User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 12

Question about whether a proposed finding of fact has a chance
Is Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop a content decision, or does it have a chance of passing? If the former, is there a way I can reword it to make it acceptable? --NE2 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/IRC
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right to vanish
Hi, I've left a comment here about your edit today, as the issue of talk page deletion has been something of a bone of contention, with some people (including Jimbo) thinking it's fine, and others strongly objecting. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really feel strongly about that; I was just trying to reduce some of the wordiness and emphasise the leaving-as-a-prerequisite-to-vanishing part. Sounds like it might be a good one to get some broader input about. --bainer (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The "kitteh" that wants "moar" drama
Hi Bainer. Long time, no see! So you want more drama? Then why'd you block my account? I can cause so much drama, and you know it. I know you miss me, you're just scared to admit it. Just a few days talking to me, and you'll have had enough drama to last for a few years. And another thing. Learn to spell. "Moar"? "Kitteh"? Don't even go saying there's a purpose behind those spellings that's meant to add a little humour to the caption (which by the way, you failed), just admit it; that you can't spell. I also noticed you met Jimbo! That's cool! But back to the spelling. Get it right! You're supposed to be a renowned editor on this website, like myself, and I feel that if you're spelling like that, I would be scared to let my kids (that don't exist) use this website for referencing. I'll tell everyone else I know not to use wiki, and i'll start petitions against the site. All becasue of one or two small little spelling errors. Well, that's enough for tonight. I'm sure your reply (you'd better reply!!) will give me a lot more to go on about. But maybe I should have put this on your talk page. As a matter of fact, I will. (This message was originally on your user page, but I moved it to this page in an act of decency to your user page). Goodnight Bainer. Hope you've had a good day! Neoballmon III (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

regarding Image:Shiri.jpg
Could you please verify that the uploader of the above image has permission to release the image under the GNU FDL and CCA licenses? For some reason, I highly doubt he does.--Rockfang (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The ticket linked to were to do with permissions for several unrelated images, and after searching I couldn't find any other permissions tickets covering this image. I removed the permissions template from the image page. It's probably the result of someone not knowing what they're doing and copy-and-pasting the image description page from somewhere else to get the templates they want. --bainer (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking it out.--Rockfang (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

damn.
I wish I'd said that. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on main page deletion incident
As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)

This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event

Regards --User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

policy
Some time ago, actually a long time ago, you protected policy saying it was a high-risk template. I would like the template unprotected as it is neither high-use nor high-risk (it is only used in the project namespace, not in articles), and it had no history of heavy vandalism. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I protected it because it's used exclusively in high profile locations, that is, policy pages. Template vandalism was starting to get popular around that time, and the whole idea of WP:HRT was pre-emptive protection for templates that don't really need editing anyway. That said, if there's a consensus for unprotecting, then that would be fine by me. --bainer (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia holds its critics hostage
hi i created account visitor876 to let you guys know that threats of violence published on wikipedia review then they remove my comments on administrators noticeboard and block my account and i demanded to talk to arbitrator since wikipedia review say violent threats received by arbitrator but they did not let me talk to arbitrator they gave me link but protected my talk page how i supposed to contact arbitrator while blocked so i created new account why they hiding fact that wikipedian threatened wikipedia reviewer with violence it is just like wikipedia review say wikipedia holds its critics hostage you are arbitrator plaese back me up http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest934 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration
Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's lists of books portraying sexual attraction to children
Please visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males. Tony has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006. Your input in the next few days would be appreciated. You participated in earlier discussions of this question and related questions about that work. SocJan (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My involvement previously was limited to the task of closing an earlier requested move discussion, but I recognise that the discussions around article scope and titling there have been quite difficult to sort out, so I should be able to offer some thoughts later. --bainer (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * THANKS! We can use all the help we can get.  SocJan (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Naked short selling analysis
You ask for evidence related to the editing of articles involved in the Mantanmoreland arbitration. 

I was also interested in seeing such evidence, so as none is forthcoming I've started the long, laborious task of examining every one of the nearly 1000 edits to naked short selling (less any that might have been selectively deleted or oversighted). The result of my plodding work can be seen, as it accrues, at the link in the section heading above. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent :) I'll be watching that page carefully. The new semester started this week, so I'm a little short on time to be doing this kind of thing myself, so it's certainly very helpful for you to compile this map, as you put it. --bainer (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See also User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The/Sandbox/Analysis/Patrick M. Byrne


 * I've done two of these plod-throughs and (by my standards) not found any pattern of really bad behavior by Mantanmoreland or Samiharris, your mileage may vary. The most annoying trait of Samiharris in my view is his propensity to edit war with trolls instead of calling an admin to protect or block.  I don't think we're dealing with a bad boy or a subtle planter of untruths or distortion, though even with that worry lifted the suspicion that he may have taken us for a ride, once planted, is hard to shake.  I hope my work has helped to either replace suspicions with hard evidence (that I cannot see) or else dispel the FUD that saps the community.


 * I don't think I'll spend any more time on it because if there isn't a smoking gun saying "egregious axe-grinder or troll" in those two then we're unlikely to see any in the other article histories. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RfArb comment
I know the arbitrators do follow arbitration requests and add more comments as needed, but as you commented fairly early on, could I ask that you do comment later at some point if you think further issues have been raised that you could usefully comment on? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's the Betacommand RfArb! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG Arbcom
Hi Thebainer. I would like to share with you some updates about Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis. Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as ). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses ). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support. Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. Regards PHG (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know
Regarding your comments at the Betacommand RFAR, the community has tried, and tried, and tried, and tried to "resolve" it. We can't BC stated unequivocally that an RfC would be ignored by him, and that we should take our problems with him to RFAR. An abdication of your responsibilities here just throws it back into the frothy milieu from whence it sprang to begin with, as BC will not change his incivility unless forced to do so. And, he has far too many friendly admins for blocks to have any effect at all. Please reconsider and step in at this time. Bellwether B  C  14:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft
Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence §  t / e  17:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The REAL WORLD aint so real (redux)
Hi! bainer. I hope you are well, and rested from recent efforts. You get The Australian online, i still prefer smelly old ink and paper. In the Weekend Business section (March 15-16 2008) Terry McCrann's column (page 37), it is made plain that 'naked short selling' is an issue in Australia.

"A 'naked' short sale is what the ordinary person would think that a short sale was." My lay-person's view coincides.

Of course, McCrann makes it plain that the case in Australia centres on the actions (and failures) of the regulators (ASIX and ASX). "The ASX has stuffed up." Of course, my lay-person's view is that the failure of the regulators is pre-ordained, given that the global economic system is dominated, and always will be, by insiders, thieves, cowboys and scroundrels. The regulator is neutered and compromised by design, to facilitate the ill-gotten profits of these "gougers" and bullies (cf. Tom Wolfe's "big swinging dicks" from The Bonfire of the Vanities).

McCrann says, (and he is definitely a 'fiscal conservative') that the regulators have "failed to notice a herd of horses galloping free". I will leave it there, I am sure you would rather read the rest for yourself, if you havent already. My view is simply that of a lay-person, distinctly an outsider, but not so extreme a view, I hope, as to mark me as an irredeemable "nutjob" or "conspiracy-theorist"!

If, indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. [CORINTHIANS 5:3] (No, I do not think it a good idea that i join the taskforce to "rescue" these damaged economics articles.)

Newbyguesses- NOTE to self: Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. [ROMANS 2:1] (I hate Sundays, they can be cruel.)

Cheers, and thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 04:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

the Sydney Journal
Hi there, Just thought I'd drop you, and others from the recent meetup, a line and mention that the first edition of the Dictionary of Sydney's online, peer-reviewed journal is now live.

The Sydney Journal is the first (and most academically rigorous) "product" of the Dictionary. It will be a quarterly publication with a variety of texts from upcoming Dictionary articles and is hosted by UTS E-press. This edition features 4 thematic articles, 6 ethnicities and 5 suburbs - all specifically related to Sydney.

I hope you find it useful and interesting - If nothing else it's essays are eminently referenceable for their corresponding articles here on WP.

Best, Witty Lama 12:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice! I'll look forward to reading more of those as they come out. --bainer (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend Ferrylodge RfArb case
Hi - in response to your comment here, Ferrylodge's sanction has been interpreted to apply only to articles. While I understand the reasons for construing it thus, I wanted to formally request that his sanction be amended to apply to any page (in any namespace) related to abortion or pregnancy which he disrupts. That may not have been clear in my initial request. This is based on my observation that he has been a disruptive presence in article talkspace; I linked a brief summary of evidence to this effect, and I can provide a more detailed and exhaustive summary of the reasons why I think this expansion would be a good idea if you or the other Arbs think it would be useful. It's a relatively small change, and would apply prospectively - that is, if he doesn't disrupt the article talk pages, there will be no effect - but having seen him test the limits of tolerance and his sanctions repeatedly I'd like to ask you and the rest of the Committee to amend the wording of his sanction to apply to abortion/pregnancy-related topics across all namespaces. MastCell Talk 19:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that the "any page" proposal attracted opposition back then, there's going to need to be evidence adduced demonstrating why we should take a different direction now; at the moment I'm inclined to trust GRBerry's assessment in closing that arbitration enforcement request, that there doesn't appear to be anything warranting such a change at this time. Furthermore, none of the arbitrators who were active on the case have yet indicated that they think the situation has changed in any way that would necessitate stronger sanctions, so at least for the moment we're not going to be taking any further action. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mastcell, I have asked several times if you would please pick out a single particular diff that you find representative of the worst of my alleged behavior. You have declined.  I urge you to please reconsider.  If you would pick out a single diff, then we could all focus on it.  This will make things simpler for you, simpler for me, and simpler for the arbitrators. Your suggestion to provide an "exhaustive summary" is exactly the opposite of what would be helpful at this point, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tendentious editing, as I'm sure you know, is generally exemplified not by a single egregious diff, but by a pattern of circular argumentation, attempts to wear down "opponents", intransigent POV-pushing, confrontational rhetoric rather than collaboration, and refusal to consider alternate points of view. I did provide a list of diffs in my original complaint here, which I felt exemplified an approach I've seen Ferrylodge take repeatedly. Far from improving his behavior after the ArbCom case, he's been consistently testing the limits of the community's patience and his sanctions, then backing off temporarily till things blow over (c.f. here and here). Ferrylodge is a disruptive editor, and I think ArbCom would be doing a favor to those who have to deal with him by broadening his sanctions, but if it's not going to happen then I'll move on. MastCell Talk 03:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mastcell, I would agree that tendentious editing consists of much more than a single egregious diff, but it most surely can be exemplified by a single egregious diff. If you would pick one out, and then I demonstrate that the diff was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances, then that would pretty well refute your whole argument.  On the other hand, if you pick one out, and I cannot demonstrate that the diff was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances, then that would lend credibility to your accusations.  I might add that tendentious editing may also consist of repeatedly and doggedly accusing someone without justification, and incessantly refusing to abide by the results of admins to whom the dispute has been submitted for resolution.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to continue this exercise, particularly in this venue. MastCell Talk 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to visit my talk page, if you like.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to Have to Do This
Please join the discussion. , your user page uses one of these images (a lolcat image). Since it is under something that Wikimedia considers as fair use, and not GFDL, which would make it unallowable on user pages according to the current policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I wanted to note that this is a discussion to air out potential problems with the issue, and not a copyright infringement removal request. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded to your comment and I hope it explains the nuances in what I am stating on the issue. I have read through CC licensing thoroughly, and I have a strong understanding of fair use, free use, and the rest (my girlfriend works in the Library Science field and deals with rights to material constantly, especially how the law evolves over time, and I am used as a proof reading pawn for presentations and the like). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case
I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as a recused arbitrator who was involved with the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence
There wasn't a need for full protection, as there wasn't any edit warring. It was an anonnymous editor able to change IP adresses who was trolling/vandalizing and reverting the reverts using multiple IPs. I requested semi protection just a minute or two before you fully protected it. Okiefromokla questions? 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Please see my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Proposed_decision. I believe that continuing 1RR probation would be most helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanking
I was under the impression that we don't fulfill requests from banned users who harass editors, or at the very least, requests that don't have sound reasoning to them. Furthermore, we have no formal method of "challenging" blanking, nor is blanking something that can be enforced. I'm really unsure of where to go from here. I did revert one of your blankings when you removed a single comment from mine that didn't even discuss the dispute, or the subject of the dispute. Unless you're feeling particularly anal today, I really don't see the point of blanking that one single comment. However, I'll refrain from touching the others until getting more input on this. -- Ned Scott 02:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't kick people just because we can either. The history is still there for anyone who wants it, and it can never hurt to reduce drama. As for where to discuss courtesy blankings, try the admin noticeboard, or possibly the village pump proposals section. --bainer (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "We don't kick people just because we can either." If I wanted to kick Brandt I wouldn't use such a stupid and ineffective method. I can't emphasize this enough, for myself, I would be taking these same positions if this were for someone else. It has nothing to do with the person. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) "From time to time, a discussion about an article will have a majority of its content that, in the judgment of the community may potentially cause harm to some person or to some organization." and "Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed after due consideration is given to fairness issues." seem to be jumping out at me. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration - Requests for clarification
Hi, I know you're very busy, but I'd noticed that you haven't posted anything at the new Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions page. Were you aware of the page split, and is it added to your watchlist? The page could definitely benefit from some more attention, as there are some requests which have been sitting there unattended for quite some time. Thanks, --Elonka 05:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango evidence
Would you be able to provide links to the ANI and other discussions you mention here? There's little I hate more than trawling the ANI archives :) --bainer (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bainer, that is exactly what I am working on even as we speak (write?). I plan to set it up in a table similar to what you did with the IRC evidence, which I think is probably the most user-friendly format, and others have indicated that if I get the info, they'll help me with the table. It may take a couple of evenings, though; I'd rather get it right than get it fast.  I hope that is okay.  Risker (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thebainer - As I noted on my talk page, I am currently putting together the more indepth evidence with diffs to noticeboards, talk pages and so on. I intend to present it in a chart form, similar to what you did with the IRC case; however, since I am untested (shall we say) at wikitables, I'm collecting the info first and will move on to tables once it is mostly done. Just to check with you though, this is a sample of the information I am pulling together; could you let me know if this is the kind of information you and the other arbs would find most helpful? (From User:Risker/Tango2) Date/Time of block: 23:21 on 21 March 2008 Article(s) involved: List of countries and outlying territories by total area User(s) blocked: User:Tubesship, User:70.49.152.70 Reason(s) for block: WP:3RR violation on List of countries and outlying territories by total area Warning(s) given: None by User:Tango. Message on talk page of IP from User Tubesship at 23:05, 21 March 2008 requesting end to edit war Noticeboard info: User:Tubesship requests help with anonymous IP on the article at 22:49, 21 March 2008; some discussion of dispute resolution occurs after both parties blocked for 3RR Subsequent actions by Tango: Notice to IP of 24-hour edit warring block; notice and extended conversation with User:Tubesship on user talk page. Discussion of the 3RR rule, explanation of why IP's edit was not considered vandalism, Tubesship's request that autoblock be lifted as others use the same proxy, no offer to lift block once new user understood rule. Subsequent actions by other admin(s): None Additional Notes: (1) The edit war had started several hours earlier at 01:42 with edits by another IP, which were reverted by User:Polaron and User:Parsecboy; it could be considered a slow edit war, with 2 IPs and 3 registered regular editors. (2) User:Tubesship registered his account on 26 February 2008. Editing was in articles relating to Kosovo, a few miscellaneous articles, and a discussion with an experienced user with respect to image copyright ("Please help a greenhorn understand the difference between public domain and wiki commons").

Please let me know if I am collecting too much or the wrong information. Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I was actually just looking for ANI links (like here), but if you're working on providing more information then that's great! The main thing is that the evidence you do provide is well organised, and a table format would be very good for what you're doing there. If you already know HTML tables then wikitables are fairly straightforward, in fact there's a good comparison of the syntax here. If you don't know either... well I guess you'd better accept some of those offers of help then :) --bainer (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

editing help
Hi there mate!

A university class I've been trying to convince to get involved in using WP in their class has today agreed to do so. In the class they rewrote the text of Religious Nationalism. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and edit it mercilessly (as the saying goes). Perhaps if you could convince others to get in on the act too that would be great.

Here is the diff of the edit they made.

Thanks for your help,

Witty Lama 10:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that the section Religious Nationalism has now been separated from the main article Nationalism into its own article Religious nationalism. Please join in and help bring this newly formed article up to standard. Especially important is avoiding a Systemic Bias and adding Citations.

All the best, Witty Lama 04:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about possibly filing an arbcom case
It seems that a separate case would need to be filed to ask Arbcom to look at the Allegations of state terrorism by the US article and the various conduct issues of the editors that constantly surround it. How would I go about doing this? There's been plenty of WP:ANI stuff and I think a few RFCs before as well. I asked you since you seem to be interested in such an arbitration case, and I am unsure of the procedure to be followed. Jtrainor (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, with the way other requests have progressed it looks like you will have to file a separate request in order to have the history of editing of that article considered. An important issue is always prior dispute resolution: arbitration is always the final step, so the main thing you will need to demonstrate is that previous efforts have been attempted and have not been successful. As for the mechanics of making a request, there's some advice at Arbitration guide, or else you could contact one of the clerks who can talk you through it. --bainer (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bauer lawsuit
You may be interested in this article planned for the upcoming edition of the Signpost, since it mentions you (although not by name) in describing the deletion close of Barbara Bauer.--ragesoss (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks pretty good. If you're able, there was one very good section in the EFF's press release which might be good to quote, the second-last paragraph (beginning "Section 230's blanket protection of sites like Wikipedia...") which is a very brief and punchy summary of section 230. --bainer (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was good advice; I added the quote.--ragesoss (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why no redirects?
Curious, I noticed that White Cat's Davenbelle link had gone cold, and noticed that you had done the deed. I mean, we have WP:RFAR/HWY, for instance. Davenbelle has the strange convention of three separately named parties, which makes it more difficult to remember. I can remember Cool Cat and Davenbelle fine, but it takes a bit to remember Stereotek's user name, much less type it in correctly with the spacing and puncutation. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirects should not be sharing the namespace with regular case names. I'm not fond of WP:RFAR/HWY either, but at least it's in the shortcut format. See this discussion. --bainer (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Davenbelle
Thats a speedy deletion criteria? Why the martial law? -- Cat chi? 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you are willing to discuss in the light of speedy deletion criteria, I plan to recreate that redirect (I may get it undeleted). It is quite a pain to type "Stereotek"... -- Cat chi? 16:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said to hbdragon88 above, there should be nothing but cases (and administrative pages like completed requests) as subpages of the main requests page. I remind you that no arbitrator has agreed with your renaming suggestion, for a variety of different reasons. --bainer (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not heard a single word in relation to the speedy deletion criteria from you. I care not what arbitrators has to say. I have not proposed this to them and I do not intend to. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- Cat chi? 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with White Cat this was an out-of-process speedy. The community should be allowed to take up this issue and discuss it.  Perhaps you could propose a place to do so.  I see no reason why we can't have redir's to case pages, it would make reference to particular cases much easier. Wjhonson (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Deletion review is the usual place. --bainer (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me.
Could you please take a look at Rosalind Picard's talk page, specifically the "Hilarious" subsection where user:Filll threatens to "out" my identity based on the results of a google search? I'm not certain what I should do in this case, but I am concerned about someone stalking me around the internet like that. (Not that I have anything to hide, it just creeps me out.) Thank you. Let me know if I'm concerned for no reason or if this is somehow an innappropriate request. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision
Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that the Tango case has a principle 9 proposed by The Uninvited Co and a 9.1 principle proposed by Kirill. Would request your vote on them. ✅ Please also note that FloNight and Jpgordan are reconsidering have changed their votes on the remedies after checking the talk page - the discussion there is eye-opening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, was wondering if your votes on the remedies (in terms of first choice, second choice, third choice) may need to be changed? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Israel
There's a discussion on this at WP:AN. Your presence there would be valuable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the problem
Why not try to respond to the problem that is faced by your colleagues, rather than blanket revert leaving them, according to the policy, at the mercy of email abuse. Discretion is not encouragement. Some flexibility in preemptive email blocking is a must — some of us are just not prepared to keep our email open to, say, known repeat racist vandals socks, even if they have yet to abuse the email function. Saying it has to be an absolute, all-or-nothing is a slap in the face of those of us who are actually doing this work. Thanks. El_C 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy case
Would request you check the "Motions and requests" section in the workshop for this case - I would particularly like some clarification from all ArbCom members on the 2nd request by me - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests page
Particularly from clarifications, amendments & appeals, the requests page has been clogged up recently. I'm going to remind you (or inform you) of some cases that may need your attention, views and reasons, or further discussion to try to fix this problem. Once the page is less clogged up, then that's that :) You may find the links to the cases mentioned at RfarOpenTasks - created by one of the clerks, AGK.

Currently, there are 2 requests which require arbitrator attention, one involving IRC voting, while the other involves "Episodes and characters". Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification–Episodes and characters 2
You commented on the first request, so do you think you could also comment on Requests for arbitration? It has been open for a bit, so it would be nice if at least one person could provide some clarification at this point. TTN (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision
Just wondering if you'll be voting on Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying/Proposed_decision, as one of the arbitrators who accepted the case? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludites! Hah!
Good one :D. I would have placed that heading above the entire 'oppose' group but then that might be going too far ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calaka (talk • contribs)


 * Well, that would be making a POINT, not merely making a point :) --bainer (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Post on melbourne Meetups page
Hi there,

Apologies for the random contact. I just made a post on the Melbourne Wikipedia meetup page. Mark Elliott, who has been working with us at the City of Melbourne to develop a wiki for our Future Melbourne project, suggested you might be a good person to contact for advice on whether there's a better place to have made our post. Was wondering whether or not most people will notice it where it is?

Could you provide any feedback on the best approach?

Many thanks in advance, Dale.

FutureMelbourne (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone has already posted a link on the Wikimedia Australia mailing list, and someone else has already added a link at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. I mentioned it at the WikiProject Melbourne. That should be most of your bases covered! --bainer (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bainer. That's great. Appreciate your help! Dale FutureMelbourne (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

G'day theb
though you must be absolutely snowed under wiki-wise semi permanently nowadays, I've rustled up the temerity to swing by here and wonder if I could chat to you about a checkuser related question? - It'll probably take a few questions and answers and stuff - but there's absolutely no rush at all, and I thought I'd see if you were up for it... It relates to my case specifically, and if it's cool with you I can explain...! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't do so much CheckUser stuff myself, but you're welcome to ask anything you like; probably best if you email me. --bainer (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong diff?
Thebainer, I'm wondering if you're looking at the right diff in the Muhammad al-Durrah case. This was not the edit that Elonka page-banned me for; this was. The BLP violation I removed was this bit (the bolded text is that which was added by User:Julia1987, unbolded article text is previously existing material which I didn't remove)):


 * Muhammad's father claim he was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds. However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. "

This makes the father out to be a liar, it states a purely anecdotal claim made by an interviewee in the report as fact, no other reliable source that I know of has made that claim, it's sourced to a Youtube-style video hosting site (ergo, a probable copyvio), and the reliability of the source was essentially unknowable since at the time I knew of no original copy of the video.

I would be grateful if you could address whether this was in fact a BLP and probable copyright violation, and if so, whether my removing it was reasonable. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The diff I mentioned was one several that Elonka referred to in her series of warnings to you, and as such was one of several that directly prompted your sanction. I can certainly see how a potential BLP issue is raised by the particular content that you refer to (since you have now pointed it out), but that was only some of the content you altered in that edit, which was in fact a bare revert of seven intermediary revisions to one of your previous revisions to the page. Your edit summary referred to POV pushing and not BLP. It would not have been reasonably apparent to any uninvolved admin viewing that edit that you had BLP concerns, and instead it would have been quite apparent that you were edit warring.
 * You may well have been able to justify that edit on a BLP basis at the time (you would have had a much better justification if that was the only content you altered) but you at least had to take reasonable steps to communicate that this was your intention, given that it was not apparent that's what you were doing. In this case, mentioning BLP in the edit summary would have been sufficient, but that of course was not done. --bainer (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the Wikipedia Weekly
Hi! We're recording an episode on the FT2/Kirill situation on the Administrator's noticeboard (E.g. Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters)- this is a major issue, and it would be very helpful to have a neutral administrator to try and explain what's going on. Thanks! Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarity needed in the OM/FT2/Policy situation
You are marked as active on the arbitrator's list. I urge you to get active. I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks, discussions of names of users, and the like, even discussion of other cases, should be, in my view, left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. I posted this first at FT2's page and FT2 indicated he is waiting on responses... the longer this festers the worse it is for everyone... ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We're actively discussing it on the mailing list. By actively I mean a couple of hundred emails since Friday. You can quite literally expect something within minutes. --bainer (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. VERY good, in fact. I would rather have wasted my time by an urging that was not needed, than not urge. (you don't have to doublepost, you're on watch, per User:Lar/Pooh policy, but thanks!) ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Within 6 minutes, as it happened: . --bainer (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seen it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seen it, was cheered up, have commented. Still work to be done but urgency is lessened. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)