:Actually what Mathsci is referring to is a single comment of mine many months ago in which I opined that Quotient group did seem to be following Mathsci around. However, I did find your edit history interesting and can see why Mathsci is confused about your intervention - given the article subjects you usually edit, I can't see where you've ever crossed paths with either editor. Perhaps I'm not looking back far enough, but you just don't seem to be interested in the same topics. I can see where Mathsci might wonder why you dropped by his page out of the blue. You also may not realize it, but Quotient group has been claiming for quite some time that Mathsci follows him around when the opposite seems to have been true (it has been quite some time since I looked at it though), so your claim that Mathsci was stalking another contributor (which by the way, is an old term which indicates that you've probably been here longer than your account seems to have been) was probably another reason for his concern. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:Actually what Mathsci is referring to is a single comment of mine many months ago in which I opined that Quotient group did seem to be following Mathsci around. However, I did find your edit history interesting and can see why Mathsci is confused about your intervention - given the article subjects you usually edit, I can't see where you've ever crossed paths with either editor. Perhaps I'm not looking back far enough, but you just don't seem to be interested in the same topics. I can see where Mathsci might wonder why you dropped by his page out of the blue. You also may not realize it, but Quotient group has been claiming for quite some time that Mathsci follows him around when the opposite seems to have been true (it has been quite some time since I looked at it though), so your claim that Mathsci was stalking another contributor (which by the way, is an old term which indicates that you've probably been here longer than your account seems to have been) was probably another reason for his concern. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
::Ah, I see -- I was misinformed. Sorry to have troubled you. [[User:Rhomb|Rhomb]] ([[User talk:Rhomb|talk]]) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
::Ah, I see -- I was misinformed. Sorry to have troubled you. [[User:Rhomb|Rhomb]] ([[User talk:Rhomb|talk]]) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
== Possibly delicate issue ==
Shell, can you please take a look at [[User talk:Ash#Your talk page header]]? If you are blissfully unfamiliar with the background, please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive601#Request_for_admin_assistance_with_repeated_personal_attacks this ANI thread] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ash/analysis_%282nd_nomination%29 this] current farce of an MfD. I have encouraged Ash to start an RFC/U to explore their various accusations, but I have run out of patience for their constant and widespread unsubstantiated smears elsewhere. I am only asking for your involvement in the talk page issue - the rest should get sorted out soon enough at RFC. Thanks. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 23:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for all of the warm wishes and generally nice thoughts sent in my direction. I have retired from all Wikimedia projects and turned in all my extra tools as a security measure (we all appreciate those now, don't we?). For those few of you who were disappointed at not getting a whole ton of gossip out of my explanation for leaving (and didn't think to ask me privately, duh) I can only offer this cartoon as penance. Best of luck to all of you and feel free to keep in touch (see above). Shellbabelfish11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lianne Tiernan delete -reason?
Can you tell me why the article(s) on "Leanne Tiernan" (plus "Murder of Lianne Tiernan" referred to as substantially the same) was (were) deletedCj1340 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks[reply]
Hi, Shell Kinney. A neutral article on Falun Gong is what I want to see achieved. The current articles are flawed in terms of NPOV, considering the wealth of academic research out there. I find it confusing that despite imposing various sanctions, the administrators overseeing these pages haven't achieved much in that regard.
I would like to state two things at the outset: Firstly, I do not intend, by any means, to devote my time exclusively on Falun Gong articles -- not even most of my time on Wikipedia. Secondly, I did not know that there is anything wrong with this diff. I've always thought that Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence applies to any contested material, especially when dealing with difficult and controversial topics. In addition, one of the original ArbCom remedies on Falun Gong read: "It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources." I would ask for your kind advice on how to interpret these clauses, so as to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. In addition, could you elaborate more on what kind of edits on Falun Gong related articles will you deem completely acceptable. I wouldn't want to end up with an impression that I am somehow branded despite acting in good faith. Thanks a lot for your time. ✔Olaf Stephanos✍19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you removed several items which did have citations - the first bit you removed had its citation directly before it. I didn't have time to go looking, but I wouldn't be surprised if you simply reverted to a version you preferred. You also added material without providing sources. But beyond all that, remember that neutral point of view means covering all items with due weight, not making the article balance out good and bad on the subject. Please take more care in the future and discuss controversial edits before making them. Sometimes when an article has experienced this many disputes over a long period, it can help to pick a section and consider rewriting it from the ground up, using the same (or more) sources. This will usually improve the coverage and clarity of writing - I would suggest doing this in a draft area (perhaps your own user space) and inviting other editors to help and comment before moving it into the article. Things like peer review or good article review can also help point out deficiencies in the current article that you may be unaware of (and they would likely do so without bias). Shellbabelfish19:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, now you got me really confused. You are saying that I removed several items with citations and added material without providing sources. My only diffs to the Falun Gong are here: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The first three diffs only added material from reliable sources, removing nothing. All the references were done correctly, and all of them were from academic publications. The fourth diff removed an unsourced statement from the lead of the article. I did not know that this issue was mentioned in the preceding reference, i.e. Patsy Rahn's article (did you check it?); however, if that's the case, the reference tag needs to be repositioned. I honestly thought that everything needs to be sourced.
In this diff, User:PCPP reverts back everything I added from reliable sources. I don't see anyone notifying him on his talk page. Can this be interpreted to mean that his behaviour was acceptable? Shell Kinney, let me also kindly ask something that is pressing on my mind: can I expect to get impartial treatment from you, if you seemingly didn't have time to go looking for the actual content of the aforementioned diffs? Don't get me wrong; I just feel that asking this will help me determine if I should even put in the effort to edit these topics. Thanks again. ✔Olaf Stephanos✍20:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing that I can't help adding: you must understand that if editors are treated differently, no matter how their actions fare against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it will degrade both the editing environment and the article quality. If neutrality is not seen as a methodology but as some preconceived notion of how the articles should read, and if such behaviour is silently approved of by the administrators, there must be something wrong with the structures, and the Wikipedia system may have an inherent flaw in dealing with articles discussing severe real-world controversies. ✔Olaf Stephanos✍20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article leads actually don't require any sourcing since they should be mere overviews of material already properly sourced in the main body of the article. Can I ask if you bothered to check and see if the sentence properly summarized the article or had sourcing elsewhere or did you simply remove it because it didn't have a number after it? Due diligence works both ways.
The reason your edits are being scrutinized is because of past problems and your recent topic ban expiration. If you feel other editors are behaving inappropriately, you are able to bring up their behavior in relation to the Falun Gong arbitration at WP:AE. Pointing at other editors, claiming bias or playing "well, he's just as bad as I am" will not excuse your behavior.
You've complained repeatedly since your original sanction that editors are not treated the same; since you've yet to find anyone who'd agree with that claim, perhaps there's less wrong with the system and more wrong with your jaded viewpoint. Administrators do not have the time nor the responsibility to check every edit to every article - if you have concerns, there are many proper channels you can use to address them - behaving poorly isn't one of those channels and will get you sanctioned. Shellbabelfish20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're still talking about the four diffs here. I now understand that the lead section does not require any sourcing; pointing that out in the first message would have been nice. But now I am more concerned about what you said: "Except that you removed several items which did have citations - the first bit you removed had its citation directly before it. [...] You also added material without providing sources", and how such misconstructions of my behaviour could go unnoted. Are you suggesting that I should not have pointed them out, even if they could be used against me in the future? You are saying that administrators don't have the time or the responsibility to check every edit to every article. I understand that. They don't. But you wrote those words, and they referred to edits that you supposedly scrutinized.
The crux of the matter is that I did the four edits in good faith, and you notified me of making mistakes that could eventually lead to another topic ban. When I try to get into detail about the diffs, you start using language that appears more and more unfriendly, even leaving open the possibility that I am behaving badly by asking for clarification and correction. Do you just want to trample me under your shoe, or are we trying to resolve an issue here? ✔Olaf Stephanos✍21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notified you of a single diff, which you now indicate you understand - that was the extent of my concern coming so soon off your topic ban. I did not refer to the other diffs you've posted in any of my comments. My comment that administrators don't check every single edit was not in reference to you, rather about your complaint that I didn't leave a message for other editors who you think are problematic - I also advised you how to have those concerns addressed. If this is being unfriendly, I'm not certain what further you expected me to do to help. Shellbabelfish22:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let me ask you just one more question, Shell. I don't want to get on your nerves or anything; I'm really looking for sincere advice here. I did have a six month Wikibreak for various reasons and didn't really mind it. I understand that the community would have expected me to integrate into other areas of Wikipedia and build up my profile as an editor, maybe collect some social capital by getting to know other editors, and so forth. I understand where you're getting at, even if I wanted you to admit that you didn't really take such a close look at those four diffs. I came back from a topic ban and jumped straight in. That's the real concern.
But what I want to know is this: has the topic ban forever branded me as an editor? Even if I make good use of my knowledge on various fields and show up all around Wikipedia, will I still be the "Falun Gong SPA" who'd better stay off the related articles, no matter what? This is where I am getting at; if I can be sure that all editors are treated equally and that their behaviour is truly evaluated against the Wikipedia policies, everything is fine. But if there are preconceived notions of who's a bad guy and who's not, and their behaviour is latched upon -- or excused -- accordingly, it won't work, and putting in the effort to improve these articles is just not worth the frustration. ✔Olaf Stephanos✍22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways, yes. Since things went so far as to go through an Arbitration case and several enforcement discussions leading to a lengthy ban and especially because you do not edit anywhere else on Wikipedia, its likely to follow you around for a bit. However, if you can learn from prior mistakes, work with other editors and truly improve the articles, you'll find its also easy to build a reputation for fairness and compromise. So long as their are on-going disputes that require special consideration on the Falun Gong articles, its likely anyone that only edits in that topic area will receive extra scrutiny. Of course, if your edits are beyond reproach, that extra scrutiny won't amount to anything. Shellbabelfish22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that Olaf Stephanos's edit was the inclusion of a small amount of material from the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and Nova Religio, both academic journals. At the same time, he removed material that was not sourced, either in the lead or the body of the article. Further, that was discussed on the talk page by two other editors. PCPP ignored that discussion and put back the unsourced material. Olaf merely reverted it, in accordance with the current discussion and WP:V. The policy on leads says that they "should be carefully sourced as appropriate..." as one of the editors on the talk page noted. Olaf's edits can hardly be said to be pushing any kind of POV. Shell, it's just that you have bought into the view that posits editors like Olaf and I as the enemies of Wikipedia, so anything we do is suspect, agenda-driven, etc. Any other editor making the changes Olaf did would not have received an admonishment. It's just another clear demonstration that at least in this case, primary consideration is given over to political and ideological matters, not the more concrete issues of verifiability, reliable sources, and the representation of all significant viewpoints. I think that is a departure from the professionalism expected of us. I encourage Olaf to steer clear of and ignore edit warring and invective, discuss issues civilly and with strong reference to sources, and continue to improve the articles he wishes to edit on the basis of reliable sources. --Asdfg1234503:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the old Persecution article and comparing it with the current ones (History & Persecution), I can see that several important high-quality references have been completely removed. The overseeing administrators have silently consented to the removal of at least the following:
Ken Hausman, Chinese Psychiatrists Agree on Psychiatry Abuse Charges', Psychiatric News, WPA, August 6, 2004
Sunny Y. Lu, MD, PhD, and Viviana B. Galli, MD, “Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China”, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 30:126–30, 2002
Smith, Chrandra D. (11 March 2003) "Chinese Persecution of Falun Gong", Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion, New Dev.66
Judith Sunderland. From the Household to the Factory: China's campaign against Falungong. Human Rights Watch, 2002. ISBN 1564322696
Press release statement by United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 53rd session, 14 August 2001
Asma Jahangir, "Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Disappearances and Summary Executions", Report of the Special Rapporteur, United Nations, 2003
Joseph Kahn, "Sane Chinese Put in Asylum, Doctors Find", New York Times, 17 March 2006
This was just a cursory inspection; I didn't have time to take a look at how other references had been changed. Could you tell me, Shell Kinney, that if I simply added material from the aforementioned sources once again, would it be seen as bad behaviour? Is there something wrong with these sources? In my view, many of the things that have been allowed to happen over the last seven months seem so abstruse that I can't be sure of much anything. ✔Olaf Stephanos✍09:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you discuss any of your content concerns on the talk page and see if you can develop a consensus on how, where and maybe even if to include certain items. What seems to be missing, and causing the most problems, is the collaboration that usually takes place on articles. Since I don't know why those references were removed, I couldn't begin to tell you whether or not replacing them is appropriate - you need to work with other editors on the talk page and work these things out. Not working things out, engaging in edit wars and failing to discuss issues is where the problem lies; its not about the source or content. If you're having difficulty getting the editors to work together and figure out issues, you might consider something like mediation to help create a more structured environment for discussing concerns. Shellbabelfish16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the end it may be worth Shell clarifying to Olaf about whether he is disallowed from doing any kind of revert action; specifically, when consensus is pointing in a definite direction after discussion, but someone is being disruptive, whether he is allowed to restore it to the consensus version. It's just a question about whether Olaf is treated as a normal editor. It's unclear from this discussion whether he is to be treated like everyone else. I also wonder whether these ambiguities about his right (or privilege) to edit are having a chilling effect on his contributions. --Asdfg1234504:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a dispute makes it all the way to ArbCom, it's become a serious problem. In this case, ArbCom found that an entire subject area was being treated as a WP:BATTLEground and that many editors were not following Wikipedia's policies about edit warring, POV pushing, dispute resolution and more. Participants in a ArbCom case who's conduct is found wanting will likely receive restrictions that cause a chilling effect on their contributions; ArbCom aims to come up with boundaries that both stop the problem and put the least restriction possible on the editors. Once an editor corrects the problem, restrictions can be eased and they can return to normal editing. For example, had Olaf edited elsewhere during his ban and showed that he was handling disputes more productively for a month or so, I would have happily removed his restriction when asked.
What Olaf, and yourself, should be concerned with is scrupulously following Wikipedia policies in both the letter and spirit when editing in the Falun Gong topic area. In cases where you have a clear consensus (and here, clear means that any editor would look at the discussion and come to the same conclusion) and one editor is continuing to revert, don't panic. Remember that the article won't implode if its in the "wrong" state for a little while. Instead of engaging in edit warring, try talking directly to that user (politely) and see if you can come up with a workable compromise. If this doesn't work, escalate dispute resolution; use an RfC to draw in outside voices and see if your consensus still holds true. If the editor is still disruptive, make a report to ANI, linking to each step: the original consensus, the discussion and the RfC. Most likely the editor will be warned not to continue and you can then put in place whatever consensus had decided.
In short, the thing that will help everyone the most is learning that the article won't be hurt if its not the way you wanted it for a while, so go slow and work with others. Also, learn not to revert except in cases of clear vandalism (and this ONLY means things like "ELMO is GaY!!!1!" or someone blanking a large part of the article with no explanation). If you'd like to talk about the best ways to resolve disputes on Wikipedia or even how to handle specific situations, there are many folks, including myself, who would be happy to help you out in this area.Shellbabelfish11:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very much appreciate your input, Shell. I may, judiciously, take up your offer for advice in certain cases. Thank you. --Asdfg1234523:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Topic Ban must have finished
Shell,
Would you mind keeping an eye on User:QuackGuru again? His [topic ban] recently ran out, and he has already shown evidence of uncollaborative editing at Chiropractic. I reverted one of his edits, only to have him revert my reversion. The WP:BRD cycle is not supposed to be "BRDR", nor "BRRRRR" and he reverted back to his version before allowing for any input of other editors, despite my reversion and post on the talk page showing that his edit was contested.
I was actually taking a look (many of the Chiropractic articles are still on my watchlist) and I also had some concern about Quackguru's edits coming just off his ban. I'm going to leave him a note reminding him that discussion, rather than reverting, is required for contentious edits. Shellbabelfish15:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I share DigitalC's concerns. QG has now started a thread on my talk page. I gave him a small piece of my mind, trying to be civil in the process, which isn't easy when dealing with him. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adoption
Hello, I am new to wikipedia and looking for mentor who can guide me, hence searching for adopters, i saw your profile on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters,& thought you might be right person. i would be grateful to you if you could be one & help me in understanding the concepts and make me learn how to contribute in rightful manner to wikipedia. Waiting for reply...( Abu Torsam 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
It looks like you've had a few people offer to mentor you. If you would still like some help understanding things, I'd be happy to help. Shellbabelfish17:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shell, Thanks for reply :), though i have been offered mentoring, i will definitely take their help but i think it would be you who can guide me well, reason is your actions & attitude towards mentoring program, i have been offered mentoring few days back only, but when i was searching for one no one was available for help, & so finally i came to you. As you stated " Before you ask me to..." the most persuasive thing which i like was You are going to teach How to think! not set of rules. So if you don't have any problem, please guide me... :) ( Abu Torsam 20:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Shell Kinney, Abu Torsam has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation
I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that your entry was commented out. I have moved it to the "Reconfirmation" section.
Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list and placed on the "retired" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)
If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches and moved to the retired list.
Hello. I understand from User:Mathsci[5] that you are handling the dispute he is having with User:Quotient group. It seems to me that Mathsci's reactions are becoming disproportionate and disruptive. In particular, if you are indeed advising him, perhaps you might like to discuss with him whether this was an appropriate reponse to this and this. Personally I don't care much and am certainly not going to get involved any further... Rhomb (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what Mathsci is referring to is a single comment of mine many months ago in which I opined that Quotient group did seem to be following Mathsci around. However, I did find your edit history interesting and can see why Mathsci is confused about your intervention - given the article subjects you usually edit, I can't see where you've ever crossed paths with either editor. Perhaps I'm not looking back far enough, but you just don't seem to be interested in the same topics. I can see where Mathsci might wonder why you dropped by his page out of the blue. You also may not realize it, but Quotient group has been claiming for quite some time that Mathsci follows him around when the opposite seems to have been true (it has been quite some time since I looked at it though), so your claim that Mathsci was stalking another contributor (which by the way, is an old term which indicates that you've probably been here longer than your account seems to have been) was probably another reason for his concern. Shellbabelfish16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, can you please take a look at User talk:Ash#Your talk page header? If you are blissfully unfamiliar with the background, please see this ANI thread or this current farce of an MfD. I have encouraged Ash to start an RFC/U to explore their various accusations, but I have run out of patience for their constant and widespread unsubstantiated smears elsewhere. I am only asking for your involvement in the talk page issue - the rest should get sorted out soon enough at RFC. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
