User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 7

Streetsville Derbys
Hi, I noticed you changed the logo for the team, do you happen to know if they just use one logo or 2... because at last year's Royal Bank Cup they wore two different logos during the tourny. DMighton 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Per my understanding from the representative of the team that contacted us about changing the logo, they are now completely transitioned to the new logo. Shell babelfish 00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Contacted... wow!! I'm actually impressed... I built that page... it's nice to see they noticed... I just wanted to know... I noticed you changed it... and I wasn't sure what the deal was.  Thank you!  DMighton 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway you could forward me the e-mail of the representative that contacted you? I would like to ask for an official team history from their organization. DMighton 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't forward emails from WP:OTRS, but I can tell you they have this contact page on their website and the public relations person might be the best person to help you. Shell babelfish 12:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well thank you for your contribution to the article.  It was much appreciated.  DMighton 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on the "Personnal attack report page"
Thank you for your time in reading my report on the PA report page. You commented:

rm Mikkalai, no personal attacks shown, other problems must go through dispute resolution

I am a relatively new user, and have previously editted irregularly without a username. I never engaged in any edit wars. My contributions were to gather sourses on some subject, write a summary of the respective information, and put it on Wikipedia, in the idea that good-faith users would check through, and improve it. I never started an article before september 2006, but have expanded, sometimes substantially, existing stubs.

Once every 4-6 months I would randomly check the pages I previously editted. In about 60-80% of cases I was very pleased to discover that someone took pain to read through and correct grammar, double check the sourses, and add more very useful stuff. I felt proud to be part of such a community. In about 10-30% the edits were itchy, i.e. piecies of information were erased, sometimes in quite a biased way. But the core of my original contribution was still present. 5-10% of my edits were vandalized, but there was nothing I could do about it.

In September I thought about starting articles myself, and uploading pictures, files. I engaged in some discussions about some subjects with several users. Most of them are neutral. A good 1/4 are strongly biased, but agree to compromises if presented in a way more acceptable to them. And none of them ever, before user:Mikkalai, engaded in personl attacks.

From reading the history of the last 48 hours I understand that this user was in some edit wars with some other user Bonaparte, who was banned. Apparently Mikkalai thought I am his arch enemy Bonaparte. He targetted all the pages I contributted to in the last days, and revertted everything, including substantial contributions by other users. I asked him kindly several times to explain his actions. There was no answer on any page. I was in the imposibility to edit anything because of Makkalai. He also threatened me to ban me from Wikipedia. He does not motivate his actions, and he does not discuss anything. He just reverts my pages. Mine, not someone's else, regardless of their content. He reverted even spelling mistakes!

He was targetting me personally.So I asked for administrators' protection from personal attacks from Mikkalai.

I would have expected Mikkalai to appologize and become constructive, but obviously it is not the case. From your answer, I understand that I should revert the vandalism done by Mikkalai. What if this infuriates Mikkalai more? What should I do if he continues to revert all my edits? Should I become more agressive too, is that what you are suggesting?

Of course, if Mikkalai will not revert again, the issue would be closed. But how far can I go if he continues to target pages editted by me? I hope you will not suggest me to engage in all-out war with Mikkalai, I hate wars! I would appreciate if you would answer :Dc76 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was in no way suggesting you simply revert other users, what I suggested is that you review our page on dispute resolution and use the methods listed there to resolve your dispute. Shell babelfish 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the main issue, the fact that fact that he targets me? Is it possible to ask him not to do this anymore? He does not listen to me, he just erases all my comments and questions. Can you kindly ask him not to target me? I would really appreciate if you could do so.

As for the articles, he did not revert my work only, but other people's as well, only that other users are affected on one article only, while me - on all I edit. I do not ask for support in reverting other people's work. That would be vandalism from my side to do and from your side to support me. And I am talking about the set os users composed of only one user: Mikkalai. I have tried steps 1, 2, 3. Still in 3, and looking for help from someone who can guide me through 4: 1 Avoidance 2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved 3 Second step: Disengage for a while 4 Further dispute resolution 4.1 Informal mediation 4.2 Discuss with third parties 4.3 Conduct a survey 4.4 Mediation 5 Last resort: Arbitration 6 Requesting an Advocate (at any time) thank you.:Dc76 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Are administrators treated differently?
I have found it odd that when an administrator disagrees with another editor such as myself, the administrator is able to get very rapid service in blocking the poor editor who disagreed with the administrator. Is this proper under the web site rules?

It seems to happen when I go to one particular group of related articles which are quite controversial. In these related articles, blocking seems to be used as a tactical debating approach. I am sure that this is disallowed under this web site. Am I right?

Please remember the following. Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for gross incivility are controversial; "cool-down" blocks are very controversial.

The discussions I put on the talk pages about wrongful deletions is not uncivil. It merely points out that some of the editors, including the one administrator, are wrongfully deleting information with which they personally disagree. Now, I got another block by you for reasons that were quite vague. Even if my language disagreeing with them were uncivil, blocking for it is “very controversial.”  Do you agree?

However, my language wasn't uncivil and you didn't specifiy what language to which you referred. I would like to go over the reasons you gave for the block because either I am missing something or you are. Please let me know you will review it with me. RPJ 09:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I have more information
Above, I mentioned, that you blocked me for very vague reasons. You appeared to do so because another administrator believed he was criticized by me in an uncivil manner.

Now, I look above on your page and see you do have a reason but not one that was given to me. Here, is what you consider a good example of my bad behavior, told to some one else but not to me.

"“[W]hen an anon edit removed a link from one of 'his' articles, he not only attacked the anon but then went on to try to pin the anon actions on another editor he was having a (different) disagreement with.”"

Your statement is incorrect. An anonymous edit did not remove a link. The editor that removed the link in question was signed in as "Jimwae" and for some reason unknown removed a link to "Spartacus" the English encyclopedia published by a society of English school teachers and educators.

Then, on the talk page someone put in an anonymous comment that "Spartacus" is a "crappy" source of information and is "slanted." This of course is very unprofessional, and detracts from this encyclopedia.

The editor that removed the the link did come back and admit that it was him that made put in the anonymous comment and said he forgot to sign it. Ok. He was man enough to come forward and admit it.

But, still, calling another encyclopedia, a "crappy" source doesn't reflect well on us. At least it is not anonymous any more.

So you had your facts all wrong. I didn't try to "pin it on another editor" that I was having another disagreement with. You need to read these yourself and get your facts straight before you block and scold people about their alleged bad behavior.

Also, please note that it is highly unprofessional to invent quotes. Above, when you are referring to me you state that a link was removed from one of "his" articles as though I have lost touch with reality and now thought an article was something I owned. I never have said or implied that at all. You are way out of line with that type comment and quote.

But, I would like to straighten this out with you if you are willing to take the time to do so. RPJ 10:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely not going to debate this with you. I gave you my reasons and two other admins denied your unblock and agreed with me - selectively removing their comments from your talk page doesn't make them go away.  Your history of blocks and warnings for the same problems indicates that you either don't get it or have no interest - my block was your fifth block.  I suggest you re-read WP:NPA and consider how not to violate it in the future. Another thought - you'll also want to look at the harassment policy. Shell babelfish 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you don't understand
I pointed out that you had your facts completely wrong when you blocked me for a week. Now you "absolutely won't debate it." Is there a way to appeal your ruling?

I also find it just as odd that you take the position that you can block and inaccurately criticize other editors on their talk pages but now raise "harrassment' if one calls it to your attention on your talk page the clear inaccuracies in your "facts."

The past blocks and warnings you allude to are all prompted by one of your fellow administrators who is on you "buddy list." He lobbied you behind the scene for the blocks. The computer record is clear on this.

This problem only happens to me on this one group of controversial articles where any attempt to introduce additional points of view are deleted by your fellow administrator.

RPJ 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You claim my facts were completely wrong. You claim without giving any diffs that one of the many incidents I cited for blocking you was a mistake.  You already had your appeal by using the  tag - two other admins declined to lift your block and one even commented to further explain why your behavior is a problem. ,  You are currently skirting the border of personal attacks and being generally uncivil on my talk page, which is not a good sign.


 * By the way, contrary to the statment you made above, you were blocked for persistent personal attacks - not for gross incivility or as a cool-down. This is one of the reasons specifically stated on the blocking page and since we do have agreement from several uninvolved admins, blocking you for the continued disruption via your harassment and incivility would likely not have been challenged either.


 * I did not point you to the harassment policy because you came to my talk page. I pointed it out as one of the policies you are violating by following a certain group of editors and attacking their work.  Please take a look at some of your talk page contributions and think about how you could write about your concerns without ever mentioning another editor - this will ensure that you no longer have to worry about others feeling attacked by your statements.


 * The past blocks came from five different admins. I'm not sure whom you allude to as being on a "buddy list" - my block was in reponse to a report made to the personal attack intervention noticeboard.  Please show me any evidence that someone has "lobbied" to have you blocked.


 * The problem is your refusal to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to resolve your editing conflict and instead violating our various policies about behavior in an attempt to get your way. There are proper ways to handle your concerns over the content of articles - writing diatribes about other editors is not one of those ways.  I would suggest that you try approaching the wider editing community by using our dispute resolution processes. Shell babelfish 00:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the additonal information you asked re Gamaliel on your "buddy list"
February 27 2004

If you need to contact a Wikipedian right now, just add a few of these people to your roster (AKA "buddy list") Thus Gamaliel goes on your “buddy list” You were reminded ”You should contact your selected new "buddy" before adding them to your contact list”

October 13, 2006

An urgent call goes out from your “buddy” Gamaliel and his friend Ramsquire to stop “RPJ” from discussing editing changes on the talk pages.

The two ask you ban me from discussing matters on the web. The urgency of their prayer to you is clear and stark:  “Please do something quickly.”    Doing “something” means you blocking me from contributing.

According to Gamaliel and Ramsquire my offenses consists of the following :

1—	RPJ has “difficulty assuming good faith” 2—	RPJ has difficulty using “reliable sources” 3—	RPJ “does not play well with other editors” 4—	“But more important than that. . . [RPJ] continues … implying that myself and Gamliel are. . . trying to suppress [RPJ’s] voice.”


 * User:Ramsquire|Ramsquire]] 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ramsquire 17:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (emphasis supplied)

Unfortunately you didn’t seem to recognize either the humor or great irony of their request to stop me from contributing. Instead, you immediately jumped into action and blocked me for a week with a stinging attack on me for three contributions to the talk page on editing matters.

It is true that another Administrator named Glen come in to consider my request to unblock my account. But he was immediately another Administrator by the name of “Mangojuice” preempted administrator Glen who was reviewing the matter and surprise: Mangojuice  didn’t unblock. Here is what happened:

User:RPJ You left a message on this guy's talk page [RPJ]about looking into his block, and asked Shell about it. I read your question and Shell's comment, and declined his unblock request; I think Shell has it right, and you seem to have moved on to other things. Hope I didn't step on your toes. Mangojuicetalk 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Now as far as the three items you claim are personal attacks, you never did quote to me the language that perceive is the wrongful “personal attack.” How can I improve if you don’t point out what you perceive is improper.

Moreover, Mangojuice read my material said:

My language is civil and that I don’t make any direct personal attacks. The only thing he seems worried about is that I often name the editors who are engaging in what I perceive to be improper deletions. The editors get very upset when their names appear in print discussing the deletions they keep making in this group of highly controversial articles. I don’t have any problems with editors in other articles. Just these ones.

I tell these same editors repeatedly, that their personal opinion that another viewpoint “debunks” a viewpoint they don’t agree with is not a reason to delete properly sourced information. Neither editors (nor administrators) possess the right to delete properly sourced information. Every significant view point should be included.

Do me a favor and go over the three cites you blocked me on and high or bold the language that disturbs you. I pointed on the one article about the anonymous edit that you had you facts backward. If you want me to go over that again I will,.

RPJ 07:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've given you my concerns, you've had your say. You're now making ridiculous accusations about being in collusion with Gamliel when I wasn't even on Wikipedia in 2004.  Move on and try to avoid the problems that got you here. Shell babelfish 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. The last time we discussed this user you wrote (now archived) "if this [the RFC] doesn't stop his incivility, you can file a request to the ArbCom, who may put the editor on personal attack parole or something similar." Well he's been blocked again since then (for 3 days) for personal attacks and legal threats. However on returning from his block he wrote in response to the blocking admin "Thanks, btw. Another chapter in the book, I guess. Not sure where *I* specifically threatened anyone with legal action, but your strange interpretation of reality are all that apparently matter.". Then when reverting an edit of mine at Michael Schumacher he wrote "again you vandalize and are unable to read a cite. The poll is on the same page as that article.Learn to read, for the fourth time". Since the RFC and countless warnings have has no effect do you think a request to the ArbCom is advisable/justified? Mark83 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If he's still refusing to work with others and attacking them, it may be your only option. I'll take a look through his recent contribs and see what I can do, but further dispute resolution wouldn't be a bad idea. Shell babelfish 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Parratt reposted
An article on Kevin Parratt has been recreated; I noticed that you had deleted it with the summary "unsourced biography of living person, OTRS 2006101910001282". As I don't have access to OTRS, can you check to make sure the new article doesn't have the same issues that the deleted one did? Zetawoof(ζ) 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, same problem as before unfortunately - the subjects website contains no information and per the OTRS ticket, the information being included by User:Naturalhomes is false. Since we're unable to verify the information without references, I've taken it down again and suggested Deletion Review to the author. Shell babelfish 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that the article Kevin Parratt has been deleted after about a year of it's posting and that you do this without any reference to me as its author. I assumed someone had blanked the article. I referred the deletion to one of your colleagues, Bottesini, who advised me to re-instate the article. Bottesini made checks on the notability of the person and agreed they were notable. So why do you remove the article? naturalhomes


 * While I agree that the subject may meet our notability requirements, that's not why the article in its current form was deleted. Almost all statements in the article are unsourced, which is a definate problem on biographies of living people.  The subject of the article contacted us through WP:OTRS concerned that much of the information in the article was incorrect and has proven to our satisfaction that the information is, in fact, incorrect.  Perhaps if you would provide citations for the entire text of your article we could resolve these concerns.


 * Its also important to note that if you disagree with the deletion of an article, the correct and GFDL compliant way to handle it is to ask for the article to be re-instated. I'm rather surprised someone advised you to simply recreate the article and not discuss the deletion with me or report it for deletion review - those are typically the avenues used.  Its also interesting to note that while Bottesini advised you about our notability guidelines, the editor did not, as you claim, make any reference to the subject's notability. Shell babelfish 10:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I admire the thoroughness of your editorial processes. I will substantiate the content of the article but it will take time. Is there an area where I can create the article so that we can discuss it? Once you are satisfied that the content is valid it can be re-published. If the content can only be validated by newspaper articles, letters from organisations, galleries etc will you accept these as proof. I don't believe an artist only achieves notoriety only by reference in books, They are generally dead by the time that happens. Here is a reference that validates the subject's education Asker's Lions Club and confirms collections such as the artwork at Artbank. You are correct that there was an error in the article, the subject's parents emigrated to Australia in 1950 not 1951 as I had in the article. This is referenced here on the subjects own website. Regards naturalhomes 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a start, but it verifies very little of the information that was included in the article. Another thing you might want to consider is that the article is going to need to meet the guidelines at WP:BLP - some of the personal details of his life may not need to be included since he's not a very public figure.  What you may want to do is build the article from the ground up at its proper location and make sure you reference each thing from a reliable source.  Alternately, if you'd rather not work on it in steps in the main article space, you can create it in a subpage of userspace - either mine or yours, whatever you'd like - If you'd like help creating a subpage, just let me know. Shell babelfish 19:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unclear about methods of proof of detail in the article. I have written to one of Kevin Parratt's teachers from the late 70s, David Warren, who has confirmed the correctness of the article. How can I present data from non-published media to you to substantiate the correctness of the article, such as letters, emails or newspaper clippings? The detail of the original article is entirely correct apart from the emigration date I mentioned earlier. Regarding personal details, these were included because they are events that had an influence on the artist's work. Regards naturalhomes 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia's policies such as Verifiability, Original Research and Reliable Sources. Information you gathered from teachers or letters cannot be used since it does not meet our policies for inclusion.  Newspaper articles can be used, see WP:CITE for details on how to cite the source - typcially with newspaper articles you need to cite the date, newspaper, title and author.  While you may feel certain personal details should be included, it is Wikipedia's policy not to publish information on non-public personalities unless the information is commonly known or found in a reliable reference source.  Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Shell babelfish 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What is WP:PAIN for?
If not for such discussions? I don't understand why it was removed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Like its sisterboard for vandals WP:AIV the board is only for reports. If you disgree with the response to a case, please take it to the talk page of the respondant. Shell babelfish 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Was there any responce to the case other then deleting the report? If reports are deleted, then what is the purpose of this page?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Put simply, it's for reports, and only reports in the format given in the instructions. It is not for discussion - that's what talk pages are for where they exist (and I don't mean the talk of the PAIN page. It's not a place to resolve disputes, to carry them out, or part of the dispute resolution processCrimsone 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The response was that no clear personal attacks were reported and the folks involved should calm down and try some of the things on WP:DR to resolve the conflict. Shell babelfish 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yamia
Hi,

I wish I could agree about Yamia, but this person's gone to far. I posted this on my blog:

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2006/11/fire-yamia-at-wikipedia-overzealous.html

The next step is to take this up with the Wikipedia Board. I've had enough.


 * Unfortunately your blog grossly misstates the situation. To protect copyright holders and itself, the Wikimedia Foundation has a specific process to follow if you are including text from a website, even if that website is your own.  The two methods available have been explained to you.  This is not Yamla's policy and not optional to follow.  If you need any assistance understanding those options or completing them, I would be happy to help.


 * In the meantime, please take a step back and understand that Yamla is simply following Wikipedia policies. He is not picking on you, singling you out or overstepping his bounderies.  You're welcome to bypass our dispute resolution mechanisms and email the board, but its only fair to tell you that you will be told that content disputes are not resolved via email.


 * If there's anything about policy or editing that I can help with, please let me know. Shell babelfish 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to resolve this matter. Yamis has the problem of being too heavy-handed in contact with me. Plus, I disagree with the matter of the interpretation of Wikipedia Policy. Also, and this is the bottom line, the entries I have made have been relevant to the topic. Moreover, the entries of others have led to blogs, forums, and other sites, and not addressed. Plus, their posts are too very relavant. I want to refer to the specific issue of the posts and the subject. Kate Troecher has the leading blog on Women's Bodybuilding. It should be referenced. GeneX Hwang is the best photog on Women's Bodybuilding. He should be referenced. It's a small community of people who should be recognized. -- Zennie


 * From what you said, it seems like there's been some disagreement over the content and links for the article. Most of the time you can resolve these differences by using the Talk page of the article to talk to the other editors about your concerns; develop a consensus on the material and how the article should be changed or updated.  You may want to include a list of things you feel need changing and the reasons you think they should be changed - other editors can comment and a solution can be worked out.  If this doesn't resolve the dispute, the next step is usually a request for comment on the issues.  This step lets you engage other editors in the Wikipedia community that might not normally visit the article.  It can help to have those outside opinions and may provide a resolution.  There are further steps available, such as mediation - a full descriptions of the different options can be found on WP:DR.


 * One way to avoid conflict with other editors is to discuss only the article and its problems and not refer to other contributors whenever possible. There's a good discussion about this on WP:NPA and WP:COOL.  There's a really great essay about resolving disputes at WP:BRD that might also help with some ideas.  If I can be of any assistance in the future, just let me know. Shell babelfish 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and WP:SEMI
I've kind of explained my thoughts on WT:SEMI, but basically, consensus means coming to an agreement that everyone can agree with, not by counting votes that weren't cast (-: 73% isn't consensus.  In order to come to an agreement that everyone can live with, there needs there needs to be more discussion than there has been.  There hasn't been enough discussion on this yet&mdash;we've barely weighed the pros and cons of this on discussion, for example.  JYolkowski // talk 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Shan and steven (carla b-day)2.jpg
I flipped that over to an Template:ifd, but next time, why not save a step and switch it out for the proper deletion if you know it is the wrong one? &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 14:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I've uploaded my own pictures for use in my userspace. I didn't see any compelling reason to delete a free photo. Shell babelfish 22:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

question
hi. i created the list of wjbq interactive 8s, and i was wondering why you deleted it. any reasons would be appreacitaed.

please leave me a message on my talk page. thanks! Jmclark911 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New Users
Thanks for your message on new users. In regards to the comments he left in Puerto Rico talk page, they are not only insulting but repetitve. Is there someway to block this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XLR8TION (talk • contribs) 22:12, November 3, 2006
 * I've removed your personal attack from the message you left. I'm somewhat shocked that you came over here and did the same thing I just warned you about.  Wikipedia strictly forbids making personal attacks about other users, even those you feel you're having trouble with.  Please stop before someone is forced to block you.  Wikipedia doesn't block people who are difficult to work with or hold views different from your own; for more information on blocks, please see WP:BLOCK. Shell babelfish 22:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

mini-RFC on usertalk...
Hi Shell. Is there any chance that you could nip across to User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior? There's no trouble to speak of there, but per the subsection comments on the proposal I'm a little concerned by it's venue. It's a good idea, and could be fruitful in putting a final resolution to the issue, but it seems badly placed in my opinion. If you agree, would it be possible for you to move the section to its own page somewhere and merge history for it? I've left a comment on WP:ANI but nobody seems to have been interested. Thanks Crimsone 22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm..that's a unique way to handle the userpage concern. I'm not sure it needs moved yet though; its harder to ignore your talk page than a subpage.  This is rather new territory so it might be worth it to give it some time and see how it works out; it can always be archived or moved elsewhere later when there's a consensus to do so. Shell babelfish 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem Shell. It certainly is new territory. I'm just worried that it might be considered inappropriate. Of course, reading your opinion here does make me feel a little better about it I must say. I certainly agree with the sentiment as you just described it, and I guess it is worth seeing how it all works out :) I'll answer my comment on the page appropriately. Thanks :) Crimsone 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's going to be really interesting is if Cerebral Warrior decides to remove it from his talk page. Either this is brilliant or its going to cause a serious problem and I'm just not sure which yet. Shell babelfish 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I suspect that the offensive elements of the user page are going to get removed whichever way it happens - so in that respect it's certainly effective lol. To be honest, that would be the reason as much as anything that I wouldn't like to see a solid precedent from this in the future, although the idea itself is certainly on firm ground. Heck, it could even become the default process for userpage content issues, as it's certainly a quite tidy and fair way for a community to demonstrate it's desire over something. As I said though, the only thing that concerns me is that if the "new message" banner flashes up after every other edit, the user whos page is being discussed may opt to ignore it, making it inconvenient not just for the user, but for any user that needs to contack him/her. Either way, it's pretty fun to watch for now (oops, did I just say that? *naughty me* lol) Crimsone 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The POV Page Mina Khel created by User:A M. Khan
Hi, I really like your picture with your puppy.

I just wanted to say that I had previously tagged the page Mina Khel as “Speedy Deletion” because the same was earlier (after reaching a consensus) "Redirected" to the parent article on Marwat. And it happened that you very graciously redirected the same. The User:A M. Khan has once again recreated the same page through another sock puppet and is also repeatedly vandalizing the page Marwat. He was earlier blocked by User:The JPS for some time but as soon as he came back to Wikipedia he has restarted this nonsense. We had a long war of vandalizing (by him) and restoring (by me) of the page Marwat. You can see it for yourself that he just wants to advertise his POV through Wikipedia. Please look into this matter, as I am once again tagging the page of Mina Khel with a speedy delete because being a Marwat myself, I know that there is no truth in what he is saying. As a matter of fact he had also tried to change the decision of Redirect to Keep on the same page and which I had also reverted earlier. You can also see this at the page history of Mina Khel. His other sock puppets are IP addresses 210.56.14.139 & 203.175.64.10, User:Lakki Marwat,and User:Ghazni Khel. I tried to warn him on his user page but he is still doing the same and laughing into my face. Since I am not an Admin yet therefore, it is my humble request to you to look into this matter and either block this person or stop this person from editing these pages. His other interests are to create pages for one Akhtar Munir Marwat, Anwar Kamal Khan, and Khan Habibullah Khan. I hope to see a befitting response from you. --Marwatt 03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll help keep an eye on the article - since consensus was to redirect, it should stay that way unless discussion determines otherwise. I've warned this new account Lakki Marwat about edit warring over the article.  If you think that all these accounts are related and also using the IP addresses, I would suggest making a request at WP:RFCU to verify this which will allow us to deal with them as a whole and may lead to blocking several of the sockpuppets (if that's what this is).  Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Shell babelfish 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111's talk page
This user was banned indefinitely for his continued ranting and personal attacks of others. It was suggested that if he returned to rant on his talk page again that it should be protected. He has returned and has been ranting on his talk page here. Do you think you could protect his page? -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 15:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted and protected - sorry about that, I must have taken it if my watchlist by accident. Shell babelfish 20:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Make a justice yourself.
I am about whom, User:Marwatt brought so many complaints, that are mentioned above.

I have nothing to say more about saying that please make a justice yourself.

I am guilty for something, I affirm. But whatever I am editing in article Marwat is based upon reality, fact and a trueinformation. The User:Marwatt got some personal enmiy with the people, who I mention in the article. I just don't want that enmity to be brought-up here, as WP is not the property of Mr. USer:Marwatt. I have no more evidence of being a true one, except requesting you to make an enquiry yourself and make a justice by being a nuteral one. Also read USer:Addhoc's comment on USer:Marwatt, you will know the frustration of User:Marwatt at me, automatically.

A sincere and humble request: Please don't start helping one against another editor, untill unless you don't have dialogues with both parties. This may make one hopless and other an aggressive. Please!

Regards,

Your wiki mate, A M. Khan 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If your position in the edit war is correct, you should easily be able to provide sources on the discussion page of the article that support your position. You should also be adding these sources to the article when you re-write it.  Edit warring and making multiple accounts to keep reverting is not a good idea; both can lead to getting you blocked from editing for the disruption you're causing.  Look over our page on how to resolve disputes: WP:DR.  Start by talking to User:Marwatt and coming to an agreement on your differences.  If this doens't work, you may want to ask for a third-opinion to help resolve the dispute.  The dispute resolution page also has other ideas on how to bring in more of the Wikipedia community to help resolve your differences. Shell babelfish 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Shell it seems I am unblocked.
Thank you Shell it seems I am unblocked.

Many thanks.

swadhyayee 10:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I want you to know I don't feel neglected
I think we have a new admin coaches chair, and that person is doing due diligence to touch base with all those involved in the program. I'm taking my sweet time learning this stuff, and dipping my toes in deep water (AfD, RfC, 3RR) from time to time. When I do, I seem to hold my own pretty well (rescued an article on my first try!). Will do such more often. I think I will apply for editor review, and then proceed with learning more. I've recently taken on Military Science task force, and have volunteered for volunteer coordination support in Wikimania 2007, so I'm gradually working into deeper water. I'm just not in any real hurry. I have a challenging career; family matters and improved personal writing have occupied priorities, and I'm still making good daily progress in this project. I plan to spend more time in Simple English once I get more established here. So I could see myself running sometime next year. BusterD 13:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have put myself up on editor review; if you'd like to provide feedback, I'd appreciate anything you might offer. Seems like a simple bar and a good foundation upon which to build. BusterD 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

banning Eric Lerner
Hi,

I'm not sure whether you are one of arbitrators involved in the "psedoscience" action, but if you are I'd like you to seriously look at the effort to ban me. I've summarized the situation on the "proposed decision" talk page.

Thanks, EricElerner 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I'm not an arbitrator. I would like to point out however that you have been rather disruptive to those pages, which is why, I believe, they are asking that you not edit them.  There is nothing to prevent you from contributing your ideas to the talk pages though :) Shell babelfish 16:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are child characters really gay?
With polite reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies

Hi sorry if the removal was a problem it's that this is a childs programme which offered no gay suggestion and was sexless in so far as apart from friendships between the characters there was no hint as to sexuality. indeed they are supposed to be children themselves and to suggest sexuality is treading on thin ice. 1/ To quote a letter as a source is poor at best, i could write an outrageous letter myself and quote it here but it wouldn't make it right.

2/ This has been denied and moreover was a misunderstanding by the press who blew 'what if' questions out of all proportion. see link please http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/13newsb.html

2 and a half... I find the notion that a mention of a tea cup storm made by small minded individuals should be included in a pen picture of a childrens TV show ludicrous at best but this comment is the only just comment with real founding.

3/ The outcome should be entered as i find it hard to believe it ever got to a courtroom.

1/ [edit] Tinky-Winky controversy One of the Teletubbies, Tinky Winky, was the focus of a still hinted-at controversy in 1999 due to his carrying a bag that looks much like a woman's purse (although he was first "outed" by the academic and cultural critic Andy Medhurst in a letter of July 1997 to The Face).

2/ A February, 1999 article in the National Liberty Journal, published by Jerry Falwell, warned parents that Tinky could be a hidden homosexual symbol, saying "he is purple—the gay pride color, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle—the gay pride symbol."

2(and a half!) A spokesman for Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co., who licenses the characters in the United States, said it was just a magic bag. "The fact that he carries a magic bag doesn't make him gay. It's a children's show, folks. To think we would be putting sexual innuendo in a children's show is kind of outlandish."

3/ In an incident reported in 2000, a girl's Tinky Winky toy reportedly said "I got a gun". Kenn Viselman, then chairman of the Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co., claimed the toy acutally said "Again, Again". [3]

Can this section be removed on the grounds that it really has no worth and is trying to portray child characters as gay. Especially while using hinted and possibly.

Thanks for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.102 (talk • contribs) 13:47, November 9, 2006


 * The controversy, regardless of whether we think it has any merit, was covered by major news media - a big deal was made of it. In that sense, it makes sense that we cover it - that doesn't mean that we agree with it.  Personally, I think its incredibly silly and agree that calling a children's character gay was a bit absurd.  Please take a look at our policy on writing from a neutral point of view: WP:NPOV.  It will help explain how articles are expected to show all major viewpoints on a particular issue. Shell babelfish 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Just to expand. Medhurst who is cited is not a critic per se, he has published minor papers on the gay 'scene' as it were and as you can see from the link the whole Tinky Winky issue was born from a joke on what must have been a quiet news day. The fact that all concerned have distanced themselves is enough to at least acknowledge that the claims were baseless and since been retracted. The balance in the section is not there and is full of suposition, all now foundless anyway. I'm glad you agree with the silliness of it all however but think there is more than a slant towards the importance of the news coverage it really received. Thanks again, again.


 * I'm actually working on rewriting a great deal of the article to improve it. If you have any suggestions on how to reword the section or references for the later information about the statements being retracted, I'd love to have it :) Shell babelfish 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice of RfC
Please note that there is currently an RfC on RPJ located here. Feel free to make any comments. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Notification of admin tool abuse by an aggressive pseudoskeptic
You seem to be one of the more responsible admins around, having actually held ScienceApologist (who seems to be able to get away with any policy violation without consequence) accountable in one case. I am writing to notify you that the admin JzG (signs as 'Guy'), an aggressive pseudoskeptic like ScienceApologist, has been abusing his admin tools and admin status to harass and intimidate me (with blocking and libellous accusations) because I had exposed the pseudoskeptics in my statement on the pseudoscience RfAr. He is working in conjunction with the admin Saxifrage, who is making an unrelated dominance-motivated revenge attack on me, and other users such as BenAveling (probably a pseudoskeptic, else just a disruptive sadist) and Ronz (another dominance-motivated revenge attacker, as well as a POV-pushing pseudoskeptic). They particularly like libelling me by falsely portraying my actions and using the convincing tactic of pretending to address me on my talk page (when in fact addressing third parties, because both myself and them know their statements to be false). They generally like to be cleverly convincing. I wouldn't even be surprised if they falsely portray my relevant and informative descriptions of their behaviors in this very message as being personal attacks. I described all of the offenses on WP:ANI, in 2 different reports (1. "Deceptive gang attack committed by Saxifrage, BenAveling, and JScott06" and 2. "Flagrant abuse of admin tools by JzG (signs as 'Guy') and the new admin Saxifrage"). I therefore think that this matter is likely to be of concern to you. GoodCop 06:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I blocked GoodCop for a modest 24 hours for personal attacks and legal threats, I pointed him towards WP:DR since he evidently has a problem with certain past actions by other admins. GoodCop is now indef-blocked for disruption (not by me).  The attribution of motives is baseless - I was not even aware that GoodCop is a fringe/pseudo science apologist, and don't care if he is, I was reacting to an incivil diatribe on the admin noticeboard. As ever I am happy for any admin action of mine to be reviewed and critiqued. Guy 11:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did take a brief look when this first showed up, saw his history and contribs (he was already indef blocked at that point) and decided that the rant didn't even deserve a response. Most nasty evil admin rants turn out to be gross exaggerations at best - and generally they mean you're doing the right thing ;) No worries. Shell babelfish 12:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User Page Vandalism
Hi Shell, please look up to see my userpage being vandalized by an anonymous IP 203.171.70.136 and block it so that he does not go on to vandalize others involved in similar projects as that appears to be the intent here! This message posted is relevant to my efforts to restore NPOV in all LTTE/Eelam related articles and also to my WP:NCSLC project, as I am being dubbed the spokesperson of LTTE. Kindly help. Thanks User:Sudharsansn (talk· contribs) 19:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've given the IP a warning and will be watching their contributions. Thanks for the heads up. Shell babelfish 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help Shell. User:Sudharsansn (talk· contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shell, the vandals are at it again. Pro-govt vandals are coming down heavily upon all Neutral pages, including my user page, my project page, etc....Check this Project page vandalism by 192.248.40.6 and please help me out here!! Thanks again!! User:Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shell, the vandal has been caught. Poor guy he forgot to turn off his signature script and the user is none other than a user who previously vandalised the Velupillai Prabhakaran page - SnowolfD4. Please check this topic "F..ing Demalu, we want you all dead. Your and your NCSLC bull. Need some good 'ole lynch. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )". He has vandalized my userpage and talk page with foul language and racist remarks. He had to do two changes, one with his signature and the other with his signature removed and both of them from this IP.

As per Wiki, he is caught redhanded trying to vandalize pages with his signature turned on by mistake. FYI, the user has already been blocked thrice in Wikipedia. He has resorted to using abusive language and 'Demalu' means 'Tamilians' and he basically wants all 'F** Tamilians to die, which quite evidently is a bad racist remark and also my WP:NCSLC project closed, which goes completely against Wiki policies.

I kindly request you to step in and take stern action so that it can be avoided in the future. Thanks Shell, and expecting your prompt action to maintain Wikipedia norms. If he is continuing even after three warnings including a 24-hour block, I think he is really going berserk User:Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Shields
Was just wondering why you reverted my edit of a speedy deletion on that page about some nobody that is not noteworthy. Crimes happen everyday. By the standards of CSD-A7, "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content." This page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talk • contribs) 18:56, November 12, 2006
 * Give the amount of news coverage and the details, I didn't believe it qualified for a speedy - there are some claims of notability. You're still welcome to take it to articles for deletion if you believe it should be deleted. Shell babelfish 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hello there. You recently blocked User:172GAL for personal attacks. Now that the block has expired, they seem to be back on the same track. See and. It seems inutile to warn the user. Hope you will have a look at it. Bertilvidet 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else got there first - 3 day block this time. I'm sorry you've had to deal with these types of attacks. Shell babelfish 12:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vendetta images
I tried screencapturing the image of Etheridge and Heyer from YouTube. It isn't working. If you have seen V for Vendetta and have the capability to screencapture images from a movie, please upload images of those characters.- JustPhil 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on RPJ
Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with RPJ. I can see from RPJ's talk page that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the RfC page and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! →Bobby ← 15:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Can i ask a question about your decision?
I sumbitted a complaint to the NPA board regarding user Eleemosynary making personal attacks against me. You deleted it with the explanation "no clear attacks" and that this is not a substitute for dispute resolution. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I thought I understood the meaning of personal attacks and that accusing me of trolling, using sock puppets, lieing, making threats, dishonestly trying to game the 3RR rule, being a laughable disgrace, etc (I'm not going to get into them all) would be considered personal attacks. Why would these not be? Also, regarding dispute resolution, I don't have a dispute with the user. We may disagree on what items should be included in the article, but I am one of several who do not agree with her and that is being sorted out on its own. My complaint is that this person continues to make unsubstantiated and untrue statements and personal attacks about me and I'd like it to stop. Caper13 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When you look at the context of the remarks from your report, you begin to notice that there is a generally large amount of incivility going on during that discussion. Most of what Eleemosynary said was to describe the edits and dicsussion that was going on, not directed at you personally.  While it would be optimal if editors would always discuss only the content and not the contributor, some leeway is given - for instance, from the policy, "You are acting like a troll" is different than "You are a troll".  Looking at the actual comments in context, there is a dispute; I'm glad that you're able to work it out on the talk page and I'm sorry that the discussion isn't more civil, but currently I don't believe it violates our personal attack policy. Shell babelfish 18:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4
You should think twice before block him because Sudharsansn and his company(NCSLC) is always having edit wars with Snowolfd4 and with me. So this can be a trap that set up against Snowolfd4 by NCSLC.  ♪ ♫ Ľ ą Ħ ĩ Ř ǔ _ Қ ♫ ♪  (Ŧ) 19:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This what Sudharsansn’s buddy Sechzehn did to me. He tried to hook me up for this incident. .   ♪ ♫ Ľ ą Ħ ĩ Ř ǔ _ Қ ♫ ♪  (Ŧ) 19:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why a checkuser was requested. If it turns out that Snowolf4 was logging out and making death threats, that's a rather serious problem - however, it the checkuser can't confirm that his account is using the IP address, there's nothing to be concerned about. Shell babelfish 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not clear whether Lahiru_k is innocent in all of this. These series of vandalisms occurred, after I had given a civility warning to Lahiru for having offensive user boxes .  In particular he had a userbox that said "This user opposes LTTE supporters on Wikipedia" and directed personal attack against me saying that I didn't have common sense on another wikipedia article . Once I raised this offensive userbox and the incident, Lahiru's response was the following .   He had claimed to be busy after this point and refused to do anything about the complaint till Dec. 4th.  Elalan 22:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Noting that the image in the userbox is a copyright violation, I had applied for speedy removal of the template and the template was removed. User Lahiru silently removed  references  to this offensive userbox today I believe, after the template had been removed by the authorities . At the same time   Sudharsansn and Sechzehn also intervened to get this offensive userbox removed and this is when the threatening posts directed at Sudharsansn and the Neutral Coverage of the Sri Lankan Crisis wikiproject members started appearing. In particular, Sudharsan had notified me of the threatening userbox template on Lahiru's page.  These appear to be the version vandalized by the IP ,  .  However in both cases Lahiru did do the right thing and revert to original version of template (that was not threatening).   Elalan 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1] Yes, I made a user box called "This user opposes LTTE supporters on Wikipedia". LTTE none other than one of the most barbaric terrorist group that exist in the world and banned by many governments of the countries in the world (E.g. USA, Canada, Britain etc.). So LTTE is certainly not another RACE in Sri Lanka. Therefore, very clearly, I do not become a racist by standing against a Terrorist Group. May be due to the lack of knowledge about LTTE, one of the fellow wikipedians of Elalan had addressed me a racist. In the civilised world, supporting for murderous activities is just the same as committing murders. It simply apllies for terrorism as well. Those whom the Hat fits to, can always wear it. Therefore, I do not see the userbox "This user opposes LTTE supporters on Wikipedia" as a personal attack on anyone. 2] Yes, I also said that the common sense is uncommon to Elalan and I here by accept I did so and apologize from him. I here by also say, nothing of the sort would not happen again from me.

3] Yes, I am extremely busy until the 4th of December, and this is NOT a cowardly act as it has been appeared to some users. I have already informed this user that I will continually check my watchlist, and this is where I noticed this discussion going on and returned here.

4] I am not involved in the copyright violation of the image used in the userbox. I found it from the history page of the LTTE article. I am also prepared to provide evidence on this on request by anyone.

5] There is also no need of asking for permission from anyone in order to delete anything from my own user page and this includes changing my userboxes too.

6] I oppose any kind of terrorism in the world including LTTE and therefore I am not a racist. You can furthur confirm this fact by simply going through my contributions list. But I doubt if there is any neutrality in the wikiproject Neutral Coverage of the Sri Lankan Crisis due to the comment made by the founder of the project Sudharsansn as he has commented badly regarding ethnic group sinhala. Please do a checkuser on me if you feel still suspect me on that threatening userbox template incident that appeared on my userpage created by some IP user. I don't mind at all. If there is anything you want to ask regarding this mattter, do feel free to ask me anytime. Happy Editing!!! ♪ ♫ Ľ ą Ħ ĩ Ř ǔ _ Қ ♫ ♪ (Ŧ) 13:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lahiru, just because some other wikipedian blurted something, whats that got to do with me ? You seem to imply there is some connection between User:Donnyt and myself.  Other than the fact that we are both Tamil, I am not so sure there is a connection.  I think you statement highlights anger at Tamil wikipedians (because you are linking me to Donnyt's remarks).  The image you used was the donkey character from Shrek. Some of your post are hardly neutral and show extreme POV that is not academic [].  Regarding copyright violations, that authorities have indeed decided that the 'logo' you used was copyright violation and have deleted it. You can't be espousing hatred or opposition of other wikipedians even in your own user space and again the authorities agreed with me and have deleted your template. If you link Tamil people together in negative light (as you just have with me and Donnyt), then off course you are not going to find the wikiproject neutral in your POV.  Sudharsansn didn't direct any statements at Sinhala people in general, if your read the statement carefully he was merely against these userboxes that espoused opposition/hatred at fellow wikipedians.  Elalan 14:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Waves a white flag - Unfortunately my talk page isn't a part of dispute resolution. This seems to be a very heated dispute and both of you are being generally incivil and are bordering on attacking each other. Please take some time to cool down and if you're not already, start using the dispute resolution process. Shell babelfish 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation of my Wiki profile
Hi Shell, please note that my existing userprofile: Sudharsansn is being vandalized by an impersonator who has created an id similar to that of mine. The new impersonating vandal id that has been created is this: Snsudharsan whereas my real profile page is here: Sudharsansn. Kindly help urgently!! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You caught me when I wasn't online. It looks like the account has already been blocked indefinitely.   Shell babelfish 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hi Shell, I added the diffs. --Strothra 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I stumbled across your page having a passing interest in your block on User:Adriaan90 so I looked through your talk page. I am appalled that you have to go through all this and eternally grateful that you do. I am pretty new here (and loving it) so I was unaware that such disputes dragged on and involved admins in such a heavy and stressful workload ... thank you ... Abtract 20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the kind words. Its not always so difficult and only extreme cases get that involved.  For the most part, editing Wikipedia is enjoyable and there's a great community spirit.  Welcome aboard! Shell babelfish 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Reminder to comment on my editor review
Hi. I really hate to pester, but I'd love it if you made some comment before discussion is closed and archived. I'm feeling just fine and having no real issues other than the normal ones. As work is easing a bit, and especially after the holiday season, I'll be even more involved, though I can see my daily edits always staying in the 40-50 per day range. BusterD 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. I've gotten so involved with a few cases going on that I'd completely forgotten to add my thoughts over there. Sorry about that! Shell babelfish 02:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lynn Harless
I'm trying to find a picture of Lynn Harless. With Google image search, I came across this site: with this pic:. Is it alright to upload this onto Wikipedia, and if so, how would I do it? -WarthogDemon 08:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In order to be uploaded on Wikipedia pictures must be justifiable under American fair use guidelines (see Fair_use or, Image_copyright_tags) or a free content license of some kind (see Free_content). Free content licenses are vastly preferred; pictures with weak fair use justifications and pictures without source information or clear license status will be deleted. For more detailed information see our image use policy (Image_use_policy).
 * At a quick glance, all of the photos on the site you mention appear to be from various copyrighted sources. As such, none of them would be acceptable for use on Wikipedia.   Shell babelfish 08:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 08:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your evaluation of Ilaiyaraaja
A note of appreciation for your review of this FAC article and providing some valuable comments -- these are what I need and couldn't get and wouldn't have gotten had I not FAC-ed it. Will continue tinkering with the article. A question, since you've gone through the material: do you think the it is OK length-wise for an FA? I have been checking out FA articles and they seem far lengthier. Do you think its LEAD is too short? I thought it was just nice, and not verbose. Cheers. AppleJuggler 08:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I understand its hard to get feedback on articles at times, especially when the article is on a topic that the typical American geek doesn't know about :)  I don't think the length is a problem; you covered his career from many aspects.  The lead is well written; it is a bit shorter than other musical FA but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  You might want to look at some other Featured_articles and see what people have done for other performers.  For instance while you cover different aspects of his career, many other featured articles on musical artists give more details on the development of their career, giving specific information about pivotal or popular works. Shell babelfish 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. As you've pointed out, instead of going with the usual chronological approach, I dealt with this with a 'summary of career' section (which could still be fleshed out), and proceeded to explore various aspects and characteristics of this musician's music (plenty of things to describe here already -- see To Do #2c in the Discussion page). I thought that this would be the most practical approach if one really wanted to be comprehensive, considering the fact that this musician has an unusually large (>4000 songs) and varied (genre-spanning) output. Therefore the chronological biography which would suit a Johann Strauss (a mainly waltz composer) or a Bob Dylan (a folk-pop artist) won't really apply in this dude's case. But all the same, I will scrutinise a coupla more music-related Featured Articles to get a better idea of things. Thank you for the link. And, to be fair, even the average non-American geek wouldn't really know about this musician. As we know, there are many interesting musicians out there who are out of our realm of geopolitical interest (our 'national borders', in short) and are therefore out of mind :) Best wishes, AppleJuggler 09:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right; given the sheer scope of the work, the chronological approach might be unwieldy. Fleshing out the summary a bit wouldn't hurt, though I imagine its hard to decide what to cover there given the huge scope of his career.  Good luck with the work! Shell babelfish 09:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Improper Reverts
Can you review the page and Talk at Israeli Apartheid vis a vis, Help:Reverting? Can you look at the issue? Thanks.Kiyosaki 08:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but like several people have said, you want to use some form of dispute resolution if you think there's a problem behind the reverting. From a quick glance it appears that there is reverting going on by multiple parties between two versions.  It looks like consensus needs to be worked out on the talk page so that those differences can be resolved. If someone hasn't mentioned it, you'll want to read our three revert policy - its always better to discuss than edit war and more than 3 reverts in 24 hours can lead to you being blocked for disruption. Shell babelfish 08:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

good catch
I'm so glad you got the joke (and responded in kind) that I won't explain your debt to Thatcher. Just remember that you owe me a favor when someone finally reports me at ANI. Given the way I've been treating linkspammers and certain other "contributors" (I use the term loosely), it won't be long...

BTW - I've posted at ANI about various "situations" several times in the past couple weeks. I only report things that seem to require a swift block or deletion, and the responses have always been speedy and gratifying. I would wish that everyone at WP could be so clearheaded and reasonable, but that's expecting too much, even for a wish. It's always a pleasure to meet another geek fan; happy editing! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 08:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. There is a fine line between assuming good faith, and blithely ignoring a pronounced scent of troll. I guess that's when the BSR (Bull Shit Radar) comes in handy. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

PAIN report comments
Hi Shell, with regard to the PAIN report on Iwazaki I would like to make it extremely clear that the user is only pointing to a non-existent problem to escape from the accusations that have been levelled at him.

Though I do not have to respond to his accusations in that thread, it is pretty much common-sense for anyone to understand that my comments should not be read as an isolated phrase but as one clause in a sequence of conversations. My usage of the term 'Sinhala goons' was a contextual remark and not an attack or anywhere close to being one. As per Durova's very own remark, there really is no evidence as such because it should be read in a sequence of events and discussions and not as a stand-out phrase. This is like highlighting only bad when we say that children should not be bad, I can't believe that somebody is actually pointing out to such a trivial remark when there is something on him. Neither did I have an idea of floating such a userbox nor did I create one. It was a casual remark mentioned as a counter for the "This user supports the killing of Tamils", which points to people of my race, which was in Iwazaki's userpage and was created by User:Lahiru_k

I would request you to look into the actual report and not let Iwazaki show that such escapism can let him go scot-free. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

attack by recently blocked anon user
Dear Shell Kinney, User:72.74.110.151 which you blocked 24.11.2006, immediately begins attacks to some articles in vandalist manner. here. Please take alook. Regards Must TC 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also here and here

Regards. Must TC 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
 * I've been an admin for a teeny bit more than a year; I also work on WP:OTRS.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * The ArbCom hears more and more cases as Wikipedia grows and there aren't a great deal of people who have the incredible amounts of time, in addition to the demeanor, to review cases. I know I've got the time and willingness and I hope the community thinks I have the demeanor, so I'd like to help out.  I'm sure Fred's friends and family would like too see him again occasionally.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I was the initiator of the Shiloh Shepherd Dog case; after two months of attempted mediation I was unable to reach an agreement between two sets of parties with outside interest in the article. I was listed as a party in the current Pseudoscience case as an attempt by one party to bolster their case since I had once blocked another party; my involvement has been scarce other than to describe the particular dispute I encountered since I have no knowledge of the substance of the dispute and little bearing on the heart of the matter.  I also had an editor attempt to open an Arb case against me because he didn't want to be warned for personal attacks; it was rejected.  I have commented on other cases occasionally, usually in regards to whether or not the ArbCom should consider the case. Shell babelfish 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Need your advice desperately
I should have followed your advice and filed an rfc on snowolfd4 but I think I was too merciful. Anyways he has launched a sockpuppet case against me and user:Trincomanb with some dubious evidence, claiming voting fraud etc etc. I launched a checkuser on myself and Trincomanb hoping to sort this out. First it was rejected because I applied for it, then I got Sudharsansn to do it for me and here is the result. The checkuser person thinks its "Likely" (sigh). Both of us have given a rebuttal for the results. Trincomanb upon hearing the checkuser results decided to strike out his vote in the xfd and I am awaiting his defence in all of this. I would sincerely ask you to comment on the case when you get a chance. Elalan 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Voluntarily removing votes was a great thing to do until you get this cleared up. Unfortunately, checkuser isn't a good tool to prove innocence - there are many ways to get around having the same IP address and as you've seen, the folks at checkuser also look into things like close proximity of IP addresses (i.e. editing from home and from work).  When two people live close to each other and have similar edits, its much easier to suggest those might be the same person than it is to prove that they are not.  I'm afraid that even if snowolfd4 filed the sockpuppet report to get back at you in some way, it does present some evidence that would support his theory - having the checkuser done actually made that a bit worse.  The best thing you can do is, instead of attacking the reasons that snowolfd4 created the case, show times that you and the other user were editing at the same time or times that the two of you had different viewpoints - things that show you are not the same person editing from different locations.  Best of luck. Shell babelfish 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice, if I recall correctly there were numerous instances of difference opinion on certain issues. I gather my statement on the case is perhaps a little too emotional. Thanks.  Elalan 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The more you can be calm and point out facts that contradict his assumption, the better your case will look. If you're not familiar with showing evidence, you might want to look at the help page on diffs which are best for showing differences in edits and opinions. Shell babelfish 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Shell Kinney. I'm an outside observer to this case, and it seems User:Elalan has been blocked indefinitely from wikipedia based on hardly any credible evidence. The "admin" who came to a "likely" conclusion in a sockpuppetry case against User Elalan refused to answer to legitamate protests, concerns and requests by both User:Elalan and another admin User:Osgoodelawyer. See here. Instead, that admin's and Elalan's concerns were blanked from the talk page. See here Elalan has now been blocked by another admin passing by for "abusive sockpuppetry." Is there anyway to intervene on this. What is the next process? I think Users that have witnessed Elalan's contributions know he has been unfairly targetted. Citermon 15:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to have the ban reviewed, you may wish to post your concerns to the admin noticeboard. Usually that and appealing to the Arbitration Committee are the only ways to have a ban removed. You might also consider suggesting Elalan contact a advocate to assist him in his appeal. Shell babelfish 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

RE JOYCE KULHAWIK
Dear Sir or Madam:

May I ask why you speedily deleted Joyce Kulhawik's page when a "hangon" had been placed informing whoever responded that I was appealing this ridiculous accusation to the Administrator's Noticeboard, which I did.

Why after all that would you take it on yourself to delete something that was being appealed? And not even contact me to let me know.

This reflects very unprofessional, abusive and demagogic instincts on your part, I am sorry to say. I am still appealing to an administrator for a "checkuser" and once I am vindicated I will be sure to let you know. Mikijaniec 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure others have told you, checkuser cannot be used to prove someone is innocent; there are far too many ways for people to funnel through other IP addresses. The fact that on your first day, you even know what a checkuser is indicates that you are not being entirely truthful about being a new user.  Since a good case has been made for you being a sockpuppet, I have no qualms about deleting articles you create - if someone determines you are not a sock, its easy to undelete the articles later. You might want to take a look at our no personal attacks policy - coming to me in this manner certainly does nothing to enhance your credibility. Shell babelfish 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam:

I apologize if I was abrupt but I stand by my comments. I forgot to mention to you (although I did mention it on the Noticeboard) that I was advised to request a "checkuser" by Isotope23, a helper, and I frankly DON'T KNOW what a checkuser is and did not claim to; I only know that I was advised to request one by Isotope23.

I am sorry that that point wasn't clear.

Let me be frank - I wish to be vindicated, and if there is no way to do so then I am being banned without appeal or representation for no good reason despite Isotope's consideration that AGF (Assume Good Faith) be applied. It is absurd that because I because I have a good vocabulary I am being penalized.

What is the good case you referred to, aside from my knowing words such as "canard" and "Luddite"? Am I to understand that no other Wikipedian (amongst millions) has ever used these words?

I want to be vindicated and if the "checkuser" will not do that then please LET ME KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT IT. Why should Demiurge's word outweigh that of "Isotope23"?

Thank you.

Mikijaniec 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually its not just the language; you happen to copy the banned user's page, happen to use the same language and happen to edit the same articles and add the same content. You know that we use AGF as an abbreviation and knew where the admin noticeboard was within your first 10 edits.  You're also on a spree of being rather rude to other users, which, oddly enough, was the exact behavior that got the banned user banned.  Perhaps you should calm down for a bit and try to work this out?  As it is, things are not going well. Shell babelfish 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For a new user, you certainly weren't long scooting off to complain about User:Demiurge on WP:ANI. Hmmm. Furthermore, you are now doing the rounds of the admins, as you have done in the past. Further-urther-more, your edits, interests, diction, writing style and commentary is remarkably similar to the banned editor, Robert Sieger. Even your indignation is redolent of RMS. - Alison✍ 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Shell Kinney:

I don't understand what you are saying; are you saying that because I went to update some names on the list of breast cancer victims, and created a page for one who is an ovarian cancer survivor (so far), that means I am doing the same thing as some other person? I did not know what AGF meant until I hit on the link that Isotope provided on the Noticeboard and that's how I found out what AGF means; just as I only requested a "checkuser" at the suggestion of Isotope123, as I explained to you already.

As far as being rude, I made the comments to you that I made b/c of your precipitate deleting of my page on Joyce Kulhawik. J. Smith apparently agrees with me.

As far as the Noticeboard I simply went to the main page and clicked away until I read about it and it seemed the best option (my adrenaline was pumping, I'll admit) and I clicked on it, got to the bottom of the page and left my message under the previous last person's message so I could be sure it would be seen.

To whom else was I rude? Why don't you look at the message I left for Demiurge on his talk page to which he refuses to respond even though everyone is telling me that I have to resolve it with him. I can't do that if he won't respond of if he is partial. And why don't you ask who this Alison is, who has a virtual shrine on her talk page to this guy that everyone is gunning for (impartial?) and why she has been harrassing me.

Oh, I just realized, you're referring to the comment about shoddy grammar that I made to Alison. I was angry at her impertinence (yes another obscure word I like to use sometimes) that she displayed and childishly I responded in kind. That was immature, but I don't think that by itself displays a degree of immaturity that would make me ineligible to participate on Wikipedia.

I repeat that I am appalled at the apparent lack of checks and balances that allows users to delete other user's edits for no other reason than because they choose to. I am also upset that after all this an unbiased administrator cannot spare 10 minutes or so to review all the data and resolve this. If I lose I'll go away. I am not going to waste my time.

Mikijaniec 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you'd lump me in as a biased administrator - I knew very little of the case other than it had resulted in a ban. Upon looking at the multiple coincidences, I had to come to the same conclusion that two other editors familiar with the case have.  I've mentored many, many new users and they simply don't have the knowledge you do in so short a time.  I understand that you can come up with an answer for everything, but that doesn't resolve the underlying problem.  Perhaps if you'd take a moment to settle down and take a look over Wikipedia policies, you might have better luck. Shell babelfish 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on your refusal to respond further and your comments to J. Smith it appears that I need no longer "try and calm down" since you have already made up your mind. As you are an administrator is almost definitely the last word, although it's too bad you didn't have the decency to inform me, but just left me dangling.

As I said I am not going to waste my time; there are lots of other things to do (G-rated even) on the 'net than Wikipedia, and while I am sorry that I am not allowed to share my knowledge and expertise to other Wikipedians, as I said if I lose I'll go; I don't want to waste my time further.

Mikijaniec 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Andrew Mikijaniec

P.S. -- Based on the nanno-sized possibility that you would care to respond; don't bother, as I am logging out and never returning.


 * Firstly, I am not 'harrassing you'. Second, I do not have a 'shrine' to Robert Sieger. I do have a bit-bucket where all his voluble commentary ends up so my talk page is not cluttered with Robert's insults. People can read it here to get a taste of Robert's style. - Alison✍ 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness
It's never ok to revert a good-faithed helpful edit. (again, let me reiterate, I haven't checked out contributions lists, so I'm simply taking you guys on your word)

Wikipedia has a long-term practice tradition of letting indef users come back under a new account if they don't continue the behavior that got them banned in the first place. It's an extension of the fact that bans are not punishment, and the guideline to assume good faith. If this user is editing to cause damage, then feel free to revert/block the user. However, if the user is being helpful then leave them alone. ---J.S (T/C) 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I'd have to strongly disagree with your interpretation of the banning policy. It very clearly states that edits by banned users are not allowed, regardless of the merit of their edits.  This particular user has not taken time off and returns to the behavior that led to his ban with each sockpuppet he creates.  If you are concerned about his ability to edit, you may wish to discuss having the ban reviewed. Shell babelfish 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the difference between a ban and a block. ---J.S (T/C) 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa. I misunderstand the difference?  You've admitted you did nothing to review the accounts edits and apparently didn't look at the account they were suspected of being a sock of.  Its important to take time to look at these issues, especially when someone you've cautioned tries to give you more information on the case to clear up any misunderstanding. Shell babelfish 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there was a community/ArbCom ban, then yes, they shouldn't be allowed to edit. However, you should have simply blocked the account. Going though and rolling back all his/her contributions seems like a great way to start an argument. ---J.S (T/C) 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm, all I did was speedy delete one article that was tagged by another user. I haven't gone in and reverted bunches of content or changed anything else the account has done.  Since the account later protested his innocence, I asked an administrator or two more familiar with the case to look at it and block if they determined it to be the same sock.  If not, I'll be undeleting the one article. Shell babelfish 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, I apologise for my mistaken impression of the situation. Ta-Ta for now. ---J.S (T/C) 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo and User:Piotrus
So that you are of the opinion, that personal assaults on a daily bases are mere part of a dispute resolution process? Constanz - Talk 12:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Constanz, please review WP:AGF and WP:DICK. Angry outbursts of incivility are not appreciated. -- Ghirla -трёп-  12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would very much like to hear your reasoning for removing this case. I don't understand what do you mean by 'long standing dispute being taken through the system already, just going to get out of control here' - it was my impression that users making personal attacks are to be reported there for possible block actions. Do you disagree that Ghrirlandajo has been making personal attacks? Not the least with his last post on the PAIN noticeboard where I was again accussed of things like 'pursuing his anti-Ghirlandajo crusade', ' incivility, wheel warring, POV-pushing, fraudulent reports', 'spreading nationalist agenda', 'removing warning tags from articles, without bothering to discuss the matter on talk', ' vandalism'... that post in instelf is a major slander and violation of WP:NPA - and you remove the entire incident with not a single word of criticism to the user making such gross allegations?? PS. When Constanz, again accused by Ghirla of trolling and vandalism re-reported the case, Ghirla removed it citing your decision. Way to go encouraging him, I have to say :( PS2. After reading your reply to Constnaz I think there may be some misunderstanding. 1) it was not my intention to start a dispute resolution here and now but to show clearly blockable offense of breaking WP:NPA/WP:CIV and such, just as you don't start a DR after with a 3RR report - I and Constanz and others have already done a Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo and the only reason we did not pursue it with a RfArb was that for a few months Ghirla has 'lied low'. Rest assured we will continue to RfArb - but we also think his offences are blockable without RfArb, thus PAIN 2) while the 'conflict' with Ghirlandajo is old, this particular one is not, it concerns events from the past two days or so, was reported to PAIN recently and removed by you within few hours 3) in your comments to Constanz you refer to a 'closing admin'. There was never one - you are the first person from PAIN to respnd by closing the case (i.e. removing it) thus in effect you are the closing admin, and this is why we demand a more detailed explanation for removal of this case. PS4. I have to say I am disappointed with my experience at PAIN. As Constanz note, we are being offended on a daily basis at the above page, we come to the theoreticly right place to report the user who it turning the page into an extremly unfriendly environment - and the report gets removed, user is not reprimanded but boosted seeing his invulnerability... this is definetly against the spirit of respecting WP:NOT (a bureaucracy).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Piotr, I see you again at your most militant, slandering my name wherever and whenever you can (and even can't). This will not be tolerated. I am tired of your incivility and baiting. I have to submit a report on your harrassing me on WP:PAIN. The crusade becomes unsupportable. -- Ghirla -трёп-  16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guys, this issue definitely needs dispute resolution. WP:PAIN is only to handle clear cases of users attacking others without provocation.  There is so much to look at in this case, so much back and forth and so many content dispute related issues that claiming simple personal attacks isn't going to work.  The dispute definitely needs to be worked out, but attempting to have a party in the dispute blocked in this manner isn't going to help resolve anything.  If you need any assistance preparing your case for the ArbCom, you may wish to engage the services of an advocate.  Thanks. Shell babelfish 16:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Shell, what is not clear in the actions of a user that calls other vandals, trolls and nationalists? Surely at least the accusations of vandalism and trolling can easily be verified with the need for ArbCom? I gave diffs where Ghirla accused us of trolling and vandalism. Either I (and Constanz) are vandals and trolls and should be immediatly blocked, or Ghirla is out of line and needs to be blocked (or at least warned...) not to use such offensive terms. If you disagree, may I ask for an opnion of a different PAIN admin that this case is indeed out of scope of PAIN and both of you recommend we take it to ArbCom?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, as I said, the PAIN isn't for this kind of far-reaching dispute. Please post your concerns on WP:AN/I if you would like other opinions. Shell babelfish 17:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will. Btw, What's your stance when users change headings on your talk page from neutral to offensive? :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* I really dislike disputes being continued on my talk page - I try to keep this place neat and sort of a haven for people who need to discuss problems they're encountering. I seem to be losing that battle lately. :( Shell babelfish 18:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to respect your wish - I am just letting you know I started a thread on ANI. Thank you for your comments, even if I don't agree with your reasoning.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity (perhaps I have a bad day), I have another question for you: would you cosider my post above on ANI an example of 'trolling' or at least a 'slur'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, no, but I'm pretty narrow in my use of the word troll - for example, if someone went over to the same-sex marriage article and simply posted "gays suck" I'd call that trolling.  Obviously that's a simplified example, but generally in trolling the comment(s) serves no purpose but to provoke a response.  You seem to be legitimately interested in de-escalating the situation, though honestly, I'm not sure how it can be resolved since it seems that the two of you aren't going to be able to work together and you do edit some similar articles.  Most of your concerns have revolved around civility issues and historically, ArbCom is the only place where measures like personal attack parole have been instituted.  There seemed to be other people on WP:AN/I who echoed your concerns; since an RfC has already been tried and mediation is unlikely to resolve personal differences, ArbCom may be the only option left to try resolving the issue. Shell babelfish 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Sure thanks! :) --PaxEquilibrium 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Greater Sudbury
I'm a little bit confused by the flag issue. Who exactly constitutes the copyright holder on a flag image? Aren't flags public domain images that don't grant their creator the right to limit reproduction? And if that's not the case, then how can the image ever be replaced? Bearcat 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, representations of flags may be subject to copyright as ordinary two-dimensional works of art under United States law, and fall under the purview of Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation (thus, the source of the image is probably irrelevant to its copyright status if it was designed to faithfully adhere to the original flag). In these cases, it is best to try obtaining permission from the city to display the flag and registering this permission with permissions@wikimedia.org. Shell babelfish 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not being just
User Thulean is vandalizing, ignoring WP:POV and WP:CON and manipulating WP:Ettiquete to achieve these other goals. If I would have said he's a liberal or a communist or a tory, nobody would have said a word. But for some odd reason WP:Ettiquete protects people with a far-right ideology that are precisely those who most vandalize and in the most sophisticated manner. I am just stating the truth, and you should investigate if I am saying the truth or slandering him. It's not a matter of "name-calling". It's a matter of truth, honsety and protecting Wikipedia against vandalism and manipulation. --Sugaar 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, another administrator has intervened in the dispute with a diferent attitude. You didn't post anything in the case but in my page. I'm assuming good faith and assuming you are in fact an administrator but I believe you should post your resolutions in the RFI relevant section too. Else it's quite confusing: for me, for you, for Durova and even for Thulean. --Sugaar 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No actually Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy doesn't allow those either. Please try to focus on the content and not the contributors.  If you're having problems of that level, I hope you're using dispute resolution.  In the meantime, try to be patient and avoid labelling other editors.  I was not involved in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Shell babelfish 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Other administrators don't think the same. I am appealing the warning. Please see relevant discussion in the corresponding RFI. --Sugaar 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's not really anything to appeal. If other's don't think its a personal attack, that's fine.  I'm just suggesting that you try not to let people get under your skin next time. Shell babelfish 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I see it I've not let anyone get under my skin. My comments on Thulean's nazism, etc. are not anger-motivated not intended to cause a name-calling war or anything. They are just descriptive of his ideology. For me and other editors it's pretty objective. It's not intended as a personal attack but as merely descriptive term. If I used "liberal" or "nationalist" nobody would put any objection, specially if there are descriptive terms. Why some (particualrly disruptive) ideologies are specially protected? That's the question I asked in the talk page of WP:Etiquette, why objective description, honesty, calling things by its name... is punished?
 * Why racism has special protection? It's relevant to the discussion to point out that certain POVs are such. It's also relevant to the integrity of Wikipedia to denounce politically motivated disruption and unilateralism when it happens.
 * Thulean is playing victim. Have you even asked him if he feels offended? He doesn't. He has read the WPs, chosen the most convenient and claimed protection not against insults (that he doesn't feel as such) but denounce of his (well calculated) disruptive attitude. He's claiming special protection for his ideology - and using the text of WP:Etiquette to protect his ideology from scrutiny.
 * And yes: the warn needs to be reviewed. I don't dare even to initiate an RFI on him while under warn. I also feel harassed by his constant threats of "you'll be blocked" and I don't dare to expose these users' attitude on fear that I may actually be blocked.
 * In other circumstances, I'd be less fearful of disciplinary measures but I've just started with other editors and ethnic wikiproject and portal and I think I must be around to push them ahead.
 * I'd also intervene in other cases of racist manipulation of articles (see Caucasoid, for instance) but now I feel threatened by the Wikibureaucracy and don't dare to act.
 * So your hasty warning, ignoring the objectivity of my remarks, is causing disruption and helping vandalism. And needs to be reviewed. Don't tell me that I need to be blocked before I can initiate an appeal. I don't want to reach that point but rather prevent it.
 * So yes: there's something that needs review. Specially as other administrators seem to see no fault (or at least no clear fault) in my actions. --Sugaar 16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out what other administrators felt that labelling another editor and then continuing to use the term after they've complained is not a personal attack? Please note the policy we've been pointing you at WP:NPA specifically says: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. is a personal attack. The same page also mentions that its important to focus on the content and not the person who contributed it.

If you feel that another editor is pushing a POV or otherwise harming an article there are established methods to engage outside editors from the Wikipedia community to help resolve the problem. If you feel their behavior consistantly violates Wikipedia's guidelines, those same methods can be used to help resolve the problem. As a last resort, arbitration is available to impose enforcable sanctions and guidelines on editors.

The fact is that if you're not making personal attacks, you have nothing to fear. Someone could come along and warn me not to make personal attacks - since I try to avoid them, I wouldn't be concerned. I'm just asking that since he felt he needed to report you for consistantly ascribing his position to that of naziism, perhaps you could try not to use that term in the future and find another way to resolve your differences. Shell babelfish 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know about DR methods but I had to excuse myself from the ongoing Cabal because I feel I cannot express freely while your warn is in effect (still Thulean went to my user page and threatened me again with a block for that, when I have not used the forbidden words not gone even close to that - I've opened a new RFI for that). The matter of wether describing the ideological manipulations, consensus disruptions and POV pushing in clear terms is an insult is relevant beacuse I can't even speak (no matter what I say) without Thulean threatening me with a block (and that is probably scaring other editors as well).
 * I have also reopened the case against me that you so hastily archived because I feel it's not fully solved.
 * Durova clearly said (and you must have read it before your archived the case) that: I did a search on Yahoo and did find Nazi websites that use "Thulean" and "Thule" in their titles, so - strong as the statement from Sugaar was - it appears to be fact-based and valid. There are two sides to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that apply to this particular discussion: first, standards of civility at Wikipedia do not depend on what ideology an editor holds; second, discourse on certain sensitive topics may require the judicious use of terms that would otherwise be eschewed as hot button and inflammatory (such as when the topic at hand actually is Nazism and racism). This is obviously in contradition with your warning and that's why I reopened the case in hope that the situation is cleared up.
 * You say I have nothing to fear but I, and possibly other editors, are now in fear of Thulean's "lawyer" tactics. I can't describe his POV as racist and I can't denounce the obvious agenda that drives his unilateral actions (on what other respectable editors agree).
 * I'm not trying to solve the POV dispute in the PAIN I'm trying to clear my name and know that I'm not gagged t speak up my mind in honest and direct terms.
 * I'm also trying to gain some protection against Thulean's harassing and threats. --Sugaar 07:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to remove yourself from participating in dispute resolution - this is the proper way to solve your issues. I've asked you to stop labelling him a nazi and you've said you won't do it, so I really can't see what more you want done.


 * I've pointed you to the specific wording in the policy that I feel you violated. Per the instructions on WP:PAIN, you're welcome to take this to the administrator's incident noticeboard if you feel its still not been resolved, but please do not continue readding cases to the personal attack noticeboard.  Just because Durova understood where you got the label from doesn't give you license to repeatedly label another editor against his wishes to devalue his contributions.  You did not say his editing was in line with nazi ideology, you called him a nazi - those are two very different things.


 * Thulean can do nothing to block you so long as you're not doing anything block worthy. You've agreed not to continue calling him a nazi, so what more is there to worry over?  The warning I gave was only about the nazi situation and doesn't mean that any mistake you make will automatically get you blocked. Shell babelfish 10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed Thulean's bogus warnings from your talk page and warned him against the behavior. I hope that will help resolve some of your remaining concerns. Shell babelfish 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as your warn is in effect my ability of free speech is gagged. How can I describe Thulean's ideology and motivations. Should I call them "liberal", "unspeakable"? Without mentioning it, I can't speak up my mind. It's not name calling it's accurate description of reality in the appropiate context. As I said your resolution and the other two resolutions are contradictory. Removing the issue is just hiding the dirt under the carpet, not solving anything.
 * Regarding your editions of my user-page, they solve nothing as you have not warned Thulean on them. In fact they may prejudice my case, as his misbeahviour is not visible. I am reverting that edit of you because, as this issue will probably have to go to ArbCom, I want all evidence available well at hand. If I just wanted them removed (hiding the dirt under the carpet), I'd do it myself because after all it's my user space. But until this is fully settled, I'm keeping all the evidence well visible for all to see.
 * I know perfectly that Thulean can't block me. I'm not a newbie around here. But I know that with administrators like you he can well do it by indirect means, manipulating the case in his favor.
 * I fear I have nothing left to do but going to ArbCom, unless you accept this dispute that is now between you and me to be mediated. You are allowing me no other options. If you are interested in mediation, please say so. --Sugaar 12:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, like I said in the message above, I did warn him about the behavior and asked him to try to avoid messaging you until the content issue is resolved.


 * Perhaps, like has been suggested and is in the policy I've pointed out multiple times, you should discuss the content and not the editor. For instance, you can say: "I feel this paragraphy is biased and presents a racist point of view".  This is optimal since it avoids discussing the contributor at all.  If you must, you could always say "This editor constantly pushes his POV by making edits like (give diffs); these edits seem to have a racist slant."  Again, you've characterized the edits and chosen not to label the editor.


 * I'm not sure why you feel this needs mediation, but you're happy to ask for third party assistance if you feel it is warranted. I'm fairly easy to get along with :) I would have to suggest that ArbCom may be a bit premature since there are many other ways to come to a resolution; they typically reject cases without prior resolution attempts.  Shell babelfish 12:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this issue needs mediation because there has been two contraditctory rulings: your's and Durova's (and another one that was more in the line of Durova's than in yours but was more ambiguous). But instead of keeping the case open till a consensual resolution was reached or whatever procedure is used in these cases, you are archiving the case, keeping me in legal limbo: I don't know if I'm warned or if my actuation was within the margins of WP:CIV, as Durova thinks. I don't know if I'm aquitted or sentenced, innocent or guilty. And I need to defend my innocence before I can discuss anything re. Thulean and his activties.
 * So my first choice was to try to keep the case open till that was cleared. But you instead prefered to brush it under th rug keeping my position in a legal limbo.
 * Therefore, I need to either reopen the case until the administrators involved can reach an agreement on which is the one ruling (there can't be two or three contradictory rulings, that's not serious) or to appeal it.
 * I'm absolutely convinced of my innocence and Durova saw the why I acted the way I did. Without justifying me she also admitted that it was a reasonable use of the terms that I cannot write because they were fully relevant to the discussion.
 * I'm also absolutely convinced that Thulean is not offended but just playing offended. The only thing that offends him is that I and others are putting obstacles to his unilateral and ideologically motivated disruptive activities.
 * But first of all I need the case reviewed and a clear resolution reached: either I'm warned or I acted justifiedly. But it can't be both ways.
 * So do I fill for mediation or do you prefer to reopen the case and try to reach a consensus with the other administrators involved? Both would be valid for me. What can't be is this juridical limbo with contradictory resolutions: one sentencing (yours) and the other absolving (Durova's and partly the third one). Either I'm guilty or not-guilty but can't be both. --Sugaar 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its important to point out that while Durova did understand where you were coming from, he did not choose to reverse the warning you were given. Also, the mediator for the article disupte has also warned you about insulting Thulean. It is clear that you are continuing to attack Thulean in a manner that has caused more than one other editor to caution you against it. It would be best if you stopped referring to him and discussed the article content. Shell babelfish 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No.
 * Durova and the other administrator were apparently unaware of the warning because you made no notice of it in the case. I believe that Durova thought s/he was giving the first ruling. I haven't talked with her, so I really don't know for sure.
 * When I started this discussion with you was precisely because your lack of mentioning the warning was causing confusion to me, to Durova and even to Thulean. That's the first thing I wrote in this discussion.
 * I said then: well there are contradictory rulings: can you sit together and decide a simple one?
 * And no: I have not been attacking Thulean. I have been defending myself and the other serious editors, and Wikipedia itself, from his twisted tactics by all the legitimate means I could think of. I have never again used the forbidden words, even if that made for me impossible to discuss the issues at hand. As I say: I feel gagged and unable to express the dimensions of the problem. We are discussing racism in that page and how do you expect me to discuss it if I can't use that word?
 * Anyhow all I want is that Thulean's behaviour is investigated in depth.
 * I have also been informed that the correct way to appeal this uncertain ruling is to go to WP:AN/I. Of course, I'm willing the case to be mediated if you still want it. But I am very unhappy on how you handled the case: the hasty warn, the removal of the case without a clear ruling, not giving me info on how to appeal your decission, etc.
 * I will wait 24hrs before starting the AN/I, for the case you do want a mediation. --Sugaar 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've said before that I have no problem with mediation, but perhaps you should ask Durova to clarify first? There's no reason that more than one person can't warn you about your behavior - you displayed the same problems in the meditation as in your prior discussions that Thulean reported.  You do not need to insult Thulean and his motives in order to state your case - I've tried giving you some suggestions on how to do so.  I'm not sure what more you want out of this. Shell babelfish 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my point is that I was not "insulting" Thulean but "describing objectively". Nazism (or neonazism or white racism or white nationalism) is a real ideology. If I say that X is liberal or nationalist or communist or conservative, that would be no problem. But for some reason the people that has that unspeakable ideology is overprotected by WP:Etiquette (that anyhow is just a guideline) and can ask special protection from exposing their ideological motivation.
 * I agree that, in normal circumstances, denouncing each others' ideology is not polite nor constructive. But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username. While DT is somewhat estabilished, when I first denounced T's attitude and ideology, he was a totally new user. He has just a couple of weeks in Wikipedia and he has already caused all this disruption. Imagine what can he do if left unchecked.
 * I may well talk with Durova after all but I hoped that you could discuss it between yourselves without need of me pushing it further. In fact I think it's your duty (as you archived the case) to clarify which is the resolution. As I am between three contradictory ones: your warn, a rather supportive resolution by Durova and a no-say reolution by the third administrator. Neither of them could know about your warn unless you (or someone else) informed them.
 * Obviously burying the case before they could read about the warn didn't help either. --Sugaar 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The noticeboard you're referring to is only for people asking for intervention because of ongoing personal attacks - it is not a substitute for our dispute resolution processes. Reports are removed after action has been taken.


 * I assume the reason you're continuing to discuss this is because you want me to remove the warning. I've explained why, regardless of your intention, your wording was accusatory, dismissive and used language to insult and belittle Thulean.  There are no good reasons to break the personal attack policy regardless of whether or not you feel the comments were warranted.  There are polite and civil ways to discuss article concerns without ever even having to mention the contributors.  You will not agree with the viewpoints and opinions of everyone you meet in Wikipedia, so its important to develop non-judgemental and accusatory ways of discussing issues.


 * Please remember warnings are not a black mark, just a reminder that policy states that attacks should be avoided and the behavior can lead to you be blocked if you continue. Shell babelfish 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I realized it's WP:AN without the /I. Anyhow, I'll check those ways only if thre's no other option.
 * I don't want you to remove the warning. Well, of course I want the warn removed, but basically I want the case reviewed. I think you archived it too hastily with contradictory resolutions and you have only given wings to a vandal with that. I think that the correct resolution is that of Durova and therefore I think your warn is plainly wrong. Archiving the case with a confuse resolution has only brought more confussion to all the parties involved. The case must be reviewed one way or another.
 * The warn is just plainly out of place. As such I give no importance to it, but for the fact that it gags me and other users from denouncing explicitly the ideological motivations of certain (somewhat sophisticated) vandals. I believe in the assambleary principles of Wikipedia and therefore as I stated in Wikipedia talk: Etiquette I think we must be able to express ourselves honestly, specially when using such tags are necessary for the proper discussion of the matter in question. I think that "nazi" in this case is not an insult but an accurate ideological description. There are some (few hopefully) nazis among wikipedians, as there are liberals, conservatives, anarchists and whatever. Would you make an offense if someone called me anarchist? Of course I would not denounce it to the PAIN or anywhere, I make no secret of my ideological preferences, unlike others that pretend to be what they aren't.
 * I think that honesty is at least as important as politeness and therefore I demand that the case is reviewed, hopefully according to what Durova resolved, that was way more reasonable. Your warn was totally out of place and is only helping vandalism and POV-pushing against Wikipedia's principles.
 * The case has given wings to Thulean to keep trying his "legalist" tactics avoiding consensus-making usual ways (but keeping editing at will until the page has been finally protected).
 * I see no point in continuing this discussion here. Do you want to go to mediation or should I check for alternative ways of complain against administrative procedure? --Sugaar 22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I point out that you are, in your statement above, now calling the editor a vandal? I understand that you do not agree with his ideaology and editing, but this isn't the way to resolve your concerns. This type of attacking and incivility toward Thulean is precisely the trouble. I'm sorry we're not able to see eye-to-eye on this, but sometimes you must agree to disagree. If you feel that further dispute resolution is needed, I would be happy to participate. Shell babelfish 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's it. I've given enough time to Sugaar to understand why what he is doing is wrong. And why he shouldnt comment on editors but on the text of debate. I'll give him a warning (this time I hope you wont call it bogus) if he continues saying things like

"But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username."

and then I'm going to report it him again. Sugaar,

Nazi

/naatzi/

noun (pl. Nazis) 1 historical a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. 2 derogatory a person with extreme racist or authoritarian views. 

When someone uses the Oxford English Dictionary to define white, you may think they are Nazi, but it's only your opinion, many people would disagree with you. So please keep your derogatory remarks to yourself, even if you think you are being honest. Frankly, I have my own honest opinions about you, but I dont voice them because despite being objective and honest to me, they may be very insulting to you. Thulean 00:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See how I am gagged? Each time I try to speak my mind you (and Thulean) start lawyering as if I was insulting. I'm just trying to describe situations and facts.
 * I feel this discussion is going nowhere. Several days have passed since I asked you to agree mediation and you have only been talking in circles and accusing me of incivility each time I'm forced to explain things clearly.
 * I don't think I'm praticularly uncivil but just honest. I can't be a hypocrite and I believe it's totally against the principles of Wikipedia.
 * I'm going to AN. --Sugaar 15:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (sighs). Listen. I'm going to attempt this one last time. First read the description of Nazi above. Then read liberal:.

Do you see derogatory anywhere in the discription of liberal? No. Do you understand the difference between calling someone liberal and Nazi? Hopefully.

Even then, calling someone liberal and then dismiss his arguments based on that IS a personal attack. Not to mention calling someone liberal just based on his nick is silly. I'm not even talking about there are different definitions of liberal. The definition you think is true might not be accepted by everyone else.

Finally I find your notion of that I'm pretending to be insulted absurd. Obviously, I went all the trouble of reporting you. Finding where to report you, read rules then read personal attack guidelines took *time* to me since I've been editing Wiki for less than a week.

So look. Your culture might be ok with everyone saying what they think as honest but Basque culture (assuming you are from there) is far from being a worldwide norm. I understand your cultural confusion because currently I'm temporarily staying in a country whose culture is light years away from my home. However, I also think it's no excuse to insult people. I've debated with Psychohistorian and Alun as well but I didnt report them? Why? Because they concentrated on the debate. So I suggest you review your attitude of discussion before pointing fingers. If you cant be sure of what to say, check an english dictionary to see if the term you will use is derogatory. But I imagine simple common sense should suffice. Thulean 19:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would suggest the advice of WP:SPADE indicates that Sugaar's comments were not a policy violation. Addhoc 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The nazi comments might fall under the thoughts of that essay, though it still would have been considerably preferable to object to the material and not the editor - I do have a small objection in that dismissing edits because of an affiliation is explicitly in WP:NPA. However, I have serious difficulty seeing how calling other editors vandals or "Wikipedia enemy number one" would be justified in that manner.  Shell babelfish 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have already indicated that it would be preferable for Sugaar to handle situations in a dispassionate manner. Addhoc 16:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is what was being said all along, unfortunately that wasn't the path he chose in these particular circumstances. He's learned through this how to focus on the contributions and not the contributor and even gone on to advise another editor of the same.  However, that is not what the RfC is about - since the warning and block (now two and one week old respectively) Sugaar has repeatedly claimed that both were violations of policy.  The RfC was an attempt to get closure on the situation; I have many other tasks I would like to return to. Shell babelfish 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Warnings
You have left a message in my talk page about my bogus warnings. I disagree. Sugaar has said this AFTER he has been warned:

"I can't intervene further. Thulean has initiated an RFI against me for denouncing his political motivations and I have a warn. Whatever I may say could be used by Thulean against me to force a block, so I can't discuss openly before the warn is removed. Nevertheless I will keep protecting the article against unilateral harassment by Thulean, who obviously is not interested in reaching any consensus but just imposing his opinion and (unspeakable) ideology by any means at reach. --Sugaar 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

And even our meditator warned him:

"Please do not insult Thulean. I don't care if he is or isn't Nazi (he probably isn't though), but you must respect him here. If you want to do that, do it on the main discussion page, not here. Also, please, could everyone read WP:NPOV by Saturday, so we may start this by then? | AndonicO Talk 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

Do you still think my warnings were bogus? Thulean 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. While he's not being incredibly civil, I'm not sure I'd categorize those as personal attacks.  He's agreed not to call you a nazi anymore so hopefully the mediation can go forward. Shell babelfish 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you arent sure, perhaps you should ask me if I'm insulted. Or perhaps you should refrain from calling my warnings "bogus". His implication is clear ("unspokable ideology") and I made my warnings so he could stop speculating about my motives and concentrate on the text of debate. Thulean 15:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read our personal attack policy, it should help explain why, while uncivil, nothing in the discussion was a personal attack. I'm sorry you feel insulted by it; that's why we ask that people focus on the contributions and not discuss the contributor.  I hope the mediation helps resolve these difficulties. Shell babelfish 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did actually. Perhaps you can clarify:

"Examples of personal attacks":

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."

Clearly, he speculates about my affiliations and uses it to discredit my views. And I believe this is accusatory:

"I will keep protecting the article against unilateral harassment by Thulean". I wont press this further but I just wanted to make my point clear. Thulean 15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Having seen more of the mediation page in question, I would agree that Sugaar is seriously pushing the bounderies of personal attacks and being incredibly incivil. It would appear that the mediator has already cautioned him and should continue to intervene should further assistance be needed. Shell babelfish 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thx for removing your warnings :) Thulean 02:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation at White people
Just wanted to ask if White people could be semi-protected while mediation is going on. Editors are more concerned about having edit wars and accusing each other of attacking them, and not assuming good faith, than reading WP:NPOV so mediation can begin. Right now, all that mediation is is a second talk page for arguments, rather than a tranquil page for exchanging of ideas. By the way, I neither support Sugaar's accusations of Nazism, nor Thulean's RFI against him. Also, this Euskata has been editing almost, if not, excusively on pages involved with the White people article. His account was created November 9, and I suspect he is a sockpuppet. Where should I report that? | A ndonic O   Talk  01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the edit history and the fact that the disputants have accused each other of having multiple socks and opened numerous WP:RFIs on each other, I've given it full protection for now. I was hard pressed to find a revision since the dispute started that wasn't a revert.  If you think this is too much and want it scaled back to semi-protection, just let me know.


 * You might want to see how the investigation requests go - there's one on Euskata, or you could also open a request for checkuser and have the accounts checked - you might really want to open a checkuser on all the disputants to ferret out once and for all who's really who. Shell babelfish 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For now, I think full protection is fine; perhaps we can change it to semi-protected in a week or so, depending on how the mediation goes. Thank you for your help; it may speed things up a bit. By the way, I added a check user, like you said, of everyone involved here, including myself. I doubt there are sockpuppets (aside from User:Euskata), because they wouldn't argue so fiercly. Once more thank you for your help. | A ndonic O   Talk  19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Can you help me to determine if these last edits in White people are vandalism? They keep changing cited metarial with uncited metarial. And then, one person added stuff which he was explained that it doesnt mean what he thinks it means. See and  Thulean 22:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The vandlism policy defines vandalism very narrowly. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.  These issues should be resolved through the current mediation. Shell babelfish 16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Brought the case to ArbCom
Requests for arbitration. As stated above, I felt I had no choices, as you did not accept mediation and kept patronizing. --Sugaar 16:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right: you accepted the mediation request but I misread you because of your patronizing tone and threatening questioning of my terminology.

I've asked to retrieve the case and let's go to mediation. --Sugaar 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sugaar, please please stop being uncivil about other contributors editing and motives. I have never attempted to threaten or patronize you; I'm sorry if you've felt that way.  Please feel free to use any method of dispute resolution you'd like. Shell babelfish 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've filed for mediation: Requests for mediation/PAIN case mishandling. Please sign.


 * I do find your insistence on "being civil" each time I make any protest quite patronizing. You are taking a one-sided view to the issue. I have never attacked Thulean's user pages with bogus warnings or any other way, I have not been the one that started this wikilawyering and I have been throughtly honest. I have not created sockpuppets or invited people from outside Wikipedia to get involved and I have not POV-pushed my viewpoints nor brushed any difficulties under the carpet.


 * Anyhow let's discuss all this in the mediation. --Sugaar 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Being civil and not attacking people is a guideline that the Wikipedia community has agreed on - asking that you follow it isn't an attempt to be patronizing, its an attempt to help keep you out of trouble and help resolve the dispute you're having over the White people article.


 * Further review of Thulean's warnings show that they weren't bogus - you continued to attack him on the mediation and were warned there by the mediator as well. Asking that you and others in the conflict follow Wikipedia's policies isn't wikilawering.


 * I hope we can find a way to resolve this and the additional disputes you're involved in. Shell babelfish 18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not attacking him. I am critizising his methods and denouncing his motivations. He is anyhow no one to warn me. I haven't gone to his user page to make threats of blocking. I don't like to harass people. I have just discussed the relevant matters in the relevant pages. And each time I discuss them I fear that Shell Kenney will come around and warn me again or just block me.
 * In the very difficult problematic of the White people page you are being of little help except for T's lawyering tactics. I have read that Durova for instance has recused herself from this case on fears of leaning to one side. I think you also are leaning to one side (much more clearly than Durova) but you still keep taking actions. I wish I could recuse you in eventual further cases, really.
 * It is impossible to discuss racism without using that term, it is ipossible to discuss complex vandalism without using the term vandal. You have warned LSLM on grounds that he described the ideology promoted by T and DT in very scholarly terms. Nazism (or if you prefer neonazism, for which nazism is just a shorthand) is a real ideology, it's not about insults it's about description of really scary things that are happening here.
 * We are all making our best to avoid falling in the legalist traps set by Thulean but we can hardly struggle against such one-sided admins as you, really. --Sugaar 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "we can hardly struggle against such one-sided admins as you, really." ...
 * ...That would also qualify as a personal attack, per WP:NPA. So far as I can see, that's all Shell has been trying to tell you. Crimsone 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar continues to baselessly accuse both "humble" users and administrators alike of all sorts of unethical and vandalistic behavior. Most recently he rehashed his groundless claim that Thulean is either the outright "puppetmaster" of multiple named and unnamed actors or a collaborator in an "international" ring of what he repeatedly terms "racist," "nordicist," and "neonazi" vandals and trolls. His exact incendiary words are: ''A very simple case: this "user" (sockpuppet maybe, maybe one of those international "friends" of Thulean that are appearing more and more frequently these strange days) has copied my user page in his/hers with some mockery modifications. Can't provide diffs because it's a newly created page'' (under "Getxo" heading). This behavior was unacceptable two days ago, one day ago, and is just as unacceptable today. He has been warned but he has not understood, he now needs to be presented with the possibility of a short-term block. Thank you.--AdvocatusPlatus 04:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The checkuser confirmed that none of the accounts involved in the dispute were running sockpuppets except Euskata. Unfortunately this is a simply content dispute run completely out of control.  Sugaar's comments that you link to weren't particularly civil, but they also aren't a clear violation of the personal attack policy.  It would probably be best to try ignoring his incivility and resolve the content dispute so everyone can put this behind them.


 * I'm really a bit concerned that you created this account just to make these complaints. Please read our policy on sockpuppets.  Thanks. Shell babelfish 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but he also made this unflattering comment (which was directed at a certain administrator) as well:Apart of that I want to mention that LSLM has been seriously warned by Shell Kenney, who is not taking any neutral stand. I wonder how an administrator can be recused in such processes. While other administrators like Durova have recused themselves in a push of honesty, this one is clearly favoring Thulean's lawyering tactics...I'm starting to become paranoid. --Sugaar 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC).--AdvocatusPlatus 05:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be concerned. Editors who find that they don't work well within Wikipedia policy will often find somewhere else to contribute.  Give the mediation time to work. Shell babelfish 05:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Shell: now you are making sense.
 * My apologies for becoming paranoid about you.
 * And I imagine that at this point of the case, you are starting to see what's really going on.
 * Who's this Advocatus Platus? He has been editing the polemic intruder Getxo, even DT's comments in the talk, deleting them all.
 * My impression is that he's another of several newcomers of unknown origin who are "buzzing" around the White people conflict but where do they come from? Are all Stormfronters (or alike)? Are just anonymous wikipedians that decide to take form (register) precisely to create confusion in this case? I'm personally for the first one but can't say for sure. --Sugaar 08:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine they're probably more sockpuppets. So far, the checkuser that your mediator requested only found that User:Euskata had multiple accounts (and he had quite a few).  Its difficult to deal with the issues going on when random accounts keep popping up like this. Shell babelfish 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand (this part). It's actually a very difficult conflict. --Sugaar 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking...
That WP:NPA does not mention accusations of "nazism" or "racism" (much less when justified) as PAs, that WP:CIV doesn't do it either, and that, therefore your warn on me and your severe warn on LSLM are totally unjustified. Only WP:EQ (which is just a guideline) mentions (quite anecdotically) the terms. I think we will have a lot to discuss at the mediation process. And I also think I was and am justified in appealing those warns and questioning your behaviour as administrator. --Sugaar 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you'll see via your post at ANI that your belief is incorrect. There is no such thing as "just a guideline" - guidelines are just as actionable as policies but may be edited more frequently.  Also, you were warned because you clearly and unequivocably violated our personal attack policy.  Thank you for finally taking your complaint to the correct forum. Shell babelfish 18:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the ANI they did not back you with WP:EQ but WP:PA and they were kind enough as to quote the corresponding sentences (Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme - you were partly right but for the wrong reasons), something that you were unable to do in all our discussion. A guideline is a just a guideline and can't be enforced by itself much less so severely and hastily. It's also made quite clear that the abstract mention of ideologies either in general, as LSLM did, or in particular regarding the tone of edits, are not PAs. It's also made clear that nazi is not different from commie or whatever other ideology: it is the use of the ideology as PA what makes it PA. In this sense I think you interpreted many things quite beyond policy.
 * I just realized that you're running for ArbCom. After my experience with you, I'm quite certain that you are not yet prepared. I guess it's no surprise that I won't vote for you (so you can disregard my somewhat mischievous questions if you wish) but I do hope that in the future I will be able to say otherwise.
 * Regards, --Sugaar 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually they said precisely what I've been saying this entire rime - you are the only person who keeps calling this a violation of WP:CIV - I have always affirmed that this is a violation of WP:NPA. I also {in my first response to you ) quite clearly stated that commie, liberal or tory were not acceptable when used in the same manner. For the record, I also quoted the exact same text from the policy for you days ago in an attempt to resolve this issue.
 * It is clear that regardless of how many different editors and administrators say the exact same things to you that you are not going to agree - can we please just agree to drop this? Shell babelfish 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation rejected: moved to ANI
Hi again, Shell.

The mediation case has been rejected: (Requests for mediation/PAIN case mishandling), on the grounds that it is an ANI issue. I've asked for clarification to the signing MC member but, anyhow, it seems I had no option but going to ANI (here). I really wanted to slve it by more "peaceful" procedures but it seems Wikibureaucracy gives little choice. Regards, --Sugaar 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've finally used the method that everyone had been counselling you was the next step. Hopefully this will bring some closure to the issue. Shell babelfish 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You told me ANI wasn't the place to appeal. >:-( In fact nobody directed me to ANI but an administrator in the talk page (you said s/he was wrong) and then the member of the Mediation Comitee. You were counseling me to go to mediation, if anything at all. You did not want me to go to ANI, for whichever reasons. --Sugaar 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've misremembered again. On the 9th, I suggested ANI ; Paul Cyr suggested it to you on the 10th.  The only thing I ever counselled you against was going directly to ArbCom, which is what you chose to do anyways.  Please take some time to look at what was actually said before continuing to post false accusations against me in multiple places.  Thanks. Shell babelfish 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right on that, though I could not remember that one. When I mentioned ANI later on, you said:
 * The noticeboard you're referring to is only for people asking for intervention because of ongoing personal attacks - it is not a substitute for our dispute resolution processes. Reports are removed after action has been taken.
 * Maybe you were refering to another noticeboard (PAIN?) but I thought you meant ANI. That's why I though the ArbCom seemed the only instance to appeal. But I have misread you in other occasions, so I apologize for what is my fault in all those misunderstandings. --Sugaar 13:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't mention ANI in your post before, you mentioned me burying the report. Since the report occurred on Shell babelfish 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read my immediate previous post, you see that I mention AN/I, so I thought it was that you were talking about. Guess it was all nothing but a misunderstanding - yet I thought for several days you were diverting my efforts to find a solution. --Sugaar 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Regarding your decision, are personal attacks ignored simply because the article is disputed? Thulean 17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but the fact is that you are all being incredibly incivil and baiting each other - since there are mitigating circumstances and since WP:PAIN isn't part of the dispute resolution process, anything but egregious attacks will be referred back to your mediation at this time. I've suggested multiple times that everyone either work on the mediation or avoid contact with each other until you can work together while following Wikipedia policies about personal attacks and civility.  If you feel that other editors are still violating policy, please escalate dispute resolution, such as filing a request for comment on their behavior. Shell babelfish 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that but I just want to say:

"However, as this may be too complicated for you to grasp (and an indepth discussion of textual analysis with someone like yourself would be sure to try my patience)"

"If this point continues to elude you, we can bring in a third party opinion who may be inclined to simplify these issues to the point where you can understand them."

"while I grant that it might seem that way to someone who is not as knowledgable or comfortable with a subject as is the majority of people"

"Since this fact is eluding you, I'll see if I can find a third party who can simplify it and put it at your level."

are definately personal attacks and far exceeds my incivility. Just wanted to make my position clear...Thulean 17:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rude yes, egregious personal attacks, no. You're always welcome to initiate further dispute resolution methods like RfC that I mentioned or bring up their behavior in the mediation. Shell babelfish 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about LSLM:

"I am sorry, but I openly accuse Thulean and Dark Tichondrias of Neo-Nazi propaganda."? Thulean 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please - try to work this out through the mediation. Mention and deal with the personal attacks there. Shell babelfish 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's cabal, not official. Can we still deal everything there? Thulean 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Its still a chance at resolving the issues both with the article content and the editor's civility.  I will remind LSLM about his behavior; poke your mediator if he's not helping keep things under control.  Even though its difficult, sometimes we have to work with people we can't agree with to improve articles. Shell babelfish 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know you just want me to go away but PLEASE!!!!! I'm sick and tired of these continous attacks!

"You want to play with geneaologies... like the Jewish skinhead of the BBC article, you may get burnt." Thulean 07:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL - that's not an attack. I'm just saying that you really have no clear idea of where your ancestors may ultimately be from (and this is only in realtion with European genetics, a discussion on which you have shown very poor understanding).
 * Stop whinning for everything (this might be a PA, who knows?). --Sugaar 13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a real problem with my talk page being used to further harass and attack other editors. Since Sugaar has been persistent in his attacks despite warnings from many different areas, he's been blocked.  Please do not use my talk page in this manner. Shell babelfish 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thx. Sorry for the whole mess, I wont talk with them outside meditation from now on. I was just answering because not everyone is in meditation and there was a debate about content in talk page. Anyway, thx...Thulean 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its quite alright, you shouldn't have to put up with this continued harassment. Everyone has been asked nicely to deal with the content dispute and stop referring to each other in a derogatory manner - hopefully this will make Sugaar understand that Wikipedia policies will be enforced and he needs to change his behavior.  I hope you have better luck reaching a consensus on the content dispute. Shell babelfish 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
I notice you blocked User:MeltedSugaar but s/he's back as User:ZugaarZucks, and has left a message about white man not getting blocked on my talk page. S/He's also vandalised Sugaar's page (though reverted their own edit). This is intimidation that has arisen due to the block of Sugaar. I don't know the ins and outs (and am making no comment about the reason for the block), but there seems to be a systematic attack on wikipedia race pages by nazis, and upon those who oppose the racism in the pages. I'd like this IP to be checked for sockpuppetry etc and this account blocked if possible. I don't know all the correct procedures, but I know you are an admin and have been a little bit involved in this. Thanks for any help you can give. Cheers. Alun 11:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The second account is also indef blocked (and was caught rather quickly). The IPs behind the accounts have been blocked as well, so hopefully that will assist in keeping them out of your hair.  If it keeps up, I'll go further with checkuser/RFI to get rid of the problem permenantly. Shell babelfish 14:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers, you are a star:) Alun 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its back again today so I've opened a checkuser request to see if the underlying IP is blockable. Shell babelfish 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that he might be Euskata. He's using same tactics. He may be also the guy who wrote french in Talk:White people, it looks like something offensive...Thulean 13:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC
I certified RfC about Sugaar and added couple more stuff, hope I didnt mess with any procedure. Btw, making that whole page in that format should've taken hours, I feel kinda guilty of involving you in this stuff at first place. Sorry...Thulean 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its ok, I've unfortunately had to do them before so its not so bad. If this finally gives Sugaar some closure and I can go back to my normal activities on Wikipedia, it'll be worth it.  Just remember, try to keep your head and be civil; work out the mediation so you can get back to editing too :) Shell babelfish 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Parratt
I don't know how to work on an article other than by creating it. Maybe you could tell me. Regarding the correctness of the material, I have checked this with institutions in Australia and the notable artists mentioned in the article, all confirm its correctness. Since their endorsement is not published anywhere how can I confirm this. If I send you emails will this help? Regarding references, I provided this and this  which confirms the article (in Norwegian). Why is this ignored? Even the artists own website |website confirms the article's correctness naturalhomes 10:26, 02 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but speaking with other people and using it is what we call original research and is not allowed. Only information available via a reliable source should be used.  Only one of the links you gave works and the others certainly don't cover all the information you've been adding - since the subject disputes the information you're adding, you need more than just these small snippets.  In fact, if no published information is available, its highly likely that the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO and should not be included. Shell babelfish 15:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people
Hi, I wonder if you could help me. Could you take a quick look at the recent edit history of Black people. There are a few (four) editors engaged in a concerted attempt to edit against consensus. I think they have a racialist POV to push. I have been warned several times by them, here are their recent edits. They also left a "warning" on my talk page. This was planned for today and these guys have been sending messages to each other for a couple of days in Spanish and French planning this, so I think it constitutes meatpuppetry. I'd appreciate any help you can give. Thanks. Alun 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not listen to Wobble, he's extremely paranoid today. I think editing wikipedia will prove bad for his heart, everything upsets him--Albinomite 14:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry, but Sugaar and yourself have made it very clear how you feel about my judgment and have specifically asked me to avoid further actions involving issues that you are involved in. You may wish to try using dispute resolution and consider contacting an advocate if you need assistance with that process. Shell babelfish 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re : Wishing you the best
Thanks for your well wishes Michelle! I really appreciate it. Yes, I respect your decision to choose not to vote and all best of luck in your elections, though I guess I won't be around to hear the eventual results then! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.


 * is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
 * Tommysun and are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience.  * is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
 * is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded and my bit has been flipped (all these interesting looking buttons to use after I read up on them). I appreciate your support. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom
On Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)   (Please reply on this page.)


 * Thank you for letting me know; I've linked to two arbitration cases I've been heavily involved in and a couple of outside opinions from RfCs. Shell babelfish 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"According to critics, ..." in Opus Dei
Shell-- the points you raised have been discussed a number of times before, and a lot of people have been a part of getting us to where we are now- but it never to discuss again. I will go ahead and respond here for the moment, because I think everyone else on the article talk has heard the spiel on this already. :)

Opus Dei is a little bit like any other political/religious view (e.g. views on abortion)-- the debate is quite notable, but the views expressed may or may not correct. So, like something like abortion, Opus Dei is a bit of a lightning rod that attracts opinions, positive and negative, from a wide variety of people from very diverse backgrounds. See for example a a yellow pages of the more outspoken critics. Some are former members and their families, but many are not. Liberal catholics, Jesuits, liberation theology types, anti-new religious movement activists, and "cult experts" (if such things exist). I don't cite the different groups to say that their views are right--- a diverse group of critics may be just as wrong and biased and a homogenous group. I just mention it because-- it's basically impossible to put a name or a label on them other than "critics".

So, while I may not agree with the critics, I think out of fairness to them, we do have to stick with the "critics say" terminology, we don't want to pick just one person out of the pack and say "Author James Martin says _blank_..." because it's not just Author James Martin who says _blank_, it's all kinds of different people from diverse backgrounds and different worldviews, where the on thing they have in common is their role as critics. Kind of like trying to talk about abortion-- you can't really pick out the specific identities of the people on each side-- it's all kinds of people on each side. Instead, you just have to summarize the major positions of "pro-choice" and "pro-life". (noting of course that the OD debate nearly as notable the abortion debate, there the analogy breaks down.) --Alecmconroy 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain all that :) Like I said, I don't want to beat a dead horse and if you guys have already looked at all this and worked it out, I'm happy to leave it that way. Shell babelfish 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

K42
It was kinda personal - she DECREED (kinda hard when you're not an admin) that I would be prevented from posting material to the article, even with citations provided. This I believe to be a product of her political leanings (which goes against the neutrality policy I believe). Of course I was in the wrong to label her a hippy - it should have when left wing tree hugging scum rat, but I will leave it for the time being - I will endeavour to avoid doing that, but it's kind of like a red rag to a bull.

Cheerio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K42 (talk • contribs) 06:38, December 5, 2006

Another question - I was reading through your discussion page - I noticed a bit of talk about recurring vandals, and how their IPs get blocked etc. How do you stop people with IP masks or software that generates different IPs at the whim of that particular user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K42 (talk • contribs) 06:41, December 5, 2006


 * Now now, a girl has to have some secrets. Shell babelfish 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A real name
someone has realized that the same person operates both accounts No. I was checked to spoil my privacy.

It seems you let the cat out of the bag, not -jkb- No, I just asked him to stop reaveling of my real name in the future, beacuse I left that account -- Zacheus 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)