User talk:Shell Kinney: Difference between revisions

I usually don't respond to bots, or automated messages of any kind. The only thing I actually signed up for was the newsletter for WP:MILHIST.

As for the bulk of the article being a "direct" and "blatant" copy, it was not. In the last few edits I made to the page, I re-wrote it for the express purpose of removing the original text and replacing it with my own version. There are, however, only so many ways you can say the same thing. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 12.06.09 1745 (UTC)

Uh...I know I re-worded a significant portion of it. But honestly, I'm too tired to care what happens to it right now. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 13.06.09 0523 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the "Mediation on Naming Convention" subpage. It looks great and seems to work well. Sunray (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with Sunray above. What authority do you have to do this without consensous-- or is somthing you can do basied on a policy without consensous?

At the very least I object

• (1) that the bias statements made by the "formal Mediation Committee." It was a closed discussion of only certain people, and leaving them behind on Talk:Roman Catholic Church gives them implied status as if they are (a) unbiased (b) Inevitable to be carried out. (Note well that the "Mediation" Committee did not even begin with renaming the acticle as one of its issues.)
• (2) that the sub-page name does not reflect what is really at issue. This is not a "Mediation on Naming Convention" nor a discussion on the "Naming Convention" nor a discussion on the "Mediation/Mediation Committee" — it is just a discussion on renaming!

Please move the subpage to Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Page rename proposal (or the like) and/or state more on why it needs to be done at all. --Carlaude ^talk 10:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd have to call it the authority of common sense - given the amount of discussion during the mediation, it is likely that there will be a similar amount of discussion now that this has been opened to a larger audience. Leaving it on the main talk page would, in effect, hijack any other ongoing/future discussions by drowning them out with noise. A notice was left on the main page so that any interested editors can easily join the discussion. I see that you have removed that notice; since this discussion is meant to involved other interested editors who may not know of the subpage yet, I have replaced it.

I am aware of what happened during the Mediation which was advertised on the article talk page, but I'm not certain what your concern is here. The participants in the mediation chose to open the discussion to a wider community after they had developed a consensus on the issue. The format is one in which the mediators can continue to facilitate discussion and assist in developing a consensus on the proposal. I apologize if my choice of name page was so terse to be unintelligible - the intent was to describe it as the product of the mediation on the naming convention for the article currently known as the Roman Catholic Church - I was afraid anything that long would be a bit silly though, so my shortening came out Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Mediation Naming Convention, which at least isn't horribly unwieldy I hope. Shell ^babelfish 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you planned to be "so terse to be unintelligible," but why won't you move it to a better name now. --Carlaude ^talk 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if that explanation doesn't help, I can certainly move it. I'll go ahead and leave the redirect to avoid worrying about outdated links or that sort of thing. Shell ^babelfish 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shell. I apologize for using the term "henchman" on the Hymers page. However, I do have a few remaining concerns: 1) there is still a "press release" feel to the article in some places; 2) one has to get deeply into this article to see that he has been a lightning storm for criticism, or a controversial figure in any way; 3) the article as it stands has over half of its references as books he has written himself--and that is not even counting the quoted "puff pieces." Just references to Hymers, on Hymers. Also, 4) the ordering of the information was previously done in such a way as to suggest that the controversies were behind him--that he had "gotten over them."

Perhaps I over-compensated; it wouldn't be the first time. I'll be happy to go back to not editing that piece, and simply making suggestions to you or to other senior editors. But the product that was there a few days ago was essentially produced by Hymers himself, using an account that he, at one point, turned over to an attorney who attempted to dictate which of his life details would or would not be included in that article.

So, yes: I still felt that it was slanted too-positive.

I mean, I'm still getting mail from young Christians who are asking me whether I can recommend his church, and I'm having to tell them that, no--I can't, quite. And here's this Wikipedia entry talking about his "classical Protestant conversion," and "pointing people toward Christ." It's absurd: he hits people, he throws things. He douses people with water at Elders meetings. And we are not to have anything that hints of that in either the closing paragraph or the final paragraph?---just buried in the text?

It seems a bit much, though I will abide by your judgment on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through you on these items, case-by-case and get your approval. I did try, a year ago, to reach out to the Wiki-Evangelicals, without success; perhaps it's time to try once more. Certainly I think someone who has received as much negative ink as he has over the course of a single ministry is "controversial"--after all, it spans decades!Scooge (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Just one more little datum on the issue of whether RLHJ is "controversial"--1) early drafts of the article included a section on "controversies," which were removed at the request of senior editors. 2) There were originally, as I recall six such controversies by Kyu's/Hymers' own count (listed on those early drafts) and 3) I know of at least two or three others that one would have gathered from reading contemporary articles in the L.A. Times and the L.A. Herald Examiner.

I had thought I'd sent you the texts of those articles after I'd bought them from the L.A. Times. Did I not do that?

FWIW, I had not thought of the word "controversial" as a negative one.

B. How would you recommend that I find one of the Christianity editors? We'd need someone in the Evangelical/Charismatic end of the scale.Scooge (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to make of Boatduty177177 (talk · contribs). It's clearly not a new user, although the account was created yesterday. I came across them because they voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League, and a redlinked user page in an AfD is unusual. They also deleted another vote while adding theirs [1] but that may have been inadvertent, and was undone by someone else.

After the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria mess (I wasn't involved in that one) things were very quiet in the Israel-related articles. I'd been focusing on other interests, like the history of Teletype machines (I have a restored, working antique Teletype from the 1940s in my office), and financial scams. Then a week or two ago, I started seeing many more edits popping up on my watchlist. New editors are appearing and making somewhat aggressive edits to previously stable Israel-related articles. Something is going on. I'm wondering if some of the banned editors may be back under other names. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he is currently at 5 reverts (counting consecutive edits as one) on this page. please block. untwirl(talk) 03:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a continuation of edit warring and destruction of constructive edits, contribs) reverted Justus Weiner three times today. Please advise how to proceed. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skywriter violated BLP at that article and this was pointed out to him quite explicitly. Mashkin (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look back through some of the edits today but I'm not an expert on the subject myself. I didn't see anything off-hand that I would have considered a major BLP violation worthy of simply reverting. Yes, Skywriter used some weasel-words (i.e. saying "he says" or "he claims") and some of the editing made the information less clear, however there is no reason either of you couldn't have stopped reverting each other and used the talk page to discuss your differences. I suggest you try talking it out now or using some other form of dispute resolution to sort things. Shell ^babelfish 23:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No census was reached. Was about it now?Max Mux (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me a little bit more information? What consensus are you trying to reach? Shell ^babelfish 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article was nominated for deletion and no censensus was reached. What is the next step?Max Mux (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now. When a deletion discussion does not find a consensus, the default is to keep the article so nothing more will happen at this time. I have removed the deletion notice from the article since the discussion is no longer active. Shell ^babelfish 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Max Mux (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could you please delete the JohnnyTurk888 account and pages, I have no further wish to participate in this project in light of your decision and your failure to seriously consider what I put forward. Goodbye. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.77 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, Rhode Island Red did an inaccurate and bias hatchett job to the Julia Havey article. Going so far as to lie and say that there were "no credible sources" to show she was on Oprah & Friends XM radio, despite direct links on Oprah.com for such.

Will his actions be allowed to stand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - inaccurate and biased? Do you have specific diffs that you would like to point out? From a quick glance, it looks like he removed a great deal of unsourced information from the Julia Havey article which is inline with Wikipedia policy. Regarding his "lie" (we strongly encourage not attacking other editors here), I see you've now provided a source for the claim - I would suggest however that you'll want to link directly to the page [2] instead of to a search. Please remember than any unsourced information about a living person can and should be removed - WP:BLP gives more details on how these articles are carefully treated. Shell ^babelfish 23:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked back through some of the discussion and earlier revisions of the article - I found that older versions were better referenced and had categories etc. I'm not sure when those were removed (this version was from last year) but I think its a considerable improvement. I hope that helps resolve your concerns. Shell ^babelfish 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment here of which you should be aware. The pertinent ongoing discussion was here. Yaf (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of deep disappointment, its sad to see that despite your awareness of the ongoing discussion, you chose to revert repeatedly. I've made further comment over there. Shell ^babelfish 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. When admins won't address the real issue, and when there is no possibility of honest dialogue, and when there is a complete contempt at keeping to the sources, mediations and discussions are worthless. See the failed MedCom discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the warnings such as this. If 3RR is not violated, in such a failure to communicate in good faith, there is really not edit warring going on. Rather, there was simply an attempt at holding Wikipedia to a high standard, whereby article text is verified by the cite. The collateral damage was a 48hr block. The basic underlying problem remains unaddressed. Yaf (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins aren't arbiters of content. If even formal mediation couldn't persuade the group to find common grounds, its unlikely that any resolution will be found without involving outside community members. I understand that you strongly believe your viewpoint is correct, but strong belief isn't a loophole in the guidelines against edit warring. If its as simple as you say, sources not verifying the text, have you put together that information anywhere? I have seen editors taken to ArbCom successfully before due to misrepresenting sources, but it took a lot of work and ironclad evidence. Shell ^babelfish 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, consensus has been reached repeatedly with all but one editor. He alone has proceeded over the last 5+ years to insert article text not supported by cites and has been repeatedly warned, even by two MedCom arbitrators, for making stuff up, repeatedly. The two MedCom admins, incidentally, who mediated, are now members of ArbCom, and were formerly recommending ArbCom take the case to impose sanctions. Unfortunately, the ArbCom members of last year refused to get into content issues, even when mediation committee admins agreed that the one editor had simply made content up while citing his edits with reliable and verifiable sources unrelated to what the editor wrote in article text. Strong belief has nothing to do with determining what is right. The content of the cites, and whether or not article text is verified by cites, is the issue. In the absence of sanctions for an editor who simply does not follow sources, and with an editor who continues writing article text not supported by cites, the system simply breaks down if admins will not look at article content to at least determine when an editor's contributions are totally off the wall, unrelated to what the cites say. "Assume good faith" cannot work in the absence of good faith by a single editor who continuously games the system. In the absence of good faith participation in discussions and the wasted time in discussions ad nauseum that fail to change the behavior of one editor who is not honest, there is not much way to effect a change. The underlying problem is one of editor behavior in not following the cites, and admins refusing to verify article content against cites when a problem is identified. The Wikipedia philosophy is fundamentally flawed in this one area; it results in pseudo-science issues, fraud issues such as Essjay, and a host of similar problems. A noticeboard to report editors who simply make stuff up is needed. This could address editors using cites to reliable and verifiable sources that are unrelated to the article content, and would address the perpetuation of article content fraud, of sorts, by editors who seemingly get their kicks from gaming the system, inserting totally false statements. In answer to your question, yes, I did put together a full list of cases where the editor failed to follow sources. It was part of the ArbCom submission. ArbCom refused to take the case, stating that they did not address article content issues. It cheapens the worth of Wikipedia when there is no way to address out and out fraudulent content inserted by an editor who refuses to follow the rules, while giving the outward appearance of citing article text with reliable and verifiable sources -- the problem is when the article text is not supported by the cite. Without at least looking at article content, and reading/looking at the reference content to see if they match, admins who refuse to get involved while stating they are not arbiters of content are simply perpetuating an article content fraud on readers. It would be possible to remain neutral as an admin, while still checking whether article content is verified by cites, without judging or choosing article content. Simply imposing a sanction on editors who refuse to contribute article text that is verified by relevant cites that support the article text would require no judgement on article content. In the absence of sanctions, an editor who games the system for his twisted enjoyment can live for years within Wikipedia in the shadow of, and protected by, admins who refuse to verify article content with cites when a problem is identified. Yaf (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if there's only one editor opposing, why were multiple editors reverting you? You are correct that ArbCom will not deal with content, but if an editor is misrepresenting sources, that's a behavior issue, not one of content. I didn't see the original case so I can't comment on why it might have been declined; if its a case of two people interpreting a source differently, that's not the same as a source being misrepresented. Again, Admins are no more arbiters of content than ArbCom is; if you don't have a very clear "here's the statement and the cite, here's what the cite really says" then you're not going to get much help with the situation. It needs to be cut and dry, factual - if its differences over how to interpret a source then dispute resolution is the only way forward. Shell ^babelfish 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were two editors reverting: Verbal and SaltyBoatr. The remaining issue when you issued the block was this discussion with an additional ongoing RfC dialogue that had not yet closed. The early consensus on the RfC had collapsed with Verbal's comments, but was still under discussion. (An RfC that I had started to try and build a consensus on, I might add.) I made 3 reverts in 24 hours, including trying to include a POV warning tag, but Verbal falsely accused me of 5 reverts in 24 hours; SaltyBoatr threw in a bunch of unrelated old history, dogpiling, and you issued the block immediately upon the impression that SaltyBoatr and Verbal represented the "consensus". The RfC, however, clearly shows two consensi, with the early one, that I had edited into the article earlier, collapsing. This discussion looks pretty clear cut to me, as the most recent example of SaltyBoatr failing to follow sources. There is the article text and there is the cite. I don't think Verbal was even bothering to read and understand the issue. -- It is worth noting that Verbal and SaltyBoatr both use the same editing quirk of making a controversial edit, then immediately requesting an article be protected in their preferred state, while claiming an edit war is underway, without any more than two total reversions between their POV push, a reversion by any editor, and their second POV re-push edit, as a normal method of pushing POV edits. They also both love to use the WP:TE claim. They also both regularly issue edit warring warnings on editors' talk pages whenever an editor reverts but one of their edits, at only one reversion. Most curious similarities. Yaf (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually when I review an edit warring report, I discard any commentary by involved parties. I reviewed the history of the article myself and the talk page, I also reviewed your contribs, block log and talk page history. It was clear without any other person's input that you were edit warring on a page despite ongoing discussion and that this is not nearly the first time you've used edit warring in a content dispute.

At this point it looks like you're pulling at straws; when one tactic of blaming SaltyBoatr (or justifying your edit warring)doesn't work you pull out something else; now its a claim of collusion and gaming the system? If this is what happened with the ArbCom request, its no wonder they didn't take the case. If you have clear evidence that your point of view is correct on the RfC then you should be able to convince other editors and gather a clear consensus. The sooner you understand that there is no justification for edit warring, the more enjoyable your time will be here. Shell ^babelfish 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a problem is complex, it is not possible to describe all the problems as being but one problem. The sooner that a method for sanctioning editors who game the system is implemented, the sooner Wikipedia also would be a better resource for readers. So, what do you propose I do to correct clear and simple content inaccuracies due to one editor, when the editor clearly fails to follow cites and simply continues to make stuff up? Edit warring failed to work. 3O failed to work. RfC has failed to work (multiple times). MedCom (multiple times) failed to work. Reporting 3RR on SaltyBoatr has failed to work (I was blocked for 96 hours for 1RR on my 3rd block when I reported a 5RR series of edits by SaltyBoatr against the community that resulted in his 4th or 5th block.) Requesting ArbCom take the case failed to work. In the cases of the 3O, RfC, and MedCom (2 times), a clear consensus was always reached previously with all parties except for SaltyBoatr. The suggested and politically correct admin solution is always to discuss more and not edit war. OK. So what is the solution. After about 12 MB of discussions with SaltyBoatr, nothing has ever been resolved. SaltyBoatr has always refused to abide by consensus. Are you saying it is better to let clearly false content simply reside in Wikipedia and allow a single editor to insert fraudulent content repeatedly, to push a POV? Are you saying it is better to let certain editors drive productive editors away, such as here? I certainly understand the frustration of editors who attempt to fix fraudulent content, and simply leave the community. I also wonder if it would be better simply to give up on the basic Wikipedia model as being fundamentally flawed. I have made quite a number of positive contributions to Wikipedia, but am nearing the point where it is clearly becoming a fool's errand to try and keep article content free from clearly fraudulent claims. I have known several Ph.D.s such as myself on Wikipedia who have tried to fight the tide of fraudulent content over the last 5+ years. Most have simply left Wikipedia in sheer frustration. Perhaps it is time for me to leave as well. Yaf (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only point here has been that edit warring doesn't work and more to the point, can end up getting you blocked. I appreciate your frustration and I'm afraid I don't have any easy answers. Until the community does have an answer, we have to work with what we've got. If you want, I can see if I can think of any other solutions - is there any place that would briefly describe both sides of the issue or at least the sticking point that keeps being the problem? Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, the problem encompasses many articles. The best summary of articles affected is probably here, and the complete talk page and RfMediation page of that discussion probably give the best description of both sides of the longrunning issue. The issue has since spread to another two or three dozen articles since this summary. Incidentally, I have never opposed any article text supporting even his selected limited range of talking points, provided reliable and verifiable cites are used. But, his insertion of article content based upon making up stuff and not following cites has been an ongoing issue that has only worsened over the last 5+ years. Any help or insight you provide is greatly appreciated. Yaf (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats, well, complex - I can see why its difficult to get help on the topic. I did find the rejected ArbCom request - was an RfC on Saltyboatr's conduct ever started? When did Verbal become involved - I don't think I see them in any of the earlier discussions I've looked at. Shell ^babelfish 04:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Yaf's criticism of me written above is baseless innuendo and slander. The allegation that I don't stick to sources is especially wrong. If you check my edit history you will see that I base my editing on meticulous research. It is telling that Yaf views this issue as a personal problem of me 'bashing Yaf'[3] while this should instead be about trying to improve the quality of the articles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question about when did Verbal get involved: I believe that Verbal stepped into this on June 11th after seeing a notice posted on the NPOV/Noticeboard, and he was trying to bring peace to this edit war[4] and we also should object to Yaf's character smears of User:Verbal written above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Page_protected ASAP. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shell, I just wanted to drop by and say thank you for the support and kind words at my recent RfA. They made me feel good, and I'll do my best to live up to the expectations. Cheers — Ched :  ?  03:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look the issue. While you're at it, could you also take a look the behaviour of Martintg, if this is not too much to ask? He usually edit wars in the same articles as Digwuren, and tries to push the same POV. Example: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. M makes more reverts than D; however D has a much larger block log. I can provide more evidence of Martintg if requested, but I'd rather not start another WP:AE thread myself (unless asked to do so), as I always seem get attacked by a certain group of editors who arrive to defend their members. Martintg was recently blocked[11] for edit warring, and unblocked because he promised to stop, but he doesn't seem to have kept his promise. My own edit warring should be evident too, and 1RR would probably be a good idea for me, to say the least. Offliner (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candor. I haven't come across much of Martintg's editing in my review yet, though I'm certainly not very far in looking through articles. I have made some notes about other editors who are not currently listed at AE and I may make recommendations regarding them as well. A couple of thoughts from what I've seen so far: Removing all external links isn't usually the best way to deal with a linkfarm unless all of the links are completely useless (or duplicated as sources); I've found that it helps if you leave a detailed explanation on talk for edits that might seem drastic to others. I would strongly suggest that you put more effort toward discussion on talk pages and other dispute resolution; also dispute resolution is often easier if you avoid using reverts during the discussion (I personally choose to use them only for vandalism). It does seem likely that I will recommend some kind of revert restriction for you and some of the others involved. Shell ^babelfish 06:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Offliner seems to have a habit of shopping across multiple admin talk pages and boards looking for sanctions for past events that have long gone stale. I believe this kind of combative approach to gaining the upper hand in content disputes is actionable under discretionary sanctions regime in place for EE. If you concur that it is sanctionable if proven, can I submit a AE report with supporting evidence of this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour? --Martintg (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a very in-depth look at the topic area and the current behavior of editors. I can say that I have run across instances where you have been involved in edit wars or dropped by simply to revert; only one of those cases showed you actually entering discussion about the dispute. Its also become very clear that there's a particular group of editors that seem to cause problems each time they start interacting on articles, so far you seem to be on the edge or caught up in that at times rather than directly involved. After having looked through article edits, I will go back to look at mainspace and talk actions for just the reason you describe. If you'd like to add this information to the existing report (I believe it has been re-opened) you are welcome to do so. Shell ^babelfish 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is true that I have been caught up in this. When editors like PasswordUsername do such blatant BLP violations in the article Jaak Aaviksoo or inserting absolute nonsense into Crime in Estonia, or Offliner making contentious edits in Kaitsepolitsei inserting the view of a notorious neo-nazi and claiming it is a valid criticism without regard to WP:UNDUE [12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17], one soon gets the sense that these editors aren't really working for the benefit of the project and discussion isn't really that effective due to WP:IDONTHEARYOU. All this started in May, the Estonia topic area was relatively stable before they arrived. An Estonia topic ban for Offliner and PasswordUsername would immediately fix the problem in my opinion. --Martintg (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained on the Kaitsepolitsei talk page, the person in question was intimidated by the Estonian Secret Police for political reasons, forced to lose his job and sent to a psychiatric hospital for punishment. This is criminal, regardless of his world view. Thus, his criticism is valid. He has also launched legal proceedings against Kaitsepolitsei in a Tallinn court. But you're not only removing this. You were also edit warring to remove the opinion of Amnesty International, a respected human rights organization. Amnesty criticised Kaitsepolitsei for trying to hinder the work of a human rights organization that was trying to defend the rights of the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia. In fact, there seems to be a pattern over multiple articles: you are removing everything that might present the Estonian government in a critical light. But your edit warring is not only related to Estonian articles. Elsewhere, like in Putinjugend or Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), you are repeatedly edit warring to insert material disdaining the Russian government and the country's history. Offliner (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa - this isn't the place for content disputes or discussions with other editors - please take those to the appropriate talk page. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like Jehochman has just closed Offliner's case, could you reopen it as I would like to add my evidence as discussed here. --Martintg (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a report at AE isn't necessary for an admin to enforce sanctions - I'm not certain what's going on with the closing, opening and re-closing (I've been busy reviewing contribs and article histories). If you'd like to just put that information here on my talk, I'll make sure I review it as well. Shell ^babelfish 21:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather post it to AE as a matter of record, rather than semi privately on your talk, lest others may mis-construe it. Could you reopen it please, I'm sure early closure before you can complete your investigation could make your later imposition of sanctions against Offliner raise a few eyebrows. --Martintg (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but no, I'm not comfortable reverting other administrators and certainly not in a case where I don't have all the facts. Since I have openly mentioned my review on AE talk, I think its unlikely that any eyebrows will be raised at my conclusions especially given the level of effort involved. If you don't feel comfortable discussing your concerns here, you might wish to approach the administrator who closed the thread and ask them to re-open or for additional guidance. Shell ^babelfish 22:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Jaak Aaviksoo

Shell, I do not mean to pile on to your work here, so feel free to ignore this unless it somehow comes up in what you are doing. I am only going to respond to Martintg's frivolous accusations against my adding BLP violations to the Jaak Aaviksoo article: I did not. This was brought up on the WP:AN noticeboard at Vecrumba's prompting in response to my asking for some kind of warning for Digwuren's use of Wikipedia as a battleground, and I responded to each of the relevant diffs in the thread: [18]. The reference I used was sourced to a third party. The supposed removals of balancing material were clear WP:SYNTH references about Erna recce uniforms (where good-faith attempts to balance the article, as you can see by the edit history, were also reverted by the usual party). Vecrumba tried bringing that into WP:AN (not, obviously, WP:BLP); as no sanctions were taking against me, it was obviously not taken by AN administrators as a BLP concern. If I were Martintg complaining about Martintg, I would say that he has been blockshopping and should probably be blocked, but since I have a bit more decency than that, I am only asking that evidence of my stale "misbehavior" at the Aaviksoo article be taken for what it is–the complaining editor is clearly out of line here. I've let the article remain in its current WP:SYNTH state for now as I have no desire to battle over it further, but I think the in-depth issues regarding my conduct on that (now-very-stale) article is fully explained in the provided link. Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and for keeping things from turning into a battle here. If I do come across that (I have not yet looked at it), I will keep this in mind. Shell ^babelfish 01:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the initial edit in question by PasswordUsername—after the article being virtually dormant for half a year—and the subsequent edits speak for themselves. WP:AGF that PasswordUsername misunderstood the source was difficult given it was in English and his subsequent combative stance on the issue appearing to wish to paint Aaviksoo as someone with Nazi sympathies. Vecrumba       TALK 16:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn to here by Vecrumba's edit - Jaak Aaviksoo's own comment about alleged Nazi uniforms had clear statement about Finnish army uniforms and I don't think we can accuse him of WP:SYNTH. Fighting to remove his own comment and make it look like he was wearing Nazi uniform - or was with people who wore Nazi uniforms - is very clearly a grave violation of BLP rules. -- Sander Säde 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaak Aaviksoo commented about the swastika on Erna recce and Finnish uniforms, which were used at the reenactment. The article in question talks about crowds of young people wearing "T-shirts with Nazi symbols." (Sourced to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an acceptable third-party source.) Your interpretation that

"young Estonians w/ Nazi symbols on T-shirts = reenactment participants with the Erna recce uniform swastika"

is a clear and untenable instance of WP:SYNTH. We have no way of knowing that this is what he was talking about. Making these kinds of inferences is not a legitimate use of materials on Wikipedia. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually believe a politician could be with "young people wearing T-shirts with Nazi symbols." and not have his career finished for good? These "young people" were the people re-enacting the recce. Considering how many facts your source got wrong - laughable "ultra-rightists", "pro-German troops and the Soviet Army" when they were pro-Estonian volunteers in Finnish army, who stopped NKVD Destruction Battalions from murdering civilians (that is all fully sourced). Also - now when I am re-reading your source, I must say that the direct quote, "accompanied by dozens of young followers dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols." that you inserted, is actually even a misrepresentation of that biased source, as it doesn't say Jaak Aaviksoo had followers, it says "elderly veterans from Estonia, Norway and Austria" were accompanied... sigh. I should have re-read that before and thrown the whole controversy section out, as there obviously is none, just a misrepresentation of the source in BLP. -- Sander Säde 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about keeping this going here. First Martintg brought up Aaviksoo, then Vecrumba felt unhappy with what I said in my post with a link to the discussion in-depth, so I thought I'd put my comments where he put his. I did not want to battle over this. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Jaak Aaviksoo#Controversy section. Seems we have whole Controversy section issue solved, as it was just bad sourcing. -- Sander Säde 07:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're at bat. Per your offer to investigate these EE disputes, I have left open two threads. Should you need help repelling tendentious editors, or clearing out the noise so you can hear the signal, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 23:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm identified as a party to one of the parties here, of the editors mentioned, I probably have the widest WP experience in articles dealing with the post-Soviet space (Baltics, Moldova/Transnistria, Romania, Poland, Hungary,...) and you will note my "block log" is clean even though I've even dealt extensively with editors paid to push the pro-Russian interests position in WP (now-banned User:William Mauco and User:MarkStreet have been verified as such). Please feel free to contact me for any questions regarding historical events and the "versions" or interpretations on either side. Vecrumba       TALK 17:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you're reviewing the issues of user behavior on Eastern European article histories, it should probably be noticed that Martintg is a single-purpose account who's been involved in Estonia-Russia battles from the first contributions in his edit history.

Also, while Martintg often cites some kind of Wikipedia policy for his reverts, these often appear to be deliberately missaplied or inapplicable to the incident in question: for example, on the Human rights in Estonia article, Martintg removed [19] called me a blind reverter, summarizing the edit as "undo blind revert. nothing in Freedom house's report indicates Kaitsepolitsei operates as the nation's political police." The Freedom House link (removed by Martintg) in his "blind revert" edit in fact provides the following statement.

"At present, the Estonian political police KAPO routinely reports on Russian penetration. Other Estonian officials deny it. And the media play up both one and the other." (Link to actual cited FreedomHouse report: [20])

(KAPO is an abbreviation for Kaitsepolitsei.)

When I added Estonian Nazi collaborators to the parent category Estonian anti-Communists, Martintg reverted me [21] with the edit summary "Estonian anti-communists aren't Nazi collaborators" (things are clearly the other way around, of couse - Estonians collaborated with Nazi Germany against the USSR were anti-communist - the anti-communist category includes everyone from John F. Kennedy to Adolf Hitler and Pope John Paul). When I explained[22] this, Biophys reverted me again with the edit summary [23] in the same frivolous way - "not every anti-communist was a Nazi collaborator." Same stunt performed at Lithuanian Nazi collaborators. [24] Although ostensibly justified, these are not reverts which constitute abuse of standing Wikipedia policies as a rationale.

When I added Estonian Waffen-SS Officer Alfons Rebane, who volunteered for the German Army during the Nazi occupation of Estonia to Estonian Nazi collaborators, Martintg reverted with the edit summary of "wrong classification". [25]

His use of Wikipedia as a battle ground has been noted by uninvolved users as recently as a few days ago. [26]

PasswordUsername (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take that into consideration. Shell ^babelfish 05:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The syllogism here is that actions such as volunteering to fight against the Soviets is a Nazi collaborator—that is, someone who joins with the enemy in acting against his own nation/people. By every definition of "collaborator", anyone who fought against Soviet reoccupation is not a Nazi collaborator, as those Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians were acting for their nation, not against it. Conversely, individuals such as member of Arajs Kommando, acting against Jewish citizens of Latvia, were clearly Nazi collaborators. This is typical of efforts which promulgate the following fiction:

• Soviet = anti-Nazi
• anti-Soviet = anti-(anti-Nazi)
• anti-Soviet = (anti-anti-) Nazi
• anti-Soviet = pro-Nazi

PasswordUsername is pushing a position clearly untenable based on the facts and what it is that constitutes a collaborator. There is no historical association of true Baltic Nazi collaborators to Baltic anti-Soviet activities in WWII. And closing with "here's other evidence of battleground mentality" is just a red herring to smear another editor. Vecrumba       TALK 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I find the nitpicking ridiculous. Estonia was Nazi-occupied. The Baltics were Nazi-occupied. People who fought in German uniforms for the German army in a Germany-occupied state seem to be collaborators.

At least if they fought for the Nazi side of their own free will. We have Category:Irish Nazi collaborators for just that reason, despite the fact that Ireland was never involved in the war and was never occupied.

That wasn't the point of what I said. In fact, your argument supports my larger one here. I added the Baltic collaborators to the various national anti-communist categories as these joined the Germans to fight the communists. Martintg and Biophys both removed that, and repeatedly pretended I had done something else in their edit summaries. I'm not sure content disputes are best resolved at otherwise unrelated user talk pages. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've both said our piece here, "Baltic Nazi collaborators" are those that collaborated with the Nazis against citizens of the Baltics, not those that "cooperated" with the Nazis against the Soviets, hence the removals. It is important not to conflate the two as (willing) "collaborators." We can leave whose perspective is correct for others to judge. My main point is that you cannot fault Martintg and Biophys for removing and contend bad-faith "pretending." If you wish a more constructive relationship as you've indicated on my talk (two threats of sanctions aside), then you have to stop with contentions such as "pretending" and I can stop with "syllogisms", no? Vecrumba       TALK 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we both said our piece here. It is important to take the objective definition of who Nazi collaborators were, and contrast it against personal favorable views of people who fought against the Soviets while pledging allegiance to the Nazi occupation forces of their countries. Your rationale also is not what Martintg said - and his rationale was completely different, given his reading of "every X is a Y" as "every Y is an X" in edit summaries multiple times, as demonstrated above. That's quite enough. I am not interested in discussing your personal views on related on unrelated topics. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• waves a white flag - This is exactly the kind of thing you guys don't want to be doing. Ever. Especially not on someone else's talk page. Shell ^babelfish 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Extricating. No need for the white flag. Best regards, Vecrumba       TALK 02:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment, and feel free to add any additional remedies you feel are warranted. I specifically said "Other admins may add additional remedies at their discretion" because I knew other admins might be working on the case. I can't think of a reason why the 3 editors I named should not be placed on 1RR, but if your analysis suggests that is too harsh for them, we can discuss it. Thatcher 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not got anything to do with disagreeing, but having put in a lot of hours and hard work, its kind of like having the wind kicked out of me. I'm going to go have myself a cup of tea and be back later :) Shell ^babelfish 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice at the talk page of your project. You did fantastic work. Seriously. After reading your page I decided to retire. I only wish that you completed your investigaion, and in particulat with regard to the user who issued me a death threat. Biophys (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't feel its appropriate to bicker on the AE page, I've left my comments here. I've got no disagreement with using 1RR liberally in an area where reverting is a serious problem; from what I've seen more editors in the subject area could use it. I and other admins that had commented on those reports thought that opening a dialog with the participants and sorting out the whole mess in Russian/Estonian articles was the way to go given the complexity and re-occurring nature of the problem(multiple reports, a trip to AC, closed and re-opened etc.). Due respect would have been allowing that to run its course or at least acknowledging the discussion that led to it; there was no need to rush here. Shell ^babelfish 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please feel free to hold your dialog/negotiations. Being placed on 1RR should not interfere at all, if it is a productive dialog, the other editors will respect it and not edit war either. Nothing would make me happier than to rescind the 1RR on completion of a successful discussion, never having enforced it. Thatcher 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're right - I'm not sure why the threads were re-opened on AE but they certainly don't need to be just left hanging around. I must just be getting old if surprises are starting to get to me :) Shell ^babelfish 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have forgotten to log the topic ban of Beatle Fab Four in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reminding me. I must have gotten AE and his talk and missed the case log. Shell ^babelfish 22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, thanks so much for going through the threads–I can honestly say that I think all parties appreciate what you are doing. (At least, I never actually thought that somebody would even attempt to put that much in.) Seeing that Thatcher has offered a preliminary result for the Digwuren case and that possibly the others are also at the point of about to be closed by one admin or another after not too long, I'm wondering if you are still reviewing the evidence for WP:AE. Like many others (I am sure), I think there are grounds for further preventive measures to get the edit warring done and over with. From my point of view, the primary antagonists in the recent disputes include others than just myself, Digwuren, Beatle Fab Four, and Offliner (the three placed on 1RR restrictions). (And I am not thinking of any sanctions already in place to be reviewed.) I can provide diffs to you or whoever else is interested in examining them, but if you are working through the cases by yourself, I would prefer to let you do the work without intervention, but as I think that you're perfectly capable of getting a sufficiently broad picture after studying the cases closely, I am not sure if you would think that helpful at this point. (Would there be a better venue to bring this up?) Again, thanks for all of the hard work. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the current sanctions by Thatcher are going to stay, doesn't Beatle Fab Four's punishment seem too harsh in relation to others? Digwuren has been edit warring at least as much as him, but Beatle's revert to normal edit ratio is higher (perhaps because Beatle has less time). When summed up, the amount of disruption caused by Digwuren is greater, and Digwuren has also been blocked for a year, etc. which Beatle has not. I think a revert prohibition to Beatle would be more fair, at least if Digwuren doesn't get a harsher punishment. Offliner (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Beatle Fab Four not editing regularly, Offliner is absolutely right. I took a look through some of his recent revert diffs - quite many do appear to be reverts of BLP violations, other semi-damaging BLP innuendos and other non-sense (much of it by Digwuren). Examples like this come to mind: [27]–deleting blog materials from Rene van der Linden); [28]–reverting Digwuren's innuendo that Russian historian Dr. Alexander Dyukov falsifies history; and[29] (How do you respond to a Digwuren edit summary like "Those gosh darn Russian names look all alike to an Englishman ..."?) Beatle Fab Four should be more willing to use talk pages, but I don't think a topic ban is helpful. When he contributes material to talk, it can be extraordinarily helpful. For example, the situation at Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) was horrible as Martintg kept including references he apparently hadn't read, and other editors had called him up on it. Beatle Fab Four was the only one who actually went through all of the books, provided appropriate summaries and problems with the sources involved on the talk page. This kept things stable for months (until Biophys came back with a blind revert days ago, apparently disregarding actually reading the Talk). At least Beatle Fab Four's ability to participate in reverting non-sense about living people in the general topic area (as Beatle had done in the above instances) wouldn't do any harm to Wikipedia. I've only been Wiki-acquainted with Beatle for the past month or so, but these recent edits seem like the bulk of the reversions that he's been doing. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be that my actions were too lenient. There is no strict formula for how disruptive a person is or has to be to deserve a given remedy or sanction. Someone who occasionally reverts, but does so in a particularly abusive manner, could be reasonably seen as a bigger problem than someone who reverts often but without commentary, and negative behavior can outweigh positive contributions. (I haven't looked at BFF's edits and have no opinion on them at this point.) Thatcher 15:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offliner, as you mentioned, Beatle Fab Four's reverts greatly outweigh any normal edits or discussion; this was not the case with any of the other editors reviewed. To date he and others who support him have only mentioned a single instance where he contributed productively to a discussion (while still reverting of course). I'm sure there are other examples, but again, the decision was based on harm greatly outweighing the good. I think the lesson to take away from all this is that reverting isn't the way to fix disputes; if you have little time, spend it discussing instead of reverting. If all you feel you have time for is drive-by reverting, then honestly, what are you really adding here? Shell ^babelfish 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions Max was put under were on article creation, not edits to existing articles. I'd say the sanctions and proposed community ban don't really apply to that situation, although I'm sure you'd have consensus to ban if you unblocked and opened a new ANI thread. Ironholds (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to stand on ceremony when the outcome is likely to be the same. I think its clear the intent of the community ban was to stop the disruption by Max should he be unable to follow Wikipedia policies. He obviously does not understand them, does not appear to be able to understand them, has had the benefit of multiple mentors and yet is still unable to understand basic concepts such as sourcing. Shell ^babelfish 11:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I protests about the length of time for Max Mux's block. Can I suggest that he be blocked for one or two months. I think this would be a more appropriate punishment for his crime(s). Please take note of what I have said. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a block would be appropriate if there was some indication that he was going to be able to understand policies and follow them when he returns. I don't think that's the case here. Whatever the reason, Max has been unable to understand Wikipedia's basic policies - not just that he doesn't follow them, but he's been unable to explain in his own words what they mean which is why folks are back every other day with a new problem. I think his intentions are good so if someone wants to try speaking with him to see if they can find a way to help him understand things like sourcing, verifiability etc. and he can demonstrate his understanding by explaining how he'd edit one of his articles to bring it in to compliance, then I would be happy to unblock. Shell ^babelfish 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a way to reduce the amount of clutter that we're likely to have in the envisaged public RfC on Macedonia naming issues. Please see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia#Winnowing proposals - grateful for comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't answer this earlier; we were discussing the best way to move forward. Your thoughts were greatly appreciated :) Shell ^babelfish 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were mentoring him at one point. Is this relationship still in effect? If so, you may wish to look at Talk:Harold_Pinter#The_photo_of_Pinter_as_David_Baron; he is clearly operating in good faith, but appears not to understand WP:NFCC and be unwilling to accept that he does not understand it. If the mentorship has ended, my apologies for bothering you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. Unfortunately the mentorship ended unsuccessfully. The problem you mention sounds similar to those that lead to mentorship; NYScholar operates in good faith but is unable to resolve disputes. Once NYScholar decides they are correct on an issue, nothing can dissuade them from pushing the point and they appear to be unable to modify their position or understanding based on discussion with others. I wish I had a suggestion for you, but I was unable to find a way to get through to them. Shell ^babelfish 01:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case I strongly suspect that you will not wish to look at the above link, and I hope for your sake that you didn't. Thanks for trying. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am even more sorry to bother you, because I am going to ask for a big favor. We are unable to make any progress on Harold Pinter while NYScholar continues to block all attempts to revise it. I must admire his persistence. Is there any way, under Wikipedia guidelines, to get him to take a holiday from it and let some other editors attempt to fix it? In it's current form it is so difficult to wade through, and the citation format is so Baroque, plus with a tiger guarding its door, editors are discouraged from even trying. You have much experience with this issue. Is there anything we can do? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans have been proposed here. Your involvement would be appreciated if you feel that you have anything to add. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, you may have a view on WP:AN/I#Ban J.delanoy for Vote Rigging. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are involved in the discussion concerning the removal of Proposal G, I am informing you of the request for clarification I have put forth [30]. I am only doing this because I believe that the greater community should have a chance of seeing and evaluating the proposal by itself. I highly regard all of the effort that you have put in this discussion, so far, and wish to thank you for it. --Radjenef (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]