You sanctioned me in the CC case for questioning admins, but mainly for evidence 2/0 presented. Would you please take a look at 2/0's recent 1-week block of Collect (ANI discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_User:Collect_by_User:2over0 here]) and tell me again ''why this admin was beyond reproach?'' He has a long history of partisan admin actions and this is yet another. There was absolutely no basis for this block, and certainly not of this length, and this is precisely the kind of uneven enforcement that I objected to (and for those objections, I was found to be a "battleground" editor). [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You sanctioned me in the CC case for questioning admins, but mainly for my objections to 2/0's uneven enforcement. You seemed to assume that 2/0 was beyond questioning.
Now, would you please take a look at 2/0's recent 1-week block of Collect (ANI discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_User:Collect_by_User:2over0 here]) and tell me again ''why this admin is beyond reproach?'' He has a long history of partisan admin actions, and this is yet another. There was absolutely ''no'' basis for this block, and certainly not of this length, and this is precisely the kind of uneven enforcement from 2/0 that I objected to (and for those objections, I was found to be a "battleground" editor). I presented evidence of this in the case but you ignored it, and here we are again. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (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]
I have asked several people to help me and they have been really helpful but I need serious editorial guidance to make the article on Mdvanii better. I am slowly learning the process to add all the appropriate citations, but it very hard for me for the moment as it's all very technical, therefore adding them is very slow for the moment. I have written it with an associate in NY who iniitated the article (I am in Switzerland)...the subject is a controversial artwork/doll which has a few stalkers so we already had a major vandalism which was corrected.....several of the one time (new to wiki) people who edited and left comments have usurped the artists names (BillyBoy* & Lala) and have made comments about the authors of the article (myself and my asociate in NY) as being "too close to the subject" which is absolutely not true. Infact, I think these comments are biased as they be detractors of the artists work, for which there are a few. I think it is biased to say we are biased.
I want to make the article completely neutral. The history is very rich however and we have all the citations, documentation and tv appearance set to back up each and every statement within the article ...all of it is just needing to be inserted correctly.
If you can help me, or guide me to someone will to really work on it with us, I'd be really grateful. The subject is fascinating and really has alot to be said for it there is so much information, but it is our express goal to make it be a completely wikipedian encyclopedic article (neutral) and not seem in any way a "puff piece" as it was called at the beginning (I have since really cleaned it up considerably)....
I hope to hear from you, directly on mytalk page if possible...
The article is MDVANII....(I have sent this message via email as well...due to time difference I was hoping that you'd receive it as soon as possible...happy holidays too!)
WikiDrip thinks that WikiDrip's account password was Compromised and is requesting WikiDrip's account be unlocked so WikiDrip can log in and change the password. WikiDrip then can if required open another Wikipedia account with a new username. WikiDrip would like to have the benefit of the doubt here. The New WikiDrip account would of course link to the original WikiDrip account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidrips—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.95.146 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shell. Could you clarify what message you are refering to when you write "please refer to the latest message in regards to your ban; you may not address the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, including your user space."? I am afraid your statement is untrue. What I am banned from is explicitly and clearly contributions to articles. The Case makes it quite clear for example that I am allowed, and even encouraged, to make suggestion on Talk Pages, contrary to your assertion above. And as far as I know, putting on my User Page a list of references (what you just deleted [1]) is also clearly outside of my ban. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria✍23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently your ban needs to be broadened since you are using your userspace and talk pages as a way to game the restriction by recruiting unsuspecting good faith editors to proxy for you in your quest to add unreliable original research to Wikipedia. Adding that type of content is what you were originally sanctioned for, yet you've never recognized fault nor sought to improve. It's a joke that ArbCom has let this editing go on for so long. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social club. Your polite manners and charm matter naught. JehochmanTalk11:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jehochman. Instead of making such attacks, could you only try to look objectively at the matter for a second? Here is the list of some of the most reputable Crusades historians who do state that Jerusalem was occupied by the Mongols in 1299-1300 with Google Book links (I could only find one who states that they did not "conquer" or "take" the city). Some authors such as the Jewish historian Michael Shterenshis, even write a full chapter on "The Mongols in Jerusalem". How can we deny that this is worthwhile information for Wikipedia, and how can I be attacked for placing such high quality reference material on my User Page?
Regarding the RfC for Mongol elements in Western medieval art, I followed Arbcom's encouragements to make proposals on Talk Pages, I was fully transparent (here) and was honored to receive the participation of some very experienced editors such as User:Johnbod, who is probably one of the most knowledgeable art editors on Wikipedia: this is not just "unsuspecting good faith editors". Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria✍12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So just to be clear, you still believe that the content you're pushing needs to be in these articles, intend to keep at it in your user space and on talk pages, and think that writing on the topic and having other editors proxy it into the article space for you is appropriate? Because seriously, if that's the case, I'm not sure what more can be said to you to get across what the problem is here. I would love nothing more than for this to no longer be an issue, but is seems every time I think it's finally been put to bed, you come up with another way to weasel around the ban. Is there anything that could be done to convince you that dropping this crusade is the best option?
Also, I have removed your list of references from my talk page. I truly cannot understand how you can ignore the entire Arbitration case, it's findings and it's remedies and suggest that the material should be included and that you should have a right to continue to defy your topic ban by writing about this wherever you please. It frankly boggles the mind. Shellbabelfish15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I not allowed to make suggestions on Talk Pages, Shell??? Isn't that precisely meant so that I can make proposals to other editors??? Please simply respect the terms of the Arbcom ruling. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria✍22:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions yes; this does not include creating articles in the topic area and "suggesting" them on talk pages as you recently were reminded via the AE discussion. You were also asked repeatedly not to misuse sources during both cases and yet you continue to do so with the same list of sources you've put forth repeatedly. Can I ask who your current mentor is? Shellbabelfish23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shell. I would love to know specifically what issues you can have with what is basically a summary of what historians have to say about the Mongols in Jerusalem in 1299-1300. You can have a fair view by looking yourself at a Google Book search such as Mongol+Jerusalem+1299. It's easy enough, and hopefully, this is not a "POV" search... at least it is much more valuable than the false claims and accusations that are being made around this subject on Wikipedia. My mentor is User:Angusmclellan, who incidentally had no issues with the process of the RfC for Mongol elements in Western medieval art and the subsequent insertion of the article in the mainspace by other editors [2]. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria✍00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those would be the same issues I had three years ago, two years ago, last year... the details haven't changed. I'm a bit concerned that your mentor lead you to believe that evading your topic ban by creating articles in your user space was appropriate - I realize that you didn't participate in the AE thread, but did you read the comments of the uninvolved admins and Arbs who commented there? Shellbabelfish01:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't see how it could be innapropriate to try to render the proper nature of an historical event such as the Mongol occupation of Jerusalem in 1299. My list of reference is essentially identical with the relevant Google Book search [3]. How can that be wrong??? I am more worried that some try to claim against historical facts that this is all made up and pretend (knowingly [4]) that a Google search yields nothing on the subject [5], a claim which is totally untrue [6]. Regarding the AE results, if it is considered innapropriate for me to prepare draft Sandbox articles pages for approval through RfC, well it's fine, but I don't think that modifies in any way my Arbcom-approved right to make proposals on Talk Pages, through RfC or not, or archive reference material on my User Page when necessary. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria✍02:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, is it time to requet that PHG be banned from Wikipedia? He will never stop attempting to publish in Wikipedia this "Mongols in Jerusalem" ahistorical nonsense. Editors should only expend a finite amount of effort to cure problematic editing. I believe the community has had enough of this, after what, nearly four years, two arbitration cases, and countless appeals and amendments. Enough is enough. JehochmanTalk14:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree; banning is probably a bit extreme, but taking out the loopholes in the topic ban seems to be necessary at this point. Shellbabelfish18:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if somebody could simply explain to me why it is wrong to follow Arbcom's advice and actually make proposals on Talk Page, that would really help... Per Honor et Gloria✍22:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Please accept this 'Coming of the Cavalry' Award for saving myself (left to right: Shell, Kirill, Brad). It is, I can assure you, much appreciated. Perhaps this year will not be that bad after all... :) Piotrus, 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For your prompt input into the AE case involving me. The fact that I can thank you here shows that it was quite effective :) Nonetheless I do believe that I will have to seek a clarification and/or an amendment soon; I certainly don't want to end up on AE again - yet the last few week do show that navigating the topic ban is hard, and not only for me. Any further advice is, as always, appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome - half the folks I meet on Wikipedia think I'm a guy anyways, may as well go with it. And I would suggest if Newyorkbrad doesn't do something formal, that a clarification request would be helpful to the situation. Until then, perhaps sticking to articles on lolcats, which should be squarely outside of your ban :) Shellbabelfish18:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Holy from four years ago? I've just blocked another IP he came over with and Moreschi has semi'd the talk page since this banned user seems particularly determined to participate there. I've also left a note reminding him that he has to deal with the ban and how he can have it reviewed. It looks like he's using a variety of internet connections, so semi protecting anywhere he shows up is probably going to be the best way to handle things. Shellbabelfish14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ping ;)
Hello, Shell Kinney. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You sanctioned me in the CC case for questioning admins, but mainly for my objections to 2/0's uneven enforcement. You seemed to assume that 2/0 was beyond questioning.
Now, would you please take a look at 2/0's recent 1-week block of Collect (ANI discussion here) and tell me again why this admin is beyond reproach? He has a long history of partisan admin actions, and this is yet another. There was absolutely no basis for this block, and certainly not of this length, and this is precisely the kind of uneven enforcement from 2/0 that I objected to (and for those objections, I was found to be a "battleground" editor). I presented evidence of this in the case but you ignored it, and here we are again. ATren (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
