User talk:Shell Kinney

Hi. Your recommendation on WP:PAIN concerning dispute resolution are excellent and I am taking it to heart.I have been on irc today and have used that and AMA to resolve disputes on Cheema and Tipu Sultan. Third parties have intervened and I am doing my level best to cooperate with these good faith mediators.However, I fear that one of the editors from the other side of the debate (actually a jihad of sorts) User:Mujeerkhan has been trying to engage in a witch hunt and has attempted to recruit a coterie of Muslim Guild editors to ty to "get [me] banned" (his own words) per this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#Attacks

I have responded with what I feel are comments on the content of such edits and the pbvious bias and somewhat inarticulate intimidation tactics of this user. If you feel that they (either his edits or mine) are not proper then please let me know and I will remunerate accordingly. Bear in mind that I have always followed canonical wikipedia policies of WP:RS and [{WP:V]] regarding my disputes which, I feel, are the result of bad faith edits (bogus references, POV trash etc.) by (IMHO) partisan hacks. I would like to notify you in advance and let you know that any advice that you have to offer will be taken to heart by myself.

A Summary of the issues at hand are present on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/September_2006/Hkelkar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martinp23/Desk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CheNuevara#Regarding_our_irc_discussion_concerning_Cheema

I just wanted to let you know what's going on in case the situation turns ugly.

Hkelkar 09:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am a newbie but I was not experimenting with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla%21

I was only editing it as it contents false asertions: Joomla! does not have blogs, forums, calendars, and language internationalization. Those features are available as extensions (Third Part Developer Extensions, such jd-wordpress, simple machine forums, gigcalendar or joomfish)and are not part of the application.

Anyway, thanks for letting me know. The next time I will post an edit or open a discussion. See you.

Ibnhafsun 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the personal attacks against me and DrL by Byrgenwulf and Anville, you wrote "reports by Asmodeus, larger content dispute already in dispute resolution". However, DrL and I are not involved in any form of dispute resolution with Byrgenwulf or Anville. These users have reacted to my requests and warnings with sheer contempt and noncompliance, giving no indication that they will respect any agreement reached in the Hillman case. Thus, there is no reason to believe that a resolution of the Hillman dispute will automatically resolve disputes involving them. After all, the main issue in the Hillman case is disclosure of personal information; Byrgenwulf is not only guilty of disclosing personal information, but of insult, prevarication, and intentional disruption of the very negotiations you cite. I'll grant that if the Hillman case leads to a general ruling, it would be binding on Byrgenwulf and Anville as well. But isn't that a lot to expect from negotiations intended to defuse the (Hillman) situation before such a general ruling becomes necessary? Tying the Byrgenwulf and Anville cases to the Hillman case would force DrL and I to resist any resolution applying to the Hillman case alone, thus aiding Byrgenwulf's disruptive agenda. Can you explain your reasoning in a bit more detail? Thanks, Asmodeus 05:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you're reporting are not clear cut cases of personal attacks, but a much larger issue that is not covered by the scope of WP:PAIN. The case is in dispute resolution since an RFC was brought against you by Byrgenwulf and Anville. I suggest you participate in the RfC. I would also like to note that I do not consider the Byrgenwulf's page an attack page - the ArbCom has ruled before that documentation of ongoing dispute is an acceptable use of user space. Shell ^babelfish 14:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you deny that the page contains personal slurs which violate WP:CIV? We're not talking about mere documentation here. As the victim of these slurs, I object to being classified as somebody who needs to defend himself against idiotic trumped-up procedures initiated by the attacker to cover his ass. Are you sure that your ruling is justified under these circumstances? Asmodeus 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the RfC is "trumped-up" just calmly state your side of the story and back it up with diffs - editors who respond to RfCs will see through attempts by either side to inflate or distort the issue. It doesn't matter which party started the RfC, its still a healthy part of the dispute resolution process and can help resolve the problems you're experiencing. Shell ^babelfish 17:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's worth mentioning also that WP:NPA is not WP:CIV. the WP:PAIN page deals only with personal attacks, not issues of civility. --Crimsone 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...well, with all due respect, the page about which I have complained contains a good deal more than simple "documentation of a dispute", and therefore remains a personal attack. (In fact, it is merely the latest installment in a series of attacks by its author; please see my remarks in this RfC.) If it were mere "documentation", then it would not contain personal slurs, falsehoods, and pejorative speculations regarding the motives and mental states of its targets. Now, it may well be that personal attacks are fine here at Wikipedia as long as a little "documentation" is thrown in for good measure; however, I strongly doubt that, because that kind of material has no proper place in an encyclopedia. The attacker has already used your opinion as a justification for refusing to cooperate with one of those he has been stalking; that's unfortunate. But if this wasn't your intention, and you really want to be of help, could you at least direct me to the specific ArbCom ruling(s) that (in your opinion) justify or condone the sort of vitriolic, mendacious "documentation" in which User Byrgenwulf has indulged? Thanks, Asmodeus 21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Though it has long been accepted practice to allow the creation of user subpages detailing disputes currently in some process of resolution, the ArbCom specifically ruled on it in August of this year. Perhaps if you could be more specific about which passages you feel contain personal attacks? The entire page certainly doesn't qualify. Shell ^babelfish 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! The ArbCom ruling you cite reads as follows:

"It is acceptable to make a subpage to keep notes which document another user's behavior. Care should be taken to keep a factual record which avoids personal attacks on your own part."

In other words, a user can track another user's edits and make note of any discernable patterns without committing personal attacks of his own.

Clearly, the ruling contains no license to wander into motivations, mental states, and character attributes at the expense of other aspects of WP. Byrgenwulf's entire screed wanders into these areas, none of which are covered by the notion of "documentation of behavior". What Byrgenwulf is "documenting" are mainly his suspicions, negative inferences, and other departures from the assumption of good faith. If he were to remove his negative insinuations and other subjective tangents, the page would shrink to a tiny fraction of its current size.

By all means, if Byrgenwulf feels a need to follow the behavior of another user, compile a neutrally-worded report, and let other users draw their own conclusions, fine. But this is clearly not what he is doing. Here are a few salient examples:

In the CTMU AfD section: "The AfD became filled with endless screeds from Asmodeus denouncing everyone who voted against the CTMU as being intellectually incompetent and ethically bankrupt." (A nonsensical fabrication)

In the CTMU DRV section: "DrL and Asmodeus fought it on the usual grounds of invective screed and personal attack, mostly directed against me as the "instigator". However, there is a decidedly sinister element to the way in which they conducted themselves (and still do, to a large extent), particularly Asmodeus. He manipulated, lied and distorted, putting words into my mouth and doing everything he could to assassinate my character. But the underhanded way in which he did so still chills me, and it is largely because of his deceitful and manipulative tactics that I am writing this for future use." (Where I come from, calling someone a "liar" is considered a personal attack, plain and simple.)

In the Hillman's "dig page" MfD section: "I don't think I have ever encountered people who have managed to be as nasty as DrL and Asmodeus, but as absurdly laughable at the same time." (Come on, now!)

In the Peripheral engagements section: "But I would like to emphasise the habit that Asmodeus seems to have of deliberately seeking out noted scholars, and trying to draw their attention to himself." ("Habit"? I was minding my own business when Byrgenwulf began his anti-Langan, anti-CTMU campaign, and never would have communicated with any "notable scholars" at Wikipedia if Byrgenwulf had not misled one or two of them (?) into joining his attacks.)

In the Aftermath section: "There is still an ongoing negotiation between Hillman and David Mestel, who is acting as an advocate for Asmodeus and DrL, to come to some agreement about an acceptable form for Hillman's dig page on the Langans, which is progressing in fits and starts." (Hillman vanished today, getting User Xoloz to blank all of his pages. Perhaps this was because he suddenly saw the ugly light in which Byrgenwulf's over-the-top style of "documentation" was putting his own contested "digging" initiatives.)

"But it is my sincere wish that DrL and Asmodeus will slink away quietly, and not lose any more face than they already have." (My, my...nothing like making other users feel welcome at Wikipedia, now is there?)

"Asmodeus waged his war of ad hominem attacks solidly for nearly two months (here's a representative sample: [53][54][55] [56][57][58][59][60][61][62]). He was blocked once for incivility [63]. If every one of his ad hominem comments was replaced with a simple, blatant vulgarity like "fuck you", he would undoubtedly have been permabanned some time back, as a troll beyond "rehabilitation". (Does this conform to objective behavioral reportage?)

"...he has been allowed to rampage around talk pages largely uncensured. But he and DrL have come dangerously close to exhausting the community's patience (or at least that segment of the community which has had the misfortune to deal with them), I would say, and any future campaign upon which they might embark is likely to push their standing over the edge. At least, I hope that if they do resume their unpleasant activities, that someone in authority will take proper cognisance of their actions this time, and make an appropriate decision as to whether or not Wikipedia needs to play their blog." (Does this conform to objective behavioral reportage?)

"Wikipedia will be better off without the participation of these editors or their ilk." (Do such unkind judgments fall under the heading of "documenting behavior"?)

I think you get the picture. Most of Byrgenwulf's screed has nothing to do with the calm, neutral, objective tracking of behavior. It's all about negative judgments, unkind opinions, and other subjective tripe. I simply can't imagine how anyone could think that this sort of nonsense contributes or in any way conduces to an atmosphere of collegiality and cooperation here at Wikipedia.

Thanks again for your help. Asmodeus 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requested that he review the page and remove any opinionated statements since, as you said, the ruling allows factual representations and clearly states that anything resembling personal attacks should be avoided. I am awaiting a response. Shell ^babelfish 00:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should also note that Wikipedia has a hard, fast policy called WP:LIVING. I quote: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." Christopher Langan falls under the protection of this policy, not just in his bio, but on other pages of Wikipedia as well...after all, members of the public can get to Wikipedia's user pages just as easily as they can get to biographical articles. Byrgenwulf will therefore need to get rid of any hostile remarks, unproven allegations, or derogatory quotations about Mr. Langan, who is prominently targeted in the attack. Asmodeus 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the section as follows: [3]. Byrgenwulf 07:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is going on, but User talk:Marika Herskovic has been moved to Salmon1 - and you seem to be involved. Why is a user talk page moved to an article? I spent a lot of time last night reverting her talk page blanking. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. She's apparently not following the directions she's received from several people on how to change her username. She's concerned about having things connected to her real name, which is why I blanked the page for the time being. There's absolutely no reason that the page should have been moved into article space :( Shell ^babelfish 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She already did that yesterday, and I got the page speedy deleted. Once more she has removed all the talk page info, and she continues to sign herself with Protector which is another user name. She seems to have a history of confusion and obfuscation. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be more lack of understanding than intentional malice. I'll try one last time to get through to her about how to change her name to protect her identity. If that doesn't work, I'll protect the page from moves until she desists. Shell ^babelfish 14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shell, I'm one of the "several people" that's been trying to patiently help this user for a while now. She's established a new user name, Salmon1, and I think she got confused with the move issue. If I understand things right, she wants to archive the talk page from her old account on her new page. To help with this, I helped create the archive sub-page User_talk:Salmon1/Herskovic_archive, but I did this before I realized that you were also involved. It was my intention to explain that the way to archive it there would be to 1) move the talk page to the new archive link, thereby also moving the history; 2) then, on the old talk page, where the redirect was created by the move, revert to the last edit, thereby reestablishing the old talk page for historical purposes. Is this an acceptable practice? Thanks! Akradecki 15:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be absolutely fantastic. I wasn't aware she'd already created a new username :) Thanks for the assist! Shell ^babelfish 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks! Akradecki 16:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration with the articles problems, but please do not call the insertion of links vandalism. This could be construed as a personal attack and will likely escalate the hostility. I've tried to explain to the editor why they do not need multiple links to the same site and warned them that they are in danger of violating the three revert rule - please note that you're close to violating it yourself. If discussions with this editor haven't been working, please try using other forms of dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first warning that was given was in regard to vandalism involved the editor's removal of a link. As near as I can tell, the unwarranted removal of content/links qualifies as vandalism. Is that interpretation incorrect? The contributor Julia Havey replaced the http address for a link with a commercial spam link on October 7 and again on October 8. According to Wikipedia guidlelines, this does qualify as vandalism, and the editor was given the appropriate vandalism warning. The next warning that was given was for the insertion of spam/commerical links that were already listed on the page (i.e. Juice Plus coporate page), which seems appropriate to Wikipedia policy. In addition, since this contributor sells the product in question, their repeated vandalism and insertion of spam links should be closely scrutinized. This is also not the first time that this editor has been warned for wanton spamming and vandalism, so it cannot be argued that they are unaware of Wikipedia's policies. Lastly, as I understand it, the 3R rule does not apply to reverts of vandalism or spamming. I look forward to your opinions and clarification on this matter. Rhode Island Red 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to your most recent revert [4] in which you removed the duplicate links, but the edit summary was "rv vandalism"; given the editor's history I don't think thats far from the truth, but I didn't want to see you set yourself up for a legitimate complaint. Its stretching it a bit to call these spam links - the link she's inserting is already contained in the external links section. We certainly don't need more than one copy of the link and I've left notes on her talk page about it; hopefully she'll understand, but given the long ranting emails I've received from her, I doubt it :( Its possible that others might see what you're doing as reverting simple vandalism, but just in case, I wanted to make sure you were aware. Shell ^babelfish 19:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and efforts to mediate. I agree with your general assessment.Rhode Island Red 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, according to the deletion log, you deleted the page "United States military nuclear incident terminology" with the edit summary "a5, transwikied to another project". Deleting this page left several broken links (see What links here. I am trying to find out why it was deleted (I can't find a discussion at WP:AFD) where it was moved to, and what to change the links to, if anything. Was the material on this page decided not to be encyclopedic or notable? If that wasn't the reason, then we should probably at least disperse the content to elsewhere on Wikipedia. Shouldn't this action have been discussed, or at least explained somewhere? -- Renesis (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page was a list of definitions and not an encylopedia article, each definition was moved to Wiktionary - when this was completed, the article was deleted. If you believe that the article should still exist at Wikipedia, please explain and request discussion at Deletion Review. Shell ^babelfish 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]