After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Biographies of living persons

1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
8. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
9. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Noting that NPOV (mandatory on all WMF projects) has primacy on content, and consensus is our core means of reaching decisions. "Do no harm" is not to be misinterpreted as "delete on any pretext even if against consensus" or "delete at the cost of NPOV", rather it means weigh the benefit of a fact to an article against the impact it may have, and if it might have a negative impact, then there is a higher need to be sure it's genuinely needed ( WP:NPOV/ WP:WEIGHT), agreed by editors ( WP:CONSENSUS) and well supported ( WP:RS). If there is significant doubt on these, and the fact may do harm, that may be a good reason not to include it. reply
10. Paul August ☎ 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Subject to FT2's qualification above. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
8. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
9. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
10. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. So long as the dispute is in good faith and is conducted respectfully rather than disruptively. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Noting that the exact policy is, "The Committee reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute, at their discretion. The following are general guidelines which will apply to most cases, but the Committee may make exceptions... (4) The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." ( Wikipedia:Arbitration policy) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Compliance

4) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
8. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
9. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
10. Paul August ☎ 16:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Novel approaches

5) The apparent failure of Wikipedia's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches—to resolve the conflicts plaguing certain problematic areas within Wikipedia forces the Committee to adopt novel approaches and methods in order to work towards the resolution of these conflicts.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
8. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
9. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) in which we ourselves, are sometimes figuring out the way forward too..... reply

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Disagree with "apparent failure" and "forces". From the perspective of the Committee, it is difficult not to form a jaundiced view. I believe that most things are not as bad as they seem. reply

Abstain:

Use of quotes in footnotes

2 6) The question of what material—such as quotes—should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Second choice reply
8. Second choice. James F. (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. See 2.1. [now 6.1] Sam Blacketer ( talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Paul August ☎ 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC) In favor of 6.1 below. reply

Abstain:

Use of quotes in footnotes

2.1 6.1) In the absence of unambiguous guidance in the Manual of style and in Wikipedia:Footnotes covering the content of footnotes, the question of what material – such as quotes – should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content. Editors who systematically produce articles which contradict style guidance should expect others to bring their articles into line, but style guidance should be decided by consensus after wide consultation.

Support:

1. Proposed; I think more help can be given on this issue than the bald statement that it is not our responsibility. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Either is fine. If preference is needed, this one first. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Ok. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. First choice; neither is bad. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. But move to be a remedy, as Charles notes. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC) First choice reply
8. Paul August ☎ 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Technically, this is no longer a finding of fact, is it? Charles Matthews ( talk) 06:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

   Good point; shall we move it up to principles? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 14:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

   Well, I thought of it as a Remedy, but either would work, yes. James F. (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

   Hm. What does it remedy? (I think of remedies as measures to fix things that are broken, as opposed to statements of principle.) -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

   Principle. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

   I support moving it to Principles. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

   If thought better as a principle then I've no objection to it going there instead. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

   That's fine with me. Kirill ^{( prof)} 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

   Moved. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Problems with biographies of living persons

1) There continue to be significant and numerous problems with the implementation of the biographies of living persons policy, including both obvious non-compliance at the article level, as well as more subtle attempts to undermine or weaken the policy itself, or to stonewall attempts to implement it in particular cases. There is considerable hesitancy on the part of many administrators to act decisively in these cases, often because the relevant policies are contradictory or unclear.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Agree. The instability of Wikipedia policy pages means that on any given day our written pages may be in conflict with each other. This makes enforcing policy much more difficult for administrators that are not policy wonks who keep all policy pages on their watch list. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
8. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
9. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Some of the main complicating factors are 1/ the inherent conflict between BLP and NPOV, 2/ the issue of when a topic or fact is "reliably" sourced and when inclusion is appropriate, 3/ the views of a wide range of different editors who must interpret policy wording and who believe firmly that they understand what "the spirit behind the policy" should be, 4/ the lack of bright lines in some judgement matters, and 5/ the very strong wording we have given BLP in the past which has sometimes been used as a cudgel, effectively polarizing the debate and disfavoring more collaborative approaches. Faced with strong views on different sides, both sysops and non-sysops, and with edit warriors and other unhelpful users too, it is unsurprising that BLP decision-making and enforcement is a problem affecting all users, whichever "side" they stand. reply
10. Paul August ☎ 16:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC) This is a very serious matter facing our encyclopedia. We must to do a better job of enforcing BLP. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of quotes in footnotes

2) Moved to Principles (6) per discussion.

Alansohn

3) Alansohn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Not all of these are equally egregious, but enough are to support the finding. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Paul August ☎ 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Special enforcement on biographies of living persons

1) Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to affect compliance.

Administrators should counsel editors that fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area, and should ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy. Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary.

This does not preclude the use of emergency measures where necessary, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion.

Appeals

Administrative actions taken under this provision can be appealed in two ways:

1. Appeals may be made to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard. However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
2. Appeals of both the original action and of any subsequent reversal may be made directly to the Committee, or another body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future.

Involvement

Administrators with direct involvement in an article may not take action regarding it under this provision. Taking action under this provision shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions.

Logging

All actions taken under this provision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log. All logged sanctions should be accompanied with evidence of the sanctioned editor being counseled and warned, as per the above. Where an action has been reversed or modified, this should be clearly marked, and must be accompanied by evidence of explicit approval from the Committee, or of clear consensus from the community.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. We need to make sure that our administrators have the tools to enforce policy. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 13:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
8. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 10:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Strong oppose as it stands. Although I agree with the idea in principle, I have deep misgivings that I cannot shake, over the first paragraph. It is a horrible mistake, when that admin community itself is so divided too on what "the spirit and word" of BLP means and when deletion is or isn't legitimate, to them give a ruling that the selfsame sysops may each "use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit ... Administrators may use ... tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance... Administrators should counsel editors that fail to comply ...blocks of up to one year in length... all administrators are explicitly authorized to take [emergency] measures..." etc. Is it just me that sees a slow motion train crash of horrible and wheel-like magnitude happening when the different factions and views involved in BLP get to grips with this new mandate? We do need to do something; but this isn't a something I can see being well run as yet. The divisions on what BLP means run too deep and this will just add to each person that has a different and strongly held view, a larger baseball bat. We need to clarify how BLP's ambiguities should be met, and reduce the divergence noted previously, before just handing out bigger hammers to enforce it at discretion. Will discuss before drafting. reply

   Which is the bigger threat to Wikipedia: BLP violations that could see the project in the courts; or "faction fighting", which is in some sense part of the constitutive tension of the place (has been for quite some time)? One of my basic principles is not to hold back on doing the correct thing, for fear that someone will then play silly buggers. They may do; but that problem is more tractable (compared with 200K articles each of which may be a defamation timebomb). Charles Matthews ( talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

   One does not preclude the other. Paul August ☎ 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

2. Paul August ☎ 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Alansohn restricted

2) Alansohn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 13:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
7. James F. (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 09:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Paul August ☎ 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

[A comment regarding BLP and its interpretation may be added here shortly after the case closes. As the remedy passes, it is appropriate a degree of obiter dicta is added to match such a strong remedy and give a degree of guidance what is sought, and why such a remedy may be necessary. When written, please copy to the main case page.] FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Question: assuming you intend to write this comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision, would you like it to be copied to this section ("Discussion by Arbitrators", General)? Or by "the main case page", do you mean Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes? If you mean the latter, I'm not sure that's feasible, in that comments and discussion (even by arbitrators) aren't generally available there, but only any decisions passed by the Committee. Anthøny 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Updated notes. Going by a majority of seven, the following pass:

• Proposed principles: 1) - 5) all pass. Weighing up the "first" and "second choices", and the comments in the votes, I'm taking 6.1) to pass over 6); arbitrators, please correct me as necessary. Additionally, I'm keeping 6.1) as a principle, per the recent move from remedies. Again, please correct me here as necessary, and I will adjust my intended implementation.
• Proposed findings: 1) and 3) pass; 2) has been, per above, moved to principles. During the final implementation of the Committee decision, I will renumber what is currently 3), "Alansohn", to 2).
• Proposed remedies: both 1) and 2) (that is, all) remedies pass, despite the current opposition from arbitrator FT2 to 1), "Special enforcement...". If the Committee wish to adjust their decision further to FT2's vote, I will correct as necessary; going by a majority of 7, however, all remedies pass.

I am happy to receive correction and/or clarification as necessary, and I would also appreciate assurances from voting arbitrators, that the contents of these notes are correct. Finally, I will stay on standby, for the current motion to close.

Anthøny 16:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Support

1. Close, everything passes. Kirill ^{( prof)} 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Close. I see no shifting views here, and the oppose votes have been there for a couple of weeks. Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Close per Charles Matthews. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Close, nothing's gonna change here. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 11:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Close. I have looked at this every which way to see if the BLP remedy could be redrafted to accommodate concerns and conclude that it can't. There comes a time when you've just got to go ahead and try it, and if it's a disaster we'll come back and stop it. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Very well, close. James F. (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Oppose for now, to see if we can accommodate concerns on the special BLP enforcement remedy. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 09:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Remove oppose. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose per deep BLP remedy concerns. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply