Jump to content

User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

User talk:Rhode Island_Red#Juice Plus

Just FYI. I know you've been involved with this editor re. the Juice Plus article, so you may wish to comment - Alison ❤ 04:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle

I also asked him to do the same on my talk page, but as you can see he posted twice on my talk page after that request. I don't really see why or how I should do what he asks on his talk page when he can't do the same on mine. Seems a little one sided. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I don't believe him. He said that before, but came back. I will try to AGF, but it is tough with someone like DC who doesn't live up to his word. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I did say I was assume good faith...it is just tough to when he acts like he has, especially with the innocent user PCHS-NJROTC. That is the real reason why DC and I are interacting. Take that and the posts after asking him not to post on my talk page and it makes trusting/believing him very difficult. I am trying very hard to though and will continue to assume good faith, but again, it is tough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle (Dec 31)

Seems DC is wanting to play little games now. I marked User:BKWSU's bogus immigration applications‎ with WP:CSD G1. This was at 22:34 EST.

  • At 00:15 EST, DC removed that tag and leaves a message "rm incorrect db-nonsense tag".
  • I revert with AGF at 00:24 EST.
  • DC reverts again, at 00:28 EST, with the message "Reverted 1 edit by Neutralhomer; Rm db-nonsense tag (this is NOT nonsense - do not use that tag)."
  • Since DC seems to not be able to talk (regardless of the no speaking rule), I mark him for vandalism at 00:35. Which is quickly deleted at 00:36, with the kind message "Seriously, kid, read the tag for fuck's sake".
  • At 00:38, it is again reverted with the statement "What part of NOT NONSENSE isn't getting through, here?"
  • At 00:41, he messages on the ANI post about the situation that "This is clearly not patent nonsense."

It is clear that DC is playing games since these are the first edits he has made all day and none of these conversations involved him before hand. Clearly he needs an admonishment or a block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also taken this to ANI, please see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
So I need to ask, since this was pushed under the rug, what do I do when DC decides to show up in something that I am working on? Do I tuck my tail between my legs and wander off? Seems like that would be punishment for me and free raine for him. What do I do in this situation? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Next time you encounter an issue, stop before your behavior becomes a problem as well. In this case, both of you were edit warring. Deliciouscarbuncle was correct, your initial speedy tag wasn't correct; patent nonsense is very specifically defined - just because something is ridiculous doesn't make it patent nonsense in the speedy definition. The edit warring afterwards was just silly. If you have a similar problem, you can ping an admin or use the noticeboard who can figure out whether a speedy criteria qualifies or how else to handle the deletion. Shell babelfish 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Shell Kinney! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Ajay Jadeja - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...one sentence stub that I started in 2005 after a previous article had to be deleted due to copyright concerns. Not sure this is the best use of this bot (though the underlying idea is sound) and have commented on the bot owner's talk page. Shell babelfish 13:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Recusal

I was wondering why exactly you recused at the EEML clarification requests [1][2]. I'm only aware of your involvement in dispute resolution regarding some of the editors, but this shouldn't mean you have to recuse. Offliner (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I commented on and offered evidence in the case which I believe makes me involved enough that I shouldn't comment in my capacity as an Arb. Shell babelfish 13:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 16:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim1357 (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oversight request.

Please have a look at ticket:2009102310020882, after it's been semi-protected. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-04t19:19z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-04t19:20z

Done. Shell babelfish 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you additionally have a look at the IP's one other, related edit to a different article. I've undone it, but it may well need revdel or oversighting. That's if it is the same OTRS ticket, which I can't check! If you've no idea what I'm talking about, drop me an email. GedUK  21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That turned out to be related; thanks for mentioning that you noticed that. Shell babelfish 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding these revision deletions

Just wondering, but in what way did you feel these two revisions were "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive"? Just looks like common-or-garden vandalism to me, and per RD2, edits containing "..."ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations..." should not be redacted. TalkIslander 02:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Islander, do you have access to OTRS? If so, could you take a look at the ticket Jeandré mentions above for more details? Shell babelfish 12:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't, however, if there's an OTRS ticket on the matter, I certainly believe it was justified. Perhaps in future you could include the OTRS reference in such redactions, to show that there's more to the matter than at first appears? Thanks for responding promptly :) TalkIslander 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Very good point, I should have done that. I'll make sure to take more care with that in the future. Shell babelfish 13:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

CCI moves to Commons

Hi, Shell. :) You have been invoked at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Akhenaton06. (I always feel like I'm stuttering when I do that.) Short backstory, I've mass-nominated Akhenaton's images for deletion, with the exception of those taken by the SONY DSC-W7. S/he says that s/he's tried to make a clean breast of it with you, but has not heard back from you. I'm not sure actually what difference it makes, since admitting that some are copyvios doesn't really mean the others aren't, but I wanted to let you know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented over there. Its a bit more complicated than what Akhenaton is admitting. Shell babelfish 22:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP speed

Please read my argument, just added there. [3] You are moving much too fast. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain a bit more what outcome an arbitration case could possibly have here? Whack a bunch of admins (on both ends of the problem) with a trout? The community needs to wrap its heads around this particular concern - ArbCom can't mandate how these articles should be handled. Shell babelfish
I think "trouts all around, reject this case, and follow the result at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people" would be an acceptable solution. Beneath all the pomp and posturing, arbitration is just a negotiation. Jehochman Brrr 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality

Hi there. Back in 2006, you commented on the last deletion review for this article here. The article has since been recreated and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Recusing

Are you sure that was in the right section and should have been under Arbitrators views where Steve Smith recused? You haven't signed it either. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Note to self - Morning coffee first, Wiki second. Thanks for catching that! Shell babelfish 11:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Image question

Hi Shell, some time last month you did this with the notice "file is not ineligible for copyright". Just curious: was this based on some secure information you have about the state of copyright for such cases (i.e. stills from surveillance cameras that don't involve human creativity)? I'm asking because I was under the impression it was relatively safe to assume ineligibility here, from something I read earlier (but unfortunately can't find now), and my "keep" close of the preceding FFD [4] was mainly based on this. If I knew we had to treat it as genuinely non-free, I'd have to reconsider the closure, because as an NFCC case it seems rather borderline at best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, now that I look at that I think I got it backwards, probably due to getting edit warred with over it :) The opinions expressed at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_September_22#File:Atta_atm.jpg and commons:Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_22#Live_feeds seem to indicate that the footage should be PD but that we should probably use a different template than PD-ineligible because the wording of that particular template doesn't really cover this situation (or maybe the template should be updated). What I meant to do was go change the PD template and remove the fair use - I'll go do that now. Shell babelfish 23:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

3rd viscount monckton of brenchley

This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Usurpation request at ga.wikipedia

Hello - can you confirm that you have made this request for an account to be renamed? --Kwekubo (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That was me. I wasn't sure whether to create a new account and get it renamed or just have that one renamed and recreate it when its done. Thanks! Shell babelfish 01:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Durova findings

Can you explain why you do not support the first finding in regards to comments directed at MZMcBride, but you do support the second? Steve Smith made the reverse determination, which is more intuitive to me because Risker is an arbitrator. Cool Hand Luke 05:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm not sure I understand the point of the statement "someone posted something which was then quickly and correctly removed" - is it that the posting originally was a problem, the posting became a problem later, this is a pattern of behavior... If it said something to the effect of the posting being inappropriate and thus required quick removal, that would make a bit more sense to me. Shell babelfish 05:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. Cool Hand Luke 15:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

o hai! I c u liek catz

andyzweb (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

That's awesome :D Shell babelfish 17:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bans include IPs?

Do bans include (likely, I believe) activity as an anonymous IP, as here? P.S. If it is the editor in question I suggest the edit be expunged to avoid speculation on identity.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Banned is banned. The editor has explained that this was an error due to running a check with javascript that wasn't meant to make an edit; there don't appear to have been any other edits, so it doesn't appear that the ban is being circumvented. Shell babelfish 04:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If there is positive evidence that there was no attempt to circumvent the ban, then no problem. Having said that, why had the editor in question even pushed the "edit this page" tab? They even wrote a one-word edit summary, so it wasn't accidental. They aren't allowed to touch that tab at all in any guise. Blocked and banned editors can read Wikipedia, but not edit it, except their talk page while appealing a block. The "person" is banned, no matter what IP or username they use. As to expunging the edit, when dealing with banned editors and possible socks, evidence should not be removed. It may be useful later in SPIs. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not "the same content"

Hi Shell. You write "he's created at least two additional articles to bolster his changes despite the same article content existing elsewhere". This not exact: Timurid relations with Europe has never existed anywhere else. For Ruad expedition, all the specifics of the expedition, a major event described in detail by such authors as Alain Demurger, had disapeared from Wikipiedia. As of February 2, after two years, all that remained was:

"The Templars established a base on Ruad Island,[106] which was then used as a staging area, and a joint force of Cypriots, approximately half of which were from the various military orders, was sent to the island.[107] From there, raids were launched on Tortosa while the Cypriots awaited the arrival of the Mongols. However, the Mongols were delayed, and the Crusader forces ended up returning to Cyprus, leaving a garrison on Ruad. When the Mongols did arrive in February 1301, they were only able to engage in some minor raids before having to withdraw."

... just a general statement, without anything specific, no mention of Jacques de Molay, numbers, etc, well, a few summary sentences.... which is fine as long as we can find somewhere else all the details of the expedition if we want (hence the need for a specific article on the subject). This is very different from the Siege of Ruad itself, which is the Mamluk-led offensive in 1302, and does only cover the end of the event. Content-wise, you will notice that this article is highly referenced on immediately-checkable online sources, from the best academic authors, so what's the problem???

In order to respect Elonka's desire to keep everything short and in summary-form in the main Franco-Alliance article, isn't the solution to go into details in sub-articles?

Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We're just going to have to disagree here. This is a pattern that many editors have attempted to point out to you - despite the objections of many other editors and discussions to help you understand why your edits are inappropriate, you attempt to bolster your views by creating other articles. As I've said before, I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but you have quite a blind spot when it comes to these issues. Shell babelfish 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong dates

Hi Shell, you claim that "despite his promise that he would stay away from the topic, PHG created an article coatrack just an hour later and inserted it into the Franco-Mongol alliance article.". You are mistaken on the date stamps: I created Ruad expedition at 09:29, 16 February 2010 [5], and agreed to stop editing in the area about 10 hours later after being asked at 19:34, 16 February 2010 [6]. Could you kindly remove the incorrect assertion? Thank you! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My fault, I missed that you waited to add the promise after creating the new article. This was still after your statement and after repeated requests, including from your mentor, to stop. Shell babelfish 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't "wait". The request to hold off was made to me several hours after I had created the Ruad expedition article. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
That's completely untrue. Editors, including your mentor, had requested that you stop for days before you finally made the promise. Shell babelfish 07:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Not quite Shell. Before the Arbcom request, I never made a statement that I would stop editing in the former ban perimeter. Angus only asked me to hold off from the dispute about how to describe the Ilkhanid raids in Syria c. 1300, which was solved when Elonka finally agreed to write that "The Mongols probably raided Jerusalem in 1300". Elonka asked me not to edit the Franco-Mongol alliance article, but I never agreed to that, I actually refused, I think it's unethical from her part, and I certainly didn't feel bound by her demands. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here as well. You need to stop personalizing the dispute; Elonka is not the bad guy here - as I indicated, had I not been very busy and unable to fully research your most recent contributions at the time, I likely would have been making the same demands and filing the request myself. I think its also obvious that you mentor gave you more advice than what you admit and you've summarily ignored him - not a good sign. Shell babelfish 00:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not "snippets"

You write: "cherry pick statements from sources, misrepresent the source's meaning and base entire viewpoints on a snippet seen while searching Google Books". This is inexact: 99% of the time, the links I give to Google Books offer several pages of viewable material, so they are not just snippets, and allow to get a fair view of what the author is saying. Many times, I own the books myself, but I still offer the Google Books links so that anybody could check from it. I am quite meticulous in summarizing what the sources says, often to the point of paraphrasing. Please see for yourself. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Except as we've shown you repeatedly, regardless of how much you think you can see on Google Books, you frequently misrepresent the author's work because you do not have access to and do not read the entire source. Certainly you offer the link and please note that editors have returned and pointed out your errors - this is precisely the problem. Shell babelfish 07:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *YES! 10:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

I noticed your thing said you were online. Checkuser seems to be backing up. Wondering if you could pitch in or have a way to mass poke the team. Thanks.--Crossmr (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard C. Miller

Hi Shell, I see you restored the text that was thought to be a copyvio because someone contacted OTRS. The problem is that, even if it's not a copyvio, it's a BLP violation, because it's taken, almost word for word, from a self-published website. [7] That's not allowed as source material in a BLP, so everything sourced to that site should be removed and then re-sourced. The images are fine if they've been released by Miller, though Miller is not in a position to release the text from the website—and the website owner can't release the images by Miller—so I'm a little confused, unless I've completely misunderstood what's going on. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The site isn't published by Mr. Miller, but by a people at a gallery which represents his works - a minor quibble at best though. In either case, unless the facts are controversial, self-published sources are permissible in a variety of contexts - I didn't see anything off hand that struck me as a concern, but it certainly needs additional sourcing from third-parties as well so that it isn't used on such a large scale. As for the images, we're currently working on those (which is why they don't have OTRS confirmation yet) - while they were taken by the gallery and the photographs themselves can be released, we're still sorting out who owns copyright to the artwork itself. There seems to be a "power of attorney" sort of thing in place with his promoter (who owns the gallery) and we should be able to get a copy, but I'm going to need to check on that and probably ask for other opinions if the copyright release isn't crystal clear. The images may need to be deleted in the meantime if the seven-day waiting period for permissions is up - they can always be undeleted if we are able to sort out the copyright status. Shell babelfish 17:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually it looks like I missed the fact that the first sentence is sourced to his own website; it looks like that's confined to birth date and marriage though, so unless that's contradicted elsewhere, I imagine facts like that are likely to be safe. There are also some other sources that I hadn't noticed before including the LATimes, so hopefully the article is on its way - of course I have no objections if any changes need to be made to the text of the article, I was just restoring the earlier information due to the release we received. Shell babelfish 17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, Shell. I left the material sourced to the LA Times, but I had earlier admin-deleted everything sourced to that website (actually copied from it, not just sourced), which was the first three sections, following a request to speedy delete it. Even ignoring the copyright situation, because it's a BLP, self-published sources aren't allowed unless written by the subject of the BLP—see Wikipedia:BLP#Self-published_sources—though you're right that they're allowed in other contexts. In this case, if written by someone representing the subject, it could be okay I suppose, though not ideal. Perhaps the person adding the material could be asked to find other sources for the material that's taken from the website too? In a BLP, really everything needs to be sourced either to independent reliable sources or to the subject himself. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly a good option; I imagine the majority of that information can be found somewhere. As I said, I have no objections to removal of any text that doesn't meet our policies for other reasons. Shell babelfish 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll drop a note on his page asking if there are other sources, and take it from there. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Permission granted by Stanley J. Anderson (OTRS ticket# 2010021610052123)

Hello I just sent a e-mail pertaining to permission that was granted by Stanley J. Anderson.

It looks something like this:

To permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following:

· Cemetary.jpg

· Holly river.jpg

· Senior center.jpg

· Potato knob.jpg

I agree to publish that work and future works under the free license Public Domain.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

February 16, 2010, Stanley J Anderson

Its in the process of being processed. Will it help me in my attempts to be unblocked.

Please leave a message on my talk tage. JTS

I'd be happy to look into it, but I haven't been able to find who you are. There doesn't seem to be a user named "JTS" or "Stanley J Anderson" so I'm not certain what block you're referring to. Shell babelfish 20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
JTS are my initials, Stanley J. Anderson is the copyright holder of the images that were deleted, and as far as the block it was the one where you gave me those questions about the copyright policy. SchoolcraftT
I think it is worth noting that User:SchoolcraftT has also been permanently blocked, and also indefinitely blocked from editing his talk page, on Wikimedia Commons for permissions violations. He misrepresented the ownership of a number of images he uploaded (including admitting to intentionally misleading editors), engaged in sockpuppetry, and engaged in personal attacks on others. Brian Powell (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Ignore above irrelevant statement, its an attack. For one thing the permission is already sent and he nedds to be block for making personal attack and the above statement is proof. JTS
I also wanted to note that this OTRS ticket was previously discussed on Commons at [8]. For what it's worth, admins with OTRS access over there did not feel the submitted e-mail represented genuine permission as it did not directly come from the creator of the images. Brian Powell (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
WRONG, the copyright owner had me write that for him, which is not metioned in the permission policy as not acceptable.JTS
Luckily I have OTRS access too and I agree that the permission doesn't appear to be genuine. As I indicated on SchoolcraftT's talk page, I have no intention of unblocking anytime soon and there certainly would need to be appropriate restrictions and clear understanding of where he went wrong before any kind of unblock would ever been considered. I've also blocked the IP SchoolcraftT is using to evade his block. Shell babelfish 15:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gary Lavergne

Please inform me of how you preferred to be addressed formally as some editors abbreviate names, in this instance, I will use SK, until I am informed otherwise. As to taking a breather, I have, that post was made yesterday SK and I am not sure how informed you are of the entire history, but I assure you, I have no intentions of continuing the discussion on Lavergne. However, I did ask a question on the other forum that I will put to you here, on your talkpage.

Can an administrator "tweak" WP's rules? Thank you in advance for an answer. Victor9876 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I honestly have little preference, though I'd rather not be called Shelley since it conjures up all number of childhood nicknames :) I have reviewed the history of the articles and the various noticeboard posts and I can see that you're very passionate about the subject. This can be a great thing when it leads to high quality articles, or a bad thing if it means difficulty getting along with the rules or other editors. As far as "tweaking" the rules, I'd need more information to give you any kind of useful answer. I find that sometimes our actual policy pages aren't up to date with how the community is handling things (policies describe what the community accepts rather than prescribing action) and administrators are often in a position to be most up to date with current practice. If something seems off to you, there are a variety of places that you can ask for additional opinions from policy noticeboards to broader dispute resolution channels. Shell babelfish 16:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarfication

You weren't sure what I asked you said and your attempt to answer seemed to confirm that. I asked two main things.

  1. The naming debate has absolutely choked the life out of the collaboration project. The size of it is immense. It outnumbers other topics on that project well over 99.9%. Suggesting ignoring it is humorous. As a topic suitable for that project, it is only to a certain degree. If that project is intended to be collaboration between viewpoints traditionally divided, that is not it, the naming thing is more of an internal dispute between one side. Like the American Indians and New York state setting a room aside to debate cultural affairs and the New Yorkers waffle on about Obamas stance on abortion, writing a whole book in the process while the natives manage ony to discuss a new gate on the schoolyard. Ridiculous. Nonesense. ---- Is it not a good idea to confine such a huge debate of hundreds if not thousands of pages of dialogue into a purpose built area? Isn't that something that Arbcom can be good at suggesting? Is there any project on this website that has room for such a massive debate on top of other matters?
  1. Lengthy debate such as the Ireland naming debacle is always in the form of posts, such as the one I am writing now, made by individuals with signatures on the end. There are no signatures on an article. Contributions can be traced to individual editors through the page history and discussion takes place on the talk page. If a dispute is two undred A4 pages long, and yet the evidence in total only comes up to a page or two, is it not sensible to suggest providing the page or two of evidence alongside the bulk of statements? How many Arbcom cases do you recieve the same evidence repeatedly over the space of five or ten A4 size pages which take hours to read and evaluate? I believe that almost all your cases are turning up in that form. Pure soapboxing for the most part. It may not be possible to get a decent page together outside of the individual statements but hey, wouldn't it be nice if you could? Wouldn't it be ideal if contributors to a dispute were able to produce an article about the dispute that you could read before you got on to the personal statements and even refer back to as you evaluated those statements? Of course that does not apply so well to complaints about conduct but would it not apply to content disputes?
  • I'm sorry for picking on you like this. It could seem to be a load of rubbish, some idiotic ramblings or even plain wrong. I just would like to suggest seperating lengthy content dispute from the rest of the group and inviting content disputers to provide a body of evidence which is based on the collaborative total rather than only on each individual one after the other. If you don't rush things, and I don't see that you do, why not consider those two things? They should amount to filing and efficiency for you but hey, communism is the perfect government in theory. If it's impossible to understand I will just give up for now and hope not to have someone thinking I intend to pursue them with endless poor dialogue. All best, ~ R.T.G 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, you're asking us to make a ruling on how a Wikiproject can be used and what can be discussed there. That's not something ArbCom can do. However, if you take a look at the other clarification on the naming dispute, if editors are continuing to debate the naming dispute and you feel this is disrupting the WikiProject, you can report the problem at WP:AE. If you feel the WikiProject is completely irretrievable, it might be worth it to consider creating a new one or a sub-project that you be used to collaborate in more productive ways. Shell babelfish 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No it's about how to direct a large content dispute but don't worry about it. I have suggested renewing the Ireland Collaboration Project under another name recently, if that interests you, but suggestions about collaboration on that project get little in the way of response sometimes. That's just if that interests you as an editor rather than a committee member. All best, ~ R.T.G 13:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI on Dilip Rajeev

Hi, I've noted my concerns on Dilip_rajeev (talk · contribs) and his recent editing behaviorhere, per the Falun Gong arbcom case [9] and his previous arbitration case [10]--PCPP (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban must have finished

Shell,

Would you mind keeping an eye on User:QuackGuru again? His [topic ban] recently ran out, and he has already shown evidence of uncollaborative editing at Chiropractic. I reverted one of his edits, only to have him revert my reversion. The WP:BRD cycle is not supposed to be "BRDR", nor "BRRRRR" and he reverted back to his version before allowing for any input of other editors, despite my reversion and post on the talk page showing that his edit was contested.

DigitalC (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I was actually taking a look (many of the Chiropractic articles are still on my watchlist) and I also had some concern about Quackguru's edits coming just off his ban. I'm going to leave him a note reminding him that discussion, rather than reverting, is required for contentious edits. Shell babelfish 15:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I share DigitalC's concerns. QG has now started a thread on my talk page. I gave him a small piece of my mind, trying to be civil in the process, which isn't easy when dealing with him. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SCV

Thank you for your work at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations! It's great to have some more people helping out. :) Theleftorium 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I do try to drop by from time to time - hopefully I can do it on a more regular basis. Shell babelfish 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Falun Gong edits

Hi, Shell Kinney. A neutral article on Falun Gong is what I want to see achieved. The current articles are flawed in terms of NPOV, considering the wealth of academic research out there. I find it confusing that despite imposing various sanctions, the administrators overseeing these pages haven't achieved much in that regard.

I would like to state two things at the outset: Firstly, I do not intend, by any means, to devote my time exclusively on Falun Gong articles -- not even most of my time on Wikipedia. Secondly, I did not know that there is anything wrong with this diff. I've always thought that Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence applies to any contested material, especially when dealing with difficult and controversial topics. In addition, one of the original ArbCom remedies on Falun Gong read: "It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources." I would ask for your kind advice on how to interpret these clauses, so as to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. In addition, could you elaborate more on what kind of edits on Falun Gong related articles will you deem completely acceptable. I wouldn't want to end up with an impression that I am somehow branded despite acting in good faith. Thanks a lot for your time. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that you removed several items which did have citations - the first bit you removed had its citation directly before it. I didn't have time to go looking, but I wouldn't be surprised if you simply reverted to a version you preferred. You also added material without providing sources. But beyond all that, remember that neutral point of view means covering all items with due weight, not making the article balance out good and bad on the subject. Please take more care in the future and discuss controversial edits before making them. Sometimes when an article has experienced this many disputes over a long period, it can help to pick a section and consider rewriting it from the ground up, using the same (or more) sources. This will usually improve the coverage and clarity of writing - I would suggest doing this in a draft area (perhaps your own user space) and inviting other editors to help and comment before moving it into the article. Things like peer review or good article review can also help point out deficiencies in the current article that you may be unaware of (and they would likely do so without bias). Shell babelfish 19:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Shell, now you got me really confused. You are saying that I removed several items with citations and added material without providing sources. My only diffs to the Falun Gong are here: [11], [12], [13], [14]. The first three diffs only added material from reliable sources, removing nothing. All the references were done correctly, and all of them were from academic publications. The fourth diff removed an unsourced statement from the lead of the article. I did not know that this issue was mentioned in the preceding reference, i.e. Patsy Rahn's article (did you check it?); however, if that's the case, the reference tag needs to be repositioned. I honestly thought that everything needs to be sourced.
In this diff, User:PCPP reverts back everything I added from reliable sources. I don't see anyone notifying him on his talk page. Can this be interpreted to mean that his behaviour was acceptable? Shell Kinney, let me also kindly ask something that is pressing on my mind: can I expect to get impartial treatment from you, if you seemingly didn't have time to go looking for the actual content of the aforementioned diffs? Don't get me wrong; I just feel that asking this will help me determine if I should even put in the effort to edit these topics. Thanks again. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
One more thing that I can't help adding: you must understand that if editors are treated differently, no matter how their actions fare against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it will degrade both the editing environment and the article quality. If neutrality is not seen as a methodology but as some preconceived notion of how the articles should read, and if such behaviour is silently approved of by the administrators, there must be something wrong with the structures, and the Wikipedia system may have an inherent flaw in dealing with articles discussing severe real-world controversies. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Article leads actually don't require any sourcing since they should be mere overviews of material already properly sourced in the main body of the article. Can I ask if you bothered to check and see if the sentence properly summarized the article or had sourcing elsewhere or did you simply remove it because it didn't have a number after it? Due diligence works both ways.
The reason your edits are being scrutinized is because of past problems and your recent topic ban expiration. If you feel other editors are behaving inappropriately, you are able to bring up their behavior in relation to the Falun Gong arbitration at WP:AE. Pointing at other editors, claiming bias or playing "well, he's just as bad as I am" will not excuse your behavior.
You've complained repeatedly since your original sanction that editors are not treated the same; since you've yet to find anyone who'd agree with that claim, perhaps there's less wrong with the system and more wrong with your jaded viewpoint. Administrators do not have the time nor the responsibility to check every edit to every article - if you have concerns, there are many proper channels you can use to address them - behaving poorly isn't one of those channels and will get you sanctioned. Shell babelfish 20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
We're still talking about the four diffs here. I now understand that the lead section does not require any sourcing; pointing that out in the first message would have been nice. But now I am more concerned about what you said: "Except that you removed several items which did have citations - the first bit you removed had its citation directly before it. [...] You also added material without providing sources", and how such misconstructions of my behaviour could go unnoted. Are you suggesting that I should not have pointed them out, even if they could be used against me in the future? You are saying that administrators don't have the time or the responsibility to check every edit to every article. I understand that. They don't. But you wrote those words, and they referred to edits that you supposedly scrutinized.
The crux of the matter is that I did the four edits in good faith, and you notified me of making mistakes that could eventually lead to another topic ban. When I try to get into detail about the diffs, you start using language that appears more and more unfriendly, even leaving open the possibility that I am behaving badly by asking for clarification and correction. Do you just want to trample me under your shoe, or are we trying to resolve an issue here? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I notified you of a single diff, which you now indicate you understand - that was the extent of my concern coming so soon off your topic ban. I did not refer to the other diffs you've posted in any of my comments. My comment that administrators don't check every single edit was not in reference to you, rather about your complaint that I didn't leave a message for other editors who you think are problematic - I also advised you how to have those concerns addressed. If this is being unfriendly, I'm not certain what further you expected me to do to help. Shell babelfish 22:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. Let me ask you just one more question, Shell. I don't want to get on your nerves or anything; I'm really looking for sincere advice here. I did have a six month Wikibreak for various reasons and didn't really mind it. I understand that the community would have expected me to integrate into other areas of Wikipedia and build up my profile as an editor, maybe collect some social capital by getting to know other editors, and so forth. I understand where you're getting at, even if I wanted you to admit that you didn't really take such a close look at those four diffs. I came back from a topic ban and jumped straight in. That's the real concern.
But what I want to know is this: has the topic ban forever branded me as an editor? Even if I make good use of my knowledge on various fields and show up all around Wikipedia, will I still be the "Falun Gong SPA" who'd better stay off the related articles, no matter what? This is where I am getting at; if I can be sure that all editors are treated equally and that their behaviour is truly evaluated against the Wikipedia policies, everything is fine. But if there are preconceived notions of who's a bad guy and who's not, and their behaviour is latched upon -- or excused -- accordingly, it won't work, and putting in the effort to improve these articles is just not worth the frustration. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In some ways, yes. Since things went so far as to go through an Arbitration case and several enforcement discussions leading to a lengthy ban and especially because you do not edit anywhere else on Wikipedia, its likely to follow you around for a bit. However, if you can learn from prior mistakes, work with other editors and truly improve the articles, you'll find its also easy to build a reputation for fairness and compromise. So long as their are on-going disputes that require special consideration on the Falun Gong articles, its likely anyone that only edits in that topic area will receive extra scrutiny. Of course, if your edits are beyond reproach, that extra scrutiny won't amount to anything. Shell babelfish 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll do my best. Let me know if anything seems inappropriate. Preferably with a friendly tone. :) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I just saw that User:Asdfg12345 had left a comment on User:SirFozzie's talk page that mentioned our discussion. I think he has a point. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I just want to point out that Olaf Stephanos's edit was the inclusion of a small amount of material from the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and Nova Religio, both academic journals. At the same time, he removed material that was not sourced, either in the lead or the body of the article. Further, that was discussed on the talk page by two other editors. PCPP ignored that discussion and put back the unsourced material. Olaf merely reverted it, in accordance with the current discussion and WP:V. The policy on leads says that they "should be carefully sourced as appropriate..." as one of the editors on the talk page noted. Olaf's edits can hardly be said to be pushing any kind of POV. Shell, it's just that you have bought into the view that posits editors like Olaf and I as the enemies of Wikipedia, so anything we do is suspect, agenda-driven, etc. Any other editor making the changes Olaf did would not have received an admonishment. It's just another clear demonstration that at least in this case, primary consideration is given over to political and ideological matters, not the more concrete issues of verifiability, reliable sources, and the representation of all significant viewpoints. I think that is a departure from the professionalism expected of us. I encourage Olaf to steer clear of and ignore edit warring and invective, discuss issues civilly and with strong reference to sources, and continue to improve the articles he wishes to edit on the basis of reliable sources. --Asdfg12345 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Going through the old Persecution article and comparing it with the current ones (History & Persecution), I can see that several important high-quality references have been completely removed. The overseeing administrators have silently consented to the removal of at least the following:
  • Ken Hausman, Chinese Psychiatrists Agree on Psychiatry Abuse Charges', Psychiatric News, WPA, August 6, 2004
  • Sunny Y. Lu, MD, PhD, and Viviana B. Galli, MD, “Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China”, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 30:126–30, 2002
  • Smith, Chrandra D. (11 March 2003) "Chinese Persecution of Falun Gong", Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion, New Dev.66
  • Judith Sunderland. From the Household to the Factory: China's campaign against Falungong. Human Rights Watch, 2002. ISBN 1564322696
  • Press release statement by United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 53rd session, 14 August 2001
  • Asma Jahangir, "Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Disappearances and Summary Executions", Report of the Special Rapporteur, United Nations, 2003
  • Joseph Kahn, "Sane Chinese Put in Asylum, Doctors Find", New York Times, 17 March 2006
This was just a cursory inspection; I didn't have time to take a look at how other references had been changed. Could you tell me, Shell Kinney, that if I simply added material from the aforementioned sources once again, would it be seen as bad behaviour? Is there something wrong with these sources? In my view, many of the things that have been allowed to happen over the last seven months seem so abstruse that I can't be sure of much anything. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that you discuss any of your content concerns on the talk page and see if you can develop a consensus on how, where and maybe even if to include certain items. What seems to be missing, and causing the most problems, is the collaboration that usually takes place on articles. Since I don't know why those references were removed, I couldn't begin to tell you whether or not replacing them is appropriate - you need to work with other editors on the talk page and work these things out. Not working things out, engaging in edit wars and failing to discuss issues is where the problem lies; its not about the source or content. If you're having difficulty getting the editors to work together and figure out issues, you might consider something like mediation to help create a more structured environment for discussing concerns. Shell babelfish 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
In the end it may be worth Shell clarifying to Olaf about whether he is disallowed from doing any kind of revert action; specifically, when consensus is pointing in a definite direction after discussion, but someone is being disruptive, whether he is allowed to restore it to the consensus version. It's just a question about whether Olaf is treated as a normal editor. It's unclear from this discussion whether he is to be treated like everyone else. I also wonder whether these ambiguities about his right (or privilege) to edit are having a chilling effect on his contributions. --Asdfg12345 04:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
When a dispute makes it all the way to ArbCom, it's become a serious problem. In this case, ArbCom found that an entire subject area was being treated as a WP:BATTLEground and that many editors were not following Wikipedia's policies about edit warring, POV pushing, dispute resolution and more. Participants in a ArbCom case who's conduct is found wanting will likely receive restrictions that cause a chilling effect on their contributions; ArbCom aims to come up with boundaries that both stop the problem and put the least restriction possible on the editors. Once an editor corrects the problem, restrictions can be eased and they can return to normal editing. For example, had Olaf edited elsewhere during his ban and showed that he was handling disputes more productively for a month or so, I would have happily removed his restriction when asked.

What Olaf, and yourself, should be concerned with is scrupulously following Wikipedia policies in both the letter and spirit when editing in the Falun Gong topic area. In cases where you have a clear consensus (and here, clear means that any editor would look at the discussion and come to the same conclusion) and one editor is continuing to revert, don't panic. Remember that the article won't implode if its in the "wrong" state for a little while. Instead of engaging in edit warring, try talking directly to that user (politely) and see if you can come up with a workable compromise. If this doesn't work, escalate dispute resolution; use an RfC to draw in outside voices and see if your consensus still holds true. If the editor is still disruptive, make a report to ANI, linking to each step: the original consensus, the discussion and the RfC. Most likely the editor will be warned not to continue and you can then put in place whatever consensus had decided.

In short, the thing that will help everyone the most is learning that the article won't be hurt if its not the way you wanted it for a while, so go slow and work with others. Also, learn not to revert except in cases of clear vandalism (and this ONLY means things like "ELMO is GaY!!!1!" or someone blanking a large part of the article with no explanation). If you'd like to talk about the best ways to resolve disputes on Wikipedia or even how to handle specific situations, there are many folks, including myself, who would be happy to help you out in this area.Shell babelfish 11:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Very much appreciate your input, Shell. I may, judiciously, take up your offer for advice in certain cases. Thank you. --Asdfg12345 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and looking for mentor who can guide me, hence searching for adopters, i saw your profile on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters,& thought you might be right person. i would be grateful to you if you could be one & help me in understanding the concepts and make me learn how to contribute in rightful manner to wikipedia. Waiting for reply...(  Abu Torsam  18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

It looks like you've had a few people offer to mentor you. If you would still like some help understanding things, I'd be happy to help. Shell babelfish 17:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shell, Thanks for reply :), though i have been offered mentoring, i will definitely take their help but i think it would be you who can guide me well, reason is your actions & attitude towards mentoring program, i have been offered mentoring few days back only, but when i was searching for one no one was available for help, & so finally i came to you. As you stated " Before you ask me to..." the most persuasive thing which i like was You are going to teach How to think! not set of rules. So if you don't have any problem, please guide me... :) (  Abu Torsam  20:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that your entry was commented out. I have moved it to the "Reconfirmation" section.

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list and placed on the "retired" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches and moved to the retired list.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Squabble between two users

Hello. I understand from User:Mathsci [15] that you are handling the dispute he is having with User:Quotient group. It seems to me that Mathsci's reactions are becoming disproportionate and disruptive. In particular, if you are indeed advising him, perhaps you might like to discuss with him whether this was an appropriate reponse to this and this. Personally I don't care much and am certainly not going to get involved any further... Rhomb (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually what Mathsci is referring to is a single comment of mine many months ago in which I opined that Quotient group did seem to be following Mathsci around. However, I did find your edit history interesting and can see why Mathsci is confused about your intervention - given the article subjects you usually edit, I can't see where you've ever crossed paths with either editor. Perhaps I'm not looking back far enough, but you just don't seem to be interested in the same topics. I can see where Mathsci might wonder why you dropped by his page out of the blue. You also may not realize it, but Quotient group has been claiming for quite some time that Mathsci follows him around when the opposite seems to have been true (it has been quite some time since I looked at it though), so your claim that Mathsci was stalking another contributor (which by the way, is an old term which indicates that you've probably been here longer than your account seems to have been) was probably another reason for his concern. Shell babelfish 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see -- I was misinformed. Sorry to have troubled you. Rhomb (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Lianne Tiernan delete -reason?

Can you tell me why the article(s) on "Leanne Tiernan" (plus "Murder of Lianne Tiernan" referred to as substantially the same) was (were) deletedCj1340 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks

Murder of Lianne Tiernan was deleted in June 2007 after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Leanne Tiernan; Leanne Tiernan was deleted shortly after since it was simply a repost of the same material. In the future, you can look up deletion reasons yourself by going to http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete and searching for the article name. Shell babelfish 22:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly delicate issue

Shell, can you please take a look at User talk:Ash#Your talk page header? If you are blissfully unfamiliar with the background, please see this ANI thread or this current farce of an MfD. I have encouraged Ash to start an RFC/U to explore their various accusations, but I have run out of patience for their constant and widespread unsubstantiated smears elsewhere. I am only asking for your involvement in the talk page issue - the rest should get sorted out soon enough at RFC. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're checking that page, please also check how Delicious carbuncle has responded to the Dr process thus far. [16] and [17] 38.109.88.180 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments regarding my work on the article Tom Cruise Purple, in the thread at WP:BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It looks like you're discussing and finding compromises to improve the article; can't ask for more than that :) Shell babelfish 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, for acknowledging that I have been doing just that! Most appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United States Basketball Association

An article that you have been involved in editing, United States Basketball Association, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Basketball Association. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

:)

Hello Shell Kinney,  Abu Torsam  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dispute

You may know that there is an ongoing dispute between myself and User:Mathsci, who has told me that you are "dealing with this at the moment". Is that correct? If so, I would quite like to move forward as it is all getting rather tiresome. Mathsci has presumably given you his side of the story: since I shall be away for a little while I thought it might be good to let you see it from my point of view. Briefly I have been subject to a sustained program of harassment, hounding, abuse, insult and personal attacks from M.

  • Hounding
  • Topological group. My first edit reverted by M the same day (26/09/2009) as "unhelpful". Restored by consensus on the article talk page.
  • Thomas Octavius Prichard. New article by me PRODded within three hours by M as a "hoax" [18]. The PROD was contested by another user. This was clear bad faith, as the article already had reliable sources available and easy to check online, and M did not go to the article talk page to explain his concerns. (Amazingly M later reversed his position and is now editing the article quite productively.)
  • Semigroup. New section by me reverted by M within five hours as misleading and misreprenting a source [19]. In fact it is not mentioned in that source and another version with reliable source references available online was reverted again by M within five hours as "spurious", "misleading", "speculative", "WP:UNDUE", "WP:SYNTH". Consensus on article talk page suggests that M has simply misunderstood the use of the word "semigroup" here.
  • Harassment
  • Abuse, insult and personal attacks
  • "wikistalking" "account likely to be blocked" [21]
  • "QG has been following me around in a rather creepy way." "All his contributions to wikipedia are creepy." [22]
  • Groundless accusations of sockpuppetry and wikihounding broadcast in numerous venues [23] [24] [25]
  • Numerous edit summaries involving such words as "sockpuppet", "wikistalk", "misleading", "misrepresenting", "trolling", list too long and boring to compile right now
  • See also [26] although to be fair M blanked it later

Let me address those recent accusations of sockpuppetry. M alleges that a Checkuser has authorised him to say that I am a sockpuppet of User:A.K.Nole, User:Matilda and User:Maud. I don't know what he has been told, certainly I have not been informed of any such findings. As far as I'm concerned the Nole thing was rejected at the SPI mentioned above. Maud has edited just once, five years ago. Matilda is a retired admin. These allegations as reported by M are just obvious nonsense. Whatever M may or may not have been told, to broadcast these allegations without even troubling to see that they are in fact totally unbelievable is irresponsible and a clear attempt to harass and denigrate me.

My position is -- I want to continue editing without finding my work being promptly reverted by Mathsci on spurious grounds accompanied by insults. I can cheerfully undertake not to follow him around either.

If you are handling this dispute, please consider whether these actions by User:Mathsci are appropriate, and whether my proposals are acceptable? If not, and someone else is in charge of the case, please would you advise them, and me? If in fact no-one at all is looking into this, please would you do so? Thanks. Quotient group (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the situation and have been following up. We're now in a position where some of the information is best discussed privately, however, you don't have email enabled. Since I do (and I also have numerous other contacts listed at the top of this page), would you please email me or contact me via another method so we can discuss the results of the checkuser specifically and the current issue more generally. Thanks. Shell babelfish 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have enabled email. Quotient group (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. You have one waiting. Shell babelfish 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Received successfully, thanks, and replied. Quotient group (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles

Shell, I've done a numbers of articles from a number of sources. Please feel free to review and edit what you feel you need to, but deleting articles sounds a bit drastic. I've always thought that the purpose of Wikipedia was to make information available, not exclude it. Sf46 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian Arbitration

Thank you for all the hard work you and the rest of the Arbitration Committee put into the case. Your intervention into what has been a three-year problem is much appreciated! Nightscream (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, LPTF

I'd like to get in touch with you sometime tomorrow (Monday) if possible, by IRC, gchat, or preferably voice skype. Let me know if you're available, if not we can figure out a time. Keegan (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Keegan - Mondays are unfortunately my busiest spot, but I should be available the rest of the week ;) Shell babelfish 14:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence talk page

I think we need to discuss our Evidence and started this section to allow input from others: [27]. I hope this is fully consistent with the purpose of Discussion page. Thank you for your previous comment.Biophys (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Biophys (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where/how to address this

I would like to note regarding your comment that EEML dealt only with accusations against members of the list. Evidence which was piled on myself and others by our antagonists, and my and others' evidence pointing to myself/others NOT being the source of WP disruption (rather, my accusers being the source of disruption) was never dealt with. I regret that I see the same pattern of involvement of aligned-by-POV editors and their production of mind-numbing litanies of charges as occurred at EEML.
   Arbcom might consider that the two or three times I might have shown up somewhere that I hadn't already otherwise (because I had already edited on WP before bulk-reading my Email, sadly, I was informed that editing IPs were no longer available for me to prove my case) is not the massively disruptive influence on WP that some would seek to make it out to be, those same some appearing to now be on a campaign to tar any editor they consider a thorn in their side. I'm topic banned, yet it appears the life-energy-and-time-sucking gravity well remains.
  Unfortunately, PL circumstances at the moment preclude my having the time to deal with EEML and its aftermath appropriately. Best regards,  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My Photo Uploads=

Hi. Thanks for your interest and help. All The photos I've uploaded were either taken by me personally, or belong to my family. I will upload the non-croped photo of Sgt. Hyman "Hank" Bergman which is an original photo. Thanks.Legwarmers1980 (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)legwarmers1980

Ping

Response to Shell — Give it some time?

Shell Kinney -- Your comment here in Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in the currently open Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "You're back on the right path - give it some time before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again."

Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one "clarification" thread, I have undoubtedly satisfied whatever anyone might mean by "'give it some time' before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again."

Arguably, the effort to locate mentors and their comments in this thread was progress along "the right path" and yet, there is no joy in Mudville.

Why?

What distinguishes this Tang Dynasty thread from "the right path?" If this is not a "the right path", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.
Shell Kinney -- Now what? Cui bono?
How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do?

I look forward to your further comments; and I continue to hope for action. --Tenmei (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you hadn't noticed, I haven't actually commented on your request at all. Your comments were very confusing themselves and you seem to have set up a confusing mentorship system with a large number private and public mentors. In my opinion, this is not going to go well, but as I was not around for the original case, I am deferring to the judgement of Arbiters who were there for the case and can hopefully understand a bit better what you are proposing. Shell babelfish 00:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I grasp the surface meaning of your words; but I also understand that there is more between the lines. --Tenmei (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Erm no, I'm pretty straight-forward, especially when writing online. What I said is what I meant - there are no hidden meanings there. Shell babelfish 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Message to All

A great problem solver and a wonderful person. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE#Result concerning Pmanderson

Hi - as explained in that section, I'm unsure whether your extension of Pmanderson's topic ban was made in the exercise of the Arbitration Committee's binding dispute resolution authority. Could you please comment there? Thank you,  Sandstein  17:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've left a detailed note on the AE thread. Shell babelfish 01:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've requested that the Committee advise us about how to proceed.  Sandstein  07:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Case Comments

I just wanted to bring to your attention a few things on the Gibraltar case.

1. When I was having problems I said some regrettable things, which I have apologised for, if you still feel a topic ban is appropriate then I'm not going to argue about it. I just make the point that bans and blocks are supposedly preventative not punitive. I made those remarks whilst in a bad place, they haven't been repeated and they're out of character. Now that I am a lot better is it still appropriate?

2. The assertion that the self-governing status of Gibraltar is an "opinion" not a fact. Sorry but I cannot accept that remaining in the case. Gibraltar is self-governing, it is a fact that the Spanish editors could not dispute. Instead they have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV. I think you're being incredibly naive if you feel those remarks are helpful in steering the dispute, I can see those remarks coming back to haunt you in various nationalist disputes.

3. When this case was started, I couldn't participate fully as my father was ill and another editor was hospitalised. The evidence produced by a number of editors who've effectively held the article hostage was directed toward removing editors they disagreed with by topic bans; you'll note that I didn't propose of suggest any blocks/bans/sanctions against individuals. Effectively what you're proposing is to remove one side but leave the other intact. You're rewarding editors for baiting others into uncivil remarks.

4. In reading your comments I can only conclude you have apparently disregarded the workshop. In the workshop there was case of RHoPF hounding editors, walls of text being put up to derail discussion by Ecemaml, non-apologies such as "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke" not to mention examples of bad faith and uncivil remarks:

[28] activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination
[29] "Gibnews' rottweiler" repeated [30]

[31] I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here.
[32] So that is three untruths in the same section from you, Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?

5. In the workshop, the editors were lobbying to have my conduct examined more fully. I would still welcome that.

6. This was never an arbcom case, there had been no previous attempt at long term solutions. I can only note my bitter disappointment that arbcom would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap or even have their conduct examined at all. Particularly an editor who apparently delights in teasing and tormenting those with temporary mental problems. I've seen this editor hounding people for years and I can't believe he is going to get away with it again.

The solution you're proposing might reduce conflict, well if you ban only one side then what's left can violently agree on skewing the POV of the article. What it isn't is a long term solution, I did propose something like this some time ago [33], it would be more workable. Justin talk 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish proficiency: Juan Carlos Ortiz Escobar.

Ticket:2010042610003878 requires English and Spanish proficiency, can you please have a look? -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-05-02t09:38z

I'll go take a look now and see if it's something I can handle. Shell babelfish 12:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of Putin being a paedophile

As per your request at the case workshop, I have posted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Allegations_of_Putin_being_a_paedophile. It is disappointing that editors present selected diffs to paint a particular picture, when what they should be doing is presenting all the facts. All of the facts are now at that link. Thanks --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's much better to be able to review the entire situation. Shell babelfish 22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Shell -- ArbComs are really difficult for folks who don't know their way around the process of the policies involved. I found that you were uniquely helpful to questions I raised and communicative to points I made. Regardless of what ends are reached, it's most helpful when people actually talk to each other rather than at each other, and for that I am very grateful. All the best.EGMichaels (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad I was at least able to help in that manner. Shell babelfish 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 March 15

Hello. Per Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files#Holding_cell, there are some decisions on some images which you have been holding for further info. I was just checking in to see if you might be closing these discussions soon or if they will need to stay on hold for a while longer. --After Midnight 0001 13:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me; let me get those taken care of. Shell babelfish 03:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! OTRS question

Hi, Shell. :) You do a bit of Russian, I see. Can you read enough to tell if Evgenia Antipova is properly cleared? The contributor placed his own OTRS ticket #s at Talk:Evgenia Antipova: Ticket:2010032110008071, Ticket:2010040210038813 . I have no permission to view the latter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't access that second one either, but the first is confirmation the uploader Leningradartist owns the rights to release a number of artist's images under whatever license he chooses. Since that person seems to own the domain that the text was taken from, we could either try to find out if the second ticket gives permission to release the text from his website properly or contact him and see if we can get that permission (if the text hasn't been sufficiently changed since the CorenSearchBot caught it). Unfortunately I can't even tell where that second ticket is located. Shell babelfish 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Shell! :) It's such a small amount of content, I'm tempted to just revise it and move on. How peculiar, though, that we can't figure out the home of the second ticket. I might ask the mailing list if they know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Sockpuppetry/vandalism accusations

Hello, Shell. Someone tagged my talk page with a sockpuppetry tag (I removed it) and is making other accusations. Can you help? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone helped me; thanks anyway. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

BASC

Hi Shell, I want to get Lightmouse back onto WP. He was banned as a result of the date delinking case last year, and just as then, he is rather unwilling to defend himself against accusations or to advocate for himself. Worse, his RL is busy; nevertheless, I think he would like to gradually come back to the project, having worked on it from way back.

Is the BASC the right place to go; and does he have to make the application entirely by himself, via email? I would be willing to act as his advocate in an appeal, but I suspect that would not not be acceptable to the Subcommittee. Tony (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If Lightmouse would like to request that the ban be lifted early, then yes, it's best if he does so himself. Often times we'll need to discuss something directly with the banned user and an appeal by proxy can make that rather difficult. However, given the short period of time left until the ban expires (about a month I believe) and the length of time an appeal can take (usually several weeks) it's probably best just to wait out the last bit and return to editing at whatever pace he feels appropriate after that time. Shell babelfish 10:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Shell, ah, I though it was an indefinite ban, but I've checked and you're right. The indefinite ban on automation is an issue for him, and I guess a request for a partial lifting with supervision for a trial period would need to go to the full Committee (Requests for Amendment). I believe Ohconfucius would like to make a similar application. It would be practical to wait until Lightmouse's site ban ends in a month's time. Thanks. Tony (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Translation question

Sorry, but I asked this question [34] only to make sure that you correctly understood the meaning of the text. Do you realize that the same words have completely different and unrelated meanings in "normal" Russian and the slang? For example, word "рулят" does not mean driving the car, word "вставляет" does not mean inserting an object, "Пацан" does not mean "a boy" in this context, "базар" does not mean "street market", and so on. Of course, if you agree with my translation but still insist on your interpretation of the entire text, that's fine. I am asking only because I do not want to be blamed of intentional misinterpretation of the text. As you have seen, I did not suggest any sanctions for Ellol at workshop page. If you decide no sanctions for him, I do not really care.Biophys (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course I understand the difference, thus my references to idioms. Your translations leave much to be desired either by directly translating, improperly translating or using old source material that may or may not have anything to do with current usage. While I don't think you are intentionally misrepresenting the material you certainly are going out of your way to cast it in a poor light. Shell babelfish 01:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the answer. It would help if you tell which exactly phrase (or phrases) I translated improperly or using old source material because there are no such phrases according to my knowledge, and I do not need textbooks for translation: the hitting someone with "zatochka" ( a specific variety of knife) between his ribs is something that had actually happened with one of people I knew very well in Moscow, and so on. There are multiple alternative translations, but they do not change the overall meaning of any phrase. That's fine. Let's not make big issue of this.Biophys (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, let's deal with a specific. заточка, as you mentioned, has a wealth of different translations and in this case it's likely referring to the knife or certainly a type of sharp object. With the phrase "всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок" your literal translation was close, but the phrase means something similar to the English idiom "better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick" - in other words, something is better than nothing. When dealing with idioms, it's more important to understand the meaning than the individual words used. And by the way, I don't need reference manuals either ;) Shell babelfish 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is the difference. What you quoted is a well established English idiom that can be found in a dictionary:[35]. But this particular Russian expression is not an established idiom [36], and it does not belong to normal Russian language (can you find it in any printed dictionary?). This belongs to gangster's language. "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок". This is a phrase and not an idiom:
  1. "пацан" means Russian gangster and only a gangster in this context
  2. "распальцовкa" means a specific movement by a hand to hit someone by fingers directly in the eyes and make him blind. This move is used by Russian criminals (allegedly came from the Italian mafia): "Тогда же при "конкретном базаре" стали применять распальцовку - трясти перед носом у собеседника растопыренными пальцами, поджав к ладони средний и безымянный. Эту манеру пацаны переняли у итальянских мафиози.[37].
  3. "стрелка" means a "court of honor" of professional Russian criminals, and only this in such context. But they usually come to such "court" with automatic weapons [38] (sorry for quoting the site of Russian extremists)
  4. "заточка" means a very specific weapon which is used exclusively by Russian criminals. It is specifically designed to damage certain internal organs of the victim, but still keeping him alive if needed. And so it goes.Biophys (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I have passed this on to several native Russian speakers for their opinions which I hope to have shortly - this may help clear things up. I will have to say I'm confused at how much this current translation differs from the first translation you linked in the evidence you presented. You've given an op-ed piece on mobster fashion as a source for one of your claims; can I ask where you are getting this information or what qualifications you have to translate Russian? Shell babelfish 09:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If you think it worth it, I certainly do not mind. I ask however that any expert would provide his phrase by phrase translation of the text, just as I did [39]. Then we could compare (and discuss if needed) my and their versions, phrase by phrase please. We do not need opinions here. As soon as each phrase is translated to English, you and other arbitrators can look and decide yourself. Yes, I am so certain in translation that I asked Vlad_fedorov to do it (but he refused) [40]. As about my qualifications, I am a native speaker of Russian and my knowledge is very much up today, since I always use Russian at home, read a lot of literature, watch Russian TV, and speak with people who came from the country. I am not proficient in the official crypto-language of Russian criminals, but Ellol did not use that language. What he used was a mixture of criminal expressions that already came to colloquial Russian language in 1990s and earlier and the obscene internet-related jargon known as Udaff (yes, I edited this article [41]: "креатив" is certainly "creativity", and the second word used by Ellol can be translated as a "moron", a "motherfucker" or something like that, please see Russian mat). Not a big deal for an advanced native speaker. But let's summarize, my reading of this story. We had a content disagreement in human rights in Russia-related articles at that time. He came and asked: "Do you understand the meaning of such expressions as "it's better to came to an agreement at the court of thiefs [literally, hitting each other by fingers to the eyes] than to be killed?" and other phrases, like "your creativity is shit" and so on. I asked him never do this again [42], but he came again and basically said "I know who you are!" using my real life name. And he later stalked my edits in "Bombings" and some other articles, which was brought Russavia in his request. That was the only reason I mentioned the older incidents with Ellol to put the entire story in perspective.Biophys (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Another language example, now about YMB29 [43] ("Знаешь сколько тут западников которые с радостью заблакируют всех Руских и привратят Википедию в свой агитационный ларек?" and so on). Translation. Kostan (sock of User:M.V.E.i.): "... Do you know how many Westerners would gladly block all Russians to transform Wikipedia to their propaganda outlet? ...Do not give them a reason to block you..." User:YMB29: "I know, but they will not block me that easily". M.V.E.i. has poor knowledge of Russian as he makes errors in every sentence.Biophys (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now heard from three native speakers who independently gave the same opinion of the text - this is street slang, not gangster language or threats. Someone suggested they think they recognized some of the lines as coming from a movie. It's also been pointed out to me that you've used this same complaint before and been told the same thing. We've got the information we need. Shell babelfish 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Did they give their versions of translation? I'd like to compare. Fortunately, I found version of translation posted by Alex_Bakharev at ANI. I now posted comparison of the both versions in workshop. Our versions are rather similar, although I disagree on a few points with Alex. Please compare.Biophys (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Biophys the diff is from 2007, you've been told repeatedly that it isn't what you think it is and it's not going into the final decision. Drop it. Shell babelfish 23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I only wanted to show that my translation was correct.Biophys (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Except that it isn't. Conspiracy theories about death threats, gangster language and general misappropriation of the phrases to skew them into the worse possible light is not correct. Shell babelfish 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I am talking only about translations of individual phrases. Interpretations is a different matter. I do believe in my interpretations and therefore posted them at workshop. All right, I will stop commenting because my comments are viewed as unproductive.Biophys (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

POV Tag on Juice Plus

I don't see that anyone has clearly outlined on the talk page why the POV tag is still warranted. It was posted 6 months ago and the article had been extensively edited since then and still the tag remains. It seems to me that one of the company's distributors wants the tag to stay there permanently so as to denigrate the content and label it as unreliable. Seems highly inappropriate to me. Efforts should have been to remove the tag long ago, if the goal is actually to improve the article. The questions that remain are: (a) what are the content issues that warrant the tag; and (b) what steps will need to be taken to remove the tag. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, are you aware that shortly after the distributor in question got the POV tag placed, they put up an offline attack site directly denigrating the WP article, and indirecly denigrating me. http://blog.juiceplusscam.org/?tag=juice-plus-wikipedia
Check the IP registration for juiceplusscam.org...it's the same problem-distributor/editor we've discussed time and time again (i.e., one with a history of extreme POV editing, COI violation, personal attacks, sock puppetry, block evasion, content blanking, talk page disruption, etc).
I'm not sure why the agenda and impropriety here isn't as obvious to WP admin as it should be, but perhaps you will consider mulling this over a bit. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I do understand your concerns and I'm sorry to hear about the blog post, however, this wasn't the only reason the tag is there - various other editors have also been concerned over the text of the article. Let someone else handle it - if an uninvolved editor reviews the article, can't get any response as to what further needs changed and decides to remove the tag, then at least it's had independent review rather than continued involvement by editors with far too much involvement in the subject. Shell babelfish 10:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Shel. As for "other editors" being concerned about the content, that was the gist of why I launched the sock puppet investigation -- most/all of those comments were being posted by SPA anon IPs, and many of them were identified as sock accounts and/or were subsequently blocked.[44][45][46] One of those multiple-sock users[47] (a distributor of the product no less) was complaining that they wanted a POV tag put on the article but they were unable to present a legitimate reason (per WP policy) for doing so -- it came down to an i-don't-like it" argument. Oddly, an admin then placed the POV tag on the article on behalf of one of those blocked accounts without presenting a specific reason and without detailing the steps that would be necessary to get it removed.
After the POV tag was put up, an uninvolved editor did make substantial edits[48] -- no one complained about those edits, and yet the POV tag remained and no one made any further substantial edits nor any substantial comments on the talk page for the next 5 months. That's why I removed the POV tag...seemed wholly appropriate. The POV tag never should have been there in the first place and it shouldn't be there now. The article had previously been rated as B-class (by an uninvolved editor) and several editors had presented reasons why it would be inappropriate to place a POV tag on the article.[49][50] It seems like this was a sabotage atttempt, by parties with a COI, to have the article permanantly labeled as unreliable. How can the article be improved if no specific details have been provided to prove why it's not NPOV, and no have details been provided for making any necessary changes. The whole situation strikes me as incredibly dishonest and violates WP policy on many levels. Company-affiliated scok puppets should not be allowed to dictate content like this. Any suggestion for logical next steps for resolving this situation would be appreciated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps an article RfC to draw in outside editors and address whether or not they see any issues in the article that need to be resolved? Or one of the Wikiprojects interested in the article might have a peer review process that could provide some suggestions and find people interested in making those changes. I think, at the moment, so long as you do not edit the article and stop making negative references to real people who may have an interest in the article, you could contribute to talk page discussions. If you decide to do so, please understand that your contributions there are under considerable scrutiny and anything that even appears improper will likely end up in you being asked not to participate in the talk page either. It's disappointing to see that you didn't use the break from the article to do any other work on Wikipedia - single-purpose accounts are looked upon very dimly by the community. Shell babelfish 14:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
RfC sounds like a good idea. I had suggested it in the past as a means for avoiding edit warring but none of the warring parties seemed interested in pursuing such an innocuous approach. As for the scrutiny, I would like to have that veil lifted once and for all. I'm not an SPA by a longshot; I have contributed substantially to probably at least hundred articles to date. I didn't work on ANY articles over the past 6 months for two reasons: (1) I was so disgusted by the way events unfolded in the aftermath of the SPI I launched (eg, accusations that I was wikistalking) that I lost interest in WP entirely, and (2) I had a death in the family that made wiki editing seem very inconsequential at the time. Productive editors should not be chased away from WP. I was proactive in resolving issues on the talk page and I took the necessary steps to uphold policy and stop edit wars by launching an SPI and getting certain users, who were gaming the system, blocked. I would hope that WP admin fights to make sure that editors are not arbitrarily and unfairly labeled, as I have been in this instance. I do not take accusations of impropriety lightly, nor should they be allowed to go uncontested. If anyone firmly believes that I have violated ANY WP policy, then they should take the necessary steps to prove it and, if necessary, I will defend myself and show that the accusations are unwarranted. If no one is prepared to take such action and allow me the opportunity to defend myself, then I shouldn't be negatively labeled in any way nor hindered from editing or particpating on the talk page. Many users have commented in support of my editing, my talk page comments, and my SPI complaint. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Chiming in

I've been watching this conflict for at least three years. It is not going to be resolved by anything short of arbitration, in my opinion. There appears to be financially motivated COI editing on one side, a possibly unhelpful fixation on criticism on the other side, and a decided lack of neutral, third party contributors. RFC will just see the usual disputants trading unhelpful acrimony. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful suggestion. I have long thought the same thing. It's been a never ending cycle of recurring arguments with COI editors affiliated with the company, and we never seem to make any long-term progress . I have full faith that the outcome of formal arbitration will be favorable for WP in the long run. I am 100% behind such a solution to the issue (the company advocates may not be though). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead and request arbitration. Be sure to link to a selection of past attempts to resolve the dispute, including the oldest and the most recent. Hidden COI situations generally benefit from arbitration because user's real life identity can potentially be examined and discussed by the arbitrators in private, whereas on wiki processes really can't handle that sort of confidential info. Jehochman Talk 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Shell, First off, I NEVER asked for a pov tag, ask Allison! I asked that RIR cease from naming me in virtually every comment, and when he posted my home address, which he did again today is when Allison said that was OUTing of an editor,no different than if I were to disclose who RIR is, where he lives...which I do know, but am honorable enough not to post something thatis so blatantly against the rules One is NEVER to "OUT" an editor, it isn't done yet RIR ignores that tiny rule. AND she said it was against wiki-stalking rules. She posted the tag, not me nor did I request such.

I just pointed out that RIR has literally thousands of edits, which, DOES qualify as OWN per wiki rules. I have not edited the Juice Plus article in ages, the sockpuppets he continues to swear are me were shown NOT to be and pointed out. ONE is and I without being asked told Allision which one. I have nothing to hide. For it, I am forever banned from editing--under my real name, but I could go get barnyard moniker to front for me and start up if I so desired. The other sock puppets, just a witch hunt and mean nothing to me or against me--and that's been proven. RIR still says patriot missle is me? It was shown clearly it wasn't,nor the others. yet he insists.

For the record. I voluntarily surrendered my Juice Plus distributorship in 2009, I am in the weight loss industry. Helping reverese the global obesity pandemic is my passion and mission, Juice Plus is not a weight loss product nor does the company desire it to be considered as such, I think it's a great product and like Dr. Isadore Rosefeld, I do think every man woman and child should take it, but that's my opinion. This article should be based on fact, all fact, not only the ones that please the whim of anti-JP editors. There is MUCH good science available. I am not a distributor, and have zero interest in how the article reads. For the record, IF NSA wanted to control the content of this article, don't you think they could easily request that any of their tens/thousands distributors inundate this article with pro-JP posts and cheers? They specifically request that people refrain from doing so trying to comply with Wiki rules. and then, when ONE person clearly identifies themself as a company rep, Jackie JP, RIR insists she's me, operating under some mystic spell I have placed on her and discounts any legitimate helps such as up to date images etc that she was offering to provide. RIR doesn't want ANYONE contributing this article that is counter to his view point; clear OWN issue. Clear.

I have intense interest in ensuring the safety of my minor children who live at my home and that RIR dared to again place on this site network solution information leading to my home is a violation of Wiki rules and he must be admonished for that, and to ensure that the ridiculous and crazy edits that he has done on my BLP page do not continue. He actually said that it couldn't say I was married to a "Dr. Patrick Havey" as chiropractors aren't doctors. WHO is HE to declare that when colleges across the nation graduate doctors of chiropractor year after year and thousands are called Dr, can't be called Dr.? His personal feelings tend to influence his edits too often. Wikipedia is suppossed to be based on fact. He even took down that I was on Oprah and Friends radio,despite it being listed on Oprah.com because he said it wasn't verifiable, when one google search showed it plain as the chicken poop in the coop.

I am a public figure and I am afforded some protection under wiki laws and actual real world stalking laws. Thus the reason my private investigator knows with absolute certainly who this person is and where they live and can at any moment have law inforcement intercede if he continues to escalate his escalation of hostility against me and now my family. He has been warned to leave me alone, yet again I am dragged into this mess. I demand that he be made LEAVE ME OUT of his arguements! My husband is a Juice Plus distributor who has NEVER ONCE edited on this site. His name, or any of the thousands of businesses he owns have ZERO place being mentioned in this article and comments that he writes off site are covered under the US Constitution 1st Ammendment, a little right called "Freedom of Speech"--that is totally and completely outside of ANY wiki rule or concern. If you don't like what he says, I could care less but don't bring me into it, not here on this forum where it has no place even being mentioned as part of your "their picking on me" playground whinning. I am a civilian now RIR. you can't throw COI at me any more. However, I also don't intend on editing the article, as I don't have time or care to do so, but you come after me; whether by mentioning me by name, insinuationg my involvement with your cute little reference/links,etc. then you had better be prepared fight because I refuse to be bullied by you, or even used as a pawn in your fight against Juice Plus. Back off, at this point that is the only logical choice you have.

Spend HOURS on OLD COI issues. Laughable at best. Better idea. Let's live in the present. No one has jumped on this article trying to spin it in favor of the product, no one. Yet the one editor with thousands of edits, who was clearly told to disengage due to OWN issues came back at a time when WIkipedia itself is weakened due to the pornography issue, thus making his timing very suspect and now claims he has been tucked away hurt and and angry for being admonished for his own actions. Sorry about the death in your family, glad you are now done griefing and able to resume your passion. Don't you find even the wording of "that's wonderful. I am 100% behind.." a bit OWN in and of itself. It's OK w/ him to deal with his article in this manner? That sentence alone doesn't reek of OWN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey1 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of the name "Macedonia"

To Wikipedia community, Fritzpoll, J.delanoy, Shell Kinney and whom else it may concern:


Dear Fritzpoll, J.delanoy and Shell Kinney,

With great interest and concern I read the details which refer to the discussion and decision taken on the dispute over the name “Macedonia” and its use on Wikipedia, under your arbitration. I came across this discussion and you personally after an attempt I did to change the term “Republic of Macedonia” with the internationally agreed abbreviation “F.Y.R.O.M.” in an article about National Bank of Greece.

My concerns over the issue, and besides the fact that I am ethnic Greek and thus have a strong interest in issues related to mine and the surrounding countries, is the fact that given all the facts and the evidence this matter is still questionable to people around the world. The fact that there is an ongoing political dispute over the name between the two countries does not detach the issue from its cultural, geographical, historical and social attributes which are actually the ones that brought it on a political level.

Since the community of Wikipedia is an open, democratic community where people globally are able to publish articles edited on an certifiable, evidential, proven on facts way which do not contradict with common sense, science, history or generally what is considered to be the evidential level of knowledge achieved so far and is commonly accepted internationally, I keep being in doubt on how the specific dispute was handled and by which criteria Wikipedia’s decisions over the use of the name were taken.

It is not in my aim to make a political discussion about the rightfulness or not of my beliefs. But this letter addressed to you, who are members of a community strongly related with academic matters and are therefore related to human knowledge as this was described before, including cultural, historical, social and scientific aspects, should discuss and question and seek for the reasonableness of your point of view and eventually the decision taken.

The truth is that I am not aware of the sequence of events and decisions which led you or the community to the result of using the term “Republic of Macedonia” to refer to “F.Y.R.O.M.” or in general the usage of the name “Macedonia” the way it is described in the link you kindly referred me to. I am also not aware of your knowledge over the issue and both sides’ arguments which - according to both - justify their respectful causes, aims and interests. I, personally, was raised to know that Macedonia is a geographical prefecture of Greece and all the rest of the historic, cultural and social relations my nation has with the region, now spanning among Bulgaria, F.Y.R.O.M., Albania and Greece (with the majority of the area included in the Greek territory. When the name of the region became to be an issue claimed by F.Y.R.O.M. (officially since their independence but actually due to geostrategic and expansionistic reasons raised some fifty years ago by unified Yugoslavia), I started questioning my knowledge and the correctness of those I was taught especially since, growing older I became aware of the possibility of me being prevented, excluded or not having an easy access to sources of knowledge that were not profoundly evident. That is the reason why I started questioning the profound and the self evident even if all the evidence seemed to be proving what I was already taught. I made friends from the city of Skopje and discussed with them. I came in contact with people who were having a different opinion. Read and heard the arguments of the opposite side over the dispute. They all lead me to the opinion I had before, even though I was willing to face that my original knowledge was a fallacy.

Forgive me for you reading a text that might be even boring to you or you might have rejected it already. Forgive me for not being aware of your awareness over the facts as well. But since you spent the time to read up to this point I would like to refer you to two links which analyse the facts and the evidence over Macedonia. One is of a non governmental committee of historians, academics and scholars and the second is of the union of Greek Macedonians discussing and responding with evidence and references to all arguments of F.Y.R.O.M. used so far. Apart from those two sites there is a huge number of publications online and on bookstores which describe and analyse in depth the origins and nature of the name over the years and at present as well as the nature and the origins of the present ambiguity and dispute.

• http://macedonia-evidence.org/

• http://www.panmacedonian.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm

There is one argument though that is growing in popularity lately and is strongly related to human rights. It is the right that anyone on this planet has the right to be self defined and called based on how he personally feels. According to this right (which is something I totally agree with and deeply respect) the citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have the right to be self determined however they feel and in this case as “Macedonians” and thus their country as “Republic of Macedonia”.

This can be of absolutely no offence as long as this self-determination does not cross the border of self determination of the one next to you. It is the very same principle of the rightful statement of being free up to the point that my freedom does not trespass the rights of the fellow people around. The same principle with paying attention to the respective right that Greek Macedonians have in self determining themselves as Macedonians based on historical, scientific, cultural and social facts which reflect the reality of a constant and uninterrupted presence of Macedonians (which were actually Greeks – shown by all evidence provided briefly in the links above and a vast number of written, proven and indisputable facts) at the region.

The reason I am writing this letter to you is to express my opinion and make an effort to offer you a point of view you may have not yet come across. I do not know whether your role as referees of the discussion held on Wikipedia was determining the “whats” and “hows” over the correctness of the use of the name “Macedonia” and what your opinion is or what you believe.

I am convinced though about the effort that I put to share my opinion with you and think that Wikipedia, as an academic community, is a global pool of knowledge taking its sources from evidential and proven facts in order to be convincing, just, accurate and credible, is worth trying. For the reasons explained above and are not political but rather scientific, cultural, historical and social I believe that the use of the term “Republic of Macedonia” to refer to F.Y.R.O.M. is incorrect, shakes the credibility of the articles in which it is included and provides an incorrect source of knowledge to its readers since they are linking this name to the state of F.Y.R.O.M. the citizens of which have no historical relation with the name but are just settlers at a part of the region and the cultural, historical and social heritage of the area explicitly to this state which confronts the totality of evidence that suggest the opposite.

Additionally, since Wikipedia serves the role of a source of credible knowledge, information and opinion shaping tool and educational forum, the use of the name Macedonia to describe F.Y.R.O.M. in its articles provides bad educational services to its readers and misleads the public opinion with results far more negatively deep to the truth and just than that of a simple weekly, online discussion and decision over a matter that demands time to read and understand especially for people that are somehow not strongly related to the region and possibly less aware of data that are important to understand the truth.

Regardless of the results of the negotiations between Greece and F.Y.R.O.M. and to what solution these may lead in, the arguments discussed, analysed and supported in a vast number of sources are unquestionable. Unfortunately, the political decisions and interests do not always reflect or confirm the rightful but are rather results of the occasional interests of the parties involved in them.

I understand that Wikipedia needs some rules and directives to facilitate and put an order to a chaotic, diverse and conflictive shower of opinions and information that each user-editor may have and thus the decision you took over the specific issue was to define the frame in which users should edit in order not for Wikipedia to end up a battlefield. Being aware of this need and in the context of the reasons described above I would suggest the reconsideration of the decision took over the discussed matter, especially since Wikipedia should serve as an open, credible educational tool that provides scientific, proven information which reflect the truth.

Nevertheless, I am available to you for any clarification and it would be nice to share with me your opinion and maybe listen to things we both are not even aware of. I can be contacted through my Wikipedia account username: “Tsowtsow”.


Kind Regards

Alexandros Kollias —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsowtsow (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much you've looked into the situation, but it seems that you have a misunderstanding about how things work at Wikipedia. No single editor has the authority to make decisions or changes to content. In the case of the discussion you mention, I acted as a referee only to keep things from getting out of hand (it was obviously a spirited discussion) and to figure out which proposal had the most community support. Wikipedia works by consensus which means here, the majority of editors that looked at the situation felt that Wikipedia should use the naming scheme currently in place. Given the effort required to reach a point where most editors were satisfied, it would be looked at very unfavorably if someone tried to re-start this debate without something major having changed. Since you're repeating the same arguments we've all heard before, it seems like that's not the case. I'd suggest if you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia that you'll want to learn your way around first before diving into such difficult waters. Shell babelfish 15:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate you read my letter and still leaving it on you page. I also believe that in your decision to be a referee, you must have been motivated by your care to help over. Thank you for informing me about how the discussion was facilitated. Please understand that this letter was not against you personally, neither the “ways things work on Wikipedia”. Besides, I never claimed that I knew how they work. I am putting an effort sharing my opinion which I believe is on the side of the truth. Now, if you suggest that, about the specific discussion – and not only, the majority decides (especially when we do not know how representative the majority is) what is true or false or wrong or right then I will probably disagree, although and as I said before I understand the necessity for the existence of a frame to regulate the way things are published. Nevertheless, if you mean that the “difficult waters” are those about the way Wikipedia works or how I can contribute then I will agree. But, kindly sharing my opinion on your page about a matter that I am deeply concerned about (like many more people)I think does not make it difficult waters to me, at least no more difficult than anyone having an opinion and caring to share it through arguments. Anyway, posting my letter on your page was just one part of my effort to make my point across (which apparently is something that, as you said, you have already heard before). I have tried to post the same letter on the other two referees’ pages. Unfortunately one user is no longer active and on the other one’s it never had a chance to stay for reasons I don’t know (and I think they have to do with my ignorance about how things work here). I also tried to post it on the discussion pages (under the titles “History and Geography” and “Politics” if am not wrong) but no luck there too. Since Wikipedia has this structure it is difficult (to me at least) to find a way to publish my opinion. The fact that it is still on here honours you.
My point, though, is that a week’s discussion in which a number of editors/users participated and decided over that issue, each one based on their knowledge, understanding and belief, is something that does not change the fact that, based on all the previous reasons that I mentioned, provides bad source of information to Wikipedia’s readers. But also never gave others the time to become aware of the discussion and participate too. Besides, even though it might actually be looked at very unfavourably in case a conversation would be re-started, this does not mean that this would be wrong especially at the case when the previous majority, of the discussion’s participants, maybe does not reflect the opinions of others who never took part in it. Maybe these issues should be communicated and discussed for longer and the criteria on which a decision would be reached should be more than just the opinion of the majority, including more criteria based facts that people might not be aware of and I am sure they were reported during the discussion. I can imagine how intense this discussion must have been and I certainly believe that the effort put by the participants to reach any decision must have been remarkable. since people, though, learn and become aware of more things I wonder if this, itself, is not a major change, enough to initiate a discussion, now or in the near future. The fact that Wikipedia users at the moment read information which contradicts with the truth and shape their opinion accordingly is a fact which should trouble anyone who reads, at least, our conversation on this page. Right now and each moment, people are shaping their opinion over this issue as a result of the discussion you facilitated. Since I believe that you, just like the rest of the people contributing to Wikipedia, care about the credibility of the knowledge shared and published, I think that this should characterise as well any decision taken and any article published.

Ragerds

Alexandros Kollias

Appreciate your talking

Just a note to say - thanks for talking as an arb - I can imagine how hard it is to do that, knowing that your every statement will create long threads. It would be so easy to just issue fiats and it's so hard to balance responsiveness against the risk of creating interminable, unproductive threads. In the past, I think, arbs have erred on the latter side. I really appreciate it and hope you'll continue in this vein (ouch). Novickas (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it does get crazy some times, but I think it's better than people wondering if there is a wizard behind that curtain :) Shell babelfish 15:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

  1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
  2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
  3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
  4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
  5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Proper means or stew?

I'll spare a diff I have in mind to keep this hypothetical. Were I to come across a blind revert I would consider edit warring in my primary/currently topic banned primary area of historical interest,

  • do I have any options/venues to request oversight—note I did not say "punishment"—or
  • is lying low and stewing with no options my only alternative—as that would be the point of a topic ban, after all?

I am sure there are those that would disagree with my self-image of a keeper of order; nevertheless, increasing entropy (without injecting energy to prevent it) is a law of nature and needs be dealt with in a timely manner. Best regards,  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the topic ban means a total ban from the area. Sometimes reporting blatant and obvious vandalism is given a pass or clear BLP problems can be reported on that noticeboard. Even then, most editors find that it's best to ignore the articles completely or even remove them from their watchlist to avoid being tempted or drawn back into the disputes that caused them trouble before. Try working with editors on other topics and see if you don't enjoy editing again :) Shell babelfish 17:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it was (you can tell) largely a rhetorical question. Alas, I have little inclination to improve Peas and Carrots, so I'll putz here and there, continue to watch developments, and spend some time adding reputable references to the Internet on my so-called personal propaganda site. Unfortunately, all other major area of interest (human rights, global warming, Judaism, "race and intelligence"—IMHO a poor name for an article mainly devoted to test results and their interpretations,...) seem to have their own conflicts. And so, as I contemplated tending to veggies, I took a look at Cauliflower—surely a safe haven—only to find multiple banned users had been at work with the article finally unprotected at the end of April. Cauliflower!?!? Protected!?!? :-)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It is just a bit scary when vegetables need protection. Must be a lot of carnivores on wiki. If you are looking for somewhere to edit, you might find Franco-Mongol Alliance or Shiloh Shepherd a bit less bland - the first is going for FA status (Elonka is doing most of the work there and I occasionally chime in) while the second was one I started getting to GA before not having much time for article work any more. Another place to check out is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history - they are one of the most active and highly cooperative projects on wiki; there is always something interesting to find.

I suggest these ideas because I've seen what happens most of the time when people who are on topic bans avoid Wikipedia completely during the ban. Some are able to refocus during the break and come back with renewed purpose; most come back at exactly where they were when the left and immediately get back into disputes with the same people. Disputes are a fact of life on Wikipedia unfortunately - we just have too many different people editing for everything to go on well all the time. The key is not to completely avoid them, but to recognize when they're getting to you or you're taking it too seriously. One of my favorite essays is Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (warning, it's a bit vulgar) - when you can walk away from Wikipedia when things get to you, you've learned how to edit and survive :D. Shell babelfish 06:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Harassment_.26_outing_by_User:ScienceApologist

Hi Shell, just in case you haven't seen it, I am providing a link to a current WP:AN concerning ScienceApologist. In it, I have quoted comments you made to Biophys on the PD talk page of the recent Russavia-Biophys ArbCom case. I think they are relevant, but in case you are uncomfortable with the way I have quoted them, or wanted to add any comment to ensure that I have not misrepresented what you have said, I feel I should draw the thread to your attention. I am not suggesting you need to make any comment on the concerns raised either by ScienceApologist or Middle 8 - I recognise Arbitrators generally avoid commenting on anything that could come before ArbCom, which is clearly possible in light of SA's history. Hopefully you won't have a problem with what I have quoted. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I think you quoted me fairly and it's applicable to the incident at hand. Since I would already be recused from anything that ScienceApologist is involved in, I've left my thoughts as well. Shell babelfish 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

As you are recused

I wish to state that I take exception to third parties characterizing what the EEML was, acting as one editor, etc., per this as an example. You will note that I have stated my respect for said editor in the past. If there is a more appropriate venue for objecting to characterizations of EEML participants, please let me know. If I appear sensitive, what has appeared off-Wiki as the result of the violation of my privacy is, of course, incomparably worse. I do not believe that my topic ban prevents me from objecting to other editors making statements, as facts, regarding the intent and purpose of my off-Wiki activities. Your advice is welcome.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Hi Shell - a few years ago you very helpfully stopped the insertion of grossly POV material from far right Israeli sources into the entry on Johann Hari. The same user, I suspect, is trying to do it again. Could you take a look? They're v unreliable sources and clearly don't meet BLP criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.23.1 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Hi, De Waal

Grandmaster brought your name here, since you are involved about BLP issues, I would like your opinion on that. Thanks. Ionidasz (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

File:E85bus.jpg

Hi! I see that you have deleted File:E85bus.jpg, because you concluded that the file had been correctly transferred to Commons. I can only find commons:File:450px-E85bus.jpg on Commons, which appears to be a low-resolution version of File:E85bus.jpg (according to commons:File talk:450px-E85bus.jpg, the original file was 1200×1600 pixels, whereas the Commons file is only 450×600 pixels). There is also no author named, which is required by the file's stated licensing. Could you please restore the file so that it can be correctly transferred to Commons? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoa - from 2006 no less. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any more information on the image description page than was transferred to Commons, but good catch on the resolution change. I've undeleted the file here. Shell babelfish 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've been coming across quite a few of these rather old ones lately. I've tried to fix up the file on Commons, although the source and authorship information leaves quite a bit to wish for. Thanks for your assistance. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Qwerty keyboard

Hello, Shell.

You were right about the qwerty keyboard, UK as it happens. David.Kane has now joined Mikemikev and Captain Occam in making in depth interpretations of a fairly obvious typo. He even left a message on my talk page. Abd-WMC looks civilized and orderly compared to all this. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you fix that typo to avoid everyone being subjected to another 5,000 words on the subject? :-) Shell babelfish 01:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WVBluefield

You may remember unblocking this user - since arbcom did so, he's made less than 50 edits - and, since July, has done nothing but cover for what was almost certainly sockpuppetry by his one-time partner in crime, GoRight. I am concerned that whatever promise that this editor made to secure his unblock are not coming to fruition. Could you please review and take action to refocus TDC on whatever value the ArbCom saw in him? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look and suggested that he drop the issue and contribute productively. Shell babelfish 02:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Blanking Laserbrain's sandbox

Why? When another one popped up to contact both me and SandyGeorgia recently. And the apparent reason for Laserbrain not editing in a while is because of Mattisse? Do you have knowledge or wisdom that is not apparent? --Moni3 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that we have found that is sometimes useful in getting editors to disengage from the project is to blank or remove content that they find is particularly irritating; it is one less thing tying them to the project. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but there's little increased risk of socking in the absence of such pages. Nonetheless, I'm having a hard time seeing what benefit this particular page gives, as it has yet to be useful in identifying socks, which is the main purpose of such pages. Risker (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
For exactly the reasons I stated. The contributor has retired (the reason is irrelevant) and others appear to be using the page to make digs at a banned editor; not the kind of behavior I would have expected out of administrators. Unless there is upcoming or ongoing dispute resolution, the SPI history (which contains the same information) should be sufficient. Also Moni, I had to remove your second comment as I couldn't find any way to remove the personal attacks and keep the message intact. Please don't do that again. Shell babelfish 23:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what to make of that. I've never interacted with you before, Shell Kinney, so I don't know how familiar you are with this case. Your comment makes it seem as if you're not familiar with it at all. And I get a very unpleasant feeling that you're protecting her. I admit I write flippant stuff, but I am among the editors whom Mattisse continues to target. I'm quite reasonable if often ludicrous and I can handle an adult conversation, which is what I was hoping to find here. I understand arbs get editors coming to their pages in fits of rages and all, but that shouldn't form your responses to others to be stated as "Because I said so" nor close down avenues for communication. I came here to understand what you did and why. I know of no other way than by asking you outright why you did it. I have a different perspective than you do that has formed from my two-year (is it three yet?) experience being involved with Mattisse. I hope you recognize that and respect it. I most certainly hope you don't consider my statement that Mattisse targets editors a personal attack. I would find that very depressing.
Will you take into consideration my perspective and experience and put yourself in my place and then explain why you blanked the page? It's not unreasonable for me to think Mattisse's history is being erased so that other editors have no idea and I have to keep reliving the same awful experience. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Erm - I didn't mean the first sentence to sound like "because I said so" - I was just trying to point back to the edit summary explanation so that the next two sentences where I explained further made sense. Sorry if that came off the wrong way, I certainly don't want to come off like a parent here (I get enough of that with my own kids!).

As far as "hiding" the history, I've been able to find several rfcs, an arb case and an SPI which all detail the information, so I guess it was a bit confusing that a separate record was being kept in a retired user's sandbox by several other editors who seem a bit free with the nasty comments about the sock master. If there's something from that sandbox that isn't showing up elsewhere, perhaps we can come up with a way to make sure it's recorded in a better place? I don't want to lose anything, but at the same time, that page doesn't seem to be particularly helpful in getting everyone to disengage.

I get that there's history here and I wouldn't want anyone to think I was trying to belittle that or excuse anyone's behavior during the past 4 years or so. I've spent the better part of 6 hours reviewing the whole mess today - frankly, after everything was said and done, no one comes out covered in glory. My main concern is that the situation seems to be self-perpetuating and/or in a downward spiral; I'd really like to see if we can't stop it in it's tracks. If there's anything not recorded on wiki due to privacy concerns that you think I should know about, you're welcome to contact me with any of the details in the header (or email me if you'd rather have a phone number or other method I don't list). Shell babelfish 00:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation and the re-start. I took a few hours to think about my reply. Your points make sense, and I understand no one comes out of the case, as you say, "covered in glory". I admit I got so frustrated at several points I was one of them. But my frustration came from reacting in part to a couple arbitrators whose comments and actions made no sense to me and appeared ill-conceived and unwise. Although I thought it worthwhile to pursue some points, I eventually ended up not engaging in the various arbitration processes available to editors because I did not see the wisdom in doing so.
Pragmatically, the table-list I find useful. It took you hours, you say, to read through the history; how many other editors would take that time? The table-list set it up neatly as to what topics she frequented, how she presented herself, and what patterns she used. I did not know she frequented topics about the paranormal and Starwood before that list was formed. I did not take the time to read through the past history, which, sure is my fault, but I don't think that editors unfamiliar with the case would be any more likely to do so. I understand there is a considerable amount of communication that goes on between arbs and I recognize that you may have information I don't have access to. So I don't even know if or how to ask about that. My perspective is that I find the list helpful, and you removed it in the hopes that the episodes don't repeat themselves. I'm skeptical that's going to accomplish discouraging her from returning and I'm unsure what basis you have for this hope. It doesn't seem logical, so maybe there's an element here that I'm missing. I promise that you won't find anyone on Wikipedia with a shorter memory than I (another reason I find the table-list helpful), who hopes every day to see Mattisse's name and think "Who?" That hasn't yet happened, and I'm erring on the side of documentation and caution. The table-list just makes it simpler. --Moni3 (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see very good reasons for blanking the page, or possibly moving it into SPI space - since it does contain a good quick overview of editing topics, behaviours and history - and blanking it there. However, I don't agree that that the page has been used to make digs at a banned editor (as suggested above) rather than a good faith attempt to gather and maintain an accurate summary of the activities of a chronic, long-term sock-puppeteer. Or at least those were my motives, and I rather object to others being ascribed to me. --Slp1 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually it didn't take me hours to find the sockpuppet information; the comment about the time I spent was simply to explain that I do know the history here and have been reviewing quite a bit in an effort to come up to speed - I'd like to see everyone get some resolution here. Slp1's idea of moving the table to SPI does sound good - any new cases would then benefit from that information no matter who made the report. Patterns and history are certainly something that can assist checkuser, although from looking elsewhere, it was my understanding that the list was actually incorrect at a few points.

Slp1, I'm sorry if it sounded like I meant every editor or every comment there was problematic. I noticed a few comments and edit summaries that I felt crossed the line and I do believe that the page was keeping a group of people, specifically those who felt like they were harassed, from disengaging. There's nothing wrong with keeping an institutional memory of things, but if I've learned anything in dispute resolution, it's that issues tend to spiral in on themselves when confined to a small group - it's probably why things like RfC developed (but that's another conversation). Rather than let a sore constantly pick at you, it's best to share the responsibility for disputes with the community - dealing with any dispute for months (or even years) gets incredibly frustrating. On the other hand, continuing to poke at someone that we've asked to take a break from Wikipedia is probably the worst way to get them to actually do so - imagine if people talked about you and you had no recourse to respond or tell your side of the story - most people just can't let things lie like that. As for my basis in believing these things, it's because I've worked with these kinds of disputes before and successfully resolved them to everyone's satisfaction - I can't guarantee everything I try will work every time, but I'll be happy to keep trying until we fix it or we all run out of ideas. Shell babelfish 21:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and explanation. I appreciate it. You are absolutely right that it is always better to involve the community in dispute resolution and I concur that the page should be moved out of userspace. Should it be necessary - though I sincerely hope it won't be - there would be clearer access to it for info and editing by a wider community (including checkusers); in addition increased community "ownership" would be helpful to reduce any perception of (or actual) personalization. I can also see the advantage in blanking it in order to encourage disengagement by involved parties; though I can't see much in the way of problematic comments or edit summaries, and the page has actually had very long periods of inactivity, broken only when an alternative account is identified, so it might be argued that the poking is coming from elsewhere. Nevertheless, I do think the move and the blanking are worth trying. All being well, there will be no need to consult it or add to it ever again. But if there is, it will be in community space. --Slp1 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Following up on something you said

Shell, thank you for helping to answer my question about arbitration clarification. You said something in your answer, which I'd like to follow up with you about here. In your answer, it sounded to me like you were implying that you saw evidence that I had been incivil. I'm very open to learning from my mistakes, and I would appreciate it if you could give me any pointers that you have for me about how I could do things better in that regard. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not you specifically, I just noted that the editing area seems to be a bit heated at times and people aren't always quite as civil as they could be. It happens - some issues carry emotional weight and affect us from time to time. So long as you learn to recognize if things are starting to get to you and take a break before saying anything you'd regret, you'll be just fine. Shell babelfish 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yes, you are absolutely right about all of that. Thank you very much for your help with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

please check your wikipedia email

Hi could you please check your email. I sent you a private conversation by email that I'd really appreciate your help with as soon as possible. Thanks Frombelow (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it and sent a reply. Shell babelfish 05:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits, Shell, is it possible to provide some updates to my BLP for someone to edit it? As the subject I can't do it and I am blocked from editing..If so, can you email me offwiki. J@JH.com (all names spelled out) thanks Julia Havey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Frombelow on Abahlali

Hi. Thanks for your intervention. Makes sense. The reason I mentioned the not-to-be-named retired user and Frombelow in one breath was because the discussion was about the Abahlali article's history of edits playing fast and loose with NPOV, OR and COI. It thus is not many different editors who are contributing contentious information and being disruptive when their own edits are challenged, but just a few editors behaving like this, probably only two. Why is this a relevant point to make in that discussion? Because, if one looks at talk page and takes no account of retired users now using new names you might think lots of editors over time have supported the contentious edits and reverts made. Dodger67, FFMG and I were, logically, thinking about the source of the edits in order to understand whether they were made good faith or not. I also wanted to understand whether I was in the minority on this issue and lots of different editors were, over time, happy with the Abahlali page as it was. But I understand and abide by your post for the reason you gave. Wanya1 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely understandable, the good thing is, consensus can change - even if things were done poorly in the past, there's always time to fix things and involve new editors to improve the article. It might help to archive the old discussions on the talk page (some are years old) and start fresh discussing any issues with the article. Shell babelfish 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

I saw you had blocked Pmanderson for personal attacks earlier. That did not help. In fact it seems like it got worse, personal attacks seems to be his mode of operation now. He has had several WQA and ANIs about this, but, mostly die to admin overload I think, nothing is happening. I've gathered the evidence in a draft RFC (here), and would like to know if you think that is the correct action at the moment. I'm new to these kind of conflicts where one side refuses to listen and instead engages in personal attacks, so I don't know the best procedure. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If things like ANI and WQA aren't working, then yes, RfC would be the next course of action. It's disappointing that the attacks are spilling out into article space now as well; it looks like a case where taking a vacation from Wikipedia would be helpful. Shell babelfish 15:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! OK, I created the RFC. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson --OpenFuture (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Pmanderson ANI

Shell,

Why is the admin community ignoring this ANI regarding Pmanderson for so long? The personal attacks he directed at another editor were exceedingly flagrant and this will be the third incident in three weeks where PMA has been dragged to ANI for clear-cut violations of WP:NPA. A post by Bali ultimate (∆ here), where he/she wrote “Admins aren't going to take any action here” seemed ominously prescient. What’s going on? Greg L (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Race and Intelligence Case

Hi Shell... I noticed your recent votes on the R&I ArbCom case, and in particular your comments on Ludwigs2's views of the mediation. A couple of days ago I noticed this mediation where Ludwigs2 was mediator, which was closed earlier today. The consensus conclusion of the mediation was to rename the article Israel and the apartheid analogy to Israel and Apartheid. I took no part in the mediation or the article, having only come across it by accident. Ludwigs2's comments on the R&I PD talk page had made me wonder about judgment, and seeing this mediation and it's (in my opinion) potentially provocative conclusion made me wonder further. Consequently, I thought it worthwhile to provide you with a pointer to this other mediation case for your information, and in case it assisted you in your deliberations. I will post a note to Ludwigs2, advising that I have made this post, in the interests of transparency. EdChem (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Having mediated a similar case before, I actually see a lot of good things that Ludwigs2 did there. He's tried to get everyone involved and reminded people along the way that the outcome isn't binding. There are times when a mediator has to say "well enough". The issue under discussion is so politically charged that you're very unlikely to get complete agreement no matter how much effort is put in. When arguments start to be repeated and things start to turn personal, it's often better to close a mediation - a mediation that ends with editors at each other's throats is often worse than no mediation at all.

That said, I'd be surprised if the decisions made during the mediation stand up outside of it; as I said, it simply too politically charged a subject for any reasoned discussion to prevail. Shell babelfish 07:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your thoughts and perspective. I guess I was looking at the consensus conclusion and thinking that trying to implement it would be somewhere between provocative and explosive. Of course, the politically charge nature of the issue is not Ludwigs2's fault. EdChem (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article Michael Oliver (referee)

Hi, you deleted the article about a football referee Michael Oliver due to his lack of notability which was probably spot on at the time. However, this guy has now been promoted to the Select Group Referees who referee games in the Premier League and thus liable to become a higher profile person.

You will notice from the Select Group article that he is the only one who doesn't have an article. I suspect the very first controversial decision he makes would result in a lot of totally biased vitriol being written about him as a new article so it may be worth restoring the deleted one as a starting point. (I don't know if I've raised the query in the right way, so apologies if I haven't approached this request in the right manner.) Seedybob (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So sorry I missed this message earlier. I wasn't sure if by your message you think that he's more notable now and that references would be available to create a proper article? If that's the case, I'd have no problem undeleting it so it can be updated/expanded. Shell babelfish 08:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request

Since you were the drafter of this topic ban, could you please clarify whether edits like this (notice the quote) and this breach the letter or the spirit of the ban? The same question was recently asked by the restricted person himself, although after the edits. Offliner (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a concern that someone is violating a topic ban, arbitration enforcement is the appropriate venue, however I believe something was said during the proposed decision phase that historical articles hadn't been at issue before and weren't likely to be an issue. It would be terribly disappointing if the participants from that case started disputing with each other elsewhere :( Shell babelfish 08:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
But was the topic ban meant to cover pre-1917 Russia or not? The wording is unclear. Personally, I interpret it as a topic ban from all articles related to Russia, since Russia is one of the "former Soviet republics". Offliner (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to take this to WP:AE, since I have no desire to play a part in the latest round of the ridiculous battleground initiated by Colchicum.[51][52][53] But many people were looking for a clarification, but no one asked, so I did. Offliner (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. The dispute was about the Soviet Union era and later. And honestly, if you want to drop the issue then perhaps you should stop watching what these folks are doing and commenting on it? Continuing to bring things up isn't disengaging. Shell babelfish 11:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

JanDeFietser

I am still of the belief that there is a simple and quiet way out of this, which I've been trying to keep from escalating to involve several other editors in a big row. I'd appreciate it if you or another arbitrator could take a look and see whether you can handle this off-wiki, privately. There's some sort of external dispute, here, in addition to the Dutch Wikipedia dispute, which the arbitration committee off-wiki is probably best placed to handle. I expect that JanDeFietser would also like this handled out of the public view of the other disputants, and (given the timing of the user page content relative to the AN/I discussion earlier this year, and xyr edits in the months since) I don't think that xe is intentionally trying to bring this into the English Wikipedia, and would be happy to find some route for xem to be able to go back to productive editing. I really hoped that this could have been handled without fuss, blocks, and palaver in just two edits. But I think that we can still come back from the brink here, if arbitrators are willing to talk to JanDeFietser. Uncle G (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Quackguru, for the past month you have been reverting every edit to the article with very little discussion. Please remember that you are required to discuss concerns rather than revert or your topic ban will be reinstated. Shell babelfish 11:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been commenting a lot on the discussion page.

Rosner, Anthony L. (July 27, 2010). "Death by Chiropractic: Another Misbegotten Review". ChiroACCESS. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accesddate= ignored (help)

Please remember this reference is unreliable and does not belong in the chiropractic page.

A 2010 systematic review found there is no good evidence to assume that chiropractic neck manipulation is effective for any medical condition.[1]

Without explanation for the second time an editor removed the above sentence, added duplicate material about risk-benefit that is in another section, and added an unreliable source from ChiroACCESS. This unreliable reference is WP:SPAM.

The word Critics is unsourced and failed verification and is original research. I previously explained this on the discussion page. There are too many problems to list with the recent controversial edits. The other editors are not going to change there minds. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be a bit more clear, it really doesn't matter that you think you're right and they're wrong. You now have several people disputing your edits to the article and have continued to revert any changes they make while your only comment on the talk page has been to tell them they're wrong. That's not a discussion. Remember, instead of continuing to revert, you need to actually talk to these other editors and try to resolve the problem. Failing that, use dispute resolution to engage other editors and form a good consensus. You cannot continue to refuse to allow anyone else to edit the article even though you think they're wrong. Shell babelfish 07:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
In your point of you it is irrelevant what editors do to an article like adding spam. I think if editors like yourself tried to focus more on article content and what edits improved the article it would be better for the article if that is your goal. I think the reference can be added to Wikipedia's spam list. I think an admin could tell the editor who added the spam to the article to stop adding it or remove it. After all the goal is to improve the article. Do you think the reference is spam or unreliable? I think this is a relevant question if improving the article is the goal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Unreliable references and spam are two very, very different things. The question is not what I think, but have you discussed this with other editors and what do they think? Does everyone agree that this reference shouldn't be used? Does everyone agree the reference is spam? If so, then there's no worries. If not, then you need to be discussing the issue rather than simply reverting based on your own views. Shell babelfish 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Request for help in ending the battleground

My plan after returning to editing was to disengage from the battleground. I tried to focus entirely on creating new content [54][55], but immediately after I returned, Colchicum first attacked me [56][57] and then decided to launch the latest round of the battleground [58]. Biophys then followed and attacked me as well.[59] I'm trying refrain from replying and defending myself, since I believe doing that is exactly what keeps the battleground alive.[60][61]

What I did try to do was to make peace with one of my former content opponents: [62]. I believe that mutually agreeing not to make accusations against each other is the only voluntary way to end this battleground.

Biophys rejected the offer, and in fact used my peace offer against me, to attack me further. He did this by twisting my words:

"I just would like to notice that Offliner came to my talk page to suggest that we are in a state of war" [63]

I offer peace — and Biophys uses the opportunity to claim that I am, in fact, declaring war. Biophys did something similar during the WP:Russavia-Biophys arbitration when he tried to twist Ellol's words, claiming that Ellol had presented threats using criminal slang.[64]

Colchicum also rejected my peace offer outright.[65]

So I think it is clear from these replies that the general athmosphere is too combatitive for any voluntary restrictions and promises to work. Therefore, I believe the only way is to impose a draconian general interaction ban. It should prohibit editors from making accusations and filing noticeboard reports against each other. It should, however, leave room for constructive collaboration on articles.

I suggest the following text: "[list of editors] are prohibited from making any kind of accusations or filing noticeboard reports against each other."

"Accusations" should be broadly defined. The editors should include all editors from the EEML and from the recent Russavia-Biophys arbcase, as well as me and Colchicum.

At this point, I really think this is the only way to end the battleground. Offliner (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear things are still frustrating in this area. If you'd like to propose the case be amended to include a wide interaction ban, you can certainly do that. I've noticed a few flareups just recently, so you may be right that this isn't going to go away otherwise. In the meantime, you might find it considerably less stressful if you decided to ignore the drama and not let yourself get drawn back into any of the issues that come up. If you find yourself without an idea what to work on, I've got an article sitting on the backburner because I think my writing sounds terrible and could really use some copy editing or suggestions for improvement; it's also a crazy out of the way area which might be a welcome change. Shell babelfish 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Well, I am sorry, but I can't leave this, uh, made-up story unanswered. I haven't attacked Offliner after he returned to editing, I asked the Committee to consider putting him on an interaction ban before his siteban was suspended. IMO it was not an attack, it was a perfectly reasonable request given his history. And seeing how he is unable to disengage and how the things deteriorated since he (rather than anybody else) had got unbanned, I am getting increasingly confident that it would be a good idea. I withhold my opinion at to whether it was reasonable for the Committee to unban him at all. However, I stand by my assessment of his post-ban comments on Malik Shabazz [66] and Kotniski [67] as outrageous. That was hardly disengagement from the battleground, quite the opposite. And he can't claim that he was provoked there.
Concerning "the latest round of the battleground" I have launched (this is at least the third time over the last few days that Offliner repeats this not quite kind and even less accurate mantra: the latest round of the ridiculous battleground initiated by Colchicum, the latest round of this ridiculous battleground initiated and maintained by User:Colchicum, Colchicum first attacked me and then decided to launch the latest round of the battleground – how's that for disengagement?) I believe that reporting violations of Arbcom remedies, which is what I did, doesn't constitute battleground behavior. Correct me if I am wrong. At least WP:BATTLE doesn't claim anything of this sort, in agreement with the common sense. I invite everyone concerned to review my report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia. I may understand why some people are unhappy about it, but it is not my fault, they shouldn't have repeatedly violated Arbcom remedies in the first place, whereas my report doesn't violate anything. On a side note, Igny's conduct there was indeed appalling.
Now, concerning the "peace offer", it looks like it was "an offer you couldn't refuse", eh? This is ridiculous. Offliner is free to disengage whenever he wish (until it may be too late), for this he doesn't need an authorization from others. I am not going to sign any special treaties with him, neither do I have to.
As a finding of fact justifying any sort of general interaction ban his story would be preposterous. Nobody else is to blame that he is unable to disengage. A draconian interaction ban for him may indeed be warranted though, exactly my point. But maybe he is clever enough to withdraw on his own. Colchicum (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What would likely help is everyone either a) dropping the sticks and getting along or failing that b) ignoring each other completely. Surely there are other editors out there who can open enforcement or requests for sanction when needed? I found your recent comments about Russavia particularly disturbing - on one hand you claim interest in disengaging and on the other disparage Russavia and tell others not to bother working with him. I think it's becoming pretty clear who's learned from the case and who hasn't. Shell babelfish 12:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ach, nevermind - after looking at it further, Russavia pulled that diff out from last March. *sigh* Shell babelfish 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence et al.

With the proceedings completed, I would like to offer some observations. I appreciate Coren looking for ways to think outside the box, however, wetting toes in content and enforcing the broadening of editors' content perspectives did not go very far. (Part of the issue is that ultimately even WP:RS is driven by consensus—but another conversation.)
  WP is about working together constructively. When edit wars ensue, followed by requests for enforcement or arbitration, those are symptoms of the initial breakdown of collegial interaction. From my own experience, it is possible to have raging disagreements on subject matter, but to still conduct discourse collegially and constructively—all that is required is for editors to be nice to each other. The hand-wringing over "civil POV pushers" is, IMHO, overdone. As long as editors stick to sources debate can be had. I have successfully debated sock-puppetting paid POV pushers, and so, for me, the choice is simple: obtain the opposition's sources to insure fair and accurate representation; research and obtain your own reputable sources; form a cogent editorial argument—OR—whine about "POV pushers" not listening to what you're saying.
  It is only when those who fail to achieve dominance of their POV resort to accusations, sock-puppets, et al. that discourse disintegrates. And once that happens, that Humpty Dumpty, while not beyond repair, takes quite the effort to reconstitute. I suggest that ending the disparagement and denigration of editors be made a top priority. ArbCom should ask themselves, why would anyone new come to WP to contribute when they are very likely to be attacked just for showing up?
   Lastly, escalating sanctions (indefinite topic bans, etc.) are likely only to worsen the situation in the long run, as the opportunity for one to eliminate their opposition outweighs the ban's usefulness as a deterrent in promoting good behavior. Short blocks (WP cold turkey) sooner for poor manners would be much more effective.
   I've left this for you as you are new to the fold as of the last election and aren't afraid to change your mind about things. ("A straightforward response, the only one so far to specifically talk about changing one's mind. Worth a look at the helm."—my thoughts on your answers to my questions during the election process.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about Coren; I always appreciate people who are willing to try to come up with new ideas, even if they don't work. I think it's the best way to stumble on something that's really going to make a difference.

I also completely agree that working well together is the cornerstone of the real work that gets done on Wikipedia. The sticking point always seems to be that we can't (as a whole) agree on where the line should be drawn. Some people give established editors more leeway, others think that's silly. People disagree on what constitutes incivil language and everyone has a different level that they seem comfortable with. We can almost always agree when someone has gone too far (even then there are disagreements at times) but stopping things before they get there is often difficult. I'm not sure I have a good solution for getting people to work together, at least not one that ArbCom can implement - I've always felt I was able to do more towards that end through mediation (formal or informal) and helping people understand each other. Maybe if we had a group of people who were good at that sort of thing, we could send them into areas that were having difficulty and see if they could get everyone back on track.

I do understand a bit where people are coming from about civil POV pushers though. Usually it's not that they're civil or that they push a POV, more often it's that they simply repeat themselves ad naseum despite well formed arguments and continue to revert from time to time (not enough to be sanctioned usually). Situations like that can take an extrodinar amount of time away from other contributors; I've seen people continue to argue their position and revert even after all other editors were calmly disagreeing with them, multiple RfCs indicated that their viewpoint wasn't consensus etc. What do you usually do when you encounter a situation like that?

I've certainly seen cases where editors tried to use topic bans to eliminate people with other viewpoints. I've also seen sockpuppet reports used the same way. A the heart of it though is that "us-vs-them" mentality, which I think is less a problem that stems from Wikipedia and more about some of these external disputes. It's probably a part of human nature and not one we're likely to sanction out of existence here. I do like the idea of shorter blocks when problems spring up rather than long bans, but that would require some closer attention on problem areas by admins and I'm not sure how we encourage that to happen. Good thoughts though :-) Shell babelfish 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Apologies this came out a lot longer than intended!) There are differences between saying something when one is upset and simply being denigrating and disparaging or being truly rude. Admittedly these are subjective, but "being nice" need not degenerate into political correctness police.

The sticky issue is, of course, when editor "A" says editor "B" is being "X" or did "X" and "B" fends off all criticism as a "personal attack." The corollary is when editors revert WP:IDONTLIKEIT edits by calling them "vandalism." I don't have a simple answer, then again, maybe it's as simple as a 2-week block for the first person who calls the other names which should not be used in genteel conversation. (!) Having had some small experience where I've been asked to mediate, my experience at least has been that it only works when the mediator is also a subject matter expert respected by all feuding sides—that is, editors are open to suggested content compromises which they might otherwise reject. Even the best sources brought to bear on a dispute will solve nothing without that personal aspect also being in play. The flip side there is that if someone mediates based solely on attempting to find some (artificial) middle ground—let us remember that the middle between two opposite positions is not the definition of NPOV—then matters can be left worse of than when they started. A group of editors willing to step in, yes; but they need to know the subject matter as well as the editors in dispute.

About the civil (or perhaps even strident) POV pushers, let's start with the RFC's. That they fail, often repeatedly and even spectacularly, is inevitable. As the parties in conflict are likeliest also the best informed, there's little to be gained by going to a wider community of less-well informed individuals; these newcomers are little more than fresh meat for proselytizers from both/all sides. Moreover, the (incorrect) meme that NPOV is somewhere in the middle gives the minority/non-consensus view the edge; in the situation where 10 people say "A" and 2 people say "B", an independent subject matter expert may conclude "A" (or "B" for that matter, you never know) whereas the WP uninformed and uninitiated invariably attempt to cobble together some sort of allegedly, but never in reality "NPOV," Franken-middle-ground, ("A"+"B")/2. For this reason, RFCs tend to be ineffective and to escalate, not resolve, conflicts.

Moving on to the endless repetition, per my earlier comments, it is up to the editors to simply deal with it. So, maybe an article gets permanently tagged as "POV." It's not the end of civilization as we know it. Eventually the article in question will achieve something between stability, equilibrium, or stalemate. A sidebar to this is that when editors get stuck in a revert war, it's really more of a time loop; no one is thinking about a solution at that point, and it's sometimes possible for someone to come in and create a better content solution which satisfies both parties—it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be wrong. (Another case requiring a subject matter expert uninvolved in the immediate conflict.)

As I've said, RFCs while intended to assist in conflict resolution, accomplish just the opposite. I can even make the case that the entire dispute resolution process, as structured, is an invitation to conflict as it widens the participants, bringing in editors unfamiliar and unprepared for the subject matter, then escalating to admins et al. who are likely equally unfamiliar and unprepared—but with authority to pass judgement and sentences based on appearances; meanwhile any in such a position of authority with subject matter familiarity who can be most helpful must recuse themselves because someone on some side of the conflict will accuse them of bias.

My best advice is let the editors simply deal with it and toss out anyone who starts being grossly insulting. Yes, there will also be bona fide frustration; but if in good faith, it need also only be apologized for promptly. Part of any solution is that editors do need some leeway at times; the challenge is maintaining the atmosphere of good faith when that has not yet been established among the participants. When good faith is not well established, it's pretty much guilty until proven innocent, I'm afraid.

In the long term, it is only when editors, whether self-identified as being in conflict or acknowledged as such by the wider community, agree to work together that circumstances will improve. And, most of all, that starts with simply being nice to each other. :-) Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Your understanding is perfectly correct. The arbitration enforcement board itself was only created to provide a central point so that actionable abuses didn't get lost. In its early days, as one of the arbitration clerks of the era, I was often the only admin to regularly follow the board and perform the required actions.


Perhaps the proposed decision needs to be tweaked a bit more to emphasize the pivotal role of administrator discretion, because at the moment few admins are willing to get involved and the restrictive implementation of the probation has not been effective, in the long run, in encouraging admins to act. Many admins these days also seem to be rather timid, and that cannot be good for the health of the encyclopedia. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that problem was pointed out on the talk page. I believe that is one of the reasons behind moving to more standard discretionary sanctions, but perhaps further emphasis is going to be important. Shell babelfish 13:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Some references:
The page was moved to its current location in May, 2009 [69] --TS 13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Concern

I have a concern that you are not treating me in the same way as you are treating others on the proposed decision talkpage. I have genuine concerns and am trying to express them, maybe in a politically naive way but at least in an honest way. Even if you have already formed an opinion on me as some upstart who needs to be brought into line I would appreciate it if you would leave this to the PD rather than popping up with chummy comments to certain editors whilst admonishing me during the discussion. When I started the RfC/U on Lar I feel a lot of skeptic editors in the CC area took one look at my username and the fact that I am a glaciologist and decided I was some CC nutcase and treated me as such which has lead to many of the issues. I don't really want to face that sort of prejudice at arbcom. Polargeo (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern was the unhealthy focus on other editors rather the discussing the proposed decision; some of your comments were straying into the territory of personal attacks. You were warned by more than one Arb over your unhelpful comments; your politics haven't a thing to do with why you were asked to tone things down. I'm not "chummy" with any editors in the case, that's my normal method of discussion - perhaps if you'd like to add constructive ideas for changing the PD or improving the topic area rather than tear down other editors, you would like the response you get much better. Shell babelfish 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I was not personally warned by more than one arb at all. It was only you who assumed that the collapse by another arb was due to my comments when in fact I did not start the collapsed thread at all and was simply defending my own actions. I fully agree with the other arb's collapsing of that thread. Carcharoth has been exemplary in the handling of this case. Polargeo (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Or perhaps, having spoken with my colleagues, I have a better idea about the concerns. So long as you steer clear of attacking other editors, we'd all be happy to hear any concerns you may have about the Proposed Decision. Shell babelfish 13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I will try my best. Although I have said most of it already and it is so widely spread that I am getting tired of repetition. Polargeo (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If you're concerned something will get lost in the mix, you might want to add those points to the statement portion so that they don't accidentally get archived or overlooked. If there's anything in particular you feel needs looked at, feel free to put some diffs here to those particular points and I'll make sure I've seen them. Shell babelfish 14:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Unwanted editorialization

Sorry to bother you again, but this sort of editorializing is unwelcome. In the spirit of defusing, I'm not filling an enforcement request; however, I'd like a clear statement that crying EEML WITCH!, offering personal opinions re-litigating EEML, synthesis of personal victomology at the hands of EEML and all, are may be considered sanctionable WP:BATTLEGROUND offenses. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sanctionable, I don't know but unhelpful, certainly. There is certainly a serious problem here with a number of people being unable/unwilling to drop the stick. Unfortunately it looks like it's heading to site bans. Shell babelfish 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This is getting a bit too far indeed. I am not sure that I understand what he means, but it doesn't sound good. Colchicum (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if you look at the second link, it's a news article about intimidation, but that is a rather odd comment. If someone feels their participation at an article could be harmful, they should really consider working elsewhere. Shell babelfish 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The only limits being tested here are those of my patience. You well know if I respond to this sort of goading I'll be the one accused of "not disengaging." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Redirected to Arbcom

I'll run through the short version after a conversation @Sandstein's. I would like to request that all personal user space pages of "evidence" editors gathered in preparing for the EEML litigation or related to prior Baltic/EE conflicts be deleted. More than 8 months after the EEML topic bans went into effect, a number of editors (regardless of "sides") have returned to contributing; nothing good will come of past collections of recriminations lying about. Is there a formal mechanism for submitting such a request? Please let me know if I should submit via Email. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I will have to voice my strongest objection to this, as there are still outstanding issues related to the EEML case. I have made Vecrumba a suggestion on how he should proceed, if he really wants to bury the past, see User talk:Sandstein#Personal EEML and related evidence pages. This unilateral proposal is not taking the issue anywhere, I see it only as preparation for a new battleground. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything that remains unresolved. Outsiders can allege and think whatever they want regarding content editing in the Baltic and Eastern European topic space, any interaction I have had with Petri Krohn and any content I have written or advocated for on-Wiki has been based solely on a fair an accurate representation of sources and would have been exactly the same whether or not there had been off-Wiki communication. Petri will be free to debate me based on sources when my topic ban expires. Until then, this sort of escalating accusation of bad faith—that I'm already planning for my war campaign when my topic ban expires in 129 days, 20 hours, 21 minutes and 24 seconds [as I type this], and which threatens re-litigating everything WP:EEML—is unseemly at best. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
We just recently had all of the user evidence pages deleted after a case and I believe there was some talk of this being standard from now on. My best suggestion would be to ask for an amendment to the case requiring all of these pages be deleted (without adding in the extra baggage Petri suggested that doesn't even seem related).

Petri, your houding of certain editors is becoming apparent and may end in further sanctions if your behavior doesn't change post haste. Shell babelfish 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shell, I was deeply offended by your comment and your accusation that I have been “hounding” someone. I decided to cool down for an hour.
Now, after four hours, I am not only offended, but also – I believe justifiably – angry.
I ask that you issue a formal written apology for your comments. If you are unwilling to do that, I ask that you compile a list of the cases where you believe I have hounded someone – I suppose here you mean participants in the EEML arbitration case. I do not think you even need to do the work your self as the people you believe have been hounded would most likely volunteer their labor.
As is well known, I have followed a voluntary topic ban on the disputes in the EE topic area and a related interaction ban on users who would later end up as the accused side in the EEML case – starting from the day in July 2007 when my request at WP:AN to have a community ban on user Digwuren (talk · contribs) was first rejected. (Note, that this happened before Digwuren contributed his first original contribution.) It is my firm belief – supported by massive amounts of evidence – that the interest shown by former participants in the mailing list to my user account is not related to my edits, but to the activities of a real life person who happens to share my username.
I do admit to the following:
  • I have been following the edits of User Russavia, as he has been under harassment and may not always act in the best possible manner himself. I have also supported him in some cases where he has been attacked or accused.
  • I have commented on a very limited number of user talk pages, where accusations have been made against me – either directly or trough innuendo – by participants in the EEML arbitration case. In most cases this has happened long after the fact, as I do not follow the edits or talk pages of the users involved (I have now added some pages to my watchlist.)
  • I have done a potentially very controversial non-admin closure of a WP:AE case involving Russavia. The action was taken in order to WP:DENY a forum for what was escalating into a major BATTLEground of EEML legacy. I did this under the presumption, that if anyone even hinted that my BOLD action was not absolutely the correct thing to do, I would revert the action and apologize to those affected. So far, no one has given me such a hint. (I believe Vercumba was one of the people whose butt I saved.)
I do not see any of these actions as hounding. Neither should you.
Yours, -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I am frankly gobsmacked by this escalating ugliness.
  1. My interest in your edits is your edits. Of course, I can't pursue Baltic/EE topics at the moment, although I must make the next observation.
  2. You have not followed a voluntary topic ban as you indicate, as since your most recent return you've already edited the aftermath of WWII to describe the Soviet role in Eastern Europe as liberation and/or restoration by the Soviets.
  3. I have no interest in your actions regarding Russavia—we are mutually happily prohibited from seeking out conflict with one another. I have no idea what "butt saving" you refer to. I commented to Igny; I left.
Perhaps you mistake me for someone more interested in conflict than in reputable content? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I'm sorry if my comments anger you, but having seen the various discussions you've popped up in lately for no apparent reason (here and Sanstein's talk being the most recent examples) I think it's remarkably clear that you are following around certain editors and stirring the pot. Vecrumba's request about user pages used as evidence was appropriate, especially given the recent ruling in another case which indicated that we don't intend to go on allowing these pages and at the very least expect to see them deleted at the close of a case. The acrimony that still exists over the EEML case is rather appalling; there seems to be a mindset among certain editors that those involved in the case deserve some kind of punishment or persecution for their actions - that's certainly not the way things are handled on Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that you reconsider your interactions with editors who were involved in the case and stop watching their edits.

Vecrumba, you absolutely may not try to link a Wikipedia editor to anything in real life or on another website unless they have brought the information here themselves first. If you have concerns about an editor or a conflict of interest where you would need to disclose such links, you are required to keep that information off site and handle it via email to ArbCom; anything else is WP:OUTING and will result in a block. Shell babelfish 05:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri has confirmed the same on-Wiki. There is no "outing", this is merely an attempt to slander me and make me out to be a trouble maker attacking Petri for no good reason other than mistaking Wiki Petri Krohn for real-life Petri Krohn. I will send you by Wiki mail. In the mean time, I feel as if I'm being threatened with blocks (my perception, and quite upsetting as I came here for advice on how to move on and have gotten attacked by Petri for it) for violations I have not committed. Please keep your friendly advice friendly. Keep in mind also what this conversation was originally about and where it has gone since Petri inappropriately inserted himself to accuse me of nefarious behavior. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I assumed since Petri made claims that you were outing him that he had not disclosed his identity on-wiki. Since he's done so, repeatedly and even recently [70], [71] then your link was not outing.

Petri, this kind of underhanded behavior is exactly what I'm trying to warn you away from. You cannot openly discuss your identity and then try to sanction other editors when they do the same. Please re-read WP:OUTING and ask if you have any further confusion. Shell babelfish 06:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Petri has intentionally updated a Wikilink in his prior post, which you reference, to now point to a non-existent biography article. This latest inaccurate implication of two Petris, created 3 hours after your response above—in response to yours, is disingenuous at best. Yours was not the apology necessary, still, much appreciated; you only acted on evidence provided. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Please also note the obfuscating edit summary invoking WP:VERIFIABILITY, which purports that Petri's original Wiki-link was "wrong". PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Anent Petri, with whom I have had essentially no overlaps, see [72] which appears onits face to be a deliberate attempt to insert me into CC as an active participant via her edits (if such they are) at [73] (under a 1RR restriction to begin with, and a requirement that edits be mentioned on the talk page, which she forgot to do), and at [74] and so on. I think perhaps verbum sapiens in her direction would help. Thanks! And try to get the CC arb done by Christmas <g>. Collect (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Letting you know

Hello, Shell. Since you've voted in favour of two remedies concerning ChrisO, I wanted to let you know that I've brought up an issue with a clause in those remedies here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think other Arbs have covered it, but I felt the reason the clause was added was because even though ChrisO is taking time off, it's not time that he intends to edit Wikipedia. If he decided to come back, we would have no way of knowing whether or not the problems would begin again. If, for example, he decides to edit on another Wikimedia Project, shows the problem is resolved and then later wishes to return here, we would take that into consideration and amend the findings as appropriate. Shell babelfish 03:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification; however, I must very strongly object to this. Someone's decision to leave Wikipedia should never be held again that person and cause longer sanctions. Risker puts it better than I do in the section I linked above.
Also, I strongly suggest you have a close look at that section because it appears to me that you and Coren, who have both voted in favour of this remedy, are interpreting it differently. (It's possible that I'm misreading Coren, but I don't think so, as Lar and I seem to agree in our reading of him.) Needless to say, any differences in arbs' interpretations of remedies ought to be resolved now rather than at Requests for Clarification later. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said, there's certainly ways that editors can show that any issues have been resolved even if they aren't editing here, however since this is intended to prevent further problems I feel we'd be lax if we assumed that the issues just stopped on their own with no evidence to support that idea. Bans aren't meant to punish people by keeping them out of something, they're used when we recognize that editors are having difficulty working within the rules in a particular topic area - we often review bans and change bans by amendment when editors show they've worked out whatever the problem was.

Arbs do disagree on how to handle things from time to time and I'm sure there will be further discussion before the final decision is posted. I think Coren mentioned that he realizes we may be reading it differently and I have seen his comments there as well - we try to make all the wording make sense, but it doesn't always work :) Shell babelfish 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your votes in the Climate Change case

I (and I'm sure other editors) would like explanations of arbitrators' reasoning and votes in several areas of this case. I'm particularly concerned about your Fof 10.1 on William Connolley and BLPs. I've set up a section at the PD talk page here. [75] Politely discussing specific votes and the reasoning for them is the most likely way for most editors to avoid intense frustration. Many editors have put in long hours on this case and would like to know why you're coming to various conclusions about it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I opted for the second wording was because I felt there was more to it than just simple edits that everyone would look at and scream "BLP Violation!". Having looked at the evidence and some of the biographies brought to our attention I felt that more than just obvious BLP violations, there was a serious issue with his edits over time focusing too much on particular subjects (undue weight) or eventually skewing the biography in a particular direction. Those more subtle issues are a bit difficult to concretely show with diffs. In any case, if you look at my other votes, that's the reason I supported banning from all biographies tangentially related to climate change subjects. Shell babelfish 03:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

On BLPs

Not that it matters, but it was Carcharoth who brought up the "consider a bio as a whole" point (cf. proposed principle 8). Guettarda (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

When in one of your votes on the Climate Change arbitration you referred to "the idea that you shouldn't edit a biography unless you're prepared to consider the article as a whole rather than simply inserting a tidbit of information", I think you mean this item by Carcharoth, which I'm thinking of mentioning on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons in case it might be useful in clarifying the policy's wording. --TS 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both; that's exactly what I was looking for. Shell babelfish 03:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change discretionary sanctions vote looks odd

In your oppose vote to proposed remedy 1 "Discretionary sanctions", in the Climate Change arbitration proposed decision, you say "This or 1.1 is acceptable."

The comment in support of remedies 1 and 1.1 doesn't seem to be consistent with your opposition vote to proposed remedy 1 and I suspect you made a mistake (or else are undecided). Would you please revisit that and see if it says what you want it to say? --TS 17:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank you! I had an edit conflict with Kirill while writing up my comments and pasted that one back in the wrong place. Good catch :) Shell babelfish 04:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:PIECE

Was written by me on the suggestion of Ronnotel. (You appear to refer to this on the interminable CC page) Collect (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you much - I knew someone had talked about writing an essay :) Exactly what I was looking for. Shell babelfish 03:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

User:QuackGuru

RE: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#QuackGuru_on_Chiropractic. Do you remember this user? --Surturz (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've recently warned him over his edits to Chiropractic. If things are continuing, WP:AE might be appropriate. Shell babelfish 06:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad

Please, look at the Russian version, there is a million less. --85.76.192.91 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to correct things, but if you look at the sources, it appears this version is correct. For example, see this source or the sources on List_of_battles_by_casualties#Sieges_and_urban_combat which indicate the total deaths were far more than a million and could have been as high as 4.5 million. Since the article was vandalized before to remove the 1, perhaps the Russian version has also been vandalized?

Just as a hint, if you put a description in the edit summary explaining why you made an edit, it's much less likely to be reverted without explanation. And welcome to Wikipedia :) Shell babelfish 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Appeal

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, give me a couple hours here as I have to hit two libraries to get my hands on both. Do you have page numbers you can refer me to? Shell babelfish 12:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The exact cites are listed on the ANI appeal and on the PD talk pages. GregJackP Boomer! 12:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It you want, I can send you copies of the articles. GregJackP Boomer! 12:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah missed that - I think that means it's time for me to curl up with a cup of tea and a good tv show. After a quick break to restore my faculties, I'll take a look. If you want to send me the copies (email at the top of this page) that would certainly save some time.

For quick reference (so I don't lose them again):

  • Bedford, D. (July 2010). "Agnotology as a Teaching Tool: Learning Climate Science by Studying Misinformation". Journal of Geography. 109 (4): 159–165. doi:10.1080/00221341.2010.498121.
  • Hufbauer, Gary Clyde; Charnovitz, Steve; Kim, Jisun (2009). Global warming and the world trading system. Peterson Institute. p. 115. ISBN 9780881324280

Thanks Shell babelfish 13:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


I've gotten a copy of the book - can you explain what on that page you feel supports the statement "Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of predicted, drastic changes in the earth's climate, which usually means global warming." Shell babelfish 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Could we hold off for a few? Jehochman has proposed a solution that I can live with, and I would like to see if it will pass muster at ANI. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries, actually after seeing your email, I think you've clearly explained your position. Thank you. Shell babelfish 16:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

We haven't always agreed on things. Nevertheless, thank you for diff diving to help sort out the CC mess. Jehochman Talk 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing my best. Thank you. Shell babelfish 16:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th finding

[76] To say the least, there are a number of editors, as shown in the evidence section and in their actions since as documented on the PD talk page, who this could be said about. If you're going to single out Minor4th, then you need to single out everyone who has edited in a similar way. If that includes me also, then fine. To not do this is not fair, and I really mean that. Before he withdrew, Rlevse hinted that findings on more editors were forthcoming. If you're taking up the mantle for doing that, then you are doing the right thing. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please bear with me, I'm not done yet. Shell babelfish 05:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, if the findings include me, that's fine, it just needs to something close to fair. Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
How about if I let you know when I've got everyone on there that I intended and you tell me if you think I missed anyone? Shell babelfish 06:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think if you ask that question on the PD talk page, you'll get plenty of responses of who everyone thinks should be listed. Cla68 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. There is now a new section on the talk page which attempts to gather those already mentioned. Shell babelfish 13:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're collecting people, don't forget GJP and JWB William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Also ScienceApologist, Rd232, and KDP. Additional findings/diffs warranted for WMC as well. Best to deal with this topic area with a pretty broad brush in my opinion. I'm fine with the finding about me, but let's do be equitable. Minor4th 07:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I'd say broad-brush is a very bad approach, signifying lack of thought. This should be done carefully William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd also add ZP5 to the list of the disruptive. Admitedly not so much, but his ratio of disruption to valuable content is by far the worst (other than TGL) because he adds no valuable content. Sample diffs: [77] (also previous and subsequent tendentious discussion [78]), [79], [80] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to put together a list of those being mentioned in a new section. Shell babelfish 13:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
One useful pointer is GJP's last 5 contributions [81] (as of this moment) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your finding

I originally posted a message here about the finding on me, but instead I am bringing it to arbitration talk. Please respond to my concerns there. ATren (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note there. Shell babelfish 12:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I assume you are still working on more editors, because it's woefully incomplete as it stands. ATren (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Please see this new section for more information. Shell babelfish 13:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why this is disruptive

You voted on a finding that this diff [82] is disruptive. Please explain why. ATren (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an example of the battleground ideas that seem to permeate most discussions about the topic area - i.e. if one biography that's perceived to be on one "side" gets changed, others on the other "side" should get something else done to them. The net result of this mentality is a topic area that's so degenerated that we're barely able to keep up with the constant back and forth on the case itself while things continue to flare up on the articles, talk pages, user pages and just about everywhere else. Shell babelfish 12:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Shell, look at the articles and tell me they're not. I'm not creating the disruption, I'm documenting it. I've been watching these articles for years and I've seen editors accept criticism sourced to Mother Jones while rejecting New York Times in the same week, the only difference being that the former was on someone they didn't agree with and the latter on someone they did. How is it disruptive to demand that the same editors editing the same batch of articles on the same topics use the same editorial standard?
Here's an example: George Monbiot is highly critical of GW skeptics, and has written many opinions in the Guardian on those skeptics. For years I have seen Monbiot added to these skeptic BLPs, and if you look today, he's everywhere (see this search, and scan down a few pages, you will see a who's who of CC skepticism). Now, Monbiot's opinion is reliable and relevant, right? Not always, apparently. See this edit from today: "Why do we care about Monbiot on this page?" -- the implication is that Monbiot is only reliable when he is criticizing skeptics. I have seen this kind of thing for years on these articles. I've seen primary sources and blogs being used regularly on BLPs of those they disagree with, but when there was a criticism of someone they agreed with, they rejected major newspapers as a source. That's the context of what I was responding to many months ago in that diff, and now you come along and tell me I was being disruptive for trying to address a long-standing problem.
And if you think it's not a problem, look at the skeptic BLPs and compare them to those who are supportive of the mainstream view. The skeptics are filled with any critical opinion that could be dug up from any reliable source. The mainstream BLPs are nearly completely scrubbed of all criticism. For someone like me who has no horse in this fight (I never did and never will, I don't care about this topic), the contrast is striking. To anyone who looks at these BLPs side by side, we look like an advocacy site. It's embarrassing. You want to talk big picture, I was fighting for the big picture -- applying a consistent standard to articles in the same topic -- and now I am being sanctioned for it. That's a travesty. This is why nobody but those with a strong POV will ever get involved in this topic area, because authorities like you refuse to see the root of the problem, but instead sanction people like me for responding to it. ATren (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would certainly agree that there are other editors whose behavior has been significantly worse than your own. This is one of the reasons I noted on the decision itself that it's very interesting to see which findings have diffs that span months and which ended up with the same number of diffs in only days. I would also agree that there are many editors whose bias has shown up in their editing and that this is likely one of the root causes of the mentality that exists in the topic area at this time. We're doing our best to come up with a way to return the topic area to more normal, collegiate, productive editing and I personally feel that many editors who wouldn't normally be a net negative have lost their sense of proportion, likely for good reason mind you, but nonetheless are now contributing to further degradation of the editing environment. Shell babelfish 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I can respect that. But given the large number of editors involved in findings, some of them less culpable than others, perhaps you should give SirFozzie's suggestion some consideration. I supported that proposal because it would remove everyone who has edit-warred, without prejudice, and allow a fresh start. From my perspective, the battlefield is already there, and trying to pick out individual soldiers is bound to be less effective than a wholesale removal -- either you set the bar for disruption too high, thereby missing some of the low-level combatants, or you set it too low and hand out an explicit sanction a bunch of editors who entered this battlefield and got caught in the crossfire. The former is ineffective, the latter is unfair to some of those caught in the net. By instituting a blanket ban based on edit-warring, and by making it a group finding with no statement on individual wrongdoing, you can eliminate ALL the combatants without unnecessarily tainting those who tried to help but got caught up in the battle. ATren (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
We're seriously considering how to put together an appropriate remedy and are definitely taking your points into consideration; there are unlikely to be a horde of new individual remedies especially if we can come up with something more broad that the Arbs can agree on. If you have any other thoughts on how to word such a thing or what it should take into consideration, feel free to drop me a note. Shell babelfish 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. Seeing what had happened to other reasonable editors in the topic area has made me very cautious. I'm no longer editing the articles because I don't think it's possible to do so without in some way making the atmosphere worse. Since the content is by-and-large acceptable, and in some places quite the best Wikipedia has to offer, I don't feel so bad about staying out of editing. But this isn't the best we can do. It's imperative that Wikipedia deal with the poisonous atmosphere. --TS 13:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I see ATren is bringing up, obliquely, his revert [83] at Phil Jones. ATren restored contentious material for no obvious reason. The place to discuss that is the article talk page, no run off to an arb. Blindly reverting and providing no justification, as ATren has done, is yet more battleground stuff from him William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove it? Monbiot is reliable, you know that, it's well presented and well sourced. There was no reason for it's removal especially given Monbiot's ubiquitous presence on BLPs in this topic area. This is exactly the kind of thing that happens constantly here -- you remove something for no reason, or perhaps add a blog-sourced claim to the BLP of someone you don't like, and then the editor who reverts you is labeled disruptive. ATren (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Whoa nelly! Or in other words, let's not re-fight content disputes on my talk page please. Shell babelfish 14:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Shell, it's more than just content, it demonstrates the problem. WMC removes a well sourced claim (well-sourced because Monbiot is everwhere), I revert him, and, like clockwork, another editor (Dave Souza) reverts it back out calling it "questionable" and "unsourced". Dave is one of those editors who provides support in these debates (Verbal is another) but never actually engages significantly enough to be sanctioned. They are part of the slow-brew edit war that has been going on here for years, and Shell, your proposals will likely not mention them because, usually, all they contribute is a revert. It gives every appearance of a tactic -- these editors coming out of nowhere to contribute a revert like a sniper firing from a distant hill -- but if someone like me refers to it as a tactic, I am being disruptive. Shell, you need to deal with the root problem, and editors like me, Cla, M4th are NOT the root problem. ATren (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
For a look at the problem with editors like Verbal and dave souza, please see this section of PD talk (which is now archived): [84] Minor4th 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That's why SF's proposal makes sense, because it removes everyone who has been involved in warring, including those drive-by revert editors who would not otherwise be sanctioned because they don't engage. ATren (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If an editor is drive-by-reverting with no attempt at discussion, you're welcome to propose a finding of fact along the lines of those being added now. What we really need at this point are diffs of the things that are causing problems or actual finding proposals - adding more names to the list is fine, but my husband is beginning to wonder what happened to me :) Shell babelfish 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Shell, please see the diff I linked above. I made a proposed finding and supplied several diffs. That section of the page is now archived, but you can get the information and links from the diff in my last post above. By the way, ATRen has apparently installed an enforced wikibreak and will not be editing any more. Minor4th 15:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, from the Javascript source it appears that ATren will now be unable to edit until October. --TS 15:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Shell. This discussion belongs on the Phil Jones talk page. Further, I argue that attempting to present a skewed view of it *here* is just special pleading. ATren, M4th: if you're interested in why the quote was removed, the place for discussion is Talk:Phil Jones (climatologist)‎. I' already there, discussing some other issues with that page (you might find that conversation enlightening). Do please join me William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ernst-death was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shell_Kinney/Archive_14&oldid=1142488835"