| Revision as of 19:54, 15 September 2009 editDilip rajeev (talk | contribs)5,244 editsm →Requesting guidance on how to handle a particular set of issues← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:55, 18 November 2023 edit undoDonner60 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers235,997 edits not around since Sept 2011 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=23 September 2011}} | |||
| {{User:Shell Kinney/talkheader}} | {{User:Shell Kinney/talkheader}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 16 | ||
| |algo = old(240h) | |algo = old(240h) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== pass-out teh baked goodies == | ||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| I had meant to get back to this AE request, but it slipped my mind. As you have now , I'm leaving a note here instead. As I said at the AE request, I'm commenting as an editor here, not an arbitrator (I'm recused on matters relating to this case). My question concerns the other editors whose restrictions were lifted by that arbitration motion. There were sixteen editors whose restrictions were lifted, of which eight had topic bans relating to the editing of MOS pages ("style and editing guidelines"). I mentioned two of them by name in my comments at the arbitration request, one of whom I had intended to file a separate arbitration enforcement request about (he later struck the comments I mentioned, but in the past I've seen action taken even after people have struck their comments). My question is whether you considered the actions of other editors or were just considering Pmanderson's actions? My other question is if there are concerns about the actions of other editors whose restrictions were recently relaxed, should AE requests be done separately, or all together? If the latter question is better asked at some talk page where other admins who deal with AE requests can see it, which page is now used for those sort of discussions? ] (]) 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) has given you a ]! Cookies promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <br /> | |||
| :Thank you for reminding me. I had intended to look into those two issues as well and had honestly forgotten in the couple of days I waited to close. Personally I usually review the subject of an AE report separately, though in complex cases or when other editors behavior is specifically noted, I may do a wider review. In one case, I tracked a group of editors over a certain topic area for 6 months and another administrator used that data to decide on sanctions for several of the parties. So I guess the short answer is - it depends? I certainly don't mind if multiple editors related to the same case are grouped together; I've seen it done from time to time so while its not common, I believe its an accepted practice. Its a bit more difficult to pick out comments like yours that end up in the middle of the discussion - I don't know if we could consider changing the standard procedure a bit to allow later additions to the header so additional editors aren't overlooked? I'm sure there's a way it could be worked out. As far as discussion of procedure and things that go on at AE, since the split of the ArbCom pages, I'm not really sure how that works; I tend to use the talk pages of the few admins that tend to work there when I need to discuss things. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{tls|Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{tls|munch}}! | |||
| Thank you for notifying me; should I choose to appeal this, what would be the procedure? ] <small>]</small> 21:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Certainly. As I understand it, requests for appeals or changes are handled through ArbCom's ]s. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| ::The complaints against me fall into two classes: those who attacked my comments ''about posts'', in order to win a content dispute (I have not even been interested enough to comment on it for a couple days before your note to me), and one complaint arising from the arbitration case below, in which you are involved. The first class was behaving as badly as I was, if not worse; but I would prefer not to trouble with an AE myself. I therefore request either that you do consider the edits of Ohconfucius, for example, or that you reconsider. ] <small>]</small> 16:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :::I'm not sure if you noticed Carcharoth's comments on the AE report but thankfully he reminded me of them. His specific concern was in regards to the conduct of Ohconfucius and GregL, whom I am reviewing to determine if a similar widening of the restriction or a separate prohibition would be appropriate. If I've missed someone from the case that you feel also returned to problematic behavior, you're welcome to drop me a note here rather than write up a full AE report.<p>As a side note since you seem concerned, my involvement in the case listed below extends only to my formal mediation of the earlier dispute on the Catholic Church article, so my inclusion is a bit baffling. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::There does seem to be some question whether the mediation exceeded the task set out for it. What you (or Sunray) had to do with this is unclear without seeing what happened. This article does remind me of the Macedonia problems; the same intensely focused editors with (in this case) Ultramontane and views. | |||
| == Is your revert possibly overbroad? == | |||
| {{Talkback|Geofferybard}} | |||
| ::Please also pay some attention to Andy Walsh and Noetica; they showed great energy in getting me barred from a discussion when my disagreement was inconvenient, as ]; in the ], you should find comments from Noetica on my posts as least as uncordial as mine on Noetica's. | |||
| ]June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Questions about a deleted turquoise serpent == | |||
| ::I would not have expected any of this to lead to a ban in either direction, and I would be perfectly happy to stay away voluntarily for some time; but I went back because my opinion was asked, and if my opinion is asked a couple months from now, I would like to be able to answer. ] <small>]</small> 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It seems that an inexperienced editor is trying to ask you a question at ]. ] (]) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll agree that the naming issue is a difficult one with reasonable arguments for both sides. This kind of gray area doesn't seem to be something that Misplaced Pages's current dispute resolution methods handle well. Maybe a larger, more structured community discussion would be helpful in this case as well.<p>I'm not sure I agree that a mediation can exceed the task set out for it, since the task in all cases, is to provide a structured forum where participants can work towards a consensus. The discussion evolved rather naturally as the participants tried to tackle the heart of the issue that led them to continual disagreements over wording. Unfortunately I haven't kept up to speed with revival of the dispute, so its difficult for me to guess what led to the request for arbitration.<p>I will take a look there as well; in fact it sounds like it might be helpful to review the case and anyone who's gotten re-involved in the discussions more closely. If there's anything in particular you'd like to call to my attention, feel free to leave notes. Perhaps when looking at the picture as a whole, there might be a way to resolve this without the need for any sort of ban. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ::::I should perhaps make clear that Andy Walsh and Noetica are engaged in MOS; only the first paragraph of my last note strayed to the Roman question. Let me know when you reach a decision about review. ] <small>]</small> 18:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| :::::Sorry about that, I meant to say that I would take a look at Andy Walk and Noetica as well. Looking at that now, the way I wrote it was horrible confusing :) ] <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| :::::: I've starting looking into these bits and I noticed that neither Andy nor Noetica were parties to the case and thus not subject to any of its restrictions. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, they are not; my apologies, I should have said so. If you find them worthy of admin attention, however, please do so - obnoxiousness need not be mentioned by ArbCom to be dealt with. | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| ::::::::Noetica, however, has been on wiki-hiatus for two weeks, however; so xe is not urgent. ] <small>]</small> 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :For an example of what I should like to do, can I have a waiver to respond with a suggestion on the point at issue? ] <small>]</small> 21:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
| == Re: Dilip rajeev enforcement case == | |||
| <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, in regards to Dilip rajeev's enforcement case , there was no word of admin decisions for over 2 weeks. I'm just wondering if this case is still ongoing. Thanks.--] (]) 06:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago == | |||
| *FYI, the bot came and archived it, but as the case hasn't been closed one way or another, I have just unarchived it. Any heads up would be appreciated. ] (]) 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| | title = Awesome | |||
| ::Sorry about that, I didn't know the clarification was closed. I didn't want to put sanctions in place until everyone had a chance to clear up what exactly the ArbCom meant to happen in that case. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | image = Cscr-featured.svg | |||
| | image_upright = 0.35 | |||
| == PManderson topic ban == | |||
| | bold = ] | |||
| }} | |||
| Hi Shell. I am confused as to the status of Mr Anderson's remedy; I had understood that you had imposed a full-topic ban on his participation and discussion of the MoS pages. ] ] 12:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | --] (]) 06:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :I was unaware that there was any confusion. I had re-broadened the ban which had recently been changed via motion; if there is a conflict over this, it would be best to get clarification from ArbCom that they intended re-widening the ban to be an option. However, this is the first I've heard of any protest to my action and its a bit disheartening that Sandstein chose to shoot down your request in that manner rather then bring his concerns to ArbCom or myself. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == WT:RFAR == | |||
| Powergate92 continued to use the page to list other perceived misuses of rollback and has now started a discussion on ] about it.—] (]) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately I'm honestly not terribly familiar with what lead to the Mythdon case; I've only seen the self-destructive behavior after the case was over. Perhaps the best way to handle it would be to acknowledge that some of your rollbacks are border-line cases and consider using a different option (undo maybe?) for cases that aren't clear vandalism. Once you leave others with nothing to complain about, if they continue to search for issues with your behavior, it will become more clear that what they are doing is inappropriate. Since edit histories are open for anyone to review, sometimes people are going to browse through them - they may even decide to call attention to mistakes. Its not flattering, but it is an opportunity to improve and learn from others concerns. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| A new username (]) is making the same deletions at ] and I see has also deleted material from ] without explanation. This is probably the 4th sockpuppet she/he has used. Would you kindly take another look? Thanks! -- ] (]) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Requesting guidance on how to handle a particular set of issues== | |||
| The Falun gong set of pages have witnessed systematic removal of content by a certain set of users. Recently 20K was blanked out from the main article saying it was being moved to the subpages. Then all the central content of these subpages were deleted out - sources ranging from Amnesty and HRW to the US Congress. A subpage was reverted to a two year old version, another awfully shortened, one first shortened from 67KB to 26KB and then deleted under the pretext there is little reason to maintain an article having little content and lawyering for a merger with a related namespace. From a BLP was removed positive content sourced to western academia in favour of propagandistic slander that has only appeared in CCP media.Some of these changes driven by staw-polls in which these editors establish a numerical majority and agree with each other on the changes. | |||
| After you asking me to focus on the content, I've been attempting to do precisely that - ignoring a cynical/sarcastic remark, presenting sources, my rationale for changes in detail on talk, etc. I had decided to contribute to a human rights related page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Propaganda_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Help_with_research.2C_please.. ( could you kindly go through my attempts to start a positive discussion, focus on content, make improvements and the response received..) . The specific problem is that no matter how detailed I present things some of these editors derail things through arguments like the one made there in response to my detailed comments and invitation for help in doing research: " | |||
| "''Since when is RSF a reliable source? A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS--PCPP (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)''" | |||
| My past experience has been that once you respond to such comments, they end up derailing the discussion, taking things in circles, overwhelm you through strength of numbers, finally manage to keep the information out and even attack you and make you appear among other editors as the one engaging in disruptive editing. One can reason with people making arguments with a rationale - but am at a loss as to how to respond to such things or to even respond at all. If someone says an RSF report on CCP propaganda is "rhetorics from a CIA funded organization".. am really at a loss how to respond. To put it in other words you can help a person who does not know understand - but it is harder dealing with someone feigning ignorance and coming up with baseless arguments to achieve their ends. The very two users making sneering comments have in the past attacked info sourced to Amnesty international saying Amnesty is just a "lobby group", ] for being a "favourite Falun Gong aligned journalist", etc. | |||
| I could collect detailed evidence of systematic removal of highly sourced content from these pages the two users have engaged in the past couple of years. How should I proceed? Should I attempt to move forward focusing solely on the content, ignoring such comments - or should I raise my concerns and present a detailed case to the admins since it has happened on pages placed on probation by the arbcom? | |||
| Thanking You. | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) |
||
Latest revision as of 23:55, 18 November 2023
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Shell Kinney has not edited Misplaced Pages since 23 September 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
|
pass-out teh baked goodies Gold Hat (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Is your revert possibly overbroad? You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. User_talk:Geofferybard#Mothers_for_Peace:_Throwing_out_the_baby_with_the_bathwater.3F17:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Questions about a deleted turquoise serpentIt seems that an inexperienced editor is trying to ask you a question at Misplaced Pages talk:Uploading images#Newer version of a photograph. HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Proposed deletion of File:Desert Rose (Adenium obesum) pic.jpg The file File:Desert Rose (Adenium obesum) pic.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
|
|||||||||
gmail.com
_pic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_pic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_pic.jpg){kind=link}