User talk:Penwhale/ArchiveArb123113

Abortion RFAR
Hi there, is it true that this case is now overdue for opening? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  04:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Likely, (and probably). I'll work on that when I wake up some time tomorrow. >.< - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding Anthony Appleyard as a party
Looking at NYyankees51 evidence over the weekend I think Anthony Appleyard has behaved inappropriately in closing move requests. I asked on the main case talk page if he could be added as a party can you make sure the committee sees it? Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR due for close
Hey Penwhale, my eyes may be playing tricks on me, but it appears by the vote that it's reached net 4 support to close, and the 24 hours has passed? Am I mistaken? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  03:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was busy and requested help closing, but it seems everyone was not available this weekend... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think that the mentions of the topic bans on the talk pages, such as here, might not be quite right. They were banned by ArbCom, not by an admin, no? I had a dig and found something on the Prem Rawat talk page back from 2009, when two users were topic banned by ArbCom, if that helps at all. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  05:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Abortion FYI
FYI: Paul August &#9742; 15:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... err : Paul August &#9742; 16:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion Close Issue: R10 vs R10.1
Hi Penwhale. I think that remedy 10.1 should have been superseded by 10. By my reading 10 was preferred by six arbs: PhilKnight, Jclemens, David Fuchs, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad and John Vandenberg,  while 10.1 was only preferred by 4 arbs: Kirill Lokshin, Coren, Roger Davies and Elen of the Roads. Paul August &#9742; 17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of the cases where I read 10 as "8-4" and 10.1 as "9-1" - 10.1 is a better compromise as the voice seems more uniform... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion: Please formally warn a user of his topic ban
Hi Penwhale - I was hoping you could inform that he was topic-banned under the abortion arb case, as no one seems to have put a notice on his talk page and I'm worried that this might preclude anyone from sanctioning him for the topic-ban and 1RR violations that he's currently up to. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently inappropriate protection of Fae RFAr Proposed decision talk page
You protected this talk page a short time ago (while I was in the process of responding to comments there). It does not appear to be standard practice to cut off such talk page discussion at the close of a case, and I see no direction from ArbCom to do so. Protecting the page during active debate will not prevent the discussion from continuing, but only fragment it and provide ammunition to those already criticizing the process as insufficiently open and transparent. You should reverse yoiur action. On a pedantic note, misspelling "attention" in a prominent heading urging users to pay attention in not exactly an auspicious note. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for the full-protection is due to a few reasons:
 * The case clerk trainee Lord Roem is not a sysop, so he cannot do it himself;
 * The discussion threads there seems to be not related to the case itself (and ergo not the proper forum; see next point)
 * Once a case is closed, very little attention will be given to its related pages (save for the main case page itself).


 * I'm assuming that you were going to respond to a thread discussing ArbCom. AC Noticeboard Talk might be a better forum, as there's currently ongoing discussion. (Or were you trying to reply to something else?) And you have my permission to shame the person that misspelled attention (in a nice way) - although I can't find the typo... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Addendum: Please feel free to shame me. orz - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 21:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"per instruction from ArbCom"?
Re : Is that instruction publicly available? I'd like to understand how ArbCom communicates (or fails to do so). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Instructions from ArbCom to its clerks are generally coordinated on the clerks-l mailing list. Because that list is private, all instructions on that list is not available publicly. Thus, unfortunately, it is not publicly available. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So this falls under the "fails to communicate" case. May I  ask if there is a mechanism that allows you to distinguish "ArbCom" from "one Arbiter" on that list? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Individual arbitrator post to the mailing list individually - and I'm not sure what you are trying to ask, so you need to be more specific. Although, pursuant to the relevant section at Banning Policy, the ban notice should have stayed. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 06:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have, for quite some time, the concern that the arbitration process becomes less and less transparent to the average Wikipedia user, and that it is unclear who is responsible for which decisions and actions. I fear that ArbCom loses its real, consensus-based authority as a result, and thus tries to rely more and more on formal, procedural "authoritah", to the detriment of the project. You referring to "instructions from ArbCom" is such an example. The average (heck, even the experienced) user does not know who instructed you via which channel and in which form, and does not know if there is e.g. a deliberate (and deliberated) decision by ArbCom, or just an opinion by a single arbiter, or a general consensus on a mailing list that you have to interpret yourself. In particular, its not clear who is responsible for the decision. Banning_policy is a "should", not a must, and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Moreover, policies leave room for WP:IAR in a way that ArbCom increasingly does not seem to accept with respect to its decisions. Thus, it is very relevant if you do an action with explicit ArbCom backing, or not. Sorry that you now are the target of (this version of) my standard rant - I'm concerned about the process, not you individually. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Stephan, I'm glad to confirm what Penwhale says. In terms of "how" the instruction was issued, I think you said it best "general consensus on a mailing list". Thanks and regards, Lord Roem (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When an arbitration clerk takes an action in the execution of their official duties as clerk, they do so with the full authority of the Committee. Those actions are undone at the undoing user's peril. I find it extremely unlikely that it would ever occur, but should a clerk ever undertake an "official" action that does not have the backing of the Committee, we will be sure to revert it and respond appropriately. There are reasons why we do what we do, and we have been entrusted by the community to do them. If you don't like it, you're quite welcome to run for election next time yourself; I can assure you it is far more difficult than you seem to think. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 13:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Resignation request
Hi. I'd like you to resign as an ArbCom clerk, as I believe that said clerks have a duty to maintain the integrity of the arbcom process. Your choice to return the comments of a banned user are within your purview, but your choice not to block said banned user are not, and certainly your choice to make a statement and not recuse are beyond the bounds. Under what circumstances would you resign? Hipocrite (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would certainly be involved in this case, so I would not be acting as clerk. And I was involved in the previous AE (which also means that I could not act in this case, whether the editor is a sock or not). Considering that the Amendment request was NOT started by a banned user, I assumed good faith and let it be. For me to use an admin tool related to stuff that I would recuse myself is asking the impossible. (ec) I'm not done with my review of the thing. Would you HOLD ON. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 11:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that I completely do not agree with Hipocrite (as no one should with what he said here) and do not think you should resign, even though I know you were not planning to. Silver  seren C 11:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please inform me when you have completed your review of the "whole thing." Hipocrite (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote on both parts of the amendment, as well as putting up my recusal note. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 11:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you engaged in off-wiki communications (specifically, on the clerks list) with respect to the case? There are a series of actions that it appears to me you have failed to do. Please inform me when you have completed your review of the "whole thing," and feel that you have taken all of the actions you are obligated, as a clerk, to do, regardless of your recusal. Hipocrite (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No off-wiki communications on clerks list. I have requested help to look into who Rue Cardinale is at irc: on IRC, though. And a series of actions of what? Unless you explain to me, I cannot answer you back. Please hit me with a clue stick, as I'm having difficulty trying to figure out what's going on. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 11:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I will now hit you with said clue stick. The fact that you did not take any of these actions without my prompting is amongst the reasons that I am strongly considering approaching ArbCom to have you returned to trainee clerk status.
 * You should have banned the obvious sock for violating ILLEGIT section 3.
 * If you felt that notification of parties to the AE was appropriate, you should have notified Enric Naval, Maunus, MBisanz, Fut.Perf, EdJohnston, Salvio, Cailil, and T. Canens to fix the WP:CANVASS violation that the sock you should have blocked engaged in.
 * You should have notified the clerks list that the amendment request was being disrupted by an obvious sock.
 * This might have taken a bit more research, but perhaps given that you are seeking to have someone topic banned, you should have realized that "Rue Cardinale" is a street name that has frequently been used to harass MathSci by Echigo Mole.
 * Given your "difficulty" in figuring this stuff out, I contend that you may have less than the level of understanding required to be an arbitration clerk. Hipocrite (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, I'm afraid your stick is defective: it appears to be attuned to some other universe where, somehow, your illusions that you can demand action from involved administrators on your say-so has been enshrined into policy. If you knew that an editor was a returning banned user, then the onus was on you to provide evidence – in a proper venue.  Nobody on this project is obligated to spring to action at your least hint; least of which someone who would be obligated to avoid acting directly.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that you do not believe that any sufficiently aware individual should know "Rue Cardinale" was an invalid sock, or that it is not the obligation of clerks to maintain the integrity of arbitration proceedings, or that blocking socks who involve themselves with arbitration proceedings is not maintaining the integrity of said proceedings? Hipocrite (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am telling you that you are here ranting about the wrong things to the wrong people for the wrong reason. SPI is that way, and your opinions on how arbitration proceedings should occur should go there, where they will get all the attention they deserve.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, I sense that you do care very much about well-being of the arbitration process. Might I interest you in becoming one? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 12:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not be approved as a clerk. If appointed I would serve. Hipocrite (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerk Request
I'm looking at the contributions of User:Tim98Seven and would like to express concern at how on their they found their way into the ArbCom request and seem to have a significant handle on how wikipedia works. Per your role as a clerk active on the Request for clarification, I would like to ensure that SPAs with an axe to grind are not given free reign to beat up on Malleus. Hasteur (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Clerks do not have special powers, ergo, the only thing I could be able to do is to suggest someone with CU to check. However, the editor himself has stated that he was a prior editor (presumably either IP or under a different name). Try posting to CU requests, instead, as I have no power to investigate. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 20:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He has disclosed his prior account, and I believe CUs have been performed. Next time you believe SPA is involved, you should probably go directly to CUs, as they can respond more promptly. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 21:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
I recently brought a case to the Admin noticeboard regarding the Nicolás Maduro article which you handled. The IP that I reported is back and he recently removed all changes made by another user to the article. This was a clear violation of the neutrality of a BLP article. Please advise me on the best way to deal with this situation. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom dispute
How can I contribute to the Sexology arbitration? Am in an edit-war with User:Flyer22, and I believe it's germane there. This is nasty stuff, and WP must get on top of it. Thanks.

jmanooch 01:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can post to the evidence page - keep in mind, though, that proposed decisions are due any day, so unless what you're going to submit is significant, there's a chance that what you submit may be overlooked. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 06:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Mars
I've tried to provide a summary of the offenses and to make it clear who has presented which evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification
Excuse me for being nosy, but I'm interested in Arbcom processes, and not following why a filing party would be notified that Arbcom is using a different mailing list than usual. What am I missing?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Callenecc posted to Ironholds' and Kiefer.Wolfowitz's page, but not Mark Arsten's. As filing party is technically considered to be an involved party, he should also be informed, and I did so. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 21:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I was fixated on the fact that the filing parties should not have read access, without thinking about the fact that they might need to file private evidence not on wiki. That should have occurred to me and didn't. Thanks.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The information is still on the case pages, and therefore it's not as if we're concealing that information. It's just the fact that the filing party wasn't notified as per the custom (filing makes you involved automatically). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 10:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/FAQ
I was wondering, are talk pages also subject to discretionary sanctions? There has been a bit of edit warring at Talk:Bradley Manning/FAQ. StAnselm (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally behaviors on talk pages are taken into consideration, so personally I consider talk pages to be subject to DS as well. But I don't have the final say here, so you may be better off asking an arbitrator. ^^ - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually have a question related to this, so you were an admin tangentially involved. Recently, you had warned Squeakbox and Two kinds of pork of their conduct and discretionary sanctions. I was reading the discussion on the arbitration case and checked Squeakboxes/Two kinds of pork talk pages to learn more about what happened (was curious) and I noticed that Squeakbox had "archived" the page by blanking it and not including a reference to where the warning is. I undid the blanking and got an earful from the user (I only did the one undo, I have no history with this individual that I can recall). Guidelines seem to be inconsistent here, with WP:BLANKING suggesting it's allowed, but not best practice, while WP:Removing Warnings suggesting that removing warnings in this manner was improper and that editors may be subject to a minor block for prematurely archiving warnings. In this case, the user didn't even archive it normally, putting it in an "archive" that was unlinked until he/she was called on it. The user threatened to take me to ANI if I didn't apologize, so I need some guidance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a warning, so it technically is okay (not an active sanction), but the removal of it implies that the editor has read the warning and thus can be sanctioned further if situation calls for it. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sexology
Hey. No doubt you'll be aware as a clerk yourself, but given that Sexology was vague on the word "and", so I've opened a clarification request. Best wishes, Sceptre (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning sanctions in Sexology?
Hi, Penwhale, I was looking at the Sexology case and found sanctions for Editors involved in the Manning case to be listed here Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. While both topics can involve gender, none of the parties are the same and so I don't see what the connection is. Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The discretionary sanctions that apply to the topic area originated in Sexology case and thus, until the Manning case provides otherwise, the sanctions will continue to be recorded at Sexology page. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 21:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that, Penwhale. I didn't immediately see the connection. Liz  Read! Talk! 10:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)