User talk:Durova/Archive 10

Help re. Jim Clark

At the Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) talk page, you recommended WP:RFC and WP:RFI to help us block puppets. Do you think they would be more effective than WP:SSP, as I am concerned about adding unnecessarily to admin workload? (WP:SSP works for this article but sometimes has a couple of days backlog.) Is there a technical way to detect and preemptively block sleeper accounts? It might be good to start an RFC when the puppetmaster's one month block expires, if his sisruption continuesbut I have never been Please answer on my talk page rather than the article one, as I don't think we should discuss ways to stop a proven disruptive editor in plain sight. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Hrothulf's talk page. Durova^Charge! 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SSP would be an alternative. I recommend WP:RCU in conjunction with whatever alternative you try. Basically the request at WP:RFI belonged in another section. Watchlist requests usually apply to multiple random vandals rather than a single puppetmaster. Regards, Durova^Charge! 14:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, you might as well follow up with me. I've got some familiarity with the problem now. I've indef blocked the sockpuppet and extended Pflanzgarten's block to 3 months. Report to RFI if it happens again. Durova^Charge! 14:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rolling your sleeves up. You can close the Edington Mains case at WP:SPP too, now you have blocked it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not active on that particular board so please post the closure request yourself. Regards, Durova^Charge! 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Environmentalism as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 18:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

About your "disclaimer"...

...it's really wonderful. I bookmarked it should I ever get crazy (er, "experienced") enough to become an admin.

One thing; the "wrong version" link in the Page protection section is broken; it has "the" as its link text. You were probably intending for the sentence to read "Likewise, if you think I've protected the (link)wrong version(/link)". I was going to fix it for you; but that seemed a bit presumptuous, so I thought I'd drop you a line instead. See ya out there! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks twice for the heads up. I'll fix that as soon as I get the chance. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

El Jigue

Hi Durova, I noticed that you posted a block warning to the IP address that El Jigue has been using, and I also understand why you felt that the time had come to do so. Since you are contemplating the possible need for future administrative action in this case, I would much appreciate it if you could take the time to read my somewhat different take on things that I have posted to GoodDay's talk page here Many thanks in advance for this. Dasondas 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case maybe the solution is to direct El Jigue to Wikipedia:Questions. Do you think this editor would cooperate? Durova^Charge! 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I doubt it. Fwiw, I know that Zleitzen enjoys EJ's participation here and I believe that Polaris999 does as well. Both of these editors have quite a bit more history and credibility here than I do wrt to Cuba-related issues; perhaps you could speak with them about the case. I'll also send each of them a note asking them to take a look at your talk page here and weigh in if they want. Dasondas 02:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish, El Jigue would become a registered user. He's views are educational & informative. I'd love to chat with him, on his registerd personal 'talk' page, about Cuban related past/current events. GoodDay 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to mention how valuable some of EJ's contributions have been to the Che Guevara, Alfhem and La Coubre explosion articles. While I definitely do not agree with many of the ideas he has expressed over the long months that he and I have been exchanging views, I am at a loss to understand what he has done that has caused there to be discussion of blocking him from future editing. In the case of the articles where he and I have coincided as editors, I have found his comments to be often insightful, sometimes frightful, but always "on subject". In my experience, he has always been willing to enter into a scholarly discussion with those who hold opposing views once he discerns their serious intent; and in addition to discussion, he is generous with his time in sharing sources and providing information (see for example Talk: La Coubre explosion where I posted an extraordinarily important article that he had found and shared.) I am almost certain that if he had not brought this document to our attention, it would have remained forever undiscovered. He was similarly generous in locating information and sources about the Alfhem (please see On the Alfhem cargo), and these are only a few of many examples I could cite. Whereas I personally have always favored a wikipedia policy that would allow only registered users to edit articles and Talk pages, since this policy does not yet exist I fail to understand why this requirement should (or indeed how it could) be applied to El Jigue on a unilateral basis. Thank you for reading my comments. -- Polaris999 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages serve a specific purpose: discussion of how to edit the article. They are not general forums. This is policy. Yes, it's blockable. If you'd like your conversations to continue uninterrupted I recommend you encourage El Jigue to use Wikipedia:Questions, start a blog at Blogspot, or join some other forum outside Wikipedia. If El Jigue really is knowledgeable and intelligent then he'll become respected wherever he participates and more people will discover him in some other venue. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas, Polaris and others (here and elsewhere) thank you for the kind support. My view is that when history is hijacked by any kind of government, a second opinion of dissatisfied voices is needed. In the early days when I read Cuban history, I rapidly found that even academics, have been mislead on Cuba. Later I found that commonly history is quite subject to such manipulation. For instance examining the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 circa, where both sides were cruel wicked and murderous, where as at first I was just vaguely troubled by the inconsistencies with portrayal of the Franco forces and their actions, there did not seem be an "even playing field." Thus when as a young man I watched the movie "For Whom the Bell Tolls" I could never forget that character "Pablo" and his bloody ways. Recently I read what seems to be a level headed, even handed book, (Payne, Stanley G 1970 The Spanish Revolution. First Edition W.W. Norton Chapter 10 and elsewhere)and I was simply horrified at the scale of the killings by both sides. With relation to Cuba I read at first about the "Race War of 1912 [1] and was horrified by the killings of Blacks by Monteagudo’s Cuban troops. However, as I began to read more and listen to narrations of those who saw those days, I realized there was much more involved than mere repression. It became clear that the frustrated rebels, were burning out of even Mambi (Cuban Independence Fighters) property. An exception I believe was Quintin Bandera, whose ruthless uneducated actions had brought shame to the Mambi (!Diga Garbanzos!). The lack of support by most Black Mambi doomed the rebellion, and the links to the Haiti showed what was being attempted was a physical take over of an area of eastern Cuba, by the “Separatistas de Color.” In other words these Separatistas were attempting “ethnic cleansing”, by any means possible. Of course in eastern Cuba so close to Haiti that brought back memories of the horrors of that rebellion, without the justification of slavery or legal segregation. Then, even the New York Times was screaming for intervention to stop this…. Thus it became clear that while this unpleasant and bloody event is portrayed very unevenly. While writing a book on family memories, I sought help from academics and remember calling up such as Aline Helg (University of Texas, author of Our Rightful Share: The AfroCuban Struggle for Equality, 1886-1912), and tried to contribute the oral histories. Instead I was rebuffed angrily, accused of racism etc. for trying to balance the circumstance. Helg it turned out knew less about the facts on the ground than I did, but stubbornly refused to consider any balance, or to question why the Separatistas were trying clear all others out of the area. El Jigue 11-7-06

Oh gees, what I are we going to do Durova? 'El Jigue' is completely missing the point (as to why he may be blocked). GoodDay 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding with a second block warning at El Jigue's talk page. Durova^Charge! 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion, in my view what you doing is merely protecting the official propaganda personas of high level Cuban officials. Since Cuba is a closed society any non-official sources can be conveniently classified by fiat as "gossip," thus leaving only official sources as acceptable. BTW Raul is said, by reliable forces, to have put numerous well armed elite military forces on standby, to destroy or attempt to destroy any challenge to his rule. All this merely helps prove my point that ideological conformity can and is being enforced in these Wikipedia pages, thus denigrating the reality and perception of Wikipedia. El Jigüe 11-8-06

I have no desire to protect the government propaganda of any country. Per WP:NPOV, my responsibility is to ensure that all notable viewpoints both receive fair representation. Other editors have contacted me as an administrator, I have issued multiple warnings in that capacity, and you would be wise to respect those cautions. Regardless of what the government in Havana decrees, Cuba has substantial expatriate populations in other countries who are free to publish dissenting information in reliable sources. If you know of additional unpublished information you want to disseminate, then per the no original research policy you must first publish in another venue. Then, if that venue meets certain standards, you may cite yourself in Wikipedia articles. A volunteer at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user could guide you through that process. Administrators do not have latitude to extend exceptions: browse Wikipedia:Requests for investigation to see some examples of why. There's even an open case of an editor who claims he has disproven Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity. I view your edits in a better light, which is why I've engaged you in dialog, but policy is policy. Show some good faith efforts to adjust to the way this site works because from the way you phrased that last statement a less lenient administrator would have let you explain your difference of opinion in an unblock request. Durova^Charge! 02:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart

I saw your response to Methodology's complaint. Sarah's response was to delete Meth's comments on an article talk page and then to block Meth - I think indefinitely. If you wish to see examples of Sarah's over the top activities(imo) I suggest you simply start with looking at what she's done with this article [2] Sarah also blocked me for a week,btw, so I won't claim to be unbiased in this matter. ottawaman 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok.I have tried to set up a referral for comment [3] as was suggested by the person who removed Meth's alert re; personal attacks. However, this till does not deal with the blocks and page protections issues.ottawaman 04:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova, a response from me is coming. I just got home and have a couple of IRL things I need to do first, but I'll be back soon. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please post relevant diffs and follow-up at WP:PAIN. It's better if this sort of evidence is all in one place. Durova^Charge! 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's okay. It's after 5 am here and I really have to go to bed. I got side-tracked earlier with some other stuff, but it seems that Ottawaman has decided to file an RfC, which is fine with me and I'll just wait and deal with it there. It's probably worth noting, though, that his synopses above and elseswhere are far from accurate representations. In addition, more than a week ago two independent administrators told him to cease his harassment of me here and here but he has simply returned from his block to continue his previous behaviour. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova; yopu seem to be suggesting the matter be dealt with at PAIN but another admin deleted your comment there as well as Methodology's and suggested RfC is the way to go. ottawaman 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the thread at PAIN and write "Per Durova" in the edit summary. Then update with new information. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfI

Hi; I hate to beat a dead horse on this one; I long gave up on the issue, but I recently noticed that you archived a large discussion in RfI without responding to it: [4]. The user had several people complain about him in the investigation, and others on the talk page. I don't have much desire to see him "punished" - but I would like to see what the reasoning was for glossing over the issue, if you thought his edits were not POV enough to warrant a comment to his talk page. Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was archiving all old discussions that had seen no activity in a while. That one had been inactive for 11 days. I really don't consider it incumbent upon myself to become involved in matters that other investigators have been handling, just to perform simple housekeeping. If there's need to reopen the discussion, you or anyone else can link to the archive. Regards, Durova^Charge! 16:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Hi. I noticed you'd left a comment on this user's Talk page in your capacity as an admin and I thought you might be the best person to mention this issue to, since you've at least had some contact with the user in question:

I'd left a comment on the user's Talk page about an apparent double-"vote" in an AfD, which was only revealed by accident. An anonymous user (very possibly Le Grand Roi himself, just not logged in) then made this edit to the Talk page moving my comments to "the appropriate location". I couldn't find this location, and it certainly wasn't on his page anywhere, so I reverted it on the grounds that that was where it belonged (if this was out of process, I apologise). Le Grand Roi, now logged in, re-reverted it and explained that he'd moved it to a Village Pump discussion he seems to have begun to explain his activities.

I'm stepping back from this one, after explaining the basis for my comments at this Village Pump discussion, but I was hoping you might be able to sit the user down metaphorically and explain the ground rules to him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I did not delete your comment, I just moved it and my reply to the relevant discussion that I started on AfDs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Too_quick_to_delete.3F__Concerns_with_AfD_trends Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 12:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, my comment contained a block warning. In general, appropriate block warnings should be left on one's user page - particularly when they come from administrators. Durova^Charge! 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I do not see my warning on that thread. If you did move it there then someone else as deleted it. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I'm deciding myself to not edit for a month (or more) after tonight. The past couple of days have been ridiculous and none of us should be expending any more energy on something that has been resolved. My talk page is protected, so no one should be vandalizing it now. I'm not going to post logged on or not for at least a month and even if I do decide to ever edit again, I have the memory of this experience so as not to encourage me to be repititious in my arguments. Moreover, I know others use the same IPs as I do, because I use multiple computers and I would not feel right if others who have no part of this discussion or unjustifiably blocked out, even if I believe I'm right. It's unacceptable for people who have no part in our discussion to get dragged into it. So, good bye, Happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate and enjoy happier projects in the future! Votre ami, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning

• snip*

My mistake, my apologies. Vandalism is a bit high right now, and I thought your addition was instead a blank; it won't happen again :/ JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

NP. Thanks for being vigilant. Durova^Charge! 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:) JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User conduct rfc

Hi, Durova. I noticed that you've had some contact with User:Fix Bayonets! in the past at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans. I recently started a user conduct Rfc regarding Fix Bayonets! conduct at Sons of Confederate Veterans and elsewhere, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. I would appreciate any input you have, if any. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The user conduct RfC already has enough participation to remain on the board and produce a consensus. My posts to that article RfC were really quite brief: I asked what the dispute was about, didn't get a reply, and then requested that editors turn down the heat on the conversation. Since I never really learned the groundwork of this discussion I don't think it's essential to become more involved now. Thanks for the invitation, but it looks like you're already handling things well. Regards, Durova^Charge! 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you still want those Diffs?

You mentioned at Le Grand Roi's Village Pump-a-thon that you wanted Diffs relating to his duplicate voting. The RFI on him seems to be moving along relatively well as is, but if you still want them just let me know and I'll provide them. I'm working on the theory that each AfD he entered into is suspect, so it might take a bit of time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been handling the RFI and I'd like those diffs to help evaluate the case. How do you mean you suspect the AfD's he's entered are suspect? Please share your diffs at RFI and your speculations at my talk page or in e-mail. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Diffs'll be added to the RFI shortly. What I mean about the AfDs is that on one occasion I'm dead sure he was duplicating votes on purpose and on another one I'm reasonably sure of that as well. I'll check his other AfDs to see if it's a more consistent pattern. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would take that very seriously if you can verify it. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They're up now. Obviously, in lieu of an IP check these are just educated guesses, but it seems convincing. I used to moderate Nationstates.net, so I have a bit of experience of what the telltale signs might be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to get the word out, I've decided not to post (either logged in or not) for at least a month. I think some people are getting carried away here and that everyone's time could be used more proactively. Plus, I'd hate to see anyone who uses the same public computers as I have problems editing because of this discussion. That wouldn't be fair to them. On my honor, I'll ensure that should I even decide to post again in the future on AfDs, I'll take into account the needless uproar caused this time. I truly wish everyone a happy month and all the best in more constructive and productive ventures! Take care! Your friend, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can do it, but like I said at the RFI, I'd be keeping an eye on some of those IPs of his to see if anything fishy occurs during the 6-week block. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from the activity on this talk page, my hands are pretty full with administrative chores. I'll accept reports with page diffs from any editor in good standing and act accordingly. Please follow up on the board so that other administrators can track the activity as needed. Thank you for your assistance. Durova^Charge! 02:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll keep an eye on the AfDs. Thanks for the quick response to the whole issue, while I think of it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

E.Shubee & Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

Durova, can you have another look at the activities of E.Shubee at Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. His behaviour has not improved and is rather trollsome. I am coming to you because I feel that if I say anything there I will just be feeding the troll. Your assistance is very much appreciated. Thank you. --MyNameIsNotBob 22:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the link at the top of this page, please do not refer to another user with the t-word. I'll look into your request. Durova^Charge! 22:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. Please open a new request at WP:RFI if problems resume. I recommend that when the block ends you open a user conduct WP:RFC on this editor. Durova^Charge! 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will refrain from using the t-word in the future. Will discuss with the other editors what they think appropriate to do when the block expires. MyNameIsNotBob 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Waldorf education

Perhaps you can advise us how to go forward with this article. Mediation has failed as two users, User:Pete K and User:DianaW refuse to enter the mediation process. One of these users is making aggressive edits and reverts; he is also making many personal comments (for which he has again been banned for 24 hours) on talk pages. Edit wars continually result; discussion on talk pages results in aggressive attacks and personal comments rather than helpful process. There seem to be only two alternatives; let an aggressive, single-issue editor make all changes he wishes (including removing factual material, inserting pure unverified opinion, and labelling the article with the advert tag, which other editors -though not all - feel is grossly unjustified) or enter edit wars (that result in the article being locked). Can you suggest a helpful process? Hgilbert 11:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several alternatives to mediation. Try an article WP:RFC or a WP:3O to break the deadlock. WP:DR gives a good outline of the choices. Regards, Durova^Charge! 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert wrote: "Mediation has failed as two users, User:Pete K and User:DianaW refuse to enter the mediation process." Please note that the two users in question including myself discussed the issue at very great and painful length. It shouldn't be suggested that we just refused to mediate for no reason. We also suggested revised lists of issues for mediation, which the other side refused. There's a HUGE project these folks have in the works to find some administrator, somewhere, anywhere, who will listen to their endless complaints. Numerous admins have already gotten bored with this situation and won't even listen to them.DianaW 20:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As the other editor in question here - Diana is correct, the mediation request itself was absolutely ridiculous. Diana and I tried for six days to get the mediation request to read fairly - and at the 11th hour, I even revised the mediation request itself to a version that I would sign in hopes that the process could move forward. This brought the people who produced the bogus mediation request to outrage - and now they continue to bring up the "fact" that Diana and I stalled the mediation process - every time they try to get us kicked off Wikipedia. In reality, NOBODY worked harder toward a fair and honest mediation process than Diana and me. With regard to the complaint above, it comes from the person who, in large part, wrote the article. He is a Waldorf teacher, biased (of course) and depends on the success of Waldorf education for his livelihood. The article reads exactly like a brochure - even after many "agressive" edits by me. HGilbert is supported by other Waldorf teachers, Waldorf parents, Waldorf homeschoolers, and Waldorf activists. They are trying to silence any voices that are raising questions about Waldorf. They are here in force and have been able to silence lots of people already (the article's history and the discussion pages support my claim). A Waldorf "project" was created close to when I first arrived here. This "project" team (all Waldorf supporters initially) was formed with the intention to correct the brochure-like article. I joined the project until it became obvious they were here to stall the article for as long as possible in its brochure form. When the project failed, editing on the article resumed, continuing the goal of removing the brochure language. The Waldorf people would like the article to read like a brochure, and this is why the article is currently protected. Pete K 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're serious about the allegation that one editor's financial conflict of interest affects the article then I hope you can present supporting evidence. If you do have that evidence - and you may quote me as necessary - then in my opinion as an administrator the appropriate step would be to open a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Note that I have only read your prose summary of the situation, not actually seen whatever evidence you may have, so this is a conditional recommendation. The dispute appears unlikely to resolve through lesser measures. Durova^Charge! 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My name on this link [5]

Hello. I gave you a link. I wanna know, my name is signed in in the history and I wish to clear my name. Is it possible or will it stay for the rest of my whole life? XXMad99ManXx 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another move

• Okay now I need to move Australian Aboriginal mythology to Indigenous Australian mythology. As the last few moves of this kind have been supported by a good-majority of editors, do I still need to request a move or can you move them for me (please)? It's just really tedious submitting a RM for every single one of these moves, which are all essentially the same. (You can just reply here.) Zarbat 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've seen group requests for identical changes to a family of similar articles. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

How wonderful. Zarbat 03:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• One more thing. (I accidentally came across a discussion on this page....) Is there some kind of a policy on the use of "the t-word" on Wikipedia? I know one admin who constantly blocks people for "trolling", but the same admin has blocked a user for complaining about another user's "troll". Do you see a double standard? Zarbat 03:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that any policy applies it would be WP:CIVIL. The t-word cuts both ways because some users actually are rubbery bridge-dwelling troublemakers (in the metaphorical sense) yet the word is also a frequent insult. So yes, I'll block people for t-ing but if use of the word had anything to do with a block I issued it would only be in the context of other behavior. I'm an active admin at Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard so I do my best to set the right example. Durova^Charge! 04:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Zarbat 04:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Update

I went looking for that "multiple page move" thing.... I think you are referring to this, but it seems to be for a different purpose (moving page A->B, B->C, etc.; so the target of the first move has to be the source of the second; this is not what I'm doing). Any ideas now? Here's a list of pages that need to be moved:

"Australian Aboriginal" going to "Indigenous Australian":

• Australian Aboriginal mythology
• Australian Aboriginal languages
• Australian Aboriginal sign languages
• Australian Aboriginal tribes (?)
• Australian Aboriginal kinship
• Australian Aboriginal enumeration
• Australian Aboriginal avoidance practices
• List of English words of Australian Aboriginal origin

and

• List of Australian place names of Aboriginal origin --> List of Australian place names of Indigenous origin

Gee, I didn't know there were so many! What to do? Zarbat 04:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, if you've figured out that much you're several steps ahead of me. How about posting to the relevant talk page or asking an admin who oversees those actions? Durova^Charge! 05:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks anyway. Zarbat 05:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding El Jigue

Hi Durova, regarding your block of EJ, I don't blame anyone for coming to that conclusion after your brief introduction to his eccentric behaviour. Though I disagree with the move (as I have stated on his talk page) in light of EJ's exceptional circumstances. Could you give me some info on how the block will work? If EJ registered, would this all be forgotten? --Zleitzen 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The block had nothing to do with EJ's decision to edit through two unregistered IP addresses. The WP:SOCK policy prohibits him from registering to evade the block: that would result in more and longer blocks. He could appeal the block if he wants. I might even reduce it if he pledged to enter Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and abide by site policies. Durova^Charge! 17:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, unfortunately the Adopt-a-user is designed to help new users. El Jigue, being a long standing editor, will likely take further umbrage at this suggestion. To my knowledge he has never taken up any suggestions from others to amend his editing habits and I am certain he will not take up this offer. The only options as far as I can see are this.

1. Either we retain an eccentric but essential editor whose most disruptive trait is to post long pieces of speculative and often bizarre material on talk pages. OR
2. We lose an editor whose contributions are acknowledged to be vital to the project, and who has contributed to one of the best adverts for the site - the Che Guevara page.

In weighing up these options in the past, it has always been my belief that the former option is preferable. And thus I have never sought to block EJ, despite the fact that even I was named in his notorious dossier of "pernincious influences" on the internet! --Zleitzen 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If he chooses to take umbrage at a suggestion that could resolve his problems at this site and earn him a far broader audience, then he's his own worst enemy. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which edits actually induced this rather long block? I object to this user being treated like a long term abuser (persistent sock puppeteers usually get no more than 1 month, to say nothing of the obvious vandals), unless there is a clear reason. Looking El Jigüe's last edits, I can't see anything supposing the drastic means used. It's really a pity if such a konowledgeable - though obviously eccentric - editors are being blocked, whereas we have a large number of unacademic wikipedians blooming here - for they 'follow the guidelines'. Constanz - Talk 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The block is only two weeks and I've offered to reduce it if he agrees to minimal efforts at cooperation. I haven't even told him to register an account or sign his posts. I considered his topical knowledge and contributions, yet his response to warnings was overtly defiant and his problematic behavior worsened to include outright vandalism. Contribution to a featured article does not constitute a license to flout site policy. This editor is also a longstanding violator of several clauses at WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Durova^Charge! 19:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Durova. I just wandted to let you know, I wasn't troubled in anyway by El Jigue posting on my personal talk page. In the future if he does post there again, I'll (again) simply edit it out. When El Jigue comforms to policy, then I'll respond to his posts on my personal 'talk' page. Again, thank you for your concerns, I appreciate it. GoodDay 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. that 2-week block of El Jigue, is a correct move. Keep defending Wiki policies. There can be no exceptions for any editors, no matter how popular or eccentric they are. GoodDay 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The arguments in favor of unblocking EJ boil down to a few principles:

• EJ helped to get an article featured. I take credit for three featured pages. Does that entitle me to violate three times as many policies? Certainly not, and any permutation of that premise is equally invalid.
• EJ is a special case. Every editor who violates WP:NOR claims to be a special case.
• EJ has supporters. Then they should either direct their energies toward building a new consensus at the relevant policies or toward encouraging EJ to respect the existing policies.

EJ has not been placed in a dilemma where he must compromise his principles in order to participate at Wikipedia. His recent publication claims reinforce my reasons for blocking: if he has indeed written over 100 published articles in reputable sources then he has good contacts in the magazine industry. Anything he wants to write here he can publish elsewhere and then cite; he has no excuse for not doing so. This editor is setting a terrible example for newcomers. His supporters are asking me to create exemptions to fundamental policies specifically for him and upon no other basis than he likes things that way. Even if I had such authority, I would not yield to frivolous accusations of malfeasance and political bias. Durova^Charge! 05:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for taking the time to investigate and semi-protect the Zodiac Killer page. That will be a huge help to the rest of us who are trying to rewrite and, most importantly, insure the accuracy of that article.

One quick question: How long will the semi-protection status last?

Best. Labyrinth13 20:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally not very long. Post to RfI with requests and updates. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:Editor honesty as you suggested at the Village Pump

I created the Wikipedia:Editor honesty as you suggested at the Village Pump (is it just me, or do you accidentally type Village Pimp every time you type that. Humerous malapropism, ain't it). Read it and make comments. Spread the word about it. See what everyone else thinks. Be bold and edit it yourself. Make comments on the talk page. You know how all of this works. --Jayron32 05:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks! I've got some draft material I've been honing with an eye toward starting that page. I'll check out what you've done and see how much dovetails. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

An FYI...

Please note that I've posted a question (partially referring to you) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is removal of warnings a no-no?.

Atlant 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I posted pretty much the same thing I had stated at Village Pump. Durova^Charge! 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you talk with Shell Kinney?

You may not be aware of it but she did issue a warning to me in the archived PAIN case. She did so before your resolution and I've been trying to get her to understand that, as she made no mention of it in the case, you and the other administrator that issued more neutral rulings were not aware of it. I am therefore with an archived case (archived also very hastily by Shell Kenney) and three contradictory rulings: a warn, a rather supportive resolution by you and a more neutral "no say" one by the third administrator, whose name I keep forgetting. I've kept a long talk with Shell Kenney on the issue but she doesn't seem to understand. I'm about to go to mediation of AN but first maybe you should talk with her and try to reach a consensus. Thanks. --Sugaar 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you post diffs please? Durova^Charge! 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for something else and found this myself.[6] I'm recusing myself from further involvement but I'll comment on that post.

• There's a difference between saying You are a Nazi and You share X, Y, and Z in common with Nazis. X, Y, and Z might not equal Nazism: an editor could, like Adolf Hitler, be a dog-loving vegetarian Volkswagen Beetle enthusiast.
• I didn't comment on whether you were specifically in the right when I wrote that.
• As I researched the request I leaned toward the opinion that it fell outside the scope of the PAIN board: to me this was clearly much deeper than a specific personal attack. Since no page diffs had been provided the request wasn't even valid. Based on what I had seen at that point I was considering leaving you a warning on a slightly different basis: not for use of the word Nazi but for some surrounding incivility. I hadn't decided whether to reject the request altogether as a post to the wrong board and, since no page diffs were there, I hadn't researched all the claims and had not concluded upon any action. I now formally recuse myself from further involvement. Durova^Charge! 05:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was just following Shell Kenney's suggestion of talking with you. --Sugaar 11:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question.

Though I know you had limited experience only dealing witht he WP:PAIN incident. --NuclearZer0 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left an outside view. Durova^Charge! 23:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation

Maybe I interpretated your words in a wrong way. Are you saying that calling people "clown" and "moron" is a mild attack, that deserves no block, if people was not uncivil in the past? And are you saying that calling people "coward" because they hide their attacks is, instead, a personal attack deserving a warning?--Panarjedde 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me tell you a story. One day I walked up to a breakfast counter and placed a simple order: black coffee and a plain bagel. I had trouble getting that order. No thanks, no toasting. No, no cream cheese. No butter. Yes, I'm certain. Don't slice it. Why are you putting it into the toaster oven? Forget sugar. That's black coffee. Put the milk down. Then the next customer behind me said, You are a bitch. Actually I was in a hurry to get back to my father because Dad was dying from a brain tumor.

Deathrocker's actions were blockable on their own merits. What do you really know about this person that excuses a surmise about his character? Durova^Charge! 02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Panarjedde

I noticed you blocked User:Deathrocker. I think you should be careful of Panarjedde. I don't know what exactly what happen between these two, but, any complaint by Panarjedde should be taken an extremely close looking at by any administrator. Don't take this as me trying to say you're right or wrong. But I think you might want to review your decision on Deathrocker block just to make sure you made the correct decision. Kingjeff 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oblique advice to be careful of User:X is meaningless to me. If you can provide specific diffs of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA violations then post them to the thread at WP:PAIN. Durova^Charge! 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What I am trying to tell you is that Panarjedde has a history of bad faith edits, reverts, etc. The reason whythis photo was deleted was because Panarjedde was following my every edit one day looking for something to revert on every page I made an edit on. He couldn't find anything to revert on the Bayern Munich Junior Team article. So he decided to put the photo up for deletion. So, I think for Panarjedde, it might be a good idea to look at his situation with the other user more closely. Kingjeff 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the investigation thing. Can you give me the link to the case? Kingjeff 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits? So you're a sockpuppet evading a 48 hour block less than two hours after the block was issued in order to come to the same administrator who blocked you. If that conclusion is mistaken, prove to me that it's mistaken. Otherwise you may make three specific edits with this account until the block expires:

1. One reply to my user talk page to provide whatever evidence - page diffs, etc. - you wish me to consider. Prepare that edit well because you'll have to wait two days to make any additions or corrections.
2. Change your user page on this account to identify yourself as a sockpuppet of Deathrocker.
3. Change the Deathrocker user page to identify yourself as a sockmaster of this account.

If you do those things I'll evaluate your evidence and take appropriate action, and I won't penalize you per WP:SOCK. You do merit a block for your own actions. So sit down on the bench, sip some Gatorade, and browse an essay until the referee puts you back in the game. I think that's the fairest call for this play. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we use Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for both me and Deathrocker? This would directly indicate if your claim is right (Which I know is not). Kingjeff 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Durova^Charge! 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I safe to assume you'll do the request? Kingjeff 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already up. If it clears you then you have nothing to worry about. So, assuming good faith that you wouldn't invite me to do that unless you were really a different editor, the best place to follow up would be a new request at WP:RFI. Durova^Charge! 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Can I also user this Panarjedde. I can't assume good faith with him and I would like an investigation to see if I'm correct or not. Kingjeff 04:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to check that against some specific username or IP. Checkuser only gets performed in specific situations. Check the rules at that page and see whether any apply. Durova^Charge! 04:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About your RFCU, you need to do the second step which is to add this {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:Kingjeff}} to here. I don't know if you know that or not...and I was going to do it for you, but I wasn't sure if you hadn't done it because you weren't finished writing the report. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. I'll get on that. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. The checker said me and Deathrocker are unrelated. You said you wanted to do some kind of investigation thing. Kingjeff 14:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the instructions at WP:RFI and post there. Regards, Durova^Charge! 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings

Randroide 09:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Hi, Durova.

User Igor21 wrote:

ONE:

now that it is possible to demonstrate that Pedro J was favourishing the creation of the death squads[7]

The "source" provided is an unrelated quote taken... from a blog!!! [8]. He is talking about Pedro J. Ramírez, a famous living person.

Moreover: He gives these unchecked (and unrelated to the issue) quotes as a "reason" to do not use "El Mundo" (the second spanish newspaper) in the article.

Please, ask him if he checked the quote to be true, because...

• If he says no, those quotes should be deleted.
• If he says yes, I am going to go to the library to check those quotes.

TWO

So when PP and PSOE agree in doing dirty war against ETA terrorists in the 80's... [9]

I asked thrice for a source for this bold affirmation. He gave me a rather vague source:

There are many sources for this. The most easy to find is a front page article in magazine Epoca entitled "Comienza la guerra sucia" ("Dirty war starts"). There it explains a meeting between Gonzalez and Fraga in the country house of the latter. It says that shorly after Manglano, Casinello and Galindo have held some operational meetings and were destined to Basc Country. This article was published some weeks before the GAL started its actions. I do not have the exact date because I lost my archive in a change of house. Anyway this is not the issue here. [10]

"Fraga" is Manuel Fraga, a famous living spanish politician.

The "source" given by Igor21 does not exist, due to two simple facts.

1. The Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación criminal actions started in october 1983.

2. The first "Época" magazine was published in march 1985 [11].

After pointig these facts to the user, he wrote me a lenghty text in sapnish in my userpage with no sources [12].

The "many sources" are, after all, a single non-existent source.

...or maybe it was in a different magazine.

Randroide : All this happened 25 years ago and I missed the name of the magazine. After reading your findings, I have been trying to remember and my memory has bring me a surprising recall. I think that the source was Cambio 16 (the rest of the details are the same) that at this time was directed by Pedro J and was a fan of the dirty war as you can see in this link[13]

...he "thinks" that the source, now, was the magazine Cambio16. Or maybe not. Who knows?. He gave me a false source previously.

I am going to waste a saturday morning in the library anyway to check this User assertions, so please ask him to recall as carefully as he can which are those sources, because my (scarce) time is going to be used to check his assertions.

I do not want to waste a saturday morning proving him as a chronic lier to be told after all, "uh, wait, I had a new surprising recall, it was neither in the magazine Cambio16, it was in the magazine Tiempo...or maybe not".

Please: Ask him to give a formal account about his (allegued) sources to his (so far) libels.

THREE

I forgott to speak about Anson and La Razon. Anson was involved in a attempt of military coup in the 80s.[14]

He gives no source. Anson is w:es:Luis María Anson, a famous living person.

...I almost miss this one. I discovered this libel checking all the user contributions while creating this message for you, Durova. I can not keep pace with this user.

Please, Durova, do something.

I've posted a comment at the article talk page. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

From the desk of Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman

Call me silly for asking this, but how are you and Elizabeth getting along? Did her sister Catherine ever get married? I presume you are referring to Kitty, that hopelessly silly child. Yes, she did, and at least she managed to avoid bringing the same disgrace upon her family as her equally silly sister Lydia did. Elizabeth and I are quite happy together, with three children who know how to comport themselves in public, and who see their maternal grandmother as little as possible, for the sake of their father. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly for sharing that update. And how is your own dear sister? The last I heard Miss Darcy was a remarkable performer at the pianoforte. I met her briefly when I was in town, but she declined the invitation to play before a large party. Durova^Charge! 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And in a more serious vein, could you do anything for the Jane Austen page? She's among the core biographies figures but her article has been tagged for cleanup for months. I dabbled on the page a bit earlier this year and suspect it's getting "owned" to some extent - or maybe just neglected. Another editor deleted the mention of Edward Said so now the only twentieth century critic mentioned is Lionel Trilling, which is an inappropriate presentation for an author who was largely ignored among serious critics for most of her own century. I was dusting off a Vladimir Nabokov lecture about Mansfield Park last month and planning to add to the page, but administrative duties have really cut down on my editing time. Regards, Durova^Charge! 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I think paring down first before building back up may be a good strategy, as there's a lot of fluff in there (a little of which I just removed). | Mr. Darcy talk 00:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

PS a belated congratulations on your successful RfA. Well-deserved. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you on both counts. :) Durova^Charge! 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

Durova, please help me. Opiner wants to add POV tag to the article Reformations_under_Islam without providing any source that contradicts what is written. Please, please comment on that. --Aminz 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted to the talk page. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

But we are not experts. Can an editor just dispute an article because he doesn't like it? --Aminz 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Or, shouldn't we explicitly know how the POV problem can be resolved. --Aminz 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tags are supposed to be constructive: the editor who adds one should state specifics so that others can fix the problems. Once in a while an editor's reasons boil down to This article has a POV problem because it doesn't reflect my personal POV. In that case the problem rests with the editor rather than the article and the page shouldn't be flagged. Durova^Charge! 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was waiting to hear. --Aminz 00:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith before concluding personal bias. Durova^Charge! 01:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

About Apocolocynthosis

Hi, you've said Move this request to the appropriate section (new requests) and cite page diffs per the noticeboard rules. I'm sorry for this but I'm a new user and i don't know where is the appropriate section and where is the new requests? Can you help me?--Karcha 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you're new then don't worry about that because the most important thing is to provide what we call page diffs. When you look at a history file of a page, look at the different lines and click "last" until you get to the edit you want. That's called a page difference or page diff. Copy and paste the URLs of the page diffs that prove what you want to show. I'll post any other questions at the thread at the noticeboard. Regards, Durova^Charge! 02:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)