User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 12

Thank you for removing the section started witht he antisemitic comments on this talk pages. I hope your "Please do not replace attacks" edit caption isn't a criticim of my previous edit where I reinstated a user's comment on the original antisemitic comment which had been left in place. I can explain my thinking if you were criticising me.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, no I didn't mean it that way at all - it was more a general request not to put the section back to whomever might come across it. I didn't see anything wrong at all with your edit and actually left a note for the editor who removed the only part of the section that wasn't a nasty personal attack. Shell ^babelfish 21:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah good. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, again. I've just noticed the bit on your apge about granting rollback permission. If you look at my contributions history [1], you'll notice that I do a certain amount of manual rollback. So please could you consider granting me automatic rollback--Peter cohen (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't used it yet as my last few reverts weren't absolutely certain vandalism.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, that's actually really good to hear. Hope it helps out with the vandalism you come across in the future :) Shell ^babelfish 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at my talk page, and would appreciate a response there. DigitalC (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DigitalC has once again done a better job of summarizing my position and feelings than I have. Please consider his words to be representational of my own in this matter. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you may wish to read my response at User talk:DigitalC. Shell ^babelfish 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that you are really trying to bully/threaten us into submission here. I know that you are more rational and fair than that. So let's start where you really fit into this. You say that there is a consensus which prohibits us from making an argument anymore. Please demonstrate this. Currently I don't recognize this consensus. Please show me that such a consensus exists. Walk me through the steps. Tell me who said what and where any conclusion about such a consensus was determined. Help me understand things from your point of view. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins are asked from time to time to look at a discussion and determine the consensus. I've been clear about my evaluation of the discussion and posted a closing. Several admins have participated at the talk page since that decision and none have expressed a concern with my findings. Editing at Wikipedia happens by consensus, so regardless of your personal opinion, you will need to respect any consensus that might develop. For further information on the subject, you may want to read over the policy at Wikipedia:Consensus. Shell ^babelfish 00:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in reviewing WP:Consensus, which states: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable. Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.

In addition, I don't see how someone can look at the most recent RfC, and ignore the input of at least 15 editors who have supported (in some form or another) the removal of generic spinal manipulation research. DigitalC (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But nothing new or fresh has been presented. It's just been circular repetition of old ideas. Pure stonewalling. -- Fyslee / talk 15:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new or fresh has been presented by the "other side" either. So who is really stonewalling here? It's either both groups or neither groups. Why are we erring on the side possible NOR violations rather than playing it safe until this dispute ends? At the very least the tag should remain to inform readers that the section could be tainted with original research. After mediation, we can decide what to do about the tag (and perhaps the whole section). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets see if we can't work this (and other issues) out through guided mediation. Shell ^babelfish 18:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In the RfC I said Disagree. While I would agree with the statement stand-alone without any context, I disagree because of previous discussions on this talk page. There is a difference between chiro SM and non-chiro SM and the generalisation "SM is relevant to chiropractic" should not be used to insert material about non-chiro SM into the article.. Lo and behold, the RfC outcome is being now being used to do exactly that. Rather than attempting to bludgeon us into submission, it would be far better if the majority editor group listened to the minority opinion and took our concerns on board. The changes to the article text are rather small, this SM issue is being used as an attempt to remove NPOV editors from the article and leave only anti-chiro editors able to edit the article. --Surturz (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the RfC was one in a long line of dispute resolution methods tried in order to resolve this perennial dispute. I encourage you to join in the mediation if you'd like to try working out these issues. Shell ^babelfish 03:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Surturz, your reasoning isn't meeting your hoped for reception because it is fallacious on several counts:

1. You are (likely inadvertently) introducing something that wasn't part of the RfC (IOW, a straw man diversion): "There is a difference between chiro SM and non-chiro SM...". That wasn't part of the RfC, and it isn't even proven to be true. An attempt was made to show that chiropractic uses short lever techniques, while non-DCs use only long lever techniques. Well, chiropractic has always taught and used both short and long lever techniques, so that is not a difference. That is an established fact supported by multiple chiropractic sources. Non-DCs happen to also use both short and long lever techniques. ONE difference has been established by straight chiropractic sources, and that is the intention (to "adjust" vertebral subluxations). That is a difference we can all agree upon. Other claimed differences have not been established using RS.

2. You need to assume good faith towards your fellow editors. We are all trying our best to edit in an NPOV manner. None of us does it perfectly. You and I are no exceptions to that, so don't point fingers in that manner.

If only straight chiropractors edited the article, it would not be an NPOV article. If only skeptics edited the article, it would not be an NPOV article. The best articles are written by editors who hold opposing POV and who still can collaborate. THAT'S what produces NPOV articles. Follow the example of User:Dematt. It was only when he, a straight chiropractor, started editing, that we started making real progress. Why? Because he didn't seek to keep criticisms of chiropractic out of the article if they were well sourced. The skeptics had already been allowing plenty of positive facts about chiropractic because they were well sourced. Only the fluff and sales pitches without sources or from very poor sources were kept out. He understands how to write for the enemy. That's the hallmark of an editor who understands NPOV and how to collaborate. It's not easy, but it is what makes this an encyclopedia and not a private website. Dematt and I had an excellent collaboration going, and the article grew by leaps and bounds into a pretty good article. Now why would a chiroskeptic like myself aid in such an endeavor? Because I am not here to fight chiropractic, but to write an encyclopedia that contains the best article on chiropractic ever written. Why "best"? Because IT contains the whole story, the good and the bad, the progress, the controversies, the news and the reviews, in short everything that is properly sourced, without deletions and whitewashing. Assuming our POV are found in RS .... without your POV, it won't be complete, and without my POV, it won't be complete. Why not just collaborate, make compromises, seek solutions, help each other to include our various POV, just as long as they are properly sourced? I succeeded fine with Dematt. Edit warring doesn't work. A congenial atmosphere is much better.

I have allowed plenty of edits made by chiropractors (with what I believe to be untrue nonsense) to be included in the article. Why? Because it is well sourced and balanced by other POV. You need to start allowing the same privilege to other editors. From your POV (like from mine above), it may seem untrue, but if it's backed up with good sources, you need to allow it. Otherwise we will never have an NPOV article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I interpret the guideline that way. I always use MM/DD since that's the normal format, and I will never use anything else. If you read my post carefully, you'd understand that I made the post to request his permission to change the date format in the article since he is the first contributor. I did this the day after I edited that article. I made the post specifically to not edit war. The reverting editor, DI2000, was in the wrong for calling my edit vandalism, when this is a content dispute. But I don't see you posting on his page. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Shell ^babelfish 05:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, i am on wikipedia since 2006. Now a days i find many times vandalism across it so can you please grant me the ability of rollback feature so that i can fight the vandalism here, i would be very thankful for your any other advice. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 10:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor has a bad history of tagging articles for speedy deletion that are inapropriate and has been warned by myself and other editors regarding this. So maybe the rollback feature is not a good idea until they show an understanding of policy. BigDunc^Talk 11:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

After a review of your contributions and talk page, I'm afraid I have to agree with BigDunc. It appears you don't quite understand certain areas of Wikipedia such as article cleanup tags, project talk headers and speedy deletion. What gives me more concern though is the number of editors who've stopped by and pointed out the the same problem to you - part of getting additional tools at Wikipedia revolves around showing a willingness to learn and respond to feedback. I would not be comfortable giving you rollback at this time. If you'll take a few months to address the concerns that editors have brought up and learn a bit more about Wikipedia, I'd be happy to look into rollback for you again. Shell ^babelfish 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just draw your attention to this too a bit academic but hey he asked another admin. BigDunc^Talk 22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - it looks like he put the request on six different admin's talk pages. I've added a note to three of those pages where the admins had not yet responded; the other three have already denied the request. Shell ^babelfish 22:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to be hostile towards me simply because you don't know my private circumstances I respectfully suggest you remove yourself from the mediation. Thunderer (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, if you think I'm being hostile and Sunray is taking sides, could I suggest that perhaps you're reading our comments differently than we meant? I'm not sure what you felt I said that was hostile since you didn't mention anything specific, but I certainly didn't mean anything that way. When you get a chance, can you take another look at the comments on the talk page and see if you can either find a different meaning for the comments that concerned you or point out what part of the statement comes across badly? Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 11:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have been a Wiki member since Jan 2006 (Albeit not very active). However, I recently have reacquired my interest in Wikipedia and I wanted to request permission to use the Rollback feature. Just today I had to undo a change where someone replaced the Himilayas article with "dimwit", it would have been nice to have the rollback feature. I have not been very active recently, but I feel that my edits have always been in good faith, and I do my best to keep Wikipedia as clean as I can. Your help would be greatly appreciated :). --mrdempsey 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am loath to remove it again, but could you look and see whether it is appropriate for the editprotected tag to be attached to the section on vaccination/public health when there is no consensus? It is a bit disruptive for Eubulides, Fyslee and QuackGuru to keep reinstating it when discussion is ongoing. --Surturz (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

danke. --Surturz (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is my username being "taken in vain" here? What are you talking about? -- Fyslee / talk 05:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't be bothered checking the edit history. If you didn't revert the tag, apologies. You did, however, claim consensus when there wasn't any. --Surturz (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. It's ancient history, so why are you bringing this up now? -- Fyslee / talk 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you did?? :-) Check out the dates above. --Surturz (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What dates? I don't see them above. BTW, I am not admitting or denying that what you say could be true. I am disputing that I am involved in any such actions in the recent past few days or week or two. As to claiming consensus, that has changed quite a bit, with editors on each side claiming consensus. One or two dissenting editors do not mean that a consensus doesn't exist. Consensus doesn't equal unaninimity or 100% agreement. It may just as well be a case of where those one or two editors are stonewalling and preventing a consensus decision from being implemented. In that case, those editors are in violation of policies by editing disruptively and refusing to collaborate by allowing a compromise to develop. The existing sanction possibilities for these types of articles allow admins to block those editors from the articles so that progress can be made. Both Levine2112 and yourself have been prime movers in the stonewalling efforts that have kept us running in circles for many months now. Why you aren't both blocked is beyond me. It only takes an admin with the courage to do it, and I think some other admins would back them up in that decision. You have been aided and abetted by the usual chiropractic supporters who come and make their voices heard only on these occasions, but otherwise contribute nothing to the encyclopedia. They amount to meatpuppets who only vote when called upon, with their voices only amounting to occasional "votes" once every few months. Not only shouldn't their comments be allowed to affect decisions made, they should also be blocked for supporting your stonewalling. They contribute nothing constructive at all. -- Fyslee / talk 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi could you please discipline QuackGuru, he is trying to disrupt your mediation process at Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation. First he added a second "proposed text" section in an attempt to confuse the 'limited edit war' process (click), then he added his preferred text to the main talk page, implying it had consensus. (click). These are clearly malicious edits. --Surturz (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am being very productive at chiropractic. I reviewed the different versions at the mediation page and I thought the medium short version was the best version. The article is protected and I did not make an edit request to my proposal of low back pain. I thought the extremely short version was way to short. I think Surturz just needs to WP:CHILL and stop assuming bad faith. QuackGuru 06:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell, QuackGuru is continuing to derail the mediation process. --Surturz (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have informed Surturz not to archive a proposal on the talk page. QuackGuru 05:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell, can we please have some mediation on this issue? QG and I are on the cusp of violating the spirit, if not the letter of WP:3RR at Talk:Chiropractic --Surturz (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Surturz, you both are at fault here, especially yourself for starting this by not AGF, and by editing/hiding another editor's comments. Don't get involved. QG is also likely at fault for not keeping his comments and efforts limited to the mediation page. You have allowed your irritation with him to flow over into directly editing/hiding his comments, which is a slap in his face. Not a nice thing to do. You both need to chill, and you (Surturz) should let admins deal with it. Bring your concerns to them, without editing his comments. -- Fyslee / talk 20:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you were the original author of the Henry Marrow article and was hoping you could answer a few questions. It appears that the entire article was based on a single source, the book Blood Done Sign My Name; in fact I noticed that the other two references added later were simply links to book reviews. My concern is that right now, the section of the article on the murder reads like a factual account of the crime. It uses some unclear phrasing like "some say" and also makes a number of statements about what people were thinking - great stuff for a book, not so good for an encyclopedia. Since some of the people named in this section are still living, it appears to run afoul of the WP:BLP policy and I've removed it for the time being. If there are additional sources that would corroborate the account given in the book, I'm sure the material could be put back, especially if it was written in more of an encyclopedic tone. Shell ^babelfish 03:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why the section should be deleted. You say the section reads like a "factual account of the crime"; that's exactly what it's supposed to be, and the non-fiction work Blood Done Sign My Name is a legitimate source for such information. I'm OK with removing "some say", etc., but strongly think that the rest should stay. What specific part of WP:BLP does it "run afoul of"? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that fact that the section was written as if it came right out of the book. For instance, it said things about what the victim thought or what the alleged attackers were thinking - since we can't honestly know those things, we're getting out of the realm of the factual into the realm of good story telling. I'm sure that's fine for the book, but that's not the tone expected in an encyclopedia.

The other major problem is that we're concretely stating that those gentlemen committed a crime, even though they were acquitted. Regardless of whether or not that's true, we need more than a single source, which has obviously taken some artistic license, in order to make that sort of claim. I've also found that news sources from the time of the crime don't quite back up what is being said in the book, which has me a bit concerned. A friend in the area is trying to get copies of the actual news paper articles and send those up to me. Shell ^babelfish 09:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this posting earlier. You've convinced me now, in any case. -- rmrfstar (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries; hopefully I'll have those newspaper articles soon - I will certainly put back anything that I can confirm (and hopefully add a bit while I'm at it). Thanks for understanding :) Shell ^babelfish 05:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly can I make a proposal without it being archived? QuackGuru 17:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you work on the section in the mediation like everyone else. Shell ^babelfish 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I can't make my own specific proposal in a new section or subsection at the mediation page? QuackGuru 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that its not appropriate to attempt to bypass the mediation or undermine the hard work of other editors who are participating there. Shell ^babelfish 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your reply did not answer my question directly. Maybe it would help if I asked exactly what I want to do. I think it is not appropriate for an editor to archive the hard work of a specific proposal I made at the mediation page. I would like to know if I can make a new proposal at the mediation page for the lower back pain section. I would like to propose this section. See Talk:Chiropractic#Proposed text for low back pain. I want to work on the effectiveness section and make more proposals too but I am not going to do that unless I can have a place on Wikipedia to do that. For example, I worked on the Public health section that has a rough consensus for inclusion in the article. See Talk:Chiropractic#Public health. QuackGuru 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I support Shell on this one. If you are making propositions about the same type of material under discussion at the Mediation page, then you should confine your efforts there and not create diversions or other proposals there or elsewhere. Work together with the other editors, not on your own. If it's a totally different subject, then go ahead, but don't do it in a manner that can divert attention from the current matter at the Mediation page. -- Fyslee / talk 20:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The mediation page is difficult to work with when a proposal is being dismissed. It seems I am not allowed to make a proposal. QuackGuru 20:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason you're experiencing difficulties here is because of the way you're going about making the proposal. The other editors who are involved in the mediation have been working hard at working together - they have been successfully making changes to the section in an attempt to get it into a shape that everyone can be happy with. While it might not have been your intention, by making your own section with a different proposal entirely, you're making the other editors feel that you don't respect the work they've done and that your placing your judgment over the text they've collaborated on. They've indicated that they feel you are trying to bypass the mediation and the hard work being done there. I think you would find them much more receptive if you would choose to join in the work going on at the mediation. Shell ^babelfish 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I felt my voice is being silenced from mediation and I am not allowed to participate. It is inappropriate to archive a proposal that I want to work on. Editors should be allowed to work on a specific section on their own the way it was done with past consensus. The past consensus was for editors to propose changes and if editors wanted they could start their own draft. At least three editors worked on the same section at the same time in different sections. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 21#Education.2C licensing.2C and regulation 1. When I see edits like this and this it is clear it is not a positive working environment of editors working together. An editor claimed "QuackGuru seems insistent that we install the current proposal into the article. Does anyone oppose its installation? ie. does anyone think it is worse than the current article text?"[2] but I never endorsed the current proposal at the mediation page. I think my view is being misrepresented and making a proposal is not vandalism. When an obvious improvement such as the Public health section is being blocked for no logical reason it is clear we have a very uncollaborative non-working environment. See Talk:Chiropractic#Edit requested to Vaccination. QuackGuru 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't believe that anyone is trying to silence you or exclude you from the mediation; I know a number of editors have invited you to join in the mediation and assist with the work being done there. As I said, I think the problem you are experiencing is that you want to take your work, get feedback and make changes to it and install it into the article; I understand being comfortable with your own work and writing ability. What I'm saying though is that you need to find a way to let go of that, collaborating on Wikipedia often means needing to start with editorial written by someone else and work with them and other editors to make changes. It might be out of your comfort zone, but you need to let go of making everyone work on your proposals and instead try working on theirs for a change. Shell ^babelfish 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You left that one a bit late… I was waiting for it ever since I saw you on Mbisanz's page. Good luck! – iridescent 00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I actually didn't mean to leave it quite so late, but I've had to spend a lot of time thinking about whether or not I could commit the time and manage to keep my sanity. There have been so many crazy dramah filled things going on lately, that I caught myself thinking that one person isn't going to make a difference. Took me a while to remember what my grandma always used to tell me - even if you can't change the outcome all the time, you can be the voice of reason in the room. Shell ^babelfish 00:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There's someone here who's managed to keep their sanity? (Having has 130kb of posts to my talk in the past 48 hours, I'm doubtful whether I'll keep mine.) – iridescent 00:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow - I think you win for most talk page posts I've ever seen in a 24 hour period! Shell ^babelfish 00:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we now both agree that it is appropriate to describe editors' inappropriate behavior, even banning them from editing for it, and that Levine2112 has disrupted consensus-building. I guess it's referring to meta:What is a troll? that you and Elonka were objecting to. Can we agree that the essay applies to the behavior at least? --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate for Levine2112 that he had a wikibreak at the beginning of the "Limited Edit War" process on Talk:Chiropractic and his subsequent large change to the section was seen as trolling. If he had made the same edit at the very beginning of the process it would have been unremarkable. What I don't understand is why User:QuackGuru is rarely reprimanded for his behaviour. He has consistently been deceptive and disruptive at Talk:Chiropractic and his tactic of asking questions and ignoring the answers really raises the tension levels at Chiropractic. --Surturz (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shell, thanks for your email but I do not condone this website. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Str1977. So sorry about the email - I'm not sure if you saw the new header on my talk page - I made a major error in trusting the site and its spammed well, everyone. I've gone the extra step to take all email addresses out of gmail's address book (I don't use it anyway) to hopefully avoid this kind of mass damage if I ever do something so incredibly stupid in the future. Shell ^babelfish 20:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's allright. If it sent these messages on its own it's even worse than I thought. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

See prior discussion at User talk:Jehochman/Archive 9#Personal Attack

There has been much nastiness going on lately. I got involved through simple 3RR enforcement. See what's been going on with The Thunderer (talk · contribs) if you have the time. I removed the comment from your talk page because it had been spammed to many administrators, and I had already worked out a resolution to the problem and did not want it to turn into a huge circus. How to best combat disruption is a judgment call, but I will definitely respect your wishes going forward, and will keep this in mind generally as well. Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response on your talk page. Sorry about that but I was trying to keep things all together. Shell ^babelfish 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well nevermind, you've apparently archived that section out from under me[3] , so here it is:

Honestly, Jehochman after seeing your responses and looking into this situation a bit more, I'm at a loss for what to say. If there were reasons for the removal that couldn't be stated on wiki, it would have been appropriate to send me a note at that time or any time afterwards. Instead, I am discovering for myself days later that you improperly used rollback to remove communication from a mediation participant[4]. You then went on to protect a user page in a state which included clear personal attacks[5] and finally, you further undermined the mediation process by warning one of the mediators, Sunray, for removing the personal attack [6] and suggested that he was improperly using force in dealing with the participants. I hope that in the future, you will use better judgement when dealing with disputes. Shell ^babelfish 17:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss this with you on wiki if that is your preference (though this might give disruptive editors a leg up on future matters). BigDunc spammed the exact same notice to eight administrators.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] This was clearly disruptive canvassing. At the time it was my judgment in this particular situation to roll back the spam, notify him of what I had done and suggest a better option.[15] Then I talked with The Thunderer about removing the offensive content. I had been engaged in discussions with The Thunderer about their concerns and was hoping to avoid a big explosion. My remark to the mediator was to not edit war with the user on the user's own talk page, and to use community discussion instead.[16] As a matter or practice, it is a often useful to let highly upset users vent a little on their own talk pages, and then get them to remove any over the top comments. That's exactly what I did, just moments later. I spoke with The Thunderer calmly, and they agreed to let me remove the provocative remarks.[17][18] The only reason I did not email you about the rollback is that you were one of many, and I thought the move would be uncontroversial. As it happens, you are the only one who objected. Let's not blow this out of proportion. If you think I should have handled the disruptive canvassing differently, please tell me what you think would have been better practice, and I will consider it for the future. Just so you know, I got involved through a routine patrol at User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations where all this revert warring was reported. Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe we're talking past each other here and I apologize if I wasn't clear in my first message. It looks to me like BigDunc made a request for intervention on the pages of a few admins he felt had recent knowledge of the particular dispute that led to Thunderer's personal attack. I'm not certain what led you to feel his requests were disruptive or canvassing, but certainly, the requests weren't vandalism and deserved better than a click of the admin rollback button. The only harm that would have come from leaving his messages in place would have been for other admins to review the diffs, see that you had already acted and possibly respond if they felt there was something worth saying; I'm hard pressed to consider that a disruptive or potentially skewed outcome that generally comes with canvassing.

That leads to the second problem of Thunderer's personal attacks during his leave taking. At first, you seemed to agree that the page contained personal attacks, but told Dunc you felt your protection wasn't harmful since you later removed the comments yourself. I noticed that you've now edited your original comment to Dunc to remove the words "personal attacks"[19]. Since you've frequently taken a strong stance against personal attacks, I'm confused as to why you feel accusing other editors of bullying, harassment and hounding was not a personal attack in this instance especially given the context of the larger disputes and sanctions on editors in this area.

In my opinion, your actions undermined an active mediation. By protecting a user page in a state of clear personal attacks, you reinforced the idea that Thunderer not only was in the right, but that the mediator, Sunray, had no power in resolving the situation. You then further undermined Sunray's authority by treating this as simple edit warring, taking the extra step of "warning" him and finally, even suggesting that his supposed use of "force" was improper [20]. As you mentioned, the dispute over the Troubles is a difficult area at best, so I can't imagine why you would feel the need to assert authority over a MedCom member involved in a formal mediation on the subject with these participants. I can only guess that you didn't review the situation or the mediation before commenting, or you would be aware that force is not one of the tools that Sunray employs.

As to the fact that no one else has complained, I suspect that no one else was a mediator confused over why a message from one of their participants was summarily deleted without explanation. Perhaps Sunray could have chosen a better course of action in resolving the problem, but nothing he did warranted being publicly embarrassed and having his ability to mediate this dispute undermined in such a manner. Shell ^babelfish 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that I was trying to undermine a mediation. That is absolutely not the case. I've never met Sunray before and only knew that he was an editor repeatedly reverting the talk page of another, troubled editor. Being a mediator is not a license to edit war. As for the protection being harmful, that's an odd assertion given that I removed the provocative content exactly 15 minutes after applying protection. (I protected, ask for the user's agreement via email, and then did the removal.) How much harm was caused during those 15 minutes? You really seem to be making much more of this than necessary. Let's not talk past each other. Why don't you ask me to explain any points that remain unclear. Jehochman ^Talk 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you two, my name is getting thrown around, so I thought I would add a couple of comments. Jehochman, I don't understand why you saw my actions as edit warring. T's statements were contrary to WP policy, pure and simple. Perhaps you didn't see my removal of the same comment by him on the Arbitration Enforcement page the previous day with the notation "personal attack removed." In any case, I left offending remarks on his user page for one day and then made the request to him to remove it. I was surprised at his reaction (refusal). But do not regard what I did as "edit warring." I was attempting to apply the policy in a difficult situation. If you hadn't stepped in, my next step was to go to ANI. However, it got sorted out once you intervened, and I was quite happy with that. Here's the result I would like to see now: 1) I give you a barnstar for your handling of the removal of the offending comment. 2) You try to see my point about "edit warring" and Shell's point about removal of a message from her talk page. 3) We three each go our separate ways. Sunray (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You're too kind Sunray. I will certainly take your and Shell's advice on board. Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the referee panel to convene, as seen here. Thank you. --Tznkai (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "excellent handling of tough situations" was generous and appreciated. I see we have similar interests, although I'm more Buddhish than Buddhist. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll do fine; you've got a good head on your shoulders and have proven that you don't mind using it - the rest is just details. Buddish, heh, not heard that one before - that userbox was an attempt to cram my beliefs into a nutshell. Not sure that it worked terribly well, but I wasn't sure how else to get across harmony of self, balance of life and respect all things and fit it in one of those little boxes :) Shell ^babelfish 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I modified one of the standard userboxes to say "I can be summed up in a few userboxes", I could lend you that one. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shell, where can I learn to use cool tags like collapsetop? Also, where can I find out about tags like this? TIA --Surturz (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually learned a lot of those tags just from participating in discussions and seeing other people use them. There's a list of similar templates in Category:Archival_templates, some of those are used for specific purposes while others are for more general use like the one I put on the mediation. Another interesting starting point for browsing around templates is Category:Wikipedia_templates. Shell ^babelfish 20:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! --Surturz (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The other editors don't want me editing it anymore, so if you have time please read the note and take Ticket:2008120410018339. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t07:34z

Ok, I'll take a look at it. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 17:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case, changing "Spouse" to "Domestic Partner" may resolve the issue and the partner aspect does seem to have been covered by several sources. Hopefully that distinction will resolve the issue. Shell ^babelfish 17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How do the 2 sources saying only "partner", and the Guardian saying "do not live together" = domestic partner? -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t23:14z

I agree that the Guardian article used as a source calling them "partners" was without context and could have meant anything, but the second reference from the Independent is more clear about the context of the word. The Guardian article that said they did not live together was older, but maybe it indicates that domestic is still the problematic word here? Another possibility is that there is a "business partnership" here and too much weight is being given to the word "partner" because of the subject's previous relationships? Another source I found [21] seems to confirm some sort of working relationship. Maybe since the sources are rather ambiguous as to the nature and extent of the relationship and since none of the sources are primarily about the relationship (its only mentioned in passing) the information should be removed until better sources can be found? I'm going to move some of this discussion to the talk page of the article and see what other editors involved in the page think about the situation. Shell ^babelfish 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...apology accepted. cheers. --emerson7 17:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, on 16 December 2008 between 01:15 and 02:46 made eight similar edits on User:Levine2112's talk page (revision history here). This diff shows that QuackGuru considers the eight edits to be related to each other. I think there are grounds for this being considered a 3RR violation, IMHO the edits border on bullying. --Surturz (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR and this is bad faith by Surturz. QuackGuru 03:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Related complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_at_my_usertalk_by_User:QuackGuru --Surturz (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at Surturz's talk page. QuackGuru 04:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Each comment I made was a different comment but Levine2112 made 8 reverts. Each removal was a revert by Levine2112. But editors can remove comments on their own talk page I suppose. QuackGuru 04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I striked the bad faith by Surturz. Surturz has made bad faith comments towards me on several occasions. I understand this is part of having an open online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not CZ. QuackGuru 04:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok after taking a look at what's been going on while I was trying to catch some sleep here's what I've got: Controversial information was added to the Chiropractic article again without any discussion on talk first - everyone involved should be completely unsurprised that this didn't go over well and you should have known better. The fact that Levine, Surturz and DigitalC all showed up to support the change on the article talk rather quickly looks a lot like you coordinated this effort; that's also not likely to go over well and you should have known better. QuackGuru then reacted very poorly and extended the dispute to other editor's talk pages even though discussion was ongoing at the article talk. He then furthered this disruption by attempting to force an editor to answer on their talk by edit warring; it doesn't matter that he changed the wording slightly each time, it had the same effect. Finally this same group of editors plus TheDoctorIsIn all arrived at ANI to complain about QuackGuru, again giving the appearance that you are coordinating your efforts.

On to outcomes: I have blocked QuackGuru for a week; he has quite a lengthy block log related to similar disruption yet has never given an indication that he understands why his behavior is a problem or that he intends to change it. As for the rest of you Levine, Surturz, DigitalC, TheDoctorIsIn - its no secret that you're here to push a particular POV into the Chiropractic article. Other editors have attempted to work with you for many months despite repeated problems. Because the article is under special ArbCom sanctions which you have all been made aware of, this acting in tandem to push material into an article or sanction other editors is unlikely to be tolerated for long. I would suggest that you return to liberal use of the talk page and avoid the appearance of off-site coordination in the future. Shell ^babelfish 09:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not coordinated with the other editors either offline or online. You'll just need to take my word for that. I'm actually trying not to edit the chiropractic article at all - I think the best bet now is for it to crash under the weight of its own crappy POV text. However, QuackGuru rubs me the wrong way. This latest talk page spamming is not a new tactic for him... we have all complained about it before and there is no need for a conspiracy theory as to why everyone comes out of the woodwork to hammer him... the reason he provokes an instant response is because he is a troll, and we are all eager to see him blocked permanently (I am, anyway). I started ignoring him some time ago, and it looks like Levine2112 started doing the same. It is an effective tactic and I encourage everyone to do the same. As for me, I'll remove Chiropractic from my watchlist, editing that article has ceased to be enjoyable for me. It has more dramahz that the Auspol articles, and that is saying something. --Surturz (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"As for the rest of you Levine, Surturz, DigitalC, TheDoctorIsIn - its no secret that you're here to push a particular POV into the Chiropractic article." [22]  :-(

Shell, please consider the possibility that the POV we may be pushing is actually the neutral point of view; whereas those pushing against us are pushing for the derrogatory POV, focusing only on the negative opinions of reliable sources while omitting the positive opinions from the same or equally reliable sources. And perhaps why our efforts appear to be coordinated to you is because we are merely following the policies of Wikipedia with the common goal of creating the best article possible.

Anyhow, please know that I continue to support you as an editor and an admin. I do think you do a fine job at both, and in the latter, you are trying your best to act fairly without passion or prejudice. So thank you for the block of an editor who has repeatedly engaged in obvious harrassment. I hope he/she takes this time to reflect on their overall attitude and approach to working with other editors. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do I smell fresh air, see more sunlight, and sense a freedom from trolling and obstructionism? Good work Shell. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There's currently an edit war in progress at Chiropractic. I'm putting a notification here as you were the most recent administrator on that article. The involved editors are QuackGuru (who made the original edit), Levine2112 (who reverted it), Orangemarlin (reinstalled the edit), Hughgr (reverted), Orangemarlin again (reinstalled again), and 70.176.213.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (reverted).

A few more bits of information indicates we are seeing old acquaintances here.

• That IP address reverted QuackGuru on 2008-03-09[23], on the article Scientific investigation of chiropractic where QuackGuru and Levine2112 edit-warred five days earlier.

• Of the four edits to article space made by Hughgr in the past six months, three were in support of Levine2112 in an edit war over Chiropractic:

• [24] to Chiropractic today reinstalls this edit (also today) by Levine2112.
• [25] and [26] (part of an edit war around 2008-10-08) removes Chiropractic from a list of pseudosciences, which is also done (along with some other stuff) by Levine2112 on 2008-10-10 and on on 2008-10-08 and on 2008-10-07.
• This edit of 2008-08-16 to Chiropractic was not part of an edit war over Chiropractic.
• This edit of 2008-07-25 to Chiropractic repeats essentially the same edit of 2008-07-25 by Levine2112 here and on 2008-07-24 here.

I recently suggested mediation over this conflict but nobody has followed up on this suggestion.

Eubulides (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that things have degenerated into edit warring again. The article has been protected, yet again, until such time as a consensus is reached. This babysitting is becoming generally intolerable; if editors are going to continue to force the article to be locked because they cannot discuss issues without edit warring, they may find themselves taking a break from the page until they can agree to abide by Wikipedia standards for behavior and collaborative editing. Shell ^babelfish 02:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Shell, you've called me a meat/sock of Levine. Neither is correct. Once upon a time I would edit this article and others quite regularly, until another editor came along who edits with a "my way or I'll just keep re-adding it till hopefully it sticks" style of uncollabortive editing. I choose not to edit with this editor but have occasionally voiced my opinion with reverts. Wrong? Maybe, but you don't seem concered or call other editors who back up his edits with reverts meat or sock puppets? A bit of a double standed in my humble opinon. Anyway, you do great work and I hope you keep it up. Merry Christmas and Happy New Years :)--Hughgr (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed above where Eubulides points out that 3 of your 4 edits in the past six months have been in support of Levine. Whether or not it was your intention, this makes it appear as if you are being "called in" when problems occur - clearly, that's not acceptable practice for Wikipedia. If you would like to resume editing and join in discussion on talk, you would be welcome to do so - showing up just to revert, however, isn't going to be tolerated. As far as the other editors, none of the others involved in the recent edit war have a similar track record. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as the other editors, none of the others involved in the recent edit war have a similar track record. How would you characterize Orangemarlin's edits to the article?--Hughgr (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would characterize Orangemarlin as an active editor who does much more than just show up to revert for someone he agrees with. The pertinent difference here being that 1% or less of his edits involve showing up and reverting, while your percentage (of a total of only 4 edits) is at 75%. If you're interested in taking a break from Wikipedia or not interested in participating any longer, there's nothing wrong with that, but please don't add fuel to the fire by simply appearing once every few months to blindly revert - nothing about that behavior is helpful to the project. Shell ^babelfish 23:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I understand that Orangemarlin makes many constructive edits around Wikipedia. I was referring to his editing habits to the Chiropractic article. In all of 2008 he made 18 edits on that article, and every single one a revert. That's 100%. :) I only seek fairness. Cheers. :)--Hughgr (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, what you seek is what you have decided is fair in this case - either a justification of your reverts or sanctions on otherwise productive editors. Neither is good for the encyclopedia. Since I was discussing the totality of your contributions versus those of other editors, it seems a bit silly to limit ourselves to just the one article, no? Shell ^babelfish 01:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well by that logic, as long as I was a productive editor, I could cause disruption with impunity on a single article. You don't have to answer that. Sorry for any drama. Mele Kalikimaka :)--Hughgr (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The logical fallacy there is your presumption that OrangeMarlin was being disruptive. There's a wee bit of difference between reverting disruptive edits and being part of that disruption. Shell ^babelfish 08:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It does appear that we're viewing the same thing and seeing something different. No worries. Take care.--Hughgr (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I write an article and jayjg disrupts and you ban me well am I surprised; not a bit. I don't suppose you even looked at who develops articles and who destroys? no I don't think you do some how...try looking at disruption by deletion instead of development and you may get an idea of the disruptors and not have a go at those that are being disrupted in article development.....So far all I've seen is the deleter and disruptors get away scot free....fair words accompanying obscene actions are about as useful as doggy do doos on a shoe...If you want wiki articles to be developed then may I humbly suggest that you seek ways of looking at the uncivil actions of real disruptor's instead of article developers...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you care to look. I was the one who started looking at the water issues and writing on water issues. NoCal100 then stalked his way onto water issues....Me I don't not care a whit about you ban I shall now wiki check every move of the Israelophile team and ANI every point I can...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I do realise that you do not understand my response. It is a long term problem that wiki admin suffers from. It is a problem that has been identified in the real world and written about in reliable sources (real newspapers)... Wiki admin look at fair words but not at the obscene actions that accompany the fair words. Jayjg deletion is a prime example. I have been developing that article from the start as I had the Banias article now that I am banned from the article the same development that occurred on Banias will ensue (nil or more correctly to say reversal by deletion until only the Israelophile propaganda remains). Jayjg has absolutely no interest in any water issues or even development of any part of the article. There are many parts to water issues in the ME that Jayjg could have looked to develop, any one of the the empty sections in the article? Does jayjg, Not one bit; jayjg looks to disrupt article development....Your actions are a wonderful example of the wiki admins ability to reduce development of wiki....I look forward to seeing wiki go backwards in its development of water articles....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

But admin must like stalkers NoCal100 is a stalker and no admin take his actions into account...this means that wiki admin are encouraging stalkers...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I already have brought up NoCal100...Other editors have also noted Nocal100 stalking...other editors have also noted Jayjg stalking.... Other editors have also noted the NoCal100 is a sockpuppet.... Newspapers have note wiki admin taking fair words and ignoring obscene actions...It is not as though I'm bring up anything new or unknown...

• NoCal100 has not deleted unsubstantiated statements on Banias, NoCal100 has deleted many references on Banias and removed any statement that NoCal100 considers as anti-Israel....That is not the same as you suggest....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On an ANI which is now archived somewhere and I cannot be bothered to search for it..On developing the article, as I started the article and have been developing the article on my own (I had hoped for some editor to jump into the undeveloped areas and pitch in) and I was rather out of the way of main stream articles, one could say that jayjg's turning up only to delete pieces rather than develop; which you may now notice are rather more strongly worded and supported with more references (and I would have continued supplying even more but a disruptive editor kept deleting and not asking for clarification or citations), that Jayjg was rather poorly advised to delete in the first place....I shall now retire to develop even more strongly worded NPOV articles in peace...most pro-Palestinian editors do not like the constant disruption to article development and so have retired from developing articles in the areas that Israelophiles attack leaving wiki unreliable and misleading....You see editing on those areas where israelophile propaganda is at its most gross causes conflict; as israelophiles do not like the Israeli version of events challenged...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there- I was reviewing OTRS ticket 2008102910049129, and it looks like the first IP block is no longer necessary, as it appears their IP changed after you made that initial block (as explained in their subsequent emails). However, the indef IP block was never lifted. Is it ok to remove that indef block now? Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, if I missed unblocking the original IP, that was an oversight on my part. Thanks for catching that! Shell ^babelfish 04:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shell, I noticed on your contact page that you speak Italian. Over at the Wine Project, we are having difficulties with an user who speaks Italian but doesn't seem to be too proficient in English. A brief overview is found here. Essentially he wants to create a new, unsourced article for Spumante which has for some time been a redirect to Sparkling wine along with the other regional variations of sparkling wine. We would like to work with him on a compromise but admittedly we're not sure if he is just having trouble understanding us and Wiki policy or if he is being deliberate POINTy and POV. Any help would be appreciated! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look now. Shell ^babelfish 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shell, New year greetings to you. I noticed you deleted my article on author Martin Lindstrom. I write mainly on authors, publishers and books and wrote about him as he is a New York Times bestseller writer (see no. 11 in the list). So, I thought he is not a 'nobody' for sure. Do you have a different opinion? Thanks in advance for your views regarding this.--Pinaki ghosh (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly have a strong opinion about the article - however, it appears that this is a person notable for a single event (the best selling book); since there is already a well referenced article on the book, the author's article is somewhat redundant at this time. However, since I'm not terribly up to date on what constitutes notability for an author, I'm going to go ahead and restore the article. If there are additional facts about the subjects life that would be notable, it would be a good idea to try adding those or consider merging the articles. Shell ^babelfish 12:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Shell. I appreciate it. I will try to further research about this author & add notable events/facts in the article about him in the next few weeks. --Pinaki ghosh (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Shell--I have tried to deal with this situation on my own, but it has been enormously time-consuming, and I just can't deal with it anymore. I have done my best to respond to the two editors who have been creating problems in Talk:Harold Pinter and their earlier reversions of content and format that passed a "good article" review, while also trying to adapt to and to accommodate some of their requests. They are now moving into an arbitration-like or arbitration procedure, and I really cannot deal with it anymore. I leave it to you to advise me. I know that I do not "own" any article in Wikipedia; however, the work that I have done is entirely within the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia project, and the current state of the article is also within them. The editing conflicts are their opinion about "readability", which is highly subjective, and there are (in my view) no grounds for their claims in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Their opinion differs from the "good article" reviewer, as per the archived review. If you can take a look, I'd appreciate it. Due to the heightening of the conflict, I am not commenting in response to either of them any further. I've been as courteous and polite as possible, but it's just gone beyond fairness to me at this point. Thanks very much. --NYScholar (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be offline resting and doing other things. Thanks if you can assist. --NYScholar (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As you seem to be away, I guess you were unable to respond. The matter I was referring to is now archived in my archive page 25, just fyi. I'll be offline again after posting this update. (The archive bot still doesn't seem to be working, so I've had to archive manually again. New archived material should go into page 25, so I updated the bot page no. for that.) --NYScholar (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) [Before going back offline, I've tried to fix the format of the current talk page and hope that the archive bot will work in the future. --NYScholar (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)]

Hello, On behalf of the concerned parties in the mediation case of The Man Who Would Be Queen. I know that none of you have to accept our case. I felt that asking all of you would be the best first approach. If you have any interest in mediating for us, or not, please indicate this on the talk page of the mediation case. If you are outright interested, want to mediate this case, and need no other convincing then please indicate that as well and we can get the ball rolling. If not we will not bother you anymore. Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may add to what Hfarmer wrote above, we very much need your help. As a group, we have had an enormous number of disputes on a set of related pages, and parts of this dispute have even put WP in The New York Times. The pages themselves remain an embarrassment to WP, and I hope you can help us solve our long-standing impasse for our own good as well as for WP's.

I can’t imagine what you or any other mediator uses in deciding which cases to take. I can’t say that the specific issues we need help addressing are novel (COI, incivility, etc.); however, I do have some confidence that most people would find the subject matter rather engaging. Such issues include the nature of transsexuality, the controversies between how (some) scientists describes transsexuality versus how (some) transsexual activists describe transsexuality, a book on the topic that immediately became wildly controversial, and the individual activists and scientists involved (some of whom participate here), all of which became quite ugly. The most complete (yet brief) description of where we now stand (in my opinion) is here.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can help us to resolve this wide-ranging problem.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You have certainly not been forgotten; please bear with us just a bit as the Committee assigns someone to your case. Shell ^babelfish 18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't my or our intent to push; we were just following recommendation on the mediation instruction page, which suggested that being proactive in seeking a mediatory would be helpful. We've been at this a long time, a few days more won't make a difference.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shell,

Thanks for your concern and comments on my talk page. Please keep in mind that this is not an isolated incident. On pages like Evolutionism, editors get in disagreements about content, and they use WP guidelines inappropriately to scare away editors of opposing positions. For instance, I've been called WP:NPOV by both creationists and evolutionists because of my edits on these pages. It is important that editors stick to the content of edits, and do not try to use WP guidelines and warnings to bludgeon those of opposing views from expressing themselves. OrangeMarlin has repeatedly done this. Perhaps you believe that his recent comments did not pass this threshold on this occasion. Given my experience with him in the past, I disagree.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion would be welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Shell, First, why do you keep deleting our dialogue from your talk page?

Second, to hit this nail on the head: WP:NPOV refers to the content of an article and edits. All people have biases, and are free to express those in discussion, but need to ensure that they do not let those biases affect their edits to articles. KCs NPOV warning doesn't refer to an edit of any article; I didn't make one. He warned me for violating WP:NPOV because I proposed a redirect and encouraged discussion. This was a gratuitous misuse of the warning for which the reasonable response is to remind him to assume good faith.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"lunacy" might be considered a bit ... aggressive.

Secondly, your view does not take into account, for example, uninvolved editors - such as myself and B, two admins who have virtually never agreed on anything, and have not edited the article in question - and we both think Elonka is dead wrong about how she is using AE to claim her edits are inviolate, and I find her actions are extremely detrimental to wp. You may disagree, of course! But I'm not involved, and its not lunacy to say that someone who causes this much divisiveness and strife and refuses to hear input from others is on a power trip, whether she means to be or not, and needs to disassociate her ego from her actions and back off. This is quite a different situation from the usual "gang of unhappy editors". One puppy's opinion.

Thirdly... different topic - Thesoxlost is spamming too darn many talk pages. Do you think it is time to take his disruptive actions to ANI and find someone he hasn't templated (yet) to take a look? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you take a closer look at my comments on the page, the lunacy I was actually referring to was the comments of the Arbs and not the claims made by yourself or OrangeMarlin ;)

The particular incident of edit warring that you mention was a bit silly on all counts of those involved, but I highly doubt that single incident rises to the level of needing to toss anyone from any sort of enforcement in the area - perhaps a bit of trout slapping is in order though. Divisiveness and strife? Really? I'm fairly certain the area was rife with it quite without Elonka's help - as born out by the multiple arb cases and the time spent on ANI and the AE board since those cases. I've also found that Elonka is very open to input and we've been able to work out our disagreements, even those that dealt with arbitration enforcement, so I have a hard time swallowing the claim that she refuses to hear input especially when its immediately followed by the suggestion that she's on a power trip - that evidences a considerable amount of bias on your part which really cuts the legs out from under your claim of being "uninvolved" (whatever that's really supposed to mean).

I think since I've never been involved with Thesoxlost before, he hasn't templated me (yet) and I left a pretty darn clear warning, I'd be happy to take further action if it becomes necessary. No harm in getting other opinions though especially if there's more going on than just the templating. Shell ^babelfish 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start thinking Elonla was on a power trip until this past week. She's open to you; wonderful. She's closed to anyone who suggests her hit list is harmful, or that AE doesn't make her edits inviolate. She's sent me emails full of insults and ignores a simple question from me on her talk page. I am most assuredly uninvolved in the article, where the hit list is, which is what started this mess. I hardly think my observations about Elonka and my disapproval of her behavior "cuts the legs out" of anything I've said; it may be I have been unclear.

I thought Thesoxlost's message to you above was a template. I can't keep track of the darn things, and I was part of the UW project which rewrote the system. . KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If edit warring and nasty exchanges are how you attempt to gage someone's "openness" its not terribly surprising that things didn't go well. A less confrontational approach might have achieved the result you were after. Would you mind if I reviewed the email correspondence between Elonka and yourself? Its a bit difficult to make any sort of comment on material I haven't seen. I think we're using different definitions of uninvolved - for example, you've claimed that Elonka is no longer uninvolved because she evidences bias - the same would be true for you as well, no?

Ah - I don't think he's used any templates on my page just yet, but as I said, there's never any harm in getting more eyes and opinions on a situation just in case. I have the hardest time keeping track of templates myself - unless its a brand new user or IP, I rarely use them - sometimes the changes surprise me :) And by the way, the UW project was a fantastic idea, so just in case someone hasn't said it before, thank you for helping sort that mess of warnings! Shell ^babelfish 23:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Shell, sweetie, I didn't edit war with Elonka, and you saying me edit warring and having nasty exchanges is how I gauge someone's openness - that's just weird, I don't know what to call that. I don't think we're communicating well. I tried to talk to Elonka: she responded nastily and although she hasn't stopped emailing insults she's ignoring me on her talk page. Yes, I do have an opinion. I'm not the only one who tried to talk to her - some were rude, some were very nice, but she blew them all off. We certainly were well past being "open" or particularly supportive of each other by the time it hit email. User_talk:Elonka#Blanked_section is where things have been for a couple of days now. My first contact, tho, was this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't edit war? Right after the diff you provided you revert Elonka to replace the content she removed. You also participated in the edit war over the admin log [27]. So yes, I would say you've edit warred. As for the nasty exchanges, the diff you provided would be one I'd characterize in that manner. Its certainly not a civil exchange. You're also being rather cavalier with claims about Elonka's behavior via email which can't be substantiated, but you've dodged the question of whether or not you'd be willing to have those reviewed to see if there's merit to those claims.

Could you point me at the spot where editors tried to discuss the admin log, or any meta discussion that indicated a consensus to stop using those logs? Since they're being used on several other hot spots without incident, its a bit surprising to see such a fuss being made here. Did you mean that was the first contact over this incident? I ask because I wasn't sure if that's what you meant and that doesn't seem to be the first interaction between the two of you, for example this exchange. Shell ^babelfish 00:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

1. One reversion does not an edit war make. (also, which edit? you say "right after" but I don't know which edit you're talking about. Dif pls?)
2. Do you think Elonka edit warred?
3. I edited out what I considered a personal attack; I have discussed it with Penwhale, who replaced it. I have not discussed it with Casliber, who removed it again.
4. I do not believe I was being "nasty" when I expressed my concern about how Elonka's behavior appeared; clearly your opinion is different.
5. I have not dodged it; I have not replied. Difference, but you're getting rather testy.
6. I am not sure I understand your question. The log on the talk page is and has been discussed several places. I'm not talking about the AE log, or about Elonka's private log now on Mfd.
7. First exchange regarding this incident, I should have said. I have no idea when the first exchange we ever had was; the one you link to was the first substantial interaction which I recall.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• post discussion: please re-read your statement and reconsider such items as "The fact that editors who work in disputed areas and their buddies are all upset that Elonka's involvement means they can't carry on business as usual" which lumps everyone who is concerned bout Elonka's behavior into a group of POV-pushing buddies - since you have mentioned no other parties to those concerned other than Elonka and the Bad Guys. As the list includes myself and other non-POV pushing non-buddies, you may wish to strike or rephrase. Similar edits may be indicated in other places where your brush is a bit broad. Just a suggestion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I don't mean to be a hassle but I'm wondering if it is possible for you to help me with my problem. You deleted the Robi Domingo article on the grounds that he has no notable achievement/importance stated on his previous page. I have tried creating a new page for him, this time with the complete references and stuff...but I can't seem to be able to use the name Robi Domingo...instead, I accidentaly created a page under the name Robi domingo. So now, related pages citing his name as Robi Domingo wouldn't redirect to the page I created because his lastname is not capitalized on the page that I created. I really don't know how to fix this problem because I just recently created an account so I'm really confused about the numerous rules and stuff...so I really hope you can help me with my problem. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowan Rosethorne (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be all fixed now - to change an article title, you have to "Move" the article to the correct name. I moved Robi domingo to Robi Domingo - this also automatically creates a redirect so that anyone going to the uncapitalized version will be directed to the new location. Hope that helps! Shell ^babelfish 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! You are Godsent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowan Rosethorne (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like opening it up for a bigger pile on. Way to go. Shell ^babelfish 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to remind you, Shell, that it is YOUR FAULT that Frederick Crews had to come crawling to OTRS to get those quotations about homosexuality removed from the article about him. He'd never have had to do that if you'd removed them before then. See my remarks on Cailil's talk page. The Fire or the Sun? (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter how many times you claim that your actions were someone else's fault, its doubtful that you'll be fooling anyone. Since you have your own website, feel free to go write whatever you want there. Shell ^babelfish 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Shell: I am having trouble again with respect to another user. Please see Art and Politics, and its associated talk page, Talk:Art and Politics. (Just realized that "Art and Politics" should probably be renamed "Art and politics" as per WP:MOS.) [Updated: I renamed it Art and politics. --NYScholar (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.) An editor created Art and Politics and then added it as an EL to the article "Art, Truth and Politics", the Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter (a group of articles which I have worked on since about 2006). [See editing history.] After I saw the link added, I tried to improve the article at that link (beg. last week mostly). The current citation format is entirely proper, consistent, and within Wikipedia's own style guidelines for citations. It is consistent with editing policy: WP:V and uses a "Works cited". The creator of the article had a mixed up set of notes which numbered twice and a mixture of MLA and APA format.Diffs. I simplified it by using one consistent format and then another editor came in and added citation templates. I added a "Style Sheet" (as is recommended in Wikipedia) to make clear what the prevailing citation format was before the inconsistencies created by the addition of templates. Incivility has recently been directed against me by another editor (J.: whom I encountered in editing Harold Pinter after the subject's death [after 24 Dec. 2008] and who started a "mediation" regarding me); yesterday this user accused me of so-called "vandalism" (not true)Diffs. (an inadvertent error not "vandalism"--Diffs.); and since then has engaged in more recent personal attacks in the talk page,Diffs. which are unwarranted and clearly violate Wikipedia's guidelines for civility, etiquette, and talk pages. The editor's placement of unnecessary template(s) is not good for the Wikipedia project, in my view. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [corr. --NYScholar (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)][Added some "diffs." throughout for yr convenience. Will be logging out after this. --NYScholar (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)]

Ok, looks to me like a pretty simple difference of opinion gone bad. Maybe if you tried to discussion the citation format on the talk page the two of you could work out something that you could both live with? In the meantime, I've reminded the other editor that he's expected to remain civil. Shell ^babelfish 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Shell. After your reminder, the other editor persisted, however, removing the style sheet template and calling me "disruptive", when I have been and am editing in good faith. I restored the style sheet template w/ a further explanation. I am trying to remain above the fray here, but the attacks don't help the matter. --NYScholar (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You read my mind: here :) Perhaps you could comment at RfArb clarification (hopefully that one will end up soon, too, it is kind of annoying to see this issue spawning heads like a hydra...)? Thank you for the comments so far, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah - already found that actually; I happened to notice your last bit after I closed the section and went to see why on earth it would have been brought to ArbCom. Silliness. Although, to avoid future dramahs, you might want to consider just leaving an informed note next time and letting someone else close - silly, but sometimes less painful in the end. Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't like bullies :(. Somebody has to stand up to them... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. I think Coren's comment is spot on and hopefully that's the start of things winding up rather quickly. :) Shell ^babelfish 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully. Yet... even if this is closed, nothing is preventing the situation from reoccurring :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shell. I wonder if you might be persuaded not to intervene in the future with your admin tools in content disputes involving Jayjg. I am not confident of your objectivity and good judgment where he is concerned. Sincerely, --G-Dett (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of evidence for that rather extreme claim? Do you disagree that there was a lengthy slow moving edit war on the article I protected? Does it occur to you that since you tend to engage Jayjg on quite a number of articles, you might not be entirely objective here? Shell ^babelfish 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Shell; I didn't notice you'd responded here.

As someone whose editing consists primarily of the light-but-Sisyphian task of minimizing outright propaganda in Middle-East-related articles, I necessarily come into conflict with Jayjg, an experience that I would have thought made me more, not less, knowledgeable about his strategies of disruption. But as a party to a content dispute, no of course I'm not "objective."

I just wonder whether it wouldn't be a good idea for you to avoid using your admin tools in content disputes involving Jayjg. It is just a suggestion, casual not formal, which you are of course free to dismiss or consider as you choose.--G-Dett (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That was why I asked what you felt was improper about that particular situation that led you to make the comment. First, you've made the assumption that Jayjg is the one who alerted me to the problem and then second, that protecting an article being edit warred over was somehow inappropriate. I can understand the first due to your conflict with Jayjg (which is pretty evident when you use phrases like "his strategies of disruption"), but I'm not certain I understand the second. Since you both don't appear to have tried anything other than reverting with notes on the talk page, a bit of dispute resolution might be an easy fix for dialing the article back down to semi. Shell ^babelfish 05:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Did G-Dett suggest that Jayjg contacted you? With all due respect, Shell, my request would have been formal. In fact I'm surprised if you don't see that it is quite frustrating to be in a content dispute and someone who obviously favors one side steps in to protect the article, without even a comment about what is going on. Your involvement with G-Dett and Jayjg has been quite sharply worded and indeed partial; I am thinking in particular of the discussion here, although I don't believe that is the only one. Following this for you to enter a bilateral content dispute on an article and protect it following Jayjg's reversion, is at best extremely thoughtless to your role as an administrator. I must say it suggests to me that you should not be intervening with G-Dett and Jayjg at all. If you do continue to involve yourself, I will likely ask for community input. Mackan79 (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I call them like I see them - you're welcome to disagree with my opinions, but I just can't swallow that reviewing a single block for clear personal attacks suddenly makes me "biased" against that editor. I find it interesting that you were the one advocating for the unblock there, yet you're convinced that my outside opinion was the one with bias. I can also provide points in my history where I've called Jayjg on a bad move, so I suppose by that logic, I'm biased against both of them.

I did not enter a content dispute, which is why there was no comment on the content other than to suggest they work out the dispute and then apply for unprotection. I hope you're not suggesting that administrators should join in the content discussions for articles they protect; that's pretty incompatible with the idea of uninvolved.

I'm trying to understand what about my actions you feel evidences a bias: Do you disagree that protection is a fairly standard and oft used response to revert wars? Should I have simply blocked the both of them since they clearly know better? Did I protect on the "wrong version"? So far I have yet to see anyone suggest that anything I did was improper, simply that by some stretch of logic, I wasn't the right person to do it. Sorry guys, that just won't wash with me - if you feel the need to get further community input on this fairly standard administrative action, you're more than welcome to do so. Shell ^babelfish 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that you took up the content issue, only that you entered a content dispute and protected Jayjg's version of the page, when it should be obvious at this point that your impartiality with regard to Jayjg and G-Dett is in dispute. Your last comment on the two of them that I am aware of was here. The comment speaks for itself, as does G-Dett's response here; I did think it was poor form for you not even to respond there, but to respond by protecting another page to Jayjg's version takes that rather a bit further. But yes, once you start to go on record in favor of blocking a long-term editor, then it should probably be self-explanatory that you don't keep arriving to protect other editors' versions of pages.

There is other history here, as G-Dett already criticized you for protecting another page to Jayjg's version, and then apologized for her tone in doing so. That followed your participation as mediator on another dispute. My question, if it does continue to arise, would generally be whether someone who acts as a mediator should then go on to advocate blocks against a participating user for incivility (calling another user a "moron" who is continually exclaiming "BEER!"), and also repeatedly protect pages disfavoring the same user in future disputes with the same participants. My view is that you could easily have left a comment here requesting editors not to revert, and that this would have been much more productive, respectful and confidence-building than the action you took. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So then you don't believe that I did something inappropriate, just that I've protected the "wrong version". Its a bit of a leap to assume that when faced with two editors who constantly seem to think edit warring is appropriate that somehow, the state of the page when I protected, was evidence of a bias. I certainly could have asked them both to stop, but given the number of times they've been asked to stop before, do you really think its appropriate to continue pretending that there isn't a behavioral problem here? Sounds like the easy solution here is for the two of them to either find a solution (how about an RfC or 3O to settle things) and unprotect the article or how about they just stop editing warring with each other - this ending up at numerous articles together and ending up in edit wars is getting a bit silly. The fact that I've had to "repeatedly" (or how about twice) protect pages in the P/I dispute areas shouldn't be a shock to anyone who helps out with the AE board. I'm afraid that this really isn't doing much to convince me that my actions were somehow biased or even incorrect - if you still feel strongly that there was something improper here, we should probably seek out some additional opinions from the community. Shell ^babelfish 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following that interpretation of my comments, Shell. I am saying that your intervention in the last dispute between Jayjg and G-Dett showed obvious partiality; I'm saying that if you were going to intervene there then you should have responded to G-Dett's comments; I'm saying that if you weren't going to do that then you shouldn't have intervened again here; I'm saying that after that and previous interactions for you to protect this page following a revert by Jayjg, without any comment to either editor, shows such a poor effort to be impartial as to suggest you have no intention of appearing so; and I'm saying that to intervene in disputes with no attempt to be or to appear impartial is unhelpful, disrespectful, and destroys confidence in dispute resolution. None of this has anything to do with WP:WRONG, nor do I have any view on which version is better.

Can discussion help? Quite likely in my opinion, at least if someone sees all sides of the problem or even makes some attempt to relate. A comment to both editors would also help indicate who was willing to cooperate, and let the editors know that someone is watching. One thing I'm sure won't help, though, is these types of unexplained blocks or unexplained page protections by admins who are, for good and legitimate reasons, seen as favoring one side. An RfC here would in any case likely be premature, and more up to G-Dett or yourself than to me. Mackan79 (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we're going to have to disagree here. I have no idea which comments I'm supposed to have failed to respond to - I've answered G-Dett quickly both times they're posted here; they stopped responding, not me. I don't understand the substance of your complaints even though I've asked for clarity on them several times now - on one hand you claim I protected Jayjg's version and that act makes my protection wrong - on the other hand, you say that its not about the version I protected the article in. So what precisely do you feel I did wrong here? Please note that I didn't leave a message for either editor - there is no doubt in my mind they can read edit summaries and knew what they were doing wasn't proper.

I would strongly suggest you get some other opinions on this case. You have advocated repeatedly for G-Dett before so I have to seriously question your ability to see this situation clearly. If a simple article protection where both long term editors clearly knew better starts looking like a conspiracy to you, you may be a bit too invested. Shell ^babelfish 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Shell, the only person raising conspiracy theories is you; the exchange you did not respond to is the initial one I raised here; and I must say it is rich that you would then attack my judgment for having supported an involved editor. I had actually forgotten that G-Dett then also opposed your Arbcom bid on the ground that you do not remain impartial as an admin, as did numerous other editors. If you want to request outside opinions at this point, please feel free. I was hoping that you would consider your overall approach here, and perhaps what efforts you have made to show your detachment in a dispute where at least one involved editor has questioned it for quite some time. I currently do not get the feeling that this concerns you in the slightest. Mackan79 (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about the old block review I did? I stopped by, via a note at ANI to review and comment on the block that you contested - and somehow I'm not neutral in this situation because you think I should have watchlisted and responded there? You do remember that the consensus was that block was a good one - its not as if I was one voice in the wind railing against an editor. At this point you're pulling at some rather ethereal threads in order to make a case, aren't you? I couldn't even tell you who voted which way at ArbCom elections - editors are entitled to their opinions. Is there anything else you think you can use to sew together some semblance of bias here? The funny thing is that P/I articles aren't remotely my main area of focus - I've interacted with G-Dett a total of what, four times in the years I've been here?

You have yet to provide any substantial evidence of bias in this case save attempting to assert that their must be bias based on the fact that I haven't coddled this editor in the past. The fact is that I did nothing wrong here, nor even something remotely biased - this was standard patrol and handling of P/I issues that perennially crop up. If G-Dett would like to avoid interacting with me in the future, I suggest that s/he clean up their act - if nothing in their behavior triggers an administrative response, s/he'll never need to cross paths with me again. However, if G-Dett continues to get involved in edit wars and other disputes in the P/I area with me being active in AE and Mediation, its quite likely that sooner or later, the issues will come to my attention again. Shell ^babelfish 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Shell, I'm talking about your comments that I linked in my first and second posts here, the only edits I've linked in discussing with you, the one in which you described is as "commendable" that Jayjg was exclaiming "Beer!" along with various personal insults, and in which you said it was unambiguously correct to block G-Dett for describing that as moronic. I'm sorry you consider it "coddling" to explain your actions or to respond to lengthy comments directed to you, but that is not my view, and I don't believe it is the general view of adminship or particularly someone who plans a long involvement with two editors. Again, you attack my credibility because I have supported G-Dett, you invent conspiracy theories to attribute to others, and then you call it "ridiculous" for me to say that commending one editor for their insults, and not responding to the other, shows very questionable judgment for a long-term decision maker on this matter, as does then continuing to protect pages in favor of the same editor without comment or addressing either. And yes, you have now done this twice, in apparently the two times you have ever entered the subject area. Your assessment of "consensus" is also false; the only other editor who commented was Brewcrewer, no ally of G-Dett or myself, who said the block was unwarranted. So perhaps a closer read before making these kinds of claims would also help. You can dismiss this as well, I'll be less surprised, but the issue is there as long as you would like to consider it and hopefully to avoid future related disputes. Mackan79 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither you nor G-Dett have been able to come up with any substance to the claim of bias other than the repeated complaint that I protected the "wrong version" (twice now apparently) - the simple way to fix this issue is to resolve the content dispute that Jayjg and G-Dett were edit warring over (which oddly enough, you weren't even involved in). You've conveniently ignored any time I've been "biased" against Jayjg and my work in general on P/I issues as if by doing so, you can give more weight to your case here and pretend that responding to edit warring is somehow personal. Since your complaint has no substance, you've chosen instead to dreg up a comment I made while reviewing a block last November, which by the way, was not overturned. You then went on to indicate the fact that I did not follow the conversation through to its end indicates some kind of bias. That's probably one of the most ludicrous stretches I've heard in some time. In fact, you might wish to note that none of the five blocks G-Dett has for edit warring and personal attacks (all in the P/I area, none by me) have been overturned. Just something to think about.

I've suggested that if you feel strongly that there's some nefarious meaning behind my choosing to protect an article instead of blocking the edit warring parties, outside opinions would be appropriate. I am supremely unconvinced that a bare handful of interactions where G-Dett unfortunately happened to be in the wrong constitutes some form of bias - I honestly wouldn't know G-Dett or Jayjg from adam if I ran across them elsewhere on the wiki. If you don't feel it necessary to get outside comments, I'd appreciate if you dropped the badgering and attempts to cast guilt by various means. Shell ^babelfish 21:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I will say, one point of miscommunication seems to be your contention that I have dredged up anything to support some extraneous point. In fact, your comment here, G-Dett's response, and your lack of further comment are exactly why I no longer accept your impartiality with these editors. I consider it unlikely that you did not see G-Dett's response, if you did not look back after making such a forceful comment I think you should have, and in any case your comments show a complete mis-appraisal of the relevant interaction. None of this means, incidentally, that your intervention here needed to be problematic. However, entering to protect a page, after G-Dett had lambasted you for this the first time you did it, after G-Dett has repeatedly questioned your impartiality, and without offering any comment to either involved editor, certainly did not show a serious interest in resolving the underlying problem, at the same time as it was certain to deepen the lack of trust in you as an administrator choosing to involve yourself with these editors. This is what I am suggesting should concern you much more than it seems to, and what I would appreciate your acknowledging as a potential downside of your approach on this matter. Mackan79 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw on the AE opened by Brewcrewer against me that you asked if there was further evidence of incivility than the diff he provide [28]. My question to you is if you consider that diff, uncivil itself. In good faith - I do not, but I can hear an uninvolved opinion on this and consider it. Please, do take into consideration this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the comment was particularly incivil but it wasn't terribly helpful to the situation either. However, since you confined the comments to talk page discussions that resemble the organizations goals as opposed to singling out other editors, I doubt I would have had a problem with the comments. Shell ^babelfish 16:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your arbitration. I ask a favor to correct order of Talk:Comfort women. Caspian blue's insertion give rise to misunderstanding.[29]--Bukubku (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was also on the receiving end of abusive emails from this user. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems to have been going around; given that and his similar behavior on wiki, I blocked his use of his talk page too - he doesn't particularly seem inclined to stop abusing other editors. Shell ^babelfish 17:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the Prem Rawat issues at AE have moved to RFAR. Bainer suggested inviting the uninvolved admins to comment. The thread is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem_Rawat_2; your input is welcome. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shell,

Per this exchange on my Talk Page, Nancy thinks that I am usurping the role of "moderator" in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. I don't sense that I am "leading" this discussion in a "moderator" role but maybe you might agree with her so I'd like your opinion.

I have to confess that this is the first mediation that I have been involved in so I don't have a sense of what the protocols are. My sense of it is that there is a discussion going on amongst the involved editors and this is good because discussion and openness to compromise is better than no discussion and unwillingness to compromise.

I have made some effort to lay out rubrics for thinking about the question. Despite your suggestion to "keep it simple" and focus on one topic at a time, I think you may start to see that the issues in the framework that I laid out are, in fact, being raised by various editors as we consider the various alternatives.

If you feel that I am overstepping the bounds of a mediation participant and infringing on your role as a mediator, please let me know and I will try to restrain myself.

--Richard (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I wonder if you or another active administrator could help out with this request at User:Delaque's talk page, just updated at User talk:Delaque#Please scroll up > User talk:Delaque#Attn Delaque. It seems as though Delaque opened the matter and then didn't return to close it well over a month after it had been resolved and stale. I still am concerned about the personal characterizations of me that have stayed there unchallenged but have had no luck getting them deleted or struck out, or getting Delaque's attention to close the matter, despite multiple requests on that talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shell, We are having difficulty reaching a solution to our problem because Gimmetrow, Defteri and Soidi continue to not provide any sources to support their position asking us to consider that the Church uses other official names when the sources say the contrary is true. See [30]. I have now provided five sources (with links) listed in my opening statement [31], with the newest and latest [32] which states that the Church "claimed as its title Catholic Church". I have felt for a long time that the other side is not interested in finding the actual facts but in obstructionism because we have persistently asked for reliable sources that meet the guidelines and they never follow through with providing them as evidenced yet again on the mediation page [33]. I have also provided evidence of consensus agreement with links yet Gimmetrow has not answered your question about this under his initial statement. I would like to know if there are any Wikipedia policies that prevent this kind of harassment of an article's editors. This has gone on for four months now. NancyHeise ^talk 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: I just found another new source to support article text use of "officially" see Encyclopedia Brittanica's definition of "Catholic" here [34] where it states "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is "the Catholic Church". Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 05:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You were apparently away from Wikipedia for a few days. I hope this was something enjoyable like a vacation or holiday rather than something stressful. Much has transpired in that time and we have reached an impasse which sorely needs the assistance of a mediator. Can you pick up where you left off? Thanx. --Richard (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your input regarding a question for the mediation committee is requested. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#Would_this_case_be_accepted.3F. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba is a living person, who lives in a small city called "Puttaparthi", in South India, state of Andhra Pradesh. Thousands of people gather everyday to see him, in a place called Sai Kulwant Hall, inside a complex called "Prasanthi Nilayam", where Sai Baba's residence is located. This people believe he is a saint.

On the other hand, there is a group of people who believes he is a criminal.

So, we have two radically opposite points-of-view.

The article in Wikipedia is being used by the group with the "anti-Baba" point-of-view to do theirs propaganda. This group is engaged in a strong effort to avoid the article to be a truly representative of NPOV.

Currently, the article suffers from:
- lack of NPOV
- offends Basic Human Dignity
- suffers from Information Supression

Link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

In the brief description of the case, above, I myself have assumed a neutral point-of-view.

Below, a link to my first comment about the article. There, I write with my own POV feelings, but using NPOV arguments, so neutral editors could follow and, with common sense, agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F

But, after that, I found many unpleasant things:
- trying to edit results in "removal of large-scale vandalism", and the edit vanishes from the history; (thus, the history itself is biased)
- there is an editor, "White adept", acting as policeman to maintain biased, not-NPOV status quo;
- there is another user, "Andries", faking a positive POV; (thus, you are mislead)
- their combined actions drive anybody who arrives to read all negative-POV references;
- also, they managed a pack of ready-made arguments that classifies the huge amount of positive-POV references as "not reliable";
- making, in this way, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore or improve the article's quality.

This article constitutes a very serious issue for Wikipedia itself. Millions of people around the world support Sai Baba's efforts (six million, in the negative-POV estimate; from 50 to 100 millions, in the positive-POV estimate). The current article is an offense not only to Sai Baba himself, but also to all of them.

Thank you.

(Shell Kinney, I have also warned Ryan Postlethwaite, with no reply until now, and Sunray, who is currently too busy but kindly took a brief look and gently replied. I hope you can, at least, be aware of how urgent this issue is, and if possible give some support.)

Hi Shell,

The page for TV 3 Medford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV3_Medford is being written by a Daniel Sarno and a Gary Zappelli.

Sarno's ISP is 70.88.213.234 he also seems to have a page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_A._Sarno_Jr.&action=edit&redlink=1

This is not a neutral page as Sarno is a newly installed manager while the station is being evaluated by the Mayor of Medford. Anything Sarno writes is propaganda. Hoping I'm following the rules of this talk page, still learning how to write on this site.

Petition (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)PetitionPetition (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's most important policies is called neutral point of view - in a nutshell, articles should be written in a factual and encyclopedic manner and backed up with high quality references. Articles should neither be promotional in tone, nor should they unfairly present the subject in a negative light. I believe when we last spoke on this issue, I indicated that it was inappropriate for you to insert opinion into the article and if you could provide high quality references, the article could be updated to include that information so long as it was added in a factual manner and not given undue weight.

Your recent edits to the article have been problematic; if you cannot keep your personal feelings about the subject in check, please consider not editing the article. In addition to removing standard items such as the company infobox, the version you revert to contains a great deal of negative opinion. Again, negative facts are acceptable, opinion is not. Shell ^babelfish 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood, Shell, I'm working to learn how to do this and accept your information. Thank you. I do not want to be problematic. Many of us are learning how to post good information for Wikipedia effectively.

Please note that even your new edits have just been changed by someone almost immediately after you published them. I suggest you monitor the site and protect it from the ongoing vandalism. I would be happy to provide facts in an encyclopedic manner backed up with quality references. There are not a lot of public access tv stations from the Boston area on Wikipedia, why is Medford on Wikipedia and important stations like Somerville and Cambridge are not? The reason: it is obvious that Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. is building a web page on Wikipedia posting their information and attempting to write their "mission" - that is hardly encyclopedic. Petition (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)petitionPetition (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the proper way to deal with that is through a deletion discussion (see WP:AFD). Shell ^babelfish 18:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with a deletion discussion is that - if deletion occurs - any of the good points of cable access in Medford, which the station refuses to allow on "their" Wikipedia site, will be eliminated. Deletion is throwing the baby out with the bathwater; Dasonras (which is Sarno, the station manager's name, backwards), is part of ZappTV and Tv3Medford - they are issuing their propaganda, which is not neutral and doesn't serve the public interest. There's nothing "neutral" about the brand new manager of the TV station getting paid by the station to promote its agenda without any regard to public interest. Petition (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)petitionPetition (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel the subject doesn't deserve an article the way to handle that is through deletion. If its simply a concern over the content of the article, that can be resolved through normal editing. No one editor (or group) controls a Wikipedia article, instead the article content is built by a variety of interested people under Wikipedia editing guidelines. Shell ^babelfish 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made an edit quoting from Robert St John's book 'Ben Gurion' in an addition to Golda Myer's biography. I have put an internal link on St John which shows up as a link you deleted some time ago. I am uncertain that it is the same person. Would it be best to withdraw my link? Best wishes.Padres Hana (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article that was deleted was about a British naturopath so I believe your Robert St John is likely a different person. However, unless the subject is notable, its not likely worth it to create a link, especially since the article is current a redirect and likely to be confusing. Shell ^babelfish 00:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Shell: I am in the midst of trying to meet a major publishing deadline and cannot deal with the continual personal attacks and incivilities of User:Jezhotwells, who removed your warning from his/her talk page immediately after you made it and has just kept it up.Version w/ your post. Please assist if you can. I've removed the additional further personal attacks from Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter.Diffs. This user needs some kind of additional warning or sanction. Thank you if you can assist. I really have to be offline doing other work. --NYScholar (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC) [updated w/ diffs. link; seems possibly a bit calmer since I removed the stuff, including my own replies to it. Back offline. --NYScholar (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)]

Seeking administrative assistance with User:Jezhotwells disruptions in Harold Pinter (Talk:Harold Pinter) and Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter. Thank you if you can help. --NYScholar (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Editor review/Jezhotwells, which is making the request for reviewing his/her own editing a focus on another contributor (me). Something very wrong going on since the editor rejoined Wikipedia. This is unacceptable behavior. --NYScholar (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded in detail on your talk, but one specific point - Jezhotwells is simply answering a question about dealing with disputes and frankly, you two are in a dispute - this is not inappropriate. You might want to look at what Jezhotwells had to say and consider what you might do to resolve the situation. Shell ^babelfish 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 

Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at NYScholar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

["Talkback" is an unfortunate name for this template as I do not perceive myself as "talking back" to Shell or anyone else, but merely as responding to their comments! :-)] --NYScholar (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please have a look at the recent edits in the article about Thomas de Waal? Some time ago you removed an unreliable source: [35], but it has been restored to the article: [36] In my opinion, the addition of that source is not in line with WP:BLP. Thank you. Grandmaster 07:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it again and left a note for the user who's reverting it. It may also be pertinent to note that he's under a revert parole from the AA2 case and I believe due to the content of his reverts, this is likely a related issue; I've mentioned as much on his talk. Shell ^babelfish 20:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interference. As is obvious from here: [37] this user has been blocked indef, then the block was lifted, and he was placed on probation twice, originally for six months, and then for another six months. The probation has now expired, but any admin can extend the probation for another term, or make it indef, if he deems it necessary. As you saw, this user is making POV edits on hot topics, which was the reason for probation. Regards, Grandmaster 04:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop attacking me on talk pages! It is boring to see a user repeating a 2-years old story (where he was actively engaged) and protesting against "evil". You was blocked many times, have much more dubious edits and editwarrings with different users in the same time. Please also read WP:CIVIL. Sometimes it is helpful. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shell, could you please have a look at this edit by Andranikpasha in the same article: [38] While the info he added by that edit is not slanderous, I fail to see its relevance to this particular article. It is about the work de Waal co-wrote with authors from Azerbaijan and Georgia. For some reason Andranikpasha included it into the criticism section, while it contains no criticism at all. Plus, the information about the percentage of territories occupied in Azerbaijan has nothing to do with the biography of de Waal. I would understand if it was included in the article about Azerbaijan, but what info does it provide about de Waal himself? I could not get a reasonable explanation from Andranikpasha at talk of the article. In my opinion, the information about this particular publication could be included in the bibliography section, if Andranikpasha created such a section and listed there all the works by this author. Otherwise, the relevance of the info about that publication and the quote provided seems to be questionable. I would appreciate if you could look into this and express your opinion as an uninvolved user. Thanks.--Grandmaster 04:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

U cud not be able 2 fed ur kittehs nomore! Sad dai 4 kats evrywhere: templates for deletion: Template:Cheezburgr. Dreadstar † 06:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I missed the discussion, but it looks like you can haz cheezburgr :) Shell ^babelfish 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Shell Kinney, you gave me an order. spend some time working in other areas and show you can properly handle disputes; after a few months of that, ask for the ban to be removed.[39] I obeyed your order for months, and I have not edit the areas from 20 January 2009. Certainly, I made mistakes, and I caused you problem, sorry. I apologize to you. Please, look my editions during the past few months. I keep promise, trust me. Please release my ban.--Bukubku (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to bring this up with the administrator who placed the topic ban (Future Perfect at Sunrise) first. I'm concerned that you seem to have mostly stopped editing since this discussion in February and I don't see anything in your editing since then that would indicate that you've learned to handle disputes. I'm not sure that you're going to get the outcome you're looking for here, but as I said, please bring it up with the person who placed the ban. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough explanation. I've learned to handle dispute, for example This. However, you may think there are few example, but I haven't encounter the persons who had not talked in Talk page after the ban. So there are few examples. Please recall the edition of Comfort women, I talked in Talk:Comfort women, but opponents didn't reply. I tried to talk in talk page. And my edition remains months, it tells us my edition is not bad faith. However, I admit that I have tended to revert editions before the ban done, sorry. I mend my rough behavior. I follow your advice and talk with Future Perfect at Sunrise. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Future Perfect at Sunrise replied, and he recommend me post WP:AN. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I bother you. I need more time.--Bukubku (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Shell Kinney/Archive 12 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Shell Kinney/Archive 12's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Shell Kinney/Archive 12! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shell, We are just wrapping up on the mediation talk page and will be moving the show over to the article talk page in the next few days. The group has decided to consult the wider community before implementing the mediation decision. I am just in the process of preparing a summary for the article talk page. We need another mediator for the community consultation. Given your past involvement with this case, I thought you should have first right of refusal. Are you interested? Sunray (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help - I've gotten caught up on the mediation since I've gotten back so I think I know where things are at but if you've got anything you'd like to make sure I'm aware of or just want to take a second to talk about the case and the next steps, just let me know. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 00:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Would you like to chat on gmail sometime tomorrow or shall we just e-mail? Sunray (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Either is fine with me - I should be available just about anytime after about 4pm EST tomorrow - if that time doesn't work out, I'm happy to do things via email too. Shell ^babelfish 04:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that will work well. See you on chat at 4:00 p.m. EST. Sunray (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with some local Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.

Hi,

This is the second time in a couple of minutes that I find myself under a deleted article I was working on while investigating the backlog of WP:SCV. Regarding this one, I contest it was blatant infringement as there had been significant change in the wording, and I also respectfully suggest that in its present state, stubifying, additional tweaking or listing at WP:CP would have been more appropriate that speedy deletion. MLauba (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone has a slightly different way of doing things - I felt that it was a very clear copy of the site and the wording changes weren't sufficient that it wasn't easily recognized as a copy. Perhaps there could be an article about the topic (though considering the lack of any news about the organization I'm not convinced that its notable) but I'm fairly certain its not common practice to leave copyright violations intact when they are the only history. It had already sat for 7 days flagged as a copyright problem, so additional time at CP was unlikely to resolve the issue. I hate to step on anyone's toes though, so if you're going through the list at the moment, I'll find another backlog to gnaw at :) Shell ^babelfish 09:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, regarding the 7 days at WP:SCV, that's understandable considering the huge backlog the thing has :D. I'm currently busy with other things myself, though, and it's not as if I was WP:OWNing that, quite happy to have other people going other it. Getting a look at someone else's judgement is certainly a good way to broaden my perspective. Thanks for taking the time to explain your rationale, food for thought for me. MLauba (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, didn't mean to imply you were OWNing anything, I just know what a pain it can be to work on things only to find out someone else has done it in the meantime. Besides, more gets done if two people are working separate things instead of accidentally duplicating their efforts :) Shell ^babelfish 09:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 

I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And from me too! It's been good having you around helping out over the last 4 years. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much :) Shell ^babelfish 03:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For the work done on cleaning up the backlog at WP:SCV and the extremely valuable discussion this sparked :). MLauba (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Aww thanks! You know, I hadn't the foggiest that there was a barnstar just for copyvios :D Shell ^babelfish 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

216.143.120.140 (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.

10:36, 12 June 2009 Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) deleted "The curse of Amen Ra" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G12, was a blatant copyright infringement. using TW)

I stumbled uppon some valuable info to me, and comming to a close on research this was a huge stumbling block, of course will not let this stop me from finding info looking for. please tell me why this was removed if able... thanx... ; )

ps, some one i briefly met from chicago had clued me in on something called straw man. are you familiar with this at all? Like is it a waste of my time looking into it, seems like alot of research to get involved in for nothing...again thanx

The page was deleted because it was a copy of another website - Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images without them having been released under a license which is compatible with ours. If you'd like to read the text, that other website was [40]. Shell ^babelfish 05:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember blocking one of his sock puppets recently? Looks like he is already back, User:Whiterabbit23 is going around reverting several articles back to his preferred version. Landon1980 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Shell ^babelfish 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response. Landon1980 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite agree with what you said on the noticeboard, you put it better than myself ;) If you think that one final warning from an admin is warranted before a long block, perhaps you could do that (little me not being sysoppificated!) – or just block straight off if you think that's best... I tend to favour the latter course, but your call! ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 11:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any further warning is needed, though I will try to talk to him given his response on ANI. I just don't think that there's anything blockable right this moment unless there's something in the past few days I missed when looking at his contribs. If there's another instance, whether its edit warring or personal attacks or whatever, I'd have no problem blocking him. I get the impression that english isn't his first language and perhaps he's misinterpreting some things, but that doesn't excuse the resistance to following policies. Shell ^babelfish 12:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think he's a German-speaker, but his intent is clear enough. The revert-warring yesterday to restore non-sources [41] and deliberate spelling errors [42], I'd have thought that that was blockable, particularly given his history. But we'll see how he responds to your entreaty ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - maybe the policies at the German Wikipedia would be a help explaining things. The undo of a spelling correction is a bit over the top - I'll see if I can't sort out what's up. Shell ^babelfish 12:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Now he's replied on ANI that restoring that silly source was because "he didn't see a problem with it" – yet his reply on his talkpage says that he knows enough about WP policy to work here. Hmm... ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider your input, productive. I find you hostile, arrogant, and am requesting that you devote and redirect your attention toward something else. Go find someone else to stalk and critique. As it is said, "Pick on someone your own size." I don't want to file a complaint: You are annoying. Furtive admirer (talk)

I'm sorry you feel that you're being picked on; I certainly didn't intend to annoy. Rather than stalking you, I have been dealing with a complaint about problems on the Paul Traub article and other biographies that you've been involved with editing. Several other editors have attempted to explain their concern over your violations of Wikipedia policy; my advice was intended to prevent the need for a block on your account. If you'd like to talk to some other editors about the advice I've given, I'm certain you'll find that they'll also explain that you are required to follow policy. Shell ^babelfish 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, you've been approved by the arbitration committee as one of the uninvolved admins to help settle Macedonia naming issues. The centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. The arbitration case final decision is at WP:ARBMAC2. See especially this remedy. Admins User:Fritzpoll and User:J.delanoy form the triumvirate with you. Thank you for your assistance. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now reported Tryde, Ironholds and Jazeking. Enough is enough.Max Mux (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the "Mediation on Naming Convention" subpage. It looks great and seems to work well. Sunray (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Sunray above. What authority do you have to do this without consensous-- or is somthing you can do basied on a policy without consensous?

At the very least I object

• (1) that the bias statements made by the "formal Mediation Committee." It was a closed discussion of only certain people, and leaving them behind on Talk:Roman Catholic Church gives them implied status as if they are (a) unbiased (b) Inevitable to be carried out. (Note well that the "Mediation" Committee did not even begin with renaming the acticle as one of its issues.)
• (2) that the sub-page name does not reflect what is really at issue. This is not a "Mediation on Naming Convention" nor a discussion on the "Naming Convention" nor a discussion on the "Mediation/Mediation Committee" — it is just a discussion on renaming!

Please move the subpage to Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Page rename proposal (or the like) and/or state more on why it needs to be done at all. --Carlaude ^talk 10:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'd have to call it the authority of common sense - given the amount of discussion during the mediation, it is likely that there will be a similar amount of discussion now that this has been opened to a larger audience. Leaving it on the main talk page would, in effect, hijack any other ongoing/future discussions by drowning them out with noise. A notice was left on the main page so that any interested editors can easily join the discussion. I see that you have removed that notice; since this discussion is meant to involved other interested editors who may not know of the subpage yet, I have replaced it.

I am aware of what happened during the Mediation which was advertised on the article talk page, but I'm not certain what your concern is here. The participants in the mediation chose to open the discussion to a wider community after they had developed a consensus on the issue. The format is one in which the mediators can continue to facilitate discussion and assist in developing a consensus on the proposal. I apologize if my choice of name page was so terse to be unintelligible - the intent was to describe it as the product of the mediation on the naming convention for the article currently known as the Roman Catholic Church - I was afraid anything that long would be a bit silly though, so my shortening came out Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Mediation Naming Convention, which at least isn't horribly unwieldy I hope. Shell ^babelfish 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you planned to be "so terse to be unintelligible," but why won't you move it to a better name now. --Carlaude ^talk 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if that explanation doesn't help, I can certainly move it. I'll go ahead and leave the redirect to avoid worrying about outdated links or that sort of thing. Shell ^babelfish 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Shell. I apologize for using the term "henchman" on the Hymers page. However, I do have a few remaining concerns: 1) there is still a "press release" feel to the article in some places; 2) one has to get deeply into this article to see that he has been a lightning storm for criticism, or a controversial figure in any way; 3) the article as it stands has over half of its references as books he has written himself--and that is not even counting the quoted "puff pieces." Just references to Hymers, on Hymers. Also, 4) the ordering of the information was previously done in such a way as to suggest that the controversies were behind him--that he had "gotten over them."

Perhaps I over-compensated; it wouldn't be the first time. I'll be happy to go back to not editing that piece, and simply making suggestions to you or to other senior editors. But the product that was there a few days ago was essentially produced by Hymers himself, using an account that he, at one point, turned over to an attorney who attempted to dictate which of his life details would or would not be included in that article.

So, yes: I still felt that it was slanted too-positive.

I mean, I'm still getting mail from young Christians who are asking me whether I can recommend his church, and I'm having to tell them that, no--I can't, quite. And here's this Wikipedia entry talking about his "classical Protestant conversion," and "pointing people toward Christ." It's absurd: he hits people, he throws things. He douses people with water at Elders meetings. And we are not to have anything that hints of that in either the closing paragraph or the final paragraph?---just buried in the text?

It seems a bit much, though I will abide by your judgment on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll go through you on these items, case-by-case and get your approval. I did try, a year ago, to reach out to the Wiki-Evangelicals, without success; perhaps it's time to try once more. Certainly I think someone who has received as much negative ink as he has over the course of a single ministry is "controversial"--after all, it spans decades!Scooge (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A. Just one more little datum on the issue of whether RLHJ is "controversial"--1) early drafts of the article included a section on "controversies," which were removed at the request of senior editors. 2) There were originally, as I recall six such controversies by Kyu's/Hymers' own count (listed on those early drafts) and 3) I know of at least two or three others that one would have gathered from reading contemporary articles in the L.A. Times and the L.A. Herald Examiner.

I had thought I'd sent you the texts of those articles after I'd bought them from the L.A. Times. Did I not do that?

FWIW, I had not thought of the word "controversial" as a negative one.

B. How would you recommend that I find one of the Christianity editors? We'd need someone in the Evangelical/Charismatic end of the scale.Scooge (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of Boatduty177177 (talk · contribs). It's clearly not a new user, although the account was created yesterday. I came across them because they voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League, and a redlinked user page in an AfD is unusual. They also deleted another vote while adding theirs [43] but that may have been inadvertent, and was undone by someone else.

After the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria mess (I wasn't involved in that one) things were very quiet in the Israel-related articles. I'd been focusing on other interests, like the history of Teletype machines (I have a restored, working antique Teletype from the 1940s in my office), and financial scams. Then a week or two ago, I started seeing many more edits popping up on my watchlist. New editors are appearing and making somewhat aggressive edits to previously stable Israel-related articles. Something is going on. I'm wondering if some of the banned editors may be back under other names. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

he is currently at 5 reverts (counting consecutive edits as one) on this page. please block. untwirl(talk) 03:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In a continuation of edit warring and destruction of constructive edits, contribs) reverted Justus Weiner three times today. Please advise how to proceed. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Skywriter violated BLP at that article and this was pointed out to him quite explicitly. Mashkin (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a look back through some of the edits today but I'm not an expert on the subject myself. I didn't see anything off-hand that I would have considered a major BLP violation worthy of simply reverting. Yes, Skywriter used some weasel-words (i.e. saying "he says" or "he claims") and some of the editing made the information less clear, however there is no reason either of you couldn't have stopped reverting each other and used the talk page to discuss your differences. I suggest you try talking it out now or using some other form of dispute resolution to sort things. Shell ^babelfish 23:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No census was reached. Was about it now?Max Mux (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me a little bit more information? What consensus are you trying to reach? Shell ^babelfish 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the article was nominated for deletion and no censensus was reached. What is the next step?Max Mux (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. When a deletion discussion does not find a consensus, the default is to keep the article so nothing more will happen at this time. I have removed the deletion notice from the article since the discussion is no longer active. Shell ^babelfish 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Max Mux (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi could you please delete the JohnnyTurk888 account and pages, I have no further wish to participate in this project in light of your decision and your failure to seriously consider what I put forward. Goodbye. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.77 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Shell, Rhode Island Red did an inaccurate and bias hatchett job to the Julia Havey article. Going so far as to lie and say that there were "no credible sources" to show she was on Oprah & Friends XM radio, despite direct links on Oprah.com for such.

Will his actions be allowed to stand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - inaccurate and biased? Do you have specific diffs that you would like to point out? From a quick glance, it looks like he removed a great deal of unsourced information from the Julia Havey article which is inline with Wikipedia policy. Regarding his "lie" (we strongly encourage not attacking other editors here), I see you've now provided a source for the claim - I would suggest however that you'll want to link directly to the page [44] instead of to a search. Please remember than any unsourced information about a living person can and should be removed - WP:BLP gives more details on how these articles are carefully treated. Shell ^babelfish 23:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked back through some of the discussion and earlier revisions of the article - I found that older versions were better referenced and had categories etc. I'm not sure when those were removed (this version was from last year) but I think its a considerable improvement. I hope that helps resolve your concerns. Shell ^babelfish 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Page_protected ASAP. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shell, I just wanted to drop by and say thank you for the support and kind words at my recent RfA. They made me feel good, and I'll do my best to live up to the expectations. Cheers — Ched :  ?  03:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look the issue. While you're at it, could you also take a look the behaviour of Martintg, if this is not too much to ask? He usually edit wars in the same articles as Digwuren, and tries to push the same POV. Example: [45][46][47][48][49][50]. M makes more reverts than D; however D has a much larger block log. I can provide more evidence of Martintg if requested, but I'd rather not start another WP:AE thread myself (unless asked to do so), as I always seem get attacked by a certain group of editors who arrive to defend their members. Martintg was recently blocked[51] for edit warring, and unblocked because he promised to stop, but he doesn't seem to have kept his promise. My own edit warring should be evident too, and 1RR would probably be a good idea for me, to say the least. Offliner (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your candor. I haven't come across much of Martintg's editing in my review yet, though I'm certainly not very far in looking through articles. I have made some notes about other editors who are not currently listed at AE and I may make recommendations regarding them as well. A couple of thoughts from what I've seen so far: Removing all external links isn't usually the best way to deal with a linkfarm unless all of the links are completely useless (or duplicated as sources); I've found that it helps if you leave a detailed explanation on talk for edits that might seem drastic to others. I would strongly suggest that you put more effort toward discussion on talk pages and other dispute resolution; also dispute resolution is often easier if you avoid using reverts during the discussion (I personally choose to use them only for vandalism). It does seem likely that I will recommend some kind of revert restriction for you and some of the others involved. Shell ^babelfish 06:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Offliner seems to have a habit of shopping across multiple admin talk pages and boards looking for sanctions for past events that have long gone stale. I believe this kind of combative approach to gaining the upper hand in content disputes is actionable under discretionary sanctions regime in place for EE. If you concur that it is sanctionable if proven, can I submit a AE report with supporting evidence of this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour? --Martintg (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am taking a very in-depth look at the topic area and the current behavior of editors. I can say that I have run across instances where you have been involved in edit wars or dropped by simply to revert; only one of those cases showed you actually entering discussion about the dispute. Its also become very clear that there's a particular group of editors that seem to cause problems each time they start interacting on articles, so far you seem to be on the edge or caught up in that at times rather than directly involved. After having looked through article edits, I will go back to look at mainspace and talk actions for just the reason you describe. If you'd like to add this information to the existing report (I believe it has been re-opened) you are welcome to do so. Shell ^babelfish 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it is true that I have been caught up in this. When editors like PasswordUsername do such blatant BLP violations in the article Jaak Aaviksoo or inserting absolute nonsense into Crime in Estonia, or Offliner making contentious edits in Kaitsepolitsei inserting the view of a notorious neo-nazi and claiming it is a valid criticism without regard to WP:UNDUE [52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57], one soon gets the sense that these editors aren't really working for the benefit of the project and discussion isn't really that effective due to WP:IDONTHEARYOU. All this started in May, the Estonia topic area was relatively stable before they arrived. An Estonia topic ban for Offliner and PasswordUsername would immediately fix the problem in my opinion. --Martintg (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained on the Kaitsepolitsei talk page, the person in question was intimidated by the Estonian Secret Police for political reasons, forced to lose his job and sent to a psychiatric hospital for punishment. This is criminal, regardless of his world view. Thus, his criticism is valid. He has also launched legal proceedings against Kaitsepolitsei in a Tallinn court. But you're not only removing this. You were also edit warring to remove the opinion of Amnesty International, a respected human rights organization. Amnesty criticised Kaitsepolitsei for trying to hinder the work of a human rights organization that was trying to defend the rights of the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia. In fact, there seems to be a pattern over multiple articles: you are removing everything that might present the Estonian government in a critical light. But your edit warring is not only related to Estonian articles. Elsewhere, like in Putinjugend or Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), you are repeatedly edit warring to insert material disdaining the Russian government and the country's history. Offliner (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa - this isn't the place for content disputes or discussions with other editors - please take those to the appropriate talk page. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like Jehochman has just closed Offliner's case, could you reopen it as I would like to add my evidence as discussed here. --Martintg (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a report at AE isn't necessary for an admin to enforce sanctions - I'm not certain what's going on with the closing, opening and re-closing (I've been busy reviewing contribs and article histories). If you'd like to just put that information here on my talk, I'll make sure I review it as well. Shell ^babelfish 21:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather post it to AE as a matter of record, rather than semi privately on your talk, lest others may mis-construe it. Could you reopen it please, I'm sure early closure before you can complete your investigation could make your later imposition of sanctions against Offliner raise a few eyebrows. --Martintg (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no, I'm not comfortable reverting other administrators and certainly not in a case where I don't have all the facts. Since I have openly mentioned my review on AE talk, I think its unlikely that any eyebrows will be raised at my conclusions especially given the level of effort involved. If you don't feel comfortable discussing your concerns here, you might wish to approach the administrator who closed the thread and ask them to re-open or for additional guidance. Shell ^babelfish 22:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I do not mean to pile on to your work here, so feel free to ignore this unless it somehow comes up in what you are doing. I am only going to respond to Martintg's frivolous accusations against my adding BLP violations to the Jaak Aaviksoo article: I did not. This was brought up on the WP:AN noticeboard at Vecrumba's prompting in response to my asking for some kind of warning for Digwuren's use of Wikipedia as a battleground, and I responded to each of the relevant diffs in the thread: [58]. The reference I used was sourced to a third party. The supposed removals of balancing material were clear WP:SYNTH references about Erna recce uniforms (where good-faith attempts to balance the article, as you can see by the edit history, were also reverted by the usual party). Vecrumba tried bringing that into WP:AN (not, obviously, WP:BLP); as no sanctions were taking against me, it was obviously not taken by AN administrators as a BLP concern. If I were Martintg complaining about Martintg, I would say that he has been blockshopping and should probably be blocked, but since I have a bit more decency than that, I am only asking that evidence of my stale "misbehavior" at the Aaviksoo article be taken for what it is – the complaining editor is clearly out of line here. I've let the article remain in its current WP:SYNTH state for now as I have no desire to battle over it further, but I think the in-depth issues regarding my conduct on that (now-very-stale) article is fully explained in the provided link. Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and for keeping things from turning into a battle here. If I do come across that (I have not yet looked at it), I will keep this in mind. Shell ^babelfish 01:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the initial edit in question by PasswordUsername—after the article being virtually dormant for half a year—and the subsequent edits speak for themselves. WP:AGF that PasswordUsername misunderstood the source was difficult given it was in English and his subsequent combative stance on the issue appearing to wish to paint Aaviksoo as someone with Nazi sympathies. Vecrumba       TALK 16:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Drawn to here by Vecrumba's edit - Jaak Aaviksoo's own comment about alleged Nazi uniforms had clear statement about Finnish army uniforms and I don't think we can accuse him of WP:SYNTH. Fighting to remove his own comment and make it look like he was wearing Nazi uniform - or was with people who wore Nazi uniforms - is very clearly a grave violation of BLP rules. -- Sander Säde 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaak Aaviksoo commented about the swastika on Erna recce and Finnish uniforms, which were used at the reenactment. The article in question talks about crowds of young people wearing "T-shirts with Nazi symbols." (Sourced to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an acceptable third-party source.) Your interpretation that

"young Estonians w/ Nazi symbols on T-shirts = reenactment participants with the Erna recce uniform swastika"

is a clear and untenable instance of WP:SYNTH. We have no way of knowing that this is what he was talking about. Making these kinds of inferences is not a legitimate use of materials on Wikipedia. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually believe a politician could be with "young people wearing T-shirts with Nazi symbols." and not have his career finished for good? These "young people" were the people re-enacting the recce. Considering how many facts your source got wrong - laughable "ultra-rightists", "pro-German troops and the Soviet Army" when they were pro-Estonian volunteers in Finnish army, who stopped NKVD Destruction Battalions from murdering civilians (that is all fully sourced). Also - now when I am re-reading your source, I must say that the direct quote, "accompanied by dozens of young followers dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols." that you inserted, is actually even a misrepresentation of that biased source, as it doesn't say Jaak Aaviksoo had followers, it says "elderly veterans from Estonia, Norway and Austria" were accompanied... sigh. I should have re-read that before and thrown the whole controversy section out, as there obviously is none, just a misrepresentation of the source in BLP. -- Sander Säde 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about keeping this going here. First Martintg brought up Aaviksoo, then Vecrumba felt unhappy with what I said in my post with a link to the discussion in-depth, so I thought I'd put my comments where he put his. I did not want to battle over this. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Jaak Aaviksoo#Controversy section. Seems we have whole Controversy section issue solved, as it was just bad sourcing. -- Sander Säde 07:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're at bat. Per your offer to investigate these EE disputes, I have left open two threads. Should you need help repelling tendentious editors, or clearing out the noise so you can hear the signal, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 23:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm identified as a party to one of the parties here, of the editors mentioned, I probably have the widest WP experience in articles dealing with the post-Soviet space (Baltics, Moldova/Transnistria, Romania, Poland, Hungary,...) and you will note my "block log" is clean even though I've even dealt extensively with editors paid to push the pro-Russian interests position in WP (now-banned User:William Mauco and User:MarkStreet have been verified as such). Please feel free to contact me for any questions regarding historical events and the "versions" or interpretations on either side. Vecrumba       TALK 17:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As you're reviewing the issues of user behavior on Eastern European article histories, it should probably be noticed that Martintg is a single-purpose account who's been involved in Estonia-Russia battles from the first contributions in his edit history.

Also, while Martintg often cites some kind of Wikipedia policy for his reverts, these often appear to be deliberately missaplied or inapplicable to the incident in question: for example, on the Human rights in Estonia article, Martintg removed [59] called me a blind reverter, summarizing the edit as "undo blind revert. nothing in Freedom house's report indicates Kaitsepolitsei operates as the nation's political police." The Freedom House link (removed by Martintg) in his "blind revert" edit in fact provides the following statement.

"At present, the Estonian political police KAPO routinely reports on Russian penetration. Other Estonian officials deny it. And the media play up both one and the other." (Link to actual cited FreedomHouse report: [60])

(KAPO is an abbreviation for Kaitsepolitsei.)

When I added Estonian Nazi collaborators to the parent category Estonian anti-Communists, Martintg reverted me [61] with the edit summary "Estonian anti-communists aren't Nazi collaborators" (things are clearly the other way around, of couse - Estonians collaborated with Nazi Germany against the USSR were anti-communist - the anti-communist category includes everyone from John F. Kennedy to Adolf Hitler and Pope John Paul). When I explained[62] this, Biophys reverted me again with the edit summary [63] in the same frivolous way - "not every anti-communist was a Nazi collaborator." Same stunt performed at Lithuanian Nazi collaborators. [64] Although ostensibly justified, these are not reverts which constitute abuse of standing Wikipedia policies as a rationale.

When I added Estonian Waffen-SS Officer Alfons Rebane, who volunteered for the German Army during the Nazi occupation of Estonia to Estonian Nazi collaborators, Martintg reverted with the edit summary of "wrong classification". [65]

His use of Wikipedia as a battle ground has been noted by uninvolved users as recently as a few days ago. [66]

PasswordUsername (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take that into consideration. Shell ^babelfish 05:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The syllogism here is that actions such as volunteering to fight against the Soviets is a Nazi collaborator—that is, someone who joins with the enemy in acting against his own nation/people. By every definition of "collaborator", anyone who fought against Soviet reoccupation is not a Nazi collaborator, as those Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians were acting for their nation, not against it. Conversely, individuals such as member of Arajs Kommando, acting against Jewish citizens of Latvia, were clearly Nazi collaborators. This is typical of efforts which promulgate the following fiction:

• Soviet = anti-Nazi
• anti-Soviet = anti-(anti-Nazi)
• anti-Soviet = (anti-anti-) Nazi
• anti-Soviet = pro-Nazi

PasswordUsername is pushing a position clearly untenable based on the facts and what it is that constitutes a collaborator. There is no historical association of true Baltic Nazi collaborators to Baltic anti-Soviet activities in WWII. And closing with "here's other evidence of battleground mentality" is just a red herring to smear another editor. Vecrumba       TALK 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I find the nitpicking ridiculous. Estonia was Nazi-occupied. The Baltics were Nazi-occupied. People who fought in German uniforms for the German army in a Germany-occupied state seem to be collaborators.

At least if they fought for the Nazi side of their own free will. We have Category:Irish Nazi collaborators for just that reason, despite the fact that Ireland was never involved in the war and was never occupied.

That wasn't the point of what I said. In fact, your argument supports my larger one here. I added the Baltic collaborators to the various national anti-communist categories as these joined the Germans to fight the communists. Martintg and Biophys both removed that, and repeatedly pretended I had done something else in their edit summaries. I'm not sure content disputes are best resolved at otherwise unrelated user talk pages. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We've both said our piece here, "Baltic Nazi collaborators" are those that collaborated with the Nazis against citizens of the Baltics, not those that "cooperated" with the Nazis against the Soviets, hence the removals. It is important not to conflate the two as (willing) "collaborators." We can leave whose perspective is correct for others to judge. My main point is that you cannot fault Martintg and Biophys for removing and contend bad-faith "pretending." If you wish a more constructive relationship as you've indicated on my talk (two threats of sanctions aside), then you have to stop with contentions such as "pretending" and I can stop with "syllogisms", no? Vecrumba       TALK 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we both said our piece here. It is important to take the objective definition of who Nazi collaborators were, and contrast it against personal favorable views of people who fought against the Soviets while pledging allegiance to the Nazi occupation forces of their countries. Your rationale also is not what Martintg said - and his rationale was completely different, given his reading of "every X is a Y" as "every Y is an X" in edit summaries multiple times, as demonstrated above. That's quite enough. I am not interested in discussing your personal views on related on unrelated topics. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• waves a white flag - This is exactly the kind of thing you guys don't want to be doing. Ever. Especially not on someone else's talk page. Shell ^babelfish 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Extricating. No need for the white flag. Best regards, Vecrumba       TALK 02:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment, and feel free to add any additional remedies you feel are warranted. I specifically said "Other admins may add additional remedies at their discretion" because I knew other admins might be working on the case. I can't think of a reason why the 3 editors I named should not be placed on 1RR, but if your analysis suggests that is too harsh for them, we can discuss it. Thatcher 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not got anything to do with disagreeing, but having put in a lot of hours and hard work, its kind of like having the wind kicked out of me. I'm going to go have myself a cup of tea and be back later :) Shell ^babelfish 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a notice at the talk page of your project. You did fantastic work. Seriously. After reading your page I decided to retire. I only wish that you completed your investigaion, and in particulat with regard to the user who issued me a death threat. Biophys (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't feel its appropriate to bicker on the AE page, I've left my comments here. I've got no disagreement with using 1RR liberally in an area where reverting is a serious problem; from what I've seen more editors in the subject area could use it. I and other admins that had commented on those reports thought that opening a dialog with the participants and sorting out the whole mess in Russian/Estonian articles was the way to go given the complexity and re-occurring nature of the problem(multiple reports, a trip to AC, closed and re-opened etc.). Due respect would have been allowing that to run its course or at least acknowledging the discussion that led to it; there was no need to rush here. Shell ^babelfish 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please feel free to hold your dialog/negotiations. Being placed on 1RR should not interfere at all, if it is a productive dialog, the other editors will respect it and not edit war either. Nothing would make me happier than to rescind the 1RR on completion of a successful discussion, never having enforced it. Thatcher 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• • You're right - I'm not sure why the threads were re-opened on AE but they certainly don't need to be just left hanging around. I must just be getting old if surprises are starting to get to me :) Shell ^babelfish 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to log the topic ban of Beatle Fab Four in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reminding me. I must have gotten AE and his talk and missed the case log. Shell ^babelfish 22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Shell, thanks so much for going through the threads – I can honestly say that I think all parties appreciate what you are doing. (At least, I never actually thought that somebody would even attempt to put that much in.) Seeing that Thatcher has offered a preliminary result for the Digwuren case and that possibly the others are also at the point of about to be closed by one admin or another after not too long, I'm wondering if you are still reviewing the evidence for WP:AE. Like many others (I am sure), I think there are grounds for further preventive measures to get the edit warring done and over with. From my point of view, the primary antagonists in the recent disputes include others than just myself, Digwuren, Beatle Fab Four, and Offliner (the three placed on 1RR restrictions). (And I am not thinking of any sanctions already in place to be reviewed.) I can provide diffs to you or whoever else is interested in examining them, but if you are working through the cases by yourself, I would prefer to let you do the work without intervention, but as I think that you're perfectly capable of getting a sufficiently broad picture after studying the cases closely, I am not sure if you would think that helpful at this point. (Would there be a better venue to bring this up?) Again, thanks for all of the hard work. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If the current sanctions by Thatcher are going to stay, doesn't Beatle Fab Four's punishment seem too harsh in relation to others? Digwuren has been edit warring at least as much as him, but Beatle's revert to normal edit ratio is higher (perhaps because Beatle has less time). When summed up, the amount of disruption caused by Digwuren is greater, and Digwuren has also been blocked for a year, etc. which Beatle has not. I think a revert prohibition to Beatle would be more fair, at least if Digwuren doesn't get a harsher punishment. Offliner (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as Beatle Fab Four not editing regularly, Offliner is absolutely right. I took a look through some of his recent revert diffs - quite many do appear to be reverts of BLP violations, other semi-damaging BLP innuendos and other non-sense (much of it by Digwuren). Examples like this come to mind: [67] – deleting blog materials from Rene van der Linden); [68] – reverting Digwuren's innuendo that Russian historian Dr. Alexander Dyukov falsifies history; and[69] (How do you respond to a Digwuren edit summary like "Those gosh darn Russian names look all alike to an Englishman ..."?) Beatle Fab Four should be more willing to use talk pages, but I don't think a topic ban is helpful. When he contributes material to talk, it can be extraordinarily helpful. For example, the situation at Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) was horrible as Martintg kept including references he apparently hadn't read, and other editors had called him up on it. Beatle Fab Four was the only one who actually went through all of the books, provided appropriate summaries and problems with the sources involved on the talk page. This kept things stable for months (until Biophys came back with a blind revert days ago, apparently disregarding actually reading the Talk). At least Beatle Fab Four's ability to participate in reverting non-sense about living people in the general topic area (as Beatle had done in the above instances) wouldn't do any harm to Wikipedia. I've only been Wiki-acquainted with Beatle for the past month or so, but these recent edits seem like the bulk of the reversions that he's been doing. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It could also be that my actions were too lenient. There is no strict formula for how disruptive a person is or has to be to deserve a given remedy or sanction. Someone who occasionally reverts, but does so in a particularly abusive manner, could be reasonably seen as a bigger problem than someone who reverts often but without commentary, and negative behavior can outweigh positive contributions. (I haven't looked at BFF's edits and have no opinion on them at this point.) Thatcher 15:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Offliner, as you mentioned, Beatle Fab Four's reverts greatly outweigh any normal edits or discussion; this was not the case with any of the other editors reviewed. To date he and others who support him have only mentioned a single instance where he contributed productively to a discussion (while still reverting of course). I'm sure there are other examples, but again, the decision was based on harm greatly outweighing the good. I think the lesson to take away from all this is that reverting isn't the way to fix disputes; if you have little time, spend it discussing instead of reverting. If all you feel you have time for is drive-by reverting, then honestly, what are you really adding here? Shell ^babelfish 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The sanctions Max was put under were on article creation, not edits to existing articles. I'd say the sanctions and proposed community ban don't really apply to that situation, although I'm sure you'd have consensus to ban if you unblocked and opened a new ANI thread. Ironholds (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to stand on ceremony when the outcome is likely to be the same. I think its clear the intent of the community ban was to stop the disruption by Max should he be unable to follow Wikipedia policies. He obviously does not understand them, does not appear to be able to understand them, has had the benefit of multiple mentors and yet is still unable to understand basic concepts such as sourcing. Shell ^babelfish 11:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I protests about the length of time for Max Mux's block. Can I suggest that he be blocked for one or two months. I think this would be a more appropriate punishment for his crime(s). Please take note of what I have said. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Such a block would be appropriate if there was some indication that he was going to be able to understand policies and follow them when he returns. I don't think that's the case here. Whatever the reason, Max has been unable to understand Wikipedia's basic policies - not just that he doesn't follow them, but he's been unable to explain in his own words what they mean which is why folks are back every other day with a new problem. I think his intentions are good so if someone wants to try speaking with him to see if they can find a way to help him understand things like sourcing, verifiability etc. and he can demonstrate his understanding by explaining how he'd edit one of his articles to bring it in to compliance, then I would be happy to unblock. Shell ^babelfish 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested a way to reduce the amount of clutter that we're likely to have in the envisaged public RfC on Macedonia naming issues. Please see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia#Winnowing proposals - grateful for comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't answer this earlier; we were discussing the best way to move forward. Your thoughts were greatly appreciated :) Shell ^babelfish 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that you were mentoring him at one point. Is this relationship still in effect? If so, you may wish to look at Talk:Harold_Pinter#The_photo_of_Pinter_as_David_Baron; he is clearly operating in good faith, but appears not to understand WP:NFCC and be unwilling to accept that he does not understand it. If the mentorship has ended, my apologies for bothering you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No bother. Unfortunately the mentorship ended unsuccessfully. The problem you mention sounds similar to those that lead to mentorship; NYScholar operates in good faith but is unable to resolve disputes. Once NYScholar decides they are correct on an issue, nothing can dissuade them from pushing the point and they appear to be unable to modify their position or understanding based on discussion with others. I wish I had a suggestion for you, but I was unable to find a way to get through to them. Shell ^babelfish 01:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case I strongly suspect that you will not wish to look at the above link, and I hope for your sake that you didn't. Thanks for trying. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am even more sorry to bother you, because I am going to ask for a big favor. We are unable to make any progress on Harold Pinter while NYScholar continues to block all attempts to revise it. I must admire his persistence. Is there any way, under Wikipedia guidelines, to get him to take a holiday from it and let some other editors attempt to fix it? In it's current form it is so difficult to wade through, and the citation format is so Baroque, plus with a tiger guarding its door, editors are discouraged from even trying. You have much experience with this issue. Is there anything we can do? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans have been proposed here. Your involvement would be appreciated if you feel that you have anything to add. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Shell, you may have a view on WP:AN/I#Ban J.delanoy for Vote Rigging. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chris - I suppose I shouldn't be shocked how many places this has spread to already, but I was. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the effort that many editors (including yourself) are putting in to keep this from getting out of hand. Shell ^babelfish 18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you are involved in the discussion concerning the removal of Proposal G, I am informing you of the request for clarification I have put forth [70]. I am only doing this because I believe that the greater community should have a chance of seeing and evaluating the proposal by itself. I highly regard all of the effort that you have put in this discussion, so far, and wish to thank you for it. --Radjenef (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm terribly impressed with your choice to take this further; I expect that you'll be unhappy with the outcome. Despite the unanimous agreement of the referees and comment from Arbs, you've chosen to push ahead with a proposal that has no chance of succeeding. No one is going to come out of this situation perfectly happy - that's what compromise is about. Shell ^babelfish 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I promise I won't be taking this any further than this request for clarification; this is as far as I'll go. All I want is for the proposal to get a fair chance. If it had no chance of succeeding anyway, then people wouldn't really mind bringing it to the RfC, would they? Why do we have to be all paternalistic towards the community, why can't we let it see for itself and form its own opinion? --Radjenef (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes actually we would mind. This issue has already taken far too much time of the community and the resources that Wikipedia has to offer. Further fragmenting discussion is inappropriate - editors time is much better spent working out compromises that may succeed. If you cannot put aside your own personal feelings on the issue, then perhaps you time would be better spent contributing where you can. Shell ^babelfish 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

After quite a few reversions between a determined IP soapboxer and me over Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/Greece-related, I slapped a semi-protection on it for a day. Is this going to be an issue? You might want to do the same for the other discussion pages, since there is bound to be more of the same. (This one was a pro-Greek editor from Las Vegas, so it's no longer confined to the Balkans.) Horologium (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for grabbing that; I'm not sure about preemptively protecting just yet, but if problems like that keep up, I'll probably change my mind :) Shell ^babelfish 05:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[71] Please note that you are editing the mediation summary. Remember, this note was written by Xandar on a secret page, and when it was finally posted to the mediation page, Xandar refused to discuss this issue. It ended unresolved, as you can see from the mediation page and from the version you originally posted [72]. During the "consultation", Xandar again explicitly refused to discuss this issue. As such, the issue remains unresolved. Whether or not there is a tag, it remains unresolved, and your edits to change the mediation summary do not change that. Gimmetrow 05:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have left a comment here of which you should be aware. The pertinent ongoing discussion was here. Yaf (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of deep disappointment, its sad to see that despite your awareness of the ongoing discussion, you chose to revert repeatedly. I've made further comment over there. Shell ^babelfish 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. When admins won't address the real issue, and when there is no possibility of honest dialogue, and when there is a complete contempt at keeping to the sources, mediations and discussions are worthless. See the failed MedCom discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the warnings such as this. If 3RR is not violated, in such a failure to communicate in good faith, there is really not edit warring going on. Rather, there was simply an attempt at holding Wikipedia to a high standard, whereby article text is verified by the cite. The collateral damage was a 48hr block. The basic underlying problem remains unaddressed. Yaf (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins aren't arbiters of content. If even formal mediation couldn't persuade the group to find common grounds, its unlikely that any resolution will be found without involving outside community members. I understand that you strongly believe your viewpoint is correct, but strong belief isn't a loophole in the guidelines against edit warring. If its as simple as you say, sources not verifying the text, have you put together that information anywhere? I have seen editors taken to ArbCom successfully before due to misrepresenting sources, but it took a lot of work and ironclad evidence. Shell ^babelfish 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, consensus has been reached repeatedly with all but one editor. He alone has proceeded over the last 5+ years to insert article text not supported by cites and has been repeatedly warned, even by two MedCom arbitrators, for making stuff up, repeatedly. The two MedCom admins, incidentally, who mediated, are now members of ArbCom, and were formerly recommending ArbCom take the case to impose sanctions. Unfortunately, the ArbCom members of last year refused to get into content issues, even when mediation committee admins agreed that the one editor had simply made content up while citing his edits with reliable and verifiable sources unrelated to what the editor wrote in article text. Strong belief has nothing to do with determining what is right. The content of the cites, and whether or not article text is verified by cites, is the issue. In the absence of sanctions for an editor who simply does not follow sources, and with an editor who continues writing article text not supported by cites, the system simply breaks down if admins will not look at article content to at least determine when an editor's contributions are totally off the wall, unrelated to what the cites say. "Assume good faith" cannot work in the absence of good faith by a single editor who continuously games the system. In the absence of good faith participation in discussions and the wasted time in discussions ad nauseum that fail to change the behavior of one editor who is not honest, there is not much way to effect a change. The underlying problem is one of editor behavior in not following the cites, and admins refusing to verify article content against cites when a problem is identified. The Wikipedia philosophy is fundamentally flawed in this one area; it results in pseudo-science issues, fraud issues such as Essjay, and a host of similar problems. A noticeboard to report editors who simply make stuff up is needed. This could address editors using cites to reliable and verifiable sources that are unrelated to the article content, and would address the perpetuation of article content fraud, of sorts, by editors who seemingly get their kicks from gaming the system, inserting totally false statements. In answer to your question, yes, I did put together a full list of cases where the editor failed to follow sources. It was part of the ArbCom submission. ArbCom refused to take the case, stating that they did not address article content issues. It cheapens the worth of Wikipedia when there is no way to address out and out fraudulent content inserted by an editor who refuses to follow the rules, while giving the outward appearance of citing article text with reliable and verifiable sources -- the problem is when the article text is not supported by the cite. Without at least looking at article content, and reading/looking at the reference content to see if they match, admins who refuse to get involved while stating they are not arbiters of content are simply perpetuating an article content fraud on readers. It would be possible to remain neutral as an admin, while still checking whether article content is verified by cites, without judging or choosing article content. Simply imposing a sanction on editors who refuse to contribute article text that is verified by relevant cites that support the article text would require no judgement on article content. In the absence of sanctions, an editor who games the system for his twisted enjoyment can live for years within Wikipedia in the shadow of, and protected by, admins who refuse to verify article content with cites when a problem is identified. Yaf (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but if there's only one editor opposing, why were multiple editors reverting you? You are correct that ArbCom will not deal with content, but if an editor is misrepresenting sources, that's a behavior issue, not one of content. I didn't see the original case so I can't comment on why it might have been declined; if its a case of two people interpreting a source differently, that's not the same as a source being misrepresented. Again, Admins are no more arbiters of content than ArbCom is; if you don't have a very clear "here's the statement and the cite, here's what the cite really says" then you're not going to get much help with the situation. It needs to be cut and dry, factual - if its differences over how to interpret a source then dispute resolution is the only way forward. Shell ^babelfish 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There were two editors reverting: Verbal and SaltyBoatr. The remaining issue when you issued the block was this discussion with an additional ongoing RfC dialogue that had not yet closed. The early consensus on the RfC had collapsed with Verbal's comments, but was still under discussion. (An RfC that I had started to try and build a consensus on, I might add.) I made 3 reverts in 24 hours, including trying to include a POV warning tag, but Verbal falsely accused me of 5 reverts in 24 hours; SaltyBoatr threw in a bunch of unrelated old history, dogpiling, and you issued the block immediately upon the impression that SaltyBoatr and Verbal represented the "consensus". The RfC, however, clearly shows two consensi, with the early one, that I had edited into the article earlier, collapsing. This discussion looks pretty clear cut to me, as the most recent example of SaltyBoatr failing to follow sources. There is the article text and there is the cite. I don't think Verbal was even bothering to read and understand the issue. -- It is worth noting that Verbal and SaltyBoatr both use the same editing quirk of making a controversial edit, then immediately requesting an article be protected in their preferred state, while claiming an edit war is underway, without any more than two total reversions between their POV push, a reversion by any editor, and their second POV re-push edit, as a normal method of pushing POV edits. They also both love to use the WP:TE claim. They also both regularly issue edit warring warnings on editors' talk pages whenever an editor reverts but one of their edits, at only one reversion. Most curious similarities. Yaf (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually when I review an edit warring report, I discard any commentary by involved parties. I reviewed the history of the article myself and the talk page, I also reviewed your contribs, block log and talk page history. It was clear without any other person's input that you were edit warring on a page despite ongoing discussion and that this is not nearly the first time you've used edit warring in a content dispute.

At this point it looks like you're pulling at straws; when one tactic of blaming SaltyBoatr (or justifying your edit warring)doesn't work you pull out something else; now its a claim of collusion and gaming the system? If this is what happened with the ArbCom request, its no wonder they didn't take the case. If you have clear evidence that your point of view is correct on the RfC then you should be able to convince other editors and gather a clear consensus. The sooner you understand that there is no justification for edit warring, the more enjoyable your time will be here. Shell ^babelfish 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When a problem is complex, it is not possible to describe all the problems as being but one problem. The sooner that a method for sanctioning editors who game the system is implemented, the sooner Wikipedia also would be a better resource for readers. So, what do you propose I do to correct clear and simple content inaccuracies due to one editor, when the editor clearly fails to follow cites and simply continues to make stuff up? Edit warring failed to work. 3O failed to work. RfC has failed to work (multiple times). MedCom (multiple times) failed to work. Reporting 3RR on SaltyBoatr has failed to work (I was blocked for 96 hours for 1RR on my 3rd block when I reported a 5RR series of edits by SaltyBoatr against the community that resulted in his 4th or 5th block.) Requesting ArbCom take the case failed to work. In the cases of the 3O, RfC, and MedCom (2 times), a clear consensus was always reached previously with all parties except for SaltyBoatr. The suggested and politically correct admin solution is always to discuss more and not edit war. OK. So what is the solution. After about 12 MB of discussions with SaltyBoatr, nothing has ever been resolved. SaltyBoatr has always refused to abide by consensus. Are you saying it is better to let clearly false content simply reside in Wikipedia and allow a single editor to insert fraudulent content repeatedly, to push a POV? Are you saying it is better to let certain editors drive productive editors away, such as here? I certainly understand the frustration of editors who attempt to fix fraudulent content, and simply leave the community. I also wonder if it would be better simply to give up on the basic Wikipedia model as being fundamentally flawed. I have made quite a number of positive contributions to Wikipedia, but am nearing the point where it is clearly becoming a fool's errand to try and keep article content free from clearly fraudulent claims. I have known several Ph.D.s such as myself on Wikipedia who have tried to fight the tide of fraudulent content over the last 5+ years. Most have simply left Wikipedia in sheer frustration. Perhaps it is time for me to leave as well. Yaf (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My only point here has been that edit warring doesn't work and more to the point, can end up getting you blocked. I appreciate your frustration and I'm afraid I don't have any easy answers. Until the community does have an answer, we have to work with what we've got. If you want, I can see if I can think of any other solutions - is there any place that would briefly describe both sides of the issue or at least the sticking point that keeps being the problem? Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, the problem encompasses many articles. The best summary of articles affected is probably here, and the complete talk page and RfMediation page of that discussion probably give the best description of both sides of the longrunning issue. The issue has since spread to another two or three dozen articles since this summary. Incidentally, I have never opposed any article text supporting even his selected limited range of talking points, provided reliable and verifiable cites are used. But, his insertion of article content based upon making up stuff and not following cites has been an ongoing issue that has only worsened over the last 5+ years. Any help or insight you provide is greatly appreciated. Yaf (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats, well, complex - I can see why its difficult to get help on the topic. I did find the rejected ArbCom request - was an RfC on Saltyboatr's conduct ever started? When did Verbal become involved - I don't think I see them in any of the earlier discussions I've looked at. Shell ^babelfish 04:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of Yaf's criticism of me written above is baseless innuendo and slander. The allegation that I don't stick to sources is especially wrong. If you check my edit history you will see that I base my editing on meticulous research. It is telling that Yaf views this issue as a personal problem of me 'bashing Yaf'[73] while this should instead be about trying to improve the quality of the articles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering your question about when did Verbal get involved: I believe that Verbal stepped into this on June 11th after seeing a notice posted on the NPOV/Noticeboard, and he was trying to bring peace to this edit war[74] and we also should object to Yaf's character smears of User:Verbal written above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

At the advice of several admins, the ArbCom filing was used instead of the RfC, being that sanctions could come from ArbCom whereas none would be available from starting an RfC. Sanctions were clearly needed, as the lengthy mediations (on Hunting weapon, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution) and discussions resulting from other activities (3O, article RfCs, Noticeboards, etc.) had resulted in no positive outcome and literally only led to megabytes of useless discussions that ultimately all proved fruitless. I even hesitated to respond here, being clearly wiki-stalked. Yaf (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually don't respond to bots, or automated messages of any kind. The only thing I actually signed up for was the newsletter for WP:MILHIST.

As for the bulk of the article being a "direct" and "blatant" copy, it was not. In the last few edits I made to the page, I re-wrote it for the express purpose of removing the original text and replacing it with my own version. There are, however, only so many ways you can say the same thing. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 12.06.09 1745 (UTC)

Uh...I know I re-worded a significant portion of it. But honestly, I'm too tired to care what happens to it right now. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 13.06.09 0523 (UTC)

Thanks for your bravery in telling the facts here. Your input was the key to making sure that action was taken. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Kevin Rivers non-notable or did I make a bad call? Was sure before, not too sure now. -WarthogDemon 01:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say its very borderline - it looks like Watunes may be notable, but Kevin Rivers may not be outside of that particular endeavor, so I don't think your instincts were off base here. Right now the references given say little or nothing about Kevin and the article reads like a promo piece for Watunes. However, since there is some attempt to show notability, it probably isn't good speedy material - personally, I'd give it a bit to see if the editor has anything more significant to add and then put it up at AfD. Shell ^babelfish 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm appealing the restriction issued by Thatcher [75] here: [76]. Since you prepared the original EE report [77] and I mention you, I thought it was only proper to drop you a note.radek (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply to you! I would like to take up your offer to help resolve the issues myself and Lovejonesfly. I personally think that every editor is here to help the project and editors that are not doing so, and continue to do so are counteracting this. I would really like some help as to where to go from here. Your help is gratefully appreciated! Dt128 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry it's nothing. He's mad because he found out his edits were wrong. He reverted my edits on the "Solange Knowles discography" page. User:Papa November reverted his edits back to mine and blocked/protected the page from his edits. That's all! Nothing to really worry, but feel free consult me. Lovejonesfly (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lovejonesfly, I've looked into the issue and I think you're a bit confused. Papa November reverted to a version before both of you started edit warring, protected the page and directed both of you to use the talk page of the article to sort out your differences; I see you removed Papa November's note explaining the situation on your talk page with the comment that it was "disruptive" - that's not a particularly pleasant way to handle things and makes me think that you don't realize that you are being just as disruptive as Dt128. Since you erase everyone's edits from your talk page almost as soon as they are made, it makes it very difficult for anyone to have a discussion with you.

For both of your, here's the thing: Clearly, you have different styles of writing and organization - what everyone has been trying to tell you is that edit warring to get your way isn't the way to handle the difference of opinion and is going to get you blocked. How about we forget anything that's happened in the past and start fresh on Talk:Solange Knowles discography? You'll notice another editor (User:Kww) has already mentioned that neither of your versions is exactly correct - that looks like a good starting point to work out a compromise that you both can accept. If I'm going to help mediate this, I'm going to have to ask both of your to focus on the content and try to calmly describe your opinion and the reasons for it - attacking other editors, calling them wrong, not out to help the project or just generally being rude to each other isn't going to help the situation. Shell ^babelfish 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually as I've already told Papa November, I can care less what either of them do the Solange page. Because neither of them (Dt128, Papa November, and Solange Knowles disc.) is worth my time. I left that between them. Again, as I previous stated over and over, I trying to help him "Dt128". Now what you and Papa November are missing and keep missing for whatever matter is the fact that I'm discussing this like an adult. So with all do respect, please read the citation before coming up with a conclusion. I've tried to nicely say what was needed to say. Who cares because if you want to revert the page then do it. I'm not going to revert because I don't care. I know your trying to help but please leave me alone about the stupid page. It's just a Wikipedia page that can edited into different format depending on the user or whoever is editting the article. I've already told Dt128 and Papa November to leave me alone about the article, and they got the message. However, what I do care about is helping others and I can't do that if you and everyone is interrupting me. "This message will not be recorded into my archive". Thank you for consulting however, you were very much appreciated! Lovejonesfly (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm sorry to hear that you don't want to work this out, however, if you've decided to leave it be and not revert the page any further, I suppose that solves the problem as well. Shell ^babelfish 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're lacking to understand. I'm not saying I don't want to work it out. I'm saying I don't care about what they do to the page. Lovejonesfly (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, ok - like I said, since it seems like you're saying you aren't planning to revert any further, that should solve the problem. Shell ^babelfish 03:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I left off some words. Ok read it now! Lovejonesfly (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Shell Kinney,

You provided solid reason why NYScholar should be banned. After NYScholar was banned, Abd has argued that since you are an involved editor, I shouldn't have counted your arguments while closing the discussion! Please read his arguments at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. You should also analyze User:Abd/Sandbox. Would you like to give your input? You can provide your input at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. AdjustShift (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I find Abd's commentary about most discussions to be self-serving and full of drama which generally means I avoid them like the plague. To call me "involved" because I mentored the editor for six months in an attempt to avoid this outcome is ludicrous as I'm sure any editor with a clue will decide. Like all the rest of Abd's crusades, this is bound to go nowhere beyond wasting a lot of folks time. Isn't it curious that he feels so strongly about this ban but hand-waves off any suggestion to talk with ArbCom about it? Shell ^babelfish 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep! He keeps on positing needless comments at WT:BAN. Can you provide your input at WT:BAN? AdjustShift (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd's needless comments has certainly wasted my time. Can you make one strong comment at WT:BAN? AdjustShift (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. My intentions notwithstanding, I cannot finish. :) I had started at the top and was working my way down. Besides articles this contributor created (which I've checked), I'm down to June 28. I have not yet checked Gausganj or any of the articles before it. If you don't know, some of his favorite sources are [78], [79] and [80]. That last one is handily searchable! I appreciate your pitching in here. I'm going to leave him a note letting him know that I have removed his contributions from a number of articles if there was preexisting text that could be restored. (sigh) I tumbled on this one, by the way, at WT:C, where there is a conversation about when close paraphrases should be speedily deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And I see that you're moving to CP, which is also a tremendous help. :) If this doesn't get finished today, I'll get it on as quickly as I can. I must run, as I am now dangerously behind both on Wikipedia and in the real world, where they can do things like threaten to fire you. :D (I work from home, but if I don't produce on time, well.....) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like even the majority of his contribs elsewhere are pastes from the same set of sites. I also found Indianetzone being used. I'll pick away at that some more later and leave a note on where I give up for the day if I can't get through it. CP suddenly seemed so much easier :-)

I do understand working from home, fun with Wikipedia but it does keep you on your toes. Not to worry, someone'll keep the wiki from falling apart just in case you have to spend extra time irl today :D Shell ^babelfish 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gene Bucker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No relevant non-wiki ghits for this author; no gnews, gbook, or gscholar hits. No listing at Amazon or Worldcat. There is a Gene Brucker who may be notable (List_of_Guggenheim_Fellowships_awarded_in_1960#1960_U.S._and_Canadian_Fellows, #33), but does not appear to be this person.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good call - looks like the IP that submitted the article for creation mixed up Gene Bucker and Gene Brucker initially; what's left doesn't assert any sort of notability. Thanks for catching that! Shell ^babelfish 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have been working on the Harold Pinter article (you previously commented on the proposed ban of NYScholar from that article. If you are interested in the article or willing to help out, your input would be most welcome. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can do to help - fair warning, my expertise lies in geekdom/science/math so don't be afraid to whack me with a trout if I miss something obvious :D Shell ^babelfish 15:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Whack you with a trout? Interesting! I'll try it! :-) Great job at helping to identify ways to cut down the linkfarm. As I said on the talk page, I mostly implemented your suggestions and also cut some other things. See if you agree with what I did. Is the format ok? It looks kinda ugly for some reason. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I find trout works much better than minnow in any case. I hear you about the ugliness - maybe we're just not used to seeing so much stuff? I'm going to browse around a bunch of FAs and see how external links are handled - so long as we're heading in that direction, that's a good thing. I'll have to tell you, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to clean up the references - I assume that not all of those are actually used as sources? Since the notes section seems to be used as references and not "notes" (see the difference at Catholic Church for example where notes are, well, notes) I'm wondering if the duplication is necessary - again though, I'm going to have to hit up MOS and guidelines and see what would be expected if this were going to FAR. Shell ^babelfish 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm strike that - most of "notes" in the Pinter article is page number references and short citations, so the full references should be given. It does make sense to sort out which are used as sources from any other "further reading" though. Shell ^babelfish 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Check the Pinter talk page. I think we're making progress on the whole ref situation. I've been fixing the formatting. Jez is going to split the reflist into "References" and "Further Reading" tomorrow. If you feel up to it, why don't you check the online refs, and see if they really support the proposition for which they are cited in the text. The refs should be understandable by any reader - one shouldn't have to be a famous (though anonymous) professor to figure it out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Townhall of Münster Award goes to Shell Kinney for helping to end the Thirty Months Macedonian naming wars. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And now for the party …

There are drinks at this party, yes? And thank you for all of your effort putting together proposals, suggesting compromises and in general helping everyone keeping chugging toward a consensus. Shell ^babelfish 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's all quietened down I thought I would come and thank you for your assistance when I was blocked earlier this week. As you can imagine it is extremely frustrating when you feel you have been unjustly blocked. I wont witter one so I will just leave you with a heart felt thank you.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I'm just glad everyone finally sorted out the situation before it snowballed any further. Now if we can just get you a stress ball or a friendly ear to rant and rave to, hopefully we won't ever have something like that happen again :D Shell ^babelfish 23:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)