Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:18, 31 December 2008

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --El on ka 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Typo

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikis Take Manhattan

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Email for you

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

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

Ooops

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

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.

@@ Line 218: / Line 218: @@
 Sorry about the revert on CF. Missed that you were a clerk.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 20:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
+== Talkback ==
+{{tb|Amwestover|Restrictions}}