User talk:Penwhale/ArchiveArb052007

Sorry but ...

Hi Penwhale. I've restored the "Online Tutoring" request to Wikipedia: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)

Wikipedia: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^Charge! 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators are indicating that the mediation should proceed. See Wikipedia: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)

Wikipedia: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 ^chi? 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 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 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angusmclellan. More of his sockpuppets may be there

-- Cat ^chi? 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 | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 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 ^chi? 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Try WP:RFCU? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Hey!

Thanxs for the first Wikipedia 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 ^Cont@ct 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 | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 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

• [1] Bellowed asks for edit suggestions
• [2] Bellowed asks for edit suggestions
• [3] 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

• [4] Bellowed removes notice with link to my page.
• [5] Erdanion reverts Bellowed's edit
• [6] Erdanion Removes link to my page.

Waldorf

• [7] Bellowed removes
• [8] Erdanion reverts
• [9] Erdanion Removes link to my page.

Anthroposophy

• [10] Bellowed (anonymously) removes
• [11] Erdanion reverts
• [12] 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 | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 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:

“ libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea' ”

- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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)

Wikipedia: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)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Workshop

Hey Penwhale, this edit seems to have removed a lot of content - was this intentional? Cheers, – Riana ⁂ 07:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It was intentional for a few reasons: first section wasn't a "request" -- and this case is currently hindered due to exams of multiple parties. The other section (which is asking the emails not to be considered as evidence) do not belong in remedies section, either. If they want to ask for request, they can do so in the correct section. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me :) – Riana ⁂ 10:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CEM

Hi, Penwhale. The mediation process will probably end without start, cause of the sockpuppetry issue of Tajik. What will be the following procedure? If we're 100% sure that Tajik edited under various usernames or ips, would he stay blocked? In this case, what should i do? Am i allowed to edit normally? What would be the Arbitration case? Am i still under probation? I shall greatly appreciate your mentorship? Thanks in advance. Regards. E104421 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have left a comment asking Tajik to defend himself in the Arbitration case. If he does not, then a motion can be raised to resolve the case quickly. At this point, I would stay put if I were you. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Penwhale. I shall follow the previous probation rules and the paroles. I think the mediation will proceed if Tajik defends himself for the sockpuppetry, am i right? E104421 18:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Durova has mentioned that she's going to close the mediation request. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh, then what will be the procedure? Will the Arbitration committee first discuss Tajik's defence for the sockpuppetry or directly go into the main issue? In my opinion, the mediation would be quite helpful, cause the conflicts between us are related with the controversial topics not the personal ones. There would be a chance to discuss these. In any case, i shall wait for your call. Regards. E104421 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear from Durova. Once she clarifies her stance, I can proceed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Actually, i'd prefer encouraging Tajik to join the CEM, cause Tajik's sockpuppetry case is out of the main issue of conflicts. Regards. E104421 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing

Hi there. I realize that you're probably very busy, however I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the ongoing situation with TingMing (talk · contribs), which seems to be going nowhere fast. While I was able to secure a voluntary agreement from Jerrypp772000 (talk · contribs) to abstain from editing the articles in question [13], there has been no forthcoming agrement with TingMing who continues to engage in what I consider to be disruptive behavior, edit warring across multiple articles, and continuing to behave in a belligerent manner towards other editors and making unilateral changes, while attempting to game the system, claiming to be "hurt" any time someone takes issue with his behavior. The situation is rapidly worsening and spiraling out of control again. I was involved in blocking TingMing twice during the early stages of the arbitration in an effort to get him to stop the edit warring. It is apparent however, that he did not get the intended message both times. However, having become more involved in the Arbitration since, I have refrained from taking direct action against him. The Arbitration needs to proceed soon, lest the situation become even worse. Thanks. -Loren 02:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty in the matter. Would it be possible for you to explain the current situation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration? I would do so myself, but I feel that it would be best if you explained the situation and your rationale in your own words. -Loren 05:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Tajik's block

Hello. user:Tajik was ujustly block on the false accusation that he was user:Tajik-Professor. I know both of these users off Wikipedia and I know for a fact that they are not the same person. Both users are from Germany that is why the admins simply assumed they were the same person. If they only looked more carefully at his IP and their edit histories they would easily see he was not him.

Also, here you told him to make his case, but he can't because he is block indefinatly. So how can he defend himself?

Please intervene with this because user:Dmcdevit has something against user:Tajik and will simply ignore me. Thanks. --Behnam 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

user: Tajik cannot work on the arbitration because he is blocked indefinatly. So how can he work on the arbitration? --Behnam 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Have him use {{unblock}} on his talk page to indicate he wants to work on arbitration. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tajik can e-mail any or all of the arbitrators, most of whose email addresses are given at WP:AC or may be accessed through the wikipedia e-mail feature. Most of the arbitrators have checkuser access and can double-check Dmcdevit's findings. Thatcher131 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)