User talk:Durova/Archive 26

Newest good article[edit]

Search engine optimization was promoted. This was much easier than I expected. Thanks for the motivation! Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the GA. I ran your username through one of the edit counters.[1] Your total contributions are on the light side by RFA standards. The good article and moplike contributions make candidacy feasible. I've got confidence in your abilities. At the rate you're going you'd have smooth sailing in a month or two. If you wanted to try for adminship today you'd encounter some opposition on the basis of overall experience. I'll make this your call and I suggest if you want to try RFA now that you pledge to be open to recall for the first six months of adminship. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm in no rush. Better to go for unanimity. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider trying for the triple crown? With the GA you're already one third of the way there. It's fairly easy to create a new entry for Template:Did you know and any type of featured content qualifies for the award. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try. It's easy to get lost in all the bad stuff and forget that our purpose is to write brilliant articles. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I've had the autobiography of Mary Leakey on my desk for a month and have been too busy to update the article. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle[edit]

File:Stuffed tiger wearing a sombrero.jpg

The Whack-a-mole Stuffed Tiger Prize rewards sysops who tirelessly reblock returning sockpuppets at Carnival Wikipedia.

But nonetheless, I shall oblige. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, I wasn't asking for this. I had this in mind for people who whack a lot more moles than I do. Still, the little tiger dude is pretty cute. ;) Durova^Charge! 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sure there will be plenty more for you to whack, so I thought it best to keep you onside! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, and the award reminds me of a cruise I once did. Keep it up. Navou ^banter 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to earn your award then! Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whacked like a piñata. Arriba! Durova^Charge! 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you take a look at this and see if that would be ok for WP:CN? Obviously I've never done this before, and you have plenty of experience in that area. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. It would be easier for visitors to read if you included the full text of a few representative examples and just supplied links for the rest. The board has a thread I started at WP:CN#Proposed_community_ban_of_Arkhamite_and_68.84.17.112 that you could use as a model for your proposal. Regards, Durova^Charge! 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another mole to whack please. For confirmation check the history of these two pages, both of which have been edited by his socks, the latter almost exclusively except for User:Craigy144. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Thanks, do you want to take another look at the page please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good enough to do the job. BTW I've whacked the latest mole. Would you take care of the templates? Best regards, Durova^Charge! 02:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ahead of you there, templates were done 10 minutes ago! Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've semiprotected both pages, with a rollback on the list of dames to the most recent non-sock version. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propsed ban is up anyway, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leviton[edit]

Thanks for your semi-protection. I agree completely regarding that the article should be kept. I didn't see there was a reasonable version in the article history to revert back to because there were so many little edits in the history. Cheers, Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Best wishes fixing it. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CEM[edit]

23:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - CEM

Uhm, it seems that the text has been lost somewhere :-( I have to rewrite it :-( Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 23:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I already mediated some cases, one still open (waiting for a party to came back) another two failed. The first because even if one editor made concession on my suggestion, the other was stick at his original position. I plan to continue to follow the issue as normal editor. The other was a technical debate on if Microsoft Windows was or not designed with security in mind. The parties sourced their claims, but cannot came to an agreement. I closed the case because the parties decided to not discuss anymore and file an arbitration (however, they never did so).

I'm interested in helping out a CEM because it's a good way to solve problems between good faith editors. (Bad faith ones will never agree on such a process.)

The fact that the solutions, as well as the whole moderation thing, must be shared by all the parties makes it definitively a process that when end, should make everyone happy.

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for joining. We have one potential case on hold and another possible one. I hope your e-mail is enabled. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 00:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CEM with csloat[edit]

I am not sure CEM is appropriate here. For one thing, I don't think this is a 2-person dispute. The behavioral issues as well as the content disputes with csloat have involved several other editors, notably Armon and elizmr. Isarig 04:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Often a situation will have two primary disputants with several others less involved so maybe CEM is worth a try. My take on your situation is that the eventual alternative would probably be arbitration: you haven't been successful at resolving this yourselves and things have dragged out for half a year. The decision is your call. Durova^Charge! 04:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Csloat has decided to try another approach to DR - he's withdrew from one of the contentious articles. I plan to do the same for another (Juan Cole). Hopefully that will resolve the situation, by taking out the 2 most contentious points. Isarig 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes with that. Would you like me to archive the request for CEM? Durova^Charge! 14:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. It may be an option down the road if we are unsuccessful here... Isarig 14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I hope your current solution works out. The door remains open if you want to try CEM sometime. Durova^Charge! 14:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this works but I fear it will just displace the dispute on to other articles. All that really has to happen is for Isarig to deal with conflict in a civil manner rather than name-calling. Another problem, as Isarig noted, is that another editor, Armon (talk · contribs), is involved. He is generally more civil (though not always), but he aggressively reverts every change I make without explaining himself. As soon as Isarig withdrew from Juan Cole, posting a message to talk that he was ok with my changes to the article, Armon showed up and reverted my changes without any explanation whatsoever. I just don't know what to do about this sort of thing. csloat 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope for the best. If things don't work out you're welcome to return to CEM. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same old...[edit]

What are the ways to deal - if any - with a user accusing other of vandalism and falsification and such in edit summaries (and posts...)? In the good old days I'd consider warning him and reporting him for WP:CIV violations but now... ? Perhaps you could review his past recent contribs and issue a warning ? PS. A message I received 50 minutes after Vlad posed on my page...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a 48 hour block on the IP address. Since that's the IP's only post I can't identify the parent account, but wow. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look likely that it was Vlad based on these edits.[2][3][4][5] Vlad was editing an article while the vandal posted the insult. The edits spanned several minutes before and after your talk page got vandalized including one edit that posted at the same minute. The first edit summary shows Vlad was unhappy with you, but I consider it unlikely he would have pulled that timing off so cleanly. Durova^Charge! 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not accusing him of being that anon's - although the coincidence is interesting. Still, assuming he persists with accusations of vandalism, lies, revenge, etc., do you think ANI is the appopriate place to raise the issue at?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say DFTT unless you can identify the perpetrator. Durova^Charge! 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. The anon's message, as I said, was just a piece of trivia. What I want to deal with is the registered user accusing me of vandalism, falsification, revenge and such in edit summaries and posts.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll step forward unilaterally in obvious trolling such as the anon's stuff. Where content dovetails with conduct you're welcome at WP:CEM. Durova^Charge! 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfAr that you filed[edit]

Tracked down the hidden template that went missing (actually, when Davesmith33 filed his case, he didn't copy the template but rather edited on top of it...) But it looks nice. :D - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Durova^Charge! 13:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complex vandalism on feminism and gender studies related articles[edit]

Hi Durova, sorry to bother you but I'm looking for a bit of advice about wikisleuthing. A lot of my editting has been in the gender studies & feminism related articles - over the last few months I've noticed a pattern of disruptive beahviour by a small number of editors. 3 in particular jump off the screen when you do a little searching. I want to ask how can I share the information about these abuses without creating an attack page? And also, who should such information be sent to? I have a document detailing a long and involved list of edit patterns, diffs, policy abuses and other WP:POINT issues by these editors but I don't know what to do with it. The reason I began this wikisleuthing is because of one multiple IP user in particular. On the surface their trolling didn't look disruptive enough for intervention but with further examination their edits have misrepresented and twisted sources to their own point of view - distorting and sometimes contradicting the articles they're editting. They avoided warnings, flaunted WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS and have seemed to get away with it for months. Sorry for the long post and I hope you can advise me on how best to continue with my wikisleuthing--Cailil 12:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the tone of your investigation is as neutral as the tone of your summary here, you'll probably do all right. Collect as many specific diffs and examples as possible and connect all the dots logically. I suppose you've seen User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc? Durova^Charge! 13:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, I've created a sub-user page called Complex vandalism on feminism and gender studies related articles at the moment it details the disruption of a sock-puppet master. I'd be very much obliged if you could have a look at it. Also if in any way it is in breach of policy delete it. BTW I did see your page on User:AWilliamson it's a great piece of work and an inspiring one--Cailil 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you restructure the presentation to make it clear from the beginning that this is a single vandal and demonstrate evidence for why this is the same person. Generally more diffs and brief quotes would be a good thing. Good job so far. Durova^Charge! 04:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice and encouragement Durova, I'm continuing to work on finding more diffs and shortening the quotes. I'm just wondering where, or to whose attention, I should bring these concerns about User:Anacapa?--Cailil 21:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN is the usual venue for raising attention to this sort of thing. I suggest a brief summary that links to the vandalism report page. It's sometimes hard to get attention for the complex stuff, so feel free to mention my name or give me the heads up so I can follow up. Best wishes and thanks for your hard work. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers[edit]

Hi Duvora, Yeah, so the copyright issue on AFI lists is pretty complicated. I was just wondering, how do we defer the decision to lawyers? Does somebody ask the foundation to get involved? Or are they already looking at this? Sancho 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Newyorkbrad's latest comment, it appears that this is a gray area. Wikipedia usually takes the conservative route in gray areas of copyright. Our mission is to create an encyclopedia, not to create case law. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment..[edit]

Could you see the WP:CN discussion about WP:ASSIST and User:CyclePat? Hopefully a short time out and a community ban from ASSIST as discussed at CN will pull this user back from the brink of the abyss. :/ SirFozzie 19:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an area where I haven't been active, but I'll give it a look. Plenty of other people have already weighed in. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 02:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked this one over, I'll sit on the bench for this play. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob Durova, Pat thankfully stepped back :) Since discussion had pretty much petered out, and just about everyone was alright with the proposed remedies, I was BOLD and closed it (No admin action needs to be taken) SirFozzie 03:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest re: User:William M. Connolley[edit]

Hi. I have read (a bit late) your finding regarding the above file which can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6. With due respect, I must say that I am disappointed - not by the decision itself, which I expected, but by the way you arrived at it.

Another editor (Uber, above) expressed concerns that I share. Suggesting to restrain the global warming debate on Wikipedia to its scientific elements is unfortunately in denial of the fact that global warming science is inherently political.

Global warming science is widely used to push public policies. Both you and I can see that, even though we both admit that we do not know whether global warming is a genuine phenomenon or not. As for any other public policy that is being pushed, politics require that the philosophical underpinnings of science be extirpated from the debate in order to muffle questionning of the proposed policies. But the fact of the matter is that an encyclopedia cannot deny that there are philosophical issues with sciences such as climatology, and that these issues cannot be fully addressed by the scientists whose lives depend of the said sciences. Non-scientific editors can contribute in this regard, what you have now unfortunately heavily restricted.

Perhaps, if you're curious and want to push a little further, you will want to read this discussion that I held on my talk page.

I do not want to flood your talk page with this matter on which you have already worked more than anyone could demand. Only, I fear that some questions, unfortunately, have not been really resolved, and that Wikipedia is perhaps even more exposed to being used to push a particular political agenda.

As a sidenote, I also disagree that you answered all the questions that I raised during this process. But RonCram also failed to take them into consideration, so I guess that you were entitled to ignore them. Regards. --Childhood's End 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to having Wikipedia cover the political aspects of global warming. The challenge is how to do so in a neutral and appropriate manner. I offered an observation at Talk:Global warming that featured articles often handle these matters in summary style. One important thing I hope you bear in mind is that the paradigm you've articulated presumes that the science is subordinate to the politics on this issue. That's not a neutral viewpoint and many people sincerely believe the reverse. Per the undue weight clause at WP:NPOV, well balanced coverage onsite should reflect the degree to which these competing paradigms carry weight in the scientific and political arenas. That's a tall order and I wish you well at achieving that balance. Regards, Durova^Charge! 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an even further aside-note, an odd quirk of Christian theology (and I appreciate its irrelevance here) is that "knowledge" is of itself not a neutral thing, and is corrupting (hence Adam and Eve ate of the tree of "knowledge of good and evil"). In many of this cases in Wikipedia, like with WMC, we have the problem that actually being expert on something is considered a conflict of interest. In a way it is: knowledge leaves us with a point of view but I think it's a bit ridiculous if we somehow allow it to prevent any editing, even NPOV editing, of articles by those who know their subject. --BozMo talk 08:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BozMo, your argument... where is it coming from? No one is arguing there is a COI because William is a modeller. Your straw men... they're just so blatant sometimes. ~ UBeR 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UBeR, your lack of civility towards the owner of this user page is more blatant. --Skyemoor 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you pitch in at WP:COIN requests you'll soon see why WP:COI has its own noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 13:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the other party to the discussion mentioned above, I would like to state that I agree en toto with the conclusions Durova reached on the aforesaid subject. --Skyemoor 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the bickering. Durova^Charge! 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly ma'm...[edit]

...for the vote of confidence at my RFA. Really appreciated, especially coming from you. I do love your trolls. Compared to the kind you deal with, they really are the most "beautiful trolls on this side of the moon"! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block for WP:NPA[edit]

I spotted this on WP:COI/N. See [6]. I was just going to issue a warning, but then I saw the appalling history of incivility on User_talk:Callmebc. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a 72 hour block. Excellent catch on your part. Durova^Charge! 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling this. I'd originally intervened and warned Callmebc about a number of issues. However, when he started insulting me I figured I'd better get another admin to look at the situation so I couldn't be accused of a conflict of interest. But you two were so on top of the situation that I didn't even get the chance to ask someone for assistance. Excellent work. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, follow up at WP:ANI if problems resume. Durova^Charge!

Callmebc has now posted a lengthy post on his talk page at User_talk:Callmebc#72_hour_block where he says he was setting a "a three-part, self-incriminating trap." Strange. Might want to check it out. --Alabamaboy 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I see nothing that merits reply. Durova^Charge! 14:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that an inquiry is underway in regards to at least one of the editors involved this little affair. I'll wait to see how that turns out before proceeding with arbitration to deal with the other parties. (It really wasn't such a bad "trap" after all.) I will leave the Killian page alone for the interim despite it really, REALLY being in need of "Controversial" and "Clean Up" tags. I suggest everyone review their actions and behavior from April 11 and prior regarding this. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand in awe of your investigative skills[edit]

I've been doing well at identifying sockpuppets, but only if I know who to check against already. You deserve a random award, except I'm too lazy to go find an appropriate one. So you get a banana. -Amarkov moo! 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, bananas! :) Durova^Charge! 06:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And after a look at your user page, if you'd like to do this stuff I could be your admin coach. Interested? Durova^Charge! 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I have some vague issues with admin coaching (yay for vague issues!), and either way, I do enough admin stuff already that admin coaching would be pointless. But thanks for offering anyway. -Amarkov moo! 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Triple Crown[edit]

DYK - Scott & White Memorial Hospital, Geography of Texas, List of world expositions, American Buffalo (coin) (two are DYK and GA)
GA - Geography of Texas, List of world expositions (Having no GA for lists, hopefully a barely failed FL will work.)
FA - Portal:Numismatics, Portal:Texas

Jo e I 07:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One standard edition triple crown coming up. If it's consolation to know this, I take credit for ten DYKs and 3 FCs but I wouldn't qualify for the imperial jewels because, like you, I've done only one GA. Psst, motivation? ;) Regards, Durova^Charge! 07:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they upgradeable? Jo e I 07:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, the imperial crown jewels await your next good article. (low bow) Durova^Charge! 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You much, good sir. :) Jo e I 07:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer ma'am, Your Majesty. Durova^Charge! 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LionheartX[edit]

Why did User:LionheartX get unblocked? His POV-pushing and harassment campaign resumed. (if you haven't noticed, he just post on a whole bunch of pro-China editors talkpages to recruit them to use the RfA as a forum to attack me.--Certified.Gangsta 07:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained here.[7] I've washed my hands of the matter. Durova^Charge! 13:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Grands Rois[edit]

That was quick work picking up the sockpuppetry! I'd only started to put two and two together after seeing his sock at work on AfD by the time he was already being sent packing. Solid, solid stuff. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to thank me, support a revival of WP:RFI. Sincerely, Durova^Charge! 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, though I have to admit, I feel bad because the Wikipedian/historian sock was making decent edits on an article with me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One gets the feeling that the WHF sock was a "good hand" sock, then. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I classified that as the bad hand sock because it was created to subvert the block and it performed edits that would have gotten the sockmaster banned if the previous history had been recognized sooner. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help[edit]

There was a dispute back in '06 that ended somewhat unsatisfactorily and I have for some time been trying to get a dialogue on the topic but have been unable to. It relates to the page of Nigel McGuinness and his real name. You can read my exhaustive take on it here under Nigel McGuinness but the long and short of it is thus:

McGuinness' real name is discovered through the USPTO
It is added to the article and sourced
The webmaster of Nigel McGuinness' website starts an edit war over the information citing privacy
It is pointed out that the USPTO is public information
Edit war continues with posts on the BLP noticeboard, ANI and AN. Comparisons are made to Buckethead and Criss Angel whose real name can be sourced however the individual does not want it known.
Admin User:FCYTravis declares that the information is banned from all of wikipedia and deletes all reference to his name, citing privacy and an OTRS ticket.

This has never sat well with me as this is the ONLY situation in which public information has been banned from wikipedia based on no laws or wikipedia policy. I have begun several attempts at dialogue to have this re-looked at but my requests have gone unheeded so I stayed away for several months until yesterday. The major original complaint of listing his name was wikipedia was the only place that listed it and thus his name was original research (which made no sense as the USPTO is the source, not some individual), however now his IMDb bio page also lists his real name now thus making the "only source" argument invalid.

I decided to be bold and re-added the name with the imdb and USPTO sources here however I was quickly reverted and think that now is the time for a true dialogue on this situation that is, to this day, only applied to this article, that was implanted by a single admin while the debate was still going on. Could you help me? –– Lid^(Talk) 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been an actual OTRS complaint. Have you looked into that possibility? Durova^Charge! 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the OTRS ticket does indeed exist, however I feel its attachment and complaint have no basis in law or wikipedia policy. The complaint can be filed, however it does not mean the complaint is correct and should be the be all and end all of the debate, especially when it flies in the face of wikipedia policy and public source aquirement. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person to talk to in that case would be Cary Bass from the Foundation. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would I go about that? –– Lid^(Talk) 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could send a message to Cary's attention at info@wikimedia.org and mention that it's OTRS related. Summarize things very succinctly (briefer than you did here) and ask for direction. If my experience with these inquiries is the norm, Cary wouldn't be at liberty to tell you the specifics of the request or who filed it, but may offer general guidance about what activities the Foundation decided to restrict and what's allowable. That would save you a lot of headaches. Durova^Charge! 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll see how that goes. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no replies from the wikimedia foundation. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you forward me a copy of that e-mail? Durova^Charge! 01:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about a week without a reply from the foundation, howshould I proceed? –– Lid^(Talk) 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resend the e-mail with a note that you haven't received a reply in a week and send it attention Cary Bass plus a the name of a Foundation board member. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown question[edit]

With regards to the triple crown award, how does one qualify with respect to featured pictures? Do you have to take the picture yourself, or can you be the person who found it from another source, nominated it, and had it promoted? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to be flexible about that. The simplest call is to be the photographer. I'd also give credit for someone who recognized a superb public domain image, uploaded it, and brought it through FP. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor21 and the 2004 Madrid train bombings...again[edit]

Igor21 posted this line [8] at the RfC.

Of course that his presentation of facts is a flagrant violation of "stating briefly and neutrally" what the debate is about.

Which are my options against this unfair presentation?.

Moreover, Igor21 edited my response to the RfC to make it appear into a different section [9] (note the change in the title).

Frankly, the situation is going out of hand (see Igor21 talk page).

I ask for an administrative "watchdog" in this page.

Sorry for the repetitive, fastidious nature of the conflicts at this page. Randroide 17:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and edit the RFC into neutral wording. The idea of RFC itself is an excellent one. Sometimes people who are close to a dispute lose perspective about the wording. RFC regulars understand that. I hope some neutral outsiders help to defuse the situation. Durova^Charge! 20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for the "license" to edit the RfC. I wil try to be 100% neutral. Randroide 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done [10]. What do you think about the wording?. Change it if you want. Please fix the word corruption created by my filtered institutional access (those truncated words...) Randroide 08:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I know your intentions are good but by baking up Randroide in whatever he does you are causing a lot of harm to the article. Randroide wants the article to say that Spanish police organized the bombing of their own citizens and is using really dirty tricks. One of this tricks is to create a section for this Kalaji who is a former policeman with a very tenuous relationship with the bombings. You have been used by Randroide and I think you deserve to know because at some point someone will go in depth in all this and will find out what is really going on in this article. Wikipedia admins have let me and the other honest editors alone with Randroide for 8 months. We have not broken civility and we will continue doing so. But the message for Randroide is clear : cheekyness and dishonesty have the upper hand and a polite demand to an uninformed admin can save him of any problem for his misdoings. Faithfully yours.--Igor21 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor21 wrote: Randroide wants the article to say that Spanish police organized the bombing of their own citizens

Status: Untrue. But, who cares?: Editors´ intentions, hopes, dreams, whises and whims are irrelevant: Only sources count, and sources said a lot of things about Mr. Kalaji.

Igor21 wrote: We have not broken civility

Status: DoublePlusUntrue. Please take a look at this. Randroide 11:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not backing up Randroide in whatever he does. He showed me a non-neutral RFC request and I informed him that he was free to edit it into neutrality. Durova^Charge! 14:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have done is to allow Randroide to carry on with his lies and tricks. He is acusing the Spanish police of doing the bombings and he is harrasing everybody who tries to stop of doing so (take a look to my User_talk user page or the user page of other editors in this article). You have allowed Randroide to convert the true question in an anodinous request and so to maintain libelous inuendo against Spanish police officers in the article. Perhaps is not the end of the world but is what you have done.--Igor21 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone may edit an RFC request. I don't support POV versions from either side. Just summarize the dispute in neutral terms. Durova^Charge! 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova : There are not "two sides". There is a rogue user pushing conspirationism while the rest of the editors try to oppose and wikipedia admins do nothing except backing him up by asking for "neutrality". Do nothing if you feel like but do not make ilusions about what is going on in this article. It is like the film "The man who shot Liberty Valance" but without John Wayne, only James Steward (Southofwatford) being shot again and again and again.--Igor21 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on both sides of this, administratively and as an editor. When I was a new Wikipedian I went through trial by fire at Talk:Joan of Arc where one editor insisted that he was a descendant of Joan of Arc's brother and edited the biography into accordance with his claims. He disrupted the article for a solid year, drove several good editors out of Wikipedia, and obstructed nearly all attempts to improve the article with diversionary tactics. The only line citation he attempted during that time was directly responsible for the establishment of Template:citecheck. His only lasting legacy to Wikipedia was partial inspiration for the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. I know exactly how difficult it is to solicit administrative attention when an editor soberly makes ridiculous assertions: that one tried to use the Securities and Exchange Act of 1936 as a copyediting guide for Medieval history and insisted that an unreferenced family tree his aunt had written in the 1950s qualified as a primary source for fifteenth century history. Yet I took things through dispute resolution and wrote a neutral RFC summary. He made aggressive attempts to rewrite it and skirt around the blatant WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues, yet the RFC succeeded with unanimous replies and he went inactive. An RFC summary that appears non-neutral aids the antagonist in that type of situation: the editor I dealt with had succeeded at avoiding broader scrutiny by convincing casual visitors that legitimate editorial debate existed when it didn't and by impugning my integrity. It was very hard to walk the straight and narrow path under those circumstances, but I did it and two featured pages resulted. I ask no more of you than I demanded of myself. Please stop casting aspersions on my handling of this matter. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, over and out.--Igor21 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Abraham Lincoln[edit]

It looks like the Abraham Lincoln article needs protection. -- Fyslee/talk 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's done. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI Clarification[edit]

(Tearlach): "Is it just my perception, or are infringing editors getting wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they don't actively break major policies? We seem to be getting a lot of "I hear what you say but that doesn't apply to me because ... fill in excuse"."

Considering oneself neutral and providing character witnesses are thought enough make COI a non-issue. Besides the criticism of the COI Noticeboard editors in claiming "an extreme misconception on the part of everyone here: WHY would someone being at the TM university for decades be construed as evidence of COI in regards to editing the [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi] article?", and claims Paul Mason "throughly dispises MMY", Spairig said:

"I gotta wonder at your obsession here, given that the description of COI says that one must be PAID or expect to be compensated in some way for editing the Wiki page in question in order for there to be a financial COI. The Maharishi University of Management employees are all posting anonymously because, as I understand it, the general policy of the various TM organizations is to "stay out of the mud" of arguing about TM in public unless you are a lawyer or PR person working in your capacity as such. None of the TM-related editors are being paid to edit this page as far as I know. the close relationships COI might apply, but only if you can demonstrate that the editors are not keeping a NPOV in what they post. That also doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that some "experienced Wiki editors" don't appear to understand the issue and support your claims is trumped by what the WP:COI page actually says."

I have Mason (both versions), easy to get. Mason "thoroughly despises MMY" seems both inaccurate and irrelevant. Mason states the TM organization fought publication but failed. Unjustified personal attacks on Mason from TMers are just one example on one subject of a COI undermining NPOV. One example of individual editors now feeling free to dismiss COI concerns based on personal interpretations of COI, with a sense of impunity and indignity. I see need for a global Wikipedian solution. Comments?--Dseer 03:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs and other specifics. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs re Sparaig found here [[11]], follow up here [[12]]. Also diffs here [[13]]. All I wanted was a definitive refutation of this popular excuse for COI with MMY as example, not sanctions against specific editors who think there is lots of wiggle room. TM isn't a big deal to me anyway, it was the principle. Appreciate your guidance, hope you can help, but am disgusted with inability of some others at Noticeboard to simply address obvious challenges to COI and not wait for proof of serious damage. You'd think more adminstrators on COI would recognize simple attempts to clarify the COI standard in the face of excuses and help, instead of shooting the messenger. Then they wonder why there are nothing but excuses when there lots of cases for every one that gets to Noticeboard where that rationale is accepted. --Dseer 04:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple. This is a single purpose account who chooses to construe policy in ways he or she deems convenient. Single purpose accounts often attempt this on some topic or other, but that doesn't actually alter policy. We do our best to explain how this site really works. If they understand and adapt, all is well. When they respond with strident denials and other inappropriate behavior then editors warn them and at some point a sysop like myself imposes a userblock. Once the first one happens other blocks can follow rather quickly because the editor gets away with less and less. If they come around, all is well. If they don't we show them the door. Inform this editor (and others as appropriate) that this is how I handle matters. If they refuse to oblige, show me appropriate evidence and I will. It takes me five seconds to implement a block so it's really no imposition at all - not for me anyway. Durova^Charge! 07:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you protect my user page for 12 or so hours?[edit]

JB's trying to get me to lose my cool by vandalizing my user page. I think he's pissed about the fact that about 60 of his latest sock puppets are about to bite the dust (this is after he got banned from WP Meta due to attempted Joe Jobs on wrestling sites. Just long enough for him to kindly go the hell away? Thanks SirFozzie 05:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protected for 12 hours, indef blocked a couple of socks. Would you take care of the templates? Best, Durova^Charge! 05:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. Thanks. SirFozzie 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Yanxfan421324 (talk · contribs) is a JB196 sock, his MO doesn't match. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a JB sock (I didn't realize you got that one, Durova).. That was from another issue. Could you unblock him? SirFozzie 05:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, unblocked. Durova^Charge! 06:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Gordimer[edit]

Hello. I appreciate your block placed on the entry for Nadine Gordimer. I consider it justified. I need to point out, however, that the version of the entry you have blocked includes the material which I and numerous others consider to be a violation of WP:BLP. I refer to my most recent explanation of this here (I tried to be as clear and thorough in this explanation as possible, given the number of previous times I had attempted to clarify the policy situation). I believe that blocking the entry in its current state in effect allows the policy violators to "win." I also believe that I have established the clear violations of WP:BLP, and thus that the offending material should be permitted to be removed without further argument. I am hopeful that if you read through the section on the Gordimer talk page entitled "BLP and notability," you will be equally convinced. Thanks. FNMF 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed the debate. Which specific words are BLP-contested, and in what section? Durova^Charge! 08:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question is titled "Recent events." The fundamental issue is whether mention of the race of those who attacked Gordimer is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the entry. Numerous editors argue that it is not, and that to do so is both to include original research and to push a point of view. Those defending the inclusion need to establish the notability of the race of the attackers to the topic of the article, that is, to Gordimer, and their way of doing so has been to write the following: "While Gordimer’s books focus on blacks as victims under apartheid, in this situation they were the perpetrators." An inference is thus drawn that there is a connection between the race of the attackers and Gordimer's work, and that this connection is sufficiently notable as to warrant inclusion. But the connection is not backed up by sufficient secondary sources and hence constitutes original research. Thus I (and many others) argue that mention of the race of the attackers has not been justified and should be removed. (The entire incident is in fact not sufficiently notable to deserve more than a short mention: a robbery in which she was essentially left unhurt.) But please also see this diff for a fuller explanation of how I see the policy issue here. Thanks for taking the time to review this. FNMF 08:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, and for the record my strict BLP approach on this matter is not a comment on the merits of this particular dispute. Durova^Charge! 14:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For all your hard work on Wikipedia, across all namespaces, and for being a great admin! Keep the good work up! SunStar Net ^talk 09:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 15:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 11:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Commonwealth University[edit]

We were working in class to create this VCU art education wiki. In discussion, it was decided that many of the entries made by classmates were not what we wanted but we ran out of classtime before we could make all the changes. How can we correct the problems if we cannot get to the page to edit it? Thanks for helping us make this a better entry.

I'm glad you're interested in editing Wikipedia. It would be a good idea to get your toes wet writing other articles and getting familiar with this site before incorporating Wikipedia into classroom assignments. For instance, information about a university department or function normally constitutes a subsection of the main university article. A separate article would be merited only if significant media coverage had dealt with that specific area, such as Columbia University protests of 1968.

Several policy violations dovetailed at the new page and your university article. I could explain them all in detail if you wish, but it may be more useful to you to join the site's mentorship program. I've been informed that one of your panel speakers at the recent campus conference advocated violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. From the little I've heard about that panelist, the advice appears to have been very irresponsible.

I could shorten the duration of page protection if I see that university representatives are making an effort to become familiar with standard policies and procedures here at Wikipedia. It concerns me greatly that well-meaning but ill-informed actions may be setting the wrong example in formal classroom assignments. Durova^Charge! 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning about web 2.0[edit]

I am the professor of the class and I apologize that we violated wikipedia's policies. It was not my intention to do so. I literally thought of this idea late on Tuesday and was excited to try something new with my students on Wednesday. Because I had meetings and a presentation to attend on Wednesday (ironically the presentation was by Jimmy Wales) I did not spend much time looking into the policies of wikipedia.

Would you please consider unlocking all of VCU's wikipedia page and only keeping the specific section that we wrote locked? I do not want others to be penalized for what I asked students to do.

It was not our intention, as was suggested elsewhere, to paste over other pages with promotional information. Previously, no page existed on VCU's Art Education department, and we were trying to create something new. Our hope was to write something informative, rather than promotional, about the department. If you read the general wikipedia page on "art education" it is not particularly informative and neglects many current trends in the field. This is a void that I thought our page might begin to fill. In addition, if a user looks at the list of Schools on VCU's page, the School of the Arts link takes the user to a generic page on the arts that does not mention (to the best of what I can see) much, if anything, about the specifics of art education. The same is true when the use clicks on the School of Education link and goes to a generic page on education. Both of these pages are written by individuals who have certain viewpoints and who endorse certain types of knowledge.

Would you allow us to re-write our page with this new information in mind so that we can do so in a more appropriate way? Or, if you think it would be more appropriate, we could consider working on the pages that already exists on art education and other related topics. It is interesting that some universities have specific wikipedia pages for their individual schools or colleges while others do not.

Again, if you would be willing to unlock the main VCU page, I would sincerely appreciate it so that everyone who wants to edit the page is not punished.

Thank you for your time. 128.172.129.188 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt reply. It would be much more appropriate to work on other pages about art education that do not specifically relate to your university. I became aware of this situation through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Although the university article itself has other serious problems I'll unprotect it as a gesture of goodwill. Please communicate to your colleagues that Wikipedia strives to present neutral and informative articles rather than promotional ones. It would be much more appropriate if university staff contributed cited information to the university article talk page for review and adaptation by uninvolved Wikipedia editors.

It's coincidental that this came up yesterday: last month I started a proposal to initiate a new WikiProject where professional educators could consult with experienced site editors about developing classroom assignments that benefit both the educational process and Wikipedia. Enough volunteers have stepped forward to initiate the project. Although I had planned to formalize this in early summer I could take it live now. Would that help you? Regards, Durova^Charge! 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unlocking VCU's page - I appreciate it. I would be interested in learning more about your educational project for wikipedia. Please contact me. Thank you, Melanie 128.172.129.188 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can visit the new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. It contains links to a few existing pages that you may find useful. Ten people expressed an interest in joining it, so other names should soon join mine. I've refactored your e-mail address at this page. Regards, Durova^Charge! 18:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB's pulled more admins in[edit]

Over at WP:AN. Sometimes I wonder why I keep trying? It's obvious that he's not going to give up and will continue and be enabled to do so by admins who side with an obvious vandal "I'm concerned that something has gone wrong if there is any real discussion about blocking someone working this hard to improve Wikipedia". It's intensely frustrating. SirFozzie 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which thread is this? Durova^Charge! 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[14] at the bottom of AN SirFozzie 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (sorry, signing)[reply]

I see, indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova. I'll try not to bother you about this in the future. I think at least a short-term WikiBreak is in order, this is raising my blood pressure to an unhealthy level. SirFozzie 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's simple for me to intervene. You won't find another administrator who knows this case as well as I do. Did you ever contact this vandal's ISP? We talked about that back in December. You have all the information you need. Durova^Charge! 21:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's about time personally. I've left some comments on AN regarding this anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know he WAS on Optimum Online, but I decided against filing a report last week during the joe jobs, because A) I don't have the IP of the proxies he's been using, and B)I don't know if he's still on OO. But right now, it seems like an awfully tempting option, even if it doesn't do anything. SirFozzie 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Just don't go overboard and use that information for anything other than an abuse report to his ISP. You know his real name and his city and state, which ought to be enough. Refer the techs to me as the investigating administrator. I recently changed my site e-mail address so contact me offline if necessary. Best wishes and thanks for all your help and patience, Durova^Charge! 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the guise of Burntsuace he's had a few articles fully protected that need editting/reverting such as Barry Buchanan. Could you help us out? –– Lid^(Talk) 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected, reverted. What are the other articles? Durova^Charge! 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Backlund and Buff Bagwell. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things have changed: new evidence has come to my attention that this may not have been a JB196 sockpuppet after all. I'm still suspicious because it looks like someone's sock and I'm not 100% convinced it isn't JB, but there's enough doubt now that I've unblocked the account. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebanned, unprotected. Durova^Charge! 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Constantinople, 1204[edit]

Hello, Durova. Would you happen to know the date of the sack of Constantinople in 1204 ? The Fourth Crusade page says April 12th, but Constantinople#The Palaeologi, 1204-1453 says April 13th. I can look it up (e.g., http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html says the 13th), but I don't know what reference would be reliable (and easy to read). I figure I should ask you as you are much more familiar with medieval military history than I am. We can put this on MainPage as a selected anniversary next year. (Or this year, if you like.) Thank you. --PFHLai 00:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep, not the kind of thing I'd know off the top of my head. You could ask User:Adam Bishop. Durova^Charge! 01:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, Durova. It's okay. Choess gave me an explanation on my talkpage. Thanks. --PFHLai 11:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editing at Juan Cole[edit]

Hi Durova. Armon (talk · contribs) is again doing what appears to me to be disruptive editing at Juan Cole. The dispute is simple, and here is the relevant discussion stating my position and indicating the two versions of the page. After discussion I modified to a compromise version which included a quote introduced by Armon. He keeps reverting anyway, deleting sourced content and several relevant citations with no clear explanation. He doesn't seem willing to compromise or even discuss his changes in a productive manner. Any suggestions? csloat 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one: he's replacing one source with another because he claims your version constitutes original research. I don't know whether that claim has substantial merit, but its superficial merit is reasonable enough that I won't impose a vandalism block. And the folks at WP:ANI are unlikely to conclude any differently. You're welcome to try WP:CEM or (if you've done enough other formal dispute resolution) take this to WP:RFAR. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's vandalism either. I'm happy to include his source as well in yet another compromise version, but he's deleting 5 sources and a quotation. And he has no explanation of how the sources I'm including constitute OR -- they simply don't. They are published in WP:RS and I found them the same way I find any other articles. And I am not synthesizing them to make any point they don't make. His argument is completely without merit, yet he continues to revert. I'd be happy to try CEM or any other form of DR here.

It really shouldn't be necessary to go to DR for every single edit I make on that page, and that particular edit was in no way contentious (or so I thought). I feel like he is just picking on me because he doesn't like me. I don't really care if he likes me, but this is getting ridiculous -- I feel like I have to write a book's worth of justification every time I want to add or change a word to that page. This particular edit has no real implications in terms of political leanings, in terms of support or opposition to Dr. Cole, or anything POV-related. I posted it to RfC but so far nobody has come in to comment. csloat 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When editors need to write a book's worth of justification to get simple changes accepted, they belong in dispute resolution. Good luck with RFC. If nobody nibbles you've got two other options. I've done my best to create a simpler venue than arbitration for situations like this - arbitration used to be the only choice. Best of luck reaching an accord, Durova^Charge! 03:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination[edit]

I'm intrigued by your project and would be interested in joining. But, I have a few questions. What does the project actively do, on Wikipedia? How exactly does it (for lack of a better term) "work"? What I mean is: How do teachers/educational coordinators come into contact with the project before they make any assignments? Right now it seems like we find out about these things after they have been assigned (though I assume that that's what the project aims to prevent). Seems like a good idea though. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, remember that the project has been live for less than a day. The whole idea is to turn this from a do-it-yourself thing on the part of the instructors and a reactive thing on Wikipedia's side. Now the site has a place where educators and Wikipedians can hold threaded discussions. At this point the project talk page is good for that purpose.

We're starting to put our heads together about what other things this project can do. One is to flag articles that are the subject of active classroom assignments and another is to have our own project award to honor the students and instructors who make the best editing contributions via formal class assignments. You're here at the ground floor so you'll have a great opportunity to shape things within the project. If this runs well it could have a large ripple effect. Just to estimate a few numbers, suppose the following:

For every participating instructor, 25 students per class start editing.
2 of those students become regular Wikipedians
25% of instructors repeat the assignment the next year.
10% of instructors convince a colleague to use a similar assignment.

We'll probably start slowly and get very busy around August. Durova^Charge! 04:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: C.G/evidence[edit]

Done. It would be great if you could give me an explanation, too. Cheers, --Sumple (Talk) 04:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the community frowns upon canvassing in general because it encourages factionalism and changes the character of decision making. Wikipedia encourages impartial consensus and discourages battles. Think of what could happen if editors did the same thing as Ideogram attempted at other controversial topics: would you want a group of alternative medicine advocates to railroad medical doctors out of Wikipedia? Would you want one side of the abortion debate to line up and siteban the other side? I wouldn't want those things to happen. That possibility was discussed extensively during the development of the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. Ideogram's actions were the first concerted effort to attempt something that Wikipedians anticipated seven months ago and worked very hard to avoid. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Buchanan[edit]

Hi, I saw you unprotected and then protected the Barry Buchanan article. The edit war that led to the protection was over sourcing of the article. I provided a full sourced version on the talk page of that article that should actually put an end to the edit/revert wars going on there. If you'd please have a look at it and if it's alright edit it into the main page so that this controversy can be ended? Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 07:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected again. Durova^Charge! 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

canvassing[edit]

Hello, can you tell me if there's a rule banning canvassing? Do you mean that putting notices in individual user talk page is okay, but in article talk page is not okay. Thanks. Blueshirts 07:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS. No, putting notices on individual user talk pages is not okay. Durova^Charge! 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DE[edit]

Yes, that appears problematic. However, I'm not sure of the context in why you're asking me this? I would say that combans are not subject to vote count, and I am generally in favor of blocking canvassers for the duration of the relevant debate (usually AFD, I suppose). >Radiant< 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep an eye on how this develops and look out for future attempts. The stakes are quite a bit higher at community ban discussions. The way I handled this was to open WP:RFAR immediately and call for closure on the community discusion. That approach requires constant monitoring and at WP:CN it's pretty much Navou and myself who keep an eye on the procedural side of things. Bear in mind that Ideogram was aware of the principle of recusal: he made repeated demands that I remove myself from even commenting on the ban proposal while he canvassed for supporters. Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Certified.Gangsta_redux So my take on this point is the new guideline language hasn't gained us anything and creates a highly exploitable loophole. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "new guideline language" you refer to this edit? >Radiant< 08:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed you continue to cite that. Last month I spent quite some time documenting this. Did you read that report? Since I wrote you a few days ago there's been another attempt to get an editor banned due to a content dispute. See here, and in particular this preceding comment. I'm doing my best to be patient and polite, but the fact is I'm now giving evidence in an arbitration case as a direct result of your change where otherwise no statement would have been necessary. If you had made some real sustained commitment to the community sanctions process and if you hadn't impugned my integrity I wouldn't be upset about the amount of my time that's been wasted as a result, but it's time to call a spade a spade: you've come in like a bull in a china shop, refused to discuss the matter on its merits, and attempted to damage the reputation for fairness I've worked very hard to build. I don't like that at all and whether or not you change your mind about the guideline language you certainly owe me an apology. Durova^Charge! 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was not intended as snark or anything, but as I said above ("I'm not sure of the context") I really am not sure what you're trying to say with your remark. What is this arbitration you're involved in, and how does it involve a change I made, and to which policy? What matter are you talking about? I'm seriously getting very confused here. Where have I impugned your integrity, and why am I supposed to show sustained commitment to the CN board? What matter am I refusing to discuss? >Radiant< 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. That's a real relief. Here's the most relevant part of that arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova. Basically the change in guideline language made it necessary for me to submit evidence: if editors who had been involved in the content dispute provided evidence and commentary rather than actual decision-making then there wouldn't have been any serious problem with that editor's canvassing. The current guideline language pretty much forces me to ask the Committee to take a very hard line about canvassing (which has some rather obvious potential for exploitation even if ArbCom agrees with my request). Short term that's caused me a lot of hassle because the editor against whom I gave evidence perceives this as a personal dispute, has insulted me repeatedly, and appears to have made a retaliatory RFA vote against one of my admin coaching trainees. Details on that are at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence. Navou has been a real trooper, but other than that I've been catching the brunt on all sides. Durova^Charge! 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burntsauce[edit]

Hi there, I've just noticed that you've gone and changed the block time for Burntsauce from 24 hours to indefinite. I just wondered why this has been done, and if you've noticed if any new evidence has come to light to suggest he is a sockpuppet of JB196. Thanks - hope to hear from you. Davnel03 14:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail me. Durova^Charge! 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown Application[edit]

I am now formally applying for a Triple Crown. I have the following contributions that meet the requirements:

Created the article Standard Oil of Kentucky, which made the main page DYK? list on Nov 26, 2006.
Substancially expanded and referenced NFL playoffs, which was promoted as a GA on Feb 22, 2007.
Created, wrote most of, and referenced most of Timeline of chemistry, which was promoted as an FA on April 12, 2007.

I hope that qualifies me!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, the triple crown has already been delivered. Durova^Charge! 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Hi Durova,

Wasn't sure if you'd noticed this or not.

Best,

--Lmcelhiney 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that. Durova^Charge! 01:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

Durova, I'm very tied up at the moment, so I may not have time to get involved, but I'll try to take a look later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Durova^Charge! 02:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Church[edit]

Durova, you're much better at this than me - would you mind looking over the above article for its neutrality and sources? The COI editor is being extremely cooperative to our suggestions and would just like to get the COI tag removed from the article as quickly as possible. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for asking me. Durova^Charge! 02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Durova. We closed the report at WP:COIN and I asked Professor Church to provide a photo to illustrate his article. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip at Jimbo Wales Page[edit]

Thanks for the tip at Jimbo Wales page. I moved the topic to the Village Pump. Whether you agree or disagree, if you don't mind stop by and voice your opinion. Thanks again for the tip. --Maniwar (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I'll defer to the consensus of other editors there. My basic approach on sensitive terms is to respect whatever version a person or group of people prefer me to use. When I ask a man to address me as Ms. I consider it impolite if he debates terminology in reply. Fairness demands that I extend equivalent courtesy. Durova^Charge! 02:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are the wiser one. I have to admit, though it is frustrating. It is a very American-centric term and the world sees it as that. I realize it was going to be controversial, but I can't stand inconsistencies...and this is one. Thanks again for the tip, and keep up the good work that you do. Hopefully I won't get banned for touching such a controversial topic (wink and a smile). --Maniwar (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, if you solve that one you can gnaw on another chestnut: resolve on an adjective for my nationality that doesn't step on the toes of anyone else from my hemisphere. Durova^Charge! 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (de los Estados Unidos)[reply]

You can always call yourself a Norteamericana. No-one who understands you will think it incorrect. EdJohnston 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except Canadians...and geographically everything north of the Panama canal is North America...and my previous comment contained more than a little irony. See Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Durova^Charge! 03:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB checkuser[edit]

Durova, do you know anyone who can get something moving on this horrific checkuser case? RJASE1 ^Talk 04:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact a checkuser clerk. I carry no special weight with them. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm just hitting all the bases I can...have even tried several postings at WP:ANI. I don't blame them, if I were a CU, I wouldn't touch this with a 10-foot pole; it would take hours to check all those socks. Just hope someone gets it soon, pretty soon there will be no usernames left because JB will have taken them all. :) Have a good one - RJASE1 ^Talk 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've heard that the checkuser folks can be found on IRC pretty frequently. You might check there. Durova^Charge! 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have an email, Durova. SirFozzie 06:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callmebc[edit]

I'm looking into points raised with me by User:Callmebc. These are in the general area of accusations that the editing of Killian documents has been too 'owned' by others, and personal details have been put into play. (I'm not at present concerned with your block.) I'd appreciate your general assessment, sent to me offline. Charles Matthews 08:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded by e-mail. Durova^Charge! 14:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I[edit]

Hi. I thought I'd draw your attention to my comment on the incidents noticeboard. I hadn't realised you were so deeply cut by what I said. I think if you consider my comments spirited rather than malicious, you might walk away with a better impression. Still, I apologise to you without reservation for any offence, and hope we can be on friendly terms. Grace Note 10:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by so deeply cut, but I'll accept the apology. Durova^Charge! 14:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bothering you again[edit]

Sorry, I'll try not to bug you so much in the future, but you're one of the few admins who takes an interest in COI issues - I think we need admin intervention on this, there seems to be some sockpuppetry going on, IMHO. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for you to apologize for bugging me. Plenty of other people do with less reason. I respect your volunteer efforts and thank you. Will look into this matter promptly. Durova^Charge! 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated scanning and charting of user & edit activities[edit]

This has nothing to do with the "other" issue, but in looking into the who's who of the parties involved, I noted with interest your work in things like "Complex vandalism". Until recently I never gave much thought to how the Wikipedia really functions and what efforts are made to keep things from descending into propaganda, bias, and acrimony. I saw many references to sock puppets and such, and how to look for telltale signs, gathering information, and so on to defeat efforts to change, however subtle, Wiki entries to conform to personal or even popular beliefs at the expense of accuracy and neutrality.

I don't know if you find that sort of detective work fun or not, but it looks to me to be a bit primitively manual considering how every ID, IP and edit is tracked and archived in the present system. There is no reason why edit patterns, IP and login identities can't be automatically processed then charted into any number of graphical reports indicating things like probabilistic sock and meat puppet activity by IP and ID, "POV pushing," contentious editors and admins, and so on. You could refine to any desired degree like, say, monitoring user IP's originating in one country for edits on topics involving a rival or enemy country. Instead of waiting for someone to notice something wrong and reporting it, you can set thresholds to automatically set flags to call attention. This is just a matter of programming and modeling, and don't see any real obstacles to implementing this aside from a lot of time and effort.

Also, and this is not related to the above, I would think it might be wise to eliminate real-time editing by anonymous IP's -- why not just create a time-delay sandbox that holds those edits for at least 24hrs to allow time for review or denial/approval? If after the sandbox timer runs out and nobody objects or removes the edits, the sandbox becomes the real deal. This time delay sandbox could also be used for controversial and developing stories where you really should want a grace period for changes to take effect.

Just some suggestions. But again, this has nothing to do with the other issue, which I'm not done with whatsoever. -BC aka Callmebc 22:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me off wiki. Durova^Charge! 02:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, expanded on, and, as a special bonus, replete with typos. -BC aka Callmebc 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Burntsauce[edit]

I'm very sorry to bother you. This is regarding User talk:Burntsauce page which you blanked following his ban. User:DXRAW seems to believe it is necessary to revert that and has actually issued me a warning for trying to keep it in the state you left it. Now I freely admit not to knowing admin convention on this but I don't think you blanked the page for the hell of it. If there was a reason is it possible to explain this to DXRAW, because he has provided no logic for reverting the change or issuing me with a warning. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've full protected the page and left a message for the editor. Durova^Charge! 02:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail[edit]

I have gmail, what is the name of the account you created? G e o. Talk to me 05:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not post the address here and get spammed. Use the e-mail link in the toolbox at the left of your screen. Durova^Charge! 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosing real-life identity[edit]

Hi! Could you please give a link to some wikirule or wikipolicy regarding such issues? I'm interested in the exact definition and punishments. Alaexis 06:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very smart question and, to be candid, I was looking for that very reference last week. I recall seeing it as an arbitration precedent a few months ago and I've left a request with one of the arbitration clerks.

The basic principle hinges on self-disclosure: if an editor puts information about himself or herself into play by posting it to Wikipedia, then it becomes fair game for other editors to repeat it. If the editor hasn't self-disclosed at this site then it isn't fair game to post it onsite. "Outing" another editor can result in indef blocking or sitebanning. That's the short explanation and in some situations it's an oversimplification.

I guess your query has something to do with Transnistria? If you'll explain the particulars and provide some diffs I could be of more assistance. Durova^Charge! 07:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that my query is related with Transnistria. However I don't think that I'll be able to explain this issue any better than it has already been done by User:Illythr somewhere there (particularly 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC); unlike him I wasn't active on the Transnistria-related articles at the time the alleged disclosure happened). The other side could also be accused of something very similar... I'll look forward for the results of your request. Alaexis 10:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's a link to a rather long thread and what seems to be the relevant post hinges on links to more long threads. No thanks. You could ask someone who knows the situation to post a cogent summary with diffs here. Durova^Charge! 13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just put a short notice at my talks page too on the result of your request, Durova? As you may remember, P.K. in March insisted on repeatedly violating the non-disclosure policy first at the Talks page of the reopened arbitration, then to put it at the arbitration review page itself, to protect his violation from being removed, without getting site banned as you suggested, based on the precedent on this.

Then, after he was topic banned for life, and commenting this with "YAWN" at his talks page, he again (25 March) violated the nondisclosure policy by adding the assumed real life identity of one of his opponents to his talks page, that he in addition has tried to turn into a talks page on the main article he was banned from editing further (including its talks page), has gotten one editor to offer to act as a meat puppet for him by asking what he suggests should be changed at the page he was banned from editing, and P.K. has answered that he will tell this after this weekend, meaning he tells that he intends to use this other editor as meat puppet to violate the arbitration ruling from 20 March.

At his Talks page, he also has insisted on publishing untrue defamatory statements (that he got a one week block for before for violation of the 3RR rule and then being finally topic banned) and repeatedly remove corrections of it (by someone who was banned for regrettingly seemingly registering just to harass him).

Who (which editor or board) do you suggest this issue be taken to?

Thanks, Thebee 10:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN, with diffs, and I recommend you disclose your involvement in the case. Durova^Charge! 13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an excerpt from the response Newyorkbrad gave:

The decision last fall in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO is what's usually cited in this regard. There may also be something earlier, but that would be before my time. See also Wikipedia:Harassment.

Durova^Charge! 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the MONGO case what you referred to as a precedent basis for your recommendation to implement a site ban of P.K. as a result of non-disclosure violation during the arbitration regarding P.K. or were you referring to some other case as precedent? Thanks, Thebee 09:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much the MONGO case specifically as standard administrative consensus as I understand it. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing and WP:U#Famous[edit]

Durova, looking for a quick opinion from you before I possibly post something at WP:AN. I've been working more and more with WP:COI issues, particularly with autobiographical editing, and I'm wondering if people with usernames that undoubtedly refer to notable people (whose articles they are editing) should be immediately blocked until they verify their identity to the Foundation. I don't want to plant any beans here, but I'm concerned about joe jobs.

For users that share names with famous individuals but don't edit articles related to them, I think a lower threshold applies. For example, I worked with User:JohnHurt a couple of weeks ago - he asserted to me that this was his real name, but that he was not the actor John Hurt, so I felt a simple userpage disambig was sufficient and helped him do that. However, the George Church and Tim Stoner situations, among others, were a little different. Yes, I was 99% sure it was really them and put the 'Notable Wikipedian' templates on the articles' talk pages. But how do I really know that was them?

WP:AIV and WP:RFCN are typically reluctant to apply WP:U#Famous username blocks when dealing with names of people with borderline or narrow notability, or of people with common names. What do you think - when we catch folks editing these articles, should their usernames be immediately blocked until identity is verified? I don't want to bite anyone, especially notable people who may have absolutely innocent motives but are ignorant of WP:COI. However, I also want to protect the article subjects and the encyclopedia, even if it's from themselves. An application of this also might have saved us from the Rory Cellan-Jones black eye we got last week.

Appreciate your opinion, RJASE1 ^Talk 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand you have a point. After I think about it a moment, though, it certainly is convenient to have an occasional matching username as a red flag for certain types of COI. Anyone who really intends to promote himself or herself would just take another five seconds and name themselves after their dog. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worthwhile to apply semi-protection to such articles, rather than blocking the new editor? This would allow a four-day period to evaluate the situation, at least four days from the account creation. I see User:Rorycellan applied his bad edit just four hours after creating his account. So the policy would have to include rollback of COI edits prior to protecting the page. You couldn't use a bot for this because no-one would let a bot have administrative powers. I suggest page protection only because it may be less upsetting to the new editor than a block. EdJohnston 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:U#Famous is pretty clear about blocking until identity is established. The question is what threshold applies here? What about User:Khoury, whose identity isn't apparent until you see what article he is editing? Or people like Tim Stoner, who are not really "famous", but are apparently notable enough for an article. Should WP:U#Famous apply to anyone with an article? Maybe I should take these questions to WT:U... RJASE1 ^Talk 22:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often do protect articles where COI has been happening - in fact I'm somewhat more likely to do that than to block the editor. Page protection stops potential meatpuppets and, in my opinion, guides the COI editor toward the preferred solution of posting to the article talk page rather than directly to the article. Some of these people are capable of improving articles on other topics and I'd like to leave them free to do so. So far I haven't applied a userblock purely because the editor's username matched the article title. I'd prefer to see WP:AN establish consensus regarding the threshold. The lack of clarity on that point hasn't hampered my efforts so far: if someone is notable enough to have a biography that isn't on the deletion block then that person is probably capable of improving the encyclopedia on non-COI topics. WP:AGF constrains me to presume that they may become good editors unless evidence points to the contrary, and when evidence really points to the contrary they've provided other policy grounds for blocking. Durova^Charge! 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to unwritten message[edit]

On your disclaimer, it said to drop you a line if I wanted to be a sysop after reading that page, well, consider it dropped. Also, how do you think my inexistent RfA would turn out? ~Step trip 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that shortly. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start with a more legible signature. :P Seriously, you've set up your userspace quite well and you've been active for a couple of months now. No userblocks, so unless there's some problem I don't know about (like rear ending Jimbo's Hyundai) you could probably get sysopped a few months down the road. The big questions are why do you want it? What would you do with it? Are you interested in this for the right reasons?

If you'd like me to coach you I'd gladly help. I specialize in dispute resolutions and complex investigations. It's kind of like solving detective mysteries. See this for one of the deeper rabbit holes. Follow up if this interests you. Durova^Charge! 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here are two signatures that I have been flip-flopping between:

~Step trip

and

~Step trip

I've not edited my userspace for quite some time now and I have tried to shorten the coding for the second signature, but I can't to the best of my knowledge, so I'll probably set the first sig to my default one. ~Step trip 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I already have a coach, so I'm guessing one is enough, sorry. ~ Step trip 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charge!! But before I do, would you mind giving me a few pointers here? (I was renamed, just to eliminate any confusion :-) ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions and evaluations, and on target for general sysoppery. To be candid, I seldom go near WP:AFD because the type of volunteer work I usually do is seriously undermanned. I'm a sleuth. Most of my admin coachees are over at WP:SSP, WP:COIN, WP:CSN, and WP:CEM. I spend most of my time uncovering sneaky vandalism and participating in dispute resolution. It's interesting stuff if you have the right temperament. Stay in touch if that kind of thing interests you. Durova^Charge! 23:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

legal threats[edit]

Copied from AN/I Keep in mind, Durova, you won't be sued for editing and administrating wikipedia. Anyone who would even try would be laughed out of the attorney's office, and anyone who tried to do it themselves would very likely be sanctioned for frivolous suits. (the exception to this being defamation/libel cases, but that's not the case here). ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is to nip that behavior in the bud. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say I'm sorry you are going through this. Egfrank 09:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for expressing that. Just keep on top of this sort of thing and we'll all be fine. Durova^Charge! 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distraction[edit]

I think it is a distraction to have the involved parties argue on the CN boards. Navou ^banter 00:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said my bit. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get your messages until today[edit]

Hi Duvora,

I just noticed your messages to me at User_talk:Sancho_McCann today! My talk page is at User_talk:Sanchom. This has always been my user name, but my signature used to be my full name... I suppose that's how things got mixed up. I see that there's still a backlog at the conflict of interest page that I should be able to help out with. Thanks for the heads up. Sancho 01:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wonder how we crossed signals. Glad to have you at WP:COIN! Cheers, Durova^Charge! 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona Business School[edit]

This page was listed on WP:COI/N. The author User:Uibs refused prod and deleted warnings from his talk page, so I did a bit of research and discovered that this school doesn't have a very good reputation. Take a look at my recent edit and let me know if I should leave this alone, or try AfD. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and try WP:AFD. Durova^Charge! 13:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I've opened a new thread to discuss a proposed solution to this sort of problem. Durova^Charge! 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassing and Intimidation using profane language[edit]

Hello Durova,

You had previously blocked 203.101.45.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for abusing profusely, swearing constantly and vandalising articles [15], [16]. Now this person is back and again has started cursing to intimidate me and push POV. I suggest a block. Check this: [17], he refers to me as "f***er*". Suggest block. Thanks,Mudaliar 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report to WP:ANI. Durova^Charge! 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Clairfication[edit]

You banned Tony and I for WP:SOCK here[18] and I need to know a few things.

I am looking to find out form you what the accaptable amout of time for two people who know eachother is to vote on the same topic as I can not find a polocy that voting within 5mn of each other violates. I don't want to break policy in the future, and not to break policy in the future, I need to know spicifically what I violated. What specifically warranted the block? you listed the polocy, but didn't go into it any more then we admited to know eachother. I just want to understand better here, as from what I understand from the info listed, we were banned from voting within 5mn of eachother.
Also You claim to have given us time to defend ourselves. How much time...where was the 'here's the charge' diff and how much time until you blocked us?

I just want to understand EXACTLY what you blocked us for. If it was for voting within 5mn of eachother, then how long is needed for two people who know eachother to vote on a topic, and where is the policy that lists this? It is not clear when there are different reasons given in different locations by you.--Zeeboid 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? We open a thread at WP:AN where you can see whether administrative consensus agrees that I did a reasonable thing, and I can see whether administrative consensus agrees that you deserve a new block for WP:POINT. That would satisfy both of our concerns in an impartial forum. Durova^Charge! 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, "we" will not open any request. "You" can do so... I learned that ANY action can be claimed to violate any interpretation of some policy, guideline or essay.

In fact, I would prefer this conversation being continued to my User Page.[19]--Zeeboid 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you just answer the question, Durova? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UBeR (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Mole to whack please[edit]

162.83.176.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made two edits to restore ones his latest sockpuppet made yesterday that were reverted. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ole! Durova^Charge! 16:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You'd have thought after so many accounts he'd have learned about watchlists, but evidently not. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shh. ;) Durova^Charge! 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The duck goes quack. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report to WP:ANI for the next few days, please. Durova^Charge! 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A community ban "is outside the scope of the CN"?[edit]

Not wishing to canvass or anything like that, but as you proposed both the community sanction noticeboard itself and the "delicate procedural suggestion" of having it discuss Brandt's community ban, are you aware of the subsequent dispute involving a claim that the community ban "is outside the scope of the CN"? Apparently my disagreeing with that claim shows that I "really don't understand Wikipedia at all". Maybe I don't, but I'd like to. If I'm grossly in error, would you please set me straight? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Deletion of text from WP:BAN#Community ban. Thanks. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time constraints prevent me from reading every twist and turn of that discussion, but (quote this as necessary and applicable) I believe the purpose of that community ban thread was to clarify any ambiguity or potential libel in referring to Mr. Brandt as a banned editor. The arbitration committee's refusal to consider Mr. Brandt's request to have his editing privileges restored is irrelevant to that particular discussion. Durova^Charge! 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but really truly I'm not trying to drag you into the debate even by quotation. I thought you should know of its existence, and you do. And I hoped you'd give me a sanity check, and you have. Thank you! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage protection[edit]

Hey there! Just curious - I just noticed you semiprotected my user page this morning, and was wondering if you knew something I didn't about it. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of morning pre-coffee stupor, to be candid. I noticed your signature at the thread on Jimbo's page and saw some IP vandalism. Then I went back and realized you weren't the editor who posted that complaint. Would you like me to unprotect? Durova^Charge! 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - it's linked from a high-profile page anyhow, and someone might get bored. Thanks for being vigilant, though! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP overload?[edit]

As you probably know, Burntsauce got "cleared" of being JB, and since being unblocked has gone on eviscerating articles here's an example. Trust me, after seeing what a mess the Jack Thompson and Daniel Brandt articles would be in without the BLP, I understand why the policy's in place, but can we just reign it back in a little bit? I thought information had to be Unsourced and either Contentious and/or Negative to be removed. I thought about doing the same to the Bill Clinton article, just to show how ridiculous and overboard this is, but that would be a WP:POINT violation and I've kept a clean sheet on the block log so far. Any suggestions? SirFozzie 17:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:BLP says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's that CONTENTIOUS word that we're having the problem with it. We thought it meant just that, contentuous. However, it's trumped by Jimbo saying "Everything Unsourced must go". SirFozzie 06:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up with the sysop who unblocked him and provide specific diffs as evidence. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one that unblocked him I think is the one who praised him for following BLP so assiduously. :/ SirFozzie 17:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also unblocked him (at least in part) because JB said he wasn't Burntsauce, in the same way that Booyakadell said he wasn't JB. Oh.... :/ One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think the major reason he was unblocked is that the IP was unrelated. At least I hope. SirFozzie 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up on the BLP Talk page, and try to get BLP reigned back to semblance of sanity. SirFozzie 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who unblocked him basically told me to get off my ass and shut the fuck up on the talk page (despite the policy reading as it did), so I will. Wikipedia, where you can follow the written policy and still get yelled at. Woohoo! SirFozzie 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you show me the diff for that? Durova^Charge! 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here ya go SirFozzie 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I just sent you another email regarding this, rather urgent SirFozzie 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet marketing[edit]

This article has had half a dozen spam incidents today from anonymous IPs. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the page for a month. Durova^Charge! 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This article and SEO draw linkspam like crazy. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why. ;) Durova^Charge! 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring[edit]

Since you recommended it, you will be pleased to know that Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) is informally mentoring me. --Ideogram 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to hear that. Hope mentoring goes well for you. If you've been following my edits since your case opened you'll see that I've also contacted the editors who were principally responsible for the change in a guideline clause that necessitated my evidence in your arbitration case. If a new consensus forms regarding that matter while your case is open I would be at liberty to tone down my evidence considerably.

Should you or the other editors who are involved in that case or its surrounding controversy wish to participate in a discussion about that guideline's wording, I strongly recommend that you be forthright in disclosing the interest you would have in the outcome. Durova^Charge! 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

triple crowns[edit]

Hi, I hope you don't mind i found another couple of worthy recipients for your crowns. Wasn't sure what the third category - what sort of ban? Just a block enough? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A siteban. I suppose I could accept the lifting of an indef block also as long as the indef wasn't issued in error. The main point is to honor people who return from the brink and become exceptionally productive with a special award that recognizes both their contributions and their turnaround. Durova^Charge! 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a repeat conflict of interest[edit]

Capade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nikola Tucakov (talk · contribs) Nikola Tucakov has now twice created an article about the band his is a member of. The first time, it was deleted as a copyright violation. This time, it appears that permission was given under the GFDL, but it's still a conflict of interest. I requested a speedy deletion since the article also failed to claim importance or notability. Is this all that should be done? Sancho 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may take me a few days to get to this. Suggeset reporting to WP:ANI. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown[edit]

I am here to apply for the triple crown. I have many GAs and DYKs, so have only listed one example in each of those slots.

DYK: Levina 1
GA: Adam Air Flight 574
FC: 1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

I look forward to your response. Thanks in advance, Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, your triple crown will be delivered soon. Please be patient if it takes a few days. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown delivered. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest thanks. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]