Revision as of 00:46, 2 November 2007

If you're writing me a comment about an RfAr request or case, click here. I do move comments around when I see fit.

Archive info:
/Archive1 Start - Jun 30, 2005
/Archive2 July 1 2005 - July 23 2006
/Archive3 July 24 2006 - Feb 25 2007
/Archive4 March 2007
/Archive5 April - July 2007
/Archive6 August - September 2007

RfAr related:

March 2007 April/May 2007 June/July 2007 August/September 2007

WP:RfAr related

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/

• Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) the motion to dismiss at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed decision passes 5-1 and the case should be closed. Could you take a look and see if the case needs closing. Thanks. Eluchil404 04:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There are others that are interested in helping out at the WP:AC/CN, so I'm waiting to see whether anyone is interested in taking it. (It's pretty simple for a test closure.) I will do it tomorrow if no new guy does it. - Penwhale | 05:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles done

All spammed except VK, which you said you'd do. Daniel 08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Troubles Arbcom

This Arbcom has barely closed and the Irish team are already stalking at least me, and the Irish Admin Brownhairedgirl is already threatening me with Warnings (see my talk Page) even though I have deliberately steered clear of them all according to the ArbCom's decision. As she was one of the "involved admins" in The Troubles Arbcom I feel I must protest. Could you direct me? Thanks. David Lauder 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The fact is that the talk pages of an article generally isn't used to discuss about the subject itself. Just as the fact that I don't like Britney Spears' recent actions, I don't go to her talk page and bash her about it. You were discussing your dislike of Common Era on the talk page. I can see that you feel offended, but you still need to keep a cool head. Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article, if it can be shown that the subject is valid. - Penwhale | 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't so much objecting to the article but the manner in which it had been fabricated and, moreso, to its use in articles across Misplaced Pages when almost the entire world, (with the exception of China), whatever their religion, has to use the Christian calendar because the West uses it. Many Marxist lectureres in our universities insist upon using the Common Era, for obvious reasons. So its a little more than "I don't like it". It is truth versus garbage. My understanding is that if you have something to say about an article you do it on the Talk Page. If that is not the case, where do you comment? But that is not my reason for coming to you and I would be very grateful if you could address not the Common era issue but my complaint and request about people stalking me. Or was the ArbCom meaningless, as several have emailed me to say. Thanks. David Lauder 08:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have something to speak of the content, not really the subject -- for example, saying that a paragraph needs to be re-written is okay; bashing the subject of CE is unacceptable. About stalking, I need a little time to analyze. Seeing that I'm a student, I might not be the best person to look into this (though I can certainly try) - Penwhale | 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I went to several pages on WP on traditional subjects and I was horrified to see that anno Domini had been replaced by this Common era meaningless nonsence, and upon clicking on that link it took me to that page, where I left my feelings on the matter. I can't really say anything further on that matter, and past experience has shown me that attempting to debate or even discuss certain issues on WP is pointless. There simply are not enough 'old-fashioned' people like me about to make up the 'consensus'. But that was not the issue I brought to you. I just felt that the ArbCom had stipulated that the admins who played a role in that should not be following me around waiting to pounce. That is what has happened. It is not a question of BHG attempting to justify herself. Thanks anyway. David Lauder 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they changed it without a good reasoning, bring it up somewhere (I'm not sure where). See the Sea of Japan naming dispute (which is worse than AD/CE dispute at the moment). I'm sorry that I am unable to give you a good example. I can look into the matter during my free time, but like I mentioned before, student = not a lot of free time. :) - Penwhale | 20:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff

Block of Crimperman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You blocked this user for a violation of 3RR. While it was technically a 3RR violation, his reverts were obviously correct (the content was borderline vandalism), and this was a very inexperienced user who was likely not aware of 3RR (he didn't get any warning at all) and seemed to be editing in good faith. This block looks a little bitish. I urge you to reconsider, and to unblock and give him a 3RR warning instead (remember that you are not obliged to block for 3RR). Anyway, you're doing fine as an admin so far :) Melsaran (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was originally going to do a 24h block, but then I looked at the history and cut it in half. Still, you're right. - Penwhale | 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. I hope the user in question will be a little more careful from now on :). I'd actually say that the other edit warrior appeared to be a vandalism-only account, but why not AGF and see what happens after his block expires. Melsaran (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond... I have no issue with the block on me - I broke the 3RR so fair enough and I do appreciate the fact that it was reduced - thanks. I know about the 3RR but didn't at the start of what became the edit war. I did try to contact the other user via their Talk page and also requested a semi-protection on that page once I saw the situation was escalating. My concern was primarily that the non-encyclopaedic POV stuff would be left on there when the protection went on and I felt this was unfair to the Charity. I should say that I work for them but I have always tied to keep my contributions in keeping with Misplaced Pages's POV rules. I felt the stuff the other user was adding did not and could also be potentially harmful to the Charity's work.

I would have alerted others if I knew who to alert and how in this situation but my searches on Misplaced Pages came up dry - perhaps I am looking in the wrong place. Can you enlighten me please? Ta Crimperman 08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion should help. Or (try to) start discussion on the talk page. - Penwhale | 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know it seems the other user came back and inserted the same POV into the same page ( Contact a Family- although in a different place. I have corrected that now but I do not want to get into an edit war. I have also requested admin assistance. Crimperman 08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Make sure that if you think it's POV editing, when you revert, say that "remove POV" instead of vandalism. Also, admin incident board would probably be a better place to report. - Penwhale | 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay - thanks for the advice. I thought that persistent POV editing was vandalism? Not been through a dispute on here before so your help is appreciated. :o) Crimperman 12:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jumping in here if that's okay ... Vandalism is defined as an edit or actiom that intentionally damages the quality of the encyclopedia. POV editing violates policy and needs to be corrected, but it's rare that the editor is doing so for vandalistic motives; more commonly he or she just doesn't realize for whatever reason that the material isn't NPOV. "Vandalism" can be an inflammatory word that leads to making disputes more bitter rather than resolving them, so it should not be used except where it clearly applies. Hope this helps and good luck resolving the issue you're involved in. Newyorkbrad 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I did understand that and I wasn't being argumentative when I asked the question you responded to. I was just checking. I've taken Penwhale's advice on board and won't be calling POV vandalism any more :o). The other user has been given a final warning by an admin and hopefully that's all that is needed now although it does appear the account was created to insert this POV stuff. Crimperman 10:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

help

but what if the page is protected?

• Use the unblock-l mailing list. - Penwhale | 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge RFArb comment

WP:CSN just got shut down... so I'd say something has been done  :)--Isotope23 16:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou

I unblocked him early for his 3RR vio on 1929 hebron massacre. If you object, please go ahead and reblock, with my apologies. Jaakobou explained what happened to me, and it appears that he is inserting valid sourced information into the article, which is being reverted without so much as a reason why, with the other user logging out to attempt to bypass 3RR. As I see it, removing sourced information is vandalism, which is an exception to the 3RR; however even without that, I felt that he was apologetic enough to warrant an unblocking. Please let me know if there are any problems. ⇒ SWATJester 23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks to you both for handling this matter. I am puzzled or bothered by one thing in Swatjester's account, which is Jaakobou's claim that the reverts are "without so much as a reason why" -- if I'm not mistaken these reverts directly concern the disputed sources in the 3O discussion. There, the opposing party is clearly giving reasons. While Jaakobou may not like said reasons, the point is to discuss, not to revert or edit war as if the information is sourced. Do you see what I mean? Again, I leave the blocking decision up to you folks. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, I didn't in depth read the talk page, I just skimmed it. Still it would have been nice to see edit summaries other than "rv trolling". ⇒ SWATJester 00:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't do much about their edit summaries, but I apologize for not being more clear about this in my 3RR request. Thanks for your work on this. HG | Talk 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even see this from a 3RR request (I assume at WP:AN3.) I found it on #wikipedia-en-unblock. ⇒ SWATJester 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I need to learn more about the unblocking processs. Anyway, here's the 3RR diff, thanks again. HG | Talk 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Since it was a 24 hour block, I don't think there's any action further to be taken really, other than us not cluttering up Penwhale's talk page any longer. As a note HG, other unblocking processes beyond the unblock template, include m:OTRS Unblock queue, unblock-en-l mailing list, and #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. Penwhale, my apologies for holding an extended conversation on your talk page, that's rude of me to do.⇒ SWATJester 04:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I actually had Deskana look at the IP and it didn't match to the other user accused of breaching 3RR. Nevertheless, revert warring is still bad, which is why I also pp'd the page. - Penwhale | 08:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the page protection had already gotten them talking a bit differently. Shameless pitch: If you (or your readers) know any third parties who would like to comment at Hebron, that would help. Thanks again for the protection & your efforts, Penwhale. HG | Talk 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

您好/どうぞよろしくJust for the record. I was waiting for a 3RR block on my page, and on Jaakobou's page, withholding further editing, and none appeared. I had denounced myself for violating the rule, inadvertently, because I do have trouble with it, and no one seemed to notice. HG took the case up, and apparently only Jaakobou got the rap (though there is no evidence he was blocked on his page). It took me sometime to clarify the mystery, since I am not familiar, and do not much care about denunciation pages at arbitration sites, preferring to simply argue my differences with other editors on the page. It's unfortunate that, by initiating a self-block, I involved a block on another editor while I got off scot-free. In my day doing that makes me look like a 'dobber'. Regards/晚安 Nishidani 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother. A request for clarification. Can a person who has been blocked appeal privately to another administrator, (I can see no record on User_talk:Swatjester's page, or Jaakobou's page of any complaint registered about the action, though Swatjester's remarks indicate Jaakobou did contact him?), and can that administrator then act without a public record being given on the appropriate pages? Perhaps I have missed something, but I like to keep my records straight,(and my record straight) and have failed to find a trace of Penwhale's 24 hr block, and the subsequent cancellation of that block on Wiki. (I suspect it is my incompetence). Nishidani 17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

About your first comment: I had a checkuser to check who the IP was, and it didn't match you, so you didn't violate 3RR. Second, some administrators regularly patrols WP:AN3 and will investigate on their own. Also, Jaakobou could've emailed Swatjester. The lack of warning is fault on my part. - Penwhale | 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Department of redundancy department

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Don.27t_panic says:

Don't panic

20) Misplaced Pages users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Misplaced Pages, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way.

Passed 5-0 at 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't over-react

22.1) Misplaced Pages users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Misplaced Pages, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way. For example, it is predictable that Misplaced Pages and its users will from time to time be subjected to harsh, and occasionally unfair, criticism. This comes with the territory, and it is unseemly, even ridiculous, to react harshly to predictable phenomena.

Passed 6-0 at 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the latter includes every word of the former, it should be pretty clear the former is unnecessary. --AnonEMouse 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I knew I missed something along that line. - Penwhale | 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely understandable, because the numbering scheme in this case became such a mess. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Balloons!

Balloons

-- Cat 21:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Moosh88

You warned this user last month that the restrictions imposed by the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Arbcom decison now apply to him/her as well; however, the user made two reverts today without discussion:, . I know this is a violation since I have been blocked before for reverting without discussion.-- Ευπάτωρ 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)