User talk:Shell Kinney

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 Send me an email through Wikipedia or shell.kinneygmail.com ICQ: 12502641 Gtalk: shell.kinney Skype: shell.kinney  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) Happy WikiBirthday (a bit late) I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC) And from me too! It's been good having you around helping out over the last 4 years. – Quadell (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks so much :) Shell babelfish 03:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Credit where credit is due The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar For the work done on cleaning up the backlog at WP:SCV and the extremely valuable discussion this sparked :). MLauba (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Aww thanks! You know, I hadn't the foggiest that there was a barnstar just for copyvios :D Shell babelfish 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Re: Constitution of Liberia (1847) I usually don't respond to bots, or automated messages of any kind. The only thing I actually signed up for was the newsletter for WP:MILHIST. As for the bulk of the article being a "direct" and "blatant" copy, it was not. In the last few edits I made to the page, I re-wrote it for the express purpose of removing the original text and replacing it with my own version. There are, however, only so many ways you can say the same thing. Octane [improve me?] 12.06.09 1745 (UTC) Uh...I know I re-worded a significant portion of it. But honestly, I'm too tired to care what happens to it right now. Octane [improve me?] 13.06.09 0523 (UTC) Why 216.143.120.140 (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference. 10:36, 12 June 2009 Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) deleted "The curse of Amen Ra" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G12, was a blatant copyright infringement. using TW) I stumbled uppon some valuable info to me, and comming to a close on research this was a huge stumbling block, of course will not let this stop me from finding info looking for. please tell me why this was removed if able... thanx... ; ) ps, some one i briefly met from chicago had clued me in on something called straw man. are you familiar with this at all? Like is it a waste of my time looking into it, seems like alot of research to get involved in for nothing...again thanx The page was deleted because it was a copy of another website - Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images without them having been released under a license which is compatible with ours. If you'd like to read the text, that other website was [1]. Shell babelfish 05:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC) User:USEDfan Do you remember blocking one of his sock puppets recently? Looks like he is already back, User:Whiterabbit23 is going around reverting several articles back to his preferred version. Landon1980 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Got it. Shell babelfish 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your swift response. Landon1980 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC) RE: Max Mux Quite agree with what you said on the noticeboard, you put it better than myself ;) If you think that one final warning from an admin is warranted before a long block, perhaps you could do that (little me not being sysoppificated!) – or just block straight off if you think that's best... I tend to favour the latter course, but your call! ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 11:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think any further warning is needed, though I will try to talk to him given his response on ANI. I just don't think that there's anything blockable right this moment unless there's something in the past few days I missed when looking at his contribs. If there's another instance, whether its edit warring or personal attacks or whatever, I'd have no problem blocking him. I get the impression that english isn't his first language and perhaps he's misinterpreting some things, but that doesn't excuse the resistance to following policies. Shell babelfish 12:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I think he's a German-speaker, but his intent is clear enough. The revert-warring yesterday to restore non-sources [2] and deliberate spelling errors [3], I'd have thought that that was blockable, particularly given his history. But we'll see how he responds to your entreaty ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Hmm - maybe the policies at the German Wikipedia would be a help explaining things. The undo of a spelling correction is a bit over the top - I'll see if I can't sort out what's up. Shell babelfish 12:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Now he's replied on ANI that restoring that silly source was because "he didn't see a problem with it" – yet his reply on his talkpage says that he knows enough about WP policy to work here. Hmm... ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Stalking I do not consider your input, productive. I find you hostile, arrogant, and am requesting that you devote and redirect your attention toward something else. Go find someone else to stalk and critique. As it is said, "Pick on someone your own size." I don't want to file a complaint: You are annoying. Furtive admirer (talk) I'm sorry you feel that you're being picked on; I certainly didn't intend to annoy. Rather than stalking you, I have been dealing with a complaint about problems on the Paul Traub article and other biographies that you've been involved with editing. Several other editors have attempted to explain their concern over your violations of Wikipedia policy; my advice was intended to prevent the need for a block on your account. If you'd like to talk to some other editors about the advice I've given, I'm certain you'll find that they'll also explain that you are required to follow policy. Shell babelfish 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Macedonia referee appointment Congrats, you've been approved by the arbitration committee as one of the uninvolved admins to help settle Macedonia naming issues. The centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. The arbitration case final decision is at WP:ARBMAC2. See especially this remedy. Admins User:Fritzpoll and User:J.delanoy form the triumvirate with you. Thank you for your assistance. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Mediation on Naming Convention Thanks for creating the "Mediation on Naming Convention" subpage. It looks great and seems to work well. Sunray (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I have to disagree with Sunray above. What authority do you have to do this without consensous-- or is somthing you can do basied on a policy without consensous? At the very least I object (1) that the bias statements made by the "formal Mediation Committee." It was a closed discussion of only certain people, and leaving them behind on Talk:Roman Catholic Church gives them implied status as if they are (a) unbiased (b) Inevitable to be carried out. (Note well that the "Mediation" Committee did not even begin with renaming the acticle as one of its issues.) (2) that the sub-page name does not reflect what is really at issue. This is not a "Mediation on Naming Convention" nor a discussion on the "Naming Convention" nor a discussion on the "Mediation/Mediation Committee" — it is just a discussion on renaming! Please move the subpage to Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Page rename proposal (or the like) and/or state more on why it needs to be done at all. --Carlaude talk 10:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I suppose I'd have to call it the authority of common sense - given the amount of discussion during the mediation, it is likely that there will be a similar amount of discussion now that this has been opened to a larger audience. Leaving it on the main talk page would, in effect, hijack any other ongoing/future discussions by drowning them out with noise. A notice was left on the main page so that any interested editors can easily join the discussion. I see that you have removed that notice; since this discussion is meant to involved other interested editors who may not know of the subpage yet, I have replaced it. I am aware of what happened during the Mediation which was advertised on the article talk page, but I'm not certain what your concern is here. The participants in the mediation chose to open the discussion to a wider community after they had developed a consensus on the issue. The format is one in which the mediators can continue to facilitate discussion and assist in developing a consensus on the proposal. I apologize if my choice of name page was so terse to be unintelligible - the intent was to describe it as the product of the mediation on the naming convention for the article currently known as the Roman Catholic Church - I was afraid anything that long would be a bit silly though, so my shortening came out Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Mediation Naming Convention, which at least isn't horribly unwieldy I hope. Shell babelfish 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I do not think you planned to be "so terse to be unintelligible," but why won't you move it to a better name now. --Carlaude talk 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, if that explanation doesn't help, I can certainly move it. I'll go ahead and leave the redirect to avoid worrying about outdated links or that sort of thing. Shell babelfish 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Admins Noticeboard I have now reported Tryde, Ironholds and Jazeking. Enough is enough.Max Mux (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC) R. L. Hymers, Jr. Hi, Shell. I apologize for using the term "henchman" on the Hymers page. However, I do have a few remaining concerns: 1) there is still a "press release" feel to the article in some places; 2) one has to get deeply into this article to see that he has been a lightning storm for criticism, or a controversial figure in any way; 3) the article as it stands has over half of its references as books he has written himself--and that is not even counting the quoted "puff pieces." Just references to Hymers, on Hymers. Also, 4) the ordering of the information was previously done in such a way as to suggest that the controversies were behind him--that he had "gotten over them." Perhaps I over-compensated; it wouldn't be the first time. I'll be happy to go back to not editing that piece, and simply making suggestions to you or to other senior editors. But the product that was there a few days ago was essentially produced by Hymers himself, using an account that he, at one point, turned over to an attorney who attempted to dictate which of his life details would or would not be included in that article. So, yes: I still felt that it was slanted too-positive. I mean, I'm still getting mail from young Christians who are asking me whether I can recommend his church, and I'm having to tell them that, no--I can't, quite. And here's this Wikipedia entry talking about his "classical Protestant conversion," and "pointing people toward Christ." It's absurd: he hits people, he throws things. He douses people with water at Elders meetings. And we are not to have anything that hints of that in either the closing paragraph or the final paragraph?---just buried in the text? It seems a bit much, though I will abide by your judgment on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I'll go through you on these items, case-by-case and get your approval. I did try, a year ago, to reach out to the Wiki-Evangelicals, without success; perhaps it's time to try once more. Certainly I think someone who has received as much negative ink as he has over the course of a single ministry is "controversial"--after all, it spans decades!Scooge (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC) A. Just one more little datum on the issue of whether RLHJ is "controversial"--1) early drafts of the article included a section on "controversies," which were removed at the request of senior editors. 2) There were originally, as I recall six such controversies by Kyu's/Hymers' own count (listed on those early drafts) and 3) I know of at least two or three others that one would have gathered from reading contemporary articles in the L.A. Times and the L.A. Herald Examiner. I had thought I'd sent you the texts of those articles after I'd bought them from the L.A. Times. Did I not do that? FWIW, I had not thought of the word "controversial" as a negative one. B. How would you recommend that I find one of the Christianity editors? We'd need someone in the Evangelical/Charismatic end of the scale.Scooge (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC) User:Boatduty177177 I'm not sure what to make of Boatduty177177 (talk · contribs). It's clearly not a new user, although the account was created yesterday. I came across them because they voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League, and a redlinked user page in an AfD is unusual. They also deleted another vote while adding theirs [4] but that may have been inadvertent, and was undone by someone else. After the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria mess (I wasn't involved in that one) things were very quiet in the Israel-related articles. I'd been focusing on other interests, like the history of Teletype machines (I have a restored, working antique Teletype from the 1940s in my office), and financial scams. Then a week or two ago, I started seeing many more edits popping up on my watchlist. New editors are appearing and making somewhat aggressive edits to previously stable Israel-related articles. Something is going on. I'm wondering if some of the banned editors may be back under other names. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC) he is currently at 5 reverts (counting consecutive edits as one) on this page. please block. untwirl(talk) 03:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Three reverts, one day, same user In a continuation of edit warring and destruction of constructive edits, contribs) reverted Justus Weiner three times today. Please advise how to proceed. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC) User:Skywriter violated BLP at that article and this was pointed out to him quite explicitly. Mashkin (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I took a look back through some of the edits today but I'm not an expert on the subject myself. I didn't see anything off-hand that I would have considered a major BLP violation worthy of simply reverting. Yes, Skywriter used some weasel-words (i.e. saying "he says" or "he claims") and some of the editing made the information less clear, however there is no reason either of you couldn't have stopped reverting each other and used the talk page to discuss your differences. I suggest you try talking it out now or using some other form of dispute resolution to sort things. Shell babelfish 23:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Rupert Carington, 5th Baron Carrington No census was reached. Was about it now?Max Mux (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Could you give me a little bit more information? What consensus are you trying to reach? Shell babelfish 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC) No, the article was nominated for deletion and no censensus was reached. What is the next step?Max Mux (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, I understand now. When a deletion discussion does not find a consensus, the default is to keep the article so nothing more will happen at this time. I have removed the deletion notice from the article since the discussion is no longer active. Shell babelfish 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you.Max Mux (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Please delete account immediately, have had enough... Hi could you please delete the JohnnyTurk888 account and pages, I have no further wish to participate in this project in light of your decision and your failure to seriously consider what I put forward. Goodbye. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.77 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Rhode Island Red Shell, Rhode Island Red did an inaccurate and bias hatchett job to the Julia Havey article. Going so far as to lie and say that there were "no credible sources" to show she was on Oprah & Friends XM radio, despite direct links on Oprah.com for such. Will his actions be allowed to stand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Hmm - inaccurate and biased? Do you have specific diffs that you would like to point out? From a quick glance, it looks like he removed a great deal of unsourced information from the Julia Havey article which is inline with Wikipedia policy. Regarding his "lie" (we strongly encourage not attacking other editors here), I see you've now provided a source for the claim - I would suggest however that you'll want to link directly to the page [5] instead of to a search. Please remember than any unsourced information about a living person can and should be removed - WP:BLP gives more details on how these articles are carefully treated. Shell babelfish 23:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I've looked back through some of the discussion and earlier revisions of the article - I found that older versions were better referenced and had categories etc. I'm not sure when those were removed (this version was from last year) but I think its a considerable improvement. I hope that helps resolve your concerns. Shell babelfish 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Deep disappointment I have left a comment here of which you should be aware. The pertinent ongoing discussion was here. Yaf (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Speaking of deep disappointment, its sad to see that despite your awareness of the ongoing discussion, you chose to revert repeatedly. I've made further comment over there. Shell babelfish 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Precisely. When admins won't address the real issue, and when there is no possibility of honest dialogue, and when there is a complete contempt at keeping to the sources, mediations and discussions are worthless. See the failed MedCom discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the warnings such as this. If 3RR is not violated, in such a failure to communicate in good faith, there is really not edit warring going on. Rather, there was simply an attempt at holding Wikipedia to a high standard, whereby article text is verified by the cite. The collateral damage was a 48hr block. The basic underlying problem remains unaddressed. Yaf (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Admins aren't arbiters of content. If even formal mediation couldn't persuade the group to find common grounds, its unlikely that any resolution will be found without involving outside community members. I understand that you strongly believe your viewpoint is correct, but strong belief isn't a loophole in the guidelines against edit warring. If its as simple as you say, sources not verifying the text, have you put together that information anywhere? I have seen editors taken to ArbCom successfully before due to misrepresenting sources, but it took a lot of work and ironclad evidence. Shell babelfish 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, consensus has been reached repeatedly with all but one editor. He alone has proceeded over the last 5+ years to insert article text not supported by cites and has been repeatedly warned, even by two MedCom arbitrators, for making stuff up, repeatedly. The two MedCom admins, incidentally, who mediated, are now members of ArbCom, and were formerly recommending ArbCom take the case to impose sanctions. Unfortunately, the ArbCom members of last year refused to get into content issues, even when mediation committee admins agreed that the one editor had simply made content up while citing his edits with reliable and verifiable sources unrelated to what the editor wrote in article text. Strong belief has nothing to do with determining what is right. The content of the cites, and whether or not article text is verified by cites, is the issue. In the absence of sanctions for an editor who simply does not follow sources, and with an editor who continues writing article text not supported by cites, the system simply breaks down if admins will not look at article content to at least determine when an editor's contributions are totally off the wall, unrelated to what the cites say. "Assume good faith" cannot work in the absence of good faith by a single editor who continuously games the system. In the absence of good faith participation in discussions and the wasted time in discussions ad nauseum that fail to change the behavior of one editor who is not honest, there is not much way to effect a change. The underlying problem is one of editor behavior in not following the cites, and admins refusing to verify article content against cites when a problem is identified. The Wikipedia philosophy is fundamentally flawed in this one area; it results in pseudo-science issues, fraud issues such as Essjay, and a host of similar problems. A noticeboard to report editors who simply make stuff up is needed. This could address editors using cites to reliable and verifiable sources that are unrelated to the article content, and would address the perpetuation of article content fraud, of sorts, by editors who seemingly get their kicks from gaming the system, inserting totally false statements. In answer to your question, yes, I did put together a full list of cases where the editor failed to follow sources. It was part of the ArbCom submission. ArbCom refused to take the case, stating that they did not address article content issues. It cheapens the worth of Wikipedia when there is no way to address out and out fraudulent content inserted by an editor who refuses to follow the rules, while giving the outward appearance of citing article text with reliable and verifiable sources -- the problem is when the article text is not supported by the cite. Without at least looking at article content, and reading/looking at the reference content to see if they match, admins who refuse to get involved while stating they are not arbiters of content are simply perpetuating an article content fraud on readers. It would be possible to remain neutral as an admin, while still checking whether article content is verified by cites, without judging or choosing article content. Simply imposing a sanction on editors who refuse to contribute article text that is verified by relevant cites that support the article text would require no judgement on article content. In the absence of sanctions, an editor who games the system for his twisted enjoyment can live for years within Wikipedia in the shadow of, and protected by, admins who refuse to verify article content with cites when a problem is identified. Yaf (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe I'm missing something, but if there's only one editor opposing, why were multiple editors reverting you? You are correct that ArbCom will not deal with content, but if an editor is misrepresenting sources, that's a behavior issue, not one of content. I didn't see the original case so I can't comment on why it might have been declined; if its a case of two people interpreting a source differently, that's not the same as a source being misrepresented. Again, Admins are no more arbiters of content than ArbCom is; if you don't have a very clear "here's the statement and the cite, here's what the cite really says" then you're not going to get much help with the situation. It needs to be cut and dry, factual - if its differences over how to interpret a source then dispute resolution is the only way forward. Shell babelfish 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC) There were two editors reverting: Verbal and SaltyBoatr. The remaining issue when you issued the block was this discussion with an additional ongoing RfC dialogue that had not yet closed. The early consensus on the RfC had collapsed with Verbal's comments, but was still under discussion. (An RfC that I had started to try and build a consensus on, I might add.) I made 3 reverts in 24 hours, including trying to include a POV warning tag, but Verbal falsely accused me of 5 reverts in 24 hours; SaltyBoatr threw in a bunch of unrelated old history, dogpiling, and you issued the block immediately upon the impression that SaltyBoatr and Verbal represented the "consensus". The RfC, however, clearly shows two consensi, with the early one, that I had edited into the article earlier, collapsing. This discussion looks pretty clear cut to me, as the most recent example of SaltyBoatr failing to follow sources. There is the article text and there is the cite. I don't think Verbal was even bothering to read and understand the issue. -- It is worth noting that Verbal and SaltyBoatr both use the same editing quirk of making a controversial edit, then immediately requesting an article be protected in their preferred state, while claiming an edit war is underway, without any more than two total reversions between their POV push, a reversion by any editor, and their second POV re-push edit, as a normal method of pushing POV edits. They also both love to use the WP:TE claim. They also both regularly issue edit warring warnings on editors' talk pages whenever an editor reverts but one of their edits, at only one reversion. Most curious similarities. Yaf (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Actually when I review an edit warring report, I discard any commentary by involved parties. I reviewed the history of the article myself and the talk page, I also reviewed your contribs, block log and talk page history. It was clear without any other person's input that you were edit warring on a page despite ongoing discussion and that this is not nearly the first time you've used edit warring in a content dispute. At this point it looks like you're pulling at straws; when one tactic of blaming SaltyBoatr (or justifying your edit warring)doesn't work you pull out something else; now its a claim of collusion and gaming the system? If this is what happened with the ArbCom request, its no wonder they didn't take the case. If you have clear evidence that your point of view is correct on the RfC then you should be able to convince other editors and gather a clear consensus. The sooner you understand that there is no justification for edit warring, the more enjoyable your time will be here. Shell babelfish 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC) When a problem is complex, it is not possible to describe all the problems as being but one problem. The sooner that a method for sanctioning editors who game the system is implemented, the sooner Wikipedia also would be a better resource for readers. So, what do you propose I do to correct clear and simple content inaccuracies due to one editor, when the editor clearly fails to follow cites and simply continues to make stuff up? Edit warring failed to work. 3O failed to work. RfC has failed to work (multiple times). MedCom (multiple times) failed to work. Reporting 3RR on SaltyBoatr has failed to work (I was blocked for 96 hours for 1RR on my 3rd block when I reported a 5RR series of edits by SaltyBoatr against the community that resulted in his 4th or 5th block.) Requesting ArbCom take the case failed to work. In the cases of the 3O, RfC, and MedCom (2 times), a clear consensus was always reached previously with all parties except for SaltyBoatr. The suggested and politically correct admin solution is always to discuss more and not edit war. OK. So what is the solution. After about 12 MB of discussions with SaltyBoatr, nothing has ever been resolved. SaltyBoatr has always refused to abide by consensus. Are you saying it is better to let clearly false content simply reside in Wikipedia and allow a single editor to insert fraudulent content repeatedly, to push a POV? Are you saying it is better to let certain editors drive productive editors away, such as here? I certainly understand the frustration of editors who attempt to fix fraudulent content, and simply leave the community. I also wonder if it would be better simply to give up on the basic Wikipedia model as being fundamentally flawed. I have made quite a number of positive contributions to Wikipedia, but am nearing the point where it is clearly becoming a fool's errand to try and keep article content free from clearly fraudulent claims. I have known several Ph.D.s such as myself on Wikipedia who have tried to fight the tide of fraudulent content over the last 5+ years. Most have simply left Wikipedia in sheer frustration. Perhaps it is time for me to leave as well. Yaf (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC) My only point here has been that edit warring doesn't work and more to the point, can end up getting you blocked. I appreciate your frustration and I'm afraid I don't have any easy answers. Until the community does have an answer, we have to work with what we've got. If you want, I can see if I can think of any other solutions - is there any place that would briefly describe both sides of the issue or at least the sticking point that keeps being the problem? Shell babelfish 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I agree. However, the problem encompasses many articles. The best summary of articles affected is probably here, and the complete talk page and RfMediation page of that discussion probably give the best description of both sides of the longrunning issue. The issue has since spread to another two or three dozen articles since this summary. Incidentally, I have never opposed any article text supporting even his selected limited range of talking points, provided reliable and verifiable cites are used. But, his insertion of article content based upon making up stuff and not following cites has been an ongoing issue that has only worsened over the last 5+ years. Any help or insight you provide is greatly appreciated. Yaf (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Thats, well, complex - I can see why its difficult to get help on the topic. I did find the rejected ArbCom request - was an RfC on Saltyboatr's conduct ever started? When did Verbal become involved - I don't think I see them in any of the earlier discussions I've looked at. Shell babelfish 04:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Attention needed at Macedonia discussion Please see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Page_protected ASAP. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you Hi Shell, I just wanted to drop by and say thank you for the support and kind words at my recent RfA. They made me feel good, and I'll do my best to live up to the expectations. Cheers — Ched :  ?  03:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC) AE threads on Eastern Europe Thanks for having a look the issue. While you're at it, could you also take a look the behaviour of Martintg, if this is not too much to ask? He usually edit wars in the same articles as Digwuren, and tries to push the same POV. Example: [6][7][8][9][10][11]. M makes more reverts than D; however D has a much larger block log. I can provide more evidence of Martintg if requested, but I'd rather not start another WP:AE thread myself (unless asked to do so), as I always seem get attacked by a certain group of editors who arrive to defend their members. Martintg was recently blocked[12] for edit warring, and unblocked because he promised to stop, but he doesn't seem to have kept his promise. My own edit warring should be evident too, and 1RR would probably be a good idea for me, to say the least. Offliner (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your candor. I haven't come across much of Martintg's editing in my review yet, though I'm certainly not very far in looking through articles. I have made some notes about other editors who are not currently listed at AE and I may make recommendations regarding them as well. A couple of thoughts from what I've seen so far: Removing all external links isn't usually the best way to deal with a linkfarm unless all of the links are completely useless (or duplicated as sources); I've found that it helps if you leave a detailed explanation on talk for edits that might seem drastic to others. I would strongly suggest that you put more effort toward discussion on talk pages and other dispute resolution; also dispute resolution is often easier if you avoid using reverts during the discussion (I personally choose to use them only for vandalism). It does seem likely that I will recommend some kind of revert restriction for you and some of the others involved. Shell babelfish 06:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Sigh. Offliner seems to have a habit of shopping across multiple admin talk pages and boards looking for sanctions for past events that have long gone stale. I believe this kind of combative approach to gaining the upper hand in content disputes is actionable under discretionary sanctions regime in place for EE. If you concur that it is sanctionable if proven, can I submit a AE report with supporting evidence of this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour? --Martintg (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC) I am taking a very in-depth look at the topic area and the current behavior of editors. I can say that I have run across instances where you have been involved in edit wars or dropped by simply to revert; only one of those cases showed you actually entering discussion about the dispute. Its also become very clear that there's a particular group of editors that seem to cause problems each time they start interacting on articles, so far you seem to be on the edge or caught up in that at times rather than directly involved. After having looked through article edits, I will go back to look at mainspace and talk actions for just the reason you describe. If you'd like to add this information to the existing report (I believe it has been re-opened) you are welcome to do so. Shell babelfish 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Well it is true that I have been caught up in this. When editors like PasswordUsername do such as blatant BLP violations in the article Jaak Aaviksoo or inserting absolute nonsense into Crime in Estonia, or Offliner making contentious edits in Kaitsepolitsei inserting the view of a notorious neo-nazi and claiming it is a valid criticism without regard to WP:UNDUE [13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18], one soon gets the sense that these editors aren't really working for the benefit of the project and discussion isn't really that effective due to WP:IDONTHEARYOU. All this started in May, the Estonia topic area was relatively stable before they arrived. An Estonia topic ban for Offliner and PasswordUsername would immediately fix the problem in my view. --Martintg (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)