User talk:Penwhale/Archive8

Fork substitution

As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected WP:SPOILER

Hi. You protected WP:SPOILER for 2 weeks. Why? From November 25 to December 7, there were no edits to the page. I have been discussing changes on the talk page. I added {{disputedtag}} and other editors claimed it's guideline status was not disputed[1][2]. Another editor added the {{disputedtag}} and another editor claimed it's guideline status was not disputed[3]. I added the {{underdiscussion}} tag and another editor claimed the guideline was not under discussion[4]. The {{underdiscussion}} tag was then re-added to the page.[5] I have been discussing proposed changes to the guideline on the guideline's talk page. The current version of the guideline does not have consensus. On September 13, 2007, Kusma proposed a new version here. Around 3 1/2 hours later, Kusma rewrote the guideline. The current version of the guideline differs little from what Kusma wrote on September 13, 2007.[6] I have been making proposals on the talk page but certain admins have just been editing the guideline page and reverting any changes to it. The edit-warring on that page has been going on since May 15, 2007[7], after an admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that all spoiler policies be "nuked."[8] and another admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that people remove Template:Spoiler from every article.[9] I don't think editing of the guideline should only be limited to admins, since a previous mediation case named multiple admins and a request for arbitration was made naming multiple admins. Edit-warring by admins is the problem. The current guideline does not have consensus. Could you change the page protection to a shorter period of time? If you think the page should be protected for 2 weeks, could you replace the page with just the {{underdiscussion}} template? Thank you for your time. --Pixelface (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the matter of revert warring-- it was brought up at RFPP. Since some of the reverts were by admins... I think that consensus takes time to change, so 2 weeks sounds alright for me to build consensus. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If some of the revert warring was by admins, how is the situation improved by making it so only admins can edit it? --Pixelface (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It'd be abuse of admin tools if they continue doing it. (i.e. more scrutiny when it's full-protected) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

KABC-TV/RPP

Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Petrino

Please lift the protection from Bobby Petrino; by the time you protected it, the dispute had been resolved (negated by the ongoing events) and the full protection request had been revoked by the requester (who was over-reactive in asking for it in the first place). Thanks, AUTiger » talk 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gaming 3rr

Could you explain exactly what "gaming the 3rr" means especially in contrast to the behaviour of SqueakBox in this case, so I can learn to behave as properly as he (given that he wasn't blocked)? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

When I issued the block he hasn't reverted you (i.e. your 4th revert was the newest version). Gaming 3RR in this case means that you do 4 reverts just outside a 24 hour window (say my 1st revert was noon on Monday and I revert a 4th time at 12:01pm on Tuesday; technically isn't 3RR, but that's called gaming the system). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But I was 3.5 hours outside the window, not just one minute. And SqueakBox did a 4th revert about 9 hours outside the window. Is that the difference between gaming and not gaming? Or would you say he could have been blocked too? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the 3rr rule is there is to prevent edit-warring, so, yes, he could've been blocked too if I noticed it (which unfortunately I didn't). At this point, though, since it's been a day and a half since his 4th revert, in addition to the fact that the article was full-protected, it does not make any sense to block him at this point. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have more sympathy with Bramlet if he would make edits other than to revert me and generally to take an interest in articles other than those of members of the wikipedia foundation. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in.--Haemo (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season, Henry! - Alice^✉

List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

user:Andranikpasha is insisting on removing sources. What should I do? -- Cat ^chi? 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think user:Andranikpasha could be a sockpuppet given how many had been circling around over Armenia-Azerbaijan related rfars. -- Cat ^chi? 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not good at researching these type of stuff. Sockpuppet claims is one thing I don't touch since I'm not good at reading patterns. Regarding ATMG, Picaroon (a fellow ArbCom Clerk) has spoken on that talk page, so I defer you to him while I reserve my opinions. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What? no warning for calling other users sockpuppets? but Fedayee gets a 24 hour block! Where he actually has a page full of evidence to support his claim. VartanM (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't deal with sockpuppet claims, since I'm not good at analyzing edit patterns. The one time I dealt with a sockpuppet claim, it was a stern warning; however, there are other admins active at that page, so you should confer with them. User:Picaroon for example. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Drop it please, gentlemen. This has been/is being dealt with elsewhere, no point bringing it here. Thanks. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that White Cat spammed every possible noticeboard and admin talkpage with this? I'll stop it when someone does something to stop him from deleting Armenian genocide pictures and pushing Turkish propaganda sites as reliable sources. VartanM (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a trout

The idea of getting slapped with this is horrible indeed. Durova^Charge! 08:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Hi. I received an e-mail from User:ScienceApologist indicating that he was having a software malfunction that prevented him from getting error conflict messages, and wasn't intentionally misusing the unblock template. I believe him, and in any event protecting a blocked user's talkpage is always a last resort, so I urge you to lift the page protection. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't been online today. Based on the explanation I received, I'm going to go ahead and lift the protection. I hope this is okay; let me know if there are any questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

... and it looks like someone else already did. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACE2008

I see you deleted the 2008 page. I'm not going to disagree with you, but when you determine the appropriate time, please remember to undelete instead of recreating. Please keep in mind that the page was created this early to improve collaboration, since many users objected to decisions made merely 1 to 2 months before they started. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Ok. But users were adamant about more and earlier notices to work on the page. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a sure connection, which means I won't log on for some time. Could you watch the page for me, just in case? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

April sounds great. I'll give you a knock once it comes around. :) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Added those to my watch list. (I'm also an arbitration clerk, so I will notice.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree

...with your statement.[10] In my tradition, a martyr is someone who dies for his or her beliefs without harming anyone else. Some new term probably ought to get invented for instances such as this one, but I regard martyr as not only loaded in this context but deeply disrespectful of actual martyrs. Durova^Charge! 06:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, like you, I can't come up w/ a good term. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Durova/Recusal. Durova^Charge! 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly passionate/dispassionate about it, though... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Per this post I have decided to notify about the case as you were an administrators active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. -- Cat ^chi? 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways injunction

What are you doing? Injunctions only take 4 net votes to pass, and may be passed 24 hours after the first vote, not the fourth vote. Thatcher 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um, the injunctions say "same majority" as other items. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Apparently my memory needs to be jogged. (That or I can't read.)... But why is injunction on a different passing scheme than motions... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Jews

During our discussion, I proved most of the facts presented by Andranikpasha as being irrelevant or insignificant, to which he never replied. I argued that the facts presented are exaggerated, and his refusal to clarify some of the claims was an example of bad faith. Finally I discovered a source that fully supported my rationale and judging from the fact that it came directly from an Israeli official, I decided it was fair to use it instead of what Andranikpasha presented. Parishan (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only saying the fact that you removed 1 piece of information 3 times without explaining why other than the fact that you have an Israeli official standpoint. That's not acceptable-- RS is RS, and you haven't proved the irrelevancy of the UN refuge source. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I only removed it twice. This was removal of a different piece of information, as what was in the provided source did not contain any of what was in the edit. Andranikpasha's later edits contained facts presented in a exaggerated way. Each of the sources that deal with the issue, including the UN refuge source, mention first and foremost that Anti-Semitism is close to being non-existant in Azerbaijan. Yet in his edit, statements from controversial figures and isolated incidents from 10 to 15 years ago, some of them barely falling under the definition of Anti-Semitism, were puffed up to make them look like an ongoing current issue taking place almost at a government level. I made it all clear in my discussion with Andranikpasha, and I saw no objection on his part for 10 days. Parishan (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex editing dispute

As your assistance has previously been provided when the editing got hot at Adult-child sex, I was wondering if you could take another look, as there seems to be the same push to delete the article's content & replace the article with a redirect without a demonstrated consensus to do so. I'm not asking you to make a decision about the content of the dispute, just to look at whether the article should be left intact while the discussion plays itself out. It's been PROD'd, RfD'd, AfD'd, DRV'd, etc. This article may yet set a record for going through every administrative process we have.  :-) Thanks for any help you can provide. --SSBohio 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I make out there are 7 people agreeing with the good faith edits of a relatively new user, User:Jack-A-Roe's merging the article with child sexual abuse, with no disagreement. Then Ssbohio comes along and ignores that, refuses to post on the talk page and reverts. This looks like disruption to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's bad enough that you troll me on my own talk page, Squeak. Your accusations are patently false, and I ask you to withdraw them. --SSBohio 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

|Please stop accusing me of lying, Steve. This is a gross breach of basic civility and I would ask you to stop (again). Everytime somebody disagrees with you re ACS I have to put up with hours of your hysterical and abusive attacks, please desist and remember that I did not redirect the article or suggest it was redirected, it was all done by other people. Your trying to play the victim with me looks like game playing in order to get your way re the ACS article. Personally I find it highly offensive and your accusation that I am lying do not ddeserve any response whatsoever. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, I just noticed this response. To clarify: You claimed that I ignored the 7 agreeing people, which isn't true. You claimed I refused to post on the talk page, again not true. You claimed I engaged in disruption, also not true (by definition). Given these untruths, what term would you have me use, other than the one I chose? Also, can we conclude this discussion on my talkpage (or yours)? --SSBohio 17:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex moved to adult-older teen sex

Much like the story of Br'er Rabbit and the tar baby, since you touched the article, I thought I'd ask you to evaluate the recent move of the article to adult-older teen sex. I've been through the talk page and I don't see a consensus for the move. Would I be out of line to move it back pending the development of a consensus to move? Would you be willing to look at the situation and make an objective determination, something I (an involved party) am not in a position to do? Thanks, SSBohio 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can say it wasn't done in good faith. And it appears there are just too many editors who don't want the article to remain as was for it to do so. You can't move it back without an admin intervention, SS, as it won't take. I would suggest it is a bad idea that clearly wouldn't resolve anything. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, I could just as easily say that it can't remain under the current title for the same reason. If it can't be moved back, then it shouldn't have been able to move out. What happened? I don't say it wasn't done in good faith, only that it was done with no demonstrated consensus. Carrying forward your logic, I would suggest that the move already made was a bad idea that clearly wouldn't resolve anything. --SSBohio 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about technical reasons. If you have a problem with the technical set-up of wikipedia you should address it at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). Right now in terms of technical limitations moving was not an issue but as soon as the brand new (in terms of edit history) redirect was then modified moving back became impossible. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you have a problem with the requirement that consensus for controversial page moves needs to exist, then go rewrite the applicable policy and see if your edits are accepted by the community. That kind of sniping comment gets us nowhere, Squeak. The move can still be reverted, but now by an admin rather than an ordinary editor. Moving back was made impossible, which served to cement a page move for which no consensus was demonstrated. Doing so poisons the well as far as consensus-building is concerned, since it forces acceptance of non-consensus changes to the article. I may as well find some title I like and move the article again, except I wouldn't do that without consensus. --SSBohio 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you post at WP:RM, SS, and let us know on the talk page if you do. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would I post at WP:RM? I'm not requesting a move. I was requesting that a move made without consensus be undone. It would mean a lot to me if you could take the time to respond to the rest of my comment, however, not just the part that you could interpret obtusely. Thanks, SSBohio 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the article, I found the target name a little confusing. (Adult-adolescence sex or something would avoid the currently awkward title methinks?) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Adolescents sounds better. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's under consideration with discussion currently in progress; suggested titles so far have been "Adult-teen sex" or "Adult-adolescent sex". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is also in progress about reversing this pagemove and putting the article back at adult-child sex. It's odd that that option wasn't included. --SSBohio 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

" It's odd that that option wasn't included." That's because I was only replying about the awkwardness of the current title, not about the content dispute. There is enough tension on this topic, there's no need for you to looks for suspicious manipulation at every simple phrase. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for suspicious manipulation was not my intent, and I've stricken that comment. However, it makes sense to me to present all options for renaming the article, including renaming it back to its original name. --SSBohio 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Penwhale, your assistance would indeed be greatly appreciated. No consensus was gathered for renaming the article, and there wasn't even time provided for other involved editors to respond. In fact, now that others have had the opportunity to look at the page move and the reasons provided for it, there's clearly no consensus, and it's evident that more people are against this course of action than for it. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So far, this course of action (with variations) has been taken three times by various editors opposed to the existence of the adult-child sex article, all since November. First, there was the RfD, AfD, DrV process, which found no consensus to delete or merge. Then, there was the merger (same one no consensus was found for previously), which was reversed after a straw poll demonstrated no consensus to delete or merge and weak consensus to keep. Now, there's been a page move, again without demonstrated consensus. Talk page conversation, especially after this move, demonstrates the lack of consensus for the move. Putting things back the way they were respects the consensus that has been demonstrated and allows conversation to continue toward some collaborative way forward. Leaving things as they are does more to reward abuse of process than to advance the encyclopedia. --SSBohio 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo wrote: "it's evident that more people are against this course of action than for it." and SSB wrote about "consensus that has been demonstrated" --- Both are not accurate. There are several editors posting on both sides of the debate, in varying numbers from day to day, not even approaching consensus. I counted at least 8 editors in favor of the page move a couple days ago; I haven't counted the others recently but a while ago there were around 5 I think (that's just a guess and I am not claiming a meticulous count). It's not enough of a difference to show a dependable result. This will probably need an RFC or some similar procedure to find out the consensus of the wider community, rather than leaving this as an argument between small numbers of polarized editors. It might be good to publicize the question at the many wikiprojects that would overlap this subject area, such as psychology, medicine, law, sociology, education and some others, maybe the village pump. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack, you haven't been willing to identify the 8 editors, either here or when you've made that claim on the talk page. I've looked and I haven't found 8 editors whose consensus prior to the page move was that the page be moved. Consensus did not exist for the page move, however well-intended it was. Whatever else happens, the nonconsensus page move must be reversed. Fait accompli is not consensus-building, and not respectful of fellow editors. --SSBohio 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Jack, and this strikes at the heart of the conflict. 4 different editors have tried to incoprorate 3 different changes and the same people have come back saying "no" but without offewring any form of addressing these issues that won't go away. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When editors want to make radical changes, there needs to be a demonstrated consensus in favor of those changes. The only consensus that's been generated so far has been to keep the article (and a thin one at that), not to merge, rename, or delete it. The radical alterations you want are not mere changes; in one case, it involves destroying the article entirely, and, in another, it involves changing the name of the article and using that to facilitate the removal of large amounts of content. Consensus for these radical moves has not been demonstrated. Therefore, while discussion is ongoing, such activities do not benefit consensus-building whatsoever. --SSBohio 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed images and Wikipedia:No original research

Hi Penwhale,

I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.

Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Freya

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/22/npregnant122.xml

I immediately thought of you. ;) -- Cat ^chi? 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

block on yourbackup

I am requesting a plea to the block that was placed upon me i have made a mistake on security matters by sharing my account i am going to change the password and tell my friend about his idiotic behavior thank you. again i am deeply sorry in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbackup (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)