User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 14

RFAR
Could you please vote or abstain on Motion 1.3 in the Matthew Hoffman appeal? It currently has 5 supports out of ten, but the new Arbcom is going to come in in two weeks, and then everything will be thrown into chaos. It has been up for three and a bit weeks, the appeal itself is a month old. It would be nice to be able to get this over with and move on, instead of leaving it to the new Arbcom to sort out.

Thank you,

Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already voted (to abstain, which of course is what means that there are 10 active arbitrators on the motion and not 11 as you note). Perhaps my recent account renaming caused some confusion. --bainer (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry - I forgot that your signature and name didn't match. Sorry, it's a bit of a stressful situation, as you can imagine, and having it stagnate for three weeks doesn't help. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of AWM pictures
Hi Bainer. I think you're legal expertise may help here. Do you know if pictures stored at the Australian War Memorial or its website are automatically owned by the AWM and PD under criterion E of PD-Australia. I didn't think that this was the case, but User:Abraham, B.S. thinks that I should be able to use them on Military career of Keith Miller - discussion here User_talk:YellowMonkey. These photos include photos taken in the UK, in the 1940s, where a 70 years after death rule applies, but he is suggesting that an AWM stored photo falls under PD-Aus even though all of these photos were taken in the UK.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Photos taken outside Australia can still be governed by Australian copyright law. It mainly depends on the identity of the photographer (were they an Australian citizen resident in Australia, or an Australian corporation? if so, then it can be governed by Australian law) and the first place of publication (if in Australia, then it can be governed by Australian law). I haven't checked them all, but many of them seem to have been made by the UK company Sport & General Press Agency Ltd (or someone working for them) so they're probably not governed by Australian law.
 * This is an area that depends on authorship rather than ownership, so even if the AWM owns the copyright (they may, though they probably just own a copy of the original) then UK law may still be the governing law.
 * Hope that helps. --bainer (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Modifying a block
For your information, it is now possible to change a block of a user/IP address, without unblocking first. The way to do it is: For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to the block user page for the user/IP address.
 * 2) Set the new settings.
 * 3) Check the "Re-block the user with these settings" box.
 * 4) Click on the block button.


 * Hah, just call me old school I guess :) --bainer (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus 2
Hi Bainer, regarding your recent votes. I'm a bit pussled by them as regards me and as regards Molobo.

I have repeatedly asked that a comment be made on the way the diffs used against me were presented, to no avail. It seems to me as if in some cases the workshop pages are irrelevant to the decision process.

Since you are voting against me, and considering the comment you made, could you please provide me with some advice on how I can improve, especially considering my evidence analysis

Could you please also provide some feedback to these accusations, since in view of your vote on Molobo I would dearly like to know exactly what constitutes an infraction in these proceedings.

Regards --Stor stark7 Speak 11:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Stor,
 * Firstly I think it's important to note that just because that particular section of evidence was linked to from the proposed finding of fact, it does not mean that the presenter's point of view was being adopted or agreed with. There has been a very large amount of evidence presented in this case, and referring to a part of the evidence page is simply a matter of shorthand. I did see your comment of 24 November on the workshop talk page, and I did read Skäpperöd's commentary before voting and found it useful; unfortunately I missed seeing yours (even though it was immediately below it!).
 * What I was mainly concerned about in some of your edits was that you seemed at times to be arguing not about the way an article was written, or the way certain subject matter was presented in the article, but about the subject matter itself. This is probably one of the clearest examples.
 * It does not appear that a specific remedy concerning you will pass, so the concern is perhaps not a major one. However, the whole matter of 20th century Eastern European history is unfortunately a rather contested content area, and it would be regrettable if an excessive investment in the subject matter of the articles turned into something else. --bainer (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Bainer, thanks for the reply. Some comments though. I respectfully have to proclaim skepticism about the shorthand explanation to the linking to Molobos commentary as evidence. Out of Molobos 17 diffs against Scurinae Kirill only picked out one diff to link to and to use as basis for his proposal. In my case, when it would seem much more pertinent to extract diffs so as to remove them from the nazi allegation commentary made by Molobo, this was not done. Instead we are left with a proposed FoF that links to such obvious bogus diffs as for example, , . If ever there was a case where extracting diffs should have been done, and explaining why they were extracted, this is it. I'm also getting a feeling that this whole wikipedia arbitration process is rather arbitrary, where on one side an arbitrator states
 * "I'm not seeing editing problems, I'm seeing tendentious talk page comments. I'm chary of the "battleground" wording on what I have come up with so far.",
 * while you state
 * "None of the examples cited in evidence appear to be recent, true, but they do occur over a sustained period of time, and the battleground description seems to be more appropriate here than in relation to any of the other proposed findings of fact.".
 * Here you seem to be referring to the time span of all the diffs provided by Molobo and linked to by Kirill. As to the diff you provide as a type example, My response to that was given in my analysis: "I replied to "I am sick and tired about rhetoric of people like you, who try to present this incident as result of Poles suddenly without any reason running amok, murdering thousands of innocent people." But I admit it was stupid of me to pout like that.". As far as I can tell I did not insult anyone though. If I understand you correctly my error was in the choice of topic discussed, not in how I discussed it. I think your interpretation of WP:Battle is a bit unfair in that case. Yes, it is an example of me discussing the topic and also the motives behind the national POV's. But how are we to decide how much weight and space to give the various viewpoints in an article unless we are allowed to discuss the topic and the evidence the sources present? In this case we had POV pushing, with for example Piotrus stating: "Polish research has pretty well proven that the claims about German 5th column were quite true. I am not familiar with research on Racak, though" I know that you neither can nor should get involved in content disputes, but here we have a case of Piotrus using a source that states
 * "According to this quasi-official thesis, Nazi Germany instructed the German population of Bydgoszcz and surrounding areas to congregate in the city and mount a "diversionary" attack on Polish forces. On September 3, as Polish forces retreated through the city's streets, they were allegedly fired on by armed German civilians; Polish patriots counterattacked and several hundred Germans were killed, either in the fighting or by execution after being captured "weapon in hand."..... "The problem with this work is that other historians, "third-party" as well as German, present a pretty good case for seeing this event quite differently. They deny that the German minority (which de-germanization measures had reduced from 85 percent in 1918 to only about 7 percent in 1939) was given, or carried out, any military role; they see "bloody Sunday" in Bydgoszcz as a matter of hundreds of innocent, unarmed civilians falling victim to popular rage and panic after police abandoned the city on September 3." (from Richard Blanke, The American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, (Apr., 1992))


 * And using it as a cite supporting the 5th column thesis. I acknowledge though that I've realized that talk page discussions are completely counterproductive unless discussing about verifiable sources, and I will put greater focus on creating content and promise to use the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes immediately more in the future, for what they may be worth.


 * It is not only the remedy that concerns me though, the proposed FoF is also important, since there is no injunction against people using them as battlefield hammers forever afterward. I for example made this ignored workshop proposal, based on for example my experience here where Piotrus hammers with the Digwuren restriction, in addition to brandishing Nazism allegations with impunity. And it has already begun Thanks for the reply with the feedback, Regards --Stor stark7 Speak 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is research from 1992. We have better and up to date research from 13 years of continued after that(2005) that describes a different situation. The work of German-American historian Blanke have been criticised by German historian Christian Raitz von Frentz as belonging to series of books on the issue displaing a strikingly anti- Polish bias so I don't think this is a neutral source. Other historians point out Blanke's position is symphathic to Germany.

And I think it has been explained several times that having pro-German views or pro-German bias, nationalist German views or anti-Polish views doesn't mean one is a Nazi. Stauffenberg fought Hitler but he wanted Poles as slaves in Germany. Rosa Luxemburg was a communist leader in Germany and opposed Polish independence. And so on...Many examples can be given. Telling Polish users that Poles are like Milosevic or that writing to another user that a country belonging to Allies beheaved like a "rest of the gang" isn't exactly neutral or civil in my book.--Molobo (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to make a comment on Molobo. I think your observation "that to date Molobo has stuck to the restriction" is very important (and correct). I wonder shouldn't it be included in the main text of the finding? He has not edit warred for many months; in other cases (Lokyz, Matthead) this has led to findings that they have not violated our policies - so I wonder why the case of Molobo is different? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays


Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 Thanks, although of course I did enjoy a nice warm Southern Hemisphere Christmas :) Here's a nice picture of holiday cheer under blue skies, Melbourne-style! --bainer (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC) 

Merry Christmas from Promethean
 O'Hai there, Merry Christmas!  , I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)  All the Best.   « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk)


 * Cheers, and hope you enjoy your holidays :) --bainer (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees
Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology ( C )( T ) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Thanks again Bainer for all off your hard work. Here is some fuel from my tree to keep you firing in the new year! Happily retired from AC....  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

your list of High Court Justices...help needed
Hi Stephen. Sorry to bother you with something minor, but I recently updated your excellent table of High Court Judges by editing the template directly. I'm only a novice, so if there's another editing step required in order for the 'transclusion' to flow through to the list article, I've apparently missed it. (Maybe I wasn't supposed to edit the template. ???) Would you mind taking a look when you have an opportunity? GlenDillon 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * problem fixed now, my updated version of your table now appears correctly in the list article though I'm sure I went about it entirely the wrong way (two steps - deleted the table from article, saved, then immediately replaced it. It sucked up the updated template perfectly. GlenDillon 13:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, good that it's all sorted. For the future, if you're having trouble seeing an edit you've just made, it may be that your browser is still showing the old version of the page, so you can try refreshing your cache, or try forcing the server to refresh its own cache (see here for more info). There can be an additional source of delay with templates as the software goes through each page that the template is transcluded into, and updates that page; this can take a while if the job queue is long.
 * Don't forget you can also check whether your edit was successfully saved by looking at the page history. --bainer (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy
Actually, no. Policy does not support "deletions of mere dicdefs", and never has done. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is in fact our oldest policy, and even in its very first revision it took care to point out that whilst what Wikipedia doesn't want are dictionary articles, of whatever length, articles that contain nothing but a short definition of what a subject is are not necessarily dictionary articles. "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary". See short and dictionary. What Wikipedia doesn't want are dictionary articles that give the meanings of, translations of, pronunciations of, inflections of, synonyms/antonyms/homonyms of, etymologies of, and usage notes of, words and idioms. But many encyclopaedia articles started as stubs, which do little more than define the topic in a few sentences, or even one sentence. (We also rejected, at Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/12, the idea that 1-sentence articles could be speedily deleted, because 1 sentence could potentially contain a fair amount of prose.) The current policy tries to show the difference between encyclopaedia article and dictionary article more clearly than the original did, but it's still the same policy that it has always been, excluding dictionary articles not short articles. The only grounds on which short articles can be deleted, per deletion policy, are that it is impossible to expand the article beyond substub or stub status, because no sources exist. This is directly derived from the old "never will become encyclopaedia articles" and "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" category that were in the original formulations of the policy. It has nothing to do with dictionaries. Even then, as policy says, refactoring, renaming, merging, or redirecting into broader topics are often the answers, not deletion. Uncle G (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * edit

Big problems in the Italian wikipedia
Hi,

For this, I have contacted an Italian administrator ("Elitre"), but his answer has been something like solve it with the others. In my opinion, this is very bad. I reported something quite different from a quarrell. I attach here what I have written Elitre with a translation. I have just begun contributing to Wikipedia, but let me say that what I have seen is incredible, in my opinion. That is the reason why I have decided to contact someone abroad. Please acept my apologies for disturbing you.

Alla pagina Project management: On the Project management page:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management

Un piccolo contributo di precisazione (peraltro referenziato) è stato cancellato senza preavviso.

A small specification contribution (referenced) has been deleted without warning.

Alla luce di quanto segue, si chiede un intervento.

Taking into account the following information, one ask for an intervention.

Le keywords della pagina sul Project management:

The Project maangement page keywords:



''Le voci correlate:

''Correlated entries:

Voci correlate [modifica] •	Architectural engineering •	Capability Maturity Model •	Cardinis

Il link di cui sopra porta alla voce Cardinis: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinis

The above link leads to the entry Cardinis:

Dove, alla voce colegamenti esterni: Where, under external links:

Collegamenti esterni [modifica] •	Sito ufficiale

Cardinis è un´azienda???

Cardinis is a firm???

Sempre alla pagina project management si trovano i collegamenti esterni:

Again on the project management page, one can find the external links:

Collegamenti esterni [modifica] •	Project Management Institute – Nord Italia Chapter, PMI Centro Italia, PMI Sud Italia •	Istituto Italiano di Project Management •	Project Management su Open Directory Project (Segnala su DMoz un collegamento pertinente all'argomento "Project Management")

''Nel sito dell´Istituto Italiano di Project Management, cliccando sull´icona “Soci sostenitori”, si arriva alla pagina “Aziende/Enti "Socio Sostenitore". Aziende/Enti? Tra le aziende (tutte con link), si trova ad esempio “QRP”, descritta come:''

On the “Istituto Italiano di Project Management” website, by clicking on the “Soci sostenitori” [supporting members], one can find the page “Aziende/Enti "Socio Sostenitore" [“Firms/Bodies “Supporting Member”. Firms/Bodies? Amongst firms (all with a link), on ecan find, by instance, “QRP”, described as [they do project management]:

“''Qrp S.r.l. fa parte di QRP Management Methods International (QRP MMI). QRP è la prima organizzazione in Italia, capace di offrire servizi di Project Management secondo la metodologia PRINCE2. QRP è accreditata (ATO) è può quindi rilasciare le relative certificazioni.

ISIPM collabora con QRP nella diffusione della metodologia Prince2 in Italia”''

Per finire, sempre sul sito dell´istituto, cliccando sul link “Lista soci fondatori”, si trova:

To end with, on the Institute’s website, by clicking on the link “Lista soci fondatori” [founding member list], one can find:

“6	[cognome e nome]	Cardinis Solutions s.p.a.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmon57 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This was a double ... connection problems

CSS id change
I am planning to change the CSS ids used in MediaWiki:Revision-info and MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, to be in line with how we do for other such messages.

To make the transition smooth I will update the /monobook.css files for the six users that currently use those ids, thus you should not see any difference. You are one of those users.

After I have updated your /monobook.css you might need to bypass your browser cache to load the new version. (But for some minutes while I do the updates you will see the full versions of those MediaWiki messages instead of the "plain" versions.)

For more about this and if you want to answer or discuss this, see MediaWiki talk:Revision-info.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian_Parkour_Association
Hi Stephen,

I thought you might be interested in this page Australian Parkour Association.

Grumpyyoungman01 (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

FAR notification for Dietrich v The Queen
nominated Dietrich v The Queen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * hi Bainer. Are you going to fix this? What are the standard textbooks for it if you can't?  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, coming back to this (it was first written in 2005 and hasn't significantly changed since then) has been on my long-term to-do list for a while. This will bump it up to the top though :) I've been pretty busy this week though; I hope to have some time free tomorrow and into the weekend to work on it. --bainer (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My article not accepted ?
Hi there Bainer, I don't even know if I'm writing at the right place, sorry if I'm wrong. I can not understand why you want to delete my article... I'm not english native, it's a bit tough... Well I think I have mentioned all reference tho. and all what I wrote is informative about the music and rock world I belong to. My article is not finished yet. I have many things to share and to add as a notable Agent and promoter in the rock world. ( but it already took me so long to type this first step of the article ) It seems that I am not notable enough to write on Wikipedia, all right I am not "very" notable but quite famous in the music world tho., working with quite notable partners as well. It's a bit annoying, I don't need any promotion but I think I deserve an article here, that's a bit... wow... It's all about telling the story of rock of the 21st century for the point of view of one of the only woman in the International Music World since 10 years (me!). A testimony which is my life and my experience, the life of my company, of my boss Franck Stromme ( very notable! ;)). Very rich and intense experiences I want to share, it really means a lot to me as "the woman" among the rockers in the industry . I have to tell the story so that the people can understand who I am, and what I, we are doing and want to do in the Music Rock World of the 21st century. Please, tell me how to do. It took me about 2 hours or even more to put all references and links. It's horrible. I thought I was right... Weeeee please keep my article alive ^^ Thank you All the best Nathalie Nbecquet (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nathalie,
 * I'm presuming you're referring to the article you created entitled Nathalie BECQUET MARESCHERIE. I'm presuming from the title and the contents that it's an autobiography. Note that generally, writing about yourself on Wikipedia is generally discouraged, because of the many problems they almost always face, including the difficulty of objectively assessing one's own notability, difficulties in writing with a neutral point of view and problems with self-promotion that often arise.
 * In your case, your article was deleted because it failed to explain why the subject is notable, according to the notability guidelines for people. There's also the music notability guidelines which are relevant here. You can request a review of any deletion at Deletion review, but I don't think that's likely to change the situation unless you can make the article meet those criteria I mentioned.
 * If you would like I can recover the contents of the page and send them to you, so you can continue working it. --bainer (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Arbcom
thank you for for your input. as a new editor, being involved with an arbcom case has been an an enlightening experienceBrushcherry (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * I'm glad you found it that way, and I do hope you take to heart the advice about broadening your editing interests. Too often new users start editing in a controversial subject area, and then get bogged down in conflict. With a range of areas in which to edit, if things get stressful one can just do something else for a little while. --bainer (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Arbcom
I sent you an email regarding the Prem Rawat case. Please let me know if you've received it.  Will Beback   talk    02:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My Arbitration case
I noticed you haven't voted (or from what I can tell participated at all) in my Arbitration case. Yet you're listed as an active Arbitrator and you appear to be editing nearly daily.

Is there a reason for this discrepancy? I asked another Arbitrator if you were planning to vote and they said you'd probably do so in short order, but it's coming down to the wire, so I'm rather curious what the situation is.

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously feel free to disregard this post as I see you've now begun to vote. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the weekend off to work on articles, something I've done far too little of since joining the Committee; happily I've found it useful for heading off the possibility of burnout, and focusing the time I do spend on arbitration matters, so ideally I'll do more of it :) --bainer (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Your note
I didn't say I had an allegation of sockpuppetry, as in a violation of SOCK (unless denying makes it ipso facto deceptive, and thereby a violation). I said it's an old user returned with a new account. What triggered your interest? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion..
I know that the ArbCom is really wanting to standardize everything with ArbCom nomenclature, but why not rename AE Sanctions Enforcement (WP:SE, with WP:AE a redirect to it), and make it for all sanctions (Community based and ArbCom based). That's what it really is, after all :) SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That could work. Better tracking of the development and imposition of community-based sanctions is also needed. Under the current page restructuring proposal, AE will be deprecated, and it will be merged with General sanctions and Editing restrictions into a new page, Arbitration Committee/Active sanctions. Community-based sanctions have been sadly neglected so far in the existing pages, so any suggestions as to how to better integrate them would be very welcome! --bainer (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps all that is needed it a "link to active sanction".. where if it's an ArbCom remedy being enforced, it's the link to the arbcom remedy, and if it's a community based remedy, a link to the discussion where the community based remedy was decided?
 * the other way to do it is to have two sections on the Active Sanctions page. One for ArbCom sanctions, one for Community Sanctions? SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments
Your comments here and here are sadly deficient. WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR are policies, not points of view. You're apparently opposing my request without giving the matter a detailed look. To make matters worse, you have been rude and dismissive. You don't need to agree with me, but you do need to give my requests fair consideration and a polite reply if you want to serve as an arbitrator. Jehochman Talk 09:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You want special sanctions that will allow anyone with a point of view you disagree with to be banned. No, I will not consider seriously any such request. --bainer (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, the man just criticized you for responding dimissively, so you react by... responding dismissively. Interesting method of dealing with conflicts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently, we can add assumption of bad faith to the list of things you've decided are OK for you to do. Are you completely unaware that POV-pushers are swarming Wikipedia in some areas, including this one? I don't agree with Jehochman's idea for this here; I think it's way too open to abuse and compromises our ideals of not biting new users, but it's entirely reasonable to assume that such a thing is born out of a wish to stem this tide and a frustration at the difficulties in doing so, and it's completely understandable that someone in such a circumstance would in good faith suggest measures that really do go too far. If you're not ready to maintain a basic level of politeness and decorum to those trying to defend Wikipedia's neutrality, even if their ideas are misguided, then it's not time for you to be an arbitrator any longer. May I point out that none of the other arbitrators who've commented have agreed with Jehochman's request, but you're the only one who felt the need to make dismissive and rude remarks. There is a middle road here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have said elsewhere - the first of the above linked comments is neither rude nor, as is put now, "deficient". Indeed IMO it reflects the reality of administration and administrators who do understand the true nature of dealing with SPAs and disruptive editors - and that this project amongst other things includes the fact that "being an admin is no big deal".  The second explains that true nature succinctly and details that the project must come before the various desires by relatively singular editors.  Short comments are sometimes used as a way of dealing with long and tedious arguments here and elsewhere. Long and tedious arguments include those that are pushed continuously and sometimes beyond their first corner of wikipedia. Towards that point I note that this thread has been merged and shifted around from project page to talk page and then to talk page - and with respect maintaining such an argumentative stance is not helpful - unless the only objective is to get the last word.-- VS  talk 08:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming bad faith seems to be contagious! Maybe wherever you come from "Suck it up" is polite terminology, but where I come those are offensive words.  The smart thing to do when you offend somebody, if it is unintentional, is to retract the offensive remark. Jehochman Talk 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

JzG & Abd
Dear Stephen. Please condense your "data" on the current ArbCom case and name the editor who supplied the diffs and the commentaries. At present what you have added seems biased, because of the commentaries. (Have you recused yourself?) What you have added is (a) too long and (b) has commentaries by an undisclosed wikipedian. This should be easy to correct. Please adhere to the normal rules for adding evidence. Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops. It's now been pointed out that what I took to be commentaries were just JzG's edit summaries. Apologies for my stupid error. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I actually copied and pasted just the lists of diffs, rather than linking to the section containing the diffs, in order to avoid the accompanying commentary. In the end I've actually replaced a link to the evidence section from the workshop proposal with links to a new tool I hacked together on the toolserver that shows a user's contributions just on a single article, that should be easier to read. --bainer (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, that must have been quite a bit of work! Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * An hour or two, it was mostly old code reused. It will surely save me more time than that in the future looking over evidence, so it's certainly time well spent :) --bainer (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (Side question to bainer: I've been looking for such a tool. Is it public?   Will Beback    talk    09:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Yep, here, just haven't added it to the lists of projects yet. Should be mostly bug-free. --bainer (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks.   Will Beback    talk    16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend copying the compilation to a Wikipedia page (RfAr subpage?), because then the diffs can be checked very quickly by holding the cursor over the diff, much faster than following them, which is what's needed from the raw pages from the toolserver. Good work, Stephen. My guess is that this tool would have saved me many times the number of hours it took you to put it together.... Originally, I had an evidence page that was almost pure evidence, that's what was deleted by the MfD JzG filed; it had been used in the RfAr/Clarification filed by JzG over his second block of Jed Rothwell. (I notified ArbComm of the MfD, on RfAr talk, I thought arbitrators should know that evidence which had been used, with some effect, in an RfAr was going to be deleted, but there was no response -- so I didn't bother with protesting the deletion decision.) --Abd (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

One note: in Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Proposed_decision the link in the text is broken. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The J&S case
Hi Stephen,

I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pagesfrom the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much. Durova Charge! 05:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

&lt;references />
I've corrected subst'ed templates, so it may not fail in that cases.

On the other cases the problem is that there are &lt;ref> tags (you can see them if you edit those pages  ), but they are not shown in the article, because of the template where they are. So, that error is impossible to correct because the bot can't check whether they are or not shown. Muro de Aguas (write me) 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for correcting the behaviour for substed templates. The other issue does sound more difficult. How do you produce the lists that the bot works from? If you're parsing pages with regexes you could possibly check whether the   tag is in a template parameter (something like \|.+=.* and so forth - or not, I'm trying to remember what I know about regexes off the top of my head!) and then check those ones manually. --bainer (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the pages from WP:CHECKWIKI. As long as the edits the bot does are not a lot, I will check them until I try to repair the script. Muro de Aguas (write me) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: AMIB arbcom
Does this help answer your question?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Review_of_A_Man_In_Black.27s_block_of_Jtrainor

Ikip (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Revised, much larger section. Ikip (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing more information. --bainer (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My edits to one of your user pages
I am sorry that I edited one of your user pages without notifying you. Here is the edit that I made to one of your user pages. -- IRP ☎ 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

fundamental issues for all of wikipedia brought up at ADHD Arb which you drafted
Could you please look at the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD page. [] Issues have been brought up which implications for all of wikipedia. Thank you, --scuro (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replied to the various threads on that page. --bainer (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

please note
my latest addition to. i would greatly appreciate a specific response to what i said about collect violating 1rr and collect continuing his problematic behavior since the RfC. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * why havent you responded? --Brendan19 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We just need to see some evidence presented as to whether the problems discussed in the request for comment have continued or not. You've given a list of people who agree with you, but we cannot assess whether there are ongoing problems based on mere assertions, we need to be presented with evidence. For example, if there has been continued edit warring, can you point to some diffs of edit warring? --bainer (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to go through all my recent edits with a fine-tooth comb. I would like you, of course, in that case to do the same for the complainants .  You will find nothing remotely approaching edit war in my edits.  Might you also note Ratel's repeated claim that I am insane now iterated in several places across WP?  I would rather think that calling a person "deranged" etc. was beyond the pale.  Many thanks! Collect (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia finding
One piece of nitpicking: You said in your endorsement of FoF 18 (re. my redirecting of the Macedonians (Greeks) article) that "The issue here is taking an action known not to be supported by consensus". I don't think this is a fair assessment of what happened. I said in the edit summary of that redirect that "consensus at AfD was that this page as it currently stands is not useful", and I did so because, of course, I believed in perfectly good faith that this was in fact the case. The AfD in question had of course been closed as "no consensus to delete", but that's obviously an entirely different matter – the closing admin had, quite rightly, not provided any assessment of whether there was a consensus for some other editorial outcome. But there was. Of the 14 people who had commented at the AfD, 6 had explicitly advocated redirection or deletion, 2 had spoken of redirection as a legitimate editorial choice without taking any stand on the article content, and of the remaining keep votes, one was the main article author (a known disruptive POV-pusher, now indef-blocked); two were very new inexperienced accounts, who had provided basically no argument for keeping; one more was a further simple "me too" vote, and only two users (both known national advocacy accounts) had provided substantial argument for keeping. Seeing, furthermore, that on the "redirect or delete" side I was in agreement even with two of the more experienced and most representative editors of the "Greek team", both currently my opponents in the Arbcom case (Yannismarou and Avg), with Avg having been for many months one of the strongest proponents of the idea that such an article should be created, but even he agreeing that this version should be redirected, it was my well-considered and responsible assessment of the situation that in doing what I did I was in fact carrying out editorial consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The finding does not address the timing &mdash; few days prior to the ARBCOM and few days after removal of the listing Macedonians (Greeks) at the dab page repeatedly ( three five times) (by User:BalkanFever, by Future himself because of a technicality,requesting "a stand-alone article", again for an inadequate reason in the summary, ...after the article was created (not by me) and the dab page split to noun/adj by me, he was removing Macedonians (Greeks) again with a touch of a personal attack and ABF in the summary, again with an argument similar "I don't like it" in the summary).


 * Also it was Future Perfect who originally removed the listing from the dab page(s) here when he merged them(included Macedonians (Greeks) back then. He knew it back then that in the future he could use the technical argument ("no two dab listings about the same thing") to remove the people.


 * There was a progress line towards that redirect/blanking of Macedonians (Greeks)


 * Let's see. We have a user. Who is an admin and can easily block you for edit warring against him if he wants. You have a threat hanging over you ("Stop, I implore you" in my talk page). The same admin has merged Macedonian and Macedonia before and has been reluctant to add the Greek people. How would you describe tha, seeing the big picture? POV-pushing by him maybe? (I am routinely called a POV-pusher and got used to that). I know it is hard to see past the "fact" that only the "Greek team" and no admins are the POV-pushers around Macedonia.


 * All and all does Wikipedia want to have an article about the 2.5 million Macedonians of the region of Macedonia or does NPOV says we should care only to present only ethnic Macedonians? That's a rhetorical question.


 * I hope noone else has to sustain what I have been through to include a good faithed NPOV article about my "SPA-focused" interests (i.e: about a historical people). I challenge anyone as to why I should have stopped at any point.


 * Also the timing was immediately after Republic of Macedonia was moved. Altogether those put everyone on the "Greek team" that might be knowledgeable under stress and a strict timetable, having to present a case at the arbcom as and should be left at a later time, as someone has said in the AfD. Furhtermore hypothetically a non-existent article about Macedonians (Greeks) as a status quo ante, might have been used as an argument that Macedonian needs no disambiguation. I perceived it as an immediate need to do a lot of work to rescue the article under a timetable. Let me ask you, would it have been possible for this article to exist and the moves and merges to be done now if the article was left at blank state? Would that violate the current ARBCOM injunction? I do accept Future's explanation about the redirect, as I always do, abiding to AGF. Still it was the last drop of water on a cup we was filling himself. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 08:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope I wouldn't have to get into work for those extra diffs but is seems to me that the ARBCOM has not fully understood yet the big picture of what has happened about the article Macedonians (Greeks). Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 08:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written
In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:


 * A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:
 * "We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
 * 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
 * 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
 * 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
 * 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
 * "As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."


 * B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:
 * "This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't got around to voting in this case yet, but I would recommend that any general discussion, such as this, on parts of the proposed decision, be directed to the proposed decision talk page (rather than here, where noone but me will see). --bainer (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template
In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect. You currently have NoMultiLicense on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Village pump (policy) if you have any comments.

Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot  at 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.

Hi
Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Schoolblock with no talk edit
You blocked with  in the block summary but User talk:71.240.124.170 was not edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. The IP in question hadn't edited for a couple of weeks at the time I made the block. Some of its edits came to the attention of OTRS, at which time it was discovered to be a static IP owned by a school, so I softblocked it. Since noone was active on the IP at the time, a talk page notice would have been superfluous. --bainer (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopwood Park services
Hi ! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as needing a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Hopwood Park services. --Kudpung (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

ADHD and arbitration
I'll be leaving for vacation on Friday. I hope to get away for fifteen days although I may only be able to take 10 days. This would have me available on July 10th at the latest. I did notice the Doc James had posted for vacation time too with the clerk until July 18th yet the evidence and workshop is supposed to be done June 26th. I've just briefly looked at the post proposals last night and don't believe I'll have enough time to respond before I leave.--scuro (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from you. It looks like I will be gone for 15 days. I've been piecing my vacation together over the last few days and simply don't have time to respond properly to what is on the page. A response would be most welcome as this arbitration deadline is just one more thing to worry about when my plate is full. Please respond.--scuro (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied to some of your questions at the case talk page. I can notify the other arbitrators that you would like to delay the case, but as it is a fairly straightforward one, they may not want to delay any further. As a reminder, you can contact the Committee at any time by email at [mailto:arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org] if you can't access the wiki. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete user/disc pages; warn jayron/redpen/mufka
Hello stephen, If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.

I requested speedy deletion on 1Apr for reason 1.6. jayron deleted it, then acted as if s/he did me a favour. I feel jayron shouldnt have been the one to delete it initially as s/he and I have negatively interacted in the past. Followups from jayron included an unneccesary block; followed by telling me to get a yahoo email so that I may contact wiki admins!

Wiki is all about anon editing : as such I didnt and wont get an email account in order to communicate as it is not required.

Since then jayron,redpen, mufka have been repeatedly editing my page. I blank my page they restore it. This has been happening since April, so for 3months now. I bet if I changed their pages they'd posting threats of "i'll report you" and/or "you will be banned". It is quite easy for me to get a new ip address but I dont think Ive done anything wrong, so I wont change my ip address.

If my pages needed to be restored /reverted, I definitely think those three arent the ones who should do it as they/I have a convoluted history.

If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged. If you could contact jayron, redpen, & mufka & ask that any problems they have they let an admin or arbitrator know, instread of making changes or posting to me. I'd like to edit wiki in peace Thanks. 173.79.58.33 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost WikiProject request
As you suggested, I on the WikiProject Companies talk page asking for help evaluating positive/negative/advertising sourcing. Nothing yet, but it's a holiday weekend, after all...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No response yet on WP talkpage or at DreamHost. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this request for arbitration is in limbo a bit at the moment; the votes on acceptance are basically evenly split and we've has a few recent resignations that have altered the maths a bit, we're trying to sort that out. In the meantime efforts along these lines are appreciated, particularly since at the end of the day, arbitration cannot deal with questions of content anyway.
 * It's unfortunate there hasn't been any feedback from that WikiProject, but it doesn't seem to be a hugely active project anyway. You might get some better results from some particular issue noticeboards; I noticed this discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but you might also try the neutral point of view noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard, they can be helpful in addressing individual content issues. --bainer (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

George "Honey Boy" Evans
Hello. I undid your move of George "Honey Boy" Evans. He was actually known and billed under that name, so a Wikipedia-specific neologism need not be invented. Discuss at Talk:George "Honey Boy" Evans if you wish. Thank you much. -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Was it a stage name that he actually used or just a nickname? An article about a person who employed a stage name (or a pen name, for example) will typically be at that title but that's not always the case with nicknames. I see both the sheet music covers pictured in the article bill him as "George Evans". The NYT review in the external links section uses George Evans too. I don't have access to the NYT piece on his death that the article cites but it uses "Honey Boy Evans", and this site seems to use all three. --bainer (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Court Case
Hello Stephen, if you want, use my template: to italicise case names in the infobox, just put in the two apostrophes.  Wik idea  20:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I made this change which should fix any problems by ensuring that the italics parse properly. --bainer (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Amendment
I would ask you to retract your false accusations here. One person got blocked for outing. It wasn't me. I was never even warned. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You and User:Arion 3x3 were engaged in outing each other on the evidence page, that is why it was deleted. --bainer (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop making said accusation. I saw the rename when it happened. He did it because he was asked to, as he was using a signature different from his user page. There was never the slightest hint that the name was at all identifying, and he never bothered with any concealment of it in the least. To act as if I was being retaliatory for revealing something that every single person involved with the case knew, because the nick change was discussed on the Homeopathy talk pages, and so on, when he was revealing information which was - before the Arbcom themselves outed me, a reasonable secret, and which was clearly done maliciously, is ridiculous. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to make the case that when the arbcom, after letting myself expose myself to the full force of a concetted campaign of attack by opening an arbcom case, let the case remain open for months, exposing me to hundreds of personal attacks which I had to document and prove my innocence in, that one accidental inclusion of an apparently non-identifying former nickname is equivalent to giving all those people actively attacking me in concert at that very moment my real name, and edit warring with an oversighter to keep the information up? Because that is what you are, at this moment doing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI post
If you refuse to withdraw a harmful accusation when only oversighters can see the full truth of the matter, I believe that this is necessary. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)


 * The page is merely deleted, not oversighted, any administrator can view the revisions. As for the amendment request, you will have to await the other arbitrators' views if mine do not suit. --bainer (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, some of the revisions - including most of the outing of me - were oversighted, before the deletion of the page was considered. If you're basing your accusation on the events on the post-oversighting page, then you are not really looking into the situation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive406:


 * I have blocked Arion 3x3 (talk · contribs) indefinitely as an emergency measure, after what I deemed to be his attempted outing of another editor at the current arbitration he is involved in. I was approached privately by both Filll and Durova, who noticed it, 'and decided it was worthy of oversight. In my opinion, whether or not his hunch is correct (which I cannot confirm) the fact that he was trying to out the real name of someone who had explicitly left the project due to the publicity of his real name is troubling. Sorry if this all sounds cryptic, but it's hard to say much, given the circumstances. I would like us to have a discussion now whether the indefinite block should be made permanent, or how to react. Dmcdevit·t 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Three edits were oversighted, two made by User:Arion 3x3 and one by another uninvolved user whose edit contained the same contents as those two. Your edits, the ones we are talking about, were not oversighted but deleted, and can be viewed by any administrator. --bainer (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Bain, you were making a very strong accusation, but now that you've looked, you must be aware that it would be impossible for non-oversighters to judge your claims, because all the attacks on me are oversighted. You are making this out as if my slip-up, linking to an apparently non-identifying name, is equal to people who edit warred to keep my real name on the page as an attempt to harass, but because of oversight, it would be impossible for people checking to see that you are grossly misrpresenting the situation, because all the malicious outing of me is completely invisible.


 * Will you please withdraw the accusation that I was equally or even mostly at fault, which is what you are claiming repeatedly? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it simply:

Me: accidentally links to a non-identifying former user name, not realising that it was any sort of secret, since the rename happened very publicly.

Them: Edit-war to keep up a harassment campaign involving outing me to my real name. This was oversighted, though, keeping it from being easily seen.

You: Imply that I am mostly, or, at best, equally at fault in your posts.

Please withdraw your accusation. °Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'd love to drop this, but you put me in a horrivble position: The facts can only be seen by very few people, but your position and very uncautious comments have accused me of a very big offense, so I have no choice but to fight this. If you will withdraw, or at least significantly clarify your comments to make it clear that an inadvertent mention of an (apparently) non-identifying nickname is all I was guilty of, while the other side edit-warred to try to out my real name, then we can drop this. But, otherwise, I don't see how I have any choice but to take this forwards. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamer Hall and Hamer House articles
I don't necessarily agree that replacing the former combo dab article for Hamer Hall and Hamer House, covering 2 of the former and 4 of the later, by the way you set it up, is better. I already restored the dab page and commented at Talk:Hamer Hall, and set up new Hamer Hall (Australia) with a merger proposal for it to be just a section within The Arts Centre (Melbourne). I further thought (incorrectly) that all the disambiguation for Hamer House had been lost in the process; i see now that you had set up Hamer House disambig page. So I am not as "miffed" as I was at first. Anyhow, I suggest the best way to treat these could be discussed at Talk:Hamer Hall. Cheers, doncram (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The concert hall is clearly the primary topic in this case. I replied in detail at Talk:Hamer Hall. --bainer (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration changes?
In 2006, ArbCom made a very logical and neutral decision about China. I do not have any reason to believe that this has changed.

Question 1: Do you concur with the ArbCom decision? Question 2: Is it reasonable to continue to abide by it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Principles Political NPOV Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)

As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."

Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an indepedent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China." When it is necessary to describe the political status of Taiwan, special note should be made of Taiwan's complex position. Thus, the term "Taiwan" should only be used when referring to the island itself. Furthermore, the term "province of Taiwan" can be offensive and should only be used when attributed to its source or referring specifically to the existing division under the ROC (for example, "James Soong was the only popularly elected governor of Taiwan Province").

The term "mainland China" is a term which can be used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan for non-political purposes. Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, though under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is more appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting mainland China" than "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" as the latter could imply that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of China.

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason for asking you is that I recently referred an editor to this policy. I did so as a messenger, not a proponent. In fact, I am not too interested in this topic. However, I do not want to misquote ArbCom! Thank you for your response. User F203 (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed decision
On the basis of your proposed decision, you clearly believe that bans (from one or a few pages) can only be imposed by community consensus or other involved process. Everyday experience demonstrates that blocks (from the entirety or wikipedia) can routinely be made by individual amdins on the basis of no consultation whatsoever. Can you resolve this apparent disparity? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Administrators have been given the discretion to block within the limits of the blocking policy. There are certain limited reasons for which someone can be blocked, various conventions on how long blocks should be (mostly not written down) and conventions about warning users, informing them about blocks and so forth. The policy represents consensus distilled over time concerning what is or isn't appropriate use of the blocking tool. This is not the case for bans: there's no settled set of circumstances in which a ban might be appropriate, about the scope for bans, the duration of bans, recording and notification requirements, and so on. Considered against blocks, bans are comparatively new and rare, especially topic or page bans, so these conventions have not developed to the same extent.
 * I would agree with you, based on my own and anecdotal experience, that it's often the case that some administrators exercise much more discretion than they are entitled to under the policy. Indefinite blocks of new accounts in particular seem to be handed out like candy. I would like to have more time to look at ways to address this, or failing that more cases to be brought before us concerning these issues.
 * I also agree that it would be useful for administrators to be able to impose bans in some circumstances, as an alternative to blocking (in much the same way that semi-protection is a more refined alternative in appropriate circumstances to full protection). That's not where the policy is right now, however (written or unwritten). --bainer (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a shot. Stephen, feel free to delete this or do whatever you choose with it.... I won't be offended.


 * Yes, WMC, you may block from the entire project, but you may not ban from the entire project, and since you seem to be trying to reason through parallels, we need to discriminate between a block and site ban, even though a site ban typically is also a block. A block is a decision by an individual administrator, and that decision is subject to block policy. Ordinarily, you may not block an editor for a non-disruptive edit.


 * Now, the position you seem to have taken is that, by declaring a ban, you have created a right to block for a non-disruptive edit. You may now block the editor, simply because of a warning you issued, for "ban violation," an offense which you created by banning.


 * With community bans and Arbcome bans, enforcement is not by an individual administrator, it is by the community. These bans may be recorded at WP:RESTRICT so that administrators may know that the ban exists. An individual administrator may not create a "community ban," a ban to be enforced strictly by other administrators without review. Administrators blocking for "ban violation," i.e., these community/ArbComm bans, need not determine that an edit is disruptive.


 * Yes, individual administrators have often declared "bans," but, if they block under the ban they declared, for a non-disruptive edit, they may be violating block policy. The "bans" that administrators declare are really warnings that the admin considers the overall pattern of editing by the editor disruptive, but those bans don't allow the kind of automatic enforcement that is routine for the community/ArbComm bans. You might go ahead and block an editor you have "banned," but, if the edit isn't disruptive, other than the possible "defiance" involved, that block could be challenged. A block is done, the button is pushed, and it is then generally over, the block runs and if not indef, automatically expires. Blocks have a set of review mechanisms in place, most notably an unblock template, so users can get a quick nondisruptive review by a neutral administrator. There is no such mechanism in place for bans.


 * As I mentioned, a block is a done thing. If an editor claims that you are involved, you can recuse and nothing changes. The editor is still blocked until it expires. The issue of mandatory recusal for non-content conflict is tricky, but some principles are well-established. For example, you can't block for incivility directed towards you or for defiance, unless the actual disruptive behavior you warned about, or which you banned over, recurs. The defiance is moot. Editing under a ban you declare can be taken as defiance. If the edit itself is not disruptive, you would be blocking for defiance, essentially. It's punitive.


 * An administrative ban creates an ongoing supervisory relationship, it places you in a kind of ongoing authority over the editor. You may think this less severe than a block, an editor may not. WMC, suppose that, instead of page banning me, you had indef blocked me in June. What would have happened? I can tell you; I'd have put up an unblock template and, given the circumstances, would have very likely been unblocked, and we would have been done.


 * So if you have declared a ban, and the editor claims you are involved, what can you do? If you recuse, your ban just disappeared. If you block upon this claim, you have clearly blocked because the editor protested. The ban has no meaning without your ability to continue to threaten to block.


 * Administrative bans, interpreted as allowing blocks for nondisruptive edits, purely technical violations or status offenses, set up conditions that invite violations of block policy as well as recusal policy, because if you are going to maintain control over an editor, the likelihood that this editor will consider you prejudiced or involved rises. You don't seem to think that the editor's opinion matters. It matters. --Abd (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey There
Could you do an emergency checkuser please? We have a little thread going on AN and it appears we will need a checkuser to flush out some other accounts the user refuses to admit to having. Keeps claiming that another user knows or "my friend did it". Getting fishy if you ask me. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been taken care of by another user. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-William_M._Connolley
Hi, first of all, I respect your work. thank you.

Not being in the middle of the case, I am interested in what you base this section on: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop Could you provide some edit differences or point to were they can be found? several editors are asking for edit diffs. Ikip (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it gets a bit hard to piece things together with such a volume of discussion from so many people. See my proposed finding of fact #5, "Edit-warring on the request for arbitration". These are the diffs relevant to Mathsci:, . The personal attacks between him and Abd have been happening on Wikipedia Review. I would add that the fact of the wording of this admonishment and the one with respect to Abd being the same doesn't imply equivalence of the conduct; I'm cognizant of the fact that Mathsci only reverted twice (even though in my view that's twice too many). --bainer (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You say: Once an agreement on the term is reached, Abd or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email. - does this imply that the terms of the metorship are private not public? I've asked this on the arb page, but of course you haven't replied, since my question got buried in all the cruft William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mentorship would typically be a private relationship between the mentor and the subject. They could conduct it publicly if they wished, however. The Committee would naturally oversee the arrangement and approve the mentor and the terms (an implicit condition in the remedy, but it might be beneficial for the sake of clarity to make it explicit). --bainer (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [from my talk page; why repeat:] I'm not interested in the typical case, I'm interested in this particular case. Nor do I think you should leave a decision as to its public nature up to the mentor/ee. You should distinguish the terms of the mentorship, and the conduct of the mentorship itself. I don't think the community would have any confidence in a mentorship whose terms were private. I certainly would not. Though it hardly matters; given Abd, the scheme is doomed, if you are unwise enough to attempt to apply it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were are arbitor also. Best wishes. Ikip (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Additions to the symbols below the editbox
It was great to catch up with you at the Melbourne WP Meetup. Thanks for listening to me about the status of WP:MOS, and other matters. I do hope Jennifer had a good time on her Australian trip. It seems that we made her feel welcome!

The music symbols that I strongly recommend to be added under the editbox are these, in this order in the Symbols category:

♭ ♯ ♮ [flat, sharp, natural]

The symbols for double flat and double sharp would be the next to add; but there are display issues, so it may be best to hold off on them. Templates are available in any case: see WP:MOSMUSIC. At least these three that I propose should be available under the editbox, because even a non-musician may need them in non-specialised articles. The order should be as I say for this reason: the most common incidental use is in naming works in various keys, such as "String Quartet in B♭ major"; and there are more works with "flat" in their names than "sharp", for good technical reasons. There are none with "natural" in their names: but often a note needs to be specified as natural, even in non-specialised prose.

I also propose adding the root sign to the Insert list, after − × ÷ (with which it naturally belongs): √. The case for this is similar: a non-specialist editor working on a non-specialist article will often have need of it, without recourse to the very complex markup that the maths articles demand.

As for the order in the Latin list, perhaps you can see how difficult it is ergonomically. Suppose an editor wants the Turkish lower-case variant of "i", for incidental use (since it is common in names): ı. It's there, all right! But damn hard to find. I propose that the list be ordered so that anyone could quickly find anything: all the variants of "A" first; then alphabetically: ÁáÀàÂâÄäÃãǍǎĀāĂăÅåĄąÆæǢǣ ĆćĈĉÇçČčĊċ ĐđĎďḌḍ ÐðÞþ ... . (Note that the last four are grouped together both as similar to "d" and as typically representing the sound of "th" in "this" [Ðð] and "think" [Þþ].) I assure you: in my experience such an ordering is far easier to work with. Especially, if an entity is missing altogether, it is easy to ascertain its absence when the order is alphabetical.

Finally, note that a similar alphabetical ordering would be advisable for the Greek and Cyrillic listings, though the matter is not so urgent for them (fewer and more systematic variants, more understood by those needing them, and perhaps less commonly called upon anyway).

Thanks so much! If you have any queries about these suggestions (which I have trimmed to a minimum), or would like my assistance in sorting the Latin symbols into rational alphabetical order, please let me know at my talkpage.

Best wishes,

– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for what you've done, Stephen. I see that others have been at work on these things too. What do you think about the matter of alphabetical order in Latin? Too hard, or controversial? I might take it up on the relevant talkpage. (The Greek has been changed since I took note of it – more rational, but I would tweak a few things. And the Cyrillic is fine.)
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 10:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, Stephen. The symbol √ has been removed. See my extended comments on this at, and also in an earlier section on that talkpage. Your assistance would be appreciated!
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 11:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon proposal at ANI
This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment concerning me at Abd-WMC RFAR
Hello. The parenthetical comment made that mentions me [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Second_block_of_Abd here] is inaccurate. I've mentioned this on the workshop, but you may not have seen it: I did not assess community consensus in my closure of that discussion. I closed it procedurally as Abd had stated that he would follow the ban given. I believed there was no possibility of further discussion and that closing it was as uncontroversial as delisting the RfA of a withdrawn candidate. Needless to say, I know now that this was not the case and that I should have either assessed exactly what the consensus was or have not closed that discussion. Regardless, what's done is done. I would ask you to please remove or refactor that parenthetical comment to accurately reflect my actions and intentions. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bumping this. I know you're probably busy, but I'd appreciate if you'd please respond to my request. As it stands, your comment misrepresents my actions and I'd appreciate its being corrected, please. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heimstern, I'm sorry this turned out to be troublesome for you. I tried to keep it simple. I support your statement about what you did, you made a procedural close, based on my request and willingness to observe the ban; the only question you truly decided was the term, when you were asked. I think you made the correct assessment based on the discussion and my comments; a voluntary ban for a month, i.e., voluntarily accepted by me, no further disruption, was probably better than some longer term or indef, which would have been appealed, I'm sure, causing more flap. At that point, I assumed it would all be over in a month, and that you wouldn't be hassled by anything. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My comment was in reference to your subsequent comments to others about the nature and duration of the ban, not directly about the closing per se. --bainer (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia project Australian law
Hi bainer. I have recently decided to start editing Wikipedia, after using it for a lot of years. I've looked at WikiProject Australian law and it really seems to have stagnated a lot. I've started by attempting to categorise the existing articles a bit better, but I was wondering if you could run your more experienced eye over it, to make sure I'm not being too bold. I've indicated the changes I intend to make on the talk page. VeryRusty (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's unfortunately not hugely active. I've replied on the talk page there. --bainer (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Interview
Hi. I'm doing a study about Wikipedia (particularly about sysops) for my Masters in Communications and Media Studies at Monash Uni, and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take some time to talk to me. I'm mostly interested in what your day-to-day activities are and your relationship with other sysops and editors. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes.

Please let me know if you're interested/willing. It would be immensely appreciated :) Cheers, --In continente (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, the best way to contact me is by email. --bainer (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A message to the Arbitration Committee
This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.

I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.

The message is here.

Thank you. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

socionics article
A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your per page contributions tool
How do you add Wikipedia pages to be searched? For example, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. thank you. Ikip (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the drop-down box next to the text box where you enter the page title, select "Project" or "Project talk". Because the tool can search on any Wikimedia project, the neutral term "Project" is used instead of a project-specific term such as "Wikipedia" (or "Commons", or "Meta" etc). --bainer (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.Ikip (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. --bainer (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Stevens v Sony
Hi Stephen,

Hope you're well.

I am new to the world of wiki. i just figured out how to make the infobox- its a crazy digital world we live in. Anyway, i have written an article about a law case study and am looking for any tips of getting it beyond start quality. Was wondering if you'd be interested in giving any suggestions or could lead me in the right direction? I have added the case study below. Also, i had a word limit of 2500 words, so its quite a brief summary. is it too late to change that from the title.

Any thoughts let me know,

Thanks in advance :)

Stevens V Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment (2005)

123jac123 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, sorry for not replying before now. It's good you've worked out the infobox. Some other useful templates are the Cite Case AU template, which gives links to cases on AustLII, and Cite Legislation AU, which does the same thing for legislation. In terms of style you could take a look at some of the other existing Australian case law articles and see how they look: they're in Category:Australian case law.
 * One thing you could do is to add some links to the article - see Help:Link if you don't know how. Because we don't do original research here on Wikipedia, you should probably also revise the last section, in which you currently engage in the debate somewhat - Wikipedia writing merely lays out the contours of the academic debate, just as a basic literature review might do.
 * Otherwise it looks pretty good. I'll have to dig out my copyright notes this week and see what else I could add :) --bainer (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

EEML case
Are you active on the WP:EEML case or not? You seem to be the only Arbitrator who hasn't voted yet — are you responsible for the latest delay? Offliner (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not voted yet as I expect to make some alternative proposals, and some proposals concerning users not already addressed by the existing proposals. I have nearly completed re-reviewing the evidence, and I expect to be voting shortly. As you are no doubt aware, there is an exceptionally large volume of evidence in this case, more than in any of the cases in the last two years, it seems, and I would not wish to overlook anything. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion
On the issues discussed here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I indicated to Offliner above, I hope to vote shortly, and I expect that I may well make alternative proposals. However, my main concerns are that the findings of fact could go into more detail as to the actual on-wiki actions relevant to this case, and that some parties whom in my view ought to have been addressed by findings of fact have not been yet. If I propose alternative remedies they will likely be more extensive ones. --bainer (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a thoughtful reply. I think you are touching on some very useful points. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. If not, I'll start working on my 300th (and last? :>) DYK soon :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Principles of care and justice
You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:

Facts


 * the clarification request clearly demonstrated that abuse had occurred.
 * administrators were to watch for further instances.
 * harassment/ false accusations continued.
 * harassment/ false accusations were part of two amendment topic ban requests against me, which the very same administrators were overseeing.
 * harassment/ false accusations were part of the administrative topic ban proposals. The same administrators were overseeing this sanction process also.
 * In a half year there are hundreds of examples of false accusations/harassment through at least half a dozen sanction processes. I have made numerous administrators aware of this and no direct warning has ever been given.


 * even though numerous allegations were made against me during two arbitration amendment requests, no action was deemed necessary.
 * an administrator agreed to hear my amendment request as part of the two amendment requests.
 * this administrator was asked repeatedly to confirm that I would be allowed to file the request. No response was given and the amendment proposals were closed without my proposals being heard. It had been stated clearly that my proposals were to deal with harassment/ false accusations.
 * administrators who were part of the amendment request then filed a topic ban proposal. They offered no specific evidence and answered no question, even though they were repeatedly asked to do so.
 * they never formally communicated with the accused during the procedure.
 * The only evidence offered was by an uninvolved administrator who offered one diff which was shown to be totally bogus.
 * Reasoning was given for the topic ban but again the logic behind the conclusions never had to stand up to any scrutiny.
 * a year long topic ban was given to myself. The other party received no sanction, no warning, no advisement.

Questions

1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?

2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?

3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?

Principles of care and justice

1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.

2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.

3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.

The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?--scuro (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A belated thank-you
Stephen, I see that the candidates for the ArbCom election have been settled, and I infer that you are choosing not to seek re-election, so I decided that this is a good time for me to say a very big thank you for this. I didn't thank you at the time, because I was seeking to avoid escalating the drama, but I want you to know that I will always be grateful. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For being specific instead of general in your FoF in the EEML case (I refer in particular to the Canvassing findings). Could you consider a rewording of the Disruption findings to resemble those as well? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I wanted to note that I've recognized the issue you've raised some time ago, and proposed a surgical remedy that gained community support (as preferable to a crude topic ban). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm working on identifying further examples. Re remedies, I will vote on those once I've finished with the findings of fact, however I'm unlikely to support a remedy based on that proposal. --bainer (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. As long as we are operating on the level of specific examples instead of vague generalities, it should be possible to clarify certain things and learn from errors made. I find "seven instances of canvassing" much, much more helpful than vague "edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution". I see that you are supporting this proposal - you aren't going to propose an alternative with a better wording (specific, numbered examples) then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for pointing out the specific diffs. I find it very helpful in understanding the situation. I do have however one clarifying question: would it be correct to say that many of the diffs listed where not disruptive due to their content, but where disruptive due to the way they originated (i.e. being improperly canvassed)? For example this edit introduced a better referenced version that has been stable for the past 4 months; or here I was restoring referenced information removed without explanation by a now-permbanned editor. Hence the content-improving quality of those edits is not disputed, but the problem arose since they involved improper solicitation (canvassing)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To an extent, yes. In the first example you give, had you and Molobo worked on the Kr%C3%BCger material on his talk page (which of course, he could still access even as a blocked user), then there would not have been this problem, as the process could have been subjected to all the normal editorial scrutiny. With regards to your second example, the substance of the content is of no concern to the Arbitration Committee; rather, what concerns us is you asking for other people to perform reverts for you so that you would appear not to be performing many reverts. --bainer (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I am glad we are on the same page - and that also means I am pretty sure I will be able to avoid repeating those mistakes again. PS. Is 10.1 intended to replace or supplement 10? PPS. "the substance of the content is of no concern" - but what about WP:IAR? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reflecting on your remarks, I would like to ask for a minor clarification regarding interacting with editors via email. If an editor emails me (or uses a different private channel of communication) with a written paragraph for inclusion in an article, in accordance with our licensing, can I, after verification of the information as fine for inclusion with our content policies, include it (indicating in an edit summary it's author(s)), or should I request that editor to post that first on their talk page? What if that editor doesn't have a Wikipedia account, or resigned/reuses to edit anymore, either on principle of because they can't be bothered? Does it differ if an editor is banned? I thought I used to follow BAN as it was intended to, but now I am afraid I am not understanding it fully. PS. On a related note, what if an editor asks me privately to take a look at some part of Wikipedia? Should I request that they make this request publicly? What if they are making this request privately due to privacy issues? Once I had an academic colleague ask me to review his biography; he occasionally edits Wikipedia but does so anonymously and doesn't want any ties between his account and his biography. What would be a correct response? Do we have a forum where such questions can be asked, or a policy where they are discussed in detail? At this point I am inclined to refuse all such requests in the future, but I'd appreciate some guidance. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML case
Got a question for you here. --Martin (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thoughtful and reasoned criticism
"It's not what you do; it's the way you do it." - Mae West.

Cheers, Durova 371 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Rf Clarification/Amendment
I've asked another question there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML-related info
I don't follow the wiki drama closely, but I was surprised to find out today (from User:Anonimu's talk page) that User:Dc76 and User:Biruitorul have been involved in the EEML list. Algthough less nefarious explanations are possible, I was a little intrigued when Biruitorul recently showed up at a 3RR report I filed against Dc76 to defend his many reverts as justified under BLP. Pcap ping  06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Biruitorul has edited that article plenty of times before and likely has it watchlisted. Incidentally, you'd be best to raise issues on one of the case pages, rather than on my talk page where it is unlikely to be seen by anyone. --bainer (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML oversight
Hi Stephen,

I replied to your comments, but I must have been logged off in the middle and my IP address is revealed. Could you oversight those IP edits please. --Martin (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You should request oversight here: Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Offliner (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you caught me after I went offline. I see someone else has already taken care of this. Thank you Offliner for providing that advice. --bainer (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Motion 2.2
Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:


 * "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.


 * "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.


 * "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:


 * 1) Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
 * 2) Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
 * 3) Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform  Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering.  SilkTork  *YES! 02:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I voted against the motion. You probably want to contact the arbitrators who are supporting the motion. --bainer (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tandberg Al-Kateb.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Tandberg Al-Kateb.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML arbcom case
This 3RR report AN3 might be related to the current EEML arbcom case as there seems to be coordination between User:Martintg and User:Miacek and a mysterious newly registered third account User:Bobwikwiki. Pantherskin (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related, I raised this question some ago, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_6. Although some progress has been made by introducing FoF for most editors, User:Poeticbent is missing so far despite a previous Fof and sanctions in the Eastern European disputes arbcom case, and despite at least three attempts to disrupt Wikipedia [20090718-0024], [20090820-0310], [20090731-0608]. Even worse, there does not seem to be an understanding that canvassing is disruptive as is evidenced by this comment and this post-EEML sockpuppet investigation and this subsequent comment . It was previously suggest to assign a mentor what seems to be an appropriate given that there is some confusion about appropriate editing and wikipedia policies. Pantherskin (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Note
Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I wanted you to know that I appreciated the effort you put into the Findings of Fact in the EEML case. I tend to think that strong FOF's are generally more useful than most available remedies. Half the problem with situation like that one is simply articulating the problem in a way that can stand up next to clever rebuttals. I found the extra effort you put into replacing the vague FOF's to be worthwhile. Thanks.-- Birgitte SB  19:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

New evidence in ongoing case
I had hoped I spent enough time looking at other people's edit histories this year, but the (pr)odd disappearance of some software articles made take look at Miami's prodding history. I've added new evidence to the subpage. I'm notifying you because you're listed as the drafting arbitrator in that case&mdash;not sure if you're still watching that subpage page at this late stage. Sorry for the inconvenience, Pcap ping  15:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

3rd viscount monckton of brenchley
This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for including an explanation of the majority opinion about the enforcement measure. My vote is peculiar for anyone not familiar with my rationale, so I thought to include it. It's a very good thing, for both the new arbs and observers, to be informed of why we vote the way we do (as individuals and a group). Thanks again for completing the picture. Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)