User talk:Durova/Archive 21

User:BabyDweezil

No problem. It seems like this guy has gotten himself into pretty much trouble, and it looks like he's going to need some help. I'm glad to be the one to help. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how this will play out, but it's a good sign that he (or she?) picked up on the suggestion so quickly. Thanks again and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 03:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have four students officially listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status plus another whose username I had to remove because it transcluded a template into that page (I'm not sure how) and a sixth whom I coach informallly. I'm not absolutely full here, but due to the specialized work I pursue I normally let the students come to me. I'm not the sysop to coach the next set of WP:AFD closers or RC patrollers. Send me the would-be detectives. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favor ?

I listed this for admin attention several days ago. update Could you be so kind as to replace the copyvio version with the version I posted at the temp page? Thanks San_Blas,_Nayarit - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, I'm about up to my ears at the moment. Please go to someone who handles copyright issues on a regular basis or who has previous involvement with this issue. Durova^Charge! 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you. :P Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In recognition

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For the many steps you've taken to empower the community. Thank you for having faith in us. Kla'quot 06:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. All barnstars are wonderful, but this one warms my heart. Durova^Charge! 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CEM volunteer

Durova,

It looks like you might have your hands full now, but if you ever need more bodies, let me know -- I would be happy to be a CEM/CEM-in-training. TheronJ 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. The door isn't necessarily closed. Could you tell me why this interests you and what experience you have in dispute resolution? Durova^Charge! 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Durova - I am generally interested in dispute resolution in real life. I am particularly interested in Wikipedia, because (i) I like to see issues resolved productively and editors grow into civil collaborators, and (ii) I am very curious about how and whether Wikipedia works as a community. My previous experience is as a:

Gadfly, usually a productive one, see, e.g., discussions on my talk page regarding my involvement in the 2004 US presidential commentary, Scientology, the Iran-Iraq War, and the Iraq War;
Advocate, e.g., OMaHTLD, who had concerns regarding edits to a software page and Doc Halloween, who wanted to identify why his page was deleted and what his options were; and
A member of the mediation cabal. See, e.g., my mediations regarding Emporis, Haku (Naruto), Cat ownership, Animal Crossing, and Johann Hari.

I've had mixed end results, but typically high satisfaction from the participants. Thanks, TheronJ 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely enough experience to join the list of trainees with this program. I expect to be busy for a few days discussing refinements to WP:BAN and WP:DE before moving forward with the WP:CEM proposal. It received broad support last month, particularly from Jimbo and some members of the arbitration committee, and the only reason it hasn't shifted into trial phase is because I don't want to create the appearance of impropriety by removing the proposal tag myself. I started a new WP:CM thread to renew the matter and if no one opposes I may be WP:BOLD. Or of course you could do it. ;) Durova^Charge! 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BabyDweezil RfAr case

Sitting at 6/4/1/0, the chance of the case being accepted isn't very good. I think the WP:ADOPT may help, but that would mean that the community-based ban has to be overturned. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reach either conclusion? Unless I'm mistaken, the Committee is one member short of a majority to open the case and I don't see how mentorship would require overturning the community ban. BabyDweezil could still correspond with a mentor via e-mail and at his or her own user talk page. That's enough to get guidance in arbitration procedures, which is all that really matters during a request or an open case. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that majority doesn't matter, it's 4 net accept votes? ~~Regarding community ban, I was under the impression that user is currently banned except for own talk page and RfAr.~~ Never mind that previous sentence-- it's a d'oh! thing on my part. revised 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point: yesterday it was 6/3/1/0 and acceptance seemed more likely. At any rate, all that an editor needs to do to enter WP:ADOPT is to post a template to his or her own user talk page. BabyDweezil did so several days ago and hadn't gotten any nibbles so I got in touch with a couple of mentors who specialize in dispute resolution. One of them started a thread on BabyDweezil's user talk page. So - you may be right about the chances of an actual case being slim - yet mentorship can operate within the present editing restrictions. There wouldn't likely be a need for it if the Committee declines the appeal. Durova^Charge! 03:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned that to clerks on the clerks' noticeboard; at this point in time we can only wait to see what happens. (Since there are only 2 arbcom members that haven't voiced their opinions, both would need to accept the case for it to happen.) I personally think that this -may- bring another round of talks of how 4 net accept votes may be a little harsh. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I doubt that WP:ADOPT would be a major factor in their decision. I suggested it when BabyDweezil started making threaded responses to comments. If you're interested in the broader issues of the proposed case, try a browse of the lower half of this thread. WP:BAN and WP:DE are due for some tweaking and I've been needling the community to discuss the updates and refinements. Finally got some topical responses at one of the four places where I've raised the issues. Looks like consensus supports the ideas and the thread at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Community_banning is more than a week old, so I was heading over to make some policy edits when you posted here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Durova^Charge! 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add your talk page to my watch list, as I'm starting to wear down (8am class + class ending at 8:30pm = dead editor) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered, but be warned: this sees more activity than some noticeboards. ;) Sleep well. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to sleep yet, I'm just not in the right state of mind to formulate a good thought process. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to hold off? There's no particular need to amend policy tonight. It just seemed that the discussion had been open long enough and had earned support. I was hoping to renew Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation tomorrow and tie up some other loose ends. Durova^Charge! 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) I've responded here regarding the case. I'll see what I can do with the other pages; in the mean time, try to resurrect discussions at Banning Policy. Adding: There's no need for you to hold off on it; if you think you have enough support, by all means go for it. Adding more: I like what you did at CEM; however, I may have suggestions (I need to look over it again to solidify my suggestions, though.) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AA meeting

No, not Alcoholics Anonymous, Agapetos_Angel. For the last few weeks, I've been trying to mediate the Sarfati-Talk page. Last night, this comment appeared (later [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati&diff=next&oldid=114950430 edited), and I would like you, being an experienced admin, to give me some pointers on how to proceed.

OK, I hereby officially complain about FM and all the others warned about tendentious editing, and request that he is no longer allowed to ban editors on Sarfati-related articles. I also request that someone so involved on one side of the debate like JoshuaZ is not allowed to ban an opponent unless there is a clear rule violation. I also propose that this one-sided ban is rescinded. (someone more familiar with the bureaucratic procedures can make this more official. Otheus?) From 60.242.13.87 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Otheus 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not AA, BTW. But it sure seems that she was unjustly treated in the ArbCom ruling, which was very drastic considering that it came in the middle of her RfC, and was unevenly applied (two of the warned admins, including blocking admin FM, were the ones who reinserted the "Sarfati supports torture" stuff, so there seems to be unevenness in punishment).60.242.13.87 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you've joined us, why do you take such an interest in her ArbCom ruling? Durova^Charge! 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. The trouble is, actual lifting of the topic ban would have to be done by ArbCom and that sort of post works against AA. Suggest leaving a note to that effect on the IP talk page, along with a recommendation that if AA really wants to return the way to appeal would be via e-mail to an arbitration clerk. An apology for not understanding procedure might be understandable, especially if this is one isolated post and AA hasn't evaded the block otherwise. Durova^Charge! 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did we have a RFCU for the IP confirming the 60.242 to be AA? I'm a little skeptical at the moment regarding this situation. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible due to inactivity on the main account. WP:DUCK applies. You could hedge your response by expressing it in if you are the same person as Agapetos Angel language. Durova^Charge! 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not impossible. I've taken up the challenge. --Otheus 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will read over the whole thing again later this morning (my sister is using the computer I usually work on, and hers is on the verge of breaking down) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my fact finding regarding 60.242.13.87, 58.162.2.122, 219.88.95.90, and 211.30.143.246. I do not wish to definitively claim everything. What I wish for is that I see Wikipedia live up to my refutation of Vaknin. Assuming you agree with my conclusion, the next step would be to see if indeed JZ and FM were abusing their authority by instituting blocks against these users by applying an overly broad interpretation of the AA ruling--Otheus 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Otheus 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (CC'd Penwhale)[reply]

It would take a more thorough review than I've given to give a definitive response, so please regard this as tentative and if you cite me on this qualify it as such. Your evidence raises some very serious conduct issues and appears to substantiate it. Please supplement with evidence demonstrating the origin of the IP addresses and systematically ruling out AA sockpuppetry. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple issues here, but given your evidence below, based strictly on the RfAr ruling, and based on an admin's good-faith conclusion that this IP user is Sarfati, as you and I have concluded (at least) is a non-trivial possibility, that user's block was justified. On the other hand, IMHO, the stronger policy of immediately removing (potentially) libelous (and poorly sourced) material would lead me to conclude that the block was premature. OTOH (the third one), I'm not an admin and don't particularly envy having to take an admin's judgement here. --Otheus 13:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request for clarification to the arbitration committee. I also agree that WP:BLP is an important policy. If Mr. Sarfati or Agapetos Angel reads this, editing by proxy is not permitted but it is perfectly appropriate to petition me or any other sysop (via e-mail if necessary) to remove objectionable material per that policy. So I won't add anything and I won't remove anything that's properly sourced, but I'll take out unsourced or improperly cited negative material. Durova^Charge! 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more of a look

I've done slightly more research - mainly the edit history of the IP 60.242.13.87. Here are some highlights.

General

Problematic edits of various types over several months:

Blowhole (biology)[1][2][3][4] Four edits that remove all mention of evolution from the article and rename the section from Evolution to Anatomy.
Francis J. Beckwith [5] adding a blog link as an article citation.
Richard Dawkins [6][7][8] What concerns me in particular is the use of an NPOV tag as a soapbox.
Theodosius Dobzhansky [9] Adds a blogspot page as a reference.

Physical sciences

Physical sciences:

Chess

In addition to Jonathan Sarfati:

Summary

I strongly doubt that this is the same person as Agapetos Angel. In my observation AA was a better Wikipedian. I don't mean this as a slam re: her arbitration, but I did award her a shared barnstar. This editor is on a route that could lead to userblocks. Although this user participates at a variety of topics, I've also noted an interesting correlation between this pattern and the Jonathan Sarfati biography:

Strongly creationist POV.
Knowledgeable about physical sciences.
Knowledgeable about relatively obscure topics in chess.
Knowledgeable about Australia and New Zealand topics.
Alters Answers in Genesis reference links to Creation Ministries International reference links.
IP originates in New South Wales, Australia.

Isn't CMI in Queensland, Australia, i.e. another state?60.242.13.87 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken together with uncritical edits at the Jonathan Sarfati page, vigorous arguments for retention at that page's deletion nominations, and a distinctive interest in the AA arbitration case, I conclude there is a nontrivial possibility that Jonathan Sarfati edits Wikipedia using this IP. Durova^Charge! 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

58.162.2.122 appears to be the same person as the previous IP. In addition to the similarities noted above these two IP addresses share a knowledge of the Greek language and interests in economic theory, military history, contemporary actresses' biographies, and vintage pop culture from the third quarter of the twentieth century. They often edit the same articles such as Baylor University. If Mr. Sarfati is reading this page, my hat goes off to you for your draw against Boris Spassky but I wish you'd become a better Wikipedian. I don't get paid to research these investigation requests and I'd rather spend more time improving the encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One good way to improve this encyclopedia is to make sure that rulings are SEEN to be just. This was manifestly not the case with the arbcom ruling that ended up with AA being banned, while tendentious editors like FM were given a slap on the wrist. It also hardly helps Wiki's credibility that FM and Guettarda can violate with impunity the arbcom warning to these admins against a hatchet job on the article, by reinserting the "Sarfati supports torture" stuff. And worst of all, it is very bad that a warned editor like FM has the power to block his opponents at will, e.g. 58 for a week merely for commenting on a deletion vote, and now for a month for daring to protest at what s/he sees as gross injustice in these things. This really does not look like people can get a fair hearing.60.242.13.87 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I strongly doubt that this is the same person as Agapetos Angel. ... I conclude there is a nontrivial possibility that Jonathan Sarfati edits Wikipedia using this IP." Um, that's a distinction without a difference since if you were to read the RFAR you'd know that AA and Sarfati are very, very closely related (in all the important ways at least). FeloniousMonk 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've read the arbitration. As you may recall, I also provided evidence at it. Please assume good faith and refrain from sarcasm. Durova^Charge! 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since allegations have been raised by an anon that by Durova's investigation appears to be Sarfati himself and Otheus (who's had a personal ax to grind against me for some time now) saying that myself and JoshuaZ are out of line issuing blocks against User:58.162.2.122 for violation the terms of the Agapetos Angel RFAR, I should point out three things: 1) the arbcomm ruling states "Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." User 58.162.2.122 falls within not only this IP range and geographical location (as does User:60.242.13.87 here goading you to take action), but was specifically the subject of evidence in the RFAR and has consistently walked in the footsteps of Agapetos Angel despite the restriction placed on such by the ruling. 2) Since the ruling was first made, in fact less than 48 hours after the ruling, those behind the 58. IP have disrupted Jonathan Sarfati and related articles with tendentious edits, arguments/rants, and personal attacks. 3) JoshuaZ and myself have been the only admins regularly tending that article, 4) All blocks made by us were logged on the arbcomm ruling page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Log_of_blocks_and_bans going back to the first one on May 1 2006 and no one from the arbcomm has objected, which no doubt they read. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BabyDweezil

Hi. I was reading one of your comments over at the archived ban/block discussion of BD.[16] You mention that:

According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, it's a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians that matters. Feel free to comment, but involved parties don't decide this.

Yet I see a large number of involved editors:

SlimVirgin
Johntex
Smee
Bishonen
Justanother
ChrisO
Jossi

If we count SlimVirgin there were 13 votes to ban and 6 of them from involved editors. I am not saying if these involved editors were fair or unfair just that they were involved. And perhaps BD can add to the list. So we have a indef ban closed in less than 24 hours and heavily influenced by involved editors. Something seems wrong with that picture. Is there anything I can do to help BD? Thanks. --Justanother 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the fact that he was blocked and could not defend himself. I was just thinking that is it not the basic nature of a wiki that if something is wrong then you just be BOLD and fix it? Please correct me if I am wrong but that ban was just done wrongly. To me, this is not about him appealing a valid ban at ArbCom. This is perhaps about someone just doing the discussion again and doing it right; i.e. with BD unblocked to the extent of being able to reply and with involved editors not deciding the issue. What do you think? --Justanother 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point very well said. I was following the RfAr page and felt that way. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to reply to this, but a post at another user talk page that invoked my name leads me to change my mind: silence implies consent so I ought to speak up. This thread demonstrates a logical fallacy called proof by assertion. It's just a list of names with no reason whatsoever why any of their input should be discounted. BabyDweezil's own request for arbitration only offers evidence of a content dispute with one of them. We don't throw out votes just because someone issued a user block or made a comment at WP:AN.

That clause at WP:DE was designed to prevent cliques of POV edit warriors from railroading good people out of the project. Suppose there's a dispute at opera. Ten Arnold Schoenberg fans are trying to WP:OWN the article and say that Schoenberg is the greatest composer in music history. Then along comes a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart fan who raises some WP:NPOV issues and tries to balance the coverage. The Schoenberg fans huddle together somewhere and decide to run this Mozart fan out of the project. They tag team him, heckle him, and goad him into a WP:3RR block. Finally the Mozart fan gets frustrated and commits an act of vandalism. That's where I come along. While I'm browsing the page I see the words I'd rather eat ten pounds of rancid warthog meat than listen to Schoenberg. So I click edit and type removed vandalism in my summary. About two weeks later the Schoenberg fans start a community ban thread on the Mozart dude and all ten of them support the ban. Well none of those ten votes count because those are the people who've been disputing with the Mozart guy all along. But my vote's valid and the fact that I reverted his edit doesn't make me involved. I was just performing routine housekeeping. The Mozart guy might accuse me of bias, but that claim carries no weight because I hardly ever edit that type of article and he can't read my mind. (My actual opinion is that I'd like to move Arnold Schoenberg from List of composers to List of cruel and unusual punishments, but that's beside the point). Even if I issued a block for vandalism on Mozart dude, I haven't been a party to his dispute, and it's perfectly valid for me to support or oppose at the ban discussion. Mozart guy can't drive out the sysop who issued the WP:3RR block on that basis either, unless Mr. Mozart can prove that the other admin had been part of the opera content dispute, and in that situation Herr Mozart could have opened an administrator conduct WP:RFC because sysops aren't supposed to issue a block to gain the upper hand in a quarrel.

I hope that clarifies the distinction. Durova^Charge! 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thank you. I cannot speak to any such behavior in that collection above, There are two anti-Scientology clique members there but not enough to be a problem (BD and Scientology intersected on Barbara Schwarz). I certainly do not see that group piling on there. But I am not familiar with BD's main thing, the Chip Berlet (spell?) thing. If BD can make a case on his own talk page that such a clique is present in his ban votes would you take a look at his arguments? --Justanother 05:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it affects a significant portion of votes it's unlikely to affect either ArbCom's opinion or the community's opinion. In light of the most recent addition to the ArbCom decision about hearing the request it's becoming less likely that a case will open. If that's the outcome then the best thing BabyDweezil could do is to sit on the sidelines for a few months and then e-mail a polite request to have the community ban lifted. A pledge to resume with WP:ADOPT would help and it's essential to avoid returning on sockpuppets in the interim. Also, it would be good to have amended statement from BabyDweezil with a few strikethroughs that narrows the scope of the involvement accusations. In my opinion the most meaningful portion of BD's appeal is that the ban was implemented without notification or an opportunity for defense. If I were BD's mentor I'd say concentrate on that, mention involvement in WP:ADOPT, and pledge to abide by site policies from now on. It's counterproductive all around to dilute the appeal with interpretations that appear to game site guidelines and policies. That gives BD the appearance of grasping at straws and wastes the time of editors who acted in good faith. Durova^Charge! 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. I certainly think that unless BD is real sure then that there was a clique working together there then he should take your excellent advice. And I do not think there could possible be more than 3, maybe 4, "cliquishly" like-minded editors in the voting and, since I cast the only oppose vote, then that amount would be moot. I appreciate the time you took here. Take care. --Justanother 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What now?

After the recent reforms, where can I ask a neutral admin to look at some personal attacks (examples: accusations of vandalism and mental instability(?) in edit summary, selfproclaimed exper, mocking ethnicity (Jewish...), suggesting the word 'Polish' is an insult), and issue a warning?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure I'm the best person to handle this? Durova^Charge! 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to look into it, great; otherwise, if you can recommend a place to ask for input, I'd appreciate it. I don't think calling users vandals or commenting about their ethnicity is what we should be seeing on the talk pages.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Durova would accept i do want to give some explanations. My dear Piotrus - as for vandalism - you seem to be quite eager to remove facts you seem not to like. I did not suggest you or any administrator, (as it is written to be exact) are mental instable, I did just say that before accusing others someone should look into his actions from an neutral point of view. And now I'm addressing direct to you - please, stop removing well referenced facts. You did remove this reference from Paneriai massacre stating it does not fit there, and should go to Ypatingasis būrys, and I did agree. Now I've put it where you suggested and you did again remove it with a portion of articles lead. A suggestion to pray for Jesus was just a suggestion to look into your consciousness, and remember that you are not only Pole but also an admin of international project. If word Jesus makes you think about mental instability, well, I'm sorry then. I will never say it in your presence again. And sadly, it was you, who few times did suggest that I'm not mental stable (like asking are you okay?)[17], or even intentionally changed my genre addressing me, saying "that I did mistakes only female can make"[18]. Should i understand, that you are a woman hater, and think that woman are not mentally capable?

And second thing - I did not say that a word "Pole" is insulting, i did just say, that a person, in this case Radziwill the Black would have quite a different opinion on his nationality, than you're trying to push. I did even suggest you to read the books, to understand why. But you seem to continue to push your opinion, and support it (not research facts, but plainly support your opinion) with google books.

So my dear Piotrus, you may feel free to come and ask my personal explanations on every word of mine, and not to put a meaning into them, I did not put there. Have a good day.--Lokyz 09:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No facts were removed from YB, there were only moved from lead to main body per WP:LEAD. The same facts were judged irrelevant in Ponary (talk page) by majority of editors. Suggesting that an editor has 'emotional problems' and should 'pray for forgivness' looks like a personal attack to me, and you should apologize for it. Insulting Halibutt's Jewish ancestry seems particulary appalling to me. I see nothing offensive in asking if you are ok, but if you are offended by such a friendly gesture, I will make sure not to concern myself with that in the future, and as for your gender, please pay more attention to English grammar, since you made some comments in which it looked like you were reffering to yourself a women; I've already apologized for that (since apparently you find being considered a women offensive - 'woman hater' may indeed be a relevant item in our discussion). PS. I find your further insinuations - that I am a religion and women hater - to be offensive, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained my actions, btw, I did not point a finger to any administrator.

No, you just reverted one, accused the previous editor of being a vandal, and suggested the administrators with emotional problems should pray to Jesus. No, certainly, this had nothing to do with the administrator you just reverted.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About those mistakes of mine, please could you be more specific? Because you did not say anything about grammar previously, you did say that "did mistakes only female can make". Is there some sort of english-female grammar? I'm just asking you to point out those mistakes, to learn and not to repeat them in the future.

I never wrote "did mistakes only female can make". And I don't have time to look at the contribs to see where exactly did you make those mistakes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Halibutt's case, I've already admitted I was wrong, because of misleading edit summary. And yeah, I was too harsh. Trust me, it does not have to do anything with nationality, just with some patterns of behaviour. Maybe this ongoing kickstand and not willingness of some editors accept referenced facts, mocking on my language and calling me and my fellow Lithuanians "ultras" finally got on my nerves too. I should be more critical on my metaphors in the future.--Lokyz 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that when you wrote you are sorry you were wrong you were apologizing for calling him "selfproclaimed expert" who "claims in numerous places that he is is from Jewish ancestry" and that his "supposedly Jewish ancestors are very happy now"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that I was wrong, because at the moment it did seem to me (because of edit summary), that Halbutt denies presence of Jews in Vilnius. That inspired me to write such emotional exclamation, and now I'm sorry to have done so.--Lokyz 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is all of this doing on Durova's talk page anyway? Dr. Dan 13:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cut to the chase: I've attempted to intervene in response to this kind of request before and, with respectful apologies to the people concerned, I wasn't very successful at it. You know the alternatives: WP:ANI, a petition to another administrator, or ArbCom. The only additional option I could provide is to launch WP:CEM if you'd like to hammer this out for yourselves. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For the record, I believe your former intervention was right on target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in answer to What now? I believe that Durova has told you go somewhere else with your complaints. Personally, I think that's right on target too. Dr. Dan 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, although you may agree with my previous interventions, too many other people disagreed and I don't wish to damage my reputation by risking another mistake. If you and anyone with whom you dispute wish to enter a mediation where you could impose remedies upon yourselves, I'll launch WP:CEM. I've put considerable effort into developing that proposal and seven people have volunteered to become mediator trainees, with two more potential trainees in reserve. Jimbo Wales has supported it, as have several members of ArbCom. All it actually needs is a case with which to launch. The complicated problems at Eastern European articles may be perfect for this format. As I'm sure you're aware, those were very much in my mind while I drafted the proposal. Nothing else has resolved these longstanding disputes. As a much more experienced editor and administrator than myself, you undoubtedly know the full range of policy enforcement and dispute resolution options. Since those are unsatisfactory and you petition me directly, please make use of the new option I've created to assist you. Durova^Charge! 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted yourself above, asking another administrator is one of the ways to deal with that problem. I believe that clear-cut personal attacks, bad faith and flaming need no more complicated treatment than violation of WP:3RR, alas, some people disagree. Considering that Lokyz admitted above he was wrong with his comment towards Halibutt, I don't see the need to waste my time on trying to force him to actually apologize to him, and I certainly can take worse abuse then being called insane vandal :) Alas, if certain editors escalate their behaviour - and looking at the trends I am sure they will - it is more than likely we will use the CEM.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CEM is probably the best offer I can give you. Even if the action were uncontroversial, a short block here and there is unlikely to end the disputes. You might as well offer the possiblity now. If the situation is degenerating people may be less receptive to it after it festers longer. Durova^Charge! 03:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for dsturbing you again - although after this one [19] I do feel obliged to report a trolling action of an admin. Untill now I did feel free to edit whatewer I felt I had some expertise on, althoug edit summaries like (tag {{WikiProject Lithuania}} for Lokyz) seems to me like stalking and tring to push me to behave unreasonably. Therefore i do demand deletion of this edit summary and a personal appology with a promise I'll be not stalked in the future.--Lokyz 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC) P.S -just another message of personal character emerged [20]. If it would be an any other emotional editor I'd agree to shut up, although it is an admin trying me to push to behave unreasonably. Well, i did not expect this from Wikipedia's administrator who, as he did tell himself, is enjoying benefits of being administrator of this project in an academic world.--Lokyz 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the toughest things to ask of a sysop is to intervene in the context of an edit dispute. As I've also told Piotrus, I've stuck out my neck one too many times already at the Eastern European topics.

Now although it's very dicey for me to step in and make the calls, I'll offer you Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation where you could get together and set some enforceable limits on yourselves. Would you like to open that? Durova^Charge! 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the recent flare up, I don't consider Lokyz incivility to be substantial enough to warrant spending my time on DR procedures. The level of disruption (from my perspective) is not worth it - it could have been easily dealt with with a formal warning, but anyway my comments did have some intended impact: he has actually apologized to Halibutt. Although I am saddeded that he took my gesture of good-will (as I explained on his talk page) to be stalking, I see no reason to sink time into DR. I will also make certain not to commend Lokyz on any useful edits he makes in the future (seeing as he considers this stalking).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus your talk did not answer my call, i still expect either apology or any other action.--Lokyz 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey Durova, please check this out. Can you please leave a note on his talk page asking him to not remove sourced information? I've tried but to no avail. Thanks, Khoi khoi 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a block warning, a policy explanation, and a link to WP:ADOPT. I hope that steers this editor in the right direction. Come back if it doesn't. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Khoi khoi 06:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting situation

Seems a new user is possibly acting in questionable faith. SpamWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contribs consist of bring Category:Marketing research companies articles to the attention of WP:WPSPAM, without actualy making edits. It appears there may be some adgenda and others are now noticing them (see [21]). Also the tone of this individual is a bit disturbing. Would like your view. Have only seen this type of behavior before when its for retribution. --Hu12 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good matter to bring up at WP:AN. Definitely worth watching, yet my time is spread thin at the moment. I'm involved in three open arbitration cases (and as a named party at one of them) and some unforeseen problems have cropped up at guideline level and policy level that require immediate attention. If you have something more specific to run past me I'll take a look, but I don't really have time to start a fresh investigation right now.

On the other hand I could offer you some referrals. I'm the admin coach for half a dozen editors, some of whom would probably be happy to sniff around here. You'd be the experienced sysop in that situation. Interested? Durova^Charge! 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE

I suggest you read it some time. >Radiant< 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Community enforced mediation

I was afraid this had to end like that. Here are my thoughts (not suggestions)

This chain of antiAGF is quite an ongoing history, and I'm affraid it will not stop.
There were a lot of attempt to mediate, discuss, selfenforced censorship and even leavinig - returnining to wikipedia (not only form Polish - Lithuanian side)
There is a lot of "bad blood" and distrust in our both nations traditions to each others
And yeah, this distrust is sometimes is beginning to revert a full scale war (disbelief, national tradition denial, usualy ending in personal insults - either direct or masked).
This is an Eastern Europe - where everyone seems self sufficient and still lacking respect to each other. the bigger prevails.

As for my personal opinion this WP:CEM is long overdue. And in my opionion it (sadly) will lead us nowhere. Because of diferent education, because of proportional "size" of the nations involved, and not the least because of the google books, that is predominant of free of charge or out of copyright books source (i.e. not necesary the best).

So there is my conclusion: we might try it, just i do have very limited amount of time to spend on it, because of my job workload. Furthermore i do not want to reveal my personality, simply because of strict job rules. And I do repeat - I will certainly have a limited amount of time to spend, so it might become longlasting, unless there will be some editors who'll help to back my ideas. Thank you for your time to read my opinion--Lokyz 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to disclose your identity and not much time pressure about the process. If either side goes inactive for 30 days the mediation closes by default. Piotrus has replied that he doesn't think it's necessary. If he changes his mind we could get started. The door remains open. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage

Hello Durova! Can you please deactivate my userpage for a shortly time? I need to create it one more time. Please do not block my user. Just deactivate my userpage. Thanks. ARII 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean by deactivate, and for how long? Durova^Charge! 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you're requesting deletion. Did it, and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antarcticwik

He's still doing it: [22], [23]. Khoi khoi 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a 24 hour block. I see the page is semi-protected. What's the dynamic over there? Does it need full protection? Durova^Charge! 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because there's only one user disrupting the article. Khoi khoi 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pursue an unblcok for FAAFA

Those personal attacks were directed at me. He has the Arbitration clerks email as well as the email of the Arbitration committee. If you think he needs an unblock please ask User:Newyorkbrad to initiate the unblock or collect whatever evidence is needed. User:Newyorkbrad is the arbitration clerk for this case and they deal with getting blocked users evidence everyday. --Tbeatty 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you're watching some user talk pages, but I don't mind posting another response directly to you. Newyorkbrad was of course the first person I contacted. Per WP:AGF you may assume I use the appropriate channels. I had posted to A Man in Black's talk page only because the e-mail option was nonfunctional. I am aware of FAAFA's history and would have monitored that user's conduct closely if I had assumed the responsibility of a restricted unblock for ArbCom purposes. Yet I also want to give you an informal caution regarding WP:CIVIL: it's unseemly to take advantage of this situation and make unkind statements about someone at a time and place where they have every reason to read and no opportunity to respond. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, not conflict, and your time would be much better spent adding reliable citations to articles. If you profess conservatism then you would do well to practice the old fashioned value of sportsmanship: don't hit a guy when he's down. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 04:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a diff of where I made an unkind statment about him or any way came close to the limit of WP:CIVIL. I am unaware of it. I take AGF and CIVIL very seriously. Per WP:AGF, you may also assume that my request here was made to give you options that were for the betterment of the project. The note I left on The Man in Balck's page was for him to consider my objection prior to giving advice about an unblock. My note here was to you to reconsider a unilateral action involving an ArbCom case that you are neither involved in as an editor or as an Arbcom member or clerk. And my note on Newyorkbrad's page was for him to contact FAAFA for any additional information he may want the committee to consider. I have also never professed conservatism on Wikipeida nor do I add anything but NPOV to any article or talk page and it's somewhat presumputous to make that statement. I don't hit any one when they are down regardless of my politics and I don't hit anyone on Wikipedia. I did not create this conflict with FAAFA and I am not a participant in that proceeding. I provided evidence because FAAFA has a LONG history of conflict. He seems to call everyone who disagrees with him "right wing" including JzG and Fred Bauder. In fact, I have tried to end the conflict by getting a sanction from ArbCom for civility or editing restriction. I build Wikipedia in many ways and rigidly follow the 5 pillars. You are welcome to review my edits and leave commentary on my talk page especially when you are concerned about very specific edits prefereably with diffs. But broad criticism that my time fighting vandals, trolls, sock puppets and POV warriors as well as time on the help desk and policy areas would be better spent adding reliable citations is difficult to understand in the context of building an encyclopedia that is beset by these problems. I could give you the same advice that your time would be better spent adding reliable sources rather than inserting yourself into conflicts but I suspect that you, as I do, see that as form of bettering the encyclopedia. --Tbeatty 07:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case is nearly finished so there's little point in us discussing its merits. My words to you were an informal caution and you need not defend yourself at length. I'm not on the verge of blocking you. Perhaps I should downgrade the statement: there's a distinction between civility and courtesy. People can remain civil while conveying coldness or downright hostility. Courtesy has more to do with remembering that whatever else happens, somewhere on the other end of the Internet a human being will read what we write and that person has feelings and deserves some baseline of human respect. It's very easy to forget that while we each interact by staring at a machine. Durova^Charge! 08:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't defending as much as asking for a diff. I am not aware of the discourtesy you have seen. I am always interested in improving my editing style and seeing what people perceive as discourteous or uncivil is always helpful. Even slights that you think are too petty to leave as a diff on my talk page, I would appreciate an email that shows what others see. I really am serious about that. You comments about my little rant about systemic bias was appreciated for this exact reason. For some reason I touched a button that caused you to be personally offended by that comment and it wasn't intended so I obviously didn't communicate it well. If you took it that way, others probably did too and, if nothing else, it makes me reread things in a different light as well as clarify what needs to change. --Tbeatty 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we both got into a discussion over this.[24] Put yourself in FAAFA's shoes: blocked near the close of arbitration while the case is moving toward siteban. It's not so much your words as the context in which you delivered them. If you don't mind a bit of hyperbole, during my father's terminal illness he developed an aphasia: he could hear and understand everything but had difficulty putting together the words to respond. Sometimes a doctor or a nurse would discuss his case and speak to me as if he weren't in the room. I would ask them to direct their comments to my father: the matter was his health and his decision. He couldn't advocate for himself so he was very grateful. Often he would kiss my hand. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair enough observation. I certainly didn't try to hurt his feelings but I can see that point. I tried to present evidence without passion or prejudice but I certainly had a point of view that he reacted angrily to. I apologize if he took it as hitting him while he is down. --Tbeatty 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BhaiSaab + User:His excellency

Hello Durova, being that you were a bit out of the loop relative to these two users you should know that although others are claiming they are one and the same the checkuser evidence was never conclusive. Having seen the unfolding of this story I can tell you that there were serious differences in editing styles and character between these two users. User:BhaiSaab was given a definitive ban relative to his conflict with User:Hkelkar which was a separate issue from HE. I don't see it as fair at all that these two are being lumped together given the significant differences the two accounts exhibited with respect to each other. (→Netscott) 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how much evidence is available either way? Durova^Charge! 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is very likely that User:BhaiSaab has sockpuppeted since his User:Hkelkar ArbCom imposed ban and has had his ban extend three times while User:Hkelkar sockpuppeted 5 times before he was finally indefinitely blocked. What has inclined checkuser to think that they are one and the same stems from the fact that they have been using IPs in the same ranges. This unfortunately isn't the best indicator for whether or not they were one and the same given that the IPs they were using were located in one of the world's heaviest populated areas in the world → New York, New Jersey, Newark. This IP range covers literally dozens of millions of people and it is not at all a stretch to find two editors in such a range sharing similar (if still distinct) POVs. (→Netscott) 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, how does the population of greater New York City mean a given IP range covers dozens of millions of people? I'm well aware of the metropolis size (I used to live there) but they certainly don't all use the same ISP. You're going by static IP location, right? Given that area's unusual geography and clogged transportation system it would be very unlikely for two results from - let's say Tenafly, New Jersey and Levittown, Long Island to represent the same person. By comparing the edit times against the relative locations, the transportaion arteries, and the daily traffic flow you could probably get a meaningful solution to the mystery.Durova^Charge! 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CEM

I started to take the proposed tag off CEM and write it into WP:DR but I stopped and reverted what I was doing as soon as slim posted to talk at cem. I was unsure about proceeding to write it into WP:DR with the objections recently posted. I am unsure if those objections affect consensus, need second set of eyes. v/r Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of overlapping threads at the talk page and it looks as if Slim missed the reply I had given to her edits. I've left a message at her talk page. Does it seem to you that she may not have read thoroughly? Her new comments don't appear to reflect familiarity with the FAQ and some of the assertions she posted left me scratching my head. Durova^Charge! 16:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that way. Perhaps I should re-read the FAQ as well. I was scratching my head. Navou ^banter / _contribs 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on when you read it, some of the questions may have been answered by another editor. Durova^Charge! 13:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw the results an hour ago and wondered when formal closure would happen. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called new helper a)whose first opening is a case involving 20+ editors and b) whose first closing is a review case which didn't have an "involved editor" list. It wasn't fun. :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a round of thanks. It's at your talk page. :) Durova^Charge! 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not scared away yet. Just a very good way to kill a boring Tuesday afternoon. :D - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova: I thought you might be interested to know that I've decided to leave the sorry mess that is Waldorf Education behind and put my skills to use elsewhere. Can you recommend some articles that are less - shall I say - troublesome? I was very sad to see the way Pete self-destructed in the end. I want to thank you for all your help and likewise hope all is well with you. Cheers! - Wikiwag 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your valiant attempts to advise another editor. Though unsuccessful in the end, your efforts were most admirable. Smee 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'm not certain precicely which editor you mean here, but I like to bear in mind Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Redemption: All banned editors are theoretically redeemable. The canonical example is Michael, who was hard-banned as a persistent vandal but has since reformed and become a good editor. The door may close but it doesn't necessarily lock. Even an editor who doesn't reform is less likely to cause additional problems if they believe they've been handled with fairness and courtesy. Durova^Charge! 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, very true. Wise words, thank you. Smee 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry to butt in randomly (Durova, your talk page is regular reading for me as you always seem to have something sensible to say - it's a refreshing thing to have on my watchlist), but... unless I've missed something drastic, that canonical example might not be 100% watertight: Michael = Mike Garcia = "Johnny the Vandal" --> indef banned in Sept '06? Totally agree with your sentiments, but it might be appropriate for someone to rewrite that section. --YFB ¿ 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well golly, thank you for the compliment. That's the language of the finding. I won't comment on the example in question but I do have misgivings about its breadth: if someone makes a death threat I really wouldn't want them back. At any rate, although I do escort people to the door sometimes, I'd rather not kick them in the pants as they leave. A natural response to is pick up a rock and break the window after the door closes. Durova^Charge! 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquently and delicately put as always :-) --YFB ¿ 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Vandalism

Removed Vandalism from the user page and here on the talk page. You're making some troll very upset, keep up the good work ;) SirFozzie 23:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knights templar

The same dispute appears to be going on at History of the Knights Templar. There doesn't seem to be any need to protect that page now, but there may be in the future. FYI. >Radiant< 10:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive account has been indef blocked. So I've set both articles to semiprotection now. That should discourage WP:SOCK violations while allowing the regular editors to continue raising the GA to an FA. Thanks for the heads up about the other article. Durova^Charge! 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, thank you for your quick action on the articles. I'm looking forward to continue with our work towards FA! :) --El on ka 01:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and drop me a line when you get to peer review. I was the main contributor who raised Joan of Arc to FA. And although I am no expert on the Knights Templar and do not hold a doctoral degree, I do have a degree in history from an Ivy League university. Contact me offsite for my real name, alma mater, and year of graduation. You'd be welcome to check my bona fides with the alumni office. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LionheartX

Hi Durova. On his talkpage, LionheartX has made a case for being unblocked on the conditions that he limit himself to one account and avoid controversial and/or disruptive behavior. The unblock request has been up for almost a week, and I'm inclined towards unblocking him, but I'd like to give you a chance to comment first. Picaroon 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind waiting a few hours more? I'm knee deep in a complex investigation atm. If I don't follow up in a time frame that makes you comfortable then go ahead. Durova^Charge! 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I wouldn't mind at all - the matter is of no pressing urgency, so I could wait until tomorrow or the day after. Take your time. Picaroon 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all done. I've unblocked and explained my reasons in full. Thank you for contacting me and please do so ASAP if anything like this comes up in the future. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching

Hello. You seem like a good admin and I would like to become one someday. Would you be able to be my coach? Hmrox 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You know the kind of sysop work I do? I'm well suited to help you along if you'd like to become a wikidetective but I'm very much the wrong person for some other things (such as closing deletion discussions). Is that all right with you? Durova^Charge! 01:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is. I have to go to bed right now because of school. When can we start? Hmrox 01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you're ready. You could begin by telling me a bit about your interests at Wikipedia. What topics fire your imagination? Do you participate at any WikiProjects? What's your proudest editing achievement? And most of all, why do you want the sysop tools? What is it about what you do or what you intend to do that makes them necessary? Be aware from the outset that some editors will treat you very differently as soon as they find out you've been mopified. Jimbo Wales says this isn't supposed to be a big deal, and your opinion won't carry any more weight at discussions, but some individuals will become very hostile just because they perceive you as an authority figure.

You'll deal with some jibes, some taunting, some vandalism to your user page and user talk page, and maybe even some threats. Is that worth it to you? Can you keep cool under that sort of pressure? My approach has always been to chuckle privately when those reactions demonstrate irony (and often they do) and to regard them with no more real seriousness than I'd have for a naughty ten-year-old at a tour of someplace important who tried to get attention by scurrying to a control panel and pushing random buttons. Yet I do my best to respond with a baseline of human dignity: I don't know the person on the other side of the keyboard. Perhaps the most frustrating ones are living through something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Some are genuine trolls and angry responses delight them. Others just aren't well and to respond in anger would be too much like kicking a lame dog. If that's enough to scare you off, I don't mind at all. There are plenty of other things to do at Wikipedia. But if you think becoming a sysop is a chance to help give the world a free encyclopedia (and just darned interesting) then you're my kind of person. Respond whenever you're prepared. Durova^Charge! 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a FYI...

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake in thinking you would get a message from the other page. (belated) Notification of MfD for attack page. Dustbunniesmultiply 08:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WikiProject classroom coordination

I think this is a great idea and i am suprised it hasn't been done already. Please let me know when the project lifts off! Kind regards,

Zesty Prospect 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your interest. I'll be sure to do that. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated

I proposed a change to WP:3O both on the talk page and on the village pump. You seem to have a good understanding of dispute resolution, so any feedback, criticisms or advice you could offer would be earnestly appreicated. Vassyana 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would 3O still be distinguishable from mediation or a request for comment? 3O serves a niche function: it helps to separate two rams who've locked horns. Durova^Charge! 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3O is just providing an outside opinion. Mediation is a coordinated effort to reach consensus. RfC is intended to bring in a broad variety of views and assistance on an article after other attempts at dispute resolution have failed. I do not think there would be any danger of obfuscating the distinction between the three. I understand the 3O's intended purpose was for the two-editor niche, but it is widely used simply to solicit an outside opinion to bring perspective to articles and I see no harm in revising 3O to reflect, and encourage, that. Vassyana 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Let's see what the community's opinion is. I incline toward neutrality. Durova^Charge! 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind sharing some of your thoughts about why the points I raised were valid and also what concerns you might have? I would sincerely appreciate it. Vassyana 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) My input might not suit the paradigm implied by that question. You see, I've done a lot of work with various aspects of dispute resolution over the last year or so. Most of the time I accept a given system as-is and operate within it. Most informal dispute resolution is informal. There's no real problem if article content WP:RFC morphs into mediation and everybody cooperates with that direction. I don't recall ever seeing a 3O that was closed because somebody draconian swooped down and proclaimed Tsk tsk, this is really a fourth opinion. We can't have that. What I have seen is people jumping in on the planning side and demanding to know what makes some venue unique (at least in its theory and structure).

Over at WP:CEM I've spent six weeks explaining uniqueness to a series of people who ask Why do we need yet another type of mediation? Well we need it because Wikipedia has no such thing as binding mediation. The only place in dispute resolution where policy and content issues dovetail is ArbCom. The committee is swamped with cases and the site needs a streamlined alternative - some other way to give sysops clear guidelines for intervening - something less onerous on the disputants. Jimbo Wales and several members of the arbitration committe have all agreed CEM's a good idea. Yet I get very probing and insightful and challenging questions. Most of those questions were things I'd already anticipated. A few of them brought things to my attention about the proposal's clarity and wording and a couple of those questions led me to think That's a good point. Yeah, let's accommodate that. How does this solution sound to you?

So your proposal would be a serious change to 3O - maybe not to the way it works in practice - but to the way it works in theory which is also important. The first time I looked up dispute resolution options I had been an editor for about two weeks. Most people who come to DR aren't too different from that. Maybe their first article wasn't a hornet's nest, but they browse through a list wondering What's all this stuff? What's right for me? What does it mean? Some of the ones who don't understand the choices will walk away - maybe away from dispute resolution and maybe away from Wikipedia. What benefit would your alteration provide that 3O doesn't already have? And would those novice users understand it? Durova^Charge! 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my questions ever make incorrect assumptions, please point that out. :) I think altering 3O to include simple requests for an outside opinion, regardless of the number of disputants, would be more encouraging. Instead of being geared towards a very narrow niche, it can be presented as a place to simply solicit an outside opinion. This would not prevent or interfere with the niche it already serves, it would simply expand its scope. It provides an avenue for editors simply seeking an outside opinion rather than mediation or a full outside review. It would be less discouraging to novices because it would be more broadly useful. Novices may also be intimidated with mediation and RfCs, but they could still get an outside opinion if they're unsure about a conflict or involved in a content dispute without the "formality" of mediation and RfC. Notably it is much simpler to ask for a third opinion, than to file a mediation case or open an RfC. Of course, this is all just my opinion. You're more than welcome to a few grains of salt. ;) Vassyana 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no criticism of your assumptions. They were polite and well thought. I only meant that I approached the matter from a different angle and my response might have seemed off target. It had less to do with the internal logic of your proposal than empirical observations about how the community treats that sort of thing and the practical impact it might have. By all means give it a shot and see if my guess was accurate. I've got a few doubts, but nothing strong enough to stand against it, and I'm curious how they'll respond. Durova^Charge! 05:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback. It is truly appreciated. Vassyana 07:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sarfati

Today I saw the deletion discussion of a page which you allege Jonathan Sarfati is a vandal. But I would like to say that although according to evidences the user account with his name may well be a vandal, but we cannot prove it is Mr. Sarfati himself. In your "vandal" page maybe you can just say the user is a vandal instead of saying Sarfati is a vandal, because that would be unproven personal attack. Remember the presumption of innocence. Wooyi 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please apply your assumption of good faith toward all sides and reread the page. I do not say Mr. Jonathan Sarfati is a Wikipedia vandal. I do say that Wikipedia has a long term IP vandal who has a particular interest in the Jonathan Sarfati article and discuss the possibility that the vandal may be Mr. Sarfati himself. The report you have read is a work in progress; the specific evidence that builds a circumstantial case regarding that aspect remains in Wikipedia edit histories and in my text browser. As you may have noticed, I am still entering documentation of the IP addresses' activities and have not yet begun the section of the report that your comment would have criticized. Durova^Charge! 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venki and Mudaliar

They definitely fit the definition given in the first paragraph - persistent conflicts over content, two established editors, and conduct problems (3RR, accusations of sock-puppetry flying fast and furious). The problem I'm having is that I don't really have any pull here. I ended up reporting these users for 3RR as a total fluke and really haven't been following their issues. For some reason, one of them has fixated on me as the person that will solve all their problems. Assuming good faith, I'd say this guy is really trying to get something solved and is asking me because we've interacted. Assuming slightly less good faith, this particular editor may think that I will be easier to fool because I've been an admin for all of one week and really don't do DR much. Natalie 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd be willing to talk to them if they're interested. Regards, Durova^Charge! 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point them your way - I said I'd try to find someone else who was more experienced with dispute resolution, and you have obviously done a lot of work in that area. Maybe they'll follow up! Natalie 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as long as they understand they'd be entering an experimental program. Wikipedia has many other established options. Your post caught my eye because of the juncture of policy issues and a content dispute. As long as these two people are basically reasonable, they might fit the profile for the type of situation this was designed to help. Durova^Charge! 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page

Durova, you need to either completely delete this page or remove any reference whatsoever to the individual it references, regardless of whether or not he is the vandal. This page infringes on some very serious BLP concerns. If you'd like to email me privately regarding this, I'd be happy to explain it further. Cary Bass ^demandez 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Otheus

I'd suggest asking a checkuser about that (I see Uninvited responded to the request, so possibly him). As a clerk, I generally try to remain neutral about whether requests should or shouldn't be run. I s'pose you're as free to re-file as anybody, though. Hope that clears things up a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sometimes the checkusers run these things on appeal. It may be a little while before I follow up on your suggestion. I appreciate both your speed and your candor. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mudaliar & Sengunthar Sengundhar Kaikolar Kaikolan Devadasi- Venki and User:Mudaliar

Hi Durova,

From Natalie's advice, I decided to check with you about a dispute going on between User:Mudaliar and others including myself regarding the articles Mudaliar & Sengunthar Sengundhar Kaikolar Kaikolan Devadasi.

Regarding article Mudaliar many editors have found that the User:Mudaliar is intent on glorifying his group Tondai Mandala Saiva Vellala - TMSV and slandering the group Sengunthar alias kaikolar. All our edits are being simply reverted. I and User:Mudaliar have been engaged in this editing and reverting over the past 4 months. I got bored and left. I came back and found that User:Mudaliar was doing the same with other editors. However he thinks that these other editors are sock puppets of me. He also has been using many sock puppets as stated by himself in the talk page of Admin Dina. Instead of engaging in revert wars, I think I'll leave the articles as they are i.e. the version preferred by User:Mudaliar and conduct a survey. So we need a fair mechanism to conduct the survey and avoid being influenced by opinions from sock puppets. Further we need the visitors of the page to be notified that a survey is being conducted as the survey is at the bottom of the talk page. Again when I try to put it on top, it is being deleted.

Secondly regarding articles Sengunthar Sengundhar Kaikolar Kaikolan they all refer to the same group of people with just different variations of spellings. So it needs to be merged or redirected. However User:Mudaliar prevents the redirection and insists on slandering the group in all these articles.

Thirdly regarding article Devadasi, a term used to refer to temple prostitutes and system in India he insists on stating that the group Kaikolar are the ones who supplied girls to this system. The group that actually supplied the girls were Isai Vellala, a branch of Vellala to which User:Mudaliar also belongs. Irrespective of who supplied the girls, User:Mudaliar claims that all these girls from all the 26 states throught India were from the Kaikolar. Kaikolar were restricted only to one southern most state of India. Due to his repeated reverts, people have lost interest in the fair process of Wikipedia editing.

Finally, out of frustration he has posted in the talk pages of the following articles statements slandering Sengunthar what he calls a request for comment.

21:56, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rajus (request for comment)
21:55, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Balija Naidu (request for comment)
21:54, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Vokkaliga (request for comment)
21:52, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Paravas (request for comment)
21:51, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lingayatism (request for comment)
21:50, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Vellala Gounder (request for comment)
21:50, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kamma (caste) (request for comment)
21:49, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kalal
21:44, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kapu (caste) (request for comment)
21:44, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ezhava (request for comment)
21:44, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ediga (request for commetn)
21:43, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Dhangar (request for comment)
21:43, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Dalit (request for comment)
21:40, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Konar (←Created page with '==EVIDENCE FOR Relation between Sengunthars/ Kaikolars and Devadasis== 1. The following is quoted from a legitimate third party website. http://globalindiamissions...')
21:40, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Paraiyar
21:39, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sakkiliar (request for comment)
21:37, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics
21:26, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Nair (request for comment)
21:25, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Mudaliar
21:24, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Nadar (caste) (request for commetn)
21:24, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pillai (request for comment)
21:23, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Reddiar (request for comment)
21:23, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Reddy (request for comment)
21:22, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Naidu (request for comment)
21:22, 9 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Gounder (caste) (Request for comment)

Unfortunately I also was involved in the same revert wars for a day before I realized my error and got out of it.

So we need a way to deal with this jobless person. I have been taking timeouts of a month in between my edits. However nobody has been able to stop User:Mudaliar and his edit wars.

The main reason seems to be that he as a member of Tondai Mandala Saiva Vellala has been stealing the genealogy proofs of other similarly named group Tondai Mandala Vellala alias KondaiKatti Vellala for his glorification. When I point this out, he goes berserk and starts attacking my group Kaikolar.

I have also suggested that we have a disambiguation page about the Mudaliar article similar to Gounder article, both of which are titles used by various groups in Tamilnadu in India.

Many people have faced his unprofessional and childish behavior. So currently I am at the state where I just want to lock up the article after conducting a survey.

Venki 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had contacted Natalie because she had made posted a request for assistance and this seemed like something that could work in an experimental program I've been developing. Unfortunately that program isn't geared to deal with sockpuppetry. If any of the relevant accounts are currently under a userblock and any of the other suspected sockpuppets remain active then we would have grounds for a checkuser request. Otherwise the thing for you to do is head over to this messageboard and document the reasons for believing these are sockpuppets. Also open an article content request for comment to bring in a wider range of opinions about the page. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding articles Mudaliar, Sengunthar, Devadasi

Hello Durova,

Natalie_Erin (talk · contribs) told me that you would mediate a dispute between Venki123 (talk · contribs) and I in the above mentioned articles.

I have backed up my statements with valid research papers recognized in India and at the International level. I once again furnish below these details for your quick reference:

1. Mudaliar is the title of Tondaimandala Vellalars only. Its the surname of Tondaimandala Vellalars in South India. Its a feudal title like Baron, Count etc., There are ample proofs for this assertion. I have given a few below. Note that the research has been done by authors from the US, UK, India etc. Other castes claiming it is analogous to people adding "Duke", "Viscount", "Baron" at the end of their names and claiming to be of aristocratic birth. This is not acceptable and the truth is evident if you go through the references.

Citations from research papers:

a). Irschick, Eugene F. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. direct web reference: http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft038n99hg&brand=eschol

b) Order and Disorder in Colonial South India Eugene F. Irschick Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1989), pp. 459-492,http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X(1989)23%3A3%3C459%3AOADICS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

c) Castes & Tribes of South India - ET.Thurston, VII 361 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Castes-Tribes-Southern-India-Thurston/dp/8120602889. Edgar Thurston was a British Officer in Colonial India and was the curator of the Indian Museum of History, Madras, India even after Indian Independence.

d) http://www.saivaneri.org/keralal-pillai-history.html

2. Relation between Devadasis and Sengunthar, Kaikolars

Citations from research papers and books:

a)The Erotic Sculptures of India Y. Krishan Artibus Asiae, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1972), pp. 331-343

(proves that kaikolan musicians = devadasis) http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3648(1972)34%3A4%3C331%3ATESOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

b)Artisans in Vijayanagar Society, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, 417-444 (1985)

This research article explains the blood relation between the Devadasis and the Kaikolar. ("Devaradiyar (dancing girls who have very close kinship ties with the Kaikkolar link 1: http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/22/4/417 link 2:

c) Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/19/1/47?ck=nck

Text Quoted from article: "At least one woman in every Kaikkola household was, according to age-old tradition dedicated to the temple as a devaradiyar or devadasi. The devaradiyar enjoyed special privileges in the days of the Vijayanagar empire and were the only women permitted a direct audience with the king".

d) Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/19/1/47?ck=nck

This research article (along with references to an inscription) describes how a devaradiyar or devadasi won special privileges for the Kaikkolas from the king Deva Raya II (A.D 1433)

e) Some Enquiries into the Condition of Weavers in Medieval South India, Indian Historical Review, Vol. VI, Nos. 1 and 2

f) This article talks in much detail about how women from the Sengundhar/ Kaikola caste get into the sacred prostitution in temples.

"Contending identities: Sacred prostitution and reform in colonial South India Priyadarshini Vijaisri A1, A1 Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi" South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group Issue: Volume 28, Number 3 / December 2005 Pages: 387 - 411

g)Another reference book Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God. Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu by Leslie C. Orr, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279(200210%2F12)122%3A4%3C919%3ADDADOG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

Please read through atleast a few of the above articles.

Moreover, Venki123 (talk · contribs) is using socket puppets to push his point. He also has been abusing me and other users repeatedly. Please see below for yourself:

1.as of 20:27, 22 March 2007 2.as of 20:49, 9 February 2007 3.as of 20:48, 9 February 2007 4.as of 22:35, 9 February 2007 5.as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 6.as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 7.as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 8.as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 9.as of 22:37, 9 February 2007 10.as of 22:37, 9 February 2007

More vandalism by Venki123 (talk · contribs) 1. Revision as of 20:50, 22 March 2007 Why has he deleted heavily referenced sections ? 2. revision (22:15, 22 March 2007) See how he has deleted the entire talk page and replaced with his post. He is well aware that he should not delete other editors' posts in the talk page. He has just blanked out the talk page and replaced with a few sentences of his own. 3.Vandalism through socket puppetry: Revision as of 16:01, 21 March 2007 Check ip:70.49.175.94. Luckily Agathoclea (talk · contribs) caught it and reverted his edits.

There are plenty more articles like the ones above where he uses extremely filthy language and threatens me. Venki123 (talk · contribs) is unable accept my references even though they are completely valid and were written by world reknown historians like Edgar Thurston, etc. who was a British Officer in Colonial India and was also the curator of the Indian Museum of History at Madras, India for a long time after Indian Independence.

Venki123 (talk · contribs) has been abusing me and other editors repeatedly and aims to divert this as a dispute when in fact the only thing he has been doing is vandalise articles and delete heavily referenced sections using socket puppets. Now, he is trying to get these articles protected and destroy the work of other editors who have taken time to add sources as these edits are not favorable to him. I suggest this person evaluate his ulterior motive and do something constructive instead of killing the spirit of Wikipedia. Mudaliar 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to the above thread. I had thought this dispute might be a candidate for an experimental mediation program. Further details show that it falls outside that experimental program's parameters. So far as I know, this would be suitable for any of Wikipedia's established mediation formats. In my previous post I detailed the appropriate steps I recommend at this juncture. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a free moment

Could you look at this removal of information from the article Pamela Jones, and tell me if you think that the material fails WP:BLP in any way? The editor in question, intimated it should be removed, and when it was edited and a compromise amongst other editors (not him) had been reached, he decided it should go anyway, and rather then get stuck into an edit war, I figured I'd look for an outside, neutral opinion. The link is [25]. I figure looking at it informally before getting a WP:3O or WP:RfC on the article. Thanks :) SirFozzie 03:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Durova^Charge! 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We're still having issues on the talk page, but at least he hasn't re-taken it out. Thank goodness it's the weekend! SirFozzie 05:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kaikolar controversy

Dear Druv,

My 2 cents worth on this.

It gives the Wiki a bad image when this happens. personally I feel Venky (he comes in different names in different forums) has a track record of insulting vellalars, kallars, Maravars and Others and making bold claims without proof. A check on his logs will prove, Venky has claimed

- Buddha was a kaikolar, Nallur/Jaffna Kings are Kaikolar, Kaikolars are Pallavas, Kaikolars are the first to have the Mudali surname, Vellalars have never used the Mudali Surname historically, Kaikolars are the only martial caste in Tamil Nadu and Vellalars have no history in Tamil Nadu. Can he prove authentically any of the above? Each and every one of his above contentions are wrong, Most of it can be proved with a Google search or chekcing up at the nearest library. I hope the admins make sure that any representation is through academic sources and references. Let him prove his above contentions first. IN the meantime, Mudaliar is doing a good job keeping Venky away. At least Mudaliar has proven his edits with authentic sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vjackson (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I understand how frustrating it is to be caught in a dispute. Unfortunately my own time is spread too thin to perform this particular investigation. When I first learned about this I had thought I might mediate, which would be simpler to do. I do have an alternative that might help you: I'm coaching several experienced editors who are interested in getting more involved with investigations. Would you like me to refer this request to one or more of them? Best wishes, and please advise. Durova^Charge! 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting guidance

Hello, Durova. I was wondering if you could take a look at this [26]. This user has made edits to several Barrymore-related articles asserting that John Drew Barrymore is the love child of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald. I was thinking about tagging the statement with 'citation needed', but given that it's quite a claim and that it was not previously mentioned in any of the articles, I thought something stronger might be in order. If you have a chance and could let me know how you would handle it, I would be most appreciative. - Skinny McGee 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP doesn't apply, but for such an extraordinary claim I recommend you revert. Then start a thread on the talk page asking for sources. Per WP:V, burden of proof can keep it out until it's referenced. Thanks for coming to me and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Durova, but it looks like Cuchullain beat me to it. At least now I'll know what to do it I see something like this again. - Skinny McGee 17:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. BTW my barnstar offer still stands. Drop me a line when you think you've earned it and show me what's new. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaikolar controvery and sock puppets of User:mudaliar

Hi Durova,

I suspect that the user:mudaliar is once again using sock puppets for his arguments. If you just go through the user contributions of the user vjackson, the only contribution he has ever made was to commend user:mudaliar on his job. Can we check whether it is sock puppet of user:mudaliar ? However this user:mudaliar is known to create multiple sock puppets. See this login User:Karikala_Cholan who is another recently active editor who had no history before. Seems to me that all these are sock puppets of User:mudaliar.

Venki 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using socket puppets. Venki123 (talk · contribs) is once agin trying to deviate this problem and is trying to portray me in bad light. This is absolutley ridiculous. The other usernames might be ppl who have been editing anonymously and have now decided to create accounts. No, really are all users of wikipedia active contributors? But that doesn't mean ppl aren't watching Venki123 (talk · contribs) vandalise articles. Everytime someone with a few contributions state that Venki123 (talk · contribs) has been trashing articles, he labels them as my socket puppets.Mudaliar 05:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reposting from related thread) :I understand how frustrating it is to be caught in a dispute. Unfortunately my own time is spread too thin to perform this particular investigation. When I first learned about this I had thought I might mediate, which would be simpler to do. I do have an alternative that might help you: I'm coaching several experienced editors who are interested in getting more involved with investigations. Would you like me to refer this request to one or more of them? Best wishes, and please advise. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AM A NOT VANDAL

The origen of the Chilean population is spaniard, (to see demography of Chile ) the Chile economy does not have a 58% of poverty, is impossible with the entrance per capita and the HDI of Chile. The word Mestizo is never used in the hispanic world to describe people who are predominantly European as is the case for most Chileans. Firstly, as you may know, in Latin America it is used for those who are predominantly amerindian in their ancestry. (It would apply in Mexico and Central America). Secondly, there is no defined ethnic group in Chile which can be defined as mestizo, there are just people with more or less Indian bood, Spanish origin being nearly always the larger part of the ancestry. There is no sense of common belonging shared exclusively by people with amerindian ancestry which excludes people who dont have this ancestry. This is a vital characteristic of an ethnic group. The word mestizo is pejorative in our language and should be used as little as possible. Ill give you an example. When the movie "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince" came out in the Spanish speaking world, it was translated into Harry Potter and the Prince, because of the negative connotations that the word mestizo implied. Finally, in our cultural community, Latinness, Spanishness (or if you want to use racial terms "whiteness") is an expansive concept which does not exclude people placind then in a different ethnic group on the basis of their blood being "tainted" as happens in the Anglo Saxon world. Although, I agree that that in certain countries where racial divisions have been stronger due to a much larger Amerindian community, (such as Peru or Guatemala or Mexico)this leads to implications regarding identity and ethnicity..

MY SOURCES

1,. THE WORLD VALUES WORLD CHILE 2006 [[27]]

3.- SPAIN GOV. [[28]]

4.- CIA [[29]]

Antarcticwik 06:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain that your intention is to improve Wikipedia rather than to harm it. You may not have realized that a few of your edits crossed the line of the site's vandalism policy. I wish we had a less inflammatory word for that and maybe the policy name deserves a separate discussion.

Please post your reasoning and your sources to the article talk page. The other editors will probably be glad to discuss it and collaborate. If you run into problems, consider opening an article content request for comment to bring in additional input or try mentorship. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our old mediation

After few months of peace and quited, this incident does not fill me with hope it will last. Per our mediation, I asked Ghirla to refactor or apologize to a comment I consider offensive, he refused - accusing me of molesting, baiting and harassing. Could you ask him to reconsider his behaviour? If this is a sign of things to come, I see no other way but to restart the mediation or ArbCom proceedings if it fails.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The door has always remained open at that mediation. I extended an invitation to renew it when Ghirla returned from wikibreak. If you'd like to reintroduce that offer it would be best to contact him about that yourself. Rest assured, though, I'd be honored to renew it and am grateful to have your trust. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that on his page (see link above). Per his own words - point 4 in section 'Second series of replies to Piotrus', I have asked him to refactor or apologize; he refused. To quote him again: " If we can't agree on that, let's apply to Durova". Which is why I am here: I never considered the mediation closed, only 'on hold' pending Ghirla's inactivity (and lack of incivility, both of which are no longer holding us back). As far as the mediation went, Ghirla has agreed to a civility parole (see 'Response to Piotr's requests to Ghirlandajo' point 2) if I accept it; I have replied ('Piotrus reply to Ghirlandajo's replies' point 2) that I will accept it if the mediator deems my behaviour incivil enough to merit such parole. This leaves us at a point requiring mediators ruling on whether I too should be placed on such parole or not. In either case, Ghirla can either withdrew from the mediation (which will reoppen the ArbCom case) or will be under civility parole, which will require him to either refactor/apologize for the post (assuming the community agrees with me it was uncivil, and I doubt it wouldn't) or suffer the consequences. Right?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this hasn't been clear enough already, I really am flattered that both of you have that much trust in me. By all means, whenever you want to resume mediation just go ahead and start posting again to that page. Be aware that ruling is probably too strong a word for what I would do: the closest I'd come to that is to say I don't think this is ready to run up the flagpole. You've worked out X and Y. How about Z? I'd gladly share advice and input. With regard to civility parole I think you were both handling that brilliantly the first time around. Durova^Charge! 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the problem is that I don't know what to post. I asked Ghirla to refactor/apologize. He refused. We have an evident disagreement, and we cannot go forward with the mediation because of that. The only thing I could post at a mediation page is repost my request for you to comment on the situation...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've posted something to break the ice. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino wikistalking investigation

I did some poking around and left my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#G2bambino_wikistalking. Thanks! Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. I've been thinking of making a subpage in user space for admin coaching. Would you like that? Durova^Charge! 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonawiki sock puppet case

Hi - thanks for drawing the case of sock puppetry against Jonawiki (talk · contribs) to a close. However, if it has been concluded that Jonawiki is a puppet master, is it not policy that he and his sock puppet accounts - Magonaritus (talk · contribs), 12.20.13.2 (talk · contribs) and 66.208.54.226 (talk · contribs) - be tagged and blocked from further editing, as per WP:SOCK? The accounts have been used for abusive edits. --G2bambino 04:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of them is under a current userblock, so no. You're welcome to follow up with me or at WP:ANI with a link to the sockpuppet investigation if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read at WP:SOCK that "accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely." However, I'll respect your decision in this matter, and will do as you request should more disruptions occur. Actions at Monarchy in Canada and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jonawiki show that the user in question may now be operating purely as anon IPs, but I'll wait to see if anything more comes of it before taking it to ANA. Cheers. --G2bambino 05:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll semi-protect the article. Please keep the category of suspected sockpuppets updated and keep in touch with me. Durova^Charge! 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen enough that I've implemented a 24 hour block on User:12.20.13.2. [30] WP:SOCK would apply to any edits this user makes via other IP addresses or accounts while this block is active. Durova^Charge! 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your feedback and conclusion on this report. It was very much appreciated. Can we also put semi-protection on the Star Wars Galaxies article also? This was the other article used as a major resource in the report. Roguegeek (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. It's done. Durova^Charge! 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. You have been most helpful. Roguegeek (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I wish there were more people to help with this sort of thing. I get spread pretty thin. But you're welcome to follow up as needed now that I'm familiar with the situation. Durova^Charge! 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting an ISP's abuse email

I did some digging on User:BenH's suspected sockpuppet IPs, and found that most of them trace to Embarq. Would it be appropriate to post the abuse email contact? As you've probably seen, he's violated Embarq's AUP several times over. Combine that with the hope that the community ban passes, and we should be able to nip him in the bud. Blueboy96 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me via e-mail. A link is at the far left column of this screen. Give me a full background summary on this investigation, please. I've had no prior involvement and need to get up to speed. Durova^Charge! 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preventative vs punitive

I agree with you here that blocks should ideally be preventative rather than punitive. But the reality is different. It is hard to draw an exact line between the two notions. A clear example of the preventative block is blocking a user in the midst of the vandalizing spree. At the same time, the block intended for the user to "get the message" that something is unacceptable, is at least both punitive (for past misbehavior) and preventative (to make new misbehavior less likely, while this is rarely achieved by a block, as we both know.) That said, I do not support blocking Darwinek from editing but desysopping here is both preventative and punitive. It will make sure that abusive blocks will not recur, since the past lessons did not teach the user anything, apparently, and punitive, since the user will understand that abusive behavior (not just as an admin but as an abusive talker) has consequences as deadminning may be a penalty for that. Deadminning is harsh enough to relay a message, I think, and combining it with a ban would hopefully be unnecessary. --Irpen 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this conversation at the arbitration and its talk pages. This may be the toughest issue at the case and all the participants ought to see your thoughts, which I respect as well reasoned and articulate. Regards, Durova^Charge! 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories