User talk:Durova/Archive 31

Quick note

Refractored comments

If arbitration doesn't open JM, I'd like to reopen the article to contributions. If the requested arbitration doesn't become a case I'm contemplating seeking some type of community based sanction on both you and Chrisjnelson to contain the dispute so other editors can participate. I'm posting to both of your talk pages for input on what would be best. Our options are limited and crude. Your input is welcome. Whatever the solution, it'll apply equally for the two of you: Topic ban both of you from football articles until the Superbowl (this can be lifted if you settle your differences). Limit you both to one edit and one article talk post per day, per football-related article. Duration would be the same as above: Superbowl or resolution of the dispute. Place both of you on civility parole. That would apply throughout Wikipedia and have the same duration. Some other solution that you and/or Chris suggest and both agree is reasonable. DurovaCharge! 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to accept any topic wide ban for a couple of reasons. A) It's what I'm most qualified to contribute to. B) I'm really not the problem. I'm asking for people to take their time and be slow and allow for discussion, but they then say i'm "refusing to discuss". I say I'm disengaging and let's see waht other's thing and they say they are going to continue "editing in full". It's a small group of users who seem to have a significant number of NFL related watched pages that are being most problematic. There are several discussions where I don't agree with everyone's "perspective", but I do recognize WP:CON and move on. There is nothing wrong with that. What's basically happening is that we're talking about a template that has the potential to be used on as many sports related pages as almost any template i can think of. Thus, you can't really walk away from it as it will "break" or cause edit waring on thousands of articles. I have asked for the template to be locked, I've asked for people to respect others, i've asked that we just focus on content, and no matter what i do, and no matter how many days i spend being overly nice - here's what happens: A) A bunch of people violate multiple policy and guideline pages B) Nobody puts a stop to it and C) I am spent more time explaing this than either a) editing the actual content (the most important thing to do) or b) trying to discuss things with people (which really cuts into the editing time). I'm here to take resopnsibility for my actions, but I'm not going to stop editing because someone else can't seem to help but attack me personally. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Please direct your attention to the article Michael Lucas (porn star). Editor 216.57.17.234, who has a history of improper editing and conflicts with other editors, insists on inserting material cited from blogs to this bio article. The case has been made in talk that this is not allowable, however, this editor refuses to listen. I see from the talk history that you've resolved a conflict previously with this article regarding sourcing; please give this matter your attention. 72.68.127.82 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up on your review of the COI regarding Kandisky123

Thanks much for your review of the COI issue at WP:COIN about Kandisky123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), regarding the insertion and linking to the editor's promotional website in various articles closely aligned with the topic of the article. The person in question also revealed personally identifiable information about him/herself in the WP image library, based a comparison of WHOIS information about the site and edit summaries and/or copyright information for a few of the uploaded images. (NOTE: Parts of this response also appears on WP:COIN in the section regarding the editor and repeated here for your convenience.)

The editor has since posted a response on my userpage, demanding a reason as to why the link to the site cannot remain (like one for HGTV). The same editor later tempered the message to this one in spite of the specific warnings regarding that editor's actions. Although I've removed instances of links to the website, the poster decided to post the link on my talk page in the demand for a response. My impression is that the editor decided instead to post the live link on my talk page to make a WP:POINT.

I don't believe that posting a notice in response about the external link in question that was left on my talk page will solve anything at the moment; instead, leaving the editor a notice about posting the questionable link on my talk page may simply inflame and escalate the situation. So, for right now, I'll leave my talk page intact for the time being.

Again, many thanks to you for looking into this matter. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Right Way To Fix Inaccurate Wikipedia Articles

Another great article.[1] Thanks for taking the time to get the word out. Today's Signpost mentions both your published articles. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Peyton Manning article

I've actually just left the discussion there, so go ahead and unlock it. The disputes aren't solved, these guys aren't willing to compromise, so i'll leave it be. I'm not planning on editing that article anytime soon until some of these people are dealt with anyway. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reset the page protection to semi, since it was on indefinite semi before I full protected it. Durova^Charge! 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration?

Thanks for you offer, but I am not interested in a time consuming, painful arbitration, nor do i think it is needed at this point. My interactions with csloat have been limited of late (my choice), and seem to be concentrated around a minor content dispute at MEMRI. I believe the RfC around that dispute was pretty helpful - both editors that came in to comment based on the rfC supported the position proposed by Armonand me, so there seems to be a consensus around that. There also seems to be consensus around minimising the amount of quotes in the article through a summariizng paraphrase, which would make the recent disput around InFocus moot. Isarig 17:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope the dispute is on its last legs, but after this much time I'm just not very optimistic. Thanks for the response. Durova^Charge! 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC?

RfC says:

at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem.

So I'm wondering, what dispute that is and who those editors are, and where they failed to resolve the dispute. Any clues? Can you ask them to contact me directly? Please archive your talk page too, its 200 sections and loads long. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother about people threatening me about RfC's. If they have any problems, they're welcome to open an RfC, but they have to remember: For an RfC they need to provide proof that I have ignored their attempts to resolve the dispute and thats where they're going to fail. I dont even know what the dispute is about. Why are they not contacting me? Tell them to do so. They dont have a case. Whoever it is that sent you those emails: go ahead, do whatever RfC's you want to do, I'll see you there. Do it soon, please, dont hold me up in suspense. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of my prior involvement I won't initiate anything. Thanks for your prompt responses. Durova^Charge! 22:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tell your friends to resolve their disputes with me. I've opened this section on my talk page so they can reach me and resolve that dispute, whatever it is. If they dont come up, I'll assume there's nothing to resolve. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

These people aren't necessarily friends of mine. The word's out. Thanks for opening the venue. Durova^Charge! 23:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

arbitration

I've unilaterally backed off the MEMRI dispute and I responded to you on my talk page. If those guys leave me alone I will leave them alone, it's that simple. Hopefully my actions on MEMRI will defuse the situation; if you still want to go to arbitration let me know and I will write something up. Otherwise perhaps this can work out for a while. The reality is that I won't have that much time to spend on wikipedia in the near future, and I don't want what little time I have here to be spent on he-said she-said in a messy and ultimately probably fruitless arbitration. csloat 00:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to turn to arbitration, actually. That's why I've delayed this so long. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian

Dear Durova, I did made some gestures of cooperation to Eyrian, but I just noticed something strange: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Eyrian I posted this at the noticeboard, because now I'm curious what happened that caused the deletion of ALL of his user, talk, and article space. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian is an administrator and chose to delete those pages. Administrators can do that. Having read the recent versions I can guess at why. It doesn't appear to reflect any untoward behavior on Eyrian's part. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It just seemed all of a sudden, especially since a look at his contribs suggest a little revert warring perhaps on some number articles and that all of a sudden that's that. My fear was/is that it's another cautionary tale here or something. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ego

Subject: Actual mainspace work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Barrett_Moulton:_%22Pinkie%22

I've entered it for "Did you know?"

-Durova

---

You attack me, you call me a liar, you call me a vandal, you drag me into arbitration....

You basically made wikipedia so distasteful that I don't even edit here now.... and now you have the audacity to send me an email bragging about your mainspace work?

And rather than let someone else submit it, you submit it to DYK yourself?

Babe, you have a serious ego issue here. sort it out.

Peace.Lsi john 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PS If you were really doing it for the 'good of the community' you wouldn't need or want the recognition. Announcing your work via wholesale spam to everyone on your list, friend or foe, shows you have a serious need for recognition.

Perhaps that's why you get so nasty whenever anyone questions or challenges you publicly. Think about it. Peace.Lsi john 13:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

LSI, I have this page watchlisted along with many others. It is ok to disagree to with an editor but I must strongly encourage you to reformat or retract your statements on Durova's Ego. You may comment on the edits.

Regards, Navou ^banter 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly refactor my words. Please tell me which words I should use.

She falsely accused me of vandalism.

She falsely accused me of Meat puppetry.

She falsely accused me of offline collusion.

She opened an arbitration to 'clear her name' and has clearly stated that she wants her name cleared, on at least 3 occasions on the talk pages of the arbitration.

She drove me off wikipedia.... thats blockable, right? did anyone even say boo to her? I doubt it. (I'm assuming you know which BITE or HARSS policy applies to making the environment so distasteful that an editor leaves).

And now she mass emails people about her accomplishments and lists them herself on DYK.

I'm open to refactoring.. if it isnt a huge ego, please let me know which word to use.

Thanks!

Peace.Lsi john 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Lsi John:

Re: the 'right' words, Durova is just a Wikipedia editor editing the way she is editing. And she didn't 'drive' you away from Wikipedia, you chose to leave (which is a shame). Another choice might have been to turn your back on the conflict and keep editing constructively. We all have those choices, whether our perception of fairness and justice are accurate or not. Remember, Wikipedia isn't just, and it isn't fair. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Now go edit! Or not. But make it a CHOICE. Anchoress 13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anchoress, you're wording is correct. Using the language of responsibility and coming from a position of choice. Ultimately I made the choice to stay away from wikipedia for now. I chose not to stay in a hostile environment where ego was constantly getting in the way of constructive editing and where only 1/2 of what is written (if that) actually gets read, before the wrong person is inappropriately blocked, and then comments which go against the block are ignored and the thread is asked to be closed.

I did not choose for Durova to create this contentious environment, but you are correct, I freely chose not to be here.

Given that, perhaps we should re-write the rules here. Since its always a choice to leave or stay, then presumably it is impossible to ever violate the guideline/policy/rule that describes it as an offense to create such an environment for someone that leads to such a choice.

Yes, I chose to leave. Just like I choose daily not to put my hand on a hot stovetop and I choose daily not to walk out onto the highway.

I may be back, or not. With all the pathetic warnings for 'NPA' that get handed out and the other childishness here, it simply isn't a priority for me right now.

My choice, yes. Peace.Lsi john 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

John, I apologize for the e-mail. It was late at night and I intended to mail it to somebody else who had a similar e-mail address and who had been nudging me to do more mainspace work. I didn't realize the mistake until I logged on and read your message here. By no means did I intend to antagonize you; after staying up much later than planned to confirm the citations and copyedit the page I was half asleep. I sent only one e-mail and meant to address the person who had inspired me to start the article.

The bitterness of these complaints is surprising since you've chosen not to submit any of them as evidence at the arbitration case. You have taken time to participate there in other ways and I have, repeatedly, urged you to air your grievances in the forum best suited to remedy them. If they have any merit I deserve to be rebuked, and probably desysopped. The Committee can also block me or ban me. Administrators have no special shield at these proceedings; a review of past cases demonstrates how readily they act upon verifiable instances of abuse.

Any person who selectively broadcasts accusations at out-of-process fora and neglects the obvious legitimate venues is unlikely to be taken seriously. John, this option remains open to you at this final stage; once it closes - if anyone questions this matter again - I intend to cite diffs of my invitations that you present a case against me and link to the page where you failed to do so. That will speak for itself unless you act now to change the outcome.

Again, please accept this statement in good faith. I readily apologize on occasions when I realize that I am wrong (the other day I checked and counted nine apologies since last December; this is the tenth). I simply don't think I've wronged you in any other way than the mistaken e-mail last night. If I have and don't realize it, then the way to show me the error of my ways is arbitration. I would also accept the opinion of Jimbo Wales or of the community at admin conduct RFC. You have already tried the former and the latter would be redundant while the case is open. Durova^Charge! 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ANI heads up

You are being mentioned at WP:ANI#Civility and personal attacks by User:Lsi_john. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Though I'm not the one that opened the thread. And I'm not the one who brought up Durova's name. And I'm not the one who thought that it even rose to the level of AN/I.

So, EVula, while you are technically correct, your comment is very misleading. Peace.Lsi john 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

She's He's only citing the name of the thread. EVula, thank you for the heads up. John, let's raise this at arbitration or put it behind us. Durova^Charge! 16:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see now, that 'by User:Lsi_john' is part of the thread name, and not that she was saying that you were being mentioned 'by me'. I stand corrected. She didn't offer me the same courtesy though, which was my main objection. Peace.Lsi john 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries as far as I'm concerned, as it was an honest mistake (and a fairly easy one to make at that).
That said, I'm more distressed that I'm now female, as opposed to being male for the past twenty-someodd years. That'll completely change my dating life, and I'm very distressed about it. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Restoring your manhood, EVula...oops). John, I understand now. I'm willing to let this be water under the bridge if you are. I can certainly understand your reaction this morning. It must have looked deliberately provocative under the circumstances. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova, actually I didn't think it was personally to me. It may not seem like it, but I was actually giving you more credit than thinking you'd intentionally and directly provoke me. My assumption was that you simply did a mass-email to announce your success to your world of friends. While, arguably, my assumption was not flattering, in my view it was much better than assuming you sent it to me deliberately. Hence the reference to you 'ego' in my post.

I see now that it was simple carelessness and not ego, and for that rush-to-judgment I apologize. If I might ask you to take a moment and look at all the misunderstandings that occurred here. Do you see how each of them has a very simple explanation? Yet the misunderstandings all still took place.

I do appreciate that you expressed understanding for my reaction. I also appreciate your apology for accidentally sending me the email in the first place. My request to you, as we go forward, would be to consider that not all of your assumptions are correct either, and announcing them to the world, and making accusations (as I did with mine) does not always serve the best end. I'm still very bitter about your public attacks on my character and it's not easy to give you the benefit of the doubt any more. Not everyone is a vandal and accusing people of things, with only circumstantial evidence, is wrong (and I'm clearly guilty of this myself also).

As for arbitration, feel free to present the case against yourself if you feel it is that important. Personally I think WP:SNOW applies. Arbitrators have clearly said on multiple occasions that they are not here to punish Admins for 'trying' to do a good job, even if they fail. I believe you are 'trying', that has never been in question.

I accept your apology. And, I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion about your email.

Peace.Lsi john 19:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection for Morgellons

I would like to ask you to extend the protection on {{la|Morgellons]] for another week. I have gotten involved in the article (not as a mediator but as a content editor taking a middle of the road position) and we have made significant progress. However, the issue of treatment has not been dealt with yet and is seems that protection has helped to force the other editors to cooperate. Plus, of two strongly pro-Morgellons editors, one is on vacation for a week. There is a relevant comment on the talk page. Thanks. Thatcher131 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've extended to the 25th. Durova^Charge! 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

You left a note for me?

-V

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are sending me messages through Wikipedia insisting that we talk over email when you could have just emailed me in the first place. It's not like my email address is hard to find.

-V

Support

Hope i could get your support here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#The_new_image

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#The_new_image

Because i belive that you will agree with me that having the Normandi battle picture in the size of two, and not having a picture of the Stalingrad battle in a world war two image is absurd. M.V.E.i. 11:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia scanner

I noticed that you added something to the Wikipedia signpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions about the Wikipedia scanner tool being created. Searching the web, I found this article here: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=428814 which states quite clearly that the Virgil Griffith was hired by Wikipedia to create the Wiki Scanner to help to explain the events of the SlimVirgin scandal (which Ludwig van Brackenleer was the main investigative journalist who covered it). Why isn't this information out there more readily? When you think about it, it is rather obvious that Virgil Griffith, a small time hacker with no financial income, wouldn't be able to fund a project like the Wikipedia Scanner, and would need to get funding from somewhere, for hosting costs if nothing else. And who else other than Wikipedia itself would have a vested interest in its creation? The fact that true anonymity comes from usernames, not from Anonymous IPs, creates the perfect ruse for Wikipedia to hide some of their more serious flaws, as exposed in the SlimVirgin scandal. The CIA edits, for example, 297 edits in total, represent a very small proportion of CIA edits on Wikipedia, as they don't include any done by logged in users.

I have tried to add the information to the Wikipedia scanner and Virgil Griffith articles but it was undone by people who haven't logged in before, and someone from the Wikimedia foundation. It is sourced information, and I have no reason to believe that the information is unreliable. If it is false, then there should be counter information. How did Virgil Griffith fund his idea? Does he have a secret bank account somewhere? Who funded it? And can WMF prove that it wasn't them that funded it? 123.2.168.215 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a search for that author's previous publications and scan my rebuttals. I don't bother to answer anymore. Durova^Charge! 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this IP may be a sock of a banned user. I am filing RFCU now. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice of redirects

Dear Durova, I redirected my two abandoned accounts' userpages to my current and only main user page as indicated in these two edits: [2] and [3], because those accounts have no reason to ever be unblocked and so if anyone ever wants to contact those editors, they'll be taken to my main userpage. Anyway, I thought it appropriate that I notify you. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, and thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also notified Chaser as well. By the way, just as a suggestion, your talk page is becoming quite long; perhaps you may wish to archive it soon. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikisleuths

Wikisleuths? Isn't that a neologism shouldn't you know better? ;). Anyway sounds interesting I'm always looking to expand my wikihorizons (*gasp*) so where should I start? Whispering 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See if WP:COIN or WP:SSP catch your fancy. Most of it is intuitive, 90% is easy. If you hop into any deep rabbit holes or think the tools are needed (page protection etc.) give me a holler. E-mail or g-mail chat would be fine. Cheers and scattered neologisms, Durova^Charge! 23:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there a "WP:COIN For Dummies" guide anywhere? My main question is how to determine when a COI is resolved. With something like vandalism, the vandal is either blocked (or not) and it's done. But the conclusion of a COI is not as clear-cut. Thanks - Raymond Arritt 02:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There isn't a summary guide for the board anywhere, rather there are a few pages of advice written by Wikipedians regarding WP:COI itself. COIN needs as much help as it can get. Feel free to g-mail chat with me. Durova^Charge! 19:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1RR?

Over at [4] you suggested a possible community imposed 1RR rule on, say, global warming related articles. Are there precedents for this, and/or how would one go about it? William M. Connolley 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at the community level; only through arbitration. In theory the community claimed the right to do this when Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation got started but there haven't been any actual instances when that has been used. I think shortly after posting that suggestion I modified that suggestion to 2RR so that newcomers wouldn't get autoblocked too readily. I see no reason why the community couldn't do this - it'd save the trouble of yet another arbitration at a subject that's chronically controversial. Ideally, if the concept is going to gain traction, I'd like to see it supported by at least one editor from both sides of the fence. This isn't meant to be a partisan thing, just a measure to help prevent things from getting overheated.

The basic principle I'd assert for this is an extension of the reasoning behind community topic bans: since the community already does sitebans - which is the strongest kind of sanction at Wikipedia - it makes sense that the community can impose lesser remedies also. A judicious application of lesser remedies may even reduce the need for sitebans.

If you'd like a neutral party to open that proposal formally, I could do it. The thread would probably be controversial and would probably set a precedent. Would you like me to approach any other of the regulars at the global warming pages and sound them out about this? Durova^Charge! 21:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

External links advice

I skimmed WP:EL but didn't find an answer; is there a guideline or policy directive on multiple links to different pages on the same site? I noticed from the prominent thread on AN/I that there are editors who feel that the two links on Capablanca random chess to the same site constitute self-promotion. I consolidated the links and was reverted, and I wondered if there's a rule about it one way or the other? Anchoress 21:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really followed that ANI thread in detail and I'm not a good enough chess player to parse all the technical details. However, I did notice an absence of discussion on the article talk page. So I've full protected the page for a week. Please ask the editors to work this out. Durova^Charge! 21:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, we'll see how it goes. I posted my argument in favour of consolidation on the talkpage. Anchoress 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured pic criteria for Triple Crown

I have a question re. the featured content criteria as stated on your Triple Crown page. For featured pics, do you need to be the original uploader or you can have made a successful nom? Thanks for clarifying. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikia / Wikipedia COI

I would appreciate you weighing in on a debate over "resolving" and "hiding" this discussion that you initially called a "Good question". If it's going to be swept under the rug, that will look even worse for the Foundation. At the very least, I would prefer that a trusted administrator close the discussion, rather than a general user. --Dude Manchap 14:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for "ruling" on moving the Wikia COI discussion to the Village Pump. If an administrator thinks that's where it should go, I'm completely okay with the decision. It may actually turn out that it gets more general notice there than in WP:COI/N, correct? --Dude Manchap 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. It's outside the scope of anything my sysop tools could address, so basically all I'd be able to do is petition the WMF board. Let's see how this fares in the marketplace of ideas. Durova^Charge! 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI/N

Please do not feed the trolls and encourage further misuse of the COI/N board by responding there. The discussion has been moved to WP:VPP. Please also revert your deletion of the hab/hat (which, I note, included a link to the correct page). The COI/N page is already a mess, and this sort of discussion, which, as you note, admins are powerless to deal with, does not belong there. THF 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, how can I express this politely? You're trying to tell me how COIN should be run. How much time do you spend there? Durova^Charge! 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I had copied the debate to VPP, and set up a hat/hab that expressly linked to that discussion. In response, you deleted it with the edit summary please do not close prematurely - if not here, then where? Let's not give the impression of sweeping things under the rug. I was mildly peeved at being reverted with an edit summary that implied you had not even looked at how I had structured the closure for minimum disruption. I spend quite a bit of time on COI and COI/N, even creating WP:SCOIC and WP:COIC to help on COI issues. I don't mean to lock horns with you, either, and I'm glad it eventually worked out. (P.S. You left out the hab tag when you closed the debate, inadvertently deleting three other ongoing topics. I fixed it.) Cheers. THF 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the fix. Things developed so quickly it's hard to be perfect. No hard feelings either way, I hope? I think we've settled on a good solution. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Concern for Bus stop

Though I have no connetion to this user (I usually read the community noticeboard), I'm surprised that this user was blocked indefinitely, especially since the user was first given a 3-month block. I'm trying to find the latest discussion on this user to read the ban proposal and also wanted to let you know that you could have blocked the user's Email. VoltronForce 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the user was originally given an indef block, then given a second chance with mentorship and an article ban, then indeffed a second time through a second community consensus discussion. Then I tried reducing the indef to 90 days at the request of an editor who was trying to help him out. That idea didn't work very well at all. The more we tried to cooperate with this person the more difficult he became. Both ban discussions are in the CSN archives with a third discussion in the AN archives the day after I tried to reduce the time frame. It's been a grand waste of time. Durova^Charge! 15:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sarah Barrett Moulton: "Pinkie", which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reactivating School and Uni Projects page?

Ive started working a bit with the WP:SUP page, mostly trying to update the content right now. It seems to me that more teachers like me would use Wikipedia more if we knew about it. Also seems that finding projects and helping teachers is a really hit-or-miss proposition. Did the idea of a bot looking for keywords like "school" or "project" or "assignment" etc every get anywhere? I wouldnt mind helping out as a initial contact for new teachers. I dont have the most technical skills in the world but I can at least be there to say "hi" Thelmadatter 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Hm, good idea. Go for it. :) Durova^Charge! 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

More harassment

My shadow has been following me around again, and posting this. Unforutunately , I did write that last night while I was agnry, but that's the worst he'll be able to find from me without editing it. He has a different IP everytime he shows up, so I really don't know what you can do. As I said, leaving this username is the only way I see to avoid him, much as I hate to do that. He even vandalized my attempt today to change my username today! If I do come back, and I'd really like to, it will have to be with a clean identity. - BillCJ 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. Durova^Charge! 04:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Could you please look at this and let me know what you think? Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page

Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson is now trying to recant his previous agreement. Please view my talk page under the section you started. He still has yet to appologize for any of his comments and this is the third time that he has decided to recant previous statements that involved him leaving the discussions/projects/or wiki. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Modded your comment

Please forgive me if I overstepped. I modded your comment's wikilink here. Cheers, Navou ^banter 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Closed proposal

So exactly how are we supposed to proceed here? Is this to say that nothing happens and we just go about our business? I'm confused and not sure how to proceed here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Durova, I noticed your comments on the talk page of a mutual friend, BillCJ. I wonder if you can look into a problem with the Amelia Earhart page. A conspiracy theorist has come back after being reverted by at least two editors and one admin, but he has again reverted every change made by Gwen Gale who has been a major contributor to the article for over a year. She did a very careful analysis of his recent edits and rewrote the article, establishing a referenced and supported section on disappearance theories related to Amelia Earhart. I do not want to get into a revert war but our "Saipan theory is best" editor has been cautioned on both the article discussion page and his own talk page, that his assertions are untenable and do not have consensus support. He will not listen to me and only an admin can return the article to its original state or to the version that Gwen Gale proposed. Help... Bzuk 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Question regarding my editing of infobox-related topics

Durova... I know I promised to avoid anything and everything infobox-related - and I will if you still want me to. I tried to ask Jmfangio about this but I guess he still has some hostility toward me (not that I'm blaming him) so he wasn't really interested in talking. Anyway - as I said before, I like updating the NFL roster templates and stuff like that. Well, usually as I do that according to daily transactions. And as I do that, I often add/update infobox to the articles of the players involved. Well, I'd like to continue doing that, especially since not many people are interested in doing it and some of these articles may become out of date if I don't add them quickly. So I was wondering if it might be okay with you if I do remain involved in the infoboxes. I am not going to behave like I did before - you won't see personal attacks or any other policy violations. If Jmfangio or anyone else feels I am doing anything wrong, they can tell you or someone else and I can be banned from the topic. I'm asking for your permission (even though I'm not sure if I already can since I was never instructed to do anything). I just really enjoy doing this stuff. But I'm much more willing to compromise on all issues to keep things peaceful and just go about my business. What do you think? I can even tell Jmfangio to contact you specifically if he feels I'm going against my word - that way you know exactly what do to. Please let me know - I won't jump back into any infoboxes-related things until I hear from you.►Chris Nelson 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay well I read your comment on Jmfangio's page. That's fine. So I mean... can I never edit infobox-related stuff again? Or can we determine some time that I should sit it out? I really don't think I should permanently be barred from editing that stuff ever again, especially since it won't turn out like last time and if it ever appeared otherwise you could officially ban me from it.►Chris Nelson 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pumpkin King

Hi Durova. I noticed that you've unblocked our ban-evading friend. Since you were the one who blocked him in the first place, that's your prerogative to lift it. I just thought I should let you know that I'll keep an eye on him at AfDs - which I've seen him popping up in a bit - to make certain that none of his previous funny business is tried again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have entered the adopt a user program with Chaser adopting me and have kept contact with Durova as well. I have also joined the video games wikiproject for which I have created some articles and uploaded pictures. In addition, I have joined the welcoming committee. Finally, I am making a conscious point to have at least five or more edits elsewhere on Wikipedia to every one I post in an AfD. So, I'll similarly be happy to report anything "funny" I notice as well. Take care! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept that you're making an effort to play by the rules this time (as against the last three or four times we've crossed paths). My position is based on the observations that AfD is - or at least was, depending on whether you've changed your opinions a bit - based on principles which you appear to be fundamentally opposed to, that you flagrantly disregarded pretty serious policies on multiple occasions before, and also that you were totally unrepentent when caught again and again. As I said, you may well have changed your tune, and I do sincerely want to believe that you have. Given your track record, I think you'll understand my doubts, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is a good deal of what was alleged against me previously was inaccurate or at least exaggerated. For example, one user named ISOLA'd ELBA was blocked as a sockpuppet of mine just because that editor put a barnstar on my page. There were no other similarities between us! When a checkuser was done, only two accounts showed up (Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? and Horace.Horatius)--both of which I did in fact create, I have admitted to numerous times, and have since totally abandoned. Neither ISOLA nor any of the others alleged against me appeared in the checkuser. In another instance I used an anonymous IP to contact a couple users regarding my health status. I was scrutinized for doing that, but I didn’t know about how to email users (Wooyi sent me a message explaining how to do that). I did so, because I had earlier placed a health tag on my page. When the validity of my health problems was also questioned, I actually photocopied some of my medical records and emailed them to Wooyi (and I think Durova) to validate my claims. There are a few things I did out of ignorance of policies or out of frustration a while back, but again a notable amount of what was alleged against me was not entirely true. So, please Wikipedia:Don't always assume sockpuppetry and at least take the overwhelming number of positive edits and efforts I have made as indicative of my ability to greatly contribute to this site. I have not created any new accounts since being unblocked and have been careful to log in whenever possible. If you look at my edit history for the past two months, you’ll see that I have been open-minded to suggestions, kept in contact with various admins for advice, always provided edit summaries for my edits, joined the welcoming committee, the adopt-a-user program, wikiprojects video games, created a few articles, uploaded several pictures, reported vandalism, added reference request templates, vastly reduced my participation in AfDs, etc. Moreover, my edits in the past two months have been way more numerous than those I made in 2006 and early this year. And I have had a lot of pleasant and constructive email discussions with experienced editors for advice and ideas. Also, part of my frustration a year or so ago stemmed from something I still see now, which are a handful of users who post rapid (sometimes a few in one minute!) delete “votes” in AfDs (much faster than when I did so) while making limited other contributions to Wikipedia. There are a couple users who seem to post practically the same thing in discussion after discussion and who appear in many of the same discussions as well. If you would like to discuss that off wiki, send me an email and I’d be happy to share the evidence of suspicious activity I have noted so far in that regard should you wish to address some of the suspect activity I’ve noticed. Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk • contribs) 23:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

COI allegations, eComXpo article dispute, help needed

Hello Durova,

Speaking of where we left off the conversation at my talk page.... :(

I posted a detailed status of the current situation at jehochman's talk page with all relevant details about the dispute and my request for outside help. It would be nice, if you could also help in this matter or point me to the right place to alert the appropriate people about my concerns and to get this problem resolved. Thank you. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on civility

Still kind of a work in progress, but I thought you might want to take a look and provide input: User:ATren/Civility ATren 14:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It continues

So from my understanding we were at a place where Chris said he wouldn't edit war with me. Well - it's happened and i have yet again left an article. See [5] and Talk:Dan Wilkinson. I was making those edits based on a discussion I was having with Tharsaile (talk · contribs) (see his talk page as chris has engaged me there). I am happy to go through the Arb process, but this is exactly why i'm frustrated. The guy just won't let up. As Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) pointed out to me - Cjn sent an email to him that made some troubling remarks regarding me. I advised him to discuss disclosure with a clerk of the ArbC. You can see what has transpired here. If you want to go aheand and institute a topic wide ban for him - i will adhere to it as well effective immediately. The only snafu is the template being developed on my subpage. I will develop it there as at least one other user is invovled - and it would be rude for me to bail on him. I will not implement this. I don't care about talk pages, those are effective ways to discuss - but i will gladly stop editing Am.Football related topics (college, pro, CFL, NFL, whatever). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova - I simply added back a personal section I felt had value in the article, and this time included a source which was previously just in the external links. As you can see, I added a reference to the personal section itself. Is this a problem? I do not believe this is an edit war, as there were not "repeated reverts." Jmfangio removed something, even saying in the edit summary that it was because it was unsourced. So I added it back, with source. What is my crime?►Chris Nelson 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is his diff where he states his reason for removal is it being unsourced. Considering I solved the issue when I re-added it, I don't think I did anything wrong.►Chris Nelson 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Hill Wikipedia blanking scandal

Greetings Durova:

My interest in Wikipedia editing is pretty much centered around my hometown of Elizabethton, Tennessee, along with the history and local places associated with Elizabethton, such as the Watauga River, Doe River, Sycamore Shoals, etc. and I pretty much still consider myself to be somewhat of a newbie.

Thank you for bring to the Hill Wikipedia blanking scandal to light as David Davis is the elected congressman from this area--- when this story started getting picked up by the Knoxville News-Sentinel it almost seemed like the blanking of referenced materials at both David Davis (Tennessee politician) and Matthew Hill had stopped for a while, and one on the major newspapers in Northeast Tennessee (i.e.: the Johnson City Press ) has ran three different articles and another editorial about the Hill Wikipedia blanking since the story was first picked up here by the Knoxville NewsSentinel around August 11.

I also caught a bit of some local talk radio WFHG wherein one angry listener (apparently being a Davis supporter) actually stated on-the-air that he was signing-up as a Wikipedia user for the sole purpose of deleting the same info from the Davis and Matthew Hill articles as did Davis' press secretary. SirEditALot (history since July 23, 2007) and Tdl1060 (a long time history profile indicative of a partisan interest in editing Wikipedia articles) are two who have mad e blanking into a past time.

The upshot here is that I believe a lot of this blanking nonsense could be sharply curtailed by requiring both UserName and IP to be publicly viewed where creating or editing political articles such as bios and hot issues - I judt don't know where or how to move this suggestion toward those people with the ability to implement such broad changes to the Wikipedia.

I am thinking another way to reduce a lot of edit wars of turf wars (like with the radio stationarticles) would involve prohibiting users displaying the "kill count" numerical badge displays at their Userpage.

I believe that editors pursuing high body counts within their favorite subjects may tend to put the quality and accuracy of an article within the community a distant second behind creating growing scoreboard.

I also found the following excerpt from Boston.com that I though would make a really great quotation type box thingie (but I have not looked into that yet):

Meehan staff are said to admit rewriting data: Excised mention of broken pledge

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/01/29/ Bymeehan_staff_are_said_to_admit_rewriting_data/

(commenting on the 2006 Congressional Wikipedia vandalism)

[...]

Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, said removal of facts is wrong.

You don't delete it [referenced facts from Wikipedia articles]," Wales said. If they wanted to put in their side of things, that would seem ethically relevant, rather than just omitting it."

Later D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee Cliff River Slob (talk • contribs) 03:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the above user just blanked a section about Wikipedia from the David Davis page. This user can't be trusted and is currently engaged in a lengthy edit war on the Matthew Hill‎ where he is adding adding unreferenced controversial information Mr. Hill. This user is trying to stir things up for the people who are doing their jobs and deleting information he is adding. As it stands, User:THF has given him his last warning for his current behaviour. It would be best to just ignore Bee Cliff River Slob as he is just trying to stir things up. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings D and NeutralHomer :

How do you actually go about "blanking" a section by restoring referenced information that has in reality been added back to the "Political connection to Altace, pharmaceutical industry" section of either the Matthew Hill and (Tennessee politican) Wikipedia articles?

D, if you haven't followed up on my User history after reading NeutralHomer 's last ad hominen attack against me , you will likely notice that NeutralHomer has been following me through much earlier edits to more recent and different Wiki articles, and the following is not an exhaustive list, I am sure.:

• 03:11, 26 August 2007 m Jason Mumpower (Reverted 2 edits by Bee Cliff River Slob identified as vandalism </wiki/WP:VAND> to last revision by Tdl1060 using TW </wiki/WP:TWINKLE>)
• 03:11, 26 August 2007 m Steve Godsey (Reverted 2 edits by Bee Cliff River Slob identified as vandalism to last revision by Tdl1060 using TW </wiki/WP:TWINKLE>)
• 03:10, 26 August 2007 User talk:Bee Cliff River Slob
• 03:08, 26 August 2007 m David Davis (Tennessee politician)

(Reverted 1 edit by Bee Cliff River Slob identified as vandalism </wiki/WP:VAND> to last revision by Danarn17 using TW</wiki/WP:TWINKLE>)

• 03:08, 26 August 2007 User talk:Durova re: Hill Wikipedia blanking scandal

I am also fairly confident that NeutralHomer has not read your article at Search Engine Land called "SEO Tips & Tactics From a Wikipedia Insider" (or the widely distributed news acounts of "SEO Tips & Tactics From a Wikipedia Insider") wherein you identified two Wikipedia articles Matthew Hill and David Davis (Tennessee politician) as being vandalized from an IP number that you had traced back to the U.S. House of Representatives.

U.S. Rep. David Davis' congressional press secretary Timothy Hill (as first reported within the August 11, 2007 Knoxville News-Sentinel) in a first interview with a KNS reporter first denied any personal involvement in blanking (deleting) much of the referenced "Political connection to Altace, pharmaceutical industry" section off of both the Matthew Hill and David Davis (Tennessee politician) articles, and Hill later admitted to the vandalism during a second telephonic interview with the KNS reporter.

I have noticed during the lockdown of the David Davis article that the "Political connection to Altace, pharmaceutical industry" section was fully restored to the David Davis article but not to the lockdown to the Matthew Hill article. Two of the abovelisted articles listed within NH's history include both Jason Mumpower and Steve Godsey who both served as members of the Tennessee General Assembly, and along with Ron Ramsey, participated within the August 1999 King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. legislative/lobbying airlift to Nashville and each off these politicans have a "Political connection to Altace, pharmaceutical industry" section within their own Wikipedia articles.

NeutralHomer has been persistently blanking out the same (more or less) referenced information from the "Political connection to Altace, pharmaceutical industry" section of the Matthew Hill and David Davis (Tennessee politician) Wikipedia articles as did U.S. Rep. David Davis' congressional press secretary Timothy Hill. I have been restoring the "Political connection to Altace, pharmaceutical industry" section that NeutralHomer et al have been blanking.

At this point, I can image that NeutralHomer is now wishing that he had first read your "SEO Tips & Tactics From a Wikipedia Insider" article before posting his comments above.

Tdl1060 is another editorwho has a very informative user history, revealing that a majority of the Tdl1060 contributions reflect a highly paritsan political interest in following the Ronald Reagan rule about presenting Republicans in a favorable light (or some phrase to that effect).

And D, a last comment about NeutralHomer and his blocking warnings that he has been automatically posting to my Talk page with scripts. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that only administrators (and others higher up) can block editors such as myself...can NeutralHomer (who is not listed as an administrator) actually block my account or he is inappropriately utilizing his Twinkle script to harass me? Bee Cliff River Slob 06:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to comment here, aren't I? Sheesh. Bee Cliff River Slob you broke the rules and as such you were issued a Warn2, 3 or 4 warning which anyone can issue, not just admins. Only admins can actually block someone. My issuing you a Vandalism Warning is not harrassment, it is a warning to curb your behaviour which you haven't done. You Coatracked WHCB, WHGB, and other radio station pages, when faced with a block you moved on to coatracking other pages like this edit.

Now, stop trying to turn your behaviour around on me. You made this bed, you get to sleep in it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on peroxisome

dear durova

I am interested in your comment on the community sanctions noticeboard.

Support indef on the basis of this post.[29] [[6]]

you obviously had a strong reaction to the comment, and I confess to being disturbed. I intended to make a general comment about whether majority opinion can act as a defence against defamation, and the prospect of it being read as a specific threat alarms me. I would be grateful for your advice as to what I did wrong, and how to raise such issues, or the general issue of passages that are defamatory in future, in a way that is consistent with acceptable wikipedian standards. Peroxisome 13:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To save you the trouble

From our last encounter, I know you think that pointing out malicious, sexist behavior on Wikipedia in no uncertain terms in worse than malicious, sexist behaviour on Wikipedia. You don't need to remind me. VivianDarkbloom 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

vandalism of Roman Catholic Sites by DominvsVobiscm

There is a vandal who is persistently eliminating valid referenced content on three sites: John Favalora (Archbishop of Miami), Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, and Catholic Church Sex Abuse Cases. If you see this person's talk page, they have been warned once already to stop this vandalism. The person replaces the valid content with content that violates several Wikipedia policies. The content placed on Catholic Church Sex Abuse Cases is not even a sex abuse case, it is all about suspicions of a gay subculture and it references an extremist web site of Matt Abott. Matt Abott is a religion gossip columnist who does not have editorial oversight or fact checkers. He just publishes emails even from anonymous contributors. Please see the page John Favalora Wikipedia requests for Mediation. All editors of these pages have condemned the content submitted by DominvsVobiscm yet he persists in his/her vandalism.NancyHeise 02:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to chat?

Do you have time for a quick chat? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova

I would like to speak to you regarding the possibility of accepting me for admin coaching. I too have an interest in the more in-depth investigatory aspect of Wikipedia, and would greatly appreciate the chance to learn from a master. Please respond on my talk page at your leisure. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding CSN

[7]. Sorry, Durova. It was never going to fly, particularly via the CSN, as it's not a decision the community is empowered to make. Neil ム 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Jimmy to clarify his position as well. Navou ^banter 18:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered doing this the other way round - rather than blocking IPs from editing pages, protect pages from IPs editing them. Pages could be protected or semi-protected for the duration of an election. But I could only see this step working if it was taken during every election in the English-speaking world. It would probably require a new policy and a lot of work--Cailil ^talk 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with the Chrisjnelson situation

I really am at a loss for words - i finally thought that we had gone our separate ways - and Chris has creeped back to editing articles in a most contentious fashion. I will be happy to point you to examples of this with other editors - but most recently - on Jermaine Wiggins. I went to the article and finished a series of three edits here. CJN had never touched the article. Sure enough - he came in and reverted an edit i did here. I would love to have left it alone - but again - this is in direct violation of his promise to stop. I did a partial revert - game him the "UGA link" and removed the Jaguars information (and for good reason) - and yet - we are back at this. He reverted again and then started a discussion on Talk:Jermaine Wiggins. I just don't know what to do. I responded and have left his last edit in place - but I don't even want to talk to this guy anymore - because nothing productive ever comes out of these discussions. Please let me know how to handle this - i cannot have my edits constantly attacked by one user. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to attack or war with anyone. I just added information I felt bettered the article, and when it was reverted I went to the talk page to try and explain. Also, Jmfangio's reason for reverting is insufficient, in my opinion, because my edit acknowledges what he says.►Chris Nelson 20:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Chris - you've done it again HERE on yet ANOTHER ARTICLE. Why can you not stop edit warring - why am i having to do this on yet another admins page - this is disgusting and a waste of everyone's time. Stop it - those edits don't belong - Wiggins and Barlow were never eligible to play for those teams - and even if you do believe you are right - STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND!!!!. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not intentionally trying to follow you around. I happened to look at your contributions and I decided to look at a few articles. This is not a crime.►Chris Nelson 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved comment to below, after B's post.

Note to Durova

I am so very frustrated here with this that i have no idea what to do. What am I supposed to do here? I just don't even know - i'm happy to participate in the ArbCom and everything else - but I simply go around and make edits and leave him alone - and i'm dragged back into this again. I will not revert those edits until I hear back from you and I don't believe there is anythign else i can possibly say here in the meantime. It's marked as a watch and this is the last you'll here from me until you need me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I just want you to know there is no hostility here on my part. I don't have it in for him. I don't follow him around looking for ways to mess with him and edits to revert. My only goal is to edit NFL-related stuff and improve it. I'm happy to discuss any edits I make and that's why I took it to the talk page of one of the articles in question. I also know at least five users that like this edit a lot. It was not totally my idea, I actually picked up the idea from an asterisk I saw on Darwin Walker some time ago. But I liked the idea, I think it creates a "timeline" effect in the infobox, and I think as long as the asterisk is there along with a note saying he did not play in the regular season for that team, it's not misleading at all but only betters the article. So like I said, this is not a personal thing - I'm just trying to improve these articles and I'm fine with discussing my edited in a civilized manner.►Chris Nelson 20:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't look at his contributions then. Select articles to edit a different way. Problem solved. Nobody is going to jump up and down and scream if in the normal course of editing you come across an article he edits ... but if you are selecting your articles based on Juan editing them, then that's bad. --B 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson, you can't follow him around like that. The manner in which you're doing this, looking at his contributions and reverting edits that he makes, whether they are good or not, is against Wikipedia:Harassment. Believe me; this is something that caused me to get blocked a couple months ago. Unless the user is constantly vandalizing pages, there is no reason to look at his contributions and revert any edits he makes. If I wanted to, I could report you for this. This is something that you need to stop because there is no valid reason to revert somebody's edits unless the bulk of their edits are vandalism. Ksy92003(talk) 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that saying I'm following him and reverting him is 100% wrong, so please don't accuse me of it or preach policies that therefore do not apply. I was looking at his contributions, and I looked at a few of the articles themselves. I never looked at any of the diffs, and I never edited to revert. I edited to ADD information. I did not revert any of the pages I looked at from his contributions page. I looked at the articles, then saw information I thought was worth adding/updating/changing. The end. I won't look at his contributions anymore, but your accusations are not accurate and I know there is nothing wrong with my actions.►Chris Nelson 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you said "I happened to look at your contributions and I decided to look at a few articles" as well as your admission that you were paying close attention to Jmfangio's contributions is on the verge of Wikipedia:Harassment. You admitted that you are editing the articles that Jmfangio had recently edited because you were paying attention to his contributions, on based on the comments that he left at User talk:Jmfangio, it is quite clear that Jmfangio believes that you are following him around by following his contributions. You say "this is not a crime," when in actuality, it is, and yet you are completely ignorant of the fact that you are coming increasingly close to violating Wikipedia:Harassment. You have admitted that you are following him around, editing the articles that he has, and that is not allowable in the fashion that you are. Take it from somebody who has experienced this before: you can be blocked by editing articles that you only edited because another user has edited if that other user feels that you are stalking him. This happened to me, and I was blocked for it, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were, also. In my opinion, I think you should be blocked because the evidence strongly suggests that you are harassing him. Ksy92003(talk) 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a one-time occurence, it was done with no malicious intent or any goal of "stalking." I didn't even know if my edits were related to his, because I didn't look at the diffs. Should I really not edit an article because I stumbled across is the "wrong way." There's no need for a block because I'm not stalking him and I have no need to visit his contributions page if B feels that is best. The mere fact you think this one incident deserves a block is a perfect example why you shouldn't have that kind of power.►Chris Nelson 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"A one-time occurence?" Unless my counting skills are off, Jermaine Wiggins and Kevan Barlow are two articles. Also, my opinion isn't biased at all. My opinion is as is because I've experienced a situation similar to this, and Jmfangio has come out about this in a manner that clearly shows that he really doesn't like this. The way that Jmfangio has come out about this shows that he is clearly more frustrated about the situation than Jaranda (talk · contribs), the user who I was following, was. It's one thing to edit articles that are edited by another user by looking at their contributions, but it's another entirely to get into a revert war because you saw what articles they had edited. You won't be able to convince me that you weren't stalking him, but you might want to consider explaining to Jmfangio everything that you've told me and see if he forgives you. I don't care if you think I'm wrong or not because it doesn't concern me at all. But if you really think you are innocent, then you need to tell Jmfangio. Ksy92003(talk) 01:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy on csloat's RfC

Hi Durova. I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, so I'm asking your opinion. On csloat's RfC, you certified Bigglove's statement of the dispute but also filed an 'Outside View' of your own. Policy states that certifying editors may not edit outside views, except to endorse. Am i misreading the situation, or does this represent a violation of what appears to be a policy. Whatever your view, please do not take this as an accusation... if I'm wrong about this feel free to say so. Based on some of the questionable conduct on that RfC to date, it was a concern when Armon (another certifying editor) created his own outside view, and justified his actions by pointing out that you (and User:TDC) had also done so. Thanks for any insight you can provide. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I was in error. My apologies. [8]. Be well! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star) & Roz Lipschitz edits

Thank you for your recent protection of this article. Please direct your attention to the article again, as Roz Lipschitz has improperly placed a tag there. COI issues have been worked on recently, and though not perfect, the article is relatively balanced and does not "read like a resume." Looking at the edit history of editor Roz Lipschitz, it appears s/he has accessed a list of tags and has gone on a disruptive tag-placing spree elsewhere in WP; s/he's also made a string of unproductive, non-NPOV, and unencyclopedic edits at Paul Baressi. 72.76.87.222 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The above-referenced editor is continuing on the tag-placing spree within this article. Some tags are improperly placed while others are inappropriate. Such edits are not productive and reduce the readability of the article. The article is under partial protection which allows users like Roz Lipschitz to mangle the article while concerned anons cannot revert. Please revert her/his edits. 72.76.2.210 10:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Examples of the above: original research tags next to referenced content, a photo needed tag on the article rather than talk. These edits are tantamount to vandalism and should be reverted. 72.76.2.210 10:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown submission

(I'm submitting this on behalf of User:Legionarius, who is unaware of my actions. I will be notifying him after I submit the nomination.)

Do You Know:

• Jim Naugle
• William Cooley

Good Articles:

• Coral Springs, Florida
• William Cooley

Featured Content:

• Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama
• Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture
• Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score
• List of sister cities in Florida
• List of wild mammal species in Florida

- Horologium t-c 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating! Bigglove 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding jmfango and chrisnelson

the aggreement you helped them work out [9] doesn't seem to be easing the disruption. What might be the next step? --Rocksanddirt 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, in regards to me.►Chris Nelson 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Chrisjnelson, why need you get involved with a discussion between two other users? I mean one person asks another a question; I don't see why you need post a senseless, pointless comment about it. Obviously you and Jmfangio have issues, and you've both agreed to step aside, but you have yet to hold true to your promise, so something needs to be done. Ksy92003(talk) 00:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it involves me, so I'll comment if I feel like it. YOUR comment is far more out of place than mine, though it is your right to post it. I'm trying to mind my own business and improve NFL-related articles - I do NOT deserve to be stripped of this ability. Jmfangio is the only reason there is ever an conflict.►Chris Nelson 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment wasn't out of line at all in my opinion. I never said there was anything wrong with your comment, just that it didn't serve any particular purpose. I don't think you can deny that you have yet to settle your disputes with Jmfangio, despite the fact that Jmfangio has tried repeatedly to keep away from you. It doesn't matter who began the conflict. It's clear that Jmfangio is trying to stay away, but you continue to agitate him. Ksy92003(talk) 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's clear you're biased as Jmfangio's side kick, because if you could see things clearly (as you used to, actually) you'd see he's the problem and he's the one with the issues. It's like he's brainwashed you, and it's disappointing.►Chris Nelson 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not biased towards anybody. I'm defending him only because I can understand how he feels. And unfortunately I was dragged into this also, and clearly he has tried to disengage, but you haven't. Durova, I'm sorry for clogging up your talk page (even more so than before; Don't you think 277 sections is more than enough? Haha) with this discussion. Ksy92003(talk) 01:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

False. He has tried to disengage no more than I have. I have attempted to go about my business and make NFL-related articles better. If you can't see that he's the one starting shit after I make edits, you're blind. And that, also, is not my problem.►Chris Nelson 01:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If by not disengaging, you mean not editing the same articles that caused the disputes, not talking to you on your talk page, and kept true to his promise to not be involved with you anymore unless provoked by you, then I'd also have to say that he hasn't disengaged. Also, I would normally post this on your talk page... in fact, I will. But also calling me blind is a personal attack in my eyes. Ksy92003(talk) 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with raising the thread here. I've responded at Chris's talk page, which I suppose the rest of you have seen by now. Durova^Charge! 00:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

policy proposal advice

Hi Durova, I just wanted to ask your advice about proposing a policy. I made a comment to Slrubenstein here this post duplicate some of the points I made there. In that post I was discussing the repeated racist trolling at Talk:White people and my experience of a wider problem of this across the encyclopedia (esp. antisemitism and sexism). Basically I think sysops and editors need a clear policy on dealing with editors who are deliberately and maliciously using wikipedia to express hate speech. I've seen a number of instances such as [10] where editors uses this tactic, which avoids being a personal attack but is a deliberate and malicious use of WP. It gets lumped into WP:SOAP (which has no warning templates) and WP:NOR - but it is far more serious than that. The recent block of User:Fourdee by Jimbo is testament to the seriousness of this problem. IMHO WP needs a policy that gives users parameters for warning & blocking editors who are using wikipedia to express or promote hatred. I'm going to look through Arbcom's rulings to see if there is one on hate speech. Have you any advice on where & how to propose this - or indeed if this is a bad idea?--Cailil ^talk 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but... the problem with a "hate speech" policy is that "hate speech" is a dangerously nebulous term. It means different things to different people, even different reasonable people. What might make more sense, and cover the same issue in a more general way, is to discuss beefing up enforcement of the talk page guidelines. Everyone gets off-topic a little on topics they care about, but we have a small subset of editors whose primary activity is to misuse article talk pages as USENET forums or free webhosting for their views... and I think being a little stricter on grounds of applying the talk page guidelines may be a better way to approach this very real problem without an additional policy (particularly one open to such a wide range of interpretation). Just my 2 cents... I'll leave now. MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments MastCell, your view is much appreciated. I do understand exactly what you mean. Hate speech is a fuzzy term and I accept what you're saying about such a policy being abused. However, Fourdee (for example) was blocked for serious and specific reasons. Yes he was Soapboxing, but it was a particular type of soapboxing one that is as serious as a personal attack and one we have no warnings for. On reflection perhaps what I'm talking about is a just change to WP:SOAP? MastCell I feel exactly as you do about the WP:TALK guides, tonight was the first time I found the {{uw-chat1}} template and the only time I've used it--Cailil ^talk 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, what would a new hate speech policy cover that isn't already covered by WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT#Not a soapbox, and WP:POINT? I think existing policy already handles the unencyclopedic realm of hate speech, and some forms of hate speech are legitimate encyclopedic material. Durova^Charge! 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. But I do think there is a distinction between editors who are adding sourced and reliable content that could be viewed (or is viewed) as racist or sexist, etc, and editors who are setting out to game the rules of WP. It is soapboxing and it is pointy - perhaps I'm just frustrated that there are no warning templates for WP:SOAP that would cover this--Cailil ^talk 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a template issue more than a policy issue. Go ahead and create an appropriate template or, if you aren't a code slinger, request it from someone who is. Durova^Charge! 02:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Practice" Afd

Dear Durova, I have consulted with Chaser (my mentor)and another admin regarding AfDs and per their advice have attempted participation in one today as "practice". I have attempted to discuss the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dawn_of_the_Dead_in_popular_culture. If you have a moment, please let me know if this is better in your opinion as well or if you have additional advice and tips. I understand if you are too busy, but I want to see if you think I am making progress here or if you would like to see additional improvement. Thanks again for all of your help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Block of 70.113.76.108

Hi - I noticed you blocked 70.113.76.108 (talk · contribs), but I think this person has some sockpuppets, as I try to outline here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Seaver11171944. But I'm not sure if I've done it correctly. Can you look into? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This might explain it. Durova^Charge! 11:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

wikisleuthing

Hi Durova, this is the link to the Anacapa report: User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles. BTW thanks for your input about the Soapbox policy/template idea - I'll have a look into proposing a template--Cailil ^talk 12:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

While I'm back I may as well join the winner's circle:

• DYK - Maze Prison escape
• GA - Real Irish Republican Army
• FC - 1981 Irish hunger strike

That's all I need isn't it? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom for THF

I want to say, I agree with your statement, that the timings are too close to make for a legit good arbcom. I also think, for what it's worth, that your call for DR is right too, since this isn't people objectively noting a COI, but a left leaning editor accusing a right leaning editor of COI to stir up drama. (I'd feel the same the other way, too.) I'd have supported your assestment on the page, but it's not the best place for kibbitzing, and I'm not an admin, so I don't think I'm allowed to comment there. Finally, I do think he's got a COI due to his career in promoting health care industry interests, but I think that he's been run off can't reflect well on Shankbone, who contributes great images, but seems to have zealously pursued THF in the most aggressive ways permitted. Anyways, wanted to bounce my perspective off someone, and your opinion seemed a good one to reflect off of. ThuranX 19:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Triple Crown

Thank you very much :) I'm hoping to submit User:Deckiller/Walker (Star Wars) for DYK when it's completed. — Deckiller 21:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's greatly appreciated. It'll have the pride of place on my userpage :) LuciferMorgan 12:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I believe I qualify to stand with the likes of Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and, of course, Citation.

• DYK - Obelisk posture, The Police Tapes, Megaloprepus caerulatus, etc.
• GA - The Well of Loneliness, Romaine Brooks
• FC - Natalie Clifford Barney, The Well of Loneliness —Celithemis 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For patience in the face of long odds

		The Wiki Wiffle Bat
		Been following the latest arbcom case, and I thought your efforts on a particular user's talk page displayed a monumental level of patience, and this was the closest barnstar I could find. Nice one. jddphd (talk · contribs) 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thank you very much. I got a little criticism for the football analogy, but he really was walking a very thin line: he broke a vow four minutes after he made it, had no viable excuse when I informed him he could get blocked and sanctioned for it, then when another editor requested that I intervene he came to my talk page to claim nothing would happen to him. I am a sysop and it's foolish to try that with me. Durova^Charge! 02:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

COI - White hat notice

Just came across your SEO article today. In the interest of donning my white hat (it looks so much smarter than the red one) I have made a COI disclosure on my talk page. I wanted tell you as well in a demonstration of good faith.

COI notice by jddphd

FWIW, I love a good bit of sleuthing myself, though I tend to do it as an admin on Manchester United-related internet forums. As a sysop and bureaucrat on my company's wiki, the situation never really presents itself. Instead I've started a group called the Descriptive Title Patrol. ;-)

regards, -- jddphd (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, and thanks. Happy editing. Durova^Charge! 02:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

TC

I do believe I qualify:

IvoShandor

• DYK: article(s): Byron Nuclear Generating Station (others; see user page)
• GA: article(s): Battle of Stillman's Run (others; see user page)
• FC: page: Rock Springs massacre

IvoShandor 08:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Just filed my first rfc. However it would appear individual in question has no intention of abiding by site standards, nor seems willing to participate (as stated). Any advice? --Hu12 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at the RFC. Looks like you're doing the right thing as far as I can see. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)