User talk:Penwhale/ArchiveArb102007

Confused

Hello there. I just saw a message that you posted on my talk page about the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, it's only 3 days that I have been started editing wikipedia and also I am not involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 I would like to know why did I get a notice from you? Thanks in advance. ROOB323 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you because the A-A 2 remedy has an effect on you, even though you were not named as a party. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am really confused. If I am not involved in A-A 2 in any way. I was only involved in A-A 1 than how does A-A 2 remedy has an effect on me? ROOB323 07:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the remedy 1 for A-A 2 is as follows: Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise. Since you were placed on revert parole (now called revert limitation) from A-A 1, this remedy affects you even though you were not named as a party during A-A 2. Confusing, I know, but that's the truth. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Requests for clarification" on RfAr

Hi. When removing old/closed threads from the "requests for clarification" section on RfAr, if arbitrators have commented in a way that sheds light on the meaning or interpretation of the original decision, it can be helpful to archive the thread to the talkpage of that decision (with a header reflecting the date of the discussion). Not sure whether that would apply to any of the threads you removed as stale today. Thanks for picking up the slack during my sorta, kinda wikibreak this week. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comments to talk page already per instructions. COFS/Personal attacks were not because they were IMO not important to a case. Thanks for looking out for me. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. Hope you're feeling de-bonked soon. Newyorkbrad 04:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Please advise which senior administrator or member of the ArbCom panel changed the title of the ArbCom case assessing the behaviour of a particular user and his indefinite ban, to a far broader title which basically encompasses a vast segment of Northern Irish politics. I have no wish to be involved in the latter. My comments were made in good faith regarding the heading of the original case and I think it extremely bad form that the heading has been changed without first contacting all those who had already contributed a comment. David Lauder 12:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the original ArbCom vote, the arbitrators decided that the scope of the case should not be limited to just Vintagekits. Via an e-mail instruction, I was asked to include all parties and name the case as The Troubles. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm out. David Lauder 12:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot withdraw from the case unless arbitrators decide that you are not involved enough and passes a motion to remove you. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on the case Talk page. Regards, David Lauder 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles

My comments on Vintagekits and on The troubles are different. It seems to me the goal posts have been moved. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you to read the section just above us. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did, if you look at my last edits. It's my point of view, really don't know if I can prove things, but it's my honest input. Thanks! Thepiper 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Got it now. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you deal with this please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First question: is User:David Lauder still "involved"? He seems to believe not as his comments are in the "others" section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Workshop. Second question: regarding evidence of edit warring, is this limited to "Troubles" articles or can more general examples be included. I'm thinking specifically of User:Astrotrain and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he's still involved. Regarding the edit warring, I believe that anything that's related to the problem can be used as evidence (like user talk pages and etc). - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 04:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Aatomic1 an involved party? He was added before then removed, but there's evidence against him now. Looking at the discussion at the top of the Workshop page Fred seems to say we can add anyone, but I thought it better to ask to be on the safe side. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not on the list at the main case page (which is here, then he's not. If you add him make sure you notify him. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 16:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding cyde

Sorry about adding cyde, i did not know that was wrong. ^(Hypnosadist) 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter whether your action has merits, we do not normally add a party this late. Thank you for understanding, though. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I note your latest advice but I was certain it was you who told me to leave a comment on the evidence of others, if I felt it necessary, on the Talk Page. Why else would I have done that? I will see if I can recall where I was told to do that. I am not "deeply involved" in this matter, as stated on that Talk Page, and I previously explained why I felt that I did not wish to be involved in the broad sweep of this Arbcom, the parameters of the original case being drastically changed. I continue to be goaded by Giano etc. I am trying not to respond but it is not easy. David Lauder 09:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why, but an Arbitrator moved the discussion that was at the case talk page out of it. Also, Arbitration Committee do not always sanction all parties involved, so keep that in mind. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THF-DSB

Penwhale, before the THF-DavidShankBone case starts, I'd like to suggest it be named THF-DSB or something. David's online handle is his real name, and Arbitration pages usually tend to get high in Google rankings, and that is usually not a good thing, esp. if the results come up for someone's name. Anyways, a suggestion. Cheers, Iamunknown 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My really quick reply: DSB needs to get a username change if that's the case (and a username change during arbitration case generally get rejected on technicality). Generally if we open case with usernames we do not use initials. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather silly not to use initials, because it will probably be courtesy blanked in the end, and an initialism might prevent that. --Iamunknown 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Sorry about that...didn't realise I was posting in the wrong place. When I looked at the page to tweak the comment and, as we say, "there it was - gone" I had a brief but explosive eruption of paranoia - these are nervous times for some of us! (Sarah777 13:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Troubles arbitration

Anyone who edits articles which relate to The Troubles (or the other affected articles) in a disruptive way may be noticed in and added as a party. No motion is required. Fred Bauder 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

You left a message on my page: "The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened." I went to the link and saw that there was no comment by me. So I added a comment. Now you removed it. So why did you leave a message for me on my talk page to begin with? Why get me involved? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notification, but I've had my say about BADSITES on the original RfAR. I'd just as soon not get involved in the actual case. Basically, I just want to be my little old exo self. My only request is my original plea: the MONGO decision should be applied on a link-by-link basis, not on a site-by-site basis. It makes no sense to forbid editors from linking to useful and acceptable material on a site simply because there may be objectionable material elsewhere on the site. And it really makes no sense to forbid certain sites solely because somebody thinks they meet a slippery, subjective definition of a "primarily" attack site. Casey Abell 16:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer Slrubenstein, normally we move all "comments" by editors not listed on the involved parties list to the talk page of the case. Your original comments are there I believe. Re: Casey Abell, it's customary to notice anyone and everyone that has made a comment on the case regarding the opening and the closure of a case. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I do not think the original notification on my talk page made it clear what was expected (or invited) of me. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

A piece of Evidence recently placed at WP:RfArb/Attack sites [1] contains unsubstantiated false, malicious, and defamatory material accessible to Google Search engines in violation of several WP policies. The purported evidence lists 5 so-called "attack sites," 4 are identified by thier site name and a 5th is referred to as "a webpage run by Nobs01." The poster identified Nobs01 a few days ago on the Fouindation mailing [2] as Rob Smith, a real life person. The poster declares this site was "set up for the purpose of harassing its [WP] volunteers. ...cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence." The site in question was brought to my attention here [link removed] and is accessible from that message. The poster on the Evidence page offers no evidence whatsoever that Rob Smith set up or maintains that website. I do not maintain such a site, and stand ready to make a sworn deposition to that affect.

I hereby formally request, in accordance with numerous Wikipedia policies and provisions, that the phrase, "a webpage run by Nobs01" be either (a) immediately removed, or (b) the name of the site in question be substituted in place. The fact that a false and baseless smear against a real life person rather than actual name of the website, as the other 4 use the actual website name, and Wikipedia Arbitration process is being used to perpetuate defamation of a living persons character needs to be addressed immediately. Please contact me if you have an questions. Thank you. --Rob Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.94.136 (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did not leave me a way to contact you now did you? That aside, I will ask for clarification on this matter. - Penwhale | ^Blast him / Follow his steps 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned by the Arbitration Committee and should not be posting on Wikipedia. Nor should he or anyone else be posting links to sites that attack and identify editors. He can email the Arbitration Committee directly at arbcom-l AT Wikipedia DOT org if he has concerns. He can also email you or individual ArbCom members through his email preferences, as long as nobody blocks his email. ElinorD (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind assistance, intervention on the Kathleen Battle page. We needed a third party to step in, as it is a page subject to dispute as to what a facts and what is gossip, NPOV and whether it follows wikipedia live biography guidelines. Thanks again! Hrannar 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]