If you're writing me a comment about an RfAr request or case that I'm acting as a clerk on, click here. I do move comments around when I see fit.

Archive info:

Archives

/Archive1 Start - Jun 30, 2005 /Archive2 July 1 2005 - July 23 2006 /Archive3 July 24 2006 - Feb 25 2007 /Archive4 March 2007 /Archive5 April - July 2007 /Archive6 August - September 2007 /Archive7 October - November 2007 /Archive8 December 2007 - May 2008 /Archive9 June - December 2008 /Archive10 2010 /Archive11 2011

RfAr related archives: March 2007 April/May 2007 June/July 2007 August/September 2007 October 2007 - February 2008 March 2008 - ?  ? - June 2011

WP:RfAr related

From what I gather, it seems to revolve around the supposed unreliability of a source I used. ". Can you go to "http://book.jqcq.com/product/30157.html", affirm this book is actually a chinese history book, and then go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration and make a comment, to the effect whether it is a chinese history book or not(which from what I gather is the argument: it's not a chinese history book). This would help the dispute a lot. Thank you.

Teeninvestor (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you clerked that case, is it really correct that the Final Decision section is empty? Regards SoWhy 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, is it true that this case is now overdue for opening? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely, (and probably). I'll work on that when I wake up some time tomorrow. >.< - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at NYyankees51 evidence over the weekend I think Anthony Appleyard has behaved inappropriately in closing move requests. I asked on the main case talk page if he could be added as a party can you make sure the committee sees it? Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Penwhale, my eyes may be playing tricks on me, but it appears by the vote that it's reached net 4 support to close, and the 24 hours has passed? Am I mistaken? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was busy and requested help closing, but it seems everyone was not available this weekend... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I think that the mentions of the topic bans on the talk pages, such as here, might not be quite right. They were banned by ArbCom, not by an admin, no? I had a dig and found something on the Prem Rawat talk page back from 2009, when two users were topic banned by ArbCom, if that helps at all. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [1] Paul August ☎ 15:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... err : [2] Paul August ☎ 16:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penwhale. I think that remedy 10.1 should have been superseded by 10. By my reading 10 was preferred by six arbs: PhilKnight, Jclemens, David Fuchs, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad and John Vandenberg, while 10.1 was only preferred by 4 arbs: Kirill Lokshin, Coren, Roger Davies and Elen of the Roads. Paul August ☎ 17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of the cases where I read 10 as "8-4" and 10.1 as "9-1" - 10.1 is a better compromise as the voice seems more uniform... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penwhale - I was hoping you could inform Geremia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that he was topic-banned under the abortion arb case, as no one seems to have put a notice on his talk page and I'm worried that this might preclude anyone from sanctioning him for the topic-ban and 1RR violations that he's currently up to. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You protected this talk page a short time ago (while I was in the process of responding to comments there). It does not appear to be standard practice to cut off such talk page discussion at the close of a case, and I see no direction from ArbCom to do so. Protecting the page during active debate will not prevent the discussion from continuing, but only fragment it and provide ammunition to those already criticizing the process as insufficiently open and transparent. You should reverse yoiur action.

On a pedantic note, misspelling "attention" in a prominent heading urging users to pay attention in not exactly an auspicious note. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for the full-protection is due to a few reasons:

1. The case clerk trainee Lord Roem is not a sysop, so he cannot do it himself;
2. The discussion threads there seems to be not related to the case itself (and ergo not the proper forum; see next point)
3. Once a case is closed, very little attention will be given to its related pages (save for the main case page itself).

• I'm assuming that you were going to respond to a thread discussing ArbCom. AC Noticeboard Talk might be a better forum, as there's currently ongoing discussion. (Or were you trying to reply to something else?) And you have my permission to shame the person that misspelled attention (in a nice way) - although I can't find the typo... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Addendum: Please feel free to shame me. orz - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re [3]: Is that instruction publicly available? I'd like to understand how ArbCom communicates (or fails to do so). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Instructions from ArbCom to its clerks are generally coordinated on the clerks-l mailing list. Because that list is private, all instructions on that list is not available publicly. Thus, unfortunately, it is not publicly available. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So this falls under the "fails to communicate" case. May I ask if there is a mechanism that allows you to distinguish "ArbCom" from "one Arbiter" on that list? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Individual arbitrator post to the mailing list individually - and I'm not sure what you are trying to ask, so you need to be more specific. Although, pursuant to the relevant section at Banning Policy, the ban notice should have stayed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have, for quite some time, the concern that the arbitration process becomes less and less transparent to the average Wikipedia user, and that it is unclear who is responsible for which decisions and actions. I fear that ArbCom loses its real, consensus-based authority as a result, and thus tries to rely more and more on formal, procedural "authoritah", to the detriment of the project. You referring to "instructions from ArbCom" is such an example. The average (heck, even the experienced) user does not know who instructed you via which channel and in which form, and does not know if there is e.g. a deliberate (and deliberated) decision by ArbCom, or just an opinion by a single arbiter, or a general consensus on a mailing list that you have to interpret yourself. In particular, its not clear who is responsible for the decision. Wikipedia:Banning_policy#User_pages is a "should", not a must, and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Moreover, policies leave room for WP:IAR in a way that ArbCom increasingly does not seem to accept with respect to its decisions. Thus, it is very relevant if you do an action with explicit ArbCom backing, or not. Sorry that you now are the target of (this version of) my standard rant - I'm concerned about the process, not you individually. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan, I'm glad to confirm what Penwhale says. In terms of "how" the instruction was issued, I think you said it best "general consensus on a mailing list". Thanks and regards, Lord Roem (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When an arbitration clerk takes an action in the execution of their official duties as clerk, they do so with the full authority of the Committee. Those actions are undone at the undoing user's peril. I find it extremely unlikely that it would ever occur, but should a clerk ever undertake an "official" action that does not have the backing of the Committee, we will be sure to revert it and respond appropriately. There are reasons why we do what we do, and we have been entrusted by the community to do them. If you don't like it, you're quite welcome to run for election next time yourself; I can assure you it is far more difficult than you seem to think. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like you to resign as an ArbCom clerk, as I believe that said clerks have a duty to maintain the integrity of the arbcom process. Your choice to return the comments of a banned user are within your purview, but your choice not to block said banned user are not, and certainly your choice to make a statement and not recuse are beyond the bounds. Under what circumstances would you resign? Hipocrite (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would certainly be involved in this case, so I would not be acting as clerk. And I was involved in the previous AE (which also means that I could not act in this case, whether the editor is a sock or not). Considering that the Amendment request was NOT started by a banned user, I assumed good faith and let it be. For me to use an admin tool related to stuff that I would recuse myself is asking the impossible. (ec) I'm not done with my review of the thing. Would you HOLD ON. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to add that I completely do not agree with Hipocrite (as no one should with what he said here) and do not think you should resign, even though I know you were not planning to. Silverseren^C 11:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please inform me when you have completed your review of the "whole thing." Hipocrite (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wrote on both parts of the amendment, as well as putting up my recusal note. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you engaged in off-wiki communications (specifically, on the clerks list) with respect to the case? There are a series of actions that it appears to me you have failed to do. Please inform me when you have completed your review of the "whole thing," and feel that you have taken all of the actions you are obligated, as a clerk, to do, regardless of your recusal. Hipocrite (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No off-wiki communications on clerks list. I have requested help to look into who Rue Cardinale is at irc:#wikipedia-en-spi on IRC, though. And a series of actions of what? Unless you explain to me, I cannot answer you back. Please hit me with a clue stick, as I'm having difficulty trying to figure out what's going on. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will now hit you with said clue stick. The fact that you did not take any of these actions without my prompting is amongst the reasons that I am strongly considering approaching ArbCom to have you returned to trainee clerk status.

1. You should have banned the obvious sock for violating Wikipedia:ILLEGIT section 3.
2. If you felt that notification of parties to the AE was appropriate, you should have notified Enric Naval, Maunus, MBisanz, Fut.Perf, EdJohnston, Salvio, Cailil, and T. Canens to fix the WP:CANVASS violation that the sock you should have blocked engaged in.
3. You should have notified the clerks list that the amendment request was being disrupted by an obvious sock.
4. This might have taken a bit more research, but perhaps given that you are seeking to have someone topic banned, you should have realized that "Rue Cardinale" is a street name that has frequently been used to harass MathSci by Echigo Mole.

• Given your "difficulty" in figuring this stuff out, I contend that you may have less than the level of understanding required to be an arbitration clerk. Hipocrite (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hipocrite, I'm afraid your stick is defective: it appears to be attuned to some other universe where, somehow, your illusions that you can demand action from involved administrators on your say-so has been enshrined into policy. If you knew that an editor was a returning banned user, then the onus was on you to provide evidence – in a proper venue. Nobody on this project is obligated to spring to action at your least hint; least of which someone who would be obligated to avoid acting directly. — Coren ^(talk) 12:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you telling me that you do not believe that any sufficiently aware individual should know "Rue Cardinale" was an invalid sock, or that it is not the obligation of clerks to maintain the integrity of arbitration proceedings, or that blocking socks who involve themselves with arbitration proceedings is not maintaining the integrity of said proceedings? Hipocrite (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I am telling you that you are here ranting about the wrong things to the wrong people for the wrong reason. SPI is that way, and your opinions on how arbitration proceedings should occur should go there, where they will get all the attention they deserve. — Coren ^(talk) 12:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hipocrite, I sense that you do care very much about well-being of the arbitration process. Might I interest you in becoming one? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not be approved as a clerk. If appointed I would serve. Hipocrite (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

Could I ask you to take another look at the templates you've added to Talk:Abortion? You wrote that the topic-banned editors were banned only from the article but were permitted to edit the talk page. That's not correct - as far as I can tell, these editors were banned from all abortion-related pages, a term that typically encompasses all namespaces and not just articlespace. This distinction was discussed on the Proposed Decision talkpage, and my understanding is that the Arbs explicitly voted to ban these editors from all namespaces, including Talk:Abortion. Would you mind taking another look and updating these templates? Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 05:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'd like confirmation here also. And see below.DMSBel (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there further discussion, re. not extending to talk pages?DMSBel (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The texts for template {{User article ban arb}} doesn't have a syntax to state ban from the talk page. However, the topic ban covers talk page as "broadly construed" implies that they are also banned from talk pages. This is the issue due to the existing wording of existing templates. Same issue takes place at the Talk:Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Talk:Support for the legalization of abortion. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused, I had not seen that there had been a change from articles to pages, and the first two arbitators who registered support (for my topic ban) seem to have done so before the change from articles to pages.DMSBel (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• These days most topic bans are construed as widely as possible, which includes talk pages. It's been the standard practice. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks.DMSBel (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I see what the issue is: yeah, the template doesn't provide a way to add text that they're banned from talk pages too. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I am concerned, I only need notification on my own talk page, Penwhale, that you had clarified the issue here was enough for me.DMSBel (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{User article ban arb}} is taking up quite a bit of space. I think we can WP:AGF somewhat and assume that the five topic banned editors will all respect their ban; if not, surely one of us will remember. Would it be OK to remove the five instances of the template? NW (Talk) 15:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Most likely. That template needs modification in my opinion, but we'll have to make do... Go ahead and do that. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously guys? Wouldn't you wait until after there had been a violation of the sanctions before posting a badge of shame to the talk page of every abortion-related article to make sure that there are no violations of the sanctions? Even if you choose not to have any faith in the editors under sanction at least have some in the scores of admins watching these articles. - Haymaker (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's excessive to template abortion-related talkpages with the names of specific editors who are topic-banned. I can't recall that being done in other cases, although maybe it has been. Just do without the templates. MastCell ^Talk 04:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The current procedure calls for posting of article bans to the talk pages last time I checked...

• Just removed that. NW (Talk) 04:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to question this, is it definitely closed? I see several arbitors have yet to vote on the move to close, maybe I am not familiar with how these things are normally wrapped up?DMSBel (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I see now that not all have to vote.DMSBel (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Penwhale,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.206.39 (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Penwhale. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Penwhale. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you contacted by TrevelyanL85A2 off-wiki with respect to the ongoing arbitration request? Hipocrite (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No - I'm answering this on the RFAR page, hang on... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 13:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney is a prominent politician and the fixed period that you set down on this page is too long and a lot can happen for the next three days. Users should be warned instead and reprimanded instead of locking a very prominent page. It's akin to locking the Barack Obama page leaving no one to edit it.

Another thing is a user made a big change which is the unflattering image before the lock which is Skidmore #3 instead of the agreed Skidmore #6 which has been used for months. The change is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney&diff=502717588&oldid=502713163 which uses the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg instead of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_6.jpg If the unlock does not happen, I request that you edit the page to change it to #6 in favor of the community's preferred image instead of that user's preferred image. ViriiK (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find evidence that skidmore #6 was preferred (the only discussion I saw did not reference it). If you can provide me with a link to that discussion, I will be glad to change it. Added: The issue is that there are too many parties that would need to be warned, and the history of that article reads more like a dispute rather than disruption. As we try not to block punitively, we protect and require editors to discuss, instead. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sucks to have the bio of a presidential candidate protected, but I can understand why you did it. Incidentally, this is exactly why I complained about the lack of administrative response at WP:AN3 - when edit-warring doesn't get nipped in the bud and people get away with it, then it tends to escalate into an arms race and articles end up locked, which punishes everybody. I still think timely administrative intervention could have nipped this in the bud, but maybe I'm just grouchy. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The number of editors that would have had to be blocked is what made me protect the page instead -_- - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material shouldn't be the same to count it as revert.From WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions."--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear that it's a revert; also, it's a content dispute, so 3RR is not the proper forum for it. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What not clear he reverted this edit [4].And most of the reports in WP:3RR are part of the content dispute.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful: (1) I don't see him reverting that edit (the stuff that you removed was not added back), and (2) at 3RR we look at all sides of the reverts. Either way, your diffs are not convincing. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) [5] ,(2) fine by me I have discussed thoroughly with this user on article talk page.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I count 3, because this one is not a revert. Unless you can show me evidence that that edit reverted something? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted this edit [6].Words starting with "Dhimmitude refers to discrimination against or treating... "--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user made another revert [7]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is utter nonsense...YOU are edit warring against consensus. you removed sourced content. my revert is totally justified (which amounts to a *single* revert of your *disruptive* edit.) you are now being *disruptive* because your misrepresentation of sources, your edit warring allegations ended in total failure. deliberately making disruptive edits so that you get reverted won't get me banned... it will get you banned for gaming the system.-- altetendekrabbe  10:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, BOTH of you have reverted more than 3 times. STOP, AND DISCUSS, before blocks are applied. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see his latest edits on the noticeboard here, [8]. he is adding unrelated edits to the diffs. this is extremely serious disruptive behavior.-- altetendekrabbe  10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove you accusation or strike it I only made two edits to the article(counting consectuve edit as one per WP:3RR) in the last two days--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have blocked altetendekrabbe based on the additional revert. Still reviewing other editors. Kuru (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged; I do believe that there is fault on both sides here, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, but I don't see enough to entertain extreme edit warring by one party. Other methods have been tried; page protection, discussions, etc. If there's a general sanction that you feel can resolve the issue less unilaterally, then please feel free to reverse any action I've taken without consultation (I'm going to be offline for then next six hours or so). Kuru (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. We can talk about it later. Won't act on this unless situation changes. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Colton Cosmic. Dear Penwhale, I am asking that you look over and unblock my account. I wanted to put this on the administrator's noticeboard but it won't accept IP edits. I decided to post it on three admins' talkpages instead. I picked you three for no reason other than I noticed you had made recent edits. Colton Cosmic.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.199.240 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Colton Cosmic. Bah Penwhale, your fellow admin Timotheus Canens is on me like white on rice. He even reverted my comment at my own talkpage (and then locked the page) but you can view my comment here [10]. I hope you read my comment. The short version of this affair is that TC banned me for WP:SOCK but I say I didn't do it. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.28.75 (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to use the proper forums for appeals. I am unable to assist you. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Penwhale;

You recently blocked me from editing Sandra Fluke, by acceding to Hoary's request for page protection. While there have been some new IP SPAs crop up, their activities have been short and have not occurred in that last week. There is essentially one IP editor making extensive contributions, and that is me. I would ask if you have considered the actual practical effect of this block, particularly since you followed it with the helpful comment, "I would like to see more discussion taking place on the talk page." The complaint I made about Hoary's request was that Casprings, which is virtually a Sandra Fluke SPA was repetetively inserting material that had major WP:RS issues, without addressing the questions extensively raised by myself and others on Talk, nor abiding by consensus. If you meant to block me, even though no allegation of edit warring was made against me, I would appreciate and be open to an explanation, if not, would you consider reversing this block; its effect is to make it less likely that Casprings will in the future acknowledge issues on Talk.

PS; the ANI was filed as consensus was achieved, and so also circumvented the Talk discussion. If really pushed after twice establishing WP:RS/WP:BLP consensus and then twice getting User consensus for removal, probably would have taken it to the WP:RS board. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't block you; the page protection was intended because I'm not seeing enough discussion. Ergo, protection forces editors to compromise so there will be less edit warring. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to stay away from shrike... but see how is after me like a hound, [11]. he should also try to de-escalate rather than follow me around. i am pretty sure he will begin an edit war pretty soon (that is his modus operandi). the last time he edited there was like weeks ago... suddenly he began editing again..today... on my post. that's not a coincidence. anyway, i'm not going to be part of that discussion anymore. could you please ask him to stop stalking me?-- altetendekrabbe  18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps}

I've activated the account. Sorry for the long (almost 3 week) delay.--v/r - TP 13:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I am used to time spent in limbo. ^^; - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger closed this so that can be deleted per that. Arcandam (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Why does your editnotice say "Please pay attetion to this message" (emphasis mine)? Is it a typo or intentional?[reply]

• Oops. It's been ages and I didn't even realize that -_- - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly did grab my attention, so in a way it worked really well (for pedantic idiots like myself). Arcandam (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the AE thread which led to this request, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Race_and_intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rue Cardinale (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penwhale - you put page protection on the Newco Rangers article that was timed to expire at the same time as the Rangers FC article. Since then protection on the Rangers FC article has been extended to "(expires 22:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC))". Could I ask that you extend the protection on the Newco Rangers article to coincide with the expiry time at the Rangers FC article. It makes sense that both articles are protected until consensus is achieved. Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya,

Can you extend the protection to this article by another week, we have now finally moved forward and got agreement on one point, but we are still not at a point where we have a article ready to go. We are working on getting a neutral non bias article ready in the sandbox but we are still some way off from getting a consensus on it. Could you also extend the Rangers F.C. article as well as these two are interlinked and edit warring will begin as soon as protection is lifted because there is still no consensus. I will request the admin who protected it extend it as well just rather get both extended it might be best looking at 2 weeks as it really taking time to get this dispute resolved but 1 week gives us more time, by us i mean my self and User:Fishiehelper2 as we are on the other side of the argument to each other but we are working to get one article that will combine both the above but we are meeting with opposition so it is hard work to get the consensusAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will be traveling, so I unfortunately cannot help you. However, I will be posting at Phantomsteve (protecting admin at Rangers F.C) asking him to protect both if he deems it necessary. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good sir. I'd like to point something out to you concerning your handling of an e-w case this morning. I am not challenging the wisdom of your decision, but I do have a constructive criticism.

You elected to decline the complaint, and I see where not singling out one individual, when several were in the wrong, was the fairest decision possible. (That said, I think there may have been some deficiency in the process used to arrive at that decision, but that is only guesswork, it's not my business, and if the final outcome was just, the rest is moot.)

BUT, you were presented with an opportunity - a fairly obvious one - to address one of the root causes, and I think it unconscionable that you kept silent when just a few words of guidance was clearly in order. There is no question that you saw this (diff), but did you grasp the implications? The user is convinced that he did nothing wrong. Indeed, he thinks his actions were fully justified. As an admin, by not using the "teachable moment" to good advantage, you have likely reinforced that thinking. Belchfire-TALK 17:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't that particular issue addressed at ANI? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. Allow me to clarify. I'm not making an issue out of the nature of his comment. What I wanted you to see is that he made that comment to illustrate that he views himself as innocent of edit-warring. Please observe this back-and-forth exchange between the two users, re-formatted slightly for improved clarity:

1. Woa cowboy. "Both" of you? I wasn't edit warring. – Lionel (talk) 12:01 am, Today (UTC−7)
2. Avanu, I have no interest in edit-warring. I have brought multiple articles to Dispute Resolution in order to resolve these issues. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:03 am, Today (UTC−7)
3. It's great that you went to DRN. However that is not a license to edit war. – Lionel (talk) 12:05 am, Today (UTC−7)
4. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:07 am, Today (UTC−7)
5. (Intervening comments omitted)
6. Arc's right. It wasn't an ad hominem, it was a counter-example of begging the question. The point is that, in order to stop, you must first start. That should be obvious. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 7:21 am, Today (UTC−7)

He is stating rhetorically that Lionel's allegation is false, i.e., he wasn't edit warring. But I'm pretty sure that isn't the reason you let him off the hook. My concern is that he not be allowed to believe that, or it encourages future conflict. So I'm asking you to counsel him on his behavior, to help promote harmony and collaboration. As far as I can see, he wasn't really warned in any meaningful way by someone in authority. As I pointed out earlier, this is a missed opportunity. Belchfire-TALK 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what you're saying, although I thought the chain of thought was addressed at ANI too (that counter-example pointing out the possible fallacies that he would have faced responding either way). In any case, I'm pretty sure that my "as if restrictions were performed as is I'd imagine it'd be on both sides" should be taken as a warning, even though it didn't sound serious enough. Facepalm on my part. -_- - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to let the dead horse rot, but if you want to know what I'm thinking, please don't try to read my mind, just ask me. As I tried to point out to Lionel near the end, I am under no illusion that I have a "license to edit war" or generally have any more right to revert an article than anyone else does. I've worked hard to avoid edit wars, engaging in discussions, dispute resolution and simply taking breaks to let things calm down. Despite this, there are still stretches of time when there are many edits, and I can see how these might look like intentional edit-warring. Nonetheless, my intention is quite the opposite and I am always open to constructive advice[12] on how to do better. Thanks for keeping a calm head. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've talked before where we worked over the issue of the Mitt Romney main picture which I thank you for fixing. I've had a user deploy a false 3RR warning against me which he's using it under the guise of "edit-warring" although I reverted once over that particular subject (twice if you count multiple subjects in the last 24 hours). I already gave my reasons in the edit summary and concluded it there. What can I do about false warnings? I feel this is a case of WP:HOUND. You can see here [13] ViriiK (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Still said, edit summary is not a replacement for talk page discussion thread. As I have not seen much discussion (mostly back and forth reverts), I figured a full protection at that article temporarily may assist in solving disputes. I protected it for 4 days. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then he should have been patient in waiting for a response then instead of going straight to 3RR warning. I don't care about the page protection since another user requested protecting the page. My issue is that in my edit summaries and his contribution, he was doing it to harass me and in order to manipulate it so that he could create a history that supposedly I am a proliferant edit-warrer see: [14]. He just registered no more than a month ago and now he's suddenly an expert when I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for years. He throws so many accusations of edit-warring around it's not even funny anymore when he has engaged and has been legitimately 3RR warned at least 3 times. ViriiK (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penwhale, just so you know, there has been beaucoup discussion at DRN (x2). That's the major reason why you see less discussion than you should at the article's Talk page. ViriiK and Still have both been involved. Incidentally, I requested full PP for the article about, oh, 30 minutes ago. It appears you didn't see that request and acted on your own, but either way things will get to cool off, which is what was needed. If you are by chance considering any follow-up action, I urge you to look carefully at the DRN discussions first, and perhaps consult with the volunteer/moderators. Thanks for the bucket of cold water, it was needed. Regards. Belchfire-TALK 06:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the DRN discussion was about "substance abuse", and I've been careful to keep that term in, regardless of my misgivings. The edit war comes from Viriik's refusal to allow any mention of Love Won Out, which Focus on the Family founded. There was some discussion, but Viriik has not been part of it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this is becoming a clear case of WP:HOUND since he's keeping a close eye on my contribution history. I did not appreciate it when he threw around the edit-warring accusation and would like an apology which he will naturally refuse to do so especially when he's demanded apologies from other users and myself. I simply agreed with Lionet's edit and reasoning for doing so and left it in the edit summary. That does not warrant the 3RR warning he clearly failed to read the rules per here WP:3RR. ViriiK (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @ViriiK: You don't need to register to edit - and his username pretty much said what was his IP. Veterancy doesn't really matter regards to normal editing.
• @Belchfire: I don't like to block unless I think it's obvious, and generally I would look at all parties involved on said article. As there's DRN on-going, it's not appropriate to block. Thus, protection. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than not needing to register to edit, my point was what gives a user the right to falsely warn others? I was at 1RR on that specific subject and made a good judgment which I believed personally it was WP:UNDUE and agreed with Lionet's change. The fact that he admits in the link that he wants to give me a black mark on my record in the hopes of demonstrating that I'm supposedly a proliferate edit-warrer when I am not is very worrisome. ViriiK (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not true. I was just pointing out that deleting my notice wasn't going to get you anywhere; it just made you look unrepentant. As for a black mark, do you mean like this?

Look, let's cut the banter and accusations: this is ultimately a content dispute. You're going to need to go to the Talk page and persuasively explain why we should think it's undue.Good luck with that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If people do not support Still's view, then there's nothing to worry about. User conduct, in this case, would belong at ANI. (And false warning discussions should go there, indeed) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DRNs are both closed. The results of the first one have not been honored.[15] more here [16] This stopped being about the article some time ago. It's now about saving face. I appreciate your restraint and I'm not lobbying to have anybody blocked. As I mentioned earlier, I see that counseling is needed. You seem to be saying that ANI is the way to get that done, so I'll take it under advisement. Belchfire-TALK 07:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the DRN's have been honored. Please stick to the facts. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a request at RFPP regarding the Ye Shiwen article. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 23:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at the Talk:Rangers F.C/Sandbox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I have an understandably low opinion of Wikipedia administrators, given recent events, I do want to say that you were fair and reasonable. Thanks for not being like them, and goodbye. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was on Wikipedia:Translators available and notice that you were on the list for Chinese to English translators and wondered if you could translate some of the stub articles for the King of Eastern Zhou at Template:Kings of Zhou? Thanks.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Penwhale. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of prestige classes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Extremely unlikely that a significant number of the entries in this list will have sourcing from a reliable, independent source.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education still carry a warning about Pete K. It looks like he hasn't made an edit since 2007, so is it OK if we take them down? I figure if for some reason he does show back up someone will probably remember the arbcom case. a13ean (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]