User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Well!

If we had a user award for clearsightedness, I would award it to you for this edit!- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 05:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have my days :D Just a suggestion though, you might want put up a big flashy sign (or maybe just a neutral explanation ;) ) at the head of the merge discussion to point out the fact that that article is based on 90% primary sources except for two mainstream articles about a single incident - its very likely that folks are going to miss that especially since we tend to assume good faith and wouldn't immediately assume that someone is misattributing a source. Shell ^babelfish 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE ADOPT ME

I wantwed an admin who fights vandals. I need you.--TheWave (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

The thing that got under my skin is that I had finally backed off from that guy, stopped watching his page, stopped watching his activities, etc., and then he goes dragging my name up again. If not for that, I wouldn't care even if the topic ban were revoked. Let him and others slug it out over the Obama pages. I stopped working with those pages months ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You were impressed by something I did? Wow! May I quote you on that, for the next time I run for admin? :) Actually, (1) I don't what you're referring to specifically, but I appreciate the comment; and (2) I'm figuring on running again shortly after I get elected as the Pope. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The one thing that probably irritates me more than anything is when someone adopts the attitude of a junior high schooler and says, "I won't talk to you anymore - n'yah, n'yah!" I figure anyone who I've had a disagreement with, we can work it out through discussion - but not if they slam the door in my face. I made some effort at trying to reach out, and he finally gave me the junior high lecture, and I completely stopped trying on the 8th. And there he shows up 2 days later claiming I'm still harassing him. What a weasel. Another editor with whom I've had words in the past, Caspian Blue, came to my defense on CoM's page, and even though CB and CoM are on friendly terms, he basically said "F.U." to CB as well (not that way, but same idea). I was quite taken by CB's magnanym-, magnunim-, um, niceness. So out of every loss, there is some gain. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here he refers to "many (most?)" wikipedians as "psycopathic" [sic] [1] Maybe he should restate that on his request for lowering the topic ban. Might help his case, ja? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bingo!

[2] - Bingo!
from yet another QuackGuru accused sockpuppet --stmrlbs|talk 06:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for making the edits to Chile. I am relatively new to the community, and was not exactly sure how to go about making edits to the protected page. Glad I went about it properly (if I did approach it in an unorthodox fashion, please let me know). Thanks again! Cmiych (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You did it properly; those were clear grammatical errors that needed cleaned up - for those types of edits (spelling fixes too) you can usually just suggest them on your own with {{editprotected}}. If you ever come to a time when an article has been protected over a dispute and you'd like to change things that are part of that dispute, just make sure that you have a consensus to do so first - admins won't make a protected edit if there isn't general agreement to make it. Shell ^babelfish 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

More disruptive edits from User:QuackGuru

[3] [4]

I acknowledge that my edit [5] likely looks disruptive as well... i didnt mean to remove the comments only the closing of the discussion but was undone before i could undo my own edit...

this user has been previously indef-blocked for edit warrning and blocked for disruptive editing... and should know better... his edit warring continues and so does his disruptive editing (as you saw yesterday)... can something not be done?

70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note there and un-did the discussion close; clearly there's not yet a consensus on how to handle the article and this needs more discussion/community input. Shell ^babelfish 07:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurymedon vase

Hi Shell. Any problem with me just rejecting this? There haven't been any previous methods of dispute resolution so we can direct them there. Hope you're well :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I didn't mean to hold that up. I had just noticed the framing was a bit off and hadn't thought to look at prior dispute resolution. I think I've recovered from the Macedonian naming dispute, thanks :D Shell ^babelfish 03:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kindly re-consider my complaint solely based on its contents

I was not aware if someone had already filed a complaint based on my rough/un-detailed contents which I had posted on some administrator's talk page and on some un-related notice board. I have gathered enough sources to document this case based on the template of this notice-board now, I request Administrators to look into my contents and PLEASE DECIDE. As previously complained by another editor, User:YellowMonkey is already facing POV charges at "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" where Editor in questions, i.e. User:Wikireader41 is the only editor supporting User:YellowMonkey. So while considering this relationship, I make a humble request to kindly make an impartial decision on my complaint which I am putting below:

• Page: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wikireader41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and (and IP 209.224.239.164 (talk · contribs · 209.224.239.164 WHOIS) )
• Previous version reverted to: [6]
• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]
• Repeat Offender: Wikireader41 was previously blocked for WP:EW and WP:POV violations.
• Warning: Warned by other editor
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

July 9th 2009 – Initially the text was being tagged by editors but Wikireader41 kept deleting the tags, see here and here

July 9th 2009 - Wikireader41 asked for some reference from opposing editors (ideally to accept their logic), which was provided to him

July 14th 2009 – After receiving no further challenge from Wikireader41, another editor cut and moved the text in question to the article’s talk page to reach wp:consensus but Wikireader41, after putting an unrealistic demand for at-least 1000-10000 further references, he reverted the article and kept on reverting it . By doing so he has clearly violated wp:consensus, by forcefully restoring the text (which was never deleted but actually preserved in the talk page) he has violated wp:pov and by reverting this article several times he has violated WP:EW.

This editor Wikireader41 and IP User: 209.224.239.164 is clearly the same editor, however there's now four reverts from the account User:Wikireader41 anyway. Despite this case, User:Wikireader41’s previous history shows that he is a known violator of wp:pov and WP:EW , which resulted in his previous “48 Hours of Blocking ” by respected Wikipedia Administrators. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As previously complained by another editor, User:YellowMonkey is already facing POV charges at "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" where Editor in question, i.e. User:Wikireader41 is the only editor supporting User:YellowMonkey. So while considering this relationship, I make a humble request to you to make an impartial decision on my complaint. Please do not reply on User:YellowMonkey in this specific scenario. .--99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also User:YellowMonkey had already protected the page after recieving a message from User:Wikireader41. So in other words he was not aware of my detailed complaint in this case. Hence! It need your kind attention. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you want to gave done here? The article has already been protected which means that there is no further edit warring so there won't be any more reverts. That would seem to solve the problem, right? Shell ^babelfish 08:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Respected Administrator, I am OK with page protection, but how about all the wikipedia policy violations which I have proved in my complaint above. I have spent several hours to gather all the proofs, I strongly believe that wiki admins should be able to atleast warn/block the edit warrior (who is happen to be a known POV pusher (he was blocked previously under same charges in the past). And as I proved his association with User:YellowMonkey (above), User:YellowMonkey might not be willing to act against him. I have strong faith in wiki admins, if you could not protect wiki policies from known wiki policy violators and could not take any action against the (proved) culprit, i.e. User:Wikireader41, then where would we go?

• It is my humble request, that please review the facts/proofs in my complaint and kindly make your own decision and please do not rely on User:YellowMonkey's decision in this specific case. I will be OK with whatever decision you make after reviewing the facts--99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well here's what I see: YellowMonkey was reported on a noticeboard; the only uninvolved person that responded agreed that YellowMonkey's actions were appropriate. You might disagree with YellowMonkey, but that does not mean that he's not acting appropriately. In this case it seems like the report for being POV was unwarranted.

As far as the information about Wikireader41, it looks like he and several other editors are involved in what we call a content dispute. Obviously, you disagree with Wikireader41's ideas on how the article should be written, but that doesn't make him necessarily wrong or mean that he's not acting appropriately. The edit warring was certainly a bad idea, but that's why the page is protected. There were several people edit warring and rather than block the bunch (and since it doesn't seem like blocks would stop the problem), YellowMonkey chose to protect the page which basically forces you guys to work out the problem. I think I would have done the same thing.

As I said on the edit warring noticeboard, it looks like what you need to do is discuss the content issues and work out a compromise that everyone can agree with. The page on dispute resolution covers many methods that you can use to resolve issues like this on Wikipedia.

Article disagreements happen and they don't have to result in people being blocked or banned. Sometimes you just need to bring in a fresh set of eyes or find a new way to resolve your differences. Shell ^babelfish 09:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin, Thanks a lot for this kind consideration. I am feeling realy relieved that atleast some listened to me on wiki violations. I will take your advice positively ... Have a good morning :) ..--99.51.223.161 (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

I came across this, which seems wrong to me. It has a "talkarchive" header, but clearly is not an archive. I'm not sure where it came from, but think the page should redirect to Talk: Catholic Church and the contents be archived (could be 4a) on that page. Do you see any problems with that? If not, I will proceed to do that. Sunray (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - I think someone else put the archive header there. I must have forgotten to redirect it after I switched the talk pages around - thanks for catching that :) Shell ^babelfish 12:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hoped it was something that simple. Sunray (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

quick question about POV tag

What is the Wikipedia standard for this? If an article has a {{POV}} tag, and the POV/NPOV is being discussed on the talk page, should the POV be removed because there is a discussion, or remain until the discussion ends (and hopefully some consensus is reached)? --stmrlbs|talk 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. That may be my fault since when there were two templates, I left the {{POV-check}} instead of the {{POV}} template in place. I believe the POV tag explicitly says that the tag should remain so long as the dispute is in place. Shell ^babelfish 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 23:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church (the sequel)

There is some new action on this. [11] Would you be willing to take a look? Sunray (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It was bound to happen. Shell ^babelfish 20:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention, it was well timed. I had to be somewhere else and wasn't sure which way it was going to go. Looks like it may be settling down now. (At least until the next time).  :) Sunray (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward with dispute resolution

I have started this discussion in a good faith attempt to resolve this ongoing dispute. Any help you can lend in terms of mediating the discussion will be appreciated. Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 20:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you could advise me

Hello. Recently you weighed in on an RFC dispute over sources at Talk:Herodotus where you appeared to agree with my assessment of the situation. The discussion has now reached a dead end with no resolution. From my point of view it is a simple rules violation and should have ended long ago with the exclusion of the material in question. A majority of the users who have weighed in over there appear to also agree. Yet the original editor continues to re-insert the material[12] (without even the bother of an edit summary) in violation, I believe, of WP:Burden. Doesn't he have to make his case definitively before he can add the stuff back in?

Could you please advise me on what my next step should be? Is it time for formal mediation? I don't feel that he communicates in good faith as he continually ignores any point that goes to the heart of the matter. (I also feel like I'm being tag-teamed by another editor/admin who has historically come to his aid.) I don't want to get caught up in an edit war and yet what more can one do than revert material that violates the rules? Should I use the "Uw-unsourced" template on his talk page as a warning? As you can see I find myself on uncertain ground here. I'd appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks, Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a clear consensus for or against including that material at this time since several editors have both supported and opposed the inclusion. You may want to try further dispute resolution such as an informal mediation with the WP:MEDCAB. I would not suggest warning the other editor in this case since I don't believe there is a clear reason to do so; based on the conversations and the support of more than one person, they likely believe in good faith that they are doing the right thing just as you believe in good faith that including it is not the right thing. Its just going to take a bit more work to settle something that you both can agree to - have you tried suggesting any compromises? Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Things heating up...

significantly over at the R. L. Hymers article. I deleted this from the article, left this message on the user's page. You can see the editor's response and my reply. Any suggestions/feedback? Thanks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I saw this coming - Scooge and someone claiming to be affiliated with Hymers had recently clashed on another website and are now importing the feud here. I strongly support liberal blocking if any more shenanigans occur. Shell ^babelfish 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New page development

Hello,

I want to publish a page regarding an Organization and have created a write - up also keeping all the rules and regulations of Wiki in mind. I wanted to get it reviewed and have it published. It would be great if you could assist me.

Waiting for your reply --Peswriter (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comics Guaranty LLC

I ran across the Comics Guaranty LLC page while doing typo patrol, and I couldn't help but notice that it's been semi-protected for over half a year. I am, however, not familiar with the article; is there any reason for it to be still protected? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism by a rather persistent banned editor. I'd tried short protections twice before, but the vandal returned shortly after protection was lifted. Since the article is low traffic, I'm hoping we can be more patient than him. :D If you'd like to give a shot at unprotecting, I wouldn't mind - I hate to leave an article in that state any longer than necessary. Shell ^babelfish 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lotus Blossom f/k/a 7thDr block

I strongly disagree with this block. The original rationale, violation of 3RR, was baseless. There were only two reverts. And one of them to deal with vandalism by an obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet with an IP address in Fairfield Iowa. There was no attempt to avoid the 3RR rule, the name change was obvious, and explained to all because the editor got fed up with being mistaken for a male. The "new" rationale for a ban is equally specious. The edits in question were pursuant to a suggestion by a neutral, disinteresed admin, WillBeback, who only got into the case following the refusal of some editors to abide by WP:COI. And the threats and incivility have been all in the other direction. Fladrif (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The original block was for edit warring and personal attacks; saying that other editors did it too is not an excuse to be unblocked. As of yet, 7thDr hasn't even indicated that he understands why the block happened, which leaves me with no choice but to leave the block in place.

When I determined that 7thDr was using another account to avoid the block I investigated further. The second account was not being used properly - if 7thDr would like to use only that account, I'd be happy to reverse the blocks - but one does not use an alt account for participating in a discussion twice, edit warring along with your first account and certainly not to make personal attacks on other editors. After blocking Lotus Blossom, 7thDr continued to evade his block using other sleeper sock accounts. This is a very serious concern now. Shell ^babelfish 01:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Gopal Subramaniam and James Augustus Rooth

Hi Shell, thanks for the histpurges on these. One thing that bugs me though, I believe that you have purged both a bit too far in their history. Both had had the copyvio mostly removed by others but the articles are now credited to me (James) or a bot (Gopal). Is there any way to fix that so that the correct authors are attributed?

Thanks, and sorry for being a pain about this. MLauba (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I could take a look again, but I actually stopped after those two because I noticed the timestamps you gave didn't match up exactly with what I was seeing as timestamps. Is it possible that some setting in options could be showing two different times based on our timezones? The timestamps were close, but if they were actually off by a few hours due to my settings or something, that would explain why you're not seeing as many revisions as you think you should. I'm sorry I forgot to leave a note about this earlier - I did mean to :D Shell ^babelfish 09:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we had already recognized that issue a couple of days back, at WT:COPYCLEAN#Busy, busy... and here comes MLauba with his history purges. I reset my own prefs to UTC following this, but it's indeed a major pain in the backside. MLauba (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah darn, missed that. I set mine back to UTC and was able to fix the two articles. Glad you caught that! Shell ^babelfish 10:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

You'll notice that my "attacks" were directed less at the user in question, and more at the attitude the user's userboxes conveyed. It's 2:41 AM here now, but I will be happy to discuss this further tomorrow if desired. Keepscases (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, we all need sleep. I will say though that you continue to downplay the attacks (using quotations this time) which is why I can't withdraw my support at this time. If you don't feel there was anything inappropriate in the way you handled the situation then it really leaves me no ground to stand on in opposing the ban. Shell ^babelfish 06:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still maintain that my comment was based on the userboxes the candidate selected (I believe I said "the userboxes paint a picture of a candidate who is..." or something to that effect). As I've said before, if someone selects userboxes that make him look like a jerk, I don't believe I'm in the wrong to assume he's a jerk. Anyway, I appreciate your participation and thoughtfulness. Keepscases (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely understandable - userboxes can certainly lead you to conclude that someone is a "jerk", my only concern is that you express your conclusions without actually calling them a "jerk". I think the fact that you mention atheism (and said the whole wikiproject shouldn't be admins) instead of focusing on the userboxes may have been what led editors to be concerned that you were targeting a specific group. Anyways, best of luck going forward! Shell ^babelfish 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject will have my blessing if they denounce hateful userboxes; there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, nor is there anything wrong with working on atheism-related articles. Keepscases (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC

Re your comment at Rlevse's talk, he helicoptered in and started shooting in all directions without first getting up to speed on the case. Just an ordinary day for an arb. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, he might have gotten some of the details wrong, but he is right about parties of a case blocking each other. My only concern was the confusion between the ban length and if he meant to say that someone could come along later and change a sanction without talking about it. Doesn't look like that's the case now that he's up to speed. Shell ^babelfish 05:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re

Responded to your question on my talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I actually didn't quite ask the question that I wanted, but you've answered it in later clarification. Shell ^babelfish 05:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, Shell. I think I may have figured out what you meant in this comment. I've added a clarification, "Supporting a position is not 'derailing'", to my own comment to try to overcome the mistaken appearance: [13]. I hope this succeeds in making my meaning clearer. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No actually that's not really it. While the comment came off a bit harsher than I intended, what I was trying to say is that having GoRight and yourself follow Abd around and claim that he's not misbehaving in every dispute resolution discussion about him isn't at all helpful to the process. "Derail" probably isn't a good word there, but I think the spirit is correct. The evidence and comments by you and GoRight would appear credible if they at least acknowledged the community's concerns rather than this constant insistence that nothing Abd has ever done is wrong or disruptive. I'm sure I've done things wrong from time to time and I would hope that folks I'm friendly with on Wikipedia would have the courtesy to call me on it, rather than pretend otherwise. Without good feedback, how can we grow?

I guess the bottom line is: Can you honestly look at the times he's encouraged banned users to circumvent their bans or the times he's called everyone "involved" that didn't support his outcome (oddly, those who do support him and meet the same criteria aren't involved) and still say that there is nothing wrong with his behavior? Shell ^babelfish 05:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've criticized Abd at times, and he's refactored comments in response to my criticisms. I haven't commented on every aspect of Abd's behaviour; that doesn't necessarily mean I approve of things I haven't commented on. I haven't been involved in every dispute resolution discussion about Abd. People with different positions may disagree about what is or isn't helpful to a process. It's mainly the word "derail" that I disagree with.

Abd is complaining about people appearing in multiple discussions and always taking the same sides, and now you're making essentially the same complaint about me and GoRight. Either it's OK for everyone, or it isn't OK for everyone.

I acknowledge that many people have concerns about Abd's behaviour. I realize that Abd has made mistakes and that some things he's done have led to some disruption (although others were involved in the chains of events too).

I'm not aware of any situation where Abd has encouraged a banned user to circumvent their ban. I'm not sure whether I've seen situations where he's called everyone on one side "involved"; if I did, it would require taking time to study the situation in order to figure out whether I agreed with that or not.

I haven't used the word "cabal" myself; I've only argued against those who seemed to me to be making inaccurate or exaggerated statements about Abd's use of the word.

I hope this helps clarify my position. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well crap, I suppose it was my fault for looking only at the behavior of the two named parties and not realizing that everyone there seems to be involved in the underlying Cold Fusion dispute, including yourself. In that case I'll probably add some evidence about the things I'm referring to with regard to banned users and wikilawyering. Must be the summer heat ;) Shell ^babelfish 08:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Amendment

Hello, I leave this message to inform you that I am seeking amendment and an ArbCom review of the Falun Gong topic ban you imposed. See [14]. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Shell ^babelfish 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT on species

Hi,

Please don't capitalise specific and infraspecific epithets in the DEFAULTSORTs of taxon articles like this. I don't know where this sudden push to capitalise the first letter of every word in the DEFAULTSORT came from, but it was challenged and removed from WP:CAT a while back; yet people continue pushing it through with AWB. I've just had a long dispute with Rich Farmborough over this; see User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Defaultsorts on species, User talk:Rich Farmbrough#DEFAULTSORT on species again, User talk:Rich Farmbrough#DEFAULTSORT on species AGAIN_2. Please don't make me go through all this again. :-(

Hesperian 23:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you've got a link to the WP:CAT discussion, it would probably be a good idea to take this to the guys that maintain AWB and get them to change the rule. That way you don't have to wear yourself out running around to tell every AWB user :) Anyways, I appreciate you letting me know AWB was doing something no longer supported by consensus. Shell ^babelfish 08:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nguyen Review on Quackwatch

Shell, could you offer some help in a 6 day edit war over the addition of this statement "Nguyen-Khoa stated that the implementation of a peer review process would improve the site's legitimacy." to the Nguyen review in the Site Review section of the Quackwatch wikipedia article? The statement was derived from this statement "A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation." in the Nguyen review of the Quackwatch site which appears in the Consultant Pharmacist (American Society of Consultant Pharmacists. ). Quackguru has been reverting it for 6 days now with various reasons. Here is the last revert He is now claiming that Nguyen's view that peer-review would improve the Quackwatch site is a tiny minority view and therefore should not be in the article, as per WP:Weight. Can you give some guidance in this matter of WP:Weight if you have time? Here is the section on the talk page: Talk:Quackwatch#Nguyen_Review. I would appreciate any help you can give in this matter. --stmrlbs|talk 08:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The best advice I can give you on this and other disputes with this same small group of people is to get more editors involved somehow. It should be pretty obvious by now that QuackGuru tends to be on the polar opposite of yourself and Levine; there's nothing wrong with that, but it does make it difficult for you guys to work out your differences into some kind of compromise.

After looking at the history of Quackwatch it does appear that QuackGuru is edit warring; I'm a bit concerned though that we've got anons popping up again and its a bigger concern that they always seem to pop up just in time to make it look like QuackGuru is the only one edit warring. I guess I'm going to have to ask a checkuser to flush the bin once and for all. Let me do some investigating and then I'll see if I can't wade in there too. Shell ^babelfish 12:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please check all the IPs for sockpuppets. The new IPs are making changes both ways. 86.146.119.24, 86.134.240.225 86.146.119.24 are all supporting Quackguru's reverts, In fact QuackGuru came to the defense of this IP, uncharacteristic of someone who is usually accusing all IPs of being sockpuppets). These IPs seem to have some personal vendetta and prior knowledge based on the remarks on their edit summmaries. The other IPs,166.205.131.73 69.234.129.52 support my Nguyen review changes. I would welcome a sockpuppet check.

To be honest, I don't like protecting a page like this against IPs, because they are usually the only new editors - but unfortunately, most of them don't go to the talk page to discuss their edits. A lot of them really are fly-by editors. 70.71.22.45 seems to an exception and has learned to participate in the talk discussions; but I wish he would register because, as I've told him, people (like me) just don't remember IP numbers. --stmrlbs|talk 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.174.126.62

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.174.185.155

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.154.164.246

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.173.111.155

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.173.129.141

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.174.109.187

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.133.106.62

The editor Stmrlbs welcomes an IP check. Here is a list of IP socks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shell, please check these IPs against both me AND Quackguru. The IPs he just posted mysteriously appeared in a past discussion, then Quackguru used accusations of sockpuppetry to drive the discussion away from the content, as he is now doing at the Quackwatch page [15]. He is now also making accusations on his User Talk Page This is a pattern of QuackGuru's. [16] the rest of the section where QG accuses everyone who doesn't share his POV of being sockpuppets. Another example Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_30#Mysterious_IP_reverts. Then QuackGuru files an "incident" without notifying anyone, slapped sockpuppet templates saying that these IPs were suspected sockpuppets of me: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23], again without telling anyone - and I see he has done it again: [24]. Nor did he mention in the incident report that he repeated vandalized Levine's user page twice, [25][26]and replaced it with a big Sockpuppet accusation, even though QuackGuru had filed no WP:SPI report. When he was told to take it to the sockpuppet board, both at the admin board, and on the chiropractic pages - he never did - said it was "stale".

So, imo, this is just a tactic QuackGuru uses to harass other editors and to try to drive them away. I also think it is an interesting coincidence that these IPs seem to pop up when QuackGuru wishes to try to discredit other editors. So, I would appreciate a checkuser on these additional IPs QuackGuru posted for BOTH me and QuackGuru.

I would also like to know if QuackGuru's habit of slapping "suspected sockpuppet" templates on IPs without notifying the Users he is accusing is against Wikipedia policy? Thanks for your time in this matter. --stmrlbs|talk 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly I've been tempted several times to comment on the talk page that both of these editors should be taken out behind the outhouse and given a good spanking. They have both been editing warring. There are no innocent parties here.

As to IPs, yes, they all need to be checked, especially 70.71.22.45 and two other related IPs from the same region:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.68.247.69
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.48.249.100
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.157.217.64 (added later)

They are all three four likely IP socks of the same user who refuses to use his registered username. Brangifer (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. No innocent parties here. BullRangifer, since you've opened the door by insinuating that the 2 IPs are socks of 70.71.22.45 ("the same user who refuses to use his registered username"), I would like to say that BullRangifer also uses this tactic of accusing other editors who do not share his POV - both registered users and IPs - to bait and disrupt article talk page conversations [27] [28]. I am not the only person that has gotten after him for this: 106 Personal attacks (2nd section named Personal Attacks). Like I said, this is a strategy used by both QuackGuru and BullRangifer to divert conversation from content to discrediting other editors who don't share your POV - and they often use each other's accusations to bolster their own. I am sick of it. So, please feel free to check my IP now and forever more, because I have never used a sockpuppet. I have no problem saying what I need to say under my own handle. --stmrlbs|talk 02:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A diversionary ad hom attack won't help you here. It is perfectly proper to point out when socks are operating, and those IPs have been a problem, regardless of their POV. Editors should use their log-in when they have it, and they shouldn't use multiple IPs when editing. By logging in it makes no difference how many IPs they use because everything is registered to the same username. That avoids violation of a fundamental policy here. It is forbidden to avoid the scrutiny of other editors. All of an individual's edits should be attributable to the same username. Only under certain circumstances are multiple usernames allowed, and editing the same articles using different anonymous IPs isn't cool at all. What I have written is not a personal attack, but an attempt to get an editor to abide by our policies. Because these articles are covered by special ArbCom sanctions, Shell or any other admin can impose topic bans, blocks, require a user to use their log-in, or whatever is necessary to prevent disruption. Something needs to be done. I agree with you that a CU should be performed on all the editors in this matter, both IPs and registered users. There has been too much socking, meatpuppetry and tag-teaming going on. That's why I've been staying away from the subjects most of the time lately. It's a hornets' nest.

This latest edit war of yours is really a pain, especially since it's all been done and settled long ago. That you don't like the result shouldn't be our problem, but you insist on messing up a pretty well written section by going back to old matters that were reasonably well done. That's classic disruption and stonewalling. That QG plays his IDONTHEARIT game where he repeats himself is doubly irritating, all the while fighting alone against a group who tag teams him. Believe me, many share his POV, but abhor his methods. He's probably frustrated that I and many other editors don't help him, but his manner of editing irritates me, so he'll have to go it alone, even though it means that fringe POV pushers get the upperhand in their efforts to smear Barrett and Quackwatch, and whitewash chiropractic. That his efforts sometimes border on whitewashing Barrett and Quackwatch doesn't help matters. Both sides engage in the same offensive actions, just in different ways. Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, how dare I edit a Wikipedia article when the ruling group of editors have decided it is perfect the way it is! I'm sorry, I guess I didn't read that part of Wikipedia policy.

Since you brought up Tag Teaming, here is a classic example that I will never forget. I started a new section discussing 3rd party opinions on the Board Certification issue, and one day the discussion is there, and going on, and the next day Poof! gone! courtesy of QuackGuru [29]. I tried to restore it [30]. Then BullRangifer archives the whole discussion again[31] Decision supported by the team (which evidently I wasn't a part of since I wasn't asked how I felt about it.) Actually.. it was so outrageous, it was kind of funny.

But enough of the fond memories. I hope that Shell will continue with the CheckUser requests, and clear up the sockpuppet accusations. --stmrlbs|talk 05:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Working on this guys; its in my sandbox for right now while I dive in to the different IPs a bit. Shell ^babelfish 01:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Shell. I really appreciate it. Can you answer my question about the proper procedure for templating suspected sockpuppets? Is it proper procedure for QuackGuru to plaster these IPs [32][33][34][35][36][37][38] with "suspected sockpuppet of stmrlbs" (me)? He did this in the past without ever filing a report, and I see he has done it again. I just want to know what the proper procedure is for this. Thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that in all the noise. No, that's not appropriate and I'm fairly certain he's been told that before. I've reverted those recent tags and left a warning. Shell ^babelfish 02:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Shell. QuackGuru also did the same thing to Levine2112 at the same time he did this to me last time. --stmrlbs|talk 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion for more editors to get involved... I tried, and found that when things didn't go QuackGuru's way, he began to shuffle around the comments, using a totally deceptive edit summary, which I found to be unethical and manipulative, recasting the entire conversation in a different light, an assessment another editor agreed with. I tried to revert this nonsense a few times, only to find Ronz suddenly rabidly attacking me for it, demanding I apologize for insulting the great QuackGuru. I've decided the page isn't worth fighting over, QuackGuru's OWN issues are completely repulsive to a new editor, in both senses of the word. I'd also like permission to email you regarding another related matter. ThuranX (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"only to find Ronz suddenly rabidly attacking me for it, demanding I apologize for insulting the great QuackGuru" I have to point out that someone was doing some attacking, but ThuranX appears to be confused as to who. Further, I don't recall anyone asking for an apology either. More confusion, I'm sure. Nothing some basic adherence to WP:CIVIL wouldn't have settled and resolved long, long ago. But this is the editing of Quackwatch, so editors have to make sure that the regular disruptive editing environment continues. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

a side note

I just wanted to make a note of something I was thinking about in one of the edit summary of 86.146.119.24: here where 86.146.119.24 reverts my version of Nguyen's review back to QuackGuru's version - the comment is "(undo vandalism by 2 well known fringe pov pushers)". I've only been editing regularly since April 2009, and have only edited on a few articles, some about alternative medicine, some not. So, for this IP to make this remark, they must be familiar with the edits that I do on these few articles. The alternative articles that I've participated on aren't exactly high profile. The Quackwatch and Barrett articles have very low view counts. I've done some editing on Colloidal silver which has twice as many people looking at it as the Quackwatch/Barret articles - but it is usually pretty quiet with only about 3 regulars - 2 of them admins.. So, Quackwatch/Barrett, Colloidal Silver, and Chiropractic are it for the "fringe" articles in my editing history. I have also edited "Blood type diet" in the past, but added criticism of the theory for that article. So, I wouldn't be considered a "fringe POV pusher" by the regulars on that article. I would think this indicates a strong possibility of 86.146.119.24 being or knowing one of the regulars on the Quackwatch/Barrett, Chiropractic articles.
Of course, there is the possibility that I've become so well known in a few months that even fly by IPs are familiar with my "fame". (But I think the probability of that is minute) --stmrlbs|talk 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If the edits had a different POV, I would have suspected Macromonkey of making them, as they resolve to the same area, but obviously there are other people living there. It might be a good idea to add that IP to your CU list. Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never interacted with a "Macromonkey". And, like you said, wrong POV. --stmrlbs|talk 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that one was already on there and I actually did note the use of "fringe POV pushers" since that's clearly not something an anon or new user would ever say. Shell ^babelfish 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clocking in

Shell, I was away all weekend. I just got back and I am trying to catch up here (but at the same time trying to catch up in RL). Looks like you're off to a good start. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance here. Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I an very concerned about QuackGuru going around dropping "suspected sock puppet" banners on several IP talk pages such as this one: User_talk:76.222.232.146. QuackGuru claims to provide "evidence" on his own talk page, but it is very weak, maniputalively written and chock full of false accusations and bad faith assumptions. The fact that he has an IP editor (or multiple IP editors) reverting many of his edits speaks more to the low quality and biased nature of his edits than it does sockpuppetry. I am grateful that there are others out there who revert his bad edits when he makes them. Typically, I encourage these editors (or any IP editor I see) to sign up for a proper account 1) because I would like them to join Wikipedia and contribute in a manner beyond blind reverts under the anonymity of an IP, 2) to share their thoughts on the discussion pages and 3) if you check my history, you will see that I am a one-man welcome wagon machine (I've probably welcomed hundreds if not thousands of new IP editors to Wikipedia). Anyhow, I attest that I am not any of these IP addresses listed on QuackGuru's talk page or in your sandbox, I have no sockpuppet IP addresses nor Wikipedia accounts, and the few times which I've ever edited from my IP address (twice that I can think of a few years back) was done purely on accident and with much regret because it resulted in editors trying to geolocate and stalk me. QuackGuru has been warned about placing these labels on user pages before, but that didn't stop him from doing it again and I resent that he considers his twisted "evidence" to be proof of any wrongdoing on my part. He has done this in the past several times in an attempt to besmirch my reputation, even going so far as edit warring to blank my user page [39] [40]. His incivility toward me is beyond reproach. Given his behavior and attitude toward editors such as myself, I wouldn't even put it past him to be sockpuppeteering these IPs and edit warring with himself in an attempt to implicate me in the Wikipedia equivilent of a joe job. Again, I have no sockpuppets (IPs or proper accounts) and I am embittered that I even have to spend time defending myself against accusations lodged by such an uncivil and vindictive editor. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have provided evidence to an univolved admin that the IP 76.222.232.146 points directly to Levine2112. Levine2112 is very concerned alright. He is concerned he will be indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see you've now taken to canvassing, searching for an admin who will actually believe your twisted lies about me. Well, I've got nothing more to say except that I look forward to seeing how this works out for you. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 21:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you admit to your IP socking before it is too late. If you apologise now it may not be too late. But that would be up to uninvolved admins to decide. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, stop. Just stop. Your evidence is flimsy at best for the majority of those IPs; its simply not possible to build a cohesive case based on a single edit. I understand that revert wars are incredibly frustrating, however, the way to fix this is to stop participating in them rather than try to make people who don't agree with you look bad. Shell ^babelfish 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

207.215.246.46 69.234.129.52 76.222.232.146 According to Whois these set of IPs match. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/207.215.246.46

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/69.234.129.52

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/76.222.232.146

According to another IP check the IPs match. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked another IP. 166.191.166.100 Does the IP 166.191.166.100 match the other IPs in Los Angeles, CA. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/32.174.126.62

http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/32.173.111.155

How about these. Do any of these match the other IPs from Los Angeles, CA. QuackGuru (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Report done

Located here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chiropractic. Shell ^babelfish 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I'm a little confused about this. It is only the initial report that is done, right? I don't see my name. So, is someone else running the IPs against all the Users now? ... and people commenting at the same time? Does what is run depend on the comments? --stmrlbs|talk 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, that is the report with no conclusions yet. There are several parts; the first lists all concerned/possibly involved, the second is my comments on why I believe there may be sockpuppetry involved, the third is any comments from involved parties, fourth comments from others who might want to discuss the situation and finally a request for an actual checkuser (which is the part where IPs are checked against accounts). You are listed in the first section, but I did not mention you in the checkuser section since I have yet to see or find strong evidence that you were editing logged out to edit war or skew discussion. I believe the IPs that QuackGuru tagged as possible sockpuppets of you were all in that 32.x.x.x range but for a variety of reasons, including the fact that these IPs often made only a single edit each, I don't believe a checkuser of that range will be terribly helpful at this time. The clerk asked me to clarify which editors should be run against which IPs to avoid just fishing around; those comments and now the endorsement of the clerk do affect what is run. It may take a bit to get the actual results since its still a lot to ask a checkuser to look through.

As I've indicated (and Bullrangifer also commented) there is fairly strong evidence that range (among others) is being used improperly since there is more than one case where these IPs show up out of the blue when an edit war starts - the IPs all show evidence of understanding odd Wikipedia terms and only support a single POV. So whether or not all of the IPs specifically match-up with an editor, it seems obvious to me that someone is, at least, notifying people to come revert articles when they don't agree with the changes being made. This is just as serious a problem since it allows edit wars to continue past when folks would have been blocked for 3RR and the community considers those kinds of attempts to skew consensus to be disruptive.

You are welcome to comment in the "Comments by accused parties" section and add any evidence or thoughts you might have on the situation. If at all possible, its best to keep things brief and avoid arguments, though of course you are welcome to answer any claims made against you. There is some guidance available here as well. I hope that answers all your questions. If not, feel free to poke me again. Shell ^babelfish 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have plenty to say about the chiropractic and Quackwatch/Barrett pages. I agree with you 500% - no make that 1000% that these pages would be vastly improved with getting more editors on. --stmrlbs|talk 16:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

slight delay for me

Shell, one of the fans on my old laptop picked this afternoon to kick the can. I had written a draft of my comments this morning on that laptop.. unfortunately, I can't get to them. I am using my son's laptop, but I have to spend some time getting it up to date. I will submit my comments tonight after I write them up again. --stmrlbs|talk 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

added comment on Quackwatch. I will add my comments on chiropractic, to respond in part to BullRangifer, tomorrow. --stmrlbs|talk 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sanctions under Pseudoscience arbitration

Based on the checkuser and other factors, I have enacted some sanctions under the Pseudoscience arbitration. QuackGuru and Levine2112 are both banned from Chiropractic topics and Quackwatch for a term of six months. TheDoctorIsIn and WinrarWinner have been warned that they are limited to one account to use on these topics; any further logging out and editing these topics or discussion pages will result in either a block or ban. None of the other IPs/accounts checked came back with anything of note. Shell ^babelfish 06:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There were newer evidence presented with more IPs but a checkuser was never done with the other IPs presented. QuackGuru (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Levine2112 is already topic banned, I'm not certain that further checking is necessary. However, if you wish to do so and have sufficient evidence, you can open a report specifically for Levine2112 to have those IP addresses checked. Shell ^babelfish 07:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

After a lot of digging, there is sufficient evidence now and I do believe a checkuser can be done with the same report filed. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's how those reports work - I thought you needed to open a new one if you had new evidence/wanted new ips or accounts checked. You're welcome to ask at SPI talk to see how the checkuser clerks want the situation to be handled. Shell ^babelfish 08:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser was done too soon before editors provided the evidence. If a checkuser is not run soon starting a new report could be rejected as stale. QuackGuru (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, I don't actually have any control over the process. Its not like an arbitration - its not really meant to have people give evidence etc. You're welcome to ask for checkuser where ever you want, I was just trying to help you out with some advice and a suggestion of who might know for sure. Do whatever you want. Shell ^babelfish 08:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If the check was changed back to endorse then a recheck could be done. QuackGuru (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to do so - your ban would not prohibit you from editing that page, just the articles and their talk pages. Shell ^babelfish 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Another admin could disagree with you. For example, I followed the advise of Elonka and continued to comment on user talk pages and then another admin blocked me for following her advise. QuackGuru (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what might have happened in that situation, but you are welcome to point to my comments here as a clarification that your topic ban only relates to editing articles and talk pages of articles that are related to Chiropractic. If you were blocked just for editing the SPI report, you're welcome to drop me a note and I'll resolve the situation (please note that if you are being disruptive on the report, that would be a different case where I couldn't likely intervene). Shell ^babelfish 09:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this a problem when I reverted an IP making edit. Please read my edit summary. This text was worked on my many editors. According to the reference there was only "showing some preference for the term IM". The IP changed it to "although many chiropractors prefer the term integrated medicine. It was some not many. I read the reference again before I reverted to make sure the text accurately summarized the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, if you'd like to challenge the restrictions placed under ArbCom sanctions, you're welcome to do so at WP:RFAR. Shell ^babelfish 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think it is a problem when I reverted the IP edit to accurately summarize the reference. I don't consider it disruption and you have not explained how it is disruption. QuackGuru (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not every edit you've ever made is a problem and I certainly haven't made that claim. Edit-warring is a problem - you aver that your edit was more accurate, the IP thought theirs was more accurate and you two edit warred. Except in cases of simple vandalism, Wikipedia doesn't care who's more "right" or more "accurate" - edit warring isn't an acceptable way to resolve content differences. Edit warring is disruption. Shell ^babelfish 09:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This was one of the dates you accused me of being a problem. But I don't see it was a problem. I understand you did not care when my edit was more accuarate and improved the article. I did not know Wikipedia does not care who over a long period of time has made many edits that improved chiropractic related articles. So if no one reverted the edit that was not an improvement then how does an editor improve the article. The IP changed the text that changed the meaning. It was not an imporvement. My revert to the long standing consensus is still in the article. I don't think it was a problem when I reverted to maintain the accuracy of the text. I don't think it is reasonable to ban an editor for six months for making making reverts to accurately summarize the text per explained my edit summary. I was not previously imformed that reverting edits such as the IP edit that was WP:OR was disruption. QuackGuru (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If I knew that it was a problem for reverting such as reverting original research then I would of discussed it on the talk page first and let another editor revert it instead of being banned. QuackGuru (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer has also agreed to be checked against the IPs helping QuackGuru on the Quackwatch article. Since this pertains to the original reason for this investigation - the IPs appearing on the Quackwatch article Nguyen dispute - I think it should added in. --stmrlbs|talk 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do so its likely you'll need to open a case on Bullrangifer since checkuser has already been run for the case I opened (which never included Bullrangifer as a party) Can I suggest though that this would be an exercise in futility? Its very unlikely that Bullrangifer uses sockpuppets nor are they generally disruptive in this topic area. I was a bit surprised to see the manner in which you vented your spleen on the case page. Shell ^babelfish 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought BullRangifer agreed here [41]. BullRangifer has been the other regular editor on the Chiropractic article accusing me of being a sockpuppet, and backing up Quackguru's accusations by repeating them, without actually filing any reports. Eubulides doesn't do this - he is the 3rd regular editor on the Chiropractic articles. Eubulides seems to be able to disagree and argue about content without getting personal. --stmrlbs|talk 08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge YOU are the only one who has suggested that I might use sockpuppets. There are others who disagree with my POV, but not even Levine2112 has accused me of sockpuppetry, and Levine2112 is the one of all of us who is the most computer savvy. He knows I'm really not very savvy at all. I know some very simple things, but not much more. You seem to think that I'm some sort of computer/internet whiz kid and am devious. I am neither. Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And, you and QuackGuru are the only ones that have accused me of being a sockpuppet. The fact that Levine2112 did not accuse you of sockpuppetry is because Levine2112 tried to keep the arguments focused on content, not personalities.

I never accused you previously of being a sockpuppet previously, in spite of the fact that you have implied that I was Ilena, a Scientologist (which was weird), a sockpuppet, a chiropractor, and working with Levine to control a network of sockpuppets. Imo, and perhaps this is because I am naive about Wikipedia, but I do not assume that every IP that appears must be associated with an established editor, especially on a wikipedia article with such a high view count, and, as I discovered, an article that has the subject of an article in a Chiropratic publication.
Even with Quackwatch, I thought the IP showing up on Quackwatch was QuackGuru or a friend/sympathizer of QuackGuru's - sympathizer being anyone that follows an article and knows the editors because of this. However, when I noticed the "well known fringe POV pusher" comment in relation to me, I did a search on Wikipedia of the use of "fringe POV pusher". To my surprise, I found that QuackGuru does not use that phrase that much, but that you do. Add that to the narrow range of articles, the fact that the Quackwatch article does not have a high IP participation that the Chiropractic article does, and that the phrase "fringe POV pusher" is used only once on the Quackwatch talk pages, so it is a low probabilitiy this would be picked up by an outside IP.

It is circumstantial evidence at best, but it is as much evidence as being a lone editor for a certain POV when there is a surge of IPs. --stmrlbs|talk 21:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bullrangifer certainly did indicate that they had no objection, however, rules of checkuser still apply. Checkusers are not run to "clear" someone as they can't really be interpreted in that way. Since there was no evidence offered or found by myself that would suggest Bullrangifer used sockpuppets or logged out, they were not included. In fact, you (Stmrlbs) were only included as participating in the dispute, but no checkuser was requested for you and no evidence given, for the same reasons. Shell ^babelfish 14:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I requested that I be run through Checkuser. I thought that this was the purpose of Checkuser - that Checkuser was an automated program to check patterns/networks/logging-in-out. What exactly does Checkuser do, then? Is there some kind of pre-check that is done before running, and why is a pre-check necessary? Was a pre-check run on me? Was I checked at all? --stmrlbs|talk 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the section 1.6 where you explained more about the SPI checkuser process. Thank you for doing that. I've been reading other SPIs - but the format is a little different for this one. There are still some things I'm confused about:

• BullRangifer was listed as a non-participant, yet he submitted more evidence than anyone else under "other people's comments". He submitted his evidence before QuackGuru and before me. Is this the way it is done? Anyone can submit evidence for an SPI under "other people's comments" ?
• You say no evidence was submitted about me, but BullRangifer included me very specifically in his evidence [42]:

1. "IPs behind User:Stmrlbs could also have been involved and should be checked."
2. "except for one SPI from B.C. who always supports Levine2112, and especially functions as User:Stmrlbs's shadow/alter ego, so I have added their locations. I have also bolded the probably related participants:"::::: As a "non-participant", BullRangifer lists more IPs than QuackGuru, and says "Please perform CUs of Levine2112 and Stmrlbs."

Was the evidence submitted by BullRangifer included in this SPI? --stmrlbs|talk 08:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, usually the SPI process is different - arbitration enforcement is a rare case. About your other questions:

• It is my understanding that anyone can give evidence. See for example Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shnitzled where another user added an IP to the report.
• I apologize for missing that. I did not submit any evidence about you nor had I seen evidence that led me to believe you might be operating more than one account so when the clerk requested I clarify who should be checkusered against who, I did not request you be checked.
• Yes. Again since I believe any editor can add evidence, it is "part" of the case. It would really have been preferable that the case not be expanded in this manner as it was already complicated. As I've said, quite repeatedly, if you folks think I missed something and believe a specific user is violating the sockpuppet policy, please go open your own report and handle this the right way. I understand that SPI reports are a confusing and little used area of Wikipedia, but piggybacking a variety of complaints on a report I requested for enforcement of arbitration sanctions wasn't the way to go. Especially not after I had the report up in my sandbox for days where anyone could have commented and avoided the need for this now. Shell ^babelfish 08:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I posted about a slight delay when the fan on my laptop broke. I was worried there was a time limit on the SPI, and it took me some time to get my son' old laptop to the point where I could use it. However, if I had known none of the information I submitted about BullRangifer would be considered because he wasn't named in the initial SPI, I wouldn't have bothered "venting my spleen" as you put it. I didn't really notice/think about the "fringe POV pusher" remark until after SPI process had already started, unfortunately.

Well, I will know better next time. --stmrlbs|talk 08:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be considered, however, the checkuser has already been completed for that case which is why I've been trying to explain (for days now) that I believe something more would need to be done in order to request additional checkusers be run. If there is evidence that anyone has been operating multiple accounts, the best way to handle that would be to open a case specifically about that person with the evidence that relates directly to them. If there are any questions about having a checkuser or anything more run on that SPI report, please take it up at the SPI talk page where clerks and patrolling admins who handle that can advise you. I apologize if my comment about "venting your spleen" came off poorly; that wasn't meant to be directed at anyone in particular but a comment on the wide scope of evidence and some of the bickering that's now on the SPI report. I should have worded that more carefully. Shell ^babelfish 09:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize what you are saying about submitting another report. I was just explaining why I could not respond to the initial report in a timely manner. I have learned a lot from this, and appreciate you taking the time to explain. I do have one more question. Can I email you? --stmrlbs|talk 16:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely understandable - someone dumped iced tea in my laptop last week. For some reason, it didn't like that. :D You're welcome to email me either through the Wikipedia function, or my email is listed directly on User:Shell_Kinney/Contact Shell ^babelfish 17:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

one more question about policy - outting during SPI

In the SPI, when I asked BullRangifer about outting Levine2112, he said this:

BTW, I have not outed Levine2112. It has been known for years by many editors that he edited from ---. That's no secret. He has inadvertently edited while logged out and has then signed in. That's not misuse, and can happen to anyone, including myself. Apparently Stmrlbs is the only one who didn't know. Levine2112 doesn't have any security issues becaue he doesn't criticize chiropractors! I have been threatened many times and regularly receive nasty emails or comments on my blog. My family has been threatened and I'm tired of it. That's why it is no one's business where I'm located at any given time. CUs can check my edits and the IPs behind my username at any given time, and they can then check to see if they have been misused. I have never been involved in cheating in a 3rr situation, never stacked votes, never pretended to be two different persons in order to sway a discussion, etc.. Since I have not engaged in such misuse, it wouldn't be necessary to publish where I have been located when editing. That would be unnecessary outing, and editors have been indef banned because they have outed me. My situation is taken very seriously here, for which I am very grateful.

I am going to skip BullRangifer's comments about his security issues. I might still be learning about Wikipedia policy, but even I know that BullRangifer's security issues do not give him any right to out other people. But, I do have 2 questions. BullRangifer seems to be saying that

1. BullRangifer had a perfect right to out Levine2112 because Levine2112's address was "no secret/well-known" because Levine2112 inadvertently edited, then logged in and signed the entry. The only editors that would know this would be the editors watchlisting the article, then they would have to use a tool to geolocate the address from this IP address. Only editors tracking Levine2112 and who wanted to know where Levine2112 lived would do this. I don't think this qualifies as making a person's address "no secret" - because the history entries are not searchable or picked up by search engines. You have to be there (with watchlist) Or use a tool that is available to find entries like this for a particular person. It is not something you would come across in a talk page. Again, this would not be common knowledge. I used this tool to check BullRangifer, and he has done the same thing, that Levine2112 has done, so.. can I assume that BullRangifer's location is not a secret and ignore WP:Who?
2. BullRangifer next says that he has a perfect right to out Levine2112 because Levine2112 was named in this SPI. Is that true? Is outting an editor named in an SPI ok? It is not considered outting?

--stmrlbs|talk 09:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand things, any information of a private nature should be emailed to the checkusers rather than posted on wiki. I don't believe this is quite the same thing as outing (linking a pseudonym to a real name) but its the same principle. A slip up with a login is likely considered private where someone publicly declaring where they live or work probably wouldn't be. That said, opening a thread on the noticeboard was the worst way to keep this from getting more attention :( Shell ^babelfish 09:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Imo, this seemed pretty deliberate, not a slipup. If it had been a slipup, BullRangifer would have said "oops" when it was noticed and deleted it. --stmrlbs|talk 09:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah no, I meant that Levine apparently slipped up once and edited while logged out, not that BullRangifer mentioning it was an accident. I believe that the SPI report has been blanked for the time being. Shell ^babelfish 09:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the incident. Evidently Levine2112 did try to contact the oversight committee, but did not get a response, and that is when he posted this incident. I just want to let you know that what I posted [43] quotes to your explanation of what is private and what is not, because there seems to be a difference of opinion on this matter. --stmrlbs|talk 18:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, QuackGuru just resubmitted the chiropractic sockpuppet investigation again, minus your remarks, mine, etc. It is obvious he is just doing this because the SPI was blanked, in an effort to reout Levine2112. --stmrlbs|talk 21:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not terribly impressed with QuackGuru's decision here, I'd really have to toss away any assumption of good faith to decide that he did so just to out Levine2112. Also, since the thread on the noticeboard seems to have come to the conclusion that mentioning the city wasn't a form of outing, it would be difficult to censor QuackGuru for that behavior. I don't really see the point of another SPI at this time, especially so close to the last one (and I'm not sure what more would be done at this point anyways), but I did tell everyone here that if they had additional evidence about a particular editor, it would probably be best to open a report specifically for that editor. It would be immensely preferable if everyone could disengage for a bit. Shell ^babelfish 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, if this is the case, then anyone can use the IP that is disclosed during an accidental edit to say where a person is located and this isn't outing? So, this information is public and can be used by anyone officially during an SPI investigation? Whatever the case, I think this needs to be made clear in the WP:Outing. At the present time, it is not clear at all --stmrlbs|talk 22:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know - that would be up to the community in general. It might be worth a discussion at WP:Outing or some other wider community discussion to see what people think. Shell ^babelfish 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

About SPI reports and Checkuser

OK, there seems to have been some confusion over what these reports are, how they work and what can be expected to happen. There is detailed information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, but I'll try to summarize here:

SPI reports are filed when there is a concern that someone is operating multiple accounts (this includes the use of undisclosed anon IPs); "operating" can mean physically creating more than one account, logging out to avoid getting blocked for edit warring or calling friends to join in edit wars or discussions to support you. Almost always, SPI reports are about a single person; they are listed along with any accounts or IPs that are believed to be operated by them. The one I opened was very rare and only used to check cases where people might be violating ArbCom sanctions.

Now specifically about checkuser. This tool is only one of the bits of evidence used in a sockpuppet case. A few editors with the flag can check personally identifiable information of an editor/IP and thus compare them. This information is only kept on the server for a month or so, meaning that these checks need to be run as soon as possible, or risk the data not being available to compare. The Foundation privacy policy restricts checkusers from giving detailed information and places limits on why and how the checks can be run; details are at Wikipedia:CheckUser. Note that checks will not be run to "clear" a person, since the information can't really be used in that manner. You can say "Yes, this account and this account appear to be the same person" but not "No, this person didn't use other accounts".

As I mentioned, this particular case was rare which I believe is one of the reasons for the confusion; I apologize for that. As I've explained above, if you feel there is evidence that a particular editor is abusing multiple accounts, it is very likely that you will need to open your own case. Usually the evidence is considerably longer with many diffs to show the reasons why you believe the editor is using multiple accounts. If anyone would like assistance putting one together, I would be happy to help. Shell ^babelfish 03:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For all your time and effort in addressing these problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain "breaks the transclution "

I find the sockpuppet investigation extremely hard to edit since I'm down at the bottom. I put the section in so I didn't have to look all the time for my comment within what seems like pages of text and wikicode. How does doing this "break transclution" (what is transclution?)?

boy.. one thing about Wikipedia.. it is not user friendly (as far as editing). --stmrlbs|talk 12:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion is when one page appears within another. You're used to this when using templates - you type in some code and the template just shows up. I know its a real pain to wade through all that, but for some reason, using sections will break the main page that shows all the sockpuppet reports. Sorry :( Shell ^babelfish 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, I'm familiar with transclusion. I thought the other word, transclution was some special wikipedia process, because I searched for it on wikipedia, and it appears in quite a few places. :)

Shell, do you remember what the problem was? because I tried a couple of different tranclusions, one of a simple page with sections that I created, and then I tried transcluding this talk page. I don't see any real problem. It puts a horizontal line dividing the main sections.. but actually, that might make a sockpuppet report easier to read. So, if you can remember what the problem is, I can see if I can get it to happen, so I can submit a bug report. To be able to use sections would not only make these reports easier to edit, but minimize errors. --stmrlbs|talk 04:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, that was just my typo :) Offhand I don't remember exactly what happens - I think it breaks the sectioning of the front page somehow - might try asking on the main talk page to see if you can get better details. It would be helpful for cases like this where so many people are involved. Typically though its just the person being checked and the person being reported - much simpler. Shell ^babelfish 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, it would help. Wikipedia is hard enough to edit! Ack! And I am a typo queen. But you can see from what I tried, that even your talk page transcluded fine, as far as I could tell - and it is fairly complex. What main talk page are you talking about when you say to check it to see if I can get better details? Sockpuppet investigations? --stmrlbs|talk 05:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was thinking the clerks and other folks who watch Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations might have better details (it was a clerk who took out the section breaks the first time with that explanation). Shell ^babelfish 05:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did ask this question on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, and you can see the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Why_can.27t_section_headers_be_used_for_SPI. It looks like recent software upgrades have fixed this problem, but it is hard to tell since SPIs are submitted the old way. Imo, the only way to determine if there is a problem is to start submitting SPIs with section headers - not everyone at once, but perhaps a few cases where participants were willing to try this, and clerks were aware this was being tried. Luna Santin said that she/he would be willing to try it out. --stmrlbs|talk 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for sorting that out - maybe this will lead to some format changes to make large reports easier to edit. Shell ^babelfish 23:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

William Monahan

Can you please revert the List of works by William Monahan to an earlier version before indef banned editors work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enders Conundrum (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since that article is just a list, I'm not certain why reverting it would be a good idea. Are there items on there that are incorrect? If there's errors, we can certainly fix them. Shell ^babelfish 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's wrong. I would suggest comparing a much older revision with a new revision. Try it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enders Conundrum (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look through the entire history and it looks like the article was actually started by User:BillDeanCarter which I understand is one of the accounts used by the banned user. This makes me wonder if there's any particular point where the article was correct? Do you have a particular revision or date where there weren't errors?

In the meantime I'm going to see about doing some of my own research to see if I can help correct the articles independently. Shell ^babelfish 14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Best to delete it then. The list isn't verifiable and is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enders Conundrum (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is verifiable - each work gives full information and sometimes supporting references. Accuracy is a different story since that would required verifying all the references. At a quick glance, easy to verify things like Light House: A Trifle or the NYPress articles appear accurate - since that seems to indicate that at least part of the article is correct, can you be more specific about what you feel is wrong? Shell ^babelfish 14:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't trust anything from the banned user. He/she has potentially inserted false article titles and I suspect that several of the NYPress articles are fakes. The list is a mess and incomplete. You can't find any of these articles, anywhere, online. Why has Wikipedia taken it upon itself to attempt at a bibliography of a relatively unknown writer? Enders Conundrum (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not quite true, I found several of the New York Press articles online and a quick call to the local library was enough to verify that a lot of the other obscure publications are probably correct as well (I would need to verify each specifically though). Unless you have something more than a suspicion that something is wrong, there's not really a good case to make for removing the material or deleting of the article. It might help to take a look at the deletion policy to see how the community handles deletion discussions and the reasons that articles may be deleted. Why someone decided to write about William Monohan, I couldn't tell you - but, since people choose to write articles on obscure characters from the Power Rangers and other things I'd personally find silly, I suppose its possible to find just about anything on Wikipedia. Remember, there is no central editorial authority - articles are always started by volunteers based on their own interests. Shell ^babelfish 19:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Then, if you don't mind, can you present to the community that you have mentioned above, the idea that the incomplete, inaccurate bibliography of William Monahan should be deleted? I have no interest in familiarizing myself with the deletion policy. I would appreciate all the help you can offer me in regard to this issue. Enders Conundrum (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I had to say. I did not suggest that the article should be deleted; its a featured list on Wikipedia which makes it very, very unlikely that the community would determine to delete it. Articles in need of cleanup are fixed, not deleted. I've also asked several times for more information about what you believe is inaccurate - you haven't answered that question. In the meantime, I started verifying the content of the article and have yet to find any inaccuracies. I also noted that there were a number of changes made several months back due to some discussion on the talk page of the article. I understand that you might not be interested in familiarizing yourself with the entire mechanism of deletion, but you may wish to read the policy in any case so you are aware of what circumstances would prompt an article to be deleted. Shell ^babelfish 22:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI: BullRangifer

As per our previous conversation and your statement here [44], I submitted a new SPI on BullRangifer. It was immediately closed with the reason that BullRangifer had already been run through checkuser. I left a note both on User_Talk:bjweeks and User_Talk:NuclearWarfare with a link to your instructions to resubmit the SPI. I wanted to let you know in case they contact you on this matter. --stmrlbs|talk 02:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

now they are saying that BullRangifer was run through. What is going on? [45]. --stmrlbs|talk 02:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like they later answered that they had checked BullRangifer against the unknown IPs as well. The report they gave on the case wasn't very specific, so when they said nothing was found, I didn't realize that they'd checked other people who commented as well. I'm sorry I didn't realize this, but please re-read my comment that you linked to where I specifically said I thought another case was unwarranted. 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Informal request

Shell, you topic banned me from chiropractic about two weeks ago for the following reason:

"Due to persistent edit warring and general disruption of the editing and consensus process, including the use of sock and/or meatpuppets..."

While I have not edit warred in articles related to this topic, your ban was placed under the premise that I was editwarring vicariously through sock or meat puppets. However, in the two recent SPIs (1, 2), I was cleared of these charges both via CheckUser and by behavioral analysis. Unless there is some other way in which you feel that I was generally disrupting the editing and consensus process, I am here to informally request that you lift my topic ban. Thank you. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 22:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Levine, I know I explained this far more clearly via email. I did say I was looking in to the possibility that another editor was responsible for the anonymous edit warring, however this does not change the fact that you have reverted repeatedly. Please remember that in my email, I explained that reverting as an editing tool instead of talking things out and reaching compromises was the problem, not the number or frequency of your reverts. Of additional note is the part about disrupting consensus building, wherein you refuse to let dead dogs lie and stop discussion and improvement on an article for months with the same complaints.

The checkuser came back as inconclusive and was unable to check the majority of IPs and accounts given. This is by no means makes you "cleared of these charges" especially since my behavioral analysis was based on far more than the single edit war presented in the SPI.

Your tenacity about having this ban lifted both here and in my email is starting to make me wonder if I didn't do the right thing after all. If you can't live without editing the topic for a couple of weeks, that's not a good sign. I understand that I have not gotten back with you as quickly as you would like, but as I'm sure you're aware, this is not a simple problem. Shell ^babelfish 18:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please be more explicit and show me where I have reverted repeated in this topic area in - say - the last 5 months? If you can just provide the diffs, that would be sufficient. Further, can you do the same with the "refuse to let dead dogs lie" charge. I am only asking for the evidence of the wrong-doing for which I am being reprimanded. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 18:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ernst E (2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". J Pain Symptom Manage. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. PMID 18280103. Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today. The text is sourced but Levine2112 reverted to the edit made by the IP. These two edits[46][47] can't be a coincidence. Reverted to revision 288781918 by 166.191.166.100; actually I just read the source. It says nothing about Mysticism... see talk. using TW Levine2112, please explain why you reverted to the IP and claimed there is nothing about Mysticism. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the mystery IP (I assume TheDoctorIsIn - or perhaps one of the thousands of chiropractors/chiropractic students in the Los Angeles area) claimed that the text given wasn't in the source. At least that's what I took the edit summary of "Undocumented claim" to roughly mean. You reverted, so I read the source to see if it met WP:V. I felt it didn't and thus removed the unsourced text. I was heavily involved on the discussion page at that time and was apparently the only editor there with access to the full-text. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ernst E (2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". J Pain Symptom Manage. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. PMID 18280103. Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today. You don't need access to the full text to determine the text is sourced. The abstract verified the claim. You are lying the text is not sourced. When Levine2112 pretends the text is unsourced why is he allowed to return to the article in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the discussion page over and over again: The abstract is in conflict with the actual article. Sometimes abstracts are not written by the author of the article and can be in error. I quoted the full-text for you, so please stop with the WP:IDHT. Describing my actions as "lying" is not only wrong, it is highly uncivil. Please consider refactoring. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 20:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop this immediately. Not only is my talk page not an appropriate venue to continue your argument, since you are topic banned from the subject, continuing could lead to further sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 03:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Levine, in response specifically to your questions about when you have edit warred or been disruptive, I've copied a bit of the list below that I used when determining sanctions. It is my opinion that on this particular topic area (or perhaps its when interacting with QuackGuru), you've been unable to take a step back and use proper dispute resolution processes; instead, your first response is to revert things you don't agree with and continue reverting them. For example (and not including any of the various IPs that also show up quickly to revert to your version who's ownership could not be determined):

Repeated reverts on Chiropractic History on the mysticism topic [48], [49], [50], [51]

Again on Chiropractic History, when your edit to change material you don't like is reverted, you revert to a previous version that did not include the material at all.

On Chiropratic, with each new issue that occurs, you are involved in the edit war. About a patient-centered approach [52], [53], [54], [55], over mysticism again here [56], [57], [58] and over pain management benefits [59], [60], [61] just to use examples since April of this year.

This edit warring, which most frequently stars QuackGuru and yourself, then moved on to the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article where you edit warred over article tags [62], [63], [64], [65] repeatedly.

Finally, just before the sanctions, repeated edit wars on QuackWatch finally resulted in article protection; your reverts there were part of a few editors warring over various items [66], [67], [68].

Obviously you are not the only editor who's been involved in these revert wars, but you and QuackGuru seem to make up the largest percentage of reverts during each incident. I'm glad to see you've been working hard in other areas since the ban; if you can remember to apply the same kind of positive energy when dealing with topics you feel strongly about, I'm sure you'll find that other editors will appreciate those efforts. Shell ^babelfish 03:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Upload multiple MediaWiki pages?

Hi, I have a few seedwiki wikis that I want to copy over to a friend's MediaWiki site. I have managed to convert the markup, but do you know how we could go about uploading multiple wiki pages to MediaWiki? --Surturz (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the easiest way to transfer files is using the Special:Export and Special:Import functions. The export page can take a list of all the articles you want to export (it can also grab a whole cateory). I'm not as familiar with importing, but the options for it are described here. Hope that helps! Shell ^babelfish 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Great! That's very helpful. I've started writing a little program to convert the markup, I think I should be right with it now. Much appreciated! --Surturz (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Best of luck with your project! Shell ^babelfish 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

just to let you know about incident I filed on QuackGuru

Shell, I wanted to let you know about this since I mention you in the events leading up this latest incident. The incident report [69] --stmrlbs|talk 03:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but since QuackGuru has gone right back to edit warring and harassing other users despite the very recent sanctions and clear warnings, I've just gone ahead and blocked him. Shell ^babelfish 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

no, I don't mind. I think QuackGuru is used to people just dismissing it - I did the last couple of times. But, I'm tired of it. This was an obvious bait. --stmrlbs|talk 03:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rgowran

After this comment, I think a further block is needed and a checkuser to find the range they are on. I have a feeling we will be hearing from this guy for awhile. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the best thing would be to not respond to him until after his block is up. He needs some space to settle down; if we do see any odd behavior around the article or have another reason to believe that he's evading the block, I'd be happy to look into it. Otherwise I think its probably just blowing off steam. Shell ^babelfish 09:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I will let you all handle it from here. Good luck. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

Hello. As you know, an admin (KillerChi...) was outed as an admin who has a STRONG POV on the content subject (homeopathy) and therefore not a good "non-involved" admin to be working on the ANI. I welcome you...but I (and anyone who wishes to participate in the Talk or articles pages related to homeopathy) would benefit from knowing what serious "crime" I committed during the short period in July that I participated on wikipedia. Please be specific...and please also consider the several good RS, V, NPOV references that I provided (and for which some editors here have stonewalled). The various wiki editors who accused me of high crimes are all editors who believe that homeopathy is a complete fraud and now even an admin who posed to be neutral has now been shown to be non-neutral. I previously called for a non-involved admin, and you seem to fit the bill. However, because you have not commented at all, it would be beneficial for all involved to have your analysis of "the problem." I would also like your opinion on what can or should be done with admins who pose as non-involved editors but who are found to have strong POV on the content subject. DanaUllman^Talk 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The concern over whether or not KillerChihuahua was a neutral admin was why I offered to close the community discussion. I do not agree that her comment means she has a "STRONG POV" nor do I believe that her reading of the situation was incorrect or biased, however since she participated in the discussion, letting someone else close it was a good idea. After reading the thread, I came to the conclusion that there was strong support for a ban and that while not everyone could agree on what form that ban would take, the general consensus was to attempt a topic ban rather than block you from the site entirely.

Regarding the "crime", as you call it, I believe that was thoroughly discussed both in the related arbitration case and in the thread I referenced when notifying you of the decision. I can see by that discussion that you do not agree your behavior was problematic; clearly a large number of editors disagree as did the Arbitration Committee when it banned you. If you would like to review specific instances, you might want to check the diffs provided in that thread which discussed continued advocacy on your part, misrepresentation of sources, misrepresenting the statements of others, misleading other editors regarding the nature of a discussion, and other actions that clearly cause misperceptions or obfuscate aspects of consensus discussions.

I'm not sure if anyone may have pointed this essay out to you before, but WP:TIGERS might be a good read. A particularly pertinent point is As a normal writer, strong views are a great help. But as a Wikipedia editor, they impose a special burden: because you are obligated to be fair to all sides, you must be especially careful that your views don't distort the article. - I would add that distorting discussions is also problematic. Because of your strong feelings about homeopathy, you may not realize when your passion crosses the line into disruption, so its especially important that you listen to the feedback you're receiving from other editors. If I can help you with understanding the feedback you're receiving or reviewing any specific situations, I would be happy to do that.

As far as dealing with administrators who you feel have crossed the line to "involved", standard dispute resolution procedures can be used. Typically it starts with discussing your concerns with the admin; if the discussion doesn't resolve your concerns, you can open a request for comment about your concerns to get additional feedback from the community. If the community does not agree that the admin is involved, you've reached the end of the line and will need to find a way to work with them. If the community agrees that the admin is involved, they should recuse themselves from adminstration functions in that area or article. If the admin does not recuse or continues to be problematic after a community discussion that agreed they were involved, arbitration is the last step. These are basically the same steps you would use for any instance in which you have concerns over an editor's behavior.

Hopefully that has helped answer all of your questions - feel free to ask for clarifications or additional questions if you have any other concerns. Shell ^babelfish 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I was "outed"? Dang. That's too funny, especially since my only claim was "I am reasonably uninvolved" (emphasis added). Anyway, I came by to thank you for stepping in and handling this; as I noted on ANI you were a better choice than I. I wasn't overjoyed about being the one to offer to handle it, but at the time no one else was offering. I'm glad someone with no involvement whatsoever was available and willing to step in. Muchas gracias, that was a real headache. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I know how those discussions can get lost in the shuffle after they go on for a while. I'm glad I noticed before another three day discussion started about your close :D Shell ^babelfish 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, you seem quite lovely and quite fair as an admin and meditator, though in this case, I am still confused. I asked you for what "crime" I committed since I have been back (because I am not being blocked for my previous work...but for my involvement since my return). I couldn't help but notice that you didn't refer to any "crime" I committed (I say "crime" because a topic ban is a serious penalty, and it might be good for other editors at the homeopathy article to know what does and does not work. I asked this same question to KillerChihuahua directly at her talk page, but she didn't answer. Because you have made the new decision on my case, it would seem reasonable for me to ask you to answer this. I am glad that you brought up TIGERS because I feel that my Talk contributions sought "fairness" and not one-sidedness. I did the academic thing of bringing up references to the Lancet and to the Cochrane Reports (it is a tad ironic that ALL of the Cochrane Reports that have had "negative" results to homeopathy are actively referenced in the article, and yet, the TWO Cochrane Reports that have had positive results to homeopathy are not discussed OR referenced (the 2nd report was from a 2009 review on the homeopathic treatment of people experiencing side effects from conventional cancer treatment). It is not a mistake that those wiki editors who are one-sided (against homeopathy) have stonewalled and blocked inclusion of these references. I sought to begin with the influenza reference and soon discuss the other one.

I cannot help but sense that you made your decision based on what antagonists to me have said rather than go to the Talk page itself to see what I actually wrote...and how several other editors need to know about TIGERS. I cannot help but sense that these editors feel great that they have successfully topic banned me even though they have shown much one-sidedness.

And yes, I do feel that KillerChichuahua was "outed." Although she asserted herself as one to be "reasonably uninvolved," it is clear by her statement from August 9th (as noted in the ANI) that she has a extremely strong point of view on this subject! Although KillerChichuahua may do great work on wikipedia on various subjects and mediations, it seems apparent that she has seriously erred here...and I feel that the final result of your decision got warped in the process. Fairness is important...and I do not feel that I have been treated with that fairness.

So, yes, I do want to bring this issue to the ArbCom and would like some instruction on how to do so.

To be clear with you and others, I am quite jealous of a lot of wiki editors who have much time to do work here. I actually have very limited time to do so. THAT is why I cannot edit other articles...I simply don't have the time. I prefer to edit articles on subjects about which I am already knowledgeable. My academic background and writing history has taught me to be intellectually rigorous...and the fact that so many of my writings have been published in peer-review journals and in respected other sources is evidence of this. Sadly, however, some editors here who have a different POV than mine seek to mute those with a different POV. DanaUllman^Talk 04:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Dana, now that you have been topic banned, you can devote the free time you had available to edit in homeopathy to devote to something else. Of course you can continue with trying to overcome the restrictions, but why bother? Why not devote your energy to proving to Shell (and all those other editors over at ANI) that you are a Wikipedian rather than a something else? Of course you don't have to, but it just means you have the restrictions. Your call really. Shot info (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Same thing as I said. Spend a few months, even if its 5 minutes a week, and shove their own words back into their mouth at the end of it all. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana, I wrote an entire paragraph above that referenced the "crimes" that you asked about. When looking at those, I did look at the diffs and evaluate them, though in a community discussion closing with the consensus doesn't actually require me to do so. I found that I agreed with many of the claims; there were times where you clearly misrepresented a source despite 5 or more editors disagreeing and providing specific reasons why your summary was incorrect. There are times that you misrepresented an earlier discussion, for instance claiming consensus agreed with you, when even a quick look at the actual discussion shows that no other editors agreed with your position at all. Certainly some of this can be honest disagreement over the content of sources or misremembering earlier discussions - however, when it becomes a pattern, when many editors are letting you know you made a mistake and you continue anyways, then it crosses into disruptive. I believe the core problem here is that when consensus disagrees with you, you continue on as if nothing had happened - this is completely contrary to how editing works at Wikipedia and a huge time-sink for other editors who, like yourself, don't have unlimited time to spend on Wikipedia.

Content disagreements happen. In a contested area like homeopathy, I'm sure they happen more frequently. Part of editing at Wikipedia means learning to pick your battles and work productively with others. When everyone else disagrees with your viewpoint on a subject, no matter how right you may be, you need to drop the issue and move on. Wikipedia isn't designed as a platform to right the wrongs you see with how homeopathy is treated; your energy in that regard would be better spent on supporting research and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will never be on the front-line of changing anything - our policies prohibit anything but a representation of what other sources already say.

Since KillerChihuahua didn't close the discussion, there's really no reason to continue this argument. I performed my own evaluation of both the community discussion and the evidence given and came to mostly the same conclusions. Perhaps instead of assuming the worst, you could consider that perhaps this is an indication that her closing statements were fair rather than mine being biased. However, if you wish to take this back to the Arbitration Committee for review, you can request an amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Shell ^babelfish 14:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In due respect, I am not assuming the worse as you have suggested. I am just asking for fair treatment. I have to admit to not being clear on which sources you think I misrepresented. If you are referring to the discussion of the "withdrawn" article from the Cochrane Report, you do need to know that there IS some uncertainty as to its meaning, and in any case, it does not take away the fact that there are four large studies, all conducted by independent researchers, have showed efficacy of treatment. Further, your assertions that any of my statements about consensus were "without" any support are incorrect, and the fact that I did not engage in ANY edit warring shows that my work was not "disruptive."

Ultimately do you really think that it is fair that the homeopathy article totally ignored the two Cochrane Reports that just happened to have slightly positive statements about homeopathy, while at the same time, it references sevearl others from them that are all negative? In the discussion on replication of research, there IS evidence that this exists, and yet, the article relies upon a 1995 (!) article that suggests that it doesn't exist.

And I realize, as you note, that you do not need to evaluate any diffs to close the discussion. However, if one strives for accuracy and fairness, a certain due diligence is reasonable. Because the homeopathy article has so many anti-homeopathy editors who have created a body of information that has inaccuracies and strong POV, I seek more balance...and I am not looking for 50/50 "balance" (I simply want reference to and discussion of notable, verifiable information from reliable sources). It makes sense to give reference to RS meta-analyses and reviews of research, and this information should not be ignore just because it gives slightly positive results for homeopathy.

You seem to be a reasonable person, but I also notice that you are a busy editor. I cannot help but sense that you rushed your decision to judgment before having an adequate review of the situation and you relied upon editors with whom you have a history of good relations on other subjects, even though you perhaps do not see their strong biases on the subject of homeopathy. DanaUllman^Talk 16:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, I did take a thorough look at the discussion but again, you're always welcome to have the decision reviewed. Shell ^babelfish 03:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's disappointing to note that rather than using his freetime that he used to engage in the homeopathy article (and various editors about homeopathy and/or his banning from that article) to edit elsewhere, he has decided not to edit at all. Which effectively means he has banned himself from Wikipedia in general. Shot info (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ain't No Sunshine!!!!!!!!!!

Greetings Shell Kinney - I'm dismayed at the terse note you left on my talk page as I consider I have done nothing reproachable in the slightest. I realise that as an admin you come up with this kind of stuff all the time and would rather be doing other things, but I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to study the edits in question & explain where you consider I went "wrong". Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Shell ^babelfish 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. S'pose I'll just have to leave it at that and go off an' lick me wounds. The sun'll shine again tomorrow.--Technopat (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell Kinney I would like to know about the status of "Solomont: chapter.

I would like you to take a look at the discussion board, terrible insults and disrespect I am going through. I would like to discuss with somebody reasonable and experienced. I don't know who you are but I feel you know the ways of WP. I appriciate if you can get back to me so we can discuss this issue.

--Rm125 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanger

Hi Shell. I noticed a conversation you were having with QuackGuru, and wanted to make a quick comment. Your thought that editors may not be working on the article due to concerns of WP:OWN are indeed accurate, at least in my case. I first made efforts to help with the article back in Feb. (I think), and the talk page archives will be a testament to that. I'll be honest, I did rather give up on trying to improve the article, simply because I felt that no matter what I offered, it was rejected by QG. Now, I will admit that QG has added a great deal of quality input, but for myself, I was just not able to communicate my thoughts effectively. Rather than bicker about things, I simply went on to other areas where my efforts were met with less resistance. I do stop by from time to time at the Sanger article, and have on occasion considered putting it up for GAR. I haven't, because I didn't want to appear "pointy" or anything. Anyway, I'm the one who re-added the search box, simply because I think it helps editors find past conversations that may be relevant. The whole "founder vs. co-founder" is I think a prime example. To be honest, I liked the idea of a search box enough to add it to my own talk page. I'm not sure how the "stalking" comes into play here at all. The fact that you mentioned the entire "ownership" thing impressed me, as it showed a great deal of insight. My compliments. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you had trouble like that. Editors who don't allow changes to articles can really stall development and even end up seriously skewing the article. Hopefully QuackGuru will take this next month to seriously reflect on whether or not he really wants to edit here. Shell ^babelfish 00:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Amaras Monastery, Dadivank Monastery and Tzitzernavank Monastery

Hello, Shell. In this articles I wrote that location of this monasteries is de jure in Azerbaijan, because NKR is non-recognize rebublic. But you blocked me, cause I wrote true. Now please, Shell, explain me, why we must write NKR (don't recognize by any country), and don't write Azerbaijan (recognize by all countries).--Interfase (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You not blocked because of the content of your edits, you were blocked because you were edit warring. You need to discuss your changes with the editors who object and work out your differences. If you're unable to do that amongst yourselves, the methods discussed at WP:Dispute resolution can help you resolve the problem. Shell ^babelfish 01:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to discuss with them, but they don't want to agree with me. They also were edit warring, but not blocked.--Interfase (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok well if they don't agree with you (and its more than just one or two people) then its likely that the change will not get made. Wikipedia articles work by what we call consensus, meaning that everyone tries to agree on the right way to do things. Of course most times not everyone agrees and so we go with what the majority thinks.

If its just one or two editors though, you probably want to get more people involved in help to make the decision. The dispute resolution page I mentioned will give you a lot of ideas on how to involve other editors and help come up with a solution.

Either way, undoing their edits isn't the way to solve things. Shell ^babelfish 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gabrielle Ray

Hello, Shell. I hope you're having a nice summer. I have been reverting the same change by an editor with an apparent WP:COI over at the Gabrielle Ray article for some time. Ray was a famous actress in musicals about a century ago. The editor just established a username which clarifies what I had suspected, that she is a relative of the subject. In any case, it appears that the information that she wants to delete is, perhaps, embarrassing to her, although it is referenced and seems to be quite encyclopedic. I am happy to hear if she has a reason for deleting the info, but she seems reluctant to post to the talk page. Any ideas? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My summer has just been fantastic, thanks :D I've tried leaving a message for the editor to see if we can get some discussion going and find out what their concerns are. I've also added the article to my watchlist just in case they keep reverting and ignore the messages. Hopefully we can start a dialog and get this sorted out. If not and they continue to edit war, they may end up getting blocked :( Shell ^babelfish 01:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope she is willing to talk about it. She may have information that could improve the article.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

She certainly could. Wikipedia can be darn confusing, especially if you've never used a wiki before so sometimes it takes a few explanations of the basics like how to get to talk pages and that you're allowed to edit them to talk with others before a new user catches on to this new way to communicate. I also tried to give her my contact page, so if she clicks on it, we may be able to get a dialog started elsewhere and then help her out with communicating on Wikipedia. Here's hoping for the best :) Shell ^babelfish 01:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa L. Williams

My point was that everyone in America is of African descent; Williams' achievement was very specifically in being successful as a black person, not in being a coy euphemism. 213.78.235.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

Would be nice if everyone looked at it that way, but most don't think far back enough in history to get the reference. In any case, the majority of sources refer to the achievement in that manner, so Wikipedia follows suit. Shell ^babelfish 14:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E --Rockstone (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your blocks of User:Kehz99 and User:Contimm

Hi. It looks to me as if you made a mistake here. User:Kehz99 (=User:67.191.237.201)[70] did violate 3RR (both on Lagos and Abuja), User:Contimm didn't. User:Kehz99 (67.191.237.201) ignored several warnings and invitations to talk[71] [72][73], User:Contimm tried to seek consensus. He did so in accordance with User:Quantpole and me.[74] - Regards, Ankimai (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Contimm had a total of 7 reverts on those two pages in the past 24 hours; that certainly is more than enough to be edit warring. As odd as it might seem, even when we're sure another editor is wrong, we still have to stop and discuss. If Contimm just got caught up and understands not to continue reverting, I'd have no problem unblocking him/her. Kehz99/67.191.237.201 certainly does seem to be reverting more, so if they continue when they return its likely they'll receive a longer block next time. Shell ^babelfish 23:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, they both revert in steps. But actually these three reverts add up to just one, as well as these two do. Have mercy, please. Ankimai (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but its still edit warring no matter how you look at it. Its only a 24 hour block and Contimm doesn't even seem to be online right now. I'm not sure how much I'll be around Wikipedia today, but if Contimm comes back online and says that he won't edit war any more and I'm not here to unblock, feel free to point another admin at our discussion here and I'm sure they'll help you out. Shell ^babelfish 23:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? According to your fellow admin CIreland "consecutive edits count as one for the purposes of the three-revert-rule." [75] - Ankimai (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm positive because what I said was "he was edit warring" not "each edit he did counted as a revert". It would be interesting to know why he has never contacted me over the incident and you keep coming up with new excuses for why the block (now long over with) wasn't necessary. Shell ^babelfish 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And on it goes. Another revert to the User:Kehz99/67.191.237.201 version, this time by Tgbtgx: [76]. - Regards, Ankimai (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And on and on. - Ankimai (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have checkuser privileges, so I can't check to see that the same person is behind these accounts. Have you considered starting a sockpuppet investigation? Shell ^babelfish 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I will. But I'd say it's quite obvious that they are one person (meanwhile reverting bots too, by the way [77][78]). - Thanks, Ankimai (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list.  --Lambiam 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gabrielle Ray

Our friend Anna seems to have a new sockpuppet, User:Wishwynne, wouldn't you say? See recent changes to Gabrielle Ray. Also check anon user 86.142.170.80. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

About some of your comments in the "Arbitration Requests"

I realize you have no longer followed the discussions after the renaming, but I don't think you're describing my actions very accurately. The last post, where I expressed disagreement with the renaming, before it took place, was around 19:27, 28 June 2009, however I rejoined the debate around 12:37, 22 July 2009, after it was apparently reopened by user:Angr (who was uninvolved in earlier discussions) around 17:20, 20 July 2009. So, I was not the one who restarted the debate after the renaming was done. Please, check these discussions more carefully, at least if you have time. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if you'll look at my comments, I didn't say that you were single-handedly (or even at all) responsible for re-opening the debate. What I said was that you wouldn't let the issue go - its my opinion that your behavior after the mediation has several hallmarks of tendentious editing, though honestly its not clear if that's even what the case is about nor why I was named as a party. Hopefully the editor who opened the request will come back along and help make things a bit more clear. Shell ^babelfish 21:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the parts regarding my actions, I appreciate this. It is true, that I didn't changed my opinion about that issue, however, your comments earlier gave me the impression, that I continued to insist alone on that issue, all of the time that followed the renaming. But, I realize, that I misunderstood your comments, I'm sorry for the accusations. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem and honestly, even if you disagreed, I don't think you've done anything that should prompt a warning, much less Arbitration. I realized that in my attempt to guess why on earth Arbitration was requested, I might have erroneously been giving the impression that I thought some editor's behavior was that bad. Sorry if the comment came off that way. Shell ^babelfish 18:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lansing, Michigan article

Sorry, i didnt know where else t put this, but somebody keeps deleting the gay/pride article on the lansing page. Can you help?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakersw22 (talk • contribs) 20:04, September 3, 2009

I answered on your talk page. Shell ^babelfish 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

AE request concerning Pmanderson

I had meant to get back to this AE request, but it slipped my mind. As you have now closed it, I'm leaving a note here instead. As I said at the AE request, I'm commenting as an editor here, not an arbitrator (I'm recused on matters relating to this case). My question concerns the other editors whose restrictions were lifted by that arbitration motion. There were sixteen editors whose restrictions were lifted, of which eight had topic bans relating to the editing of MOS pages ("style and editing guidelines"). I mentioned two of them by name in my comments at the arbitration request, one of whom I had intended to file a separate arbitration enforcement request about (he later struck the comments I mentioned, but in the past I've seen action taken even after people have struck their comments). My question is whether you considered the actions of other editors or were just considering Pmanderson's actions? My other question is if there are concerns about the actions of other editors whose restrictions were recently relaxed, should AE requests be done separately, or all together? If the latter question is better asked at some talk page where other admins who deal with AE requests can see it, which page is now used for those sort of discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I had intended to look into those two issues as well and had honestly forgotten in the couple of days I waited to close. Personally I usually review the subject of an AE report separately, though in complex cases or when other editors behavior is specifically noted, I may do a wider review. In one case, I tracked a group of editors over a certain topic area for 6 months and another administrator used that data to decide on sanctions for several of the parties. So I guess the short answer is - it depends? I certainly don't mind if multiple editors related to the same case are grouped together; I've seen it done from time to time so while its not common, I believe its an accepted practice. Its a bit more difficult to pick out comments like yours that end up in the middle of the discussion - I don't know if we could consider changing the standard procedure a bit to allow later additions to the header so additional editors aren't overlooked? I'm sure there's a way it could be worked out. As far as discussion of procedure and things that go on at AE, since the split of the ArbCom pages, I'm not really sure how that works; I tend to use the talk pages of the few admins that tend to work there when I need to discuss things. Shell ^babelfish 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me; should I choose to appeal this, what would be the procedure? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. As I understand it, requests for appeals or changes are handled through ArbCom's request for amendments. Shell ^babelfish 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The complaints against me fall into two classes: those who attacked my comments about posts, in order to win a content dispute (I have not even been interested enough to comment on it for a couple days before your note to me), and one complaint arising from the arbitration case below, in which you are involved. The first class was behaving as badly as I was, if not worse; but I would prefer not to trouble with an AE myself. I therefore request either that you do consider the edits of Ohconfucius, for example, or that you reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you noticed Carcharoth's comments on the AE report but thankfully he reminded me of them. His specific concern was in regards to the conduct of Ohconfucius and GregL, whom I am reviewing to determine if a similar widening of the restriction or a separate prohibition would be appropriate. If I've missed someone from the case that you feel also returned to problematic behavior, you're welcome to drop me a note here rather than write up a full AE report.

As a side note since you seem concerned, my involvement in the case listed below extends only to my formal mediation of the earlier dispute on the Catholic Church article, so my inclusion is a bit baffling. Shell ^babelfish 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be some question whether the mediation exceeded the task set out for it. What you (or Sunray) had to do with this is unclear without seeing what happened. This article does remind me of the Macedonia problems; the same intensely focused editors with (in this case) Ultramontane religious and political views.

Please also pay some attention to Andy Walsh and Noetica; they showed great energy in getting me barred from a discussion when my disagreement was inconvenient, as here; in the section above that one, you should find comments from Noetica on my posts as least as uncordial as mine on Noetica's.

I would not have expected any of this to lead to a ban in either direction, and I would be perfectly happy to stay away voluntarily for some time; but I went back because my opinion was asked, and if my opinion is asked a couple months from now, I would like to be able to answer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that the naming issue is a difficult one with reasonable arguments for both sides. This kind of gray area doesn't seem to be something that Wikipedia's current dispute resolution methods handle well. Maybe a larger, more structured community discussion would be helpful in this case as well.

I'm not sure I agree that a mediation can exceed the task set out for it, since the task in all cases, is to provide a structured forum where participants can work towards a consensus. The discussion evolved rather naturally as the participants tried to tackle the heart of the issue that led them to continual disagreements over wording. Unfortunately I haven't kept up to speed with revival of the dispute, so its difficult for me to guess what led to the request for arbitration.

I will take a look there as well; in fact it sounds like it might be helpful to review the case and anyone who's gotten re-involved in the discussions more closely. If there's anything in particular you'd like to call to my attention, feel free to leave notes. Perhaps when looking at the picture as a whole, there might be a way to resolve this without the need for any sort of ban. Shell ^babelfish 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps make clear that Andy Walsh and Noetica are engaged in MOS; only the first paragraph of my last note strayed to the Roman question. Let me know when you reach a decision about review. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant to say that I would take a look at Andy Walk and Noetica as well. Looking at that now, the way I wrote it was horrible confusing :) Shell ^babelfish 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've starting looking into these bits and I noticed that neither Andy nor Noetica were parties to the case and thus not subject to any of its restrictions. Shell ^babelfish 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not; my apologies, I should have said so. If you find them worthy of admin attention, however, please do so - obnoxiousness need not be mentioned by ArbCom to be dealt with.

Noetica, however, has been on wiki-hiatus for two weeks, however; so xe is not urgent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For an example of what I should like to do, can I have a waiver to respond to this message with a suggestion on the point at issue? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Hi, in regards to Dilip rajeev's enforcement case [79], there was no word of admin decisions for over 2 weeks. I'm just wondering if this case is still ongoing. Thanks.--PCPP (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, the bot came and archived it, but as the case hasn't been closed one way or another, I have just unarchived it. Any heads up would be appreciated. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't know the clarification was closed. I didn't want to put sanctions in place until everyone had a chance to clear up what exactly the ArbCom meant to happen in that case. Shell ^babelfish 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

PManderson topic ban

Hi Shell. I am confused as to the status of Mr Anderson's remedy; I had understood that you had imposed a full-topic ban on his participation and discussion of the MoS pages. Tony (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was any confusion. I had re-broadened the ban which had recently been changed via motion; if there is a conflict over this, it would be best to get clarification from ArbCom that they intended re-widening the ban to be an option. However, this is the first I've heard of any protest to my action and its a bit disheartening that Sandstein chose to shoot down your request in that manner rather then bring his concerns to ArbCom or myself. Shell ^babelfish 02:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFAR

Powergate92 continued to use the page to list other perceived misuses of rollback and has now started a discussion on WP:ANI about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm honestly not terribly familiar with what lead to the Mythdon case; I've only seen the self-destructive behavior after the case was over. Perhaps the best way to handle it would be to acknowledge that some of your rollbacks are border-line cases and consider using a different option (undo maybe?) for cases that aren't clear vandalism. Once you leave others with nothing to complain about, if they continue to search for issues with your behavior, it will become more clear that what they are doing is inappropriate. Since edit histories are open for anyone to review, sometimes people are going to browse through them - they may even decide to call attention to mistakes. Its not flattering, but it is an opportunity to improve and learn from others concerns. Shell ^babelfish 02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gabrielle Ray and Nelly Power

A new username (User:Wishwynne) is making the same deletions at Gabrielle Ray and I see has also deleted material from Nelly Power without explanation. This is probably the 4th sockpuppet she/he has used. Would you kindly take another look? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Coughlin

It's been awhile since I checked in on the Coughlin page. Looks like I missed a lot. I responded in the discussion, but was hoping you could take a stab at the wording of the paragraph yourself. "JamesRenner (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)"

Requesting guidance on how to handle a particular set of issues

The Falun gong set of pages have witnessed systematic removal of content by a certain set of users. Recently 20K was blanked out from the main article saying it was being moved to the subpages. Then all the central content of these subpages were deleted out - sources ranging from Amnesty and HRW to the US Congress. A subpage was reverted to a two year old version, another awfully shortened, one first shortened from 67KB to 26KB and then deleted under the pretext there is little reason to maintain an article having little content and lawyering for a merger with a related namespace. From a BLP was removed positive content sourced to western academia in favour of propagandistic slander that has only appeared in CCP media.Some of these changes are driven by staw-polls in which these editors establish a numerical majority and agree with each other on the changes.

After you asking me to focus on the content, I've been attempting to do precisely that - ignoring a cynical/sarcastic remark, presenting sources, my rationale for changes in detail on talk, etc. I had decided to contribute to a human rights related page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propaganda_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Help_with_research.2C_please.. ( could you kindly go through my attempts to start a positive discussion, focus on content, make improvements and the response received..) . The specific problem is that no matter how detailed I present things some of these editors derail things through arguments like the one made there in response to my detailed comments and invitation for help in doing research: " "Since when is RSF a reliable source? A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS--PCPP (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)"

My past experience has been that once you respond to such comments, they end up derailing the discussion, taking things in circles, overwhelm you through strength of numbers, finally manage to keep the information out and even attack you and make you appear among other editors as the one engaging in disruptive editing. One can reason with people making arguments with a rationale - but am at a loss as to how to respond to such things or to even respond at all. If someone says an RSF report on CCP propaganda is "rhetorics from a CIA funded organization".. am really at a loss how to respond. To put it in other words you can help a person who does not know understand - but it is harder dealing with someone feigning ignorance and coming up with baseless arguments to achieve their ends. The very two users making sneering comments have in the past attacked info sourced to Amnesty international saying Amnesty is just a "lobby group", Danny Schechter for being a "favourite Falun Gong aligned journalist", etc.

I could collect detailed evidence of systematic removal of highly sourced content from these pages the two users have engaged in the past couple of years. How should I proceed? Should I attempt to move forward focusing solely on the content, ignoring such comments - or should I raise my concerns and present a detailed case to the admins since it has happened on pages placed on probation by the arbcom?

Thanking You. Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

re:Evidence presented by Shell Kinney

Sorry about fwd quoting parts of your email (once); there was nothing in it that would reflect on you in a bad light and it was done with no intent to harm you; I probably should've asked you for permission or paraphrased it. Please accept my public apology. Lesson learned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Shell or Piotrus, can you tell me the date of the email so that I can highlight it in the evidence that we are reviewing? FloNight♥♥♥ 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume Shell is referring to <20090622-1605-[WPM] Shell Kinney investigating AE issues.eml> It seems genuine to me. I can explain my reasons for quoting it to ArbCom or Shelly, privately or publicly. As I said before (publicly and privately... which you can now confirm), I think Shell did a great job with her review back then; I was attempting to help in my own way using my inside channels to some of the participants and engaging them in a discussion about what they've done wrong and how they can improve their behavior. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, thank you. I'll review <20090622-1605-[WPM]. Since you have characterized the nature of the internal discussions, I'm going to do the same. I've look at more than 1/3 of the emails (all of July, August and Sept.) And I've skimmed some of the rest. So far I have formed the impression that in too many instances the group (you included) was violating policy by coordinating ways to get your groups pov edits in an article. For example, there were many instances of coordinating who could revert in order to not have one user violated 1RR and get blocked or banned. The discussions about ways to get around article editing restrictions far out number the internal discussion about why someone's on site edits were problematic. I intend to closely review the discussions that pertain to AE. In particular, any discussion about ways to manipulate the admins that work AE is going to get close scrutiny. Users with sanctions proposed will alerted to the emails to verify the evidence that supports a Finding of fact.

From what I've seen so far, I don't think that forgery is an issue. Since the person leaking would reasonably assume that you all had copies, I seriously doubt that they tampered with the emails. I've formed the opinion that they were not a troll but a whistle blower. It is much more likely that a different person trolling the case now will add in some thing fake now. This has happened before in other cases. So, we will look carefully at each piece of evidence sent through to the ArbCom mailing list or referred to on the case page. This case is a priority, but we have other case work, too. So, I appreciate your patience as we carefully work our way through the evidence. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Juice Plus

Hello there. I noticed that you indefinitely fully protected this page on 22 August. I was wondering if you think it would be safe to unprotect it now. Regards, NW (Talk) 22:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem like the talk page discussion died out before they resolved the issue that led to the protection but I'll go ahead and unprotect the article; hopefully there won't be a return to edit warring. Shell ^babelfish 02:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Help, help... Oh God help.

Hey, a really messed up discussion has ensued on the Talk:Middle_Bronze_Age_Alphabets. Apparently ancient marginalia is more controversial than current controversy. Anyway, I've lost my gumption to try to edit anymore because of what I think is overzealous protection by one uneducated and unqualified person. I would like to request mediation/or a mediator. I apologize, I'm just now working my way through the bureaucracy of these processes after years of Wiki consumption. Hence an issue like this, where most web information is derived from a semi-fraudulent Wiki page, scares the hell out of me. Rather than actually try to help, I am wondering what the etiquette is on overzealous reversions of citations. It's pretty complicated, so any advice you could give would be quite useful. Sincerely. Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Gabrielle Ray

Can we take stronger action against the person who keeps deleting information from the article? Thanks for any assistance. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

application

Hi, Shell. You advised me like this and Rlevse advised me like this in May. So I edited too difficult and too nationalitc articles for fulfill your demands as far as I could. And I obeyed Future Perfect at sunrise's order from 13:33, 21 January 2009. I handled many dispute without troubles. Please release the topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Milomedes

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grundle2600: continued problems

This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Juice Plus and User:Rhode_Island_Red

Would you please cast an eye over the Juice Plus article when you have time? Over the past months several editors without a history of editing there (including a couple who were rather unrestrained in their criticism of RIR) have commented on the negative tone of the Juice Plus article. Recent attemps to amend the paragraph on folate and homocysteine response have been met by stone-walling and editor denigration (accusations of SPA, meat/sock puppetry and COI have been made) from RIR. I think it may be time for another review of this article - I don't wish that on anyone but the situation is untenable as it stands. Please take a look. I'm posting this on Elonka's page too). Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

More nonsense. Please do have a look though. The homocysteine "issue"[80] to which TraceyR refers has already been resolved by the inclusion of a reputable secondary source that summarizes the research results as "non-reproducible"[81] and by removing a data value over which we could not reach an agreement (whether to use the 7% or 8.4%).[82] TraceyR stepped up the intensity of, what I perceive to be, a pattern of chronic disruption, in the midst of another editor trying to start an edit war and launching crude personal attacks against me -- i.e., Dubbawubba (talk)(contribs), since banned indefinitely. All of the editors who have recently appeared on the article/talk page to echo TraceyR;s POV complaints are SPAs and potential/apparent sock puppets -- e.g., Patriot Missile33, Nitrousexpress22, 23years (banned indefinitely last week for vandalism), Wise Woman in the West, and several anon IPs -- and several write in the distinctive style of Juice Plus distributor JuliaHavey, who, as you know, has a long history of disruptive behavior on this article and for whom TraceyR has served as a proxy in the past. [83][84] You may recall that when I and Bhimaji recently responded to the vague and undefined complaints about the article's overall lack of neutrality by opening several new discussion threads and inviting comment,[85][86][87][88] the critics (TraceyR and Patriot Missile 33) ceased to comment (no replies to invitation for comment throughout September 10 to October 28). Patriot Missile disappeared in early September (never to return again) and a few weeks later Dubbawubba appeared, writing in the same voice/style as Patriot Missile 33, with the notable difference that Dubbawuba’s personal attacks were quit a bit more ferocious.[89]

The only tangible editorial issues that TraceyR has put forth recently, and which she now pretends is unresolved, concern: (a) how to describe the findings of the Samman study (a primary reference) in the cardiovascular/homocysteine section of the article;[90][91], which has now been resolved by inclusion of the secondary reference from MSKCC; and (b) whether to describe the Gummies as “discontinued”[92] (TracyR has been advised that such mention is not acceptable in the absence of confirmation by a WP:RS). Once again unable to set forth compelling arguments or to provide WP:RS, TraceyR’s ploy has misleadingly reverted, yet again, to making this an issue of article control and my conduct, when this is clearly not the case. We are dealing with a disruptive editor who refuses to play by the rules and then gets frustrated when things don’t go her way.[93][94][95] There are also screamingly loud COI issues here and TraceyR, when asked directly by editors on two different occasions[96] whether she has a COI, has refused to reply (I on the other, gave an immediate reply ("no") when first asked this question more than a year ago).

If TraceyR does not modify her behavior and instead insists on using dishonest means to achieve her editorial objectives, then my ultimate goal will be to gte this case to ANI and request that she be indefinitely banned from further participation on this article as a result of chronic disruption and likely COI (see WP:DUCK). A sock puppet IP trace/SPI is also warranted to clean up some of these anon IP/vandal/disruption/COI issues. I have strong suspicions that one or two users (presumably Juice Plus distrbutors) are behind most if not all of these attacks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have triggered that lot, none of which was relevant to the issue at hand (the negative slant of the article). I'll take further issues with him to his own talk page. It would be good, however, to have an independent opinion of the neutrality of the article. I do believe that when the majority of edits of an article are made by an editor with a documented low opinion of the article's subject, it's neutrality is almost certain to suffer. This is the real issue with this article. If you have been following the talk page there, you'll have seen several serious editors argue this issue (in vain). Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Folks, Shell Kinney has been absent from the wiki for at least six weeks now, and is almost certainly not reading this conversation. Please take this discussion elsewhere. If you're concerned about the reliability of a source, take it to to WP:RSN or one of the other noticeboards listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you're concerned about sockpuppetry, file a report at WP:SPI. --Elonka 14:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ban violation?

When I returned to Wikipedia after several months of not editing, I noticed things were very quiet at Chiropractic, a page I have contributed to a fair amount in the past. After some digging, I found that User:QuackGuru and User:Levine2112 were banned from editing at Chiropractic, and banned from editing that topic... based on some recent edits to User_talk:QuackGuru, I think that this ban is being violated. Here is an example diff, and another.

I may be wrong on what does or does not constitute breaking that topic ban, but thought that you should be informed. DigitalC (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a violation. These are not chiropractic articles. At naturopathy, the critism section required expansion. I expanded the entire section. See Naturopathy#Evidence basis. The idea for the anti-vaccination view came from an IP commenting on the talk page. So I made this edit and then I made the same edit to vaccination controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not here to argue with you. However, editing about D. D. Palmer, the founder of Chiropractic, at Quackery doesn't seem to be abiding a topic-ban on Chiropractic to me - neither does editing a section of an article that specifically mentions Chiropractic. However, since (I think) Shell Kinney was the one to place the ban, I will leave it up to her to determine whether or not it is breaking the ban or not. DigitalC (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it looks like Shell has been on wikibreak since September. --Elonka 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

apologies

Looking at my contributions, it seems that I deleted a post of yours on the AN several hours ago, completely by accident. I can't explain how it happened (an extra click as I was closing tabs or something??) but I want to assure you it was not intentional. This is especially the case because I always think you talk a tremendous amount of sense!! Sorry. --Slp1 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured - I've done that before when a tab closed on me or another one was slow closing and I clicked in the wrong place :) I figured if I'd lost my mind and posted something horrible, you'd come drop me a note after I put it back. No worries and thanks for the compliment! Shell ^babelfish 14:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

Shell, I am sorry to have generated a tangent earlier today. It seems like we are in partial agreement on the WP:EEML case. It is a shame that Piotrus will be precluded from contributing to Polish articles, obviously a topic where he has extensive knowledge and where he has demonstrated writing skills. Some of the other list members have engaged in WP:BATTLE behavior. Even without reference to any mailings, it is painfully obvious that they've been coordinating, hounding, and gaming the rules. There is sufficient evidence on wiki to justify editing restrictions. Unfortunately, it is hard to generate a consensus on WP:AE to do something because of the tag teams active there. In response to several messy WP:AE threads, I had requested the arbitration committee to look into these matters earlier this year (I think, have not dug up diffs yet). At nearly the same time I had requested Piotrus refrain from administrating in EE disputes. Regrettably, both of my requests were rejected. Jehochman ^Talk 19:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it looks like we were arguing similar points and simply missing each other in the process. :) I haven't looked at the current voting on the case but we can always hope for some last minute creative restrictions that don't involve blanket bans. In any case, hopefully we're at least working towards solutions for some of these more difficult disputes. Shell ^babelfish 02:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Outlaw Halo Award
		This award is given to User:Shell Kinney for her long and tireless work at arbitration enforcement and for her commitment to quality encyclopedia content. Jehochman Talk 02:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC) (about the award)

ArbCom Case Ban

ArbCom clerk notice - Normally I issue a warning first but your recent conduct on the case pages has been so disruptive I am going straight to a ban. Inflammatory statements and irrelevant discussion is strictly prohibited on the EEML case pages as per ArbCom ruling. You are thus banned from any and all pages associated with the EEML case for seven days. Manning (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Having let the pages for the Abd-WMC case spin totally out of control (though of course denying such), Arbcom is now going overboard in the opposite direction. Presumably they will settle to an equilibrium over time. Further musings here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this "ban" is unreasonable and shows very poor judgment on Manning's part. I have raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks as he appears to have left the project. WJBscribe (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be addressed by clerks and arbs. In my opinion it was not needed when given, and the request for review was not handled in an ideal way. It is being discussed on the clerk's mailing list and I expect to have an answer soon. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. WJBscribe (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

For the arbs to put this all down to Manning seems a bit unfair. Does the committee not clearly communicate its standards and expectations to the clerks? Perhaps you should consider doing so in order to prevent things like this in future. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for taking a look at this. Shell ^babelfish 19:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:CarolineWH

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CarolineWH (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH. -- Paularblaster (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Thought you might like to know. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

re:ArbCom questions

Thanks for getting back to me on such a minor matter. If you get elected, please don't lose this attitude :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban Violation (part 2)

User:QuackGuru was blocked for 2 weeks recently for violating the topic ban that you imposed. After the block expired, QuackGuru continued to edit at the same articles again. The admin who issued the 2 week block feels that this is not a violation of the topic ban, but is open to another admin reviewing his/her evaluation of the situation. Since you were the one who imposed the 6 month topic ban, would you mind reviewing this? You would certainly know what you intended with the topic ban better than I would, or anyone else for that matter. The discussion is located at User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#Topic_Ban. Diffs can be provided if needed. DigitalC (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Welcome back from your wikibreak! DigitalC (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look. And thanks for the welcome :) Shell ^babelfish 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sarek here; while Vaccination controversy discusses Chiropractic, it is not about Chiropractic. If he were being disruptive in the bit about Chiropractic in the article, that would violate the spirit of the ban, but that didn't appear to be the case in the edits I reviewed. If there's a dispute over content there, its going to need to go through the standard dispute resolution process. Shell ^babelfish 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this issue. As I said above, since you placed the ban you understand best what it is supposed to encompass, and I respect your decision. DigitalC (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Same editor, but different topic

QG is generally being disruptive in his editing and is also repeating his typically odd and unhelpful manner of discussing on talk pages on the Aspartame and Aspartame controversy articles. Lots of IDHT, circular arguments, repetition, and general stonewalling. It's a pattern we've seen before. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a quick look and noticed that the problems seem similar to what led to his banning from Chiropractic. On Aspartame controversy he continues to make the same brief statement despite other editors explaining that his statement isn't accurate; it appears that he's also continuing to revert based on that statement and ignoring the input of other editors. It might be time for a community discussion; his inability to work with others and continual reverting are sucking up the time of far too many editors. Shell ^babelfish 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read this comment. BullRangifer agrees it is OR. QuackGuru (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what's happening. We've seen it before. I suspect it is partially an ethnic background/language problem, and a mental inability to thoroughly understand the intricacies of discussion. It all ends up being very disruptive and time wasting. Even Levine2112's stonewalling is at least somewhat more understandable, even if it also uses stonewalling as a tactic. QG's method is very primitive, but nonetheless effective at dragging out discussions forever. It is also complicated by an intense actual edit warring on articles at the same time. There is no real effort to reach a consensus version which most of the editors will protect. It's a battleground to force his version into the article. Even though we often are on the same ideological side of the issues (IOW I sometimes agree with the POV against quackery and pseudoscience), he does more harm than good to the project. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer I think you agree with me. See this comment. Most of the editors agreed it was original research. QuackGuru (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention OR. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, that's an excellent example of the kinds of problems you're having. There was no reason to make the same statement twice here; if it was two sections on a large talk page, then maybe, but its just gratuitous here. In any case, you might consider that (as BullRangifer noted) even editors who agree with your positions find your style of discussion and constant reverting problematic. Reverting repeatedly is not appropriate except in cases of vandalism.

Btw, when I said you were being repetitive on that page, I was actually referring to the many statements where you threw out MEDRS as if it was a holy grail despite other editors politely and repeatedly explaining to you that the guideline had absolutely nothing to do with the case being discussed. Listen more, revert less and find compromises. Shell ^babelfish 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the references in question. Both references including the letter and the WebMD article are still in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"The findings of this study was questioned." This sentence along with both references are still in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but that really doesn't address what I said at all. You are reverting repeatedly on that page and you are refusing to move forward in discussions by using MEDRS like a bludgeon instead of discussing the actual points being made. Can you understand why other editors might have concerns that these behaviors make progress on the article difficult? Shell ^babelfish 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I requested outside opinion to move forward with the discussion. I understand it is difficult for ediotrs to apply new policies like MEDRS on controversial topics. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did, which is certainly a good step. It would be helpful though if you would address the actual points being made by editors in both discussions. For example, at the outside discussion, have you noted that no other editors have agreed with you yet? Can you consider that the discussions may be going in circles not because other editors refuse to listen to you but because you haven't addressed any of their points and simply keep repeating yourself? On Wikipedia when folks disagree about how guidelines should be applied, then a discussion needs to happen. You cant simply keep stating that the policy applies. Shell ^babelfish 17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

After I realised the discussion was not moving forward I requested outside opinion. Can you explain which points made by others I did not address. When editors did not address the points I made I took it to uninvolved editors. You understand I did not remove the letter from the body of the article. After I made my points on the talk page and left it to others to decide if the letter and text should remain in the body of the Aspartame controversy‎ article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

An example

(outdent)Ok, lets take a quick look at one discussion. Your comments:

• This edit confounded two references in the same sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 6:31 pm, 28 November 2009

Hans Adler initially agreed with you. Fxsstm explains further and Hans then notes he does not believe there is improper synthesis except for the use of controversial.

• This discussion is about confounding two references in the same sentence. It was fixed with with this edit. After editors stop messing up the text by mixing different sources then we can discuss what the text shopuld say. We can't move forward when editors want to editorial references and confuse the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 1:45 pm, 29 November 2009

Fxsstm makes an edit trying to address the concerns of both you and Hans. Discussion then moves on to your addition of MEDRS tags. Hans and Fxsstm both state that they feel the tagging is unnecessary. Instead of addressing their comments you simply state:

• You have not explained how this letter meets MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 12:11 pm, 30 November 2009

and

• According to Fxsstm, a letter is not RS. A letter is not equal to a review. This is a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 11:25 am, 30 November 2009

Fxsstm explains that he did not claim a letter is not a reliable source, instead, the problem was that the letter you added was not a study (as your edit claimed) nor did it support the text you added. Again, instead of addressing anything that was said, or dropping the issues since Fxsstm clarified that he did not mean what you claim, you say:

• Fxsstm believes a letter must be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 10:02 pm, 30 November 2009
• Fxsstm believes a letter should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 11:50 am, 30 November 2009

At this point, it appears that you are testy at having your edit removed from Aspartame and are drawing the false conclusion that all letters should now be removed. Fxsstm again explains that you are grossly misrepresenting his comments. You then say:

• A letter on this page is no different than a letter on the main page. You can't have it both ways. QuackGuru (talk) 9:50 pm, 30 November 2009

Fxsstm rightly points out that these are two separate issues with completely different reasoning. My comment: This entire line of debate was a waste of everyone's time and seems like sour grapes. Clearly the two issues are not the same and it is rude, at the very least, to take other editor's comments out of context and try to twist them for your purposes. You then drop your claims about Fxsstm's comments, but move on to misrepresenting another editor:

• Another editor beleives a letter is an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 12:00 pm, 30 November 2009

Hans then jumps back in to explain why MEDRS does not apply in this case. Instead of addressing his points, you simply say:

• MEDRS policy is not a red herring. We should not ignore MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 9:50 pm, 30 November 2009

Fxsstm tries another explanation of why MEDRS is not applicable in this case. You then go back to your earlier complaint:

• The sentecne is still original research. Confounding two references together in the same sentence is plain wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 9:50 pm, 30 November 2009

Fxsstm explains why he believes it is not original research. Hans then says that he believes that controversial/controversy being used in this way is original research or at least an improper synthesis and asks a few questions of Fxsstm. You then interject:

• The source does not meet MEDRS. So I don't see any point to 1 or 2. QuackGuru (talk) 10:14 am, 2 December 2009

At this point, folks start ignoring your comments. You've said the same thing multiple times now as if by simply restating it, you can make it true. Please remember that interpretation of policies and guidelines and how they relate to articles is always up for discussion. Just because you believe a policy applies and applies in a certain way doesn't make it true - consensus is still required. Fxsstm then addresses what Hans had to say. Again, you interject:

• You appear to be ignoring MEDRS. Please show how the source mmets MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 10:14 am, 2 December 2009

Now Hans replies, pointing out again that MEDRS is irrelevant and explains why. Again, you do not address anything he said and instead simply repeat yourself (do you see the pattern yet that editors are concerned about?):

• No, we can't ignore MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 10:29 am, 2 December 2009

Yet again Hans explains why MEDRS doesn't apply in the situation that other editors are trying to discuss despite your continued interference. You simply repeat again:

• We have a review that meets MEDRS but misusing a letter to undermine the review is a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 10:53 am, 2 December 2009

Then, despite finding no consensus or even a single edit who will agree with you, you change the article to reflect your viewpoint:

• I made this change. No evidence has been given the reference meets MEDRS. Improper synthesis should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 10:23 am, 2 December 2009

A third editor, DigitalC then points out that your change was inappropriate and he also believes that MEDRS doesn't apply in this case. You simply state, again:

• It is applicable in this instance. A letter is being used to undermine a review. QuackGuru (talk) 11:06 am, 2 December 2009

Several other editors then engage in productive discussion about whether controversy is appropriate here and reach a general consensus.

During this entire and rather lengthy discussion, you did nothing to assist in moving forward. At no time did you offer any explanation or argument for your position, instead you simply repeated yourself. More than once, you misrepresented the comments of other editors. You did not address the explanations offered by others and inserted your comments multiple times in places where your assertions weren't even being discussed. This is not a productive way to handle differences in opinion over content. Shell ^babelfish 18:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A beautiful example of parsing a difficult situation! There seems to be a fundamental defect in his ability to carry on a discussion, and that often causes significant disruption. A widened topic ban might be the best thing. While much of the disruption occurs on talk pages, we can't really ban him from them and allow him to continue his disruptive editing patterns in articles, so a general topic ban would be best. That would apply to the subjects of health, medicine, alternative medicine, pseudoscience, fringe science, quackery, etc., whether in articles, talk pages, or even in his own talk page. Best to avoid the topics completely for awhile. This behavior is exactly, to a T, the same as the behavior exhibited by the indef banned KrishnaVindaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (KV), so much so that I have always suspected that QG was a sock of that disruptive user. A CU should be performed:

• KV stopped editing on 12-05-2006
• QG started editing on 12-31-2006

Coincidence? I think not. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with BullRangifer above, recent contributions betray a tendency towards hyperbole, misrepresenting or misunderstanding sources, wikilawyering and failure to engage in constructive debate. I don't particularly wish to see QG blocked, but it might do us all well to have him engage in less controversial subjects for a while, perhaps the cleanest break would be extending the topic ban to cover health-related articles as a whole.

• Misrepresenting sources: Introduced a letter to the editor as a study, changed section heading based on it - Note here that it is impossible that QG had even read the letter, the author argues that there is no controversy because Aspartame has never been found to be safe. Yet QG defends the usage of this letter he has not read by an author that he likely has not investigated by stating that she is an authority in the field[97]. This basic misrepresentation continues over the next few days. In my opinion such behavior casts serious doubt over what benefit this editor bestows on the project.

• Hyperbole: When the letter (as used) is found to be a violation of MEDRS by consensus on the talkpage QG starts tagging non MEDRS applicable text as MEDRS violations[98][99][100], then claims that as the 'safety' letter usage is found to be medrs violation then an unrelated letter must be removed[101] when I explain my position regarding in-text attribution and letters, QG insists that both would need to be removed[102].

• Fails at engaging in constructive debate: Misrepresents my statement and generally unsatisfactory argumentation technique[103]. Communication failure[104].

• Tendentious argumentation: The MEDRS issue has been raised before, here is an example where QG offers an impressive display of the stonewalling technique[105], how and where MEDRS should be applied is something that QG has been made aware on numerous occasions.

These are articles with touchy subject matter where most editors should endeavor to keep the drama and excitement to a minimum, QGs involvement serves only to distract and inflame. Unomi (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and per my comments above I think a widened topic ban would be best. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru is guilty

[106] QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

juice plus discussion page

rhodes island red keep undoing a comment that I placed in response to Tracy and yor exchange. It is a valid point and not OT why is he undoing my comments. I feel it only furtehr illustrates the point that editor tracy is tryign to make that this particular editor refuses to allow content he personally disagrees with, and now is doing so even on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.134.3 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion of the article content. Frankly the thing between Tracey and RhodeIslandRed shouldn't be carried out there, if at all. If you have concerns over article content, the talk page is the place to discuss it. If you have concerns that not enough editors are involved or that one editor is dominating the process, there are a number of options available through dispute resolution. One option is creating a request for comment that describes the question over content. These should be worded as neutrally as possible and stick to discussing content as opposed to other editors. These can draw in outside opinions to help resolve content questions. Another option if there's a dispute between just two editors is getting what Wikipedia calls a third opinion - again, its a place to describe the content question and have a non-involved editor give their opinions based on Wikipedia policy. Finally, if the concern is over an editor's conduct, there are multiple avenues - wiki-etiquette discussions for problems with incivility or a request for comment on an editor's behavior if there's a pattern of problems.

So in short, the talk page of the article really isn't the place for discussions about other editors. I'm going to go ahead and redact that section since it doesn't serve to moving the article content forward. If you have any questions about any of the processes I've mentioned above or anything further I can assist with, please let me know. Shell ^babelfish 21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your decision. It has become a childish sandbox fight between anyone "pro" juice plus, or desiring nuetrality on that article and ONE editor. I say that at risk of being accused of attacking or badmouthing that one editor, but facts are facts. Now, please adress the Dr. Isadore Rosenfelf video issue. There is video showing his unsolicited and unpaid "take juice plus" comment live on air, and the subsequent disclaimer the following week affirming that there was NO financial involvement or exchange. Rhode isalnd red refuses to allow this "pro" juice plus comment calling it an advertorial when it is clearly NOT. Yet he allows and defends the "con" juice plus comments made by others. How is this nuetral or nonbiased and why is it allowed to continue on Wikipedia. I am particularly interested in your response as you are wanting to be and admin/policy setter/adherance leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.134.3 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you tried to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article first (which is exactly what you should have done) but haven't gotten a response. You could try leaving a note on RhodeIslandRed's talk page since he removed the material, but this looks like an excellent case for getting other editor's opinions. You might find editors interested and knowledgeable on the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine; there's also a project for alternative medicine if you think that might be a more appropriate place. There's also a request for comment, which is posted for all outside editors who are interested to comment on - these can be hit or miss; sometimes you get a lot of responses and sometimes you get very few - generally the best way to get more responses is to write a clear concise statement of the content question to be answered. Getting more editors interested in the article in general might help; a fresh set of eyes can often catch things that more involved editors may have missed. If you need any help with writing something up for one of those spots, just let me know. Shell ^babelfish 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryūlóng / Powergate92 interventions

Hello--

Wanted to thank you for coming in and commenting. After User:Spitfire came in with at least another pair of eyes and had a fair point to make on definitions, I left this message, which is pretty much my rationale for handling things as I did (so I encourage you to read it as well). I'm open to any criticisms on it, but as rollback my options are quite limited and from similar experience the parties usually need just reminder of the 'big picture' and it dissipates. Out of safety I never say speak "block" in any way shape or form unless it's at least one step removed from anything suggested, because I have not been given the trust to suggest as such. What you started from on questions is obviously more ground-level and what I should have grabbed for but I assumed basic reversion process wasn't in need of large review, and I'm sorry for over-simplifying the situation and automatically assuming too much of them both. It was nothing but best intentions on my part and I assumed there was not any specific editor objection as they had ample opportunity several times to chime in. Any advice welcomed... since it's ANI I basically assume admins read things over and comment where they feel things were discussed improperly... this seemed non-controversial. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you handled things just fine. I have quite a number of pages watchlisted and a pretty good memory, so in this case I remembered that this same dispute has been brought up at least 3 times in the last year. At this point, they clearly need to leave each other alone and hopefully they can both learn something that helps them elsewhere :) Shell ^babelfish 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am currently working my way through the questions...

You might wish to remove this banner from your arbcomm Q page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for pointing that out. Shell ^babelfish 22:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: re: Holiday offer

(Just realized you may not have had room on your watchlist to watch me for a reply. lol Here's a belated copy of reply from my talk:)

Bless you for noticing my random grace of much foolishness. Honor! Dirt! Soap! Dumb. Happy holidays. :-)

PS: But, yes, fortunately I was not taken up on the offer. The backyard dirt is safe... for now. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:TJ logo sculpture.jpg

Today you deleted a file that was added to Possibly unfree files back when the article Virginia was up for FAC. The image included a welcome sign for a number one ranked high school in the United States, and that welcome sign included a large model of the school's logo. User:Stifle decided that this was a statue and not a welcome sign, a decision I disagree with, since its not an original design. I was unable to find out who built the welcome sign, but don't think that they're relevant to the discussion. At the very least, a user could have added a fair-use rationale, but because I thoroughly disagree, I was going to leave that action for once the discussion was closed. Now it seems that you deleted the file because a template wasn't added. So can you perhaps allow me or another user to add that template, that I guess you believe it needs.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 18:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I've undeleted it. Thanks for the note. Shell ^babelfish 07:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 08:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Some reverts

I've recently reverted some of your edits here and here. After you were done, the image still had (and has) 2 conflicting licenses on it.--Rockfang (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As was explained to you in the discussion, PUI is not the appropriate place to resolve that issue; it exists only to handle questionable free images. I have removed the PD tag as well since the image in question does not meet the criteria for that tag. Please consider discussing next time before reverting. Shell ^babelfish 12:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:PUF was exactly the right place to list it. The first line on that page states: "This page is for listing and discussing images that are marked as available under a free license or public domain, but have disputed source or licensing information." It was marked as public domain and the license was disputed. Your initial closure appeared to not fix anything as you left both conflicting licenses on the file. And on your final point, I don't think there is anything wrong with the way I reverted and then discussed.--Rockfang (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to disagree, alternately, you could have simply removed the obviously incorrect license yourself since the fair use claim with rationales was already in place. I believe those things were already pointed out to you during the discussion. As for reverting before discussion, I think you'll find that its frowned upon on Wikipedia. Shell ^babelfish 13:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't obviously an incorrect license. There are occasions when security camera images are in the public domain. As mentioned in this discussion and the one below it. This link also talks about how some security camera images are public domain. And if reverting and then discussing is frowned upon, why do we have WP:BRD?--Rockfang (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the pd-ineligible template is that it is used only in cases where there is no creativity involved in the image, for example a logo that is simply the letter x. Perhaps security camera footage could be considered to lack creativity, but someone did initially set up the camera to catch an area in a particular way, so perhaps not. There may be a case for the image not being under copyright; the folks at WP:MCQ might be helpful in sorting that out if you have further concerns. As for WP:BRD I think you'll find that refers to article content, what I did was not bold nor incorrect, rather the routine closing of a discussion per current guidelines. More complex copyright questions such as whether or not the fair-use claims can be removed are not decided at WP:PUI. Shell ^babelfish 14:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Request

Could you look at User_talk:MBisanz#Need_your_help? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Kinney, thank you for offering your help with File:Miguel-Poventud2.JPG. It was my mistake for adding a source which I thought provided the image. I am sorry for having been so naive and making this mistake. However, the copyright holder is Yolanda Poventud, his daughter and she has complied in sending her permission for it's usage. I removed the erroneous source and commented that Poventud will resend the permission of usage. I am truly sorry for the mess that I made. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a lot more sense now. I'll go ahead and process the verification. It might be nice to ask if she has any other pictures of her father, or could scan some in, it would be wonderful to have something slightly larger. Shell ^babelfish 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I want to thank you and MBisanz for all of your help. Unlike some others, you both are problem solvers and I appreciate that Tony the Marine (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

I do have one more question which is not related to Poventud. I uploaded an image from an article. Now, according to Hector A, Garcia Foundation, their images and articles (Projecto Salon Hogar, the source) are Public Domain. Since the old {{PD}} tag is longer used, what would the proper tag be? The image in question is this one: File:Venegas.JPG. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a look over the source site and their copyright statement. My first concern is that they don't list a source for the image; it looks like something that may have come from a newspaper or perhaps a publicity photo but we don't really know. The second is that when the mention that the images are free, they qualify saying that they are for educational, non-profit use ("All the images are obtained from several providers of free images found on the Internet for nonprofit educational projects."). Unfortunately, images licensed in that way are incompatible with Wikipedia, which requires that all uses, even for-profit, be allowed. We would need to track down the original source of the image to verify what license they've chosen to release the image under.

Now the image itself; since it is most likely from around 1948 when he was boxing in the Olympics, it may not have fallen into the public domain yet. I think though that this image an excellent candidate for fair-use. The image is historical (his time in the Olympics, first time for Puerto Rico), nothing similar could be taken (he is no longer in the Olympics and deceased in any case) and the article discusses his participation in the Olympics in detail, I believe it satisfies all the fair-use criteria.

All that said, I'm honestly not positive how US copyright affects Puerto Rico and whether or not there may be local laws that would differ. For example, if we could prove the date the image was published, it may well meet {{PD-Pre1964}} for having been published before 1964 and the copyright never renewed. It might be helpful to solicit additional options at WP:MCQ. Shell ^babelfish 12:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Image permissions

Thanks for helping out at OTRS, I appreciate it. Regarding the three images I submitted (tickets 2009120910002621, 2009120910003209, and 2009120910003441), I directed each of the authors to look at the 3.0 pages for by and sa, for which they all choose to select the ShareAlike. All of the past authors I have worked with have seen this page and agreed to release it under that license (see examples at my image permissions page). If it is an issue though, I can downgrade it to 2.0. Let me know if you need any further clarification on the above. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, 3.0 isn't an issue at all, the only problem is we need the person to actually say that they're agreeing to 3.0. If they just say CC-by-sa, we can't assume the 3.0 when doing the verification. I know it seems like a bit of a pain since you pointed them at the 3.0 versions to being with, but otherwise a case could be made later that they meant something different. If you want you can just say "Just wanted to make sure that you meant CC-by-sa 3.0, the page I pointed you to and not an earlier version?" - so long as they respond in the affirmative, that's good enough. Shell ^babelfish 02:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I got all three permissions, do you want me to e-mail them to OTRS or directly to you? I want to make sure that you can close the initial tickets instead of some other volunteer using these new permissions (or if that would be easier, let me know). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Any preference? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I missed your message earlier. Please email them to OTRS - if you reference the ticket number in your subject, it will automatically hook up with the earlier emails and you'll be on your way. Thanks for taking the time to do this! Shell ^babelfish 01:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, that's what I thought happened. I've sent the e-mails. I've modified my request that I've send to authors requesting images, so they should now all in the future include the 3.0. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

delete of "File:Thatcher-ross.jpg"

Please note that the deletion discussion conclusion referred to the file having been "published". It was never published in any media. The politician autographed it and simply handed it out as far as is known, or may have even autographed a picture that was sent to him, i.e. returned it. Perhaps this makes no difference in unknown copyright status situations? Oh well, but if there is any value in these comments, let me know, otherwise kindly ignore. --Fremte (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I researched a few things hoping I could find a way we could keep the image. I originally thought that it might be public domain because of the date it was taken, but that only works if it was published in the US. Since the gentleman was from Canada, that scenario is unlikely. In Canada, copyright to a work lasts the life of the author plus 50 years from the end of the calendar year of death making it unlikely that it has fallen into the public domain yet (it doesn't matter whether or not it was published unfortunately). Perhaps there's a case to make that it could be kept under the non-free content criteria depending on whether or not it would be possible to find any kind of free image of the gentleman. If you'd like to take a stab at writing up a non-free tag and rationale for the image, just let me know and I'll be happy to undelete it for you. Shell ^babelfish 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Assuming the appointments turn out as expected, I look forward to working with you. Steve Smith (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

One way or the other, I'd be glad to see the community better utilize your uncommon qualities. BusterD (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both and congratulations to you as well Steve. Shell ^babelfish 00:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm warming up your seat. I look forward to getting to know you better. — Coren ^(talk) 01:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Coren, I look forward to working with you. Shell ^babelfish 02:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to add my congratulations on the great showing in the election! I look forward to seeing your work with the Committee this upcoming year. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts :) Shell ^babelfish 02:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just saw! Hurray! Congratulations. (I'll say something more beautifully fitting to the moment ... when I've studied your userpage some more. :-) Dirt! Soap! Peace. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No dirt necessary, your back yard is still safe :) And thank you! Shell ^babelfish 05:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Felicitations. Good to see that none of the EEML drama seems to have had any effect. Mathsci (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mathsci. Shell ^babelfish 13:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: You are the newly-elected arbitrator that I'm most most pleased to see win. It's good that after two unsuccessful runs the community finally wised up. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm speechless. Thank you so much. I will do my best to live up to your expectations (and please, toss me a note if I'm not.) Shell ^babelfish 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said to another fresh Arb earlier, such obstinacy from a good candidate will eventually be punished with a seat.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No good deed, eh? The collective groan from my family members was deafening when they saw the results :) Shell ^babelfish 15:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously they will have to be replaced, for the good of the community. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what they're worried about :D (No really guys, I love you more than Wikipedia.) Shell ^babelfish 15:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! We couldn't have picked a better person. I'm sure you'll do a good job. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! And please, poke me (repeatedly even) if I'm not doing the job well. Shell ^babelfish 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe tickle ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tickles are good too, well, so long as you don't use a trout :D Shell ^babelfish 17:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm - good eats... *goes in search of a fishing pole* Shell ^babelfish 17:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - congratulations are in order :) Orderinchaos 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Shell ^babelfish 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Official enough for me. lol Sorry ... Yes, it is true some outrageous scandal might be discovered in the next few moments which might prevent your taking office ... But rhetorical matrix calculations indicate odds are statistically insignificant. :-) Cheers and excuse my rush to userbox. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This user is on the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.

I'm sure if you take the matrix, turn it inside out and then look at it while humming "Stairway to Heaven" backwards the answer will be 42. Shell ^babelfish 04:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely! ... But, oops, I had forgotten the infinite improbability drive .... if that's engaged, all bets are off. lol HEADLINE: Wikipedia ArbCom Electee discovered to be gender-altered clone of Jack the Ripper. New law written just to punish them. :-) What? It could happen! lol Proofreader77 (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed :D Shell ^babelfish 05:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Shell. Please see MBisanz's advice here. Tony (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tony. I have actually gone ahead and identified just in case :) Shell ^babelfish 02:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for the help Shell. Bye. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had such a difficult time. I hope you reconsider. Shell ^babelfish 03:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars kid...again.

Can you drop a few words at Talk:Star Wars kid#RFC about why we shouldn't include his name? Thanks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind rehashing this if there were at least some new arguments or information; as it is, I don't understand the need to test this every few months with the same old story. Shell ^babelfish 03:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I tried to explain it, but another editor came in and just started edit warring without even understanding the arguments against inclusion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful to have an FAQ box up top (of course to make it visible, it might require cleaning up the talk page box spam at the top :) ) that explained the question and pointed to the discussions - we could even copy all the various discussions about the name to a single archive page (properly referencing where they came from) so that the topic could be reviewed all in one place instead of at various links. Shell ^babelfish 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Time for celebrating is over...

off to work you go!
Congratulations :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥

Lol - and thank you :) Shell ^babelfish 04:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Election

Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) Shell ^babelfish 04:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's official (something "more beautiful" as promised)...

(As seen on Jimbo's page lol ... We raced to the finish. He won.:-)

• (Timestamp:) Just finished that sonnet ... for Shell Kinney. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

42+10

{SK.AC.01} ____ At infinite improbability
{SK.AC.02} ____ there's nothing that can't happen. Press engage.
{SK.AC.03} ____ The matrix calculations find the key
{SK.AC.04} ____ to place her, oh so rightly, on the stage.

{SK.AC.05} ____ One year's enough to let her wisdom shine
{SK.AC.06} ____ upon the scales that sometimes lose the light.
{SK.AC.07} ____ (I know the grace her gesture brought to mine.)
{SK.AC.08} ____ The matrix knows her judgement will be right.

{SK.AC.09} ____ The coefficient of her fam'ly brought
{SK.AC.10} ____ a briefer burden — yes, the matrix cares. :-)
{SK.AC.11} ____ Responsibility must not be wrought
{SK.AC.12} ____ by sacrificing too much to affairs.

{SK.AC.13} ____ Of miracles that make this project fly
{SK.AC.14} ____ the one that installed Kinney ranks quite high.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, no one's ever written a sonnet for me before :D Shell ^babelfish 04:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Blame it on your mention of "42" ... Without that, no sonnet. I.E., It's all your fault. lol Cheers and blessings. (And, thank you for helping make that little dirt/soap moment a beautiful memory for me.) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(PS Jimbo and I had a little exchange .... He was posting he'd been lazy, and the announcement would be delayed ... but when I said I was grateful to have more time to write the sonnet I'd meant to ... he said, not too much time, he'd be posting it soon ... And hence the race with Jimbo. He won lol, but check the timestamp. Pretty close. A sonnet for Shell composed under the gun. ) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had much worse blamed on me :) Always a pleasure to meet a fellow Hitchhiker. Shell ^babelfish 04:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I should have guessed from the "babelfish" you wear. :-) ... But I've used the translation site so many times, I don't automatically think of it meaning Hitchhikers Guide. Of course, "42" is an unmistakable symbol.

Poetic note: "artificial believer" is not iambic pentameter. Dammit! lol -- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Congratulations on your election. You deserved it (and I mean that as a compliment; given the way arbitrators are treated, one might not be sure). Jehochman ^{Ho ho ho!} 01:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 21:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen^discuss 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And a Merry Christmas to you too! Shell ^babelfish 04:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you realise that my "gift" of peace and contentment will last no longer than until mid-day January 1, and that's only if you don't look at your email... Welcome to the team. :-) Risker (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Me thinks I'm going to have a complex before I start if everyone keeps telling me to worry :) And thank you for the welcome, I look forward to working with you! Shell ^babelfish 05:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd think I'd said quite enough ... but with the sonnet's license I feel one more thing rising from "everything" ... Today I read the words of a former member of Arbcom ... discouraging words ... and I'm sure they were true ... BUT ... they don't have to be...

Some miraculous things have happened since there was another one of those "car wrecks" at ANI which ended up with Proofreader77 being threatened with being sitebanned ... for formatting ... too much html ... talking too much ... and writing sonnets. LOL ... Well, I think the (oh so mockably silly in this case) people who decided Proofreader77 was bad for Wikipedia may be changing their minds ...

BUT ... if they hadn't temporarily lost them, I wouldn't have had the wonderful December I've had ...

ANYWAY, "the thing is," if I still find it necessary to come to Arbcom to prove Proofreader77 is "not bad" ... feel free to recuse for the sonnet ...

BUT :-) I will ask that you watch me, ... SEE how I "do" "adversarial" ... and KNOW that "it" doesn't have to be "soul-sucking" "burn-out making" drama ... but INSTEAD tempest-in-a-teapot lighter than air ...

(lol) A little overreaching, but I believe in miracles. And there are tears in my eyes of joy right now, because everything is flowing so wonderfully ... and one bright island in that flow ... was you. And 42! Amen. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year ... and Happy Forever! Best wishes, Shell Kinney, Member of the Arbitration Committee ... 2010. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up/FYI: Previously-alluded-to possible Arbcom issue ... has washed away amidst the holiday flow ... of miracles. :-) (Not that other occasions might not arise. lol) [no reply necessary] Proofreader77 ^(interact) 05:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)