| Revision as of 17:07, 6 September 2010 editVecrumba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits →Redirected to Arbcom: no purpose in being upset, just feeds the conflict I didn't start here← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:55, 18 November 2023 edit undoDonner60 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers236,055 edits not around since Sept 2011 | ||
| (882 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=23 September 2011}} | |||
| {{User:Shell Kinney/talkheader}} | {{User:Shell Kinney/talkheader}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 16 | ||
| |algo = old(240h) | |algo = old(240h) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == pass-out teh baked goodies == | |||
| == Request for help in ending the battleground == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| My plan after returning to editing was to disengage from the battleground. I tried to focus entirely on creating new content , but immediately after I returned, Colchicum first attacked me and then decided to launch the latest round of the battleground . Biophys then followed and attacked me as well. I'm trying refrain from replying and defending myself, since I believe doing that is exactly what keeps the battleground alive. | |||
| ] (]) has given you a ]! Cookies promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <br /> | |||
| What I ''did'' try to do was to make peace with one of my former content opponents: . I believe that mutually agreeing not to make accusations against each other is the '''only''' voluntary way to end this battleground. | |||
| To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{tls|Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{tls|munch}}! | |||
| Biophys rejected the offer, and in fact used my peace offer against me, to attack me further. He did this by twisting my words: | |||
| :"I just would like to notice that Offliner came to my talk page to suggest that we are in a state of war" | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| I offer peace — and Biophys uses the opportunity to claim that I am, in fact, ''declaring war''. Biophys did something similar during the ] arbitration when he tried to twist Ellol's words, claiming that Ellol had presented threats using criminal slang. | |||
| Colchicum also rejected my peace offer outright. | |||
| So I think it is clear from these replies that the general athmosphere is too combatitive for any voluntary restrictions and promises to work. Therefore, I believe the only way is to impose a draconian general interaction ban. It should prohibit editors from making accusations and filing noticeboard reports against each other. It should, however, leave room for constructive collaboration on articles. | |||
| I suggest the following text: " are prohibited from making any kind of accusations or filing noticeboard reports against each other." | |||
| "Accusations" should be broadly defined. The editors should include all editors from the EEML and from the recent Russavia-Biophys arbcase, as well as me and Colchicum. | |||
| At this point, I really think this is the only way to end the battleground. ] (]) 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry to hear things are still frustrating in this area. If you'd like to propose the case be amended to include a wide interaction ban, you can certainly do that. I've noticed a few flareups just recently, so you may be right that this isn't going to go away otherwise. In the meantime, you might find it considerably less stressful if you decided to ignore the drama and not let yourself get drawn back into any of the issues that come up. If you find yourself without an idea what to work on, I've got ] sitting on the backburner because I think my writing sounds terrible and could really use some copy editing or suggestions for improvement; it's also a crazy out of the way area which might be a welcome change. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sigh. Well, I am sorry, but I can't leave this, uh, made-up story unanswered. I haven't attacked Offliner after he returned to editing, I asked the Committee to consider putting him on an interaction ban before his siteban was suspended. IMO it was not an attack, it was a perfectly reasonable request given his history. And seeing how he is unable to disengage and how the things deteriorated since he (rather than anybody else) had got unbanned, I am getting increasingly confident that it would be a good idea. I withhold my opinion at to whether it was reasonable for the Committee to unban him at all. However, I stand by my assessment of his post-ban comments on Malik Shabazz and Kotniski as outrageous. That was hardly disengagement from the battleground, quite the opposite. And he can't claim that he was provoked there. | |||
| ::Concerning "the latest round of the battleground" I have launched (this is at least the third time over the last few days that Offliner repeats this not quite kind and even less accurate mantra: , , – how's that for disengagement?) I believe that reporting violations of Arbcom remedies, which is what I did, doesn't constitute battleground behavior. Correct me if I am wrong. At least ] doesn't claim anything of this sort, in agreement with the common sense. I invite everyone concerned to review my report at ]. I may understand why some people are unhappy about it, but it is not my fault, they shouldn't have repeatedly violated Arbcom remedies in the first place, whereas my report doesn't violate anything. On a side note, Igny's conduct there was indeed appalling. | |||
| ::Now, concerning the "peace offer", it looks like it was "an offer you couldn't refuse", eh? This is ridiculous. Offliner is free to disengage whenever he wish (until it may be too late), for this he doesn't need an authorization from others. I am not going to sign any special treaties with him, neither do I have to. | |||
| ::As a finding of fact justifying any sort of general interaction ban his story would be preposterous. Nobody else is to blame that he is unable to disengage. A draconian interaction ban for him may indeed be warranted though, exactly my point. But maybe he is clever enough to withdraw on his own. ] (]) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::What would likely help is everyone either a) dropping the sticks and getting along or failing that b) ignoring each other completely. Surely there are other editors out there who can open enforcement or requests for sanction when needed? <s>I found your recent comments about Russavia particularly disturbing - on one hand you claim interest in disengaging and on the other disparage Russavia and tell others not to bother working with him.</s> I think it's becoming pretty clear who's learned from the case and who hasn't. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ach, nevermind - after looking at it further, Russavia pulled that diff out from last March. *sigh* ] <sup>]</sup> 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Race and intelligence et al. == | |||
| With the proceedings completed, I would like to offer some observations. I appreciate Coren looking for ways to think outside the box, however, wetting toes in content and enforcing the broadening of editors' content perspectives did not go very far. (Part of the issue is that ultimately even ] is driven by consensus{{mdash}}but another conversation.) | |||
| <br> WP is about working together constructively. When edit wars ensue, followed by requests for enforcement or arbitration, those are symptoms of the initial breakdown of collegial interaction. From my own experience, it is possible to have raging disagreements on subject matter, but to still conduct discourse collegially and constructively{{mdash}}all that is required is for editors to be nice to each other. The hand-wringing over "civil POV pushers" is, IMHO, overdone. As long as editors stick to sources debate can be had. I have successfully debated sock-puppetting paid POV pushers, and so, for me, the choice is simple: obtain the opposition's sources to insure fair and accurate representation; research and obtain your own reputable sources; form a cogent editorial argument{{mdash}}OR{{mdash}}whine about "POV pushers" not listening to what you're saying. | |||
| <br> It is only when those who fail to achieve dominance of their POV resort to accusations, sock-puppets, et al. that discourse disintegrates. And once that happens, that Humpty Dumpty, while not beyond repair, takes quite the effort to reconstitute. I suggest that ending the disparagement and denigration of editors be made a top priority. ArbCom should ask themselves, why would anyone new come to WP to contribute when they are very likely to be attacked just for showing up? | |||
| <br> Lastly, escalating sanctions (indefinite topic bans, etc.) are likely only to worsen the situation in the long run, as the opportunity for one to eliminate their opposition outweighs the ban's usefulness as a deterrent in promoting good behavior. Short blocks (WP cold turkey) sooner for poor manners would be much more effective. | |||
| <br> I've left this for you as you are new to the fold as of the last election and aren't afraid to change your mind about things. ("''A straightforward response, the only one so far to specifically talk about changing one's mind. Worth a look at the helm.''"{{mdash}}my thoughts on your answers to my questions during the election process.) ]<small> ►]</small> 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree about Coren; I always appreciate people who are willing to try to come up with new ideas, even if they don't work. I think it's the best way to stumble on something that's really going to make a difference.<p>I also completely agree that working well together is the cornerstone of the real work that gets done on Misplaced Pages. The sticking point always seems to be that we can't (as a whole) agree on where the line should be drawn. Some people give established editors more leeway, others think that's silly. People disagree on what constitutes incivil language and everyone has a different level that they seem comfortable with. We can almost always agree when someone has gone too far (even then there are disagreements at times) but stopping things before they get there is often difficult. I'm not sure I have a good solution for getting people to work together, at least not one that ArbCom can implement - I've always felt I was able to do more towards that end through mediation (formal or informal) and helping people understand each other. Maybe if we had a group of people who were good at that sort of thing, we could send them into areas that were having difficulty and see if they could get everyone back on track.<p>I do understand a bit where people are coming from about civil POV pushers though. Usually it's not that they're civil or that they push a POV, more often it's that they simply repeat themselves ad naseum despite well formed arguments and continue to revert from time to time (not enough to be sanctioned usually). Situations like that can take an extrodinar amount of time away from other contributors; I've seen people continue to argue their position and revert even after all other editors were calmly disagreeing with them, multiple RfCs indicated that their viewpoint wasn't consensus etc. What do you usually do when you encounter a situation like that?<p>I've certainly seen cases where editors tried to use topic bans to eliminate people with other viewpoints. I've also seen sockpuppet reports used the same way. A the heart of it though is that "us-vs-them" mentality, which I think is less a problem that stems from Misplaced Pages and more about some of these external disputes. It's probably a part of human nature and not one we're likely to sanction out of existence here. I do like the idea of shorter blocks when problems spring up rather than long bans, but that would require some closer attention on problem areas by admins and I'm not sure how we encourage that to happen. Good thoughts though :-) ] <sup>]</sup> 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: (''Apologies this came out a lot longer than intended!'') There are differences between saying something when one is upset and simply being denigrating and disparaging or being truly rude. Admittedly these are subjective, but "being nice" need not degenerate into political correctness police.<p>The sticky issue is, of course, when editor "A" says editor "B" is being "X" or did "X" and "B" fends off all criticism as a "personal attack." The corollary is when editors revert WP:IDONTLIKEIT edits by calling them "vandalism." I don't have a simple answer, then again, maybe it's as simple as a 2-week block for the first person who calls the other names which should not be used in genteel conversation. (!) Having had some small experience where I've been asked to mediate, my experience at least has been that it only works when the mediator is also a subject matter expert respected by all feuding sides—that is, editors are open to suggested content compromises which they might otherwise reject. Even the best sources brought to bear on a dispute will solve nothing without that personal aspect also being in play. The flip side there is that if someone mediates based solely on attempting to find some (artificial) middle ground—let us remember that the middle between two opposite positions is not the definition of NPOV—then matters can be left worse of than when they started. A group of editors willing to step in, yes; but they need to know the subject matter as well as the editors in dispute.<p>About the civil (or perhaps even strident) POV pushers, let's start with the RFC's. That they fail, often repeatedly and even spectacularly, is inevitable. As the parties in conflict are likeliest also the best informed, there's little to be gained by going to a wider community of less-well informed individuals; these newcomers are little more than fresh meat for proselytizers from both/all sides. Moreover, the (incorrect) meme that NPOV is somewhere in the middle gives the minority/non-consensus view the edge; in the situation where 10 people say "A" and 2 people say "B", an independent subject matter expert may conclude "A" (or "B" for that matter, you never know) whereas the WP uninformed and uninitiated invariably attempt to cobble together some sort of allegedly, but never in reality "NPOV," Franken-middle-ground, ("A"+"B")/2. For this reason, RFCs tend to be ineffective and to escalate, not resolve, conflicts.<p>Moving on to the endless repetition, per my earlier comments, it is up to the editors to simply deal with it. So, maybe an article gets permanently tagged as "POV." It's not the end of civilization as we know it. Eventually the article in question will achieve something between stability, equilibrium, or stalemate. A sidebar to this is that when editors get stuck in a revert war, it's really more of a time loop; no one is thinking about a solution at that point, and it's sometimes possible for someone to come in and create a better content solution which satisfies both parties—it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be wrong. (Another case requiring a subject matter expert uninvolved in the immediate conflict.)<p>As I've said, RFCs while intended to assist in conflict resolution, accomplish just the opposite. I can even make the case that the entire dispute resolution process, as structured, is an invitation to conflict as it widens the participants, bringing in editors unfamiliar and unprepared for the subject matter, then escalating to admins et al. who are likely equally unfamiliar and unprepared—but with authority to pass judgement and sentences based on appearances; meanwhile any in such a position of authority with subject matter familiarity who can be most helpful must recuse themselves because someone on some side of the conflict will accuse them of bias.<p>My best advice is let the editors simply deal with it and toss out anyone who starts being grossly insulting. Yes, there will also be ''bona fide'' frustration; but if in good faith, it need also only be apologized for promptly. Part of any solution is that editors do need some leeway at times; the challenge is maintaining the atmosphere of good faith when that has not yet been established among the participants. When good faith is not well established, it's pretty much guilty until proven innocent, I'm afraid.<p>In the long term, it is only when editors, whether self-identified as being in conflict or acknowledged as such by the wider community, agree to work together that circumstances will improve. And, most of all, that starts with simply being nice to each other. :-) Best, ]<small> ►]</small> 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Discretionary sanctions == | |||
| Your understanding is perfectly correct. The arbitration enforcement board itself was only created to provide a central point so that actionable abuses didn't get lost. In its early days, as one of the arbitration clerks of the era, I was often the only admin to regularly follow the board and perform the required actions. | |||
| Perhaps the proposed decision needs to be tweaked a bit more to emphasize the pivotal role of administrator discretion, because at the moment few admins are willing to get involved and the restrictive implementation of the probation has not been effective, in the long run, in encouraging admins to act. Many admins these days also seem to be rather timid, and that cannot be good for the health of the encyclopedia. ] (=] ) 01:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm glad that problem was pointed out on the talk page. I believe that is one of the reasons behind moving to more standard discretionary sanctions, but perhaps further emphasis is going to be important. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Some references: | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* "22:02, 24 March 2006 SchmuckyTheCat m (5,475 bytes) (moved ] to ]: ) | |||
| :: The page was moved to its current location in May, 2009 --] 13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Concern == | |||
| I have a concern that you are not treating me in the same way as you are treating others on the proposed decision talkpage. I have genuine concerns and am trying to express them, maybe in a politically naive way but at least in an honest way. Even if you have already formed an opinion on me as some upstart who needs to be brought into line I would appreciate it if you would leave this to the PD rather than popping up with chummy comments to certain editors whilst admonishing me during the discussion. When I started the RfC/U on Lar I feel a lot of skeptic editors in the CC area took one look at my username and the fact that I am a glaciologist and decided I was some CC nutcase and treated me as such which has lead to many of the issues. I don't really want to face that sort of prejudice at arbcom. ] (]) 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :My concern was the unhealthy focus on other editors rather the discussing the proposed decision; some of your comments were straying into the territory of personal attacks. You were warned by more than one Arb over your unhelpful comments; your politics haven't a thing to do with why you were asked to tone things down. I'm not "chummy" with any editors in the case, that's my normal method of discussion - perhaps if you'd like to add constructive ideas for changing the PD or improving the topic area rather than tear down other editors, you would like the response you get much better. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was not personally warned by more than one arb at all. It was only you who assumed that the collapse by another arb was due to my comments when in fact I did not start the collapsed thread at all and was simply defending my own actions. I fully agree with the other arb's collapsing of that thread. Carcharoth has been exemplary in the handling of this case. ] (]) 13:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Or perhaps, having spoken with my colleagues, I have a better idea about the concerns. So long as you steer clear of attacking other editors, we'd all be happy to hear any concerns you may have about the Proposed Decision. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will try my best. Although I have said most of it already and it is so widely spread that I am getting tired of repetition. ] (]) 13:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you're concerned something will get lost in the mix, you might want to add those points to the statement portion so that they don't accidentally get archived or overlooked. If there's anything in particular you feel needs looked at, feel free to put some diffs here to those particular points and I'll make sure I've seen them. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Unwanted editorialization == | |||
| Sorry to bother you again, but is unwelcome. In the spirit of defusing, I'm not filling an enforcement request; however, I'd like a clear statement that crying EEML WITCH!, offering personal opinions re-litigating EEML, synthesis of personal victomology at the hands of EEML and all, <s>are</s> <u>may be considered</u> sanctionable WP:BATTLEGROUND offenses. ]<small> ►]</small> 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Sanctionable, I don't know but unhelpful, certainly. There is certainly a serious problem here with a number of people being unable/unwilling to drop the stick. Unfortunately it looks like it's heading to site bans. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : is getting a bit too far indeed. I am not sure that I understand what he means, but it doesn't sound good. ] (]) 01:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well if you look at the second link, it's a news article about intimidation, but that is a rather odd comment. If someone feels their participation at an article could be harmful, they should really consider working elsewhere. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The only limits are those of my patience. You well know if I respond to this sort of goading I'll be the one accused of "not disengaging." ]<small> ►]</small> 02:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 30 August 2010 == | |||
| <div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1 | |||
| | 1 = 2010-08-30 | |||
| | 2 = Volume 6, Issue 35 | |||
| | 3 = 2010-08-23 | |||
| | 4 = 2010-09-06 | |||
| }}}} | |||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 16:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)</div> | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0066 --> | |||
| == Is your revert possibly overbroad? == | |||
| == Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010 == | |||
| {{Talkback|Geofferybard}} | |||
| {| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;" | |||
| ]June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |  ''''']'''''  | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | By order of the '']'', for your good work helping with the WikiProject's ] and ] reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this ''] Reviewers' award''. ] (]) 02:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC) <p><small>Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{tlx|WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| <p> | |||
| == Questions about a deleted turquoise serpent == | |||
| == Redirected to Arbcom == | |||
| I'll run through the short version after a conversation @Sandstein's. I would like to request that all personal user space pages of "evidence" editors gathered in preparing for the EEML litigation or related to prior Baltic/EE conflicts be deleted. More than 8 months after the EEML topic bans went into effect, a number of editors (regardless of "sides") have returned to contributing; nothing good will come of past collections of recriminations lying about. Is there a formal mechanism for submitting such a request? Please let me know if I should submit via Email. Best, ]<small> ►]</small> 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| It seems that an inexperienced editor is trying to ask you a question at ]. ] (]) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I will have to voice my strongest objection to this, as there are still outstanding issues related to the EEML case. I have made Vecrumba a suggestion on how he should proceed, if he really wants to bury the past, see ]. This unilateral proposal is not taking the issue anywhere, I see it only as preparation for a new battleground. -- ] (]) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| :: I don't see anything that remains unresolved. Outsiders can allege and think whatever they want regarding content editing in the Baltic and Eastern European topic space, any interaction I have had with Petri Krohn and any content I have written or advocated for on-Wiki has been based solely on a fair an accurate representation of sources and would have been exactly the same whether or not there had been off-Wiki communication. Petri will be free to debate me based on sources when my topic ban expires. Until then, this sort of escalating accusation of bad faith{{mdash}}that I'm already planning for my war campaign when my topic ban expires in 129 days, 20 hours, 21 minutes and 24 seconds , and which threatens re-litigating everything WP:EEML{{mdash}}is unseemly at best. ]<small> ►]</small> 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote> | |||
| :::We just recently had all of the user evidence pages deleted after a case and I believe there was some talk of this being standard from now on. My best suggestion would be to ask for an amendment to the case requiring all of these pages be deleted (without adding in the extra baggage Petri suggested that doesn't even seem related).<p>Petri, your houding of certain editors is becoming apparent and may end in further sanctions if your behavior doesn't change post haste. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| ::::Shell, I was deeply offended by your comment and your accusation that I have been “hounding” someone. I decided to cool down for an hour. | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| ::::Now, after four hours, I am not only offended, but also – I believe ] – angry. | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
| ::::I ask that you issue a formal written apology for your comments. If you are unwilling to do that, I ask that you compile a list of the cases where you believe I have hounded someone – I suppose here you mean participants in the EEML arbitration case. I do not think you even need to do the work your self as the people you believe have been hounded would most likely volunteer their labor. | |||
| <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As is well known, I have followed a voluntary topic ban on the disputes in the EE topic area and a related interaction ban on users who would later end up as the accused side in the EEML case – starting from the day in July 2007 when my request at WP:AN to have a community ban on user {{User|Digwuren}} was first rejected. (Note, that this happened before Digwuren contributed his first original contribution.) It is my firm belief – supported by massive amounts of evidence – that the interest shown by former participants in the mailing list to my user account is '''not''' related to my edits, but to the activities of a real life person who happens to share my username. | |||
| == Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago == | |||
| ::::I do admit to the following: | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| | title = Awesome | |||
| ::::*I have been following the edits of User Russavia, as he has been under harassment and may not always act in the best possible manner himself. I have also supported him in some cases where he has been attacked or accused. | |||
| | image = Cscr-featured.svg | |||
| ::::*I have commented on a very limited number of user talk pages, where accusations have been made against me – either directly or trough innuendo – by participants in the EEML arbitration case. In most cases this has happened long after the fact, as I do not follow the edits or talk pages of the users involved (I have now added some pages to my watchlist.) | |||
| | image_upright = 0.35 | |||
| ::::*I have done a potentially very controversial non-admin closure of a WP:AE case involving Russavia. The action was taken in order to ] a forum for what was escalating into a major ]ground of EEML legacy. I did this under the presumption, that if anyone even hinted that my ] action was not absolutely the correct thing to do, I would revert the action and apologize to those affected. So far, no one has given me such a hint. (I believe Vercumba was one of the people whose butt I saved.) | |||
| | bold = ] | |||
| }} | |||
| ::::I do not see any of these actions as hounding. Neither should you. | |||
| --] (]) 06:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yours, -- ] (]) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I am frankly gobsmacked by this escalating ugliness. | |||
| :::::# My interest in your edits is your edits. Of course, I can't pursue Baltic/EE topics at the moment, although I must make the next observation. | |||
| :::::# You have not followed a voluntary topic ban as you indicate, as since your most recent return you've already edited the aftermath of WWII to describe the Soviet role in Eastern Europe by the Soviets. | |||
| :::::# I have no interest in your actions regarding Russavia{{mdash}}we are mutually happily prohibited from seeking out conflict with one another. I have no idea what "butt saving" you refer to. I commented to Igny; I left. | |||
| ::::: Perhaps you mistake me for someone more interested in conflict than in reputable content? ]<small> ►]</small> 03:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Petri, I'm sorry if my comments anger you, but having seen the various discussions you've popped up in lately for no apparent reason (here and Sanstein's talk being the most recent examples) I think it's remarkably clear that you are following around certain editors and stirring the pot. Vecrumba's request about user pages used as evidence was appropriate, especially given the recent ruling in another case which indicated that we don't intend to go on allowing these pages and at the very least expect to see them deleted at the close of a case. The acrimony that still exists over the EEML case is rather appalling; there seems to be a mindset among certain editors that those involved in the case deserve some kind of punishment or persecution for their actions - that's certainly not the way things are handled on Misplaced Pages. I strongly suggest that you reconsider your interactions with editors who were involved in the case and stop watching their edits.<p>Vecrumba, you absolutely may not try to link a Misplaced Pages editor to anything in real life or on another website unless they have brought the information here themselves first. If you have concerns about an editor or a conflict of interest where you would need to disclose such links, you are required to keep that information off site and handle it via email to ArbCom; anything else is ] and will result in a block. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Petri has confirmed the same on-Wiki. There is no "outing", this is merely an attempt to slander me and make me out to be a trouble maker attacking Petri for no good reason other than mistaking Wiki Petri Krohn for real-life Petri Krohn. I will send you by Wiki mail. In the mean time, I feel as if I'm being threatened with blocks (my perception, and quite upsetting as I came here for advice on how to move on and have gotten attacked for it) for violations I have not committed. Please keep our friendly advice friendly. Keep in mind also what this conversation was originally about and where it has gone since Petri inappropriately inserted himself to accuse me of nefarious behavior. ]<small> ►]</small> 15:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| Not that it matters, but it was Carcharoth who brought up the "consider a bio as a whole" point (cf. proposed principle 8). ] (]) 12:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Letting you know == | |||
| Hello, Shell. Since you've voted in favour of two remedies concerning ChrisO, I wanted to let you know that I've brought up an issue with a clause in those remedies ]. ] ] 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Please explain your votes in the Climate Change case == | |||
| I (and I'm sure other editors) would like explanations of arbitrators' reasoning and votes in several areas of this case. I'm particularly concerned about your Fof 10.1 on William Connolley and BLPs. I've set up a section at the PD talk page here. Politely discussing specific votes and the reasoning for them is the most likely way for most editors to avoid intense frustration. Many editors have put in long hours on this case and would like to know why you're coming to various conclusions about it. -- ] (]) 14:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==On BLPs== | |||
| When in one of your votes on the Climate Change arbitration you referred to "the idea that you shouldn't edit a biography unless you're prepared to consider the article as a whole rather than simply inserting a tidbit of information", I think you mean | |||
| by Carcharoth, which I'm thinking of mentioning on ] in case it might be useful in clarifying the policy's wording. --] 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Climate Change discretionary sanctions vote looks odd== | |||
| In your oppose vote to proposed remedy 1 "Discretionary sanctions", in the Climate Change arbitration proposed decision, you say "This or 1.1 is acceptable." | |||
| The comment doesn't seem to be consistent with your opposition vote to that proposed remedy and I suspect you made a mistake (or else are undecided). Would you please revisit that and see if it says what you want it to say? --] 17:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:55, 18 November 2023
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Shell Kinney has not edited Misplaced Pages since 23 September 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
|
pass-out teh baked goodies Gold Hat (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Is your revert possibly overbroad? You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. User_talk:Geofferybard#Mothers_for_Peace:_Throwing_out_the_baby_with_the_bathwater.3F17:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Questions about a deleted turquoise serpentIt seems that an inexperienced editor is trying to ask you a question at Misplaced Pages talk:Uploading images#Newer version of a photograph. HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Proposed deletion of File:Desert Rose (Adenium obesum) pic.jpg The file File:Desert Rose (Adenium obesum) pic.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
|
|||||||||
gmail.com
_pic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_pic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_pic.jpg){kind=link}