User talk:Durova/Archive14

Comment

Please check the new message on my userpage :) Lethaniol 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Hi Durova, I have been meaning to ask you. Why, considering you "like" (maybe not the right word) to deal with difficult situations/users, are you an Admin open to recall? You know that you are honest and fair, and your actions show that. Why potentially let a group of users gang up on you if they do not like your decision. There are other mechanisms to deal with rogue Admins. Lethaniol 14:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the category implies that the users should be in good standing and respected by Durova herself. Secondly, reconfirmation of adminship is not tantamount to desysoping. Thirdly, I agree that Durova does not need to be open to recall: she is a trusted member of the community without it. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good word, Ghirla. That's fair while my own take on this is a little different. Somebody needs to go after the hard cases, to really put on the work gloves and dig up the dirt. Part of why I do this is because I don't want other people to go through the same hard time that I had during my first months as an editor (dealing with difficult users, not being one). Some of the people who cause problems may be willing to turn around and join the spirit of the project so if I have to err I prefer to err toward WP:AGF. That doesn't stop me from blocking or banning when it's needed. I hope the people I block and ban can see that it's done appropriately. Some of them can't or won't see that so I do my best to make sure everybody else understands. When a blocked editor hasn't gotten an unblock review and claims I can't see logic or insists I'm the one who should be blocked I'll go ahead and relay their request at WP:AN. I've got nothing to hide. Yes, sooner or later a group of problem editors will probably band together and attempt a malfeasance case against me. It happened to MONGO. I think my best defense is to earn the reputation Durova is as fair as they come. Wikipedia is on a worthwhile mission to give everybody a free encyclopedia, yet as I state at User:Durova/Recusal the stakes in edit disputes are pretty small. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back again

Here, I am not sure what to do. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that he's claiming this is four years of work (what?) even though some of the things he is claiming ownership of don't even match the stuff in the article - See The SAT and Mike Bucci in which he's tried to claim himself as a source in both and both don't even remotely match the OWW page. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; I've blocked him. If it becomes necessary let me know and I'll semi-protect some pages. Durova^Charge! 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not good - seems JB is going to go to some length to self-publish. Whatever suggestion you have for dealing with the situation is good with me - including contacting IP provider. thanks for bringing it up Lid Lethaniol 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the point in what he is adding his name to. I never see an author cited to list a skateboarder/snowborders favorite tricks. Are authors cited for a filmography? Isn't it always not cited or a source just listed as imdb? Same with musicians... people's names aren't cited for the source of their discography or tracklistings. I see nothing wrong with how he added his interview to an article, but this doesn't seem worth it. 49erInOregon 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point, it's vanity - I have written a lot of wrestler movelists on this website such as CM Punk (which I need to clean up) but could I cite myself as the source? Of course not. If the source is another website then the other website is the source unless the author is listed which it is not. Did he write it? Possibly. Does it matter? No, because quite simply the site only lists names and never expands on them - the names come from the wrestlers themselves and not the website, which also lacks descriptions of the moves it names. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a banned editor now so there's no need to attempt discussion of these edits on their own merits. Per WP:DENY the best thing to do is just report and revert. He's probably reading our talk pages. Go ahead and report to his ISP's abuse department. Cite me as an administrator if necessary. Durova^Charge! 16:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I may be extraordinarily paranoid, but could you arrange a checkuser on User:Starcraft0wns? Check here. I hope I'm wrong but this looks a lot like JB rhetoric (ie when he queried me over letting a user know about another AfD). CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not paranoid at all; based on the account's first edit and the deleted article history it's an obvious sockpuppet of JB916 and I've banned it as such. Would you finish up the job by placing the usual template on the account's talk page and adding it to JB's sockpuppet category? My time is spread a bit thin on other matters, but you're more than welcome to post here with any other investigation requests for possible sockpuppets. I've learned a bit more on the technical side of this editor's ISP and it appears their customers have the power to reset their IP addresses, in which case a formal complaint to the provider's abuse department may be the way to go. You can mention me to them as the investigating administrator. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova - I'll do that now. And I'll make the note as well on the deletion review. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 22:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't likely that reviewers and closing editors would see that so I posted a notice to the deletion review talk page and to the WP:AFD talk page. Durova^Charge! 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee

[1] Here's your coffee. (: ~crazytales·t·c 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL I'm on California time and the sun was just rising when I did that. Thanks for the delicious java. Durova^Charge! 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Michigan time. I don't need coffee in the mornings though. ~crazytales·t·c 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a better man than I am. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your comment at ANI

By all means, you are more than welcome to join the PAIN and/or my RfC discussions; I am certain you are a neutral party who can help us clean up the mess. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the PAIN thread, I see this has escalated to a proposed arbitration case. Would you and Ghirla be willing to have a shot at mediating with me in the middle instead? If you can iron things out informally it would be a lot less painful. Durova^Charge! 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already proposed a mediation to Ghirlandajo, he has refused. He has also withdrawn from the RfC he started himself. The RfC is still going on, and has already turned into quasi-mediation, as several neutral users have proposed solutions, however with Ghirla's withdrawal the mediation there has become rather problematic as well. I am afraid I have to agree with JzG that only an ArbCom enforced ruling, preferably a civility parole, will solve the issue - but if you have any other suggestions, I'd most certainly appreciate them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the diffs. Maybe he'll respond differently to an invitation from me (we've always been cordial) when the alternative is an arbitration case. There's nothing to lose from giving this a try. Regards, Durova^Charge! 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Piotrus_and_Ghirlandajo page with past attempts at DR to give you (and others) full history of attempted (and failed) DR proceedings, that includes to addition mediations (refused by mediators) and an ArbCom related warning to Ghirla. I am very sceptical if a mediation would work given the past experience, but we can of course try it once more. Please note, however, that I will not agree to step down as an administrator voluntarily (and as far as I know, this was his main demand regarding myself - although please note I am open to recall); he on the other hand has never admited that he was uncivil and never agreed to promise to improve his behaviour. How can you convince either of us to change their views - I am not sure, and this is why I, as well as increasing number of people, think ArbCom enforced ruling may be the only solution that will work in the end.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then would you accept this as a middle gound? If you agree to trust me, then at the close of mediation I could make a call of whether to initiate a reconfirmation vote for your adminship. I'd decide about opening a reconfirmation based on whether I think there's a reasonable basis to put to the community. At the outset I'd present my own vote (support, oppose, or neutral) with a summary of my reasoning and the mediation. This proposal would be a bit different from the regular open to recall standards - I'm open to recall too so I know how that works. The advantage of this proposal is that it could be faster and less painful than an ArbCom slugfest; its disadvantage is that more than the usual amount of discretion would depend on one person. I'd be willing to mediate whether or not possible reconfirmation weighs in the balance, but perhaps this would bring Ghirla to the table. Durova^Charge! 14:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note first: please drop me a short msg on my talk that you responded elsewhere if you want me to respond quickly :) Now, as I said before, I am open to recall per procedures I listed on my page; I'd certainly see you as 'an editor in good standing', so if there are five other neutral parties who think a recall should be initatiated, then a recall (reconfirmation would mean the same, I'd think, let's not mince words) can be initiated even without a mediation carrot - this is my pledge to the community, not a special concession for Ghirla alone. On the other hand, please note that I stand by everything I wrote on the ArbCom case, and I currently believe that placing him on the civility parole is the only thing that can solve this conflict (from my perspective; please also note I would not oppose if a civility parole would be placed on me, too). PS. Please note that a mediation case plus most of the editors involved in the RfC found no basis to support the claim that I have ever abused my admin powers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand that correctly, you prefer to stand by the standard terms of Category:Administrators open to recall? If you can construct a version of civility parole that could work via mediation then let me know. Durova^Charge! 14:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the slightly modified terms as seen on my page, although I am open to discussing them, of course. As for a civility parole, this version was recommended to me. The problem with it, as we have discussed on RfC talk page, is that such a parole needs to be enforced - and only ArbCom can do it, especially as on the talk RfC Ghirla has specifically rejected the idea that he should be subjected to any kind of penalties for his behaviour (again, please note that as a sign of good will and compromise I have volunteered to be subjected to the same restrictions, even if little evidence of my incivility has been presented).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let this percolate until Ghirla is able to come back and participate. Maybe we'll all brew a good solution. Durova^Charge! 16:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news: Ghirla accepts my mentorship proposal. He did so before I made the above offer (which I probably should have checked before posting - my excuse is that it's early dawn in California and I'm in my pre-coffee stupor). I'll leave the proposal stand and see what you both think of it. This mediation will start slowly: Ghirla's on holiday break. Merry Christmas (if that's what you both celebrate). Durova^Charge! 14:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep the discussion central I've started User talk:Durova/Mediation. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[[:Image:Cookie_Christmas.JPG|300px|thumb|
Happy Christmas-Happy hollydays to you
Must ^TC 14:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)]] How sweet! Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 14:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Winterval(s)!!!! (12-22-06)

Dear Durova/Archive14,

I wish you a very, very merry Winterval!

And since I don't know which you celebrate, I hope you have/had/will have a very happy Holiday!. Hope you and your family have a magnificent day, or series of days! You might wanna install the "SaucyMillionaire" font to see this correctly. Cheers, mate!:) —Rand fan !!

God (or your deity/deities) bless you and your family! —¡Rand fan !^{Sign here?} 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-I was planning to hand these out on the 22nd of Dec. but things got in the way.... Happy holidays! —¡Rand fan !^{Sign here?} 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Thanks for your proposal. However, judging from my past experience with you as an admin, I have a reason to believe you might not be impartial if I joined the mediation in whatever role. Because of that I think it might be better for all people involved if I stayed out. But thanks for asking - and Merry Christmas. //Halibu tt 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Your comments and diffs are still welcome if you change your mind. I don't hold a grudge. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about ArbCom

Hi Durova,

I have just answered some questions of Pete/Diana hereUser talk:Lethaniol/Pete K about the ArbCom case. As you much more familiarity with the process than, can you double check my answers to make sure they are not widely off the mark?

Leave an answer on my talk page or yours.

Cheers Lethaniol 17:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Durova, I made some further statements on my talk page about the meaning of the ArbCom ruling - again if you could check I am not widely off the mark that would be great. I am pretty sure I am not, and I know this would not be an official ruling as you are not part of ArbCom. Oh and I promise not to edit your American spelling :):) Lethaniol 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Love (as they say in Devon where I grew up). P.S. I really think you should become an Adopter - put your skills to use to people that won't bite your head off, if you want I mean. You would be great, and it would be satisfying, and relatively simple compared to your current activities. Cheers Lethaniol 17:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. My own energies are spread too thinly right now. Since the Waldorf arbitration opened I've hardly participated at WP:PAIN and cut back a lot at WP:RFI, which means some worthwhile investigations aren't getting the attention they deserve. I spend a good deal of my time rooting out the rare individuals such as JB196 before they exploit too much good faith and sour other people on the project. It's tough work that needs doing and there's a shortage of admins to do it. Believe it or not, four of the dilemmas I've handled have turned into current arbitration cases. If you'd ever like to get sysopped and help out, let me know and I'll nominate you. Durova^Charge! 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the compliment in return - I think I would like to help, and once I am happy with my developmental work at WP:ADOPT think I might get involved in some more requests for comment - then when I have enough edits (only got 2000 at mo :( ) and experience (definitely need more), I might take you up on your RfA nomination offer. Be good, cheers Lethaniol 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I wish you a Merry Christmas, Durova :) Dionyseus 06:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you. Durova^Charge! 09:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

You were of great help on the Creepy Crawler incident (archive 11, your talk page) but I amcoming to you now for advice on a separate issue on the same page. For brevity, [2], there's the link. If you can help, great, if not, please recommend a place to take this situation. Either way, help is appreciated.ThuranX 06:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected both the article and the talk page, plus left a final warning for Boggydark. Please move your request from the watchlist section down to regular investigations at WP:RFI. These all act like sockpuppets in my opinion, possibly of the same person. I hope this solves the problem, but in case it doesn't the usual way these things play out is that an account or an IP gets blocked, then the editor violates WP:SOCK by evading the block, then a checkuser reveals the sockpuppets and the block gets extended all around. That can become a siteban if the problem editor still fails to get the point. Follow up as needed. Durova^Charge! 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked a bit on the IPs, and all the IP user IPs are from New Zealand, so that's all one user, and he DID say he was on vacation. BoggyDark's a different person. If I thought it was actually a sock issue, I'd definitely would've taken it there. The IP user does seem to have registered, as seen on my talk page, where he's again a hostile little editor. That said, I think he'll be unable to edit for a while due to the Semi-Pro... Thank you for your intervention. I'll attend to that move. ThuranX 05:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to return again, however, BoggyDark, one of the two problem editors discussed, has now moved the talk Spider-man 3 page to "Tlak:Spider-Man 3 page". ANother user reverted the move, but if you look at the recent discussions, [3], you can see he's become fully hostile to all other editors on the page. He takes all criticism as personal threats and then cites 'the rules' and threatens bans on those editors. It's rapidly becoming a very TROLLISH situation. Please ttake another look? thank you so kindly. ThuranX 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account for 24 hours. Please avoid the t-word. Durova^Charge! 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service

Hi there, thanks for semi-protecting the article but I believe that the IP address who vandalised the article may also have a user account called ' Wateva100 ', so if it is the same person they would still be able to edit the page because they have been at Wikipedia for a few weeks, so my worry is: will this stop the Vandalism; If you have any other suggestions or would like to say anything you can put it on my Talk Page. Cheers and I hope you had a Merry Christmas!

Respectfully......Tellyaddict^Talk 13:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and follow up with warning templates as appropriate. If the templates escalate to level 3 (block warning) and the problem continues then follow up at WP:RFI. Thanks for your patience, Durova^Charge! 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Guernica/Gernika

Hello!

I noticed that you protected the article Bombing of Guernica (diff). I'm afraid that it might not have worked (subsequent edit). Also, the template {{protect}} was not added.

Regarding the name of the article, I believe it would be preferable if consensus was reached. The present situation is that User:Sugaar and User:Grant65 have been moving the article back and forth (log 1 log 2), so protection until consensus has been reached might be useful.

Sincerely, Oden 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found this accidentally fixing links. The case is that there was a clear consensus in the article's talk page to move it to Bombing of Gernika and, consequently I also moved "Guernica (city)" to Gernika-Lumo to be consistent and fixed all or most links.

Suddenly Grant came out from nowhere and moved Gernika-Lumo back to Guernica (city) causing a lot of confussion and subsequent discussion and recently incipient move-warrying.

In one article there is no clear consensus and in the other there is a clear consensus for Bombing of Gernika. Grant is acting unilaterally or almost. --Sugaar 11:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugaar: the issue here is not the choice of name, my comment was in regard to the repeated page moving which is disruptive both for readers and other editors.

Durova: I have requested page-move protection of either version (whichever version it is does not matter, since protection is not an endorsement of any version). (diff) --Oden 12:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! The reason that the Bombing of Gernika was moved after you protected it might be because it seems to be semi-protected. I tried logging out and then I could only view the source, but when I am logged in the tab says "edit this page".

Also when you protected the page the edit summary said "[edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]" (log). When a page is fully protected the edit summary usually says "[edit=sysop:move=sysop]" (the article on Michael Richards was first protected and then semiprotected, so I compared the log here). This is my guess, since I am no sysop.

Cheers! --Oden 19:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, full protection now. Good luck resolving the conflict. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was about to move this back to Bombing of Guernica (per Wikipedia:Use common names), but noticed you'd protected the page. Before I move it, I wanted to check with you and see if you have any objection. I'm not a participant in this debate, but the guideline seems pretty clear, and it does appear to me that the move to Bombing of Gernika was inappropriate. I'll abide by whatever you decide on this one, though. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the only consensus in that article's talk page (achieved some one or two months ago) is the current name. --Sugaar 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about whether to move the article. It looks as if the editors on that page have some strong opinions though. Durova^Charge! 14:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminitis

Hi Durova!

After reading User talk:Durova/Admin I have become concerned that you have started developing a case of adminitis (no offense). Might I suggest a short Wikibreak? Another idea is to temporarily relinquish your mop and bucket by placing {{adminitis}} on your userpage and get back to writing articles again. Or perhaps even to collaborate! If there's anything I can help you with just let me know.

Sincerely, Oden 18:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since a primary sign of adminitis is denial there' no way for me to say no - is there? For now I'll keep doing what I'm doing. Please monitor my case and alert me if symptoms worsen. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that you are doing a bad job, by all accounts your contribution is stellar and much appreciated. What I'm worried about is that you might have forgotten the joy of editing. In the words of Mike Myers: "Silly is you in a natural state, and serious is something you have to do until you can get silly again". --Oden 19:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. My admin page is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. If it weren't for WP:DENY I'd start a humor page to document some of the most laughable self-defeating behavior that problem editors exhibit. I'll dance around with my mop as long as it feels fun. When it stops being fun I'll switch gears. Regards, Durova^Charge! 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical lists

You may be interested in this discussion on medical lists. Colin°^Talk 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin. I set out to add my two cents and wrote ten dollars' worth. Until I read that thread I hadn't realized I created a precedent for a manual of style. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 16:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Syndicate arbitration

Hiya! Since you seem to be the one most familiar with this case, you might want to propose some remedies. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; the invitation is an honor. Article probation would seem like a good idea. At the moment I'm looking into some sockpuppet allegations to see whether I can strengthen the case either for or against the existing claims. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, don't consider an honor -- my first outreach as a new Arbitrator was to get someone to do (part of) my job for me! (On the other hand, the Tom Sawyer and the Fence strategy might be a useful one. Hm.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for Semi-Protection any more

Hi there, I don't think their is any more need for Semi Protection on Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service except the only thing is that this vandal seems to take breaks from vandalising for about a month at each time, so this may make it difficult to semi protect pages as you can't really keep the semi-protected for ever, but if there is any other Vandalism I'll contact you or another Admin, thanks

Respectfully.... Tellyaddict^Talk 00:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, it's unprotected. At this point the pattern is clear enough that I consider it appropriate to block on sight for future violations even if the IP changes. Thank you for your patience. Durova^Charge! 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

I was hoping you could take a look at List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients and let me know if there is anything else you think needs to be done. Remember 17:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Durova.

Please do not block my account, I will never type libelous articles again, forgive me, thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.232.252 (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, I'll overlook WP:SOCK so you can answer one question: what is your registered username? Durova^Charge! 06:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for the WikiAdoption notification. I appreciate you acknowledging my editorial "potential" for WikiPedia... as well as looking out for my best interest. I do have a passion for writing and wish I had more time to do so.

I am still under the weather right now, so I will have to make this short. In the meantime, I look forward to you being my mentor. Take care ~--Webmistress Diva 05:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly reply. I should clarify something though: I'm not actually a participant in that program. Over at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user they've set up a simple way to join: just copy a template onto your user page and one of their volunteers will come over to help you out. You're welcome to post here occasionally too. I just can't guarantee you'd get the same quality of attention: this project has about 1 administrator for every 3000 registered accounts so the sysops' time gets spread pretty thin. Get well soon, Durova^Charge! 06:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Guernica

please unprotect. Haber 06:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Durova^Charge! 06:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Haber 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick! He's back again!

Durova, check out the contributions for User:CDlatch245. I think JB196 is at it again. These AfD's must be removed quickly. He also reverted my edit on the Professional wrestling in Australia page which I put back again. I think it's about time he was sent a severe message to get off Wikipedia. Meanwhile the AfD's he started need to be removed PDQ. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 08:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StickupElephant is probably another of his socks. One Night In Hackney 10:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned both accounts. Suggest citing WP:DENY at the deletion threads he started. Please do the usual maintenance on his sockpuppet userpages. Regards, Durova^Charge 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Durova, but it looks like the damage has been done. I've been told WP:DENY is a proposal and therefore not applicable. JB has done his damage and it seems no one cares (apart from you of course). So I'm leaving WP - for good. Thanks for your hard work in trying to control this idiot. I'm just going to add an AfD myself before I delete my user page and replace it, and delete my talk pages. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need one more favour. Could you delete the following pages for me? I can only blank them (which is what I've done);

Curse of Fenric 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're redlinked now. Durova^Charge 23:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted an explanation to one of the deletion discussions. Here's the link.[4] I'll copy that to the other ones and recommend you paste it at any other JB sockpuppet nomination that comes up in the future. Durova^Charge 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my keep votes are posted. It looks like mostly the same editors participated at these nominations. You may wish to leave each a note on their talk page asking them to reconsider their decision, along with a link to my diff above and a message that I've volunteered to answer any questions they may have on this subject. You deserve a barnstar for your patience. Durova^Charge 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well thanks - but it's too late. My patience has run out. CoF is gone per the user page. See the follow up post on the Greg Bownds AfD to your posting. This is the problem, and I'm not taking it anymore. Thanks for deleting my pages. (posting without logging in as CoF). 124.181.204.208 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikistress level has been really high for a while now. Take a breather, enjoy some fresh air, and remember you're very welcome back when you feel rested. Keep the barnstar and enjoy the new year. Best wishes, Durova^Charge 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to see my views are being noticed now. All I need is for the Chuck E. Chaos and Action Zone Wrestling articles to be restored in full (previous victims of Barber) and I'll come back. (posting without logging in as CoF) 124.181.204.208 21:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoF, no one appreciates the work you have done more then I do. (and if you're gone, making sure JB doesn't get his way likely falls on my shoulders, (and there's a lot of things I'd like to do on WP rather than Following around JB as he tries to destroy various parts of WP, but will do if I have to.). However, let me just say that You make it seem like a demand, which isn't great in getting your way. It went to DRV, and they told you no. What you were doing before is the best way, having a USERfied version, which when the article is ready, we just copy it in to a mainspace article, and then it's AFD and DRV proof. I'm very willing to help out with what's needed. Thanks to Durova and the other Admins finding the criteria under Speedy Deletion where banned user-created pages being speedy deletable Several folks (including myself) tagged the latest sock's AfD's.. and JB didn't get to get even one of em to complete. I hope you DO come back and help us do it, but demands aren't the best way. Good luck, man. SirFozzie 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demand?? Huh?? I didn't demand anything. I merely observed what was needed for me to feel confident that all AfD nominations like this took WP:BAN into consideration first before WP:BIO and/or WP:N. That's what went wrong with Chuck E. Chaos and AZW, and now that other articles that were in the same boat have been rescued, I don't see why these two shouldn't go the same way. It was a request - and not to Durova either BTW. It was a general thing. Oh - and did you know that on this edit you also accidentally took out a post of mine from further down? (not signed in as CoF) 124.181.204.208 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fenric, have a chat with the AFD watchdogs who post here. Coming to me is sort of like asking a urologist to perform eye surgery. Sure the doc's licensed to perform the procedure, but... Durova^Charge 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about me in WP/ANI

I'm taking a break from all of this stuff but I couldn't help but read it. I'm going to continue to stay out of the discussion for a while but I wanted to say something to you here. I read your latest comment and all I can assume is that you missed reading my response to you. I was not "forum shopping" and I was not being deceptive. You have my actions wrong and I hope you can reevaluate them in good faith. I agree that I have let this stuff frustrate me too much and done things I should not have -- edit warring, and having a short temper with the likes of Isarig. The temper thing has always been in response to his relentless attacks - as CSTAR noted some time ago, he knows how to manipulate me well. But my complaint here was not about his behavior six weeks ago - it was about the last couple days, and the links I added from weeks ago were only there to put one of his attacks on me in historical context. It has been blown out of proportion -- the reality is I could not care less what Isarig thinks of my teaching since he has never set foot in my classroom and he never will. I understand your comment that my behavior here has not always been consistent with someone in my position; frankly, it is enough to simply state that there are problems with someone's behavior without making reference to their job, especially when you know nothing about it. (I'm not talking about your familiarity with libel law; I'm talking about your familiarity with my specific actions in my place of employment). Isarig told me I didn't know a particular thing about libel and that therefore I was a lousy teacher; I told him he would probably fail my exam since his understanding of that particular thing was totally wrong. Perhaps I should have just told him he would get that particular question wrong on an exam rather than telling him he would fail - in truth I know as much about his ability to pass one of my classes as he knows about that actual class. But it doesn't matter - the heart of the problem with Isarig has little to do with those particular comments, as offensive as they may have been at the time; it has to do with his more general relentless edit warring and aggressive behavior towards me. I don't know what to do about it and I don't envy your position. Were I an outside observer my advice would probably be to block both of us for a cooling off period and/or encourage a 1RR for everyone involved for a while. The truth is, however, that I haven't done anything that would justify being blocked, whereas I believe Isarig has (I also think most of the people who have had interactions with both of us agree). But if you think both of us are misbehaving to the same degree, then perhaps that is worth considering, not so much as a disciplinary mechanism but as a way to encourage cooling down the discussion completely. I frankly can't invest the emotional energy in continuing my interactions with him the way they have been going under any circumstances. csloat 08:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I read things, your occupation became a point of dispute because you made it an issue during a talk page thread. That, along with your links to the thread at two forums, are why I responded on the topic. In the spirit of Wikipedia's policy assume good faith I trust that you probably are a good instructor and what's happened here is a function of Internet dynamics: remove intonation and facial expression from a conversation, add instantaneous delivery and anonymity, and the results sometimes get messy. What troubles me about this particular situation is that it's lasted so long and affected a variety of articles.

Cooling off is definitely a good idea. When I read the Quran controvery thread I frankly agreed with you regarding the link, but if I'd been active at the page and things started to degenerate that way I'd have dropped the issue: it's only one link. Perhaps in a month or two I would have returned, posted to the talk page to see whether it still raised any hackles, and deleted it then (if someone else hadn't done so already). Have a look at User:Durova/Recusal to see my general perspective.

I have doubts about using the sysop tools to block both you and Isarig. WP:POINT might cover this, but if you're actually willing to undergo this voluntarily then contact Isarig with the idea. If that editor comes to me and volunteers too I'll do it. A week seems about right and it would certainly be less stressful than arbitration. Regards, Durova^Charge 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is from memory because I don't feel like going back over it line by line -- the thing about my occupation came up in a conversation with another user. Isarig then pounced on it in order to ridicule my understanding of a couple of freedom of speech issues. I pointed out that he was wrong and suggested, tongue in cheek, that he take the class. He responded that he wasn't likely to want to take a class from someone who didn't understand these issues; I pointed out that it was he who did not understand the issues, and he ridiculed my teaching again; it was at that point that I told him he would probably fail the class. That was part of a longer post in which I specifically explained why he was wrong; instead of backing off at that point, he googled for a link to a court case he had never heard of before and used that link to make an argument that was absurd; then he stated that I was a disgrace to my profession and embarrassing my students. I pointed out his error, quoted experts on the libel v. slander distinction, and told him to back off of my profession since he had never set foot in my classroom. I agree my one comment was uncivil, but on the whole it was clearly isarig and not me who was aggressively provoking a fight. You have now publicly chastised me three times for this comment, sided with Isarig about my profession, and you haven't said a word about the abusive comments made by Isarig. I find that appalling. I also find it irrelevant to bring up six weeks after the incident, since, as I said a couple of times now, I was only providing those links for historical context -- not to "forum shop" or make "deceptive complaints" or to try to get Isarig disciplined for something he was reported for already. If you're willing to AGF that I am a good professor, perhaps you can AGF about my actions on Wikipedia as well.

As for what to do with the conflict, I stated that if I was an outside uninterested observer that might be what I would recommend. I don't think I should be blocked, but I do think Isarig has committed a number of abuses that deserve at least a rebuke from an admin if not a fullscale block. But punishment isn't the issue here; what I've said before is I just want the objectionable behavior to stop. Are you unwilling to even admonish Isarig for his behavior over the past week? Perhaps remind everyone that the 3RR is not a license, that things are better settled with cool heads in talk pages, and that a 1RR might be a better approach? Again, I don't envy your job here. I took a voluntary break to cool off but I don't think Isarig will do the same. csloat 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: your explanation holds water and you have a good point. I'll post a few words for Isarig. From your posts it seems as if this conflict is primarily between the two of you? Please clarify if I'm mistaken because it's also looked as if several other people had become involved. Durova^Charge 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by "this conflict"... my report to WP/ANI dealt specifically with Isarig's behavioral issues that I felt needed to be addressed. Obviously, others have had similar interactions with Isarig, and have voiced their opinions on the page. SlimVirgin has started a much larger debate about antisemitism and Israel-related pages that is important in its own right, but I don't think a "general climate of hostility" towards Jews or towards people critical of Israel is a valid excuse for wikistalking, for 3RR-gaming, for personal attacks, etc. I think SlimVirgin has the problem mostly backwards -- I think there is more hostility encouraged towards those who are critical of Israeli policy (even those who, like me, are only occasionally so), but insofar as there is antisemitism on Wikipedia I agree with her that it should be confronted. (If you look way back in my edit history, you will find that I led the way in confronting the antisemitism of one user, Zephram Stark and his sockpuppets, who was abusing Wikipedia). Since I am myself a sephardic Jew with an orthodox heritage I find the implication that my actions are antisemitic troubling, to say the least. But it may help explain some of the vehemence between Isarig and I. I have personal experience with relatives and other people who survived the Holocaust; I have seen the consequences of real antisemitism closely, and I have identified strongly with its victims. I do not consider a conversation critical of certain Israeli military policies to rise to the status of real antisemitism, and I find it both offensive and disgraceful when people equate the two. When seemingly intelligent people like Isarig do so over and over (and I'm not talking about anything he said about me here; I'm talking about his insistence on publishing scurrilous attacks against Juan Cole in Cole's biography page) it is particularly troubling. I feel that it trivializes the issue of real antisemitism and demeans the victims of such antisemitism. If Professor Cole starts painting swastikas on a synagogue or calling for a "final solution," I will be right there with Isarig confronting him. But all he has done is provide a political analysis of the neoconservatives who openly promoted the war against Iraq, noting that they also openly support the policies of Israel's Likud party.

Anyway, to come back to your question, the conflict I reported is between myself and Isarig, but there are obviously at least two other issues at work here -- (1) other people - several, apparently - have had similar interactions with Isarig and have made similar complaints about his behavior. Most of these are not people I have interacted with myself, and Isarig's behavior apparently has been objected to by others on several different pages. This is evidence, I think, that there are others potentially involved in the conflict, or at least that Isarig has engaged in arguably disruptive behavior elsewhere. That seems within the scope of the ANI dispute you are trying to resolve. (2) the larger question of criticism of Israel and of antisemitism is one that is probably outside the scope of that dispute and is not going to be resolved by one administrator. A block or other disciplinary action, or arbcom, is not going to fix that. Perhaps someone can start working on a Wikipedia guideline surrounding the Israel-related articles -- that won't fix the problem but it can at least contribute towards a larger understanding on the issue that can be referred to during disputes.csloat 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to separate the issues in the way you propose. If your own recent actions had been above reproach then blocking the other editor would be a simple step. Conversely, I'd have roughly equal reason to block you if Isarig's behavior had been above reproach. Part of what worries me about this case is that I had basically the same conversation with you six weeks ago. This dispute is like a snowball rolling down a hill picking up new participants and new issues as it goes. Now it's agglomerating a big smelly patch of Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm really thinking it's time to hand the mess to the ArbCom committee before this gets any worse. Durova^Charge 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus & Ghirla

How's it going? Has peace broken out over the festive season? Guy (Help!) 14:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good, mostly. Ghirla told me when the request opened that it couldn't have come at a worse time for him. He was headed out on vacation and actually went a good distance out of his way to reach a computer. So it's been quiet for about a week and I hope he's getting a good Wikibreak. One thing has me a little worried: just about the time that mediation opened he blanked out his user page with an edit note that hints he was rethinking his commitment to the site. Several people had commented against him in the request and the committee hadn't moved to defer yet. I hope he's had the chance to view the site since then. Thanks for dropping by. Durova^Charge 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threats and ultimatums

Unless your aim is to drive Guy out of the project, please re-think the way you are using threats and ultimatums. When someone starts to crack under the strain, the last thing to do is to add to the pressure and issue threats. Please think before you fly off the handle like that. What are you really trying to achieve? We can't afford to lose someone like Guy because you feel like throwing some weight around. Guettarda 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest I soften the approach? Durova^Charge 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By not demanding that he apologise to trolls, by not threatening him with a block, by trying to figure out what the problem was, by approaching it out of concern, rather than like someone on a power trip... by approaching it in just about any way other than the way you did. Do you seriously think that Guy is a disruptive editor? Have you looked into any of these situations? Do you not know how frustrating Fys is to deal with? Do you not have a clue how annoying trolls can be? It's normal for someone who does as much of that sort of work as Guy does to feel the strain. A couple outbursts over the course of the last couple months is pretty normal. It may be a sign that he is taking on too much crap and should take a break from that sort of stuff. It's the sort of situation where the community should provide support.

Flying off the handle and issuing threats is the worst possible thing to do. We are a community of volunteers. Instead of being supportive of someone who is stressed, you treat him like a troll. You have clearly said that you don't appreciate his service to the community, that all his work isn't worth shit to you...at least that's the way that someone under pressure would read your actions. I assume that this isn't obvious to you, that your actions were just thoughtless and not malicious...but I can only do that by making a conscious decision to assume good faith and assume that you are not out to hurt the project. For the life of me I can't figure out what you could possibly be thinking, but I'm choosing to assume that you meant well. Guettarda 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there's really no incivility in any of the links. Did you look at them? Guettarda 05:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't asked him to apologize to problem users, only to strikethrough or disavow the future use of certain vulgar obscenities. The principle as I understand it is that adminship is supposed to be no big deal. Sysops are obligated to follow the same policies as any other editor. Tu quoque is not an excuse; I cope with difficult editors every day and I certainly would expect to receive a user block or comparable warning if I acted as he has. In deference to his experience and contributions I offered him two dignified alternatives which I would rarely extend after reading such diffs. I also couched the statement in terms of respect that I sincerely feel. Guy is a reasonable man and will probably respond to this in a positive way - so let's not engage in a hypothetical quarrel. Please refrain from the words troll, crap, and shit at this page unless quoting other dialog. Respectfully, Durova^Charge 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here seconding the-spirit-if-not-the-letter of both yout comments to JzG and Guettarda's to you. I'm sure you didn't intend it as such, but it did read badly: More threat-like than compassion-like. From my angle, when speaking to an established user if I suggest that they have violated our collective norms of behavior and ask that they, err, "repent" than I don't explicitly say "or I'll block you." It's tacit.

Not to say I haven't said it, or even that I haven't said it to an admin in oh, the last week, just that I try not to.

As to the root-cause here, I cannot aggree more that more experianced users should get no "free pass" on behavior, and I would actually hope that admins would behave better than Morlocks. I don't think that JzG is that far out on a limb, to be frank: One standard deviation? One point five?

Cheers big ears,

brenneman 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real spirit I posted in was one of respect so profound that I offered two alternatives to someone whom I otherwise would have blocked outright. In my own opinion I verged on extending undue preferential treatment. I'll take the heat for that as necessary because I call 'em as I see 'em. I opened the matter for discussion promptly and if consensus develops that I was wrong I will rescind the statement and apologize. That's as fair as I can be. Durova^Charge 07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that that will be required. We all have a different "trigger point" and it sounds like yours is simply lower than mine on this issue. That's not an issue at all, and I think you've made it clear (after the fact) from where you were coming.

There are porbably also some regional differences here, as well. Antipodeans are notorius from being a bit more free with their language, so my thresholds are pretty high.

brenneman 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During my service in the United States Navy I visited eleven countries and between ports I heard the basest obscenities in most of their languages that my shipmates could scrounge from seedy taverns. During those years I developed a reputation for comebacks whose every syllable was polite yet...well...discouraged attempts at verbal abuse. I'll post an example if you wish. :) Durova^Charge 07:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as though we might be more similar than is entirely natural. I got the nickname "The Preacher" because I so rarely swore. That however meant when I said "Fireman, get your sorry butt out of that rack right now, dammit!" the relatively mild explitive had a disproportionately large effect. ^_^
brenneman 07:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very young sailor came to my office door who knew how to conduct herself in the South Side of Chicago but nowhere else (I suppose this would be like some London East Enders). She brought her best friend and giggled while she waved a condom at me and asked me if I needed it. Without missing a beat I replied, No thanks. You can suck mine without it. The reply was absurd because I'm female yet I shocked her into her rarest state: silence. Durova^Charge 07:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you say "I certainly would expect to receive a user block or comparable warning if I acted as he has", and yet you have done far worse than Guy did. Failing massively to AGF, you issued a threat of a block for using the word "twat", ignoring the possibility that other people may use slang terms differently than do you. Your actions clearly violate the blocking policy - not only is blocking not to be used punitively, blocking for a single transgression is unacceptable. As for blockable offenses, flying off the handle like you did and issuing threats is highly disruptive. Your disruption was far worse than Guy's "incivility" - are you saying that you expect a block for your misdeeds?

What I find far more disturbing is your utter lack of empathy for your fellow editors, despite the fact that you claim to have been in a similar situation, and your dismissal of the idea that rather than issuing threats you should have approached the situation with some amount of understanding. Do you really think that threats are more likely to produce results than civil discourse? When you tell someone "do as I say or I will punish you" the most likely response is anger. If the person is afraid of you, they will probably obey, but it does nothing to resolve the situation. Threats are among the least effective tools for resolving disagreements.

We don't have rules just for the fun of having them. We have rules as a means to an end - the end being the project to write an encyclopaedia. Using "the rules" to try to build a utopian society at the expense of writing an encyclopaedia is abuse of the rules. Guy made a comment about a banned editor. His "incivility" to Yrgh did not create an environment in which Yrgh was less likely to be a productive editor - he had already been "shown the door". On the other hand, telling a (probably) stressed editor that you didn't give a damn [or is the word "damn" also forbidden here?] about their contribution is far more likely to hurt the project than anything Guy did. We only have two missions here - build a {good, free, NPOV} encyclopaedia, and keep our editors happy and productive (because we need them to write the encyclopaedia). Every other rule, every other policy, exists to support these two ideas. Someone like Guy (or you, or me) has contributed thousands of hours of time as a volunteer here. It's unacceptable to devalue someone's contribution for the sake of rules-lawyering. Guettarda 08:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon: that is a thoroughly inaccurate way of characterizing my actions and the person who flouts WP:AGF is you. I have already explained repeatedly that I did not threaten a block for that single post; I posted this.[5] When I upgraded to this[6] I included the link to the evidence of six other uncivil statements. That is the good faith I continued to assume despite the fact that in my idiom of English no milder definition of worthless twat exists: it is identical to worthless cunt. I could not fail to assume good faith about a definition I did not know exists, yet I managed to assume that it was a typing error. It is useless to repeat other explanations I have already given: please be consistent and consider my feelings as well. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Evidence and reconsider whether I merit these stinging and lengthy rebukes or User talk:Durova/Admin to see why I object to the t-word and what you can do about me if you think I'm that bad. Durova^Charge 14:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I made the same mistake you did. There's no point in trying to get someone to see your point by yelling at them. But as I said at AN/I, there's nothing blockably incivil in the other 6 diffs. Not if you actually read them carefully. As for the use of slang - either you need to familiarise yourself with dialects of English other than your own, or you need to stop and think before acting like that. If you had stayed at AN/I and discussed the matter the explanation of usage would have come up quickly enough. I'm not sure how carefully you looked at the diffs, but they are pretty tame - "leave me alone" (regardless of how colourfully one chooses to phrase it) isn't "incivil".

What bothers me is your reaction to feedback. I realise that I am not good at putting things nicely - even after spending 10 of the last 13 years in the US I can't grasp the "culture of praise". Quite simply, you ignored the blocking policy, used to threat on punitive blocking to get another editor to conform to your point of view, and seriously disrupted Wikipedia. You chose to kick a good editor when he was down, instead of acting as a friend. I wish that there was something in what you said that would suggest that you would think twice before doing something like this in the future, but sadly all I see is defensiveness.

Please try thinking about this again, later, when you are not in such a defensive mood. I don't care if you agree with me or not, but try to see where I am coming from. I did not waste all this time doing this out of any grudge against you, or out of any desire to attack you. I realise you probably can't see it now, but please try revisiting the idea again later. Guettarda 17:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these outpourings spring from the desire to defend an admin you regard highly then the impulse is admirable. Yet there really isn't any need to vilify me in the process and now that Guy has spoken the issue is moot.

I am perfectly willing to let our difference of opinion drop if you let it drop too. If you wish to carry this further then the appropriate step would be to initiate an RFC on me. As you probably know, I am open to recall. So the concerns you express with such force could result in my desysopping if they bear up to scrutiny. My opinion is that they would not - that they are unfair and counterfactual - and that the manner in which you have chosen to raise them is doing some harm to the reputation I have worked hard to build. Respectfully, Durova^Charge 22:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB196

Hi Durova! You might be interested to know that the speedy keep guidelines have a clause allowing for the speedy deletion of any AFD nomination created by a banned user. The guy seems to be back however with the same approach, using the account User:I Wear Two Shoes. I have notified the AN/I as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been quite a few months since I was a regular at AFD and the rules have gotten more elaborate. I see the new sock has been banned already. I appreciate the heads up. Durova^Charge 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who... Prod's and AFD's as first few edits make it easy to spot. User:MusicqueenEr. (Dang. I can't wait for this week to END already) SirFozzie 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a pinch of catnip in that sock and threw it to the lions. Please dress up the userpage with the usual templates. You could add a report to Wikipedia:Long term abuse. Durova^Charge 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added JB to the Long Term Abuse page :), will hit the latest account with the categories shortly. SirFozzie 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling vandal

Please keep me notified of any and every occurrence. This is highly insidious and damaging to WP and can be applied to any topic. These socks need to be blocked on sight. As a suggestion, whenever an Afd pops up, could the uncontroversial but unsourced deleted material not be restored using the edit history? Responsible editors will go for addition of fact tags to such articles, rather than delete !votes on AfD. --Dweller 10:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the editor who's been most diligent about pursuing this has just announced his departure from Wikipedia. Durova^Charge 14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Durova, the diff you linked to with the follow up on the AfD discussion on the Greg Bownds article is no longer available (the page has been speedied) SirFozzie 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Fozzie, could you step into the gap that Fenric leaves? I'm at the center of a firestorm over at WP:ANI today. Durova^Charge 14:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best, Durova. Thanks :) SirFozzie 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give this a slightly fuller answer, the partial damage occurs at other pages. JB196 deletes paragraphs if the article as a whole has enough referencing to survive a deletion vote. The effect is sort of like someone who starts little fires in your rosebushes and your trash bins before setting your house on fire. Durova^Charge 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I like to say it was.. "JB will destroy your grass, then write rude things in Grafitti on your walls, and break your windows. Then he'll go to the town and ask them to tear down your house because it's not being kept up properly". if no one is actively watching the article and fights him over it, he'll get away with it too.. SirFozzie 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to say that I appreciate being known as the most diligent over this issue. However my powers are really limited, because I have no right as a basic WP editor to remove the AfD on sight. And I doubt I would get voted in as a sysop just based on this. I don't want sysop powers anyway as I'm not on WP often enough to justify it. On the deleting of paragraphs, you should take a look at what one of JB's socks (CDlatch245) tried to do to my edit on Professional wrestling in Australia as an example. I reverted it and then referenced it. I added a note above as to what it will take to get me to return as CoF. 124.181.204.208 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The JzG thread

Durova, I am being threatened by Hipocrite for "stalking" and "needling" JzG - it's true I have a long standing dispute with JzG, but all I did on AN/I was present evidence and make a few comments. I feel like the "final warning" I received is completely out of bounds. I was thinking of removing it (I've already removed one from Hipocrite because it was unfounded) but I thought better of it. I thought about RfC but it says I should try other channels first. Do you have any advice? Should I just proceed with RfC? ATren 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a warning template doesn't change the fact that you've been warned. It's better to begin with some introspection and then take a breather. Sleep on it. Try approaching Hipocrite politely and begin by acknowledging whatever share of responsibility you honestly believe you merit. Ask questions if the reasons seem unfair or unclear and see whether you can compromise: perhaps Hipocrite would downgrade the warning in return for some concession on your part. I like the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program and have been known to shorten blocks for editors who promise to enter it. There's no guarantee another sysop would take a similar approach, but it demonstrates good faith on your part to make the attempt. Give this your best effort before turning to RfC. Regards, Durova^Charge 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But did I violate policy in presenting evidence against a user with which I've had a history? What did I do wrong? ATren 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with providing evidence at an ANI thread. There's a broader history here that is not entirely known to me. When I first read your request my thoughts went from give me the whole story with diffs and I'll take a look to an RfC would bring in more opinions and give the other side a fair hearing to that would really be a lot of hassle - maybe you can just work things out. Durova^Charge 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. ATren 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at Free Republic

Durova, I must advise you that FAAFA is continuing to use an unreliable source in violation of WP:RS. He is opposed by a consensus, yet he keeps making these reverts to include material by Todd Brendan Fahey, a person who brags about the quantity and variety of illegal drugs and alcohol he has used. This is not a RS. Please make a ruling regarding the use of Fahey as a RS. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. There's a lot on my plate today so it might take a little while. Durova^Charge 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service. Awarded by Addhoc

Thank you. I needed a pick-me-up today. Cheers, Durova^Charge 00:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADOPT

I appreciate the advice on WP:ADOPT, but I don't think it's for me. I've been here a whole year and I'm pretty well versed on policy. Unfortunately, I think the problem is that I know Wikipedia too well - recent experiences have made be hard and cynical about the whole project, and that's the main reason why I'm not more active than I am. Nine months of conflict with the same admin will do that to you. If Hipocrite wants to block me for presenting evidence, fine. If nothing else, it will pretty much prove the double standard that everyone here seems to be denying. Thank you again for all your efforts on this. ATren 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless efforts and your integrity. Wikipedia can use more admins like you. ATren 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the barnstar. Regarding WP:ADOPT I often recommend it to experienced users who've run into trouble. The ones who heed the suggestion usually find it helps. Look at this as a sounding board and a source of level-headed advice: pretty much what you're getting from me but from someone whose time isn't spread so thinly. Think about it. Durova^Charge 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably taking a week or so break from Wikipedia, so I'll reconsider when I come back. Thanks again. ATren 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreaks can be a very healthy thing. Enjoy yours. Durova^Charge 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

My apologies for my vulgar and uncivil remark on Atren's talkpage. It was completely uncalled for and inconsistent with my usual behavior. My wikistress level is quite high at the moment, but that is no excuse. It will not happen again. Jeffpw 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thanks for coming here to say that. Durova^Charge 13:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

I was going to give you a barnstar for putting up with alot of flack for your strong stand against incivility on AN/I, but I see that you already have some so I'll just send a smile your way instead.

Eluchil404 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing![reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

"no other mop is anywhere in sight"

Hi there. I was reading the thread on WP:ANI recently, and I noticed this comment you made, on how you "look around [...] for messes where no other mop is anywhere in sight". Would you have time to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Request for advice? No-one else seems to be taking much interest in it. If someone uninvolved (ie. you) could give their opinion, that would be great. Carcharoth 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep, and a virus knocked me down just before you posted that. Durova^Charge 17:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley award

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1 I'd like to give you this award as you have been accurate and helpful in the assistance of stopping Vandals from vandalising Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service. Good work! Tellyaddict^Talk 12:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolls

Hey hombre, that picture of the trolls at the top of this page is pretty freakin' scary. NIRVANA2764 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest JB196 sockpuppet

Machodawg is editing the usual articles, this diff [7] shows him inserting a link to JB196's website article. Regards. One Night In Hackney 07:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also GaryGoingggg who signed up several days ago, made 2 edits of wrestling moves on articles JB196 and/or socks has previously edited, then engaged in an edit war with me after I removed the link above, which are his only contributions to date. One Night In Hackney 07:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing with GaryGoingggg; [8] despite the claim being sourced by AVN he insists on re-inserting the link to JB196's interview, which is as damning as it gets I'd suggest. One Night In Hackney 08:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about Machodawg, but GaryGoingggg definitely links to a Jonathan Barber article SirFozzie 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don't like what I have to say you must go and accuse me of sockpuppetry and personal attacks (and even make a personal attack of your own on my page arguably). Lovely. You dont know me so dont you make assumptions about my motives. At rspw your supporting the keep argument for an article which sources Stevie Freakin Richards wearing an RSPW t-shirt as meaning that rspw deserves inclusion on Wikipedia, so you have no right, and I mean no right, to remove a legitimate source just because you don't like it and you dont think its sufficiently "official." And I probably will be blocked for supposed sockpuppetting (innocent of) because of your nonsense accusation. So as John Lennon would say "let it be" but at least now you can no longer go baselessly removing cited info (from the Tommy Dreamer article). I've addressed what needs to be addressed here and on the Hackney page. and Because I link to an article by JB196 I ---have--- to be JB196. God forbid somebody who reads DOI (abbreviation for declarationofindependents.net) edits Wikipedia...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GaryGoingggg (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I wouldn't normally reply to your allegations on another editor's talk page, but I believe in defending myself from such allegations. My decision to support a keep for the RSPW article has nothing to do with the quality (or lack of quality) of sources on the article, or indeed the notability of RSPW. Contributions from blocked editors are regarded as vandalism and are reverted, including any articles they nominate for deletion. So if you are blocked as a sockpuppet, all your edits can and will be reverted. One Night In Hackney 09:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say your supporting of a keep had anything to do with that. And the only allegiations are being made by you. Its good to know you still assume I'm a sockpuppet after what I said above. Stop making allegations.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GaryGoingggg (talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please note, that GaryGoingggg has nominated Rick Scaia for deletion, further making a case that it is a WP:SOCK account SirFozzie 18:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New wrestling AfD

Greg Bownds --Dweller 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the articles targeted by JB on his last sockpuppet run (as noted by the nominator) but I don't believe the current nominator is one of them, if I remember the old AfD correctly, they were one of the ones who voted delete (it was speedy deleted due to the banned user creating it, but others said they might relist it SirFozzie 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a surprising nom though, given that he seems pretty notable. --Dweller 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this nominator isn't a sockpuppet. Durova^Charge 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium

Hi,

you wrote:

Some of the editors I respect have given Citizendium a try and invited me to join them. The main reason I've turned down the offers is because I prefer not to reveal my real world name. I'm not ashamed of my background - I have an Ivy League education - but due to the kinds of administrative work I perform I'd rather not give troublemakers a way to find me.

Actually, this isn't a problem. You simply have to chose a name that sounds plausible. CZ has no way in checking your ID, so this requirement is pretty much useless. In your case, it could help you participate. -- 217.51.4.143 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue at CZ - and some of us there are hoping to get a "register" where real names can be safeguarded so that a nom-de-plume may be used. Pete K 15:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a standard nom de plume works over there? Interesting... Durova^Charge 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]