User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 16

ACC
Thanks for approving my ACC tool request. I would just like to let you know that on the template you used to notify me, the link to the tool is outdated and broken. The tool is not at the "stable" server, it is now here []. Thanks again, and have a nice day. Krashlandon (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OOh - thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know the template never got updated. Shell  babelfish 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Prod
Hi

I've just started editing and ended up working on the Unsourced BLPs. I came across this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Spencer_(musician). Would you be able to source it?

PS Weren't the Misunderstood a 60s band too "I can take you to the sun" was one of John Peel's favourites IIRC. Brainfood (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh that's an old one - an article creation request from quite some time ago before we were picky about sourcing. Looks like it has more problems than just sourcing - I'll see what I can do with it. Shell   babelfish 11:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I see you deleted it! Have you read the Stephen King story Word Processor of the Gods (I think). Hope nothing happened to Kevin Spencer at the precise moment you pressed delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainfood (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Daily News images
Sorry, I should have made an edit summary, people don't normally care about them on images. Here are the terms for the Chicago Daily News collection at the Library of Congress. Those published before 1923 are public domain per US Law, but those published after can only be used under fair use guidelines. Kelly hi! 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm gnoming my way through images from that source now, moving the free ones to the Commons and tagging the others. I'll use edit summaries on the non-free ones, and thanks much for the heads-up. Kelly  hi! 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pittsburgh WP10 party
Hey! This is just a friendly reminder about the Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebration in Pittsburgh tomorrow. The meeting time has been moved up to 4:00 so that we can gather before the game starts and stake out places, and it may be a good idea to get there even sooner, if you can. Pittsburgh bars are likely to be a little crazy and very crowded. See you there!--ragesoss (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did work out in the end :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI
You were presumably emulating the preceding announcements, but we're still using "Discuss this" to point to WT:ACN - the bot will should(!) change it to "Archived discussion" when it gets, well, archived =) – xeno talk 20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I could have sworn I copied that from my boilerplate. Oooh wait - our new bot got a little over zealous :) Shell   babelfish 20:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted my message to you when I noticed; looks like you're too quick for my revisionism though =] I notified the botop (as did NW). – xeno talk  20:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahha - must have clicked edit before you reverted and the page decided to put it all back instead of telling me about the edit conflict. Thanks for making sure the botop knows, though I'm not going to argue with whatever the bot wants to call things so long as it keeps the Clerks from having to do those archive links manually. :D Shell   babelfish 21:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, sometimes I wonder if the new-and-improved behind-the-scenes edit conflict resolver doesn't create more problems than it solves... – xeno talk 21:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI
You blocked and  just showed up reposting the same comment. I blocked the second account and revdel'ed the two edits due to the implied threat. Thought you might want to check out the second account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look. Shell   babelfish 07:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also want to check and  as they arrived on my talk page complaining about the same content. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be anything there at the moment; someone mentioned to me that they think there's an off-site campaign going on related to this issue and we may be seeing a lot of this. Shell  babelfish 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome messages
Hi there; no problem, but could you tell me the template you are using for welcome messages, such as the one you sent to Bambinodelmare? Clearly I could track it down, but the message is complex and I am trying to save myself time. Thank you in advance. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I had to go look it up myself :) That one comes from User:Fridae'sDoom/Welcome-message; the other one I use regularly is User:Shell Kinney/W. Shell   babelfish 08:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

AGK gone for a few days, so..
I left this question for AGK, but since he is gone for a few days, I have been advised by Bishonen to approach Brad and an arbitrator. Here is the link to my questions for AGK:. Bishonen suggested I also email, so I did that as well. Thanks for your time. Smatprt (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

SAQs for battleground articles
Can you point me to some examples? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean FAQs, Tom? If so, check out Talk:Muhammad, Talk:Global warming, or Talk:Barack Obama. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. My brain is not-so-slowly being turned into mush. Thanks muchly! Tom Reedy (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What Nikkimaria said :) (And thanks for the quick response!) Shell  babelfish 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Toolsavoid e
Hello, I see you blocked this sockpuppet. I was trying to see what damage this account was doing and commented on a few AfD debates that the nominator was a sockpuppet. Then I noticed they had speedied Lemuel Royce and the article vanished right when I was trying to add a "hang on" tag. Can you restore the article? If so, I will see if it can be improved, or really should be deleted? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked through their contributions and the account doesn't seem to have done anything wildly inappropriate; the tagging and AFD debates all seem reasonable, all though the one you mention is questionable - I think that one's been put in your user space. If it's not there or you need any other help with it, let me know.  Unfortunately this is a case of someone who used socks to stack AfD debates originally and since then has simply created more socks instead of trying to address the initial issue and get themselves unblocked :( Shell   babelfish 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Respond to your message
Hello and thank you for the warm welcome. I have edited my article (Freestyle GunZ) and added the requested information & references that appear in reliable third-party publications.

Sorry for the issues I have caused.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McSiccc (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Question re:ArbCom on SAQ
Hi. I have some info for the arbitrators, but have no idea which section to put it in. The threads have become so long and convoluted that I just don't know the right place for this statement. It has do with the insertion of the "Standards of Evidence" section in the SAQ article, which I believe, from a behavior point of view, was a deliberate act to prejudice the entire article and violate npov. The section states that only mainstream researchers use " title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies." This is simply not the case. Anti-strats use each and every one of these in building their various cases. I can easily provide refs, but antiStrat researchers such as Diana Price, Ogburn, Anderson have all used title pages, gov't records and contemporary testimony. And I know of several stylometric studies that anti-strats have used to bolster their cases. How do I raise this issue at ArbCom and where? Thanks. I will probably copy this question to another arbitrator or two in hopes of finding some clarity. Smatprt (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be something that would go into evidence. If you had any workshop proposals that this was pertinent too, you could add the diff there or create a new proposal based off the incident if you think it's warranted or shows a pattern of behavior. Shell   babelfish 17:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I wanted to alert you that I have posted my appeal to the ArbCom evidence page. Please express my sincere thanks to the committee for allowing me to do so. In regards to the above evidence, I needed to focus on my appeal today. If I have any remaining time, I will try to at least post this diff and a brief explanation on the workshop page, assuming I can find an appropriate place to do so. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear you were able to get that up for us to review. If you have any other questions, please feel free to drop me a line. Shell   babelfish 20:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

q about Themmiaoeps1, sock of Emmaimmots
Hi Shell. I saw that a few days ago you allowed to access their talkpage again so they could request an unblock. It looks like they made a request and were declined by Sandstein. Since then, they created and reposted the same content which was then deleted by Bearcat. What I wanted to ask is this: should I block the new account as a sock evading a block, or is there some non-obvious reason why I shouldn't? Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, considering they went on a vandalizing bit I have indefblocked the account and tagged it as a sockpuppet. Emmaimmots can request unblock on her page as before. Syrthiss (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, I only unblocked the talk page so they could request an unblock after they promised not to post that same text any more. No reason not to block any socks or keep the talk page unlocked if they don't use it properly. Shell   babelfish 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Please see. Zarboublian (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Few things here. No one discussed your place of residence - someone saying that A.K.Nole lived in the UK comes from that account's habit of logging out to make edits and since that makes their IP visible (all contributions are logged under a username or IP), there's nothing outing about someone being able to do a geolocate.  Second, my only comment was that you edit from a different location which led me to believe it was possible you weren't the same person who was behind the A.K.Nole account, this is neither outing nor inappropriate disclosure.  Finally, your edits have made it rather clear that you are the same person who was behind the A.K.Nole account - please remember that you are banned from any interaction with Mathsci.  Any further comments on him or edits to articles where he is active will result in a block on your account. Shell   babelfish 22:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale
Hello Shell, I am User:Crouch, Swale and I have noticed you have commented on User talk:Toolsavoid e. I am leving you this message from this account as I can't edit from my proper account as you know. You are right I do help improve Wikipedia but as you know I am blocked indefinitely. I've got a list of planned improvements to this encyclopedia such as a lot of English settlements I am going to create but I can't do that if I am blocked and I'm sure you want me to improve Wikipedia. Ipswich in Suffolk (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Proposed decision
Hi, Shell. I've posted a note on Talk:Proposed decision for the Shakespeare case that mentions you specifically, along with Brad and Luke, in case you want to take a look. Sorry to be bothering you with the orange new messages banner, but it struck me that if anybody's interested, time is a little short. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC).
 * No such thing as too many reminders :) Thanks! Shell   babelfish 20:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks :) Shell  babelfish 20:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Harlow1937
More IPs to take into consideration; Sockpuppet investigations/Harlow1937.  Chzz  ► 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * SPI completed, and rangeblocked (until 20 March) (by Shirik). Cheers,  Chzz  ► 00:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for grabbing that. This has actually been going on for months, so if anyone needs more information about it, they're welcome to drop me a note. Shell   babelfish 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Another Barnstar
I see you got one a few days ago, and was going to go away without giving you one from me, but thought... hell, it's deserved!


 * Thank you! Shell  babelfish 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hey, I had a six month topic ban after this case, in which you were one of the arbitrators. It has been over six months, so can I edit on the topic now, or do I have to make a formal request? -YMB29 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your topic ban states that it was to be for no less than 6 months and that you must apply to the Committee to have it removed. You can do this by opening a request at RFAR, however, since you do not appear to have edited since the topic ban was put in place, it's going to be difficult to determine if you've resolved the problems that led to the topic ban. Shell  babelfish 20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I did not know that editing out of topic was part of the requirement... So there is no point in making a request now? -YMB29 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not actually a requirement, but the point of the ban not just automatically lifting is that we want to be able to check that the problems are resolved. It wouldn't do anyone good for the topic ban to be lifted only to have you run into problems again immediately; I'm sure that would be very frustrating for you as well.  Without some kind of other editing to go on (editing at other language Wikipedias or other Wikimedia projects could also be considered), it's going to be difficult for us to tell if you've developed good habits for resolving disputes and learned to avoid things like edit warring. Shell   babelfish 22:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I only had a problem with one user (who is still topic banned) in one or two articles. That is why I was very surprised at the length of the topic ban (see our discussion about this). With others I have always been able to resolve disputes. I am not someone who is very active here and almost all of the edits I made were on the topic, so I did not think about editing outside the topic. If I open a request now, you and the other arbitrators would most likely be against lifting the ban? -YMB29 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Moulton and the FeloniousMonk pages
Could you comment at User talk:AGK if you have a moment? Thanks, AGK  [&bull; ] 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for ban appeal
Hello Shell, I have been topic-banned for two months by User:EdJohnston here for violating the 1RR. I would like to appeal this decision and I understand that you can help me with this. I've made my case here. My argument can be summarized as such: in my opinion, a revert is the undoing of an insertion, not of a deletion. By undoing a deletion, I am not undoing someone's work, I am protecting someone's work. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Emmanuelm. I realize that you also sent an email to ArbCom, but I did want to respond to you here as well.  I'm afraid that your opinion of reverts conflicts with the majority of the community and unfortunately, when it comes to enforcing policies, it goes the way of the community.  Reverts are currently defined as undoing any action whether it's restoring text, removing tags, changing a word...that bit doesn't matter so much.  Differences over content can only be resolved by talking it out or engaging other community members, not by warring over our differences.  I believe it's unlikely that you'll find consensus to overturn the ban. Shell   babelfish 12:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for info about user page deletion
Hello, I have only recently started to edit content on Wikipedia. I created a user page for myself here but it was deleted. Could you let me know the proper way for me to create such a page? Thanks. GavinMorley (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry that would be my error; I've restored the page. Sometimes people start an "article" on their user page by accident and then never return - I should have noticed that your username matched the information on the page.  I apologize for the inconvenience. Shell   babelfish 14:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! GavinMorley (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI
Hello Shell Kinney,

This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg
Normally images are deleted after being nominated for deletion, as this one had several times. This ensures that consensus has been achieved. It has survived several attempts at deletion after plenty of discussion from both those in favor of its deletion and by those in favor of it remaining. So where is the valid OTRS complaint, and why was this image arbitrarily deleted by you without nominating it for deletion yet again? I feel this image from the beginning has gotten a raw deal from those that feel that "NFCC=No non-free images of any kind whatsoever", despite proper tagging and even contacting people who were at the historic concert in an effort to establish copyright in good faith. Is this how it's done? Just delete it out of the blue because it, in your opinion, "doesn't not appear to meet 2011020710006779 NFCC"? Pardon my French, but this is bullplop. Doc  talk  17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, the OTRS ticket number is 2011020710006779 which apparently got pasted in the wrong place. I think you'll find I'm not one of those folks who goes around deleting images on a regular basis - even when closing deletion discussions, I would rather fix a source, license or rationale to resolve the problem if at all possible. So if there's something I'm missing here other than procedure, please let me know. It took me some time to sort out what was really going on because there were quite a few misleading statements about this image floating around including that there was OTRS permission pending when there wasn't and claims to be contacting someone who turned out not to be the copyright holder at all - these statements certainly affected the deletion discussions.  The second deletion discussion was poorly attended (two editors does not a discussion make), but the nominator made a compelling case that the free mug shot made for a much more explanatory image for the section on the Miami concert than just the guy in a hat.  Neither the article text nor the FUR explained why this image was important, iconic or did anything more than decorate the article and we've now had a complaint by the copyright holder.  If there's a more detailed rationale for why this image qualifies for fair-use, I'll be happy to undelete it. Shell   babelfish 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response :> I had worked extensively on the article section to improve it because of the same concerns over notability of the image, but before that, after contacting David LeVine, I was pretty sure that the photographer Jeff Simon (who is credited with the image) was "unreachable". After thumbing through a paperback I recently bought of No One Here Gets Out Alive, I found that the image is there and is credited to "Jeff Simon/Elektra Records" (pg.229). By any chance: did Jeff Simon "come out of the woodwork" finally? This is the first I've heard of a copyright holder coming forward, and I'm more concerned with legitimately protecting their commercial interest in the image than I am just having it here. I will point out that the text I added, "At one point, Morrison removed and threw the hat of a police officer who was onstage into the crowd and the officer removed Jim's hat and threw it." was specifically culled from the reliable sources to include this image of him in the hat (at the historic concert) because all other images I found from that show were previously of unmistakable copyright status. Doc   talk  05:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for "giggles": could you reply to this sometime in a manner that would not make me think I've totally wasted my time here? I'd be happy to get permission from Mr. LeVine for one of his pictures to be used here if you truly feel that the copyright holder has a legitimate concern. What copyright holder, I ask again? I've got a lot of patience (and the image was in the article for years), so I'd kind of appreciate some sort of timely response! Take your time, but please address this. Thanks again :> Doc   talk  03:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I thought I had mentioned in my first message that we had a complaint from the copyright holder. And you are correct, Jeff Simon is the copyright holder - Elektra Records is likely mentioned because they own a license to use the image for a 1970s album.  I'm a bit confused about what you're really asking here since you've said you already found this information in the paperback book you recently purchased.  If I'm missing your question here, please let me know. Shell   babelfish 17:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see now, and I found his website. I knew it was credited to him and listed it as such, but I was unsure whether he was even still alive based on Mr. LeVine's inability to contact him over a different photograph that they are in a legal dispute over with a book publisher. Thanks for clearing that up! Doc   talk  21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What is this?
What's the deal here? (Also this). Did I do something wrong, or what? Herostratus (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as much as I disagreed with Herostatus's position at Fan Service, I don't remember anything in that conversation that would particularly need to actually be deleted like that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've sent Herostratus an email explaining what happened there. Shell  babelfish 06:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Read the email. I don't recall using that term, but if I did I shouldn't have, sorry, and you were justified in redacting. Herostratus (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Brent Girouex
Thank you for the note, Shell. I appreciate the other point of view. But just FYI, the deleting administrator deleted it under G-10, attack page or negative unsourced BLP. Not really sure how else to define it. Regards, -- Man way  19:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that got resolved. Especially after several other delete votes on the AfD, it's certainly a much easier delete call. Shell   babelfish 20:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for deleting Darcey Freeman. Much appreciated, Jenks24 (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Seemed like the right call. Shell   babelfish 17:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pfft - everyone already knew that 0:-) Shell  babelfish 02:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Bowland and the "Manor" of Newton
Hi Shell,

Regarding the changes you made yesterday to Newton-in-Bowland etc. As I understand this argument, the info that you have removed is actually correct. The ‘Escutcheon’ URL says that the Assheton family believed that their ownership of these manorial titles included the Lord of Bowland, and it was this claim that they dropped in 2009. However I’m also not really sure that the modern history is notable enough to be in the articles, and they are certainly overloaded with the stuff. I’ve hopefully arranged a deal with User:Manorial, where I’ll help him sort out these articles in exchange for some work on Honor of Clitheroe. I just wanted to let you know, as he’ll no doubt want to put that bit back on them. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the reversions are already underway. I will send you a releated e-mail, I could do with your advice. Oh and what do you know about User:Selkcerf0142, could this be another alias of Neautone? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I hadn't actually run across Selkcerf0142 - were they editing on the same topics/making the same reverts? Shell  babelfish 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not the same edits or the same articles. It’s more of a mystery than anything, they made quite large contributions to Clitheroe Castle and De Lacy which are loosely related to the articles in question. Both of these articles have had to be reverted because it seems that this apparently experienced editor was just copying and pasting from all over the web. I noticed the times of the edits would likely put them outside the UK and put 2 and 2 together as they say. The reversions have solved my problem, so I don’t need to take it any further. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Shell, I've emailed you an explanation of the complex interrelationship between the lordships of Bowland, Slaidburn and Newton. Let me know if you have any questions please. Manorial (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Shell, I have no wish to protract this ugly dispute but Neautone's line "Charles Towneley Strachey, 4th Baron O'Hagan, 15th Lord of the Manor of Newton sold the Manorial Lordship of Newton(in Bowland), together with some, but not all of its historical rights in February 2011" risks embroiling all of us in legal difficulty. Firstly, Lord O'Hagan has never been Lord of the Manor of Newton (and I can prove this to you conclusively); secondly, there has been no "manor" of Newton since the mid-C14th (again easy to prove); thirdly, the Asshetons bought the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn, including manorial rights in Newton, from the trustees of the Second Schedule of the 1885 Towneley Estates Act in 1950 (I can send you documentation). Thomas Assheton, nephew of the 2nd Lord Clitheroe, is in effect lord of Newton - there is no "lord of the manor of Newton". It is a fiction.

Manorial (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Shell, just to say that I am going to place the detailed HM Land Registry references on the Newton and Slaidburn websites to remove any room for confusion. Hope this helps clarifies matters somewhat.

Manorial (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears by Neutone1's latest comment that they have no further interest in editing the site and are not going to provide any reference to back up their claim, which means that it won't be appearing in any article. I've left a note on Slaidburn's talk page and need to correct my last note on Neutone1's talk page since I managed to confuse Newton-in-Bowland and Bowland; the references I found don't actually back up his claim. No more late night research for me! Shell   babelfish 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Question
Moved from User talk:Shell+Kinney--Jac 16888 Talk 12:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shell, Thanks for all your help. I have a question, though. Why does this page always come up as "User:Driver1976"? Is there anyway of dropping the "User" part in the title? Or is this a necessary part of your process. Sorry, I'm new to the whole wikipedia thing. MDriver1976 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SwanIClogo.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:SwanIClogo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Another A.K.Nole sock
Hi Shell. Another A.K.Nole sock seems to have appeared. , per WP:DUCK, is almost certainly from the same sockfarm as the following indefinitely blocked accounts: Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an Adopter
Hi Shell

For years, I use Wikipedia as an avid reader. I analyzed a lot for my research, particularly in the fields of botany, painting and communication. Having been director of communications of a large international group and now a consultant in communications strategies, Wikipedia was very helpful for my work. Fascinated by the free encyclopedia ‘s world and convinced that the media is the future of knowledge transmission and communication, I would like to be sponsored to improve the quality of my contributions. I have already studied the tutorials and for now, I have made several minor edits. Found of Nature, I am deeply engaged in activities to safeguard biodiversity, particularly in the Amazon (as a painter, I outlined a series of paintings on medicinal plants of Amazonia, in various Art galleries). Fluent in Spanish and English, I think I can make some contributions in the fields above-mentioned.

I was impressed by your curriculum and i am sure your experiment in Wikipedia will be of great help. Many thanks in advance for your answer. Have a nice week-end --Wikmontmartre18 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on AE amendment
Hi Shell... Your comment to me was shocking and uninformed. I asked for help on this ban twice so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I've "complained extensively". Sorry to be so blunt, and I don't mean to be offensive, but frankly I'm tired of the unfair and untrue comments that have been put out by a few editors, used to discredit me, and then believed by others, and I've decided to be bolder in defending myself.(olive (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC))
 * You've made the same arguments (you were wronged, people are uninformed and misrepresenting things): January on the AE board and on your talk page,, and on ANI , February on the AE board, ,  and finally emails to ArbCom on two separate occasions.  We may disagree on whether or not this is "extensively", but to me, it's a pattern of not getting it that seems to still be going on. Shell   babelfish 22:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the AE amendment page. (olive (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC))

A.K.Nole again?
This account seems to be another sockpuppet account of A.K.Nole. He has made reference to the IPs that are at present range-blocked and again followed my recent edits to an AfD. Mathsci (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was a sock. Account blocked. Shell   babelfish 07:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

reference
Hi Shell, I reference a past AN/I discussion you commented in and your comments themselves , related to the Race&Intelligence case, in the context of this AE request. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know - that seems to fairly represent the comments I made; there do appear to have been problems with meatpuppetry in the topic area. I haven't checked any accounts that have come up since my comments on that request though. Shell   babelfish 10:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

come on ;)
Please shift to motion 4; that the only one I'll continue under. I've promised Brad on his talk that I'm going to do good. I'll give you my word that I'll cut the illustrative stuff, too. Anything else? Barong 06:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A.K.Nole yet again?
On further reflection this message on my talk page might be from A.K.Nole (although see below). Please could you semiprotect my talk page for three months? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW this attack-only account uploaded this file File:Flabworld1.gif to commons. The cheese stereotype ("cheese-eating surrender monkeys") and the reference to classical music seems similar to the fake account created on Furaffinity, which Ferahgo the Assassin has admitted on-wiki was done by one of her friends (SightWatcher?). The graphical skills and the similarity to the fake page would probably point more to somebody contributing to a graphics-related website such as FurAffinity or DeviantArt. It might be worth noting that making attacks through comic strips is something that Captain Occam has done off-wiki (eg this comic strip of his  linked to a previous, now deleted, user page of Captain Occam). Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The account has been indefinitely blocked on WP by MastCell, who has semiprotected my user talk page. The file has been deleted on commons by Philippe of WMF. I saved a copy which can be seen here (although I assume you have access to the deleted file on commons). Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Adoption
Hey. Saw your add on the adoption page and I am looking for someone to show me how to be a more active contributer. I'm on Wikipedia all of the time, but I only make edits when I see vandalism or something small when I see incorrect information. This is due, not only to my ineptitude with HTML but also because I'm really just not very sure on what to do to create a full article. Look forward to hearing from you. Mikist4 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)mikist4
 * Hello Mikist4. Unfortunately I don't do a lot of content creation myself, so it's likely I wouldn't be much help in this area.  If you have any questions about the wikimarkup itself or layout, I would be happy to help, but I'm afraid I'm rather horrible at finding topics to write about :) Shell   babelfish 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

ACC
Hey Shell, If you have a chance could you come by ACC ? ATM we have 6 request waiting. Thanks for all you do. Mlpearc  powwow  13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting it now, thanks for the heads up :) Shell  babelfish 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User Mtking
Hi, I need help with a user that is wikihounding all over the place. User:Mtking is actively attempting to deleted articles that I've created that are obviously notable. He as been warned before on his page to stop doing these sort of things but clearly he is ignoring that. Right now he just tag the Business Journals annual award list Forty under 40 with a notability deletion tag just because I created it. To be honest I copied this page example from the page on the Forbes Celebrity 100.

The Forty under 40 is mentioned all over the net and in searches... it is hard to miss. To question notability on this subject is really stupid for him to do but I think he is doing it just because I'm associated with the article. He is constantly trying to cause problems for me or get me blocked based on false and miss guided accusations. I would appreciated it if you would seriously just over look this guy and how he has been dealing with me. Good faith is thrown out the window and its all delete first and ask questions later. He and a group of his friends are doing so right now on another page I created about Dr. Paul Dorian (not to be confused with the CEO of similar name).NanaRobins (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mikemikev's posting on Stormfront
I noted that checkuser had determined that technical evidence pointed to Comicania as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev. This recent post of Mikemikev on the website Stormfront Is not very encouraging.[ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/t800062/] Mathsci (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, unfortunately you appear to need an account to see the post and I'd rather not sign up on a site like that. I've seen some talk recently of socking by Mikemikev, so I think that folks still have eyes on the situation. Shell   babelfish 21:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Stormfront website is slightly unstable, but can be seen without logging in. I made a copy of his posting here for reference. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Juice Plus and Rhode Island Red
Hello, just a FYI, I've managed to get myself dragged in to editing the Juice Plus article (with whom I have zero connection at all) plus related articles such as John A. Wise and have been encountering continuous problems with user Rhode Island Red, falsely accusing me of COI, ignoring policies, and generally wikihounding and editing tendentiously. I've just discovered that he/she has previously undertaken a 6 month ban for similar behaviour on the same article and that a year ago you informed him/her that any further editing on the article by him/her would likely result in a block. What would you advise in dealing with them?--Icerat (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious Icerat? You're wikihounding me on two different articles (Juice Plus and John A. Wise, facing a long block for edit warring (the third in roughly a week), engaged in disputes with multiple editors on multiple articles, ignored overwhelming consensus, faced repeated charges of disruptive and COI editing on the Amway articles, and now you are canvassing an admin against me and accusing me of improper conduct??? I am not your problem. You alone are responsible for the conflicts you are having with multiple editors and on multiple articles. And you didn't get "dragged into" editing the Juice Plus article -- you willfully chose to wikihound me there as soon as your last edit warring block expired. Your days here on WP may be numbered if you keep up this ridiculous shell game (no pun intended Shell). Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shell, as an outsider I had a look at the Juice Plus article and also a quick look at the BLP/N notice on the Wise article, and I need to comment that Icerat seems to be engaging in a novel interpretation of BLP (according to editors on BLP/N). Icerat seems to think that a source can never be used on the project because it may violate BLP. To defend that he quotes BLPSPS which is a defence that has been leveled at Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch int he past (remember all those loooooooooong discussions - I had thought they were done and dusted years ago). And rather than recognising that he's fighting against consensus, he's engaging in a spot of TE and repeating his points over and over again. I note that Alison has got a flag in to look at the Juice article, but I'm not sure if she should be handling this from an admin perspective. Shot info (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bring this mob here Shelly, but Shot Info is not an "outsider" uninvolved party, we have a past history. WP:BLPSPS is clear, no exception has ever been made for Stephen Barrett. --~


 * Looking over this issue, it seems to be just a general difference of opinion rather than major behavioral issues. Icerat, it does appear that the community doesn't agree with your viewpoint in general - I understand that sucks, but sometimes you have to agree to disagree - you'll have to abide by the consensus or you'll run into further trouble down the road. Shell   babelfish 21:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red is back in ownership mode at Juice Plus, in spite of the requests made prior to his 6-month ban that he stop editing the article altogether. The article is a travesty, as many have remarked over the years, and a blot on Wikipedia's reputation. I would suggest an admin investigation into the neutrality of the article, leading in all probability to a permanent ban on his activities there, but I have removed the article from my watchlist instead. --TraceyR (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tracey R, I am very concerned about your conduct with respect to Juice Plus and the campaigning that you are now doing, insinuating article ownership, misstating that I was banned in the past, and absurdly asking for me to be banned from WP in the future. The time has come for you to stop this harassment, as I have had to endure more than enough of it in the past and it is becoming a serious hindrance to the project and my editorial freedom. If you aren’t willing to refrain from such inappropriate conduct voluntarily than I suggest that we take this to the highest level of dispute resolution in which we can discuss COI and you connection with Juice Plus. As a distributor, you should have revealed your COI long ago, but instead you lied about it and have been skirting the rules all along. This harassment, and the contentious editing on Juice Plus, must stop. How do you want to proceed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall reply to Rhode Island Red on his talk page. I see no need to maintain several parallel threads. --TraceyR (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would seem prudent for this user and I to disengage from direct contact going forward, as direct contact is more likely to inflame the situation than resolve it. Comments from this user would best be posted elsewhere than on my Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Red deleted my reply to his attack, so I have preserved it on my talk page. It can be found here. --TraceyR (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi,

I'm wondering whether you'll adopt me.

--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm actually on vacation right now, but I would be happy to talk with you when I get back. Shell Kinney (mobile) (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Good references
Hello Shell,

I added a comment on the talk page of INREV. Maybe you have the chance to look into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ElHolandes/INREV

Kind regards, Paco Ortiz --ElHolandes (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've started looking at the new references and will see if I can give you advice on all of them. Shell Kinney (mobile) (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Shell, I replied on your comment of 10 June. If you have the time I appreciate your feedback. --ElHolandes (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Probable harassment
I don't really understand harassment properly, so I don't want to accuse any editor with that now. I'm sorry for bothering, but there're users who follow me around with accusations and ANIs that were totally ignored by admins (especially Misconceptions2 here). Now, another editor (Doc Tropics, in the same link) removed my inserted material from credible reliable authors, which are from reliable publishers too, having a summary of "repairing damage done by semi-literate POV changes to established text" while removing the sources too (he doesn't have the credibility to judge me, personally, without even knowing my academic background). I'm really not sure what to do, as I haven't been able to make any useful contributions like before. I absolutely hate pointing fingers, but this started to become a continues problem. If there's anything I'm doing wrong, I'd love to hear it from you, please. Thanks and sorry for the trouble.   ~ AdvertAdam  talk  07:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Without some more diffs to look at the article you're changing and exactly what you're adding, I can only give you general advice, but it may help. It sounds like you're having something Wikipedia calls a "content dispute"; that's where two or more editors disagree over how an article should be written or what it should contain.  I'm not sure if anyone has show you the page called dispute resolution, but that page has a lot of great ideas for how to work out your differences by engaging other editors from the community. From looking at the noticeboard post, it looks like other editors are concerned that your edits are giving too much weight to a particular opinion on the subject and that you might feel so strongly about it, that you don't realize that your edits may be biased.  Sometimes when we have a close connection to a subject or strong personal opinions, it can be difficult to write things in a dry, encyclopedic tone - that's why Wikipedia content and policies are based on consensus, so that hopefully, over time, we avoid doing things in a biased manner. Shell   babelfish 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, first of all, for your time and effort. I know that I'm a new editor that learned policies the hard way, but I've been intensively editing with policies the past two months. I'm just trying to correct the WP:DUE violations, as even the articles are tagged with POV. I've never used content that aren't sourced from a majority POV, not even my own academic research that was approved in my University (WP:COI). The editors are trying to keep the minority's pov in the lead, even though the sources say the opposite. I opened the WP:CCN according to the WP:DR suggestion, to discuss the content (not the editor); as "Doc Tropics" refused to discuss the dispute with me, stating in a summary "there's nothing to discuss anymore". However, the WP:CCN is now full of false claims on me, so I hope that I explained enough there. I just hate to point fingers.
 * As an example of what happened with an editor (David). He's pushing a pov of 1 or 2 scholars from a personal website, that says that Islamic-tax is only for Muslims. Me and two other editors showed him examples of sources and explained practices that the tax is for the community. If someone is living in a non-Muslim community he's allowed to give to their poor. David is still disputing, wanting to add that minority view all around the article. But I still insist that it's more neauteral to mention toward the poor of the community (like the sources). I know that WP:3O is not allowed because many editors are involved.    ~ AdvertAdam  talk  08:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, I've been in many discussions in more-important high-traffic articles, while even really experienced editors like and follow my explanations and sources (even when discussions involve 7-8 editors). Thanks    ~ AdvertAdam  talk  09:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Common Statement?
I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry I missed this - my talk page has been uncommonly active as late. I think you've quoted me appropriately there (and I appreciate the heads up), but since I might need to hear a case about the issue at some point, I'd rather not be involved in putting together a statement. Shell   babelfish 07:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Political activism RfAr
Hi Shell, I'm writing to ask that you recuse from the political activism RfAr filed on June 12 by Coren. As you know, you took part on June 12 in an attempt to resolve this dispute with Cirt by email, at Cirt's request, on the same day that you voted to decline the case. Because of your involvement—particularly if the email exchange becomes private evidence—and because in my view you were acting in support of Cirt and not as a neutral party, it would seem appropriate to allow others to handle the case, including the decision to decline or accept it.

I want to make clear that I'm not implying any bad faith on your part. It's simply that the Committee's decisions have to be seen as neutral as possible, particularly as the issue has gone on for some time and has caused a lot of disruption. I believe you would help us achieve a more satisfactory resolution if you would agree to step back. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that you want to make the case an RfAr on Cirt to bypass earlier dispute resolution methods, however, this doesn't seem to be what any of the Arbiters are saying in their comments, nor did my decline address that aspect at all. As you mentioned, I declined before the conversation started, which hardly makes the exchange a part of my decision.  I understand that by trying to work with both of you rather than immediately assuming a single party was completely at fault, you feel this makes me biased, but that's how mediation works in my experience.  As I've made clear repeatedly, I will not be rescusing from this case on this basis should it be accepted, though I may rescue from any findings based on Cirt since I have agreed to help him resolve some of these interpersonal problems.  Shell   babelfish 23:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Earlier dispute resolution methods have been tried, and have failed. You did not decline the case before the conversation started, and I did not mention that you had, so please don't put words in my mouth. You began participating in the conversation on June 12, and shortly thereafter you declined the case. Or rather, I saw your email before I saw that you had declined the case. I don't know how to find out which happened first.


 * You were not trying to "work with" both of us. You were not asked to work with us or asked to mediate. You were asked only to witness the discussion–to be a party to the discussion to avoid misunderstandings—as a neutral and responsible party. I asked for a third party from the ArbCom or functionaries list, and Cirt chose you. But you didn't act as a witness or a neutral party. You acted in a way that I found highly inappropriate, and if you cannot see how it was inappropriate, I don't know what to say to you.


 * I am again asking you to recuse both from deciding whether to accept the case, and more importantly from any discussion about it on the ArbCom mailing list, including discussion that might influence whether it's accepted. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it appears that you and Cirt had very different expectations of my role in the conversation and that may be where the confusion started. You may remember that Cirt even asked if you could choose someone else since I was on vacation and unable to respond when you first started the conversation.  If you look at the discussion with the understanding that I wasn't just an inbox to dump your conversation in to, it might not look quite so strange to you. I've now said that I am not recusing from the case more than 5 times; unless you have a new argument, that's unlikely to change.  In the case that Cirt agrees to release the conversation to ArbCom (since you and I both have), I'm sure we can have others review. Shell   babelfish 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The role was in writing: "a member of the Arbitration Committee, or a senior functionary to be party to the discussion to avoid misunderstandings." There was no hint of asking you to mediate. I myself was trying to resolve a dispute I was not party to, so I didn't need someone else to do that. I needed someone responsible, trustworthy, and level-headed to witness the discussion because of the nature of it. It was clearly a mistake to allow Cirt to choose that person. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That may have been your conversation with Cirt, but it wasn't what Cirt asked of me, so someone somewhere had a misunderstanding about the situation. For example, IIRC Cirt was of the impression that he needed to resolve a dispute with you, not that you were an outside party so I think there was some rather extreme misunderstanding.  Shell   babelfish 00:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that a separate conversation was going on at the same time between you and Cirt. It was precisely to avoid that kind of thing that I requested a third party from ArbCom or a senior functionary, because I assumed you would realize the importance of keeping the correspondence "clean" in that sense.


 * I have not been in a dispute with Cirt. I have been attempting since May 27 to resolve the dispute he has been having with others for a very long time (the Santorum issue is just the latest installment of it). I did this in the hope of avoiding an ArbCom case that appeared inevitable, and which remains inevitable whether accepted this time or the next time. It was a mistake on my part to try to resolve it by email, and indeed I had given up by the time you started replying, because Coren had filed an RfAr, so the horse had bolted, as it were. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * sigh* Sarah, there wasn't a separate conversation, Cirt emailed me to ask if I would be interested in helping rather than just emailing me out of the blue which I took as common courtesy rather than some attempt to influence the discussion.  As far as what Cirt assumed or what your position was, I had no information other than the email discussion to go on.  I just think there have been quite a number of mis-understandings and assumptions throughout this exchange. Shell   babelfish 00:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You saw all the emails. Assuming you read them, you saw me ask you (because Cirt suggested you) to "be party to the discussion to avoid misunderstandings." That is not a request for a mediator. My perception of Cirt is that there is sometimes partial summarizing, so I didn't want a private email discussion where he could afterwards say "SlimVirgin said X," when I hadn't, but couldn't correct it. So I wanted someone senior and neutral to witness it to avoid that. Yet here we are nevertheless.


 * I shouldn't have bothered trying, but I had hoped to avoid an ArbCom case because of the sheer amount of work involved, so my hope was that Cirt would finally realize that he had to stop looking as though he was engaging in promotion. I see now that it isn't going to happen voluntarily, and that an ArbCom case is needed. But you have involved yourself, and have taken a side, and you've reached a decision about a complex issue—one that has been going on for years—without reading the evidence, so I have to repeat my request for your recusal. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is another conversation we probably ought to end since we're not likely to agree here either. I've already addressed all these points above.  Shell   babelfish 01:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So what is the next step? This case is badly needed; you are standing in the way of acceptance; yet there is evidence that you have involved yourself inappropriately. So how should we resolve it? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I followed the links Slimvirgin posted to get here. I do not know what your email conversation entailed, nor am I certain about whether or not you need to recuse yourself, but Shell can you explain why you declined without the transparency over this private email discussion that was ongoing between Cirt and Slimvirgin, and which you joined around the time you declined? If what Slimvirigin claims about your taking sides is correct then it would only seem appropriate that you recuse yourself, but either way I think it is inappropriate not to be up front with your level of involvement, however major or minor it is in reality when you make official comments on the case request page. I should be upfront myself about the fact that admin (and arb) involvement in situations in which admins (and arbs) act in an official capacity is something I think we do not take seriously enough here, a predicament I hope will change. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the time line, I declined the case several hours before I even read the emails that had been sent to me over vacation, so as I've said, they had no influence on my decision there. At the time and during the conversation, I had no indication that this issue was related to the case, in fact, SlimVirgin didn't mention this possibility until after she became upset at my attempts to mediate the problem and ended the conversation so I feel like I've been completely blindsided.  We spent most of the discussion on a completely unrelated article from two years ago.  To my knowledge, this was a personal issue between two parties, however, I'm now being told SlimVirgin was acting for someone else - another fact never brought up during the emails I was included on and even Cirt didn't seem to be aware of this angle.  Frankly, this entire situation has me just a bit confused to say the least.  Right now I'm working on getting agreement from all parties to forward the entire thread to the Committee and get some second opinions on how to move forward. Shell   babelfish 03:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You declined the case within the same hour that you sent the gmail. You were on wikibreak May 31–June 12. Your first edit was 20:00, June 12. You declined the case at 20:42, June 12. You sent the email to Cirt and me at around this time. Also, based on what you said and my reply, there is no indication that you had already declined.


 * You wrote above: "I had no indication that this issue was related to the case, in fact, SlimVirgin didn't mention this possibility until after she became upset at my attempts to mediate the problem ..." This is completely false. I responded to your first email with: "I was hoping the three of us could have a constructive conversation about it, with a view to resolving it. However, there's now a request for arbitration, and Cirt has continued editing in the same vein, so the time for sorting it out by e-mail may have passed."


 * Please print out that email discussion and read it. If you use the gmail forwarding button, it will give you the times as well as dates. You seem to have taken part in email correspondence without reading it, and declined a case without reading the evidence.


 * Also, your position above that you're now "working on getting agreement from all parties to forward the entire thread to the Committee ..." is astonishing. It was you who intervened when I asked Cirt if I could copy it in confidence to the Committee, or to a couple of members.


 * Finally, the timing is not the only issue. The issue is the position you adopted, and that you involved yourself while declining the case just four hours after the RfAr was posted, without giving the request a fair chance. That combination of issues makes it inappropriate for you to continue, and I wish you would realize that before this goes any further. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm really not interested in arguing further over the emails here since there's been no agreement to release them publicly and you've already made several comments I find to be very misleading. For example, in regards to me supposedly intervening when you said you were sending it to the Committee, all I said was that you had to have permission from everyone involved (while giving my permission) - you didn't bother to ask Cirt even after I pointed that out (three times), so I took the initiative.  Since everyone has now agreed, I have forwarded the messages in their entirety to the ArbCom list for their review.  If the consensus from other Arbiters is that I should recuse from the case, I will do so. Shell   babelfish 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that permission from all involved is required before sending emails to ArbCom? It's the polite thing to do, but, from what I understand, is not a legal requirement.  Also, it wouldn't be a violation of WP's rules since the emails aren't being publicly published on-wiki.  I agree with Griswaldo that you should have mentioned the emails when you declined the case, even if you had to go back and note it in your comments later.  Remember, perception is reality. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Legal requirement? Not that I know of, but I never said it was.  However, even I don't forward things to ArbCom without permission so I do think it's a community expectation on Wikipedia and it turns out, it was rather simple to quickly get that permission.  If any party had refused, since SlimVirgin felt is was important that ArbCom see the emails, then I would have asked the other members what they thought was best because we have accepted things without permission before in special circumstances. I agree with you about perception, but you'll remember that this was a private, confidential conversation where I was asked to participate in my capacity as an Arbiter - I would not have even mentioned the conversation on-wiki without the consent of the participants, but since someone else let the cat out of the bag there, I don't really have the option to pretend it didn't happen.  Unfortunately, that's put me in a rather difficult spot and is why I've asked other Arbiters to review the discussion.  It's a bit late for those in the US and a bit early for our friends across the pond, so I expect it'll be a little while before I get back a substantial number of responses. Shell   babelfish 08:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell how often do "private" email discussions relevant to ongoing cases occur between Arbs and involved parties? Your answer suggests that it happens often and that the convention is to handle such issues as you had, without transparency.  I find that much more troubling than anything specific to this case.  Can you please comment on that?  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * People email arbitrators about cases all the time. They shouldn't, but they do, completely unprompted. The record, I think, was the Scientology case where we had about 70, though this was exceptional. (They also badger you on user talk pages, but that's another matter altogether.) Very little of this traffic is actual evidence or actually private (though people think it is) and it varies from "How do I"-typo stuff from newbies; to conspiracy theories (especially about admins); and general well-poisoning. On the rare occasions when private stuff is taken note of, the drafter of the Finding of Fact says so on the PD page. It's also remembering that arbitrators and adminstrators have a dispute resolution role so if side-shows/sub-issues can be satisfactorily and speedily resolved with a bit of email mediation, it's all to the good. Policy says: an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. The new arbitration policy also reflects this: Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal''.  Roger Davies  talk 12:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger, but the "administrative" involvement here is not "previous" but concurrent with and directly related to the official arbitration actions taken by Shell. I am not surprised by the fact that people often email arbitrators, or that arbitrators, like admins, try to resolve issues in private over email if possible.  However, to do so during an arbitration request and while officially involving oneself in the request is another matter altogether.  My surprise comes from the idea that it is conventional and/or acceptable for an arbitrator to try to act as a "mediator" in private for a matter that is also at the initial stage of arbitration while concurrently acting in the arbitration request in a manner that has consequences to that request, and while not making this known to anyone else, the other arbitrators included.  If Shell wanted to respect the privacy of Cirt and Slim to the extent of not even mentioning the existence of the emails, wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Shell to have either 1) declined to mediate between Slim and Cirt pending the outcome of the case request, or 2) declined to take an action that effects the request pending the outcome of the private mediation?  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Informally knocking heads together, or informally encouraging people to sort out their differences themselves, does not involve taking a position on the issues, or otherwise compromising neutrality. Indeed, mediation is part of a civil judge's role in most jurisdictions because it can reduce the need for protracted litigation or reduce the number of issues that need litigating.  Roger Davies  talk 14:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But this was not mediation, and Shell did take a position. Also, the email correspondence between Cirt and me had come to an end before it started. It began on June 6, went nowhere, and ended that day. There was one more email from Cirt on June 8 that I didn't respond to. It was Shell who revived it on June 12, around the time she declined the case. I'm reluctant to trust gmail time preferences because I've seen gmail get times wrong before, but she appears to have declined the case, then just under an hour later sent the email.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I'm no lawyer but I assume that a thorough analogy to the legal system (in the US, in England, the rest of Europe, etc.) would not be favorable to Shell's actions vis-a-vis transparency and conflicts of interest. In a civil trial does mediation occur while the trial is also ongoing? More to the point, can a judge who has been selected to hear a criminal case, or civil case, mediate a related matter between the defendant and another party without a conflict of interest? Can s/he do so without the knowledge of others who are involved in the criminal or civil case? As I said I'm no lawyer but I highly doubt it. Also remember that there are many more who are involved here than the named parties (per Coren's filing). Indeed, as a point of comparison to the legal system the entire Wikipedia community is "involved" in arbitration in the sense that it is open to their participation. While I appreciate your answers I wonder if you could answer in a way that addresses the specifics of Shell's actions as opposed to broad analogies or other generalizations. That would be much more helpful to me. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In civil cases, the judge often has a statutory duty to the judicial system as a whole (expediency, proportionality etc) to find an alternative to a full trial and will usually initiate discussion in chambers during the various pre-trial interlocutory hearings. There is no public transparency whatsover and there is nothing to stop the judge ruling on any other issues during the same hearing. The rules vary considerably between jurisdictions for criminal trials (which an arbitration most definitely is not) and I know little about them. As to the specifics of Shell's actions, I see no conflict of interest and I would like someone to spell out very clearly indeed what this was supposed to have been.   Roger Davies  talk 14:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the legal analogy. In case requests all of the arbitrators are the judge, and the entire community is involved to a certain degree while the "involved parties" are explicitly and fully involved.  To suggest that the Wikipedia community as a whole during an arbitration request is equivalent to the "public" in a pre-trial hearing of a civil case is IMO quite mistaken. In fact the civil law analogy strikes me as poor in the first place, because of the lack of equivalence in some rather important aspects.  Arbitration is more akin to the Supreme Court, where a committee of judges are involved in accepting or rejecting cases that are not only public in their hearing but during which members of the public can participate as Amicus curiae and while specific parties may be involved in the case the rulings have much wider ramifications. Can a Supreme Court judge officially vote to reject hearing a new case while privately, unbeknownst to the other judges, the public, and all the named parties work on mediating the same matter between one of the named parties and someone else?  Again I highly doubt it. It would rather obviously be a conflict of interest.  If the judge were already involved in said mediation I'm sure they would have to recuse themselves from the case in entirety if they had any involvement whatsoever with the parties (granted perhaps they would never be mediating anything in the first place).Griswaldo (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never been attracted by the Supreme Court analogy, simply because they're appellate handling points of law and we broadly disciplinary stuff. They're all distinguished lawyers; we're not. They earn $200,000 a year; we don't. Further, and perhaps more to the point, not anyone can wander into a Supreme Court hearing and make a speech of interminable length and sometimes dubious relevance, and then spend the next 24 hours copy-editing it. It is worth remembering that Justice Scalia refused to recuse on a case he heard involving Dick Cheney, with whom he'd just been on a fishing trip. Such a situation would be unthinkable on Wikipedia, though his broader argument for not recusing is a valid one here in this small wiki world for arbitrators.  Roger Davies  talk 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That line about people wandering in and making speeches had made my day. Thanks Roger. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Shell's conflict of interest there is an obvious one. The supposed "mediation" between Cirt and Slimvirgin and the arbitration request deal with the very same issues, and are in a sense redundant (mind you that Slim maintains she never asked for mediation, and that Shell acted in support of Cirt and not as a neutral mediator).  By taking a mediation role, in private, she has established her desire to see the situation resolved in that particular manner.  By then voting to decline the arbitration request she is using her power as an arbitrator to see her desired outcome (private mediation) come to fruition, instead of the alternative, public arbitration.  That COI is obvious and does not require any knowledge past what has been made public about the emails.  Depending on what those emails contain perhaps there is a stronger conflict of interest here.  I would very much appreciate it Roger, if you could address my question above.  I will re-post it here.  If Shell wanted to respect the privacy of Cirt and Slim to the extent of not even mentioning the existence of the emails, wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Shell to have either 1) declined to mediate between Slim and Cirt pending the outcome of the case request, or 2) declined to take an action that effects the request pending the outcome of the private mediation?   Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Those conclusions can only be reached by a total denial of good faith towards Shell. If someone makes what I perceive to be a reasonable request, I'll pass it on and see what happens. This doesn't create a conflict of interest unless I suddenly and inexplicably become besotted with the person making the request or so beguiled by them that I suddenly see that request as the only possible option. I'm not like that, and I don't think you, or Shell, are either.  Roger Davies  talk 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have to deny good faith, but perhaps I should not have worded my response in a manner that implies the intent to see Shell's desired outcome come to fruition. The point is that that is what the effect is regardless of her intent.  In the end we cannot actually know what someone's intentions are, but we can see what effects their actions have.  Avoiding possible conflicts of interest and the appearance of acting while involved is what admins and arbs are expected to do as a matter of practice, for the sake of the project and the validity of its policies.  What you all hold onto deep down in your heart of hearts is immaterial.  What I have seen in these last few months, when people in positions of authority are confronted with issues like these is an unhelfpul level of defensiveness from them, and others who share their authority roles or others who favor the outcomes that their stated positions are entangled with.  Often the situation is not black and white.  Note that I opened my line of questioning with the comment that I was unsure if actual recusal was even necessary, but that bare minimum it would have been nice to see some transparency here, or a recognition that perhaps assuming both roles was not the right thing to do.  Perhaps she does not need to recuse, but perhaps also her decisions were not the most productive and perhaps even further addressing the issue on the case page would have been helpful when she decided to decline.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Break 1

 * Having reviewed the email thread in question, Shell was engaged specifically as a member of the Arbitration Committee; and per AP, "Previous ... arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal." Further, from my read of the forwarded thread, it does not appear to me that Shell was acting "in support of Cirt and not as a neutral party"; she seemed to be merely seeking substantiations or clarifications on particular claims put forth in the emails. This is not unreasonable, and is something a neutral party ought to do to assist the parties in clearly communicating and elucidating their concerns, to ensure they are understood; and further, to try and guide the communication towards a mutually-agreeable resolution. Quite the opposite, a party would not be neutral if they accepted the claims or one side as accomplished fact without asking them to back them up with well-delineated examples. In this case, Shell prompted both parties to provide evidence for their claims. SlimVirgin has asked Shell Kinney to recuse, as suggested by the section of the arbitration policy linked above. As Shell has declined to recuse, SlimVirgin may now "refer the request to the Committee for a ruling" if she desires. – xeno talk 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Xeno, that's simply astonishing to me. Shell took a clear, aggressive, and uninformed position. I am beginning to think we need mediation about this email exchange, because this is such a skewed reading of it, in my view, that it has left me feeling disturbed about the entire ArbCom, to be frank. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So much for trying to get authority figures to exercise self-reflexivity in regards to how their actions are seen by the rest of us. This is the wall I run into pretty much every time I try.  Why bother right?  As I stated to Roger above these actions were concurrent and not previous.  Maybe you all need to rewrite the legalese to include such situations next time so that there is an even more bullet proof policy defense against those who ask you to humbly re-evaluate your actions and consider how they effect the community at large and the processes members of that community engage in.  I'm done.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone engages my help as an arbitrator it does not then give them the right to ask me to recuse in future as an arbitrator (Shell was engaged specifically because she is an arbitrator). Shell did not have "significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties", her involvement was strictly as an arbitrator. Yes, sometimes arbitrators attempt to mediate disputes in private or otherwise, to avoid having to go through with formal arbitration, but this does not create grounds for recusal. If someone finds this inappropriate, they should only engage arbitrators at the formal arbitration venues. – xeno talk 17:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion here about timing, once again. Slim did not ask for and get help with something weeks ago.  She asked for help, and got no response for a week, until such time that Shell concurrently responded to the private email matter and weighed in at the Arb request.  Again, "previous" does not apply, since it is the timing of Shell's involvement, and not the dating of Slim's request that matters.  Furthermore, the full language at WP:AP states (emphasis added)- "Typically, a conflict of interest includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties." Typically, as in there are other situations in which a conflict of interest may be of a very different sort.  You might not agree with my interpretation of the specific conflict of interest here, but you see this legalese you're quoting is by no means a slam dunk.  Sorry.  Like I said, I fully understand what's happening here, and indeed am accustomed to it.  You wont hear any more about this till next time.  cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you haven't seen the email thread upon which SlimVirgin is basing her request for Shell to recuse, I don't think you can reasonably say that you "fully understand what's happening here". I have seen the thread, I've reviewed Shell's responses several times over the course of the day - and I still don't see any reasonable grounds to call for Shell's recusal here. – xeno talk 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (P.S. It would be rather strange if concurrent arbitrator interactions were grounds for recusal, because then we wouldn't be able to get anything done at all. Of course, I know that some feel that this is already the case.)
 * Really, you were having a conversation with me, based on facts that I do not know and that I cannot know? Why would you even bother to do that?  How could my responses ever take those facts into account? Clearly, my comments are based on the limited amount of information that I do know, which does not include those emails as I stated several times in this thread. My point about a conflict of interest, was also articulated explicitly within that context of knowledge.  I have also clearly stated, repeatedly, that I am not sure that actual recusal is necessary, but that some acknowledgement of her involvement is.  What I "fully understand", Xeno, is how suggestions like mine are treated by people in positions of authority here when they arise.  Since you cannot read my mind, and I did not make it explicit I highly that doubt you understood exactly what it was I "fully understood."  Cheers and dewatchlisting.Griswaldo (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (P.S. Interactions in general are not grounds for recusal, certain types of interactions are.  Certain types of concurrent interactions may pose a conflict of interest, and they may be different from the types of past interactions that pose a conflict of interest.  In this case it was precisely the concurrent nature of the involvements that posed a problem, which is why my main question has been and remains why she didn't postpone one of involvements until the other was settled.)
 * I will concede that there are some hypothetical situations where an arbitrator's interactions might create reasonable grounds to call for recusal. My goal in coming to this page was to provide my thoughts on the present, non-hypothetical, situation - in which my opinion is that there are not reasonable grounds to call for recusal (and it was primarily a response in general, and not in response to your writings on this page - hence the newline bulleted indentation). – xeno talk 18:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Break 2
When this email exchange with Shell occurred, I assumed the situation was attributable to an uninformed Committee member who weighed in aggressively without having read the evidence or emails carefully. That happens to the best of us, so I was willing to be privately disgusted then drop it.

But if the ArbCom as a whole is saying the exchange presents no grounds for Shell's recusal, and insufficient concern about Cirt's editing to proceed with a case (two separate issues), then I'm almost speechless. Both Shell and I forwarded copies of the correspondence to the Committee. In my version, I summarized the key issues at the top. If that summary didn't sink in, we have a serious problem here.

What I would ask now is for someone from the Commitee to explain to me, by email, why this issue is not regarded as (a) important enough to proceed with the case; and (b) important enough to require Shell's recusal from it. If they can persuade me that my view of this is wrong, and I am open to persuasion, I'll drop it. Otherwise, I would like a sanity check from uninvolved people. I would like to find an appeals mechanism, perhaps using stewards from another wiki who would agree to read the exchange, so that any appeal does not involve current Committee members. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My statement should not be taken as the opinion of the committee "as a whole", as it is just the opinion of one arbitrator. As I stated above, you are free to request a ruling from the committee en banc. (I have not taken a position on the matter of Cirt's editing.) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 22:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that RfAr is not the only arena this is being played out in, with similar results. Shell   babelfish 04:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're catching up. It has been raised in multiple venues since at least May 23, including over 120 emails to wikiEN-l, which is why we need arbitration. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I specifically referred to, and linked to, that discussion in my statement at RfAr. That link was there when you declined the case, Shell. . If you only learnt about it now, then you didn't read it. Could I ask you to do so now? There are diffs and other evidence there. It's now here, because it was too long: User:Jayen466/Political_activism. Please. -- J N  466  14:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know you both did. I was actually hoping one or both of you would notice that for the most part no one agreed with you there either. Shell   babelfish 23:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we at least agree that the Jose Peralta, Joel Anderson, Kenneth Dickson and Hiram Monserrate editing here and in other Wikimedia projects, and the related main page appearances, were inappropriate? Or do you not see a problem with those either? -- J N  466  10:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I think my comment was probably confusing if you just jumped in to the conversation down here. This (rather long) conversation has been about SlimVirgin claiming that I'm biased or perhaps incompetent because I didn't see the "obvious" things she did and instead asked for specifics or diffs.  The thread (which yes, I had seen before) I pointed out is another place where the majority of editors discussing a problem aren't seeing the "obvious" problems, so either things aren't so crystal clear or they aren't being presented in a way that's giving everyone else that "ahha!" moment.  Hopefully it then follows that during the email exchange, I wasn't being biased, I was genuinely trying to make sure everyone understood each other. The advice I usually give in this situation: when you've become concerned enough about an editor's actions that you feel you need to watch them for an extended period of time, you need to bring your concerns to the community so that right or wrong, you get some kind of resolution.  If others agree with your concerns, they can develop a way to resolve those concerns; if it turns out they don't agree, then you can relax and get back to what you enjoy on Wikipedia.  Either way, holding something like an RfC where you can clearly present your concerns to the community in a structured format is a productive way to work things out. Shell   babelfish 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I will mention that Khazar, one of the main participants in that DYK talk page discussion, said today he now understood the concerns, and gave me a Socratic barnstar for explaining the problem with the Savage hooks to him: User_talk:Jayen466, User_talk:Khazar. And I'm sorry to be a pest, but I would still be interested to know whether the editing of Jose Peralta, Joel Anderson, Kenneth Dickson and Hiram Monserrate, the underlying reasons for those edits, and the related main page appearances, do raise any concerns for you. -- J N  466  02:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'm glad to hear you were able to sort that out.  As far as looking into the rest, that would be asking me to take a stance here, which is what this whole thread has been about avoiding :) I'm sure though there are many other community members who'd be willing to take a look if you put together your concerns on something like an RfC. Shell   babelfish 09:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TrevelyanL85A2
Hi Shell. Just a note that TrevelyanL85A2, a known friend of Ferahgo the Assassin, has resumed editing articles covered by WP:ARBR&I. His edits were tag teaming with Boothello, a user who started editing exclusively in the area of Ferahgo's topic ban as soon as it was announced. I warned both him and Boothello that this does not look good. Boothello is not happy about this. In edits that bear a strong resemblance to similar actions by SightWatcher, he has posted a complaint on Risker's page (he was ignored) and now on Newyorkbrad's page. All of this looks very fishy indeed; or perhaps WP:DUCK is a better word to use. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Nautilyus/Archive
Could you write down for the record the findings you cleared up yesterday please? :) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops - I meant to do that yesterday; I put a note on it now. Thanks for reminding me! Shell   babelfish 18:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

mail
Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
Good day, Arequest for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you participated or might be affected by. Communikat (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U: Cirt
Dear Shell, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N  466  13:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reincarnation of banned user Iaaasi
"Shell Kinney" is a relative newly registered boy, he is a sock of banned User Iaaasi.Your editorial habits and articles are the same.Iaaasi told that he changed his internet provider to edit Wikipedia again. Why are you vandal, dear banned editor?? You deleted well referenced articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little wars (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked as a sockpuppet - Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that's the first laugh I've had on Wikipedia since all this BS started. Thanks Doug! Shell   babelfish 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned user
Hello Shell I notice you blocked NRex4 as a sockpuppet of a banned user in March, but there isn’t any mention of who the banned user might be. I’m asking because it has become relevant here, and now here. Are you able to shed any light on this? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was Brunodam. He was found socking on other wikis so a check caught NRex4 and two other socks that day. Shell   babelfish 16:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh! I wondered! Thanks! Is there any chance of you adding that information somewhere? NRex4's page, maybe; or Brunodam's sock category. And if you don't mind I'll mention it here. Thanks again, Xyl 54 (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Involving yourself again?
You argued that you were not "involved" when it came to Cirt, to please stay away from issues that would further underline that you are, such as removing legitimate material from an FR section. Also, if he is asking you to do things like this, you're doing yourself no favours by agreeing. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that a random blog post is comparable to a syndicated news article with quotes from the Foundation, perhaps you should consider discussing it on the talk page. You seem to have replaced that link several times - is there a particular reason you don't stay away from issues that would further underline that you're "involved" when it comes to Cirt? Shell   babelfish 21:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Something to keep you company
Take care of this little kitty while during your retirement :)

/ ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC) <br style="clear: both"/>

Why did you retire?
Re:


 * My sincerest apologies for not notifying each and every editor directly of my intention to cease volunteering for a charity in my free time. I did try you see, but after Wikipedia's email server broke down in tears at the number of messages that it would have to send, I just couldn't bring myself to torture it further. Meanwhile, if you did have a question about my retirement, my contact information has always been quite prominently available on my talk page and most surprisingly, communication actually addressed to me might just get an actual response. Shell babelfish 12:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than emailing everyone separately, it would probably be better to post a notice somewhere central. But here would do. So: why did you retire? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I just have to say...
...that I am very, very sorry. I hold you and your work in high respect, and I think this is a great loss to Wikipedia. :( I hope your circumstances will change or you will reconsider. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree Moonriddengirl. Shearonink (talk)
 * Wow, this was a disappointing thing to see on July 4. Please return in the future, Shell. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn. You will be missed. Courcelles 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you go. Good luck for whatever future projects you have in mind. Prioryman (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You've been very helpful in -en-help and elsewhere; best of luck for the future. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫  20:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Goodbye, Shell. Good luck with your future endeavors. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 19:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work, Shell. You will be missed. Hope to see you back again when you are recharged. --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have done an excellent job, stuck to your principles and been extremely fair. It is not hard to imagine that the demands of real life and of ArbCom/wikipedia are often incompatible. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your long history of contribution to the project. Frank  &#124;  talk  20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for all that you have done for Wikipedia. We really appreciate it. Logan Talk Contributions 21:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am shocked and saddened, not just that you're leaving ArbCom, but that you're resigning from the project entirely. You will be missed, but I hope to see you back again soon! If not, best wishes with whatever your future projects may be. --Elonka 21:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't always agree with you Shell, but your kindness and help in responding to my requests for information were every much appreciated and impacted me a lot. Thank you and enjoy your retirement (or maybe break.)(olive (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC))
 * This is very sad. Thanks for all your contributions to the project, and best of luck with your future endeavors! Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what brought this about but I sure hope it's turns into a temporary break and not permanent. Just know you will be missed by a lot of the community which includes me.  The best in whatever you do, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A crying shame. You'll be missed. While I haven't always lavished praise upon ArbCom, I've always held you in the highest esteem and I hope you'll return in the future. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will hope this is a mere interruption of your contributions here. Thanks for your leadership. No matter where you go, you will always have wikifriends. The enduring pagework you've done on Wikipedia will outlast us all. BusterD (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All members of Wikipedia stand for a 21-gun salute to Shell. Shell, you will be greatly missed, and I hope you have a great time with real life. Winston Churchill said, "There is no doubt that it is around the family and the home that all the greatest virtues of human society are created, strengthened and maintained." We will miss you Shell! -- DQ  (t)   (e)  00:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for everything you've done here over the years. I hope this is not a permanent departure.  You have been one of the good ones, and I hope will be again.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell, I'll miss you, and I hope you return.--ragesoss (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2011 (TC)
 * I've valued your participation in various aspects of the project, and wish you all the best, whether or not you choose to return to editing. Or in other words, "per all preceding." Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You were the best. I hope you will stay around as a regular editor... ! --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear about your retirement from arbcom. Many good wishes and hope your contributions in all capacities remain active. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow...I'm sorry to see you go. But best wishes for whatever you do in life. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll miss you too Shell. I can only see you as an awesome editor. =( -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll reconsider.. -- &oelig; &trade; 10:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DQ puts it most eloquently. Thank you for making everything better in your wake - a real gift. – SJ<font style="color:#f90;"> +  01:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell, 2 things; 1. People are listening to what you're saying, 2. You will be missed. Best,  Chzz  ► 23:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Drumroll please
Unfortunately the committee got around to announcing my departure faster than I could write something up, which given our track record, is somewhat of a surprise :)

The recent situation has clarified something for me that's been nagging at the back of my brain for quite some time:

I originally joined the projects a number of years ago because I believe very strongly in what they are doing; I also support a number of other open source movements. I've ended up helping in just about every area possible over the years as I discovered when trying to unravel my various points of access. I started to work with ArbCom mostly because people kept telling me they thought I would be good at it and I decided I could volunteer some additional time to in order to help the English Wikipedia run more smoothly.

I remember being very surprised at the things that the committee deals with behind the scenes and even more surprised that this takes up the majority of their time. In my experience, issues of volunteer harassment, pedophiles using organization resources for inappropriate purposes and organizational privacy and security are usually dealt with by someone working for the organization or someone in very close contact with the organization rather than a random body of volunteers making these decisions without guidance. It's always seemed to me that the behind the scenes issues would be better handled by a group dedicated to such things so that the committee could bring its focus back to dispute resolution, but since no one else was doing these things, the committee couldn't just ignore them.

I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has unique issues with volunteer coordination and communication due to it's large scope, the novelty of an internet medium and it's need to remove itself from "publishing" the works it helps to create. Nevertheless, I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with the way the Foundation distances itself and the lack of good communication, especially in serious cases such as this recent leak. That someone had to "break ranks" for the committee to get any concrete information on the various issues at play seriously concerns me and we're still almost completely in the dark about what the Foundation is doing and how it plans to handle security going forward - so it's not just the community who's being left out here. Looking back at emails from the past couple of years, the committee has been asking the Foundation for quite some time about getting better, more appropriate and more secure tools. Of course, if the committee was focused on its primary task, it's likely these kinds of things wouldn't be necessary. On top of all this, change is always hard but when dealing with a group of 18 people, getting anyone to agree with or stay focused on change is rather close to impossible.

There's also lot going on in my life at the moment, so it's likely that a long, long break will do a world of good. It's possible that as the project continues to change and evolve, it will turn back into something that makes sense to me so a return is always a possibility. I've turned in all of the access and advanced rights not necessarily as a final break with the projects, but because as recent issues have reminded us yet again, having those things lying around can pose security issues. Shell  babelfish 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Shell. Let's hope someone is listening. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a commendable statement. I agree with it entirely. Jehochman Talk 12:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Concise and comprehensive - qualities that will be missed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm still not happy that you resigned, but getting some clear observations from your point of view is extremely interesting. I too hope that the WMF pays attention. --Elonka 13:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to say, this is part of what the new "community liaison" post is meant to help with, making sure that the needs of communities (of which ArbCom is certainly one) are heard and, where possible, addressed. Security issues are being looked at; I'll see what I can find out about current status. Not in any way an official observation, I think all of us need to resolve some of the questions about what should be handled by volunteers and what needs to be shunted to staff. Wikipedia belongs to us (the volunteers). We run it. They help us. I think what we need to work out with WMF is clarification about division of duties. We also need better methods in place for communicating with staff; I've been tasked with creating this, and I hope to have a better system in place in the next few weeks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have written to ask about the current status, and Jehochman has added some thoughts about various issues above at User talk:Mdennis (WMF). I will make sure that staff is alerted to these and see if I can do something to create a dialogue about the issue. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to thank Shell for her informative and candid post. Reading it I can understand her frustration, and I wonder why anyone would volunteer to stick their neck out under the circumstances she describes. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a question that's increasingly difficult to answer, Scotty. That the job needs doing is increasingly obvious, that it's increasingly unpleasant to do is putting it mildly.  Dedication and sincere belief in what we are doing (as a project, I mean) gives you increased tolerance for abuse &mdash; not infinite.  I very much regret Shell's departure, but I would be lying if I said I didn't understand and empathize with her.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto what Scotty just said. Shell, your comments are very astute, and all the more reason for the rest of us to hope to see you back here in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you go. Thanks for the work you've put in, and whatever form your future involvement with the project takes.  Hopefully your statement can get some of these issues addressed. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My high regard for you remains intact. Thank you for everything you've done; I hope you do decide to come back in the future. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep warm and well. I have much respect for your work and attitude on this project. <font face="Script MT" color="#114E" size="2">SilkTork  *Tea time 22:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A user approached me with a BLP problem perhaps you can provide some guidance how to proceed.
I appreciated interacting with you regarding the Mothers for Peace article and consider you sufficiently wise in the ways of WP to ask for your guidance. A user approached me concerns about what looks to be a wheel war in a Buddhism topic area with respect to an otherwise highly respected Buddhism teacher who has had a biographical incident in recent years which WP editors are fueding over. If you are a potential arbitrator on the matter, it might best that you don't take a look at the request for assistance I recieved at User_talk:Geofferybard but perhaps you can make a referal; alternatively, I would be grateful if you could take a look at what I was presented with and suggest how this issue should be dealt with. I know you are pretty busy and mostly concerned with the meta infrastructure issues, but I would appreciate if you could either step in, or advise us on how to proceed.<font color="#990000">Geo <font color="#000099">Bard <font color="#000000" size="-1">Rap 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

blocked sockpuppets of Brunodam
Hi, you blocked User:Ideanoise and User:OneDalm0 back in March 2011 with a block log of, which doesn't seem to explain the reason. I'm guessing it's User:Brunodam, but it would be good if this was clarified. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Factocop
Hi Shell, Please can you assist with unblocking my account as I have been blocked for what seems like forever for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.200 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI on banning LPC
In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI -- PBS (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=526254016#Restoration_of_the_tools_.28proposal.29 recent change] to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)