User talk:Penwhale/ArchiveArb082007

Clerkship

I'd like to submit your name to ArbCom for appointment as an official clerk. Are you interested? Thatcher131 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however, please be advised that I will be working on my resume for RfA and may decrease time at AC/CN for more mainspace edits. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is a clerks mailing list, and clerks have write-access to the closed committee mailing list (bypassing the moderation queue) so make sure I have your current e-mail address. Thatcher131 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Use the E-mail this user, or come talk to me on IRC. I'm on right now. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "Azari" versus "Azeri"

Dear Penwhale, thank you for suggesting arbitration. Since I have spent too much time on the issue (too much to be good for my work, which is not editing Wikipedia or arguing with its various contributors, and too much to be good for my family life), I propose to take as evidence, or supporting material for my case, the correspondence that I have had with User:Parishan on the subject matter. Both his writings and mine are to be found on User talk:Parishan. For the reasons indicated, I do not wish to be involved in any further direct interactions (unless they are absolutely necessary). One last thing, from the links that you have just left on User talk:Parishan, I notice that they all refer to "Armenia-Azerbaijan". My arguments have no bearing on either Armenia or the Republic of Azerbaijan; rather, I am arguing from the stand-point of someone who considers the matters related to the Iranian province of Azarbaijan. If the Azarbaijanis of the Republic of Azerbaijan wish to refer to their language as "Azeri", that is their best right and I have nothing against that. My point is that in Iran "Azeri" refers to nothing that I can recognise as an existing langauge, in contrast to "Azari". Yours sincerely, --BF 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Penwhale, thank you for your message. Further, in contrast to my above statement, I have now made my case, the text of which you may wish to read. In such case, please see [1]. With kind regards, --BF 04:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

arbcom - armenia-azerbaijan

I have a question. I have some issues regarding content dispute within current Arbcom case 'Armenia-Azerbaijan 2". Where should I list my request for arbitration of content dispute? On Evidence page? Workshop? It seems that Evidence page is focused on behaviour of editors. But I believe much was caused by dispute over content and would like to get Arbcom judgement on several disputed articles which brought to reopening of the Arbcom case.--Dacy69 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For example user:AlexanderPar removed refrences to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on a number of pages, or on page Ethnic minorities in Iran he removed reference to one scholar published in Christian Sceince Monitor, arguing that he is working for Radio Free Europe (see discussion: [2]. From my previous experience, it is almost impossible to reach consensus with that user. He usually removes texts and references without any discussion. I also would like to see opinion of editors about this edit which became later a subject of heated dispute [3]. I filed RfC but some editors did not agree with its proposal. How we can have Arbcom judgement about the use of abovementioned references and relevant edits?--Dacy69 19:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have already done. I just would like to know is it any way to get judgement about the use of sources like Amnesty International, HRW, etc. --Dacy69 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question with regard to the same arbcom case. Is there a space limitation and has anyone exceed it yet? Thanks. --Grandmaster 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically 100 diffs is the maximum (I can't see the words being under 1000). Then again, arbitrators haven't really enforced the limits.... I'll have to ask on this one. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

An affirmative vote is "yea," not "yay." :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sue me :P XD - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tajik/E104421 Arbcom result

Hi, I think there's been a technical misunderstanding about the arbcom ban in this case; you might want to comment on the discussion here. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From the discussion on the proposed decision page, I think Fut.Perf. is right about this. Newyorkbrad 21:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re NYScholar case

I'm not sure if this was an error, but on the just completed NYScholar case, you listed Finding of Fact point 5 as "passed 6-0" yet on the "proposed decision" page that point appears to have failed by 5-1 [4] Notmyrealname 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Notmyrealname 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: VartanM

Hi, I got a question about the Armenia Azerbaijan 2 RfA. About 2 months ago I slightly modified my username from Vartanm to VartanM, all of my information except the block log was forwarded to my "new" username. The problem with the block log seems to be a bug. Now Grandmaster insists including Vartanm as a former name in the list of involved parties. Vartanm and VartanM being the same name I don't see the point of having it there as a former name. Since the only link thats missing in VartanM is the block log, can I add the link from Vartanm's block log next to my new name? --VartanM 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a normal procedure when user's former user name is added next to the current one. If you check the list, you'll see that you are not the only one. When you officially change your username, your block log does not transfer to the new name, so your old name links are important info the arbitrators should be aware of. It contains your block log and other information. So I don't think you should be removing it. I would appreciate if Penwhale could comment on this issue. --Grandmaster 04:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Grandmaster said, your block log isn't transfered. I agree with Grandmaster here that you should let it stand-- what is the note going to do to you? It helps the arbitrators more than the inconvenience that it could do you. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying "VartanM, formerly Vartanm" doesn't make any sense to me. The reason the block log wasn't transfered is because of a Wikipedia bug. All of the other links are empty or simply forwarded to VartanM. I have added the link to my block next to my name. If you disagree, you can add the userlinks back, I have no desire to argue about this. --VartanM 19:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the links. *VartanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Vartanm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) VartanM 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, you use {{user}}, not {{userlinks}} for the link. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Enough is enough" sounded like shouting to me. But I agree it makes no sense to argue about a one letter. Lets just forget it ever happened. VartanM 08:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert parole

Hi, Penwhale. There is a proposed decision related with the revert parole. However, that revert parole is just reflecting the articles i had conflicts with Tajik. As you might have already recognized Tajik was blocked indefinitely because of sockpuppetry. Then, what will be the new revert parole? and how long i'll be kept under probation? I may voluntarily accept the WP:1RR revert rule for all articles of wikipedia for a period of 1 year, if the arbitration committe members still consider/suspect that E104421 as an edit/revert warrior. I should also note that i've alrady taken WP:ROWN as a principle. I pointed this out also in the workshop here. Regards. E104421 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Penwhale. My request is not only about the duration but also about the content of the revert parole (the previous one was related with the articles of conflict). Actually, what will be the new revert parole? Regards. E104421 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As written, the revert parole is indefinite and applies to all articles. Fred Bauder 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You might apply later for relief if things go well. Fred Bauder 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration clerk

The last I heard from the Arbitration Committee, there were 6 in favor of promoting you and no objections; after allowing a further week for comment and hearing nothing, I have officially listed you as a clerk for the Arbitration committee. Congratulations. Thatcher131 03:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs and links on the evidence page

Hi. I've asked the arbitrators on the RFAR talk page if I could edit the evidence template to be more helpful to newbies about diffs and links. The arbs that have replied have been all for it, but UC commented that the template "belongs to the clerks". So perhaps you might like to take a look at my suggestion and post a comment? Bishonen | talk 10:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC).