Misplaced Pages

User talk:Shell Kinney: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:01, 27 June 2007 editLsi john (talk | contribs)6,364 edits →Proceedure Question: You'll know what the answer is, when you are ready to have this nonesense stop.← Previous edit Revision as of 19:08, 27 June 2007 edit undoDPeterson (talk | contribs)4,116 edits →Proceedure Question: the issue is him just stopping making personal attacks...nothing else.Next edit →
Line 163: Line 163:
:::::::Sir, your conduct in this entire ituation has not been spotless. We clearly have a ] situation here. :::::::Sir, your conduct in this entire ituation has not been spotless. We clearly have a ] situation here.
:::::::There are lots of good-faith gestures you could offer to the other editors to encourage their trust. I'm not familiar enough with the particulars to offer any specific suggestions. But I suspect that you know what they are. The question is, are you ready to offer them? <small>Peace.</small>] ] 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC) :::::::There are lots of good-faith gestures you could offer to the other editors to encourage their trust. I'm not familiar enough with the particulars to offer any specific suggestions. But I suspect that you know what they are. The question is, are you ready to offer them? <small>Peace.</small>] ] 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how one compromises on an issue of ] or what middle ground solution would be when an editor is knowingly making false accusations about me being a sockpuppet? I'd just like him to stop making false accusations and acting in such a provocative manner...especially if we are to engage in mediation together. It's really that simple. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:08, 27 June 2007

    Talk page     Contact     Email     Adoptees     Archives     Articles     Watching     Awards     Log     Sandbox     Userspace
Talk page Contact Email Adoptees Archives Articles Watching Awards Logs Sandbox Userspace

Wait - where did my life go?

 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 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


Courtesy note

Your name is currently mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red, in case you would like to participate. I realize that you haven't been involved with the Juice Plus article for some time now, but I wanted to at least make you aware. Best, Elonka 00:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coach

Hello! If you are available, would you Admin Coach me? If you would respond on my talk page, that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Deflagro 15:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am no where near ready enough for an RFA. And of course I will listen, who better to teach than an admin! Also, I didn't create those headers, it was Alison who created it. Deflagro 18:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Devo picture

Hi Shell. Sorry to bother you again. During the recent drive to correct bad fair use claims, the band photo of Devo was (appropriately) deleted. However, an enterprising new editor TopherMadden (talk · contribs) left a note on the article's talk page saying that he contacted the webmaster from Devo's official site and they have given permission for the photo to be used on Misplaced Pages. However, he's not sure what to do now. To whom should he forward the email he received? Or what other step should be taken? Thanks for your help! --GentlemanGhost 01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To confirm this release, we need an email from someone at the official website (that can clearly be identified as coming from that website) sent to permissions at wikimedia dot org. It needs include the following:
  • Identification of the specific content they are releasing by giving the url of the image in question or the location on their website where the content can be found.
  • A clear statement that they are releasing the content under the GFDL or into the public domain, or in the case of images and other media, a similar license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses).
For more information, please see Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help. Shell 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ldingley/User:NokhchiBorz

Hi, Ldingley (talk · contribs), who you blocked for bad image uploads, has apparently created a new account and had the attention of continuing editing, though under the continued promise of not messing with images. Just wanted to know if you were aware of this - Luis seems to be under the impression there was something like a silent gentleman's agreement to treat him as unblocked. I re-blocked, not being aware of the backgrounds, but he asks to have it reviewed. I personally wouldn't want to stand in the way of an unblocking arrangement, if this is what other admins want -- That said, what's the current status of the old problems, is there much yet to clean up? In that case, I'd say we shouldn't ask him to just refrain from further messing with images, but rather to actively help us identifying the existing problems, shouldn't we? For instance, sometime back in 2006 he apparently e-mailed a lot of images to other people and let them upload them on his behalf. Some of those have found their way to commons now (like - I don't know how many there are.) Have these been identified and checked? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ldingley, under whatever account name has proved to be a huge liability to the project. Even after a community ban was temporarily lifted under the condition he no longer upload images or violate our copyright guidelines, Ldingley continued to deliberately attempt to deceive others about the copyright status of images he uploaded, in addition to continuing to upload images by proxy through other editors. He's been asked for his assistance before and he seems disinclined to give it. Each time he was approached, the behavior would stop for one to two months before starting again unabated. This is not a case of mistakes or ill will, people have been incredibly patient and assumed good faith with Ldingley even in the face of deliberate lies, unfortunately, Ldingley has not chosen to take advantage of the opportunities extended to him.
Last I checked there were three to four people looking through his contributions and attempting to track down any images he passed along to others to upload. This is not an enjoyable process and, due to the sheer number of uploads and research involved, has been going on for almost six months to date. It is likely that this will continue for many more months and we may never be clear of all the damage this one account has done. I am not aware of any ongoing efforts to identify images that have been transferred to Commons, thank you for pointing that out. Shell 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so you were not aware he had started the new account, then? In that case, I guess the block will have to stand in any case; it's simple block evasion. As for images uploaded by proxy, I found some uploaded by Khoikhoi in June 06, and some by Clevelander/Aivazovsky in August. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy

Well, that's true, but the page should be salted in such cases. Biographies are often deleted not because they should not exist, but because they are of poor quality. The wording I reverted would apply to all pages deleted "per WP:BLP". If there is a genuine reason not to recreate an article in any form, then that page should be salted. Salting is also more useful for new users who haven't read all of our policies and guidelines. -- Black Falcon 00:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC) By the way, I like the quote at the top of the page.

I agree that we should be more careful about recreating BLPs but don't think that restricting all recreations, irrespective of the deletion reason, is appropriate. Perhaps the solution is to encourage the salting of BLPs that should not be recreated in any form. I think that such an approach would be less problematic. -- Black Falcon 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Hiya, just to clarify what's going on... It looks we had a relatively stable version up through June 17. Then an editor by the name of Ned Scott came along and reverted the article back to a version from a month or two ago. Matthew has reverted Ned Scott's edit, to bring the article back to the June 17 version. Which version I wasn't entirely happy with on June 17, and I'm still not entirely happy with today, but I think it's much better than the "month ago" version. Does that help clarify? --Elonka 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy sneaky edit batman. I completely missed Ned Scott's revert. Thanks for pointing that out! Shell 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No prob.  :) There's actually more backstory there... If you want the gory details, ping me in IMs.  :) --Elonka 00:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Or read the arbcom case (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions), where it is extensively documented how Elonka likes to distort the truth and mislead others to gain their support. My reverts are to undue the damage, discussed here. If you've read RIR's RFC comments then you'll know of Elonka's newfound COI regarding the article and User:JuliaHavey, a Juice Plus distributor. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And I was in the process of restoring good edits this second time around. It was just easier to go back and them step through the edits one by one. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ned, I appreciate why you may be suspicious, but believe me, you've got me way wrong on this one. I'm actually opposed to Havey's version of the article. Red and I are more on the same side on this, and the main reason for the RfC is WP:OWN issues. To be honest, I'd actually like you to help out with the discussions on the Juice Plus talkpage, as I'd love to have a genuine outside opinion on things. Right now most of the participants seem to be either Juice Plus distributors or competitors, and it's been a heck of time trying to navigate a neutral course in between. Please, join in on the talkpage.  :) --Elonka 06:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Since there were three of those opened, and DPeterson wouldn't pick one to keep open, I would have closed two of them myself. But, I didn't know if only admins could close discussions.

I'm not involved in that situation, but I am very much aware of it. It isn't one of wikipedia's finer moments.

Thanks for closing the AN one.

Peace in God. Lsi john 02:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • heh, ok that was a bit confusing. Sorry. I thought I had clicked on your signature. And I knew I was on a mainpage instead of a discussion, but the discussion was blank.. oh well, c'est la vie. Thanks for fixing it. Lsi john 03:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you saw DPeterson copied your post to one of the threads on AN/I.

Did you also notice he put it in both threads? here and here?

That only illustrates my concern that he is shopping for opinions against the other editor. In one breath he claims that the two threads are unrelated and were opened by different people (one thread being canvassing and the other being sock-puppet accusations). In the next, he posts your statement to both conversations in order to get the maximum viewing. Lsi john 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I couldn't tell you the number of times I screwed up and put a welcome on someones user page :) Honestly, I didn't notice that there were two thread on AN/I too - I closed another one; maybe we can keep this all in one place. Shell 03:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. Though, if you read them, I asked him to 'pick one' and his response was 'perhaps its better to leave them all open because they are all getting responses'.
Based on the RfC on DPeterson, it does not look like the situation will be resolved soon or easily. Lsi john 03:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI: You might be interested to know that your comments on AN are being used by DPeterson as support for his claims against FatherTree. here. (Its a long, huge and tangled RfC/mediation). (My involvement is watching). Lsi john 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Juice Plus Revert

Sorry about that Shel. I didn't think that I necessarily had to ask permission to make a few small tweaks, which I felt were reasonable and very well-supported. But I can see how this might have aggravated the situation just when it was calming down. I noticed that you agreed with my comments in principle, so I will wait for more comments before making the changes, if you think that is what is warranted. Rhode Island Red 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good suggestion. I think now that we have more eyes on the Juice Plus article I can safely turn my attention to some other areas that might be more fun and less controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) Revision as of 21:05, 24 June 2007
Thanks for the advice. I didn't mean it as a slur, seriously. "Argument from ignorance" is the proper term to describe the error and I hyeperlinked every usage of the term so that it wouldn't be misinterpreted as a slur against anyone. But if you think it seems inappropriate, I'll stop using it. I just hope my point wasn't lost. Rhode Island Red 02:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems continue with FatherTree

I see that this user is again making veiled accusations regarding another user. You've been involved in this situation and wonder if you can take a look at this and followup with FatherTree. He seems to be purposefully being provocative. See: ] RalphLender 13:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Others feel that DP has made unveiled false accusations about me. Can you get them to stop this silly game of constant accusations. FatherTree 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Really, this is just too much. These accusations that I am "Becker" (I assume he means Dr. Becker-Weidman) are just false. There have been at least two investigations of the matter by members of FatherTree's group, each time unfounded. I wish he'd just give it a rest. Do I or should I file a RfC on this...I'd rather not...if you can intervene, that would be helpful. I just want him to stop. Regarding the previous investigations, see:
]
]
Thanks DPeterson 00:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can show how FatherTree's actions clearly fit a scenario from WP:BLOCK, there's little an administrator can do to resolve the dispute. It appears an RfC is already open; since it seems that no one is interested in resolving matters in that forum, perhaps moving on to arbitration would be the best solution. Shell 02:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proceedure Question

Given that those editors already have an open user RfC on DPeterson, is a second RfC appropriate or is there a way for the current one to be amended?

Thats just a technical question for my curious mind, as I believe that they are headed to Arbcom eventually anyway. peace in God. Lsi john 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's one open, there's really no need to open a second. There are several things you can do in a case like that:
  • If you have a user RfC open and the user in question continues or escalates their behavior, you can update the page or the talk page of the RfC with that information. You shouldn't update the opening of the case or a view that's already gotten additional signatures, but you can create another section if the situation warrants.
  • Another option is to immediately move on to Arbitration if you feel the user really isn't going to respond to the RfC or has no interest in stopping whatever they're doing to violate policy.
  • In very extreme cases where someone is clearly violating policies by, for example, constantly edit warring or making clear personal attacks, you can ask for administrator intervention or even discuss a community ban - you'd want to have a very clear, concise case showing repeated, extraordinary violations when considering those options.
Hope that's helped answer your questions. Let me know if there's anything more I can help with. Shell 23:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing at the moment, thanks. It's not my battle. I'm merely observing and curious about how some of the arbitration/mediation/RfC process works. Though, from what I have read (you may -or not- want to torture yourself and read the RfC), it does not appear that DPeterson (or anyone on that side of the debate) is taking the RfC seriously at all. Apparently they even edit warred over SPA tags for some of the editors. Lsi john 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Correction: The fighting over the SPA tags was on the (also open) mediation: here. Lsi john 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I think I'd rather carve out my spleen with a dull spoon than wade into this dispute. Just a glance shows a number of people with clear agendas editing without regards to Misplaced Pages policies. Its not surprising in cases like these to see people uninterested in taking Misplaced Pages seriously. Shell 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Haha.. no doubt. Based on some of the calmer voices (and corresponding reactions), it sounds like there might be some substance to at least some of the allegations. But I haven't found a dull enough spoon to be willing to wade through it, and I couldn't do much about it even if I did wade through it. Peace.Lsi john 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that DPeterson can amend the RfC filed againist him to include the personal attacks rather than open a new RfC? I'd suggested on FatherTree's page that an RfC should be opened if he continues being disruptive and provocative. Is the proper procedure to open one on his behavior or amend the one on DP? I'm getting tired of all the needless accustions and provocations and would like to see mediation occur in a more friendly environment. JonesRDtalk 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I as suggesting that additional behavior by the person who is named on the RfC can be added as an update. Problematic behavior by someone who's involved the RfC but was not listed as one of the parties the RfC was opened about can be mentioned if it applies to the situation, but it sounds like in this case, you may want to open a seperate RfC. At this point, however, I don't know that all the RfCs in the world are going to resolve the issues if the editors involved aren't interested in changing their behavior. Shell 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If that's true, then why post threats of RfC escalation on user talkpages, instead of finding and proposing a compromise for both sides? Have you been involved in any of the name calling? Were you involved in any of the SPA tagging? Are your hands completely clean? Are you neutral? Can you see a middle ground solution? JonesRD, I have not followed closely, and I don't know how active you have been, though I have seen your username on occasion. If you want a peaceful solution, you have it in your power to accomplish that. But you have to want it more than the other's want to fight. Peace.Lsi john 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how one compromises on an issue of WP:No Personal Attacks or what middle ground solution would be when an editor is knowingly making false accusations about me being a sockpuppet? I suppose filing an RfC on FatherTree's activity would be appropriate if he continues. Well, Shell_Kinney, if an RfC is filed and there is consensus that his beahvior was disruptive and violated Wiki policy and FatherTree did not change his behavior that would probably lead to a block or ban, wouldn't it? I'd just like him to stop making false accusations and acting in such a provocative manner...especially if we are to engage in mediation together. DPeterson 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on whether you want to address the symptoms or the disease. (med-speak).
Personally, I suspect that addressing the symptoms of the 'other side' by 'force', will only increase tension and suspicion.
One compromise might be to work together on the articles and allow 'both' viewpoints to be represented?
Another might be to stop calling the other editors 'single purpose accounts'.
Another might be to simply 'ignore' their implications/questions that you are becker and stick to writing the articles.
Another might be to not have filed 3 separate AN/I AN posts, or to have quickly closed two of them as soon as you realized there were three opened, or not to have copied (and misrepresented) Shell's post to 2 of the AN/I threads and the article talkpage.
Another might be to simply reveal your identity. (I'm not suggesting you SHOULD, I'm saying that you could.) Clearly some of the editors find your edit habits to be questionable enough to raise suspicion in their minds. Why not simply dispell their fears? (rhetorical question) I am not suggesting that you do this, only that it is an option. Since you said you could see no options for compromise in the situation. There might even be a way you could identify yourself to the 'office' and they could confirm that the suspicions are false.
From what I've read, there are concerns about you 'pushing' becker's views and linking to his material. Is there no compromise you can offer there?
Sir, your conduct in this entire ituation has not been spotless. We clearly have a WP:KETTLE situation here.
There are lots of good-faith gestures you could offer to the other editors to encourage their trust. I'm not familiar enough with the particulars to offer any specific suggestions. But I suspect that you know what they are. The question is, are you ready to offer them? Peace.Lsi john 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how one compromises on an issue of WP:No Personal Attacks or what middle ground solution would be when an editor is knowingly making false accusations about me being a sockpuppet? I'd just like him to stop making false accusations and acting in such a provocative manner...especially if we are to engage in mediation together. It's really that simple. DPeterson 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Shell Kinney: Difference between revisions Add topic