User talk:Durova/Archive 32

Archived Triple Crown request[edit]

Hope you don't mind me nudging you, but can I draw your kind attention to this, a request which has been archived without reply? No problem, but I would like the fancy head-gear... Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the winner's circle page. I just haven't sent out all the notices yet. Thanks for all your work. Durova^Charge! 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for unnecessarily chivvying you. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I wish I'd gotten these out sooner. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 20:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Good to be in your court, Queen Durova.--Legionarius 20:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And from me. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're all very welcome, and thank you. Durova^Charge! 13:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and comment[edit]

In response to your question about this being my first account - the answer is no.

I am contemplating just how much time I care to be here. I have lost a great deal of respect for every aspect of wiki policying. Admins have failed, arbcom has failed, and dispute resolution has failed (it's a big reason why I had to start fresh). I have spent a disproportionate amount of time having to address this users behavior; having to run from articles as soon as he shows up, and having to watch him belittle people who do not have the capability to stand up to a bully.

I have neither the time nor patience to deal with a person who makes religiously intolerant comments - nobody else here wants to do anything about it - and i am essentially powerless. I'm just not sure what my motivation is to continue. People can cite as many examples as they want and say "it takes two to tango" or "Jmfangio has refused to cooperate"; but the reality is that has all been done to keep this user in check when all else has failed.

Chrisjnelson has been one of the most disruptive editors i have ever come into contact with. Anyone who makes an off the cuff comment regarding the nazi party (no matter how unintentional) needs to be shown the door permanently. He has bullied many people around here - the reason I have been stood my ground is that i don't roll over as easy. This is a failure of the system and a major one at that. I don't know that I have any desire to put forth any more effort at the arbcom; especially when my behavior is being called into question the way it is. I have not spent much time reading up on the new posts to the ArbCom pages, and i'm not sure i will. If you have any questions, post them here and i will respond if i decide to stick around. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a glimpse at how many miles I've walked in those moccasins, have a look at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. That vandal had been disrupting the project and degrading articles for a year before I became a Wikipedian. When I opened dispute resolution he simply ignored it and when I tried to contact sysops about his abuse they reacted as if I had a few screws loose. It took over a year of editing, building featured pages, and becoming a sysop before I earned enough reputation to get a real hearing. Eventually he got banned outright and I got known as someone who does complex investigations and takes on the hard cases.

I cowrote the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline because I didn't want anyone else to go through that kind of experience and I've put a focus into admin coaching this year because we need more good people to do this. That doesn't solve everything instantly - it's a volunteer project - so one other thing I do is offer two special user awards to editors who slip through the cracks, make some mistakes, and want to demonstrate their worth as editors.

The Resilient Barnstar to any post-arbitration or formerly banned editor who starts a new article that gets highlighted at Template:Did you know.
The Valiant Return Triple Crown to any post-arbitration or formerly banned editor who contributes to Template:Did you know, a good article, and featured content after receiving a sanction.

It's up to you where to go from here. I've given away two of those resilient barnstars to other editors. Today I caught up to date on triple crowns and gave away a lot of awards, but I'm still waiting for a chance to hand out the first Valiant Return Triple Crown. Durova^Charge! 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is some very interesting information. If I do stick around, I really do think that there is a lot to be learned from this. I'm just very displeased with these suggestions that I not be able to edit x y or z for a year or that I'm being disruptive by going to the notice boards when DR has been ignored. I have not read the articles you linked me to, but i will now. I would be happy to disclose some information about my past accounts and what led me to this one, but i'm not willing to share my email and i don't know that there is a way to "privately" discuss matters here - so we'll just see what happens. In any event, I'll read up and get back to you.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who make a strong comeback can appeal an arbitration decision. Also, bear in mind that there are some things you can do now while the case is open. If you'd like to talk offsite without disclosing private information I suggest creating a gmail account. Send me a message through my userpage and we can chat there. Durova^Charge! 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All possibilities and I'll let you know if i decide to communicate. The arbcom fails to recognize that any "disruption" people see from me did not take place until extensive reporting had taken place and the other party violated many policies. Had the system not failed, and had I not been stalked from article to article - this would have never happened. People seem to forget a very important thing - the crux of the debate broke out over an infobox with high usability. Making changes to it is in essence like changing all the articles it does touch or could touch. I was actually duped into creating it by Chrisjnelson - but because the edit history for the arcive on Template talk:Infobox NFLactive is lost, I cannot report any of that. He had problems on Talk:Infobox NFL player. There is an RFC on Chrisjnelson as well (which i started), but nobody seems to care. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, this may be the history you are looking for. --B 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things I searched for was a track record for your editing, since a clean block history of several months and perhaps a couple of user awards would weigh in your favor: that would have allowed me to demonstrate that you generally get along well with other editors. Then, weighed against Chrisjnelson's prior block history, it would be arguable that he was the primary aggressor and that milder sanctions could be sufficient to prevent future problems from your account. If you wish to keep that confidential you could e-mail material to that effect directly to the case clerk. Durova^Charge! 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all possible options; but I'm not sure what to do at this point. I have and will always be a bold editor. Many people on here I think mistake what that means, but my general editing style is "fix problems" in the spirit of the WP:PG (which i call wiki documentation and with the hopes of bettering the content. If someone has a problem, you talk about it. This was exactly what happened at WT:CFB. I can't find the discussion this second - but the gist was - I have a real problem with the naming used for articles like Miami Hurricanes football. I believe that without some qualification of "university" or American football; the pages are poorly named. I changed a few articles, and some people had a problem with it and we discussed. Others made some hostile and personally "antagonizing" comments toward one and other - but at the end - I helped (or at least offered) to help those who wanted to revert my moves and left things as they were. I am not sure what to suggest to the arbcom at this point because enough evidence is in front of them. I volunteered for a temporary topic ban - that say something - but if they want to ignore that - nothing more can be done. I'm gonna do some more editing and then read up on the stuff you pointed me to. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then try User:Durova/Durova's_arbitration_tips. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure those are useful and i will peruse them when i have a moment. The violations that i am most "guilty" of are edit warring and a drifting toward being uncivil. These took place due to the fact that the situation was not dealt with by those with the power to solve the problem (that is to stop the bs and get others to politely discuss the issues). Do i wish I had not been forced to do it - ABSOLUTELY! Ideally, I wish that they would never have had the opportunity to happen. Another user and I fell into a pretty heated debate - I contend that it was actually instigated by the actions of another user. The other editor extended an olive branch and the situation diffused and rather quickly at that. In an august 22nd post to my talk page (now in the second archive) he said (amongst other things) "I know you've previously tried to disengage, and for some reason I wasn't allowing you to." Had I been able to disengage from the situation with CJN (short of me leaving the topic altogheter) - then this wouldn't have happened. But i wasn't and he was reprimanded for his behavior until just recently. I was stalked and harassed and berated and did i tell you how pissed i am about the nazi thing (which wasn't even directed at me).... anyway - let's not keep filling up your talk page. I don't want to waste your time. I hope it's obvious to you that I am hear, willing to chat. If anyone questions my desire to improve the content here - i point them to Joe Montana. That difference will show you the version just before i showed up and the current version. I have encouraged others to join (at WP:NFL amongst others) and because these things take time - i'm trying to have someone else come in and help out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worn out

So I did spend some time looking through that stuff and a lot of it is great advice. I have been worn down by this process and just don't have a lot of energy to commit to it. I have given the users enough information to look at and am clearly willing to discuss this but with the continued bickering and unresponsiveness by my many of the others involved - i just don't know how to proceed. If you would like me to provide you with some clarification on something - i'm happy to. But this is similar to what happened in the past - user's popped up who were unable to do anything but argue. Even when I removed myself from the disputes - the content is being disputed months later. It's hard to say that I'm the problem when even when i'm not really involved in a conversation - one user is continuing to frustrate the process. Let me know if there is something you'd like. I can provide you with many examples of content related edits; show you the one DYK i have had in the last month; or provide you with other good points. My user page also has some stuff that might help you out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he still won't leave me alone: [1] I just don't know what to do here. I was pointed to a discussion and made one post - it could not have been more clear. Yet he continues to try and engage me directly. If i don't respond he calls me rude, if i do - well you know what happens. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call you rude, though I'd be disappointed. I was just respectfully asking you return to a discussion that is far from concluded in order prevent any incidents at player pages down the road. I think I was civil in my whole comment.►Chris Nelson 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment was civil, Chris, but you should respect Jmfangio's desire to leave the discussion if he doesn't want to partake in it. If he doesn't want to remain in the discussion, he doesn't have to, and I don't think you should try to bring him back into a discussion that he doesn't want to be a part of. Ksy92003(talk) 00:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All he has to do is decline. I asked for both our sakes in the future - settling the debate now prevents edit wars and crap later. The thing is, if he chooses to leave a debate before it is settled, he really can't revert other people's edits on the matter. I'm not making him re-enter the debate, I'm respectfully asking him to (once) and I'm allowed to do that. He can decline (or decline by doing nothing) if he chooses. But I'm allowed to ask.►Chris Nelson 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. Jmfangio posted his comment, which he didn't have a problem with doing. He didn't even join the conversation until somebody asked him, which he did. And has he reverted any of the edits? You say "if he chooses to leave a debate before it is settled, he really can't revert other people's edits on the matter," but I've yet to see him make any edits related to the categories.

Jmfangio posted his comment, and doesn't want any more to do with it, according to his comment here. You need to respect that. You didn't need to say anything about that. You could've just ignored him and let him go on, but no, you hadd to post here. He gave his opinion and left the discussion, and you are once again trying to engage him in discussion. Haven't you realized that's why the Arbcom is currently going on? He tries to disengage, but you don't let him. That's what this whole dispute is about. Jmfangio doesn't want to talk with you, so stop trying to engage in conversation with you.

Durova, I'm sorry again for flooding your talk page with these comments for Chris. Ksy92003(talk) 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't appreciate being told I shouldn't ask someone to reconsider something. All they have to do is say no, not reply or delete my request altogether. It's really none of your business.►Chris Nelson 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's none of your business if Jmfangio wants to have nothing to do with the conversation, is it? Ksy92003(talk) 01:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm allowed to ask him to reconsider. My post violated NO policy, so you shouldn't have anything to say about it.►Chris Nelson 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever saying you violated any policy, have I? Apparently I must have "mental defects" (language you used towards another user in the past). Ksy92003(talk) 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Durova - I'm sorry if I should not have made that request of Jmfangio. I have never been told I couldn't do that so I didn't think anything of it. I was only trying to make progess in a discussion to help things down the road. Despite the strange misinterpretation of the comment on some people's eyes, I think you would clearly agree that I wasn't trying to force him to do anything, but rather just asking a question of him that he could simply decline or not acknowledge at all.►Chris Nelson 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One week block on Chrisjnelson for gross and persistent violations of WP:POINT. My user talk page is not the place to come and pester someone who is trying to disengage from conflict. Durova^Charge! 02:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of questions on what's appropriate during said users "suspension" (i find blocking and banning such confusing terms). If you are interested in answering, should I just post here or would you like this moved to my talk page? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to go ahead and ask: during one of my suspensions, my opinion (which was already expressed) was directly circumvented. I think that's bad form. So how do we balance the need to keep a user's opinion in consideration while they are unable to edit? Even if their opinions are eventually put to the side - I don't want to simply go back and adjust all the contentious edits - even with support - unless I know that is acceptable. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't take it so far it makes WP:LAME. See [object lesson]. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown[edit]

Thank you very much. Hesperian 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've figured out the nature of the award, I must confess that I don't think I meet your criteria. I started The Atlas of Australian Birds, but it was Maias that improved it to GA standard, and the GA pass is a reflection of his efforts, not mine. Hesperian 04:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it up if you pledge to improve an article enough to clear your conscience on that point. Durova^Charge! 04:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got four featured articles, and more on the way, so there's no problems there. If I find myself lying awake at night racked with guilt for accepting an award I don't deserve, I'll let you know. ;-) Thanks again. Hesperian 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind I wouldn't qualify for the imperial triple crown jewels because I have only one GA, even though I've got multiples of the others. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I'm not greatly enamoured of the GA process. Too many times I've seen it end up with the wrong result. I guess that's the risk you take when you place the responsibility for assessment in the hands of a single random volunteer, rather than a consensus of many. I can't in good faith say that I have any plans to take any of my articles through GA. Therefore I shall decline your award, rather than risk devaluing it. Thanks all the same, and I hope my declining hasn't caused offense. Hesperian 05:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it awarded either way. I hadn't defined major contributor when you were nominated, so there's no reason to exclude yourself. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I'm really thrilled to know that I've been honoured with the Triple Crown and to find my name in a select list of those who've achieved 3 feats in Wikipedia. It is people like you who make my day and enthuse me to further the free spirit of wikipedia. Thanks. I will wear the crown majestically. :-) --Idleguy 05:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Durova^Charge! 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown nom[edit]

Do you accept self-nominations for the Triple Crown award? If so:

Smurrayinchester

DYK: Dogs Trust, British Rail flying saucer, Funeral train etc.
GA: Nebulous, Winter service vehicle
FC: Winter service vehicle, Nuclear power by country

Either way, I'll also nominate

User:Nightstallion

-Laïka 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly awarded. :) Durova^Charge! 13:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Laïka 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, didn't see this before. :)

DYK: Hamel, Western Australia; Cameron Park, New South Wales
GA: Cullacabardee, Western Australia
FC: Hamersley, Western Australia (which went via the GA route)

In all three cases I was both creator and primary contributor. Orderinchaos 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to be messy, so I'll just use this sections. The goal of being a more well rounded Wikipedian kept me going through FA, and gave me ideas for getting a Did You Know. This said, I'll use the form I see above.

Cheers!--Patrick Ѻ 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly awarded. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown[edit]

Thanks a lot, Durova. :)

For the sake of accuracy (and since I like shiny imperial objects), I'll give you an updated list:

Nishkid64

Thanks again. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, your new crown jewels await. :) Durova^Charge! 02:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration on Personal Rapid Transit and Skytran[edit]

Since you suggested it, would you please take these related articles to arbitration... I don't know how to do that...thanks...Avidor 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a summary of the issues to be arbitrated, a list of the involved parties, and a list of the prior dispute resolution methods attempted. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Much appreciated. :) —Nightstallion 15:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoritzB[edit]

Hi Durova, sorry to bother you with this but I've just warned user:MoritzB with {{uw-chat3}} for continued disruptive soapboxing. I gave him a level 2 warning a couple of days ago for days of soapboxing, forum-ising and other inappropriate, tendentious & disruptive use of the talk page at White people. He has continued his soapbox about academic work of critical theory being "extreme leftwing" "marxism" or "neo-marxism" & that academic scholarship into the category "white race" is fringe (which is factually inaccurate) - see MoritzB's comments at Talk:White_people#No_Neo-Marxist_POV_is_needed - this continued until my post on 31st of August, in the following section (both are rather long and circuitous). After I left the warning MoritzB decided to remove the stop icon [2].

I'm just requesting some oversight to make sure I'm using the warning properly and just in case the situation escalates--Cailil ^talk 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've acted appropriately and he's acted within his rights. Editors may remove warnings from their own user space. For future reference, removal of a warning also serves as evidence that the editor is aware of the warning. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, this user has been brought to ANI, for these and similar issues. I have given MoritzB a final warning for soapboxing, specifically for the ANI comments relating to the previous warnings but generally for thier use of talk pages since the level 3 warning. The discussion is here. As far as I'm concerned, MoritzB is beginning to cross the line of disrupting WP to make a point--Cailil ^talk 15:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving this your attention. I've made a post to ANI explaining the 3 warnings and detailing it with diffs. As usual I used a report page - which is here--Cailil ^talk 17:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Give me a heads up with diffs if the problems continue. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)[edit]

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:Thelmadatter's students' accounts[edit]

I saw you were the first name listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. The above user has gotten her students to establish one account per "group" with the names of the individuals using those accounts listed on the main userpage. I note on the page meta:Role accounts that the French wiki did once permit one multiple-user account, though, because it wasn't officially opposed. I figured the Classroom Coordination Project would be the people to contact regarding this matter. In any event, I think User:Thelmadatter would like any assistance you might be able to offer her on this subject. Thank you. John Carter 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be found at User talk:Thelmadatter#Problem with student accounts. It seems like a resolution has been reached but you might want to drop in and offer your advice and guidance anyway.

--Richard 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a solution to her dilemma. Let's hope it's satisfactory. Durova^Charge! 02:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JMFangio on my talk page[edit]

Hi Durova. I've got Fangio on my talk page now. He took issue with my characterization that he resisted WP:COOL.

Here's what he wrote on the ArbCom/Evidence page and my response.

Here's the exchange on my talk page.

I have asked him to stop. I don't really see the point to why he's done it unless it's to save face in light of what appears to be an imminent finding by the ArbCom now. He's suggesting that I've misrepresented evidence. Even if that were true (which I don't think it is), it's not like there wasn't a sea of evidence in front of mine. While it's his right to take issue, the fact that he's doing it more than a week after I first posted that particular line seems rather WP:POINTy to me. jddphd (talk · contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jddphd (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so it continues... jddphd (talk · contribs) 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bothering Durova with this? I came to your talk page and pointed you to the fact that I had posted a rebuttal. You pointed me to your rebuttal and then continued to engage me on that topic. Have I made any more posts to your talk page? I'm not sure why I have to come to durova's talk page to deal with this. Have i edit warred with CJN, absolutely - Have i gotten uncivil with him - sure ... have i refused to take a step back? Absolutely not. Your evidence was so far off, it's ridiculous. I have made several posts about a cease and desist from various editing patters (as I currently have on my talk page now)...and if you look at my edit history between following that statement in your evidence (on July 28 [3]) and [4] July 31st, nearly all of my edits were focus on moving articles. I then took another couple of days after that and you will see that most of those edits were related to the CEM that CJN and I had agreed to enter (which he bailed on - not me). I'm not going to post another response to this - if you want clarification, i'll be glad to give it, but please do not falsly accuse me of things like this. JmFangio| ►Chat 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration evidence page isn't an appropriate place for threaded discussion. Please de-thread and disengage. Durova^Charge! 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think it was appropriate to refractor another users content; please feel free to refractor as you see fit. JmFangio| ►Chat 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's for either the posting editor or the arbitration clerk to do. If another editor starts threaded discussion there in future, please do not respond except to request dethreading. Durova^Charge! 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. In the meantime, I consider myself withdrawn from the situation in that I will not comment further there and have already stopped addressing the user on their talk page. I will not comment here further. JmFangio| ►Chat 03:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the blocking of Jmfangio. Since it's indefinite, should his opinions offered during discussions at WP:NFL be considered when forming a consensus/taking a vote? Pats1 17:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That account never had the right to post in the first place. Durova^Charge! 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Could you also state this here for me: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Continued discussion? Thanks. Pats1 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom project idea[edit]

Hello! I have posted my idea for a small school project at the classroom coordination talk page. Please feel free to share any ideas there as replies before I create the page and also if you and your fellow members of the project a) think the idea is acceptable and b) think it is worthwhile. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on the Chrisjnelson situation[edit]

"One thing I still fail to understand about this whole situation is that, as you say you knew that he didn't want to talk to you, why you tried to get him to talk. Because of your acknowledgement that you were aware that Jmfangio didn't want to talk to you, it's beyond me why you still would try to make him, and because of that, it seems that Jmfangio wasn't able to disengage, as he wanted."

This comment is in response to the statement that Chris made on his talk page, where he said "I know he really didn't want to talk to me" when he was explaining why he made the original comment to Jmfangio. Ksy92003(talk) 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help[edit]

I'm really sorry to disturb you, but I do not feel not really good in bureaucracy here at WP, maybe you could point me out what should do further. I know, that you're not eager to get into Eastern Europe topics, but insults have to stop. Recent evaluations seems to exagerate further, and I've gotten an answer on my request, and do not know what to do next. This wave of insult on the nationality basis has to be stopped. Thank you in adwance.--Lokyz 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:RFAR where there's a motion to reopen the Piotrus arbitration case. Durova^Charge! 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Seaver11171944[edit]

Gullucum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sockpuppet of a user you have indef-blocked. Please look at the linked sockpuppet case and make a decision. Best regards, Shalom ^Hello 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dark side of wikipedia[edit]

I'm interested in this 'dark side of wikipedia' that Wikipedia cites you as an expert in. Also, I'm interested in doing further wikipedia-related projects, and you seem like an good person to chat about interesting ideas with. If interested, email me at v at santafe dot edu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanpoet (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation question[edit]

I don't have much experience with this sort of thing, and I believe it's more in your area of expertise. I'm looking into who created the hoax article Thai Airways Flight 358, which is currently at AfD. It appears that most of the work has been done by an anon (85.71.211.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) except for the addition of images for which a couple of named accounts (NicolasLord (talk · contribs · logs) and Lasagnelazane (talk · contribs · logs)) were used. I have checkuser info confirming that the IP is NicolasLord plus Wbkk (talk · contribs · logs), which created a now-deleted article on another perhaps non-existent, non-notable airplane accident (Flight 009). Lasagnelazane is different by checkuser but was used to add info supporting the hoax to the above article, so if it's not a sockpuppet, its a meatpuppet. Another account, Despoh (talk · contribs · logs) may also be involved. So this sockpuppetry seems pretty clear cut. None of the accounts are blocked, and the IP is still trying to keep the hoax alive by reverting changes to other related articles Mayday (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), List of Mayday episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and China Airlines Flight 120 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). So really my questions to you are, should this go to WP:SSP or WP:ANI (because it is ongoing)? And generally, what more types of things should I be doing when looking into this sort of thing? Thanks, -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot to look at. I may not have time to do it immediately. Durova^Charge! 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal. The IP got blocked a little earlier and thus far there has been no block evasion. Take your time, or let me know and I'll take it to one of ANI or SSP. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisjnelson[edit]

Now that the situation has been resolved in a rather deus ex machina way, would you consider removing/shortening your block of Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs)? Basically what I believed all along has now been confirmed - Chris is a good faith user who was provoked by a disruptive user. That doesn't mean that it is ok to be uncivil, but as blocks are preventative and there is no longer anything to prevent and as Chris is a long-time positive contributor, I'd like to suggest unblocking. Thank you. --B 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Pats1 15:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about this. Durova^Charge! 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, I'm allowed to edit things totally unrelated to the NFL, right? I believe I'm only banned from NFL-related articles with the exception of roster templates and 2007 Miami Dolphins season. Is that correct? Just don't want to get blocked for editing some totally random article I come across.►Chris Nelson 18:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're free to edit all the synchronized swimming and ice dancing you want. ;) Just do your best to be positive, cooperative, and productive. Of course if you head over to Canadian rules football or college football it'll be scrutinized closely. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is Chris' topic ban still in effect, despite the fact that the user who was involved in the dispute wasn't even allowed to edit in the first place? Ksy92003(talk) 18:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris's conduct problems weren't limited to interactions with that particular editor. I can think of a few other reasons, but that's the most important. I'm also willing to put this to a review fairly quickly and Chris accepts these terms. Durova^Charge! 18:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Chris accepted the terms, if he violates it, can he still be punished? I mean the topic ban was only in place because of Jmfangio, but now that he's not here, I would think that Chris could edit at will.

And there is something else that seems a bit fishy to me. Tecmobowl edited all baseball articles, while Jmfangio edited all football articles. So there are huge differences between what they edit, which gives me a slight impression that the two aren't connected at all, but I'm not sure what the checkuser showed. How does that work? And how does it prove that two are related, is it just by checking the IP addresses that they edited from or something like that? Ksy92003(talk) 19:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have checkuser privileges but I do have a lot of experience running sockpuppet investigations. Please direct your questions via e-mail. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.113.76.108[edit]

Just FYI: 70.113.76.108 (talk · contribs) is continuing the same edits after the 1-week block you enforced. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. Durova^Charge! 08:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia[edit]

I decided to stubbify it rather than delete, as I consider it intrinsically important enough to have been worth the work. I have had successful and productive discussion with other Columbia people--I will try to find this one--and perhaps we should try to contact the university in a more systematic way. I have, unfortunately, no relevant personal contacts. 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you write this before or after I posted a partial list of copyvios? I can post a complete one if necessary. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

during. our postings crossed. I have not the least doubt about the copyvio--and so I removed 95% of the stuff --which would be advertising if not copyvio in any case--& redid the rest in outline--take a look. Personally, I think a sharply stubbified article can serve as good a lesson as a deletion--if not better. It's not often I am prepared to go to the work. I really apologize for not explaining first and letting you need to do the work of specifying them all. We can discuss further if you really dislike what Ive done or think it inadequate or not strategic. DGG (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different approaches to the same problem. You're probably the better one to make the call here. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin[edit]

Anthere 06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful, thanks. Durova^Charge! 13:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I recognized those flowers! <grin> I can think of no greater honor than having my photo used as a thank-you-note. (By the way, Durova, congrats on how well you dealt with the phone call incident. Well done.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL topic ban[edit]

Hi Durova. I know that you've probably had enough of this topic for a lifetime, but would you mind taking a quick look at the bottom of User talk:Chrisjnelson‎? Throughout his time here, Chris has unknowingly introduced many many copyvios into the text of football player biographies, and claims that this topic ban prevents him now from cleaning them up. Hmnnn ×Meegs 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He could report them as suspected copyright violations and ask other volunteers to clean up. Durova^Charge! 02:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem fixing them myself, since it is my mess. If not now, then whenever. Sorry about all this.►Chris Nelson 02:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you prepare a list of suspected copyvios and post it in user space so that other editors can do the cleanup. Durova^Charge! 13:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then whatever? If Durova doesn't want you to edit the articles yourself, then that's enough for me, but I do suggest that you involve yourself by at least identifing instances of copying. If you don't, you can expect that I and others will go through and wipe-out every bio that you've written in the same year-by-year format of the official team bios. Given the tremendous scale of the problem, you can not expect close examination of every article to determine whether you've "changed enough". ×Meegs 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I said whenever. I feel like you interpreted an attitude in my last comment that wasn't there because you misread it.►Chris Nelson 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, you're right. Apologies. Is there a planned duration to this topic ban? Whatever the case, you should begin searching for the copyvios immediatly.×Meegs 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the block was lifted (I forget when that was, probably around a couple days ago, it should be on my talk page) Durova said to talk to her in a few weeks.►Chris Nelson 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it, although it would be a gesture of good faith if you went through your prior contributions and posted a list of possible copyvios in userspace right away. I'd view that favorably. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User with history of incivility and adding nonsense to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello! I placed this discussion on ANI, but it was archived without getting the 'resolved' tag. Anyway, as you can see from my and Chaser's evidence, Dannycali's edit history has everything from writing a fictional wrestling storyline as if it were fact, repeated incivility despite multiple warnings, failure to sign talk page posts, RfA and AfD disruption, etc. Two of his most recent posts were to insult myself and another editor named Mandsford. I don't know what if anything should be done, but I do think at least he should be cautioned once more by an admin to remain civil and not personally attack, but because this is a habit and because of a history of disruptive behavior, maybe a sterner message should be sent? Anyway, just wanted to bring it all to someone's attention. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since my own opinon on "In popular culture" articles is well established, I'll recuse myself from action here because it might be construed as POV. Thanks for letting me know, but it would be more effective to approach a sysop who hasn't had a hand in the controversy. Durova^Charge! 02:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I left a note on BigHaz's page as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Science in Fundraising Management[edit]

Hello Durova:

This is Lucas Rubin - I am the Director of the Fundraising and Sports Management programs at the School of Continuing Education at Columbia University. I note that you have nominated the SCE's page for deletion on account of a conflict of interest (not that there was anything to delete when I last looked - someone had already done so to most of it). The school just established this entry, and I am trying to correct the information for my programs (fundraising and sports) so that they are historical and informative rather than a recitation of information available on our website. In this regard, please note the specific changes which I made to the MS in Fundraising program notes, which - rather than being advertorial, etc, - are rather a history and outline of the program as is appropriate for Wikipedia. As such, I would very much like them for them to be permitted (I have not yet written the entry for Sports but will do so later this week). Continuing and Extension studies at Columbia actually has a long and interesting history and definitely has a place on Wikipedia. I well appreciate your concerns, and would like to address them in a more scholarly and appropriate fashion.

Thanks!

Lucas

P.S. Please note that I am one program director here at the School and am speaking for myself alone and the programs for which I have charge, though I will advocate among my colleagues as neccessary. Thanks.

please excuse me for barging in--but the page consists of large amounts of copyright-violating material copied directly from the website without asserting permission--and material which even if there were permission would not be encyclopedic, such as details of the individual courses. Recognizing that it is an important school, I reduced the article to a stub rather than delete it, and someone from an ip address has been continuing to re-add the material. This is obviously totally unacceptable. Please contact me or Durova by email so we can explain further. And, as suggested, read WP:COI and Wikipedia:Business FAQ DGG (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this prompt reply. As DGG notes, the article had two main problems: copyright violations and a promotional tone. I don't see any problem with the stub version and with time, as more volunteers work on the page, it is likely to improve. Durova^Charge! 02:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment article[edit]

Please take a look at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Why in popular culture articles are an asset to Wikipedia and do not violate policies and feel free to add additional instructions or edit what I have to make it more acceptable if necessary. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (I asked GRC to withdraw it as it would be considered canvassing as written, but of course you are able to see it--do you agree with me in that respect?)DGG (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'd suggest is a more open ended assignment. Invite them to argue for or against. Otherwise it looks good to me. Durova^Charge! 02:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback; I suppose after thinking about it some today, I'm just not all that sure on how good of an idea it would be to have a class of fifty students also knowing my Wikipedia identity, because a) it may difficult explaining to them about being blocked before and b) in the off chance than one of them develops some grudge (as many teachers will tell you, some students just believe that they automatically deserve an A and that's that!), it could invite vandalism to my pages, posting of personal information, etc. I don't know if other instructors have experienced such problems, but it's just something I thought about at some length today. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eBay[edit]

Oh,...I agree! I had posted info about the other buyers (and had kept an eye out for the other buyer articles), but I put it above the Craiglist subsection and wasn't sure if it was buried or not relevant. I had asked a few other editors for info, but I had no replies, so... The seller is stuck right now, so watching the feedback page should provide some clues if the articles are being created and some idea what they are...is that what you're talking about? btw, your "dark-side" post was one of the first things I ever read here, and it's one of the concepts I keep in mind when editing. Flowanda | Talk 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ideal we strive for is to have uninvolved editors do most of the article space writing. It's better when people who have a conflict of interest declare it and then keep to talk pages and noticeboards/wikiprojects in their area of conflict. There are two separate levels of consequences to consider: Wikipedia's sanctions and public opinion. The latter can be far more serious. Durova^Charge! 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown[edit]

Hello Durova. It has come to my attention that DaGizza has decided to step in and coronate, so here are the details for your records

FA: Ian Thorpe, Harbhajan Singh, Pham Ngoc Thao -> see User:Blnguyen/Top
GA: Neil Harvey, Kaundinya
DYK: 119, see User:Blnguyen/DYK, eg Frank Beaurepaire, Shir Habatlanim

Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, it is done. :) Durova^Charge! 01:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment when you have a moment?[edit]

Currently there are discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show and here Talk:Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show‎. Basic summary. The Jargon page was created to help bring the main article up to GA status. We followed a similar article which just achieved GA status (see Rush Limbaugh and Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show), yet, inconsistently, in that article it helps but on this one it's up for deletion. Any comments you can add, pro or anti, are welcomed. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling[edit]

I have some concerns as to whether this is an appropriate use of Wikipedia user space. Thoughts? Raymond Arritt 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted since you posted, and I don't dispute the deletion. Durova^Charge! 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A query[edit]

Hi Durova. No complaints from me. I have never been through the sanction process here before so I am not at all in the know and I've never been in any kind of rule based arbitration that finalizes so abruptly and without defendant input. The only other systems that don't include some sort of mitigation after court findings that I know of, are in China and some developing countries. The process is strange to me. However, I still think your suggestion for explanation is appropriate and constructive.

Regarding myself after this situation, I am now unsure what constitutes disruptive editing. After my research I have to conclude that I believe LAEC's edits and comments to be an understatement. The controversies are stronger than he states, and the problems on the ALA article seem to me to be far more troublesome than he has stated. This seems to be the basis of LAEC's and my brief disagreement. Indeed, I think I am about to present information there that is far more realistically unpalatable than LAEC has presented. That now puts me in an awkward position. If you can offer me advice on how to present the information without disruption I would be grateful. Or just point me in the right direction if your time is short. Regards Lingorama 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either you or LAEC could take the case to arbitration. If you want to do it then go to this page and follow the instructions. If LAEC wants to do it then the proper procedure for a banned editor is to e-mail an arbitration clerk. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats helpful Durova. Thanks. No idea what LAEC intends. I will definitely keep hold of the link for the ALA case though. I first plan to approach the article very carefully with input from any related admins. If you have any suggestions for me as I proceed along that path, I'd much appreciate your input. Regards Lingorama 05:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried an article content request for comment? That can bring in uninvolved editors with fresh and impartial opinions. Durova^Charge! 05:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes another good suggestion. That'll also avoid any accusations of me cherry picking admins, if thats not an inappropriate metaphor:). Best Lingorama 05:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The jargon is admin shopping. And yes, proactive use of the standard dispute resolution options would reflect well on you. You might also consider the various mediation options, but I suspect this is the sort of dispute where editors have entrenched positions. I happen to like the fresh perspectives a good RFC can bring. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reincarnation?[edit]

FYI. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Proposed decision#Another_reincarnation.3F looks suspicious and maybe worth a check. --B 04:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Better to file as a formal motion at the workshop. Durova^Charge! 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial triple crown jewel candidate[edit]

Hi Durova. I'd like to nominate someone for the Imperial triple crown. Here are the details;

Username: Dmoon1
- DYK: Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916, The Slave Community
- GA: Sarlacc, Max Rebo Band
- FC: Halloween (1978 film), Halloween II

If you need other details such as links and so on to verify this, feel free to message me on my talk page and I will find them. LuciferMorgan 10:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) Durova^Charge! 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giovanni33[edit]

Hi Durova,

I have suggested an alternative sanction for Giovanni33 at WP:CSN here. I trust that a less severe sanction like this will be more palatable for those who believed the indef-ban was too severe. Also, the ones requesting "parity" (El C et. al.) are refering to previous content disputes, which need to be resolved separately through WP:DR, WP:RfM, WP:RfArb, etc. I'm hoping that this can be the basis for a new consensus. Cheers--Endroit 14:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LEAC[edit]

You may be particularly interested in the latest events on his user page. He has rescinded his legal threats, and indicated some understanding of the situation.[5] I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other, simply informing you of something I thought you should be cognizant of. Be well! Vassyana 14:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my response is at his user talk. He is welcome to appeal to the arbitration committee. Durova^Charge! 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YAM again[edit]

YAM returned from his block and immediately resumed POV pushing on Web 2.0, inserting the same original research that he's been citing to his favorite spam. His comments on the talk page show no sign of understanding our rules. He's read my warning and disregarded it. I believe another, longer block is needed to prevent further violations of WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block. Durova^Charge! 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I wish he'd listen to reason. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

I would like your comment on the new proposal I just put on CSN here regarding an editor who is harassing an admin on and off of Wikipedia. I know this is something we talked about, and I find it as reprehensible as you probably do. SirFozzie 23:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The catch with 3rr[edit]

If you read WP:3RR carefully you will see that reverting any 4 edits on the same page in 24 hours is a violation. The edits do not have to be by the same editor or on the same part of the article. This detail has caught many editors out. Sophia 06:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but making a new change to an article when the last edit was a revert doesn't apply to 3RR as far as I know. John Smith's 09:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, that's a highly gameable interpretation. An edit warrior once tried to get me blocked on that basis because I was reverting vandalism and he wasn't. I don't object to the 48 hour block on the more general basis of edit warring, though, and I've referred to the matter for arbitration. Durova^Charge! 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to totally agree with you but that is what the rule says [6] and I have seen users blocked many times in exactly these situations. The only exceptions are vandalism. It's undoing the work of other editors on a single article 4 times in 24 hours - any 4 edits as long as it was a revert or removal of text added by another or others. Mad I know but that is what it says. Sophia 16:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are free to use common-sense when interpreting rules, Sophia. They aren't robots that have to adhere to inflexible "programming". John Smith's 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was explaining to Durova why Gio reported you as she did not seem to think the rules applied. It was not an interpretation of the rules but a misunderstanding of the intent of the rules. I have no sympathy with people who edit war so anything that stops it is good. Sophia 05:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation issue[edit]

I have been challenged to a mediation by a user named Aeroblue here [[7]] and you are listed as one of the mediators.

I 'signed' the agreement and I wrote up my reasons for deleting a small section of the article 'aircraft noise'. Aeroblue continues to call me a vandal on the discussion pages and that I broke a Wikipedia rule but he does not respond on the mediation page.

I explained on the article discussion pages and the on mediation page why I felt that his comments are irrelevant to the topic of 'airport noise' and why they are also very political in nature.

I am very unfamiliar with what the process is here for resolving this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npsguy (talk • contribs) 04:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longstanding editors[edit]

"Wikipedia just isn't very good at resolving problems with longstanding editors who also have longstanding behavioral problems…" Wikipedia is even worse at resolving problems with completely disruptive new editors (at least those who don't speak English) and obvious socks who are routinely extended the assumptions of good faith we deny one another.Proabivouac 08:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific examples to address? Durova^Charge! 08:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honorable tradition of pseudonymity[edit]

Regarding your additions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Evidence, you may also be interested in adding Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay per the Federalist Papers. —Viriditas | Talk 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All three Brontë sisters also qualify, and Jane Austen published anonymously, and I haven't even touched stage names. ;) Durova^Charge! 10:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I neglected to read the "DWEM-Free Zone" sign on my way in... :-) —Viriditas | Talk 12:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to Voltaire and Twain. ;) Durova^Charge! 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev[edit]

The people in the city call it Kyiv when writing in English, as does the US government, but a few editors at Talk:Kiev/naming resist all logic in moving the page. One relevant, but obscure, policy, WP:Naming conflict#Types of entities, says that populated places can self-determine their names. Kyiv is a transliteration from Ukrainian to English, and Kiev is Russian to English, so ethnic pride is involved. The disputing editors will never come to agreement in my opinion.

I support moving the page, per policy and common sense, but talk is endless when people won't listen in good faith. This has been to RFC and gone in circles many times, fueling conflict and bad will amongst the editors. What shall we do? - Jehochman ^Talk 10:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Case[edit]

Hi Durova. You have asked a few times for someone to show you some evidence, which was not forthcoming concerning claims of John Smiths extensive edit warring and other misbehaviors. Since you have been requesting that, I want to present you with some material for you to look at and consider.

*Edit warring and the Block Logs:

My proposal regarding John Smith and myself was for the community to impose either a 1RR parole or a topical ban on Mao related articles, as you had asked me. Many thought this to be very easonable and it gained some acceptance. The latter would solve the undue weight/ pov pushing--his inserting the revisionist Jung Change theories (not even a historian), into main history articles--one of the main issues he edit wars about. When the edit warring is combined with adding content that violates an important WP tenant (undue weight), its doubly bad. That is when I stepped in to counter him. His extensive edit warring over silly issues such as dating systems (BCE vs BC), I did not enter, as I don’t about most disputes I encounter. I may revert once or twice at most, preferring to discuss at talk, or simply walk away. I’ve done this many times. This shows improvement over my early days on this issue.

I think a careful analysis of our respective block logs reveals John Smith’s is fact worse despite initial appearances, discounting puppetry on mine: his extensive edit warring and pov pushing over many issues with multiple editors reveals only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, block logs do not do justice to the breath and scope of the problem, as they are often products of both chance and active opponents (those that quickly report you, and admins who quickly act to block, while others who go under the radar but do the same or worse in practice). So in actuality, what his block log shows (as bad as it is—and the same goes for many editors who want to see me banned, btw), can only be partly helpful. Yet, while I think he has been very lucky and fallen under the radar of admins taking action against him, his block log nonetheless is worse than mine in respect to edit warring.

Among my evidence, I show Wikistalking, John Smith’s apparent puppetry, and unbelievable edit warring, which point to a serious disruptive editing practice that needs to finally be addressed. To show I do not exaggerate, I bring to your attention some 37 reversions by John Smith’s edit warring---made in a single day! I think this has to be a record. These are content disputes that he instigated across several related articles. Take a look at his contributions on the recent date of Aug. 6th here: [8]

Here is some of edit warring, and gaming the system over several articles (and unlike the 3RR report I made on him, this is with other editors—not me):

Indus Valley Civilization:

[9] [10] [11]

Take a glipse into Jin Dynasty: [12]

And, Ming Dynasty:

[13] Note that he reverts with such uncivil edit summaries such as this: (rv; vandalism; also Ghost please use edit summaries and gain consensus first)

[14] [15]

And, Southern and Northern Dynasties 4 revert just over 24 hours:

[16] [17] [18] [19]

7 reverts with several users on History of the Americas (wont list them all here but take a look):[20]

Nanking Massacre--Same edit warring, multiple reverts in the course of a day:

[21] [22] [23] [24]

So as not to break 3RR he waits a day and reverts 3 more times:

[25] [26] [27] This goes on until the article gets protected by admin Deskana.

*John Smith accusing people of Wikistalking him is a familiar refrain. See his comments to this effect hurled at many an editor:

[28] "(reverting wikistalking - PHG let me resolve this with the other user)"

Here he also accuses an admin, KillerChihuahua, of wikistalking him: [29] "(rv; please stop wiki-stalking - I was making the terms consistent with the earliest non-stub version)"

He accused this other editor wikistalking to an editor who awarded him a barnsstar a while back, and this sympathetic editor looked as his charged and concluded: [30] "It seems like you are already discussing this elsewhere. I don't see any evidence of stalking, just that you two don't seem to get along wherever you meet. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)" [reply]

More accusations of others wikistalking him: [31] [32] "(→Wikistalking an POV pushing)"

He goes on an admin board reporting this, asking, “Can someone please get the wikistalkers off my back?” [33]

This editor responds to John Smith’s crying “Wikistalking,” with what is really going on. I quote:

"Wikistalking? ROFLMAO. Pushing POV across several articles indicates a need to make certain it doesn't happen everywhere. It's hysterical when an editor, who's been shown to push a certain POV, whines about wikistalking, just to throw off the scent. Well, now I'm watching you too John Smith. I guess I'll be accused soon. I don't actually care, because it's so funny. You've made my day. Accusing KC, a well-known administrator on this project, of wikistalking is like accusing me of believing in the myth of Jesus. Never going to happen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)" [34][reply]

Now, ironically, we have hypocrisy, with John Smith’s own Wikistalking (and this is just with wikistalking me). He shows up to these articles where he has never edited before, and has shown no previous interest in the subject, only to revert me:

[35] [36] [37] [38]

John Smith, even makes this following comment when I pointed out he was wikistalking me: He tacitly admits it on the talk page to a Point Violation: “As I pointed out, if you believe I am wikistalking then your past edits mean you did the same thing to me. John Smith's 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)” [39]

Finally, I present evidence for John Smiths being a current and active sock puppeteer:

Suspected sock puppet: Foula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Evidence: One of User:John Smith's extensive edit warring on WP is for the use the BC/AD dating format (as opposed to BCE/CE) across multiple pages here on WP, as I’ve partly shown above, but there’s more:

User User:Foula then arrived who created the now-deleted Template:History of China - BC, and an exact duplicate of Template:History of China except that all the BCE/CE was replaced with BC/AD—what John Smith argued for about this template. The new account then inserted the template into several articles.[40][41][42][43] John Smith then proceeded to mass insert the template into a number of other articles as minor edits.[44] John Smith's and Foula were the only two accounts that tried to insert the duplicate template into articles.

Note that Foula had only made edits related to this BC/AD vs. BCE/CE date format issue. It was apparent that this was a sock to other editors. See: [45]. Given an awareness of John Smiths editing, if it is him, he has used it in an abusive fashion given that they were double voting:

First there was the Template for Deletion vote on Template:History of China - BC.[46][47]

And, a poll on the MoS for China-related articles.[48][49]

[50] [51] meatpuppetry is also very likely.

John Smith's has this mysterious anon IP addresses who show up, and come back when John Smiths needs extra reverts— always from the same location. This has been termed his "Hungarian friend" because it shows up to help John Smith's out after he made three reverts. Having IPs from the same range show up only to make the same reverts (and do nothing else) that John Smith's did, after he made three reverts himself, is very clear to me. I think we can infer that given these anon IPs only make edits to revert to John Smith version (including making very particular, idiosyncratic edits that are favored only by John Smiths—it because so obvious that any other speculation is harder to believe. See: Hungarian friend There are a lot of IP editors from Hungary who agree with John Smith's. Here another one of John Smith's Other Hungarian friend with the same modus operandi.

With user Foula, it is suspicious thing is that the account was new and the only thing the user edited mirrors the issues John Smith's has edit warred over-- and that Foula and John Smith's were the only ones to try to mass insert that duplicate template into articles. This would probably be an allowable use of a sock but Foula has also voted with John Smith's.

This was brought up for user check here, [52] and serves as an example of how use checks are using quite differently for different people. Apparently, vote fraud where sock votes did not affect poll outcomes do not qualify for check user requests. I think it should be checked, and to WP:NOP to see if they're proxies.

All in all this is a serious case of disruption to the project on many fronts. His editing style has exasperated many editors. An example: [53] "Wow one can't even give his opinion in a case without having the accused user trolling his talk page, shooo! go bother Hong) Caribbean H.Q. (Talk | contribs)"

I ask that John Smith realize there is a problem with himself. If he is able to, I’m sure he will agree that my agreement with parity is in fact very generous, and one he is wise to accept. I don't think any of us should feel entitled to revert more than once a day anyway--that is edit waring. I’m open to accepting things for the good of WP, but he just wants to keep doing what he has been doing. Thank you.Giovanni33 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee is 2-0 so far in favor of hearing the case. I'm optimistic they'll accept the request for arbitration so please save this for them. As a procedural matter please use my e-mail if you wish to contact me. Your limited unblock is for the arbitration pages only. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather troubling that you demonstrate so little respect as to repost here immediately after I ask you to e-mail. I unblocked you as a courtesy. Bear in mind that the block withstood review, and that what you posted here was a declaration of intent to disregard the conditions of your limited unblock. If (and probably when) arbitration opens your actions will come under scrutiny. It does not bode well to conduct yourself this way on the eve of a case. Durova^Charge! 01:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Case on User:Shutterbug[edit]

Durova, I submitted the evidence but was told my Newyorkbrad that the case was closing. The motion to close was voted on and evidently passed.--Fahrenheit451 03:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an edit[edit]

Per this request, I would be happy to admin delete this post from the article history or back your deletion of the same. -- Jreferee T/C 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, there is some prior history and follow up. -- Jreferee T/C 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google my username on the Internet and check political news from Tennessee, you'll see I'm not exactly lacking for background. I don't have Oversight privileges. You could file a request for that at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, but I have doubts about whether it would be granted. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS[edit]

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

provocating Blocking[edit]

Byenow said that removal was an accident. I read it. The debate on the article is only now ending and so you you decide to butt in and spark trouble out of nowhere. The issue didn't concern you. Although, I assume the user will be annoyed, because it was an annoying baselss block by you, I have encouraged the user to just ignore such provocation and if necessary make a complaint about you. However, I hope you will stop immediately. Lormos 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means make a complaint about me. It's already on WP:ANI and you can lodge your grievance there. I consider it a normal and legitimate block for talk page blanking. If the community agrees with you I will revert it.

That said, as a sysop it's my responsibility to butt in sometimes at an issue that didn't concern me in the interest of upholding site policies. I make no apologies for doing so. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to Byenow to decide. I ignore such provocation however. I told him he should too, but it was pretty annoying Lormos 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then file that claim at WP:RFCU. If it's verified I'll be glad to act upon it. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Lormos, would you care to explain how you became aware of and responded to that block eight minutes after I implemented it? Durova^Charge! 04:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. 1 week block on Lormos for this edit.[54] Durova^Charge! 04:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikisleuthing[edit]

Hi Durova, I have noticed you from elsewhere on WP ;) and have found your essay "The dark side" - very good! - too bad the "seen it all, caught it all" message couldn't be balanced by someone else's "beh - done it all, got away with it all" !!

In your essay you mention sleuthing to determine actions, methods, circum-wiki-ing. I will therefore ask you a somewhat basic question which I also asked Georgewilliamherbert (so far):

When I look at any given article, a question which often springs to mind is why - when did it get this way and who made it this way? gwh caught my attention in a talk page where he (assuming he) mentioned checking back 500 diff's.

My question to you is: is there any tool which would let you highlight a piece of text and query to find the diff where it first appears? Next, would you find such a tool of utility? And warning, many more questions and ideas may follow :)

Thank you and happy wikiing Franamax 10:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd love to know that as well...(couldn't help wiki-eavesdropping on that one but have pondered the same thing many a time while working up some large article for FA or whatever...)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting question about a tool. Do you have gmail? Let's chat. Durova^Charge! 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do now. But how do I give you the address? Franamax 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set it as your default e-mail under preferences and e-mail me through my userpage. Durova^Charge! 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]