User talk:Shell Kinney: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Shell Kinney (talk | contribs)
→‎ANI Appeal: new section
Line 152: Line 152:
I originally posted a message here about the finding on me, but instead I am bringing it to arbitration talk. Please respond to my concerns there. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 11:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I originally posted a message here about the finding on me, but instead I am bringing it to arbitration talk. Please respond to my concerns there. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 11:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
:I've left a note there. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 12:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
:I've left a note there. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 12:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

== ANI Appeal ==

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">[[User:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:110%;font-family:Mistral">GregJackP</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:60%">Boomer!</span>]]</span> 12:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:46, 10 September 2010

Welcome to my Talk Page

I am retired, so if you're looking to contact me, please use the box over there --->

Contact info
So long and thanks for all the fish

Thank you for all of the warm wishes and generally nice thoughts sent in my direction. I have retired from all Wikimedia projects and turned in all my extra tools as a security measure (we all appreciate those now, don't we?). For those few of you who were disappointed at not getting a whole ton of gossip out of my explanation for leaving (and didn't think to ask me privately, duh) I can only offer this cartoon as penance. Best of luck to all of you and feel free to keep in touch (see above). Shell babelfish 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted editorialization

Sorry to bother you again, but this sort of editorializing 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, are may be considered sanctionable WP:BATTLEGROUND offenses. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Shell babelfish 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a bit too far indeed. I am not sure that I understand what he means, but it doesn't sound good. Colchicum (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Shell babelfish 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only limits being tested here 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." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 02:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

Military history reviewers' award
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

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, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 User talk:Sandstein#Personal EEML and related evidence pages. This unilateral proposal is not taking the issue anywhere, I see it only as preparation for a new battleground. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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—that I'm already planning for my war campaign when my topic ban expires in 129 days, 20 hours, 21 minutes and 24 seconds [as I type this], and which threatens re-litigating everything WP:EEML—is unseemly at best. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Petri, your houding of certain editors is becoming apparent and may end in further sanctions if your behavior doesn't change post haste. Shell babelfish 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Now, after four hours, I am not only offended, but also – I believe justifiably – angry.
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.
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 Digwuren (talk · contribs) 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.
I do admit to the following:
  • 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.
  • 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.)
  • I have done a potentially very controversial non-admin closure of a WP:AE case involving Russavia. The action was taken in order to WP:DENY a forum for what was escalating into a major BATTLEground of EEML legacy. I did this under the presumption, that if anyone even hinted that my BOLD 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.)
I do not see any of these actions as hounding. Neither should you.
Yours, -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am frankly gobsmacked by this escalating ugliness.
  1. 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.
  2. 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 as liberation and/or restoration by the Soviets.
  3. I have no interest in your actions regarding Russavia—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? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 03:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that you reconsider your interactions with editors who were involved in the case and stop watching their edits.

Vecrumba, you absolutely may not try to link a Wikipedia 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 WP:OUTING and will result in a block. Shell babelfish 05:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 by Petri for it) for violations I have not committed. Please keep your 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. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 15:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I assumed since Petri made claims that you were outing him that he had not disclosed his identity on-wiki. Since he's done so, repeatedly and even recently [1], [2] then your link was not outing.

Petri, this kind of underhanded behavior is exactly what I'm trying to warn you away from. You cannot openly discuss your identity and then try to sanction other editors when they do the same. Please re-read WP:OUTING and ask if you have any further confusion. Shell babelfish 06:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Petri has intentionally updated a Wikilink in his prior post, which you reference, to now point to a non-existent biography article. This latest inaccurate implication of two Petris, created 3 hours after your response above—in response to yours, is disingenuous at best. Yours was not the apology necessary, still, much appreciated; you only acted on evidence provided. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please also note the obfuscating edit summary invoking WP:VERIFIABILITY, which purports that Petri's original Wiki-link was "wrong". PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 14:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anent Petri, with whom I have had essentially no overlaps, see [3] which appears onits face to be a deliberate attempt to insert me into CC as an active participant via her edits (if such they are) at [4] (under a 1RR restriction to begin with, and a requirement that edits be mentioned on the talk page, which she forgot to do), and at [5] and so on. I think perhaps verbum sapiens in her direction would help. Thanks! And try to get the CC arb done by Christmas <g>. Collect (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think other Arbs have covered it, but I felt the reason the clause was added was because even though ChrisO is taking time off, it's not time that he intends to edit Wikipedia. If he decided to come back, we would have no way of knowing whether or not the problems would begin again. If, for example, he decides to edit on another Wikimedia Project, shows the problem is resolved and then later wishes to return here, we would take that into consideration and amend the findings as appropriate. Shell babelfish 03:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification; however, I must very strongly object to this. Someone's decision to leave Wikipedia should never be held again that person and cause longer sanctions. Risker puts it better than I do in the section I linked above.
Also, I strongly suggest you have a close look at that section because it appears to me that you and Coren, who have both voted in favour of this remedy, are interpreting it differently. (It's possible that I'm misreading Coren, but I don't think so, as Lar and I seem to agree in our reading of him.) Needless to say, any differences in arbs' interpretations of remedies ought to be resolved now rather than at Requests for Clarification later. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there's certainly ways that editors can show that any issues have been resolved even if they aren't editing here, however since this is intended to prevent further problems I feel we'd be lax if we assumed that the issues just stopped on their own with no evidence to support that idea. Bans aren't meant to punish people by keeping them out of something, they're used when we recognize that editors are having difficulty working within the rules in a particular topic area - we often review bans and change bans by amendment when editors show they've worked out whatever the problem was.

Arbs do disagree on how to handle things from time to time and I'm sure there will be further discussion before the final decision is posted. I think Coren mentioned that he realizes we may be reading it differently and I have seen his comments there as well - we try to make all the wording make sense, but it doesn't always work :) Shell babelfish 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. [6] 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. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I opted for the second wording was because I felt there was more to it than just simple edits that everyone would look at and scream "BLP Violation!". Having looked at the evidence and some of the biographies brought to our attention I felt that more than just obvious BLP violations, there was a serious issue with his edits over time focusing too much on particular subjects (undue weight) or eventually skewing the biography in a particular direction. Those more subtle issues are a bit difficult to concretely show with diffs. In any case, if you look at my other votes, that's the reason I supported banning from all biographies tangentially related to climate change subjects. Shell babelfish 03:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On BLPs

Not that it matters, but it was Carcharoth who brought up the "consider a bio as a whole" point (cf. proposed principle 8). Guettarda (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 this item by Carcharoth, which I'm thinking of mentioning on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons in case it might be useful in clarifying the policy's wording. --TS 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both; that's exactly what I was looking for. Shell babelfish 03:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 in support of remedies 1 and 1.1 doesn't seem to be consistent with your opposition vote to proposed remedy 1 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? --TS 17:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you! I had an edit conflict with Kirill while writing up my comments and pasted that one back in the wrong place. Good catch :) Shell babelfish 04:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was written by me on the suggestion of Ronnotel. (You appear to refer to this on the interminable CC page) Collect (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much - I knew someone had talked about writing an essay :) Exactly what I was looking for. Shell babelfish 03:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#QuackGuru_on_Chiropractic. Do you remember this user? --Surturz (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've recently warned him over his edits to Chiropractic. If things are continuing, WP:AE might be appropriate. Shell babelfish 06:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Leningrad

Please, look at the Russian version, there is a million less. --85.76.192.91 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you trying to correct things, but if you look at the sources, it appears this version is correct. For example, see this source or the sources on List_of_battles_by_casualties#Sieges_and_urban_combat which indicate the total deaths were far more than a million and could have been as high as 4.5 million. Since the article was vandalized before to remove the 1, perhaps the Russian version has also been vandalized?

Just as a hint, if you put a description in the edit summary explaining why you made an edit, it's much less likely to be reverted without explanation. And welcome to Wikipedia :) Shell babelfish 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor4th finding

[7] To say the least, there are a number of editors, as shown in the evidence section and in their actions since as documented on the PD talk page, who this could be said about. If you're going to single out Minor4th, then you need to single out everyone who has edited in a similar way. If that includes me also, then fine. To not do this is not fair, and I really mean that. Before he withdrew, Rlevse hinted that findings on more editors were forthcoming. If you're taking up the mantle for doing that, then you are doing the right thing. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear with me, I'm not done yet. Shell babelfish 05:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, if the findings include me, that's fine, it just needs to something close to fair. Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about if I let you know when I've got everyone on there that I intended and you tell me if you think I missed anyone? Shell babelfish 06:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your finding

I originally posted a message here about the finding on me, but instead I am bringing it to arbitration talk. Please respond to my concerns there. ATren (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note there. Shell babelfish 12:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Appeal

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]