User talk:Penwhale/Archive6

Number 57 RfA

I'd wondered about those votes after the scheduled end of discussion too; there are actually two additional support votes that also were made after the scheduled end of discussion, which was 18:51 UTC. One of them was just 9 minutes after that time, at 19:00. I've been wondering also why 'crats haven't closed it yet, as they have closed the other RfA that was scheduled to end at 18:45 UTC. --Yksin 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just to clarify... Contributors can continue to participate in RfAs until a crat closes them - like the end time of XfDs, the scheduled end time is the earliest a discussion should be closed but comments made after that time are not invalidated. The bureaucrat who closes the discussion will take into account all the comments that have been made... WjBscribe 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

All I did was to struck the number off -- the comment is still there. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the numbers shouldn't be struck either - to the extent the numbers are significant, late comments count as much as ones before the scheduled closed time. WjBscribe 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that WjBscribe -- I had been following this RfA closely, & didn't know how late comments were handled. --Yksin 00:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

reply on punisher

Nope... both the talk, and the article need to be at Punisher: War Zone, they aren't yet... The article is here The Punisher 2: War Zone (film) ThuranX 01:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Try now. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

truly a mensche. Thank you so much. I had kept it at The Punisher 2 pending a valid strong citation, we found one, I moved it, and suddenly, today, BOOM... like a kid on five pixi stix, it couldn't sit still. ThuranX 01:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

ANd great job putting out fires as a new admin! ThuranX 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Page protections

Hi Penwhale, two things regarding page protections.

• User talk:JEWS IN THE OVEN: You protected the page immidiately after issuing a username hard block. Why? It's likely that they were never even going to edit the page anyway. You might want to peruse WP:PP again.
• Joel Beinin‎: You protected the page but forgot the protection template. Protection templates are important because otherwise newer editors might not know why they can't edit.

Anyway, you're doing fine so far, so keep it up :-) --Deskana (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew I forgot something. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

John Smoltz

Are you sure protection is appropriate on this page? The revert war is a multitude of editors v Street20, and Street20 (as well as one of the others) is blocked now. It seems to me that page protection will simply prevent good edits now. Prodego ^talk 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been going on a while, the edit warring. They need to discuss. I think a cool-down period is good (although I might've set it too long at 3 days) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well at this point I think consensus will not be reached, Street20 will not change his views, but that rough consensus has already been reached. Because of that I do not feel the page should be protected, since the cool down period will be enforced via block. However, it is up to you. Prodego ^talk 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A CheckUser is being processed (I think) and I'll act depending on that information. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Dmcdevit (over IRC), neither IP that rv'd today match him. So Chris didn't violate 3RR. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Few questions, did he check for open proxies, as well as geographic location? Because frankly the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong, especially with 70.18.170.105. Does 70.18.170.105 match anyone? Prodego ^talk 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, just like you said, it was one editor vs. many, so "circumstantial evidence" theory isn't exactly very strong. Regarding the IPs, neither of the IPs were open proxies. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you then, obviously that IP is someone, if it shows up as someone that pretty clears Chris, otherwise it is likely it is him. And as far as the circumstantial evidence goes, you can't get much stronger then this, 3 minute timing after exactly 3 reverts. That is why I want to ensure that the checkuser evidence (which really only supplements edit pattern) is definitive that the IP is not Chris, not just unable to prove it is him. Prodego ^talk 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Just to clarify: Neither IP was matched to him, and neither IP was open proxies. For the record, I've lifted the block since he no longer violates 3RR. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for any problems here, but the IP address was, in reality, me. I saw the edit and agreed with the version that has been used throughout all baseball player articles, and I made the revert from my laptop, not knowing that I hadn't logged in yet. After all, does it really make sense that Chrisjnelson would make one revert, log out to make another, then log back in to continue reverting?

For proof that the IP address was me, I always mark my edit summaries for reverting other users' edits with the template "Revert edit(s) by ___ - ___" which I used in this edit. Compare with [1] and [2]. Ksy92003(talk) 06:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

User Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), whom you recently blocked for 3RR violations at the articles Dir en grey and Free-Will is currently evading his block by editing through another IP. Again, he signed one of his talk page comments with his account name.[3] - Cyrus XIII 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dealt with. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your assistance. More IPs keep popping up.[4][5] While no edit made with these so far, seems to mention the "Jun kaneko" alias, the field of activity, behavior, as well as IP range and WHOIS information match the previously blocked IPs. - Cyrus XIII 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I personally don't believe the 219.* one matches Jun kaneko. Please be extremely careful of things. Also, in the news article linked in Free-Will, some of the suspects do admit to committing fraud, so you need to re-look at certain things. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • But why would 219.90.229.216 refactor and sign talk page posts made via 122.49.175.210, who previously identified himself as Jun kaneko? As for the news article, I will take a fresh look at all sources, or rather have them looked at by editors with sufficient Japanese skills, in order to get all the details into the article. But of course, it would be nice to be able to do so, without constant revert warring, accusations of vandalism and other incivility, coming from a party that is supposed to take a time out - lest our blocking policy is rendered absurd. I may appear eager to "stick it" to this Jun kaneko character, but I can attribute with all due caution and consideration at least two other, similar situations to the same person (these events being connection with the older 3RR reports linked in the one from yesterday) and by now, the whole affair has become quite an ordeal. - Cyrus XIII 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, both of you are fighting over small issues at this point. I want you guys to sort this out without me having to get involved. Removal/replacing infobox is absurd, but removing the fact that the reference stated explicitly is also absurd. For the record, Cyrus, I do read Japanese decently well. Based off the Sankei article: Koichi Kaku has confessed to the charges, while Hiroshi Tomioka strongly denies any involvement. The third suspect was not mentioned in the article as whether he confessed or denied involvement. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question about your comment

Regarding a 3RR violation I reported. You stated "Page Protected by Animum. You guys need to sort this out on talk page. Note that COI issues may be present." - What are COI issues? Sorry just dont recognize the acronym. Thanks for letting me know :) Naacats 07:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

COI = Conflict of Interest, which is an extension of our neutral point of view policy. The detailed policy is at WP:COI if you would like to know more. The reason I brought COI up is because one of the links that was part of the edit warring was to naacats.org if I recall correctly. As your username is the same as the link, editors may and could assume that you are working for the organization or related to it and thus not have a neutral point of view. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I guess you could claim a COI infraction, if only because I moved the link to the top from where it was.

The main argument has little to do with the link however, but is with the error nous facts that the user continues to post without citation. Attempts to fix the language failed, and until the page was protected the user refused discussion. I am hopeful the protection will allow time for other peoples comments on the issue, but I am fairly certain as soon as it is lifted he will simply revert the document again. The user wrote the article oiginally, and seems to think because of this he "owns" it and thus no one can correct the document but him. It is the belief of a few of us (as discussed on another articles discussion page) that he may be trying to protect his article from being rated lower or from being unincluded in the offline wiki. As I said in the 3RR report, this is not the first time he's done this, and has been banned for doing the same thing to another user on the same article.

Anyway thanks for taking the time to clear up my misunderstanding about the term. If he does continue the reversions after the protection is lifted, how can I proceed according to wiki policy? I've been trying to follow the wiki guideline pages but they are pretty confusing.

Naacats 08:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is he willing to discuss on the talk page? If not, then please let me know and I'll look into it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he is finally responding, although this argument is not going to be resolved from what I can see. It may be irrelevant anyway as consensus in a related article is to merge much of this article into another one. Even so, I'll keep you apprised if we can't get a resolution. Naacats 02:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again this time on another article. Him and a buddy of his (they apparently are coordinating from what I can tell from their talk pages etc.) are now reverting (up to 2 times now on one article, and I can almost guarantee a third - the only revision in this case is to remove a POV tag on an article currently in discussion), and are trying to get other articles I'm working on deleted even as I'm working on them. I welcome their discussion of the issues, but no mater what I try to do to compromise with them (I was even willing to almost completely concede except for a small acknowledgment of the fact that there IS another point of view, which they seem determined to deny). They are POV pushing in the worst possible way (at least in my humble (and yes slightly biased) opinion.

I don't know if formal mediation is needed, or if some other steps can be taken to prevent them from forcing their views on the articles. Wiki is a forum of consensus and not truth I do realize this. I also realize that the topic is one of fierce debate, and wiki is not a battleground. All i'm seeking is for the articles to state that the information they are citing is not the majority view, and not uncontested fact as they seem determined to do.

Anyway thanks for looking into this. I really hate to bother you, but it's impossible to have an honest discussion, when the other side won't even acknowledge that there is another POV. Naacats 11:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note he's reverted it a third time. I'm going to leave it as it is to prevent an editing war with him (again), as well as to avoid a 3RR warning of my own. I don't have time right now to respond to his comments in the article tonight, but he's trying to claim consensus as his reason for the revisions, when I haven't even had a chance to fully contest the article, not to mention the fact that the "consensus" largely is him and his buddy. We are discussing a single source at the current time and theres still a whole bunch more that needs to be looked at. Because he's keeping me so busy trying to prevent him from reverting this flag, its preventing me from working on the articles I've been trying to write.Naacats 11:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things from Newyorkbrad

1. If you've lifted the block on Chrisjnelson, then you need to place the "unblocked" template on his page (see the instructions in the existing unblock request template when you try to edit his page), or at least leave him a note, or he won't know he's unblocked.

2. If you need contact information for Nobs01, ask me in the morning; I have an e-mail he sent with his original request, or I can suggest that he send you one. Although I'm recused as clerk in that case (much to your dismay I'm sure :) ), I hope someone can look into this promptly.

Regards, and I hope you are enjoying your adminship so far. :) Newyorkbrad 08:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user

I ask that you watch user Cyrus XIII, as he is causing vandalism and edit wars, by removing sourced information without reason, after being warned and asked to use the talk page. Furthermore, according to his talk page, he has a history of this behaviour 219.90.253.69 00:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• See related section above. I've made a new comment. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka: Ridiculous

I would tend to agree with that title. There has been discussion, a little above in the page, but it didn't seem like any solution would come of it, mainly due to the lack of participation by neutral editors. Would you care to act as an unofficial mediator, or do you suggest the dispute be taken to WP:RFM? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion during the periods that the article is protected is almost non-existent is the main issue here. Without discussion there isn't much for any person to mediate. I have to see discussion to say whether it's even possible for mediation. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Myself and other have repeatedly pleaded for discussions to no avail. When the page is protected it would appear users in question are unwilling to discuss anything. Also I don't know how references cited to journal articles and reliables sources such as the economist or even the countries constitution can be termed "vandalistic edits" or "vandalism" repeatedly [6]. User snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been cautioned by an admin to cease personal attacks after I raised it at ANI here [7]. Also he has attacked user Watchdogb by asking him to "bark at the moon." (edit summary) [8] Clearly the language used and attitude apparent is very disturbing.

Hopefully an admin will do something regarding this sobering situation. Sinhala freedom 13:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unblock

Hello, I have reviewed an unblock request a User:Roadcrusher. Best regards, Navou ^banter 02:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for notifying me. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

David Bek

Hello,

User:Eupator has placed a verification tag on the Kiesling source shown for David Bek. Is it possible for you to provide a third-party opinion? I have the source (full-text) saved on my computer, and I can email it to you at any time. Parishan 07:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ontario Health Insurance Plan

The anon IP strikes again, and of course, I can't remove the POV, unsourced commentary. GreenJoe 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

FYI: I unblocked Bob A. This appears to have been a partial misunderstanding in that the first few reverts were confusion about vandalism reversion. In any event, I thought your block was fair, but I also think this editor is not going to continue edit-warring (I've warned as much).--Chaser - T 00:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question for you

Hey sorry to bother you but your the only admin I know. I've been trying to find the answer to this but cant seem to find it. Can you use a news story run by the AP or a news network like Foxnews or CNN as a source? Thanks for letting me know. (if so how would you source it?)

Naacats 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can. Look at the 3rd reference of Virginia Tech massacre. For reference, this is how it was used:

<ref name=CNN>{{cite news
 | url = http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/index.html
 | title = Gunman killed after deadly Virginia Tech rampage
 | publisher = [[CNN]] 
 | accessdate = 2007-04-16}}

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation on Chris Conley

As stated on the 3RR page, barring any further violations on the Chris Conley by this user, I have no interest in seeing any of the required sanctions being applied to User:Eusebeus. However, the article needs to be restored to its status quo ante prior to Eusebeus' 4th revert here so that the article can be further improved and expanded, and so that any of the specific content issues he might raise on the talk page can be addressed. Alansohn 05:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted per (the lack of) discussion regarding revert on talk page. The page protection stays because revert war will resume if it's unprotected. Take it to the talk page if needed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

I don't think it was appropriate for you to block me. All I did was restore my comments to a Talk Page that had been maliciously deleted by a single individual on multiple occasions. Other third party editors restored my comments as well, describing the deletions as vandalism. I don't think 3RR applies to undoing repeated vandalism. When the editor you're debating loses an argument and then attempts to delete the whole discussion because of sour grapes, I think the person doing the deleting is guilty of vandalism and ought to be banned. Not the editor who's letting the discussion stand as is. Just wanted to give you my take on the situation. Thanks for reading. 74.77.222.188 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As the "single individual" in question, I merely wish to point out (if it wasn't obvious already) that 74.77.222.188's idea of discussing improvements to the main article consisted of: 1) ranting attacks on Bill Burkett (BTW I've noted your "contributions" to his Wiki) and Mary Mapes; hostile and mostly incoherent assertions about what the evidence shows one way of the other; refusing to actually "debate" per se on any point I brought up; and in general doing everything other than even demonstrating an interest in making the article better. He was in violation of at least a half dozen Wiki policies with his comments and I was also guilty in letting things head off into an ultimately futile, hostile tangents -- hence my deletion.

I should mention that his first contribution to the Killian talk page after being unblocked was to assert Why is this article titled "Killian documents" when these memos are widely considered as not originating from Killian at all, including by his own family? I think this article should be called "Burkett documents" since Bill Burkett is the sole source for these six documents. The same old, same old, it would appear.... -BC aka Callmebc 03:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe now you'll see what I mean, Callmebc. 74.77.222.188 04:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gayunicorn's block

While I'm not particularly sorry to see User:Gayunicorn blocked given their history of religious POV-pushing, how could that username possibly have warranted a block? Yes, it has the letters g, a & y in it but couldn't possibly be considered offensive. — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit history + WP:U. Not so much just on the WP:U part. I guess I should've made it a little clearer. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin Congrats from people

Admin

I was deeply shocked when I saw that you were not an admin yet! Would you consider accepting a nomination? Melsaran (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• If people would nominate me, I would gladly accept nominations! - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There we go, then!

Your RFA

Uhhh... sorry for getting your hopes up by I accidentally closed your RFA a day early. :-/ --Deskana (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It happens. No worries. :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Now don't go mental and block me. Thanks. Tim Vickers 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Just remember if you make a mistake, it is not a big deal. Except of course for the numerous punishments. Nah just joking with you. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! SchmuckyTheCat

Congrats, now don't prove me wrong :). I am always happy to help new admins if they have any questions, especially considering what I accidentally did when I became an admin. Lets just say undoing Jimbo's blocks = bad idea. Prodego ^talk 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Grats :) 86.137.127.139 00:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Since you're familiar with the Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbComs can we expect you to be involved in the Armenia-Azerbaijan issues? VartanM 00:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be an issue of COI since I'm clerking the ArbCom case. Besides, if I had much to input I would not be clerking the case. But thank you :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

At last! The perfect person to sort out the Sea of Japan naming dispute. Good luck! Tim Vickers 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A late congratulation but.... congratulations! --D_arkF_alls ^talk 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations... now do special favors for me! ;) LaraLove 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• /me meows for you :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Bearian 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, well done my friend!! :) FloNight♥♥♥ 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. COngrats. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A belated congrats from me too! Phgao 04:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! You definitely deserve it. --Grandmaster 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations Penwhale! I'm sure you'll do a great job. Thanks for your dedication to the project -- Samir 06:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Belated congratulations from your nominator! You deserved it. Melsaran (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Knew you'd make it :) ~ Riana ⁂ 08:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS Mr. Scribe whale person. ^_^ DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm kinda late for the party! But I wouldn't possibly leave my whoelhearted congrats to you unsaid, dear Penwhale - it's most deserved, and I'm very, very happy to see you joining the janitors' ranks. Now, did any beer at all remained....? Love, Phaedriel - 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, me wasn't paying attention. Congratulations, and welcome to your well deserved elevation to the janitoracy. ;) . . dave souza, talk 09:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just seen your RfA result so congratulations and welcome to the team. I know I opposed, but I hope there's no hard feeling - I'm sure you'll be fine with the tools. If you need anything, you know where I am, regards Ryan Postlethwaite 11:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

I should have replied earlier, but you're welcome for the support! :) Acalamari 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)