User talk:Penwhale

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:
/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

RfAr related:

March 2007 April/May 2007 June/July 2007 August/September 2007 October 2007 - February 2008

---

WP:RfAr related

Geogre-WMC case

The clerks' noticeboard states that:

Arbitrators who vote "abstain" on a given proposal are deducted from the number of available Arbitrators on that proposal (i.e., the same as if they were recused on that issue). Thus, the majority with respect to such a proposal may be different from the remaining proposals in the same case.

As such, I think you should recalculate which items pass, since some arbitrators abstained from voting on some items in that case. TML (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I try to do that with most of it, but yes, I do miss a few things every now and then. (Granted, I'm technically not clerking that case...) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom dispute

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)

Other stuff

??? - Romanian politics/party colours/SZNC

Still I do not understand why is an used color template deleted. I specified it was not made for testing. This color template is used in Hungarian and Romanian wiki also. -- Ercsaba74 19:55, Jun 19, 2008 (EEST) —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing part of the template, as all it came out was bgcolor="#000099" which by itself does nothing. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In Hungarian and Romanian wiki is enough. I corrected the problem I think. -- Ercsaba74 20:58, Jun 19, 2008 (EEST) —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

AH! I see it now... It's transcluded, that would be why that I made a mistake at the start. sorry! - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled

I'm a bit puzzled by your comment here. I don't quite understand what you're saying. Could you please clarify? -- ChrisO (talk)

Look at the related remedy. The wording says Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Nowhere in the remedy does it grant Elonka the right to impose blanket 0RR (even though it may work). I'm just saying that the imposed 0RR was not granted by ArbCom, and can be challenged. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But it goes on to say bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, a 0RR is a restriction on reverts, so I think her 0RR was okay. It also says bans are okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah. If you read the paragraph as a whole -- he needs to be warned and THEN 0RR can be imposed on him. It means that a blanket 0RR is not called for. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's not what you said before, you said she can't do it, then you said she can if she warns him. The remedy clearly says revert restrictions are okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem at the moment is that it was a blanket 0RR -- that includes us, who never edited anything related to that area. Is she empowered to do that--- that's what I meant. Yes, revert restrictions are okay, but not as blanket 0RR. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I see what you're saying. But she could also fully protect it, which would be even more limiting than a blanket 0RR, and full protection is a standard remedy always available. Would you agree that a 0RR on the editor in question is acceptable? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is: it was full-protected. Elonka lifted the full protection to introduce the 0RR which, in my opinion, allows people to war over the article. I'd rather (and prefer) a consensus on the talk page first. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who requested full protection in the first place [1] - to be honest, I was very surprised that it was lifted before any consensus had been reached (it still hasn't been). By the way, one important point in this matter is that Elonka takes the view that even BLP edits aren't permitted under 0RR. My edit in this case was pursuant to both BLP and WP:COPY (since there was a copyvio involved); I was under the impression that BLP (legitimately used) always trumps xRR. That's a policy question that I hope the arbs will sort out. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, as we've already discussed, there's a difference between blatant "must be removed immediately!" BLP violations, and others which can be treated with a bit more patience, as normal WP:V issues. Also, your revert was clearly just a "POV" revert at the time, and had nothing to do with BLP. You only came up with that afterwards, after the ban.

Penwhale, just to be clear, even with the 0RR restrictions, WP:AGF and WP:BITE still definitely apply. If a new editor wanders in and reverts, I'm not going to immediately ban them. Instead, I might point out the conditions to them and explain that the article is under ArbCom restrictions. This happened with Liftarn. He did a revert, I left a polite note on his talkpage,[2] he chose to revert his reversion, and all was fine. --Elonka 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already gone over with you on your talk page the exact sequence of edits in which I advised Julia1987 not to violate BLP with those claims on the talk page, she went ahead and did it anyway, and I removed the single line that was problematic, leaving the rest of her additions intact. But we'll see what the arbitrators have to say. I'm confident that they will agree that Julia1987's edit was a BLP violation and removing it was the right thing to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Penwhale, the I-P restrictions can be imposed on pages as well as on editors. In fact, the very first restriction imposed under the ruling was a revert restriction a page: [3] In fact, the Pallywood article itself has previously been under revert restrictions:[4] Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama protection

I am not sure how you can justify adding full protection to an article that has not been edited for 16 hours. Please reconsider. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to request that this be lifted. The only real editing going on was my not so smart revert (which I then requested be re-reverted). Could you please reconsider? Arkon (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, the protection is only in place so a discussion can take place and that once it takes place, I'll remove the full protection. The lack of discussion is what upsets me really. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope this doesn't sound rude, but you may want to take a look at the talk page again. The discussion has been extremely lively. It might not have resolved anything yet, but thats no reason to protect a page. Arkon (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As a courtesy, please note that I've commented on this on the ANI page at WP:ANI#More trouble at Barack Obama - you marked it resolved but that seems to be the best place to discuss process. In short, it was a false ANI report, and there was no edit war. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Robert Half International

Was it not possible for you to simply restore/revert this page, which was for a major company on the List of S&P 500 companies, to an earlier non-spam version of the page? Instead, you deleted it on Jun 19, apparently due to a spam modification of some of the content. Only you know what was there in prior versions, before you deleted the whole page. For what it's worth, this practice of some administrators deleting all page history from view, rather than taking the time to revert/restore/correct a spammed page to a better version, is the main reason I stopped bothering to do any work in Wikipedia. 12.72.192.34 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article was in need of rewrites and the deleted revision violated the copyright of the company's website. Yes, I believe that delete may be overboard, but there really isn't much for me to revert to, as many revisions read like advertisements. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Half International is noteworthy, otherwise it wouldn't be able to sell $4.6 billion of services per year. I am a neutral party, and am willing to rewrite whatever article there was as soon as you revert it. Just let me know. Bagsc (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Bagsc

If you want, I'll restore it and move it to userspace until you're done. We can work on the details regarding that restore. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo

FYI, there is a "Dinding" of fact in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently I lost my typing capability for a sec. Thanks. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No threaded discussions

What does this mean? No threaded discussions? Where are the rules? I looked everywhere for them, it appears the rules are the Wiki usual: regulars do what they want, and apply rules when non-regulars say something they disagree with? Please, would it be too much for someone to provide a link to the rules when enforcing them against a non-regular, or an explanation? Skip it. I know better. --Blechnic (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Arbitration_guide#Your_statement. You're supposed to respond to other people's statements in your own section. I regret that I didn't move your statements to your section. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Or remove other people's threads from other peoples' sections including mine? Rules on Wikipedia are so arbitrarily enforced (ie, you piss of a "regular" and it's enforced against you), that I never quite know what to do when people quote rules at me. Duck, I suppose. --Blechnic (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Blechnic, you didn't "piss off" me. The plain fact is that the request for arbitration page has strict procedures because the site's most difficult disputes end up there. If threaded discussion were permitted at these statements then the page would become unreadable. A share of the editors who end up as named parties are experts at gaming the system, and one of the simplest ways to game precedent is to point to occasions where another person was given a slide, then fire accusations of favoritism and bias. For this reason, and because I've had involvement in many cases, I had to make the same request of you that I'd make of anyone. I thought you were a well-intentioned editor who takes this site's good faith policy to heart and that there would be no problem--I certainly expected my follow-up explanation yesterday would have settled any remaining doubt. Apparently it hasn't and I'm very disappointed. I was pleased with your diligence in the CS case and came to your defense when other Wikipedians thought you had gone too far. Now I begin to wonder whether they were seeing something I'd missed. It certainly is unusual that such a minor procedural request generates as much resentment as this. I hope this is just a bad week for you, and that things will return to normal soon, and I bear you no ill will. Durova^Charge! 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Wow! My gawd. All this because I asked for a link? I really missed something. Penwhale, I will take your talk page off of my watchlist, and I apologize for my part in leading up to this post by Durova. --Blechnic (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day Penwhale

I don't think our wiki paths have crossed, so it's great to 'meet' you! I made this post just now, and then noticed that this page had been protected by you - this seems very sensible to me, and I thought you might be a good person to chat to about discussing how this year's election might work - or actually at this stage, discussing how the community might discuss how this year's election might work! best, Privatemusings (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion

Hey PW, I am hoping you can restore the article on Robert Half International, which was recently the victim of an A7 speedy. RHI is a Fortune 500 and S&P 500 company, the second largest (by market cap.) company in its industry in the U.S., and if the article did not make any claims of importance or significance, I will make sure that is does once it is restored. Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see in a couple threads above, I'll restore it, but I need to know where to restore it to. (As in, I want to restore it to a user's space for a re-write before moving it into mainspace). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I created a subpage to my ID, User:UnitedStatesian/Robert_Half_International. If you could restore it there (with the Robert Half history, not mine), that would be great. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored and moved. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk template

I've created a template shortening the work for you, it is the same thing as used on your userpage, converted to template form. Cheers. —Sunday ^Scribe 00:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Concern with some edits

I'm making this comment not as a clerk of the Arbitration Committee, but as a fellow editor. I found it hard to agree with what you've done with these edits you made to the WP:RFAR page. It is very bad etiquette to alter/change other people's statements, even formatting wise, unless you're explicitly asked to do so (which is why that even though there is a supposed limit in comment size, clerks generally do not enforce it unless asked by Arbitrators - and it's only enforced when the original commentator refuses to shorten it after notices are given). In the future, please refrain from editing other people's comments, even formatting wise. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I'm replying to you in both your capacities: as an editor, but more particularly as a clerk. The nasty business that happened a couple of months ago ended with me making a conclusion - I still maintain that.

Regardless of what stage of dispute resolution, I enforce formatting guidelines to maintain consistency - the guidelines are in force for a reason. Ignoring them on some occasions and enforcing them on certain others is one problem with the dispute resolution process. The RFC/U process gave all appearances that it deteriorated into an attack zone due to lack of enforcement - this is now resolved in some ways due to more consistent enforcement of formatting guidelines. The guidelines exist to maintain consistency for all parties. If that isn't their purpose, I wonder what is - especially if it becomes a norm to neither respect or enforce those guidelines consistently across all stages of dispute resolution. Although arbitration may be a binding process, that neither eliminates, nor changes the purpose of those guidelines.

With or without notices, arbitrators are entitled to ensure such consistency is maintained (by completely removing statements that fail to adhere to the word limit). Kirill was bold enough to do so for the greater good and I endorse his action on the relevant request - as well as his message to the clerks' noticeboard: a request that the clerks get their act together. I did not strictly enforce that word limit or remove any statement; I merely touched a couple that were unreasonably long so that they are not removed in part or in entirity. Although I can appreciate the chance that John Vandenberg or Abtract may not have been pleased that their statements were alterred by someone else, I am confident they appreciate my reasons for me doing so, as well as the edits I made - unless you know something that I don't. If I am mistaken, I will apologise to those affected. Also bear in mind that both of them were given a courtesy note that my edits could be treated as a mere interim action and that they may change their statements accordingly as they please.

My own opinion differs from yours. I would appreciate thoughtful action being taken on any excessively long statements I made at the RFArb page - so no, this is not a plain case of very bad etiquette: your opinion is not absolute. Rather, I think it's futile to single my edits out as if I did not give them any thought. My edits highlight only one potential problem - certain clerks' refusal to maintain consistency. However, just because I highlight this inadequacy, the fault (if any) does not become mine. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you did not comment on this. With regards to formatting, I followed the same style that clerks have used previously this year (diffs available). However, it appears SV's understanding of correct formatting is different. Could you link me to a relevant guideline that indicates which edit is correct in substance (I.e. whether my edit was incorrect or whether SV's edit was correct)? However, if there is none, please let me know - in that case, I'd like to open a discussion to resolve this difference so the relevant guidelines or policies may be updated for the benefit of the community. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen that particular edit and will post a response once I figure out what SV was doing. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're confused about what I am talking about. I'm not talking about your edits on the 15th. I'm talking about the fact that you collapsed other people's comments into boxes. The heading styles, personally, I do not care as much (even though the 5 ='s makes it easier to link personally). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded at my talk page following AGK's comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland article names & Mooretwin

fyi, User:Mooretwin, who is a party to this case, has been blocked for a week; see User_talk:SheffieldSteel#Intervening_with_Mooretwin. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Email for you

New one in your inbox. AGK 02:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Where? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops

Sorry about the revert on CF. Missed that you were a clerk.(olive (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Penwhale. You have new messages at Amwestover's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More talkback

Hello, Penwhale. You have new messages at Amwestover's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Sigh

I read his note, and you should know that as I responded to it and then you responded to me. So where did the doubt come in regarding that matter? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The courtesy blank, I think, is the full page blanked (as far as I know, I was not instructed otherwise; other arbitrators have mentioned that full-page blanked may be actions that needed to be taken). However, as they did not vote on that, I cannot perform that action without explicitly given instructions to do so. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, your edit summary implied that if I read this statement my edit wouldn't have occurred. Obviously I wasn't editing the page to enforce an arb ruling or any dictate from an individual arb. I'm not a clerk. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we were confused the first time around. :3 What NYB suggested is that instead of removing your comments and leave a diff, you add a note saying that you made the comment while it was named at the previous location. The courtesy blanking would apply to all the pages instead, not just your comments. I try not to change the meaning of the motions that are passed, however. (I don't want to have to judge accuracy so I C&P and fix minor things if needed) :3 - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found NYB's comments confusing I should say, and he didn't explain when I asked him to elaborate (although you tried to, and thanks). I don't understand why people would kick up a fuss about removing a statement and then courtesy blank the whole page anyway. Well, I prolly do understand, but it doesn't make sense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Shrug* it's a bureaucracy that I try not to think too much; I have other things to worry about :-\ - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Motions_post-closure

Where is/was this motion? I am aware of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Workshop#Motion_to_recognize_more_parties_and_rename_this_case but as far as I know this was completly ignored by the arbitrators.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The motion was passed on the main WP:RFAR page; the votes are archived to the talk page of the main case page (as is the usual case). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 2009

Celebrity Big Brother 2009 needs to have its protection changed to semi. The article is already badly out of date and logged in users need to be able to add the last few celebs who entered the house to the article. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, came here to say the same thing. Semi-protection should be fine, and perhaps shortening it could be considered too. There's a high level of vandalism at the moment because it's the first night of the new series, but it should be more manageable after a few days I imagine. Either way, semi-protection should be worth a shout. No autoconfirmed accounts were vandalising, I don't think. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you guys work out the editing on the talk page for the time being? I'm thinking of shorten the full-prot duration, but it's too prone to vandalism/revert warring at the moment. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC) That being said, if any admin feels that it's overly done or the duration needs to be changed and I'm not online, they can do so without consulting me. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

GMC

I had no involvement in the case, nor do I plan on involving myself in the case, so I felt I had no conflict of interest to run the CU. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just saying :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:add and removing

Maybe you get some wikirule book I don't, but as far as I can tell there is no clear process or transparent rules for adding someone to a case. The guy who initially added me did so because he wanted me to participate. I did, then I withdrew because of some unfortunate comments. As there is no authoritive process for adding participants, I don't see why I'd have to initiate a tedious high attention process for reversing it. In reality there wouldn't be a problem if you had just left it (no evidence is directed against me and I'm not remedied or praised in the findings). and this is just pettiness. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In reality, once a case is opened the parties are "frozen" and any removal needs to go through ArbCom permission. In this case, the removal of you from the list of parties made it impossible for us to alert you that the case closed (depending on who the clerk is he may or may not notify people not on the party list for closure). There are various precedents where people are named as party but no sanctions against them. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pettiness. You're making rules up as you're going along here. Obviously the parties aren't frozen if I removed myself. I brought this up with an arb (NYB); I'm hoping he'll help sort nonsense like this out, though I ain't holding my breath. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that I made this edit which the wording of that change are still in place today, about a year later. I made that change due to the fact that The Troubles RFAR case page was being edit-warred over. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence on a case page is "Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case." — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat?

I think your action there was a bit... poorly thought out.

If I *were* grandstanding and threatening ArbCom, your action would be like throwing petrol on a fire, it'd hardly get me to calm down. And other than that, it doesn't seem to be any attempt to resolve the situation. Even if you do feel I'm threatening ArbCom, your comment was hardly the best way to address that, and came off as a passive-aggressive demand to 'shut up'.

In future, try to be more cautious when you make clerk actions like that. It makes everyone else's jobs harder when extra people wade in and try to heat up debate more. Clerks should clerk, your comment wasn't an action that could be accepted as a clerking duty, but seems to be an attempt to join in the debate. --Barberio (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If my comments came out as trying to join the debate, I apologize, as lately there have been enough issues surrounding ArbCom as well as the clerks that I'm slightly annoyed. That being said, asking the ArbCom to do something within a deadline almost never works was what I tried to say. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately, an issue with ArbCom. Asking for something to be investigated, which the majority all seem to agree should be investigates, and asking for it to be investigated within three months, should not be considered an imposition, let alone a threat. --Barberio (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course this opinion may be biased, but I think posting a request asking them to do something with a deadline on the 1st day of the official transition won't help with winning other people over. :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they should have taken a whole lot more time 'off' for transition then, rather than saying they'd be ready to work on 'day one'? --Barberio (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have read-access to arbcom-l, so I cannot tell you anything about what goes on in that discussion. Not to mention, there were a few people that didn't put on their arbitrator hat until Jan 1st and made no comments otherwise... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi, I saw your comments on my RfA. I'm just curious by what you meant about taking into consideration what people said. Do you mean I should try again in a few months? Enigma^msg 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I heard that the b'crat may use judgment call on your RfA, but if that doesn't happen, most people have mentioned that they could change their mind after a while, so I wouldn't give up. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hiya, I recently posted a notification of the ArbCom enforcement case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. However, a couple editors are disagreeing with the notification, and edit-warring about it. The most recent change is this one.[5] I don't want to get into a lot of back and forth here, so could you please take a look at it? Thanks, --Elonka 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping so you're not guilty of edit warring is unimpressive, Elonka. How dare you accuse me of edit warring. I was quite clear in my one and only edit, which was to remove your "rationale" which is highly questionable and poisons the well. I have no intention of edit warring over that, but stand by my opinion that you should remove that yourself, as you are far too involved to be taking on yourself the role of ArbCom enforcer. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

She asked me for my opinion because of the fact that the page that you are edit warring over is an RFAR page. KC, your edit actually removed the notification LINK which are required to be present on all notifications and logs. THEN I looked at the revert-warring that you guys had and made a decision that he is qualified for the notification-- which, as you very well know of, is not a restriction. I'll say this here: I independently endorse the notification. That enough for you, KC? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing the link was an error on my part; thank you for correcting it. Perhaps you have misunderstood. There are two issues, neither of which is OrangeMarlin being notified. One is that Elonka is not appropriate person to notify, as she is heavily involved. The second is her decision to place her "rationale" or reasons or what-have-you. While this is not something to which I would generally object per se, plese note that no other admin leaves these little notes about their rationale; they content themselves with listing the notice. It is poisoning the well to add that. I am perfectly willing to accept that you disagree. However, my removal - once - of her biased opinion of an editor with whom she has been in conflict for some time now does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute an edit war. You somehow have managed to lump me in with "you guys" and decided that I'm edit warring. I object, most sincerely and strongly, to your characterization of me thusly. I hope this clarifies matters. If not, reply here - I do watch pages where I have recently posted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. The dispute between the two of you is something that I will remain neutral about. About the rationales, some restriction notices have included rationale -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#List_of_users_placed_under_supervision -- in particular my warning to User:Moosh88. Granted, majority of the administrators choose not to provide rationale in the log, however. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your comments. I am not certain what you mean by "dispute" - I am not involved in the dispute about the pseudoscience stuff - I have not edited there. My disagreement with Elonka is one I share with several others[6] and it is simply that she is far too involved in the content disputes on pseudoscience articles to be in any way "uninvolved". KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, but like I said above, I do not feel qualified to comment on that issue. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, saw that, I didn't mean to sound as though I were asking you to - merely stating the nature of my disagreement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's based on a false premises. If Elonka had a case, she'd go to ANI or Arbcom for support. It's insulting, and I consider it a personal, uncivil attack by an involved administrator. I suggest you read everyone's opinion her vendetta. It's pretty widespread what everyone thinks of her attack on me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I independently looked at some of the diffs she provided me, and I agreed with her on the notification itself, without commenting on other actions of Elonka. I'd like to remind you that it is by no means a restriction. There are several cases where all editors are under notification, if I believe, but that by no means hinders it. I commend you in your work, but some of the methods do seem a little aggressive, OM. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Query

Wheel warring? Please see my question on Rfar. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed wording to "edit-warring" instead a few days ago. You may have missed that. I forgot to mention that on your talk page earlier >.< - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you[7] Speaking for myself. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping?

Are you allright, Penwhale? You've gone suddenly quiet. — Coren ^(talk) 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not THAT quiet... but 3 math classes will do that to you sometimes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki ban help

Hello, My name is John and last night I tried to create an account from my house and it said I was banned Jan 27th until April 27th. I was just hoping you could help me since I have never used wiki before.

It said I (IP 98.231.22.5) was banned by Nishkid64 who gave the reason

CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address (or network) has been used abusively. This address (or network) has been blocked temporarily or permanently to prevent further abuse. In extreme cases, an entire network may be blocked to prevent an abusive user from continually changing their IP address in order to evade blocks or abusing multiple accounts. If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please follow these instructions. Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Users: If you already have an account in good standing, you may request IP block exemption to bypass this block. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Template:Do not delete: .

I was just hoping you could help me figure this out. Maybe someone was using my internet? I'm not sure, but I was hoping to see the incident that happened. I am sending this from my account I created at school (nflmockdraftaces), but it is in reference to my home IP which is 98.231.22.5

I'm new and not sure what to do. Help! :)

Thanks for your help, John nflmockdraftaces (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Penwhale's Day!

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

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. (March 4th for you) — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

An illustrative example of Chinese bridge construction.

Thank you for exercising thoughtful judgment in a difficult-to-parse situation. May I join you in hoping that your participation becomes the kind of sturdy bridge which this dispute might need? --Tenmei (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Investigating Teeninvestor's claims

As you may or may not know, Teeninvestor has appeared to accord great weight to your imprimatur in the context of a minor ArbCom case.

At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence, a number of the claims presented by Teeninvestor at Evidence presented by Teeninvestor appears to be over-reaching. In that context, there are some questions which would help me clear up any misunderstandings which still linger.

You may not know that Teeninvestor mentioned you specifically in his/her evidence sub-section "Alleged misuse of sources," stating:

• "I have provided the source, with full bibliographic information, and a link which demonstrates what I said it would be- a Chinese history book. This was confirmed by user:Penwhale."

In the context created by these two sentences, I am obliged to ask you to clarify, please.

1. Question: Am I correct in identifying the Statement by uninvolved Penwhale as the one and only substantive contribution you identify in the context of this ArbCom case?

If there something else which I have over-looked, please provide the link which will enable me to rectify my mistake.

You may not know that Teeninvestor mentioned you specifically in his/her evidence sub-section "Screened by User:PericlesofAthens and User:Penwhale"

• "In addition, the source has been screened by the two above users and the information as well, and they have shown the information to be perfectly correct as well as the history book being what I said it is: a history book .... The above two users have stated the information of the source is correct and the source was presented with correct bibliographic information as to allow the reader to verify the source ...."

In the context created by these few sentences, I am obliged to ask you to clarify, please.

2. Question: Teeninvestor states that "... the source has been screened [by Penwhale] ...." Did you, in fact, "screen" the book? If so, what did the term "screen" mean specifically in that context?

3. Question: Teeninvestor states that "... the information [has been screened by Penwhale] ...." Did you, in fact, "screen" the information? If so, what did the term "screen" mean specifically in that context?

4. Question: Teeninvestor states that "... [Penwhale has] shown the information to be perfectly correct ...." Did you, in fact, "evaluate" the information? If so, what did the phrase "shown the information to be perfectly correct" mean specifically in that context?

5. Question: Teeninvestor states that "... [Penwhale has shown] the history book being what I said it is: a history book." Did you, in fact, "evaluate" the book? If so, what did the phrase "[shown] the history book being what I said it is: a history book" mean specifically in that context?

With all due respect, I believe you are only able respond to Question 1 and Question 5. I would guess that your inability to respond similarly to Questions 2, 3 and 4 will demonstrate that these are examples of over-reaching.

In this context, I would appreciate any constructive comments you might be willing to offer.

Thank you for the time you choose to invest in ArbCom matters. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)