Misplaced Pages

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}}!

Juice Plus and Rhode Island Red

Hello, just a FYI, I've managed to get myself dragged in to editing the Juice Plus article (with whom I have zero connection at all) plus related articles such as John A. Wise and have been encountering continuous problems with user Rhode Island Red, falsely accusing me of COI, ignoring policies, and generally wikihounding and editing tendentiously. I've just discovered that he/she has previously undertaken a 6 month ban for similar behaviour on the same article and that a year ago you informed him/her that any further editing on the article by him/her would likely result in a block. What would you advise in dealing with them?--Icerat (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious Icerat? You're wikihounding me on two different articles (Juice Plus and John A. Wise, facing a long block for edit warring (the third in roughly a week), engaged in disputes with multiple editors on multiple articles, ignored overwhelming consensus, faced repeated charges of disruptive and COI editing on the Amway articles, and now you are canvassing an admin against me and accusing me of improper conduct??? I am not your problem. You alone are responsible for the conflicts you are having with multiple editors and on multiple articles. And you didn't get "dragged into" editing the Juice Plus article -- you willfully chose to wikihound me there as soon as your last edit warring block expired. Your days here on WP may be numbered if you keep up this ridiculous shell game (no pun intended Shell). Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shell, as an outsider I had a look at the Juice Plus article and also a quick look at the BLP/N notice on the Wise article, and I need to comment that Icerat seems to be engaging in a novel interpretation of BLP (according to editors on BLP/N). Icerat seems to think that a source can never be used on the project because it may violate BLP. To defend that he quotes BLPSPS which is a defence that has been leveled at Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch int he past (remember all those loooooooooong discussions - I had thought they were done and dusted years ago). And rather than recognising that he's fighting against consensus, he's engaging in a spot of TE and repeating his points over and over again. I note that Alison has got a flag in to look at the Juice article, but I'm not sure if she should be handling this from an admin perspective. Shot info (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this mob here Shelly, but Shot Info is not an "outsider" uninvolved party, we have a past history. WP:BLPSPS is clear, no exception has ever been made for Stephen Barrett. --~

• Looking over this issue, it seems to be just a general difference of opinion rather than major behavioral issues. Icerat, it does appear that the community doesn't agree with your viewpoint in general - I understand that sucks, but sometimes you have to agree to disagree - you'll have to abide by the consensus or you'll run into further trouble down the road. Shell 21:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red is back in ownership mode at Juice Plus, in spite of the requests made prior to his 6-month ban that he stop editing the article altogether. The article is a travesty, as many have remarked over the years, and a blot on Misplaced Pages's reputation. I would suggest an admin investigation into the neutrality of the article, leading in all probability to a permanent ban on his activities there, but I have removed the article from my watchlist instead. --TraceyR (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tracey R, I am very concerned about your conduct with respect to Juice Plus and the campaigning that you are now doing, insinuating article ownership, misstating that I was banned in the past, and absurdly asking for me to be banned from WP in the future. The time has come for you to stop this harassment, as I have had to endure more than enough of it in the past and it is becoming a serious hindrance to the project and my editorial freedom. If you aren’t willing to refrain from such inappropriate conduct voluntarily than I suggest that we take this to the highest level of dispute resolution in which we can discuss COI and you connection with Juice Plus. As a distributor, you should have revealed your COI long ago, but instead you lied about it and have been skirting the rules all along. This harassment, and the contentious editing on Juice Plus, must stop. How do you want to proceed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I shall reply to Rhode Island Red on his talk page. I see no need to maintain several parallel threads. --TraceyR (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It would seem prudent for this user and I to disengage from direct contact going forward, as direct contact is more likely to inflame the situation than resolve it. Comments from this user would best be posted elsewhere than on my Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red deleted my reply to his attack, so I have preserved it on my talk page. It can be found here. --TraceyR (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi,

I'm wondering whether you'll adopt me.

--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually on vacation right now, but I would be happy to talk with you when I get back. Shell Kinney (mobile) (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page

Hello Shell,

I added a comment on the talk page of INREV. Maybe you have the chance to look into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ElHolandes/INREV

Kind regards, Paco Ortiz --ElHolandes (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started looking at the new references and will see if I can give you advice on all of them. Shell Kinney (mobile) (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Probable harassment

I don't really understand harassment properly, so I don't want to accuse any editor with that now. I'm sorry for bothering, but there're users who follow me around with accusations and ANIs that were totally ignored by admins (especially Misconceptions2 here).
Now, another editor (Doc Tropics, in the same link) removed my inserted material from credible reliable authors, which are from reliable publishers too, having a summary of "repairing damage done by semi-literate POV changes to established text" while removing the sources too (he doesn't have the credibility to judge me, personally, without even knowing my academic background).
I'm really not sure what to do, as I haven't been able to make any useful contributions like before. I absolutely hate pointing fingers, but this started to become a continues problem. If there's anything I'm doing wrong, I'd love to hear it from you, please. Thanks and sorry for the trouble. ~ AdvertAdam 07:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Without some more diffs to look at the article you're changing and exactly what you're adding, I can only give you general advice, but it may help. It sounds like you're having something Misplaced Pages calls a "content dispute"; that's where two or more editors disagree over how an article should be written or what it should contain. I'm not sure if anyone has show you the page called dispute resolution, but that page has a lot of great ideas for how to work out your differences by engaging other editors from the community.

From looking at the noticeboard post, it looks like other editors are concerned that your edits are giving too much weight to a particular opinion on the subject and that you might feel so strongly about it, that you don't realize that your edits may be biased. Sometimes when we have a close connection to a subject or strong personal opinions, it can be difficult to write things in a dry, encyclopedic tone - that's why Misplaced Pages content and policies are based on consensus, so that hopefully, over time, we avoid doing things in a biased manner. Shell 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, first of all, for your time and effort. I know that I'm a new editor that learned policies the hard way, but I've been intensively editing with policies the past two months. I'm just trying to correct the WP:DUE violations, as even the articles are tagged with POV. I've never used content that aren't sourced from a majority POV, not even my own academic research that was approved in my University (WP:COI). The editors are trying to keep the minority's pov in the lead, even though the sources say the opposite. I opened the WP:CCN according to the WP:DR suggestion, to discuss the content (not the editor); as "Doc Tropics" refused to discuss the dispute with me, stating in a summary "there's nothing to discuss anymore". However, the WP:CCN is now full of false claims on me, so I hope that I explained enough there. I just hate to point fingers.

As an example of what happened with an editor (David). He's pushing a pov of 1 or 2 scholars from a personal website, that says that Islamic-tax is only for Muslims. Me and two other editors showed him examples of sources and explained practices that the tax is for the community. If someone is living in a non-Muslim community he's allowed to give to their poor. David is still disputing, wanting to add that minority view all around the article. But I still insist that it's more neauteral to mention toward the poor of the community (like the sources). I know that WP:3O is not allowed because many editors are involved. ~ AdvertAdam 08:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I've been in many discussions in more-important high-traffic articles, while even really experienced editors like and follow my explanations and sources (even when discussions involve 7-8 editors). Thanks ~ AdvertAdam 09:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Common Statement?

I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum#A_mutually_compatible_point_of_view. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Political activism RfAr

Hi Shell, I'm writing to ask that you recuse from the political activism RfAr filed on June 12 by Coren. As you know, you took part on June 12 in an attempt to resolve this dispute with Cirt by email, at Cirt's request, on the same day that you voted to decline the case. Because of your involvement—particularly if the email exchange becomes private evidence—and because in my view you were acting in support of Cirt and not as a neutral party, it would seem appropriate to allow others to handle the case, including the decision to decline or accept it.

I want to make clear that I'm not implying any bad faith on your part. It's simply that the Committee's decisions have to be seen as neutral as possible, particularly as the issue has gone on for some time and has caused a lot of disruption. I believe you would help us achieve a more satisfactory resolution if you would agree to step back. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 19:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)