Revision as of 02:02, 5 May 2007

Add new comments at bottom of the page, unless it's something about an RfAr request or case. In that case, click here.

Archive info:
/Archive1 archives up to Jun 30, 2005
/Archive2 archives up to Jul 23, 2006
/Archive3 archives up to Feb 25, 2007
/Archive4 archives March 2007 comments

RfAr related:

March 2007

WP:RfAr related

Sorry but ...

Hi Penwhale. I've restored the "Online Tutoring" request to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Although I voted to decline, and the case is unlikely to be accepted, I think removing it was premature. I expect you were appropriately following the text on that page which read "Cases which have either four reject votes, or, after a reasonable period, seem unlikely to reach acceptance, will be removed from this page", but that was a recent change (March 2) which i think is problematic. I've changed the text back to the previous language: "Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page." I will initiate an AC discussion to resolve this. Sorry to have overruled your edit, and thanks for your help. Regards, Paul August ☎ 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Sorry for interfering in your April Fool's joke. Paul August ☎ 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik ?

Please advise: does the Committee intend to move forward with the case and should I close the WP:CEM request? Durova 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators are indicating that the mediation should proceed. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision#Motion to suspend the case pending mediation. Thanks for taking the lead on this. Newyorkbrad 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Falun Gong RfAr case

The named parties aren't really being that uncivil, as far as I can see; the article probation should be enough to keep things under control going forward, I think. Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

arb closing

Please see a message from me on the noticeboard. Newyorkbrad 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

• Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#24.34.77.145 and NOPLEASE

I am seriously concerned with User:Artaxiad. He had very recently stirred some problems on commons using a sockpuppet. I was wondering if ArbCom (or some other group of people) has some sort of a process against this.

-- Cat 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. - Penwhale | 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the follow up. Judging by the recent blocks (a list of them - not sure if its complete) I noticed Artaxiad had Kurdish, Greek, Armenian alternate persona (sockpuppets). Some of these were rather amazing such as User:Lakers. I was wondering if he has other alternate persona which may go under the radar if they are using open proxies and etc. Also the checkuser data will expire in a month. Something should be done to keep those to make it possible to detect future sockpuppets. I just don't want to deal with any more disruption from these/this people/person.

Oh and by the way, user seems to have voted witha few sockpuppets at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Angusmclellan. More of his sockpuppets may be there

-- Cat 10:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a talk with Mackensen. He told me that you'll need to talk to a commons checkuser since :en has no authority over commons. Go to m:CheckUser#Wikimedia_Commons for the Commons part. I'll dig around on the RfA page, but I'll need help since I'm not an admin. - Penwhale | 10:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh this request was for en.wikipedia sockpuppets. Once we eliminate them all here, we can do a commons collaboration - though I do not feel that is necessary at this point since his disruption there is minimal. -- Cat 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do want to be prepared should the need arise. -- Cat 11:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:RFCU? - Penwhale | 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Several of the users complained almost immediately. Sorry for the misplaced comments btw :P -- Cat 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanxs for the first Misplaced Pages email I've every received! I understand your point. The statements of the involved parties are biased to some extent by their politics, so the categorization serves as a reference point. In no way was I attempting to polarize the RfA into a dispute between two political ideologies. I understand how "In short, users that support the pan-blue coalition will oppose Gangsta for his blasphemous and heretical edits, while people that support the pan-green coalition will support Gangsta for his all-too-true and much awaited edits. ;)" could come off as suggesting that "all the editors who are seeking resolution is pan-blue." I included the ;) so that it would not be taken too seriously (kind of like a light-hearted joke). Thanxs again for the email. =) Jumping cheese 07:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

WP:RFCU says that checkusers related to open arbitration cases must be requested elsewhere. How does one go about doing that? JFD 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. JFD 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a checkuser request in the Motions and requests section of the workshop page.

Is there anything else that needs to be done for this to be placed in the queue for checkuser requests?

JFD 21:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it a little time; if nothing comes of it I'll notify the arbitrators. - Penwhale | 05:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you. JFD 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After 2 weeks, nothing came of the checkuser request I made on the workshop page, so I made another request at WP:RfCU and the results came back positive. What must I do so that these checkuser results are reflected in the Arbitration case before it closes? JFD 05:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Tags on Waldorf-related Articles

There has been an organized effort to alter the tags you have placed on Waldorf-related articles to remove the link to my talk page. Regardless of whether an editor feels justified in deleting this link - it sets a bad precedent when editors take it upon themselves to alter tags placed on the articles by arbitrators. The continued removal of POV and other tags from the articles by biased editors was one of the major issues of the arbitration in the first place. Working as a team, two editors have deleted the link to my talk page for very personal (POV-related) reasons - the don't care for my discussion on my talk page about articles that I have been banned from. As far as I know, I am free to discuss any issues I choose on my talk page, and I am appreciating and taking advantage of that freedom. Some editors have noticed that their POV edits are getting scrutiny by me and have taken it upon themselves to delete this link to my discussions about the inappropriateness of the edits they are making. Other editors are seeking my help in identifying ways in which the articles could be brought closer to NPOV (they are currently very slanted). As far as I know, I have done nothing wrong in permitting discussion about Waldorf to continue on my talk page. The only people who are doing something wrong, in my view, besides the editors who are producing extremely POV articles are the two editors who are altering the ArbCom's tags.

Rudolf Steiner

• Bellowed asks for edit suggestions
• Bellowed asks for edit suggestions
• Bellowed asks for edit suggestions

This is EXACTLY what user Bellowed has suggested I am not allowed to do from my discussion page - allow people to ask me for suggestions on how to make the articles better.

Tag Alteration: Rudolf Steiner

• Bellowed removes notice with link to my page.
• Erdanion reverts Bellowed's edit
• Erdanion Removes link to my page.

Waldorf

• Bellowed removes
• Erdanion reverts
• Erdanion Removes link to my page.

Anthroposophy

• Bellowed (anonymously) removes
• Erdanion reverts
• Erdanion Removes link to my page.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. Pete K 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pete K is prohibited from editing articles about Waldorf education and related topics and their talk pages. This does not mean that he is prohibited from discussing Waldorf with other editors on their or his talk pages (although forcing himself on someone else's talk page without an invitation and getting wound up would be a problem). If someone wants to ask advice he can give it. Note however that editors making edits on behalf of a banned user run the risk of being banned as proxy editors (i.e. being placed under the same article ban). It would be a judgment call for an admin to ban and a risk for the third party editor. The article ban was put in palce because ArbCom decided Pete was a disruptive editor. If a third party editor takes Pete's advice and the disruption resumes that's an easy call to ban. However, there is no specific prohibition against Pete discussing Waldorf on his or other editors talk pages. (Such a ban would be impossible to enforce anyway, as discussions could be carried on off-wiki by chat or email.) Hope this helps. Thatcher131 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note, the links have once again been removed. The editor (Erdanion) who is removing them says he discussed this with others - and indeed he did and was told the links should stay. This is all related to the other problems these articles are experiencing - extreme POV pushing and WP:OWNing. It is an intention to control the content and to remove all criticism. The recent edits and discussions on those article pages clearly confirms this. --Pete K 15:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You stated here that this user should restore the templates. This has not been done. Is there someone else that needs to be involved in enforcing this? Thanks in advance for your response... --Pete K 23:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I please have a response to the above? Thanks. Pete K 03:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've talked to a few other clerks; they haven't really gotten back to me. It'll be a little time before I get back to you. - Penwhale | 15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I appreciate your effort here. --Pete K 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so more days have gone by. It seems like you're too busy for this. Please let me know and I'll take my complaints elsewhere. I assumed that since you put the tag up, you would be the person to support it, but I can take it to administrators or the arbitration clerk if you are too busy. Thanks! --Pete K 17:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

I take it that you are acting on behalf of the administrators. Since you know more about these things, don't you think Pete K's page is violeting what there shouldn't be on your user page:

• Polemical statements:

- Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages co-founder

I don't know what to do about it. But I wonder if the meaning of the notice is to have a link to a that kind of place. Erdanion 09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is some additional discussion on this topic. Erdanion has crossed a line here and this issue needs to be addressed at the highest levels of Misplaced Pages. Does a user have the right to alter templates placed on articles by the ArbCom? If not, then the templates should be restored to their original condition pending a decision by Misplaced Pages. In this case, this is a single-subject user, like so many other single-subject users here, doing damage control for Waldorf. --Pete K 02:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Proposed decision

I have a feeling that the recent evidence submitted are not seen by the Arbitrators. Some more people have put their evidence forward after the arbitration case moved into "voting phase", but it doesn't seem like Arbitrators are reading all the evidence. Also, User:N1u seems like a likely sock of User:Certified.Gangsta. What must be done so that the evidence are reflected in the Arbitration case before it closes? LionheartX 14:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff

Re: RFM-Request

I didn't realize people *weren't* subst'ing it. I figure it should be. I might set my bot on it later. ^demon 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense to subst it, in my opinion. Seeing as it's used on over 550 pages now (as of about 2 seconds ago, I checked), we should probably decide whether to protect it, or make it subst'd. ^demon 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And as for RFMF, we typically remove that, post-mediation-request, so no worries on it. ^demon 12:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, for RFM-Request that is...we can keep RFMF as-is. ^demon 09:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your input requested

Greetings, Penwhale. I'm looking for a few objective, experienced editors to provide their input on this MfD page. Browsing through your contrib history, I believe you meet both criteria. Thank you, --Otheus 13:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the correct link was Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Otheus/sandbox/dr with fmgt151 possie. However, given that the page has become a de facto attack page against me, and that the nominators and supporters show no signs of discussing things civilly, I've voted for speedy deletion. --Otheus 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No Title

Hello admin, thanks for adding the resources on my talk page. It's really helpful :D 137.132.3.11 17:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin... Did you make a mistake? - Penwhale | 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: MedCom instructions

Sure go ahead, I had completely forgotten about that. ^demon 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No Problem

Zeq 06:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks

Thanks for clarification. But should I wait for admins establish the account to be a sock, even if it is obvious that it is a ban evading user? As of now, a number of articles has been reverted by brand new accounts, which obviously have been created for the sole purpose of edit warring. Grandmaster 09:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll wait till someone addresses my report on WP:ANI here: just to be on a safe side and then act according to WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. But the situation with socks gets out of hand, we have now 3 main puppeteers reverting the articles to certain ethnic POV. Situation should be urgently addressed by admins, as continuous abusive use of socks would lead to further escalation of the dispute. Thanks a lot. Grandmaster 09:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. I will do that later today, I gotta go now. Regards, Grandmaster 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

user:artaxiad

I did that, shouldn't I have semiprotected it? deniz_C 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I do that, if I can do that? I am not an admin.deniz_C 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Michael G. Davis 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for the clarification. I misunderstood the page and was under the impression that it was at the very least a violation of the spirit of 3RR (since it was just over 24 hours), but if that's the ruling, that's the ruling. It's not like I was expecting an admin to get warned or anything, just wanted to let someone know about it. What can I say, the guy's driving me nuts with the POV stuff. Sorry for the trouble. - RPIRED 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching?

Would you be interested in some coaching toward WP:RFA? You've been doing excellent work these last few months and if you'd like to get mopified I think you're on track for a candidacy by late summer. Contact me at my user talk page if you're interested and I'll share some pointers. Warm regards, Durova 06:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful Comments

When you posted on my talkpage, what were you refering to? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.49.210.37 (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Simultaneous reverting

Oops, sorry, looks like I reverted you. I wonder why I didn't get an edit conflict? But I guess it doesn't matter, we obviously reverted to the same version. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC).