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:

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

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

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

Abortion RFAR

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)

• 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)

Adding Anthony Appleyard as a party

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)

Abortion RFAR due for close

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

Abortion FYI

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

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

Abortion Close Issue: R10 vs R10.1

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)

• 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)

Abortion: Please formally warn a user of his topic ban

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)

Apparently inappropriate protection of Fae RFAr Proposed decision talk page

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)

• 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)

"per instruction from ArbCom"?

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Resignation request

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

• 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)

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

Edit warring

I recently brought a case to the Admin noticeboard regarding the Nicolás Maduro article which you handled. The IP that I reported is back and he recently removed all changes made by another user to the article. This was a clear violation of the neutrality of a BLP article. Please advise me on the best way to deal with this situation. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom dispute

How can I contribute to the Sexology arbitration? Am in an edit-war with User:Flyer22, and I believe it's germane there. This is nasty stuff, and WP must get on top of it. Thanks.

jmanooch 01:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• You can post to the evidence page - keep in mind, though, that proposed decisions are due any day, so unless what you're going to submit is significant, there's a chance that what you submit may be overlooked. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Mars

I've tried to provide a summary of the offenses and to make it clear who has presented which evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Excuse me for being nosy, but I'm interested in Arbcom processes, and not following why a filing party would be notified that Arbcom is using a different mailing list than usual. What am I missing?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Callenecc posted to Ironholds' and Kiefer.Wolfowitz's page, but not Mark Arsten's. As filing party is technically considered to be an involved party, he should also be informed, and I did so. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I was fixated on the fact that the filing parties should not have read access, without thinking about the fact that they might need to file private evidence not on wiki. That should have occurred to me and didn't. Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The information is still on the case pages, and therefore it's not as if we're concealing that information. It's just the fact that the filing party wasn't notified as per the custom (filing makes you involved automatically). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/FAQ

I was wondering, are talk pages also subject to discretionary sanctions? There has been a bit of edit warring at Talk:Bradley Manning/FAQ. StAnselm (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Normally behaviors on talk pages are taken into consideration, so personally I consider talk pages to be subject to DS as well. But I don't have the final say here, so you may be better off asking an arbitrator. ^^ - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually have a question related to this, so you were an admin tangentially involved. Recently, you had warned Squeakbox and Two kinds of pork of their conduct and discretionary sanctions. I was reading the discussion on the arbitration case and checked Squeakboxes/Two kinds of pork talk pages to learn more about what happened (was curious) and I noticed that Squeakbox had "archived" the page by blanking it and not including a reference to where the warning is. I undid the blanking and got an earful from the user (I only did the one undo, I have no history with this individual that I can recall). Guidelines seem to be inconsistent here, with WP:BLANKING suggesting it's allowed, but not best practice, while WP:Removing Warnings suggesting that removing warnings in this manner was improper and that editors may be subject to a minor block for prematurely archiving warnings. In this case, the user didn't even archive it normally, putting it in an "archive" that was unlinked until he/she was called on it. The user threatened to take me to ANI if I didn't apologize, so I need some guidance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's a warning, so it technically is okay (not an active sanction), but the removal of it implies that the editor has read the warning and thus can be sanctioned further if situation calls for it. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sexology

Hey. No doubt you'll be aware as a clerk yourself, but given that Sexology was vague on the word "and", so I've opened a clarification request. Best wishes, Sceptre ^(talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning sanctions in Sexology?

Hi, Penwhale,
I was looking at the Sexology case and found sanctions for Editors involved in the Manning case to be listed here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Sanctions. While both topics can involve gender, none of the parties are the same and so I don't see what the connection is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• The discretionary sanctions that apply to the topic area originated in Sexology case and thus, until the Manning case provides otherwise, the sanctions will continue to be recorded at Sexology page. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, Penwhale. I didn't immediately see the connection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Gun control

Hi Penwhale. User:Hypocrit submitted evidence to the gun control Arbcom case alleging that User:North8000 violated his topic ban. However, the alleged violation does not directly relate to gun control, and therefore may be ignored by the committee. Should I submit this evidence to Arbcom/enforcement? The reason I ask (rather than awaiting the outcome of the case) is that there is the possibility that I may be given an interaction ban with the accused. If that happened, I don't know whether I would be permitted to submit evidence of sanction violation on the user. Thanks! — goethean 15:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please actually pay attention to the correct name of the user you're talking about ^^;... But yes, if you think the violation of the TBAN is not related to the case proper, file the enforcement request. However, I would say that @Hipocrite: should know about this too. (And I have used the {{ping}} template to alert him of this conversation. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I noted you are the clerk on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control case. What is the status of that case? I had seen a date on the main page that the "Proposed decision" would be out on 12 Feb, but I'm guessing that is merely a target? I'm not familiar with how arbitration proceedings on Wikipedia work, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Mvialt (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is a "target date"; remember that unlike the real world, Arbitrators are still volunteers and therefore sometimes things in the real world do get in the way. That being said, I will check up with the arbitrators and see what the status of the proposed decision is. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Mvialt: For the record the arbitrators have mentioned on the workshop talk page that PD is forth coming. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff

Abortion "page" ban

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)

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

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

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)

{{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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Abortion Arbcom definitely closed?

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)

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

MSU Interview

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)

Dispute resolution survey

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)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

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)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

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)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki

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

• 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)

The period is actually too long & unsudden image change without any discussion

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

3RR

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Please Unblock Me

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)

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)

• 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)

Your recent block of me - did you really intend to do this?

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)

• 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)

user shrike

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)

UTRS Account Request

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)

• 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)

Hi Penwhale

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?

• 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)

• 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)

ArbCom notification

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)

Newco Rangers

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)

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

Newco rangers extenstion again sorry

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)

• 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)

Please think about this

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

Have a question

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• @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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

WP:RFPP

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)

Be Warned - Rangers FC - an attempt to push through a controversial 'same club' approach

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)

Thanks.

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)

Chinese translation

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) 16:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

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.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

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?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

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)

Proposed deletion of List of prestige classes

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)

Old notifications?

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)

• Feel free to suppress it (wrap around the notice with <!-- -->). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on this but it's now done, I'll hide the rest when I come across them. a13ean (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jack Morris infobox question

There is currently a discussion going on here which you may be interested in. AutomaticStrikeout 21:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you admonish Hersfold?

Why don't you behave honorably? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerk Request

I'm looking at the contributions of User:Tim98Seven and would like to express concern at how on their 2nd live edit they found their way into the ArbCom request and seem to have a significant handle on how wikipedia works. Per your role as a clerk active on the Request for clarification, I would like to ensure that SPAs with an axe to grind are not given free reign to beat up on Malleus. Hasteur (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Clerks do not have special powers, ergo, the only thing I could be able to do is to suggest someone with CU to check. However, the editor himself has stated that he was a prior editor (presumably either IP or under a different name). Try posting to CU requests, instead, as I have no power to investigate. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• He has disclosed his prior account, and I believe CUs have been performed. Next time you believe SPA is involved, you should probably go directly to CUs, as they can respond more promptly. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

banned user returns

It appears that a banned user has returned to the Talk:Waldorf education pages under an IP address, 76.170.168.122. See User contributions. Is there any recourse? You originally posted the banning notice at the top of the talk page. hgilbert (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

radiondistica.altervista.org

Thanks for trying to create an edit filter. Unfortunately, it was unsuccessful. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Penwhale, you might want to try a test run with a switch [A-z] instead of (a|s) or [A-Za-z]. See this manual. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

ARBCC clarification request

Hi, thanks for your reply. Please direct me to wherever it says that only uninvolved eds may serve notice, and log the service of notice. Once I know where that is, I will seriously consider proposing refinements to the text, because the lead of ARBCC does say regular editors may do something, and I would welcome any preliminary input on that idea in addition to the link where it says only uninvolved admins can give notice and log notice. Note that we are NOT talking about imposing actual sanctions. I agree completely, whether it is written or not, that uninvolved admins should be doing that. But for the mere giving of a harmless notice, I would like to know where the consensus or ARB basis for your (probably correct) assertion originates. Thanks for your help. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:AC/DS. Quote: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Because of the latter part of that sentence, it should be construed as uninvolved admin only (being the neutral party). But then again, that's just my reading into the relevant section, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the nearly instant reply. Since your assertive reply at the ARBCC clarification request is based on a good faith but nonetheless subjective reading of that text, please add this thread or the equivalent to your comment at the ARBCC clarification so others understand this is your good faith (but still subjective) interpretation. I'd like to see explicit text on this point, and if it does not exist, it should. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI Based on a side discussion at Dave Souza's page, where he opined my conclusion at the ARBCC clarification request was "very sensible", I have invited him here to explore this more. I hope that was ok, and if not (A) I apologize and (B) I would be grateful for education how best to discuss this matter. I've never dealt with ARB at this level. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you're fine, though I'm uncertain that this place is the best spot. XD - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a statement at the clarification request page. I think there's been some confusion between notifying new editors about the sanctions, and the formal warning from an uninvolved admin required in WP:AC/DS. My suggestion is that some wording be added to clarify the purpose of logging these notices, any discussion will logically take place at the clarification request page. Thanks again for your help with this, . dave souza, talk 19:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

link

link - yes, I did leave a message. — Ched :  ?  19:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I see now. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hi Penwhale, I recently started a request for clarification regarding some procedural issues that have recently arisen at AE.[17] Since you were involved in some of the related discussion, you might like to comment. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Food

You should eat something so you're not hungry all the time! KTC (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

AC/DS comments requested

Hi, as an administrator who has recently been active at WP:AE, you may be interested in AGK's request for comments at User talk:Sandstein#Draft of discretionary sanctions update.  Sandstein  15:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Big problems on the maduro page again

So the 90% of the negative content on Nicolas Maduro just got wiped out again, and in came a smiling photo over, all without anything in Talk. I went to undo it and in came an admin who undid my revert and threatened to ban me.

That about sums it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 05:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Baltic state solution

Howdy Penwhale. The proposal of City, USSR (now X) was rejected at the Baltics RFC-in-queston. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Provide a link to that RFC for me, if you can? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolute has provided a link to it, in his ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Redcation of all Controvery and Negative Comments from Maduro

80% of the negative commentary has been removed from the nicolas maduro site over the last two weeks.

The NYT of Venezuela was called a "blog" and BLP cited to removed basically all the negative information. The candidate in question is basically doing a Watergate every other day, just yesterday he tried to buy a candidate for 20 million, but no English speakers will know because we have two cowboy editors who are strangle holding and redacting all the negative commentary.

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi Penwhale! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have several engineering tools that I added to Wikipedia. It looks like they are all removed by the same person (178.21.50.154) with the same reason. I tried to explain the identification is necessary. It looks like this person is specifically targeting my links as he/she has no other action in 2013 but deleting my links. Can you please verify his actions and add back my links if accepted.

regards, Levent Ozturk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.74.31 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have several engineering tools that I added to Wikipedia. It looks like they are all removed by the same person (178.21.50.154) with the same reason. I tried to explain the identification is necessary. It looks like this person is specifically targeting my links as he/she has no other action in 2013 but deleting my links. Can you please verify his actions and add back my links if accepted.

regards, Levent Ozturk. wikipedia@leventozturk.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.74.31 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

Tea Party movement

Is there any reason why I was added to this arbitration case? I do not know who User:Hahc21, who added my name, is or what their involvement with the case is. TFD (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• You were added by User:Hahc21 (an Arbitration Clerk) at the direction of the Arbitration Committee. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Penwhale. Thank you for your edit. About your comment, you seems to ave said that MarshalN20 was merely replying to AGK. A few key points: 1) AGK never mentioned my name. 2) AGK never mentioned Juan Manuel de Rosas or the use of Argentine sources. A mere reply does not give MarshalN20 the right to ignore the topic ban nor the interaction ban. Again. --Lecen (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Can I get a link to the mutual interaction ban? You didn't link to it, and I am unsure where it is located. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Never mind, found it. It's an "informal" one, though, so I am unable to do anything wrt to that part (you should refer that issue to AGK and Salvio). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer Wolfowitz

This editor has used his talk page to further comment on his case and promulgate his views. As a banned user, he has no right to talk page access, since his only path towards reinstatement is through BASC or ArbCom. I request that you remove his talk page access. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you also remove the two comments I'm referring to from the page. I have deleted them, but another editor restored them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Important request to translate article from eng-chin

Hello there, There is a very important article that is in English but not in Chinese. It's called Barefoot lawyers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_lawyer. They are self-taught people who help protect the rights of citizens in China. This would be a very important article for chinese people to read in their native language not in one there not familiar with. Would you consider helping out to translate the article. I am also asking 8 other translators with near native english and native chinese to help out. So if you all agree you would have 8 helpers. What do you think? Pretty Please..Dounai99 (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Dounai99 (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Sorry that was a mistake on my part. Didn't mean to delete your comment --Lyo (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7

Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. --EdwardsBot (talk)

Editor Greengrounds at Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

I suspect the blocked editor Greengrounds (who promised to continue to disrupt myself and user:Smeat75 among others) is at it again, now at Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, and on IP ‎209.91.107.184. At any rate the "anonymous user" ‎209.91.107.184 has twice reverted a recent edit by me under a false pretext (claiming that I have deleted material sourced to Baranowski, when I have in fact inserted material sourced to Baranowski). Are you able to put an anonymous editor protection on that page too, as you did at Religious views of Adolf Hitler, as it is one where Greengrounds was active. Ozhistory (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Semi'd for a few days. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. He now appears to be editing with IP 209.91.107.203 - see Assisi Network. Ozhistory (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A temp protection at Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland might help, as he seems to be reverting a large section there, using a couple of different IPs. Ozhistory (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to take this to ANI because the range he's using is too big for rangeblock. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS nominated for MfD but is protected

See Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units. User:Jtrainor has listed this at WP:MFD but can't place the deletion banner on it due to your protection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am about to head out to class, but you may ask any administrator to do what needs to be done on that page. If it isn't remedied by the time I'm back from class, I will add that banner. (Personally, though, I think the MfD is ill-timed and... the "keep but tag with {{failed}}" doesn't work either because that is an editorial decision and does not hold sway at XfD). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for consideration of a "clerk traineeship"

Dear Penwhale;

I am interested in becoming a clerk on the Arbitration Committee. Whilst I have not edited a great deal, I have experience in WP:DRN and Third Opinion, and, as I am sure you are aware, I am involved in an ongoing case at ArbCom.

Please advise me on how I can become a "trainee clerk".

--The Historian (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Generally, the clerks themselves evaluate whether an editor is suitable to become a clerk (with input from the arbitrators). Keep in mind, though, that the Arbitration Committee is the one that can promote from trainee to full clerkship. I'll discuss this with other clerks. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Question

If you don't mind explaining, what is the origin of you username? I find it.... I don't know, but every time I read it, it makes me pause.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:N92413

Note the page created with your name. Just curious but is this some one you recognise? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all... Thanks for noticing that, by the way.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. They were creating odd pages. Figured they might have been the return of someone you had a run in with before. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

Hi Penwhale, the clarification request you were involved with regarding Sexology discretionary sanctions has been closed and archived. The Committee clarified that discretionary sanctions were authorised for articles dealing with transgender issues and for articles dealing with paraphilia classification. The original discussion can be viewed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Stalker-ish edit

Is this edit from the Manning workshop kosher? I appreciate it's linking on-wiki content, but at least in spirit it feels like dredging through someone's personal life to discredit them. Chris Smowton (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I.... don't know. I have to think about that one. (Although I'm tempted to remove that by virtue of not being on-topic.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Righto, thanks for your prompt response. Chris Smowton (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cal68 persists with this line of argument. I don't have a specific policy-based complaint, this just continues to strike me as unscrupulous. Chris Smowton (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Claims of vandalism about an IP

[18]. Can you point me to the vandalism, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If the issue is with sockpuppets, a range block (after WP:SPI) would seem to be an effective choice, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The range block would be higher than /16, which iirc cannot be done. See User talk:Ozhistory for the request. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5

Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. --Pharos (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation help needed

Hi, can you help me to translate the Chinese below:

...小米科技CEO雷军今日在腾讯微博诠释了公司名称由来的背后故事，他表示，小米要做移动互联网公司，并且要完成不能完成的任务。 “很多人问小米这个名字怎么来的？大家第一时间想到的是小米加步枪。其实，小米这个问题还有不少故事，首先小米拼音是mi, Mobile Internet，小米要做移动互联网公司；其次是mission impossible，小米要完成不能完成的任务。最后，“小米”这个名字亲切可爱，你周围有叫小米的人吗？” “‘佛家一粒米 大如须弥山’小米，我们希望去掉高大全，从小处着手。”雷军特意强调。

I need this translation to back up my opinion in article Xiaomi. Thank you --B3430715 (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The CEO of Xiaomi Technology Jun Rei today explained the origin of the name of the company on QQ Blog. He stated that Xiaomi will be a mobile internet company and do what is impossible. "Many people have asked how I came up with the name Xiaomi. Many people thought it was based on millet and rifle. But there are more stories than that. Xiaomi has 'mi' in its pinyin - referring to Mission Impossible - completing what can't be done. Next, the name Xiaomi is cute - are there any one around you with the name Xiaomi?" "'One grain of rice of a Buddhist is as great as a mountain' Xiaomi - we want to work from the little things, not be perfect" as Rei emphasizes.

• It's a VERY rough translation, but that's the basic stuff. 高大全 is used to describe a "hero" during the Cultural Revolution - tall, big, and perfection. "Focus on positive people from among all, heroes from among all positive people, and central figures from all heroes" and all "central figures" must be 高大全. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• • for clarify, is the "One grain of rice of a Buddhist is as great as a mountain' Xiaomi - we want to work from the little things, not be perfect" said to explain the "xiao" part?
  • "not be perfect" or "instead aiming high"?
  • thanks --B3430715 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Xiao = Little. The quote doesn't exactly state the importance of it to the name (IMO). They want to get rid of 高大全 = they aren't starting by striving to be tall, big, and perfect. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is maybe one thing, you left out in your translation ("mi, Mobile Internet")...But you deserved a big Thank you, by helping me understood the Buddhist concept and 高大全 concept...--B3430715 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2

Please join Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community. --Pharos (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich

Since you added the template to this page, this is a courtesy notice. [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 23:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6

Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

Thank You

Thank you for your coaching on diffs. I need to learn and use that method and tool. I'll keep you examples ready. It seems I did it wrong for this time so I hope I don't make anybody mad or make more work for the arbs. If what I added gets discounted, I'll learn my lesson. I just hope the hammer doesn't fall on me. Now I'm at Arbcom.....not where I want to spend time as a "party". I think I need to go edit more mundane topics and tread very carefully here. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's okay. Diffs are a way of life on noticeboards, as reproducing them verbotim is not a good idea. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm onto it. With the extension, I had time to bundle some of the comments into diffs but left the more important stuff inline (not accusatory, just examples) . Got under 1,000. Thank you much! In the end, to me it's about creating the right environment to keep and tolerate bright established editors who have some eccentricities and also attract new editors...tough balance. We'll see what arbcom thinks and whether they retire me really early.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please look again

Hi Sir. With regard to [20]. That 19th century edit was not made by me ! that was made by a different editor, please look again [21] Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Answered at request for enforcement. Please keep the conversation in one spot. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon

Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014, an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley. --Pharos (talk)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March: Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward) I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

FYI

I hope you know that Sandstein abused a rule that allows Admins to alter bans to make it so that I can only appeal this ban once every 6 months, and get blocked if otherwise. Please consider how long I will be banned if it's not lifted now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)