User talk:Durova/Archive 27

Question about TC eligibility

I am not yet eligible for a triple crown, but it is something I strive towards. As such, I have a question for you. Does there need to be two separate entities for the GA and featured content requirements? Or does taking one article from nothing to GA and then to FA meet the criteria? —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine if an FA goes through GA first. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understood my question or if I am misunderstanding your answer, but just to clarify, could the same article be used, for purposes of winning the triple crown, for both the GA and the featured content requirment (assuming, of course, that it was taken by the editor in question through both processes)? —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your question and that sort of submission does qualify. Durova^Charge! 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification, it appears that it was in fact me that didn't understand your response. Thanks again! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have not yet reached eligibility, but I'm curious. I have a DYK for M-35 (Michigan highway) and I've nominated the same article for Good Article review. Would this single article count for both criteria? I'm assuming that if it does and I see the article through to Feature Article, then I'd have a triple crown from the same article. Imzadi1979 05:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. In theory the same article could count for all three parts of the award. Happy editing and best wishes. I hope to hear back from you! Durova^Charge! 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown application

DYK: Harry Love (lawman) - article creation: [1], promotion: [2]
GA: Rancho Camulos - article creation: [3], promotion: [4]
FP: Image:TamarackMiners CopperCountryMI sepia.jpg - upload: [5], promotion: [6] --howcheng {chat} 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesty, your triple crown will be ready in a few days. Thank you for your excellent contributions to Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

CEM : E104421 (talk · contribs) and Tajik (talk · contribs)

Hi, Durova. I have some question about the CEM and the conditional unblock. Are we allowed to edit during the AbrCom & Mediation period? If we are, what are the conditions? Surely, we have to keep ourselves away any controversial issue related with the revert parole and the articles of conflict. I guess it's ok to comment on any talk page? About the CEM, what's the procedure? What's your plan? Kind regards, E104421 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you link to diffs regarding this conditional unblock? Durova^Charge! 17:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no definite rule other than [revert parole], but AzaToth recommended us not to edit here and the [diffs]. Regards. E104421 17:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it should be possible for you both to abide by that while you're in CEM. Or do I understand your question? Durova^Charge! 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then we have to wait for the mediation. Actually, i was planning to edit physics and progressive rock related articles. Anyways, what's your proposed plan for the CEM? E104421 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at the other CEM that's underway and at the prototype case. I'd start by recommending some relevant arbitration cases as reading. You could get a head start on that from the list I've given at the current case. I'll probably cite some of those same cases again. Basically I'd steer you toward solving your own problems together. If you want feedback from me I'll be happy to provide it. Does that answer your question? Durova^Charge! 18:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, i think, it's ok for now, thanx, but please keep in mind that the articles of conflict need experts cause the problems are related with the reliability/scientific level of the references (including encyclopedias which are considered as secondary sources) and the factual disagreements. Cheers! E104421 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Baguette

Hello!

You banned user Center-for-Medieval-Studies more then a year ago but I found today a text that he left in the article on Baguette : 08:55, 6 June 2005 Center-for-Medieval-Studies He wrote :

The French government recently codified into law a specific type of baguette, the "baguette de tradition", which can only be made using pre-modern methods. This classification was the result of the efforts of historian Steven Kaplan, who specializes in the history of French bread from 1700 - 1770. Kaplan called upon the French to reject the modern baguette - which he denounced as a "tasteless, odorless monstrosity" - in favor of more flavorful, original types of French bread. The key, Kaplan's research suggested, is the 18th century practice of allowing the yeast to develop overnight, which results in bread with a cream-colored interior (rather than the familiar white) and a much more pronounced flavor and smell which is widely regarded as superior to the modern baguette.

Did someone try to find the mistakes that he wrote in the wikipedia?

--YoavD 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert about baguettes. I did my best to undo the damage he did to some other topics, but I really don't know what to make of an edit like that. Go ahead and delete it as unsourced if you wish. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Recently disputed edits to feminism

Hi Durova, thank you for all your help and encoragement with the User:Anacapa report. I'm really really sorry to burden you with this question but I need a frank objective opinon on whether I'm being a dick. I'm involved in a dispute on talk feminism about the insertion of the word perceived into a line describing feminist concerns. Basically it is being argued, by an editor called Altoids Man, that feminism "perceives" gender inequality as favouring men. And that this is a "controversial minority view". I totally dispute this. I have explained that such gender inequalities can be sourced from agencies such as the UN.

I'm holding my line on this (under a some pressure) because I know that the introduction of a phrase like "perceived" blurs mountains of notable, factual evidence of gender inequality favouring men, info produced by indepent bodies. I know its at the level of semantics but I don't believe the proposed edit is accurate or responsible encyclopedic writing. I also consider the claim that gender inequality favours women an WP:ATT exceptional claim needing an exceptional source. Maybe I missed something but I never saw that as a minority, controversial opinion. I feel he that there is an element of Reductio ad absurdum in a few places by Altoids Man, but I maybe wrong.

Altoids man has recently shifted his edit request. It began with an interesting complaint that feminists perceive gender inequality that favours men over women. And he attempts to prove this (almost mathematically)[7]. He later moves the argument saying: "The viewpoint that inequalities exist is a POV, the viewpoint that supposed inequalities favor men over women is not fact, but opinion, or POV. This is an opinion that anyone is free to take, and that opinion apparently belongs on this page" And now he puts it on the the requests for comment on WP:GS and Project Sociology that I have misrepresented his edit request and that he just wants to correct NPOV in the article.

His edits were reverted by User:AntiVan and User:Orangemike, his comments on talk page are disputed by myself[8] Orangemike and User:Strangerer[9] - though Altoids notes in his response to my RfC on WP:GS and Project Sociology that there are only 2 editors disputing his claim. After Orangemike pointed out he was the only one arguing for this edit[10] Altoids Man called for help from user:Wikidudeman.

I am sorry to burden you with this but I find this discussion very stressful and I worry that I may not be giving User:Altoids Man enough slack--Cailil 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. please don't feel obliged to "get involved" in the discussion I realize you have a lot of other things going on, so if I am being a dick just tell me :) You know its kinda funny but so far everyone involved in this argument (perhaps with the exception of strangerer, whose gender I can't assertain) is male. I wonder if that comes across?--Cailil 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A POV disclaimer is necessary here: I make it no secret that I am female and that my username, which is derived from the first female officer of the Russian army, is an expression of mild feminist leanings. I rarely edit on feminism-related topics unless that umbrella is broad enough to cover raising Joan of Arc and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc to featured pages.

That said, I think the same standards apply to this debate that would apply anywhere else in Wikipedia: if someone wants to declare something a perceptional error and a controversial minority view then they ought to be able to summon evidence to that effect. If you have United Nations reports on your side and other equally respectable sources, then open an article content request for comment and invite the other editor to supply his sources. WP:V places the burden upon him to back up his preferred version with reliable sources. Durova^Charge! 03:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Durova, as always your comments are very helpful :)--Cailil 10:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries

hey Durova, i'll uh.... um... give you a high five if you start to use edit summaries more! please? ;-) JoeSmack ^Talk 18:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. What are you trying to track down about me? Maybe I could help the search. Durova^Charge! 18:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing really, just noticed from your darkside essay and classroom coord project. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

RMS

Quack quack. This edit gives him away, if the IP and Croatian articles alone aren't enough. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ole! Please handle the templates. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Any chance of rangeblocking New York? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ROFL, sure if I want a quick desysopping. ;) Durova^Charge! 18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anacapa Report

Sorry to bug you yet again but I was just wondering about the User:Anacapa report. It's just been archived - does that mean the discussion is effectively closed or can comments still be made on the archive page? --Cailil ^talk 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case Durova doesn't see this for a bit, it means that the discussion is closed for now. If there's any new reports or you need to add something new to the text, we can certainly reopen the discussion. 23:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Coelacan also just filled me in on my talk page. I'll hang to the report page in case Anacapa returns. Thanks to everyone for their help and support, especially Durova--Cailil ^talk 23:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is taken care of? Follow up if it still needs my attention. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

VinceB again

Hi. It seems a banned user is back again, using a sockpuppet User:Norman84 and an IP 195.56.91.23. After I have seen VinceB's typical IP range, his typical edits, and his typical comments, I asked for CheckUser. My request was declined by User:Dmcdevit as unnecessary because he found that it is indeed VinceB's IP and behavior without CheckUser.[11] Could you block those new sockpuppets please? Thank you in advance. Tankred 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He's already indef blocked by another sysop. Thanks for the heads up, but under the circumstances (my user talk posts that my online time is limited) it's quicker to post to WP:ANI than here. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aces High

Scribner (talk · contribs) noticed that the protection you applied to Aces High (computer game) expired and has been editing like crazy to interject what I think is some wacky NPOV. Any suggestions on strategies? I've asked him to review WP:NPOV, but I think he might be someone with a personal grudge, maybe someone who was kicked out of the game. I'm uncomfortable communicating with him as an admin because I've added content to the page, any chance you'd be able to take a glance at his recent edits to the article and, if you agree with my assessment, perhaps give some guidance to the user? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova has been out for a couple of days, but I looked at this, and agree with your analysis. I reverted the page to the last stable version. Oddly, this re-protected the page. That's an acceptable result, for the moment. I'll leave the other editor a friendly note, and you can take this up with Durova when she returns. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The other editor discovered that the protected template doesn't by itself protect the article, so he's started edit warring again. This page needs to be reverted and protected. This editor seems to be hellbent on gutting Aces High (computer game). Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he just played "revert the silly bugger" with me. SirFozzie 06:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I just left him a 3RR warning. He's blanking his talk page. Quite hostile, he is. I am not touching the article again. If he does any more edit warring, I suggest filing a report on WP:AN3. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've full protected that article for two weeks and blocked the account for 48 hours. Follow up as necessary. BTW Jehochman, reverting to an article version that has a protection template doesn't reimpose actual page protection, and this is the type of situation where follow-up is usually necessary. Durova^Charge! 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! Once the other editor made changes I saw that the protection template doesn't do the protecting. I get your point about this needing follow up. We have at most a two week respite, but probably less. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In this type of situation there's a very high probability that the editor will return to cause more disruption. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

HSMP Page

Hi,

You recently made a comment on the HSMP page regarding a link that kept getting removed. It would seem that there is a determination to focus on who posts a link rather than the relevance or merit of the link, regardless of the comments of others stating that the link is a useful resource. Indeed, there seems to be a bit of paranoia in evidence, with foundless and false accusations being made. All rather silly, and I am surprised at the degree of fuss being made about this, but is there any way you could do something to sort this out?

The page in question is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme#External_Link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spooky69 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I've looked at this. The link leads to a squeeze page designed to capture the visitor's email address. This is linkspam.Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is taken care of? Contact me if I'm mistaken. Durova^Charge! 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not linkspam and I have no idea what a 'squeeze page' is. The points calculator is relevant and always up to date with changes in related immigration law. No user information is required to use it and the vast majority of people do not contact us after having used the points calculator. It is not designed to 'capture the users email address' - users will provide an email address ONLY IF they decide they would like a free assessment, which most do not. Again, no email address or other personal data is required to use the HSMP points calculator. As I stated previously, the only people that do not think the link should be there are those with no interest in the subject. Additionally, you could not have an HSMP points calculator provided by anyone that was not 'commercial', as it constitutes a form of advice provision, which is a heavily regulated area in the UK. All this fuss really makes me wonder why I spent the time and energy in completely re-writing what was a hopelessly incorrect and out of date article. Spooky69 08:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a nice explanation of what a squeeze page is. Linking to your own website is strongly discouraged. Why do you care about this only little, not especially unique or enlightening link? You have a very clear conflict of interest, evidenced by your perseverance and obvious desire to promote the site through Wikipedia. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I feel it is a point of principle, a form of accreditation, entirely relevant to the article that I wrote and of benefit to those interested in the subject, although that clearly seems to be of little interest to some. It would also seem that 'discouraged' is interpreted as 'not allowed'. The view being expressed by your rather dismissive comments is that this is some sort of gambit to promote a website that is already one of the top sites in it's niche and I feel that this is a rather narrow-minded and cynical view, which entirely ignores the value of the link to those interested in the subject. One visitor tried to say that the link was worthwhile, only for further unfounded and incorrect accusations to emerge against this visitor. Is this generally how things are at Wikipedia? The article that existed prior to my involvement was almost entirely incorrect and hopelessly out of date. Is this attitude meant to encourage people to submit articles based upon sound and extensive professional knowledge? I also remain somewhat perplexed by the previous statement that the link would be acceptable and welcome if it went to a non-commercial site, meaning in reality that it was provided by someone without any commercial knowledge of immigration law. There is a 'holier than thou' attitude being shown and I find it rather unsavoury. Spooky69 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-promotion isn't welcome in Wikipedia. Look at how much ink you have expended trying to add this link. You need to back off because you have a conflict of interest, and other editors are opposing your link. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Back off? That is an interesting choice of phrase and rather combative. I thought this was a discussion? Editors who have no interest in the subject have opposed the link, but I have no doubt that more editors than the one evident so far would feel it is useful. Should I simply remove the article? I feel that the link constitutes some form of accreditation, aside from being valid in relation to the article, and the idea was not simply that of self-promotion, irrespective of the entrenched view that some might have. I fear that perhaps you do not realise how important this particular visa is for a great number of people and how useful the points calculator is for such people. I would be interested in what Durova thinks about this, as this is where the original suggestion to let other editors comment came from. Unfortunately, when a comment was forthcoming it was dismissed. Spooky69 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:POINT and stop wikilawyering. You've been self-promoting, and seem determined to keep going in spite of many friendly warnings. If the link is so valuable, lots of other people will want to add it, besides the website owner. You need to back away from this article because you have a conflict of interest that prevents you from maintaining a neutral point of view. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I read WP:POINT but do not see how that is entirely relevant. I have not reverted the article to include the link. I have tried to discuss this but my points have been largely ignored. Another editor suggested that the link was of value but this was ignored and accusations were cast. I can see the conflict of interest argument in the terms stated above, and of course my opinion is likely to be biaised, but this does not mean that I am automatically wrong. Again, I am simply trying to discuss this issue. I was prompted to do so after I had not reverted the article to include the link and waited for someone to say something after what seemed like a logical suggestion from Durova. The reality was that someone agreed with me and their view was all but dismissed, which somewhat contradicted the suggestion made by Durova. Are you saying that if someone else adds the link then you will not remove it? With regard to wikilawyering, I have no idea what this is but I do own a legal services company... Perhaps some decent discussion would provide better understanding and encourage me to contribute again in the future. Spooky69 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Wikipedia has policies, guidelines and customs, but ultimately it isn't governed by rules. Wikipedia is governed by consensus. The consensus is that when somebody has a commercial motivation, they really shouldn't make controversial edits. If you want to correct a spelling error, for instance, that's not controversial. You can always do that. But if you want to add a link to your own site, and anybody is opposing you, then you need to back down. Hence, the WP:COI guideline advises extreme caution when linking to your own site. You're in this situation now; others have opposed your link, so you should yield even though you may be completely right that this is a useful and valuable link. WP:POINT advises not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. We should all try to avoid endless debates, because they can be a form of disruption. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Spooky, I hope you do contribute to Wikipedia in more ways, and I also hope you understand what Jehochman is saying. A number of Wikipedia volunteers have devoted their unpaid energies to keeping this site honest. That is, to combatting attempts and corporate and individual self-promotion. If you have honest reasons for being here then you can have little objection to the principles of the COI guideline and the approach that both Jehochman and I recommend. When everyone plays by the same rules, exploitation remains minimal and enforcement remains consistent. I wouldn't like to issue a WP:SPAM or a WP:POINT block against an editor who may have acted from good intentions, but surely your time and ours would be better spent at other endeavors than discussing a common sense solution at this much length. Durova^Charge! 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Community ban policy deletions again

It's happening again.... See WT:BAN#Community ban section is instruction creep. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

PatPeter

It seems the same IP which left the "rest of eternity" comment on PatPeter's page is now editing. I considered blocking 67.167.255.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a user evading a block, but since it seems to be constructive, couldn't decide. I figured since you were the one to officially extend the block to one year, I'd let you give the verdict. - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering it couldn't be anymore blatantly clear, I went ahead and issued a one week block. Feel free to increase/decrease/etc the block as you see fit. - auburnpilot talk 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've lengthened it to three months. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CEM

What is the next step in the mediation? The discussion has started to deteriorate and the only participant besides myself and Armon is Blue Tie. Armon frankly isn't dealing with the issue at hand and is instead posturing in an arrogant manner about what appears to me to be a false issue. We could really use a hand here. Thanks. csloat 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Real life obligations kept me offline for a couple of days. I'll catch up to speed ASAP. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject - classroom coordination

Hi there. I am a teacher at a school called Hogwarts and was wondering if you had heard of it. Is it covered by the project? Please let me know. Many thanks, Zesty Prospect 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First teach me how to turn trolls into toads. Then we'll talk. :) Durova^Charge! 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gillyweed might help. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To turn trolls into Toads, you mutter the spell 'Toadeousso transforming-o Toadacious' seven times under a full moon. It only works if you are wearing a green T-Shirt however, and don't try it while chewing Gillyweed. Whoever recommended that is a (insert preffered insult here)
Zesty Prospect 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're in. :) Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, in reponse to this comment by me you said:

Please refactor that statement in an appropriately civil manner.

I apologise if it seems offensive to you in any way, but having looked very hard at it I don't know what you mean. Could you please explain? I reproduce my comment in full below so that we can discuss it on this page:

This is nothing more or less than a long plea to entrench unnecessary instructions in our already quite adequate banning policy. Wikipedia policy is policy as it is enacted on Wikipedia, not whatever tripe has been written in this document. If you can persuade the administrators to jump all the hoops that have recently been written (without much discussion that I can see) into this policy document, then it will become Wikipedia policy. Othewise it makes more sense to restore it so that it accurately reflects actual policy.

--Tony Sidaway 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it comes across as dismissive. The way the current discussion looks, editors who have had little involvement in the last six months or so are stepping in based pretty much on a single incident and attempting to roll back the clock without much grasp of the broader impact of their actions. Their talk page comments express unfamiliarity with how and why the community banning process has developed along its current lines. The editors who have been shepherding the process recently are frustrated - and I agree they're frustrated with good reason. Of course my statement is a little longer than usual because I was offline for a few days and had received requests to comment on the discussion, and by the time I returned there were several points that needed addressing. Please address those points on their merits rather than characterizing them as tripe. Durova^Charge! 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Six months is a long time? Not for this it isn't. In any case, Jimbo directly deprecated WP:CN for bans on wikien-l. Check Jimbo's user page for the status of wikien-l for official announcements - David Gerard 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll strike out the word "tripe" and replace it with "words". --Tony Sidaway 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar

Is this user banned, or just indefinately blocked, in addition to being desysoped for abuse. This seems very similar to the case of Freestylefrappe, who was once an administrator, now banned.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He's banned. Nobody is about to unblock him without a very good reason. --Tony Sidaway 22:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony's got that right. Durova^Charge! 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Durova. It appears you think he's banned aswell, unless you just agreeing that nobody will unblock him without a very good reason, not that he's banned. Can you add him to the list, then?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would, but I wouldn't know where to put him, community ban, arb ban, ban from Jimbo Wales.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I state at the top of this talk page, my Wikipedia time is at a premium this week and you'll need to seek help elsewhere in terms of classification. I do not endorse Tony Sideaway's general definition of community banning, which I consider to be applicable only for actions taken prior to last fall's policy change. Reasonable exceptions of course exist and community banning is subordinate to other methods of banning. Without getting too technical about the details, I regard this person as de facto banned by office action. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean by "last fall's policy change." I think it's true that Bastique requested the ban in this instance, but I'm not sure on what grounds he did so (as a Wikipedian or as Office). --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Durova, if I've wasted your time by bringing this up.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

U.S.A., you have by no means wasted my time and I thank you for the respect you have shown by seeking my opinon. It seems that the difficult situations (two policy discussions and CEM stalling) always arrive during the one week out of several months when outside obligations place severe limits on my Wikipedia participation. I wish all editors showed the same courtesy and consideration. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I have been in conversation with Armon and cloat on the mediation page but I believe it has not gotten anywhere. Maybe you can offer some help or offer some parting suggestions. --Blue Tie 05:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've offered my suggestions. Thanks for your help and participation. Let's hope things get back on track. Durova^Charge! 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Latest JB Sock Farm

| Saw this on AN/I Looks like here we go again, and this bout of whackamole is disturbing, as he seems to be using accounts for only 1/2 edits, and then discarding them (I guess he thinks he has a better chance of getting them to stick if they just look like random edits). Probably an open proxy as well. :/ SirFozzie 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you take this to WP:ANI? Durova^Charge! 23:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's where I got it from, working on it. SirFozzie 23:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute

Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A few questions about the block

I am curious about a couple of things regarding your blocking event. First, what led you to believe that I had anything to do with this User:JB196? I've looked at some of his edits (inactive since September, mind you), and I guess you were seeing that we were both editing wrestling pages. That's a blockable offense on Wikipedia? The reason I happened to hit some wrestling pages was because I was looking for WP:BLP violations, and I happened to begin with Ko Jong-Soo (not a wrestler) and was working my way down a list, alphabetically. While working on pages about a poet, a model, a football player, and a businessman, I wandered into a wrestler or two, and BAM, I get blocked from editing Wikipedia. How intolerant is that? Second, you recommended that I join WP:ADOPT, when in fact if you would have spent two seconds looking at my User page, I've had the Adoption template posted since late February! (Still not adopted yet.) I guess what I'm saying is that you've shown some measurable level of disregard for me as a thoughtful editor of Wikipedia, and yet your "tone" (if I may call it that) suggests I should be very humble and apologetic toward you. Why is that? Is there some "royal status" on Wikipedia, of which I'm not yet aware? --WikiGnosis 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

JB196 has been banned since September but has hardly been inactive: this is one of the site's most prolific sockpuppeteers and long term vandals. I unblocked you as a gesture of good faith and you have my apologies for having overlooked your request to enter WP:ADOPT. Yet your edits, which have tread very close to indef blockable legal threats on their own merits, inspire trepidation rather than confidence. I hope your future edits earn the community's respect. Durova^Charge! 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So, just to be clear... Did you take any action against those Wikipedia users who labeled another user as a "terrorist", "stalker", and "criminal", without any supporting factual evidence and without having contacted the authorities? I'm very confused about how things work on Wikipedia. It appears that it's okay to call other people names that are in no way "nice", but if someone mentions that this sort of behavior could be considered (I won't say the word, but it starts with the letter "L" and it rhymes with "Bible"), that is an "indef blockable" offense? Are you taking sides in the matter, and challenging only the after-the-fact "legal threats"? Or, have you been equal in counseling restraint among those who use inflammatory labels to malign other users? --WikiGnosis 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the above user for making another legal threat (as I mentioned on his/her user page, the clever 'rhyming cypher code' was no match for my mental powers). I've asked him/her to review the WP:NLT policy again and invite a review of the block. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chairboy's decision and welcome an unblock review, should WikiGnosis choose to pursue it. To reply to the remainder of WikiGnosis's question on its merits, the cited policy does summarize the scope of my actions. As the creator of Category:Eguor admins I pledge to treat these matters dispassionately. So far my decisions have withstood scrutiny: I am open to recall and have been a named party in two arbitration cases (and given evidence in about a dozen other arbitrations), yet no one has opened an RFC against me or proposed an arbitration finding against me. I do have standing offers to award the Barnstar of Resilience (details here) and a special edition user award to editors who make productive returns after an arbitration sanction or a legitimately lifted siteban. The last resilient barnstar I handed out went to an editor against whom I had provided evidence at arbitration. So I hope Chairboy does come back and edit harmoniously. I gave that a fair shot and perhaps sometime in the future another sysop will reopen that door. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I edit harmoniously every day with a smile in my heart and a beard on my face. Did you mean WikiGnosis? :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Too many real life interruptions today while I compose my posts. Apologies. Durova^Charge! 22:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The user doesn't appear to be interested in appealing the block, and has characterized being blocked for WP:NLT as a joke. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it makes me smile at the irony that the same person went to the trouble of contacting me via e-mail to request unblocking. I very much doubt it's that user's first account. We crossed that bridge when we came to it, waving to the three billy goats gruff as we passed. Time to move on. Regards, Durova^Charge! 05:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The situation has changed, if you'd like to offer an opinion on the subject at WP:AN/I#Wikignosis_block_for_legal_threat. Y'all don't have to agree with me, but to make sure all sides are represented, I'd appreciate your insight. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:LionheartX

Durova, you are the one who unblocked this puppet-master. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion Now given that this user has engaged in another series of spamming and POV pushing [12] even after the abuse of unblock templates [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]) has actively campaigned and recruited many of his "allies" to comment on this case. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. I think this is definitely time to indef. block him (or community ban him). Thanks--Certified.Gangsta 08:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please raise the matter with the arbitration clerk. Durova^Charge! 09:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

WP:POINT involves disruption in order to prove a point. It doesn't just mean "making a point," and I have no idea why you invoked it, as I don't even see a point being made. Please think more before throwing that claim around. Dmcdevit·t 09:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I had started to compose a longer response, but I think what it all comes down to is that Wikipedia has enough real mountains without us building up molehills. The main gist of that edit note was a request to reduce the frequency of arbitrary section breaks and cease giving them quixotic names. Durova^Charge! 09:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Almost-Friday

Nope, no new socks to report, no overbearing tussels anywhere else on or off WP. Kinda weird, huh? Anyway, hope you're not stressing out, and you have something fun to do this weekend. :) SirFozzie 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova

Durova,

Are you a Russian? If so, so am I; read my profile. If you are Russin email me at [e-mail removed].—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ентар (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 April, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. As far as I know I'm not the slightest bit Russian; I just happen to be a female war veteran and a history buff. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

Could I apply for a triple crown? I've brought La Camisa Negra article to DYK, several articles to GA status (No Doubt, Juanes, Love. Angel. Music. Baby., Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song), Luxurious, and Crash (Gwen Stefani song)), and both What You Waiting For? and Hollaback Girl to featured status. ShadowHalo 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, your majesty. Would you prefer the standard triple crown for current achievements or the imperial triple crown jewels after one more DYK gets accepted? Durova^Charge! 04:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...I probably won't end up doing another DYK anytime soon, so just the standard triple crown. =) ShadowHalo 04:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then by all means, your majesty. Most people find DYK to be the easiest part so by all means get back in touch if you decide to upgrade. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

I think you're on the right track with that one, this guy didn't seem like JB196 to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But... "That block got upheld upon appeal, but another sysop reversed it during the noticeboard discussion"... ??? That's not quite right. The blocking admin lifted his own block. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rajiv22

Can I request your help in figuring out what this user is doing with SampleBrokerageDoc and their other edits. I have asked them what they are doing but I haven't recieved any response. Many thanks. Bass fishing physicist 13:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind I asked User:Wiki alf to take a look. Bass fishing physicist 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good luck. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ISOLA'd ELBA

If you have a spare moment, you might want to have a look at this character. Recently-created account with no substantive edits I can find, but gave an award to the indef-blocked Le Grand Roi Des Citrouilles for some reason. I'm not saying "ban-evasion" just as yet, but it looks a bit odd. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll call this one a sockpuppet of Le Grand Roi. Indef blocked. Thanks for the heads up; good call. Durova^Charge! 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad call as this time it's actually not! And by the way the article that Isola'd Elba created that someone tried to call a hoax is legitimate as well. See Poland's Dyngus Day, and other Easter Monday customs By Pip Wilson. Anyway, aside from awarding Le Grand Roi for some unknown reason, that Isola awarded at least one other random user as well, there is nothing in their edit histories or format of their user pages to reasonably suggest a similarity. Wrong on this one. --172.162.73.121 04:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The name should in any case have been "ISOLA d'ELBA". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi, you tried these same tactics last fall. Find another hobby. Durova^Charge! 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Result of checkuser: "All I can say is ISOLA didn't show up when I tested the others. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)". --172.146.73.249 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to contact me offline about this I'll chat. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What area does this fall under?

An editor is avoiding participation in a consensus building discussion, making revisions/reversions to an article that seem to go against the building consensus. Several editors that are participating in the discussion have reverted the changes. I've looked around the dispute resolution pages, but there's nothing there that seems to apply here since this isn't a dispute: the other editor isn't even communicating. Any suggestions? Sancho 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's hard to answer without specifics. If this is someone new then polite communication is the obvious first step. Article content RFC often helps with middle-of-the-road situations. If the account has a long problem history or is an obvious sockpuppet then you might have a problem editor rather than a content dispute. Durova^Charge! 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Coaching offer

(copied back from User talk:Ben#Coaching offer)

Ben, I see you've tried for adminship and the only real objection was lack of experience. Would you like me to become your coach? Durova^Charge! 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be honored. Yes, please. Thank you! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You've been doing a lot of work on the process side of things that's been diligent and appreciated and mostly on target. Now and then the lack of experience at plain ol' article writing shows itself in your comments. I recommend to all of my coachees that they get at least one GA under their belts. Some time at article content RFC seems like another good fit for your interests that would hone your skills. You never know what you'll find and it's an excellent introduction to conflict dynamics. And if you haven't already read the page, have a look at Raul's laws of Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 06:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And it would help if you enabled e-mail. Durova^Charge! 07:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's enabled, and now I've seen your email. Thanks for that and your pointers. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly at it again

User:172.162.73.121 has recently appeared advocating "keep" on a series of AfDs, as well as (as you can see) vigorously defending Isola'd Elba/Le Grand Roi/whatever he's calling himself these days. The rationales tend to be vaguely reasonable, but there's something suspicious about the MO. Was a CheckUser ever run establishing the IP Le Grand Roi was using? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Add User:164.107.223.217 to that list. In fact, the majority of the AfD here is suspect, as a series of anons have appeared and are behaving precisely in the way that your friend and mine did beforehand - even down to choices of words etc. I've got that AfD watchlisted, and if the anons keep appearing I'll handle it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear BigHaz, I am NOT Isola'd Elba. Period. Moreover, Le Grand Roi has given up on editing Wikipedia. Again, period. And if this place is going to be accusatory, fine, so shall I give up on editing. Good night and good bye. --172.162.73.121 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you may have noticed I already imposed an earlier block on the Ohio State IP address. Now he's back abusing AOL. It's time to list him among the long term abuse reports. Would you do the honors, BigHaz? And to our friend the deposed king, you will only succeed at wasting your own time through these tactics. If you actually want to come back, sit on the sidelines about four months and send me a polite request for reinstatement. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do, my friend. Pleasure doing business with you and all. With any luck, this will be the end of it. I'll also run a fine tooth comb over the AfD I mentioned, since there's an awful lot of screwiness there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all listed now. At least, I hope so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I spotted one obvious registered sockpuppet and indef blocked it. The rest is just common sense. Thanks for the help. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

List of HIV-positive people

SlimVirgin is outraged at Talk:List of HIV-positive people and has asked "Can anyone explain how Wikipedia is improved by having it?" Colin°^Talk 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left word. Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anacapa is back

Hi Durova, I just spotted the return of Anacapa (talk · contribs). They've been using a number of IPs during march and April but last night (April 30th) they reactivated their user account. They are engaged in a subtle POVpush on Rape, Incest and Shunning (where they have broken WP:AGF arguing that some editor are apologists for tha practice). I've updatyed the report and I'm wondering if there's enough evidence to reopen at CN and should I engage Anacapa on their talk page directly (ie asking them if they are drop in editor)? I've asked Coelacan about this too--Cailil ^talk 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I support your analysis already. The question you need to ask is whether you've got enough evidence to garner more support than the last try. Any opinions I can sway have already been swayed. Sometimes a backlash ensues if discussion reopens too soon unless really compelling evidence accompanies it. It's your call. Durova^Charge! 04:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Durova, you've really been a lot of help with this. I've decided to go ahead, the new report is here. It maybe the only chance anyone gets to confront Anacapa with the question, whether they are (drop in editor) or not. They've also started an edit war at Shunning and are trolling its talk page. I dug up some evidence of their bullying User:SecondSight at their rewrite of misandry in december as well. BTW I've gone ahead and asked Anacapa to respond on their talk page--Cailil ^talk 12:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of situations can be tough, but sometimes the best thing to do is to quietly document the patterns. Have a chat with me offline and I'll suggest some tips. Durova^Charge! 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Durova, I've just emailed you--Cailil ^talk 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to bother you any further tonight Durova but could you have alook at the report at CSN. User:Armedblowfish claims its just a content dispute and not disruption?--Cailil ^talk 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova. I advised Cailil to consider withdrawing the request if the discussion doesn't shift soon.[29] If you think I'm being unnecessarily pessimistic, please do let Cailil know if might be best to wait it out. ··coelacan 05:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you're on target. It isn't easy to garner community consensus when the editor is a really sneaky vandal. Give this more time and investigation. The frustration and waiting are worth it in the end. Regards, Durova^Charge! 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just dropped Coelacan a note, I've made a suggestion at CSN that if Anacapa and their IPs are a) identified as 1 user and b) warned against disruption I will withdraw the request. I think this would be a positive outcome. There would be a formal warning and a community undestanding of the type of problem created by this type of disruption--Cailil ^talk 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova User:Tony Sidaway just deleted the report at CSN along with others that were still being discussed (I can't find them in an archive) - is this normal or is it an effect of MfD? I was under the impression CSN was bot archived--Cailil ^talk 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, his action is completely out of process. I won't interfere because I'm a heavily involved party at the MFD discussion, but any editor is free to undo an out of process action such as that one. You could take that action as well as reverting similar out of process edits at that board. Durova^Charge! 02:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken your advice and reinstated the discussions. I opened a talk page discussion to explain this as well. I recognize Tony's eits as good faith, he might have forgot to paste the discussions into an archive, there is a backlog developing at WP:CN which does need to be dealt with somehow. As regards the Anacapa report - I'm surprised nobody will even agree to warn them. Would it be okay if I closed that discusion explaning that due to lack of previous blocks I'm going to ask for Anacapa to be warned on AN/I or should I just withdraw and watch in case of further disruptive edits by them?--Cailil ^talk 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova, its great to see you back on wikipedia. As you probably know I asked User:Anacapa if they were in fact (drop in editor) - last night they responded to this question with a long comment on my talk page, and on Talk:feminism. They've also made edits to feminism. First, I think there are elements of not assuming good faith in their response to me, as well as adding off-topic screed to the talk page- what do you think? Am I being hyper-sensative or is Anacapa's repeated comments about editors using fascist/"maoist" editing "tactics" followed by a "don't take it personally" a form of gaming WP:NPA and WP:AGF? In any case I thought you might like to have a look. PS I've also dropped Coelacan a line about this--Cailil ^talk 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)