User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 13

Archive
This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you want to continue a discussion, copy the old discussion, then post it on the current talk page along with your reply.

Please do not edit archived discussions.
Oct 2004 - Aug 2005 • Sep 2005 - Dec 2005 • Dec 2005 - Mar 2006 • Apr 2006 - May 2006 • Jun 2006 - Aug 2006 • Sep 2006 - Oct 2006 • Nov 2006 - Dec 2006 • Jan 2007 - Mar 2007 • Apr 2007 - May 2007 • Jun 2007 - Sep 2007 • Oct 2007 - Jan 2008 • Feb 2008 - Jun 2008 • Jul 2008 - Dec 2008 • Jan 2009 - Jan 2010 • Jan 2010 - Dec 2012

---

Motions and OM

Hi Stephen. I saw you were active (as of 5mins ago), so I was wondering, would you be able to vote on the two current motions at RfAr, as well as give your support or not your opposition to the Orangemarlin mentorship arrangement so it can be archived (see also the discussion at my talk, second section from the bottom)? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)

I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up as available to engage 'on-wiki' a bit, Stephen - it's hugely appreciated, and I think could help enormously. The page has now been loosely integrated into the current 'RfC' about general arbcom stuff, though there I remain the only editor currently to have posted some brief questions. I think the page will probably develop a bit of a life of its own now, but will swing by here again to let you know as and when it's in a good state for you to be able to quickly engage there... once again thanks heaps... Privatemusings (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bizzaro World

If you have any desire for ArbCom decisions to be taken seriously, I hope you strongly reconsider voting to keep one user who flat out called another an "idiot" from being being disciplined by the community while at the same time voting to admonish another user for incivility for "implying" in a joke that someone is a conspiracy theorist. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure

Have you seen this? It's a concern that was raised earlier this year, which is why later cases omitted the term. I'm not sure why you didn't respond or change it accordingly.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did see that, and I was just looking into it. The wording with "trolling" included is quite an old one, it's the version that appears in our library of standard wordings. It seems Footnoted quotes was the first case not to use it (among recent cases CAMERA lobbying and Prem Rawat, for example, both used it). I do tend to agree that it is probably better without it. Strider12 was the case where this was first discussed? --bainer (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so - I didn't see it expressed in earlier cases. I was surprised it was still being used in ArbCom-decision-drafting, given that the number of times it's been brandished inappropriately is quite large one-example. This isn't helped by the WP:Troll page stating Note that some behavior listed here has been taken as disruption of Wikipedia in Arbitration Committee decisions - a point that I don't doubt will be wikilawyered in only a matter of time. Given it's really just a more narrow term for disruption, I think it's something worth changing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on proposed remedies

Looking at the proposed remedies section, can you tell me if I have this right:

In the remedies you've proposed and support, Geogre and William are barred from further blocks/unblocks of Giano (which any sane administrator in their position would refrain from anyway), I am admonished for making a comment that could be interpreted as an implied personal attack, and no remedy at all (or finding of fact, or principle) is directed at Giano - the remedy formerly directed at him would simply be made more difficult to enforce.

Is that an accurate summary? If so, can you perhaps explain your reasoning in more depth?

Separately - my comment was perhaps ill-advised, I freely admit. While others have described me as having some peculiar animus for Giano (a conclusion drawn, I suppose, from my one previous report to WP:AE regarding Giano and civility), my only object in that comment was to point out the obviously bad faith assumption being made in proposing that Durova wrote FT2's (as yet unreleased) statement. It should have been worded more artfully, of course. But given Giano's history, the previous arbitration case, and the role that many of the same folks involved in this case have played in past eruptions, I'm at a loss to understand how my comment can be seen as precipitating this dispute. Avruch 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano was properly blocked for his initial remark, and that issue was moot. Giano's behaviour has been considered in many cases, and the civility parole is the remedy that has been settled on, and so my motivation is to increase the workability of that remedy rather than try to replace it with something else.

As for your comment, my concern is to call out choices that tend to escalate rather than diminish disputes. I suppose you can say I consider the eggshell skull rule applicable to civility here. Giano is known to have a short temper, and calling out Giano's remark by responding attackingly like that (rather than saying something like "isn't it more likely that FT2 simply told Durova he was preparing a statement?") was a bad choice. --bainer (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Article sizes tool

Cool tool, but does it account for the fact that say Cyrillic letters take 2 bytes and Latin letters only 1? Renata (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't thought of that at all. I just read what you wrote on the mailing list about it. Now that I think about it there's also the problem of Japanese, for example, taking 3 bytes! I suppose that does affect any analysis of actual sizes, but the idea with the graphs is to show the relative distribution, that is, the shape of the graph, and the actual size doesn't really matter in that regard.

I think it'll be too complicated to vary the graph based on the character length in any given language, so perhaps I'll just include a notice at the top. --bainer (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way, say, do a random sample of 10-30 or so articles in different wikipedias (English, Russian, Japanese, Hebrew, etc) and see how many bytes an average character takes? And then use that number to normalize the statistics and graphs? Sounds like a whole scientific study :)

At least a disclaimer should be put on top because in byte-by-byte comparison it compares apples and oranges. Renata (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no

I consider the 4 months of the arbcom case Hell. The evidence by Charles Matthews, the Finding of Fact #9 incident, the ignoring of exams, illness, or anything else in favour of causing stress to an increasingly ill person...

If 6 months of probation led by my tormentors is the requirement of sysop, then I refuse it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

I don't doubt that you've seen it, but I'd like to formally point you towards [1] motion on the C68-FM-SV case. The continuing delay, resulting from refusal to arbitrate, of this case is getting beyond a joke and I personally find it unacceptable. Many in the community are as a result of this delay calling Arbcom's very existence into question. The refusal to come to a conclusion, echoing the MM case amongst others, demonstrates that Arbcom is no longer willing to deal with long-term problematic behaviour and is giving a free pass to those involved. What is worse is that even the vote to dismiss is being delayed. Please vote there as soon as possible, because the community needs some kind of closure and to prolong the case further is a disservice to the many editors who have spent time preparing the case. I'm posting this to your talk page as you are a sitting arbitrator, and I will be doing similar on the others'. Thank you, --78.145.83.124 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

for your responses over the the arb pages about cross wiki legal stuff - I hope the formal climate there hasn't made my words seem terse, ignorant, or just plain annoying... I also wanted you to know that your reply was appreciated.

It's my view that more simple interactions like ours over on arb pages generally is something that would help enormously with a range of issues the process is facing, and I'd encourage you to make short statements, or ask questions or just generally inject activity wherever humanly possible!

Anywhooo - I don't want to 'flood' the GdB thing so will step back on the 'official' pages now - if you've got any comments on the general legal issues, or on my tuppence worth on helping the arb processes along, then I'll keep this page watchlisted for a while! cheers (and thanks again) - Privatemusings (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The detail in the elephant

The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors".[2] Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room".[3] I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant"[4] before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Query re extent of WP:NLT block

It has been good to see a range of points and views expressed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Guido_den_Broeder, but do you mean by "If there are other parties who have participated in the dispute on this project, then they ought to be blocked also"[5] that User:Oscar (to whom the legal threats are said to have been made) should also be blocked if they do not voluntarily withdraw themselves from editing at wikipedia ? If so, then we could have any anon or a newly-registered user claiming to be taking legal action against a registered user and have both the anon/newuser blocked (no loss to the project) and an established editor ?

This RfA case is complex re issues partly occuring at another xx:WP, but take perhaps a more likely future situation: if an admin here in en:WP temporarily blocks a user for 24hrs for 3RR breach, and that editor then clealry states they are going to take legal action for defammation of their good name. Clearly under WP:NLT the editor in question should be indef blocked until legal action withdrawn or concluded, but should the admin in question also be blocked until then ? If so then could trolls have a field-day effectively having all admins barred ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Caine

Would it be possible to again ask a small favour of you to provide me with any relevant court documents relating to the murder conviction for Lewis Caine in relation to the 1988 bashing murder of David Templeton outside Lazars nightclub in King Street, Melbourne thanks? I don't have the required access to recover such documents... TIA -- Longhair\^talk 07:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Any pre-1998 court documents relating to Keith Faure would be a bonus too thanks. Of course, my requests relate to the expansion of their Wikipedia articles. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 10:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I had no luck finding anything, I'm afraid. Only the appeal from the original trial was published anywhere, and even then only in the Supreme Court's collection of unreported judgments. As far as I can tell the two trials weren't published anywhere. There is some police and prosecution material kept at the Public Records Office, but a search on Caine returned nothing, and in any event records from that recently are almost always closed to the public. --bainer (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cabals Everywhere

Thanks for the Cabal page. I'm having creative fun there. I think I'll do a Pirate Cabal next....hmmmmmm...what can they do?......anyway,Thanks--Buster7 (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV close of PIR

Then I shall go ahead and make the draft. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Although, in the future there's really no need to close the DRV for your reasons. Reviewing the deletion does include issues such as user drafts. I've seen tons of MfDs because people have asserted that a certain AfD would prevent even a user draft, or any kind of article recreation. And regardless of a draft being created first or not, a DRV is generally required in controversial situations like this to create any new article, such as one with merged content, which would make it substantially different from the old version. No offense, but I can't help but wonder if the real reason you closed it was just to shut people up about it. -- Ned Scott 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, seeing my own comment just now, getting people like me to shut up about it wouldn't be such a bad idea :) My apologies. -- Ned Scott 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of nice when people have the conversation all on their own :) --bainer (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you help?

The article Burger King legal issues is undergoing a featured article review and I would like some assistance in insuring the Burger King Corporation v. Hungry Jack's Pty Limited ([2001] NSWCA 187) is properly cited and factually correct. Searching through the WP:AUSLAW project I came across your page.

Your user page says you are a law student in Australia, thus you have a serious leg up on me in the area. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

The FAC discussion is here

Thank you for your time, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that mentioned on the Australian law WikiProject talk page. I think you've got the facts essentially right there, but the section's a little weak on the actual legal significance there, it could do with a little clarification. It's actually quite an interesting case so I'm putting together a draft article on it, which shouldn't take too long, and then I'll work on the summary section. --bainer (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest: [6] This article is under the GNU Public license and is complete. The Author has already granted permission to publish it on ol' Wikipedia. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a crack at the Burger King legal issues section when you have a chance? The BKC v HJs article is very well written and informative BtW. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

July/August Arb stuff

• Just to remind you (or inform you in case you're unaware) that in the Geogre-WMC case, you've voted on everything proposed-to-date, except for principles 4.2 and 6, findings 3-5, and remedy 2.2 and 2.1 ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism

As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :

• Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

Alan Sun --203.194.98.177 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan, the Arbitration Committee does indeed deal with dispute resolution, but it does not handle content disputes, only behavioural disputes. If you want some help resolving a content dispute, I suggest you seek a third opinion or make a request for comments regarding the article.

If you need someone who can translate between English and Hindi, try looking for users here: Category:User hi. --bainer (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

Has not had a substantive edit since 04:10, 14 July 2008. - brenneman 06:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA - Bedford Case

HI, I saw you accepted the case and was just wondering why, At this time the case is 4 Accept 4 Decline and you extra views would be valuable :)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a useful opportunity to reaffirm some of the relevant principles. We've been discussing this on the mailing list too, and I've mentioned that there. Suffice it to say that the question now is what is the most appropriate action to take now (if any is necessary at all), whether that be a case, or a motion without a case, or perhaps some other method; there doesn't seem to be any real substantive disagreement so I wouldn't be too hung up on the status of the request. --bainer (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka RfC

Hi Bainer. I was wondering if you had an opinion about whether ChrisO's RfC was properly certified? I have no strong opinion, except that it should be made crystal clear whether it is or is not okay: otherwise I fear there will be a good deal of additional drama if/when the result (assuming there is any) is set aside if it was improper, or there might be attempts to deny or disparage legitimate results if it was in fact done correctly. Is there a good board here to sort it out? I'm not sure the talk page of the RfC is the best place for it. Advice appreciated. IronDuke 23:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The question revolves around whether the certifying users have actually attempted to resolve the dispute through other means (ie, talking to the subject) and failed in those attempts. The importance of the certification requirement is to prevent unnecessary escalation of disputes; it's a low hurdle to pass, but an important one.

I think the problem here is that Ned Scott has signed in the certification section, and mentioned attempts to resolve the dispute, but has then forgotten to add diffs to back up his certification in the section above. I see Jehochman has posted some diffs on Ned's behalf, but they don't seem to relate to the substance of the dispute as ChrisO has outlined it.

Perhaps you might want to remind Ned that he has forgotten to post diffs. --bainer (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have done so, but he does not agree with my assessment (see this thread). I don't know what, if any, action should be taken now. IronDuke 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris explicitly stated his dispute was not about what Ned Scott's dispute was about. That's pretty cut and dried. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Thebainer.  :) BTW, you might want to delete the talkpage, too? --Elonka 05:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I left the talkpage for a while to keep any potential venting in one place. Someone's taken care of it now I see. --bainer (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Brainer, your deletion of the RfC is extremely uncalled for. If you needed clarification you should have asked me. This is going to DRV. -- Ned Scott 07:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you must. I took action because other editors had already raised the issue on your talk page, well within the 48 hour period, and you had not provided any evidence at all. --bainer (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the diffs provided by another editor were sufficient when Ryan marked it as certified. I will gladly provide you with direct diffs, so please undelete. My entire family was over today, so forgive me for not spending a lot of time on the issue. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[7] Right there you have both Jehochman and Ryan Postlethwaite agreeing that those diffs were sufficient to mark the RfC as certified. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have mattered if the diffs Jehochman supplied were on point. However they didn't demonstrate that you had attempted and failed to resolve the dispute that was the subject of the RfC, namely Elonka's administrative actions in relation to Tundrabuggy; unfortunately Jehochman is not a mindreader and wasn't able to guess what you were referring to! If you can point to attempts you've made at discussing the Tundrabuggy-related issues, then I can certainly undelete the RfC. If you can post the diffs here I can paste them in when I undelete. --bainer (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy? This isn't specific to just Tundrabuggy, and several other editors have agreed. From his own RfC statement (I have an early version saved, before I had decided to certify it): " My concerns are over her judgment in the specific area of managing editing conditions, not her general conduct as an administrator." "The basic problem is that the editing conditions are being thoughtlessly and aggressively managed, with a rigid application of 0RR being prioritised above maintaining NPOV and basic factual accuracy, and are being enforced erratically and selectively."

Tundrabuggy is simply a prime example of why Elonka's method was such a bad idea. "The crux of the problem has been a number of edits made by Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), an editor who signed up on 28 May 2008, shortly after a major news event related to this article, and has since focused heavily on the article - not quite an SPA, but close to it."

Chris brings up additional concerns regarding selective application of the restrictions, of which I did not comment on. This, however, is only one part of the dispute. If you want to nitpick that I wasn't able to endorse every single sentence of Chris's long RfC statement, then I will file a more direct and simplistic RfC on Elonka. The fundamental problem remains, Elonka is imposing a poorly thought out restriction that makes it impossible to sufficiently deal with problematic edits, such as those being made by Tundrabuggy.

This is the very definition of forum shopping. Elonka and others brought this issue up to other people, and on the talk page of the RfC, and were not able to make a convincing argument that the RfC was not certified. So here they go and ask you. Mom said no, but lets see what dad says. Did you even bring this up with Ryan, who had marked it as certified? -- Ned Scott 08:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if your actual problem is whether the restriction itself is appropriate within the parameters set out by the arbitration decision, then an admin RfC is hardly the appropriate venue for a consideration of that. You would need to request a clarification at WP:RFAC. --bainer (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC would be more appropriate. I think you would remember, arbcom gave her a free ticket to do just about anything. I would also think you would remember that the community was recently in a huge uproar about several arbcom issues, such as placing restrictions on editors that were not a party to an arbcom case. Just because she's not breaking a rule, as arbcom defined it, does not mean the community loses it's right to comment on the situation.

And again I ask you, did you bring this up with Ryan before deleting it? We do not run on your personal interpretation of the rules. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might want to read my last comment on the talk page [8]. I get the very strong impression that there are some ridiculously high requirements being set for this specific RfC, based on the assumption that this is being used to attack Elonka. -- Ned Scott 09:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, FYI, the deletion has been challenged at ANI,[9] you may wish to participate in the discussion. --Elonka 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When I got off work just a little bit ago, the first thing I wanted to do was to apologies to you for my harsh comments. I see the RfC has now been undeleted via DRV, but still, I would like to apologies. I don't believe I was necessarily wrong in my comments, but they were.. very aggressive and not really.. nice. Which might not be that unusual for me when I come across a heated debate, but I consider you to be an editor that I have a lot of respect for, and more often than not I trust your judgement and advice. Not only that, but trying to respond to such situations with a cooler head is a goal I have for myself, and I let it slip there, regardless of who I was replying to. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Recreating the RFC talkpage

Aaron Brenneman deleted the talkpage of Elonka's RFC, in a great hurry, but at least he left a note saying people could restore it without consulting him. My pet admin has done so. It's standard to keep a venue where people can post comments on a contested deletion, and others can find them, without having to rustle about for, for example, your talkpage, Thebainer, and spread it all over the place. (Well, I call it commenting, you call it "venting". Nice jaundiced attitude to fellow editors, there.)) Please nobody delete until the issue of deleting/recreating the RFC itself is resolved. I see in the thread above that it's not. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bish, perhaps it would be better to allow uninvolved admins to deal with this? I am uncomfortable with you using tools here. --Elonka 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what, you can forum shop to find a single admin to ignore what other admins said about certification and delete something out of process, yet an admin after consluting with other admins who agree that the process was done against policy and with the clear OK by the person who did the delete (comment said it could be undeleted without consulting him) is somehow bad? As far as uninvolved admins ago, I see you called up Jayig again to try to get your way... Apparently you have no problem with involved admins as long as they do what you want. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Uninvolved admins?" What the...? This insinuation takes me completely by surprise. I have replied on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Elonka. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Your accusation of forum shopping is misplaced, DreamGuy. As you can see from the preceding section, it was User:IronDuke who asked if I had an opinion as to whether the RfC was properly certified. --bainer (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka goes to conferences on programming and entertainment to give lectures on how to game Wikipedia as a social site, so it's a bit naive to think that she'd have to do her forum shopping personally. But, hey, let me withdraw the comment and instead just point out that your actions on deleting this RFC were a great violation of policy and have made many people wary of trusting ArbCom to enforce rules fairly. Instead of nitpicking comments here you ought to deal with the greater issue, which is the unfortunate tendency of certain people to think that rules do not apply to them and to use creative reinterpretations of policies to try to ignore and/or punish the people pointing out their misuse of power. I would like to see you promise to try to work within the community standards of editing instead of against them, or step down if you are unwilling to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Random832 (contribs) 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, as nobody seems to have informed you yet, I thought you would wish to know that the deletion was overturned with a snowball closure after about six hours. The RfC was, consequently, undeleted by Athaenara. I've closed the related AN/I thread to tidy up the loose ends over there. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with one user repeatedly removing recent verified sources.

User John Z keeps removing the now 10 valid links presented, along with updated facts, to a cleaned up version of the Terren Peizer article. Prior to it's clean up, the article had numerous glorified comments and unverified sensationalism, along with alleged sources that were not found online or off, and in all fairness, the only ones that remained were the ones that could be found. Even when an "expert" was requested to assist in this article, John Z removed the tag. This is NOT his article and all the other editors of this page agree that the recent clean up, as well as the additional links added since, are valid and should remain as such. Please advise or come in to provide your input. Thanks! 72.225.227.83 (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ears burning?

I have dropped your name at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that all 27 people who signed the recall petition (a lot more than 6!) were acting in bad faith? Your point is not clear.[10] Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, just that it is not equitable to seek to enforce the letter of a promise (if offers for recall can be considered promises at all) in circumstances where it is contrary to the spirit or the substance of the promise. It's an analogy to the legal world that I think is apt here: specific performance is an equitable remedy, and someone seeking equity must do equity.

Essentially I'm saying (without necessarily criticising anyone) that I consider this wikilawyering (and yes, I appreciate the irony of drawing legal analogies to say so!). --bainer (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped your name again, this time in a request for arbitration, though you are not a named party. Jehochman ^Talk 08:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Now I'm at even more of a loss than before; could you write up a guidebook to interpreting arbitration decisions? This distinction you draw between permissive and restrictive decisions is subtle and previously unknown to me, and I've followed dozens of cases. Also, you mention resignation v. desysopping as a pertinent factor. Would that mean that I could regain the tools via application to the Committee, since I resigned? I don't think I'd really want to, but an explanation would help to explain these opaque points. Durova^Charge! 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Alastair Haines

As a member who accepted the case, perhaps you might like to vote on this case. 6 arbs have voted so far - at least 1 more is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm a happy little vegemite..." :D. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

smart, not scattergun linking

I've responded to your comment on my talk page. Tony (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC) PS Why is "October 2004" linked on your user page; now I'm being intrusive and irritating, but I do wonder.

On a more positive note, I wonder whether you contribute to articles on Australian legal topics—not so much constitutional, but the nitty-gritty. The Americans seem to be well advanced in this field. Tony (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RE your rfarb question

I hope you don't take this the wrong way. And I don't want to pick a fight with an arb. If you feel this is inappropriate, revert and i'll go away. But i'll be honest, your request baffles me. Are you saying that the question, did improper wheel-warring occurred, and was consensus violated, could be decided by an after the fact statistical analysis (possibly subjective), that none of the admins had access to when making their decisions?--Cube lurker (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No no, it's a good question. To give you the short answer, I don't know what an investigation into the distribution of sources of vandalism would turn up. It may be that it is impossible to tell when there are so many edits being made. It may be that such an investigation reveals that it was extremely obvious what the source was, and that may have some bearing on people's actions in this case (in terms of what they ought to have known, or ought to have done). It may be that we just end up with a useful tool for assessing whether semi or full protection is the best approach. Any of these conclusions would be a useful thing to know for the future. --bainer (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As additional info I can see what you're saying. My concern was a finding that "since 68.2% of improper edits came from ip's the reversion to semi-protect was correct therefore admin X was correct and admin Y was wrong so admin X gets commended and Y gets desysoped." (extreme example).--Cube lurker (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at RFAR about number crunching

Prompted me to talk to Nixeagle about creating a tool that could help determine whether full protection or semiprotection would be more useful at high traffic articles. Please join our conversation at User_talk:Nixeagle#An_idea. It might help prevent future flareups like the recent wheel war. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For starters I suggested comparing rev_len on revisions in order to identify reverts. --bainer (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can probably rig something up that will do what you request. I'll probably have it written tomorrow or sunday night. Is that soon enough? —— nixeagle 02:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Reply on my talk.

Hey, you're not working to my deadline! It was only an idea as to what might be useful. Take as much time as you like (indeed, the more time you take getting a revert-detection-algorithm right the better). --bainer (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well what you described seems fairly simple. I'll just generate 3 sets of numbers using the 3 possible algorithms we talked about, your idea is the final algorithm of the 3. I only mention a deadline as I don't know what timeframe arbcom wishes to move with the case. Evidence presented after the case closes is of no use ;) —— nixeagle 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but of course a tool that can offer some guidance as to whether semi or full protection is most appropriate would be useful independently of this case. In any event the case is not likely to close before Monday, so you can relax a bit :) --bainer (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. :) Durova^Charge! 04:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Question of Enforcement

I'm not clear about the enforcement of the arbcom regarding the Alastair Haines case. If someone is violating the restriction, how is that reported and who is that reported to? Thanks.Tim (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The decision provides for enforcement by block on the terms set out there. You can make a report at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard; just follow the instructions at the top of the page. --bainer (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Tim (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about #19

I think I understand what you're trying to get at, but (to me anyway) it appears that you're also suggesting that an RfC can't happen in userspace. Are you? And if not, would/could you clarify in your proposal? - jc37 11:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The observation is the ability of any user (and particularly the subject) to have their say is a basic part of the RfC process (probably the most important part). It follows from that that anything tending to get in the way of people having their say is a bad thing. To take an extreme example, it would be bad for an RfC to be protected so that only admins could edit it, because then not everyone could have their say. In a similar way, drafting an RfC in your userspace, which by custom only you edit, affects the ability of others to comment (even if it is only a chilling effect).

Certainly it's possible to have an RfC in userspace. If, for example, the drafter put a notice at the top saying that everyone was welcome to comment on it, then there would be no problem with that because everyone would be able to have their say. If, as another example, the drafter was working on the draft with other users for a brief period before posting it, and it was obvious that it was just a draft (for example, if the page title was "RfC draft") then there would also be no problem, because other people would be able to have their say in a short time. It's all about the ability of others (particularly the subject) to comment, and it will depend on the circumstances.

I've rambled on a bit there, so if that doesn't make any more sense then please say so! --bainer (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you've clarified exactly what I was asking (In particular the section starting with "Certainly...".

That said, is there some way to clarify your post there in regards to this? Either by addition or subtraction. I understand if there is a concern of "watering down" the post. - jc37 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Omnibus case

It doesn't seem right to echo close votes when there's still items being voted on - including items even you haven't voted on yet. In any case, could you please vote on proposed remedy 6? Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, now the case has been closed, would you be able to "do the honours" at m:RfP? From memory, an Arbitration Committee member needs to request the desysopping, rather than the closing clerk. Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, but when it's the result of an arbitration ruling, anyone can file the request. --bainer (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Not a barnstar, but a simple thank you for your efforts. Everyme 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding TTN

These comments are also posted on RFAr, but since the format there does not lend itself to discussion, I thought I should cc: them to your talk page:

With all due respect, the claim that there is nowhere to discuss these issues except for AfD is absurd. When merging articles, the article talk pages are a fine place to discuss merges. (Or, more accurately, redirects) For the large batch of episodes of the TV show Heroes he recently mass redirected I would think that stopping in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes might have been effective.

Were TTN interested in discussion and consensus-building, even with the continued contentiousness of a general guideline for fiction, many opportunities were available to him, not least of which was participating in the RFC to work on the notability issues for fiction. That TTN ignored all of these channels and ignored attempts to build consensus on this issue does not seem to me to be a good thing, and I am, frankly, baffled how you can suggest that AfD was the only channel open to him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I want to add to that: he had a perfectly good channel on the talk pages of the articles to advocate for redirects. I offered to help with with arguments there is selected cases, and he never even asked. (I redirect some such articles myself when I see them on PROD). He often lost the argument for a redirect there, and DR should have been the way to go. DGG (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I replied following my initial comment at RFAR. --bainer (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Draft of Fiction Survey 2008

Recently you said, "One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters." I have created a draft of a survey which I think will be helpful in generating such a guideline. Do you think such a survey is a good idea? If not, do you have a different idea? --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Abtract-Collectonian

This case is going to be 2 weeks old in another couple of days. Evidence/workshop is complete, and all proposals made on the pd page have been supported by 4 arbitrators. If you could kindly hop on over to this page to vote, that'd be great. Hopefully this case will be ready to close by 29 Oct. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Codification of Reserve Powers

A while back you noted that a "Jimbo Policy" meshed with where you expect the project to go. A few other people supported the idea, and collectively we've thrown together Wikipedia:Project Leader-- which just proposes that Jimbo should have all the powers he currently has.

If you have time, I'm sure it'd benefit from you looking it over and see if there is anything we've missed. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

G'day Wikimedian :-)

Whilst it's quite likely you'll have heard this news on the grapevine, in your email inbox, or even in person - I thought that it was sufficiently exciting to warrant giving each of you a 'new messages' orange bar! This particular orange bar has been brought to you to let you know that Wikimedia Australia is now open for members!

I'm not on the committee or anything, and that's where the credit is due in getting everything to this point, but I think it would be absolutely fantastic for folks who wish to support the australian wiki community, to go ahead and sign up - we're quite likely to be the world's fatest growing chapter at the moment! Join Us :-)

Here's a little more about membership, and the mailing list in particular is well worth signing up to as well, and is a good forum to get answers to any questions answered, or to share any ideas. I've dropped these notes in under my own steam, and you've received one because you're on this list - feel free to ask me any questions, or anything - I can certainly point you in the right direction :-) cheers all, Privatemusings (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the spam, PM, though you can probably filter out the committee from the recipient list next time :) --bainer (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

RFArb page - Motion: Tobias case

Would like to request that you change your vote to oppose (from abstain) so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to oppose the motion to allow the section to be archived; if it doesn't pass in a reasonable time then it simply lapses. If no arbs have commented in a few more days then that can take place. What you really want to be bugging us about is moving those open cases to proposed decisions :) --bainer (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lol...cheers! :D I'd completely forgotten (think I'm in PD mindset still). Hehe, I've already begun bugging on one of the open cases (Piotrus) last week - that should be on PD soon. Kuban will be the next target, once the wording re: userpages is satisfactory. Cheers again, :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Piotrus 2

Now awaiting votes on PD page. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Stephen Bain/Archive 13's Day!

User:Stephen Bain/Archive 13 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Stephen Bain/Archive 13's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Stephen Bain/Archive 13! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! And it's nice that someone considers me beautiful ;) --bainer (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RFArb page - Motions: Bharatveer

I believe all relevant evidence (if any) has been presented since your comment there on 12 November 2008. Requesting your votes so that at least one of these will come into effect. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Land Surveyor

Sorry if I'm more clueless than usual, but who is the banned user? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Peter_Damian. Avruch ^T 22:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,Avruch. I don't say the block is unjustified, but it needs to be followed by an open consideration of the oversighted edits. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the accounts were brought to the attention of the Committee some time ago, we've just been slack in responding. This should have been handled last week. --bainer (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

and what is Jimbo's take on this? He must certainly have seen it the goading on his Talk page, and since it's his personal ban of User:Peter Damian, and he hasn't commented publicly, one would have assumed he'd have had some input rather than let it slide. In the face of an expressed wish by User:Peter_Damian to disrupt the future fundraising process by being further banned for creating good content, my impression is that the consensus on WP:ANI not to pander to that wish might be of some weight; Admins have to make tricky calls most of the time; it's a judgement based on what is best for the encyclopedia, even in the long-term. Although there were relatively few participants, they weren't exactly unschooled in Wikipolitics and appreciate its practical dynamics. But the consensus was pretty clear that we were not going to play his games. Unfortunately, we've now given him some ammunition, and I am not keen on being shot down by "friendly fire" D'oh! --Rodhullandemu 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea was to not block his socks solely because he was banned if his socks edited constructively and stayed out of trouble, i.e. without making it obvious. He failed to do that, both with AmericanLinguist and The Land Surveyor. Avruch ^T 23:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is that's what's going on? Socking, eh. Go ahead and block them. You won't hear any complaints from me. Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a very political block when one considers that his identity was widely known before, but no one did anything until now, when he joined in the discussion about oversighted edits. Everyking (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• <outdent

Oh I wish it were that simple. If you look at Bronzino's Venus, Cupid, Folly, and Time, in the bottom left corner, you'll see a foot. Most people wouldn't recognise it; but show them the opening credits for Monty Python's Flying Circus, coinciding with bar 16 of Sousa's Liberty Bell and it becomes obvious. Perhaps I am alone in being pragmatic and seeing beyond the narrow issues here, or naive. OK, we could lose him as an editor; there's no particular reason why we should have any coverage of medieval theology when we have so much detail about Pokemon or The Simpsons. What concerns me is Jimbo's lack of input here, since it was his ban and we are trying to pick up the pieces. What is Jimbo's opinion on this, if any? --Rodhullandemu 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PS- I've now had emails from both Jimbo and User:Peter_Damian and understand the situation more completely. It's not something I am prepared to get excited about. I already have enough to do, here and elsewhere. --Rodhullandemu 00:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ban me now!! Frank Ramsey (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Is your decision final? I have suggested that this is not content-related. And, in fairness, after so many months and months and indeed years of this problem, could you not wait a few days and look at the comments of all of the interested parties before making such a decision? It took some effort to put forward a request, and it's disheartening to have it denied before the involved parties have all had a chance to say something. Or are the Ireland articles just, well, screwed? Thanks for your consideration. -- Evertype·✆ 22:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to want the Committee to say "this is what the article should be called", and ultimately that is something we cannot do. From the very beginning the Committee has not answered content questions, and that is something that is not going to change. However, as I said, if there are behavioural issues involved in the content dispute - that is, if people are disrupting efforts to achieve and implement a consensus - then that is something we may well be able to address. You seem to imply in your statement that that is what is happening ("though reversed today..."). Are there such issues? If so, what are they, and what efforts, if any, have been made to deal with them? --bainer (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in a sense we do, because we as a community cannot find enough good faith on all sides to come to real consensus. Older editors may find ways forward, but it gets whipped up into frenzy every time efforts are made. Now, this isn't new. This has been going on for FOUR YEARS. Yes, "people" are disrupting efforts, but the solution here in this instance is not to try to censure 5 or 10 or 20 individuals who are doing the disruption. It's to recognize that the community, divided as it is, needs outside arbitration because there's no settling it otherwise—due to lack of good faith. (One may wish to Assume Good Faith but be realistic when it is not there.) These articles are High Profile on the Wikipedia, getting many many hits per month. The status quo damages the Wikipedia and certainly does no good for these articles. So, yes, we're asking for a ruling on the appropriate names for these articles, based on a whole set of arguments pro and con, because we as a community of editors interested in this topic CANNOT come to consensus. Thanks for your consideration. I respect whatever view you end up having. After all, you're an arbitrator. -- Evertype·✆ 01:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Cold Fusion

In case it was unintentional, wanted to make you aware: although you proposed this finding, you did not provide an accompanying vote/comment/signature to confirm that you made the proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself while reading Flo's comments, but thanks for the notification! I usually double-check sigs before posting but I was in a bit of a rush yesterday. --bainer (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem; cheers for the prompt response. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Username

Please see the message I left for you at WP:CHU. --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it all worked fine, in both user and user talk space. Thanks! --bainer (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself

On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)