Wikipedia talk:Wikiblower protection

VfD

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. After slogging carefully through that, edit by edit, I make it 22 valid delete votes, 11 12 (see talk page) valid keep votes. Not a consensus by my well published standards. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection

This has been created by a single user as if this was accepted Wikipedia policy; this seems to be ad hoc rule making and not really justifiable without community consensus. I don't really think this "Wikiblower protection" idea can be just left in the article space; consequently, I suggest deletion. NicholasTurnbull 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - page was created in response to something posted on a user page. Wikipedia policy is created by concensus, as far as I know. Rob Church 03:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article and will somebody please repremand Ed so we can lay this to rest? humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete - Instead allow consensus to develop. There must be a policy to protect whisleblowers. It ought to be official policy and not just-another-aspect-of-the-good-ol'e-boys-network. (Full Disclosure - I am the Initiating editor) Benjamin Gatti
  • There's no such thing as a "good ol' boys' network". There is an "old boys' network" of alumni of prestigious colleges who refer to one another as "old boys," and there are "good ol' boys", who are Southern rednecks, but those two groups don't have much in common. Just a nerdly observation. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You should live in the south for a bit - i think you'd find that networks of redneck are very much alive and well - and telling people how to vote in church or get thee hence. Benjamin Gatti
      • I doubt that many of them are editing Wikipedia, however.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Y'all sure 'bout that? ;-) Xaa 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've seen pages start like this before. It's not pretending to be an official policy or guideline, is it? I don't see the harm. Friday 04:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Directly contradicts WP:POINT.Geni 05:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if you want to develop a consensus, do it on the talk page of the appropriate policy page. Tempshill 05:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, that would be a little difficult if the proposed policy page is deleted. -- Visviva 10:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a valid and serious proposal and should be discussed as such, rather than VFDed/RFDed. That said, I am opposed on the grounds that I don't believe it should ever be necessary to perform a breaching experiment in order to call attention to bad policies. Assumming every delete vote can also be read as an oppose vote then this doesn't seem to have much traction as potential policy and before long we should probably just mark this as {{rejected}} and move on. Dragons flight 06:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I support the basic idea of this policy/guideline, but it needs to be explicated further before anyone can meaningfully support it (or oppose). In particular, we need to figure out how it should relate to WP:POINT. I've been part of a number of consensus-based communities, and in each one I have noticed the occasional need for sincere members of the community to unilaterally break things down. Without unilateralism and disruption of a constructive kind, it is sometimes impossible for the community to move on. I fear, however, that the distinction between wikiblowers and pointmakers can be made only in hindsight. -- Visviva 08:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 10:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this page in itself is disrupting Wikipedia in any way. -- Visviva 10:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Hey, why was this re-listed? -- Visviva 10:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless - almost a violation of WP:POINT in itself. violet/riga (t) 11:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: (Pardon me for revising a bit here, as I've been filled in more on the situation) I was responsible for the de-listing. I don't have any opinion on the page itself; my concern was that if it was an attempt to propose a policy, it should be accorded the courtesy of assuming good faith and allowing it time to develop consensus. Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion indicates that a wide leeway should be granted to the Wikipedia namespace. Policies are created in the project namespace and gather consensus there; the nomination seemed to me to say "It hasn't gathered consensus yet, so it shouldn't have Wikipedia: in front of it" which does not conform to our way of doing things. Considering that there was significant interest here in the proposal (both for and against), I felt it should be considered in line with policy-proposal policy and not VfD. At this point, if it is a legit proposal I would suggest the creator move it to userspace and seek consensus there. I believe we all would agree that deleting legit policies is not how we do things (for example, a VfD on NPOV would not result in Wikipedia adopting a different POV policy). If it's not legit, then it should be deleted, and the creator should be warned against similar acts in future (particularly because it not only violates NPA, but confuses the heck out of the community). -- Essjay · Talk 11:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just so you know - Noone has any idea what you just said. I moved it to Project Space because the word really has no meaning outside of the project - it is not the kind of word you would expect to find while browsing an encyclopedia. You're suggesting Userspace - which to me sounds like private space - and therefore the same as no space at all. If policies start - they have to start somehow, and under the general rules of Wiki engagement - they just start - there is no magic starting policy, or starting namespace, wiki is wiki - grok that. Benjamin Gatti
  • How is the community confused? It's legitimacy has nothing to do with the intentions of the author - it has to do with the acceptance and support of the community. There is some support, some opposition, and some "This can't really be happening." The first two I respect. Benjamin Gatti
    • If any other user is confused by my comment, please let me know and I'll be happy to fill you in. -- Essjay · Talk 05:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The proposed 'policy' seems to be solely for condoning violations of WP:POINT. The proposal itself seems to be getting awfully close to trying to make a WP:POINT, too. If anyone wants to modify WP:POINT–or gut it completely–then make the proposal on that page's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable performance art. Nandesuka 12:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this cannot exist until it exists, otherwise its a violation of WP:POINT. -Splash 13:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't understand why people are using WP:POINT to support a delete vote. One could just as easily consider putting this up for VfD to be a disruptive way of making a point. Looks to me like people voting delete here as a way of expressing disapproval not of this page, but of Ed's deletion. We already have plenty of places to discuss that. Why not keep this deletion vote focused on the matter at hand? Friday 14:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No, people suggest that this proposal runs foul of WP:POINT (since it basically states that people should be protected from being censured if they do something intentionally disruptive in an attempt to bring perceived wrongs to the public's attention). That is almost by sheer definition the opposite of WP:POINT. It also started out as a personal attack against Ed Poor, which is very inappropriate for a 'proposal'. Radiant_>|< 14:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • This may well be a valid point. But surely the way to hash it out is not simply to delete the page. There are existing policies that are sometimes at odds with each other, so I don't see how that's grounds for deletion. What's next, someone putting the VfD on WP:IAR? Wikipedia is inconsistant in many ways, so far we've been living with that. Friday 14:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • In that case, not only does this proposed policy directly contravene WP:POINT, it also is redundant with WP:IAR. Finally, it seems to have started out as a personal attack (WP:NPA), giving us a hat trick of good reasons to expunge it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
        • This article was never a personal attack - While I reserve judgement as to whether the alleged harms of VfD are porportional to the harm of a 5 minute burp - the purpose is to promote a lawful justification - and to argue against a meritocractic resolution, or a hyprocritical hierarchy in which those at the top are above the law. Please stop misrepresenting the article as a personal attack (which itself is a personal attack because it maliciously maligns the author) Benjamin Gatti
        • Wikiblower protection only applies when the interuption is less egregious than the graveman. It is far from inviting a free for all, and calls for a qualitative comparison of the facts - and not for a qualitative comparison of those involved. It is fairness. Benjamin Gatti
• Strong delete: Contravenes established Wikipedia policy, could lead to users' personal feelings or opinions being used as basis to protect grudge edits. Such a Wikipolicy would set a dangerous precedent: Anybody who feels that they have a "lawful justification" to disrupt the proceedings of wikipedia would be allowed to, under this guideline, and even congratulated for doing so. jglc | t | c 15:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just delete it. [Shakes head in disgust] --Calton | Talk 15:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per dragons flight. The page should make clear that it is not currently policy (and apparently does not have much support), but I don't see how this satisfies the deletion criteria at all. Brighterorange 15:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Confused and poorly named attempt at policy creation. When I see the word "Wikiblower", a number of possible meanings come to mind, and "whistleblower" is not terribly high on the list. Also, the proposal seems to equate whistleblowing with unilateral action that may violate rules but is nevertheless constructive. This is already covered by Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Real whistleblowing is reporting inappropriate actions taken in secret, unilateral or otherwise. --Michael Snow 15:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like some others, I am confused as to whether this is really a legitimate and serious attempt to make policy. Assuming it is serious then, while I'm (so far) opposed to this policy, I think it deserves a chance to develop before we just delete it out of hand. I've yet to be involved in developing a new policy (just tweaking old ones) and perhaps this is the wrong mechanism for doing so. If someone can explain to me how this violates normal policy creation procedures then I might be inclined to change my vote. If on the other hand this is really just a backhanded swipe at Ed, then while I can not condone Ed's actions — I think what Ed did showed a profound disrespect for the entire Wikipedia community of editors — I also can not condone using such methods in response. However I'm willing so far to assume good faith, and take the authors statements at face value. If I were to become convinced otherwise, I would also change my vote to delete. Paul August ☎ 17:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• The policy page does not appear to have been created in bad faith, so keep as a historical record and mark as a rejected policy. --Carnildo 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Only you can prevent meatball:ForestFires. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not really seeing the point of this page. Xaa 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: First, it is not policy, and yet it is name space. Second, it is WP:POINT. Third, it is totally inaccurate (see Ed Poor's own words about why the nastiness occurred, so this would-be ally is, in fact, entirely misinformed). Fourth, namespace does not obey the same rules as article space, and the deletion guidelines do not quite apply there, but they fail to apply there the same way that copyright fails to operate in China. It is merely courtesy to even have a debate, as anyone could simply speedy delete the article (and I nearly did so). Fifth: NAME SPACE IS NOT A PLAYGROUND. It is not where you go to whine. It is not where you go to plot. It is not a place to express your inner self. The creator has his user page for that. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to even think about things like whether his faith was good or bad: it is an article that is wholly inappropriate for namespace. Geogre 20:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• This Vote for deletion has been instigated by one NicholasTurnbull, quickly supported by one Rob Church - both of whom failed to disclose that they are engaged in an arbcom petition against Ed Poor - that is that they clearly Oppose the policy. The Vote for Deletion therefore is evidence of exactly the kind of Harm Ed Poor was revealing - that is - items are being voted for deletion by vested parties as a means of censoring ideas with which they take exception. (preceding unsigned comment by Benjamin Gatti 21:03, 4 August 2005)

That has what to do with which? Geogre 20:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It is stated policy that people disclose their involvement with a page they have put up for Deletion. These two did not, thus the page exists in violation of the rules. Benjamin Gatti

And did Ed Poor write this page? And has Ed Poor endorsed this page as a summary of his case? Is there any reason to suppose that one's position on the one matter has any relationship whatsoever to the other matter? Has the author of this article been retained as Ed Poor's counsel? Would it be possible to want to give Ed Poor a hearty handshake and a laurel and still think that this page is neither appropriate nor properly placed? Again, your comment is a non sequitur that really multiplies causes unnecessarily, at the least. At most, it's an attempt to claim immunity from inquiry by impugning the motives, ethics, and rationality of others. Geogre 23:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how the present arbcom case has any bearing on this matter; it is unrelated, as far as I am aware. The RfArb is about Ed Poor's conduct, and I cannot see the "Wikiblower protection" policy has any connection whatsoever with the issues raised in that arbitration request other than your own citing of Ed Poor in the policy article. Therefore I consider I have nothing to disclose. Please explain your reasoning to me; I have no interest in bias regarding the deletion of articles, and would appreciate your feedback. --NicholasTurnbull 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. And in the interest of my own full disclosure, I am also involved in this particular mediated dispute, which is why I have not voted on this particular VFD. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't delete other users' comments, Benjamin. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

So Howabout you explain why the two names in the Arbcom case just happened to be the first two names on this VfD - random chance right? What kind of morons do you take the rest of the world to be anyway? Of course this has to do with the arbcom case - that where the policy is to be tested. The policy exists to provide a rational case for non-sanction Ed Poor because he is entitled to Whistle-blower protection. Your Arbcom case appears to be that he _Should_ be sanctioned - that's fine - but deleting the counter argument is in poor taste. And you failed to follow policy so you're certainly not setting an example, but then at 17 I wouldn't expect you to set an example - have fun - I applaud your participation learn from the process and do good. Benjamin Gatti

• Delete and scowl nastily at editors involved in attempting to VFD this VFD, showing a total disrespect for the wikipedia community. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I strongly oppose the policy but this is the wrong way to get rid of it. ~~ N (t/c) 01:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How else to get rid of it? What do you propose? jglc | t | c 01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote it down. There's already a poll on the talk page. Then it can be preserved as a failed policy. Everybody wins. ~~ N (t/c) 01:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Kill it with fire. Nuke it from orbit. Whatever. I don't even care what's in the article, the behavior of Benjamin Gotti has been absolutely reprehensible. And the first line in the article states "suspend the rules" - isn't that what Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is for? So even if it's not useful in the least, it's also redundant. --Golbez 03:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Whao there cowboy - slow down on the personal attacks. Deleting a community article because you take issue with one of its editors is seriously in bad taste. It's not a question of what - its a question of how. Benjamin Gatti
  • You should talk about "bad taste". --Golbez 17:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This proposed policy is in direct opposition to WP:POINT, and WP:POINT is a much better policy. Would-be "Wikiblowers" should not disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point. --Metropolitan90 05:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this shotgun policymaking. NatusRoma 06:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep refine and make it a featured article. Wikipedia cliques seem eager to quelsh dissent and would have us join a community where people are bullied into "joining" a concensus, rather than one where concensus is not reached until all dissent is addressed. As a new publication Wikipedia is rife with censorship, plagiarism, advocacy and some downright racist mythology. A policy to protect whistle-blowers would serve to balance the influence of an authoritarian leader who claims that everyone who ever appealed to him for review of administrator's decisions was a "complete and total ass". WizUp 09:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  WizUp's second edit. Radiant_>|< 12:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the proposed policy. Vote it down in the poll there. VfD is not a way of getting rid of policy proposals. — Asbestos | Talk 12:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the proposed policy. Vote it down in the poll there. VfD is not a way of getting rid of policy proposals. - What he said! Hipocrite 14:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the proposed policy. Vote it down in the poll there. VfD is not a way of getting rid of policy proposals. — DJ Clayworth 15:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the proposed policy. Vote it down in the poll there. VfD is not a way of getting rid of policy proposals. DES ^(talk) 21:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This was not originally, in fact, a policy proposal. It was rather a statement that such a policy already existed, which it does not, and never has. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's true that the Proposed tag wasn't up at the start of the vfd, but it was placed there shortly after, and before the majority of these votes were cast. I think the "policy" is absurd, but I believe that it would set a bad precedent to delete serious proposals, even ones where good faith is in question. For the record, the proposal can be voted on here. — Asbestos | Talk 10:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of good faith. Given the timing of this "proposal", it seems overwhelmingly likely that this is merely an attempt to ex post facto excuse the atrocious conduct of deleting VfD without consensus. That is not a good-faith reason to propose policy. --FOo 23:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith unless we have proof to the contrary. Also you might want to consider the possibility that you are perhaps misreading the situation. It seems to me if there is any lack of good faith involved, it is more likely to be that it is a sarcastic attempt to castigate Ed, rather than to justify his actions. But who can really say? Also there have been several authors working on this, and they may have different motives. For example I see no reason to think that Visviva is being anything other than sincere. I think it would be best if we left the authors and there supposed motives out of this, and let the proposal speak for itself. Paul August ☎ 14:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - policy should be just tagged a proposal and the usual steps followed. If it's rejected by the commnunity, that will be highlighted. Dan100 (Talk) 12:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a silly, pointless WP:POINT violation. Plus it embarasses me personally. Ben, please get off it. And put yourself on zero revert parole before the arbcom does it to you. Sheesh. Uncle Ed 21:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WP:POINT. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, good faith or not. --Sn0wflake 13:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes on the policy

Wikipedia talk:Wikiblower protection/Voting

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Placement

I see that Radiant! has blanked this page and moved the contents to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection, for no intelligible reason since it was transcluded on VfD anyway. Anyway, I have restored it as a transclusion from VfD to here, which I can't imagine any objection to. A pity that we have to continue to involve the VfD process at all, however. Backwards compatibility, such a pain. -- Visviva 11:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to hear that you cannot comprehend my reasons. However, it would help if this page had a reason to it other than being a personal attack to Ed Poor. Radiant_>|< 11:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• While some may use it to flog, it is intended to define a fair rule under which certain acts may be protected which applies equally to all people. The current case appears to be that of the hypocritical heirarchy - or "Do as I say and not as I do." What must be reconized, is that all rules ought to be broken when breaking those rules defends the project or in other ways does more good than harm - and the priveledge and protections ought to extend on the basis of the circumstance - to everyone equally - rather than merely having an unwritten rule in which some people (ie Uncle Ed) are granted license to ignore the rules, while others are regularly pummelled for the same thing on the basis of their personhood. This is an immoral double standard - and Wikiblower protection is an effort to recognize and allow for the need, while maintaining a set of universal standards of behavior. If the admins cannot create a set of rules that they can live by - why the bloody hell should anyone else? Benjamin Gatti
• Please read WP:IAR and WP:POINT. People should always be prepared to stand by the consequences of their actions. The very idea of the Wiki is, and has always been, that you can do whatever you like as long as it's for the good of the encyclopedia. The tricky part is that anyone may be wrong in what they perceive to be good. If anyone's actions turn out to run counter to consensus, they will be halted. And possibly, censured, as has happened here. Anything else is just icing the cake, and there's no need (or even possibility, since it would be oxymoronic) to formalize it. Radiant_>|< 13:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Move?

I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to move this to Wikipedia:Wikiblower, and expand the definition and examples of the term, also explaining why it is likely to be contentious. -- Visviva 11:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think you should merge this with WP:IAR. The principle is exactly the same, but the way you've written this it's open to abuse by newbies who think they can ignore rules to do whatever. Radiant_>|< 12:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing should be merged with Ignore all rules its not a policy, its merely a opiate for the masses. If you haven't got brains enought to deal with rules - relax - you're probably not a problem anyway? It has no point and no metric for being equally applied. The purpose of Wikiprotection is to have a rule which can be applied for one and all. Experienced wikipedians will have the benefit of sensing where the harm/benefit line is, and will probably have better outcomes than newbies, but the policy itself is not a reincarnation of the hypocritical hierarchy. Benjamin Gatti

Text move

However, Wikiblower protection was not extended to him, and he was temporarily blocked for violating WP:POINT

Because this blocking was not done by process of consensus or process - it is not encyclopedic - if the arbcom rejects the argument - that would be different. Benjamin Gatti

• What precisely is your point in writing this? That people should be able to get away with anything as long as it brings the community's attention to some perceived wrong? That is entirely wrong - there are plenty of ways to get attention. Radiant_>|< 13:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• The point is to present a ration defense for Ed Poor's recent actions (and similar cases) which are based on the preciple of a mono-standard that is a set of rulez in which every person's actions are held to a single standard. It is not to suggest that anything is incouraged. it is to present the age-old concept of porportionality - that is the benefit vs. the harm, and realize that extraordinary actions are often as necessary as they are verboten. We could for example make the Martyr argument, that Ed should die for his belief in order to protect the rule of law (Which requires that even rulemakes be held to the same standard) - or we recognize and codefy the circumstances (not the people) under which violations serve a higher purpose. The question as I see it - ought to be - Did the act have a benefit equal or higher than the harm caused? - and not "Who did this dastardly thing - oh - it was Ed - well, that changes everything." Benjamin Gatti

Text Move

Extending Wikiblower protection relies on assuming good faith that the conduct was intended to help resolve problems that the community was unable to address by normal means. Because editors may disagree with this assumption, calls for Wikiblower protection are likely to be contentious.

A very interesting opinion, but I think not the substance of Policy. Benjamin Gatti

VOTING

Support the policy as a whole

1. Yes - it's more fair than a cabal system of insiders Benjamin Gatti 00:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Scrap the policy totally

1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Strongest possible oppose. ~~ N (t/c) 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
3. ^…Markaci 2005-08-5 T 02:10:09 Z

This policy is badly named

"Wikiblowing" is nothing like whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is stating the truth about a conspiracy or the like, and deserves protection, but it's solely speech. What this policy describes is disruptive behavior that hurts Wikipedia and ultimately is nonproductive for any purpose other than inciting controversy. Even if there is sometimes an excuse for making a WP:POINT, I think those cases will be obvious, making this instruction creep. ~~ N (t/c) 01:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

... and rather silly, too

I just now came across this page, and it just makes me laugh. I don't know what Ben made it for, but it's not going to make me more partial to his POV on nuclear power plant indemnity legislation. I wish he would just blank the page, himself. (I'm tempted to "shoot on sight", but that would be taking the can of worms, turning it upside down, and shaking it vigorously so that every last one of the consarned, wriggly little varmints would spill out onto the floor. Yecch! ;-)

Ben, thanks - but no, thanks. Get my drift? Uncle Ed 02:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Well I hope that it won't make you partial either way - that would be a poor mediator. I made it because I think there ought to be a fair rule rather than an elite rule in dealing with Breaching Experiments - which I'm rather inclined to endulge in myself from time to time. If you're going to rock the boat, i'll support rational rocking on the basis of a fair rule - but I won't support elitist rocking on the basis of priveledge. Proportionality is the measure of such things - or should be. Benjamin Gatti