This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blechnic (talk | contribs) at 08:49, 1 August 2008 (→No threaded discussions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Archive info:
/Archive1 Start - Jun 30, 2005
/Archive2 July 1 2005 - July 23 2006
/Archive3 July 24 2006 - Feb 25 2007
/Archive4 March 2007
/Archive5 April - July 2007
/Archive6 August - September 2007
/Archive7 October - November 2007
/Archive8 December 2007 - May 2008

RfAr related:

March 2007 April/May 2007 June/July 2007 August/September 2007 October 2007 - February 2008

WP:RfAr related

Other stuff

??? - Romanian politics/party colours/SZNC

Still I do not understand why is an used color template deleted. I specified it was not made for testing. This color template is used in Hungarian and Romanian wiki also. -- Ercsaba74 19:55, Jun 19, 2008 (EEST) —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing part of the template, as all it came out was bgcolor="#000099" which by itself does nothing. - Penwhale | 16:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In Hungarian and Romanian wiki is enough. I corrected the problem I think. -- Ercsaba74 20:58, Jun 19, 2008 (EEST) —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

AH! I see it now... It's transcluded, that would be why that I made a mistake at the start. sorry! - Penwhale | 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled

I'm a bit puzzled by your comment here. I don't quite understand what you're saying. Could you please clarify? -- ChrisO (talk)

Look at the related remedy. The wording says Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Nowhere in the remedy does it grant Elonka the right to impose blanket 0RR (even though it may work). I'm just saying that the imposed 0RR was not granted by ArbCom, and can be challenged. - Penwhale | 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But it goes on to say bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, a 0RR is a restriction on reverts, so I think her 0RR was okay. It also says bans are okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah. If you read the paragraph as a whole -- he needs to be warned and THEN 0RR can be imposed on him. It means that a blanket 0RR is not called for. - Penwhale | 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's not what you said before, you said she can't do it, then you said she can if she warns him. The remedy clearly says revert restrictions are okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem at the moment is that it was a blanket 0RR -- that includes us, who never edited anything related to that area. Is she empowered to do that--- that's what I meant. Yes, revert restrictions are okay, but not as blanket 0RR. - Penwhale | 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I see what you're saying. But she could also fully protect it, which would be even more limiting than a blanket 0RR, and full protection is a standard remedy always available. Would you agree that a 0RR on the editor in question is acceptable? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is: it was full-protected. Elonka lifted the full protection to introduce the 0RR which, in my opinion, allows people to war over the article. I'd rather (and prefer) a consensus on the talk page first. - Penwhale | 06:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who requested full protection in the first place - to be honest, I was very surprised that it was lifted before any consensus had been reached (it still hasn't been). By the way, one important point in this matter is that Elonka takes the view that even BLP edits aren't permitted under 0RR. My edit in this case was pursuant to both BLP and WP:COPY (since there was a copyvio involved); I was under the impression that BLP (legitimately used) always trumps xRR. That's a policy question that I hope the arbs will sort out. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, as we've already discussed, there's a difference between blatant "must be removed immediately!" BLP violations, and others which can be treated with a bit more patience, as normal WP:V issues. Also, your revert was clearly just a "POV" revert at the time, and had nothing to do with BLP. You only came up with that afterwards, after the ban.

Penwhale, just to be clear, even with the 0RR restrictions, WP:AGF and WP:BITE still definitely apply. If a new editor wanders in and reverts, I'm not going to immediately ban them. Instead, I might point out the conditions to them and explain that the article is under ArbCom restrictions. This happened with Liftarn. He did a revert, I left a polite note on his talkpage, he chose to revert his reversion, and all was fine. --Elonka 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already gone over with you on your talk page the exact sequence of edits in which I advised Julia1987 not to violate BLP with those claims on the talk page, she went ahead and did it anyway, and I removed the single line that was problematic, leaving the rest of her additions intact. But we'll see what the arbitrators have to say. I'm confident that they will agree that Julia1987's edit was a BLP violation and removing it was the right thing to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Penwhale, the I-P restrictions can be imposed on pages as well as on editors. In fact, the very first restriction imposed under the ruling was a revert restriction a page: In fact, the Pallywood article itself has previously been under revert restrictions: Jayjg 22:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama protection

I am not sure how you can justify adding full protection to an article that has not been edited for 16 hours. Please reconsider. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to request that this be lifted. The only real editing going on was my not so smart revert (which I then requested be re-reverted). Could you please reconsider? Arkon (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, the protection is only in place so a discussion can take place and that once it takes place, I'll remove the full protection. The lack of discussion is what upsets me really. - Penwhale | 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope this doesn't sound rude, but you may want to take a look at the talk page again. The discussion has been extremely lively. It might not have resolved anything yet, but thats no reason to protect a page. Arkon (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As a courtesy, please note that I've commented on this on the ANI page at WP:ANI#More trouble at Barack Obama - you marked it resolved but that seems to be the best place to discuss process. In short, it was a false ANI report, and there was no edit war. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Robert Half International

Was it not possible for you to simply restore/revert this page, which was for a major company on the List of S&P 500 companies, to an earlier non-spam version of the page? Instead, you deleted it on Jun 19, apparently due to a spam modification of some of the content. Only you know what was there in prior versions, before you deleted the whole page. For what it's worth, this practice of some administrators deleting all page history from view, rather than taking the time to revert/restore/correct a spammed page to a better version, is the main reason I stopped bothering to do any work in Misplaced Pages. 12.72.192.34 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article was in need of rewrites and the deleted revision violated the copyright of the company's website. Yes, I believe that delete may be overboard, but there really isn't much for me to revert to, as many revisions read like advertisements. - Penwhale | 05:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Half International is noteworthy, otherwise it wouldn't be able to sell $4.6 billion of services per year. I am a neutral party, and am willing to rewrite whatever article there was as soon as you revert it. Just let me know. Bagsc (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Bagsc

If you want, I'll restore it and move it to userspace until you're done. We can work on the details regarding that restore. - Penwhale | 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo

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

• Apparently I lost my typing capability for a sec. Thanks. - Penwhale | 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No threaded discussions

What does this mean? No threaded discussions? Where are the rules? I looked everywhere for them, it appears the rules are the Wiki usual: regulars do what they want, and apply rules when non-regulars say something they disagree with? Please, would it be too much for someone to provide a link to the rules when enforcing them against a non-regular, or an explanation? Skip it. I know better. --Blechnic (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_guide#Your_statement. You're supposed to respond to other people's statements in your own section. I regret that I didn't move your statements to your section. - Penwhale | 08:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Or remove other people's threads from other peoples' sections including mine? Rules on Misplaced Pages are so arbitrarily enforced (ie, you piss of a "regular" and it's enforced against you), that I never quite know what to do when people quote rules at me. Duck, I suppose. --Blechnic (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Blechnic, you didn't "piss off" me. The plain fact is that the request for arbitration page has strict procedures because the site's most difficult disputes end up there. If threaded discussion were permitted at these statements then the page would become unreadable. A share of the editors who end up as named parties are experts at gaming the system, and one of the simplest ways to game precedent is to point to occasions where another person was given a slide, then fire accusations of favoritism and bias. For this reason, and because I've had involvement in many cases, I had to make the same request of you that I'd make of anyone. I thought you were a well-intentioned editor who takes this site's good faith policy to heart and that there would be no problem--I certainly expected my follow-up explanation yesterday would have settled any remaining doubt. Apparently it hasn't and I'm very disappointed. I was pleased with your diligence in the CS case and came to your defense when other Wikipedians thought you had gone too far. Now I begin to wonder whether they were seeing something I'd missed. It certainly is unusual that such a minor procedural request generates as much resentment as this. I hope this is just a bad week for you, and that things will return to normal soon, and I bear you no ill will. Durova 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Wow! My gawd. All this because I asked for a link? I really missed something. Penwhale, I will take your talk page off of my watchlist, and I apologize for my part in leading up to this post by Durova. --Blechnic (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day Penwhale

I don't think our wiki paths have crossed, so it's great to 'meet' you! I made this post just now, and then noticed that this page had been protected by you - this seems very sensible to me, and I thought you might be a good person to chat to about discussing how this year's election might work - or actually at this stage, discussing how the community might discuss how this year's election might work! best, Privatemusings (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)