User talk:Durova/Archive 18

Explanation for my unblock

Hi Durova, I'm sorry you disagree with my unblock. I really dislike undoing other people's blocks, so here is a more complete explanation.

My reasoning was that it appeared to be a genuine content dispute. If you look at the talk page here, Armon, csloat, and Elizmr are discussing Armon's removal of the MEMRI translation dispute. Armon argues that it violates undue weight and that there are no online third-party reliable sources discussing it. Csloat argues that he cited one offline article and that sources don't have to be online. I see that Armon deleted the material at least once with an inappropriate edit summary, but he says that was because of an edit conflict with csloat; Armon says he was fixing refs after having deleted the disputed material, but csloat restored the material before he'd finished, so when Armon saved his ref format changes, it looked as though he had intentionally deleted the disputed section again. I've seen this kind of thing happen many times so it's quite plausible.

In addition, Csloat, so far as I can tell, was reverting just as much as Armon, and the dispute ended on January 29 when the page was protected. There would have to be unusual and pressing circumstances for a block to be issued four days after the last edit to the page in question, especially once it's protected. It might have been better to issue a warning to all parties that blocks would be issued if the reverting continues when protection is lifted. That might be something you'd still want to consider.

Anyway, I hope this explains why I acted as I did, and I also hope there are no hard feelings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:Durova/Archive_17#More_problems_with_user_Isarig. The delay occurred because I was discussing an experimental alternative resolution with csloat. I could understand an edit conflict happening once, but on four different occasions over multiple days? Durova^Charge! 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice that SlimVirgin did not say anything above about the fact that both he and Armon are avide Israel supporters. I have asked him whether this has anything to do with his decision to unblock. Abu ali 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I trust that SlimVirgin would recuse herself if political beliefs played any role, so in the absence of evidence let's assume good faith. Durova^Charge! 23:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of large amounts of material for no particular reason is vandalism. Removal of small amounts of material on the basis that it is inappropriate for any number of stated reasons (not relevant, original research, POV, uses unreliable sources, whatever) is not vandalism, particularly when there is some sort of discussion on the Talk: page. And a block issued 4 days after the page in question is protected is basically outrageous. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed response. Please understand the difficulty this type of thread presents: no matter how much calm good faith I apply, potentially valid complaints were conflated with a variety of wild and inaccurate claims. That makes brief responses such as your original statement very hard to parse, since I couldn't intuit which part of the complaint you agreed with. I'd appreciate it very much if your response included a request to the thread's other participants to be more moderate in their allegations and extend good faith. Durova^Charge! 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to state for record that I never saw your block as anything other than you acting in good faith and being bold. The discussion on talk:MEMRI was/is a mess, the "waters are muddy" and I take responsibility for my own actions, which weren't far enough above reproach to "clear" them. I'm sorry that I didn't participate in the discussion (I was ill) but I would have made the same point then. <<-armon->> 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

IP Address 24.147.72.135 still vanadlizing!

Thank you for issuing another and longer block. Regrettably, this individual is ignoring your blocks and discussions on their talk page. As soon as the one week block was over, IP 24.147.72.135 edited the Kohana (whale) page by adding the same speculation (19:57, 3 February 2007). Another member, RJASE1 reverted the edit and listed the obvious unsourced reasons (19:59, 3 February 2007 - Undid revision 105395272 by 24.147.72.135 (talk) rv unsourced). I appreciate everything you have done thus far and I know that you are attempting to be fair! Honestly, me and several other Wikipedians attempted to resolve this issue before we addressed it to you. Unfortunately, this person either does not read and just edits the pages or just does not care. Hence, the reasons this person does not respond to any communication avenues. Hopefully, you can get through to this individual and guide them to become a better Wikipedian. I assume you will issue another block, in which I will keep you updated on the situation. Thank you again for your time! SWF Senior Trainer 23:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone beat me to the punch: one month block. There's enough of a block log now that any admin should be able to handle this at WP:ANI if the problem resumes in March. You'll probably get an even longer respite if that happens. Thank you for your patience. Durova^Charge! 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I guess several people are on alert with this particular IP address. Thanks for the information and all of the help! I guess if this issues continues, then I will contact WP:ANI in the future. Thanks again for everything! SWF Senior Trainer 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why they pay us the big bucks...erm...never mind. ;) Happy editing. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry on AN

I should have made my question less accusing. What I was getting at is whether it's ever legitimate to block someone several days after their vandalism. Those who opposed this block hung their hats on the notion that his conduct did not constitute vandalism, so I wonder what the response would have been if all agreed it was. Cool Hand Luke 02:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a reason I can accept. If it matters, during the delay I was discussing an experimental solution for a closely related conflict. The draft proposal is here. That particular dispute won't become a test case but you might find the proposal interesting. I haven't introduced it formally yet. Durova^Charge! 02:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

So far I like it, I would support trials of it to see if it is working. The Ghirla/Piotrus case was not that convincing success IMHO. But I do not see how the Arbcom would make things any better. lets try and see if any fine tuning of the rules is required Alex Bakharev 03:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that example wasn't a convincing success. Yet as far as it went, it fared much better than the arbitration. I'm looking for suggestions and for a few pairs of eyes to catch any obvious blunders before I announce it generallly. Thanks very much for giving this a look. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you reply?

Wh didnt you reply to the messages sent to you about the user name Dieguy (who has now been indefinitely) I actually explained the reasons why I asked for him to be blocked and you said on the article discussion page of tyne and wear fire an rescue service that you held off replying to these and I cant understand why, I respect your views but I'm just wondering. Thanks and if you have any commens could you please reply on my talk page.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 14:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, how did you try to contact me? I don't recall receiving anything from you in the past week or so. If it was e-mail maybe the messages didn't get delivered? My spam filter might have caught them or something. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I left it for a little while because on the talk page of tyne and wear fire and rescue service you said to escaper7 that you have stopped responding to my messages - but why though? I asked for your help with a vandal problem and who violated no personal attacks and you didn't reply, this (to be totally honest) quite annyoyed me - so could you tell me exactly why you didn't reply to any of my messages about the user Dieguy vandalising the article.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 21:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my statement had that effect inadvertently. I'll go check this out. Durova^Charge! 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I do not mean to sound nasty and I can understand that you were in a little bit of a difficult position because of this vandal but thanks for you time anyway, maybe I was in the wrong a little.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 12:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Astroturf

Hi - I have contacted the user - I'll see what comes of it, AGF now has a chance to bloom if it so wishes - perhaps I am just getting a bit fed up of the extent to which WP is getting mangled these days due to its internet prominence. SFC9394 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think of this as a growth curve: nearly everyone with an Internet connection knows we exist but most of them don't have much experience here. Unfortunately a good deal of the press coverage hasn't been all that accurate. It often gives viewers and readers a misleading idea of policy. Here's an outside link I find useful. It's not officially endorsed by the community, but it's listed at WP:COI.[1] Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks SFC for informing me of the WP's COI policy, and Durova, that's a good article about how WP works in relationship to PR professionals.

However I'd like to say that my edits to the AstroTurf and FieldTurf pages weren't based on vandalism or bias. If you look at the history logs you'll find that my edits to both articles were neutral and were only intended to make each article more accurate and less one-sided. The FieldTurf article has a few false claims and leading statements that I attempted to correct several times. Since the article has been reverted back to where it was before my edits to neutralize it, the false statements are still prominent and reflect negatively towards AstroTurf or overly positively towards FieldTurf.

By not allowing someone who has an invested interest and first hand knowledge in a certain subject to make neutral corrections, you're basically expecting someone with possibly lesser knowledge and lesser interest to care about the accurateness of your articles. I understand the use of the talk pages to discuss the controversial subject matter until a resolution has been reached, but in the meantime inaccurate information is being copy/pasted into the posts of numerous blogs on a daily basis spreading to countless readers who don't know the source or the accuracy of the content. Tygast411 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for neutral corrections by editors who know a subject well. What I like to see is the potential conflict of interest openly declared. The shortcoming I saw in those edits was that they were unencyclopedic in tone - more in the style of PR writing than what we like to use. Not everyone who's good at public relations adapts to Wikipedia's prose style. In that case it can be good to post proposed changes to the talk page along with citations and ask uninvolved editors to adapt the material, or if the pages seem to be low traffic post to a related Wikiproject. Durova^Charge! 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

E.Shubee

I really dislike having to do this, but E.Shubee seems to be up to his disruptiveness again. We currently have a discussion over some POV links at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church and as usual he is disruptive and adding a dissertation to his user page because he disagrees with what's trying to take shape and calling for comment. I'm not sure what I'm trying to accomplish, but it would be nice if you could watch and keep an eye on him and or make comments on the discussion taking place, if you so choose. A simple consensus discussion has now taken on the form of a battle. I grow weary of just trying to keep peace when he comes around. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on it as soon as I can. Durova^Charge! 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've left a caution. E.Shubee hasn't violated 3RR but I do rate this as edit warring against consensus. Considering his long history I've notified him that I'm close to proposing a community siteban. That would go up on WP:AN with a notice to his userpage if it happens, so I suggest you watchlist his userpage if you haven't already done so. Thanks for your patience. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping me a few months ago (here it is in your archive), when I was new, on how to add an article to DYK. I finally added something, the Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far entry yesterday. I couldn't have done it without your help! · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've offered barnstars to editors who were in arbitration if they turned things around and got an article into DYK. I don't see why I shouldn't give you one too for achieving that without getting into a dispute first. Not too long after you posted that request I updated my user space to include tips for DYK applications. You inspired me: thank you. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! It mean much more coming from someone I look to. I hope I can add more articles soon, but it's not easy to create new ones (I'm looking through my mythology encyclopedia, but all the Greek ones—the interesting ones—are taken). You're welcome for inspiring you, although I didn't know I did it. :-) · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nudge

Took some time away, thanks for the nudge;)--Hu12 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep this on your talk? Durova^Charge! 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can follow here or there, your page is on my watch list.--Hu12 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We're posting over each other. If you follow up here again I'll just keep it here. I'm surprised you watchlist this: my talk page sees more traffic than some noticeboards. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should trim down my watchlist, think I'm @ 1300 +. Watch the noticeboards also. I mainly add talk pages to watch for vandalism, and responses to notes (or warnings) I place on them. Cheers,--Hu12 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should I place the 3 q's on the nomination page?--Hu12 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and formatted the page, pleas undue if incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hu12 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

A question regarding my pending statement

Hi Durova. I left the following message on my talk page regarding evidence already posted in the Waldorf matter, but wasn't sure you'd seen it. Thanks in advance for your reply:

Durova: I've read your statement and you seem to be familiar with the enduring dynamic between Thebee and myself. I've already documented evidence of his WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE misbehavior towards me in the evidence section. Obviously, I am no longer satisfied with his apology, since he keeps attacking me and I intend to press this issue. My question is: is what I've already posted sufficient, or should I write it into a statement as you have done? Thanks again - Wikiwag 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you post a few words to update it? I think you'd be the best person to cover events of the last week. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks again. - Wikiwag 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How's this? [2] - Wikiwag 13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You certainly put a lot of effort into that. I have one request I posted to the review talk page. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. Your request has been taken care of. - Wikiwag 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova in your opinion

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is this article a NPOV? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered you canvassed me at the same time you canvassed Jimbo (am I really that well known?), but you'd be better off if you filed an article content WP:RFC and contacted the relevant WikiProjects. Although I have a degree in history I really don't know this specialized topic. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a free moment

The list of 60+ JB196 socks has grown to over 80. (thankfully the IP's have now been blocked). See the thread over at AN/I for more info. Happy Almost-Friday to ya! :) [[3]] SirFozzie 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Whack-a-mole continues. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Community-enforced mediation

I don't think he's even aware I proposed it, yet, but if you check the histories behind the recent kerfluffles at WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:WEB, and WP:CREEP to a point, it comes down to a battle between Radiant and myself regarding making sure consensus is reflected in our policy/guideline changes and promotion. It's been bubbling under recently, came to a head last week, and I'd rather not go to ArbCom and see results for either of us that would be contrary to our interests, but it's getting close and this proposal seems like the perfect fit. I won't know how he feels until tomorrow, judging by his editing habits, but yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait until Radiant replies, and of course we would all need to wait until this gains enough support to move forward experimentally. Based purely on your reputations I'll say I'd be interested if both of you are. Durova^Charge! 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my hope is that the two of us and the mediator can run it as a test case anyway to show how it would work and resolve this dispute at the same time. I know Radiant is a proponent of the proposal as well, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop a few words by Radiant and suggest it. It's up to both of you to make the first moves. Durova^Charge! 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's sadly not looking good. Not sure what else I need to do... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Once more - for the last several weeks, Jeff has been persistently making false accusations and personal attacks about me all over the wiki, and that includes this so-called mediation request. Basically, any recent discussion with him boils down to him namecalling rather than making actual arguments. Several people have pointed that out to him already, but he apparently feels justified in attacking people he considers disruptive. If someone can get him to retract those accusations and attacks, and to stop making them in the future, I'd be happy do discuss our disagreements. >Radiant< 15:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This fundamental disagreement is why we need this. I've replied over there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, Jeff's statement to me just express that there's been a conflict and ask for a chance to resolve it. If you see anything objectionable in this thread I'll ask Jeff to strikethrough. I've got no comment on the surrounding disagreement, but this request for mediation seems reasonable and civil. I'd consider this as a test case if you're both willing to try it. Durova^Charge! 16:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

Speaking of Whack-a-mole, what's your position on limiting editing to registered users? I think far too much time is wasted on IP-related problems. -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a perennial proposal. In the past I've advocated restricting unregistered access from variable IP ranges, but AOL has made some adjustments (I understand) that make checkuser feasible. That reduces one form of headache. Did you ever touch bases with this guy's ISP? He's made well over a hundred sockpuppets since his ban. Anyway, they usually get tired of the game after a while. Durova^Charge! 22:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing an encyclopedia is not a game, and those who want to play games should not have access here. Wikipedia is the biggest battlefield, biggest time waster, and biggest collection of discussion lists on the internet, and that's a shame. It's also ironic considering what a fantastic resource it is, and how much better it could be if not for time consuming idiots and their games. If Wikipedia would begin to exercise some form of editorial control, just like a real encyclopedia, the quality and reliability would soar to new heights. It's simply not run in a professional manner. There are too many holes in its quality control. Right now Wikipedia isn't even a reliable source, according to its own definitions, and that's too bad. -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, I think there are a lot of people who enjoy playing whack-a-vandal, and until that changes, it'll be hard to persuade people that there are better ways of doing things. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We need vandal fighters. They're like the litter squad that cleans up the trash by the side of the information superhighway. Durova^Charge! 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We do, and we always will. But there are things we could do to reduce the amount of litter if we had to. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to see is better media relations so at least the press provides a Kids, don't try this at home disclaimer when they report on a breaching experiment. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We have whack-a-vandal. They have whack-a-pedia. They live on conflict, so they'll always spin things to cause trouble, because trouble is news. <wish>What I'd like is a rule that says "while an organisation condones its employees encouraging vandalism, that organisation will be denied read and write access to wikipedia"</wish> So long as we're completely harmless, they'll keep poking sticks at us for fun. Grumph. Ben Aveling 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy, Ben. Grumphy responses only tickle the rubbery-green-bridge-dwelling moles. I prefer Yawn. *thwack* Yawn. *thwack* *sip coffee* *thwack* Eventually they discover the game's more boring than fun and run off to World of Warcraft or something else. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

World of Warcraft has problems with vandalism? Ben Aveling 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Two Kinds,actually. A) PvP ganking, and B) Running around, aggravating all the monsters, and then run past another group and giggle happily while the monsters make a light snack out of em :) SirFozzie 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship?

Durova, thanks for the encouraging comment you made a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, I'm really swamped in RL right now, and can't devote the time/energy that an RfA would require. I may give it some thought once things calm down, but that won't be for awhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop me a line when you're ready. I'd be honored to submit the nomination. Best wishes with RL. Durova^Charge! 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Community-enforced mediation

Hey there, Having done a little MedCab work recently, this project definitely seems promising. I'd like to be join in on the project as some kind of trainee mediator, as you described on your project page. I'm not entirely sure whether I'm just supposed to just show an expression of interest here or some kind of more formal application, but I though I'd leave the former. I'd be happy to give you any more info about myself if you'd like. Cheers. Jem 18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the best place. Tell me about your experiences in dispute resolution with relevant diffs please. Have you participated in any arbitration cases? Basically I'm looking for three things:

1. Dispute resolution experience - looks like you've got that covered.
2. Understanding of arbitration - suggest relevant cases for the participants to read, screen proposed solutions for feasibility and completeness.
3. Discretion about which cases to accept - this will probably be the toughest part of the job. Not every editor who gets this far into a dispute has the right stuff to accept remedies voluntarily. I want to take cases that have a good chance of resolving this way rather than adding one more stop on the train ride to ArbCom.

Once I get a case you'd observe and I'd discuss it with you through e-mail. Once I'm confident that you're ready I'd add your name to a list of community mediators. Sounds fair to you? Durova^Charge! 18:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

I saw your comments there. I suppose an RfC is an option, but the problem is that other than Hoary, most of the "regular" contributors there appear to be people that Ms. Adams has had disputes with elsewhere on the internet or Ms. Adams herself (or possibly her representatives, there is more to this that I'm really not interested in going into at this point). WP:DUCK there is quite a bit of puppeting going on their as well. I've just fully protected the article for the time being because it is getting kind of ridiculous. Really, when you get right down to it there are several individuals there that WP:COI should not be editing that article (to be fair though, one individual who has been participating in the talkpage is aware of his WP:COI and has apparently voluntarily stayed away from editing the article space).--Isotope23 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Full protection is a very good idea and I probably would have implemented it if you hadn't done it first. You make this sound like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal: another off-wiki dispute that bled onto one of our pages. On principle I'd rather bring the editors up to speed with site policies and point them to dispute resolution than open another arbitration request. What's your call? Durova^Charge! 18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should bring those up... I was peripherally involved in the BvsR stuff here and while I think that had much more history than this article, this one has some history of it's own. Last time this article flared up (including the subject contacting Jimbo himself) I came across an apparent incident between the subject and and a blogger and it appears that some of the same people are involved here. I agree RfC is the correct first step. There was a [Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephanie Adams|RfM] opened and rejected as it was pretty much just an attempt to get an editor banned. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say at some point a checkuser is going to come into play too. Ugh, I know I sound cynical about this (I've pointed out WP:RS several times now; I'm starting to think that "lack of knowledge about how we do things around here" isn't the problem it is "lack of caring" and going back to the checkuser thing, most of the editors being warned about this are not in their first incarnation here), but you are right an RfC is the way to go at this point.--Isotope23 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that's a possibility. We do our best to assume they can adjust, give them pointers and chances to do so, and hope they adapt. RFCU came to mind for me also, although circumstances would dictate that option. Have a look at Midnight Syndicate if you haven't already - I requested the case when DR looked hopeless. Perhaps at some stage the two of us should remind the participants that mutual topic bans would likely result if they don't work this out for themselves. That kind of message carries more force when voices unite to convey it. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for recognizing my awareness of my own WP:COI. I aspire to adminship and this has been an interesting first "test", so to speak. I think a ban on all parties is a great idea (as I voiced on the COI Noticeboard), but as you no doubt have realized, it's going to be quite difficult to stem the flow of Stephanie's sock puppets. This is unfortunately quite typical behavior of hers, and she is quite persistent to say the least. -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There certainly appears to be sockpuppetry on that page. Unless the socks violate a user block RFCU isn't possible. Have you tried WP:SSP? The board's backlogged but it's still a good idea. As a side note, I'm continually amused by how often it's the people on the lower end of Wikipedia's notability threshold who aggressively participate at their own articles. Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey don't tend to drop by. Durova^Charge! 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been a visitor to Wikipedia for quite some time, but my participating as an editor is comparatively new. And only recently as a registered editor since I wanted to be up front and make sure my name was attached to any edit I make. It has been a learning experience and I appreciate all the older hands providing guidance.

From the perspective of a new editor, trying to follow the procedures (start with an RfC, move on to a....) it is extremely frustrating to get shouted down by someone who goes into fits and personal attack mode every time you so much as question something in an article. There are procedures, ok. We want to be fair, give folks time to adjust, benefit of doubt, OK.

But it's frustrating. I'm trying to pick up on the procedures, post RfC's, refer to Wiki policies (WP:BLP) to support my point while she's resorting to lies, sock puppets, threats, trying to get me banned and clearly (IMHO) not participating in the process at all. How do you they "work this out for themselves" when dealing with someone like that, who just flat out refuses to believe water is wet [[4]] no matter how clearly you point it out to them? --Sean Martin 05:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize. When I started editing I faced a very similar situation. Wikipedia wasn't very effective at dealing with that then so I cowrote the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. Here's how things work now: everybody gets an assumption of good faith at the start. It may be very clear to you that this person isn't acting in good faith, but we need to make sure we don't have a process that could get exploited in the opposite extreme and have good people railroaded out of the site. So start an RfC or some other dispute resolution process. Sometimes an editor who is completely unreasonable one-on-one will bow to consensus. Don't take the bait if she baits you. Report obvious policy violations. If she gets blocked and you think she's returned on a sockpuppet, then report the sockpuppet at WP:RFCU. If she's really doing the things you say she's doing, either she'll have to adapt to site standards or the community would ban her. She gets some fair chances to adapt first. Durova^Charge! 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation

Hi Durova,

Have just come across this while surfing Wikipedia - and I was wondering if I could get involved as a mediator or is it Admin only? After the "mediation" at Waldorf Education I could see this is something I could enjoy and put some effort into. I am reading up on the proposal further, but as stated elsewhere this is well worth a trial, followed by expansion if successful. Cheers Lethaniol 01:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not admin only and I'd definitely be honored to have you. I've got a mop waiting in my closet and would be glad to nominate you if you're up for that too (nudge). I'll add your name to the mediator trainee list. You'll apprentice and observe at least one actual mediation first, just so there's a complete precedent to work from. I've watched you handle some very tough situations with aplomb and you seem perfect for this. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're on the trainee list. Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests. Durova^Charge! 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Durova, as always you are too nice :) Cheers Lethaniol 10:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I feel like I butter you up and then dump some of my worst problems on you. So if someone ever mentions anthroposphy to you at a party, would you be like me and change the subject? Durova^Charge! 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent)Yeah I saw your comments on running for the buffet lol. Hmmm now is this a trick question? The problem is in Real Life I am the most argumentative person ever. I love to argue, it is a passion - any thoughtful discussion gets my neurons going - and I get a right kick out of it. Hence I end up in arguments on the validity of the theory of evolution with Christian evangelists and how the NHS is struggling because it pays consultants too much with hospital doctors (good fun). I do not care who is right or wrong, I just want to discuss, my opinions can then undergo change after I have digested the discussion.

Ironically on Wikipedia I am the opposite. Yes I throw out new ideas and contribute to discussion, but I tend to de-escalate arguments rather than start/continue them. Of course the problem is the communication method - delayed and impersonal - no fun to argue just stressful. Also Wikipedia is not about me getting satisfaction out of winning an argument (though this does occur the rare times I do win), but about the development of some great wonder for all of mankind :):):)

So in answer to your question, I would likely jump right into the discussion, and likely cause the person in question to run for the buffet pretty quick :):). Cheers Lethaniol 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm on the rise

Please advise. Re: [5], [6]. Oh, and add another warning to the list. Not that they have any effect on him.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, would you be willing to try being a guinea pig twice? Durova^Charge! 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

With productive if misguided editors, always. This, however, is not the case, I am afraid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You might go ahead and take it to ArbCom then. I got burned pretty badly for being bold the last time. Doubt anyone else could step in without getting scathed. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Which is exactly why I thought WP:PAIN was a good idea. Why is it that offences to WP:3RR can be dealth quickly at WP:ANI/3RR but offences to WP:CIV/WP:NPA require months spend through various DR processess and too often end up taking times of many editors in ArbCom? PS. To deal with Dr. Dan and get an ArbCom ruling, I'd have to do RfC first (another one-two months of wasted time)... PS. Re: burned... IIRC majority of involved editors supported the block. Letting the pressure of some users who enjoy watching one user bait others prevent peopke from coming down and stopping such activities is another problem that Wikipedia has to deal with.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a thread at WP:AN right now that dovetails with our discussion. My contention is that the declining sysop to user ratio is directly connected to the failure of two boards. I tried to keep them running and got swamped when some cases went into arbitration. Frankly I can understand rolling WP:PAIN together with WP:RFI, but getting rid of them both is a serious mistake in my opinion. Both nomiations were hastily conceived and hastily approved - often by people whose own comments revealed startling unfamiliarity with the boards themselves. It's done now - wish I could be of more help with your problems. I'm working on other angles of that dilemma right now, getting the community enforced mediation off the ground and talking with good editors to add to our pool of sysops. Keep in touch, though. As you've probably guessed by now I'm an idea person. There's no telling when a new solution may come to mind. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)