User talk:Penwhale/ArchiveArb032007

Few things about the ArbCom request to Samuel

Hello, just a few thoughts about your note. This is not a dispute about Falun Gong. We have been embrawled in proctracted problems with those articles for a long time now, but in the end those are content issues and they can be worked out. In a general sense there is usually a semblance of progress. The biggest problem this whole time has been the lack of observance and enforcement of wikipedia's core principles. This has led to vicious editing cycles and a large amount of time spent unproductively. They are being enforced and closely observed now, so the problem is half-solved. In fact, things were just starting to move forward until Samuel blanked a whole lot of stuff and did not let anyone restore it. The reason for the request is because Samuel keeps doing this, has always done it, the articles can't make progress at all, and there is no other option. He has been banned before but does not seem to have changed. His is a really clear cut case of a disruptive editing, and it is not very much related to the subject of Falun Gong.

By the way, I don't know who vandalised Samuel's page. No one who practices and understands Falun Dafa would do something like that, that's for sure. It would be completely against the reason anyone would want to practice Falun Dafa in the first place. The whole point is to get rid of negative thoughts and behaviours, not to indulge them.

PS: my userpage has been vandalised, part of it including an embedded link being hiddenly redirected to Samuel's website, and I never thought to accuse anyone of doing that.--Asdfg12345 12:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I definitely agree with you that this is a topic that can really stir people up, but I disagree about the reasons. One thing I found somewhat incomprehensible a little a while ago was that some editors on wikipedia do not acknowledge that there is a persecution against Falun Gong in China. I don't know what you have read, but I will assume you are aware of it. Anyone reading about the persecution will be shocked at its utterly cruel and violent nature. Actually, just a caveat, some people do not seem to care. It seems strange these days that few are moved by human suffering. My comments just refer to people who still have a sense of justice and conscience, and who feel for human suffering. For them, this persecution is completely unjustified, brutal and horrendous, and they think it should stop. That stuff about the live organ harvesting is even worse than the rest, as bad as the rest is. So that is an issue I think that can get people's blood pumping. Some aspects of the teachings can be another source of contention. This usually stems from an incomplete or decontexualised exposure to them, though, and apart from a small minority it is not really a big deal and easily explainable. The basis of the whole thing is, as I mentioned, to get rid of all negative things inside oneself, bad desires, attachments, behaviours, and to try to live by Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. There are also some qigong exercises. Sometimes I still get confused about why it is controversial, because in the end I think it boils down to something extremely simple. So I think those are the reasons it is controversial, not because of what Li Hongzhi has said about the CCP. I would say most of what he says is addressed to practitioners anyway, so if one were to take his words out of the context of that setting and out of context of the teachings as a whole, they would obviously be difficult to understand, and meanings may be ascribed to them which they do not reflect or truly contain. Again I think that is sort of a minor issue though, and most things to most people are able to be explained. Falun Gong is, in the end, completely harmless, and aims primarily at teaching people to be good. The persecution is also rather clear cut -- unjust, brutal and tragic. But maybe I am expressing a certain degree of naivity by not being able to fully understand the extent of the controversies. I can only tell it as I see it. By the way, I would not characterise Li Hongzhi as any kind of leader. Most practitioners have not met and will never meet him (I have not met him), and he has been clear about saying that there is not to be any kind organisation, structure, formalities, money etc.. Anyone can come and do the exercises and leave when they like, meet together to read the books, involve themselves in protests or things to stop the persecution -- in my experience everyone is doing things off their own back, paying for everything themselves, motivating themselves. Basically it is a set of free teachings, all the books and exercises are on the internet, anyone can learn them, read them, believe them, laugh at them, try them, or do what they like. Still, I have to say, it's controversial!--Asdfg12345 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can say I definitely are aware of is the CCP prosecution of FG (which has resulted in political Asylum into the US). - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I append this link, though there are many more one could peruse: http://www.faluninfo.net/torturemethods2/ --Asdfg12345 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg12345, are you here to spread the pro-Falun Gong viewpoint again at the expense of the other? Is this what you call neutral and unbiased? As a NON-FG-practitioner myself, I cannot share the belief that Li Hongzhi knows best about everything, and that everything he or FG says is totally correct and that their evidence is indisputable, and the other camp is not. Please focus on editing rather than on spreading FG beliefs! Save the propaganda for another site, OK? Jsw663 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:: I opposed for the main reason that an accepted case would open the floodgates. I don't necessarily oppose opening the floodgates; it just means a lot of work for all for a result that will probably have been reached anyway had people not opposed by 8 simple rules on editing behavior. Also note the FG matter is more political than purely humanitarian. Jsw663 14:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

Thanks for cleaning up the template. I had left it for a few hours because I wasn't sure if Sam Sloan was trying to file an actual case there. I guess if he comes back and sees it's not on the RfAr page he'll try again. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for noting the current state of the voting on the BabyDweezil appeal RfAr. Given the issue you raised, let's leave this one to be de-listed by an arbitrator, if that's the outcome, rather than have a clerk do it. Regards, and thanks again for keeping an eye on these pages. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AA case

Please review my fact finding regarding 60.242.13.87, 58.162.2.122, 219.88.95.90, and 211.30.143.246. I do not wish to definitively claim everything. What I wish for is that I see Wikipedia live up to my refutation of Vaknin. Assuming you agree with my conclusion, the next step would be to see if indeed JZ and FM were abusing their authority by instituting blocks against these users by applying an overly broad interpretation of the AA ruling--Otheus 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Otheus 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Required vote to accept in RfAr cases

Not sure if you saw it on my talk, but the reference I made to an arbitrator saying that in some circumstances, he might join a majority to accept was here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sulla RFM/RFAR

Thanks for the heads up, I'll be keeping an eye on it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

“

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale

”

Just have a question as to what this message is about. I have already posted my comment on that page here. Wiki Raja 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

Case is opened. This means that the arbitrators are now accepting specific evidence if you're willing to provide them (in terms of edit diffs). By rules, if you're named as a party or given a comment, a clerk (or a helper, as in my case) has to alert everyone. - Penwhale

”

Ok. Anyways, if I want to apply for a clerk position too, how do I go about applying for that position? Wiki Raja 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

I can't tell you really. For now, I'm just helping, and I guess if they need more people they'll formally ask people that's been helping. - Penwhale

”

Ok then. Thanks. Wiki Raja 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late to add a name to the list of involved parties? —JFD 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea for me to move some of my evidence about edit wars to a subpage and replace it on the main evidence page with wikilinks? —JFD 15:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a subpage in /Evidence.

The subpage allows for a full accounting of edit war diffs while taking up less space on /Evidence.

If this is something I should not have done, please let me know right away.
—JFD 08:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk helper

Hi :-) Thanks for your work as an ArbCom clerk helper. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review is ready to close if you are going to do this one. Take care, FloNight 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to wait since it more than 24 hours since the first motion to close and there are no open issues. FloNight 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: The cases go at the top of the page here. [1] There are so many little details that almost every new person makes a few mistakes the first few times they do a close. Thanks again for your help. FloNight 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher fixed this. [2]. I did not see any thing else that I would change. Your notification of parties and people making comments seems fine. FloNight 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Look for my reply. Take care, FloNight 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Sad, Sad Starwood Tale

Thank you for drawing the Starwood Arbcom members' attention to Kathryn NicDhàna's recent update. I figure it wouldn't hurt to draw your attention to my last update as well. I left a message on the talk page of the proposed decision [3] pointing to it. I'm not asking you to do anything. I was just rather surprised that there was no response at all from Arbcom to my additional statement. So I'm mentioning it to you. I realize this case is not your responsibility and I apologize for the imposition. I'm actually not sure why I'm bringing this to you except I've reached a point where it's difficult to know where to go from here and the smallest flicker of help is encouraging. The case seems basically closed, if not technically so. sigh. --Pig^man_dialogue 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the case. I'm a tad concerned about the appearance that I am soliciting your help which is not my intent. My previous message was mostly a courtesy "thank you" for pointing out Kathryn NicDhàna's update and I figured I might as well mention my last update as well. Cheers, Pig^man_dialogue 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Penwhale,

I hope you will consider that there are at least two sides to this "sad sad Starwood tale". I have added my comments to Kathryn's, and a notice after yours that it is there. I'd like to point out that Kathryn, Pigman and (to a lesser extent) Weniwediwiki have been following my edits and putting me through two mediations and an arbitration, and still won't let up no matter how they come out. I have never returned this treatment to them. Rosencomet 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr re: DBachmann

I saw your note regarding RfAr, User:DBachmann has refused to participate in mediation cabal [[4]] as he is asking mediator to act as a advocate. I have not asked for an advocate and the mediator has specifically not offered to be an advocate. In mediation case, he has refused to put any comment on project page, but on the talk page for project he has again declined mediation [[5]]. The discussion since Nov 2006 has been between me and DBachmann, that is why only his name is in this dispute. If I add too many names, I am afraid this will become unmanageable.Sbhushan 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of his doing OR is spread over at least 4 articles that I am aware of. Also, his actions are impacting more than these articles, that is why an RfAr for him alone. Some of the other editors who have argued with him earlier have left Wikipedia due to personal reasons. I had also left WP as it is not worth the trouble, but then I feel this is important enough to raise the issue.Sbhushan 21:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more content to the request to show why content RfC might not be the best solution [[6]]. I have done an RfC on DBachmann. The mediation cases were titled with article name, but the issue is still DBachmann's behaviour. He won't participate in mediation and also won't clearly decline mediation. This has not left me with much choice. I would appreciate if you could reveiw the details in RfAr and provide your views. I do hope it is not against policy to leave a note to you here. If it is please let me know.Sbhushan 13:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood Arbitration

Dear Penwhale,

I noticed that you went ahead and sent a notice to all the arbitrators linking to the statements that Kathryn made, but not the response I gave. Do you really think this is fair? Rosencomet 05:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. Let me look at the edit history again. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response should have been in your own section. I'll move that and send out another notice, but please place rebuttal in your own section next time. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood

been sleeping bad lately

I know the feeling; otherwise, I wouldn't be in my office at 1:53 AM doing this. But I've been put through the wringer on this stuff since 1 week after I started editing in August. It's hard to figure out where to put a response to a statement on a months-old arbitration page with references on the decision page so the right people will actually see it.

While this is going on, the same people who have put me through it keep cutting chunks of my work out (in spite of the fact that the arbitration has clearly stated that there's nothing prohibiting me from editing these articles), then when I object or even disagree on the talk page, even when I call an RFC, they say I shouldn't be editing them in the first place and run to the arbitrators calling it "irresponsible" and "aggressive editing". Every point has been voted on 4 to 0, but one arbitrator either wouldn't or just neglected to vote to CLOSE the case, and I'm afraid Kathryn & Pigman are trying to bait me into a fight so they can turn the arbitrators against me at the eleventh hour.

Talk about losing sleep. Rosencomet 05:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to delay the votes (the votes were cast before the 2 statements were considered).

I see. So I am making a mistake here thinking you might be someone objective in this case. You are actively trying to get the arbitrators to reconsider their votes, and trying to help Kathryn in her efforts. Rosencomet 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, delaying the vote actually would be asking the arbitrators to possibly change their current votes.

Maybe I'm being dense, or it's the lateness of the hour, but isn't that what I just said? You say you are trying to delay the vote, and then you say delaying the vote would be asking the arbitrators to change their votes. That's exactly what I said you were doing. The vote presently is pretty much in my favor: it says that there is nothing prohibiting me from editing these articles as long as I do it responsibly and don't edit-war. I believe Kathryn and Pigman want to get the arbitrators to change their minds and forbid me from editing entirely, and to do it they're trying to bait me into an edit war via unfair edits. When I just reply on the talk page or call an RFC, they try to make THAT into "aggressive editing" and "wrongful behavior". What I am hoping for, even though it won't solve everything, is to at least see this arbitration close instead of waiting for the other shoe to drop on a never-ending arbitration that should have closed when a majority of four voted in support of every point. Rosencomet 06:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence

Bakaman has just deleted the Evidence presented by SebastianHelm.[7]
JFD 18:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. FloNight 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight took care of it while I was contacting you. But you already know that. Thanks anyway JFD 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]