Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision

Arbitrators

Arbitrators active as of the opening of this case:

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• Essjay
• Flcelloguy
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Morven
• Paul August
• Raul654 (inactive as of March 1)
• SimonP (inactive as of March 1)
• UninvitedCompany

There are 15 active arbitrators and none are recused, so the majority is 8.

Now 11 and 6.

Thatcher131 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

With Morven's vote, now 13 and 7.

Thatcher131 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that Essay is struck here but his votes still stand. Is this intentional or an oversight? --Dookama 10:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my mistake. He was an arbitrator at the time he cast his vote so it stands. I shouldn't have struck his name out. Thanks for pointing it out.

Thatcher131 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

With EssJay's resignation and departure, there are now 12 acrive, and the majority is 7. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing that the arbitration committee does not make policy, but that they do get quoted on its interpration rather often.

There's a delicate power balance between Articles for deletion, Deletion review and categories for speedy deletion amongst themselves, and between those processes and "the rest of wikipedia" on the other. At the same time, some people (including persons outside of wikipedia) consider AFD, DRV, (and Requests for adminship) to be dysfunctional, or at least that these processes sometimes do not give correct results.

The current wording disrupts this balance to some extent, perhaps giving too much leeway to the bureaucratic tendencies at AFD and DRV, and would make life harder for people who are trying to improve these processes.

The main point however, is that

is the key tool we use to deal with unexpected occurrences which the community is not normally able to manage, and which might otherwise overwhelm the wiki.

Please be careful in wording so as to make sure AFD and DRV can continue to be safely counterbalanced by IAR.

--Kim Bruning 20:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Some remedies use "are to be" and some use "may be" ... for example: "Freakofnurture's administrator privileges may be restored effective upon closure of this case." Is that deliberate leeway? Is there an intent that some decision needs to be made by someone about whether they will or won't be? Contrast with "Geni's administrator privileges are to be restored after period of 60 days has elapsed from the time of the emergency revocation." which does not leave any leeway. (emphasis mine in both cases) I hope that's a nit in wording... if it is, as I suspect, just a nit, please feel free to delete this comment with my blessing after it's corrected. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too after I posted the items. The difference in wording is accidental and nothing is meant by it. In both cases what is intended is automatic restoration of privileges without any further decisionmaking. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been endorsed by Jimbo? Corvus cornix 00:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has left the decision of what to do with all the involved users to us; barring extraordinary circumstances, he will not be involved in the process further. Essjay (Talk) 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in interpreting remedy 3.1 to mean that Geni would be required to go through a standard RfA to regain adminship? This seems to be the difference between 3 and 3.1. ChazBeckett 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The 3.0 grants automatic resysopping after 60 days, no further action needed; 3.1 allows for either a request to the Committee to resysop him or an RFA after 60 days. Essjay (Talk) 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - add the word "controversial", as in "Early closure of controversial discussions based on WP:SNOW is harmful".

]

My view is that WP:SNOW accomplishes nothing useful except in the rare case where an ongoing discussion is generating ill will. We would be better off without it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant to apply to RfAs as well as deletions? Newyorkbrad 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this coming up - RfAs, by nature, cannot be "snowballed." Bureaucrats already have the ability to remove RfAs early per the process/policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been extensive discussion about this on RfA talk for quite awhile now. When some new contributor with 50 edits posts an RfA that garners 10 instant oppose votes and no bureaucrat is around, typically someone closes it down. This isn't the place to say that's good or bad, but it's a fact. Newyorkbrad 00:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it's not a traditional snowball. WP:SNOW's controversy comes from "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." RfA has an expectation that many will fail, and works it into the process that they can be shut down for non-promotion: "Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open." Note that there's no possibility for early promotion in the language. It really has little to do with WP:SNOW, which involves circumventing consensus-approved process for a desired result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the distinction you are making, but on RfA these are invariably called "snowball closes," so I am pointing out that if the decision is adopted in this form, people may invoke it there. Just a wording issue for the arbitrators to consider. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can call a chair "kitten" if I want, it doesn't make it so. I can't imagine any decision here affecting how RfA does things, considering RfA has all their processes laid out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UninvitedCompany: Ouch, you're not really supposed to say things like that when you're ruling on a case in arbcom. I hope you manage to keep your personal opinion out of the ruling ^^;; --Kim Bruning 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I mentioned this

]

You made an edit, it was reverted, you made it again. The last step made it an edit war. Not a very long one, but still an edit war. Zocky | picture popups

You know, I'm confused about something. Why is the premature closing of a DRV considered an editorial, and not an administrative, action? The regular closure of a DRV is an administrative action, because the tools will be required if it closed with a particular outcome: restore/relist. U draw this conclusion based on analogy from procedure at AfD, where any closure that might require the use of the tools (ie., all closures except non-controversial keeps) are reserved to admins. I'm surprised to see DRV closures being called "editorial", although -- since consensus at DRV is largely a matter of numbers -- DRV closures often do little brain-power! ;) Xoloz 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly it's a gray area. Our convention has been that we only consider revoking adminship when admin-specific capabilities are used: protection, blocking, deletion, their converses, editing protected pages, and viewing the deletion log. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaillimh, seeing the emerging consensus of the committee, has stated that he is now absenting himself from the project voluntarily. Assuming the decision passes in its current form, should receive credit for "time served" in calculating the 10-day period? Newyorkbrad 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No precedent for this.

Thatcher131 19:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If Gaillimh wishes to observe a ban voluntarily once one is passed, I believe we should respect that. However, I would not support an early end to the revocation of editing privileges based on any voluntary absence before the remedy is passed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious. Edit warring is of course harmful, but a ten day ban because of it looks like a remarkably severe penalty for doing so. The usual sanction against edit warring has been 24-hour blocks due to violation of the 3RR. What is up with making a sanction here which is ten times longer than normal? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merely edit warring. The initial early closure of the DRV was a major contributor to escalation itself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the proposed decision to desysop Geni, Mackensen objected to the first proposal, which would restore Geni's privileges at the end of sixty days, and said that Geni had been emergency desysopped three times now. He proposed instead that Geni "may seek restoration of administrator privileges" after sixty days. I see from this that Geni has been desysopped twice, not three times. There are three entries, because he was resysopped three minutes after being desysopped a year ago. Am I missing something? Is there a record of another desysopping that's stored somewhere other than in the Meta user rights log?

Does Mackensen's proposal mean that Geni may ask the ArbCom for approval to have his privileges restored after sixty days, or that he has to go through another RfA? "Seek restoration of" is a little vague. ElinorD (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There was apparently a block war back in March 2005, see this article when Ed Poor desysopped a number of users with his developer tools. This was probably before meta's user rights log was implemented, or, for whatever reason, that is not entered into that log. (Also, the incident led to Ed Poor losing developer access.) The second desysop (which is in the user rights log) was as far as I can see a non-incident, a mistake by Danny who immediately reversed himself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Though that doesn't answer the second half of my question, which is about what "may seek restoration of administrator privileges" actually means — RfA or appeal to Arbcom or either? ElinorD (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either. I had a very similar question and was answered by Essjay. ChazBeckett 12:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Sorry for not reading further up on the page before posting my question. :-) ElinorD (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem. I noticed that this point has now been clarified. ChazBeckett 13:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah that one I seem to recall I was trying to inforce a block on user:172 for breaking the 3RR. At the time it appeared to be thought those actions were reasonable. The second time would be when I attempted and (but failed ah interface issues) to unprotect an article that it latter appears I was correct in thinking has been forgotten about by the protector. They changed the guidelines after that. Didn't help Erik mind but I think the system has been cleaned up since then. OF course I would argue I have never been "emergency desysopped". The de-adminings have always hit after the activities had ceased.Geni 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3.1 states Geni is allowed to reapply for adminship after 60 days from Jimbo's action. In contrast, the sanction against Yanksox allows him to reapply at any time. The 60 day sentence in 3.1 is clearly followed through from the phrasing of 3.0, but if the current phrasing of 1 and 3.1 are the sanctions adopted against these two editors; Yanksox would receive an apparently weaker sanction. Is that the committee's intent?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it too. It's an artifact of the separate discussions that produced the remedies. The practical impact is nil. I'll see about getting it fixed. We're in the midst of some related deliberations. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I first read that as Yanksox desysopped, while Geni is desysopped for 60 days, in other words a more severe penalty to Yanksox, which seems to make sense, even Yanksox is arguing for that: [1]. If Geni gets an equal or even harsher penalty, I don't think "the practical impact is nil". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revised remedy for Geni would be equal to Yanksox's in practice since neither the Committee or the community via RfA would seriously consider a reapplication by him with 60 days. Eluchil404 03:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many desysopped admins have requested RfA within 60 days of ArbCom desysopping even though it has never succeeded that I can remember (Stevertigo Karmafist Carnildo Everyking). Preventing a premature RfA is not a bad idea and may increase the success of the eventual RfA made months later. NoSeptember 12:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, its extremely unlikely that either of these two editors would pass an RfA if attempted in the short term; so there is no practical impact as Uninvited said. However if the 60 day thing was kept for Geni, and not extended to Yanksox, both would need to go to RfA , to regain adminship and in addition Geni is barred from making an attempt for 60 days. That is an additional (if minor) clause against Geni, so on paper (if not in fact) Geni receives a harsher sanction. Given how past RfAs of desysopped admins have gone, there might be a case for ArbCom adding "Don't try for 2 months" to the standard prose of desysopping remedies.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the proposals on desysopping Yanksox and Geni, the phrase "or may appeal to this Committee for reinstatement" appears. I missed its introduction to the workshop page. Under what circumstances might you envision this coming into play? Is there any advantage to having it? I can't put my finger on it, but there is something a bit unsettling about it, and it would be good to hear the positive rationale. Jd2718 12:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it has to do with the enormous difficulty a desysopped admin has in passing an RFA ever in the future. I know only of one uncontroversial instance of this (Guanaco, more than a year after the incident), and one highly controversial instance (Carnildo). What happened to Guanaco later probably has made people even more leery about supporting a previously desysopped candidate. The usual level of support needed at RFA is 75-80%, and even an unblemished candidate can have trouble achieving this. Even if a former admin comes out contrite and genuinely sorry about what has happened, and it is unlikely that they will abuse their admin tools if granted them again, there will still be a fairly large body of people who will oppose simply because they were desysopped earlier, often by people who know little about the circumstances of the arbitration, and who have know recollection of all the good whork the candidate has done in the past. Such RFAs also tend to get very acrimonious and sometimes outright poisonous. It might be a concern that good admin candidates who have made a desysoppable mistake at some point will be denied a resysopping, even if that would arguably benefit the project. In many cases, the ArbCom has scrutinised the case much more closely, and may have a better and broader perspective of the issue. If Geni or Yanksox were able to show to the commitee that they are trustworthy for being resysopped in a few months, they could petition them, instead of the community for reinstatement of the sysop bit. In principle, I see no serious issues here, ArbCom seems to be set on resysopping Freakofnurture without asking the community, so it is not unreasonable that they keep the option of resysopping the other two after some time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom decisions in general are appealable to ArbCom and ArbCom can alter their remedies months after the fact. So in a sense, this is just a pre-anticipation of ArbCom doing that, encouraging an appeal from a desysopped admin for the reversal of the desysopping remedy. NoSeptember 13:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the hammering the buracrats have taken due to recent events it is not unreasonable to try and avoid such situations in future.Geni 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Sjakkalle points out, RFAs for de-sysopped users have historically all been divisive enough that they frustrate the user seeking adminship, the bureaucrats, and the community as a whole. The purpose of the ruling is to clarify that the Committee (which has the authority to amend any previously issued remedy) is willing to consider such requests for these particular remedies. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your explanations. The open-endedness leaves me a bit uneasy. I guess my point was, if ArbCom thinks that Geni may seem trustworthy for resysoping (and his work as an editor does not, I believe, lead one to suspect that this will not happen), then why not just go for a timed desysop in the first place? And if there is another incident of this nature, make it a return-through-RfA affair? Otherwise Geni has special status: editor with an option to go to ArbCom instead of RfA. Anyway, I think these are now more thoughts to the future than to this case, where you have all but wrapped it up both reasonably and quickly. Jd2718 23:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Jd2718. I shared some of them when supporting that particular remedy, as noted in my comment there: in general, I would be extremely unwilling to automatically re-sysop someone who was previously de-sysopped unless through a successful RfA. (In fact, there was a recent proposal regarding re-sysopping a certain administrator on our mailing list, which I disagreed with.) However, I did support the remedy, which has that text in there, because of the points that other users have pointed out above; I didn't want to close that route off completely in case of extenuating circumstances (i.e. a case stemming from a misunderstanding and involving personal information, etc.) Thanks for your comments! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since a motion to close has been made I wanted to ask a clerk to confirm for me that everything passes except principals 3 and 7; finding 4; and remedies 3 and 3.2. including principal 3.1 which passes 6-2 with 2 abstentions?

Thanks, Eluchil404 12:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

right.

Thatcher131 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you certain? The main page states that 7 is currently a majority (I've not done any math here myself, just asking). --InkSplotch 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principle 3.1 is 6-2 with 2 abstentions; the abstentions remove those arbs from that principle, so with respect to 3.1 there are 8 arbs (majority of 5). Finding of fact #4 has 7 votes but UC's vote is conditional; since 4.1 passes, 4 only has 6 valid votes. Same thing with remedy 3.2 Geni desysopped; some votes are conditional and don't count if 3.1 passes, which it does. (See how fun clerking is?)

Thatcher131 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

And all this is subject to recalculation if the votes change before the motion to close passes. :)

Thatcher131 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That's awfully complicated...any chance that could be spelled out more clearly in the Proposed Decision template? Look at the main page, it looks like this caught some arbitrator's by surprise too. --InkSplotch 17:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which one would that be?Geni 15:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be Harry Reid. Ral315 » 20:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at that time there were no objections and a slight shortage of guidelines (rather than the highly conflicting comments we have at the moment).Geni 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed the discussion (NYB, UIC, T) with some interest. If the resolution were written as text, maybe the distinction would be unimportant? I tried writing the whole thing, paragraph-style, and while the principles read better as a numbered list, and while the remedies do even more so, the findings of fact look ok in paragraph form. Take a look:

Findings of fact

The deletion of

, this user's subsequent undeletion is not, having been made in the awareness that the article was being repeatedly undeleted and redeleted.

What do you think? Better than the numbered list? or just leave things as they have been? Jd2718 04:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Of course it is better, but I want things broken down so that the arbitrators can consider each fact separately. Although careful reading of past decisions will sometimes reveal that a finding vital to the conclusion we reach is sometimes rejected. Fred Bauder 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've read hundreds of decisions of courts and administrative agencies, some in narrative form, some in numbered-paragraph form, and either form can produce a finely honed, readable narrative or incomprehensible gobbledygook depending on the skill of the author and the time taken for the crafting. I think a main reason that the ArbCom presents its decisions in its current form, though, apart from tradition, is that breaking down the proposed decision into the numbered sentences or paragraphs makes it much easier to allow the arbitrators to vote on the individual proposals. Of course, a clerk could assemble the the paragraphs into narrative form, as you have done, but then the prose is choppy: As a matter of crafting, the texture of numbered findings of fact and conclusions of law is very different from that of a narrative prepared as such, even if the substance is the same. Newyorkbrad 04:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, and thanks for looking. I guess it really was just an end run around the separated finding of fact... Here we are choppy, either way. Jd2718 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an arbitrator wanted to take the time to assemble all the adopted proposals into a holistic text, or entrust a clerk to do it, we could produce masterful prose. But I don't think the committee will make this a high priority for the use of their time. Of course the arbitrators may have comments on all of this rendering moot what I might think. Newyorkbrad 04:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I kinda think it would be more interesting coming from outside of ArbCom, anyway. Maybe something that could be done in conjunction with The Report On Lengthy Litigation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting excercise, with some value, to make sure that the case holds together as proposed. However, not so good for voting.

Thatcher131 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As a thought experiment sometime if anyone were curious, I'd be glad sometime to take the adopted principles, findings, and conclusions in some case and turn them into an unofficial "opinion" on a trial basis, of course retaining the full substance of the committee's decision and reasoning, to see if it produces a more useful end-product for editors. If we do it, though, let's do it in a less high-profile case than this one. Newyorkbrad 04:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true in any case. I didn't know the DRV debate had been reopened when I made my undeletions. and of course I did debate on the mailing list.Geni 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a currently passing finding of fact. Have you addressed it on the appropriate page(s)? Jd2718 11:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which are?Geni 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision page appears to be for Arbitators, so that would make the right place the workshop page, or right here. I grabbed the findings of fact on the proposed decision page, so if I have an error, I picked it up there. Jd2718 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, the wording on the proposed decision page was introduced on the workshop page. It appears that the finding that you were aware of the DRV debate was inferred from the available evidence. For clarity's sake, I have

talk) 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

please no strawmen. I said I wasn't aware it had been reopened. Hmmm I notice on that page page I'm also accused of unprotecting a page I did not the log says 23:59, 9 March 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs) protected Poly Prep Country Day School [edit=sysop:move=sysop].Geni 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the big issue with DRV is that participants say 'endorse' or 'overturn' on the matter as a whole, which glosses over the process/content distinction. I would propose that endorse, overturn, and similar "votes" be replaced with the following:

• Legal and correct - Process was followed correctly, and it is appropriate that the article be deleted. This is an argument to keep the article deleted.
• Legal, but incorrect - Process was technically followed, but the decision was flawed due to lack of information or other reasons, and should be revisited. This is an argument to undelete and list on AFD.
• Illegal, but correct - The article is one that should be deleted, for reasons specified in the accompanying argument, but its deletion was not done in accordance with deletion policy. This is an argument to undelete and list on AFD.
• Illegal and incorrect - The deletion is simply wrong. There is no sufficient argument to delete the article, and it was done in violation of policy. This is an argument to undelete.

It makes it clearer what a person's judgment on the matter is, and somewhat less subjective as to what action a given situation warrants; instead it seeks consensus on two questions: Was process followed? and Should the article be deleted?, and states remedies for each. Were this system used for the DRV on the Brandt issue, it would have been clearer: "illegal" mostly agreed, and a mix of "correct" and incorrect", which would have properly resulted in sending it to AFD, where the debate belonged (and has ended up, after the smoke cleared). The correct/incorrect portion also translates more directly into AFD arguments, whereas current DRV is of a different character. -- Jake 08:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call as a matter of equity that Essjay's votes be struck and the majorities adjusted. That's simply for reasons of fairness and process and not because of what's happened with Essjay. The arbitration process isn't simply a case of arbs putting their crosses on the ballot paper in hard ink, but until the time of its closure it is an ongoing discussion. New evidence or argument may be presented at any time - and arbs weigh that up and may change their opinions (several have already done so in this case). By resignation, Essjay's votes have become fossilised - he cannot participate in that debate - he cannot be influenced by subsequent arguments from the community or his peers. He is no longer exercising judgement in this case, thus he cannot be counted as an active judge.--

]

I agree with this reasoning. Paul August ☎ 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Does not appear that it would affect outcome on any issue, or the calculation of majority at this time. Newyorkbrad 17:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed Essjay's votes from the vote totals and changed the number of active arbiters to 12. Paul August ☎ 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query to the arbitrators whether the wording of remedy #5 concerning User:Freakofnurture should be updated given the motion that was passed and the fact that his administrator status has already been restored. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it. Paul August ☎ 02:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]