User talk:Penwhale/ArchiveArb123108

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 Wikipedia, 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 &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 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 &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 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 &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 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 &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 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 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo
FYI, there is a "Dinding" of fact in Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently I lost my typing capability for a sec. Thanks. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 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 Arbitration_guide. 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 &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 08:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or remove other people's threads from other peoples' sections including mine? Rules on Wikipedia 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 Charge! 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)

Geogre-WMC case
The clerks' noticeboard states that:

Arbitrators who vote "abstain" on a given proposal are deducted from the number of available Arbitrators on that proposal (i.e., the same as if they were recused on that issue). Thus, the majority with respect to such a proposal may be different from the remaining proposals in the same case.

As such, I think you should recalculate which items pass, since some arbitrators abstained from voting on some items in that case. TML (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I try to do that with most of it, but yes, I do miss a few things every now and then. (Granted, I'm technically not clerking that case...) - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 00:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Concern with some edits
I'm making this comment not as a clerk of the Arbitration Committee, but as a fellow editor. I found it hard to agree with what you've done with these edits you made to the WP:RFAR page. It is very bad etiquette to alter/change other people's statements, even formatting wise, unless you're explicitly asked to do so (which is why that even though there is a supposed limit in comment size, clerks generally do not enforce it unless asked by Arbitrators - and it's only enforced when the original commentator refuses to shorten it after notices are given). In the future, please refrain from editing other people's comments, even formatting wise. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, I'm replying to you in both your capacities: as an editor, but more particularly as a clerk. The nasty business that happened a couple of months ago ended with me making a conclusion - I still maintain that.


 * Regardless of what stage of dispute resolution, I enforce formatting guidelines to maintain consistency - the guidelines are in force for a reason. Ignoring them on some occasions and enforcing them on certain others is one problem with the dispute resolution process. The RFC/U process gave all appearances that it deteriorated into an attack zone due to lack of enforcement - this is now resolved in some ways due to more consistent enforcement of formatting guidelines. The guidelines exist to maintain consistency for all parties. If that isn't their purpose, I wonder what is - especially if it becomes a norm to neither respect or enforce those guidelines consistently across all stages of dispute resolution. Although arbitration may be a binding process, that neither eliminates, nor changes the purpose of those guidelines.


 * With or without notices, arbitrators are entitled to ensure such consistency is maintained (by completely removing statements that fail to adhere to the word limit). Kirill was bold enough to do so for the greater good and I endorse his action on the relevant request - as well as his message to the clerks' noticeboard: a request that the clerks get their act together. I did not strictly enforce that word limit or remove any statement; I merely touched a couple that were unreasonably long so that they are not removed in part or in entirity. Although I can appreciate the chance that John Vandenberg or Abtract may not have been pleased that their statements were alterred by someone else, I am confident they appreciate my reasons for me doing so, as well as the edits I made - unless you know something that I don't. If I am mistaken, I will apologise to those affected. Also bear in mind that both of them were given a courtesy note that my edits could be treated as a mere interim action and that they may change their statements accordingly as they please.


 * My own opinion differs from yours. I would appreciate thoughtful action being taken on any excessively long statements I made at the RFArb page - so no, this is not a plain case of very bad etiquette: your opinion is not absolute. Rather, I think it's futile to single my edits out as if I did not give them any thought. My edits highlight only one potential problem - certain clerks' refusal to maintain consistency. However, just because I highlight this inadequacy, the fault (if any) does not become mine. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that you did not comment on this. With regards to formatting, I followed the same style that clerks have used previously this year (diffs available). However, it appears SV's understanding of correct formatting is different. Could you link me to a relevant guideline that indicates which edit is correct in substance (I.e. whether my edit was incorrect or whether SV's edit was correct)? However, if there is none, please let me know - in that case, I'd like to open a discussion to resolve this difference so the relevant guidelines or policies may be updated for the benefit of the community. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not seen that particular edit and will post a response once I figure out what SV was doing. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, you're confused about what I am talking about. I'm not talking about your edits on the 15th. I'm talking about the fact that you collapsed other people's comments into boxes. The heading styles, personally, I do not care as much (even though the 5 ='s makes it easier to link personally). - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 15:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at my talk page following AGK's comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)