User talk:Durova/Archive13

Re: Striver User page

I have read your post on Striver user page [1] and cannot control myself not to reply it here. First supposition you have is that Muslim or those you were attacked by USA enemy had anything to do with 9/11. Which me (and I think striver may be too) do not accept. Those who attacked on Iraq and Afghanistan are bigger terrorist then OBL and no doubt in my mind that Bush has no comparison in terms of superiority as a terrorist as compare to OBL. --- ALM 14:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You read too much into my words. My post did not suppose what you claim it supposed. In fact, as someone who joined the armed forces only because my family had nearly been killed, I viewed politics from a perspective unusually suited to criticize Bush: I think anyone on earth is more likely to take up arms when they believe their own family is threatened.

My message to Striver objected to a broad sarcastic statement that slurs all United States servicemembers. That - in its own way - is as objectionable as any broad sarcastic statement against any large group of people. The world would be a more peaceful place if people on all sides stepped away from that sort of thinking. Durova^Charge! 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in USA working in "Silicon Valley" as a software engineer when 9/11 happened. I never thought bad about USA and used to do work all day sincerely to earn money and respect.

When 9/11 happened (please believe me I has nothing to do with it) "they" made my life "miserable". What I meant from miserable? Due to the risk for my family (my son and my wife) I cannot to explain those post 9/11 events related to my life here in detail but I wish you can imagine them yourself. Should I also go and take arms? Against whom? I have many American friends; those nice people had nothing to do what happened with me. Hence I tried to forget those post 9/11 events related to me (but not sure I can ever forget those). However, unlike me, you choose a different path which was not a right path.

See, my only brother is currently a solider in Army and my father is a retired Army Col. However, I wish my brother never joined Army and I do not like Pakistan Army. Because my brother might be sincere but then some ugly general send him to kill some innocent person. My brother talks with me to giving life while fighting with enemy. But what if he lose his life, fighting with someone who was not an enemy? It is because he will go on the mission told to him by idiot Pakistani Bush (Mr. Musharraf), and with all his sincerity I really doubt about those mission and those fake enemies. Those solider might be good people with good aims but those mission might not be good to go.

USA is responsible for each civilian killed in Iraq because of sectarian violence there. Because that violence was not there before the "invasion". There was peace before they arrived. They enslave countries, bomb them and given them civil wars as gift. --- ALM 16:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I read it before going to the ANI comment. If i had read those first, i might have ended up being offended, but reading your sincere and open message, i can not help but understand that my user page contributed to you feeling uneasy. I apologies for that, and i will try to take steps in order to help avoid or lessen the risk of that in the future. Thanks again and peace. --Striver 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Striver. And ALM, your post is a vague in some details, but if somebody discriminated against you after 9/11 you have my sincere sympathies. One of the tough parts about undertaking military service is that a person doesn't know exactly what the larger policies will be or what they'll be ordered to do. If someone in power makes a bad decision then those further down can only refuse to perform their part if the order violates the law. When I was on deployment I volunteered to stand extra armed watches because I thought - if anyone has to fire this weapon, let it be me and not some poor kid who's just trying to earn money for college. Instead of firing on anyone I was able to help save lives, but that was mostly the luck of the draw. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request from GuardianZ

GuardianZ has been blocked from Wikipedia and is unable to edit beyond his/her user talk page. He/she left a {{helpme}} asking that you be contacted since you might be able to help. Please see the comment on his/her talk page. —P^urple ^RA^IN 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied but the advice didn't take very well. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

I know you're probably busy; but I've been impressed with the way you handle disputes (like Charun) and the creative solutions you come up with for such problems as school ip vandalism, and the suicide threat.

I stumbled across this RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, and it looks like something you might be able to help with. I provided my opinion, but the requester really seems to want admins to respond, and your admin tools might help you to see some things (from deleted articles, etc) that could possibly clarify the sockpuppetry accusations (though if checkuser couldn't confirm it, maybe your admin tools wouldn't be much help after all). Anyway, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it I'm sure everyone involved would be grateful. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well golly, with a compliment like that how can I refuse? I'll see what I can do to help. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana who performed the original indef block agreed to look into this at about the same time when I started to dig around. My impression of the situation is that this is very probably a sockpuppet, and if so this deserves the same indef block as the sockmaster account, but I'll defer to an admin who has more history on the case. Hail me again if you think it's necessary. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana wanted that onto WP:ANI again. These guys have started several ANI threads without a nibble so I did some detective work. Mainly I'm looking into the sockpuppetry charge, which is by far the most serious. Not everything I see checks out so far. I've left a long post on the RFC talk page to ask for more information. Durova^Charge! 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. :)~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Syndicate

You say that some of your diffs were removed by a clerk? That may have been a mistake; we are training up some new clerks. Can you give me a diff so I ca see what happened? You should be able to enter any evidence you want on the evidence page except diffs from a formal MedCom mediation. Ask me if you have any questions. Thatcher131 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]

It was in the original request (not the evidence page) under evidence of previous attempts to resolve the dispute.[2] Durova^Charge! 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare that to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Involved_parties. In the other case, my attempt to resolve the dispute was allowed to stand as a basis for opening the case against User:Agapetos angel where another editor presented my name in a context that implied I had tried to talk with AA and she had refused. Actually she had requested that I initiate an overture and the editors who opened the case against her had basically ignored me; then they cited my failed mediation attempt as a reason for opening the case. I strongly objected because she had actually proven so cooperative at a previous RfC that I had awarded all the editors on that page a collective barnstar. So since that evidence was allowed to stand (which essentially dragged me into arbitration) I don't see why similar evidence I submitted myself got deleted from an equivalent presentation. Durova^Charge! 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what happened was that you placed it in the hidden template section, [3], so I reverted, [4] and then placed it in the proper section. [5] Dionyseus 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was then left out when the case was formally opened. There is no place in the opened case main page template for evidence of prior DR. I suspect that the arbitrators want to see prior DR on the main RFAR page to help decide whether to take the case, but don't want it on the main page of the opened case. (Likewise, there is no section for "proof you contacted the other parties" since when making an application, it is important that it not be a stealth filing, but when the case is opened, the clerks do the notifications). I see no reason you shouldn't add it to your evidence section. If you think it shows good faith on the part of one but not another party, you could highlight that by proposing a finding of fact on it. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Thatcher. About the only thing it would demonstrate is evidence that I tried to work things through with these editors. When I reviewed the matter I really couldn't come out and say one party seemed more cooperative or rules-abiding than the other. If you think the committee would value those diffs at this stage I'll present them again. Otherwise I'll strikethrough the first paragraph of my statement. What it looked like to me was a business dispute that drifted onto Wikipedia - a situation for the committee's discretion rather than my own. Durova^Charge! 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what they will want. If you would rather not present formal evidence you could add the diffs into your statement on the main page. Probably they'll both get page banned or probation; if you think your diffs might mitigate a finding that they were disruptive they might help the arbs. Thatcher131 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, if I thought my diffs mitigated this situation I wouldn't have opened the case request. I'll go ahead and modify my statement a little. Thanks for the help. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AWilliamson / Joan of Arc vandal

Durova, after investigating the archives of Talk:Joan of Arc I find myself convinced that a checkuser on User:EReference is warranted. However, if I'm reading WP:RCU properly, we need to wait until the matter of a permaban for Williamson and socks is resolved, because the alleged violation is essentially a "Vote fraud on ongoing vote", and the RCU page says to wait until after the vote is concluded to report the sock. Alternatively, we could just note in the WP:ANI thread that EReference is suspected to be a sockpupet, as you've already implied in your latest post there. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's really need to state that more explicitly there. Durova^Charge! 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there's an indef block on some of the accounts, I'll check into the ethics of performing bans on the probable sockpuppets. While I was checking WP:RFCU to see if you'd already placed a request, I noticed CC80 - another suspected Williamson sock - among the names at a declined request. The activity on this account is rather interesting[6] with familiar patterns of interests, a couple of blocks for edit warring, and trademark talk page blanking. Durova^Charge! 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, You've accumulated a solid body of evidence, and gotten community support for a ban of the sockmaster and all puppets--as long as you have good reason to think an account is a sock, I think you've got the license to block it. Even without the explicit support you've been given by the community, WP:SOCK still implies that administrators can and should block any abusive sockpuppets.

I agree with you about CC80, and note that this account has been avoiding Joan-related articles. Perhaps the scrutiny is scaring him off. Do the editors of the homosexuality-related articles know about him? Would it be worth publicizing his activity on those articles' talk pages? At any rate, I'll add CC80 to the list at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets, and put in an RFCU on EReference. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an RFCU, and include CC80 and User:Xandar. Check out the contributions of the latter--there's sustained activity in Apr-May 2004, only one edit in 2005, intermittent activity in Mar-Aug 2006, and a recent burst of activity. If this is Mr. Williamson, either he's very careful to keep a list of all his username/password combos, or he's been registering with a long-term email account. Either way, it's quite impressive to maintain a sock account from 2004. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little less confident of User:Xandar, although that account also interested me at first. Since AWilliamson was just learning to sign his sig in October 2004 it seems doubtful. Might as well check it though. I'd like to post notices on the talk pages for the relevant Wikiprojects since I strongly suspect Williamson still tries to disrupt his other subjects of interest where I rarely edit. He'll probably keep hopping from article to article unless the active project participants know to look out for him. The only open question is where to direct editors to report the problem: I turn away too many suspected sockpuppet reports from WP:RFI to send people there in good faith. Since this is such an unusual case and I'm the investigator who knows it best, I've considered offering my own talk page - but I want to make sure from the community first that it's ethical for me to handle things that way. Durova^Charge! 14:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have scrutinized Xandar's dates a little more carefully. Clearly it was just an odd coincidence that s/he was editing the Goa Inquisition article at the same time as CC80--while this user's interests seem to be somewhat similar to Williamson's, the style and tone of the talk page posts is different. Guess I was a little overzealous there. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily under the circumstances. That account also made one edit to Joan of Arc in early 2004 that displayed an unusual specificity of knowledge about her. Considering how many other accounts we were checking I think it was right to include that name. Williamson has been known to change tactics to throw the scent off his trail, although he usually does that after he senses the hound dogs are catching up to him. Durova^Charge! 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've blocked all the accounts that came in positive under the checkuser and added block templates, undoing the ones that were hard redirected and making sure the hidden account was also blocked. We've got a category for his sockpuppets now. It's time to write a notice to the relevant Wikiprojects, although if I know Williamson he'll probably switch tactics at this point, laying low for a while and returning in a couple of months once he thinks the heat has died down. Would you like to go ahead and post specific notices at some of the articles he's vandalized most persistently, such as cross-dressing? I don't mind if you offer my name as the primary investigating admin. Durova^Charge! 06:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left messages at the Wikiprojects and at most of the pages CC80 targeted in the past few weeks. Voln's targets are a little older, but I may post there too as time allows. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, sorry not to respond earlier--I didn't have much wikitime last weekend. If you'd like I can post messages on articles that Voln targetted. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very grateful for your help. Go for it. Durova^Charge! 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I think you got the necessary articles, so I just added short notes to Talk:Reparative therapy, Talk:Homosexuality and Christianity, and Talk:The Bible and homosexuality mentioning that User:Voln was also a sock. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BooyakaDell/JB196

Hey Durova, first of all, thanks for poking your head in to the RfC on User:BooyakaDell.. Other articles the IP Vandal targeted that I dealt with him was Extreme Warfare, Wrestling Spirit (BooyakaDell actually came back for this one [[7]], and a couple other articles that have since been deleted. Howver if you look at the RfC, the biggest evidence is in a link that Booyaka/JB keeps adding to the Xtreme Pro Wrestling article, to a hosted site and articles for a "forthcoming book" that Jonathan Barber is writing called XPW: Bleeding was only half the job. It was proven that User:JB196 was Jonathan Barber in the AfD for Bleeding Was Only Half the Job, and the article he had written was deleted on grounds of WP:VAIN and WP:OR. For BooyakaDell to continually try to reinsert that link into the XPW article is proof that he is a sock of User:JB196. We've filed two WP:AN/I reports with this info, but things are pretty jammed up over there, and no admin has seemingly read/commented on it. Forgot to sign, and taking advantage to add more. If you look at WP:AN/I's archive 155, there is other observations from other editors who dealt with JB196 that the posting style (spamming tags on articles) and the signature style was the same. SirFozzie 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it must be frustrating to proceed this long without more replies from admins so bear in mind that this project has only one admin for every 2700 registered accounts. This new reply tells me very little I don't already know. Yes, I've already read that ANI thread. It contained very few diffs, none of which pertain to my questions. I weighed the linking issue before I posted my query.

Those three articles you name don't do much to support your contention that this banned user continued disrupting as an IP and then registered six weeks later when pages got semi-protected. Xtreme Pro Wrestling hasn't been protected at all. Wrestling Spirit was protected from 10 September to 4 October and again from 23 October to 18 November. Wouldn't an evasive user have registered during the block rather than afterward? You might make a weak case for Extreme Warfare, which was protected from 8 October to 16 December, but again the long delay between the block's imposition and this new account's first edit really don't convince me.

If there are other reasons not already expressed at RFC or ANI why you think this is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, then follow up with specific page diffs. You're making a very serious charge against this user. Durova^Charge! 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I realise this point may be circumstantial - but it could be that JB196 is aware of the checkuser limitation, and hence delayed the creation of the BooyakaDell account. I recall someone (it may have been Fozzie) observing that there was IP editing going on in between the banning of JB and the creation of Booyaka of the same ilk. I don't know about the details of that myself, but I thought I would point that out. JB is trying to be clever and it appears he is succeeding.

But that's not the root reason for this message. If you can't accept the evidence thus far as proof - surely because of the similarities of editing behaviour, Booyaka should be treated the same way as JB196 even if they are by some miracle two different people - and banned anyway? Curse of Fenric 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument has changed multiple times throughout this dispute. First you insist I am JB196, now you're saying I'm not. If you can't make a decision and stick with it then you should not be making such accusations.BooyakaDell 21:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there, Bookaya. My user page isn't the place to conduct a dispute. Fenric, I left some detailed suggestions about what type of other behavior to search for over at RFC talk. You'll have to do a bit more digging and show me a more convincing case than you've already presented. The question I have to ask before I come down in favor of a ban is, out of millions of wrestling fans in North America, could two of them behave this way? I've still got a reasonable doubt, which in some ways is reinforced by the way you claimed a sequential pattern of userblock/IP vandalism/registration upon semi-protection that hasn't borne up to scrutiny. Strengthen your case on some other basis if you can: you do have my attention. But it won't persuade me at all to keep pointing to the same evidence you've already given. Maybe there's more you've seen as this played out that you haven't identified explicitly. Show me exactly what that is. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Durova, the post from Booyaka here proves plenty. Not that he's JB196, but he's a troublemaker in his own right. He knows he's in trouble and is now getting desperate in my opinion. I won't address what he actually said out of respect for you, but he is wrong.

On the evidence, I think I've provided all I can. That doesn't mean none exists. Fozzie may be the best person for that to be honest because he's seen more than I have - and it's on what he's said about this that I base my view, along with what I have placed on the RFC. I'll say that this whole thing is angering me greatly, and I am on the verge of leaving WP if Booyaka isn't dealt with soon. I'm sorry if that puts any un-needed pressure on you, but that's how I feel about the matter in hand. I'll just ask to clarify - are you asking for evidence of JB and Booyaka's similar behaviour in that we provide two differences in the same article? As an example. Curse of Fenric 00:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a pattern of editing the same points toward the same end on identical articles would help. Have a look at the thread about the Joan of Arc vandal on archive 12 of my talk page and the summary I prepared at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc for how I persuaded the community to ban a vandal who had been dodging the admins and disrupting Wikipedia for over two years. Some similar strategies might close the gaps in your case. Durova^Charge! 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For BooyakaDell to continually try to reinsert that link into the XPW article is proof that he is a sock of User:JB196.

That statement is not an accurate assessment. I have already _fully_ explained why I reinserted the link into the article and it has _nothing_ to do with that. Nice failure to assume good faith, though, Sirfozzie.BooyakaDell 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booyaka, I don't like to repeat myself. Whether or not you are the alleged sockpuppet, that type of post adds no new information and only serves to inflame the dispute. If you have evidence to offer then provide it in the form of page diffs and refrain from sarcastic comments. Durova^Charge! 23:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't believe this statement.

My patience is almost exhausted. Durova - this user is a troublemaker, and frankly (and I hate to put pressure on the admins of WP but I have no choice now) if BooyakaDell is not blocked in 24 hours, I am leaving Wikipedia. Forever. Curse of Fenric 23:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenric, it would be unethical for me to issue a block in response to an ultimatum. I have to go by site policies and evidence. Durova^Charge! 23:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you as an individual, Durova. This needs an admin consensus. But my psychological health is under threat if this keeps going when really that matter should be have been dealt with by now IMHO. Hence my unfortunate but needed "ultimatum". Curse of Fenric 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A correction to what I said above - I am now going to take a 72 hour break from Wikipedia (approx). When I return in three days, if Booyaka hasn't been dealt with, I will be leaving. This has been caused by the latest edits on the RFC by Booyaka - again questioning my credibility is order to deflect from his activities. I've had all I can take of this rubbish, and if Booyaka gets away with it I can not stay. This is not an admission of guilt but rather a reflection on my inability to cope with the rash of unjustified attacks from Booyaka on my credbility - and I ask that this be taken into account. Curse of Fenric 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am _highly_ offended by your accusation that I have engaged in a "Rash of unjustified attacks...on [your] credibility" when you have been doing ripping me apart on too many admin talk pages to name. To this moment, you insist that you are innocent in this situation. That's the only "rubbish" here.BooyakaDell 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of Fenric's statements, that's strike 3 Booyaka. You're blocked for 6 hours. Fenric, although I wouldn't like to lose a good editor, your statements about leaving the project have absolutely no bearing on my sysop decisions. That sort of post can serve only to cast doubt on my integrity - thereby making your situation more difficult to resolve. Durova^Charge! 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really want no part of this and I am not sure where to list any hints of possible evidence... but this dif (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Depoli&diff=95096347&oldid=94770048) Booyaka puts in a reference to cite Jonathan Barber as an article. I couldn't find Barber's name on the page linked. I know that JB196 at one time wanted his named listed as the move compiler on a lot of wrestler's pages that linked to that very website. Just thought i'd drop that in. I see no problem with the nominations he's made though and don't believe there is a US bias in any of them. Also, it is interesting that an anon ip added the same ciation to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kronus&diff=95094854&oldid=89681675 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cash&diff=95093074&oldid=95008168) among others and then deleted them. Maybe the person didn't realize they weren't logged out? 49erInOregon 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those submissions. If I see enough of them I can conclude they're the same editor. I'm not confident enough yet. Durova^Charge! 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob... I'm not sure what type of submissions you want me to show you, but here are more of the recent anon edits adding JB196's name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Bucci&diff=prev&oldid=95095865 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Polaco&diff=prev&oldid=95092788 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_York&diff=prev&oldid=95091011 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&diff=94811394&oldid=91354974

Here he is adding his name to the article here which was sourced from the OWW website: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&diff=73445482&oldid=73352490

From here JB went on to add citation and sources needed tags to the article because he was upset his name was removed.

49erInOregon 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's more substantial. I'm submitting a checkuser request for BooyakaDell and that IP. If the result is positive then I'll seek approval for a sockpuppet ban at WP:AN. If it comes out negative then I'll probably post at WP:AN also in order to ask what else can be done to clear the air. Durova^Charge! 20:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, a guy goes away for a weekend, and a lot happens while I'm gone. Durova, I apologize for being out of contact. Is there anything that I can add to help this case move along for you? Either reply here (I have it watched), or on my talk page. I am pretty sure that the RFCU will tie BooyakaDell to the IP addresses, but if not, it would be good to request other admins to take a look just to clear the air. It's really quite bizzare, there are times when BooyakaDell is a good editor (if a bit more willing to tag articles, then delete, then to help FIX the articles), and there's times where I just get utterly frustrated in dealing with him. SirFozzie 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, based on the IP's edit history I'd be convinced that these are JB196 socks if the checkuser comes back positive. We'd need community consensus and any additional evidence would strengthen that argument. I've left a candid message on Booyaka's talk page. Basically if Booyaka knows the checkuser is going to come back positive, it would help in the long run to come clean before the result. Booyaka has entered WP:ADOPT, so an honest approach now - followed by respect of the ban - might get this editor reinstated a few months down the road. Otherwise, if these are different people, it's definitely time to do something to clear the air. Durova^Charge! 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry have not been following this talk page - I agree SirFoz a lot has gone on! I agree 100% with what Durova is doing here (not that you need any permissions - but you people might like to know). I look forward to the return of the checkuser request - hopefully things will be cleaned up soon. Cheers Lethaniol 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to be agreed with (grin). Lethaniol (especially since you've been working with BooyakaDell through this whole thing), and Durova, in adding to the "Circumstantial" nature that (in my opinion and possibly mine only), I would look at the talk pages for the Xtreme Pro Wrestling and Vic Grimes articles,for JB's particular style, and compare them to BooyakaDell's arguments, and look for similarities SirFozzie 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, clean up the way you express yourself please. I expect this is a very stressful day for Booyaka and the tone of that post doesn't make things easier. Go ahead and dig up specific diffs from those articles. Durova^Charge! 22:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, my apologies for venting, and thanks for letting me clean it up.Will post Diffs shortly. SirFozzie 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[8]] (User:JB196 arguing with User:3bulletproof16 about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

[[9]]: User:BooyakaDell invoking WP:Civil and WP:AGF and later insisting the phrase "God Forbid" violates WP:Civil [[10]] (From today)

[[11]] BooyakaDell refers a comment by User:Curse Of Fenric to WP:PAIN (made to another user, NOT BooyakaDell, asking a page creator to check an AfD Booyaka had started). This would not be objectionable normally (calling anyone an idiot, even to someone else, is at least a small breach of WP:NPA, but considering that the comment had taken place four days previously and that BooyakaDell had made a couple hundred of edits between the comment and reporting it, most of which had come after User:Lethaniol had asked BooyakaDell to drop the issue, (that it was a minor letting off of steam, and it wasn't even posted at Booyaka, that Booyaka actually had to actively hunt down this contribution to take offense to it.) [[12]].

This is similar to [[13]] by User:JB196, in that it could be construed as "forum-shopping", trying to hit as many forums as possible to try to get a friendly ear to bolster their side of the conflict. SirFozzie 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit unclear on these similarities. Take a look at how I structured the opening of User_talk:Durova/Archive12#Editor_X_.2F_Joan_of_Arc: I begin by contrasting short excerpts from two particular posts by different accounts. One weakness of my statement is that I forget to mention until an afterthought that both posts are the same original research based on a 1929 scholarly work that's only available in French, but readers got the point. The important thing in this type of presentation is to connect the dots as clearly as possible for one's readers. Durova^Charge! 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's kinda what I tried to do below with the comments about the editing pattern, that in several cases, the two accounts (well, account and anonymous IP) edit the same articles, in a similar way, and despite being closely packed together, are never editing at the same time. (thanks for your patience, btw) SirFozzie 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to pile on, but I'd like to request that even if a RFCU comes back as possible, that the editing patterns be looked at for [[14]] and [[15]], in the following fashion: BooyakaDell makes an edit at 11:06 on Jushin Liger [[16]] and then does not edit any articles until 11:13 on Balls Mahoney [[17]]

Starting at 11:08, the anonymous IP User:67.86.149.41 edits the Michael Depoli until 11:12, and later inserts the "Compiled by Jonathan Barber" information [[18]]. I'm investigating, but it looks like it's constantly one or the other editing, never both at the same time, which is supsicious. Here's another pattern: 09:57-10:30 is the IP Address, 10:39-11:06 is BooyakaDell (and then as mentioned above, the IP starting at 11:08), it's all back and forth SirFozzie 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be the kind of thing that helps, Durova? Both BooyakaDell and JB196 have the same misspelling of the word "irrelevant" as "irrelevent" constantly throughout their edit summaries? Here's four of each user.

Examples for User:JB196 [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]]

Examples for User:BooyakaDell [[23]] [[24]] [[25]] [[26]]

Let me know if this helps. SirFozzie 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. More along those lines would be quite welcome. Durova^Charge! 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will go through the edit summaries (considering the sheer amount of entries both accounts had, it's not gonna be easy (laughs) and try to find other similar misspellings. Hopefully the editing pattern will help you out as well, if it's a "possible" from WP:RfCU. SirFozzie 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links to the OWW profile include the name Jonathan Barber. It seems he would just post a link to the article with nothing else attatched to it on Paulley's page two days ago and he would fix the ref for him.[29].

He then went on to nominate the Chuck E Chaos article for deletion [30] that had been earlier marked for prod by BooyakaDell [31].

Most interestingly from last night, this anon IP that I am trying to tie to Booyaka/JB196 is this: William Welch was a wrestler for XPW, the company that Jonathan Barber wrote an in-depth history perspective on. JB196 had added some personal info on him earlier in the year that it appears that William Welch himself tried to erase from the article, but JB196 kept readding it [32]. Now the anon IP that added Jonathan Barber to all those articles has re-added the personal info that JB196 had added earlier in the year to William Welch [33]. From the above information it doesn't appear to me that these are three different people. This anon is editing the same family of articles that JB196 and BooyakaDell had been with much of the same information. 49erInOregon 13:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the Anon IP 67.86.149.41 mentioned in all the above diffs is the same as the present checkuser request see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser Lethaniol 14:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the differences between BooyakaDell and IP 67.86.149.41 with respect to their user contributions in particular how one edits for some time, stops then the other starts editing see [34] and [35] e.g. see edits from 18th Dec. Cheers Lethaniol 14:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noted that above (This thing's reaaaallly gotten way too big and a lot of it is my fault *hides*), but the editing pattern really jumps out at you, doesn't it? Always one or the other, in chains (Booyaka, then IP, then Booyaka and back), but never both at the same time SirFozzie 16:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty damning. Don't worry too much about the length as long as the investigation is less trouble than the underlying problem. If the checkuser comes back positive then this editor's response to outreach by the mentor and admin make it very unlikely he'd get any leniency later on. I have a hunch that soon a writer will have one less distraction from completing his manuscript. Durova^Charge! 16:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF (and only if) checkuser comes back positive, may I suggest taking a look at that IP address, and seeing if we can block that as well? Considering what the IP address is being used for, I'd say it'd be prudent.. what do you think? SirFozzie 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that IP isn't blocked right now is because the RFCU remains outstanding. I've already got a solid case for WP:SPAM. Durova^Charge! 16:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ok, how many colons can we get? :D) You're way ahead of me, as usual Durova. SirFozzie 16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what the IP is doing right now is supplying additional evidence that JB196 is evading the block and refusing to cooperate, also that this is an unpublished author attempting to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. WP:ADVERT and WP:VAIN apply there. I don't know how busy our checkuser sysops are on a holiday week so if you get tired of reverting the Jonathan Barber spam let me know and I'll give the IP a vacation. This will probably all get resolved very soon. Durova^Charge! 16:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through all the ones that he added the Jonathan Barber reference to above and revert them later today. SirFozzie 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (I kinda wish there was a way to search all WikiArticles for the name Jonathan Barber and the obsessedwithwrestling link.. be a nice way to know how many he's gotten (he is a very frequent editor... makes it hard to track down all his stuff. I added all the pages to my watchlist, temporarily, hopefully if he comes back I'll see it. SirFozzie 17:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is; you can do a site-specific search on Google. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He just reverted all of them back a second after you. 49erInOregon 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary outdent) Just a suggestion - do not revert anything as yet - just wasting your time. Wait for checkuser to come through - hopefully soon, while making a note of all the pages affected, then do the business. The JB refs are doing no harm for a few days - they are not uncivil or rude. Lethaniol 18:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a 48 hour block for violations of WP:SPAM and for edit warring. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you removed my outdent :( Oh well. But more importantly what do you think will happen with the RFCU, it will be a right pain if it gets turned down - I thought this is what it was used for??? Lethaniol 00:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm really confused, but I'm hoping that Essjay will relook at it with the information we provided, Lethaniol (thanks for chiming in).. if not, I would ask that we bring it back to AN/I one more time, because the evidence (in MY opinion only, possibly), is damming enough to seek a community ban for Sockpuppetry and a long term IP ban as is, the RFCU would be just the frosting on the cake. SirFozzie 00:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its all over, see the RFCU - I am just glad I am not cleaning up the mess - although if someone needs a hand just say. Thanks for your patience Durova. Can not work out whether to feel a mug over J.Barber or feel that I was acting as a sensible advocate that help stop things getting out of hand - oh well an experience... Cheers Lethaniol 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the endgame: checkuser established that these others are the same and turned up a third we hadn't known about. I'll head over to WP:AN now. Do me a favor: let me start the thread and keep it brief and to the point. This has gone onto the administrators' noticeboards several times in the last few weeks without a nibble. Maybe the Joan of Arc investigation earned me enough clout to get attention this time. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created a new section below, but, let me just say, after a month or so dealing with this whole thing, Lethaniol, that this thing would have been a LOT LOT LOT more messy if you hadn't been involved. Thank you for being so patient with us through the inital reports, the Mediation Cabal, the RfC, etcetera. Full marks for doing what you were supposed to do, be an advocate and a peacemaker, and trying to make sure that everything was handled properly. SirFozzie 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank SirFoz, that means a lot to me - it has been hard work. Durova I will stay off the the WP:AN, I suggest we both do SirFoz, as well as anyone else involved. Call us if you need us Durova, but I am sure you won't. Thanks again. Lethaniol 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chime in at WP:AN if you like, just try not to make it as long as the thread on this talk page. I'd rather keep this short and sweet. And BTW, thanks all around for keeping cool through this ordeal. Durova^Charge! 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made it short and sweet, Durova. Thanks for helping us get to the bottom of it. SirFozzie 00:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with "green"

Thanks for helping with "green" (or anon 12.30.216.138) who has been such a nuisance on talk:general relativity. The situation there is kind of odd. He was being helpful up until he removed two section from twin paradox due to my being concerned about them, and got slapped in the face with that vandalism warning at the top of his talk page. After that, he flew more and more off of the handle.

I have added a response to his complaints on his talk page. --EMS | Talk 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also filed a request at WP:RFCU regarding the latest post at Talk:Twin paradox. Suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. This editor appears to be on track for a community topic ban or siteban. Durova^Charge! 15:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complex vandalism

Hi, I saw your detective work on the JoA vandal and was wondering if Striver and several other Muslim editor's edit histories would count as the same sort of complex vandalism? Striver's habit of creating POV forks, creating articles that consist of nothing but massive reams of the Qu'ran, and votestacking using the Islam Wikiproject when someone does something he doesn't like seems to me to count as vandalism. The endless anti-Semitism and consequent destruction of Islamic-Judaic articles as both sides edit war seems to be rather similar to the JoA chap you took out. Would I have a case if I went to the complex vandalism lot with evidence of this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence is on the editor who claims wrongdoing. In my brief interaction with Striver he was respectful and responsive to feedback - a more promising sign than I ever saw from AWilliamson. Look at how I built my case and decide for yourself. Durova^Charge! 17:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can prove what I alleged above - I'm just not certain whether it will work or not, and obviously I don't want to invest a massive amount of my time into something that will end up being buried. I'll have to think about it a bit more. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look good to repeat claims that you could provide this evidence without actually supplying it. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College girls thread

That was a very funny response, Durova, but I'd suggest DFTT. ;-) Anchoress 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I can't help myself. :) Durova^Charge! 07:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

In the future I would recommend you leave warnings on a user's talk page instead of just on your own talk page. The case with me was that because the warnings were only on your talk page, surrounded by a bunch of other stuff, I did not see them.BooyakaDell 13:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my account.

Someone is making my life here miserable by claiming to be me and adding nonsense to my user page. I'm tired of this. If it's possible, Please delete my account so that I can just browse as a guest from now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean Canavi (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's handled. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cow

I just saw the hornet's nest that was kicked over on WP:AN/I on the Joan of Arc stuff. Probably makes all our stuff with me, Booyaka/Curse etcetera seem petty and small. Keep Up the Good Work! SirFozzie 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moo. :) Durova^Charge! 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have to admit, "Holy Cow" was the THIRD title I came up with after I self-censored the other two. *laughs* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If you take a look at User:Durova/Recusal, you'll see how I regard nearly everything at Wikipedia - the Joan of Arc vandal included - as small potatoes. Have a look at an essay I mostly authored if you feel the need to decompress. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Joan-of-Arc case - do you ever get time for editing Wikipedia properly??? And we could all take advice from your essay - those damn Mastodons - there everywhere!!! Lethaniol 11:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot less real editing now that I'm sysopped. But interests change over time - I had an urge last night to get my hands on a few good Harriet Tubman biographies and go to work on that article. Once that sort of itch gets bad enough I'm sure to scratch it. Durova^Charge! 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chopping cheeks

Okay, you said that he's added comments about a relationship with "Lee Dennison" to multiple articles? I'm aware of two different bios that have been similarly affected; has there been a third? DS 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the edit history. It's been going on for months and I'm rather surprised it wasn't stopped much sooner. Durova^Charge! 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least three strikes, he's out. I only found out about it when we got a complaint from the BBC. DS 22:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint at WP:RFI#CheekyChops_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_logs_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29 shows five different biographies of living persons that he's attacked. Durova^Charge! 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BooyakaDell, IP:67.86.149.41 and user:BertoBowdoin Confirmed by RfCU

Here's the diff from Essjay: [[36]]. I think we're in the endgame here. SirFozzie 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Durova

I have never been into Barnstars - but when I have been given one they have made me smile - so thanks.

With respect to BooyakaDell's comments on his talk page - I am not sure what he is trying to get at. The fact that he left me a message on his talk page only 10mins after the RFCU was returned asking what was happening, is very strange, in particular that BertoBowdoin was online at 00:19 just before it was returned!! So I think BooyakaDell has been following all these proceedings with a sock of a sock watchlist - maybe.

Anyhow I suppose it does not matter any more - thanks for your very fair approach to these issues - you have gained much Kudos! 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't following any "proceedings." All I'm getting at is that I didn't see your "Sockpuppet" message until about an hour ago. That's the only point I'm trying to make.BooyakaDell 01:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine BooyakaDell - I accept that you might not have seen my Sockpuppet until it was too late - but it makes no difference to proceedings and the outcome. Again I am sorry Lethaniol 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that this editor has been and remains under a 48 hour block on the IP address and all posts other than to his own user talk pages are in violation of WP:SOCK. I've let Booyaka post to the WP:AN thread. I even notified him that it was ongoing. Yet it doesn't speak well that this editor is coming around to the investigating administrator's talk page and repeating a chat to someone else. Durova^Charge! 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of JB and Booyaka adding the same information to the article

The S.A.T. [[37]] JB196 readds the Compiled by Jonathan Barber namecheck to the account, with the edit summary "→Signature moves - These moves are from my 3 and a half years in the making list.)" [[38]] the IP address that RfCU confirmed to be BooyakaDell, reinserts the namecheck in a source statement. The page it comes from.. http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/l/los-maximos.html . Please note, there is NO indication who wrote this article at ObsessedWithWrestling (Does it qualify under WP:EL anyway? Especially as Booyaka tries to use it as a source in his article? More coming if you need it.. SirFozzie 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Booyaka and the hidden account have been indefblocked on the WP:AN page. Do we need to ask for the same for the IP address (it seems rather long term/stable with Booyaka being the only one at that IP), or do we need to wait for the ban to expire and then reask for a block? SirFozzie 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do indef blocks on IP addresses, but I've pinned him to the mat for a year. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Da Man!!! (Oh my god, If I ever say that again, please indef Block ME! :D) SirFozzie 05:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...da woman? :) Durova^Charge! 05:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody ought to wrap up the RFC now. Durova^Charge! 05:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Da Women Can Be Da Man (ok my head hurts, not gonna try to even parse that logically..) I'll go to the RFC, how do we close it? SirFozzie 05:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this remind you of Andy_Kaufman#.22Inter-Gender_Wrestling_Champion.22? I'll have a look on the RFC side. Durova^Charge! 05:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it does.. I found out how to close the RFC (strike it from the list of active RFC's (under user conduct) andhow to archive the results, and have done both. SirFozzie 05:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you - I had to go out to purchase some groceries before I saw that you requested diffs, though I see you did find them. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that lasted long, apparently Booyaka's already changed his IP [[39]] Same area (Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems) as the IP that was already banned, from checking whois). *sighs* SirFozzie 05:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who didn't see this coming? The point is moot anyway as "specialises in move lists" doesn't explain how he knew he wrote those specific pages rather than every other page. We all knew that Barber wrote for OWW soncidering the XPW book but this changes nothing. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most probable answer is that he ran over to a friend's house and borrowed the computer. Either way I've blocked the new sockpuppet. Keep your eyes open because he's likely to try others before finally giving up. Durova^Charge! 06:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the most probable answer is he can change his IP as he has done it before to harass me on my talk page, which lead me to having to sprotect my talk page (see September 10-11). –– Lid^(Talk) 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, he used to be an America's Orneryest Linktotheinternet customer. Since you do have his name, current ISP, and location of residence there's also the option of contacting his provider if you feel so inclined. Durova^Charge! 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would one of you guys create a category for JB's suspected sockpuppets to keep this organized? I'm heading to bed. Notify me if any new sockpuppets try to reopen the theater. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...one last thought before hitting the hay. Considering that the ISP is also a cable television company and that US cable television is run on regional monopolies, contacting his provider's abuse department could put a serious dent in his wrestling fandom unless he shells out the big bucks for a satellite dish. Is anyone here so compassionate that they would feel sorry for this inconvenient side effect? Durova^Charge! 06:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if the sockpuppet abuses continue for the next day or two - then yes. But before then give him time to cool down and see if he can cope with the block. Cheers Lethaniol 12:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very level-headed reply. Durova^Charge! 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autograph books

You keep asking how they help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. --Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't argue with that. Striking through my previous statements. Durova^Charge! 13:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo, can you sign my autograph book? It would be much appreciated nd it only adds oe more none mainspace edit to your contribs list. Please? Thank you. —¡Rand fan !^{Sign here?} 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you ask so nicely how can I refuse? Durova^Charge! 18:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, would you consider signing my book? You have such a prettyful username, I'd be honored to have it in my book! ¿Por favor? --Tohru Honda^{Sign here!} 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:twin paradox semi-protection

Duvora -

First of all, my thanks again for your help with "green".

Kindly be advised that I am now dealing with the flip side of semi-protection: I am in a discussion with a new user whose comments should be on that page, but who is still a couple of days away from being able to post there. Right now, I figure that "green" has learned his lesson, and probably won't bother that page before his block is up. Given that and this newbie, I am kindly asking that you remove the semi-protection now, but assure you that I will defer to your judgement in this matter if you should feel that it is unwise to do so.

Thanks in advance for you assistance in this matter, and season's greetings. --EMS | Talk 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection lifted. I suggest WP:RFC if the dispute resumes when the block expires. Happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much. I am open to an RFC if needed. --EMS | Talk 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

re: Via WP:AN -- Many thanks for this! We all need a good laugh now and then! Have a great holiday! // FrankB 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) Durova^Charge! 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For hours and hours of tireless work on finding those who detract from and disrupt Wikipedia's mission. (ok, can't resist.. "You Da Ma'am" :D)SirFozzie 19:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a big smile and a warm laugh. Durova^Charge! 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more?

Durova, have you noticed User:Joan of Arc fan and User:Devotee of St Joan of Arc? I meant to mention these before, but I'm not sure if I ever did. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're banned now. I've pasted the userpages with sock templates. Please add them to the HAJARS list. Let me know if you uncover any others. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add 'em to the list. Check out the web of insanity that is User:Maintenance. From User:Maintenance/Allen Williamson Joan of Arc it's pretty clear that this is part of the sock farm, but aside from the mass of gibberish that makes up the main User page, there's:

There are links inside that junk, which link to other Wikipedia pages and external sites like [40]. The last page listed links to Williamson's publication about Joan's clothing. I think this is an attempt to googlebomb Allen Williamson's various publishing enterprises. Or he's just crazy. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked the account. Googlebombing seems likely to me. It isn't easy for an AOL homepage to maintain the top spot out of millions of returns for "Joan of Arc" and "Jeanne d'Arc". Wikipedia has steadily crept upward on that list since I began editing here. It's been at no. 2 for several months now and I've suspected part of his involvement here has revolved around a desire to maintain his own site's prominence. Go ahead and blank out the other pages (I haven't bothered) and tell me where you come up with this stuff? Durova^Charge! 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I've just checked and Wikipedia's the top return for the first time, possibly as a result of my blanking out his site from the links at the bottom of the article. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll blank Maintenance's pages. As for how I found this stuff, there's no trick, really--I just used Wikipedia's search to look for "Allen Williamson" and "Joan of Arc". In the future I'll do that search periodically to see if more sockpuppets crop up. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive37#User:Maintenance old ANI thread about User:Maintenance is interesting--there's some typographic tricks that should be watched for in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova

Fenric, although I wouldn't like to lose a good editor, your statements about leaving the project have absolutely no bearing on my sysop decisions. That sort of post can serve only to cast doubt on my integrity - thereby making your situation more difficult to resolve.

I just came back from my three day break and I now know that JB/Booyaka has been indefinitely blocked. I just wanted to say thanks and also apologise for unintentionally casting any doubt on your integrity. I really needed the break - and with the ban now applied I do feel vindicated even though I'm prepared to cop some criticism for my attitude towards the whole thing even though I ended up being right all along. My excuse/reason was that I was scared of the damage JB/Booyaka was doing - and I've just come here from the RFC after noting with delight that some anon IP came up with an out for me. WP:IAR. That's the rule I was applying when reverting JB/Booyaka's edits - even though I was unaware of the rule when I did it.

Can I ask a favour of you? We lost the article on Action Zone Wrestling because of JB/Booyaka's bad faith. I was seeking some sources for it, but my mood prevented me from altering the article and I was in touch with the fed to get some info. Can you restore it? And if anyone asks, you could suggest that the nomination was made by a banned user. And can you remove any other AfD's he threw on for the same reason? Curse of Fenric 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenric, part of the reason I proceed with caution is because I specialize in difficult investigations. Right now the arbitration committee is handling three open cases I've passed on to them. A different user I've blocked is calling for a 48 hour retributive block against me. Only about 5% of administrators are open to recall and I'm one of them. Are you aware of the desysopping MONGO, whose style in some ways resembles mine?

You're a good editor and events proved you right about BooyakaDell. You may also be right that he damaged Wikipedia's database through overzealous deletionism. The Internet Wayback Machine probably holds the data you need to reconstruct articles.

It isn't easy to build a spotless reputation and the kind of admin work I do absolutely requires it. I weigh each sysop action from the perspective of how a diligent editor with very bad faith could construe my use of power because it's a virtual certainty that someday a few of them will try to build a malfeasance case against me. Your threats to leave the project already placed me in an awkward position and now you ask me to perform a very questionable series of unilateral deletion reviews. Well I won't do it. This is the third time you've made inappropriate requests and if you do that again I'll blank your posts on sight. Durova^Charge! 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral? The only one I was really concerned about was Action Zone Wrestling. I only mentioned the others because of the concerns raised by other users. If you can't then OK, but I'm offended somewhat by the accusation of three "inappropriate requests". Having said that, I note the rest of that and I'll back off. Anyway, you noted the Internet Wayback Machine which I'll look at now. Thanks. Curse of Fenric 20:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pedia-I

I just noticed the banner on his userpage. Considering this user's talk page, and contributions, I'm quite surprised. Would you point me to some diffs? - jc37 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a result of the checkuser. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]