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]
Please take BLP ticket.
The other editors don't want me editing it anymore, so if you have time please read the note and take Ticket:2008120410018339. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t07:34z
I think in this case, changing "Spouse" to "Domestic Partner" may resolve the issue and the partner aspect does seem to have been covered by several sources. Hopefully that distinction will resolve the issue. Shellbabelfish17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do the 2 sources saying only "partner", and the Guardian saying "do not live together" = domestic partner? -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t23:14z
I agree that the Guardian article used as a source calling them "partners" was without context and could have meant anything, but the second reference from the Independent is more clear about the context of the word. The Guardian article that said they did not live together was older, but maybe it indicates that domestic is still the problematic word here? Another possibility is that there is a "business partnership" here and too much weight is being given to the word "partner" because of the subject's previous relationships? Another source I found [1] seems to confirm some sort of working relationship. Maybe since the sources are rather ambiguous as to the nature and extent of the relationship and since none of the sources are primarily about the relationship (its only mentioned in passing) the information should be removed until better sources can be found? I'm going to move some of this discussion to the talk page of the article and see what other editors involved in the page think about the situation. Shellbabelfish01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each comment I made was a different comment but Levine2112 made 8 reverts. Each removal was a revert by Levine2112. But editors can remove comments on their own talk page I suppose. QuackGuru04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I striked the bad faith by Surturz. Surturz has made bad faith comments towards me on several occasions. I understand this is part of having an open online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not CZ. QuackGuru04:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok after taking a look at what's been going on while I was trying to catch some sleep here's what I've got: Controversial information was added to the Chiropractic article again without any discussion on talk first - everyone involved should be completely unsurprised that this didn't go over well and you should have known better. The fact that Levine, Surturz and DigitalC all showed up to support the change on the article talk rather quickly looks a lot like you coordinated this effort; that's also not likely to go over well and you should have known better. QuackGuru then reacted very poorly and extended the dispute to other editor's talk pages even though discussion was ongoing at the article talk. He then furthered this disruption by attempting to force an editor to answer on their talk by edit warring; it doesn't matter that he changed the wording slightly each time, it had the same effect. Finally this same group of editors plus TheDoctorIsIn all arrived at ANI to complain about QuackGuru, again giving the appearance that you are coordinating your efforts.
On to outcomes: I have blocked QuackGuru for a week; he has quite a lengthy block log related to similar disruption yet has never given an indication that he understands why his behavior is a problem or that he intends to change it. As for the rest of you Levine, Surturz, DigitalC, TheDoctorIsIn - its no secret that you're here to push a particular POV into the Chiropractic article. Other editors have attempted to work with you for many months despite repeated problems. Because the article is under special ArbCom sanctions which you have all been made aware of, this acting in tandem to push material into an article or sanction other editors is unlikely to be tolerated for long. I would suggest that you return to liberal use of the talk page and avoid the appearance of off-site coordination in the future. Shellbabelfish09:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not coordinated with the other editors either offline or online. You'll just need to take my word for that. I'm actually trying not to edit the chiropractic article at all - I think the best bet now is for it to crash under the weight of its own crappy POV text. However, QuackGuru rubs me the wrong way. This latest talk page spamming is not a new tactic for him... we have all complained about it before and there is no need for a conspiracy theory as to why everyone comes out of the woodwork to hammer him... the reason he provokes an instant response is because he is a troll, and we are all eager to see him blocked permanently (I am, anyway). I started ignoring him some time ago, and it looks like Levine2112 started doing the same. It is an effective tactic and I encourage everyone to do the same. As for me, I'll remove Chiropractic from my watchlist, editing that article has ceased to be enjoyable for me. It has more dramahz that the Auspol articles, and that is saying something. --Surturz (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As for the rest of you Levine, Surturz, DigitalC, TheDoctorIsIn - its no secret that you're here to push a particular POV into the Chiropractic article." [2] :-(
Shell, please consider the possibility that the POV we may be pushing is actually the neutral point of view; whereas those pushing against us are pushing for the derrogatory POV, focusing only on the negative opinions of reliable sources while omitting the positive opinions from the same or equally reliable sources. And perhaps why our efforts appear to be coordinated to you is because we are merely following the policies of Wikipedia with the common goal of creating the best article possible.
Anyhow, please know that I continue to support you as an editor and an admin. I do think you do a fine job at both, and in the latter, you are trying your best to act fairly without passion or prejudice. So thank you for the block of an editor who has repeatedly engaged in obvious harrassment. I hope he/she takes this time to reflect on their overall attitude and approach to working with other editors. -- Levine2112discuss20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or do I smell fresh air, see more sunlight, and sense a freedom from trolling and obstructionism? Good work Shell. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shell Kinney, I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
There's currently an edit war in progress at Chiropractic. I'm putting a notification here as you were the most recent administrator on that article. The involved editors are QuackGuru (who made the original edit), Levine2112 (who reverted it), Orangemarlin (reinstalled the edit), Hughgr (reverted), Orangemarlin again (reinstalled again), and 70.176.213.210(talk·contribs·WHOIS) (reverted).
A few more bits of information indicates we are seeing old acquaintances here.
Its unfortunate that things have degenerated into edit warring again. The article has been protected, yet again, until such time as a consensus is reached. This babysitting is becoming generally intolerable; if editors are going to continue to force the article to be locked because they cannot discuss issues without edit warring, they may find themselves taking a break from the page until they can agree to abide by Wikipedia standards for behavior and collaborative editing. Shellbabelfish02:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, you've called me a meat/sock of Levine. Neither is correct. Once upon a time I would edit this article and others quite regularly, until another editor came along who edits with a "my way or I'll just keep re-adding it till hopefully it sticks" style of uncollabortive editing. I choose not to edit with this editor but have occasionally voiced my opinion with reverts. Wrong? Maybe, but you don't seem concered or call other editors who back up his edits with reverts meat or sock puppets? A bit of a double standed in my humble opinon. Anyway, you do great work and I hope you keep it up. Merry Christmas and Happy New Years :)--Hughgr (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed above where Eubulides points out that 3 of your 4 edits in the past six months have been in support of Levine. Whether or not it was your intention, this makes it appear as if you are being "called in" when problems occur - clearly, that's not acceptable practice for Wikipedia. If you would like to resume editing and join in discussion on talk, you would be welcome to do so - showing up just to revert, however, isn't going to be tolerated. As far as the other editors, none of the others involved in the recent edit war have a similar track record. Shellbabelfish05:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the other editors, none of the others involved in the recent edit war have a similar track record. How would you characterize Orangemarlin's edits to the article?--Hughgr (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would characterize Orangemarlin as an active editor who does much more than just show up to revert for someone he agrees with. The pertinent difference here being that 1% or less of his edits involve showing up and reverting, while your percentage (of a total of only 4 edits) is at 75%. If you're interested in taking a break from Wikipedia or not interested in participating any longer, there's nothing wrong with that, but please don't add fuel to the fire by simply appearing once every few months to blindly revert - nothing about that behavior is helpful to the project. Shellbabelfish23:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, I understand that Orangemarlin makes many constructive edits around Wikipedia. I was referring to his editing habits to the Chiropractic article. In all of 2008 he made 18 edits on that article, and every single one a revert. That's 100%. :) I only seek fairness. Cheers. :)--Hughgr (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you seek is what you have decided is fair in this case - either a justification of your reverts or sanctions on otherwise productive editors. Neither is good for the encyclopedia. Since I was discussing the totality of your contributions versus those of other editors, it seems a bit silly to limit ourselves to just the one article, no? Shellbabelfish01:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well by that logic, as long as I was a productive editor, I could cause disruption with impunity on a single article. You don't have to answer that. Sorry for any drama. Mele Kalikimaka :)--Hughgr (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The logical fallacy there is your presumption that OrangeMarlin was being disruptive. There's a wee bit of difference between reverting disruptive edits and being part of that disruption. Shellbabelfish08:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
