User talk:Penwhale

If you're writing me a comment about an RfAr request or case, click here. I do move comments around when I see fit.

Archive info:
/Archive1 Start - Jun 30, 2005
/Archive2 July 1 2005 - July 23 2006
/Archive3 July 24 2006 - Feb 25 2007
/Archive4 March 2007
/Archive5 April - July 2007

RfAr related:

March 2007 April/May 2007 June/July 2007

---

WP:RfAr related

Confused

Hello there. I just saw a message that you posted on my talk page about the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, it's only 3 days that I have been started editing wikipedia and also I am not involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 I would like to know why did I get a notice from you? Thanks in advance. ROOB323 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I notified you because the A-A 2 remedy has an effect on you, even though you were not named as a party. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I am really confused. If I am not involved in A-A 2 in any way. I was only involved in A-A 1 than how does A-A 2 remedy has an effect on me? ROOB323 07:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, the remedy 1 for A-A 2 is as follows: Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise. Since you were placed on revert parole (now called revert limitation) from A-A 1, this remedy affects you even though you were not named as a party during A-A 2. Confusing, I know, but that's the truth. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Requests for clarification" on RfAr

Hi. When removing old/closed threads from the "requests for clarification" section on RfAr, if arbitrators have commented in a way that sheds light on the meaning or interpretation of the original decision, it can be helpful to archive the thread to the talkpage of that decision (with a header reflecting the date of the discussion). Not sure whether that would apply to any of the threads you removed as stale today. Thanks for picking up the slack during my sorta, kinda wikibreak this week. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved comments to talk page already per instructions. COFS/Personal attacks were not because they were IMO not important to a case. Thanks for looking out for me. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Hope you're feeling de-bonked soon. Newyorkbrad 04:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Please advise which senior administrator or member of the ArbCom panel changed the title of the ArbCom case assessing the behaviour of a particular user and his indefinite ban, to a far broader title which basically encompasses a vast segment of Northern Irish politics. I have no wish to be involved in the latter. My comments were made in good faith regarding the heading of the original case and I think it extremely bad form that the heading has been changed without first contacting all those who had already contributed a comment. David Lauder 12:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the original ArbCom vote, the arbitrators decided that the scope of the case should not be limited to just Vintagekits. Via an e-mail instruction, I was asked to include all parties and name the case as The Troubles. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm out. David Lauder 12:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot withdraw from the case unless arbitrators decide that you are not involved enough and passes a motion to remove you. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the case Talk page. Regards, David Lauder 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles

My comments on Vintagekits and on The troubles are different. It seems to me the goal posts have been moved. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to read the section just above us. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I did, if you look at my last edits. It's my point of view, really don't know if I can prove things, but it's my honest input. Thanks! Thepiper 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Got it now. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you deal with this please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First question: is User:David Lauder still "involved"? He seems to believe not as his comments are in the "others" section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Workshop. Second question: regarding evidence of edit warring, is this limited to "Troubles" articles or can more general examples be included. I'm thinking specifically of User:Astrotrain and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, he's still involved. Regarding the edit warring, I believe that anything that's related to the problem can be used as evidence (like user talk pages and etc). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Aatomic1 an involved party? He was added before then removed, but there's evidence against him now. Looking at the discussion at the top of the Workshop page Fred seems to say we can add anyone, but I thought it better to ask to be on the safe side. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If he's not on the list at the main case page (which is here, then he's not. If you add him make sure you notify him. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding cyde

Sorry about adding cyde, i did not know that was wrong. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter whether your action has merits, we do not normally add a party this late. Thank you for understanding, though. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice

I note your latest advice but I was certain it was you who told me to leave a comment on the evidence of others, if I felt it necessary, on the Talk Page. Why else would I have done that? I will see if I can recall where I was told to do that. I am not "deeply involved" in this matter, as stated on that Talk Page, and I previously explained why I felt that I did not wish to be involved in the broad sweep of this Arbcom, the parameters of the original case being drastically changed. I continue to be goaded by Giano etc. I am trying not to respond but it is not easy. David Lauder 09:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but an Arbitrator moved the discussion that was at the case talk page out of it. Also, Arbitration Committee do not always sanction all parties involved, so keep that in mind. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

THF-DSB

Penwhale, before the THF-DavidShankBone case starts, I'd like to suggest it be named THF-DSB or something. David's online handle is his real name, and Arbitration pages usually tend to get high in Google rankings, and that is usually not a good thing, esp. if the results come up for someone's name. Anyways, a suggestion. Cheers, Iamunknown 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My really quick reply: DSB needs to get a username change if that's the case (and a username change during arbitration case generally get rejected on technicality). Generally if we open case with usernames we do not use initials. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather silly not to use initials, because it will probably be courtesy blanked in the end, and an initialism might prevent that. --Iamunknown 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

Sorry about that...didn't realise I was posting in the wrong place. When I looked at the page to tweak the comment and, as we say, "there it was - gone" I had a brief but explosive eruption of paranoia - these are nervous times for some of us! (Sarah777 13:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

The Troubles arbitration

Anyone who edits articles which relate to The Troubles (or the other affected articles) in a disruptive way may be noticed in and added as a party. No motion is required. Fred Bauder 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

You left a message on my page: "The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened." I went to the link and saw that there was no comment by me. So I added a comment. Now you removed it. So why did you leave a message for me on my talk page to begin with? Why get me involved? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your notification, but I've had my say about BADSITES on the original RfAR. I'd just as soon not get involved in the actual case. Basically, I just want to be my little old exo self. My only request is my original plea: the MONGO decision should be applied on a link-by-link basis, not on a site-by-site basis. It makes no sense to forbid editors from linking to useful and acceptable material on a site simply because there may be objectionable material elsewhere on the site. And it really makes no sense to forbid certain sites solely because somebody thinks they meet a slippery, subjective definition of a "primarily" attack site. Casey Abell 16:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• To answer Slrubenstein, normally we move all "comments" by editors not listed on the involved parties list to the talk page of the case. Your original comments are there I believe. Re: Casey Abell, it's customary to notice anyone and everyone that has made a comment on the case regarding the opening and the closure of a case. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I do not think the original notification on my talk page made it clear what was expected (or invited) of me. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

A piece of Evidence recently placed at WP:RfArb/Attack sites [1] contains unsubstantiated false, malicious, and defamatory material accessible to Google Search engines in violation of several WP policies. The purported evidence lists 5 so-called "attack sites," 4 are identified by thier site name and a 5th is referred to as "a webpage run by Nobs01." The poster identified Nobs01 a few days ago on the Fouindation mailing [2] as Rob Smith, a real life person. The poster declares this site was "set up for the purpose of harassing its [WP] volunteers. ...cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence." The site in question was brought to my attention here [link removed] and is accessible from that message. The poster on the Evidence page offers no evidence whatsoever that Rob Smith set up or maintains that website. I do not maintain such a site, and stand ready to make a sworn deposition to that affect.

I hereby formally request, in accordance with numerous Wikipedia policies and provisions, that the phrase, "a webpage run by Nobs01" be either (a) immediately removed, or (b) the name of the site in question be substituted in place. The fact that a false and baseless smear against a real life person rather than actual name of the website, as the other 4 use the actual website name, and Wikipedia Arbitration process is being used to perpetuate defamation of a living persons character needs to be addressed immediately. Please contact me if you have an questions. Thank you. --Rob Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.94.136 (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did not leave me a way to contact you now did you? That aside, I will ask for clarification on this matter. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobs01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned by the Arbitration Committee and should not be posting on Wikipedia. Nor should he or anyone else be posting links to sites that attack and identify editors. He can email the Arbitration Committee directly at arbcom-l AT Wikipedia DOT org if he has concerns. He can also email you or individual ArbCom members through his email preferences, as long as nobody blocks his email. ElinorD (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind assistance, intervention on the Kathleen Battle page. We needed a third party to step in, as it is a page subject to dispute as to what a facts and what is gossip, NPOV and whether it follows wikipedia live biography guidelines. Thanks again! Hrannar 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/

• Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) the motion to dismiss at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed decision passes 5-1 and the case should be closed. Could you take a look and see if the case needs closing. Thanks. Eluchil404 04:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There are others that are interested in helping out at the WP:AC/CN, so I'm waiting to see whether anyone is interested in taking it. (It's pretty simple for a test closure.) I will do it tomorrow if no new guy does it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles done

All spammed except VK, which you said you'd do. Daniel 08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff

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!

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)

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)

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 [3] and [4]. 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.[5] - 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.[6][7] 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 [8]. 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 [9]. Also he has attacked user Watchdogb by asking him to "bark at the moon." (edit summary) [10] 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)

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)

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)

Block of Crimperman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You blocked this user for a violation of 3RR. While it was technically a 3RR violation, his reverts were obviously correct (the content was borderline vandalism), and this was a very inexperienced user who was likely not aware of 3RR (he didn't get any warning at all) and seemed to be editing in good faith. This block looks a little bitish. I urge you to reconsider, and to unblock and give him a 3RR warning instead (remember that you are not obliged to block for 3RR). Anyway, you're doing fine as an admin so far :) Melsaran (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was originally going to do a 24h block, but then I looked at the history and cut it in half. Still, you're right. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. I hope the user in question will be a little more careful from now on :). I'd actually say that the other edit warrior appeared to be a vandalism-only account, but why not AGF and see what happens after his block expires. Melsaran (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond... I have no issue with the block on me - I broke the 3RR so fair enough and I do appreciate the fact that it was reduced - thanks. I know about the 3RR but didn't at the start of what became the edit war. I did try to contact the other user via their Talk page and also requested a semi-protection on that page once I saw the situation was escalating. My concern was primarily that the non-encyclopaedic POV stuff would be left on there when the protection went on and I felt this was unfair to the Charity. I should say that I work for them but I have always tied to keep my contributions in keeping with Wikipedia's POV rules. I felt the stuff the other user was adding did not and could also be potentially harmful to the Charity's work.

I would have alerted others if I knew who to alert and how in this situation but my searches on Wikipedia came up dry - perhaps I am looking in the wrong place. Can you enlighten me please? Ta Crimperman 08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Wikipedia:Third Opinion should help. Or (try to) start discussion on the talk page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know it seems the other user came back and inserted the same POV into the same page ( Contact a Family- although in a different place. I have corrected that now but I do not want to get into an edit war. I have also requested admin assistance. Crimperman 08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Make sure that if you think it's POV editing, when you revert, say that "remove POV" instead of vandalism. Also, admin incident board would probably be a better place to report. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay - thanks for the advice. I thought that persistent POV editing was vandalism? Not been through a dispute on here before so your help is appreciated. :o) Crimperman 12:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jumping in here if that's okay ... Vandalism is defined as an edit or actiom that intentionally damages the quality of the encyclopedia. POV editing violates policy and needs to be corrected, but it's rare that the editor is doing so for vandalistic motives; more commonly he or she just doesn't realize for whatever reason that the material isn't NPOV. "Vandalism" can be an inflammatory word that leads to making disputes more bitter rather than resolving them, so it should not be used except where it clearly applies. Hope this helps and good luck resolving the issue you're involved in. Newyorkbrad 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I did understand that and I wasn't being argumentative when I asked the question you responded to. I was just checking. I've taken Penwhale's advice on board and won't be calling POV vandalism any more :o). The other user has been given a final warning by an admin and hopefully that's all that is needed now although it does appear the account was created to insert this POV stuff. Crimperman 10:53, 12 October 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)

Your RfA

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

help

but what if the page is protected?

• Use the unblock-l mailing list. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge RFArb comment

WP:CSN just got shut down... so I'd say something has been done  :)--Isotope23 ^talk 16:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou

I unblocked him early for his 3RR vio on 1929 hebron massacre. If you object, please go ahead and reblock, with my apologies. Jaakobou explained what happened to me, and it appears that he is inserting valid sourced information into the article, which is being reverted without so much as a reason why, with the other user logging out to attempt to bypass 3RR. As I see it, removing sourced information is vandalism, which is an exception to the 3RR; however even without that, I felt that he was apologetic enough to warrant an unblocking. Please let me know if there are any problems. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks to you both for handling this matter. I am puzzled or bothered by one thing in Swatjester's account, which is Jaakobou's claim that the reverts are "without so much as a reason why" -- if I'm not mistaken these reverts directly concern the disputed sources in the 3O discussion. There, the opposing party is clearly giving reasons. While Jaakobou may not like said reasons, the point is to discuss, not to revert or edit war as if the information is sourced. Do you see what I mean? Again, I leave the blocking decision up to you folks. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, I didn't in depth read the talk page, I just skimmed it. Still it would have been nice to see edit summaries other than "rv trolling". ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't do much about their edit summaries, but I apologize for not being more clear about this in my 3RR request. Thanks for your work on this. HG | Talk 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even see this from a 3RR request (I assume at WP:AN3.) I found it on #wikipedia-en-unblock. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I need to learn more about the unblocking processs. Anyway, here's the 3RR diff, thanks again. HG | Talk 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Since it was a 24 hour block, I don't think there's any action further to be taken really, other than us not cluttering up Penwhale's talk page any longer. As a note HG, other unblocking processes beyond the unblock template, include m:OTRS Unblock queue, unblock-en-l mailing list, and #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. Penwhale, my apologies for holding an extended conversation on your talk page, that's rude of me to do.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I actually had Deskana look at the IP and it didn't match to the other user accused of breaching 3RR. Nevertheless, revert warring is still bad, which is why I also pp'd the page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the page protection had already gotten them talking a bit differently. Shameless pitch: If you (or your readers) know any third parties who would like to comment at Hebron, that would help. Thanks again for the protection & your efforts, Penwhale. HG | Talk 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

您好/どうぞよろしくJust for the record. I was waiting for a 3RR block on my page, and on Jaakobou's page, withholding further editing, and none appeared. I had denounced myself for violating the rule, inadvertently, because I do have trouble with it, and no one seemed to notice. HG took the case up, and apparently only Jaakobou got the rap (though there is no evidence he was blocked on his page). It took me sometime to clarify the mystery, since I am not familiar, and do not much care about denunciation pages at arbitration sites, preferring to simply argue my differences with other editors on the page. It's unfortunate that, by initiating a self-block, I involved a block on another editor while I got off scot-free. In my day doing that makes me look like a 'dobber'. Regards/晚安 Nishidani 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother. A request for clarification. Can a person who has been blocked appeal privately to another administrator, (I can see no record on User_talk:Swatjester's page, or Jaakobou's page of any complaint registered about the action, though Swatjester's remarks indicate Jaakobou did contact him?), and can that administrator then act without a public record being given on the appropriate pages? Perhaps I have missed something, but I like to keep my records straight,(and my record straight) and have failed to find a trace of Penwhale's 24 hr block, and the subsequent cancellation of that block on Wiki. (I suspect it is my incompetence). Nishidani 17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

About your first comment: I had a checkuser to check who the IP was, and it didn't match you, so you didn't violate 3RR. Second, some administrators regularly patrols WP:AN3 and will investigate on their own. Also, Jaakobou could've emailed Swatjester. The lack of warning is fault on my part. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Department of redundancy department

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Don.27t_panic says:

Don't panic

20) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Wikipedia, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way.

Passed 5-0 at 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't over-react

22.1) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Wikipedia, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way. For example, it is predictable that Wikipedia and its users will from time to time be subjected to harsh, and occasionally unfair, criticism. This comes with the territory, and it is unseemly, even ridiculous, to react harshly to predictable phenomena.

Passed 6-0 at 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the latter includes every word of the former, it should be pretty clear the former is unnecessary. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I knew I missed something along that line. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely understandable, because the numbering scheme in this case became such a mess. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Balloons!

Here you go! --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Balloons

Fair employee is watching you

-- Cat ^chi? 21:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Moosh88

You warned this user last month that the restrictions imposed by the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Arbcom decison now apply to him/her as well; however, the user made two reverts today without discussion:[11], [12]. I know this is a violation since I have been blocked before for reverting without discussion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk

Hi, how can I help clerk, or do I have to sign up somewhere? Ρх₥α 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Post on the Clerks' Noticeboard at the bottom with a new section under the "General Discussion". We use it as a whiteboard and most of our communication apart from IRC is there. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Troubles Arbcom

This Arbcom has barely closed and the Irish team are already stalking at least me, and the Irish Admin Brownhairedgirl is already threatening me with Warnings (see my talk Page) even though I have deliberately steered clear of them all according to the ArbCom's decision. As she was one of the "involved admins" in The Troubles Arbcom I feel I must protest. Could you direct me? Thanks. David Lauder 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The fact is that the talk pages of an article generally isn't used to discuss about the subject itself. Just as the fact that I don't like Britney Spears' recent actions, I don't go to her talk page and bash her about it. You were discussing your dislike of Common Era on the talk page. I can see that you feel offended, but you still need to keep a cool head. Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article, if it can be shown that the subject is valid. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't so much objecting to the article but the manner in which it had been fabricated and, moreso, to its use in articles across Wikipedia when almost the entire world, (with the exception of China), whatever their religion, has to use the Christian calendar because the West uses it. Many Marxist lectureres in our universities insist upon using the Common Era, for obvious reasons. So its a little more than "I don't like it". It is truth versus garbage. My understanding is that if you have something to say about an article you do it on the Talk Page. If that is not the case, where do you comment? But that is not my reason for coming to you and I would be very grateful if you could address not the Common era issue but my complaint and request about people stalking me. Or was the ArbCom meaningless, as several have emailed me to say. Thanks. David Lauder 08:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have something to speak of the content, not really the subject -- for example, saying that a paragraph needs to be re-written is okay; bashing the subject of CE is unacceptable. About stalking, I need a little time to analyze. Seeing that I'm a student, I might not be the best person to look into this (though I can certainly try) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I went to several pages on WP on traditional subjects and I was horrified to see that anno Domini had been replaced by this Common era meaningless nonsence, and upon clicking on that link it took me to that page, where I left my feelings on the matter. I can't really say anything further on that matter, and past experience has shown me that attempting to debate or even discuss certain issues on WP is pointless. There simply are not enough 'old-fashioned' people like me about to make up the 'consensus'. But that was not the issue I brought to you. I just felt that the ArbCom had stipulated that the admins who played a role in that should not be following me around waiting to pounce. That is what has happened. It is not a question of BHG attempting to justify herself. Thanks anyway. David Lauder 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they changed it without a good reasoning, bring it up somewhere (I'm not sure where). See the Sea of Japan naming dispute (which is worse than AD/CE dispute at the moment). I'm sorry that I am unable to give you a good example. I can look into the matter during my free time, but like I mentioned before, student = not a lot of free time. :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Dbachmann

Are you there? Please either respond here or hop on irc. If I don't hear from you, I will unblock. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

If you block an admin with 70,000+ edits, make sure to hang around and respond to the inevitable unblock request and think about the possibility of ANI drama when the unblocking admin can't reach you. To a troll, this looks like a juicy cheeseburger. Better yet, announce the block at WP:AN/I and request a review and state conditions on which you would approve of unblocking, such as "user promises to stop reverting". - Jehochman ^Talk 10:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

5:00AM is a little bit hard for me to actually be awake. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I came down hard on Bishonen for that. She's my friend, and now she'll probably hate me forever. If you expect a block to be controversial, invite review to help avoid drama. This is just a tip. Thanks for all you do. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I actually mentioned to #wikipedia-en-admins at the time when I blocked dab and no one (at that point) raised a complaint about it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)