Misplaced Pages

User talk:Shell Kinney: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:32, 23 August 2010 editShell Kinney (talk | contribs)33,094 edits →Deleted Article Michael Oliver (referee): sorry I missed this message← Previous edit Revision as of 08:44, 23 August 2010 edit undoNanobear~enwiki (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled12,272 edits →Clarification request: rsp to SNext edit →
Line 64: Line 64:
Since you were the drafter of topic ban, could you please clarify whether edits like (notice the quote) and breach the letter or the spirit of the ban? The same question was recently by the restricted person himself, although after the edits. ] (]) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Since you were the drafter of topic ban, could you please clarify whether edits like (notice the quote) and breach the letter or the spirit of the ban? The same question was recently by the restricted person himself, although after the edits. ] (]) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
:If you have a concern that someone is violating a topic ban, ] is the appropriate venue, however I believe something was said during the proposed decision phase that historical articles hadn't been at issue before and weren't likely to be an issue. It would be terribly disappointing if the participants from that case started disputing with each other elsewhere :( ] <sup>]</sup> 08:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC) :If you have a concern that someone is violating a topic ban, ] is the appropriate venue, however I believe something was said during the proposed decision phase that historical articles hadn't been at issue before and weren't likely to be an issue. It would be terribly disappointing if the participants from that case started disputing with each other elsewhere :( ] <sup>]</sup> 08:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
::But was the topic ban meant to cover pre-1917 Russia or not? The wording is unclear. Personally, I interpret it as a topic ban from all articles related to Russia, since Russia is one of the "former Soviet republics". ] (]) 08:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:44, 23 August 2010

    Talk page     Contact     Email     Adoptees     Archives     Articles     Watching     Awards     Log     Sandbox     Userspace
Talk page Contact Email Adoptees Archives Articles Watching Awards Logs Sandbox Userspace

Wait - where did my life go?

 Welcome to my Talk Page

I am retired, so if you're looking to contact me, please use the box over there --->

 Contact info
 So long and thanks for all the fish

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). Shell 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article Michael Oliver (referee)

Hi, you deleted the article about a football referee Michael Oliver due to his lack of notability which was probably spot on at the time. However, this guy has now been promoted to the Select Group Referees who referee games in the Premier League and thus liable to become a higher profile person.

You will notice from the Select Group article that he is the only one who doesn't have an article. I suspect the very first controversial decision he makes would result in a lot of totally biased vitriol being written about him as a new article so it may be worth restoring the deleted one as a starting point. (I don't know if I've raised the query in the right way, so apologies if I haven't approached this request in the right manner.) Seedybob (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So sorry I missed this message earlier. I wasn't sure if by your message you think that he's more notable now and that references would be available to create a proper article? If that's the case, I'd have no problem undeleting it so it can be updated/expanded. Shell 08:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence Case

Hi Shell... I noticed your recent votes on the R&I ArbCom case, and in particular your comments on Ludwigs2's views of the mediation. A couple of days ago I noticed this mediation where Ludwigs2 was mediator, which was closed earlier today. The consensus conclusion of the mediation was to rename the article Israel and the apartheid analogy to Israel and Apartheid. I took no part in the mediation or the article, having only come across it by accident. Ludwigs2's comments on the R&I PD talk page had made me wonder about judgment, and seeing this mediation and it's (in my opinion) potentially provocative conclusion made me wonder further. Consequently, I thought it worthwhile to provide you with a pointer to this other mediation case for your information, and in case it assisted you in your deliberations. I will post a note to Ludwigs2, advising that I have made this post, in the interests of transparency. EdChem (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Having mediated a similar case before, I actually see a lot of good things that Ludwigs2 did there. He's tried to get everyone involved and reminded people along the way that the outcome isn't binding. There are times when a mediator has to say "well enough". The issue under discussion is so politically charged that you're very unlikely to get complete agreement no matter how much effort is put in. When arguments start to be repeated and things start to turn personal, it's often better to close a mediation - a mediation that ends with editors at each other's throats is often worse than no mediation at all.

That said, I'd be surprised if the decisions made during the mediation stand up outside of it; as I said, it simply too politically charged a subject for any reasoned discussion to prevail. Shell 07:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your thoughts and perspective. I guess I was looking at the consensus conclusion and thinking that trying to implement it would be somewhere between provocative and explosive. Of course, the politically charge nature of the issue is not Ludwigs2's fault. EdChem (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request

Since you were the drafter of this topic ban, could you please clarify whether edits like this (notice the quote) and this breach the letter or the spirit of the ban? The same question was recently asked by the restricted person himself, although after the edits. Offliner (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a concern that someone is violating a topic ban, arbitration enforcement is the appropriate venue, however I believe something was said during the proposed decision phase that historical articles hadn't been at issue before and weren't likely to be an issue. It would be terribly disappointing if the participants from that case started disputing with each other elsewhere :( Shell 08:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
But was the topic ban meant to cover pre-1917 Russia or not? The wording is unclear. Personally, I interpret it as a topic ban from all articles related to Russia, since Russia is one of the "former Soviet republics". Offliner (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)