User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

FYI

Hi, I just want to thank you for cleaning up the talk page of the PD so it actually downloads in a reasonable amount of time. I appreciate it and also the hard work that you and the other arbitrators are doing trying to sort the mess out. As an outsider, I guess lurker is what I could be called for the most part, your jobs are lousy right now with this case, esp. looking at your talk page. I don't know what to say about all of the above other than I think the editors need to give you arbitrators some breathing room by taking the kind of things that are being brought to your talk page and other arbs talk pages to the PD to be discussed. Anyways, thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That was one of my goals - the other was being able to actually follow new discussions. I tried to keep things together (i.e. all of the statements in one place, all of the finding comments in one place) so that it won't be too difficult to look at or refer to earlier comments. I hope it's more usable now :) Shell ^babelfish 14:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak notice, and thanks

Per your suggestion, I am taking a wikibreak. Thank you for stepping in to defuse what was beginning to get a bit ugly. I will monitor my talk page in case there are any case-related questions, but I will not be monitoring the case pages themselves. Please let me know if anything crops up that I should see/do. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem; have a beer or tea or something for me, will ya? I don't personally anticipate any other findings that would be related to you specifically; if anything comes up in remedies, you should get a talk page notice and certainly before the case is going to close we're going to try to make sure everyone in notified and all of their comments have been heard. Shell ^babelfish 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Projection Date

Do you have a projection date (calendar date) for me? Skyeking (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no. I explained that it might take a while due to the length of the email and your style of communication. I have replied to your latest email. Shell ^babelfish 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify

Please clarify your comments on the PD talk page of the CC case. You said "They may be referring to the fact that the vast majority of the "edit warring" was reverting edits by sockpuppets and the over the top comments about a single editor without checking into the details first." and "So much for stopping...". I have asked on the talk page how my commet is "over the top" , what exactly is edit warring and what is not, and what exactly is it you want me to "stop". The appearance is that you are holding different editors to different standards of conduct, and I hope that you can clarify your comments or show me that I have made a mistake about that. Please respond on the talk page where the discussion is taking place if you don't mind. Thanks. Minor4th 18:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, please see my proposed findings regarding users Rd232 and Verbal here [1] and here [2]. Thank you. Minor4th 18:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Long story short, you made the complaint without even looking into what was really going on and then proceeded to lament how nothing is being done about WMC in very emotional terms. When I (and others) point this out, you just keep going. I haven't said anyone else is in the right here, just trying to help you understand why what you said wasn't particularly true or helpful. Shell ^babelfish 18:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and yes, I did see those. Thank you for taking the time to put together those findings. Shell ^babelfish 18:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, shell -- I am earnestly asking you to consider the possibility that you approached my comment with a preconceived judgment based on what you expected from me compared to what I actually said. I say this because I was not lamenting that nothing was being done -- I was pointing out that there appears to be uncertainty about the proper venue and mechanism for enforcement, and enforcement is at a standstill because no one really knows where to go or what to do about enforcement issues. At least that is what appears to be happening when the editor is controversial or high profile or however you want to phrase it (there was no hesitation to ban Greg, so I can't say that there's paralysis in every instance). My post was positing a question about where we should go for enforcement, and that has not been answered. I also don't think I described the events in emotional terms, and I certainly did look into what was really going on -- would you point out what struck you as emotional. If you will go back and take a look at the language that I used and my responses, as well as the actual diffs, I don't think it's accurate that what I said is not true. If there is something more for me to understand that you think I'm missing, I'm listening. Minor4th 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We're trying to wrap the case up as quickly as we can so that the mechanisms for enforcement of any new sanctions are there. In the meantime, the usual 3RR board and other general enforcement venues should be sufficient. The fact that several people have now pointed out the errors in your claims about the reverts but you still maintain you looked into the issue and got it right, is troubling. You struck some of the statements I considered over the top.

Another point you seem to be missing - there is already a finding, and sanctions in fact, referring to William M. Connolley, so he's not being overlooked or given a pass. Also, when discussing reverting, I did not mean to imply that one revert was always edit warring but that a pattern of reverting in a topic area or joining in edit wars to revert is. Shell ^babelfish 19:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I got it right in the sense that it is disruptive behavior and there's no mechanism for enforcement of disruptive editing withing the CC probation area at the moment. The point of the comment I made was not even about Connolley per se -- it was about the fact that disruption is worsening and there's no enforcement mechanism. To say that I didn't look into it is false and is not borne out by the diffs. While there may have not been a technical 3RR violation in the first example, it was still disruptive. On the second one, there was a very clear 3RR violation. Those are only two examples and only deal with one editor. This is happening on various articles and involving various editors.

My initial post was not asking for sanctions or a finding against Connolley -- it was asking for guidance on where to go for enforcement. It was your subsequence comment about "stopping" and not looking into the issue that prompted my subsequent posts with the diffs. To make a comment like "so much for stopping" and then expect me to not say anything is unrealistic. That felt like a personal attack that was vague, but obviously negative. You're an Arb member and people take very seriously what you say.

I"m going to leave the issue at that because the whole point has now been obscured, a phenomenon that is more common than not in these discussions. Whatever impression of me you take from this, I now feel that there is nothing that will persuade you from opinions that you had already formed. Unless you still have a great many editors to add to the findings, including the ones I laid out for you, and in view of your comments here and on that thread, I am left with an impression of you that you favor editors of a particular POV in this case. I am not the first to comment on this, so I don't think this is a case of me just missing something. Take care. Minor4th 21:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider part of the hatting of the Scjessey thread

When you hatted part of that thread, you included, at the bottom a post [3] I think it's important for ArbCom members to read because it discusses how Scjessey's conduct has stayed remarkably the same in terms of personal attacks over the past two years and more, despite last year's ArbCom sanctions against him. This is standard material for ArbCom to consider. Other ArbCom members should see that post and not skip past it. Could you remove it from the hatting? I don't have any need to reply to Scjessey's comment just below it. I also can't think of anything more that I need to add to that section, but I think that last post of mine is important. Please take another look. You could always stick it in a blue box if you think there's nothing further to be said about the point I was making. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to make that point, please do so without the confrontational and emotional language. Shell ^babelfish 19:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. [4] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just notified about this off-wiki. Either it should all be hatted, or none of it. I object to JWB's character assassination of me and his ludicrous call to have me blocked for a year. Please deal with this or I will be ending my wikibreak to defend myself from JWB's objectionable behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny that. I also objected to JWB making ludicrous calls for me to be blocked/banned/desysopped at the CC case and I have noted he has done the same to other users previously. Unfortunately in my case when I tried to defend myself against this at the PD talkpage it was taken as incivility by certain arbs, I was so astonished that I fell into the trap of actually commenting on JWB (which I should have every right to do, if as in this situation I feel the evidence and workshop suggestions have more to do with the the user suggesting them than to do with the incidents themselves - maybe I am politically naive). More generally I think the problem is that understandably arbs mainly see what is presented to them. However, because this case has gone on for a bit longer arbs are beginning to see the heavy disruption, misrepresentation and wikilawyering that is being applied right through from the articles themselves to submissions in the arbcase. Those editors who want to make wikipedia better in this case are not spending as much effort trying to get other editors sanctioned as those editors who are POV warriors and disruptors. Polargeo (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My intention was to remove any discussion of vendetta's and the incivil language. If JWB wants to suggest that there is a pattern of behavior which deserves a certain remedy, he can at least suggest it. It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is going to agree with him, but I don't think it's a character assassination either. Shell ^babelfish 22:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine a more inaccurate, antagonistic and confrontational sentence than this one from JWB: "The disruptive, battleground and WP:NPA-violating behavior is recent, ongoing and severe, and after he's been topic banned in one area, he commits the same violations in yet another topic area." If this sort of comment is to remain, I have no choice but to defend myself. You have an opportunity to nip this in the bud by re-hatting this nonsense, but I cannot let it stand unanswered for long. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another point I'd like to make is that the diffs have been presented without dates. I think it is important that JWB refactors his comment to include the year of the diffs, otherwise it may not be obvious that the diffs come from over two years ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the dates are there, and the year is in the first line after the numbered list. I did it that way to emphasize the year in order to make a point. The whole point of that post is that the same behavior was going on two years ago that's going on today. You may want to wait a bit and then respond calmly a little later. Tell you what, Scjessey, if you or anyone else can suggest different wording for the sentence you object to, but wording that will get across the same point, why not suggest it here (or elsewhere) and if I think it does the job, I'll refactor, although I won't get into a long dialogue about it here. Fair? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you have failed to address my concerns, I have taken my reply to JWB's attack out of the hatted section, modified it slightly and then placed it after JWB's slightly refactored hit piece. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia E-mail Sent - Addressed To Shell Kinney

I used Wikipedia E-mail to send you a message today (September 12, 2010). Did you receive that E-mail?

SOURCE - Wikipedia E-mail User:
"It is usually a good idea to let the User know on their Talk Page that you have sent them an E-mail."

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed...and replied...and noted it in the section you made above. Shell ^babelfish 19:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Attack page?

When I click the top of this page where it says "Our work here is done", it says: "Reported Attack Page! This web page at askaurinal.com has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences. Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system. Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners." I'm not a hacking expert, but that's what it says. Art LaPella (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - looks like the domain was displaying an ad from another site that tries to install software without the user's knowledge. My particular link goes straight to a jpg so isn't vulnerable to that problem, but that's seriously disappointing. If you're interested though, someone added [citation needed] to a statement on a bathroom wall :) Sounds like it's about time to change it to something else. Thanks for letting me know. Shell ^babelfish 22:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My work firewall / whatever does the same. But it was fine when I looked at it from home. Though maybe not quite worth the wait :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't even see where it says "Our work here is done". Or is this about some other page and not this user talk page? Outside work, I never trust these anti-virus programs because they're all utterly daft and the best protection is common sense and a well designed web browser. I've worked as sysop at companies where some new virus comes along, of course the anti-virus programs don't recognise it so the users all have a false sense of security, and I have to fix all the compromised systems, while my own "unprotected" system hasn't been compromised because I'm not stupid enough to click the link. --TS 09:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually changed it after Art pointed out the problem. Even if it's really a non-issue, it really was time to change the link anyways. He's talking about what appears in the large gray bar on the top of all of my user pages. Shell ^babelfish 13:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see you replaced it in a transcluded page with a link to an xkcd cartoon about Wikipedia. By the way the latest xkcd describes a simple real exploit that can be used to grab lots of email addresses, default usernames and passwords. Forewarned is forearmed. --TS 14:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Disengaging has not reduced accusations

I had hoped disengaging with Petri at my talk page would be a positive; however, Petri has only moved his venue:

"...The arbitrators have seen the EEML evidence. If they have, they should be fully aware that the EE mailing list was primarily targeted at my user account and someone in real life they thought was me...."

"...I would not be surprised, if some kind of secret email campaign against me was going on at this very moment conducted by former EEML members, as I have already seen some alarming signs of hanky-panky...."

...per this diff.

Petri was banned long before EEML for his own actions. His Petri-centric victimology: relitigation of EEML; accusations of being a primary target of EEML members in the past and current alarming hanky panky are unfortunate at best. Of greater concern is that Petri appears to be escalating his allegations of mistaken WP:OUTING attempts—formerly directed at me personally but now at EEML as a group—without putting it in so many words, when it has already been suggest to Petri that he disengage. I have not commented at the amendment whence these unfortunate comments were posted as I have no desire to pour lighter fluid on the discussion there. I'm not block shopping, but I would like to see an end to this charade.

Lastly, I have no little desire to prepare a more detailed response which incontrovertibly refutes Petri's false and inflammatory allegations. However, if required, I can do so; although owing to privacy and WP policy issues that would need to be Emailed to ArbCom—having nothing to with Petri's alleged "secret mailing campaign." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the longer Petri's inaccurate and (I can only assume intentionally, given this has been pointed out) misleading accounts of events persist, the less resistance I'm feeling toward documenting. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock query

Is this based on an arbcom directive, or merely because Mattisse chased Laser off of Wiki? It is active (again), and I would like to restore it, unless you tell me not to. Alternately, I could add to the talk page there, unless you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please add any new information to the SPI where it belongs. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 12:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain

This troubles me. [5] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar

I have started a thread at Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar, which you may be interested in. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Tfd and related discussion on removing copyvios from article history

Hi Shell, Since it was an exchange between the two of us that led to the creation to the {{copyvio-histpurge}} template, you may be interested in the Tfd I started and a possible related discussion at WT:COPYCLEAN. Cheers, MLauba ^(Talk) 12:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review this

[6] Thanks. Minor4th 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And this as well [7] Thanks..Minor4th 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
• If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

• You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Forgot to sign

Here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks for letting me know :) Shell ^babelfish 19:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright review?

Hi, Shell. :) I am in need of an admin who speaks French to review a "close paraphrasing" tag. Close paraphrasing, as you know, can be subtle, and I don't trust Google translate to help me work out if there is a problem or how extensive it might be. Would you be able to take a look at Louis Bastide in comparison to [8]? If it is a close paraphrasing, I'll be happy to address it, but I would greatly appreciate somebody pointing out to me where issues may be. Of course, I'd be even happier for you to address it, should you feel so inclined. :D If you're too busy, please just let me know, and I'll ask somebody else. This is one of the few remaining items from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 September 17 (in the SCV section), and I'm about to address the others so I can catch up the board. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can take a look, hopefully later on today and get it taken care of one way or the other :) Shell ^babelfish 20:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was a very close paraphrase; some sentences only differed in punctuation. Also unfortunately, there is surprisingly little available on the web in the way of references for a gentleman who was so known for being an outspoken champion of human rights while he was Mali's Representative to the UN. I've stubbed it for now since the first sentence was entirely new and I'm going to see if I can't improve it a bit - even when searching in French though, I'm mostly getting primary sources (UN documents, court reports and the like) rather than any sources which contain biographical information. Shell ^babelfish 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Shell. It looked like it was probably very close to me, but, again, having somebody who can read it helps. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

• News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

• In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

• WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen finding

• I'd direct your attention to this comment which was a concern that particular diffs in this decision are not in compliance with Community policy and views in relation to banned editors. To clarify, that a finding may be needed or the gist of a finding may be correct/incorrect is one thing which I'm not commenting on. What I am referring to the use of those diffs as "edit-warring" when the community explicitly states it is "not to be considered as edit-warring". Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and looked back and the diffs and the timeline again. This seems to be a case where you're saying because it later turned out that some of these editors were socks, reverting without knowing that was acceptable - I disagree and I think it's a very poor justification to say "oh well, they turned out to be banned editors anyways". Many editors in this topic area are far too quick to edit war; just because someone later turns out to be a banned editor or you think they must have been a sock isn't an excuse to toss out the rules. I've never seen the policy you pointed to use in the manner you're suggesting; I've always seen it used to wholesale revert an editors contributions once it's known that they are a sockpuppet or banned editor and always with a note in the edit summary of those circumstances. Shell ^babelfish 10:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI - it's actually pretty easy to recognise Scibaby socks from the time they appear at an article. That said, the edits are usually worth reverting on their own merits. But it is actually pretty safe to assume that Kim strongly suspected that he was reverting Scibaby in cases where, in fact, he was doing so. Of course, the reason I rarely touch edits that are pretty obviously Scibaby is to avoid being accused to edit warring. But playing it safe to avoid conflict only benefits me, it doesn't benefit Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Community wanted to protect users from such accusations by having that part of policy in force, though evidently, the sort of undue level of caution expected by some users has caused a ban-evading editor to avoid being blocked for more than 2 months (but even that block was lifted after 1 month-ish). If Vassyana (a then arbitrator who respected the Community's decisions and intentions) had not blocked at the point at which he did, and if other editors did not find a series of reasons to enforce the ban, the project would have been worse off. In relation to evasion, I know that the Community has held the view that exhaustive reasoning need not be stated immediately, if at all, when enforcing, and that condemning the project to excessive formalities (which causes greater harm) is not a satisfactory outcome. If editors in a topic area are far too quick to revert without good reason, there should be plenty of other evidence that can support that sentiment (and is supported by policy) and it shouldn't be difficult to find. But if the Community cannot have the effect of its decisions enforced, as soon as reasonably possible, through any means possible, then a source of the problem will need to be dealt with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize in advance, but I've read this a few times and have no idea what you're trying to say. Suffice it to say that I understood the spirit of the policy you referred to earlier quite differently. I have a hard time swallowing the idea that problematic behavior suddenly becomes non-problematic when we later realize it involved a banned editor. I also wonder, if Kim did in fact suspect this was a banned editor, how difficult could it have been to note that anywhere in the midst of writing other long and descriptive edit summaries and/or discussions? Shell ^babelfish 18:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Past account of an editor

JohnWBarber formerly edited as Noroton (talk · contribs), an account with a block history for disruptive editing. (See Noroton userpage for link.) You may want to recognize this in the finding of fact you recently posted. Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it was a single block from 2008, it didn't seem relevant to the current case. Shell ^babelfish 14:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good principle: anything from 2008 or earlier doesn't count towards the case. But will you apply it evenly? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Noroton account also has a one-week block from 2009, as part of an otherwise lengthy block history. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Errm, this is a bit weird. How does [9]:

• 2009-10-28T06:02:42 Versageek (talk | contribs) blocked Noroton (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: checkuser block)
• 2008-10-18T06:25:08 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Noroton (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 weeks ‎ (Disruptive editing: Tendentious editing, incivility, etc.)
• 2008-10-10T03:07:39 East718 (talk | contribs) blocked Noroton (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring: on Weatherman (organization); incivility; edit warring attacks back into others' talkpages)
• 2008-10-10T03:07:35 East718 (talk | contribs) unblocked "Noroton (talk | contribs)" ‎ (chg flags)
• 2008-10-10T02:35:45 East718 (talk | contribs) blocked Noroton (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring: on Weatherman (organization); incivility; edit warring attacks back into others' talkpages)
• 2007-08-25T15:51:23 Cyde (talk | contribs) blocked Noroton (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (User is still edit warring over invalid link removals. The previous unblock was a bad idea; this block IS preventative.)
• 2007-08-24T03:33:52 Cool Hand Luke (talk | contribs) unblocked "Noroton (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Unblock per changed 3rr rule. See WP:ANI#Noroton_block Will advise to quit editing.)
• 2007-08-24T00:46:07 Fran Rogers (talk | contribs) blocked Noroton (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Michael Moore)

become:

• "a single block from 2008".

And why are blocks from 2008 irrelevant, but edits from 2007 highly relevant?

? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it's so nice to see things continue right on. I was refering to the block for disruptive editing, the rest are listed as edit warring. Shell ^babelfish 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Errm, so you've evaded my question. Let me try again: do blocks in the past get discounted over time? You appear to have no interest in JWB's prior history of edit warring, and you dismiss blocks because they were old, ie 2008. Do you apply the same standards to other editors? And does it apply just to blocks, or to edits as well? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought you were being rhetorical. No, they don't get discounted though if someone's fixed things over time I don't think we need to hold things against them forever. His history was part of my decision to add a finding - it does seem to be a problem that's continuing rather than improving. I misunderstood Jehochman's original question in that he was referring to the entire log and not just the actual block for disruption. Since it seems important to everyone, I've now expanded the finding to include the history. Shell ^babelfish 08:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the other accounts he created, there were blocks for Noroton and the other accounts for abusing multiple accounts. I hadn't noticed this history myself, and am simply suggesting that it be noted in the PD. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was using "disruptive" in its common sense, not as wikijargon. Socking and edit warring are examples of disruptive activities. The editor has a long history of not reforming after sanctions, an exacerbating circumstance. Perhaps the editor needs to be sanctioned more strongly to prevent further disruption (whatever form it may take). Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My fault for taking it too literally. I've gone ahead and added the history to the finding. Shell ^babelfish 08:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a recommendation to that effect on the PD discussion page, under the portion of the discussion pertaining to the FoF on JWB. Since there has now been an FoF, it may be a good idea to un-collapse that discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of blogs

Hi, there are two sections about the use of blogs. It seems that when an arbitrator prefers one over the over they say something like 'first choice' or 'second choice'. I just want to bring to your attention that you didn't do that here. Not sure if this is a problem or not but it looks like you agree with both so I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case it was just over looked by you. I'm still learning about these kind of things, so if not important please ignore, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually happy with either one, but if it comes down to it after most of the voting and I need to change to indicate preference, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 19:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have some questions for you ...

... in the third (last) part of this edit [10] (you may have to scroll a bit to get to it). Please answer there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there. Shell ^babelfish 19:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

• News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

• In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

• Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

• WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

• Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Sockpuppetry_in_the_Climate_Change_topic_area

I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. The point of the finding is that there is general over-reaction to new editors in the topic area, but at the same time, it's difficult to deal with such a determined sockpuppeteer. More worrying is the number of editors who've tried to excuse their poor behavior because it later turned out one of these socks was involved. Having a sockpuppeteer in a topic area isn't license to sink to their level. Shell ^babelfish 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Thanks for the archive on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision. I had no idea (or intention) that the thread I started would balloon so far out of proportion and/or get so nasty. Really sorry about that. In any case, at least it got a few of us to restart work on on defining sourcing policy for science. But yowzer! Awickert (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries - that seems to be the fate of many discussions on that board no matter how productive they start. Glad to hear your going to continue working towards improving things :) Shell ^babelfish 16:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like some of us (I get the feeling more those who have been involved in science, engineering, or academics) feel like the professional literature should be given priority, while others feel like newspapers are on equal footing as reliable sources. Both arguments are pretty much correct under the ambiguous current WP:V policy. I know from my activity on WP that getting a solid guideline in place on it would disallow several conflicts that I've had before... so hopefully it works! After experiencing that case page, for the first time since I've started at WP, I actually have more motivation to affect policy than to write articles! At the risk of WP:CANVASS, but since we need additional opinions, yours would be appreciated on our current proposal. Thanks! Awickert (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that those problems should be sorted on in the structure of the article - serious sources kept to the explanation and details of the topic with popular sources appearing in a section on the social aspects or media coverage of the topic to differentiate to the readers what we're addressing. If I get some spare Wikipedia time, I'll see if I can take a look at the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty close to what I think, and is pretty well identical to what we're proposing. Thanks - I know that spare time is hard to come by! Awickert (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

Hi Shell, I would be very grateful for your assistance with the following matter. Virtually since I started editing on Wikipedia in early August of this year I have been harrassed by User:Codf1977. It has come to the point where I am now on the verge of simply ceasing to edit, despite otherwise enjoying it greatly, as the harrassment has become so stressful and draining. Codf1977 has been:

• posting numerous warnings, threats and other messages on my talk page, the latest one being today: User talk:Rangoon11 (the others have been deleted but can be seen in the page history)
• posting messages accusing me of edit warring: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#UCL Institute of Neurology
• aggressive and unconstructive: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Academic dress of the University of London
• engaging in a protracted and non-constructive effort to redirect UCL Institute of Neurology on grounds on non-notability, despite the weight of evidence to the contrary
• trying to provoke, such as by posting a boosterism maintanence tag on University College London despite having made no prior edits to the article and having made no attempt to engage in discussion
• accusing me of sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11
• accusing me of making leagal threats: User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#WP:LEGAL_question
• making petty edits to the following pages after looking at my edit history and following me there:

• The Guildhall
• PwC
• UCL Institute of Child Health

I am coming to the point where I am really not sure what to do apart from leave this account, which I feel would be grossly unfair but in the end editing on Wikipedia should not be a cause of stress! I would be gratful for any help which you can offer.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at a variety of the issues you mentioned and I'm afraid I'm not seeing harassment. It seems that you may be new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the various policies that the community operates under; warnings and messages on your talk page are to help you understand that what you're doing isn't appropriate for this site and give you links where you can read up on the appropriate policy. You've assumed that because Codf1997 is interested in some of the same topic areas as you, but doesn't agree with you, he's an opponent. That's not how Wikipedia works at all - it's very important to get along with other editors and learn to work together, even when you disagree.

I would suggest that you take a step back, take some time to learn how things work and maybe even find someone experienced with Wikipedia who could help you learn your way around (see WP:ADOPT for example). At the very least, you'll want to take a look back at those warnings to see why other editors think that you're not following the rules and make sure you correct those errors. Shell ^babelfish 17:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice request, re arbcom talk page

Hi. thanks for your note to me recently. as you suggested, i wanted to request your advice. could you please tell what might be a good page to continue the discussion regarding the use of newspaper articles as sources?

also, could you please tell me what made you feel it was better to hat the discussion on that at the climate change arbcom case? I appreciate your help. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you look a couple of sections above on this page, Awickert was talking about a discussion going on at the verifiability talk page about changing the guideline to address the difference between academic and popular sources. If that's not quite what you were looking for, other good places would be the reliable sources noticeboad or the reliable sources talk page. Any of those places have the benefit of giving you the opinions of other interested editors and the possibility of updating the appropriate policy should consensus be that the current one doesn't appropriately explain how these sources should be used. You can also go to the talk page of an editor if there were any specific ideas you wanted to follow up on.

I hatted the discussion because it wasn't about the proposed decision, which is what that talk page is for. As the clerks have mentioned now several times, off-topic discussions and discussions that turn into sniping or personal attacks will be removed. Shell ^babelfish 17:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the reply! see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Findings?

Are more findings on CC battleground editors forthcoming? It seems there has been a lull for quite a while and the current list is incomplete. I realize you had some computer issues, so perhaps you just haven't gotten around to resuming your research. ATren (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe they should be complete at this point. Shell ^babelfish 14:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Shell, you set the bar for findings very low when you included me for basically questioning admins and other editors. Much of the evidence against me was for me challenging an admin (2/0) on his talk page after that admin showed bias, yet there are several editors who openly mocked Lar and baited him, and they are not listed. Shell, you assured me you would be thorough, but this is not thorough. Missing from this list are:

• Guettarda, Boris, Stephan Schulz for their treatment of Lar -- please read this section and explain to me how their behavior towards Lar does not meet or exceed the standard for "battleground behavior" you set when you added me to the findings.
• ScienceApologist has exhibited battleground behavior during this case, and his name is absent. Again, in the context of the standard set with your finding against me, SA's omission is inappropriate.
• NuclearWarfare for his block of Marknutley and blatant misinterpretation of BLP. NW came upon an edit war in which an editor was removing a contentious link from a BLP, a link to a presentation which was so controversial that there was threatened litigation between the parties, and NW not only endorsed its inclusion in the BLP, he also blocked Marknutley (and only Mark) when Mark removed it citing BLP. There were 3 warring parties in that dispute, and NW blocked the one who was protecting BLP. Again, if I am sanctioned for asking tough questions on talk pages, and Lar is being asked to leave because his presence is controversial, why is NW let off the hook for serious BLP vios?
• 2/0 - I have not presented evidence against 2/0 in this case, because he did seem to correct his issues after I challenged him back in early 2010. But since I am being sanctioned now for challenging 2/0, I think you should understand the context of my complaints. In that light, please consider this RFE from that time (the one second from the bottom, hatted in pink with the comment "closed as a mess..."). At that point in time, 2/0 had already warned WMC directly about civility. The RFE was opened by Heyitspeter, an editor who was previously (and subsequently) uninvolved in CC, certainly not a combatant. Heyitspeter presented 14 diffs of battleground editing and attacks, for example: "repair for the incompetent". 2/0's immediate response was to chastise Heyitspeter himself [11] for raising the request. And when others challenged 2/0 on the diffs presented (including me), 2/0 responded with an extended defense of WMC, which is the hatted section near the bottom of the RFE. In that defense, 2/0 analyzed every diff from WMC from the previous 2 days and defended each one. Shell please examine that analysis and tell me that MY concerns about 2/0's bias were not warranted. Here are some examples of 2/0's defense of WMC:

• • "this is a silly victory for the yahoo's" - 2/0's response: "expresses disappointment in the sanction being lodged. Nobody enjoys being subjected to restrictions, long term productive contributors doubly so." Implication: long term editors can refer to their fellow editors as yahoos.
  • "Boris, I lack your patience with the idiots" - 2/0's response: "touchy and ill-advised comment, but not actionable". Implication: calling fellow editors "idiots" after you've already called them "yahoos" is not sanctionable.
  • "MN is, as usual, defending anything anti-GW, regardless of reality" - 2/0's response: "unproductive comment." Implication: insulting another editor is "unproductive" but still not sanctionable.
  • removes well-sourced material, calling it "trash" - 2/0's response: "edit during discussion, citing WP:RS." Implication: removing material sourced to 2 major newspapers and calling it "trash" is fine.
  • "When the issue is the latest skeptic nonsense I usually lose, and we just remove it a little while later when it proves to be twaddle" - 2/0's response: "typo correction; argues WP:RECENTISM." Implication: calling well-sourced material "skeptic nonsense" and "twaddle" is simply arguing WP:RECENTISM.
  • "On the plus side, at least we can spell", a snide remark on my talk page directed at an editor who had thanked me for advice. 2/0's response: "comments that his last name was misspelled." No reference to the obvious sarcasm.
  • "You're not listening", directed at the same editor who was the target of the misspelling sarcasm. 2/0's response: "refocusing a discussion here". No mention of the incivility.
  • "The article is not here to argue the skeptic POV" - 2/0's response: "argues WP:WEIGHT". No mention of the battleground tone of the edit.
  • "If you want to know how unbiased AQFK is...", attacking the editor, not the edit. 2/0's response: "adds a comment on another editor to the previous. I assume the quote is accurate." No mention of the battleground tone of the edit.
  • "... Come on, leaving aside the mob, you ought to know better" - 2/0's response: "argues WP:RS and WP:BURDEN.". No mention of calling other editors "the mob".
  • "...Palming it off to an RFC is weaseling. I thought you might have an opinion of some value... but if you don't, OK" - 2/0's response: "chatter related to WP:Dispute resolution (on the discuss personally and seek outside input side of the scale).". No mention of the incivility.
  • removal of comment from his talk with the comment "you've said your bit; repetition is dull" - 2/0's response: "removal of comment from own talkpage" No mention of the incivility
  • AQFK's assertions of impartiality indeed appear "laughable"... I think it is plain what side you are on....Could we try to stick to reality, please" - 2/0's response: "Fails to refocus debate." Implication: battleground editing and attacking another editor's impartiality is an attempt to "refocus debate"
  • "Come on, try a little bit of honesty: at least correct yourself over the removed-three-times" - 2/0's response: "requests refactoring of erroneous or misleading statement". No mention of the incivil tone or the accusation of dishonesty.
  • "That you can't tell them apart is quite significant", a snide comment on that other editor's intelligence - 2/0's response: "adds suggestion that another editor take more care to previous". Implication: insinuations about another editor's intelligence is nothing more than a "suggestion" to "take more care"
  • "... Hopefully you weren't relying on MN to be accurate" - 2/0's response: " notes that there has been rather a lot of incivility at my talkpage lately; more on an earlier self-reversion". No mention of the insult directed at MN.
  • "... It looks to me as though you've thrown the trolls meat and they want more..." - 2/0's response: " a bit annoyed at me, but hardly the first time someone has suggested (or insinuated or demanded or requested or inveighed) that I take some administrative action or another (aside: I appreciate when people direct my attention to the latest flare up, but refuse to take action without investigating the current dispute)". 2/0's analysis completely neglects the fact that he was calling opposing editors "trolls".
  • "... Effectively, you have ruled for that nonsense to remain in indefinitely" - 2/0's response: "opines that I soft-locked The Wrong Version". No mention of the battleground tone.
  • "Try looking up the word "tendentious"", with an edit comment "dictionary required", implying that MN doesn't understand the word. 2/0's response: "reiterating advice rendered by others". Implication: attacking another editor is OK if others are doing it too.
  • "I thought you were a paid-up member of the civility police?", edit comment. 2/0's response: "removes comment from own talkpage". No mention of the PA in the edit comment

Some points to consider here: (1) all of these diffs were from just two days, and each one demonstrates extreme battleground behavior, (2) The diffs themselves are striking, but even more disturbing is 2/0's response to them, in which he ignores obvious problematic elements and downplays others. In those two days, WMC called his fellow editors "idiots", "yahoos", "trolls", and "the mob", accuses them of dishonesty and bias, and in general fosters a battleground environment, 'yet 2/0 was actively defending him.

Here is 2/0's summary of the analysis:

"I venture to suggest that this is not the portrait of an editor we should be topic banning. WMC has been markedly more diplomatic in expressing his opinions since the recent sanction was imposed than at some times past. This is precisely what the sanction was meant to drive home - supporting or opposing an edit with well-reasoned policy-based arguments is good; supporting or opposing an edit with reasoning and reference to past history of the editor can be good or bad depending on how it is done, though sticking to the first approach should obviate any need for it; commenting on a specific editor or group of editors is usually bad, or always if a comment is denigrating or insulting. If he starts attacking other editors then we should do something about it, but at present I think the point is taken. There are plenty of people watching his edits, so I feel confident that yet another enforcement thread will be raised and further sanction imposed if and when he steps over the line. There is *far* too much drawing up the battle lines in this topic area and at this board, and quite generally it interferes with article building and probation enforcement both. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)"

So 2/0 not only ignored Heyitspeter's evidence, he chastised Heyitspeter for presenting it, and then presented his own lengthy defense which itself contained perhaps a dozen more examples of battleground editing which he defended!

Now, considering this context, Shell, do you really think it's unreasonable that I would have had concerns about 2/0's impartiality? Consider also the later evidence, such as 2/0's unblock of WMC with minutes remaining in a 1-hour block and his recent defense of KDP on the PD talk page; KDP was one of the editors most frequently aligned with WMC. And I haven't even cited evidence from other RFEs, where 2/0 exhibited uneven enforcement. (For example, he article banned another editor a few weeks earlier based on two edits.)

Would you at least concede that the body of evidence clearly shows that 2/0 had a soft spot for WMC and his POV? Given that soft spot, why am I being sanctioned for challenging 2/0 and asking him to step back? Isn't that the first step of dispute resolution? I had collected much of this evidence back then, but I went to 2/0 first to try to handle it directly, and now I am being sanctioned for that courtesy. How can that be the incorrect course of action? As it happened, 2/0 did reduce his involvement per my request, and so there was no need for dispute resolution, but I was prepared to proceed. So again, why am I being sanctioned for taking the first step of DR, directly confronting who had clearly demonstrated uneven enforcement? ATren 67.247.227.88 (talk)

Note: the above analysis deals specifically with my diffs relating to 2/0, which represent 3 out of the 6 diffs supposedly indicating battleground behavior. I have subsequently analyzed the context of the other 3, and I am prepared to similarly defend my actions in those contexts. Once again, my concern in all of this is your selective removal of editors like me, while not dealing with other editors and admins who did worse. I have never objected to being removed from this debate, but I do object to being selectively removed while at least half a dozen others remain, even though the evidence against them is more indicative of battleground editing.

I once again ask you to consider the SirFozzie solution, which removes all combatants, and avoids this selective filtering.

But, if this selective approach is to remain, then I suggest you should also consider the actions of those admins I expressed concerns about, namely TenOfAllTrades, Fut.Per, Jehochman, BozMo. Each of these admins acted inappropriately in the enforcement, and I am being sanctioned for politely asking them to step back. In all cases, these admins displayed the same kind of uneven enforcement that 2/0 displayed above, though perhaps not as significantly as 2/0 above. Since I am being sanctioned for challenging them, I am prepared to present evidence of the specific issues I was challenging.

So, to summarize, I think there are at least 10 editors (6 admins and 4 non-admins) who exhibited behaviors which, while not rising to the level of disruption of a typical arbcom sanction, were at least as disruptive as anything I (or others on the current list) have done. If they are not dealt with, this will be an incomplete and unfair decision. For reference, those editors are: Boris, Stephan Schulz, Guettarda, ScienceApologist, NuclearWarfare, 2/0, TenOfAllTrades, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Jehochman, and BozMo.) User:ATren 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, quit whinging, and read the "spoof" PD which told you the truth. I'm being sanctioned for removing the word "scientist" from Tim Ball's article, even though the article has subsequently been perfectly stable with the word removed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What you are not saying is that 2\0 left the area completely except when he had to be pulled back in by someone who was talking about how he did something. I saw what was going on at the sanction page and AN/i. The names you are listing is just that names in a list. If more is needed, I will check tomorrow as I am now done for today. You know, they say thing here like stop digging when you're already in a hole and also stop beating a dead horse and drop the stick already. Maybe you should give this some thought since the cases you are talking about I believe were closed with no action by other administrators that you have listed. More tommorrow if requested. Please stop this as it doesn't really help, Atren. The other people did it too excuse, well just isn't a defense for bad behavior. Good night everyone, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, take a look at my diffs in the finding against me in the PD: there are only about a dozen listed, and seven of them show me challenging admins like 2/0 and TOAT who were defending WMC and sanctioning or threatening everyone else. If I am going to be accused of battleground behavior for challenging these admins, then those accusing me need to understand the actions I was challenging. I would like to know from Shell if she still thinks my response to 2/0 was excessive after seeing the kinds of behaviors that prompted it. Now please do not clutter this thread so Shell can respond. ATren 00:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

First, I corrected the spelling of my name, sorry pet peeve, so I hope that's alright. You ask me to look at the difs and then end your comment with "Now please do not clutter this thread so Shell can respond." I don't know if you want me to comment or not so I'm not going to unless told otherwise. Sorry you feel I was cluttering your thread with my comment. I'll try not to anymore unless I am asked to. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm really a bad person to ask that Atren - I personally feel that no matter how someone else is behaving, you should never lower your own standards. So my answer would have to be no, I don't think anything you've pointed out excuses you personalizing the issue, inflaming tensions and treating the area as if it's "us against them". There's a time to talk to editors about your concerns and a time to move up the dispute resolution ladder; it's never appropriate to continue sniping and personalizing the problems in an area.

Obviously there are many, many people involved in the case who haven't held themselves to the highest standards otherwise the editing area wouldn't be in complete chaos. I'm not certain if we've got a finding for everyone who needs one and with all of the partisan back and forth over who needs to be sanctioned, I'm not sure we ever would get it all. However, we have got to try to find a way to calm the situation, get normal editing working in the area again and let those editors who did behave poorly have a chance to take a breath and get their legs back under them. The gist of the "indefinite" sanctions is that once the area is stable again, we can let people back in who've shown that they've got things back under control and are editing productively again.

I've never enjoyed having to hear a case, but frankly, I've hated this one. It's upsetting to see people so at each other's throats and so willing to attack one another. It's horrible to look at what's going on and realize that so many editors think everyone but them is the problem. There's been a lot of time during this case for everyone to get it out of their system and start calming down, yet at the final days, there's still just as much nastiness going around. There's not going to be a good answer to this situation though I sincerely hope that, unlike some of the ethnic disputes, the editors involved here can let go of the animosity that developed and enjoy participating here again. Shell ^babelfish 08:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Shell, I would like to know how directly asking an admin to step back is "personalizing the issue" -- actually, it's the first step in dispute resolution. If I had gone directly to RFC, I could not have even certified the RFC without demonstrating that I tried to deal with it first. For three of those admins, you cited isolated requests to them, and for 2/0 you cited 3 diffs clustered around a few weeks, all of which were polite requests for him to step back but the first two of which he did not respond to. If I had proceeded to DR without even getting a response from 2/0, how would that look? And frankly, Shell, I liked 2/0 and I wanted to give them a chance to respond, yet now that courtesy is being presented as "personalizing"! Would that not make you furious, Shell, to see your intentions misinterpreted so badly?

And if you doubt that I was prepared to go to DR back in January, Shell, then ask yourself how I found that evidence buried in two hats on archive 2 of almost a dozen -- I was collecting evidence, but then 2/0 backed off and I did too. So in effect, those diffs you cited against me were for me doing exactly what DR proscribes: deal with the editor first, and if it doesn't work, escalate. There was no need to escalate in this case, but little did I know 2/0 was actually collecting these diffs privately so he could present them later out of context as evidence.

"I've never enjoyed having to hear a case, but frankly, I've hated this one." Welcome to the club, Shell. I came upon this topic area more than two years ago as a complete uninvolved editor, in response to a BLP request. The Fred Singer "Martian" debacle was in April 2008 -- to refresh your memory, that was about WMC edit warring (with an arbitrator no less) to try to make it appear that Fred Singer believed in Martians, based on an out of context 1960's journal article -- and there have been dozens of BLP problems since, some of them pretty outrageous. I could have left like so many others did, but I kept at it because it was an ongoing problem, a blight on the project, and I felt compelled to deal with it.

Yet even then, even though I had suffered through 2 years of frustration with WMC and his supporters, I was still mostly civil when someone like 2/0 came along and completely misrepresented WMC's actions in defending him. Look at my evidence above, which represents 2 days of WMC's insults -- now extrapolate that to two years, and then tell me you wouldn't feel some frustration.

But alas, what this finding is basically telling me is I should have left it alone. Really, if someone like me gets an arbcom finding for such mild diffs amidst such trying circumstances, then the message you're sending is clear: if you see blatant abuses, don't confront the admins who are enabling them, just walk away. And frankly Shell, I wish I had walked away, BLP be damned. That's the message you are sending.

Shell, I would like you to re-examine the diffs in my finding with this all this context in mind. In the ones you cited, I was politely (but firmly) asking those admins to step back, as the first step in DR. Do they really seem so problematic when considering the context? And furthermore, I would like you to comment on how you interpret the above-cited response from 2/0 to WMC's aggressions. How would you feel if you were an editor acting in good faith and came upon an admin who so completely misrepresented the situation? Would you not feel some frustration in that situation? Recall, Shell, that 2/0 had been the primary admin enforcing in those early days, and he'd already taken very strong action at several editors who opposed WMC; now he was looking at evidence that was an order of magnitude greater in severity and frequency, and defending it. He was the judge and jury in those early days, and he was completely misreading the whole thing.

But in any event, I've stayed away from here for a while because I was frustrated, I've been busy in real life, and I assumed you were going to be comprehensive in your research. Now that it appears you've missed many of the combatants (see above), frankly Shell, I feel unfairly singled out. I think others have been unfairly labelled too (particularly Cla and JWB, neither of whom were involved in this mess until a few months ago). In light of this unfairness, I am ask you to consider two things: (1) Please examine my evidence from above, particularly the three combatants who pursued Lar (Stephan, Boris, and Guettarda) and the two admins (NW and 2/0) for whom I've presented evidence, and tell me how their actions were not at least as disruptive as anything I did, or (2) please reconsider the SirFozzie option, or at least explain to me how a blanket restriction would be less fair than selectively pulling out editors like me and subjecting them to an explicit finding based on such weak evidence. ATren 09:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the finding is telling you that you should have handled your concerns through proper channels after approaching the editor didn't resolve the situation. As I've said (repeatedly), I don't put any stock in "But these people are as bad/worse than me!" defenses and continuing to argue that point isn't going to do you any favors here. The mere fact that you continue to complain at length that I didn't get all the right people, that your behavior was to be expected and that the findings are just going to mess everything up confirms that this topic area has gotten so out of control, editors involved in it have forgotten what normal looks like. Shell ^babelfish 10:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Shell, you're missing the point. Let me clarify: step one of "proper channels" is to attempt to resolve it with the editor directly and in these cases the situations were resolved directly without having to go to step TWO. I followed procedure, and it worked so well that you are now accusing me of not taking further steps! I am really lost as to what I should have done here Shell. In all cases except 2/0, the admins showed no further problematic behavior and there was no need to escalate. 2/0 was the only case where I repeated my requests, and it was only because he never responded directly to my previous requests so I felt I owed him the courtesy of repeating them in case he missed them. I was fully prepared to escalate (the evidence above demonstrates that I had ample evidence to do so), but I liked 2/0 and I wanted to make sure he wasn't blind-sided.

So what should I have done here? Should I have skipped right over "directly confront the editor"? Please tell me, if you were faced with the situation above, where 2/0 was misrepresenting the actions of an editor in defending him, what would you have done? I'm being sincere here Shell, because I honestly don't know the right course. ATren 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What you should have done: Not make it personal, or about "us against them" or incivil. Add less heat and more light. And various other ways to say the same things I've said several times now. I understand that you disagree and you're not getting why things are a problem. Give it some time, consider what's been said, look over the different places that the issues have been described - if a couple months after the case closes, you still don't understand what was problematic in the way you handled the topic area, come back and we'll talk about it. Shell ^babelfish 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Shell, please bear with me, but I'm still not getting it. Bearing in mind that confronting an editor directly is the first step of dispute resolution, can you please specifically tell me how the following are uncivil or personal or exhibiting "us vs them" attitude? I am simply not seeing it and it's not at all helpful to me if I can't see the problem. Here are the first 4 diffs from the evidence you collected:

• "Jehochman, I think you should refrain from using your admin tools in the GW debate. The latest block of JP is the second highly questionable indef block of a GW editor in the last month. Others (i.e. 2/0) have been policing this debate fine, while your actions have been questionable, so I think you should disengage from taking a further admin role. Please take this as a friendly request, not a criticism (I realize how difficult this debate can be)."
• "Fut.Perfect - back off. Crafting a user-space draft of an article is no grounds for a NPOV warning, you know that. He went along with the changes that were made, and many editors agreed there was sufficient material for a small article. Your persistence on this thread is biting and bullying. Please cease. ATren (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)"
• "TOAT, I find your actions in this matter highly inappropriate. Please take a step back. ATren (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)"
• "2/0, I think you should withdraw from action on the GW probation pages. The JPat action raised concerns for me, and your closing of the WMC request with no action is evidence that you are unable to act with neutrality here. JPat's violations were far less disruptive or abusive than WMC's (or Hipicrite's, for that matter) yet you imposed stronger sanctions on JPat than either WMC or Hipocrite. In addition, even when confronted with your error on JPat, you were very slow in reacting. Then there's the GoRight indef block -- while I do believe there are issues with GoRight, your handling of that has been quite suspect and probably over-reaching given the temperature of these pages. All of these factors, when taken together, indicate that your attempts at even-handedness have failed, and I am requesting that you withdraw. ATren (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)"

Specifically, Shell, I would like to know what the "personal" and "uncivil" bits are. The closest I could find was the second diff, where I accused FutPer of bullying and biting, but I am warning him of what I perceive as actionable behavior, as I am required to do as part of DR. I have no idea how I could do that without referencing the actions which raised my concerns. In particular, as far as I can tell, every one of those diffs addresses the actions of the admins in question, and none of them attacks the person -- that's what I thought we were supposed to do in DR, right? Can you please tell me where specifically I went wrong and how I could have worded these differently? ATren 01:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you intend to answer this? I am waiting for your advice as to how you would have worded these differently. These were taken directly from the PD so they are relevant. ATren 23:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, as per my above comment, this horse is dead. If you're curious about how I word things, a quick stroll through my contributions should give you an idea as to the general tenor - compare that to your own and see what you think. Shell ^babelfish 23:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops - I meant your own comments in the topic area. I just realized that could have looked like I meant your comments were problematic everywhere, which wasn't what I intended to say. Sorry about that. Shell ^babelfish 23:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Shell, you're the one who identified these diffs, would you at least identify what parts of them are personal? I don't see it, and if I can't see it, then how can I correct it? Can't you just describe what your thought process was specifically in selecting these diffs? ATren 02:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

? ATren (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Shell Kinney! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hi I noticed that you are/were involved with Admin Coaching, could you possibly take me up as a coachee? I've been trying to find one for months now and most of the admins I contacted were inactive so I was wondering if you could, if you have other priorities or commitments I completely understand. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:23pm • 06:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. With the latest large ArbCom case completed, I should have much more time for other things on Wikipedia. Was there anything in particular that you were interested in discussing, or any particular aspects of being an admin that appealed to you? I often suggest that people take a look at Wikipedia:New admin school which gives a good overview of some of the most frequently used tools, if you aren't already familiar with them. It might help to start by figuring out what kinds of things you already know about and figuring out the best way to get together and talk about things - there's a lot of contact information at the top of this page, or we can create a spot off in userspace where we can put together our thoughts. Shell ^babelfish 19:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A comment too far

You're right, I let that one go on too long. Culpa mea. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Factocop

May I thank you for unleashing Factocop on Wiki NI again... --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have problems with an editor, please use dispute resolution. The account was unblocked because it turned out that the sockpuppet claims were incorrect; this has nothing to do with editing. Shell ^babelfish 18:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please respond

to the questions and issues I've raised on the P.D. talk page about the Fof you put together on me and the descrepancies between your treatment of me and your ignoring similar or worse conduct by Tony Sidaway, Viriditas, Stephan Schulz and Short Brigade Harvester Boris. See the "JohnWBarber edit-warring accusation" and "An appeal to ArbCom's integrity" sections on the P.D. talk page. [12] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is something that's been discussed before. I understand that you disagree with the finding and the comments several arbs have made about your conduct; this is not the same as the finding being "wrong" or "unfair". As I've told several people in this case, I don't find arguments that don't address your own actions and instead misdirect with "look at them! look at them!" to be at all compelling. Shell ^babelfish 00:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, actually you have avoided answering all of my questions after your one response on the talk page. I have absolutely not avoided acknowledging my own mistakes as even the briefest scanning of my comments on the P.D. talk page makes abundantly clear. Do you really need me to cut and paste each of my statements acknowledging my own responsibility for your talk page here? They would take up quite a bit of space. That simply is not an issue. What's at issue, and has been for quite a few days now, is your lack of response to my simple, reasonable questions about the case. Here, let me cut and paste them from the P.D. talk page so that there will be no chance at all that you've overlooked them:

@LG, here's a summary of the points I've been making that (I think) are reasonable:

1. I'm being held to a standard that others are not being held to. That makes ArbCom look bad. There are a handful of diffs that show a certain amount of bad conduct on my part. I think it's likely that there are at least several other editors who, if held to the same standard of that small amount of bad conduct, would be on that P.D. page. It would be much harder for me to complain about a lesser penalty for the low level of misconduct that ArbCom found in my case if I knew others were being held to the same high standard.
2. I've made reasonable requests for explanations of diffs in my Fof that are just puzzling. It isn't unreasonable to ask for explanations which will help me to understand what arbitrators are finding wrong with my actions. It does look unreasonable not to provide explanations.
3. I think I've shown how, among the handful of reverts I've made in this topic area since November, the three diffs in the Fof don't show edit warring (and even if they did, it's got to be the most minor sort of edit warring to be insisting that editors resolve differences on the talk page). It isn't good for ArbCom to be seen as going over the top.

I'm not denying my own faults. I'm not attacking ArbCom. I'm constructively pointing out how the proposed decision would be improved. I am determined not to look like the unreasonable party here and I don't want ArbCom to look unreasonable either, and the best way to avoid that is for us all to try to be reasonable. -- 17:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I also wrote, regarding the edit warring allegations:

I didn't edit war. I showed conclusively, days ago, that I didn't edit war. (Here's the archived discussion. I shouldn't have to repeat it. [13]) Why is that accusation still in the Fof? I have asked ArbCom members to look over the evidence and look over my arguments that conclusively demolish that evidence. I have asked them to respond. No response. [...]

There are a total of FIVE reverts in my entire edit history related to climate change articles. Five. FIVE! Of the dozen or so other reverts I found, at least a third were self reverts and a few were vandalism reverts.

I also wrote, regarding inconsistent standards of judging different editors' conduct:

this comparison strongly suggests that ArbCom's approach has been inconsistent when it comes to applying standards to all editors.

I also wrote, regarding ArbCom's own responsibility to people it's sanctioning:

It's pretty tawdry for anyone in authority to be sanctioning someone while refusing to make clear just why the sanction is being given, even after simple questions have been asked. My questions were archived instead of being answered. ArbCom members who can't or won't answer even basic questions (like Why was this diff put in the Fof? or I can't see edit warring in any of these diffs. Why do you see it?) are simply not [...] fulfilling a basic responsibility [...] to explain themselves in a way clear enough for regular editors to understand. You would think I wouldn't have to point this out.

Please respond. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, we've done our best to explain what we saw in your conduct that we considered problematic - you haven't gotten a lack of responses, you simply haven't gotten the responses you wanted. You seem to want to discuss, in detail, each of the diffs as a separate entity - my point has been that it's the behavior as a whole (and not just confined to those diffs) in this topic area and your attitude toward the other editors who participate there. Examining the diffs in minute detail and arguing over their interpretation isn't going to help you understand the problem. Shell ^babelfish 01:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Shell, the we've done our best to explain is simply, demonstrably false. I've asked the reasonable questions and not received any replies.

You've got three accusations of edit warring that I've demonstrated are not edit warring, making a whole aspect of the Fof false. That's three edits out of a total of five reverts I've made in the entire topic area since late November. The third one I self reverted. No one's said diddly about those three edits except me. No one. Who would believe you've done your best to respond on that? I've asked about the edit warring diffs at least three times -- six times if you include my detailed responses on each diff.

You seem to want to discuss, in detail, each of the diffs You exaggerated how bad some of them were by taking them out of context, and I had to discuss that to show the proper context. Why wouldn't I present you with explanations in my defense? I didn't need an equally lengthy response from you (although I would have welcomed it, I don't expect anyone to go to the same effort of responding that I put into my responses). I just wanted a response that took into account my arguments about circumstances that were either ameliorating or actually refuted the accusation that I'd done something wrong. And then there are the mystery diffs where I have no idea what on earth you think was wrong. Why can't you tell me?

And that table I put on the P.D. talk page shows edits by several people who behaved at least as badly as I did and as AQFK and ATren did. Why were those editors, who all happen to be on one side of nearly all of the CC topic area issues, not treated in the same way? I don't know how context or other issues would just happen to fall one way with editors on one side and another way with editors on the other side.

Examining the diffs in minute detail and arguing over their interpretation isn't going to help you understand the problem. Actually, it did, and that's why I acknowledged I'd been wrong in making some of those statements. Statements by several arbs also helped. Please stop pretending I didn't acknowledge that. Again, I don't need a similarly detailed response from you or other ArbCom members. A sufficient response would be, "I/We still think you edit warred in this case because [...]" and then briefly explain why. For crying out loud, I self-reverted the third edit. How were the first and second not WP:BRD behavior? You should be able to answer that.

your attitude toward the other editors who participate there. My attitude was to respect other editors' arguments as sincere and respond sincerely to them because policy tells us that that's one of the essential routes to consensus (it's also how consensus tends to get closest to the actual facts). I held that attitude even when dealing with editors I had good reason to no longer assume good faith about. I pointed out areas where I could compromise and based my arguments on facts that, if they could be shown to be wrong, would change my position. When I'm met with stony unreasonableness, over and over again by the same editors, my attitude hardens as it would for anyone. Even then, I avoided the blatant insults and attacks that you can see others made in that table I set up. I do get curt when I'm met with continued bad behavior by editors I'm trying to work with. And when I'm attacked, especially when I'm attacked repeatedly, I react with sarcasm and some other forms of rude behavior. My bad. But that doesn't mean my bad was significantly worsening the atmosphere on any page.

my point has been that it's the behavior as a whole (and not just confined to those diffs) Well, that falls down most spectacularly when you accuse me of edit warring. Five reverts in the topic area. Each of the three you cited urged editors to go to the talk page for consensus. Since I've admitted that I've made some mistakes in my exasperated responses to the bad behavior of other editors (personal attacks, goading, incivility, obstinancy), it's hard to show briefly how ArbCom was wrong to sanction me for it, but that's where ArbCom's treatment of other editors comes in: Some of them were clearly not reacting to personal attacks, goading, incivility and obstinancy and their comments look even worse than mine, yet they were not sanctioned, even though ArbCom was made aware of their behavior. It isn't unreasonable for me to want to be treated under a uniform standard.

Why can't you defend the "edit warring" diffs? Why can't you explain the mystery diffs? Why did I get treated worse than other editors whose behavior seems worse than mine? I can't believe that you think these questions are unreasonable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, for all of this we have to look at the context. Since you seem specifically concerned about the edit warring, I'll go into some detail there: In the first diff, you revert as part of an edit war despite on-going discussion and while making rather dismissive comments in that discussion (e.g. edit summaries of "ignores" and the "show me the money" bit). In the second case, you reverted a tag designed to indicate the need of discussion before the discussion could be held; had someone simply removed the reference, I would accept BRD as an explanation here (but that's not what happened). In the third case, you joined in an edit war despite on-going discussion and even made a comment to the talk page encouraging further edit warring [14]. Again, BRD is not a defense in an edit war.

The same sorts of things come up when you look through your other interactions in the topic area. Your comments, over time, became more personalized and dismissive of other editors. Your comments appear, even now, to reinforce the idea that this area has "opponents" and that you need to "get" other editors who you see as worse than yourself. Perhaps this is just a sign of having gotten worn out by the issues in the topic area, but given your history of problems with disruption in other areas, perhaps not. Shell ^babelfish 02:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I'll look it over after I get some sleep, think about it and reply later. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comments appear, even now, to reinforce the idea that this area has "opponents" and that you need to "get" other editors who you see as worse than yourself. This is a minor point I can address immediately: It is simply the case that ArbCom proceedings are set up so that editors present evidence and arguments in favor of sanctions against other editors. It is also simply the case that a sense of basic fairness demands that ArbCom treat editors with the same standards. Therefore if I see other editors being treated more leniently than me, it's entirely proper that I bring it up. For you to characterize that as me thinking I need to "get" other editors is a bad faith assumption on your part. I made it clear on the P.D. talk page that it's your role to (a) set whatever draconian or lenient limit on what ArbCom thinks is worth an ArbCom sanction and (b) to treat editors with the same standard. I said that in the most recent version of the page and I'd said it before there was an Fof regarding me. I also argued, at length, both before and after the Fof on me was posted, that ArbCom should not be sanctioning other editors with draconian standards of behavior when ArbCom was ignoring similar or worse behavior in other editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to respond further yesterday and today doesn't look any better, but I will tomorrow. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. If I can address one point though, you continue to reference the idea that you were treated unfairly or with different standards. Please try to keep in mind that this is your opinion of your own actions and those of others - the opinion of the Arbs who voted in the case may not have been the same as the way you see things. Shell ^babelfish 16:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that nothing I've said or done is as bad as this, [15] or this, [16] or this, [17] or this [18] or this [19]. That other editors wrote or did something once isn't proof that they acted worse than me (there isn't enough space here and neither you nor I have enough time for me to go about trying to prove it), but it sure hints that it is the case, and, as you know, I left side-by-side examples involving three editors that you did sanction and four that you didn't here, [20] (a total of 30 edits) and that's a pretty strong hint. Of course it's my opinion and of course you and other arbs have your own opinions, but my opinion has evidence I've presented to back it up, which is one of the ways we all judge the relative merits of opinions. I'm trying to write up my response to you about the edit warring, but I want to do it concisely and I've been having some trouble with that. I have an idea about how to do it and hope to in the next several hours (although I've got some furniture to move around tonight). Please keep in mind those other edits as I discuss the "edit warring" edits. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's too difficult to try to edit this down:

• In the first diff, you revert as part of an edit war despite on-going discussion and while making rather dismissive comments in that discussion (e.g. edit summaries of "ignores" and the "show me the money" bit).

The Fof you wrote states I "engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring". The discussion had started and stopped all over the discussion page and at no point was there consensus to change the emphasis of the joke meaning vs. the journalists' cliche in the lead, which was how the lead existed before the discussions. In those circumstances, those wanting to change the lead in a way they knew was controversial had the obligation to use the talk page. I thought there was consensus to keep the emphasis the way it was, but when I look back on it now, it seems to me there was no consensus -- meaning the status quo ante the discussion was the version to keep. It was, after all, the version that dozens of editors were seeing in the AfD when they voted to keep the article on the basis that it met notability. Editors reverting back to the status before the discussion were standing up for the proper way that Wikipedia decides content, and that was not disruptive.

You find this diff worthy of being included in an Fof in an ArbCom case, but it's an incredibly weak case of edit warring: (1) I was participating in the discussions and had been doing so for some time (my talk-page edits vastly outnumber my 30 edits to the article); (2) I was upholding the pre-discussion version (aside from other changes to the lead that didn't seem to be controversial); (3) the edit you cite (the very last one I made to the article); (4) there was a storm of edit warring over all sorts of aspects of the article, as well as many other changes -- there were roughly 1,000 edits to the article in the month of June. I made 30 of them, several of which were essential in getting the article to pass AfD (where the new sourcing was often cited, including by the closing admin). On one occasion (not cited in the Fof), I restored information I had added that had been removed (I thought, inadvertently removed). Otherwise, amid the many reverts by many editors, I reverted twice (aside from the edit I self-reverted), both times telling editors to get consensus on the talk page to make a change. When information I had added to the article was removed, I did not revert but went to the talk page. All of this is hardly a case of making a disruptive situation more disruptive. At best, you have a case to say that in trying to stop the edit warring I occasionally made mistakes. That's hardly behavior worthy of an ArbCom finding, and it's unfair of you to characterize it as some kind of unalloyed, important violation of policy, much less behavior that was significantly creating "disruption" on the article or talk page. Look at the discussion that took place before Kim made his edit. Here is one place [21]. By this point I had been goaded by Hipocrite, ActiveBanana, and other editors. And yet none of my responses were as bad as the comments I linked to in my last comment on this page. Nor were they nearly as nasty as the comments I was often responding to on that page.

Here's another, [22] where I addressed Kim's concerns (do a search for "15:02" and you'll come to my second response to Kim, which went unanswered on the AfD page. I discussed the matter on the talk page with Kim and others, responding to Kim repeatedly.

• In the second case, you reverted a tag designed to indicate the need of discussion before the discussion could be held; had someone simply removed the reference, I would accept BRD as an explanation here (but that's not what happened).

No, Shell. The matter had been previously discussed. Look again at my post introducing the discussion I (re)started. [23] Here's the previous discussion that had just wound up (last post by me at 18:40, 13 June). [24] And, of course, the matter had been discussed even after that (with comments in the AfD at 02:16 and again at 19:49, 14 June, as I noted in that introducing post I just mentioned. Kim added the tag at 20:11 June 15. Again, the minute before I reverted the tag, I started the new discussion. Now you say the tag was supposed to signal the need of a discussion and I reverted "before" a discussion could be held? As if I were somehow opposed to deciding things by discussion? I reverted what I thought was disruptive behavior by an editor who had not participated in the discussion previously and did not start his own discussion. My actions focused editors on discussing rather than adding tags and walking away. Did I do it perfectly? Probably not. I suppose I should have left the tag while discussions took place. But even if I violated a technicality -- with one revert -- I certainly didn't violate the spirit of either WP:DISRUPT or WP:EDITWAR. That's not hard to see.

• In the third case, you joined in an edit war despite on-going discussion and even made a comment to the talk page encouraging further edit warring [25]. Again, BRD is not a defense in an edit war.

Encouraging an edit war? You mean with this edit summary: "Oh no you don't, Nsaa. You go to the talk page if you want to radically change the article and you GET PROPER CONSENSUS [...]" (I clearly was exasperated by that point) or with this comment on the talk page: "I invite other editors to keep reverting, up to the 3RR limit while this discussion continues."? Why do you ignore the three sentences that immediately follow that one? Here they are: "We will change the lead as per discussion if we change it at all. Since this is a disputed matter it must be decided by consensus. If other editors continue to try to edit war, I will file a complaint at WP:GSCC. Fair warning." Why do you ignore the edit summary? Here's the relevant part: "FAIR WARNING, EDIT WARRING WILL RESULT IN A COMPLAINT" I tried to make it hard to miss so I put it all in capital letters. Shell, I didn't know all the ins and outs of that policy. I did know that edit warring complaints are regularly dismissed if they don't go right up to the 3RR limit at the complaint board. I know that my intent was to stop the edit warring and get a decision from the talk page because, well, that's just exactly what I said in that post. I know that the spirit of WP:EDITWAR is reflected in the nutshell sentence at the top of the page: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion. And the first regular sentence of the policy ends in the words "resolve the disagreement by discussion." Was my comment more likely to make the already rampant edit warring on that page more prevalent or less? It's not hard to see that this was meant to dampen edit warring. You focus on one part where I was in the gray area of a rather confusing policy and ignore most of what I said directly supporting the intent of policy.

No, I didn't do everything exactly right, but my intent was clear -- I was trying to do the right thing and stop the edit warring. I was not anywhere near the number of reverts of the primary edit warriors on the page, and I relied ENTIRELY on discussion in all but three cases -- and in those cases, I relied MOSTLY on discussion.

In those discussions, I was open to compromises: [26] (potential compromise), [27] ("I have no problem dropping "snow clone" and keeping phrasal template instead.")

My three reverts were not the kind of behavior that admins would normally sanction, and it would surprise me if you disagree with this statement. There was nothing extraordinary about the situation that calls for an ArbCom sanction. And since I was clearly trying very hard to get editors to talk on the talk page and make decisions there, I didn't violate the spirit of WP:DISRUPT at all (despite the fact that you say the three "edit warring" diffs contributed to disruption), and while you can read WP:EDITWAR and find possible technical violations, my edits didn't violate the spirit of that policy either. So for those three edits, out of five total reverts by me in the topic area since late November, do you really think the matter is big enough for a sanction? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Shell, I asked on the PD talk page why these two diffs were included. I still can't figure it out. Can you tell me? Here's what I said on the talk page:

Diff #8: [28] Why is this diff in the Fof?

Diff #10: [29] Where is the "nasty" language here? Why is this diff in the Fof? The harshest thing I say in it is at the end: This is very much the behavior of a disruptive editor rather than a reasonable one. I don't think Kim's behavior has been reasonable; it's been disruptive, and some of the diffs, seen in context, are my reactions to that disruption. 2/0 had a perfectly acceptable argument asking ArbCom to reject the remedy against Kim. I disagreed and posted a perfectly acceptable argument to the contrary.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please respond. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

John, the case is over with. Let it go. Shell ^babelfish 01:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Shell, when the case was ongoing I asked these questions and made these points, which are cogent and reasonable and to which you didn't respond. You made serious allegations, you used the diffs as some kind of back up for those allegations, and you acted on those allegations, but you never explained what the connection was. It's only fair that you tell me. I deserve a response. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest here - you've received multiple responses here and on the talk page of the decision by more than one Arbiter, including myself. The "serious allegations" were carried into the final decision and clearly you don't agree with those findings. That you are unsatisfied with the explanations you received is less a reflection on the people who responded to your requests than on your unwillingness to move on. If you wish to have the findings or remedies amended, you will need to request that in the proper venue, however, coming so soon after the case it would be unlikely to be viewed with much enthusiasm. Shell ^babelfish 03:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that you think we should just "let it go", even though it was our reputations that were tarnished by your haphazard analysis. ATren (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way about the case; focusing on me is unlikely to resolve the issue since I neither wrote the decision alone nor carried it by myself. If you feel that the case needs to be amended, you're welcome to do so through proper channels, but I'm asking nicely for you both to stop badgering me about the same things repeatedly. I have answered all of your questions to the best of my ability; I don't have any answers to give that I haven't already. Shell ^babelfish 03:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Shell, I'm focusing on you for answers because you are the one who wrote and posted the finding against me and, presumably, know the most about it. And let's be honest: "That you are unsatisfied with the explanations you received" isn't the focus of my comments here. What I've been asking you for are explanations that I have not received, particularly about the unexplained diffs in the finding. I've made that very clear. Now what are those two diffs supposed to show? And, as I've said already, no arb has responded to my points about the differences in treatment among the editors whose conduct I compared in the table on the P.D. talk page. Please give me the explanations you haven't given me after I've repeatedly asked you for them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't mistake putting together a well supported finding for being solely responsible for the outcome of the case. I've explained, repeatedly now, that the diffs all show instances where we believed your comments were less than helpful to the on-going discussions or where you furthered edit warring and other unproductive behaviors. As I've said above and elsewhere, my personal view is that your edits in the topic area may have been made with the best of intentions but hindered progress rather than supporting it - in essence, your participation in the topic area and especially the apparent inability to understand the problematic nature of your contributions was a net negative. Your continued insistence in several places that the problems haven't been adequately explained to you or answered to your satisfaction is a very good example of one of the issues the finding referred to.

No matter how you approach this, I am not going to argue the interpretations of each diff with you; I can't force you to see your behavior a certain way, I can only tell you my own opinion of your behavior in the topic area. As I've tried to gently explain, the case is closed, the findings voted on and no amount of wrangling on my talk page is going to change the outcome. If you would like to address concerns about the decision, please do so in an appropriate forum such as the requests for amendment. Shell ^babelfish 05:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The existence of those two diffs in the finding is absolutely shameful Shell. They are civil arguments on the case talk page and you completely misrepresented them (and others) in painting a false picture of JWB's involvement. You did it to me too - I asked you repeatedly to examine the context of my diffs, and you steadfastly refused, because apparently Shell, you had already made up your mind when you went digging for inflammatory diffs against me. You (and Roger) started with a conclusion -- ATren and JWB are a problem -- and went hunting for sound bites to support your preordained conclusion.

Now, Shell, ask anyone who knows me: when a wrong is committed, I don't let things drop. My involvement in CC started because I happened to see a problem on a noticeboard, and 3 years later I'm still at it. It's not in my nature to walk away when an injustice has occurred, and certainly this case was an injustice to several of us good faith editors, so please don't think that this is the end of it. I am busy preparing the appeal, and I am also preparing CC 2. It will likely be months before either of those happen, because I am patient and I am in a research mode now. But rest assured, you will have to answer eventually for the poor research you did on these findings, so you might as well answer now. ATren (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No ATren, I looked very hard and spent a ridiculous number of hours reviewing your behavior both before and after you brought up your concerns. No matter how many times I looked, the conclusion was the same. In fact, you're demonstrating it right here - you don't let things drop or know when to walk away. When you believe you are correct, things like assuming good faith, working with others, civility and consensus just go right out the window. The funny thing is, in *every* case I reviewed, I did so in the hope that everyone's comments would turn out to be wrong - compare the list of names generated on the proposed decision talk page with those that made it to the final decision for example.

I look forward to seeing your appeal. As for my poor research, again, we'll just have to disagree there - no amount of discussion has been able to convince you that the viewpoint of myself and the other Arbiters might have merit. Shell ^babelfish 21:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, that doesn't cut it. JWB identified two diffs above and asked for specifics as to why they are disruptive, and in response you evade any specific guidance, exactly as you did with me. "I know it when I see it" may be an appropriate explanation in some situations, but it doesn't cut it here. If the evidence is so compelling, then why is this so difficult? You should be able to point to specific problems in those specific diffs. The fact that you won't (or can't) is precisely the problem. ATren (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am addressing those specific diffs. If you've reviewed the context, the tenor of the discussion and looked at John's comments over a several day period to that page and think that the net result was reasoned, productive discussion, then we disagree. I don't know how else to explain things - in the same way that you can cherry pick information out of a source and misrepresent the entirety, you can take each diff by itself and out of context and make the case that it wasn't problematic. This is about the totality of contributions to a topic area. So yes, what was specifically wrong with those two diffs was that they were representative of several days worth of the same, unhelpful, unproductive comments that further inflamed the situation, enhanced tension, cast aspersions and generally propagated repeated argumentation. Shell ^babelfish 22:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) How were those two diffs casting aspersions? I was discussing behavior on an arbcom page set up specifically for that purpose. I cited evidence and made arguments. What was the problem? If I'd been doing that for several days, all you had to do was tell me how I was not contributing to the discussion in a constructive way. You're mystifying me, Shell. You really are. Of course there's tension in an ArbCom case, but I had certain points I wanted to get across -- reasonable points about actions editors took and how those actions violated policies and guidelines. You say "cast aspersions". I'd like to know how I did that in ways that are not inevitable in discussiong another editor's behavior in an ArbCom case. ATren doesn't see it. I don't see it. I doubt very much other Arbs actually see it. I think they may have gone along with your proposed finding while silently disagreeing with those two diffs (some arbs said they didn't agree with all the diffs). In all this questioning, you haven't come up with a clear explanation showing how these diffs are evidence of anything. I strongly suspect you didn't think it through and just took those diffs wholesale from Hipocrite, who didn't have a good explanation for them either. You should just say you made a mistake, and we should get those diffs removed. Are there spots in those diffs where, if I used different language, I could have made the same point in a better way? You aren't saying the point I wanted to make was itself something improper (not just wrong) to say, are you? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how to be more clear. At some point when you've brought up the same points and the same behaviors repeatedly and in several places, it's no longer reasonable points that need to be made. You could have put your concerns in evidence with diffs, made a workshop proposal or brought up the issue once - instead, you chose to repeat the same accusations in various discussions, even when it was completely off-point.

As I've said, you and ATren are welcome to disagree with my opinions and welcome to query other Arbs on their position or even request to get the findings changed. However, short of some new evidence or miraculous explanation, repeating the same arguments at me for weeks isn't a productive use of anyone's time. Shell ^babelfish 23:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You say, You could have put your concerns in evidence with diffs, made a workshop proposal or brought up the issue once - instead, you chose to repeat the same accusations in various discussions, even when it was completely off-point. Assuming all this were true, are you saying that was behavior worthy of being included in an ArbCom finding? You had personal attacks right on that page that you were ignoring and that -- repetition? being off-point? -- was why you included those diffs? If it was bad enough to include in an ArbCom finding, it was bad enough that you should have told me something right after you saw it. I'm sorry, your explanation, now that you've finally given me one, is bizarre. The diff concerning Tony Sidaway was about evidence that developed during the case or that I was made aware of after the Workshop and Evidence pages had closed. Editors were bringing up new evidence on the P.D. page all the time, as you know. The diff concerning Kim was a refinement of what I had said on Roger's talk page and on the evidence page -- something I was able to put more clearly at that point than I had before. No one at all complained at the time that I had violated some -- something or other, anything -- after that post. You haven't explained how any of this behavior of mine, however you want to characterize it, is worse than the behavior I laid out on the P.D. talk page in that table with Tony Sidaway, Stephan Schulz and Boris. Those are all clear-cut cases of worse behavior. At this point, I think no further discussion could possibly be useful. I think it's pretty clear, now, that you were not being reasonable regarding those two diffs or the three "edit war" diffs or even most of the other diffs, and the mistakes I made did not warrant a sanction. Asking you for an explanation for why you applied these bizarre standards to me but not other editors seems like a waste of time after this discussion has established just how bizarre those standards were. I only wish you'd have responded earlier and saved me the time it took to get this explanation from you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thank goodness I finally found a way to say the same thing that you'll at least accept as an answer. I've already told you that I'm not going to play the "but these people are worse than me" game. I'm going to tell you the same thing I just told ATren; if you'd like to pursue this, please use a proper forum but no more posts on my talk page about the issue. Shell ^babelfish 01:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ATren

Ok, just to be clear, telling an admin you find his actions "inappropriate" after he calls good faith editors "trolls" -- that's battleground behavior? Telling another admin they should "back off" when they belittle an editor and compare him to a 10 year old -- that's battleground behavior? Is that what you're saying? Because that's what the evidence that you collected shows. ATren (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Putting those things in context and with the pattern of your behavior, I said " When you believe you are correct, things like assuming good faith, working with others, civility and consensus just go right out the window." That's problematic. Shell ^babelfish 00:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well isn't that interesting, the arb who heaped all kinds of bad faith assumptions on me is now lecturing me on bad faith! How hypocritical of you, Shell! And in fact, most of my interactions with admins did NOT assume bad faith: in my messages to both Jehochman and 2/0, I explicitly said I didn't doubt their good faith but I disagreed with their actions. And you come along and misrepresent that as me having assumed bad faith. When an admin warns an editor who is overstepping, is that assuming bad faith? Why is it bad faith for an editor to warn an admin who is calling other editors trolls? I thought admins were no different than editors? If what I did is battlefield, then why are you not issuing battlefield findings to admins on AN/I on a daily basis? By virtue of issuing stern warnings, quite often uncivilly, they routinely act much worse than I did. Why the double standard Shell?

And furthermore, we presented evidence of much worse battleground behavior, when half a dozen editors relentlessly attacked Lar. This was no polite requests to withdraw like in my case -- we are talking long term mocking of an admin whom this committee later acknowledged had no involvement. Tell me Shell, how does that mesh? How is mockingly referring to admin bias in terms of "milliLars" acceptable, while simply requesting an admin to back off is not? This is not a matter of opinion Shell, it's all there. There were at least 2 dozen diffs of 3 editors berating Lar, far worse than anything I did, and you ignored it even as you inflated the evidence against me. That's shameful.

Now are you going to finally step up to the plate explain how joking about "milliLars" is OK but politely asking someone to step back is not? Or are you going to stonewall me again? Really, I've laid it all out for you here, please defend that reasoning. ATren (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point you've crossed the line from polite discussion to rampant use of bold, italics and frankly rather rude remarks and veiled threats. You've made your opinion quite clear. If you'd like to take it further, please do so, but I'll have to ask you not to post on my talk page about this issue any further. Shell ^babelfish 01:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Shell, since you were the one to raiseone to endorse the accusation of incvility against ATren in court I should have thought that he has a right to see his questions about the claim answered. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you've not seen the multiple previous discussions where ATren said the same thing; for example see this or this or this or well, you get the idea. Also, you seem to have a misunderstanding of arbitration - Arbiters don't make accusations, other parties (oftentimes involved in the same dispute) present evidence, suggest findings and so on. Arbiters take that material (and the 1.5 million words or so of additional discussion this case generated) and work together to develop the final decision. In this particular case, the Arbiters agreed unanimously that ATren's comments in this particular topic area weren't helpful. Shell ^babelfish 14:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd seen most of the previous discussions. And you are correct about arbs not making accusations; I'd seen your name at the head of the endorsers and misremembered this. I have struck this from my previous comment. However the point stands. You endorsed the claim that ATren was uncivil; I'm not seeing that, but am concerned that a bad precedent is being set here, namely calling admins to account (what might be termed "whisteblowing") is being punished under the guise of a finding of fact that is not factual. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you've had a chance to look at those previous discussions, I believe I have already answered those same points since they are identical to the ones made by ATren. I guess I'm not sure more I'm being asked to do here. As a single arbiter I have no authority to change or reverse a final decision made by the committee; I can only offer my rationale for voting the way I did. If any editor feels that an ArbCom decision needs to be changed, they can open a request on the amendments page for the entire committee to consider. Shell ^babelfish 21:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read the responses, but they are not answers. ATren has asked, amongst other things, about how the diffs show incivility. So far I have not seen any answers, only responses that evade or stonewall this issue. Yes, the issue could go back to Arbcom, but that would be very bureaucratic and time wasting. Why not just explain it here? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've answered the questions every way I know how. Unless you want me to say "this word is incivil" which frankly I find a bit silly. I also find it a bit silly that ATren is sending other folks over to continue this dispute which further reinforces my opinion that he handles disputes in an extremely poor manner. As I said, if you have a concern, take it up in the proper forum - my talk page isn't it. Shell ^babelfish 21:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ATren did not "send me". Why do you make such an assumption? Regards incivility, yes, just specifying which word - or phrase - you find uncivil would be helpful. (In those diffs, did ATren swear, or call someone stupid, or a Nazi? etc etc) It's interesting that in all the responses I've seen no one has been able to do that. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Following long-established Internet law this thread is now closed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Boris, I did not call anyone a Nazi, nor did ATren, nor did I accuse anyone of calling anyone a Nazi. Quite the contrary, actually. Nice try, though. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, accusations are flying and I reserve the right to respond.

I'm sending folks over? Seriously Shell? Aren't you the one who always assumes good faith? I had absolutely zero contact with MCP before he wrote this. I think maybe our only interaction before this is when he expressed dismay at this decision on my talk, weeks ago. I don't even know who he is, though I do appreciate the fact that he actually looks at the evidence to form his decisions.

But fine, all of these baseless accusations from you Shell will be prominent in my appeal, because they illustrate the fact that you have never assumed good faith of me, not now, and not back when you manufactured a finding against me out of nothing. That's the one good thing about a Wiki -- it's all there for others to see, and now that others are seeing it for themselves the injustice of my finding is becoming clear. It's not me sending folks over Shell, it's people looking at the evidence which you either ignored or badly misinterpreted. ATren (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Juggalobrink once again called me a vandal in an edit comment, after you warned him not to. Where do I report him for this? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well considering that you're trying to place unsourced statements into the article, and edit warring at multiple articles, reporting the incident may not be the best way for you to handle things. If you'll note the discussion above, his revert happened before we had a chance to really talk about things and he's agreed on a better way forward. Please stop reverting other editors and discuss the concerns on the appropriate talk pages. If you have any questions about Wikipedia policies, I'd be happy to answer them. Shell ^babelfish 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly consider that, if only it were the case. On Insane Clown Posse, which is a biography of living people, I am trying to remove poorly sourced text. On Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song), I am trying to restore song lyrics and a demonstrably true statement which is not only supported by the previous sentence but also the entire "Reception" section, not to mention any number of additionalreliable sources.

Likewise, you're going to have to explain how I manage to edit war while 1) discussing changes on Talk pages so as to build a consensus 2) limiting myself to no more than one additional reversion. Or maybe you won't, because I think it's fair to say that I won't be darkening your doorstep any further. Next time I want advice, I'll pray for guidance instead of troubling you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have concluded that it was a mistake to post this in the first place and would like it removed from this page. Please do so. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think there are a few things here that need to be addressed. You've claimed that the bit you reverted in Insane Clown Posse is a BLP violation because you believe the writer is biased; this is not a BLP criteria. You've also suggested that it is a poor source because it's in Christianity Today's blog section, however, if you review the site, you'll note that the blog has editors (not just people who submit material) suggesting that rather than being the typical blog, its an edited, fact-checked portion similar to the rest of the online magazine. You then go on to violate the BLP policy yourself by saying of a living person "he is guilty of very sloppy journalism that undercuts his credibility. I can't say whether it's dishonesty or incompetence"

I also found it odd that you would have concerns about this source, yet when talking about your edits to Miracles, you back them up with random websites which don't appear to have an editorial policy or contacts -- this kind of inconsistency is a concern. You also failed to cite any of the sources when making your edits[30] and haven't tried to discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page.

As far as edit warring, if you'll read the policy on edit warring, it says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." and later explains that you are not entitled to a particular number of reverts per day. Reverting repeatedly, especially when there is discussion going on to try to resolve the difference of opinion is a very poor way of editing. Talk it out, involve other community members - at the end of the day if the majority of others agree with your interpretation (or you reach a true consensus with others) then it's appropriate to re-do your edit. Shell ^babelfish 03:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have seen your reply, do you have any objections to this section being removed? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well yes actually. In addition to regularly archiving rather than deleting material from my talk page, there are ongoing concerns about your editing. Shell ^babelfish 14:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye

To be quite frank, I'm much more concerned about your behavior. I came to you for advice on how to resolve a problem, but I have been nothing but disappointed with your responses in terms of their neutrality, accuracy and usefulness. When I explained that a BLP article is threatened by the inclusion of text from a journalist who shows strong bias and weak research skills, you accused me of BLP violation just for criticizing him. This is completely beyond the pale.

Mark Moring is a public figure. If he writes an magazine article with errors, he should fully expect to be criticized for it, publicly. It goes with the job, which is why neither of us even blinked at him calling other journalists, such as Jon Ronson, "ignorant". On the other hand, when someone calling themselves Juggalobrink repeatedly and knowingly stated a false accusation, calling me a vandal just because we disagreed, he was publicly defaming a private figure. Now, anyone who knows me and decides to google my name will find this libel; this includes potential future employers. Nowhere will you find Juggalobrink retracting, much less apologizing, and you seem fine with that. If anyone is guilty of BLP violation, it is you and Juggalobrink, not me, and you're the one who ought to know better.

I could go on about how your claims of edit-warring are demonstrably false, or how your standards for sources are inconsistent and violate the rules, but I realized a few days ago that there was no point in continuing this discussion. Once it became clear that you were not going to do anything that would actually defuse the situation, I tried to walk away, but you won't let me. I blanked this section, but you restored it. I asked you to blank it, but you refused.

I think it's time to disengage. I am politely requesting that you avoid contacting me unless it is for official business. Even then, I believe it would be fair and just for you to recuse yourself, so that others with no noticeable bias can make their own judgements. I also request, for the third time, that you remove this section, as a courtesy. Please do not bother responding; in the interests of defusing, I have removed this page from my watch list, and any non-official material you post on my talk page will be deleted unread. Goodbye. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not certain how I failed to be neutral or accurate; I've expressed concerns where I believe you may be misunderstanding core policies. I've mentioned and linked to those policies, and explained further when asked. There is a marked difference between the source using words like “ignorant” and editors at Wikipedia using words like that to describe living people. You're certainly welcome to bring your concerns about being reverted as vandalism elsewhere, however I felt it was important to point out that the final reversion as vandalism happened before our conversation above where Juggalobrink and I discussed his reversions and he agreed to find a different way to deal with things going forward.

I'm confused about your understanding of what edit warring is. As I quoted from the policy reverting other editors repeatedly rather than reaching a consensus on the talk page is construed as edit warring. I see that you've now reverted the article Insane Clown Posse another time. There are certainly times to revert, especially in cases of vandalism were serious BLP violations, however your reversions don't appear to fall into either of those categories.

I also don't understand what you mean about sourcing, but since you didn't explain that any further I'm not certain how to address your claims that my standards are inconsistent or violate the rules. I believe I made a specific case above for why the particular source you objected to was appropriate under our rules for reliable sources and expressed my concern that you used a less stringent standard when claiming sources for another added yours on the same subject. If you believe my argument about the sources are correct I'd be happy to discuss it further or put the question to other editors on the reliable sources noticeboard.

I'm sorry you feel there's something to diffuse here; I certainly don't hold any animosity towards you and I apologize if my advice came off as overbearing in any way. I don't particularly understand why you feel so strongly about removing this section however if there are no further responses I will go ahead and archives section manually tomorrow. Shell ^babelfish 21:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Aegis Limited

Hi Shell, :) need your guidance. i created one article Aegis Limited, keeping third party, reliable independant sources. But it was deleted stating that it was copyrighted. Article contained some STATEMENTS like "The company specializes in tailor-made solutions that cover the entire spectrum of customer and business experiences" released by Aegis Limited to the PRESS which were actually facts about company, So how can they be called as copyrighted material, even if these statements are intended for public information or press release. I accept that some lines were copied from websites & as per wiki guidelines its wrong, but this was not intentional, instead for the clarification of that i also presented the references from where that STATEMENTS were taken. Now need to know where i make up the mistakes & what/where i need to focus & take care while facing such issues in creating up articles.(  Abu Torsam  14:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

Copyright is a difficult area to deal with - there are so many nuances, it can drive you crazy. It makes sense that press releases are made to be used out there, but actually the company that wrote them still has copyrights to the text - if they didn't specifically release it under a license Wikipedia can use, then we can't use actual phrases from the press release. The easiest thing to remember is to read over your sources and then make sure anything you put in the article is in your own words.

Another thing I wanted to point out, is the phrase The company specializes in tailor-made solutions that cover the entire spectrum of customer and business experiences is marketing speak - it's not the kind of neutral, factual language that you'd want to find in an encyclopedia article. A better way to write that kind of sentence would be to say "The company produces business software that (put whatever it does here)". Hope that helps! Shell ^babelfish 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

Shell, sorry to bother you about this issue again - I know you're probably sick of hearing about it by now. When I was formally topic-banned from R&I articles, you told me in my user talk here that if I thought any of the other editors being discussed in the amendment thread about me were engaging in inappropriate behavior, I had permission to post about this at the arbitration enforcement board, as long as I didn’t keep doing this excessively. The admin who topic banned me also specifically told me that my topic ban would allow this. [31]

With this in mind, I have recently started an AE thread [32] about some of the same editor behavior that was discussed in the amendment thread. This is the first time I’ve ever done so, and the thread is about the same specific behavior that I was told to post an AE thread about if I wanted to bring it to admin attention, so this thread definitely falls within what I have permission to post about there. But instead of addressing my concerns, every admin who has commented so far seems to not believe that I should be allowed to post this thread at all (see the comments in the result section.) I tried explaining and clarifying in the thread that I had specifically been told by you and NW that my topic ban allowed this, but admins do not seem to be noticing my explanation about this. I'm really not sure what to do here. I know that this thread is something I had permission to post, but I’m concerned that it’s going to be closed by admins who are unaware of this before any of them even look at what I’ve brought up there. Do you have any advice about this? Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments: User talk:BadBabysitter. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well no, you were blocked for creating multiple accounts after which you went and created this one to yet again avoid the block placed on your account. If you wish to request unblocking, you must stop creating additional accounts and make the request through one account (please pick which one you would like to stick with). Any unblock will likely come with some restrictions given the behavior that got you to this point. Shell ^babelfish 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty's warning

Dylan wasn't warned for differences of opinion over content. He was warned for repitivly removing sourced material. His explanation for such is because the author is, and I quote, "illiterate, dishonest or incompetently sloppy." He has a history of edit wars, personal attacks, vandalism, conflicts of interest, and having a non neutral point of view. He's had more than enough time and warnings from other users to understand how he is supposed to act. Continuously removing sourced content is vandalism, as is going through my contributions and reverting my edits on other pages as he has started to do. He was warned, and will be warned for a final time if he continues the disruptive edits. If he doesn't cease then, then I will report him and let the admins handle him.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not helpful and may be disruptive, but that's not the same as vandalism. It doesn't matter who is "right", it's still a content dispute and needs to be handled as such. Please try involving other editors to develop a consensus (see WP:DR for ideas) and of course, feel free to report him if he continues edit warring or continues to disrupt despite having a clear consensus. Repeatedly calling someone's edits vandalism, when it's not, has lead to people being blocked. No matter how frustrating a particular situation might be, you have to stick to handling things the right way. Shell ^babelfish 01:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A consensus was already held on the talk page and it was agreed to add the article.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of people isn't really a consensus, which is why I suggested dispute resolution. Still, if he continues edit warring rather that using dispute resolution himself, he will end up blocked. Just don't shoot yourself in the foot at the same time by calling it vandalism :) Shell ^babelfish 01:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the insight. As you can assume, it is frustrating dealing with this, as I'm sure he is frustrated as well. It is nice to speak to someone with a level head. About the consensus, only three people have replied so it is difficult to generate more people. I will add this to the already created section on the BOLP Noticeboard and see who replies.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea; another option that can help bring in outside editors is a request for comment. Shell ^babelfish 01:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help again. I'll see if anyone turns out at the noticeboard, and if not then I'll use the RFC. I'm also removing Dylan's warning and notifying him of the new discussion.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Unwelcome soapboxing

Petri Krohn continues his assault. I have been more than patient. However, once my topic ban expires and I can freely discuss Baltic topics, I expect to file an arbitration enforcement request regarding this and other instances of untoward behavior, including his block shopping with false accusations of outing and his transparent subsequent coverup. At least that's after all the holidays... PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a coatrack article?

Hi, during the Climate change case a lot was said about the BLP's being a coatrack article. Well this one seems to fall into the same category as the ones mentioned at the CC case. So you know there is also an article called Weston A. Price Foundation. There is a lot of dispute about this article going on so I need to get an opinion and thought of you. I hope you can help with this. I think it is and that it should be deleted. I am thinking of speedy deletion because there are some editors there that will fight tooth and nail for the article to stay. There is a discussion going on at Ani about it here. Would you please look at the article and make an informed decision about it? Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I am trying to help the editor who is being discussed with good success. I can't say anymore due to privacy issues. Thanks again.

Re: Question

Is there some reason you're creating additional accounts? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What? Additional accounts? The last username left was taken (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, User:(Abuse of our Username policy) was created from your computer a few days ago. Wikipedia's policies don't allow users to operate more than one account except in very narrowly defined cases. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

According to what, CheckUser? The last username left was taken (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello , The last username left was taken; I am not a checkuser but, the Checkuser you are addressing here left This link on your talk page to the policy page that explains the use of multiple accounts. Cheers. Mlpearc powwow 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the multiple account policy. However, I was confused about the existence of the account. The last username left was taken (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, according to technical evidence from checkuser. I'll ask again; why are you creating multiple accounts? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Several of the IP addresses that I edit from are shared between multiple people, it's possible that one of them created it. The last username left was taken (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This was created from your computer; not just your IP address. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Checkuser only determines IP addresses, so I don't see how you can assert that it was my computer anyway. The last username left was taken (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Without getting in to technical detail, you're incorrect about what a checkuser check does. If Hersfold says it came from your computer, it did. Shell ^babelfish 12:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, a matching user-agent and XFF as well? All of these were the same? The last username left was taken (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fishing for what information the site gathers isn't really going to help. Perhaps you could address Hersfold's concern? Shell ^babelfish 13:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

More SPI stuff

Hi, Shell. Just a heads-up that you and your checkuser results are being directly addressed on this SPI case page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the report - the other accounts you mentioned were a different group of socks; the topic area seems to attract a lot of those. Shell ^babelfish 06:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

Some explanation for your ill-founded, inaccurate, and highly irreponsible and unprofessional commentary would be helpful. For example, who is this "entire group" you refer to, where have discussions stalled "due to calls for someone's head", and where are you getting this information? Since I'm unaware of any such calls for anyone's head, or pointing of fingers on Wiki, it appears that you are bringing off-Wiki discussions to Wiki, and it would be beneficial for all to be aware of your sources, particularly in light of your highly improper disparaging of FAC reviewers, who are not responsible for the copyvio of an arb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So you believe it's appropriate then that articles with copyright problems make it through the featured article process? And you think the various attacks against that arb were an appropriate way to handle the situation? Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Shell, I am sure you don't think that baiting and suggesting that somebody thinks something preposterous is an appropriate mode of communication. Whether or not Sandy is being perfectly civil, you can be civil to help de-escalate the situation. On the one hand, it is not fair to blast an arbitrator for making a mistake that anybody could make (and many do). On the other hand, it is not fair to lay blame on the featured article reviewers. Can we all please focus on solving the problem at hand: Wikipedia editors need more guidance on what is acceptable writing, and what is unacceptable with regard to paraphrasing, plagiarism and copyright violation. Not everybody has received graduate level training in academic (or encyclopedia) style writing. It is very saddening to see two good faith editors arguing over who's to blame. Blame is an utterly worthless concept. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That was absolutely the intent of my comment. I find it very distasteful that certain editors have chosen to attack another editor in this manner for something that happens literally every day; I think focusing on education and review is a much more appropriate way to address those concerns. Shell ^babelfish 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Regretfully, the arbitrators encountered several voracious editors

Ah, I see what I did there. "FAC group" was a very poor choice of words; for someone not following the conversation across many areas of Wikipedia that could easily be misconstrued. I was referring to a small subset of editors who have made voracious, nasty remarks during these discussions and not the general group of people who participate in the FAC area. I sincerely apologize for any implications caused by my shorthand. Shell ^babelfish 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't add up, since you quite specifically mentioned all of FAC several times, [33] [34] [35] including "you do realize there was a co-author, several reviewers and the entire group at the FAC review who looked over the article and either missed or misunderstood the copying issue? That's a pretty large group of editors who are working on what are supposed to be Wikipedia's best articles - it's enough to seriously concern me that we may have a much bigger problem than anyone's willing to admit." And "what exactly are the pack of editors at FAC really doing during these article reviews if something so apparently obvious is completely missed". That is quite clearly aimed at putting this on all of FAC, disregarding that the support from a reviewer who said she had followed the development of the article was an arb. It seems that you are the only one looking for "someone's head" and where to cast blame, no one at FAC is failing to recognize a problem that is Wiki-wide, and none of this unseemly finger pointing behavior has been seen at FAC, where we set about looking for solutions. I can see no reasonable interpretation for all of your words, and your unseemly conduct here, than you looking to blame all of FAC for what was Rlevse's mistake. I find your behavior quite disturbing for an arb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if editors who usually review FAC realize that this is a serious problem and have plans to address it, that would certainly alleviate my concerns in that regard. I believe you're missing the parts in those same diffs where I specifically addressed Rlevse's mistake and expressed concern that many editors on Wikipedia seem to have similar misunderstandings (note the bit about a co-author and other editors who also missed it for example). I don't think those misunderstandings call for the way Rlevse was treated by some editors and I hope that by educating more and reviewing already existing work, we can both improve the project and avoid such nasty blow-ups when errors are encountered. This isn't about blame, it's about discussing what happened and how things can move forward without rancor. Please remember that you're only looking at a small piece of the picture here - you're only pulling diffs from comments in relation to Giano's attacks and conspiracy theories; perhaps that might not be the entire perspective on the subject. Shell ^babelfish 22:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the next time your fingers get ahead of you and you engage in such unseemly conduct, you will inform yourself of the facts beforehand, because maligning volunteers who work at FAC is certainly not going to encourage them to review articles, much less rigorously. Your words-- an arb-- will probably do more damage to Wiki's mainpage than even Rlevse did, by demoralizing hard-working and conscientious volunteers and discouraging them for wanting to review at all. It's not like they get paid for it, or ever imagined they needed to go back into the history of an article to discover a copyvio by an arb, supported by another arb. Saying it's not about blame after you most clearly did exactly that isn't holding up, nor are your after-the-fact excuses for your clearly inappropriate posting. If you're too upset to post, you should step away from the computer for a while. If you're in the slightest inclined to do the right thing, you might go over to WT:FAC and issue an apology. A real one-- not one full of excuses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean kind of like you need to do now? Shell ^babelfish 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deflection. Obvious. Not biting. Since you seem to think it's so easy, here; make yourself useful, get all of those books, and help the nominator, because a FAC reviewer (one of the many you maligned and now seem to think *I* owe an apology) spent a *lot* of time doing her job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to "If you're too upset to post, you should step away from the computer for a while." Whether or not you want to apologize for your strident attacks here is up to you. If you're unwilling to accept my apology and explanation for the comments you took out of context, there's very little else I can do for you here. While I choose not to work at FAC because of certain personalities, I do frequently review articles for people on request due to my access to a wonderful library or 5 and thanks to the wonderful folks at Copyright Cleanup, checking for close-paraphrasing, direct lifts and other similar mistakes is already part of my process. Shell ^babelfish 22:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't much care what you're referring to. What is clear is that rather than issue an apology to the FAC reviewers you maligned, you're trying to deflect the issue on to me. Whether or not you want to apologize for your attacks on them is up to you. Fortunately, you "choose not to work at FAC"-- we all seem to understand we're volunteers. YMMV. Normally, when an arb engages in the kind of unseemly conduct you have, they step down so as not to bring ill repute onto the entire Committee, since there is no body who might review your conduct. I guess since you won't be issuing an apology, we can't expect your resignation anytime soon, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, you've made it quite clear you're not interested in listening to me here. I assume you also missed the sincere apology bit just above since you're still claiming I haven't bothered rather than noticing it was the first thing I did when I realized my mistake. But I do appreciate you taking the time to underscore my point about the willingness to attack other editors for mistakes rather than discuss the actual issues. Shell ^babelfish 23:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I could have sworn I already mentioned that deflection doesn't work on me, but since you seem to be of the (mistaken) impression that I'm so upset, I must be so beside myself that I failed to mention that. I had nothing to do with that FAC-- the apology you owe isn't to me. It's to all the FAC reviewers you maligned. Your first response was an excuse-- and one that didn't hold water, since you clearly were referring to all the good faith, hard working reviewers, and shifting blame for the mistake from the person who made it to the reviewers who didn't detect it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion of my comments; if you choose not to believe my explanation and continue to take my comments out of context or want to assume my apology was only directed at you, that's your right. Shell ^babelfish 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that small subset of editors will eat you alive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol - I love that picture. I imagine I'd taste good in a Hollandaise sauce. Shell ^babelfish 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for the Hollandaise. However, in light of this evidence that you irresponsible and unprofessional, I'm going to have to let you go. Please pack up your office at your earliest possible convenience. Dixen (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Shell ^babelfish 22:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:NYyankees51

The above user is asking (by using an unblock template) if you received his WP:ARBCOM#BASC case, which he said he sent 9 days ago, and has not had any confirmation of its receipt.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I was involved in the SPI, I am recused from reviewing this particular case. However, it has been received and I will remind the list that it needs an answer. Shell ^babelfish 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I will inform NYyankees51 that it is indeed pending, thanks.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Shell ^babelfish 00:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail. T. Canens (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied. If that's confusing in any way, please let me know. Shell ^babelfish 05:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome To the Elections

Dear Shell Kinney, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming (re?) trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them, as do most other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. I thought the restriction this year was a bit odd - I understand the concern about overwhelming participants with questions, but at the same time, it seems like a rather harsh limit. Shell ^babelfish 19:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Bonus points for actually copying them over before I got round to it, you're the first candidate this year to do that :) ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I actually have a bit of extra time this weekend and know I'll be able to give questions the attention they deserve. Since you thoughtfully provided a link to your questions, I figured I'd get a start on things. Shell ^babelfish 22:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

FYI

Hi, I saw your nutshell comment at the top. Can't help you with the connection stuff that's between you and your ISP and of course you computer. But the 1 problem (the number one) I can. You need to clean your keyboard. You can buy compressed air and see if that helps. If it doesn't pop then one off your keyboard, easily please, so you don't break any of the prongs that hold it in place. When that is done, clean it there. If that doesn't help then guess what, buy a new keyboard. Or you can go to this step of getting a new keyboard instead of doing everything else, that's up to you. I had this problem, though I knew what caused it (keep drinks far away from your keyboard :) ) If you know what caused this problem email me and let me know and I'll talk to my hubby. He was in the business for 20+ years so he should be able to help. Good luck with your election. I've not decided yet who I'll be voting for. I will read everything though and make my decisions after I do. Question though: Is the voting going to be the same as last year? Thanks in advance. Good luck again Shell, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. I actually did manage to solve both, but forgot to update my note at the top. It turns out someone thought my keyboard was thirsty and gave it some iced tea :) When they finally owned up, I got a replacement which it turns out I actually like a bit better.

AFAIK the RfC from a few months ago about voting didn't reach an obvious conclusion, so voting is likely to be done the same way as last year. The election coordinators would probably know the details a bit better :) Thanks for the kind thoughts. Shell ^babelfish 18:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please fix my bad OTRS answer?

Shell, I didn't answer ticket:2010112110016878 very nicely. Can you please take ownership and send a polite diplomatic new answer to the original email with lots of thank yous and sincerelys? I'll take a break from OTRS for a while. -- Jeandré, 2010-11-21t20:30z ^{[donation needed]}

Ouch :) You have a cup of tea and relax; I'll take care of the ticket. Shell ^babelfish 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ta. "Calm as Hindu cows, calm as Hindu cows." -- Jeandré, 2010-11-22t04:47z ^{[donation needed]}

ArbCom help

Please assist I sent the following message to arbcom-l over two weeks ago with no response. Can you please assist me? I have been to four different fora with this one issue with no resolution and I keep on getting handed off to someone else over and over again:

Dear ArbCom members,

I would like to request the lifting of three editing restrictions: the limitation of only one account, a content restriction on articles related to Western Sahara, and the latitude for administrators to ban me from a set of articles at their discretion. This request and the restrictions themselves have a byzantine history, but the latest post to Wikipedia about this topic is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee&action=historysubmit&diff=395204530&oldid=392010289

I will spare you all of the details in this e-mail and assume that this link and its attendant links are sufficient for understanding the dynamics of my request.

I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience by way of this e-mail address or my talk page on en.wp.

Thank you for your time,

—JAK

Please post on my talk if you can assist me or if you know where I should go with this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I apologize but I haven't been able to find the email you are referring to. However, if you're asking to have an ArbCom case or AE decision changed, those are handled by submitting a Request for Amendment. If you need any assistance with that process, please let me know. Shell ^babelfish 19:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Shell. You know I was half joking with this [36] :). Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's quite all right - humor is welcome :) Shell ^babelfish 16:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate it is a tough time for you right now. I do not support you because of various reasons, these have to do with my view of you on arbcom not you as a wikipedia editor. I just do not think you have performed well as an arb. If you are re-elected then I hope you learn from the past and improve. Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm always willing to listen to suggestions on how I might improve things, editorially or otherwise. Shell ^babelfish 16:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing stats - opting in request

Hi Shell. I am writing my own ArbCom Election voting guide. One of the criteria I am reviewing is candidate's activity. Would you consider opting in for this tool, so that we can see your monthly (and yearly) distribution of edits? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrm...could have sworn I was opted in...maybe that's another one though. All done now. Shell ^babelfish 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Could be, that's the only one that's working now, and updated version of something else. Although it recognizes me as opted-in.... eh, wiki magic :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

From reading the entire talk page, I would strongly suggest that the best course of action here is to drop it for a while. The various discussions about changing the article/renaming it/moving it haven't produced a consensus to do so and that doesn't seem very likely to change. Shell ^babelfish 11:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But main point is that with nationalistic driven "votes", we will never really find consensus about something that is really best for the article in question. Also, agreed consensus was changed without community agreement. Can you, as someone who is neutral, post some proposition, as only people like you, neutral ones, can really make influence! Also, your "title" :) make you extremely reliable, even if you post just like ordinary editor. All previous discussion was without neutral ones. We should make the difference. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing I've learned about controversial topics is that the dispute is unlikely to be solved by repeated discussions on the talk page - it's generally discussion among the same editors who are active in the topic and few outside comments. Getting the editors most active on the page to agree to a proposal (or two) to present to the community would probably help, but the variety of different, rather complex, proposals on the talk page now makes it unlikely that you'll get a substantial (or helpful) response. Unless there are some behavior issues that can't be solved with the current discretionary sanctions active in the topic area, it's very unlikely that an arbitration case would be accepted. Shell ^babelfish 12:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question

Shell, I asked you specifically about sanctioning an editor for civil comments made on the case pages, and you didn't really respond to it. JWB's finding contained six diffs which were from the PD talk page, out of 13 total. That is nearly half his evidence, so it is a very significant portion of the finding.

Furthermore, I am concerned about this statement: "At that time I was not involved in drafting the case and did not save diffs in my notes that might have been better than those eventually used in the finding." So are you saying that you saw more diffs but didn't save them, or you think you might have seen diffs? If you saw the diffs and they were substantial enough to warrant a finding, then isn't your responsibility to track them down and provide them? How are editors supposed to interpret a finding where the (purportedly) more serious offenses are not provided, and in their place is half a dozen mostly civil diffs which were argumentation on the case itself?

You also write "However, whether or not we were able to pick the best examples, the underlying principle still remains the same." On what do you base this assertion? In the two diffs specifically questioned by JWB ([37][38]), there was little or no evidence of incivility, particularly not to the level of a committee finding, and particularly not when those comments came on a case page where misconduct by other editors was being discussed. Your response is basically to acknowledge that they do not support the finding ("it's unfair to look at two diffs given as examples in an ArbCom finding and decide the finding is inappropriate.") Those two diffs represent 15% of the evidence, and a quick look at some of the others reveals that the number which don't support the finding might be even higher. In fact, several of them were JWB defending himself against baseless accusations that he had a vendetta.

The basic issue here is, if diffs do not represent the finding, they should not be included; and if there are "better" diffs out there that you remember reading, then you should take the time to provide them in the finding. At best, this seems to be very sloppy drafting; at worst, you sanctioned an editor unfairly based on vaguely recalled diffs which can't even be defended because you didn't present them. ATren (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

ATren, I understand your concerns here, but as we've found, we have a fundamental disagreement over areas of the Climate Change case. Where I see diffs that evidence a pattern of combative and personalized disputes, you see civil talk page comments - and that's okay; Wikipedia works because people of different viewpoints can all contribute their ideas.

My comment "At that time I was not involved in drafting the case and did not save diffs in my notes that might have been better than those eventually used in the finding." refers to me having taken rather detailed notes during my review of the evidence and editors involved, but not making a note of which diffs I looked at that caused me to make that particular note. I realize now that even if I'm not drafting a case, I ought to keep those diffs around as I find them just in case.

"However, whether or not we were able to pick the best examples, the underlying principle still remains the same." means that the Committee members voting in the case reviewed the editor (whether by using diffs provided in evidence, or the reams of talk page discussions or their own method of investigation) and all came to the conclusion that there was problematic behavior. We could say the same thing, with no diffs at all, and it would still be just as true. ArbCom (thankfully) isn't a court where we toss out things because XYZ procedure wasn't followed to the letter, so while I respect your concerns that the diffs provided weren't the best examples, I have to disagree with your assertion that it was either unfair or inappropriate. Shell ^babelfish 15:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Shell, you call them "talk page diffs", but in fact they were on the case talk pages, which is a completely different situation. On case pages, are we not expected to present and argue evidence, even as it pertains to other editors? And in this particular case, several diffs presented are JWB's response to others calling his participation a "vendetta" (a completely unsupported claim), so your selection of his responses is perplexing even as some of the participants on that thread were not sanctioned. You have not addressed these issues.

As for the other arbs voting for the finding, well, those arbs are not running, and if (when) they run again, I assure you they will be presented with a similar question, namely why they voted on a finding that was so poorly supported (even you seem to acknowledge that). This in fact reveals one of the weaknesses of arbcom, in that many arbs rely on the judgment of the drafting arb without deep investigation of their own, which means the arbitrator drafting the finding must be particularly careful in getting it right.

But this is about your candidacy. It seems that you have admitted to not being particularly thorough in providing the diffs which caused you to draft this finding, and rather than digging them up you filled in with case page diffs. This admission is good, because it's something which you notably refused to do when the case was ongoing, and in the weeks after. But now that you've acknowledged this, perhaps you can make it right and go back and find those diffs which you misplaced, and present them here, to demonstrate that your judgement was sound? I don't intend for this to be a rehashing of the case, but in light of your seeming admission here that there was more significant evidence which weighed in your decision but which was not presented, I think it would be worthwhile to see what that evidence was. If mistakes were made, they should be correctable; it is a Wiki, after all. :-) ATren (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mother Mary an Jozef, man... at some point you have to stop going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about this stuff. I'm also extremely pissed off at how the arbs handled (or more to the point, failed to handle) this case. But you have to know when enough is enough. You asked Shell a question, she answered. Let others decide on the suitability of her response. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Boris, these are highly relevant questions for an arb running for re-election. Shell's responses appear to be an admission that (at the very least) this finding could have been better documented. This is a significant admission, and perhaps if it had come during the case or shortly thereafter, I wouldn't be "going on and on" about it now. But in any case, Shell has an opportunity now to resolve it, and I hope she does. She may even earn my vote. ATren (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I know there's been a lot of discussion about this topic, so some things may have gotten lost in the shuffle. No matter what my personal views on an issue, I'm actually not able to go back and make changes to a closed case, nor can I justify the entire Committee's decision on my own. I'm certainly not saying that I believe the diffs I provided were inappropriate, but I respect your opinion that they could have been better - not everyone looks at issues the same way and it's quite likely that different people would choose different diffs to represent the same idea. If you feel strongly that the finding was inappropriate, please open a request for amendment so that your concerns can be reviewed appropriately by the entire Committee. Shell ^babelfish 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Shell, I'm not asking you to change a finding or retry the case. I am simply asking you to simply provide the diffs which demonstrate your finding but which you admittedly misplaced. It can be done here on this thread, or even on a subpage and linked. Providing those diffs would demonstrate that your judgement (if not your execution) was sound. It would also allow JWB to know exactly what diffs influenced you in your finding, in case he should decide to appeal.

It would have been nice if this had been dealt with during the case, but you didn't respond then, and now that you have revealed new details about your research (namely the missing diffs which influenced you), I think you should find those diffs and present them. I can even help you research if you like -- do you have a general sense of which articles or talk pages you examined, and when? ATren (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) @ATren: When Shell and I worked up the Remedy 3 Findings of Fact, we included the minimum to demonstrate battlefield conduct. Their purpose is not to build a watertight case against someone, nor to convince the sanctioned editor of the errors of his/her ways, but to give other arbitrators a flavour of the problem. We could have gone into greater detail but our objective was not to diminish people but merely to exclude problematic editors with as little harm as possible to their reputations and to their will to contribute productively elsewhere. Not everyone however is capable of seeing the topic-bans positively, as an opportunity to move on from a toxic landscape and find more tranquil pastures.

During at least the period Jan-May 2010, you effectively became a single purpose account, focused almost entirely on debating/arguing on the Climate change sanctions noticeboard and on the talk pages of (usually) administrators with whom you disagreed. Many of the comments you made accused administrators of bias and demanded they remove themselves from the topic. You appear to have ignored their responses. Although the FoF only includes a handful of examples from January 2010, it is easy to find many more in a similar vein, made to other administrators and in other months.[39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]

This seemingly relentless focus on the perceived biases/shortcomings of others is classic battlefield conduct. Repeatedly casting aspersions is not only profoundly uncivil but also a personal attack. Since the case closed, you have not shown the slightest insight into why your conduct may have been damaging to the encyclopedia and the collegial atmosphere it nurtures. Instead, you have pursued your "bias" agenda by: awarding yourself a "whistleblower's barnstar", characterising your actions as crusading; and taking up the cudgels on the talk pages of at least three arbitrators. You have even inserted yourself in the current election in an attempt to find a soapbox for your grievances.

Now it may well be that the greater clarity which this comment provides will enable you to reflect on what went wrong during the Spring and help you to move on. I hope so because, whether you like the description or not, continually beating the drum is tendentious and a further example of not listening to what others are saying.  Roger ^talk 09:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger, why is "Repeatedly casting aspersions is not only profoundly uncivil but also a personal attack. " ? That would depend on what extent the allegation were true, would it not? --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes and no, as truth, like beauty, is essentially in the eye of the beholder. Apart from the difficulty of objectively determining the truth of an essentially subjective statement, this kind of issue can only be dealt with by consensus. This is not achieved by a single editor repeatedly making the same allegation but by finding out what other editors think, and whether the complaint gets traction, either via an RFC/U or at WP:AN. It has also enables the editor against whom the allegations have been made to present their side of the story and has the added advantage of bringing closure to the issue. Repeatedly casting aspersions is simply the wrong approach.  Roger ^talk 09:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be the right approach - but that does not make the allegations uncivil. Redefining terms to bash editors does not generate an impression of impartiality. --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Both civility and incivility are broad churches and clearly your mileage may vary on the what constitutes one or the other but my personal view (which I'm sure will be widely shared) is that, on balance, serially casting aspersions about the integrity of others over months is uncivil. No redefining of terms took place.  Roger ^talk 11:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL does not agree with your usage. If allegations are ignored (and I think most, if not all, of Atren's points were simply ignored), all you can do is repeat them. For instance, my complaints about arbcom misuse of WP:CIVIL were ignored or given ludicrous non-substantive responses for months. It was only by repetition that folks such as yourself have finally started to respond substantively. I don't agree with the responses, but at least I'm hearing answers at last. --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply saying that WP:CIVIL (and WP:NPA, which forms part of the same policy) don't apply isn't enough. There were numerous allegations of bias and bad faith, based on speculation and surmise, made about numerous administrators over five months: this is squarely covered by policy.  Roger ^talk 12:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

ATren can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think at least part of the reason he may be so upset here is because of how he perceives the sanction paints him. He appears to share the same POV on climate change as most of the editors he found himself in dispute with, but found himself in an adversarial position because he could not abide what they were doing to the BLPs of what looked to be their idealogical opponents. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that when you start trying to counter what you perceive to be an orchestrated effort by POV-pushers to control the content of a topic (like Intelligent Design, for example, to name one of the articles that is most notorious, deserved or not, for such activity), it is very easy to allow it to suck you into an all-consuming time sink of point and counter-point. I know that happened to me, because when I entered the CC arena around a year ago I really intended on taking at least one CC article to FA-status. I'm really disappointed in myself that all that resulted, article-wise, after nine months of activity was a single good article. I've accepted responsibility for my topic ban, however, because I recognize that I could have done a better job at maintaining a moral high ground and staying above the fray.

ATren is in a similar situation. He tried and tried to defend these BLPs. In fact, it pretty much consumed his entire Wikipedia activities. Of course, after awhile he started to take it a little personally. He probably doesn't see, however, much difference in the conduct of some of the editors who fought with him, yet weren't topic banned or had findings found on any matter. So, the moral equivalency question here raises its head to him, IMO. I understand that motivation doesn't excuse the behavior that you believe occurred, and I don't know if that changes anything about the answers you're giving him, but I hope it helps you understand where he might be coming from. Cla68 (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As you say, the problem with toxic topics is that decent people get involved, and invested, and then behave in all sorts of ways that aren't at all typical of them. Unfortunately, disengagement is really the only answer.  Roger ^talk 10:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger, what you are saying is that anyone who repeatedly alleges admin misuse - no matter how well founded - can be sanctioned for breach of WP:CIVIL (or WP:NPA). Do I misunderstand? Because I don't think most non-admins would see that as at all reasonable. (And, I repeat, that is not what WP:CIVIL says.) --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

People can be, and are, frequently sanctioned for incivility, personal attacks and so forth. It doesn't much matter whether the egregious conduct is directed at an admin or not.  Roger ^talk 10:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Only an admin can misuse admin tools, which was one of the complaints. BTW you completely failed to answer my question. And that's why questions and often repeated. So, let me ask again, Roger, what you are saying is that anyone who repeatedly alleges admin misuse - no matter how well founded - can be sanctioned for breach of WP:CIVIL (or WP:NPA). Do I misunderstand? --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• The findings were terrible. Arbs such as Shell groping around the case talkpages to dig up every marginal minor incivility in an extremely long and poorly conducted case. Darn right they were able to find "evidence of a battleground" when editors are trying to defend themselves over the course of a very long arbcase they are going to have a few diffs that are close to the line. I think the grubbiness of this tactic lowers the arbs to the level of the very worst battleground editors they are arbitrating against. Its very easy for editors who are not trying to defend their wikipedia reputation and right to edit the articles they are enthusiastic about to sit back and be all calm but when you get up every day for 4 months wondering what sanction may or may not be made against you wikipedia is no fun whatsoever. Maybe the arbs could take this into account when they are grubbing about for minor incivilities and things that even Mother Teresa would not perceive as being a PA on the arbcase talkpages, but it looks like they wanted a kill, to be seen to be tough. Instead of being tough they came up with a fairly harsh sanction and stuck everyone into it, including editors who only deserved a soft warning to editors who should have been banned from wikipedia. That's not fair it is just lazy and extremely poor. Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is both unfair and misplaced. The findings of fact all derived directly from proposals made by the community and were either acepted or rejected on their individual merits by the committee en banc. Editors were treated leniently, with disengagement via topic-bans being the sanction. In your own case, your finding of fact was not amended to include details of your calamitious period even though such conduct would normally attract a hefty block, both at ArbCom and at AN/I. It's time, I think, to stop flogging this particular dead horse.  Roger ^talk 10:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo's criticisms are on the ball, IMO as an uninvolved editor. To their discredit the arbs generally do not seem very receptive to any critical feedback on the subject. --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael: Part of the problem, I think, is that Wikipedia's policies encourage honest attempts at reaching compromise and consensus if civil and in good faith. But with the CC case, the mere fact that an editor remained engaged in the discussions appears to have been used against them. Even civil conduct was punished. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with essentially all of the above including the comments of various editors normally on the other "side" of the dispute. The handling of this case was phenomenally inept. And nothing was done about the excesses of admins (be it Lar's self-declared bias on one side or the actions of certain admins on the other); indeed, as has been shown above, daring to criticize an admin was considered self-incrimination. But worst of all there was no attempt to address the underlying systematic problems -- just topic bans on specific individuals. See you all at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate Change 2. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Phenomenally inept handling of arbcom cases" makes strange bedfellows indeed. :-)

Early on in the case, a recused arb (SirFozzie) suggested a blanket topic ban based on a mostly objective and impersonal criterion: anyone who participated in 2 edit wars in the last 6 months would be banned. I endorsed that idea because I thought it would be the most pragmatic way forward, essentially a cease fire imposed by removing anyone remotely involved without specifically judging the merits of their involvement. This last point was crucial, because this case was so large and long-running that any attempt to directly criticize and sanction a large number of individual editors was bound to be error prone and unfair.

Shell and Roger basically ignored this proposal, deciding to do their own research and post a series of individual findings, many of which were marginal findings at best, based mostly on cherry-picked out-of-context diffs. And, perhaps even more damming of these two arbs, when we requested they review context on the diffs they provided, they simply ignored us or evaded our direct questions. It was clear that they were completely uninterested in admitting their own mistakes. This is evident even now, as Shell has refused to retract clear misstatements on my finding which are now on display on her candidacy questions page (see this - the statement that I "continued to bring up an action from several years ago that was widely upheld by the community and demand that because (I) disagreed the admin should undo it." appears to be a complete fabrication by Shell and she has not yet retracted it)

In the context of the mess created by these weak findings, SirFozzie's pragmatic and impersonal proposal doesn't look so bad, does it? ATren (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Roger

Roger, in response to the good faith inoffensive diffs Shell put in my finding, you now (above) produce more good faith inoffensive diffs to support your case. I think my point is proven, that even on close examination, even though I was involved in this highly contentious topic area for almost three years, you and Shell can't find anything remotely uncivil despite the fact that you're now clearly digging for diffs to support your weak finding.

The problem here is, Roger and Shell seem to be sanctioning mere disagreement with and questioning of admins. They also seem to be oblivious to the difference between assuming bad faith and criticizing the actions of admins. Even my direct statements about bias were usually couched in terms that did not assume bad faith -- we all have inherent biases and occasionally misread situations as a result, and I was usually careful to indicate that I don't consider bias or questionable decision-making to be signs of bad faith. Simply challenging admin actions in such a fashion as I did is not grounds for an incivility finding. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

Michael Price's question above seems to cut to the heart of the matter: "Roger, what you are saying is that anyone who repeatedly alleges admin misuse - no matter how well founded - can be sanctioned for breach of WP:CIVIL (or WP:NPA). Do I misunderstand?" Neither Roger nor Shell seem to want to answer this question, because I think it cuts to the core of their flawed mindset: they never accounted for the possibility that all these admins' actions were inappropriate, even if executed in good faith, and that my challenges were both civilly presented and wholly justified.

There were perhaps half a dozen admins involved in the diffs Roger and Shell present here and in the finding. I acknowledge that it is much easier to simply assume that the lone editor challenging these admins was at fault. But that assumption is flawed on multiple levels:

1. In many cases I was not the lone editor to challenge these admins. In one case, my polite request to an admin to step back was presented by Shell in isolation, even though there was an AN/I thread in which several other editors expressed concern about that same action. In another case, my concerns were echoed by at least 3 or 4 others (and not the combatants themselves) on the enforcement page. Shell and Roger presented these diffs with no context and grouped them together make them appear to be indicative of a pattern, even though they were different situations and different times, and the issues I was raising were echoed by others.
2. Even assuming that my diffs constituted a pattern of challenging admins, Shell and Roger made no attempt to address whether the challenges were justified. I asked them to examine context on a handful of them, they ignored my arguments. For example, I told an admin to "back off" after he compared an editor's intelligence to that of a ten year old in the context of a block threat: Shell took my "back off" comment out of context and said nothing about the admin berating an editor's intelligence which prompted it. It appears that neither Shell nor Roger examined any of this context in their finding against me, even when I assembled the evidence and pointed them to it.
3. There appears to be an implicit assumption on Shell's and Roger's part, something akin to "all those admins couldn't have been wrong". So rather than examining individual cases, they presented a numeric argument: "here are 10 diffs that show ATren criticizing a bunch of admins". But as any Wikipedian knows (and arbs certainly should know), admins often act in support of one another, and frequently in support of vested contributors, without doing due diligence to examine the true nature of a conflict.

   So how do we resolve whether I was right to challenge those admins? Well, let's see: almost all of the issues I raised (and for which I was sanctioned) dealt with the handling of one vested contributor whom admins refused to sanction no matter what he did. If my actions were so incorrect as to be subject to an arbcom finding, that would seem to exonerate that editor, right? Not quite. In a spectacular contradiction, the committee agreed with me and issued findings against that very editor, in some cases citing diffs which were directly related to the questions I'd raised earlier! Think about it: even as Shell and Roger sanctioned me for merely questioning admins who refused to take action against this editor, they themselves voted on findings against that editor which basically agreed with my position.

I have raised many of these issues repeatedly with Shell and Roger, and their responses have been either non-existent or evasive. They clearly do not have answers, but rather than re-examine their own position, they dig deeper -- digging up more inoffensive diffs from my history that actually demonstrate my point further. This is precisely NOT the kind of thing we expect from arbs. ATren (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Shell, please respond

Shell, your misrepresentation regarding something I allegedly did (challenging some admin action from several years ago) has not been supported, nor has it been struck. I remain confident that what you are alleging did not occur, and I am asking you once again to either strike it or provide diffs. If you are still researching it, then please indicate such. For details, see your question talk page or the section earlier on this page. You made the allegation, Shell, and it is your responsibility to either support or withdraw it. ATren (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In the hopes that it will help you disengage, I've simply struck the comment. For the record, I was referring to your repeated complaints about the treatment/blocks of Abd and GoRight, which you brought up multiple times in the diffs provided by others in evidence and on the talk pages of the case although you can legitimately quibble because I said "an item several years old" rather than the correct "several items a year old". I don't suppose if I asked nicely again, you'd agree to disengage or request an amendment? Shell ^babelfish 15:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you for striking it.

Second, this has nothing to do with the case, but rather your comments on the question page. The case is an entirely separate matter which I do intend to pursue formally.

Third: once again, you compound a misstatement with another misstatement. GoRight and Abd were blocked earlier this year, and I have NOT commented on them in the last 6 months at least. So these "items" (none of which you've presented evidence of) could not have been anything close to "a year old" -- I would guess any complaints I had were within weeks of the block, certainly not a year. But I have to guess because you still have not provided a single diff to substantiate any of this. This is yet another example of your tendency to hurl accusations (and even findings and sanctions) based on mis-recollections. If you want me to "disengage", stop making things up about me. ATren (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

In your AE statement you said that "I would like to see clear evidence of a major change in the way Biophys approaches editing in difficult topic areas where he has a strong viewpoint." Which exactly difficult topic areas do you mean? I tried to edit in the Race and Intelligence area and had no trouble. I could not edit in the Climate Change area because this is Soviet science related (hence within my topic ban). Do you mean something like Israeli-Palestinian conflict? But this is also Russia/Soviet Union connected. So, what exactly do you have in mind? For example, I may have a "strong viewpoint" on the communism in Asia, just another "difficult" subject that I edited recently [49]. Should I try to edit such subjects more? Will it prove anything? Here is my point: I can edit a lot of "difficult" subjects without trouble. If there is any specific subject I can not edit without trouble (this depends on other people as well), I will not edit it, plain and simple. That is what I did during all this time. That is what I will do in the SU-related area. Biophys (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to the area you are currently topic banned from - I don't believe you've been doing anything I'd be concerned about during the period you've been topic banned, but at the same time, I feel it's too soon to tell if these problems are really in the past. Between Eastern European topics and then Soviet-related topics, that's two areas in a row where you've had difficulties - at the same time, you've edited other, less controversial areas with complete success. Hopefully what you say about learning to walk away from problematic disputes and not needing to "win" with article content will hold true and we'll be able to lift the editing restriction later. Shell ^babelfish 18:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! So, I should not edit or discuss controversial political subjects just to prove that I can do it [50]. This is great, because I am not interested that much in such subjects.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal

Dear Shell, what's exactly sound "personal" for you in my post commented by you? As you may understand well, people always have subjective, rather than objective evaluation (that's, indeed, what Wikipedia's problem is all about). And you know well some admins in WP go through this line in their each message/post/etc. But, just for the moment, please, send me the message, and we will deal with this together :-) Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case, rather than address the request or concerns you had related to it, your entire comment was directed at Biophys and bringing up old disputes. If you are interested in working out issues with others, their talk pages are more appropriate venues for that kind of discussion. Shell ^babelfish 17:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

What? What do you mean you didn't know about the robes? I thought the only reason anyone ever ran for such a thankless job was so that they could get a nice set of plush golden robes. "In it for the community" you say? Bah! The bling is where it's at. Even the Supreme Court can't top this swag. You could pawn this for a house! Why the heck else did you think that the foundation needed 20 million dollars?

So you're really serious about the whole "helping the community" and "for the good of the project" business? Aww, shucks. Go ahead and keep the robe anyways then. Do us proud.

Congratulations on your victory, may your tenure be peaceful and have a net low adverse interaction on your sanity. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In spite of various past disagreements and some flack you received recently, I voted for you because I thought you were one of the best 12 choices. Sincerely, Jehochman ^Talk 04:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy second term. Mathsci (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. Shell ^babelfish 11:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_for_User:QuackGuru

Shell, I know this is a busy time of year for you, but I thought I'd let you know of the above discussion if you are interested. I know you have previously blocked QG, but figure that in your roles at WP you may be able to provide some objective input there. DigitalC (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations from me as well. I look forward to continuing to work with you, and my only regret is that after your year of dedicated and caring service, your support percentage was not much higher. But we'll still have you with us, and that is the important thing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I really appreciate the thoughtful comments. Congratulations as well on your still near-unanimous support :) Shell ^babelfish 03:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

incorrect OTRS email address

Hi, the address you provided at arbcom Evidence page was incorrect. The correct address is: permissions@wikimedia.org

The copyright holder, in line with your unrestricted release suggestion, awaits response to his email in that regard, as addressed to what has now been established to be the correct address. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well no, the address I gave you was actually more correct since it sends the email directly to the queue for the English Wikipedia, but the address you noted will work as well even if it does take a little bit longer. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. Shell ^babelfish 13:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam appeal at AE

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Captain_Occam

Captain Occam is appealing the decision made by EdJohnston at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#Captain_Occam. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. Vassyana (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your username @ ga.wikipedia

Hi Shell. I've just renamed your account over on gawiki as it had previously been taken by an impostor. It should appear under your name in SUL now. (My first action as a new 'crat over on that wiki :) ) - Alison ^❤ 04:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooh I love you :) I've been trying to get that done for more than a year! Shell ^babelfish 05:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I know - so sorry!! We only had one bureaucrat for the longest time, and he's been mega-busy IRL. Now, we've a massive three (count 'em) 'crats! Anyways - glad it finally got sorted :) - Alison ^❤ 05:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I know there's a lot of wiki's that just don't have the volunteers; I'm just thrilled to have the global account working finally :) Shell ^babelfish 05:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations indeed on your recent appointment! Well done :) - Alison ^❤ 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Shell ^babelfish 18:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi, I just want to wish you the best for your next two years of service. Good luck with it and congrats again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Shell ^babelfish 14:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Hello,

Can you help me please?

I have asked several people to help me and they have been really helpful but I need serious editorial guidance to make the article on Mdvanii better. I am slowly learning the process to add all the appropriate citations, but it very hard for me for the moment as it's all very technical, therefore adding them is very slow for the moment. I have written it with an associate in NY who iniitated the article (I am in Switzerland)...the subject is a controversial artwork/doll which has a few stalkers so we already had a major vandalism which was corrected.....several of the one time (new to wiki) people who edited and left comments have usurped the artists names (BillyBoy* & Lala) and have made comments about the authors of the article (myself and my asociate in NY) as being "too close to the subject" which is absolutely not true. Infact, I think these comments are biased as they be detractors of the artists work, for which there are a few. I think it is biased to say we are biased.

I want to make the article completely neutral. The history is very rich however and we have all the citations, documentation and tv appearance set to back up each and every statement within the article ...all of it is just needing to be inserted correctly.

If you can help me, or guide me to someone will to really work on it with us, I'd be really grateful. The subject is fascinating and really has alot to be said for it there is so much information, but it is our express goal to make it be a completely wikipedian encyclopedic article (neutral) and not seem in any way a "puff piece" as it was called at the beginning (I have since really cleaned it up considerably)....

I hope to hear from you, directly on mytalk page if possible...

The article is MDVANII....(I have sent this message via email as well...due to time difference I was hoping that you'd receive it as soon as possible...happy holidays too!)

My kind regards, Alec Jiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec jiri (talk • contribs) 00:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikidrips

WikiDrip thinks that WikiDrip's account password was Compromised and is requesting WikiDrip's account be unlocked so WikiDrip can log in and change the password. WikiDrip then can if required open another Wikipedia account with a new username. WikiDrip would like to have the benefit of the doubt here. The New WikiDrip account would of course link to the original WikiDrip account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidrips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.95.146 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Note community ban discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Message

Hi Shell. Could you clarify what message you are refering to when you write "please refer to the latest message in regards to your ban; you may not address the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, including your user space."? I am afraid your statement is untrue. What I am banned from is explicitly and clearly contributions to articles. The Case makes it quite clear for example that I am allowed, and even encouraged, to make suggestion on Talk Pages, contrary to your assertion above. And as far as I know, putting on my User Page a list of references (what you just deleted [51]) is also clearly outside of my ban. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidently your ban needs to be broadened since you are using your userspace and talk pages as a way to game the restriction by recruiting unsuspecting good faith editors to proxy for you in your quest to add unreliable original research to Wikipedia. Adding that type of content is what you were originally sanctioned for, yet you've never recognized fault nor sought to improve. It's a joke that ArbCom has let this editing go on for so long. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social club. Your polite manners and charm matter naught. Jehochman ^Talk 11:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to a recent discussion of this matter where the relevant evidence can be found to substantiate my claims. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman. Instead of making such attacks, could you only try to look objectively at the matter for a second? Here is the list of some of the most reputable Crusades historians who do state that Jerusalem was occupied by the Mongols in 1299-1300 with Google Book links (I could only find one who states that they did not "conquer" or "take" the city). Some authors such as the Jewish historian Michael Shterenshis, even write a full chapter on "The Mongols in Jerusalem". How can we deny that this is worthwhile information for Wikipedia, and how can I be attacked for placing such high quality reference material on my User Page?

Regarding the RfC for Mongol elements in Western medieval art, I followed Arbcom's encouragements to make proposals on Talk Pages, I was fully transparent (here) and was honored to receive the participation of some very experienced editors such as User:Johnbod, who is probably one of the most knowledgeable art editors on Wikipedia: this is not just "unsuspecting good faith editors". Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So just to be clear, you still believe that the content you're pushing needs to be in these articles, intend to keep at it in your user space and on talk pages, and think that writing on the topic and having other editors proxy it into the article space for you is appropriate? Because seriously, if that's the case, I'm not sure what more can be said to you to get across what the problem is here. I would love nothing more than for this to no longer be an issue, but is seems every time I think it's finally been put to bed, you come up with another way to weasel around the ban. Is there anything that could be done to convince you that dropping this crusade is the best option?

Also, I have removed your list of references from my talk page. I truly cannot understand how you can ignore the entire Arbitration case, it's findings and it's remedies and suggest that the material should be included and that you should have a right to continue to defy your topic ban by writing about this wherever you please. It frankly boggles the mind. Shell ^babelfish 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to make suggestions on Talk Pages, Shell??? Isn't that precisely meant so that I can make proposals to other editors??? Please simply respect the terms of the Arbcom ruling. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 22:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions yes; this does not include creating articles in the topic area and "suggesting" them on talk pages as you recently were reminded via the AE discussion. You were also asked repeatedly not to misuse sources during both cases and yet you continue to do so with the same list of sources you've put forth repeatedly. Can I ask who your current mentor is? Shell ^babelfish 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shell. I would love to know specifically what issues you can have with what is basically a summary of what historians have to say about the Mongols in Jerusalem in 1299-1300. You can have a fair view by looking yourself at a Google Book search such as Mongol+Jerusalem+1299. It's easy enough, and hopefully, this is not a "POV" search... at least it is much more valuable than the false claims and accusations that are being made around this subject on Wikipedia. My mentor is User:Angusmclellan, who incidentally had no issues with the process of the RfC for Mongol elements in Western medieval art and the subsequent insertion of the article in the mainspace by other editors [52]. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Those would be the same issues I had three years ago, two years ago, last year... the details haven't changed. I'm a bit concerned that your mentor lead you to believe that evading your topic ban by creating articles in your user space was appropriate - I realize that you didn't participate in the AE thread, but did you read the comments of the uninvolved admins and Arbs who commented there? Shell ^babelfish 01:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see how it could be innapropriate to try to render the proper nature of an historical event such as the Mongol occupation of Jerusalem in 1299. My list of reference is essentially identical with the relevant Google Book search [53]. How can that be wrong??? I am more worried that some try to claim against historical facts that this is all made up and pretend (knowingly [54]) that a Google search yields nothing on the subject [55], a claim which is totally untrue [56]. Regarding the AE results, if it is considered innapropriate for me to prepare draft Sandbox articles pages for approval through RfC, well it's fine, but I don't think that modifies in any way my Arbcom-approved right to make proposals on Talk Pages, through RfC or not, or archive reference material on my User Page when necessary. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Shell, is it time to requet that PHG be banned from Wikipedia? He will never stop attempting to publish in Wikipedia this "Mongols in Jerusalem" ahistorical nonsense. Editors should only expend a finite amount of effort to cure problematic editing. I believe the community has had enough of this, after what, nearly four years, two arbitration cases, and countless appeals and amendments. Enough is enough. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"A historical nonsense" Jehochman? Why don't you actually take a look at some academic publication? [57]. Even the Wikipedia article on Mongol raids into Palestine will give you a much fairer view of what makes historical sense in the 1250-1300 period. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 22:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with the case, but isn't this a case where a topic ban should be sufficient, and can be clearly defined? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree; banning is probably a bit extreme, but taking out the loopholes in the topic ban seems to be necessary at this point. Shell ^babelfish 18:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if somebody could simply explain to me why it is wrong to follow Arbcom's advice and actually make proposals on Talk Page, that would really help... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 22:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Please accept this 'Coming of the Cavalry' Award for saving myself (left to right: Shell, Kirill, Brad). It is, I can assure you, much appreciated. Perhaps this year will not be that bad after all... :) Piotrus, 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

For your prompt input into the AE case involving me. The fact that I can thank you here shows that it was quite effective :) Nonetheless I do believe that I will have to seek a clarification and/or an amendment soon; I certainly don't want to end up on AE again - yet the last few week do show that navigating the topic ban is hard, and not only for me. Any further advice is, as always, appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait...I've got a beard? Shell ^babelfish 02:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you'd appreciate that little tidbit :) Could be fake, I guess? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome - half the folks I meet on Wikipedia think I'm a guy anyways, may as well go with it. And I would suggest if Newyorkbrad doesn't do something formal, that a clarification request would be helpful to the situation. Until then, perhaps sticking to articles on lolcats, which should be squarely outside of your ban :) Shell ^babelfish 18:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi Shell -- do you remember this guy? Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's back here, with quite a post, to say the least. Editing as an anon but using his real name; the three IPs are from Hong Kong and I don't have the slightest doubt it's him -- the style is certainly an exact match (see for example this talk page section from 2005). I'm planning to remove the section and block the IP, but my spidey-sense tells me this one may be trouble. Not sure why, but it just feels that way. Antandrus (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy from four years ago? I've just blocked another IP he came over with and Moreschi has semi'd the talk page since this banned user seems particularly determined to participate there. I've also left a note reminding him that he has to deal with the ban and how he can have it reviewed. It looks like he's using a variety of internet connections, so semi protecting anywhere he shows up is probably going to be the best way to handle things. Shell ^babelfish 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

ping ;)

Hello, Shell Kinney. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

fyi, I've never had an AOL account!!!

<aside>

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

  If only the the AC had been around 70+ years ago; coulda saved upwards of a hundred million lives by arbitrating the dispute, instead

</aside>

Seriously, I've no idea what's going on in that case ;)

Cheers, Gold Hat (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AOL is ebil. I did get my mail though and I've responded to it (and put an updated note on the clarification). If the AC had taken on WWII, most of the participants would have died or gone off as bored before we came to a decision ;) Shell ^babelfish 05:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)