User talk:Durova/Archive 20

user blocked on political grounds

Could you do me a favour and have a look at this [1] block of User:Tiamut. Please note also her comments on her talk page. Thanks - Abu all ابو علي 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This was cross-posted at WP:AN#Block on political grounds?, Durova; I've responded there. Chick Bowen 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded there too. Looks like SlimVirgin applied WP:3RR fairly. Durova^Charge! 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and for your sound advice. ابو علي 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for taking the advice in good faith. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked SlimVirgin which of my edits she considers personal attacks. But she has failed to respond . Meanwhile Jayjg has told me that he will block me [2] for rudeness, WP:POINT and what he describes as false accusation of WP:COI. I have asked for clarification on the noticeboard [3] and would appreciate your thoughts on the rather knotty question. My own feeling is that admins should refrain from blocking (or threatening to block) editors who they are in a content dispute with. Admin tools are there to facilitate the running of WP and should not be used as weapons with which to intimidate those with an opposing point of view. Thanks for any input ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything to substantiate the supposition that either Jayjg or SlimVirgin based their decisions on ideology. Jayjg's warning focuses more on WP:AGF and WP:POINT. So on the face of things, he seems to have a fair case to make on AGF. The burden's squarely on your shoulders to buttress the serious allegation that these two sysops let personal ideology affect their decisions at Wikipedia. If you want to convince me of that, do so now and connect all the dots with plenty of diffs. Durova^Charge! 01:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Duvora, I did not noticle your comment above (3rd March) and apologise for not replying here. The reason I opened an ANI request was that I was informed on my talk page [4] that jayjg had opened a ANI against me and that it was closed before I had the opportunity to respond and defend myself. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll amend my statement. I'd still like to see specific diffs from you to back up your serious allegations. Durova^Charge! 16:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

On your advice I did attempt to ask SlimVirgin which of my edits she considered to be personal attacks but I got no reply. My allegations were based on her blocking a Palestinian editor, and her unblocking a pro-Israel editor who you had blocked for edit warring. But I withdraw any allegations against her since she declined to block User:Thumperward when he reported by User:Armon yesterday. My argument with Jayjg was in regard to his repeated removal of the Israel section from Racism by Country [5] [6] [7] and attacks on those who attempted to insert the material on the article's talk page (I can provide more diffs when the servers are less busy if you want). The discussion is spelled out in Talk:Racism_by_country#hidding_racism_is_racism and Talk:Racism#Isnt_it_funny_the_Israel_section_whitewashes_racism. During the course of the discussion I tried to remain civil, despite attacks and accusations made against me [8] and despite the fact that in real life I am a particularly uncivil character. I am not happy about the threatened use of blocks by administrators against editors with whome they are in a content dispute. Please let me know if you want me to provide more diffs. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I notice that on the ANI page you have said that you are prepared to perform an investigation into this issue. You are more than welcome to investigate my edit history. But I am not looking for any action to be taken against Jayjg or any other admin. I would however appreciate it if the community provided some guidence regarding the degree to which admins can intimidate editors with whome they are in a content dispute by threatening to block them. I apologize for taking up your time. Look after yourself ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was reading your diffs and a couple of edit histories while you posted the most recent message. From what I see, the diffs of Jayjg at Racism by country occurred before you began editing that page and he explains them on WP:V and WP:RS grounds. Yet the two of you appear to have been at odds on that page more recently and I'll accept your assertion that you've been involved in an edit dispute. You haven't actually been blocked by anyone and, with WP:AGF in mind, I'll assume that Jayjg would post an impartial review request to WP:AN or WP:ANI rather than block you himself. It would be a good idea if you clarified that with him directly. In case he did issue a block you'd probably have a reasonable case for an adminisrator conduct WP:RFC. I don't think there's any need for that now.

Hi again Durova, I just wanted to clarify that Jayjg has stated that he will perform the block himself [[9]] ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions of personal bias get thorny on this topic. Normally I keep my own POV off Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel for an example of an arbitration case where I was the lone supporter of an editor whose ideology was greatly at odds with my own. If you wish, though, ask me and I'll make a full disclosure statement on personal background factors that might inadvertently color my comments here. I make no secret that I'm a United States veteran of the War on Terrorism. I'll voluntarily fill in the blanks if you want. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My dispute with Jay was on the talk page rather than the article itself. I refrained from editing the Israel section myself. Refarding your own background, we have our personal histories, and none of us grew up in a vacuum. And I certainly am no fan of Bush's war on Terror. But all your actions I have seen on WP have been beyond reproach, and for this you have my respect. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compliment. The immediate worries might be settled if you asked Jayjg to post a request for impartial review at one of the administrator noticeboards if he thinks you've done anything that merits blocking. That seems like a very reasonable solution that could clear the air somewhat and get things moving again on the page. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but I imagine he would see such a request as provocation and will respond by banning me [10]. I understand that it is only a matter of time till I am blocked indefinately. But I do not want to take any actions which will hasten this. Thanks for your time. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You could mention that the suggestion comes from me and post a diff of my edit to demonstrate that. Also, if you're concerned about getting into an indefinite block it would be a very good idea to request a mentor at WP:ADOPT. Your requests for advice appear to me to be in good faith although you've been running into some problems with policies. I get too many requests to give your situation the attention it deserves. A good mentor might be just the thing to help you get back on track. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Deductive reasoning

Wikipedia:Personal user awards/Special Circumstance, you can put your award here. --evrik ^(talk) 14:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do, as soon as possible. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Coaching

Are you still available for Admin coaching? Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the only item on my plate, but if you don't mind mingling with a few other croutons and tomatoes hop in and join the salad. :) Durova^Charge! 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tasty! Sounds good. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So...(sprinkles ranch dressing on you)...what makes you interested in adminship? And why did you pick me to request coaching? As you may be aware, RC patrol and AFD aren't really my thing. Sometimes I deal with simple vandalism, but my main undertaking is complex investigations. If you like to read mystery stories and relish the opportunity for a bit of real sleuthing, this is fascinating work. Sometimes this bumps into ArbCom - I'm giving evidence in three open cases and have a statement at another potential case under consideration. To be candid, the main reason I've offered admin coaching is because the site could use some more detectives. Does that whet your appetite? Durova^Charge! 17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA request

Hi Durova,

I would like to take you up on your offer for an RfA nom - still not sure it is too early, but would like to give it a go. If I succeed I feel I will be able to help out the community, if I fail I can learn where to improve my editing/conduct for the future. I am still unsure if I will get through an RfA - mostly on the need for the mop i.e. although I spend a lot of my time mediating between users, I have not spent enough time replying to RfC, Cabals etc... Anyway your thoughts on how to proceed would be great. Cheers Lethaniol 12:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you'd have a fair shot of passing based on your dispute resolution experience. The comments at the previous nomination I started indicated that my support earned some votes. If I nominated you today I doubt your support would be unanimous, mainly because your article space edits haven't been as extensive as most voters like to see. If you had a good article to your credit it would be smooth sailing. I'm optimistic that you could get it now if you feel like going for it. I've watched you operate under some of the harshest conditions Wikipedia can offer and your performance has been stellar, so I'd write an exceptionally strong recommendation for you. So are you asking for guidance or asking to take the plunge? Durova^Charge! 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose a little bit of guidance first. I need to do a bit of house keeping over the coming week to get my stuff sorted and then take the plunge. Ironically the article that I think is most likely to get to be WP:GA is Waldorf Education - not that I have had much to do with the content there - more the process lol. So if that is okay with you I will take the plunge sometime next week - any guidance on things I need to do immediately would be appreciated. Otherwise I will leave you alone to right your nom. Cheers Lethaniol 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thankyou I am very grateful :)

It would be a feather in your cap if Waldorf Education rose to GA. Still, if you're familiar with Wikipedia:Editcountitis, more actual article space edits would smooth your path to adminship. One problem the site sees periodically is from editors who try to get involved on the process side of the project before they've had adequate experience down in the trenches actually writing articles. More often than not that sort of person makes mistakes because they just don't have enough experience in how the site works. I have no hesitations regarding you, but I've worked with you closely. Most of the voters would encounter your name for the first time when the voting opens. If there are hesitations I'd suggest you pledge to be open to recall for the first six months of your administratorship.

So to cut to the chase, the best thing you could do right now is to improve a few articles on topics you know well. You're studying to become a pharmacist, I believe? Prepare for some of your exams by expanding articles and adding references from your textbooks. That would be beneficial for everybody. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol I am a qualified practising pharmacist already (4 years!), am studying for a PhD on top of this. Okay point taken I will spend some time working on Catch-22 which is my pet project, some Pharmacology and Medicinal chemistry related articles and Genetically modified food which I have just taken an interest in. Thanks Durova. User:Lethaniol 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I don't know the British educational system and wasn't sure how the PhD related to the professional qualifications (it's hard for a Yank to write that abbreviation without periods). You mentioned a couple of months ago that Wikipedia was eating into your study time. Let the site augment it instead. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) lol you are too kind with your barnstar. Thank you for your confidence in me. Cheers Lethaniol 13:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically that's not a barnstar although it looks like one. It's classified as a personal user award. Durova^Charge! 14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the correction - I have never been that big of such things, I am a bit embarrassed by them, but I have now put them on my user page - not because I want to show them off, but to thank those that appreciate my work :). Cheers Lethaniol 14:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - I think we had best scrap any ideas of a RfA for a while, after I have mucked up twice this week see [11] and [12]. I do not wish to waste your time. Cheers Lethaniol 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up. These are minor errors made in good faith. Good luck on your pharmacology edits. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - it will be a while till I get an article to GA status, though I must say it is refreshing to get back to editing uncontroversial fun pages such as Catch-22 again - nice. I suppose, except for my limited mainspace experience I am ready as I will be in the near future for a RfA. Maybe I should be brave lol. Cheers Lethaniol 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is refreshing to get back and edit in article space, especially where the page is quiet or harmonious. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I am ready as I will ever be at the moment. If you feel I should concentrate on my article editing for a while longer I will do so, otherwise I will chance my hand at the RfA. I am very grateful for your support and confidence in me in this matter. Oh and now that Pete K has gone on the path to self-destruction and I have ended my mentorship - if you have any more deserving individuals that may be helped by a mentorship I am all ears. Cheers Lethaniol 22:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The confidence I place in you is no more than you've earned. I noticed at the arbitration review talk page that you had un-adopted Pete. Thanks again for giving that your best shot. If he had any chance of reforming, you would have been the mentor to accomplish the goal. I hope you fare better with Fyslee. Do your best in article space. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 03:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What sort of help are you requesting? I could protect the article, but since I've given evidence at the arbitration it would be inappropriate for me to do more than that. You could request a temporary injunction from the Committee. Durova^Charge! 02:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion?

I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. If the message isn't on my talk page, please see the archives for the time period of your original message. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems. You were writing here while I was replying at your talk page. Great swift work you're doing. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The wonders of a lovely bot that tells me what's going on at RFCU :) See your email and my talk, by the way. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Alright, I finally found time to read WP:SOCK, and I've gone over the first 5 entries in WP:SSP. A couple of them look suspicious, and another few are blatantly obvious. Should I send the suspicious ones to WP:RCU, and the obvious ones to WP:AIV or WP:ANI? · AO ^Talk 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Make sure the case fits the parameters for a checkuser before referring editors to that board. If you think something else is obvious and needs a sysop to intervene for blocking or page protection send me the details. Simple things such as advice or formal warnings you can issue yourself. Durova^Charge! 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! · AO ^Talk 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, sorry to butt in here, but I've made comments on quite a few SSP cases that I think are ready to be closed or need administrator action. Without the mop, I'm reluctant to close cases unless all the accounts are already blocked, and if I think action is needed, I obviously can't take it. What's the best way to bring this to administrators' attention? A post on WP:AN, or something else? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN would be good. Or if the list isn't too long name them here and I'll mop up. Thanks for your help! Cheers, Durova^Charge! 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted on WP:AN but it doesn't look like anyone's responded yet. If you've got some time could you look through them? The post is WP:AN#Backlog_at_WP:SSP--admin_attention_requested. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I have to run out for a few hours. Later today and tomorrow I'll dig into things. Thanks again for your hard work. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, thanks for looking at those. One point of clarification: on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/FuckTheJewFaggots you noted "Already indefblocked by another admin." but the puppet account isn't blocked. Should the case be closed without blocking the puppet, whose only contribution is a single vandal edit to Michael Eisner? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call: I've indef blocked the sock. Its only edit was an attack. I may be a little slow with the others: I'm involved with three open arbitration cases plus a request for a new case and I'm trading messages with the Foundation about another matter. So please give me a nudge if something slips.

BTW, what would you think of a WikiProject for complex investigations so that this sort of appeal doesn't get lost in the AN noticeboard or fall on my shoulders? I've been contemplating Wikipedia:WikiProject Sleuths as a counterpart to some similar projects that handle short term stuff. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, thanks again. I know you're busy! Don't worry too much about the other SSP cases; none of them are actively vandalizing. Do you think it's ok if I close old cases where no action is required? I guess according to what I've just said there's no need to hurry on that either.

The idea of Wikiproject Sleuths sounds interesting; I think a lot of Wikipedians spend some time acting as private eyes right now, trying to track down sockpuppets and long-term vandals/disruptive editors. However, an organized project might run into the same objections that resulted in the deletion of Requests for Investigation. I agree that the present system of posting to ANI and hoping that someone notices isn't working that well, it often seems like the real way to get a problem solved is to appeal personally to an admin. And that's not that great for the users who don't know admins... --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and close the cases you think are worthy of closure. I'm over on WP:AN scolding the other sysops for dropping the ball on your thread. I think of WikiProject Sleuths as more of a gathering place and mentorship place than as a forum for people to post requests. My outspoken opinion is that WP:RFI collapsed because there weren't enough people running it - some systemic issues I've been working on addressing since its departure. Durova^Charge! 05:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment on Essjay's talk

May I suggest that you remove your most recent comment on Essjay's talk page? It reads as both vidictive, given the climate and events, and belittling of the genuine personal and privacy concerns that Essjay did face. Perhaps you mean to be taken that way, but it seems out of character. Best, Christopher Parham (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the section. Not something I would normally do, but this is an unusual moment in time, and I beg your forgiveness. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading Essjay's history to see what happened to that thread. If it went across the wrong way then removing it was no problem. I certainly didn't mean it in the negative manner it was received (AGF, please). I honestly think the suggestion would be a good idea - a few steps in the moccasins that I among others have unfortunately been compelled to walk. Most of the people who actually face that situation are in no position to discuss it. Yes, the idea is shocking and disturbing - far more so is the reality. I'll withdraw the message, but please don't shoot the messenger. Durova^Charge! 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I assumed, and that's why I removed it. It was unintentionally causing trouble because of the head-state of everyone in that place, at that time. There should eventually be a discussion of Essjay's 'reentry' into the community, and maybe we can revisit it then. All the best, Ben Aveling 22:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A wise move, and thank you for acting. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much want to see discussion of the causes underlying the Essjay scandal.---CH 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My deleted comment didn't deal with underlying causes. It proposed a conciliatory gesture. Now that Essjay has left the project the point is moot. Durova^Charge! 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

Thank you for the advice, I have followed it and commented on the Editor Review, but I cannot rescind my criticism of Jimbo's double standards and varying levels of respect for the rules he himself made depending on his whims. Just H^{editor review} 04:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Jimbo's own comment stated he was posting from a remote region where Internet access is scarce and that he hadn't yet had time to read the diffs of Essjay's own assertions, much less the lengthy discussions. He's run this project incredibly well. Give him a fair chance to survey the situation before you pass that sort of judgement upon him. Durova^Charge! 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Only User:Jill DeRay was a sock according to the check. I have to guess that the article is simply attracting a lot of new visitors in the wake of Ann's brilliant political commentary. Can probably be unlocked now, but I leave it to your discretion. Cool-down period might not be a bad idea, but without Jill/George's stale point in the mix, I think it's a simple editorial dispute. Cool Hand Luke 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's set to expire in a few hours, otherwise I'd unprotect manually. Might as well let the protection run itself out. Durova^Charge! 13:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching?

Hi Durova,

I see that you are currently available for Admin Coaching, assuming that the status page is up-to-date.

I looked through the list of those available and chose you because I believe that you would probably challenge me the most and therefore I would learn the most from you, if you are willing to accept me.

As you can see from "kate", I have been most active for about 4 solid months. My focus tends to be a lot of Recent Changes activity and Vandal Patrol, though I have managed over to do about 1500 mainspace edits in that time. I have created some articles, but I don't feel that as that is my forte.

I have been a quality engineer and technical writer for about 30 years. I perform Quality Systems Audits in the FDA-regulated Pharmaceutical and Medical Device industries at this time. So, I believe that critical observation skills, rule-following, negotiation, proofreading, consensus-building and maintaining the self esteem of others are all part of what I offer to WikePedia.

I'd be pleased to offer a more detailed "cv" of my work on WP if you so desire before making a decision.

Please let me know either way at you earliest convenience.

Thanks and take care,

Larry --Lmcelhiney 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll coach you. RC and anti-vandalism is an accepted reason for getting the tools. So you think I'd challenge you? Well, I'll try.

• Have any of your new articles been highlighted at Did you know? If not, and if you'd like to get there, then check out the tips in my user space (there's a link from my user page). You'd probably have to start some more new articles for that, but it's kind of fun.

Ok, good thought. I have created a few articles, albeit most are biographical articles. None of them are much above the radar, I fear. Ashley Earley, Bob and Tom Radio: The Comedy Tour, David Hermance, Ben Maclennan, Rex Martin, Ashley McElhiney, Robert Carl-Heinz Shell, Nail (anatomy), and 3b1.--Lmcelhiney 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles that are older than 5 days aren't eligible for nomination, but if you've got any more up your sleeve (especially with public domain images) then go for it. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am working on an article now which might approach what you suggest. I am looking for another day or so to completion, as I've lost two nights of WP this week! :-) --Lmcelhiney 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• What article have you done the most to help? Have you aimed at WP:GA for anything? Have you joined a WikiProject?

I have helped to improve and prevent from deletion a few articles, The Columbian Theatre and Paul Garnault/International Theatre Institute

That would be worth mentioning at RFA. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have, at times, roamed Random Article to see what I could do to help. Sometimes I find that copyedits are all that I can contribute, but other times I have made some major changes. The Columbian Theatre fell into this latter category. Often, that his caused me to contact the author to try to provide some mentoring, which has been rewarding to me and helpful to them.--Lmcelhiney 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the Military history WikiProject, as I have been a student of military history for some years.--Lmcelhiney 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Have you done anything in particular for the project? Durova^Charge! 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have worked to pull together some cohesiveness to Siege of Maastricht and Xhosa Wars, which tied information back to Grahamstown and caused me to create Ben Maclennan (author) and add a bit to Desmond Tutu.

• Have you been in any conflicts? How did you handle them? If you get sysopped, expect that some editors will treat you differently for having the tools. Some will resent the power and bait you. It's important to remain cool under pressure.

I've had folks who were disappointed that I followed WikiPedia rules when others had allowed laxness with them, for example, "Fair Use Rationale" on images. Someone helped me to write a good rationale in my early days on WP and I've tagged many images which did not have a FUR or were improperly licensed. I tend to be straightforward and objective with such interactions and have been successful in reaching consensus toward the policies and guidelines in all cases. In other cases, when I have seen "edit wars," I have worked to try to stop the action through the Talk page. A couple of times, I've had my Userpage blanked or vandalized because of my reverts of vandalism (I usually include warnings on their talk pages.)--Lmcelhiney 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Come RFA time it would help to outline one or two specific examples of that. The key question that I ask when I vote on somebody is whether I'd want this person deciding a conflict where I'm involved. The ability to handle tense situations without letting yourself get baited is good. I like to see particular examples (with links) to get a sense for how someone handles conflict. Ideally I watch the person in action myself, which is why I don't vote on many RFAs. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of times I've ended up trying to be a voice of reason in obvious edit wars. When the Talk page becomes more significant than the changes to the article, WP becomes more of a forum, unfortunately. --Lmcelhiney 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the first stuff that comes to mind. Thanks for thinking of me. Personally, I'd especially like to coach more people into the kind of complex investigations that are my specialty. Let me know if that's of interest to you. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 13:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reading through your Userpages, I was quite interested in the investigative part of your focus. I had noticed general trends early on in working on Recent Changes, (no edit summary, changes by an anonymous user to established articles, mutltiple changes in quick succession [so a single revert would still keep the first vandalism], etc.) and those observations intrigued me. Having worked in Quality Engineering for several decades, I have an investigative nature and don't mind sifting through lots of data for a root cause to the issue. Having noticed that some WP folks are incredibly devious in their machinations, I think that investigation is a good direction for my talents and patience.--Lmcelhiney 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we certainly could use some more editors to handle complex investigations. One way to get your toes wet there is to answer some article content WP:RFC requests. A little bit of everything goes on there - no telling what you'll find. That's how I got into it. If you haven't reviewed my investigation on the Joan of Arc vandal, give it a look (the link is at the bottom of my Contributions page). I think of this specialty as a little bit like reading a mystery novel, with the twist that you're actually being the investigator. Most cases resolve easily, but once in a while you find someone who's been particularly inventive about disrupting the project. Somebody needs to keep on top of that type of problem. So (as I state below) I'm reducing my own sleuthing temporarily to bring a few more sleuths on board. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I have started into that morass and it must have been both challenging and exciting.--Lmcelhiney 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being involved in admin coaching, Durova! Best of luck to you and your coachees. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. We need more admins, especially with investigations. I'm reducing my own investigative work a bit in order to bring more people into it. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Hello, please see Talk:Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc for my rationale for my changes to the Joan of Arc articles, and please don't crucify me. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rationale makes sense, although some of the miscellany probably deserves a reworking into article space. I'm glad you gave the origins of her name its own article. That's a point that comes up periodically at the main article. Thanks for reposting the deleted material to the talk page. No real complaints on my part. I'll add an observation of how odd it is for an editor to choose this particular topic to cite anti-trivia deletionism as a reason for removing material: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc was Wikipedia's first featured list to grow from an in popular culture section. The leftover trivia you took out was harder to classify, but (I think) significant in its own right to demonstrate Joan of Arc's symbolic influence on later generations. Durova^Charge! 13:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

I wish to file arbitration case for the dispute on have pictures in Muhammad article. The mediation is failed to resolve this dispute Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Do you think it is a good idea? Some people think that arbitration cannot handle content disputes? Hoping to get a reply. I have started preparing a case User:ALM_scientist/arbitration_Muhammad because it is a long standing content dispute. --- ALM 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

HighinBC's comment that it's about policy interpretation is worth pursuing: what policies exactly would the committee be asked to arbitrate? Durova^Charge! 19:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be primarily WP:NPOV#undue_weight. It is a minority tradition within Muslims to draw pictures and also non-Muslims follow the tradition. We have some references and will find more to support this. According to WP:NPOV#undue_weight pictures should not be displayed on prominent places in the article given that does not represent significant part of history. I have started preparing case User:ALM_scientist/arbitration_Muhammad and hope to make a strong case with lots of references. Do you think it is right way to go? --- ALM 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been active in this discussion, only browsed it, but I'm familiar with the underlying issues. The main hesitation I have is that some devout Muslims may find it offensive if the arbitration committee decides an issue that really is a matter of faith to them. I expect the Committee members will make a careful consideration before accepting this. Besides mediation, what other dispute resolution methods have been tried? Leave no stones unturned. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it is not a Muslim wikipedia and hence I do NOT think that things around should be according to Islam. I have no objection in having picture in Depiction of Muhammad or in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I also have no object (against my believes) that pictures should not be included in Muhammad articles. However, these should present reality. In reality it is a minority tradition (we will provide references) hence those pictures should be less in number and should not be on prominent places. Just like WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.. I have tried to talk with people around however the basic reason we are not able to reach any solution is that they think I am fighting for my religion. They do not understand that I do not fight for it when wikipedia policy do not allow me (because I know that I have to abide with polices around). I think basically because of this bad faith assumption from them they are violating WP:POINT by saying we will not let censor your the article. As long as they will keep assuming this we will never have any solution.

I have tried talking a lot and see my contribution that since last few months I am not able to create new article because of this talking. We have also tried mediation but it is failed because of their bad faith assumption (I told above). Now suggest what I suppose to do next because it is against my personality to leave things in the middle that I have started. --- ALM 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold up: I'm not asking for your personal take on the dispute. I'm asking how many methods of dispute resolution have been tried. Your original question asked me whether arbitration is right for this dispute. Part of my answer is that this is the type of issue where dispute resolution should be pursued as far as possible, both because of the topic at issue and because you describe the conduct as relatively civil. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think three months before November we have tried talking on talk pages and since Nov 2006 we are talking on mediation. I have also tried to talk with many people on their corresponding user talk pages. There is no other method tried and that what I am asking from you. What I am suppose to do next that resolve this issue according to policies in couple of month. It has been six months of very long talking and I wish to work on other articles. What should I try as next step? --- ALM 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Try opening this up to at least one article content WP:RFC before going the arbitration route. Arbitration is slow and agonizing - much better to resolve on the community level if possible. Sometimes fresh opinions clear the air. Good luck. Durova^Charge! 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I will now trying to go for WP:RFC but I am afraid that many people will have same bad faith assumption. I do not know what to tell them to please see things without assuming that Muslim are fighting for their religion. --- ALM 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It helps to introduce the topic in neutral terms and give both sides of the issue a little space to summarize their viewpoint. Try to keep it short and sweet. Refer people to this discussion if it helps, and thank you for seeking my advice. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf Education Review

Hi Durova,

Have just noted Pete K's complaint at [13], after the alteration of the majority by Thatcher here [14] .

I just wanted to ask (as you have obviously far more experience in these matters than I), before I take this issue up with the ArbCom, whether such a low majority is normal, has precedent and in your opinion fair? Any advice or information would be helpful, Cheers Lethaniol 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems one of the excused arbitrators has voted - so I'm guessing that will make three votes required. I'd accept that as reasonable. Two seemed kind of low. Pete K 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unusual, but remember that this case opened before the most recent set of ArbCom appointments. The proper place to direct your question would be to a clerk. Durova^Charge! 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Majority has been changed to three my Thatcher Cheers Lethaniol 01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Durova^Charge! 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too... I'm embarassed that this process has dragged on so long. I wish they would just get it over with. If I don't get another chance to say goodbye - bye Durova. I hope there are no hard feelings and that you understand why I had to self-destruct. Pete K 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Their plate is pretty full right now. No hard feelings and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That sincerely means a lot. Pete K 02:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Make the most of the extra time. Who knows? Perhaps you can turn things around. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

About sysop

Sure, I want to be one, but given that my somewhat "infamous" reputation, I'm not giving it a lot of hope. --Certified.Gangsta 05:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to fill me in on the juicy details? Durova^Charge! 05:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well ever since my initial arrival, which is approximately a year ago, I got off to a bumpy start. (obviously I was a newbie back then) Then immediately got into a fight about User:Jiang userpage, which I considered to be blatant racism. My userpage, as you can see, isn't what wikipedians call "admin-like" and recently triggered this Wikipedia talk:User page/UI spoofing drama. And of course, there is also the long-standing content dispute on Taiwan-China relations. Obviously, that will cause a lot of oppositions. Anyway, I always feel admin should be held at a higher standard and given the way wiki hierarchy functions, I believe there are enough sensible people out there to make sure all admins are doing a fine job.--Certified.Gangsta 05:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your block history (brief silly stuff) and am glad you told me that yourself. Disputes don't necessarily stand in your way if your own conduct has been good. I spent my first several months wrestling in a snakepit called Talk:Joan of Arc. Eventually I improved the article enough to make it a WP:FA and wound up coauthoring the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. Check out an essay I started and get back in touch with me if you're interested. You won't get sysopped next week or next month, but if you'd like it somewhere down the road we can start planning a path. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging words :)--Certified.Gangsta 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Keep in touch. Durova^Charge! 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but could you please take a look at User:LionheartX who openly admits that he is the ban-evading sock of User:Guardian Tiger and many other accounts [[15]] and block him accordingly. Thanks for your time--Certified.Gangsta 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually I'd ban right away for that admission. In this instance the user is attempting to appeal the block on another account whose user talk page has been protected. Although that's a violation of protocol, I usually wouldn't issue a new ban if a candid appeal is all the user attempts this way. If LionheartX disrupts other pages let me know and I'll respond. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but here's the problem. He has been trolling, disrupting, POV pushing on this account, User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH before it was blocked as an abusive sock of User:RevolverOcelotX. Obviously, he did not want to respect wikipedia policies and began abusing the unblock template before the talkpage was protected User talk:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH. Then, he went under the scene for a few weeks before re-emerging as User:Apocalyptic Destroyer and again push the same POV and edit warring on similar articles (martial arts, Taiwan-China relations, Japanese-China relations). Then for unexplained reason, he stopped using that account and instantly start using User:Guardian Tiger (possibly as means to avoid 3RR or pretend to be diff. users to avoid a more lengthy block). Obviously, we know they're the same guy so I filed a checkuser. He refused to admit or reject the accusation that he is a sock, instead disrupting the checkuser request stating that there is no ground for checkuser and spamming admins' talkpages. After some big drama and escalation, he was finally indef. blocked due to sockpupetry, wikilawyering, disruption, and many others. Unblock requests were quickly turned down before User talk:Guardian Tiger was protected due to abuse of the unblock template. Dmcdevit stated that this user is community banned unless others give him a reason not to. No objection was raised. Nevertheless, the 1st thing after User talk:Guardian Tiger was protected was the creation of a new account under the name User:ApocalypticDestroyer's (not to be confused with User:Apocalyptic Destroyer who was blocked along with Guardian Tiger). He self-proclaimed that the ban/block was unjustified. Admins instantly blocked this new sock but the talkpage wasn't protected. User:BenAveling developed a personal bond with this sock and began chitchatting with the user on his talkpage (also discussing strategy to obtain his unblock). Two AN/I discussion raised by Ben to obtain the unblock was generally ignored by the community. After a while, I requested page protection for User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's on the ground that unblock requests was originally turned down more than 4 times in his other accounts combined. The 1st thing he did after the talkpage protection was the creation of User:LionheartX, whose 1st edit was to report me on the 3RR page. So based on the above, I don't see why LionheartX should be anything different than his previous accounts. Due to all these violations, I think it is time to not only ban him but block his IP too. And obviously based on his recent contributions he has already began POV pushing. Anyway hope you can read all this and make a decisive decision. Thanks for your time. :)--Certified.Gangsta 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Show me any diff where he violated site policy since my last statement on this matter. Durova^Charge! 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's nothing major right now (and I'm too lazy to fish out all those diffs and go through his edit one-by-one). But he did promise to stay out of these pages on User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's--Certified.Gangsta 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Durova, sorry to bother you again. I'm not sure what Certified.Gangsta is trying to accomplish here by repeatedly bringing this up when it was resolved a few days ago on WP:ANI. This issue was already resolved by User:Nlu and other admins a few days ago in the following ANI thread. As for the alleged site policy violations, I have not violated any policy and Certified.Gangsta does not have evidence to justify his statements. Frankly, I think Certified.Gangsta is venue shopping for admins as stated by User:Picaroon9288 in this following ANI thread. Please see the long discussion in the ANI thread here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion. Thanks. LionheartX 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my response from a few days back: it's well documented that you are in violation of WP:SOCK and indef blocked on another account, which means any administrator can indef block you on this account as well. Although I'm not bound by Nlu's decision I'm willing to abide by it so long as I don't see evidence of any new policy violation on your part. Under these circumstances it is in your own best interests to do the following:

• Seek a mentor through WP:ADOPT.
• Don't make waves.
• Help build the encyclopedia.
• Do something especially positive, if possible. Add line citations to articles or give some good peer review feedback. Start a new article that gets into Did you know? Try to earn a barnstar or two and work your way back toward becoming an editor in good standing.

Durova^Charge! 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and your advice Durova. I'll try my best to take your advice and work my way back toward becoming an editor in good standing. On a related note, I noticed User:Certified.Gangsta is wiki-stalking my contributions [16] [17] and forum shopping for admins to get me blocked. [18] I find this to be uncivil and harassment. Can you do something about this? Thanks. LionheartX 13:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can. And for the record I'll explain why I'm indef blocking you. First, it isn't Wikistalking to monitor the edits of a known problem user. You're an admitted sockpuppet of an indef blocked account so you were extraordinarily lucky to have been allowed to return at all. Under those circumstances you should expect that your edits would be scrutinized and that unexplained edits could be reverted on site. Policy specifically allows reversion on sight as a remedy for block evasion. The second accusation, that CertifiedGangtsa forum shopped for admins, also misrepresents the actual discussion. The editor requested advice about whether to seek arbitration, which is entirely reasonable under the circumstances. Arbitration is not necessary. Clearly you're going out of your way to impugn the integrity of a user in good standing after you have forfeited your privilege of editing here at all. Per WP:SOCK. Durova^Charge! 14:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I'm not sure I understood. You said my username is linked into a template, and that is corrupting my entry in Admin Coaching? I'll see if I can find the template. · AO ^Talk 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The only templates that link to my page are Template talk:Wdefcon, and Template talk:User Rome2. Is that what you meant? · AO ^Talk 09:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not enough of a tech whiz to understand it, but whenever I tried to list your name at Admin Coaching as somebody I'm helping, your name transcluded an Editor Review template into the table. After half a dozen attempts to fix the problem I wound up leaving out your name. Durova^Charge!`

Potential Essjay Sock ?

I am interested in hearing your explanation. The evidence is still being gathered, but I can tell there is enough of it to raise issues. Are their IRC logs for the first week of December 2006 on the wikipedia channels ? 74.112.107.145 02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to do checkuser from archived results from 2006 to pin down if Robbie31 and Essjay had same IP address. Chances the IP address will be the same and this is covered up by the fact that Essjay and Robbie31 are partner and live in the same home. But then this has been referred to as the roomate excuse in sock puppet cases and carries little weight. So I can't see how you can conclude definitively that Robbie31 is not a sockpuppet of Essjay. But considering he has lied on everything he has said and this proven beyond reasonable doubt... that is the only predictable trend (plausible explanation) that he has lied regarding this matter as well. 74.112.107.145 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser results don't go back that long and they would obviously match anyway. There are more than one set of Wikipedian spouses/partners/roommates who edit. Generally as long as this is known there is no problem. Unless Essjay and Robbie edited the same articles pretending not to know each other, then you don't really have a case here, except for the RfB, and stating right up front, "I'm Essjay's partner so I want him to pass" is not much of a disguise. If you want to find the bureaucrat who closed that RfA and inquire whether Robbie's vote made a difference you are free to, but I think this particular line of questioning is a dead end. Thatcher131 04:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the RFB, someone crunched the numbers at RFC and Essjay remained above the 85% threshold either way. The decision was around 90% so the difference was enough to prompt serious discussion. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Having supposed partner vote and express confidence does have some snowballing effect to show this guy is trustable, responsible etc and could have built added popularity. Particularly to show or convince people this individual is aged/matured etc. Although Robbie did vote late into the voting session. Maybe he feared it was close so he decided to throw in his extra persona(s) 74.112.107.145 04:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that he made up the Robbie31 persona as well since this is consistent with what he has done. He lied twice to Jimbo and everyone else, even after he supposedly came clean. 74.112.107.145 04:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Standard procedure at vote closures is to discount participation by low edit accounts. Robbie's statement disarms that objection by admitting to be a low edit account with a conflict of interest. An editor of Essjay's experience certainly could have gamed the system better than this, if that had been his intention. I read this data in the context of other long term hoaxsters. Follow the BooyakaDell/JB196 threads in my talk archives for comparison. Although Essjay certainly misled the community about his background, I don't reach the conclusion that this counts among the deceptions. Durova^Charge! 05:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I should raise a disclaimer, I don't have conclusive proof nor do I want to claim that I do, but this is the simplest explanation that I have heard at the moment (based on the trend). What is your position on this ? Do you consider this to be the simplest explanation or not ? 74.112.107.145 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

While his vote may or may not have been discounted, he may have influence the voting pattern of others. It depends when he voted relative to other voters. 74.112.107.145 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the Robbie31 case, I have to raise some issues with regards to raw sentence structure analysis. This is of statistical/machine learning nature. While there maybe some trends showing difference in word structure/errors, I have to caution and say that the Robbie evidence is very limited and hence to try and attempt to extrapolate sentence structure trends maybe prone to 'noise' (machine learning term) when playing with a very limited data set. This analysis has to be quantified, in that there needs to be statistical evidence of how many errors are made by Essjay on average based on his 20,000 edits and then this can be compared to Robbie31. Then it has to be figured out what is the probability that Robbie31 like series of errors are made given Essjay's sentence error probability distribution. 74.112.107.145 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppet normally enters Wikipedia with no background or a very superficial one. In my opinion it would take a more skillful writer than Essjay to concoct the particular details about the ways these two accounts interact. Durova^Charge! 05:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I examined the suspected sockpuppet's edits and looked at several aspects. I also specifically compared them to Essjay's edits in Doug Bell's diffs at User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_finding_of_fact_by_Doug_Bell. One of the ways that sockpuppeteers give themselves away is through characteristic spelling and punctuation mistakes. So I examined the known Essjay edits and compared them to the suspected sock's. Take a close look at this post, for example.[19] It contains a variety of subtle errors.

• A forgotten period at the end of the second paragraph.
• A period placed inside the parenthesis in the third paragraph.
• Slightly aberrant syntax the fourth paragraph: adamant of instead of adamant about.
• A forgotten period at the end of the same sentence.
• Another forgotten period at the end of that paragraph.
• The fifth paragraph has a superfluous comma after codified and a misplaced semicolon.
• The same paragraph also has a superfluous comma after tried.
• The last paragraph has another superfluous comma after Church and a forgotten period at the end of the final sentence.

This establishes Essjay as an editor who's a bit sloppy about punctuation and perhaps also as someone who occasonally mishandles advanced vocabulary. You'll see similar problems in other posts of his if you read them carefully enough. Although sockmasters occasionally introduce deliberate mistakes or intentionally appear less intelligent on their sockpuppet accounts, they won't be more careful with their writing unless the user knows he or she is under scrutiny and fears that the deception will soon be caught.

Based on that example and some others I expected to locate misplaced apostrophes and forgotten periods in Robbie31's posts. Here's the rundown:

• Seventh edit.[20] It's suspicious because Essjay made the most recent edit to the page. Note Essjay's edit summary, though, and the specific information that Robbie deletes - taking out the age and religious affiliation is the sort of thing a different person really would do, even if the age is implied in the username. The alteration to plainlinks style is questionable, yet understandable in the context of two people in an established romantic relationship. If we accept that presumption, Essjay was probably standing near the computer while Robbie edited and available to offer advice. Both versions have acceptable punctuation. Robbie's edit uses an extra comma, which raises my antenna a little, yet he also introduces a flaw in the verb tense that isn't characteristic of Essjay's prose. So far I'm willing to suppose this is a gay romantic partnership.
• Sixth edit.[21] Note the characteristic use of very, very with the superfluous comma. That appears to be a stylistic flaw of Robbie's distinct from Essjay's mistakes. If this were Essjay's sockpuppet I'd anticipate some misplaced or forgotten punctuation in a post of this length. Although Robbie does like to use semicolons and occasionally adds an extra comma there's nothing I can pin on this post to call it Essjay in disguise. I can accept the premise at face value: a romantic partner posting as a minor favor when Essjay was ill.
• Fifth edit.[22] As above, I was looking for misplaced or forgotten punctuation and didn't find Essjay's type of errors. It's even easier for me to take this at face value: this is an appeal for minor technical assistance that Essjay wouldn't need if he had been the person posting.
• Fourth edit.[23] This is a curious one: advanced edits to Essjay's monobook. I discussed this in particular with another editor via e-mail while the RFC was open. Technically it's over my head. As I told the other editor, if you have a better explanation I'll listen to the details. I was willing to suppose that either Robbie had some programming experience or he copy/pasted some code, possibly from Essjay's computer.
• Third edit.[24] This is the one that raised all the eyebrows. Yet when I look at the text it really doesn't fit with the scenario of a sockpuppeteer manipulating a borderline candidacy. It admits the vote is unlikely to be counted due to infrequent contributions and declares the conflict of interest. I'll read that as moral support.
• Second edit.[25] Again, this fits with the scenario of a romantic partner. I still don't see Essjay's characteristic punctuation errors other than extra commas. If this were Essjay I probably would have found at least one unpunctuated sentence after this much reading.
• First edit.[26] Creates his user page. Note the content and note the change seven hours later by Essjay.[27]

So by the time I ended my reading I was ready to accept this account at face value. Unlike Essjay's claims about his education and career, Robbie31 didn't try to bolster Essjay in disputes. The one time Robbie helps out Essjay at a vote he practically begs not to be counted and nearly half of the edits are simple statements on Essjay's behalf when Essjay is ill. There also appears to be a banter between the two of them that a sockpuppeteer wouldn't normally attempt. Although I'm not 100% certain these are different people and a couple of open questions remain, on the whole this looks credible. One partner is heavily involved with Wikipedia and the other dabbles just a little bit and in ways that reinforce their romantic relationship.

I certainly began looking at things with a skeptical eye. If you read my comments as the controversy I was hardly a staunch defender: I was among the first to call upon Essjay to resign all his special positions of trust.[28] I was also the first editor to endorse the first outside view at his RFC User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_view_by_Catchpole and later authored one of the more scathing outside views myself here. Some of my other statements were less harsh, particularly after Jimbo called for Essjay's resignation, yet I think that's enough to establish that I didn't go out of my way to excuse or exonerate him. You'd have to inquire elsewhere about IRC logs. I don't participate at IRC. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

While you have looked at his edits from sentence structure and raw typewritten evidence, I was looking at some of the conversations and its contents. This is where there is logical holes. You have to acknowledge just 7 edits and voting for someone is suspicious

The monobook edit is what blows things away. It doesn't make logical sense per what Essjays mentions. My explanation of this is not very clear, but please read it on Jimbo's page. 74.112.107.145 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the Robbie, I have to raise some issues with regards to raw sentence structure analysis. This is of statistical/machine learning nature. While there maybe some trends showing difference in word structure/errors, I have to caution and say that the Robbie evidence is very limited and hence to try and attempt to extrapolate sentence structure trends maybe prone to 'noise' (machine learning term) when playing with a very limited data set. This analysis has to be quantified, in that there needs to be statistical evidence of how many errors are made by Essjay on average based on his 20,000 edits and then this can be compared to Robbie31. Then it has to be figured out what is the probability that Robbie31 like errors are made given Essjay's sentence error model. 74.112.107.145 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To address your objections separately, the simplest explanation about the monobook edits is that Essjay had drafted them in a text editor at his own computer and Robbie pasted them for him. Another one of Essjay's edit notes implies that Robbie sometimes used Essjay's computer, which would be normal within a romantic relationship. You do raise a good point about the limited evidence on Robbie. 7 edits aren't a lot. WP:AGF constrains me to assume they're separate people in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. If you want to change my mind the best thing you can do is review Essjay's edit history during the same time frame as two of Robbie's posts: come back with diffs of Essjay using the exact phrase and punctuation very, very. That would get my attention. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not how he edited the monobook, but rather his explanation why on Robbie's talk page. 74.112.107.145 05:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! I have indeed found evidence of Essjay saying "very, very" [29]. Check answer to question number 9 74.112.107.145 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Probably not. I've been here for a year, and I've been very, very active. I feel I've made myself well known enough for voters to know whether they trust me or not; I don't think the community's opinion will change much, barring some kind of mass change in personality. :-) I'm not one who seeks restricted privs as trophies, I seek them because I intend to use them, and because I feel the community wants me to help out in that way; if the community says they don't want me in a role/they don't trust me in a role, I'll find something else I can do. I made my request because a large number of people have asked me to run, which suggested to me that this was a role the community wants me to fill. If I find that I was mistaken, I will simply move on to other things. So, short answer: It's very unlikely. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)" 74.112.107.145 05:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That by itself is not compelling. People who have been living together for a long time often adopt the same phrases and "very, very" is not such a rare one anyways. Furthermore, it is a single use of the phrase among thousands of edits. I'm sure that if you looked through all of Essjay's edits you'd find some phrasing that resembled mine. JoshuaZ 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree and say that "very, very" is quite rare ( specifically with the comma in between). Off course each piece of evidence taken independently is not compelling, but taken together there is something to be said statistically speaking. 74.112.107.145 06:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That link is also quite an eyeful. Diffs are much better. Note that the specific phrasing very, very came to my attention only because Robbie used it twice in seven edits. If you demonstrate a similar frequency to Essjay's use that would be better.

There's also a nuance and banter between the two accounts that's consistent with two separate people and that, in my opinion, invention of these details as fiction would require more skill at writing than Essjay possesses. It's highly uncharacteristic of sockpuppets to behave this way. Occasionally a sockmaster really blunders and edits something unintentionally - usually by posting on a timed out or dropped connection that reveals the underlying IP address. That hasn't happened here. Although you (the IP) describe my analysis as raw sentence structure readings, quite a bit more goes into what I do. I don't have time to spell out all the nuances of sockpuppet investigations (nor would it be wise to do so in front of people who may lurk here). Substantial patterns such as what the editors provided at the BooyakaDell investigation count for something. Unless you dig up a whole lot of diffs where Essjay used very, very or provide something else I haven't already seen, then our time would be better spent on your new concerns than on further meta-analysis to this issue. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW if you haven't given the BooyakaDell investigation a thorough look, that would be good reading if you intend to pursue this further. Durova^Charge! 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into this BooyakaDell investigation. Let me try to clarify one of your points. You mention "invention of these details as fiction would require more skill at writing than Essjay possesses". Well he did manage to run a fictional profile thing for about 2 years long and fake a 6 hour New Yorker interview besides other interviews he has given on behalf of the foundation. Is it not correct to say he defrauded or fooled a lot of the higher echelons within the organization. So there is something to be said about his 'skill.' 74.112.107.145 06:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

With "very, very" being only used in specific context/rare situations and robbie31 only made 7 entries, this can be prone to or biased towards a certain contextual situation weighting than the 20,000 entries from the Essjay dataset. If there is indeed correlation in the use of this phrase in similar contextual situations by both users then that is extremely strong evidence. Regarding Joshua's point, acquired (blind) imitation I suppose wouldn't carry over contextual usage correlation. 74.112.107.145 06:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I'd be surprised if contextual usage didn't carry over. JoshuaZ 06:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Example: Person 1 acquires this "behaviour A" based on his/her user past/experience and internal brain state for certain situations . Person 2 sees/hears person 1 and does imitation. But person 1 acquired this behaviour "A" based on different set of past experiences and internal brain states. No two people have the same internal brain states, not even identical twins. And no two people can have the same set of "life experiences". But if its say word/phrase that is "important" (non lossy - information/descriptive/sacred ) and there is no substitution for it, then obviously you will have identical usage and context. But if its a phrase that can easily be substituted with many simpler descriptive alternatives (ie "very, very"), then you have user/past experience and internal brain state having an important role in determining usage. 74.112.107.145 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would still expect two people who lived together to use the same phrases in very similar contexts (albeit you are correct they wouldn't be identical). Especially with a small sample size, it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference between two people with similar phrases from living together and one person. JoshuaZ 07:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock. I mean, come on, this is just laughable:[30] Additionally, "Robbie" lied about his location to be consistent with Essjay's. Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be.Proabivouac 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for Essjay Goon Squad

This is the sequence of events thats highlights what Essjay was upto (underhanded bumping of potential editors) who had cornered him in arguments. He was the asked the following about checkuser results initiated by user Elalan on himself due to ongoing sockpuppet case [31]:

This was the sockpuppet case that started this [32] launched by user snowoldf4 (person blocked multiple times for abusive behaviour (see [33]) and chronic offender.

Essjay had this stay about the checkuser results:

"Likely: Looks like a classic case of editing at home with one account and at school with another"

User Elalan had asked the following question, along with another Rouge admin called Osgoodelawyer, regarding a checkuser case that Essjay concluded as likely without any sufficient explanation:

I am just an interested party. However, while I understand the need for privacy, your response didn't explain at all why you came to your conclusion. No usable biographical or geographical information on the user need be released. A comment such as "IPs are within the same geographical area" could hardly be seen as giving anything away, and yet it would give the user accused of sockpuppetry at least some explanation for the "likely" conclusion. I also understand that checkuser is "not the DNA of the Wiki-world", as you put it. However, a "likely" checkuser result would generally be considered a slam dunk in the case for sockpuppetry, and I'm not sure that such a determination should be made without at least some explanation. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User Elalan had more pointed questions namely statistical evidence:

Essjay with this varying degrees of probability as you claim, do you have verifiable yet significant statistical evidence to conclude thats its "Likely" and it "Looks like a classic case of editing at home with one account and at school with another" based on past checkuser cases. A simple yes or no to this question would suffice. If its a yes, can you please present evidence of statistics to support your claim. If its no, is it not safe to conclude your comment is mere speculation on your part, without supporting statistical evidence . Elalan 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This was the first response from Essjay:

[34]

He blanked out the questions and didn't answer

User Elalan, then reasked the question at 02:24, December 1st, thinking Essjay had missed the section:

[35]

At 02:24,December 1st Essjay had this to say:

[36]

Claiming Elalan was trying to bait him.

At 02:32, December 1st, within less than 8 minutes of the message sent to Essay:

Admin steel359 indefinetly banned user Elalan claiming abusive sockpuppet behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Elalan

Steel359 then decides to change the wording of the block having been grilled what the basis was for this banning on December 2nd.

User steel359, who had come out of nowhere (in this context) decided to conclude user Elalan was a sockpuppet before the sockpuppet case was over and presumably within 8 minutes of seeing Elalan's comment on user Essjay's talk page.. There is hardly any plausible motive for steel359 almost immediate reaction. Unless off course this is related to user Essjay. Steel359 blocked Elalan with 8 minutes of the message appearing on Essay's talk page the second time. Before then the message was blanked out by Essay. Steel359 had never interacted or known user Elalan. Therefore its conclusive to say Steel359 didn't really review the case at all and just went ahead and idefinetly blocked Elalan before the case was completed.

Essjay at 04:03, December 1st then deletes the last set of comments made to Elalan ([37])

Essjay didn't archive the comment but instead blanks it.

This is summed up by another editor who came to the defense of Elalan had to say:

[38]

Also this was Proto, another admin had to say:

I do not think this case is as clearcut as the punishment suggests, and it may be a little heavyhanded. I've dropped a note on Steel359's talk page, I want to find out a few things first. Proto::type 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not within 8 minutes!

It should also be noted that user Trincomanb had willingly recused his votes on TFD and contacted the relevant admins when the sockpuppet case was initiated in good faith [39]. This was never acknowledged by the blocking admin. The blocking admin could never define what he meant by "abusive sockpuppetry" with regards to Elalan's behaviour. A plausible explanation: Essjay as it has been well established communicates through IRC and gave order to Steel359 to act as a meat puppet and quickly silence Elalan, since he was cornered with his checkuser explanation. User Essjay having been shown to be an unreliable source and has repeatedly lied. Another user, Sechezen confronted Essjay regarding this whole event and asked why he blocked user Elalan ? The Irony: User Essay at that point confidently point Sechezen to check the block log and confirm that his name wasn't there [40]. 74.112.107.145 03:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I may be a little slow about responding here. It took quite a while to compose a reply to the Robbie31 question. I'll catch up on a few other things and probably answer this tomorrow. Durova^Charge! 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the Robbie31 case, I have to raise some issues with regards to raw sentence structure analysis. This is of statistical/machine learning nature. While there maybe some trends showing difference in word structure/errors, I have to caution and say that the Robbie evidence is very limited and hence to try and attempt to extrapolate sentence structure trends maybe prone to 'noise' (machine learning term) when playing with a very limited data set. This analysis has to be quantified, in that there needs to be statistical evidence of how many errors are made by Essjay on average based on his 20,000 edits and then this can be compared to Robbie31. Then it has to be figured out what is the probability that Robbie31 like series of errors are made given Essjay's sentence error probability distribution. 74.112.107.145 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Returning to this, I've given the evidence a browse. One of the evidentiary links is mistaken: Essjay gave polite and reasonable answers for why a request for mediation was closed without assistance due to a shortage of mediators and offered alternative suggestions.

I suppose that you (the IP) are closely involved here, probably a banned party. Please follow up via e-mail. If these are really two different users I want to hear from both of them because I'm curious about the geographic proximity. Essjay's explanation of the result was that it appeared to be one person editing from home and from campus.

Show me ample diffs that substantiate a conclusion that these are different people. The most convincing evidence would be to show diffs of at least one date with multiple overlapping time stamps. I'm interested in multiple overlaps during the same hour or hours, rather than a bunch of posts from one location followed by a time lag and a bunch of posts from the other. Secondary to that request, I'm interested in topical points where they disagreed and differences in editing patterns and interests. What subjects besides this controversy were consistent interests for either editor? Durova^Charge! 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you please check out Hulda Clark's talk page please?

As you are aware, I am a new editor but the last post asking for information about editors who post there sounds like a legal threat and is quite spooky to say the least. I didn't know what to do with it so I wanted to bring it to the attentions of someone who would know what to do. Thanks, --Crohnie 11:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a link, please. I'm having trouble finding it. Durova^Charge! 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but you can ignore, another editor took care of the matter. Thanks,--Crohnie 16:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you help?

Could you help in reaching a concensus here please? We need someone neutral here. --- ALM 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting my input. I hope the alternative I propose is a help. Durova^Charge! 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to say a quick thank you for your involvement in the Mohammed impasse. Very much appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, per my latest post, I absolutely agree with your general points about the proper use of images. However, these have nothing to do with placing any arbitrary limit upon depictions of Muhammad and their placement. There will, of course, be a finite number of depictions, and these should be placed where they are topical and supportive relative to the text. The article must not be treated as a platform for the display of poorly-selected images of any kind. I'd also agree, and have stated on several occasions, that depictions ought be moderate in number compared to those found on Jesus in light of due weight. However, I don't see how we can get to where we need to be without removing the motive for censorship completely from the equation. If proposals and endorsements based upon religious taboos or the desire to accomodate them were simply ignored per policy, there would be no remaining dispute of significance; instead we'd be productively discussing what images best serve the article as we would anywhere else, with an eye towards bringing it (this component of it, at least) to featured status.Proabivouac 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You raise several points, all significant, and I appreciate your sincerity. It isn't often that editors who have deep philosophical views set aside their own POV after a lengthy dispute and work in terms of dry site policy. One example where it happened for a while is Talk:Answers_in_Genesis/Archive_2#RfC. Although the situation later went into arbitration for unrelated reasons, I actually gave a collective barnstar for the progress the editors made to the article.

My hope is that the Muhammad article editors can come closer to agreement if the images themselves are well presented with a clear and direct relationship to specific passages of text. Although my own religious background is considerably different, it isn't hard for me to imagine that nonessential, redundant, irrelevant, or poorly placed images of Muhammad may appear WP:POINT-y to some Muslim readers, in the sense of We're WP:NOT-not censored so we'll rub your noses in this imagery. There's a difference between discretion and censorship. Discretion means you handle the issue with taste and sensitivity. If you do use portraits, do so in moderation per WP:NPOV and in ways where the image clearly reinforces the informational value of the associated main body text. Perhaps some of the opposition stems from a reasonable interpretation that the image at this page has been somewhat gratuitous. Although I am by no means an authority on Islam, it seems to me that there is a reasonable argument to be made for relegating portraiture to the subordinate Depictions of Muhammad article. Or on the other hand, if a portrait image bears a clear and convincing relationship to the text that no substitute could convey as deftly, I expect that would reduce the objections. Some people will probably stand fast against any imagery at all, yet I have a hunch that others would view the question in context.

Whatever consensus the regular contributors reach, the whole situation would become less tense if attention refocused to the variety of appropriate and informative imagery that could enhance this article, and to uncontroversial aspects of image use that would enhance the presentation. Write better captions, go into Photoshop to adjust some histograms and crop peripheral details, and standardize the image sizes. Find someone who knows Arabic and translate a few passages from the Koran into text boxes. I found it challenging and rewarding to create my own translations of Joan of Arc's letters. A lot of elements that deserve attention have been neglected because of this specific disagreement. I suspect that if you collectively set the disagreement on the back burner and make progress on the other areas, the spirit of collaboration will bring you closer to agreement on the tough issue. Sincerely and best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Rfar

Should I make a statement because I closed the block review discussion? I'm not all that up with the intricacies of arbitration. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You aren't a named party so it's optional. Feel free to do so if you have something to say. Durova^Charge! 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Misconception

Hello!

You protected my user page; I am NOT an idefinitely blocked user, and I'm pretty sure that whatever vandalism others may have done to my user page has stopped. Please unblock my user page and if anyone does revandalise it, I'll let you know.

Thanks and have a pleasant day!

Sincerely,

--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, and I apologize for the mistake. I hope there are no further problems. Durova^Charge! 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the quick response and action! Have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your help

Hi Durova, sorry to bother you. I noticed you were in Category:Eguor admins and noticed you said you were willing to do 'complex investigations' and I was hoping you could help me. I am an reincarnation of the account User:RevolverOcelotX, but unfortunately I cannot access that account anymore due to a lost password. I attempted to use a different account to contribute but it was blocked because the new account was a sock, without the legality of using a sock being considered. The block log on my previous account were wrong. There was no strong consensus for a ban official policy. Yes, I have used a number of accounts, but never two at the same time [41]. And my original account is not blocked [42]. I am willing to accept the conditions that User:Shimeru stated in the previous ANI threads. I apologize for my previous account-jumping in the past. I am going to stick User:LionheartX as my one and only account. I request an administrator change the misleading block log on my previous accounts so that I won't appeared to be banned and unblock me if necessary. Please see the discussion on User talk:Ben Aveling and User talk: ApocalypticDestroyer's for full details. I want to get legitimately unblocked and I want a chance to prove I can contribute positively to wikipedia.

Here is the evidence that there isn't strong support for the block or ban per official policy.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:ApocalypticDestroyer.27s requests a review and a lifting of the permanent_block.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#ApocalypticDestroyer.27s_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29_request_for_a_lifting_of_the_permanent_block.

Thanks, LionheartX 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from spamming admins' talkpages.--Certified.Gangsta 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how requesting help is "spamming admins' talkpages". On a related note, I noticed that Certified.Gangsta is actively campaigning to get me blocked and repeatedly posting sockpuppet tags on my userpage in violation of WP:CIV and WP:HAR. I request that if anybody edit my userpage without my consent, please revert it. Thanks. LionheartX 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I've made a decision. (See my talk page.) You are not bound by it, obviously, but just to let you know how I decided... --Nlu (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I was busy with other matters while Nlu took care of this. Gangsta's post to my page was entirely appropriate as a follow-up to my offer of coaching. LionheartX should have disclosed the usernames of the other administrators who got canvassed. That's called forum shopping and, frankly, you're very lucky I wasn't the first admin to reach a decision.

I'll respect Nlu's choice and give a strong recommendation to LionheartX to seek a mentor through WP:ADOPT. Sometimes I tell editors to walk the straight and narrow path. That advice would be an understatement here: you are ban evading sockpuppet who has received extraordinary leniency and you tread a high wire between two skyscrapers. If you so much as cough at the wrong moment you're going down. It would take me three seconds to indef block this account, less than a minute to add your full drawer of socks to the list of long term vandals, and if you still try to return after that you'll discover how quickly accounts can get banned and edits can get reverted. Some sysops even run bots for that work.

For your sake, I hope this is perfectly clear. Durova^Charge! 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sops and frumenty for all!

At long last, the long-overdue nomination of medieval cuisine as an FAC is under way. You are invited to grab your fill of potage, quince pie, a subtlety worthy of a pope, and all the beer you can drink! Oh, and don't forget to make a few comments while you're digging in...

(Sorry for the belated invitation. I invited everyone who had commented on the talkpage, but I must've simply missed your name)

Peter ^Isotalo 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, thank you for remembering one of my more obscure hobbies. I'll go over and comment as soon as I finish mulling a good pot of wine. ;) Durova^Charge! 13:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Alright, User:StudyAndBeWise (inactive) and User:170.215.40.207 (inactive) both said they are socks of User:VacuousPoet (indef blocked). Then there's User:Imheretohelppeople2 (inactive), a sock of User:Imheretohelppeople (indef blocked). User:Pedro the second (inactive) and User:Johnny the third (inactive) are sockpuppets of User:Sheep nuts (indef blocked). Should these accounts be blocked, even though they are inactive, or should they just be ignored? · AO ^Talk 16:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If problems resume I can address the inactive accounts. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you. · AO ^Talk 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for analyzing indefinite block

Hi! Could you check block of User:Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen, please? I've been blocked indefinitely. Check carefully all dates, in particular date of block and compare it with edits at this time. Just few edits led to indefinite block. Thanks in advance. Gen. Klinker Hoffen 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're a block evading sockpuppet. I wouldn't mind so much if you had come back for the sole purpose of appealing your ban, but you're also back to the same behavior that got you banned in the first place here and here and here and here. If you ever want to return to Wikipedia and keep an account for more than a few hours, sit on the sidelines for half a year and make your request via e-mail in a respectful manner that acknowledges responsibility for your mistakes. Indef block reimposed - not by me, but I support it. Durova^Charge! 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated

Durova, thank you for your calm centering voice of reason in the discussion about images of Muhammad. I have 100% agreed so far with everything you've said. Unfortunately the image issue is a serious magnet for trolling (and I say that for both sides of the issue). I am hopeful that with your assistance a logical and reasonable solution to this ongoing nonsense can be brought to a close. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, if it matters to the participants I'll make a voluntary disclosure of the factors that may inadvertently affect my own POV on this issue. Ask me if you'd like a statement. Durova^Charge! 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Quade999

Sorry about that. It was fresh when I reported it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I would have acted if it had come to my attention sooner. No apology necessary. Durova^Charge! 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)