NW2 also points to the lack of precedent for the inclusion of banned editors. There is no need for a "precedent" since we are only banned from "editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages)". ArbCom did not make any finding against me for "incivility".
• Savlonn refers to the arbitration process which arose because collaborative editing had failed. A presumption of good faith thus cannot be established until the ban has been completed. S. also points out that mediation is a formalised process for facilitating discussion and questions whether is is reasonable to say that they should remained banned from informal discussions, but be permitted to participate in formal discussions. The process for review of topic bans with Arbcom is open to them. Incorrect. The ArbCom process arose because two editors filed three fraudulent complaints against me, none of which were upheld. Wiki policy is to assume Good faith until proven absent. And, once again, the ban is specifically for "editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages)" it does not cover mediation which is specifically encouraged.'
• Sylviecyn is uncomfortable with the request and questions whether it is made in good faith. And again, Wiki policy is to assume Good faith until proven absent. Momento (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Momento, your comments above appear to be lawyerly arguments sbout why the ArbCom decision doesn't apply here. You have not said anything about how you will help this mediation. You were topic banned due to the fact that you treated Wikipedia as a battleground. How has your behavior changed since then and what would you bring to this mediation?   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, to be fair, Steve said above, little more than 24 hours ago, that he would give Momento and Rumiton three days to make the case for their participation here. That has not happened. The above was just an invitation to respond to the comments the others had made – which is what Momento did. JN466 01:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • No, Momento did not address my original comment, which pointed out that he was banned for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. (BTW, Jayen, can you please add your statement to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4#Opening statements by participants?)   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They're not "lawerly arguments", they're a verbatim restatement of the ArbCom decision. This mediation is not a "Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages)". And yes, it was decided that I treated Wiki as a battleground because 1) two years before the ArbCom decision I referred to a source as a "bigot" in an edit summary [3] and 2) I added this sourced comment to the article [4]. I can promise I won't call anyone a bigot during this mediation and I won't add sourced material without prior consensus. My contribution will be that as one of the most experienced Rawat editors I am familiar with most of the arguments, pro and con, regarding content, sources and policies.Momento (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Decision 2

Sunray and myself have discussed this matter further, considered various options, and come to an agreement. We feel that as Momento and Rumiton are topic banned from Prem Rawat, and related pages, that they should have no involvement in crafting ground rules for editing the Prem Rawat articles, or anything related to these articles. As they cannot edit the topic, at prrsent, they are not considered parties in the dispute. They have been banned from part of Wikipedia, so to speak. The reason that this dispute went to arbitration is because collaborative editing had failed, and sanctions were handed down. A presumption of good faith cannot be assumed until said topic ban has either expired or been lifted. The parties are welcome to appeal their topic ban, at any time, with the Arbitration Committee, but after discussion, our decision remains to deny the request of Momento and Rumiton to participate in this mediation. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary. You two are just making stuff up on the run to justify your POV.

1) Contrary to your frequently repeated fabrication, I was not topic banned from "Prem Rawat, and related pages", it was from "Prem Rawat articles and their talk pages".

2) This mediation is not about "crafting ground rules for editing", it is about -

1. Reinstating undisputed edits
2. Inclusion of the word "cult" in the intro to Prem Rawat
3. The problem arising from having definitive primary sources ... which contradict ... all the established literature.
4. The subject’s notability deriving from his relationship to an organisation.
5. The functional (as opposed to notional) history of the organisations that support(ed) Hans Rawat, Satya Pal Rawat and Prem Pal Rawat.
6. The inherent requirement to acknowledge the ‘cult’ appellation as it relates to both the Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and Prem Rawat.
7. Use of names besides "Prem Rawat" where appropriate, in particular, "Guru Maharaj Ji" when writing about the DLM and the 1970s.
8. Making edits without consensus - should a formalised process of consensus be defined for the topics in question?

3) Contrary to you oft repeated fabrication, the ArbCom was initiated by Durova with this explanation from her - "Since the last arbitration there have been seven arbitration enforcement threads about this dispute,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] three of which occurred after New Year's (against me in which no findings were made against me and a finding made against NikW). The administrator who closed the most recent AE thread referred matters to arbitration".

4) The new Crossin/Sunray "Don't Assume Good Faith" policy does not replace Wiki AGF policy.

Four fundamental flaws in your four "reasons"!! When I can be bothered I will add this latest example to the Wiki Hall of Shame.Momento (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This matter is now closed. Sunray (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)