User talk:Durova/Archive 30

Triple Crown nominee

I believe User:Pastordavid, with 1 FA, 4 GA, and now at least 1 DYK for Pennsylvania Ministerium qualifies for the triple crown, considering all of these articles fall within the broader "Christianity" field. Also, there are few other people I think are in general more deserving of recognition of any kind than this editor. John Carter 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. And someone else, User:Kingboyk, seems to have gotten at least one DYK for Kylie Said to Jason, and quite a few of those really meaningless GAs and FAs. I of course have yet to get a single one of either, of course. They both include references on their userpages for the FAs and GAs they've been involved with. John Carter 17:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles causing trouble

Perhaps you may want to review his indef-block status? Seems to be creating a splash over in AFD. User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Gamer83 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Gamer83 is mad that I disagreed with his nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brooke_Thompson_(2nd_nomination). In any case, I'll voluntarily take a break from those discussions, but I really have been trying to argue more constructively by reviewing the articles fully, not just copying and pasting comments, and have even made efforts to improve the articles under consideration. In my many edits since being unblocked, you'll see that I have taken a large interest in improving articles and I tried to show that I can contribute to the AfDs. I have been civil to the other editors and have not engaged in any kind of sock puppetry or anything. Disagreeing with you is hardly "creating a splash." I actually participated in those discussions to show that I can do so in a constructive manner. I'm trying my best! If Durova thinks I should just avoid those altogether and focus on other aspects of Wikipedia, I will respect that. Please note that I did ask another user to kindly review my edits since being unblocked: [1]. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Roi a few suggestions of places where he can help the project. Roi, it's best if you lay off AFD for a while. No one questions your civility, but that part of the project works according to some standards you don't agree with and that's gotten you into hot water before. There are plenty of other areas where your help would be appreciated and uncontroversial. Durova^Charge! 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do my best to avoid those and I'll check my email after my dinner arrives (I just ordered a Caesar salad and some buffalo wings). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request: Comment and Question

Dear Durova,

I tried to participate in a few AfDs to show that I could do so without creating other accounts and in a manner that shows I have read the article and discussions. Instead, I've made efforts to improve the articles under consideration and have discussed civily with the other editors. Now, one editor accuses me of being disruptive on your talk page, because I apparently disagreed with his nomination of an article. I tried, after this unblock, to come back as a "changed" editor by working more to improve articles and showing that I can participate in those discussions in a good manner and I disagree with the gamer guy so, it's a "stir"? As for my talk page, one editor notified me that they nominated an article I created for deletion, I replied politely. And I responded cordially with the only other person to post something on my page as well.

Anyway, this is just frustrating, because I really wanted to show you that I can be a valid contributer and yet I still have to contend with an attack by someone.

Also, I did put the adopt tag on my user page, but I have not yet heard from someone to adopt me.

I really believe in Wikipedia overall and want to contribute. You mentioned asking if I would be willing to work on investigations. If doing so will help keep me out of trouble, then YES, please let me know what I can do.

And if someone would please adopt me as a Wikipedia mentor, I would greatly appreciate it!

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated by the way

Sorry about adding so much text to your talk page, but anyway, do you like the little "tally-ho!" I added to my signature? It is inspired by your "charge," but because I like hound dogs . . . --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Durova^Charge! 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! :) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG personal attacks

Durova, JzG is attacking again. I am not involved at all, though due to my contentious history with JzG, I had his user page on my watch list, so I happened to come across it. Now, I understand he's disillousiouned and all that, but is that any excuse for telling another user to "fuck off" and calling him a "whining twat"? I am considering opening an RFC or Arb case against him, because I'm frankly sick of the double standard that's applied whenever JzG goes on a rampage. What do you think? Attacks like these, even when directed at apparently contentious users, are poison to this project, and it really bothers me to see it happen over and over again... ATren 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, just as before I'd need to see the diffs. He was cooperative the last time this came up and half a year has passed since then. I agree those terms are unacceptable from anyone. Let's start small: I could approach him with a refactor request. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He's deleted the entire thread from his talk page. Others have deleted the AN/I thread. So it's all gone, right? Launch personal attacks and when someone calls you on it, delete it an pretent it never happened. How many times is this pattern going to repeat itself before someone realizes that it is a pattern?

FWIW, I'm dropping it for a few days, but I may file an RfC or arbcom case for habitual abuses of the civility pillar. Here are the most recent diffs, for your reference: shut the fuck up you whining twat, Now go away and take your tiny mind with you.

Here is the archived AN/I thread: [2].

I don't care what that user has done, is this kind of language acceptable for any editor, let alone an admin? Not only that, he's practically promising that he'll do it again - see his talk page ("If you have come here to troll, then kindly ever so nicely pretty please fuck off.").

Anyway, there it is, and I probably will file an RfC or arbcom case in the next few days. I'm just going to let it cool down a bit before proceeding. Civility is a pillar, and anybody else who acted the way JzG has would be expelled from the project. Why should this be any different? ATren 01:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant to leave a note about this earlier, sorry for the delay, but ATren's original post was reverted by someone earlier. [3] Anynobody 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ATren

For the record, ATren isn't much better in the way he treats us Wikipedians. Just look at the C++ discussion logs to see how violently he attacks people whose opinions differ from his own, as well as how many times he would edit the C++ article in a single day to make sure his opinion, however flawed, would be the one to remain on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.229.158 (talk • contribs)

:Uh, I wasn't commenting on who was right or wrong just that someone deleted his post in case Durova didn't notice the summary in the history section. Were you trying to start a new thread, or a subheading to ATren's section? Anynobody 05:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

ATren is going on Wikibreak. I've made this editor an offer upon his or her return: although I almost never do mentoring outside of admin coaching, I've offered to mentor this person. Durova^Charge! 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the diffs and the talk page. I did nothing on C++ other than revert to a revision that was supported by at least five other users, and which was objected to by a single anon IP user who was making fallacious arguments. I'm not the one who needs mentoring. ATren 16:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

ATren, that complaint has nothing to do with my mentorship offer. I extended that before it was posted here. I've already removed one post from this thread, which I don't think is a very useful thread at all. To all involved: if you wish to make any sort of complaint provide specific diffs and tone down the adjectives. Otherwise I'll blank this whole thing. Durova^Charge! 18:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I didn't mean to imply that this complaint had anything to do with your offer (which I greatly appreciate). As for this thread, it was the IP user's compaint, not mine, so feel free to purge if (s)he doesn't provide diffs. 04:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved except for the revert I was explaining. I've moved my comment back to it's intended section and crossed out my last post here (Since Durova is now aware of this thread I'll leave it to her capable discretion.) Anynobody 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I welcome the heads up about the deleted post to my user talk page. No need to strikethrough that statement, but the good faith gesture is appreciated. And to clarify for anyone else who drops by, I often recommend mentorship and sometimes do informal short-term mentoring, but I almost never tell someone I'd like to be your mentor unless we're discussing admin coaching. This was an unusual situation with a long history and it's completely unrelated to the current COFS arbitration case, so let's simplify things for everyone my keeping these matters separate. Durova^Charge! 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not looking to get this mixed up with the arbcom :) However some of it is related to a separate problem I want to get addressed someday. Anynobody 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ATren is an annoying troll... an example from 2/2/06: "So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is."Avidor 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This does not appear to be aimed at Durova but an example of a comment made by ATren to another editor last year which Avidor is providing as evidence. → AA ^(talk) — 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained repeatedly, this edit was from my first month on the project - I was a new user whose only experience with Wikipedia was battling Avidor, who was pushing his well known POV on the PRT pages (also see his anti-PRT blog, his web page on PRT, and hundreds of random anti-PRT postings in various places, for evidence of his very well known POV on this topic). My words were said in a moment of frustration, I regret saying it, and I've not done anything like that since. Avidor and I have sort of a contentious history that started here and expanded elsewhere, so he brings up this edit whenever I get into a conflict here... ATren 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that ATren was the target of Avidor's comment and not you Durova. Avidor should probably be unblocked and reminded that an edit another editor made over a year ago isn't particularly relevant today.--Isotope23 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Email

You have mail.--Chaser - T 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Question for you regarding WP:CEM

I seem to have stepped on a bit of a land mine when I got involved with an ongoing and long term edit conflict over articles involving Ireland and Northern Ireland related articles. One thing that I suggested in the latest conflict is that all parties be put on a collective 1RR and that they be held to a higher state of WP:CIVIL then is normal. Would this fall under the aegis of WP:CEM, or not? I tend to think not, because it involves more than 2 editors (probably more like 5-6 a side), but it might be useful to try to keep the conflicts from breaking out, over and over and over and.. well you get the point. SirFozzie 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you ask Navou whether he'd mediate this. It would mean stretching the provision about number of participants at CEM. I'd have no specific objection to trying that out, though. Thanks for thinking of me. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

COFS

There is one thing about the case that puzzles me, and was going to make a motion but thought I'd get your thoughts first.

Given the nature of this particular issue, would it not make more sense to re-open/phrase the case to include all the accounts editing from the CoS IPs? By itself, the COFS account hasn't been a big problem. However, when looked at as a part of the others, their teamwork and focus are what cause the bigger problem.

I had hoped someone would notice that even a POV-editor like Justanother edits some other pages regularly, whereas the IP editors don't edit enough to make more than a dent in their Scientology dominated lists of most edited articles. Anynobody 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since part of the case is about determining whether the checkuser is valid, supplementary evidence that either supports or works against that finding is very relevant. An analysis on each of the accounts and IPs identified in the checkuser would be appropriate. I've actually been working on that type of study. So if you're ready to post it might save me a good deal of research. Durova^Charge! 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Difficulty understanding the process has caused me to throw away the research I had done, however I found examples fairly easily by looking at the history pages of a few Scientology related articles. I'm also concerned that I may be inadvertently angering jpgordon and pointing out that the case is "off course" could make things worse by making it seem as if I'm having a tantrum or other childish response to the changes made to my evidence. Despite what Justanother and Lsi john have been saying the arbcom knows you are neutral and the idea seems more likely to pass if I shut up. (I get the impression even you thought/think I'm after Scientologists, which I'm not but irregardless outside observers know you are not.) Anynobody 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators know the difference between accusations and evidence. I do give them credit for critical readings. So - speaking for myself - the extent that your actions raise an eyebrow so far is mostly related to some proposed findings you've submitted without evidentiary backing. That leads me to wonder whether you're asking the Committee to make general statements outside its mandate. The long back-and-forth between you and Justanother about signatures and talk page images makes you both look bad. I can say in your favor that you did show some responsiveness to my feedback. Yet on the most important points - mentorship and backing off from conflict - you didn't take advice. The extent to which you pursued things through noticeboards over the past few months isn't a particularly good sign either; has the appearance of being overdone.

As far as the evidence, concentrate on substance and readibility. Fancy markup doesn't score points. Just do your homework, provide plenty of diffs, and be clear. Durova^Charge! 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, and agree with your assessment of the postings on noticeboards in the past. You'll notice I haven't done so nearly as much as I had a couple of months ago, I had assumed bringing issues to the attention of a wider audience would be helpful. It did show me how things generally work here though, so it wasn't totally wasted time.

I wish you'd be a bit clearer though, I promise not to respond poorly, but sometimes you are too general in your concerns. For example, the back and forth, it was happening on my talk page. As a courtesy I make it a point to try to answer everyone that posts, I even reply to bots (or rather, the users that follow up on them). Furthermore he tried to make it into a WP:AGF issue, I doubt his efforts were sincere but I could have been wrong, I'd rather respond all day long to a troll than ignore a slim chance of coming to an understanding. (Personally I think he went on as long as he did to dissuade those who would follow up from reading it all, for example I doubt you did because if I were in your position I wouldn't either. On the surface it probably just looks like two editors who can't get along by the volume of posts, and I'm not implying bad faith by doubting you read it all. As I said, I wouldn't if I were you either.)

Lastly the subject of mentorship, I've never been blocked and the only on going problem I have to deal with have become problems you are now dealing with too:[4]. If I had been in that conversation, I'd of let it go (since it's not my talk page). You've been editing here so long you have the credibility to engage in prolonged discussions without impact to your reputation. Anynobody 06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot, do I have to show evidence that the arbcom is NOT about Scientology? I thought it was assumed that groups/people/etc. aren't singled out for special treatment. Given the nature of some editors involved, it seems like a good idea to remind everyone of that. Anynobody 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship isn't necessarily for people who've been blocked. I suggest it to a lot of people who go into arbitration. Basically a mentor helps provide guidance and perspective. It can be good to have someone completely unconnected with the case for that.

Whenever I look into a case I examine both sides. If things look muddy there are three basic possibilities:

• Everyone's covered themselves in mud.
• A primary aggressor is all muddy and goaded some otherwise reasonable person into wading knee deep in the mud.
• Some really dirty person is slinging mud at a saint.

I come along and try to clean things up. I'll follow the mud tracks and read the mud splatters to see how things got dirty. I'll also offer people a hose so they can wash off the mud. What I like to see most is people sharing the hose with each other. That doesn't happen in a whole lot of dirty situations so the next best thing is to see someone clean up himself or herself. The primary aggressors usually wade right back into the mud and the worst ones start slinging again.

One thing that interests me at this stage is how willing each participant is to accept feedback, adjust, and proceed cooperatively. If some of my suggestions appear to be off target, please ask me to clarify your concerns. Sometimes I don't go into a lot of detail because I don't want to patronize or go overlong, and sometimes I slide over things because they just seem obvious to me after this many times through the process. So yes, if you agree in retrospect you overused noticeboards then the best thing to do is acknowledge that in your own evidence statement. Basically step forward, give a mea culpa where appropriate, explain what your thinking had been at the time and show how you've improved. That demonstrates self-examination and if you're first to address the subject you can disarm potential criticism. The arbitrators decide the scope of the case and I have no special access to their deliberations. That said, an arbitration case can be about a topic without singling out that topic for special treatment. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education is one instance. It did end with article parole for the whole anthroposophy/Waldorf series, but that had to do with the behavior of the editors who were active there rather than the nature of the topic itself. Durova^Charge! 10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

I can honestly appreciate why it might seem like I'm mudslinging too sometimes. If you look at my mud though, I'm either pointing to a past occurrence of similar behavior or making a very strongly worded warning/description about particularly bad behavior. Since things are so transparent here I strive to back up what I am saying lest someone come along later and point out something I'd rather they didn't. Which is why I ask for proof or an explanation of some kind, since I am trying and am aware of my imperfection I can't correct mistakes I don't know about. (By that I mean not just the existence of a mistake, but why it was one so I won't do it again.) Anynobody 08:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's one difficult thing for an outsider to weigh: in almost every case where there is a primary aggressor, one of the tactics that person will use is to try to make everyone else look as bad as they are. Sometimes it takes months before an administrator gives the situation a serious look and in that space of time nearly everyone takes at least some of the baiting. What's the difference between that and a situation where two sides are equally at fault? Those are considerations I bear in mind every time I look into a longstanding dispute. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Durova, all due respect and it you do not mind answering, where do you place me in your "hierarchy of mud"? Thanks. --Justanother 16:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's rarely a final word on that and it's really up to you. Sometimes editors improve during or after arbitration. I've even given the Resilient Barnstar after arbitration to an editor against whom I'd submitted evidence. I've done good faith unblocks on community sitebanned editors and sometimes stuck my neck out for people who were making a turnaround. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you do not care to answer my question (and that is certainly your prerogative) then I will just leave your talk page with the thought that perhaps you will come to hold a different opinion of me than that which I suppose you currently do. It has happened. Quite a number of times. It seems that people often take me for something that I am not on this site. I no doubt have played and do play my own part in that. Later. --Justanother 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll try a more direct response. Things don't look good to me right now, but I haven't written you off. I've certainly seen a lot of productive contributions in your edit history and in quite a few ways it looks like you've made real effort to respect site standards. Some things also concern me such as a tendency to polarize disagreements and reject feedback from people who appear to be in disagreement with you, and a reluctance to pursue dispute resolution. The mud analogy, of course, is an oversimplification. The point is that I look at what editors are doing as well as what they've done. The goal, if possible, is to move foward cooperatively toward building an encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

<< Well that's good, Durova, because I haven't written you off yet either (smile). Thanks for speaking your mind clearly, though. That is a plus. Too often, in my experience, you seem to want to speak in generalities but I can tell you that such generalities rarely are a satisfying answer.
A bit about me. Couple things that I do not do; I don't attack unless attacked first (and yes, I feel that presenting a deliberately one-sided view of me in an influential forum constitutes an attack). I don't try to "psychoanalyze" my fellow editors (that is Anynobody's bailiwick) although I might point out what I think is the motive for an attack if I can point at something that others might well agree is a motive; I don't think you can ignore motivation entirely, I try not to overdo it. I don't carry on attacking someone after they have stopped attacking me and I am more than willing to make peace.
What I do? I accord admins here a whole lot more AGF than I accord others and I usually assume for as long as possible that they are taking actions based on their understanding of the situation and their desire to serve the project, not out of any ill-will. I have the utmost respect for the WP:PILLARS that this project stands on, perhaps even to a naive level of respect (and will defend them even against their alleged "creator"), because I think that the basic policies of this project are all that separates it from the Urban Dictionary or YTMND. I strive to be utterly transparent in my actions and intentions here.
Listen please, Durova, I have walked through fire here on this site to still be standing and I have asbestos soles and a dead eye when it comes to firing hot coals back at attackers. I do not apologize for that. I do not apologize for that but I know that I can come on as a bit of a shock for people that have not experienced the Scientology-series, The Master's Series of Tendencious and Dangerous Editing. I like to make the analogy that I learned to play b-ball in a prison yard but now I am in mixed company; many of my prison "buddies" are here but so are a lot more people that never played anything more aggressive than 3rd-grade gym. When someone acts like they want to play "prison ball" with me then I respond in kind. Sometimes that is not what they really want to play at all and it was all a misunderstanding, they just came on to strong. Or perhaps I did. You can do as you please and judge me as you please. I have already resolved some time ago to address some issues in my own dealings with others here. Other than that, I am simply here to edit the encyclopedia and encourage and help other Scientologists to do the same. If you have a problem with the latter then feel free to address it at the arbitration. I think that you can address that without trying to make me out the "bad guy". --Justanother 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The master's series in tendentious editing - I can believe that. The part I really don't understand is why you didn't seek out dispute resolution for so long, why you didn't try some article content requests for comment or one of the mediation options. When I started editing the Joan of Arc article was a mess: it was flagged for unencyclopedic tone and most Wikipedians had abandoned it. Some abandoned the project entirely. One who hadn't left yet warned me the subject was a battle zone. I soon understood why: two people were basically owning the page. One believed he was descended from Joan of Arc's brother and wanted to use his aunt's family tree as an encyclopedic reference (I'm not kidding) and had spent half a year obstructing improvements from anyone who might uncover and reject that ruse. The other was the Joan of Arc vandal who'd been undermining a variety of articles for a year before I arrived. It didn't take me long to see what he was up to, but it did take a solid year to build up my own reputation enough that people would give a serious look at my evidence. I couldn't even persuade the checkuser folks to approve a check when he vandalized my user talk page. Not long after I joined the site that other good editor gave up in frustration and a lesbian activist showed up to push her POV with original research.

What I did in the early weeks and months was go through the regular channels. I opened mediation and two article content requests for comment. I tried to open a user conduct request for comment (which went nowhere because the other reasonable editor had quit Wikipedia by that time) and I put the page through article review. The article content RFCs actually helped. And I kept adding sources and references. Raised the page to GA, then FA, and branched off a list that made WP:FL. That put the material onto the radar screens of enough regular Wikipedians that the problems subsided. It was really tough going to reach that threshold, especially when I appealed to administrators who wouldn't give my requests even superficial consideration. I basically got I don't see anything wrong with copyediting as a response to Don't you see a problem here? This fellow's trying to use the United States Securities and Exchange act of 1933 as a guide for copyediting French Medieval history.

So although you may perceive this as attacking you, I perceive this as asking no more of you than I demanded of myself - quite a bit less, in my view. Wikipedia has a lot of pathways and I've walked many rough miles in the same brand of moccasins. Arbitration normally examines the actions of all the named parties. You are absolutely welcome to raise any issues regarding my actions with the Committee. Don't be shy about asking for sanctions either; if I've erred as seriously as you and Lsi john sometimes claim I should definitely be desysopped. The tools are no big deal to me and if I am over the line I ought to be reined in. I agree that's one relatively small question within the larger case, but don't shy away from it. Durova^Charge! 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I'm gona jump in here for a second. You have erred and I don't think you should be desysopped. And any time you'd like to discuss it, my talkpage is open. At this point, though, I have little confidence in my ability to properly convey my thoughts to you. Since this thread is between you and Justanother, I'll now go back to reading quietly. Peace.Lsi john 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll jump in too. "The part I really don't understand is why you didn't seek out dispute resolution for so long, why you didn't try some article content requests for comment or one of the mediation options." Could this be a Mars-Venus thing? Men are often too proud to stop and ask for directions or help (me especially). Wikipedia is a big place and admins are few and far between. Justanother wants to improve, so why shouldn't we help him? Jehochman ^Talk 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova and Jehochman. What makes you two so sure that I did not use remedies? I have done many content RfC's, 3O's, AfDs, and also many ANI issues on disruptive editors. I usually "win" on the content issues and frequently enough on the user issues. Do you see me complaining? I think that the processes work OK here and I have afforded myself of them. The only thing I did not do is go hard after a couple of editors that are really just gnats and I did not address a very bad editor that otherwise got the hint and backed way off and is gone for now at least. Again, you don't hear me complaining. When I care to edit Scientology, I can edit. I mentor and encourage other Scientologists to help too. The main problem is simply that the actual subject of Scientology is not well-represented here and criticism is over-represented. That is because the past and existing editors only "know" criticism. That can only be solved by more people that "know" Scientology editing in an environment that is not hostile to them. Those two points; getting more knowlegable Scientologists to edit and addressing the hostility created by anti-Scientologists, have been the thrust of my efforts here and I have had more than my share of success. But I am just one guy with a lot of other fish to fry than Wikipedia. So I don't complain and I do what I can. Help is welcome but it isn't because I do not use remedies; I use them to the level appropriate to my editing, IMO. If either of you would like to swat a gnat or help keep the atmosphere civil in the article talk space then, please, jump right in. --Justanother 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you see incivility in the Scientology talk pages, violations of WP:BITE, or any form of bullying, please let me know. Sometimes a second opinion can help convince the administrators that action is needed. Help us to help you. Don't respond in kind when people are rude. Jehochman ^Talk 23:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. I think that I have already alerted you to one situation. --Justanother 00:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible investigative tool?

Dear Durova,

What do you make of something like this as an investigative tool? Useful, sexist, other, etc.?

Sincerely,

--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I pasted an article I recently published and it thinks I'm a guy. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So do we. :-) Gender genie thinks I'm a woman. Go figure. Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Results for me: "The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!" Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly amusing. Thanks, Roi. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My wife is in for quite a surprise... Raymond Arritt 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations on your article

Congradulations! Your SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider article received a rave review - "one of the most interesting and best written articles I have seen in a while," reports Durova fan Ross Dunn in Stepforth.com.

Perhaps there is a Durova article in the near future? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This quote is worthy of being memorialized:

Activities at Wikipedia are transparent, yet many individuals who have a professional reputation to protect behave as if their actions were guarded by an opacity the site does not possess. -- Durova July 2007[5]

Hopefully it can keep a few of them under control.-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope it persuades them to edit in ways that are beneficial to everyone. I'd read enough pieces in the business press and other mainstream sources that had been written by well-meaning people who didn't know Wikipedia in depth, and because they weren't fully versed in site standards a fair portion of that advice had been off target. So, to be fair to people I encountered at WP:COIN, I had to wonder what percentage of the problems I saw was due to people trusting reliably sourced advice that just happened to be mistaken. One way of resolving that is to communicate with this audience in their venue. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Webster (TV series)

I need a little help on where to get help on this. user:EdRooney keeps adding a bogus finale to this article claiming it is in an 85 issue of the Chicago Sun Times. The finale was actually called WebTrek and this has been cited in numerous online articles and on the page itself. user keeps reverting all removals. What to do? Also, can we keep the discussion here or at the webster page? I reverted under an ip and now made an account to make things easier. Transplanted suburbanite 14:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion at the article talk page since I edit protected the article a couple of days ago. I don't have access to back issues of that newspaper, so suggest article content WP:RFC if page protection doesn't clear things up. Durova^Charge! 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown winner's circle

FYI, I transcluded User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle into Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame. Also, I moved the Triple crown winner's circle information at Template_talk:Did_you_know#See_also to Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Recognition. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 13:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested

Would you care to comment on whether User:NCdave is engaged in disruptive editing at Steven Milloy? Sometimes it's hard to tell where to draw the line between sticking to one's principles and plain contrariness. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note from an involved editor: NCdave has just been blocked for 1 week by an uninvolved admin for violating 3RR on said article. I'd still welcome your input, though, as I am involved in the dispute and so my impression (that he is tendentious in the extreme) may be colored by that. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give me some specific diffs as a starting point. And please invite NCdave to post diffs for me too. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientology test edit

Journalists, critics and religious groups worldwide have often referred to the organization as a cult. ( Behar, Richard (1991-05-06). "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". Time Magazine. p. C1. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help) )

When I tried to edit the above statement, I was immediately reverted by User:RookZERO. In my opinion, the editing climate at that article is awful. Go ahead, try to make any trivial edit and see what happens. What do we do about this? That reference is a scary read.Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed RookZERO's edits while I've investigated the COFS case. Typically they're accompanied by edit summaries that makes the action look reasonable on superficial examination. So it takes some research and topical background to contest. He or she isn't named in the arbitration, so perhaps user conduct WP:RFC is the way to go. I have confidence in your neutrality and objectivity, so if you draw something up show me the draft and I'll check it out. Might help to have a nonpartisan such as myself affirm the basis for RFC. If anything, the appearance of my actions so far could incline some observers to think I'm anti-Scientology. Go for it if your research tells you this is merited. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikisleuthing

I saw your message on Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests and I'm intrigued. I'm already an admin but I'm interested in knowing what techniques you have for forensic Wikiing. (I made up the phrase. It is almost certainly a neologism.)

Would you be so kind as to take me on as a student?

--Richard 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, e-mail me. If you have gmail let's start a chat. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop.

Last month, you dealt at length with User:Bus stop, regarding some POV and tendentious editing. after weeks, he accepted the 'adoption' of Fred Bauder. However, Talk:Who_is_a_Jew?#Ethnicity.3F, is the first of five consecutive sections in which he continues to promote his own POV, without really acknowledging the numerous other editors there. I contacted Fred Bauder,[6] and he replied to Bus stop User_talk:Bus_stop#Ethnic, warning him from the course of action. This has not dissuaded Bus stop. He is unlikely stop, so I am asking you to intervene,, as you were significantly involved in his previous situation. Thank you. ThuranX 19:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your warning to the user by the way has been removed on the basis of it being a personal attack. John Carter 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC)This isn't looking very good for Mr. Bus stop. It seems that he simply feels too strongly about religious issues, and allows such thinking to override what an encyclopedia is about. I see you've protected the article in question, but it seems that he's removed your notice from his talk page as a personal attack (he was probably doing so because of the manner in which you told him to avoid articles dealing with subjects which inflame him). It appears that on topics such as this, this user digs in like an anchor into his own position and refuses to budge, ignoring concepts of consensus and even considering the majority viewpoint. It drains me to enter arguments with individuals such as this, because it tends to stall frequently (or not go anywhere at all). If it comes to such a point, it may be wise to limit this user's involvement with articles of a contentious nature (from his viewpoint).--C.Logan 00:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've welcomed Bus Stop to discuss his or her misgivings. I certainly intend no insult. Anyone is free to open this for discussion at WP:AN. I don't want things to drag on unduly. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that your welcome was turned away yet again (and I'd be intrigued to know how it could be construed as such this time around). I'm seeing the problem complicate itself, here. Apparently, Bus stop forgets who unblocked him in the first place (and under what conditions).--C.Logan 00:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, I've opened a WP:AN thread myself. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

review of CfD decision

Hi Durova,

I was wondering if you could bring your judgment to bear on a contentious situation, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 19#Historic transportation in Oregon. In my view, the original CfD discussion - which is pretty much indistinguishable from the discussion here - was nothing like consensus, and the closing admin mistakenly allowed his own opinion to guide his decision. I'm tired of arguing about it, and want to get back to creating content…hopefully with some assurance that my work won't be undone for petty reasons. Any assistance in moving this to resolution would be much appreciated… -Pete 07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV closures really aren't up my alley, but I gave a good look at things and I find it difficult to see why emotions run so high. The history of Oregon category remains small enough to search item-by-item. When it gets too large for that you could recreate the subcategory and it would probably get retained on practical grounds. Durova^Charge! 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the feedback. I think the emotions run high because of the context: we have a very dedicated, but small, group at WP:ORE. Over the last year I've seen slow but steady progress in making Oregon-related content better, more encyclopedic, better sourced. But in the last couple months, there have been several cases where somebody jumps in from outside and wants to delete a bunch of content that we've worked on, or disrupts our progress in some other way. Each time it happens, we seem to lose some newcomers, and our momentum gets thrown off regardless of whether or not content is ultimately deleted. I agree that this specific deletion is not the end of the world, but it seems to be part of a trend, and I'm not sure how to handle it. -Pete 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can document that pattern in a succinct manner with enough diffs, you might try raising that at the Village Pump or WP:AN. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good thought, but it's not as though there's some cabal behind it - the AfDs come from various people. I'm not sure that such a discussion could have much of an effect, since the people engaging in the AfDs/CfDs are probably not reading at the pump. I'll think it over, though - that approach hadn't occurred to me. Thank you. -Pete 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

List of brain tumor patients

Your List of notable brain tumor patients has been renamed to List of brain tumor patients by User:Cerejota.

As you know, the issue of whether "notable" should appear in the title has been mentioned on several people-lists. Today, someone posted on Talk:List of polio survivors#Name change? asking for the word notable. When I wrote the section in [[WP:MEDMOS#Notable cases, I made sure I accommodated your views on the name.

You might like to comment on the polio page. If you accept that "notable" should be dropped (and I'm not pushing that position at all), should MEDMOS be changed? Colin°^Talk 08:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how this goes. When I created the list I was concerned that it could stray into either of two difficult directions: either attack entries or memorial entries. It's been a featured page for over a year now and several other related lists have followed, so maybe that concern isn't so relevant anymore. If problems emerge we can always change it back. Now is as good a time as any to test. Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Given this edit, you might consider to change it to Durova^{Charge (after careful consideration of the situation, weighting of all other possibilities, and sleeping a night over it)!} ;-). Best wishes, --Stephan Schulz 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. I'm a bit less bold than I was in January when I gave JzG a block warning. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article on search engine site

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		After seeing and reading SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider (found via the Signpost), I am awed at a contribution that will serve to educate professionals to aid Wikipedia rather than harm it. As such, I feel that you deserve this Defender of the Wiki barnstar. :) Thank you. Nihiltres(t.l) 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll do my best to follow up with more in the spirit of WP:AGF. Durova^Charge! 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardouin Sockpuppet case

I just read your comments on the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Hardouin page. I realise that the case is long and complicated: to understand it completely, you'd have to read through (and compare) months of edits/reverts/discussion. The base of all this is that most of these articles have remained practically unchanged since their rewriting by the same author; most all reverts indicated, by various sockpuppets, have been ad litteram reversions to the same's former version, always only hours after corrections have been made. This, in taking into account the relative inactivity of the concerned articles, is too much to chalk up to coincidence.

Another particularity of the "reverted-to" writ ithat Wiki is the only "factual" place on the web that many of the "facts" within can be found. Aside from the fact that this has a bad reflection on Wiki as a source, one can consider the eventuality of seeing texts being reverted ad litteram to such an "original" form.

I can't expect you to peruse the entire page history of all concerned articles (nor do the research to fathom the changes made therein), but please do not be too hasty in your conclusions. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do expect you to provide specific diffs in support of those claims. I don't discount the larger possibility of long term POV pushing. That's why I gave the request serious attention in spite of its evidentiary shortcomings. I was able to exclude several of the suspected sockpuppets. If you'd like to assemble the type of report that gets attention have a look at the model User:Cailil/Complex vandalism on feminism and gender studies related articles. Be careful not to cross the line into an attack page: just document the actions with appropriate evidence and connect all the logical dots. Durova^Charge! 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies then for the vagueness/weakness of my case. I will select the appropriate diffs to concord with your suggestion, in the place that you suggest - thank you for your kind advice. Good night. THEPROMENADER 22:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New Editor thinks i'm attacking him.

Hi. After a minor fan speculation edit revert on Captain America, seen here [7], I left the following on the page of the brand new editor, User:ServantOfTheBear. Here is that welcome, [8]. While my edit summary was curt, I tried to make my welcome informal, short, and simple. However ,I recieved an E-mail today, which reads as follows:

Please do not ever contact me. You make me very uncomfortable. I do not and will not talk to strangers. Any further messages will be interpreted as a threat. I have forwarded a copy of this letter to Wikipedia. Thank You

I'd be glad to forward the email to you if desired. I wished to bring this to admin attention immediately, though. That single revert, and welcome, comprises the entirity of my interactions with the editor, and I want to get out in front of this asap. Thank you. ThuranX 05:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your actions have been fine. I'm not sure why the editor reacted so strongly, but put this up at WP:AN for broader review. I suppose the thing to do in the future is avoid this editor on user talk pages, who may not remain active anyway. If you need to revert an article edit again then go ahead and do so. That's my opinion, anyway. See what the others think. Durova^Charge! 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

Hi there. The sockpuppet case I had mentioned via email has been resolved - see here - as User:Oldwindybear maintained his innocence but agreed to leave and resign the sysop bit. If you want to see a model example of what every suspected sockpuppet report would look like in an ideal world, take a look at this (you may have done so already). Extremely impressive. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful work. Would you think of creating a userspace hall of fame for this type of thing? Editors sometimes ask what a good report should look like and it would be useful to showcase some of the successful reports as models. Durova^Charge! 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea; showcasing that report might set an intimidatingly high standard, but it demonstrates some of the aspects of investigating something like this. The only downside is the WP:BEANS factor... MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of editors don't know where to begin when they sense something is wrong, particularly when it comes to the long term and complex cases. Although some troublemakers would undoubtedly study that to refine their techniques, perhaps others would be warned away from wasting all that effort. Either way it helps to widen the scope of people who who are skilled at this sort of thing. It doesn't disclose investigative techniques so much as inform people of methods for documentation. On the whole that seems like a positive to me. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another possible cautionary tale?

See this edit: [9]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly see the reason. Unless it's linked to a story in the mainstream press I'd prefer to leave that alone. Durova^Charge! 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was just concerned about the "for personal reasons," i.e. if this was another scenario like what happened to I believe H? or maybe because of the health tag on the talk page it is something to consider passing on to Wooyi or Alabamaboy, but I'm under the impression something not good has occurred. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we WP:AGF. Suppose the editor is going inactive for health reasons? I'd hate to add to those worries unfairly. I don't even link to sitebans or arbitrations unless they've been in the news. Durova^Charge! 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally understandable. I sent JuJube an email saying I hope things aren't too bad and all, so hopefully it's nothing too sad. Take care! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Railpage Australia

Hi there Durova. First off, please don't take any of what follows as a personal attack - I recognise your longterm contribution to Wikipedia and congratulate you on that. In regards to your listing of The_Null_Device on WP:RFCU, I can tell you the outcome long before they can;

• 59.167.77.190 and 59.167.89.251 are the same person - me. I have had a registered for a short amount of time, but I don't wish to associate my registered account with the Railpage article, as I find that Tezza1 has engaged in malicious conduct against those who disagree with him in the past.
• I am not The_Null_Device.
• While I am aware that IP users are not the most... shall we say... 'respected' of all Wikipedia contributors, but as you can see in my history - I've made significant and relevant contributions (such as the article rewrite when it was required), and at all times I've remained civil and observed Wikipedia policy.

For a little bit of background - we (myself, The_Null_Device, JohnMc, EvanC, DoctorJBeam, others) are all users of Railpage (the site) and are interested in maintaining the article on Wikipedia. Tezza1 is a 'personality' from the Usenet group aus.rail, and is a very vocal detractor to the Railpage site. Myself, and the rest of the article contributors are continually frustrated by Tezza1's unwillingness to compromise, reach consensus, follow procedure, or be civil. You'll notice there is an RFC open for Tezza1 that details some of this. I notice from your tone in the RFCU that you've somehow gotten the idea that Tezza is the underdog, and we're the disruptive ones, however I assure you that if you read the talk page, and check the history of the article - you'll find that it's simply not the case. The reality is that Tezza1 is attracting sockpuppets from aus.rail to vandalize the article, and is attempting to make the process of article improvement as difficult as possible for the rest of us for the simple fact that he was once ejected from the site for breach of site policy. You can see that the sockpuppets by and large agree with him, and are intent on wasting wikipedian's time - why else would Tezza1 list the article for Speedy Deletion straight after it was last unprotected after the third AfD, and when that was reverted by an impartial party, sockpuppets immediately turned up to carry on his work? I hope that you will take that I have said into consideration, and I trust that this will be backed up by the results of the RFCU when it comes through. All the best. 59.167.77.190 05:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no inherent opposition to IP editors. I also appreciate your forthcoming disclosure. Yet what I see also concerns me on several levels. Yes, the CSD raised my eyebrow. Tezza1 has also gone through normal channels such as article review. If Tezza1 has been uncivil, please demonstrate with diffs. What I did see was a blatant personal attack against Tezza1 and I blocked for that.

I strongly recommend that you, Null Device, etc. have a good look at a policy provision called WP:MEAT. It casts a very poor light on things when, shortly after I issue a block, I see a new IP address head to a user conduct request for comment half an hour after the IP's first edit to the site.[10] This post of yours didn't inspire my confidence either. This site has a policy called WP:NOT#Not a battleground, which basically means we ask editors to collaborate and compromise. This isn't the place to play out conflicts you may have had at other sites.

If you and several other editors know each other from outside Wikipedia, please do not act in concert at consensus discussions here. I suggest you open an article content request for comment, which should bring some fresh perspectives. If you pledge to proceed in good faith I'll unprotect the article talk page - I was concerned that it was being used to mock editors. Durova^Charge! 06:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova, thanks for your response. I take your comments on-board and see your point of view. I'm not sure who that 58.x.x.x IP address is, although it wouldn't suprise me if it was a friend of Tezza1 attempting to make us look bad, as I'd not seen that IP before, and haven't since (though I have nothing to back it up other than that).

In regards to taking an un-civil tone, this one was a bit of an interesting one - it occured after AfD3 had ended. You'll see on [Talk:Railpage_Australia], Tezza has called the site a vanity page a number of times and noted the lack of reliable sources. During AfD3, myself, and later The_Null_Device re-wrote the entire article to make it more NPOV, encyclopedic, and to incorporate the sources the AfD contributors said we should. This was the diff after the article had been rewritten, 32 minutes later Tezza1 made a wholesale revision here with the summary "No, whatever happend to Peer review? The recent edits are non more encyclopedic than it was before. This article is NOT the private property of Interactive Omnimedia Ltd". I thought this was very antisocial (the rewrite was extensive as you can see, and was tagged as needing more work), particularly since he didn't discuss what he was going to do on the talk page. We agree that Peer Review can happen, but it's a waste of time doing so until we're out of ideas on what to do to the article - but even so, there was nothing to stop him simply adding the peer review tag to the article. Thirteen minutes later The_Null_Device undid Tezza's revision, and 20 minutes later, Tezza undid that, ironically telling people to discuss changes on the talk page first.

At the conclusion of AfD3 (result was procedural close), Tezza headed to the article to affix a speedy delete tag for spam (see here - despite being well aware that the article had easily survived 3 separate AfD's, and a number of Speedy Delete nominations. He also tagged the vast majority of the article with "Reads like an advertisement" tags, despite them very obviously not being the case - one section he tagged (uses in society) was simply a list of publications Railpage has been used as a source in.

On numerous occasions on the talk page and in the article itself, he has attempted to demean an administrator of Railpage by trying to bring up an unrelated criminal incident (which the administrator, James Morgan, was aquitted of). Here (23rd July 2007) is one such example of him doing so, however on the 19th he was told here that he shouldn't be posting about that, and his reply suggests that he agreed. Furthermore, on the 20th July 2007, he was reminded of this on the talk page here. It's clear here in my mind that he's pushing an agenda. There's a tonne more examples of him doing this.

I've had a read of WP:MEAT and can assure you categorically that at least our side of the debate isn't doing this. A couple of the other contributors I know (from Railpage), but others I don't (The_Null_Device is one of them). The ones I know, I only know because their username is similar here to the one they use on Railpage. As for Tezza's side of the debate, here is one of many examples of Meat Puppeting. Not long ago, I posted here on the talk page a theory on Tezza's motivations. The evidence was pretty damning, albeit circumstantial, but instead of justifying his actions, he denied all knowledge and started on the attack on me, which looked a bit suss.

Whilst I do intend to continue in good faith, I'd rather you not unprotect the talk page as although it means I can't contribute (at least, not until my recently-registered account reaches age in a day or so), I feel that it will be the best thing for the article in the long term, as it may be a significant deterrent to the SPA's.

Thankyou for your consideration in this matter. 59.167.77.190 06:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Per your feedback I've changed the checkuser request to include Tezza1 and neutralize the wording. If you'd like to keep the talk page protection in place I'll let it run its course - it should expire in a week. Meanwhile you may want to open that article content WP:RFC. Some experienced editors already called the user conduct RFC premature and I agree. Regards, Durova^Charge! 07:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed my name was mentioned above. While I am a longtime member of the Railpage forums, I have made every effort to ensure that my contributions to the article are transparent, and I have not consulted with any other editors regarding any combined "action" against Tezza. (I don't consider that i've been accused of anything, but I wished to state this for the record. You would also note that my comment on Tezza's RFC was fairly benign - I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt at the time.) Since that time, I'm not altogether sure about Tezza's motives, and you'll note that I have asked him the "what is your endgame?" question on several occasions. ([11],[12],[13])

A great deal of the current edit warring can be traced to Tezza's insistence that Railpage Australia is a commercial site, and subsequent reversion of edits disagreeing with this. That in itself (being a commercial site) is probably of no consequence, but the manner in which Tezza "announced" his edit ([14]), was quite extraordinary, and gave the perception that he was not only attacking the wiki article, but also the Railpage site itself. One the above DIFF links (59) is a response to Tezza announcement that he was writing to the Australian Taxation Office to ascertain whether or not Railpage Australia should be paying tax on the donations they receive. All this, for a simple "Commercial = Yes, but free to join" tag in the infobox?Johnmc 07:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova, thankyou for that. I'm no wizz with Wikipedia yet, but I've tried to list this as an RfC here. Hopefully I've done it right. Finally, other guys who've come here from the Railpage article - might I suggest that it's perhaps not the most polite thing to do for us to all have a big discussion on this poor admin's talk page? The bickering has all been covered elsewhere, and doesn't need to be repeated here. If you've got something specific you'd like to cover, then by all means - but snipes/responses to each other or any other content not directly for the attention of Durova probably shouldn't end up here. 59.167.77.190 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute is all about a short sentence in the little top right conner stating the site being "commercial", I base these beliefs because the subject the article is about is a privately owned corporation [15], the organization is clearly not a transparent non profit community organisaton as defined by the Australian Government [16] and yet asks for donations. A non-informed person (the man off the street) may be misled thinking the organization is a non profit based entity after reading the article. We have no evidence apart for users comments that the site is not commercial, and according to encyclopedic standards we have to assume that it is based on documentary evidence[17][18]. I have argued my case on the talk page, requesting other users to prove otherwise with hard evidence of its non profit status. To this date they have not.I have even tried to reach some middle ground [19] by posting "Commercial? Yes, free membership, voluntary payment for service" - what is wrong with that?.

I'm starting to think to let them go adding vanity, someone else will object.

As for sock-puppets, I couldn't care less about what they do, but I do have to wonder why user 59.167.77.190 is so passionate and vigorous in his debate, and is yet to register as a user.Tezza1 11:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The compromise I proposed (and I edited to that effect) was to simply omit any statement of commerciality. If no definite consensus could be reached, how can we state either way? --Evan C (Talk) 14:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, editors are free to register an account or not. That by itself doesn't interest me. Something odd has certainly been happening at that page with these frequent AFD nominations. I'll wait to see what checkuser turns in. Meanwhile you can all earn my respect by using an article content request for comment or trying mediation. WP:CEM won't apply here but the other mediation types are open. Durova^Charge! 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I did make a comment on the 23rd of July about COI. "but I was hoping some common sense would prevail and the persons concerned would own up and disclose their COI. There is nothing wrong editing an article if you have a COI - the most recent Wiki Editor pls note!!! But please read the guidelines"[20]. Aside from the "commercial" dispute, up until the editing "flood" which occurred on the 23rd July, there has been relative peace in the Railpage article. The user "the null device" has been noticeably absent in posting up until the 23rd of July [21]. I could be wrong, but I believe the recent flood of edits may have been some sort of organized blocking strategy after my request for Peer review, and comments by user Evan_C like this don't help[22].

I've had some support [23] [24], and this article has attracted other administrators attention with the placement of tags over questionable content as well well[25][26]. I've also noticed if you look closely at users comments when the article has been listed for deletion, some too have concerns over article content[27], [28].

I'm a relatively new user here, and I have made mistakes along the way. But I'm starting to think my objective view (right or wrong), has been a useless exercise, I'm going to let these guys have their way from now on. My post to Brad Partick, was for him just to provide an opinion on the article content as I believe his comments [29] seemed to ring true here. I have no real objection, to the existence of an Railpage article if it meets the guidelines for inclusion here, only its content. Recent edits mentioning, "biggest", "best or largest", weak referencing, organizations, hosting companies, and individuals involved in the operation, I believe have no place in the article. I feel if a large multinational fast food chain had written an article in the same manner as what the Railpage article is turning into, editors and administrators would be jumping on it like a ton of bricks.Tezza1 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with 59.167.77.190's comments at the top of this section. I will also state categorically that I am not Doctorjbeam or any of the SPAs mentioned in the RFCU. My own IP is not static but it's certainly not any of the others in the RFCU, which trace mainly to East Asia. In response to Tezza1, being a regular reader of a site is not a COI. If it was then I wouldn't be able to edit The Australian. Comparing a railfan hobby web site with a multinational fast food chain is simply ludicrous. The Null Device 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, being a regular reader of a website isn't WP:COI. And Tezza1, AFD has demonstrated that the site has enough notability for inclusion at Wikipedia. I suggest you prepare a short summary (perhaps a bullet list) of the particular points where you think the article is poorly sourced or non-neutral. Propose better wording if something seems promotional. Good luck with the article RFC. Durova^Charge! 00:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated before, I'm a novice user here and I'm pretty disgusted about the whole thing. I don't know all the rules and procedures. I believe that individuals who have a definite COI should disclose it first or refrain from editing and discussion where they could face accusations of COI. If policy allows individuals to continue and behave like I have tried to demonstrate and does not permit reporting, then I'm very surprised and apologize. You also should delete my request form the COI noticeboard Tezza1 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova,

Until my previous request is done, I've deleted the information from the COI noticeboard and put up an apology. Tezza1 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The way I understand COI, this wouldn't apply to that website's users or volunteers unless they were using organizational servers to edit Wikipedia. As for official staff, that's another matter. Wikipedia's policy assume good faith means we give some reasonable leeway. There seem to be a lot of new Wikipedians at that page and some willingness to learn this site's standards on both sides. Let's hope things calm down and move forward in a constructive spirit. And I really didn't think you intended to violate policy. There aren't many mistakes at Wikpedia that would be grounds for immediate sitebanning. That's over, so let's focus on the positive. Regards, Durova^Charge! 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn, and in the process I have discovered a flaw in Wikipedia, which you would probably know already by reading comments made in media articles published elsewhere. As I've indicated before I strongly suspect there is a lot more to the recent editing flood than some of the users (who seem to be official staff or have direct business relationships) are willing to admit. Does Wikipedia have an official policy and investigation procedures where there is suspicion of this activity? If there is where do I go to lodge a complaint? Is there an official policy? I've done a quick Google search and I've discovered that this is a major problem - which also comes back to the points raised by user Brad Patrick. Maybe it would be appropriate to warn the individual privately and other users of WP:COI and the guidelines on the Railpage talk page again? As I won't be entering that arena again.

Tezza1 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got some approaches for handling that, but I prefer not to discuss them very much onsite because some of the more resentful editors I've banned watch my posts pretty closely. For purposes of our discussion, the restriction about "outing" other Wikipedians applies to the site and not to conversations you may have with me via e-mail regarding an ongoing investigation where I'm already involved. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I'm no longer involved in editing the Railpage article, but I've resubmitted my post [30]to the COI noticeboard according to guidelines. I've only used information which has been sourced from the users talk page or from the article. The allegations have been made without naming the individual. I've also have a list of others suspected of having a COI with regards to the Railpage article. I can PM them too you for investigation, but on your page I seem to have read that you no longer do investigations.Tezza1 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

I would prefer if you DIDN'T characterise a fellow admin's comments as trolling when they were clearly meant in jest. [31] Viridae^Talk 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies; the signature was incomplete. I should have double checked the edit history before using the t-word. The other unmentionable epithet led me to suspect the worst. Durova^Charge! 09:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt see that the sig was incomplete. Would have realised then what happened, you did the right thing :) Viridae^Talk 11:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Traffic Power vandal has returned

This is troublesome [32], as is [33]. I think User:Vegas4Now should be indef blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I scored an assist on another featured article, Sheerness. My copy editing helped overcome objections.Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Durova^Charge! 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Campus Toluca School Project

Hello!

I am an English teacher in Toluca Mexico, and my students will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their Fall 2007 English class. These are highly-advanced, uni-level students. I have gotten an overwhelming response from the Wikipedia community and one of the things I learned yesterday was about your support for class assignments like mine. Richardusr set up a page for me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors and I am still learning how to work all this stuff out.

I would appreciate any help and advice you can give me!

Thelmadatter 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Wonderful, and welcome. You may like to try Wikipedia's mentorship program WP:ADOPT. I'll be glad to answer questions as I can, but my time is stretched a little thin. Durova^Charge! 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hello Durova:

I need a phone call from you regarding the statements about biography information being deleted involving Matthew Hill and David Davis.

I am working out of my house right now, but I expect to be in the office on Monday.

Hank Hayes Kingsport Times-News

Sure. Durova^Charge! 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc for removal

The featured list "cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" has been nominated for removal. I am informing you about this, since you were the one who nominated this list at WP:FLC.--Crzycheetah 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Changes in WP:RS seem to be making it harder to keep that page up to par. Durova^Charge! 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Coercion

I went to the Banning Policy page and you had not posted. When you do, let me know.--Fahrenheit451 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fast typist but not that fast. It's up now, thanks. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out my proposed rewording.--Fahrenheit451 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, with a copyedit to JoshuaZ's. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Section

Durova, keep up the good work. Navou ^banter 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP?

What WP:SSP work were you referring to here? I don't see any such edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

She didn't know the board existed until I pointed her to it the other day. We went over some investigative techniques together. She's begun volunteering at WP:COIN. Frankly both boards are desperate for talent. For the past half year I've been coaching and nominating people to populate them. On the strength of her background and overall contributions I assumed good faith that her intentions are good there. Durova^Charge! 01:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I misread that as saying she was already involved in SSP. My bad. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My revert

Personally I think the intelligence claims is a load of bollocks (and I do care about Lockerbie, the worst terrorist outrage in my country ever) but anyway I reverted you cos I think the regulars are going to know anyway, if they are doing their job, and I'm up for protecting this admin the best I can, SqueakBox 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop (chapter 2)

Hi Durova. Like you, I hate it when we lose (potentially) useful contributors. How could we cook something up that would enable Bus Stop's return without it causing disruption? (NB I suspect that banning from all Jewish/Judaism articles is as good as a site ban anyway for that user.) Perhaps I'm excessively optimistic, but I hope that Bus Stop can now see clearly how exasperated the community has become and that an indefblock is decidedly unpleasant... --Dweller 08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll miss Bus stop because he fascinates and amuses me, not because he is a worthwhile contriubtor (by and large, he was not). He was extremely nasty to Durova and was stubborn and unrepentant despite numerous attempts to mentor and compromise with him. It can be a waste of time trying to help people who utterly lack capacity for self-reflection. I know my input was unsolicted, but still thought I'd offer the perspective of a regular editor who closely followed Bus stop's edits.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at User:Raul654/Raul's laws, no. 110, and check the final edits in Bus stop's history. Durova^Charge! 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, very much so. It's hard to refrain from using similar language to describe this behaviour. The ban has my full support. --Stephan Schulz 14:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh... so much for my good intentions. Totally out of order. I was prepared to AGF that the recent troll edit here was impersonation, rather than uncivil sock trolling, but my good faith just flew out of the room. How sad. I was prepared to stick my neck out for this user. Now I guess I look pretty stupid. --Dweller 14:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, Dweller. I also hoped this editor would come around. Don't let that spoil your good faith toward others who might improve. Remember this site has nearly 5 million registered accounts. Any population that large is sure to include a few individuals with behavior problems who eventually come to the attention of the sysops. Most people at Wikipedia conduct themselves admirably; part of my reason for volunteering is to wear a flameproof suit so the rest of you don't have to. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 14:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

Hi, I'm GorillaWarfare and am hoping to receive some coaching to become an admin. If you'd like to coach me, please leave a message on my talk page. You can see my edit count here but don't be surprised when you see that I have 25 edits. That is because I recently forgot the password to my old account, User:Theunicyclegirl. Here is my edit count from my old account. I almost have 2000 edits. I frequently revert vandalism by watching Lupin's filtered RCs. I also like to expand stubs, particularly those relating to cats or dogs. I am very good with user warning templates and speedy deletion templates. I sometimes respond on AFD. I was intrigued by your description on the admin coaches page and so I thought I'd check it out. Not sure if this is for me, but it sounds pretty interesting. ;D Thanks for considering me! --GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for coming to me. Would you like to get your toes wet at WP:COIN and WP:SSP? It doesn't require the tools to check into a case and both of those boards could use an extra hand. Most situations are straightforward; come to me if you have questions. Anyone can give user talk warnings or file checkuser requests as appropriate. When you think the tools are needed ask me to double check (page protections, user blocks). And feel free to drop me a line by e-mail. Durova^Charge! 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw-bale construction

Thank you for looking in at Talk:Straw-bale construction. The attempt to conduct a poll has long since been moot and I had ceased editing the page. Further action is needed, IMO, but I will await your further comments. Sunray 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer to other sysops about the 3RR issue. Just hope you and Hu12 can work things out. Durova^Charge! 18:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew there was an obscure note on issues such as this, unfortunatly I was unable to find it earlier. Per WP:RPA#When_not_to_refactor, It might be better to not refactor if there is any kind of voting going on. Tampering with comments that are attached to votes may be perceived as in some way tampering with the vote itself. Future note to self i guess. I appreciate your patience in this matter, as always. --Hu12 06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just in general, it's a good idea to head over to AN or DR when it looks like people start to dig in their heels. Earns good karma when you initiate the solutions yourself. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

double check

Can you double check my work at WP:RFPP? Warm regards, Navou ^banter 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the clerkish contributions? Excellent. Wish you had more mainspace contributions so I could RFA you. Durova^Charge! 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your exactly correct, I do get distracted. I should probably flesh those 7 articles I created out some, they are all still stubs. :) Navou ^banter 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nudge, nudge. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here it is... I'm gonna make a good attempt at DYK on Cephalometry over the next few hours. Wish me luck. Navou ^banter 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sends you horseshoes. Durova^Charge! 19:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) A little harder than I thought. Perhaps I need to just hash my next DYK candidate on paper, before I put it here. Whats your style? Navou ^banter 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just make it good: clear prose, a couple of sources. The tips already in my user space are as much as I know. Although it does help to have an image that looks good at the scale they use on the front page, 100x100 pixels if I recall. Durova^Charge! 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support of my successful RfA. I value your perspective, so it was nice to see.

On a somewhat related note I'm interested in your "complex investigations" work. I know a bit about networking and tracing IPs, and after grading a few thousand term papers one gains a sense for when things don't smell right. Raymond Arritt 02:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your input is very welcome at the WP:SSP and WP:COIN boards. Let's take the nuts and bolts discussion offline? My posts get watched pretty closely. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I am also concerned about a potential confict of interest; please document your affiliation with www.pahle.com on the talk page.

OK, enough, I'm loopy from lack of sleep and am going to bed. --barneca (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

ROFL. Sweet dreams. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Community enforceable mediation

I have a couple editors who I've been speaking to, both of whom have agreed to undergo community enforceable mediation. Do you have anyone currently available to take this? I think it would be a good application of the process (see my talk for more details, the civility there's broken down quite a bit over a long period of time, and I don't think some remedies against edit-warring and personal attacks would be out of order). If you do, would be much appreciated, it would be terribly wasteful for this to end up in arbitration, but it's heading that way if something else doesn't get done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk to Navou. Durova^Charge! 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do that, thanks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

nudge. Navou ^banter 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am Terry Waite. Hope I don't get kidnapped.

Please see this diff. ([34]). Wish me luck. --Dweller 13:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless Fred feels more generous, I'd wait at least three months for this. But if you convince him, I'll go along with whatever he's willing to try. Durova^Charge! 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You got mail. --Dweller 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied. You're a real trooper, by the way. Durova^Charge! 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons

I have left you a message at Commons. For legal purposes you should confirm the licensing changes I have made to an image you uploaded were what you intended. All the best, -Nard 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check that out. Durova^Charge! 23:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing Facts redux

I would ask you to please intervene on the Amazing Facts article dispute. Maniwar is out of control.64.21.238.49 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick one...

Just regarding what was said in response to Rebecca (or at the beginning, not sure) at the RfA that there was some issue with the Australian Wikiproject (or tension between it and Elonka) that you investigated. Could you let me know what the issue was, or at least in broad terms what sort of issue it was? I must admit I was surprised as I wasn't aware of any, and on talking to a few of the other admins there, it's clear they weren't either. One of the reasons I ask is that it's not the first time I've heard a suggestion that there is a perception of something out there. Thanks in advance :) Orderinchaos 19:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Elonka was doing a lot of tagging work last year across a broad variety of articles, including some on Australian topics. One editor in particular had created a lot of shopping mall/shopping center articles that lacked any outside reference except the organization's website. So she asked for sources. What tended to happen is there'd be no improvement to the article and after a month she'd follow up with an AFD, at which point a flurry of activity tried to rescue the pages. When the new sourcing was good Elonka sometimes altered her own position and agreed with the keeps. She also did some CSDs back then. From the examples I saw, the nominations looked legit at the time they were nominated. After a while she backed off because the whole thing was generating bad blood. I didn't see anything uncivil on Elonka's side, but I think she could have approached the wikiproject sooner and maybe headed to AN or DR for broader input.

If there's another side to the story, I sure didn't see it either from Elonka's examples or my own research. Rebecca hasn't brought up any diffs. If she wants to sway me she really should, because this looks to me like a combination of old news and misunderstanding. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool - no worries - just wanted to find out what it was about. Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Orderinchaos 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Say, OIC, do you think it would help mend fences if a few non-Aussies helped out with sourcing on some of your articles? If you hook us up to some of the stuff on your to-do list we could probably lend a hand. Of course a lot of background would be unfamiliar to us, so some straightforward "Here's twelve articles and three sites you could probably source them from" might take the routine work off your hands. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It could do! I've actually been working for the last two days offline generating infoboxes (Infobox Australian Place) for suburbs in the Newcastle area of New South Wales, which I'm hoping to paste onto the articles shortly, and have briefly turned my attention to shopping centres, as with access to a source like Factiva (being a college student), they're not difficult to reference. Generally knowing what is the main newspaper for the area (i.e. not a "throwaway" local one) as well as trade publications such as Inside Retailing helps weed out non-notable events and not-entirely-reliable sources, but there's a list that could be easily produced for this purpose. Suburbs - off the top of my head Toukley, Canton Beach, Budgewoi and The Entrance are in dire need of salvation. Thanks for the idea - I will get back to you on it after talking with a couple of colleagues as some of their work is probably easier to hand over as a package (biographies, historical events etc). BTW sent you an email. Orderinchaos 19:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Step

I've taken a bold step, however, I do not think I'll be able to repair these archives. Do the mizabot revisions need deleted in order for them to be repaired? Rather, I don't think it would be controversial to repair them, if it requires a custodian can you take a look. If not, let me know what I'm missing. Thanks, Navou ^banter 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Which archives do you mean? Durova^Charge! 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The ones over at Wikipedia:Village pump (news)/Archive. It looks like another archive bot was clearing them out. The easiest was perhaps may be to delete the archive bots revisions, that should restore/fix the archive, unless I'm mistaken. Navou ^banter 12:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for looking into it. I think it's premature to mark it as historical though. Especially since it's linked directly from the community portal and still in all the templates. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Afterthinking, your correct, and I was a little fast in tagging it. I should have unlinked it also, however, we will wait untill the discussion ends. Regards, Navou ^banter 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's RfA

Thanks for the info, though I don't think it has much to do with me, does it. A guy agreed with my reasoning - good for him. He turned out to be a sock-puppet - too bad. But it doesn't really change the core of the problem - which is Elonka's behaviour towards the community during the past conflicts. //Halibutt 10:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the final outcome on that changed after I logged out (not socks, friends sharing computers). I fully understand that it might have been beside the point to your decision. The RFA was in its last hours so I thought you might want a heads up, just in case you did want to weigh it. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure most of us took this for granted but I think it's smart and responsible of you to minimize the drama by explicitly stating it. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course (as I pointed out three lines above!) I understand that you're not protesting Elonka's non-promotion and if that's what my RfA talk message sounded like, then all apologies. I simply meant to say that the problem cannot be fixed by changing the RfA process and, like most of RfAs problems, can only be fixed by changing RfA's culture. Or to put it more bluntly: until we can get it through the thick heads of people that "net effect" makes sense, that "disagreed with me on some issue" does not, that "was less than civil to me a year ago" is irrelevant if the incident has not been repeated and that "User has external links to her webpage on cryptography" is a moot point when that page contains quality documentation on these subjects, then I'm afraid there isn't much we can do besides lamenting on the missed opportunity. What I find particularly frustrating is that I'm quite certain Elonka will never pass RfA unless she starts doing stub-sorting for 6 months. I'm bitterly disappointed with Danny's comment: he knows full well the weight that his words will carry and he chose not to substantiate his terse opinion. I can't for the life of me understand how a grown man can be so petty.

Note also that while you were writing a message on my talk page, I was busy replying to your latest cmt on WT:RFA. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the intent of your words as how they'd appear to someone who read that particular subthread out of context. The best solution I can think of for most of this is admin coaching. I'd like to see more sysops prioritize that and I'd like to hear other people's ideas. Durova^Charge! 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I should probably use an other example but still: Elonka does not need admin coaching. By that I mean two things

1) there's really not much you and I could teach her about what admins do. I know I'd feel pretty silly giving systematic advice for someone with such a track record of contributions.

2) Admin coaching would not have made any difference on the RfA because the main issue is that Elonka lost the trust (perhaps even deservedly so in some cases) and it seems she will never get it back.

In fact, and I may be entirely wrong here, I think that admin coaching tends to have many negative unintended consequences. First, it often yields distortions because candidates start off with a large chunk of supports from fellow coachees (for that reason I'm also very wary of RfA candidates who have adopted 20 users). More distortion is caused by the fact that too many people are less than thorough in their RfA !votes and take admin coaching as a guarantee. Most importantly, what kind of editor is interested in admin coaching? I don't know how old you are but I'm 32 and I don't think I'm particularly vain. Yet, I'd be bemused if someone proposed to coach me. As you get older, you just go and learn on your own and you recognize when to ask for help and you don't want someone to just hold your hand all the time. I'm certain that the very idea of admin coaching appeals mostly to younger, if not youngest, editors. They go through admin coaching and some do learn quite a bit but I've also seen cases where we get people who can recite policy but are still fairly raw in terms of judgment and this is the worst possible profile for an admin. I guess I'd rather see admin coaching work with admins than with potential admins (if you can make any sense of this sentence). Take what you do as a coach: I specialize in complex investigations and am best at coaching people who have similar interests. I believe very few admins have any clue how to do this effectively, heck I'm almost tempted to get coached! Pascal.Tesson 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am 39 and enjoy Durova's coaching. I'm not in any rush to become an admin, so why not learn how to do the job properly? Jehochman ^Talk 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but P.T., I have to say that I thought your post above (about what we don't 'get' about RfA) was extremely arrogant and off-base, and I strongly disagree with your assertions about admin coaching. Like Jehochman (Hi, I didn't see your edit until I started posting), I am also 39, and if I wanted to be an admin, I would LOVE to get admin coached, and I certainly don't think it has a Logan's Run-esque expiration date. Anchoress 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it felt arrogant. I am frustrated by the way Elonka's RfA unfolded so maybe I am being a tad reckless. Durova started discussing whether there was a possibility to change RfA to avoid the paradoxical failures of people who have been here long enough to get into disputes. And I sincerely think that this can't be solved if RfA participants behave irrationally and in the present case, I do believe many, on both sides of the fence, did. Pascal.Tesson 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

While we're butting . . . I paid no attention to this RfA of Elonka, a name that's unfamiliar to me, and have no comment on that. And I don't have any particular opinion on age as a factor (or not) for administrators. But I agree with what I take to be Pascal's main point on coaching. It may have been a good idea at the outset, but it seems to screw things up. If you need coaching to be an admin, you shouldn't be an admin; because you should be sufficiently self-aware and mature to have a good estimate of your degree of ignorance and to act wisely upon this estimate. I'm ignorant of wide swathes of WP activities (and uninterested in several) and stay well clear of them while wearing my admin hat. (I may goof from time to time, but nobody has yet made a big deal of it.) ¶ Further, the way in which RfA candidates tend to support each other is laughable. My biggest regret about my own RfA was that I failed to say at the outset that while other RfA candidates were of course entirely free to vote against me, they were invited to refrain from voting for me. Anyway, whether out of a desire to avoid even the appearance of bias, out of mean-spiritedness, or out of laziness (you decide), I didn't vote for any of them. -- Hoary 09:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to the editors and administrators I've coached? There was one that I dropped after three weeks when he got into an edit war and collected user blocks. All the others, I think, have turned out quite well. I don't ask them to support each other at RFA. In fact I rarely even mention when one of them goes up for candidacy. That's not coaching - that's bloc voting. Coaching is about letting people know where more hands are needed and showing them the ropes when they go there to help. Mostly they figure stuff out for themselves, but maybe one time in ten is unusual. The editors I coach sometimes uncover long term vandalism. Sometimes we talk about technical skills of investigation, sometimes about how far to extend WP:AGF, sometimes we share the research work when a rabbit hole gets unusually deep - a lot of different conversations take place. Investigations are an art. Why should we expect each editor to reinvent the wheel? Some techniques I figured out after a year of experience, and I can explain them in five minutes. Durova^Charge! 15:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea who you've coached. (One or two people have just said that they're being coached by you, but I've no idea who they are. Of course I could look up their edit histories, but I can't be bothered. That may sound dismissive, but it's a simple statement of fact. I don't suppose they know who I am, or that they want to know.) What I have seen at times is an RfA process so grotesque that I became curious about how the person was ever nominated, looked that up, and found coaching. Some of these people were so obviously raw before the coaching started that without their request for coaching nobody would ever have dreamt of nominating them (and their self-noms would have fallen flat, quickly and painlessly). ¶ Your coaching sounds good. But I think it would be just as good after the RfA as before. There's plenty of straightforward drudgery for a newly minted, well-intentioned but unprepared administrator to attend to: Go through the list of speedy candidates, go through the list of expired prods, look in "recent changes" for obvious vandalism: If any examples of these turn out to be iffy (and a lot will), just skip them: clearing up "Eric is a fag" etc will take more than enough time. ¶ And no, I didn't think that coaches suggested or even hinted at mutual voting among RfA candidates: that's a different matter. -- Hoary 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent a little bit but still part of the above thread!) I find that documentation is sometimes lacking in that respect. The existing how-to's often focus on technical things which of course is important but not sufficient. That's why I think User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom is a good idea although I don't find the format optimal. Maybe it would make sense to transform it into a series of essays "So you want to help out with area X" which, on top of the philosophical discussions would list experienced users willing to coach you in. For instance, I was once very active at WP:UNCAT. There is a list of recommendations on that page but unfortunately I'm not sure many read it and there were a few editors more interested in seeing the backlog disappear quickly than they were in doing a good job of it. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I don't think of admin coaching from an assumption of let's go get Editor A promoted. The most important thing is that the editor wants it for the right reasons and the second most important thing is temperament. Some people make excellent editors and simply aren't right for the mop. The age factor works both ways: young people tend to be faster and more flexible at adapting to new media, while mature people bring more education and life experience. I think it's healthy for Wikipedia to have a good mix of both.

I'd be glad to coach you, Pascal.Tesson and Anchoress, if you're interested in investigations. The site really does need more people to do this work. The main reason I coach is to keep enough skilled people at WP:SSP and WP:COIN - I decided at the start of the year to make that a priority after the WP:RFI board fell down for lack of volunteers. I just couldn't do enough alone. A backlogged WP:CSD stands out because the numbers jump out at people. POV pushing and other disruption is harder to measure, but just as important in the big picture. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. Maybe I am vain! I do think it very much depends on the coach. I don't claim to know your work as a coach Durova and like I said it sure seems like a sound approach to have coaching that is somewhat task-specific. I do find that some coaches have not done terribly well and I doubt that their impact has been as positive. In any case, as far as deep investigations are concerned, I find that although it is indeed quite interesting I am wary to get into it precisely because of the humongous efforts it takes to patiently assemble the pieces of a puzzle. And I selfishly rejoice that others are not quite as lazy! Pascal.Tesson 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you appreciate Walter Mosley and Agatha Christie, this can be an interesting alternative with real world implications. Most cases are simple and often a little good faith resolves everything but there's no telling where an investigation might lead. Durova^Charge! 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I recently tracked down User:Stealboy (a.k.a. Lyle123) sockpuppets and that was mildly entertaining because his modus operandi is to start hoax articles about non-existing films and TV series... Pascal.Tesson 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work! Durova^Charge! 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship

I replied on my talk page letting you know I'm already in admin training with The Transhumanist, but I think I might take you up on your offer anyway. I don't see why I can't do both. It would be different aspects, so it would good. I'm currently writing a guide for bringing an article to GA for the VC. If you could help me with learning some specific admin duties, that would be helpful. As far as COIN and SSP go, COIN doesn't look at all interesting to me, but SSP does. I'm going there now to try helping out. Lara♥Love 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. Check in with me when you think the tools are needed or when you have questions. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Lara♥Love 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In looking over SSP, I'm no longer interested. It seems way to time-consuming. I'm not sure what to get into. I'll continue to explore the encyclopedia and the administrators notice board, because I really do want to help and think I'd make a great admin, but I'm just not sure where I'd focus my attention. As it stands, AIV, RPP and requests on my talk page are about all I'd have to offer, so I think it's going to be a while before there's an RfA in my name. But, if you have any other recommendations for someone more into the fast-paced processes, I'm definitely open to looking into it. Regards, Lara♥Love 04:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I volunteer to archive your talk page... just say the word! Haha.

Pez1103

This IP is also used by that user: User:72.231.188.136 -- Fyslee/talk 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably blocked automatically as the underlying IP, but just to be on the safe side I've blocked that IP for a year and semiprotected the article for two weeks. Durova^Charge! 22:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This one too: User:72.231.181.60 -- Fyslee/talk 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Would you take care of the banned/sockpuppet templates? Durova^Charge! 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for taking care of this matter. Now the rest of us can get back to editing! -- Fyslee/talk 23:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova... I'm writing with a question about the indef ban of Pez1103. I help out a lot at WP:WQA and we recently had a report from that user here. I did not respond, other than to ask for clarification, because the report was confused and did not contain links or diffs. Then I noticed that there were multiple reports about that topic and about that user at WP:COI, WP:30, and elsewhere.

I was wondering, which report resulted in the determination to ban the user? I'm not disagreeing, just want to understand. We get confusing reports at WQA sometimes and often it turns out that the reporting user is the one causing the problems. I'm asking about this mostly to learn better ways for following through on future reports.

Also, this is the first time I've seen a long-term ban rather than a limited block. Is that because there were legal threats involved? Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 23:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats are one of the few justifications for immediate indef blocking. When I looked into this I considered giving a warning after I saw the first one. Upon further examination I saw that this user often cited policy at other users, so presumably had read them, yet tread on the margins of legal threats repeatedly and revised these posts many times without rethinking those posts. The intent was clearly to intimidate and stifle discussion. Other problems of a lesser nature also existed - including WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:SPA - but those are really beside the point in this context. I saw no pattern of reciprocal threats from other editors, but if there's something I didn't notice please bring it to my attention. The block was an impartial decision. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I did not mean to imply that the block was anything less than impartial.

Pez1103 was certainly disruptive in many ways over a long period of time. I did not see any reciprocal threats from others, although I wonder if there may be reciprocal COI issues, for example in this comment from Pez1103 regarding User:Herd of Swine (at this talk page link: [35]):

I believe that you are making bad faith edits. I believe that you are using wiki to further the propaganda campaign that you maintain on your website. Pez1103 17:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it true or not that Herd of Swine also maintains a website propounding an opposing the view of the website maintained by Pez1103, (I know nothing about User:Herd of Swine). If that were true would it change your view of the situation?

I mainly asked about this because I didn't see a particular report where the legal threats were discussed, and as I mentioned, I've never seen an indef ban applied before. I've seen banned user names but not been aware of when or how they happened.

As you said, Pez1103 seemed familiar with policies, and often wrote detailed posts. Then other times Pez1103 seemed confused, such as in the report at WQA.

To be really clear, I am not taking any sides at all, and I am not doubting your work. I just thought it would be good to ask you about it because I found the whole situation confusing. I'm usually pretty good at seeing the patterns, but in this one, I didn't understand how you were able to figure out the big picture; I thought maybe there was something I had missed. --Parsifal _Hello 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. I located the talk page comment where Pez1103 provided the link to the website maintained by Herd of Swine, in response to a COI accusation about Pez1103, at this talk page section:

I could say that herd has a conflict of interest because he runs www.morgellonswatch.com.

Checking http://www.morgellonswatch.com, it is a full-on campaign to debunk the idea that this disease exists. So, completely aside from the issue about Pez1103, it seems there is a COI problem with Herd of Swine editing this article. (That's assuming it acutally is Herd of Swine's website. Probably it is, since he/she did not deny it after it was mentioned, twice at least.)

In that same comment from Pez1103, there was one of the legal threats:

Maybe you're afraid of a lawsuit when the truth come out. I have no conflict of interest. I'm trying to help people who are suffering and are being abandoned by the medical community.

I'm not sure that's a threat. It seems more like a description of what Pez1103 believes about Herd of Swine's motivation in taking such a strong stance with the edits. In other words Pez1103 is not threatening a lawsuit, Pez1103 is saying that Herd is afraid of lawsuits by various sufferers later after the "truth comes out."

It may be that there are other examples of actual legal threats by Pez1103 that I haven't seen, but this one seems more like an upset person with bad communication skills, rather than a real threat of legal action.

I should mention that there does appear to be several other knowledgeable good faith editors on that topic too. Pez1103 is clearly in the minority; it's not just a dispute between two editors.

I'm not going to keep researching this, but I wanted to at least find that website link to show you, in case there might be a reciprocal COI issue to check out. When I found the link, I saw the reference to the lawsuit and wasn't sure it was a real threat so I thought I'd mention that too.

I hope you don't mind my offering these comments here. --Parsifal _Hello 01:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

These are very good questions. If you'd like to ask Herd of Swine about connection to that website, by all means do. And regarding the technical basis for the Pez1103 block, the intent of the policy clause is to preserve open dialog against intimidating threats. It's clear to me that the aim of those statements was to stifle open discussion. I've gone over the quantity, the editor's policy citations, and the revisions to other parts of those posts. If you really do doubt this, though, feel free to query the community at WP:AN. Durova^Charge! 02:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your further clarifications. I might ask Herd of Swine about the website as you suggested. I'll let you know if I find out anything of interest. --Parsifal _Hello 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I noticed that you unblocked Pez1103. Thank you for reconsidering. I don't know the user, but I'm sure that he/she has learned something already from this experience. Hopefully it will turn out in the long run not to be a problem.

Regarding the possible reciprocal COI I mentioned above, I did ask Herd of Swine about that website. It turns out that he does run it, but I found his reply to be carefully considered and on-track. He has agreed to mostly edit the talk page and let others make any the edits on the main page. Here is the conversation link if you want to read it.

At this point, unless something changes, that issue seems to be resolved. --Parsifal _Hello 01:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. And I hope mentorship and article content WP:RFC settle things down. Durova^Charge! 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Durova, thank you very much for your co-nomination, and your steadfast support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! I think you already know this, but if you ever have any questions or suggestions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 05:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Pez1103

Hi, you blocked this user for issuing legal threats. Since he's asking to be unblocked, perhaps you'd want to review the unblock? While I think this is was serious accusation, I think this was not directly a legal threat. I leave the final call to you :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm concerned about this also. We've established there's no difference between "I'm going to sue you" and "My buddy's gonna sue you"; but is there is a difference between "I'm going to sue you" and "this could be construed as libelous"? What is the core of the NLT policy? It seems to me it is to prevent the chilling effect of legal threats; was Pez1103 attempting to chill discussion by providing amateur legal advice? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'm discussing this with Pez1103 via e-mail. We can probably work something out. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This does not address the very real and significant COI issue. I reiterate the need for a block on this user to prevent further editing of that article. Dyanega 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I'm back from a couple days vacation and find that Pez1103 has escaped from the .... Whether Pez was guilty of legal threats or not, we now have the remaining problems with WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:SPA. This is one of those cases that reveals an enormous breach in Wikipedia's "policy wall" that allows such unconstructive and continuous disruptions to occur unpunished. It just wastes alot of people's time when they have to attempt to prevent one editor from making an article into their own personal website. Oh well, it's not your fault Durova. You're still a great admin! -- Fyslee/talk 18:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I concur that there is a WP:SPA issue with with Pez1103. But there is tendentious editing at the article even without Pez, by several others. I've been working to calm the talk page and bring more NPOV since our prior conversation. Even while Pez was quiet for a few days following the block, I had to step in more than once with reminders and to protect from strong bias the opposite way. Luckily, a couple editors there are also relatively neutral and that has been helpful.

While Pez does have a marginal COI, I don't think it is financial. I believe Pez sincerely wants to help the sufferers of the disease, though is clearly misguided about how Wikipedia works. Also, the article is not about the MRF organization that Pez works with, the article is about the Morgellons condition that the MRF supports researching. That is an indirect relationship to the topic of the article, not a direct COI as if it were an article about the organization.

At least one other editor has a reciprocal COI, User:Herd of Swine. He informally agreed to only minimal edits to the article and to mainly use talk page discussions. That's been working out pretty well so far. If Pez would abide by a similar agreement, that might be a good solution for the COI issue.

It would not solve the ongoing multiple-editor POV-pushing; for that the article needs more unbiased editors. Maybe an RFC or some invitations at related Wikiprojects would be useful.

Pez is seeking an adopter; so far has not found one, but is making a real effort on that. I was hoping that when Pez finds an adopter, they could do an article RFC, and then Pez might learn how how to accept consensus when it forms. --Parsifal _Hello 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a message here (among the others) for User:Pez1103:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Parsifal#Pez1103_using_Wikipedia_for_advocacy

-- Fyslee/talk 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, you are welcome to use my talk page to communicate with me. I welcome productive conversation. I've responded to your post on my talk page and I invite you to reply if you wish. But please do not use my talk page to communicate with Pez or to argue your viewpoint about the article. Also, you cross-posted that same essay on the article talk page. That is not productive either.

I respectfully request that you adopt a more collaborative approach and drop your pointed campaign against Pez. It's not needed and it's not helping, it's making things more complicated and taking attention away from improving the articles. All the article needs is some more good faith neutral editors and consensus will take care of any problems introduced by Pez or the other COI SPA editor(s). There is already movement in the direction of bringing more editors, so really, you don't need to worry about Pez, the article will come out OK. --Parsifal _Hello 00:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Spammer

Resolved

Hi, I need some admin help. I found a spam only account that is adding external links, creating spam articles, and adding internal linkspam to those articles. Could you consider this one for an indefinite block please. Edit history: [36].

I posted this to OIC's talk page in an effort to work with him, but one of his friends responded with a referral to AIV, which is essentially useless in a slightly complex case like this one. They'll want four recent warnings, and then they'll issue a short block. The net result is that I spend more time fighting this guy than he spends spamming.

Thanks for your help! Jehochman ^Talk 17:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. OIC is a sharp fellow and saw what was going on and issued the permablock. I've found a new friend. Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible vote-stacking in AFD

Hi Durova, if you get a chance could you have a look at WP:ANI#possible_votestacking_.2F_sock-puppetry_in_AFD. There's some proable vote-stacking and sock-puppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Hightower--Cailil ^talk 21:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. That's my first time encountering single purpose IPs in an AFD and I wasn't entirely sure how to handle it. Considering that the puppeteer may have also voted in that AFD would an checkuser be appropriate or would I be going too far?--Cailil ^talk 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, obvious meatpuppetry. For a real hoot of an example look at this one. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Neat Wikicode

Click here. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominating User:Awadewit for the Triple Crown or better

• Featured articles:
  • Mary Wollstonecraft (TFA 20 February 2007)
  • A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
  • Original Stories from Real Life
  • Some Thoughts Concerning Education
  • and more
• Good articles:
  • Mary: A Fiction
  • The Age of Reason
  • and more combined with DYK articles
• DYK:
  • Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman
  • Thoughts on the Education of Daughters
  • Priestley Riots
  • The Botanic Garden

She is also a diligent copy editor of several articles. She deserves this award. I was going to give it to her myself, but I'm assuming I have to go through this process? Sorry, still not familiar with everything Wikipedia. I hope I'm doing this correctly. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And now what?

Now that you have deleted VPN, where am I to inform of an update to my Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Community bulletin board, Village Pump Misc. Durova^Charge! 14:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Show them how it's done!

Hello Durova -

You seem to have a knack for giving out great advice for people who deal with Wiki's (http://searchengineland.com/070807-085103.php).

Perhaps you should go to the Wired How To Wiki and give them some advice. (http://howto.wired.com/wiredhowtos/index.cgi?page_name=use_a_wiki;action=display;category=Work).

Keep up the good work.

Henry

Thanks very much for the compliment. I'm not sure what I'd tell the folks at Wired. This wiki is very familiar to me. I haven't worked with theirs. Durova^Charge! 23:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Things stirring up once again...

Durova, if you have time, please take a look at this and see if you can help out. Avidor has made what I believe to be a completely groundless COI complaint against a pro-PRT editor who has absolutely no history of POV pushing. When I called him on it (see that link), he once again brought up that edit from my distant past. This scenario has played itself out maybe half a dozen times over the past year, in different forums and contexts, but always related to the old PRT debates. I'm not going to respond anymore to that thread unless I have to, because I don't want to start another flame war. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. ATren 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. Exactly what did Mr Grant (David Gow) mean by the following: "And I, just as respectfully, respond to you, Ned Luddington (Ken Avidor), that I am in compliance with the policy you have quoted. I'll trust you on quoting them accurately. Love ya, don't change. Mmmmmmmwah."... and why does Mr. Gow and ATren attack me on their user pages which link to their respective blogs devoted to attacking me? It's disturbing that Wikipedia permits anonymous users to use it as a platform to attack people like this....Avidor 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at my response over at WP:COIN. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Durova. I've responded there as well. ATren 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

protection of Morgellons article

Hi Durova - I imagine article protection is not done lightly, so I wanted to let you know I support your decision. I was starting to feel concerned that a full-on campaign of big changes was coming up fueled by both sides, and was wondering what to do if that happened. It was a relief when I saw that you protected it.

Pez has not yet been adopted, but a prospective adopter has been helping on the talk page already anyway and has offered to set up an RFC. Protection will help make a time window for that too. --Parsifal _Hello 02:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to SEL comment

Hi Durova. I left you a message on my userpage. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See my looooong answer here :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You Are Okay

Please review my comments at this diff on User:You Are Okay relative to the ideogram sock puppet, and you'll probably see why your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 is just a distraction from the issues there; the newbie has since withdrawn, and it would be best if your comments didn't hang around to muddy the waters. Or talk it over with Jehochman. These distractions are just going to make it harder to resolve anything. Thanks. Dicklyon 07:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to maintain a respectful difference of opinion. Every new account I've invesigated that heads to both ANI and RFC in the first ten edits has turned out to be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, and Ideogram has admitted the use of sockpuppets in disputes before. It's also normal at RFC for established editors to note when a participant has an unusually brief editing history. If You Are Okay strikesthrough the comments I'll strike through mine. Durova^Charge! 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No matter. But couldn't you do a checkuser and confirm whether he's a puppet? He's obviously just an newbie. Dicklyon 16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The suspected sockmaster account wasn't blocked so it was difficult to request a check. Now that a block has been imposed we'll see what results. I'll move my comment to talk with an annotation if it comes back negative. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ideogram came back "unrelated". - Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons

Durova -

Thank you for intervening on the Morgellons page. I do not believe that there will ever be agreement on that page, however. I am neglecting my health and my child trying to keep the article neutral, and cannot keep it up. There are editors with an agenda-- to try to debunk the idea that Morgellons is a real disease. Herd has devoted all of his time to doing this for the past couple of years -- as you can see if you go to his website. (He admitted it was his website.) He will not allow an unbiased article. This article has been a constant source of wars. In the word of an unbiased observer: "I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it [directed at people who do believe that this is a new disease]." Mukrkrgsj It is a full time job -- 12 hours a day -- to try to keep this article unbiased. I'm sure that was not the intention of wikipedia to create this kind of nightmare editing.

I am proposing two options to put an end to all this until the CDC finishes its investigation. Please advise what I should do to get a group of impartial editors to look into doing this. Thanks, Pez

1)According to Herd and Dyanega, the idea that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease is a "fringe" theory. Since the article is about Morgellons disease, and if the idea that Morgellons disease even exists is FRINGE, this article violates wiki rules by its very inclusion. Therefore, I am again asking that this article be deleted until the CDC investigation is over.

2) I propose that the following be the entire content of the article and that it be locked. It is completely neutral, states everyone's opinion. I even included Herd's addition about delusional parasitosis to make him happy. The sources are the Mayo clinic and the CDC

"Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease," is also referred to as "unexplained dermopathy" (skin disease) by the CDC. In June 2007, a CDC website asserted persons with this unexplained skin condition report cutaneous symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions. Some also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. The CDC indicates the etiology of Morgellons is unknown and there is insufficient information to determine if persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious.[2] Morgellons disease is not a widely recognized medical diagnosis, and medical professionals' opinions about Morgellons disease are divided. Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research. Some health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis[4]. Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.[5] A CDC task force will be conducing an epidemiologic investigation into Morgellons. Pez1103 11:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I also wrote this on the discussion page: What no one will acknowledge is how much harm a biased article can do. If what the MRF believes is true, if what the reports that the CDC has received are accurate, Morgellons patients have a newly emerging serious, systemic, disfiguring and disabling disease, which is not only infectious, it may be contagious. It affects thousands of children. No one knows what causes it or how to treat it. It affects entire families. Try to imagine what it would be like to have a disease like that. Try to imagine what it would be like to be Mary Letao. Imagine what it would be like to have three children come down with a horrifying disease -- to watch them get sicker and not only not be able to get any help for them, be ridiculed for trying. A biased article increases the suffering of everyone who has the disease -- by making it harder for them to get the help that they desperately need. And this is a biased article, filled with cherry picking and weasel words. What if the MRF is wrong and this is all mass hysteria? The wiki article, by its very existance, supports the idea that it is real and prepetuates the "delusion." Either way, people lose, people suffer. Mary never asked for this article, she never wanted to be a public figure -- she is just trying to get help for her children. The only way to prevent this article from continuing to be destructive is to either get rid of it entirely or have an unbiased editor make it completely neutral and lock it until the CDC investigation is over. There have been constant editing battles. All of it needs to stop. This isn't a game -- it's people's lives.

See my comments here. Thatcher131 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Gijake aka Dangeresque?

I'd like to request you extend the block for knowing and intentional abuse of our servers, see bookchan postings and the diff from AN/I explaining the intentional posting. We could potentially thank him, though, since now we're cleaning out quite a bit of material from the servers we didn't know was there. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link; quite informative (although not a surprise). That ANI IP is an established editor, not the same person at all. I'll keep the block at its current length unless consensus forms to extend it. Go ahead and suggest that at ANI if you want. For now I'm ready to let this person back on the chance that he or she has learned something from this. Probably this is a very young person. I won't hesitate to apply longer blocks if any problems continue. Let's say this individual is on a very short leash now. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right on the money there - I am an established editor, but I reported the incident anonymously for the sake of a quiet life (call it craven if you wish, but I've seen the *chans mount coordinated vandalism campaigns against Wikipedians who've provoked their ire before, and I've got better things to do with my time than undo it all and report dozens of IPs). 217.65.149.50 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Save Indian Family

Hi Durova, I notice you AFD'd this page last autumn and I feel I've no option but to put it up again. Since January this year I've been trying to keep it on-track (neutral and verified) but at this stage I can find no sources for the article. Since March there's been no more povpushing or other vandalism but the COI behind the page's creationand its failure to meet WP:ORG's caveat that "secondary sources such as newspapers should not be trivial mentions of the group" (I'm paraphrasing this badly)make it seem like a definite AFD to me. What do you think?--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC) PS. I'm also looking into the COI editor who was a major force in the creation and maintainance of this page, User:My Wikidness--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it does have enough mention in the press to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I looked at several of the references and those aren't trivial mentions. They also look like major Indian newspapers. Durova^Charge! 01:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pumpkin queen

User:Eyrian is unilaterally mass deleting information on this page and is on the verge of 3RR violation on the article. He claims that independent book reviews, CNN, and official websites of pumpkin festivals are somehow not reliable sources and is dismissing my edits today, which I spent a lot of time on, in a rather unsettling fashion as well. I'd like to assume good faith, but I fear that this is an instance of someone not familiar with the topic of the article and possibly a deletionist who disagrees with me out of principal as seen at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Popular_culture perhaps trying to destroy the main article I contributed to Wikipedia, which I of course hope isn't the case. Would you please review the article's recent edit and talk page discussions? Also, I am trying to look for new references and find ways to improve the article, but every time I make a change, he just mass reverts the whole article again, regardless of whether any aspect of the large number of changes I make are valid. Seems almost frustrated as well in the tone of talk page posts. I'll hold off reverting it back again for another 24 hours, but I don't see any reason why the stuff should be restored and improved after that time. I await your and Chaser's opinions if possible. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Open an article content WP:RFC on the page. Everything's safe in the history file so be patient. Durova^Charge! 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion and am also awaiting what Chaser says. I did notify Eyrian of your suggestion as well. Maybe we'll come to compromise. We're having bad storms here, so... Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Post

I am finding the Wiki Vandals in business as well. I recently started posting in PLM, BOM and other business disciplines.

What I find is software vendors or their proxies are undoing edits and driving references/links to their specific products. Freeformer seems to be this type of contributor and wanted to point out that not only is Wiki used for political mind-management, it also seems to becoming the domain for companies wanting to make a mark and drive ideology towards their solutions.

You probably already knew this, but thought I would share after reading your article on how to address the vandalism of ideas.!

Tks Dave

Right you are. You can report suspected examples to the conflict of interest noticeboard. We handle that all the time. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: CVU thread

Regarding the comments I posted on the thread about CVU, I'd love it if you had some time, if you could look at a project I began after posting on the controversial TTR thread. Originally, I posted to just explain how both WP:DTTR and TTR had merits, but was asked if I'd write an essay on Template Etiquette. With help from User:DGG and User:DESiegel, as well as input from others, I began that project. However, the real reason I wrote the comment on TTR in the first place, was due to the concerns I shared over at the CVU thread on which you just replied. I'm now wondering if a "Recent Changes 101" (or some such name) isn't more in line with the spirit the essay was originally, and I'd truly appreciate any thoughts you may have. I've asked a number of administrators to review it, but the project seems to be stalled, so I'd like any feedback you could give. My apologies in advance if you're too busy to take a look, and I appreciate your continued support of the people who fight vandalism. Most sincerely, ^Ariel♥Gold 04:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the link. You certainly put a lot of work into that. Good job! I'd like to suggest an addition. Have a look at these edits and the associated IP histories.[37][38] Ideological and profit motivated vandalism is a serious issue. Both of those BLP violations slipped by the RC patrollers and both of those edits made the news. Please give the heads up to your readers with referrals to WP:COIN, etc. Durova^Charge! 06:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking it over, and I'll be sure to make note of those issues, as you're right, those are pretty important. With the second link, which side was the one that should have been removed? The left one to me, seems that it would be not appropriate. The first one, I would definitely have noticed, because I nearly always compare previous versions (many times going back several versions) and review them thoroughly, this was obviously a mascot - turned politics thing, so I'd have reverted it. However, if it was something written on his main article, with subtle incorrect items, I would have to say I'd probably not catch it because I've frankly never heard of the guy, and would not know what was right and what wasn't. However, COI I've definitely been aware of and indeed, users who create names that may cause issues, or create pages that are obviously about themselves (and pass the notability test, initially) I've noted on their talk pages the issue, and asked them to review the COI policy. But you're most certainly right, that should be noted in the tutorial (if indeed that turns out to be what it is), as well as advertising vandalism. Thank you again for the time you took out of your busy night to review this, I truly appreciate it! ^Ariel♥Gold 07:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right; the left side. Follow that IP's edit history and talk page and you'll see some interesting things. More of us ought to look out for that proactively, thanks very much. Durova^Charge! 08:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Would you please glance at Thatcher's sandbox? I really feel that Dyaenga's comments towards me are continously hostile, continuously accusing me of lying, violating rules. It really seems over the top. I am honestly trying my best to follow wiki rules. I state my opinion on the discussion page (I'm not even editing the article!) and the basis for my opinion and she just completely lashes out at me. This happened on the Morgellons page too. I'd like an unbiased opinion regarding this please. (And Herd checking a morgellons support board and copying statements that I made there and putting them on wikipedia may not violate wiki rules, but it's just plain creepy and shows their intense desire to throw me off the article.)

I'm not sure what is happening with the whole adopt thing. I posted my request. I also posted messages on boards of people who said that they would adopt. I'm wondering if I'm missing something because I am not too good at navigating thru wiki.

I am grateful for Thatcher's involvement in the article. It's nice to have a referee. :) I am grateful that she took out the disparaging comments about Mary Leitao, but I suspect that they will be added back in time. As long as there are so many people with an agenda working on this article, I don't think that it has any chance of remaining neutral. I would not mind being banned as long as Herd and Dyaenga were also banned. Then more neutral people could work on the article and there were not be the constant, very ugly edit wars. Is there some procedure to follow to request this?

If you just at the enormous size of the discussion page -- two archived sections and the number of edits on the Morgellons page -- it's just ridiculous and certainly indicitive of people with an agenda. (I worked on the article Oct/Nov 06 and mostly took a break until very recently. )

I would appreciate your advice. Pez1103 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts you're making to seek mentorship. The best thing you can do to bring in fresh perspectives is to open an article content request for comment. I'm acting in an administrative capacity at that dispute so I'm staying out of the content side of things. Durova^Charge! 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

inquiry from report

I am Tom Humphrey, a reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel in Tennessee and interested in the article you wrote for searchengineland that referred to 'blanking vandalism' on wikipedia entries for two tennessee politians. i have spoken to the press secretary for U.S. Rep. David Davis, who acknowledges that he was the person attempting to alter the entries. (He is also the brother of state Rep. Matthew Hill, the other Tennessee politician mentioned in the article.

 i would like to speak with you abount your article. if you wish, i can do so without using your real name (though i would prefer to use it). 

thank you very much. that is a well-done and informative article, by the way.

Thanks, I'm glad to help you out. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Peyton Manning listing

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Football_League_first_overall_draft_picks

look under M. See the problem? It won't allow me to fix it. Plus, there appears to be a bogus Manning page up (the title starts with ksy). Can you help? I don't know who I can get in touch with. Enigmaman 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

When the protection expires you can fix the category. What's the full name of that bogus page please? Durova^Charge! 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. It was a user subpage used as a sandbox but he hadn't silenced the category. Thatcher131 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I knew something was wrong with the way it was done. Enigmaman 16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had copied the code when it was full-protected, and I didn't think to edit the categories. I know this comment is 3 weeks late, but I'm sorry for this problem. Ksy92003(talk) 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a word to extend thanks for commenting on the matter on the COI Board concerning promotion of a website by Kandisky123 (talk · contribs). →Lwalt ^♦ talk 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of potential relevance to you

Dear Durova, you may wish to look over and react to the following discussion as, unless I'm mistaken it pertains to an article on which you contributed: Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/Cultural_depictions_of_Joan_of_Arc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the title of the problem page

User:Ksy92003/Peyton Manning

They created a page of their own, but it's now showing up under all the categories that he was listed under. If the user is going to make a page under their own account, it should not be linked to or listed on official pages.

WP:COI

This guideline needs your attention. Some new editors seem to be muddying it, and I'm not interested to engage in any more disputes today. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cailil came along and helped me. Things seem better now. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuck At Cape Filchner

I'm trying to add the proper coordinates in the upper right-hand corner of Cape Filchner but can't figure it out. What am I doing wrong? -WarthogDemon 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I'm not sure. I tried pulling up a few articles on Antarctic geography for comparison but you're more ambitious than any of them have been. Suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for a quick answer. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I solved it. I forgot 2 crucial things: A) put a divider between latitude and longitude and B) no spaces between the numbers and the letter. :P -WarthogDemon 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please respond

I know you're busy but I asked to award the triple crown to User:Awadewit who had many featured articles, DYK, and Good Articles. Is this the right place? I see you responding to others who have posted later than myself, but not accusing you of anything. Just wondering why I have to ask for the award here, and not get any feedback. Why can't I give it to her myself? Please reply. Thanks. Short is fine, I'm sorry to be a pest. Is this the right place, or should I go somewhere else? - Jeeny ^Talk 05:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right place. I apologize for the delay. Durova^Charge! 06:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry if I pestered you. I know you are busy. I just don't understand the procedure, I guess. Thank you very much for your volunteer work. I know it isn't easy, or at least I can only imagine. Again, I'm learning, but very slowly. :) I really do appreciate what you are doing. I couldn't do it. :) Take care. - Jeeny ^Talk 07:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You're famous!

You've been mentioned in a Knoxville News-Sentinel article. Nice work! Sidatio 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Bravo! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Not sure if self-nom for the Triple Crown is the done thing, but working on the basis that "if I don't ask, I don't get"...

• DYK: Guto Puw - notification of appearance on main page here.
• GA: Guto Puw again: Talk page history showing GA was awarded at 21:50, 11 June 2007. The article history shows I created the page and virtually all edits to that time were by me.
• FL: List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford - this was the state of the list when I started work, this is the article history showing that I was then the sole editor until FL status was reached (save for the promoting FL editor making two minor changes the day before promoting it), with the successful nomination here.

Hope this is enough evidence. Thanks in anticipation - an excellent idea for an award. I'm already thinking about how to get the Imperial Triple Crown: I have a "spare" GA, I've just nominated another article I've written for DYK and, if that passes, all I'll need (!) is another FL.... So that's my social life gone for the next month, then. Bencherlite^Talk 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)