![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for approving my ACC tool request. I would just like to let you know that on the template you used to notify me, the link to the tool is outdated and broken. The tool is not at the "stable" server, it is now here [ [1]]. Thanks again, and have a nice day. Krashlandon (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I've just started editing and ended up working on the Unsourced BLPs. I came across this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Spencer_(musician). Would you be able to source it?
PS Weren't the Misunderstood a 60s band too "I can take you to the sun" was one of John Peel's favourites IIRC. Brainfood ( talk) 11:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I see you deleted it! Have you read the Stephen King story Word Processor of the Gods (I think). Hope nothing happened to Kevin Spencer at the precise moment you pressed delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainfood ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made an edit summary, people don't normally care about them on images. Here are the terms for the Chicago Daily News collection at the Library of Congress. Those published before 1923 are public domain per US Law, but those published after can only be used under fair use guidelines. Kelly hi! 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey! This is just a friendly reminder about the Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebration in Pittsburgh tomorrow. The meeting time has been moved up to 4:00 so that we can gather before the game starts and stake out places, and it may be a good idea to get there even sooner, if you can. Pittsburgh bars are likely to be a little crazy and very crowded. See you there!-- ragesoss ( talk) 02:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You were presumably emulating the preceding announcements, but we're still using "Discuss this" to point to
WT:ACN - the bot will should(!) change it to "Archived discussion" when it gets, well, archived =) –
xeno
talk
20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You blocked Todaypitch2 ( talk · contribs) and Lukas stefoz ( talk · contribs) just showed up reposting the same comment. I blocked the second account and revdel'ed the two edits due to the implied threat. Thought you might want to check out the second account. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; no problem, but could you tell me the template you are using for welcome messages, such as the one you sent to Bambinodelmare? Clearly I could track it down, but the message is complex and I am trying to save myself time. Thank you in advance. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 17:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I left this question for AGK, but since he is gone for a few days, I have been advised by Bishonen to approach Brad and an arbitrator. Here is the link to my questions for AGK: [3]. Bishonen suggested I also email , so I did that as well. Thanks for your time. Smatprt ( talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you point me to some examples? Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I see you blocked this sockpuppet. I was trying to see what damage this account was doing and commented on a few AfD debates that the nominator was a sockpuppet. Then I noticed they had speedied Lemuel Royce and the article vanished right when I was trying to add a "hang on" tag. Can you restore the article? If so, I will see if it can be improved, or really should be deleted? Thank you. Cullen328 ( talk) 22:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for the warm welcome. I have edited my article (Freestyle GunZ) and added the requested information & references that appear in reliable third-party publications.
Sorry for the issues I have caused.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McSiccc ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have some info for the arbitrators, but have no idea which section to put it in. The threads have become so long and convoluted that I just don't know the right place for this statement. It has do with the insertion of the "Standards of Evidence" [4] section in the SAQ article, which I believe, from a behavior point of view, was a deliberate act to prejudice the entire article and violate npov. The section states that only mainstream researchers use " title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies." This is simply not the case. Anti-strats use each and every one of these in building their various cases. I can easily provide refs, but antiStrat researchers such as Diana Price, Ogburn, Anderson have all used title pages, gov't records and contemporary testimony. And I know of several stylometric studies that anti-strats have used to bolster their cases. How do I raise this issue at ArbCom and where? Thanks. I will probably copy this question to another arbitrator or two in hopes of finding some clarity. Smatprt ( talk) 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell. I saw that a few days ago you allowed Emmaimmots ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to access their talkpage again so they could request an unblock. It looks like they made a request and were declined by Sandstein. Since then, they created Themmiaoeps1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and reposted the same content which was then deleted by Bearcat. What I wanted to ask is this: should I block the new account as a sock evading a block, or is there some non-obvious reason why I shouldn't? Thanks! Syrthiss ( talk) 12:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see [5]. Zarboublian ( talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Shell, I am User:Crouch, Swale and I have noticed you have commented on User talk:Toolsavoid e#February 2011. I am leving you this message from this account as I can't edit from my proper account as you know. You are right I do help improve Wikipedia but as you know I am blocked indefinitely. I've got a list of planned improvements to this encyclopedia such as a lot of English settlements I am going to create but I can't do that if I am blocked and I'm sure you want me to improve Wikipedia. Ipswich in Suffolk ( talk) 15:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Shell. I've posted a note on Talk:Proposed decision for the Shakespeare case that mentions you specifically, along with Brad and Luke, in case you want to take a look. Sorry to be bothering you with the orange new messages banner, but it struck me that if anybody's interested, time is a little short. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC).
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your great work on unblock-en-l. Thanks a lot for the hard work! T. Canens ( talk) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
More IPs to take into consideration; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harlow1937. Chzz ► 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you got one a few days ago, and was going to go away without giving you one from me, but thought... hell, it's deserved!
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For the excellent work you do on unblock-en-l. Without your efforts, a lot of people would be waiting a lot longer for replies! PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, I had a six month topic ban after this case, in which you were one of the arbitrators. It has been over six months, so can I edit on the topic now, or do I have to make a formal request? - YMB29 ( talk) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you comment at User talk:AGK#General question about remedies for victims of rogue administrators if you have a moment? Thanks, AGK [ • 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Shell, I have been topic-banned for two months by User:EdJohnston here for violating the 1RR. I would like to appeal this decision and I understand that you can help me with this. I've made my case here. My argument can be summarized as such: in my opinion, a revert is the undoing of an insertion, not of a deletion. By undoing a deletion, I am not undoing someone's work, I am protecting someone's work. Emmanuelm ( talk) 03:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have only recently started to edit content on Wikipedia. I created a user page for myself here but it was deleted. Could you let me know the proper way for me to create such a page? Thanks. GavinMorley ( talk) 10:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Shell Kinney,
This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.-- Nmate ( talk) 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Normally images are deleted after being nominated for deletion, as this one had several times. This ensures that consensus has been achieved. It has survived several attempts at deletion after plenty of discussion from both those in favor of its deletion and by those in favor of it remaining. So where is the valid OTRS complaint, and why was this image arbitrarily deleted by you without nominating it for deletion yet again? I feel this image from the beginning has gotten a raw deal from those that feel that "NFCC=No non-free images of any kind whatsoever", despite proper tagging and even contacting people who were at the historic concert in an effort to establish copyright in good faith. Is this how it's done? Just delete it out of the blue because it, in your opinion, "doesn't not appear to meet 2011020710006779 NFCC"? Pardon my French, but this is bullplop. Doc talk 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It took me some time to sort out what was really going on because there were quite a few misleading statements about this image floating around including that there was OTRS permission pending when there wasn't and claims to be contacting someone who turned out not to be the copyright holder at all - these statements certainly affected the deletion discussions. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended (two editors does not a discussion make), but the nominator made a compelling case that the free mug shot made for a much more explanatory image for the section on the Miami concert than just the guy in a hat. Neither the article text nor the FUR explained why this image was important, iconic or did anything more than decorate the article and we've now had a complaint by the copyright holder. If there's a more detailed rationale for why this image qualifies for fair-use, I'll be happy to undelete it. Shell babelfish 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal here? (Also this). Did I do something wrong, or what? Herostratus ( talk) 13:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the note, Shell. I appreciate the other point of view. But just FYI, the deleting administrator deleted it under G-10, attack page or negative unsourced BLP. Not really sure how else to define it. Regards, -- Man way 19:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
for deleting Darcey Freeman. Much appreciated, Jenks24 ( talk) 06:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell,
Regarding the changes you made yesterday to Newton-in-Bowland etc. As I understand this argument, the info that you have removed is actually correct. The ‘Escutcheon’ URL says that the Assheton family believed that their ownership of these manorial titles included the Lord of Bowland, and it was this claim that they dropped in 2009. However I’m also not really sure that the modern history is notable enough to be in the articles, and they are certainly overloaded with the stuff. I’ve hopefully arranged a deal with User:Manorial, where I’ll help him sort out these articles in exchange for some work on Honor of Clitheroe. I just wanted to let you know, as he’ll no doubt want to put that bit back on them. -- Trappedinburnley ( talk) 09:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the reversions are already underway. I will send you a releated e-mail, I could do with your advice. Oh and what do you know about User:Selkcerf0142, could this be another alias of Neautone? -- Trappedinburnley ( talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Shell, I've emailed you an explanation of the complex interrelationship between the lordships of Bowland, Slaidburn and Newton. Let me know if you have any questions please. Manorial ( talk) 22:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Shell, I have no wish to protract this ugly dispute but Neautone's line "Charles Towneley Strachey, 4th Baron O'Hagan, 15th Lord of the Manor of Newton sold the Manorial Lordship of Newton(in Bowland), together with some, but not all of its historical rights in February 2011" risks embroiling all of us in legal difficulty. Firstly, Lord O'Hagan has never been Lord of the Manor of Newton (and I can prove this to you conclusively); secondly, there has been no "manor" of Newton since the mid-C14th (again easy to prove); thirdly, the Asshetons bought the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn, including manorial rights in Newton, from the trustees of the Second Schedule of the 1885 Towneley Estates Act in 1950 (I can send you documentation). Thomas Assheton, nephew of the 2nd Lord Clitheroe, is in effect lord of Newton - there is no "lord of the manor of Newton". It is a fiction.
Manorial ( talk) 11:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Shell, just to say that I am going to place the detailed HM Land Registry references on the Newton and Slaidburn websites to remove any room for confusion. Hope this helps clarifies matters somewhat.
Manorial ( talk) 11:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Shell+Kinney-- Jac16888 Talk 12:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell, Thanks for all your help. I have a question, though. Why does this page always come up as "User:Driver1976"? Is there anyway of dropping the "User" part in the title? Or is this a necessary part of your process. Sorry, I'm new to the whole wikipedia thing. M Driver1976 ( talk) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SwanIClogo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 ( talk) 04:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell. Another A.K.Nole sock seems to have appeared. Terminal Three ( talk · contribs), per WP:DUCK, is almost certainly from the same sockfarm as the following indefinitely blocked accounts:
Best regards, Mathsci ( talk) 21:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell
For years, I use Wikipedia as an avid reader. I analyzed a lot for my research, particularly in the fields of botany, painting and communication. Having been director of communications of a large international group and now a consultant in communications strategies, Wikipedia was very helpful for my work. Fascinated by the free encyclopedia ‘s world and convinced that the media is the future of knowledge transmission and communication, I would like to be sponsored to improve the quality of my contributions. I have already studied the tutorials and for now, I have made several minor edits. Found of Nature, I am deeply engaged in activities to safeguard biodiversity, particularly in the Amazon (as a painter, I outlined a series of paintings on medicinal plants of Amazonia, in various Art galleries). Fluent in Spanish and English, I think I can make some contributions in the fields above-mentioned.
I was impressed by your curriculum and i am sure your experiment in Wikipedia will be of great help. Many thanks in advance for your answer. Have a nice week-end -- Wikmontmartre18 ( talk) 17:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell... Your comment to me was shocking and uninformed. I asked for help on this ban twice so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I've "complained extensively". Sorry to be so blunt, and I don't mean to be offensive, but frankly I'm tired of the unfair and untrue comments that have been put out by a few editors, used to discredit me, and then believed by others, and I've decided to be bolder in defending myself.( olive ( talk) 14:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC))
This account seems to be another sockpuppet account of A.K.Nole. He has made reference to the IPs that are at present range-blocked [15] and again followed my recent edits to an AfD. [16] Mathsci ( talk) 07:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell, I reference a past AN/I discussion you commented in [17] and your comments themselves [18] [19], related to the Race&Intelligence case, in the context of this AE request. Thanks. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Please shift to motion 4; that the only one I'll continue under. I've promised Brad on his talk that I'm going to do good. I'll give you my word that I'll cut the illustrative stuff, too. Anything else? Barong 06:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
On further reflection this message on my talk page might be from A.K.Nole (although see below). [20] Please could you semiprotect my talk page for three months? Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Saw your add on the adoption page and I am looking for someone to show me how to be a more active contributer. I'm on Wikipedia all of the time, but I only make edits when I see vandalism or something small when I see incorrect information. This is due, not only to my ineptitude with HTML but also because I'm really just not very sure on what to do to create a full article. Look forward to hearing from you. Mikist4 ( talk) 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)mikist4
Hey Shell, If you have a chance could you come by ACC ? ATM we have 6 request waiting.
Thanks for all you do.
Mlpearc
powwow
13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I need help with a user that is wikihounding all over the place. User:Mtking is actively attempting to deleted articles that I've created that are obviously notable. He as been warned before on his page to stop doing these sort of things but clearly he is ignoring that. [23] Right now he just tag the Business Journals annual award list Forty under 40 with a notability deletion tag just because I created it. To be honest I copied this page example from the page on the Forbes Celebrity 100.
The Forty under 40 is mentioned all over the net and in searches... it is hard to miss. To question notability on this subject is really stupid for him to do but I think he is doing it just because I'm associated with the article. He is constantly trying to cause problems for me or get me blocked based on false and miss guided accusations. I would appreciated it if you would seriously just over look this guy and how he has been dealing with me. Good faith is thrown out the window and its all delete first and ask questions later. He and a group of his friends are doing so right now on another page I created about Dr. Paul Dorian (not to be confused with the CEO of similar name). NanaRobins ( talk) 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I noted that checkuser had determined that technical evidence pointed to Comicania as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev. This recent post of Mikemikev on the website Stormfront Is not very encouraging.[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t800062/] Mathsci ( talk) 18:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
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 [25] 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia'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)
Hi,
I'm wondering whether you'll adopt me.
-- Thepoliticalmaster ( talk) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
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/wiki/User_talk:ElHolandes/INREV
Kind regards, Paco Ortiz -- ElHolandes ( talk) 12:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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
talk
07:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia content and policies are based on consensus, so that hopefully, over time, we avoid doing things in a biased manner. Shell babelfish 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 TALK| CONTRIBS 19:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've now said that I am not recusing from the case more than 5 times; unless you have a new argument, that's unlikely to change. In the case that Cirt agrees to release the conversation to ArbCom (since you and I both have), I'm sure we can have others review. Shell babelfish 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I followed the links Slimvirgin posted to get here. I do not know what your email conversation entailed, nor am I certain about whether or not you need to recuse yourself, but Shell can you explain why you declined without the transparency over this private email discussion that was ongoing between Cirt and Slimvirgin, and which you joined around the time you declined? If what Slimvirigin claims about your taking sides is correct then it would only seem appropriate that you recuse yourself, but either way I think it is inappropriate not to be up front with your level of involvement, however major or minor it is in reality when you make official comments on the case request page. I should be upfront myself about the fact that admin (and arb) involvement in situations in which admins (and arbs) act in an official capacity is something I think we do not take seriously enough here, a predicament I hope will change. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 02:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you about perception, but you'll remember that this was a private, confidential conversation where I was asked to participate in my capacity as an Arbiter - I would not have even mentioned the conversation on-wiki without the consent of the participants, but since someone else let the cat out of the bag there, I don't really have the option to pretend it didn't happen. Unfortunately, that's put me in a rather difficult spot and is why I've asked other Arbiters to review the discussion. It's a bit late for those in the US and a bit early for our friends across the pond, so I expect it'll be a little while before I get back a substantial number of responses. Shell babelfish 08:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It's also remembering that arbitrators and adminstrators have a dispute resolution role so if side-shows/sub-issues can be satisfactorily and speedily resolved with a bit of email mediation, it's all to the good. Policy says: an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. The new arbitration policy also reflects this: Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal. Roger Davies talk 12:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Roger, I'm no lawyer but I assume that a thorough analogy to the legal system (in the US, in England, the rest of Europe, etc.) would not be favorable to Shell's actions vis-a-vis transparency and conflicts of interest. In a civil trial does mediation occur while the trial is also ongoing? More to the point, can a judge who has been selected to hear a criminal case, or civil case, mediate a related matter between the defendant and another party without a conflict of interest? Can s/he do so without the knowledge of others who are involved in the criminal or civil case? As I said I'm no lawyer but I highly doubt it. Also remember that there are many more who are involved here than the named parties (per Coren's filing). Indeed, as a point of comparison to the legal system the entire Wikipedia community is "involved" in arbitration in the sense that it is open to their participation. While I appreciate your answers I wonder if you could answer in a way that addresses the specifics of Shell's actions as opposed to broad analogies or other generalizations. That would be much more helpful to me. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It is worth remembering that Justice Scalia refused to recuse on a case he heard involving Dick Cheney, with whom he'd just been on a fishing trip. Such a situation would be unthinkable on Wikipedia, though his broader argument for not recusing is a valid one here in this small wiki world for arbitrators. Roger Davies talk 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Further, from my read of the forwarded thread, it does not appear to me that Shell was acting "in support of Cirt and not as a neutral party"; she seemed to be merely seeking substantiations or clarifications on particular claims put forth in the emails. This is not unreasonable, and is something a neutral party ought to do to assist the parties in clearly communicating and elucidating their concerns, to ensure they are understood; and further, to try and guide the communication towards a mutually-agreeable resolution. Quite the opposite, a party would not be neutral if they accepted the claims or one side as accomplished fact without asking them to back them up with well-delineated examples. In this case, Shell prompted both parties to provide evidence for their claims.
SlimVirgin has asked Shell Kinney to recuse, as suggested by the section of the arbitration policy linked above. As Shell has declined to recuse, SlimVirgin may now "refer the request to the Committee for a ruling" if she desires. – xeno talk 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
When this email exchange with Shell occurred, I assumed the situation was attributable to an uninformed Committee member who weighed in aggressively without having read the evidence or emails carefully. That happens to the best of us, so I was willing to be privately disgusted then drop it.
But if the ArbCom as a whole is saying the exchange presents no grounds for Shell's recusal, and insufficient concern about Cirt's editing to proceed with a case (two separate issues), then I'm almost speechless. Both Shell and I forwarded copies of the correspondence to the Committee. In my version, I summarized the key issues at the top. If that summary didn't sink in, we have a serious problem here.
What I would ask now is for someone from the Commitee to explain to me, by email, why this issue is not regarded as (a) important enough to proceed with the case; and (b) important enough to require Shell's recusal from it. If they can persuade me that my view of this is wrong, and I am open to persuasion, I'll drop it. Otherwise, I would like a sanity check from uninvolved people. I would like to find an appeals mechanism, perhaps using stewards from another wiki who would agree to read the exchange, so that any appeal does not involve current Committee members. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The advice I usually give in this situation: when you've become concerned enough about an editor's actions that you feel you need to watch them for an extended period of time, you need to bring your concerns to the community so that right or wrong, you get some kind of resolution. If others agree with your concerns, they can develop a way to resolve those concerns; if it turns out they don't agree, then you can relax and get back to what you enjoy on Wikipedia. Either way, holding something like an RfC where you can clearly present your concerns to the community in a structured format is a productive way to work things out. Shell babelfish 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell. Just a note that TrevelyanL85A2, a known friend of Ferahgo the Assassin, has resumed editing articles covered by WP:ARBR&I. His edits were tag teaming with Boothello, a user who started editing exclusively in the area of Ferahgo's topic ban as soon as it was announced. I warned both him and Boothello that this does not look good. Boothello is not happy about this. In edits that bear a strong resemblance to similar actions by SightWatcher, he has posted a complaint on Risker's page (he was ignored) and now on Newyorkbrad's page. All of this looks very fishy indeed; or perhaps WP:DUCK is a better word to use. Mathsci ( talk) 09:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you write down for the record the findings you cleared up yesterday please? :) -- DQ (t) (e) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 05:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Good day, A request for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you participated or might be affected by. Communikat ( talk) 17:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Shell, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N 466 13:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
"Shell Kinney" is a relative newly registered boy, he is a sock of banned User Iaaasi.Your editorial habits and articles are the same.Iaaasi told that he changed his internet provider to edit Wikipedia again. Why are you vandal, dear banned editor?? You deleted well referenced articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little wars ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D ( talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Shell
I notice you blocked
NRex4 as a sockpuppet of a banned user in March, but there isn’t any mention of who the banned user might be. I’m asking because it has become relevant
here, and now
here. Are you able to shed any light on this?
Xyl 54 (
talk)
12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You argued that you were not "involved" when it came to Cirt, to please stay away from issues that would further underline that you are, such as removing legitimate material from an FR section. [36] Also, if he is asking you to do things like this, you're doing yourself no favours by agreeing. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Patience & Fortitude LP |
You have been recognized by
Shearonink (
talk) with the Patience & Fortitude LP as an award for your recent Long-Playing Patience in the Wikipedia IRC Help channel.
|
Take care of this little kitty while during your retirement :)
/
ƒETCH
COMMS
/
20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Rather than emailing everyone separately, it would probably be better to post a notice somewhere central. But here would do. So: why did you retire? William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
...that I am very, very sorry. I hold you and your work in high respect, and I think this is a great loss to Wikipedia. :( I hope your circumstances will change or you will reconsider. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the committee got around to announcing my departure faster than I could write something up, which given our track record, is somewhat of a surprise :)
The recent situation has clarified something for me that's been nagging at the back of my brain for quite some time:
I originally joined the projects a number of years ago because I believe very strongly in what they are doing; I also support a number of other open source movements. I've ended up helping in just about every area possible over the years as I discovered when trying to unravel my various points of access. I started to work with ArbCom mostly because people kept telling me they thought I would be good at it and I decided I could volunteer some additional time to in order to help the English Wikipedia run more smoothly.
I remember being very surprised at the things that the committee deals with behind the scenes and even more surprised that this takes up the majority of their time. In my experience, issues of volunteer harassment, pedophiles using organization resources for inappropriate purposes and organizational privacy and security are usually dealt with by someone working for the organization or someone in very close contact with the organization rather than a random body of volunteers making these decisions without guidance. It's always seemed to me that the behind the scenes issues would be better handled by a group dedicated to such things so that the committee could bring its focus back to dispute resolution, but since no one else was doing these things, the committee couldn't just ignore them.
I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has unique issues with volunteer coordination and communication due to it's large scope, the novelty of an internet medium and it's need to remove itself from "publishing" the works it helps to create. Nevertheless, I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with the way the Foundation distances itself and the lack of good communication, especially in serious cases such as this recent leak. That someone had to "break ranks" for the committee to get any concrete information on the various issues at play seriously concerns me and we're still almost completely in the dark about what the Foundation is doing and how it plans to handle security going forward - so it's not just the community who's being left out here. Looking back at emails from the past couple of years, the committee has been asking the Foundation for quite some time about getting better, more appropriate and more secure tools. Of course, if the committee was focused on its primary task, it's likely these kinds of things wouldn't be necessary. On top of all this, change is always hard but when dealing with a group of 18 people, getting anyone to agree with or stay focused on change is rather close to impossible.
There's also lot going on in my life at the moment, so it's likely that a long, long break will do a world of good. It's possible that as the project continues to change and evolve, it will turn back into something that makes sense to me so a return is always a possibility. I've turned in all of the access and advanced rights not necessarily as a final break with the projects, but because as recent issues have reminded us yet again, having those things lying around can pose security issues. Shell babelfish 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciated interacting with you regarding the Mothers for Peace article and consider you sufficiently wise in the ways of WP to ask for your guidance. A user approached me concerns about what looks to be a wheel war in a Buddhism topic area with respect to an otherwise highly respected Buddhism teacher who has had a biographical incident in recent years which WP editors are fueding over. If you are a potential arbitrator on the matter, it might best that you don't take a look at the request for assistance I recieved at User_talk:Geofferybard#Please.2C_take_a_look but perhaps you can make a referal; alternatively, I would be grateful if you could take a look at what I was presented with and suggest how this issue should be dealt with. I know you are pretty busy and mostly concerned with the meta infrastructure issues, but I would appreciate if you could either step in, or advise us on how to proceed. GeoBard Rap 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked User:Ideanoise and User:OneDalm0 back in March 2011 with a block log of {{checkuserblock}}, which doesn't seem to explain the reason. I'm guessing it's User:Brunodam, but it would be good if this was clarified. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 07:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Shell Kinney! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
You are invited to the
National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my
stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic· t 01:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited. |
![]() |
![]() |
-- Codrin.B ( talk) 06:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Shell, Please can you assist with unblocking my account as I have been blocked for what seems like forever for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.200 ( talk) 15:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Shell Kinney. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
LouisPhilippeCharles ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS ( talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for approving my ACC tool request. I would just like to let you know that on the template you used to notify me, the link to the tool is outdated and broken. The tool is not at the "stable" server, it is now here [ [1]]. Thanks again, and have a nice day. Krashlandon (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I've just started editing and ended up working on the Unsourced BLPs. I came across this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Spencer_(musician). Would you be able to source it?
PS Weren't the Misunderstood a 60s band too "I can take you to the sun" was one of John Peel's favourites IIRC. Brainfood ( talk) 11:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I see you deleted it! Have you read the Stephen King story Word Processor of the Gods (I think). Hope nothing happened to Kevin Spencer at the precise moment you pressed delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainfood ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made an edit summary, people don't normally care about them on images. Here are the terms for the Chicago Daily News collection at the Library of Congress. Those published before 1923 are public domain per US Law, but those published after can only be used under fair use guidelines. Kelly hi! 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey! This is just a friendly reminder about the Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebration in Pittsburgh tomorrow. The meeting time has been moved up to 4:00 so that we can gather before the game starts and stake out places, and it may be a good idea to get there even sooner, if you can. Pittsburgh bars are likely to be a little crazy and very crowded. See you there!-- ragesoss ( talk) 02:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You were presumably emulating the preceding announcements, but we're still using "Discuss this" to point to
WT:ACN - the bot will should(!) change it to "Archived discussion" when it gets, well, archived =) –
xeno
talk
20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You blocked Todaypitch2 ( talk · contribs) and Lukas stefoz ( talk · contribs) just showed up reposting the same comment. I blocked the second account and revdel'ed the two edits due to the implied threat. Thought you might want to check out the second account. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; no problem, but could you tell me the template you are using for welcome messages, such as the one you sent to Bambinodelmare? Clearly I could track it down, but the message is complex and I am trying to save myself time. Thank you in advance. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 17:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I left this question for AGK, but since he is gone for a few days, I have been advised by Bishonen to approach Brad and an arbitrator. Here is the link to my questions for AGK: [3]. Bishonen suggested I also email , so I did that as well. Thanks for your time. Smatprt ( talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you point me to some examples? Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I see you blocked this sockpuppet. I was trying to see what damage this account was doing and commented on a few AfD debates that the nominator was a sockpuppet. Then I noticed they had speedied Lemuel Royce and the article vanished right when I was trying to add a "hang on" tag. Can you restore the article? If so, I will see if it can be improved, or really should be deleted? Thank you. Cullen328 ( talk) 22:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for the warm welcome. I have edited my article (Freestyle GunZ) and added the requested information & references that appear in reliable third-party publications.
Sorry for the issues I have caused.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McSiccc ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have some info for the arbitrators, but have no idea which section to put it in. The threads have become so long and convoluted that I just don't know the right place for this statement. It has do with the insertion of the "Standards of Evidence" [4] section in the SAQ article, which I believe, from a behavior point of view, was a deliberate act to prejudice the entire article and violate npov. The section states that only mainstream researchers use " title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies." This is simply not the case. Anti-strats use each and every one of these in building their various cases. I can easily provide refs, but antiStrat researchers such as Diana Price, Ogburn, Anderson have all used title pages, gov't records and contemporary testimony. And I know of several stylometric studies that anti-strats have used to bolster their cases. How do I raise this issue at ArbCom and where? Thanks. I will probably copy this question to another arbitrator or two in hopes of finding some clarity. Smatprt ( talk) 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell. I saw that a few days ago you allowed Emmaimmots ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to access their talkpage again so they could request an unblock. It looks like they made a request and were declined by Sandstein. Since then, they created Themmiaoeps1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and reposted the same content which was then deleted by Bearcat. What I wanted to ask is this: should I block the new account as a sock evading a block, or is there some non-obvious reason why I shouldn't? Thanks! Syrthiss ( talk) 12:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see [5]. Zarboublian ( talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Shell, I am User:Crouch, Swale and I have noticed you have commented on User talk:Toolsavoid e#February 2011. I am leving you this message from this account as I can't edit from my proper account as you know. You are right I do help improve Wikipedia but as you know I am blocked indefinitely. I've got a list of planned improvements to this encyclopedia such as a lot of English settlements I am going to create but I can't do that if I am blocked and I'm sure you want me to improve Wikipedia. Ipswich in Suffolk ( talk) 15:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Shell. I've posted a note on Talk:Proposed decision for the Shakespeare case that mentions you specifically, along with Brad and Luke, in case you want to take a look. Sorry to be bothering you with the orange new messages banner, but it struck me that if anybody's interested, time is a little short. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC).
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your great work on unblock-en-l. Thanks a lot for the hard work! T. Canens ( talk) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
More IPs to take into consideration; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harlow1937. Chzz ► 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you got one a few days ago, and was going to go away without giving you one from me, but thought... hell, it's deserved!
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For the excellent work you do on unblock-en-l. Without your efforts, a lot of people would be waiting a lot longer for replies! PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, I had a six month topic ban after this case, in which you were one of the arbitrators. It has been over six months, so can I edit on the topic now, or do I have to make a formal request? - YMB29 ( talk) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you comment at User talk:AGK#General question about remedies for victims of rogue administrators if you have a moment? Thanks, AGK [ • 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Shell, I have been topic-banned for two months by User:EdJohnston here for violating the 1RR. I would like to appeal this decision and I understand that you can help me with this. I've made my case here. My argument can be summarized as such: in my opinion, a revert is the undoing of an insertion, not of a deletion. By undoing a deletion, I am not undoing someone's work, I am protecting someone's work. Emmanuelm ( talk) 03:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have only recently started to edit content on Wikipedia. I created a user page for myself here but it was deleted. Could you let me know the proper way for me to create such a page? Thanks. GavinMorley ( talk) 10:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Shell Kinney,
This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.-- Nmate ( talk) 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Normally images are deleted after being nominated for deletion, as this one had several times. This ensures that consensus has been achieved. It has survived several attempts at deletion after plenty of discussion from both those in favor of its deletion and by those in favor of it remaining. So where is the valid OTRS complaint, and why was this image arbitrarily deleted by you without nominating it for deletion yet again? I feel this image from the beginning has gotten a raw deal from those that feel that "NFCC=No non-free images of any kind whatsoever", despite proper tagging and even contacting people who were at the historic concert in an effort to establish copyright in good faith. Is this how it's done? Just delete it out of the blue because it, in your opinion, "doesn't not appear to meet 2011020710006779 NFCC"? Pardon my French, but this is bullplop. Doc talk 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It took me some time to sort out what was really going on because there were quite a few misleading statements about this image floating around including that there was OTRS permission pending when there wasn't and claims to be contacting someone who turned out not to be the copyright holder at all - these statements certainly affected the deletion discussions. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended (two editors does not a discussion make), but the nominator made a compelling case that the free mug shot made for a much more explanatory image for the section on the Miami concert than just the guy in a hat. Neither the article text nor the FUR explained why this image was important, iconic or did anything more than decorate the article and we've now had a complaint by the copyright holder. If there's a more detailed rationale for why this image qualifies for fair-use, I'll be happy to undelete it. Shell babelfish 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal here? (Also this). Did I do something wrong, or what? Herostratus ( talk) 13:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the note, Shell. I appreciate the other point of view. But just FYI, the deleting administrator deleted it under G-10, attack page or negative unsourced BLP. Not really sure how else to define it. Regards, -- Man way 19:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
for deleting Darcey Freeman. Much appreciated, Jenks24 ( talk) 06:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell,
Regarding the changes you made yesterday to Newton-in-Bowland etc. As I understand this argument, the info that you have removed is actually correct. The ‘Escutcheon’ URL says that the Assheton family believed that their ownership of these manorial titles included the Lord of Bowland, and it was this claim that they dropped in 2009. However I’m also not really sure that the modern history is notable enough to be in the articles, and they are certainly overloaded with the stuff. I’ve hopefully arranged a deal with User:Manorial, where I’ll help him sort out these articles in exchange for some work on Honor of Clitheroe. I just wanted to let you know, as he’ll no doubt want to put that bit back on them. -- Trappedinburnley ( talk) 09:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the reversions are already underway. I will send you a releated e-mail, I could do with your advice. Oh and what do you know about User:Selkcerf0142, could this be another alias of Neautone? -- Trappedinburnley ( talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Shell, I've emailed you an explanation of the complex interrelationship between the lordships of Bowland, Slaidburn and Newton. Let me know if you have any questions please. Manorial ( talk) 22:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Shell, I have no wish to protract this ugly dispute but Neautone's line "Charles Towneley Strachey, 4th Baron O'Hagan, 15th Lord of the Manor of Newton sold the Manorial Lordship of Newton(in Bowland), together with some, but not all of its historical rights in February 2011" risks embroiling all of us in legal difficulty. Firstly, Lord O'Hagan has never been Lord of the Manor of Newton (and I can prove this to you conclusively); secondly, there has been no "manor" of Newton since the mid-C14th (again easy to prove); thirdly, the Asshetons bought the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn, including manorial rights in Newton, from the trustees of the Second Schedule of the 1885 Towneley Estates Act in 1950 (I can send you documentation). Thomas Assheton, nephew of the 2nd Lord Clitheroe, is in effect lord of Newton - there is no "lord of the manor of Newton". It is a fiction.
Manorial ( talk) 11:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Shell, just to say that I am going to place the detailed HM Land Registry references on the Newton and Slaidburn websites to remove any room for confusion. Hope this helps clarifies matters somewhat.
Manorial ( talk) 11:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Shell+Kinney-- Jac16888 Talk 12:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell, Thanks for all your help. I have a question, though. Why does this page always come up as "User:Driver1976"? Is there anyway of dropping the "User" part in the title? Or is this a necessary part of your process. Sorry, I'm new to the whole wikipedia thing. M Driver1976 ( talk) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SwanIClogo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 ( talk) 04:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell. Another A.K.Nole sock seems to have appeared. Terminal Three ( talk · contribs), per WP:DUCK, is almost certainly from the same sockfarm as the following indefinitely blocked accounts:
Best regards, Mathsci ( talk) 21:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell
For years, I use Wikipedia as an avid reader. I analyzed a lot for my research, particularly in the fields of botany, painting and communication. Having been director of communications of a large international group and now a consultant in communications strategies, Wikipedia was very helpful for my work. Fascinated by the free encyclopedia ‘s world and convinced that the media is the future of knowledge transmission and communication, I would like to be sponsored to improve the quality of my contributions. I have already studied the tutorials and for now, I have made several minor edits. Found of Nature, I am deeply engaged in activities to safeguard biodiversity, particularly in the Amazon (as a painter, I outlined a series of paintings on medicinal plants of Amazonia, in various Art galleries). Fluent in Spanish and English, I think I can make some contributions in the fields above-mentioned.
I was impressed by your curriculum and i am sure your experiment in Wikipedia will be of great help. Many thanks in advance for your answer. Have a nice week-end -- Wikmontmartre18 ( talk) 17:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell... Your comment to me was shocking and uninformed. I asked for help on this ban twice so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I've "complained extensively". Sorry to be so blunt, and I don't mean to be offensive, but frankly I'm tired of the unfair and untrue comments that have been put out by a few editors, used to discredit me, and then believed by others, and I've decided to be bolder in defending myself.( olive ( talk) 14:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC))
This account seems to be another sockpuppet account of A.K.Nole. He has made reference to the IPs that are at present range-blocked [15] and again followed my recent edits to an AfD. [16] Mathsci ( talk) 07:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell, I reference a past AN/I discussion you commented in [17] and your comments themselves [18] [19], related to the Race&Intelligence case, in the context of this AE request. Thanks. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Please shift to motion 4; that the only one I'll continue under. I've promised Brad on his talk that I'm going to do good. I'll give you my word that I'll cut the illustrative stuff, too. Anything else? Barong 06:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
On further reflection this message on my talk page might be from A.K.Nole (although see below). [20] Please could you semiprotect my talk page for three months? Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Saw your add on the adoption page and I am looking for someone to show me how to be a more active contributer. I'm on Wikipedia all of the time, but I only make edits when I see vandalism or something small when I see incorrect information. This is due, not only to my ineptitude with HTML but also because I'm really just not very sure on what to do to create a full article. Look forward to hearing from you. Mikist4 ( talk) 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)mikist4
Hey Shell, If you have a chance could you come by ACC ? ATM we have 6 request waiting.
Thanks for all you do.
Mlpearc
powwow
13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I need help with a user that is wikihounding all over the place. User:Mtking is actively attempting to deleted articles that I've created that are obviously notable. He as been warned before on his page to stop doing these sort of things but clearly he is ignoring that. [23] Right now he just tag the Business Journals annual award list Forty under 40 with a notability deletion tag just because I created it. To be honest I copied this page example from the page on the Forbes Celebrity 100.
The Forty under 40 is mentioned all over the net and in searches... it is hard to miss. To question notability on this subject is really stupid for him to do but I think he is doing it just because I'm associated with the article. He is constantly trying to cause problems for me or get me blocked based on false and miss guided accusations. I would appreciated it if you would seriously just over look this guy and how he has been dealing with me. Good faith is thrown out the window and its all delete first and ask questions later. He and a group of his friends are doing so right now on another page I created about Dr. Paul Dorian (not to be confused with the CEO of similar name). NanaRobins ( talk) 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I noted that checkuser had determined that technical evidence pointed to Comicania as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev. This recent post of Mikemikev on the website Stormfront Is not very encouraging.[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t800062/] Mathsci ( talk) 18:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
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 [25] 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia'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)
Hi,
I'm wondering whether you'll adopt me.
-- Thepoliticalmaster ( talk) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
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/wiki/User_talk:ElHolandes/INREV
Kind regards, Paco Ortiz -- ElHolandes ( talk) 12:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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
talk
07:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia content and policies are based on consensus, so that hopefully, over time, we avoid doing things in a biased manner. Shell babelfish 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 TALK| CONTRIBS 19:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've now said that I am not recusing from the case more than 5 times; unless you have a new argument, that's unlikely to change. In the case that Cirt agrees to release the conversation to ArbCom (since you and I both have), I'm sure we can have others review. Shell babelfish 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I followed the links Slimvirgin posted to get here. I do not know what your email conversation entailed, nor am I certain about whether or not you need to recuse yourself, but Shell can you explain why you declined without the transparency over this private email discussion that was ongoing between Cirt and Slimvirgin, and which you joined around the time you declined? If what Slimvirigin claims about your taking sides is correct then it would only seem appropriate that you recuse yourself, but either way I think it is inappropriate not to be up front with your level of involvement, however major or minor it is in reality when you make official comments on the case request page. I should be upfront myself about the fact that admin (and arb) involvement in situations in which admins (and arbs) act in an official capacity is something I think we do not take seriously enough here, a predicament I hope will change. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 02:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you about perception, but you'll remember that this was a private, confidential conversation where I was asked to participate in my capacity as an Arbiter - I would not have even mentioned the conversation on-wiki without the consent of the participants, but since someone else let the cat out of the bag there, I don't really have the option to pretend it didn't happen. Unfortunately, that's put me in a rather difficult spot and is why I've asked other Arbiters to review the discussion. It's a bit late for those in the US and a bit early for our friends across the pond, so I expect it'll be a little while before I get back a substantial number of responses. Shell babelfish 08:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It's also remembering that arbitrators and adminstrators have a dispute resolution role so if side-shows/sub-issues can be satisfactorily and speedily resolved with a bit of email mediation, it's all to the good. Policy says: an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. The new arbitration policy also reflects this: Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal. Roger Davies talk 12:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Roger, I'm no lawyer but I assume that a thorough analogy to the legal system (in the US, in England, the rest of Europe, etc.) would not be favorable to Shell's actions vis-a-vis transparency and conflicts of interest. In a civil trial does mediation occur while the trial is also ongoing? More to the point, can a judge who has been selected to hear a criminal case, or civil case, mediate a related matter between the defendant and another party without a conflict of interest? Can s/he do so without the knowledge of others who are involved in the criminal or civil case? As I said I'm no lawyer but I highly doubt it. Also remember that there are many more who are involved here than the named parties (per Coren's filing). Indeed, as a point of comparison to the legal system the entire Wikipedia community is "involved" in arbitration in the sense that it is open to their participation. While I appreciate your answers I wonder if you could answer in a way that addresses the specifics of Shell's actions as opposed to broad analogies or other generalizations. That would be much more helpful to me. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It is worth remembering that Justice Scalia refused to recuse on a case he heard involving Dick Cheney, with whom he'd just been on a fishing trip. Such a situation would be unthinkable on Wikipedia, though his broader argument for not recusing is a valid one here in this small wiki world for arbitrators. Roger Davies talk 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Further, from my read of the forwarded thread, it does not appear to me that Shell was acting "in support of Cirt and not as a neutral party"; she seemed to be merely seeking substantiations or clarifications on particular claims put forth in the emails. This is not unreasonable, and is something a neutral party ought to do to assist the parties in clearly communicating and elucidating their concerns, to ensure they are understood; and further, to try and guide the communication towards a mutually-agreeable resolution. Quite the opposite, a party would not be neutral if they accepted the claims or one side as accomplished fact without asking them to back them up with well-delineated examples. In this case, Shell prompted both parties to provide evidence for their claims.
SlimVirgin has asked Shell Kinney to recuse, as suggested by the section of the arbitration policy linked above. As Shell has declined to recuse, SlimVirgin may now "refer the request to the Committee for a ruling" if she desires. – xeno talk 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
When this email exchange with Shell occurred, I assumed the situation was attributable to an uninformed Committee member who weighed in aggressively without having read the evidence or emails carefully. That happens to the best of us, so I was willing to be privately disgusted then drop it.
But if the ArbCom as a whole is saying the exchange presents no grounds for Shell's recusal, and insufficient concern about Cirt's editing to proceed with a case (two separate issues), then I'm almost speechless. Both Shell and I forwarded copies of the correspondence to the Committee. In my version, I summarized the key issues at the top. If that summary didn't sink in, we have a serious problem here.
What I would ask now is for someone from the Commitee to explain to me, by email, why this issue is not regarded as (a) important enough to proceed with the case; and (b) important enough to require Shell's recusal from it. If they can persuade me that my view of this is wrong, and I am open to persuasion, I'll drop it. Otherwise, I would like a sanity check from uninvolved people. I would like to find an appeals mechanism, perhaps using stewards from another wiki who would agree to read the exchange, so that any appeal does not involve current Committee members. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The advice I usually give in this situation: when you've become concerned enough about an editor's actions that you feel you need to watch them for an extended period of time, you need to bring your concerns to the community so that right or wrong, you get some kind of resolution. If others agree with your concerns, they can develop a way to resolve those concerns; if it turns out they don't agree, then you can relax and get back to what you enjoy on Wikipedia. Either way, holding something like an RfC where you can clearly present your concerns to the community in a structured format is a productive way to work things out. Shell babelfish 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Shell. Just a note that TrevelyanL85A2, a known friend of Ferahgo the Assassin, has resumed editing articles covered by WP:ARBR&I. His edits were tag teaming with Boothello, a user who started editing exclusively in the area of Ferahgo's topic ban as soon as it was announced. I warned both him and Boothello that this does not look good. Boothello is not happy about this. In edits that bear a strong resemblance to similar actions by SightWatcher, he has posted a complaint on Risker's page (he was ignored) and now on Newyorkbrad's page. All of this looks very fishy indeed; or perhaps WP:DUCK is a better word to use. Mathsci ( talk) 09:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you write down for the record the findings you cleared up yesterday please? :) -- DQ (t) (e) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 05:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Good day, A request for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you participated or might be affected by. Communikat ( talk) 17:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Shell, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N 466 13:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
"Shell Kinney" is a relative newly registered boy, he is a sock of banned User Iaaasi.Your editorial habits and articles are the same.Iaaasi told that he changed his internet provider to edit Wikipedia again. Why are you vandal, dear banned editor?? You deleted well referenced articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little wars ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D ( talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Shell
I notice you blocked
NRex4 as a sockpuppet of a banned user in March, but there isn’t any mention of who the banned user might be. I’m asking because it has become relevant
here, and now
here. Are you able to shed any light on this?
Xyl 54 (
talk)
12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You argued that you were not "involved" when it came to Cirt, to please stay away from issues that would further underline that you are, such as removing legitimate material from an FR section. [36] Also, if he is asking you to do things like this, you're doing yourself no favours by agreeing. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Patience & Fortitude LP |
You have been recognized by
Shearonink (
talk) with the Patience & Fortitude LP as an award for your recent Long-Playing Patience in the Wikipedia IRC Help channel.
|
Take care of this little kitty while during your retirement :)
/
ƒETCH
COMMS
/
20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Rather than emailing everyone separately, it would probably be better to post a notice somewhere central. But here would do. So: why did you retire? William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
...that I am very, very sorry. I hold you and your work in high respect, and I think this is a great loss to Wikipedia. :( I hope your circumstances will change or you will reconsider. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the committee got around to announcing my departure faster than I could write something up, which given our track record, is somewhat of a surprise :)
The recent situation has clarified something for me that's been nagging at the back of my brain for quite some time:
I originally joined the projects a number of years ago because I believe very strongly in what they are doing; I also support a number of other open source movements. I've ended up helping in just about every area possible over the years as I discovered when trying to unravel my various points of access. I started to work with ArbCom mostly because people kept telling me they thought I would be good at it and I decided I could volunteer some additional time to in order to help the English Wikipedia run more smoothly.
I remember being very surprised at the things that the committee deals with behind the scenes and even more surprised that this takes up the majority of their time. In my experience, issues of volunteer harassment, pedophiles using organization resources for inappropriate purposes and organizational privacy and security are usually dealt with by someone working for the organization or someone in very close contact with the organization rather than a random body of volunteers making these decisions without guidance. It's always seemed to me that the behind the scenes issues would be better handled by a group dedicated to such things so that the committee could bring its focus back to dispute resolution, but since no one else was doing these things, the committee couldn't just ignore them.
I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has unique issues with volunteer coordination and communication due to it's large scope, the novelty of an internet medium and it's need to remove itself from "publishing" the works it helps to create. Nevertheless, I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with the way the Foundation distances itself and the lack of good communication, especially in serious cases such as this recent leak. That someone had to "break ranks" for the committee to get any concrete information on the various issues at play seriously concerns me and we're still almost completely in the dark about what the Foundation is doing and how it plans to handle security going forward - so it's not just the community who's being left out here. Looking back at emails from the past couple of years, the committee has been asking the Foundation for quite some time about getting better, more appropriate and more secure tools. Of course, if the committee was focused on its primary task, it's likely these kinds of things wouldn't be necessary. On top of all this, change is always hard but when dealing with a group of 18 people, getting anyone to agree with or stay focused on change is rather close to impossible.
There's also lot going on in my life at the moment, so it's likely that a long, long break will do a world of good. It's possible that as the project continues to change and evolve, it will turn back into something that makes sense to me so a return is always a possibility. I've turned in all of the access and advanced rights not necessarily as a final break with the projects, but because as recent issues have reminded us yet again, having those things lying around can pose security issues. Shell babelfish 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciated interacting with you regarding the Mothers for Peace article and consider you sufficiently wise in the ways of WP to ask for your guidance. A user approached me concerns about what looks to be a wheel war in a Buddhism topic area with respect to an otherwise highly respected Buddhism teacher who has had a biographical incident in recent years which WP editors are fueding over. If you are a potential arbitrator on the matter, it might best that you don't take a look at the request for assistance I recieved at User_talk:Geofferybard#Please.2C_take_a_look but perhaps you can make a referal; alternatively, I would be grateful if you could take a look at what I was presented with and suggest how this issue should be dealt with. I know you are pretty busy and mostly concerned with the meta infrastructure issues, but I would appreciate if you could either step in, or advise us on how to proceed. GeoBard Rap 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked User:Ideanoise and User:OneDalm0 back in March 2011 with a block log of {{checkuserblock}}, which doesn't seem to explain the reason. I'm guessing it's User:Brunodam, but it would be good if this was clarified. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 07:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Shell Kinney! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
You are invited to the
National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my
stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic· t 01:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited. |
![]() |
![]() |
-- Codrin.B ( talk) 06:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Shell, Please can you assist with unblocking my account as I have been blocked for what seems like forever for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.200 ( talk) 15:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Shell Kinney. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
LouisPhilippeCharles ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS ( talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)