User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 9

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

---

Eve Ensler

Hi there! I saw that you removed some info from the Eve Ensler article with a fairly official-sounding notation. Does that mean there was a complaint? The statements about her father are widely reported and often a topic in her work (NYT,Lifetime, NPR). Her relationship status was out of date, but she was living with someone for about 15 years prior to a messy breakup. I wanted to check in with you before adding this stuff in, since the link to OTRS doesn't explain anything, and I don't know how to view the original ticket. Thanks! Jokestress 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate a response. Thanks! Jokestress 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Without divulging anything specific, yes there was a complaint with respect to the article. The main issue was the unsourced statement. If you can replace it with adequately sourced material, that shouldn't be a problem. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reponse. Jokestress 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Request reasoning

Sorry, was hoping you could provide some reasoning for your decision here. Your close-out with no reasoning has left some people mystified. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names#TortureIsWrong (talk • contribs). --bainer (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

At DRV now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the right thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination). The deletion was endorsed upon review. --JWSchmidt 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE

Hi there! I noticed your recent edits to WP:OFFICE. Would you please be so kind as to stop in at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions#Major revisions to who is authorized? There's a bit of a tempest brewing there (probably in a teapot, as usual). I think some commentary from the actual contributors would clear things up tremendously. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions#Source of the policy. --bainer (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! With luck, that will clear things up for everyone. —DragonHawk (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cite_Case_AU

Noticed that you're the original creator of the above template. Just a quick FYI to advise that i've updated the template and associated documentation yesterday to do Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) citations. Have tested and works correctly. -- thewinchester 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, that's good stuff. AustLII has a stack of databases there that could still be included, I obviously went just for the major ones to start with (federal courts and state superior courts), but there are many sources, particularly tribunals, which can be added as needed.

By the way, have you seen the WikiProject Australian law yet? If you're interested in working on articles in that area, you might like to consider joining up. --bainer (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Just rolled back one of your edits by accident [1], pressed the wrong button! I've corrected my mistake now though. Sorry about that, hope there's no hard feelings Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I saw, no problems. We're taking bets on IRC as to how long it is before all of these get reverted as a clearly rouge abuse of power :) --bainer (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it......  :) I assume there was a discussion on this somewhere that I missed? Hopefully on RfA talk rather than somewhere off in template space? Newyorkbrad 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say discussion. Whim, perhaps. There was a positive reception on IRC, and so this can be considered a trial run. The idea is to diminish the impact of the count as the very first thing that someone sees in each RfA, and to encourage people to read the nomination and any statement instead. --bainer (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw that was "okay, someone's annoyed at the vote totals, rv" but upon further viewing of it I actually don't mind it, there's really no reason to have that running total at the top. Though the scheduled to end tie should probably remain bold at least.--Wizardman 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Having the count as the very first thing that is visible in the RfA is, IMHO, a significant psychological factor. Rather than reading the nomination and the statement/questions and then the expressions of opinion with an open mind, with the count there, people read them with the numbers already in their head. It's certain money that this has some prejudicial effect on people. --bainer (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, it might also be a good idea to bullet, not number the comments.....Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also started to revert one, but noticed who it was and assumed I missed a discussion somewhere. Perhaps a note should be placed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship so editors who are IRC ignorant like myself know what's going on? -- Satori Son 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not like we implemented some policy there :) I'm just trying this out to see what the response is. See WP:BRD. So far the response seems pretty positive though. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• ...and re-order them chronologically. Especially on longer noms, people would have to spend time vote counting to see which way they should vote so as to appear to be voting the right way. Might encourage them to actually *read* what is said. --Durin 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I mooted that earlier but I figured it would be better to start with baby steps. If there's someone who's willing to have that done with their RfA then it could certainly be tried out. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and I also believe as per Wizardman to leave the schedule to end tie in Bold which I did for Moralis..--Cometstyles 16:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It stayed bold in most of them, must have just accidentally changed one of the bold tags in one of them. --bainer (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, after a revert, you're supposed to discuss, remember? :-) --Kim Bruning 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bah! WT:RFA is filled with (in toto) mindless ramblings. Discuss discuss discuss. Yes, I've lost faith in WT:RFA :) --Durin 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Moralis' RfA has been refactored away from support/oppose/neutral sections. --Durin 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent! One bold action leads to another. We'll have to see how that RfA goes, and maybe then consider changing the template to match that form if it's successful. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Gahh... For a moment there, I thought I was at WP:AFD! Using bullets instead of numbers might be OK, but may I suggest leaving "support", "oppose", and "neutral" comments in their respective sections? Regardless of one's position on the extent to which RFA is/should be/can be/must be/is divinely decreed to be a vote, I don't think anyone wants RFAs to look anything remotely like this. -- Black Falcon 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm ... I guess you can close the betting windows now. I've reverted all of them except on Moralis' RFA. However, I didn't revert them as a "rouge abuse of power" by an admin. Quite frankly, I didn't know that you were an admin. I just looked at the RFA page and saw that there was no notice of a change. I then looked at WT:RFA and saw no consensus or discussion for the change (I should note in advance that I didn't and still haven't checked WP:IRC). Along with the edit summary of "not a vote", it seemed rather WP:POINTy. I'm not opposed to the change in principle, but think it ought to be done through consensus-building rather than a "let's try it and see what people say" strategy. Also, I do not think the format should be changed for RFAs that have already been started. Perhaps it's appropriate to change it for the newer ones, but I think those that are already in progress should be left alone. -- Black Falcon 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one method to build consensus starts with a bold edit, and then you talk. Basically what's happening here, eh? --Kim Bruning 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose. I've started a thread at WT:RFA so that the discussion is at a more centralised location. P.S. I really don't care for or about the tallies, but don't think they should have been removed from RFAs that had already begun.-- Black Falcon 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries Black Falcon, it's called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It often works well to break a deadlock or to start the ball rolling where there is otherwise too much inertia. I made a bold change, it happened to be reverted and now the discussion has been kickstarted and is running healthily. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA tallies

Just because it isn't only a vote doesn't mean it isn't also one. The numbers incline but do not necessitate, to paraphrase Leibniz. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For my expression of that principle see my notes at the top of this page, for example. It just so happens that "not a vote" is a convenient shorthand :) --bainer (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to put the tallies at the bottom of the discussion; those who use them now would still have them, but they wouldn't encourage gross generalizations about someone's RfA progress right off the bat. ➪HiDrNick! 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • RfA isn't a vote. The vote tallies support something that RfA isn't. People are addicted to the tallies because they've been there forever, but they are worthless to what RfA is supposed to be. --Durin 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Veiled legal threats???

Question regarding potential block needed on a user, and the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy, at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats - subsection, Veiled legal threats ???. Please comment if you have a chance. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 01:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Policy work group?

Hello, since you seem to have thought through the policy situation on Wikipedia, I nominated you for this work group, I hope you are okay with it. Please move your name to the declined section, if for some reason you don't have time to take part in this. Thank you! --Merzul 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you go to bed for a few hours and something like this springs out of nowhere. Ok, sure, why not. --bainer (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA tally

My understanding is that the tally removal was only on the Moralis RfA as an experiment & nothing more. This already has adopted huge objection to it, & I see no other guideline or piece of info that states that there can be no more tallies. If you can provide some info supporting your claim, I'll accept, but if not, I'd like to reserve the right to relocate the tally on that RfA... Thanks, Spawn Man 10:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue of tallies and the issue of the formatting of comments are two separate issues which got a little conflated on the talk page because people put some comments in the wrong section. There is some discussion earlier on my talk page, and some more discussion over at WT:RFA, in which only one person disagreed with removing the tallies and they didn't provide a reason. --bainer (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of info there that I can't be bothered sorting through - everyone I've spoken to about it including Moralis himself, said that the RfA was only a guinea pig situation - a one off - & that it probably wouldn't become a rule. Adding to my argument - everyone since Moralis has used the tally (this is actually the first RfA not to have one his RfA, probably because the user forgot to add it in). Please provide diffs, as I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one - I don't recall anyone saying "We're not using tallies now" other than you... Thanks, Spawn Man 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I get kinda grouchy when other users place both my & your comments on my user talk - you can just place your own if you want... Thanks.

Yeah, the formatting thing is separate. It came later. The other day, I took a bold action and removed the tally from the template and from all of the open RfAs. These changes were reverted, prompting discussion (the bold, revert, discuss cycle). You can see the discussion earlier on my talk page, the sections "Sorry" and "RfA tallies". There's also discussion at WT:RFA#Current attempt at RFA reform. Since there was no disagreement (other than from Everyking, who didn't give a reason) I re-implemented the change at the RfA template, and this is the first RfA that has begun since that time.

The main reason for removing the tallies is because they have a potentially prejudicial effect on anyone coming to the RfA. A lesser reason is that they also encourage the misconception that RfA is only a vote (and not also a vote, as Kelly Martin observes above).

The question of formatting of opinions is a separate one, which arose later. --bainer (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should be messing with the template without conscent from the site - I don't anyone really nkew this discussion was going on until the Moralis RfA, and you can see how many people when they did find out there started complaining! Unless it's a guideline or rule, I think we should create a straw poll or something? I'd happily support any descision made by a certified straw poll, if you could create one... Thanks, Spawn Man 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't vote on everything here. I've identified a couple of reasons why including tallies is harmful; perhaps you'd like to address those reasons or offer some reasons why the tallies should be kept? --bainer (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Persona designata, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you an AMA member?

Are you an AMA member? If so you may wish to check the AMA membership list. --CyclePat 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

About Image:Gracenotes dancing.png

My sister told me that I could release into public domain. I'm sorry for not indicating this; I rather hurriedly licensed it, for I merely wanted to upload an image for testing a script. Too bad you didn't list it at WP:PUI or WP:IFD. Wait, I have an idea! You could have told me to list it at on of those venues, and I would have used my script to do so.

If you want, I could claim to have created it against evidence to the contrary (indeed, I was merely confused earlier); and there really wouldn't be any difference. Maybe my sister should email permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Otherwise, I could use {{PD-because}}, if you undelete it. I do respect Wikipedia copyright policy. That's why I uploaded the image. Sorry if you're flabbergastingly indignant regarding the manner in which I did so. Thanks, Gracenotes^T § 13:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Undeleting is a piece of cake. Just provide the appropriate permissions and it can be done. --bainer (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How, in this case? Gracenotes^T § 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I created a new image myself and released it into the public domain. Thanks for your help. Gracenotes^T § 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

Have sent you one. Orderinchaos 07:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

uncontroversial image deletions

Hi Stephen,

Could you please delete these four images: Image:Dear Landlord argument map.jpg, Image:NASA Stardust Mission inference objection.jpg, Image:Stardust Mission Inference objection with co-premise included.jpg and Image:Condorcet method argument map.jpg? I have uploaded png versions of those files and no articles now link to the jpegs. Thanks - Grumpyyoungman01 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about this when it first popped up here, but I've dealt with those now. --bainer (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen. It must be hard to keep up with such a busy talk page. Grumpyyoungman01 00:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wdefcon.

Hi, could you please restore the page you deleted? I, and many others, find it very useful. (Please ignore this request if there was a recent MfD I am not aware of.) · AndonicO ^Talk 15:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it under the first speedy deletion criterion for templates, divisive and inflammatory templates. Please comment at the discussion on Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Wdefcon. --bainer (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were aware before you deleted it, but over the last year and a half there have been four discussions as to whether or not Wdefcon should be kept, and the consensus has been universally to keep it as it is useful. Please restore it. Deleting it simply because YOU think it's divisive and inflammatory or promotes militaristic views of editing is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is never a valid reason to do that sort of thing. Kuroji 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's been a consensus that a template that can inform people about current vandalism issues is useful. My perspective is that we can have an informative template which is not militaristic and inflammatory. Please comment at the discussion on Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Wdefcon. --bainer (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your perspective is clearly not shared in this instance. Deleting it out of hand is uncalled for. But it's going through the proper channels now. Kuroji 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please restore it or you can try start another afd.(ugh, that would be a bit tedious) Felixboy 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you deleted the Wdefcon template, as I use it to help me gauge my level of vigilance concerning vandalism. I find it a good tool to see the overall vandalism views. Abyssoft 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it under the first speedy deletion criterion for templates, divisive and inflammatory templates. Please comment at the discussion on Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Wdefcon. --bainer (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored the template (oh boy, what fun I've had since...), but I didn't know that a DR was open. I'm watching that; if it turns out that everyone agrees that it should have been deleted, it'll be gone and I won't restore it. However, I still think it was bullshit for you to sweep it under the rug with a T1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attack sites

You may be right about this proposal not likely to gain community support, but I would prefer if you would discuss the matter on the proposal talk page before rejecting it. Thanks.--MONGO 04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally it would be fine to let discussion about the proposal proceed onwards, but some people are starting to cite this as if it were a policy already, and so I think it's necessary to act now. I have suggested rejection here. --bainer (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

meetup 5

Hey, how was it?

I was totally intending to go, but I got some unexpected bad news yesterday, so I didn't really feel up to it this morning. pfctdayelise (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It was good. Jimmy riffed on some of the usual topics, particularly Wikipedia and wikis in schools (I believe that's what the conferences have been about), but also some of the recent Australian press coverage - the Ellen Fanning thing, but also a similar incident with Karl Stefanovic. Most of the people there seemed to be interested in the broader issues than the mechanics of the projects, but that was ok. Someone took a few photos, they should be up later in the day :) --bainer (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question

Sorry for the delay, but I have now responded to your question posed in my RfA. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Legion of SuperHeroes picture

If there was a notice that the picture named "01._Man_of_Tomorrow.JPG" was going to be deleted due to lack of a tag, I missed it. I would have added the following to the description:

{{Non-free television screenshot}}

Copyright DC Comics, Inc. and/or Warner Bros. Animation

Can you restore the file so I can add that text? -- Wizardimps 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't be sufficient. For unfree images, in addition to source and copyright information you need to provide a fair use rationale for every use of the image (ie, a rationale for every page that the image is used on). You can find advice on preparing fair use rationales at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. --bainer (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons images

Hi, I noticed that you deleted a lot of Simpsons episode images, saying they had no FU rationale. I was wondering if next time, you could inform myself or the Simpsons WikiProject and we would be more than happy to add some rationale. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The images can be undeleted if rationales can be provided. There's no need to inform WikiProjects - really they ought to be proactive and make sure that images they use are not speedy candidates just waiting to be deleted. --bainer (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Stephen Bain, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That 09 DVD string page deletion review

Re the deletion review article, closed, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review
headed:

"XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX – the community doesn't vote on what is or is not legally problematic (and it's been oversighted anyway). – bainer (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"

I note that the discussion is apparently closed, hence my comment here.

I appreciate there is some cause for legal analysis, but as a lawyer I would prefer to see a solution that encourages debate, rather than just shuts it down in fear (which is the apparent intent of the DMCA, regardless of assessment of that law's actual operation in the specific circumstances, or of free speech, fair use or other potential countervailing principles).

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it is important that readers can somehow, through heading to a page with at least part of the number, discover the wide debate about it, and its history.

The failed legal moves that seem to have triggered removal of this page (while the number and title are widely propagated through Wikipedia and the web) are historically significant in their own right. As is the attempt to get Wikipedia to make the postings or numbers disappear (and thus make discussion or research about it harder to find), at the same time they are proliferating on various media, including T-shirts and internet domains, around the world.

The phenomenon of the now apparently unsuccessful attempt by a copy-maximalist industry body to use the US DMCA law to suppress a tiny string of digits is not a passing legal technicality, but an important moment in the struggle between various protagonists.

My preferred outcome would be something like re-opening the deletion review, and looking for a solution that was technically compliant with whatever part of the DMCA is actually applicable here, if any (ask for legal advice on this), but enabled perhaps a locked version of the page that referred people to a discussion page.

At present if you seek to go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
and click on the link at the ensuing pseudo-page you just get a 'deleted and locked' message.

Better would be "deleted and locked, but go <here> to see the history".

Thanks for your efforts. David —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dv13 (talk • contribs).

The preferable approach is a cautious one, given the risk involved and given that it's entirely possible to write an encyclopaedic article about the key and the controversy without actually using the numbers (HD DVD key controversy or something like that). The project doesn't suffer by not having the number, but there's a very real possibility that it will suffer by having the number. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a comment on the deletion review page, but it was apparently removed without the courtesy of contacting me. The AFD was closed ignoring Wikipedia AFD process, then the Deletion review was closed ignoring Wikipedia Deletion review process (no 5 day period was allowed). Did the Wikipedia Foundation receive a demand the article be removed instantly, so as to prevent normal processes to be followed? Did the legal counsel of the foundation tell someone to remove the article and AFD forthwith? You stated that it had been done by oversight. Do you yourself have oversight authorization? If not you then who erased the AFD and all comments in the AFD debate? Is there a log of oversight actions? Does it seem like a good idea when oversight makes something "go away" to explain the action on the talk page of the AFDs for the day? There could be an explanation without repeating the secret squirrel number itself. Thanks. Edison 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Process is a tool, used to alleviate the tedium of having to repeatedly work out methods of dealing with common, repetitive situations. The less typical a situation, the less useful the typical methods of dealing with it become.

No I don't have oversight access. A log is kept, but for obvious reasons, is only available to those with oversight access. It can only have been one of these people. You might like to make a game of guessing who. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

HD-DVD string deletion review

When you closed this deletion review, you must have known that people might message you about it, as heated and controversial as that debate was. I understand the legal paranoia that some may have in this case, and accept the fact that it was closed relatively quickly in favor of a deletion, although I must say that I expected the reason for the closure of the debate to be a bit more satisfactory. What you did was scorn the editors for "voting on what is or isn't legally problematic"; it ignores the fact that there was a debate going on—not a simple vote—and says nothing about the accusations of censorship. Lots of people in that debate felt that Wikipedia was censoring that number, as it is certainly notable enough to warrant encyclopedic inclusion and compliant with the rules. It has been argued that it is only WP:OFFICE's job to amend such articles, should a complaint or DMCA takedown notice arrive (we've received them before). Subsequently, the number was added to the blacklist and editing the debate was impossible for some time, until the number's occurrences were modified slightly to not be caught by the blacklist. I don't just speak for myself when I say that I find the admins' hysteria unfounded, and that a lot of good points in favor of undeletion were ignored entirely. You addressed none of these claims or thoughts when you closed the debate. You are an admin, and I understand that you find it important to protect Wikipedia from possible litigation, but I find it reproachable that you would do so without at the very least acknowledging the dissenters have a valid point, and that this case is exceptional. I'll ignore all other issues, but hope that you find it at least reasonable that I'm telling you this. —msikma (user, talk) 19:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the foundation currently has no stance on the issue User_talk:Bastique#HD_DVD. 142.68.40.44 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said to Dv13 above, the preferable approach is a cautious one, given the risk involved and given that it's entirely possible to write an encyclopaedic article about the key and the controversy without actually using the numbers. I don't care about cries of "censorship", or "paranoia", or whatever, because at the end of the day the situation involves a legal question, and legal questions are answered by lawyers. Until we get an answer, we take the least risky course. --bainer (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As I just mentioned in my original message: I certainly understand the cautious approach. What bothers me is the way you went about it—not just you, but many admins. You seem to have ignored the biggest part of my message, which dealt with the way this "cautious approach" sprang up. Again, I'll say that I condemn your stance of not finding it appropriate to concede to the fact that the other side had very good points, and that it's solely the bizarre nature of the situation that caused you to act this way. I still find that the admins acted very hostile and unfair here, even though I understand that this was a very logical decision for you to make. Perhaps you should read the last part of my previous message again. —msikma (user, talk) 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What I think was not important with respect to closing the debate. If it was important, I would have stated that in my opinion the "dissenters" don't have any valid points. See here. --bainer (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the connection of a hexadecimal key and the DeCSS program, which the Universal v. Reimerdes lawsuit was about. Unlike programming code made for the purpose of circumventing the copy protection, such keys have never been tested in court, and we have no reason to assume that something inherently different would be treated the same. It seems that you do not care very much about the people who were raising valid concerns about the handling of this debate by the admins. Reading the blog post you linked to (is that your own blog?), they are called geeks and blamed for "beating the censorship drum" at an attempt to "fight the Man". Is that really how you feel? Rather, I feel that the admins in this case have done a good job at stifling a valid debate during which good points were made. This is a clear case of legal hysteria; you may well find that we're geeks who want to have the key on Wikipedia very badly just because we have the MPAA for some reason, but I find that we may blame the admins for going all-out to try and douse the opinions of others for the sake of "legal safety". Should I be grateful that the admins are so interested in defending Wikipedia with cold, hard, administrative actions, rather than just mentioning the things that were mentioned in the blog post you linked to, because they "are right" and "know what's best"? Truth is that you're not a judge, nor a lawyer, and do not know the exact outcome of a case involving a key such as the one that caused the controversy. Comparing it to DeCSS is wrong, as that's a program; the supposed "illegal key" is not even an illegal prime.

On the other hand, I'm not ang ry or disappointed in the decision to remove the content. It's a very valid reaction to want to prevent a DMCA takedown notice, although I do believe that WP:OFFICE should have been the one to handle that. What I'm disappointed about is the attitude of admins during a time like this. It's imperative that we keep debating things with each other, in a civilized fashion, even if the admins have already decided for a particular course. What admins should do is simply use the debate themselves to give their side of the story. What admins should not do is closing the debate altogether and telling everybody who disagrees that they shouldn't use Wikipedia for their "fight against the Man". I consider that highly offensive, because I do have a valid point in that there is at most legal uncertainty about the number.

If my wording in the past few messages has been a bit strong, then I apologize for that. I didn't mean for it to sound like a personal attack, in case it did. I do implore you to take my message for what it is: a complaint about the handling of the decision, rather than the decision itself. —msikma (user, talk) 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Fontaine Maury High School

Hi, just a quick question:

(cur) (last) 07:45, 9 February 2007 Thebainer (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Matthew Fontaine Maury High School: article has been the subject of offensive vandalism, OTRS request made [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Is this intended to be permanent? Thanks – Gurch 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you're following up on lots of page protections, good stuff! Yes, this one can probably be unprotected now. It was just schoolkid vandalism, but of a particularly personal type, so protection was warranted. But it's been long enough now that they'll have moved on, so I've unprotected. --bainer (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't necessarily demanding unprotection, just considering if and how it should announce its protected status. Had it just been a normal vandalism protection I might have requested unprotection, given the absence of much vandalism in the history (though presumably there was oversight involved) but then I saw the scary "OTRS" in the protection reason, which of course is shorthand for "we know what we're doing here, mere mortals need not know our reasons". :) Thanks – Gurch 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No oversight (as far as I know) just deletion: log. Protection wasn't intended to be permanent, just long enough to dissuade the schoolkids; hence semi-protection and not full protection. But thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten about this one. --bainer (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

Okay, why was T-man, the Wise Scarecrow blocked? I almost feel simply asking will cause issues, but I'm baffled at the gang-up that occured on his page when he simply came around to asking about tags on an ex-admins page. —SpyMagician 09:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I explained the block to T-man on his user talk page. --bainer (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand to an extent, but given the timing and way it was done—and the way this happened here [2] and [3]—I'm a bit baffled. Two wrongs make a right? Doesn't seem right that right in the middle of complaining about how an ex-admin refuses to have a tag placed on their page, his tag is removed and then replaced 15 minutes later and then blocked beyond that. —SpyMagician 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about those diffs. Daniel removed the tag in what I presume was an attempt to de-escalate the dispute. --bainer (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I removed the template per this message, where T-man said "If I have to wear my template he has to wear his!" Now, as I stated earlier, I use the guideline that if a user is not blocked and is established, then the template is inappropriate. I figured that T-man was similar to Chris in being in this group, so I removed the template. When T-man was blocked, I readded it because that is what I believe is appropriate. Nothing "suspicious" about it. I see bainer has re-blanked the tags in an attempt, like me, to diffuse the situation, to which I won't object in this situation. Daniel Bryant 09:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Hello. I have noticed that you have been fairly consistently posting a question about IAR on RFAs. I have also noticed that I have not seen you make any comments to these RFAs after the candidate has responded to your question. I find this rather curious, as I would expect that the reason that you would ask the question would be so that you can use it as basis for your opinion, but since you don't later express that opinion, I find myself confused. Perhaps you are just asking the question because you think that others want to know the answer? Or perhaps you think it should be one of the standard questions? Would you mind expressing your reasoning or intentions for this? I would personally appreciate understanding. BTW, no need to copy your reply onto my talk page, I'll be looking back for it here. Respectfully --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've returned to comment on some, though much of the time the responses don't move me to comment. I also think it's useful that people know what a candidate's view of IAR is. --bainer (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I was wondering that myself. William Pietri 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, incidentally, Doc glasgow thinks it's important that people know what a candidates attitude to WP:BLP is, although he's more willing to oppose if there is a response he doesn't like, probably because of the greater tie between the scenarios in his questions and admin actions. My question is rather more broad. --bainer (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response(s). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

Would you mind commenting here? Aaron Bowen 07:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

HD-DVD Speedy Deletes

I have been aware that you are about to violate the 3RR with regards to the AACS_encryption_key_controversy page, while lacking any consensus for your actions. Moreover, you have cited no policies in support of your repeated efforts to delete the image on that page in question. Either support your actions with a cited policy (other admins have confirmed that it violates no official policy), or seek consensus for your actions through a request for arbitration. Konekoniku 05:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I intend to keep deleting the key where I find it until you can get me a legal opinion I can rely on that says it's not illegal to traffic in the key. Please read this before commenting further. --bainer (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For starters, the Wikimedia Foundation does not hold the opinion that it is illegal to post the key, as evidenced by their statement that they hold no opinion on the issue. With that in mind, I intend to keep reposting the image, as that is the current consensus and it is not prohibited otherwise by official Wikimedia policy. If you do object, you are free to file a request for arbitration at any time. Konekoniku 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation is deliberately staying away from this issue; indeed, since the Foundation presently has no General Counsel to advise them, there really is no alternative course of action open to them. They are purposely avoiding any involvement, and you should not read anything in to this other than a desire to avoid a sticky legal mess.

You should read what the EFF has had to say on this matter in their "review of the legal landscape", as they put it. The preponderance of opinion by legally informed types is that either the posting of the key is illegal, or at the very least there is a significant risk that it is illegal. The point I was trying to illustrate by referencing Kat's post was in the first paragraph, which I will quote here: "If deleting something illegal is "out of process", process is broken and should be ignored. (And possibly changed. Either way, the result should be the same.) "

I will continue to delete the key wherever I find it until you can provide me a legal opinion that I can rely on that says it's not illegal to traffic in the key. --bainer (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own opinions, of course. However, while I agree that deleting things which are clearly illegal is definitely understandable, here there is a legitimate and ongoing debate about whether or not it is illegal. As you yourself have admitted, the Foundation clearly does not support your POV. Thus I will certainly continue to revert unilateral changes made against the prevailing consensus in the absence of an official supporting policy. Konekoniku 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"As you yourself have admitted, the Foundation clearly does not support your POV." That is incorrect. The Foundation has taken no position, and has merely accepted the initial consensus by administrators and others to remove the key. You should not infer anything from the absence of a position other than an intention to avoid the issue as much as possible, which as I suggested, is really the only course open to the Foundation in the current absence of General Counsel to advise them. --bainer (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, let me rephrase: "The Foundation has clearly not stated any support for your POV." Konekoniku 09:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't stated support for any point of view. It has not stated anything other than an intention not to have a position. --bainer (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage Screenshot before rose blog post.png hasn't been discussed anywhere, as far as I can tell. Could you pop over to Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#Digg screenshot note and add some explanation for your reasoning over there, please? The mailing list post you link to above is somewhat nonspecific and is actually highly debatable - the RIAA vs. Felten case suggests that providing the number in a purely academic context like this doesn't violate the DMCA, or at least that it's reasonable to question that it does. Bryan Derksen 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if there could be some academic justification for displaying the key which would be accepted as a defence, the information intended to be conveyed by the image - that the top stories on Digg at that time were all about the key - is equally well conveyed by versions of the image where the key is blacked, blurred or otherwise obscured. That is, even if there were some academic use defense available, it surely cannot arise here. --bainer (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thebainer, since Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage Screenshot before rose blog post.png does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion, I have restored it for now. Please feel free to nominate the image for normal deletion if you feel it should be deleted. I do not believe Wikipedia is in any imminent legal danger because of this image. If that is the case, you can expect the Wikimedia Office to step in. Otherwise we should follow the normal procedures in order to avoid further inflaming the situation. Thanks! Kaldari 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thebainer, please take this discussion over to Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#Digg screenshot note and stop delete-warring over this image. You don't get to unilaterally decide these sorts of issues, if you want the deletion to "stick" you should try to get a consensus for it. A lot of people apparently disagree with your deletions right now. Bryan Derksen 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi TheBainer-- I just wanted to chime in here and say thank yo for trying to protect the project for liability, but pleaes, put your trust in Jimbo, the board, and their lawyers on this. They know about the situation and they know about the law. They have decided no directives are necessary to protect the encyclopedia from liability at this time, and they know that means people might start adding it to the encyclopedia. They wouldn't let Wikipedia walk off a cliff--- if the number posed a danger to the project and needed to be deleted, they would tell us so.

I care about Wikipedia too, and I wouldn't sit idly by and let it get sued out of existence. But we're not in any danger-- I promise. The only thing we have to fear is getting too excited rather than maintaining cool heads. The only thing we have to do is take a deep breath, and go through the usual procedures of discussing, debating, and building consensus.

If you think the image has to be deleted for legal reasons, ask the office if you're logic's correct. If you think it should be deleted for content reasons, then let's go through the usual nomination process, rather than speedying. --Alecmconroy 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ack! It looks like the situation has gotten even more enflamed than when last we talked. I'm sorry to see that. You've done a revert & protect. I have to say, I think that's counter-productive, and likely to aggrevate the dispute, rather than settle it.

Remember-- there is no deadline. It's okay if the key stays on the page while we sort this out, it's okay if the key stays off the page while we sort this out. But revert and protect is just going to make people feel disenfrachised, and make them feel like you're using your protection powers to help yourself in an edit war.

If you really feel the page needs to be protected, you should probably post to WP:ANI and ask another admin to look over the situation and do the protection-- that way people won't feel like you're "playing unfairly" or otherwise 'making up your own rules and then enforcing them'. I'm not saying that you're doing that, but better to avoid the bad form of protecting while you're revert warring at the same time. Be cool..  :) --Alecmconroy 09:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bainer, to be quite honest, I'm about to reverse your protection of that article. The Foundation's "No Comment" on it, and refusal to stop the Spanish Wikipedia from listing it, clearly makes it a content issue, not a legal one exempt from the 3RR or normal administrative policies. If they thought it were an overwhelming legal one, they'd invoke OFFICE and that's that. They haven't. While I realize that a few days ago, we had a spamming campaign, and I'm perfectly willing to assume you acted in good faith, at this stage that's protection on an article while you're involved in a content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I said to Konekoniku above regarding the Foundation. The Foundation presently has no General Counsel and cannot reasonably be expected to do anything else other than stay away from this. You should not read anything into their refusal to get involved other than a desire to avoid the issue as much as possible. --bainer (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if you are correct, it is not our job or place to make legal determinations in lieu of guidance from them. All they've said is "We take no position." Jimbo asked to wait and see what happened. Very well, we waited and saw what happened, nothing did. At this point, it's time to leave it up to the community as to whether or not we should include the number. They may well say "We should not." They may say "Well, we should." But it's time to let that discussion happen. I would ask you to reverse yourself; as I said, this has clearly been left to us as a content decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As (another) uninvolved admin, I see this as a clear content dispute. No editor should claim ownership on an article, and no admin should definitely not own an article through admin tools by continuously deleting and protecting at will, against the relevant policies and by ignoring all the editors and discussion at Talk:AACS encryption key controversy. Thebainer, please reverse your deletion of Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage Screenshot before rose blog post.png and protection of AACS encryption key controversy, and let this be decided by the community. The Foundation can step in later if they feel the need to do so. Prolog 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When you can find me a lawyer to give advice dispelling the current preponderance of opinion by legally informed types that the posting of the key is either illegal, or at the very least is at significant risk of being illegal, then I will accept that the only remaining questions are editorial. --bainer (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your view on this and you have made it very clear, so it should be noted and respected. But what you accept or not should not decide which image we can have in this article. It should only be a view among others. Or do you disagree? Constant out-of-process actions and refusal to discuss and respect other editors' opinions is unacceptable. We need to work by building consensus and unilateral deletions, protections and wheel-warring are not helping the project. Prolog 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bainer, I know you have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, but I think you're causing this situation to be a lot more difficult than is necessary. There is no need to act unilaterally on this. Obviously there are two conflicting goals here: providing accurate uncensored information and keeping the Wikimedia Foundation out of legal trouble. Personally, I believe that the later concern is negligible here as does a large percentage of the community. By acting unilaterally you are saying that your opinion outweights the community's. On rare occassions, that's the right decision, but as Kelly Martin and others have taught us, the consequences can be severe, not only to your own reputation, but the perception of admins in general. We are not here to rule with an iron fist, but to execute the will of the community to the best of our abilities. It's best to leave the dictating to the Foundation. Please, at least engage in meaningful discussion on this issue rather than issuing ultimatums. Obviously the law is important, but there are other considerations to be weighed in good faith. Let me know what your thoughts on this are. Kaldari 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected that image page. Please stop using admin tools to force your view through, you still haven't even touched the article talk page or any other relevant deletion-related fora as far as I can see. Where is this "preponderance of opinion" that you claim is on your side when you won't even discuss the matter? Bryan Derksen 16:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS Arbitration

I have initiated an arbitration request due to your unilateral decision making and full-protection of AACS encryption key controversy. You can find the arbitration request here - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#AACS_encryption_key_controversy. --Rodzilla (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I commented on the above saying I disagreed with you on this action but that no action should be taken against you ('cos one of the reasons for admin powers is to do the right thing when it's needed ... though one has to justify it afterwards) if you'll actually just stop for a bit. I've also put the article back to semiprotect - reverting up to 3RR and then locking an article is the wrong thing unless one's justification is particularly eloquent - David Gerard 23:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My statement is here. --bainer (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, bainer, though I myself think it's like Canute ordering the tide to stop coming in (which actually he did only to make a point), I appreciate that you were trying to act prudently on behalf of the project by preventing its possible exposure to criminal penalties and civil forfeitures. On a bettor's square, the risk of posting the number could be high, and the benefits low; while the risk of not posting it would seem to be low, and the benefits... irrelevant. On the other hand, that was the same calculation Digg made, and then they had to reconsider. I think you might consider honor satisfied: you postponed the inclusion until its wisdom could be discussed. After that, it's up to the arbiters, the Office, and the involved community, and no blame to you if they decide poorly. I think in calm hindsight most people will agree you acted in good faith based on the information at hand, and may even agree it was the right action for the moment. If Wikipedia ends up hosting the content and suffering legally or financially for that inclusion, I know it will be small comfort to have people realizing too late that you were right... but let the people who actually have the authority to make that decision shoulder the responsibility as well. You with your little wall-mounted extinguisher should only fight the office fire until the fire department arrives; after that, it's not your job, however much you love the workplace. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (this will be linked from a comment at the RfArb)

While this might seem true, you are missing the complete story. Thebainer put a page in full protection as he approached WP:3RR, and in the middle of an editing dispute. In other words, he acted a week later as if it were April 30. That is a solid lack of judgement.--Cerejota 09:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Editing dispute" assumes some sort of parity between opposed positions; this parity doesn't extend to every kind of content. For instance, 3RR et al don't apply when reverting vandalism or BLP violations (which could expose the WMF to legal liability). Arguably the same might be true of reverting DMCA violations (which likewise could expose the WMF to legal liability). I'll leave that decision to those authorized to make it, but you may take this as questioning your own verdict ("That is a solid lack of judgement.") -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST

DYK

On 11 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Campbell (Australian politician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions

Hi there. You've recently unlinked some deleted images related Invader Zim, I don't know how much you were involved in the actual deletion of the images but for the life of me I can't remember if any of them were uploaded by myself. I would be very grateful if you could point me to the images for deletion discussion for File:IdiotDog01.jpg if you know it. Thanks. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted a number of images today while working through Category:Images with no fair use rationale, which contains images eligible for speedy deletion for not having fair use rationales. Some images I came across were used on pages alongside other images I had deleted, and though they hadn't been tagged yet were nevertheless eligible for speedy deletion anyway.

The one you mention seems to have been uploaded by Philiplore. --bainer (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok, Thanks for letting me know. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Australia

Hey, did you end up meeting with people from your law school? If you did, what kind of things did you find out relevant to Wikimedia Australia? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*nudge* enochlau (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to make a time to see someone, given that it's the end of semester. If I can't do so early this week I'll just ask a few questions by email. --bainer (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's alright - I empathise with your lack of time as well. enochlau (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

Please undelete and let the new AfD run its course, as it certainly meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been ample discussion already (13 days, 10 hours and 17 minutes, to be precise). --bainer (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete and allow a fair discussion. Anyone who actually read the prior discussion knows that there was a real case for keeping the article, and you closed the AFD before anyone had a chance to make it. This decision obviously needs to be overturned. GRBerry 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Qian Zhijun. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite any valid reason why i should not immediately undelelte this articel, since it was deleted so blatently out of process? DES ^(talk) 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason for not doing it immediately. But we should give those who falsely think a consensus has ever been established for deletion to actually make a case. So I'm waiting at least a little while myself. GRBerry 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been blocked for less disruption at this point. This is absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ye might like to read the supplementary notes that I added here, which give a fuller explanation of the close since there was evidently some confusion about it. --bainer (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that really doesn't clarify anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that is not particularly relevant, especially in light of the fact that until 6 December 2006 the article was at Little Fatty and was about the meme. If that is the basis for deletion, the right solution is to undo the move on that date and revert back to a version about the meme. GRBerry 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence

Did you make that table entirely by hand? It's insanely detailed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's based on the one in the Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war case. --bainer (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the chart, it sheds light on the issue from all angles.--Mardavich 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, how in the hell? It was entirely by hand, not scripted at all? That table should be standard for all timeline-related disputes at arbitration. Much appreciated.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded for the incredibly detailed and complex table provided at arbitration evidence. I'm sure all sides can agree, that was a superlative job WAY beyond what anyone could have hoped for.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Closure question

(I'm intentionally staying out of the content discussion.) - In reading your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination), your comments would seem to suggest that you you disagree with User:Xoloz's previous DRV closure. In your opinion, do you feel that that is a valid reason to close an AfD? Please don't take this as accusatory in any way, I'm more on a "fact finding mission", as it were. - jc37 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the second nomination as it originally appeared (the nomination was later edited). Xoloz seemed to be drawing from the (minority of) people in the DRV who said the article should be relisted that early closures were a problem and the matter should be left to run for a full 5 days. There was no call for this because there had already been ample discussion directly about the content (over more than 13 days) at both the first AfD and the DRV.

Now I really don't think it should matter whether the discussion occurred on the AfD page or on the DRV page, or whether it occurred in any given 120 hour span; it occurred, and considered altogether the result was clear. --bainer (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So from your perspective, the intent of closing the AfD was in actuality just that facet/component of reverting Xoloz's close of the DRV, since you felt that closure was based on faulty data? (length of discussion)

That being the case, would it have made sense to re-open the DRV discussion as well, or to at least re-close it with "corrected" data? - jc37 09:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Garran

Are you going to take my comments for the FAC on board? I want your article to be an FA, but the referencing needs to be better. Can you fix it up? JRG 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments must have got lost in my watchlist. I'll take a look. --bainer (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• This situation is now at RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Voice Type

I like the 'voice type' rather than the 'instrument,' but for consistency it has to be done on every opera singer's article. Currently, most have it the same way that it was on the Di Stefano article. I'll change a few myself.
NewYork1956 16:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I introduced the change after a discussion on the mailing list about the infobox and how it can seem awkward in certain circumstances, as it used to be in Di Stefano's article. Since that article was specifically discussed, that was the one I happened to change. I don't really know much about opera singers, but perhaps there is a WikiProject who could be notified? --bainer (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A piece of puzzle you may have missed

This [4] initial contact and the subsequent conversation could be used in your chart. --Mardavich 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. --bainer (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the history of Last stand, starting around 1 May. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided to cover only the Battle of the Persian Gate and not any other articles, though I'm aware that these same editors edit many of the same articles, mainly because it would be too unwieldy with all that extra information, but also because administrative actions were only taken in response to edits on the Persian Gate article.

Looking at that history page now though, I may need to look into it. --bainer (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that including that stuff in the table would make it unwieldy, but it does seem to be relevant to the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Garran notes

Re your recent change to Robert Garran:

I don't think that change was needed, since the "References" section already contains the full reference to the Noel Francis book. The idea is to put only the author, short title, and page number in the "Notes" section, as discussed in the 2nd bullet under Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations. Since this book appears only once in the notes, it's no big deal, but I just thought I'd explain why I did it the way I did.

It would be better if the various Francis footnotes isolated which pages of the book are being used in which places (as is already done with Prosper the Commonwealth) but that's beyond my capabilities: I don't have the book. Eubulides 23:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum

Hi, after your close of the deletion review of this article as "Replace with a redirect to 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, administrator Night Gyr undeleted the history. I've asked him to temporarily redelete the revisions until he has consulted with you on whether this is what you intended. If he has already done so, please disregard this message.

My own reading of your close was that you believed the revisions in the history to be unsuitable for Wikipedia. Whether that would bar history undeletion is I guess a judgement call, but obviously I think it's not good for Wikimedia's servers to be dispensing material like this, even in an article history. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To let you know, I'm prepared to reverse your speedy closure here. Firstly, I don't see anything but a consensus to undelete here, certainly not a consensus for only redirection. I would encourage you to do so first, however, and to let the discussion run longer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be either reversed or be looked into by ArbCom. There was absolutely no reason to close this active discussion early, and the closure did not represent the community consensus, which clearly was to undelete the article. Prolog 03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reversed the speedy closure. Please, let's just let the discussion happen. I might disagree with its outcome, you might too, but it's important to let people have their say. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{COI}}

What's up with the ridiculous protected redirection? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't protect it. I see now that it was protected a couple of days ago to deal with vandalism. I've unprotected it. --bainer (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't protect it. I didn't say that. Note that I used the adjective form "protected", modifying the noun "redirection". So, to rephrase: What's up with the ridiculous redirection (which happens to be protected)? --Calton | Talk 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)