User talk:Durova/Archive 28

Nominating another user for Triple Crown:

User:Nmajdan has 7 DYK's. 3 GA's and 2 FA's listed on his user page. He probably qualifies for a TC, or maybe an Imperial TC. As an aside, it may be time to archive more of your talk page. Ciao... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nom!↔NMajdan•talk 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I add a possible nomination? User:Smurrayinchester created the article Winter service vehicle listed as a GA and a DYK on 2007-02-13 and as a FA on 2007-04-28. His user page at User:Smurrayinchester/Main lists 10 total DYKs and a FL and a FA. That leaves him needing a second GA for the Imperial TC. Imzadi1979 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be a little bit catching up with this. If you'd like to simplify third party nominations, please submit specific links. Best wishes and thanks, Durova^Charge! 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominating User:Awadewit for the Triple Crown or better

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

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

Nominating... Wait... No. RfAr stuff, actually.

See this. Thought you'd like to know this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Durova^Charge! 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of VinceB

Hey Durova, I am sorry to disturb you, but the banned User:VinceB is back again and my request at WP:ANI remains without any answer. Could you look at [1] please? Thank you in advance. Tankred 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do that checkuser. You'll be suprised. They are not mine. I always confirm my sockpuppets, just Tankred delets those confirms [2]. And anything, that can be embarassing to him, or his way, to maintain that picture, he built up around me. If right now I'm logging in and out, that it will be easy to confirm. If not, than, intrestingly, it happens, that two-three individuals are saying the same, including me. You decide: lynching, or doing the right way, and go checkuser. - VinceB--195.56.51.196 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Vince, e-mail is the right way to send comments during your ban if you'd like the community to lift that ban someday. Durova^Charge! 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

After his most recently used IP got blocked, his new sockpuppets Odbhss and Pannonia disappeared too. But, since VinceB is using a dynamic IP, I am pretty sure they will return soon. I would greatly appreciate if you could address my request at WP:ANI whenever you have time.[3] Tankred 15:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Durova. Sorry if I'm disturbting you, but User:Pannonia keeps replacing valid information with nonsense in the Slovakia article, keeping reverting my undos (4 times so far) and deleting portions of Principality of Nitra (3 times). Can you help me? Thanks. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Warned on talk page. I'll follow up at AIV/3RR noticeboard if necessary. Please contact me on my talk page if Durova is offline. --YFB ¿ 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pannonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 24hrs - Durova, you may wish to adjust the block length at your discretion. --YFB ¿ 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Pannonia has been blocked for 24 hours, but this does not resolve the main problem: VinceB's evasion of a ban by using two new sockpuppets. I have filed a formal request at WP:ANI[4] and I hope someone will find it. Tankred 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the checkuser history and some have been declined per WP:DUCK, so WP:ANI or WP:AN look like the way to go. You can always take things back to WP:RFCU and cite the noticeboard thread if consensus action doesn't form. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Talk page

Would you care to express your opinion in this matter? [5] I've been asked to remove my comments as inappropriate which is puzzling to me. However, your response would paint a much broader perspective here. --Poeticbent  talk  17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the suggestion was originally my idea and I've worked well with both Piotrus and with Ghirla. Your evidence statement seems perfectly appropriate to me. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Would you like me to mention in my evidence statement that the idea was originally yours? In fact that was the reason why I approached you in this matter ahead of everybody else. Nevertheless, your opening statement [6] explains it well enough. --Poeticbent  talk  18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. If it continues to be an issue you might follow up. Let's hope my response settles things. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence or Workshop?

Piotrus asked me today [7] unsure if it wouldn't be better to take my evidence statement [8] from his ArbCom Evidence page and put it as a motion on his Workshop page under the heading "Motions and requests by the parties". [9] I would very much like to get your feedback before that. By the way, I'd like to congratulate you on a wonderful piece of advice you wrote as an essay called "arbitration tips"[10]. I'm sure many of us took it to heart, because I most certainly did. --Poeticbent  talk  03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about making a workshop motion to rename the case, go ahead. Although I doubt a case that's been open this long would really get renamed. Thanks for the feedback about my arbitration tips page. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep my statement where it is. --Poeticbent  talk  20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Schools

I noticed an old message on WP:ABUSE you left, saying you have contacted some schools regarding vandalism with some success. I had to block a school in one of the jurisdictions where I went to school. I'm interested in contacting them and seeing what the school can do. I'm quite sure they will be responsive, so I'm trying to think of what to suggest they might do. The school has a moderate amount of vandalism, but it's somewhat tolerable (on our end) and not quite as high as other schools. So, I think a school-wide anon only block would not be good. They can probably find out what student is responsible for the latest vandalism incident. If it's just a small number of kids for past vandalism incidents, maybe something more specific can be done without affecting the rest of the school. Though, I'm not sure what could really convince a student to behave while on the computer. Or if some technical restrictions can be in place for specific kids. Or what else they could do? Do you have any ideas or suggestions? --Aude (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked through each individual contribution of the school and do see repeat offenders, with similar edits on different days. I think the school could deal with these individual students. I also looked at meta:XFF Project, though don't see any schools listed there. Not sure if that's something they can do. --Aude (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of repeating information you've already read, what I did was to contact the school's IT department first by e-mail and then by telephone. I gave them some basic coaching on how to correlate edits to student vandals and suggested the school assign these students to improve an article under faculty supervision. Last month I launched a wikiproject that could help with that: WikiProject classroom coordination. Best wishes and let me know how your effort goes. Durova^Charge! 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I spent some time determining how the school in question (first one on my list) compares with others - User:Aude/schools. Actually, it seems to be one of the better schools, with less volume of vandalism than others. Though, it's still a lot. Many others have been issued 6-month blocks. Since I'm pretty sure it's 1-2 kids responsible for most of the vandalism in March and April (and possibly they have provided their names as part of the vandalism), I think the kids can be tracked down and some more specific course of action taken. I'll see what they can do, and be of assistance. --Aude (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of ISOLA'd ELBA

Thanks you for your response on this block, but I'm not convinced this is a sock of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I will open a thread on WP:ANI proposing they be unblocked and you are welcome to comment. —dgies^t_c 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've replied there. Although I'm not hard-and-fast opposed to unblocking, I do think the odds of a productive result are quite low. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have decided to unblock them. —dgies^t_c 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I hope the unblock succeeds. Durova^Charge! 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your view of the MfD of WP:CSN?

User:Ryulong has nominated this noticeboard for deletion. I thought I remembered you were a proponent. (Your name shows up several times in Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6). Will you have a comment to add on the MfD? Thanks, EdJohnston 11:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And here? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was the editor who proposed that board. It's like a view through the looking glass, seeing the statements some Wikipedians who've had next to nothing to do with it are making about why it was established and what it does. Durova^Charge! 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the WP:CSN has once again been wiped from WP:BAN#Community ban. Apparently "bold, revert, discuss" now means "boldly delete, and when reverted, boldly delete again without waiting for discussion to resolve the issue". So even while the MfD continues, the policy underlying WP:CSN has been cut out from underneath it. So much for consensus. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle down and deal with this one step at a time. Calmness and patience usually succeeds. Durova^Charge! 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The dispute continues at WT:BAN#MFD underway, resume protected version until resolved, despite which the policy has been repeatedly changed without consensus. For all the accusations of "lynch mob" that were thrown at WP:CSN, the repeated change alters policy to authorize roving lynch mobs; one block-happy admin with two yea-saying friends' support in IRC or email could meet the new policy's requirements -- and since no notice need be posted on any board (they "may" be but needn't), all those concerned citizens (who could have watchlisted and monitored WP:CSN) will have no way to monitor these banning discussions, let alone comment on them. This doesn't make anything less "convoluted" or "bureaucratic", it only changes "who decides community bans" from the community to the admins.

That's a major change, a drastic change, in what the "Community ban" section has been since its creation; and it doesn't have consensus, it has been "boldly" made over objections and then repeated after reversions [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] -- which isn't what WP:BRD says to do. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Story on Wikipedia

This may stimulate a lively discussion. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 12:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

User:69.89.108.5 -- Fyslee/talk 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another sysop beat me to it. Best to report at the vandalism in progress board. Durova^Charge! 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Community_sanctions_noticeboard

I wonder if I could address some of these points. "no alternate mechanism has been proposed to make partial community sanctions such as topic bans or revert parole feasible"—I'm interested why this particular claim gets spread around so much despite my attempts explain that the CSN did not invent such things, that they can happen as a result of any discussion, and that the ArbCom supporting the community's ability is not the same as the ArbCom endorsing the Community Sanction Noticeboard.

"The principal argument against it seems to be that only sysops deserve any voice in community banning" is a repetition of the same misrepresentation: there is no such thing as a sysop-only discussion and no one has proposed such a thing. That is not the alternative to bureaucracy. It is very clear from my comments that I think the CSN is less representative of the community and consensus.

As for community enforceable mediation (this is what caught my eye), I admit I haven't given it much thought, so I'm curious. How does it work with WP:CSN? But also, how is it different from other mediation? Is there an example of a successful case (or any concluded case, I can't find one)? Dmcdevit·t 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your questions span several topics, each of which could be a discussion in itself. And in most instances I have already provided articulate reasons which you appear not to have read. So I'll address this in bullet form.

• Community topic bans and other community sanctions that fall short of full sitebanning are not recorded in an account's block log. CSN makes these useful remedies scalable. By that I mean there's a readily available archive where editors can read up on the topic. This is far more useful than a targeted search tool because it allows editors to research precedents when crafting and discussing new proposals. So, for example, if someone thinks 1RR is the best remedy for a reasonably good editor who descends into edit wars, the CSN archives provide an easy way to check any similar cases that have already been proposed or enacted, as well as the circumstances of each case. By this means CSN fosters a consistent and equitable process that is unlikely to continue if these discussions devolve into larger boards. And as I already noted at the MFD discussion, only a handful of people who recall participating in a specific partial ban discussion are likely to enforce it if these discussions return to the administrative boards. The search tool does allow that tiny pool of editors to justify blocks when they're necessary, but it's pretty much a Lone Ranger approach to enforcement and I'm uneasy about that. I strongly suspect that fewer partial bans would even be proposed at those venues because of these inherent shortcomings to enforcement.
• I have never claimed that ArbCom endorsed the CSN board and to suggest such a thing is a serious misreading of my statements. ArbCom endorsed the community's right to impose partial bans without prejudice as to method or venue. To my knowledge no effective venue for such bans existed before CSN, nor was such a practice encompassed in the definition of community banning that dates from summer 2005, nor has any practical mechanism been proposed that would replace that CSN function if the board ceased to exist.
• I can dig up the diffs if need be, but both at the fall 2005 discussion about community banning and the thread from this past week at the banning policy talk page include explicit opinions that a unified front of sysops can override legitimate community consensus about a community ban. That view has been articulated in extreme terms including a statement that even if 100 editors disagreed with a ban the administrators could be justified in ignoring that collective opinion. The policy language itself gives no explicit role to non-sysops and the current drive to close the noticeboard reinforces the impression that a group of people either want to disempower the general community of Wikipedians or believe that the community was never properly empowered despite several months of de facto action. The current firestorm is a superb case in point for why consensus is not necessarily apparent without discussion: silence is often mistaken for consent when in the opposite sentiment actually exists.
• I fail to understand how you come to regard CSN as either bureaucratic or unrepresentative of community consensus. I and others have taken considerable pains to implement only such community sanctions refinements as made the process robust, fair, and scalable. Each innovation in the process has been proposed for solid reasons and supported by the people who were atively volunteering with these matters. It appears to me (and apparently also to the people who support my position) that both our reasoning and our patient work of many months has been brushed aside by people who formed an opinion in great haste and without adequate attention. I find it particularly disturbing that a significant number of the arguments against it are based upon misreadings of my statements and actions and that these same people ignore my corrections and clarifications when I post them. The concept of featured articles has developed and refined over time; AFD has developed over time; why shouldn't community banning develop along logical lines also?
• Pertinent to the above, all of your questions about CEM are fully addressed at that process page and its talk page. I've even written a FAQ about it for easy reference. Its link is easy to find from the bottom of WP:CEM. And I must add, I find it frustrating and symptomatic of the general problems at this week's discussion that you pose these questions without even a cursory attempt at research. Durova^Charge! 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am curious about your opinion of my comments on that MfD, since your objection was a large part of why I found the discussion thought-provoking. Vassyana 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of those ideas have been discussed already and the trend has been to avoid overlapping functions with other boards. In theory I'm not necessarily opposed to new functions that don't duplicate existing venues and I was reticent to accept the renaming from CN to CSN. Thank you for appreciating some of the points I've raised. Durova^Charge! 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my comments. Your points are usually very easy to appreciate, even when I do not agree with you. Your comments come across consistently as well-thought and reasoned. Be well. Vassyana 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on WP:CN

You have stated that "it is counterproductive on many levels to propose sitebanning..." [16]. Actually, I haven't proposed that either Commodore Sloat or Armon be sitebanned. My comment on WP:CN stated, in relevant part, that

I suggest that the article be reduced to semi-protection, and that Commodore Sloat and Armon be placed on community revert probation for a period of three months. They would be limited to one reversion per page per week, except when reverting under the circumstances described in Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions.[17]

I would ask, therefore, that you reconsider your objection. John254 23:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll refactor, but I strongly recommend that you withdraw your proposal pending the outcome of mediation. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you oppose placing Commodore Sloat and Armon on revert probation at the present time, do you support continuing the page protection on Juan Cole pending the resolution of this dispute, or would you support allowing the community to edit the page, and preventing these users from engaging in further edit warring by some other means? John254 00:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's let things stand for a few days. I'm encouraging these editors to look toward a larger solution. I've hinted this fairly strongly at the mediation and don't object to stating it here: if they cannot agree on fundamental terms of discussion or preventive measures to contain their dispute administratively, I will probably close mediation and refer the matter elsewhere. I'd rather not pressure them unduly by setting a specific time limit on this matter and I also I understand the desire of other editors to resume progress on the article. Would this solution be amenable to you? Please withdraw the proposal and wait 5-7 days. If progress isn't forthcoming get back in touch with me. My e-mail is enabled if you desire confidentiality. Your comments are also welcome on the mediation's outside input page. Regards, Durova^Charge! 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointers

If the pointers are lasers, sure :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been impressed with your work in the Wikipedia namespace for a few months now. You've been pitching in at necessary places and generally being levelheaded and cordial. Seems to me that you probably have the right disposition for getting a mop and that you'd seek it for the right reasons.

As you probably know, the community would probably want to see several more months' worth of steady contributions before sysopping you. One thing to focus on between now and then is main space edits. I usually recommend that editors become major contributors to at least one good article before seeking adminship. Quality time in article namespace pays a lot of dividends and it grounds and informs the way you use the tools and participate at discussions. At some point, editors who become heavily involved on the process side of the site without a lot of article space edits usually go off kilter in some way. They'll have a theoretical model in mind that just doesn't correlate with most people's firsthand experience. Durova^Charge! 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive

The user has brought up some points on his talk page that make it plausible that he isn't a Gastrich sock. It may make sense to unblock him for now. JoshuaZ 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. I see no correlation timewise between his edits and recent Jason socks. There are other reasons I suspect that he isn't Jason which I am willing to communicate via email per WP:BEANS if you want. JoshuaZ 06:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Durova I have opened an RfC. Since you have been drawn in this please voice your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 17:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give that a look and probably a comment. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother, I blocked him because Checkuser showed he was a sock of User:StudyAndBeWise. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, StudyAndBeWise as well as VacuousPoet are both socks of Kdbuffalo, so I'd say ImprobilityDrive is also Ken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"negative dynamic"=

as posted on the MfD discussion--could you expand on that a little? DGG 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay - I've been offline several days. Write me via e-mail if you'd like a fuller description. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me?

The article Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case is being monopolized by User:Cfvh who continues, in my opinion to usurp the community and go with own agenda. I see it this way:

1. He move the article to an improper name. The case was known as Dannielynn Stern paternity case, however because Birkhead changed the name, Cfvh feels it should be called Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case and changed the name without asking the community.
2. A discussion, current, is going on, yet Cfvh does not wish to wait out consensus and is reverting to fit his agenda, rather than, in my opinion, keep the article accurate.
3. At the time the case was filed, it was not known who the father was, so it is impossible to call it by the now known father's name.

Basically, I'm going to step back, but I appreciate your insight and wanted to get your opinion of what to do. I submitted a 3RR, but was told I was guilty of the same and that Cfvh was not in violation of it. I then called for an RFC and asked all parties to wait for resolution and reverted the article back to what it was, yet Cfvh has again reverted it. Do you think I am at fault? What should I do? Is there a way to get Cfvh to stop reverting until the community can come to a conclusion? Any other thoughts or suggestions are welcome. Lastly, if you know how to communicate better than I do, would you mind being my advocate? I welcome any insight or comments you can lend me or the article. Thanks a bunch! --Maniwar (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope this resolved itself while I was offline? Durova^Charge! 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I wondered what happened...welcome back. I kind of left it alone. If you feel up to it, what would you have done differently, and and do you think I was wrong? I don't think I did, but any pointers you could give I'd appreciate it. No hurry though. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have gone ahead and opened an article content RFC if I had been in your shoes, and if I had discussed the possibility on the talk page beforehand I would have specified that I was considering article content (so as not to confuse anyone about what type of RFC was intended). Things did get a little testy there. The best approach is usually to help turn down the temperature and open the discussion for wider input. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Do you do IRC at all? If so, you really should be hanging out in #wikipedia-en-admins on Freenode. Leave me an edit with your cloak and I'll add access for you - David Gerard 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and your SEO spammer LART was beautiful - David Gerard 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yuk! Giano 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, David, but that particular channel is the primary reason why I don't do Wikipedia-related IRC at all. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please block ImprobabilityDrive per check user

According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive, ImprobabilityDrive is likely a sock puppet of VacuousPoet who is permanetly banned. Arbustoo 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

LionheartX

Hi. Have you seen this ANI discussion? You might be interested in weighing in, since you have some history with the user and his blocks. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally received a reply

I finally received a reply on the Nigel McGuinness OTRS ticket. The reply states that the OTRS ticket was correct because:

• "[The] main reason why the USPTO was deemed a non-valid source for the real name was, that it includes original research (which violates WP:NOR). If we talk about sources, it generally means "sourced to a newspaper article or similar"."

and

• "Further, and unrelated to the issue of sources, why is his real name notable? It appears, that he is anyway widely known by his alias name, so why would anybody want to know his real name and why is it worthy of inclusion?"

In my opinion of this the OTRS database being considered original research is just bizarre to me, how can a publically available source be original research just through its application? Additionally the second part of the "why is his real name notable" ignores that wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge, and biography articles where people are known by aliases that wish to not be known by exist fully. This continues to be an OTRS ticket that applies to no other article on all of wikipedia excluding this single case in which nothing is different about it and every other biography article on wikipedia. Thoughts? –– Lid^(Talk) 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit hard for me to wrap my head around that. Would you like to forward the entire response to my e-mail? Durova^Charge! 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova

Dear Durova, I stumbled upon your userpage a few days ago, and I wanted to tell you that it's beautifully designed, and it even served me to learn the interesting story upon which your username is based. As a side note, I also wished to tell you that I took the liberty of making a few enhancements and improvements to your userpage, but I won't simply change it by myself; rather, I've posted the new version at my Sandbox. If you like it, just copy the code and use it at will; and if you don't well - it's your userpage, and your choice! :) Nice to meet you, and have a beautiful day, Phaedriel - 12:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm flattered. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Security questions

Is this user's question (posted to many people) appropriate?

• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Snowolf

Asking someone to reveal information about their password seems very suspicious to me. -- Fyslee/talk 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

May I answer please :). There reason is here. Hence some people now think that ones with weak-password should not be admin anymore. --- A. L. M. 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll just have to AGF about Snowolf's motives, but whatever the case may be, doing this publicly and expecting public answers isn't very wise, IMHO. -- Fyslee/talk 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

CEM on Cole

The discussion seems to have ground to a halt; again, we could use your perspective. I believe that the microproblem has been solved, but we have yet to include the information in the article. As for the macroproblem, Armon claimed a couple of days ago that he was thinking about it; it's fine to give him a chance to respond but I don't see the need to hold up the rest of it while we wait. csloat 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

need help with another user.

hello. i appreciate the time you take to help maintain wiki. i will copy the message that i have sent to wiki on the vandalism post.

Morpheen

user continues to remove valid information from Acid Bath musical page, careless of multiple explanations on the content that wiki contains. an explanation that wiki contains all information (past members, and record labels) of the band. the user continues to edit the page to his views, and to blank his own talk page, in order to remove the warnings, and explanations.

i am not sure where to proceed from this, but this has been continuing for over a month. user states that he simply does not like the past record label of the band, so he assumes it should not be known that the band was signed to it. (that is stated from his talk page, which he continues to blank out)

thank you for your time and i hope you can help me fix this delinquency.

The best thing you could do is to add a reliable reference citation for the disputed information. Featured articles make good examples of how this is done. Here are three examples:

• AC/DC
• Sex Pistols
• "Weird Al" Yankovic

From a Wikipedian standpoint I could call an edit vandalism if the material is properly referenced, but when two people add and remove the same unreferenced passage I call that an edit war. If you're correct then it's time to look up some music magazines or CD inserts and write footnotes. Keep in touch to let me know how it goes. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Keith Henson investigation

I was working on a simple mediation cabal case [18], when I noticed a serious WP:BLP problem, so I started an investigation [19]. What is the next step? I am thinking about checkuser. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've skimmed the article talk page as well as your mediation and the report. Good work on your part to date. Not sure where WP:BLP fits into the picture, but WP:OWN and WP:COI concerns look serious and obvious. This probably extends to WP:NOR and the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. How exactly would you justify a checkuser request? Parameters for that are pretty narrow. Durova^Charge! 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find a connection to show that some of these accounts are the same person, but I haven't been successful, probably because the hypothesis is false. I brought this to BLP at first because there was an severe disclosure of personal information, but should probably move this over to WP:COI/N, since that seems to be the primary concern. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 18:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any blocks in the editor's log. From a browse of the account history this looks like a recent flareup of a fairly established (but not particularly active) editor who isn't a single purpose account. Have polite cautions been tried? Persuasion is always the better course when it's possible, and this might very well be a reasonable person. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Since he isn't engaged in abusive sock puppetry, I don't think he needs to be blocked. I have given polite warnings. According to news reports, he's back in custody for legal issues, so I think we can give this time to calm down. On another note, can you look at this other investigation for a Scientologist who has been making COI edits and pushing POV. [20] People on both sides are causing trouble. If enough of them get blocked, they might eventually get the point that Wikipedia isn't a battleground. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientology is a contentious subject that has gone into arbitration before. I've left my two cents at the thread. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cole CEM

I know you've been away; when you get a chance, we could use your help on the Cole CEM. csloat 03:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my comments and suggestions are at the mediation now. Durova^Charge! 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Durova, can you please read this and fix obvious mistakes. I will also appreciate your comment in improving the article. I need to complete it in next few days and file arbitration case. with best wishes. --- A. L. M. 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my keep vote conflicted with MFD closure. I'm not an expert on the subject at hand and partipated in the mediation with considerable trepidation. Arbitration looks like a reasonable step, yet I wonder whether the arbitrators would be bolder than I was. Serious real world controversies dovetail at this topic. Could you separate the site policy issues from the (probably insoluble) religious and political aspects? Durova^Charge! 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know that how to do that. It is difficult for me to tell that WP:Profanity is violated based on a Muslim religious believes. Furthermore, pictures drawing were very rare by Muslim artist given that it was against Islam. Hence presenting those very rare pictures in large number and putting them on prominent places in articles is clear violation of WP:Undue weight. I think some non-Muslim (like yourself) after reading the article can present my points in much better way. Hence if you could do some editing then it will be great. --- A. L. M. 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave my own two cents at the mediation, which was generally sympathetic to your position. Yet I suggest before you go farther you float the idea with at least one member of the arbitration committee. They generally deal with matters that pertain to user conduct and overall the conduct level at that mediation impressed me. Think about any aspects of your request that could be pertinent to arbitration and articulate those angles very clearly. The Committee usually rejects requests that are content disputes. Durova^Charge! 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done [21]. Should I contact other members too? Also thinking to contact Jimbo Wales. --- A. L. M. 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Use your own best judgement. Durova^Charge! 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stopping Vandalism

I just spent 50 minutes playing cat and mouse with a vandal, and WP:AIV still hasn't acted on my block request. I guess its time to ask for the tools. What do you think? Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, 24 hour block. Sometimes it feels good to have the tools. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This one is using proxies. He's over here now: 142.179.62.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 04:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we are dealing with a black hat SEO who may be using some sort of script. I see a pattern in the edits. My suspicion is that they want one specific reference gone, and are attacking all of them to create confusion. Can we semi-protect the targeted articles, starting with Traffic Power? Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I caught up on the blocks? Keep me apprised; I'm working on a complex investigation with another editor atm. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting. Give me the full list. Durova^Charge! 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are good. Here are the targeted articles. I think he'll be back soon. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• 23:59, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) April 1, 2007
• 23:59, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Traffic Power
• 23:58, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) One way link
• 23:58, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Barry Schwartz (technologist)
• 23:57, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Rand Fishkin
• 23:57, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Link bait
• 23:56, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Doug Heil
• 23:55, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Big Daddy Google
• 23:54, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Google Image Labeler
• 23:52, 13 May 2007 (hist) (diff) PageRank

All done. Are the fires out? You need the tools, my friend. We have to get you sysopped. I'll find you a barnstar for this work as soon as I'm free from the other task I was working on. Cheers! Durova^Charge! 05:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My watchlist is calm. I was pleased to see other users spontaneously helping out and left them "thank you" messages. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll make an outstanding sysop someday, and I hope that day comes soon. Do me a favor please? Write up a summary of this incident and post to WP:AN. The community ought to be apprised of this. A lot of them are very naive about this sort of abuse. Durova^Charge! 05:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "competitor" was the right word, so I changed it to "adversary." Hope you don't mind. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I was searching for the right wording. Didn't want to get into jargon. Durova^Charge! 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have better things to do at 3 AM then this?

No? Oh well :). I've made an offer over on CN, if that account wants to post information and evidence in their defense, plus I've also sent the user a reply to the email he sent me. SirFozzie 07:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't 3 AM in my time zone, and thanks. I'm helping an editor with a complex investigation atm. Took a break to check in on the RFAR. Durova^Charge! 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh fun. Good luck! SirFozzie 07:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Defending oneself in CN discussions

Hello. Firstly, I want to confess to feeling intimidated when speaking to such experienced editors like yourself. Please excuse me if I say anything ignorant or that betrays unfamiliarity with CSN.

The concern that I tried to raise at the RFAR and at CSN is that I feel that editors against whom allegations are made should have the total freedom to defend themselves that is accorded to all the participants in the discussion. It is unfair that all the "claimants"/"prosecutors" should have complete freedom to debate every point and easily rebut every statement someone makes, while the defendant can only respond on his talk page, must depend on the graciousness of others to help him, and is barred from easily rebutting arguments on a point-by-point basis in real-time. It is a big disadvantage in a forum like CSN, where many different points and arguments are constantly being made by many different people. Indeed, points are frequently repeated by new participants who did not read all the discussion.

Though my experience with CSN is limited, my impression so far is that in certain controversial cases, you can get a cacophony of voices on one side of the issue that make it very difficult for the other side to be heard. I am guessing that these objections have been raised before, and that you have good answers to them. If you can refer me to answers written elsewhere that would be fine. Best and thanks, nadav 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted to the thread there about defense. Basically I agree with you: I'd prefer not to block an editor while discussion is ongoing. Sometimes that's impossible because the editor has no intention of presenting a defense and abuses the opportunity, so arrangements often get made for the editor to post a defense to his or her own user talk page (which blocked editors may still edit). I've attempted to write some right of defense into banning policy but that attempt got overridden by other editors. You're welcome to raise your points at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy.

And please don't feel intimidated about posting to my user page. I'm just an editor who's been around a while and who happens to have the tools. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll start reading tomorrow the lengthy discussion on that page, and will then hopefully repropose a "right to defend oneself" clause (or maybe "privilage," since as you say it should be revoked for abusers). Best, nadav 08:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's only absolutely revoked in extreme cases. If the editor needs to be blocked we do our best to accommodate a defense within the parameters of the block. Very rarely does the user's talk page need protection, and when that happens there's seldom much to discuss. Durova^Charge! 08:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi - I haven't been spamming everyone's page with thanks, but I did want to thank you for your nomination and words of support in my recent RfA. The kind words and expression of trust meant a lot, especially coming from editors for whom I have so much respect. I hope to live up to it, and just wanted to say thanks again. MastCell ^Talk 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is as much fun as a root canal, but once in a while something positive grows out of it. Meeting you and supporting your bid for adminship was one of those occasions. Now let me nudge you over to WP:COIN and WP:SSP... ;) Durova^Charge! 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arrr...your opinion/input

Can you go to [here] when you have a moment? There was an issue going on long before I visited the page, and by consensus and by various editors, an entry has been deleted. Yet, there is one editor, non registered, who consistently adds it and insists that it be added. The sentence is unsubstantiated, unsourced, and loaded. Any input you can give would be appreciated. I've warned, and warned each editor (whom I believe may be the same person) but they keep being hostile. You can plainly see the history of the conversation, and as stated, editors since February 2006 have been reverting it. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wish you'd come to me before things heated up to this point, but good call about WP:RFC. I've semiprotected for two weeks. This looks like a new editor, even if possibly tendentious, and it's better to explain site standards before going to block warnings. Good luck resolving things. Durova^Charge! 19:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Your comments on CN were by and large very reassuring. I did leave a question for you following your last comment that referenced his block log, though, and since the discussion has now been closed by Tony there is no reason for you to answer it. I would appreciate it, however, if you did follow up on it, if you feel it is in the least valid, on the Arbitration page (or on my talkpage, if you so desire). Hornplease 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Taken by itself, a single violation of WP:CITE would hardly ever be bannable. Certainly that particular instance from PalestineRemembered wouldn't be. For an example of what could be bannable in itself I could pull up details from the Joan of Arc vandal investigation. That other fellow actually self-published his pet theories in an Adobe Acrobat file mocked up to mimic the look of a scholarly journal in order to push his POV OR on Wikipedia.

So for this present case, I think any account that's been blocked for four of seven months is one step away from banning. Maybe if the editor had taken some demonstrably positive step in the interim such as joining WP:ADOPT I'd have given more slack. His defense didn't recognize what I wanted to see, which is that Wikipedia tries to be a first stop for serious research. It's a lot of work to look up an old periodical - microfiche or interlibrary loan - and PalestineRemembered didn't appreciate that aspect of the issue. The POV pushers who deserve banning seldom demonstrate real respect for citation sources or for Wikipedia's readers: it's as if references were nothing more than a way of armoring an edit against assault. Fundamentally, that's not a sustainable way of building an encyclopedia.

If PalestineRemembered wanted to honor a Palestinian perspective there are much better ways of doing so. The most compelling book I've read on the subject is Raja Shehadeh's The Third Way, and of course I've sampled my share of Edward Said. I hope the people who sympathize with that editor's politics do their share to balance articles with solid citations to the best Palestinian authors. We're all human beings and Wikipedia as a project strives to be neutral. Durova^Charge! 06:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your long response, which I believe deserves a considered reply.

I don't think it quite answers my concerns, which were about the editor's previous block log, which I see as punitive rather than preventative, but I understand and share your concerns about meticulous sourcing and misrepresentation of scholarship. On this occasion, though, and purely if you continue to be interested, I recommend that you look through this editor's edits, as I did when I first ran across the user yesterday. I have seen more than my share of unpleasant, single-issue POV-pushers in my time - and I maintain that nationalist editors with a sense of grievance are the worst - but this particular editor maintains a respect for such things as edit summaries. Also, unlike most of them, this editor does actually respect sourcing per se, which I fear contributed to his error with the Auckland Star, which as you say is disrespectful of genuine research.

Finally, if I had been blocked for four months out of seven, with really minimal pretext, when I first started - which I suppose even I could have been if I edited in certain articles - then I certainly would not have come back with improved politeness. I would have been convinced that WP was broken. (As it is I avoided logging on for years except when I wished to participate in an extended conversation.) This user came back improved, even if that was not likely given the misapplication of the block; but I did not see anyone offering to adopt him/her, and I am not even certain that it was recommended, or that the user learnt of the opportunity. In the devil-takes-the-hindmost hellhole that is the Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia, I do not think anyone would have bothered, or thought that it was worthwhile. There will, people think, always be another. Hornplease 07:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Any blocked editor has the right to request an unblock review. None of these blocks were reduced so I accept them as legitimate. An editor who spends four months under block restrictions has plenty of time to read up on site procedures and policies. I started one avenue myself by founding Category:Eguor admins as a go-to list for editors who think they've gotten short shrift from Wikipedia processes and who don't want to be accused of admin shopping.

So in light of the shift in consensus at WP:CN I've supported arbitration. I still think, to be candid, that it's a fairly simple case. But something that garners this many differing views deserves a full hearing. Durova^Charge! 07:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right that nobody unblocked. I remarked on that in my first post to the discussion at CN as an example of the validity of the block log as evidence; that was before Fayssal's post made me look more closely at the circumstances of the first two blocks. I should say that if I had been an uninvolved admin, even if I had thought the blocks unjustified, I would probably not have unblocked, and you are a braver man than I if you would have! Thank you for your time and attention.Hornplease 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that I'm a female war veteran, I'm not sure how to take that braver man than I part. Let's hope arbitration sorts this out to the community's satisfaction. Durova^Charge! 08:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly still true, as I'm not brave at all:). Hornplease 08:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Miss Durova, Wow! You were in a war?! Which one? Are you okay? My daddy was also in the military! It makes ya wonder why people have to keep doing this to each other. Will people ever learn? Joan of Ark question asker below. :) --172.133.120.41 15:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the tardy reply: I was in the Global War on Terrorism. I joined because my uncle was a 9/11 survivor. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

COI charges

Your previous statements are being invoked as partial justification for a COI charge here[22], so you may want to let your views be known. Raymond Arritt 17:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that's already been handled. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: continuation of WP:ANI

Thank you for your comment, but tell me something:

If a person reports that three Muslim editors are violating WP:BLP on Ariel Sharon page, would that result in a few days of insults such as being called "antisemite", "immune to reason" or being put on "radar screen". Certainly not: that would have been acceptable, and the editors, if they were Muslim, wouldn't have mind that as well. I still can't believe we are arguing over a non-negative term, which from your POV is offensive.--Gerash77 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And I find it hard to believe that, despite repeated assurances on my part and actual threads at this talk page where Muslim editors have sought my opinion as a neutral party, you continue to accuse me bigotry. You have no idea what my POV actually is. I strongly recommend you retract these offensive accusations. Durova^Charge! 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

COIN on Connolley

I posted a second complaint on the COI Noticeboard on Connolley. I expected someone would show up magically like you did last time, but no one has. Is it unreasonable for me to ask you to take a look at Connolley's second offence? It is about the same information, but this time I posted it on the Hockey stick controversy page where other editors said it rightfully belonged. To me this seems an open and shut case, but someone has to make a decision. Will you do it? RonCram 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already speedy closed this discussion, as it was descending into wikilawyering and wasn't going to lead anywhere productive. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you deleted too early. I am certain Durova would have liked to express her opinion since she concluded the first case. I am not certain you even understand the issues. Your comments indicate that you do not. RonCram 01:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RonCram has been highly disruptive. Whether he is right or wrong about the underlying content isn't the point. The COI guideline specifically warns not to use COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. RonCram posted voluminous material on WP:COIN to litigate the content dispute, yet he only offered a single diff to substantiate the COI claim. That diff showed WilliamConnolley deleting a statement with a reference link to a .edu URL containing a ~, somebody's personal user space. What was there? A PDF reprint, probably a copyright violation, without any context. There was no way of knowing if this was a peer reviewed article, an advertorial, or an opinion piece. The publication has a website exclusively in Dutch language, so there is no easy way for us to verify anything about the source. Under these circumstances, deleting this questionable material wouldn't be a COI violation for any editor, no matter what their situation. The complaint was filed in bad faith. RonCram persists in his crusade against Connolley, in spite of warnings from three uninvolved, respected editors. My opinion is that RonCram needs to be stopped before he causes further harm to the project, since he obviously is unwilling to restrain himself. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This was not a content dispute. I was trying uphold Durova's earlier conclusion. Connolley has completed disregarded Durova's statements. When I was told I needed to offer more than one diff, I posted four. The pdf I linked to is an English translation from a highly respected Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. The English translation is hosted on a website at the University of Guelph where Ross McKitrick is a professor. This is the first time anyone has raised any question about the copyright of the article. Such a question seems absurb on its face, but if that was a serious issue - information about the copyright can easily be obtained from the university. People have made some ridiculous claims that this Dutch science magazine is not a reliable source, but the fact is easy to establish. Go to Google Scholar and search for it or click this.[23] But none of this really matters because these were not the reasons given by Connolley. He knows the magazine is reliable and he knows there is no problem with the copyright. Connolley (and his minions) have attempted to suppress valid information to protect his colleague. RonCram 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"I was trying uphold Durova's earlier conclusion." Res ipsa loquitor. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus and Jehochman are both fine editors and I trust their judgement. I hope I'm correct in inferring from RonCram's requests that both sides of this dispute accept my neutrality. Durova^Charge! 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

what to do at this point?

Armon still has not bothered to respond or acknowledge the attempts to deal with the microproblem or the macroproblem on the CEM page. Is there any way to speed up the process? csloat 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Even more troubling -- while Armon refuses to respond to CEM, he has been actively editing, including an extremely tendentious revert on another page in which he and I have been in revert wars in the past. As in his edits that went to CEM, he is deleting sourced and relevant material with cryptic and illogical explanations. I am tempted to restore the material he deleted, but I really don't want to get into another revert war with him. However, I do think this is an important aspect of the macroproblem -- his insistence on deleting sourced and relevant material that he doesn't agree with, often with deceptive or non sequitur reasoning (in this case, his reason for deleting the material is that he says it belongs in a different section. If that is true, why does he not move it to another section instead of deleting it, and initiating a revert war with the editor who added it?) I will reprint this statement on the CEM page so you can respond to it there, as it is relevant to the macroproblem that we need a solution to. csloat 01:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather close to closing the mediation. Durova^Charge! 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What happens after that? csloat 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, you'd try to work things out until someone proposes arbitration. I consider it likely the Committee would accept the case. Durova^Charge! 21:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

An earlier thread (above)

Due to exceptionally high traffic on your Talk page I’d like to make sure that you are going to take notice of my question above, so I'm posting an extra link to it here. Your input would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent  talk  13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied above. Durova^Charge! 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Hey. With a DYK under my belt, I qualify for the level one triple crown. Evidence of one DYK, one GA, and one FA taken from the same topic for consistency: [24], [25], and [26]. My userpage has a list of all my GA/FA/FT contribs if you need more evidence or different articles. Oh, and I'm not doing this as a self-nom because I'm an egomaniac; I don't want to make someone nominate me as a formality :) — Deckiller 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "Eyes of the Insane" to GA, and I also wrote Christ Illusion to FA and "Jihad" to FA. As concerns DYK's, here and here are DYK's I'm responsible for. I think this means I qualify for level one triple clown (I hope so), though I'm unsure. Thanks for the time by the way, and happy editing! LuciferMorgan 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nikolai pavlyuk lenin in his working room.jpg

Hello Durova, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Nikolai pavlyuk lenin in his working room.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Durova/Archive 1. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion and advice needed

Hi Durova. There is a kind of complicated issue between my hand. All details are found here at the AN/I MDS International / MDS America conflict bothering Wikipedia. I've done my best but i'd like to get your opinion on the matter and if it is time to go for an ArbCom case directly instead of wasting the community time. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had time for more help than that. But you can always come to me with page protection requests. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

more from Anacapa

Hi Durova I was just contacted by another user (Jbolden1517) who's been having trouble with Anacapa on Talk:Shunning. Anacapa responded to my question (wherther hey were drop in editor or not) on my talk page with a long off-topic rant abou Maoism. I think there are elements of not assuming good faith in their response, as well as ranting on my talk-page. The words "you SEEM to be blind to the insane bullcrap and inane cowcrap (conservative, liberal or whatever) that prevails in the NAME of NPOV on Wikipedia" sounds like bad faith to me. I aksed Coelacan to have a look but I think she's a bit snowed under at the moment. Am I wrong or is there a case for at least warning Anacapa on NPOV grounds for their edits and WP:NPA and WP:AGF for their comments?

They have also made another traunch of edits to Feminism in the last 2 days - once again to the criticism sections - one particularly interesting bit of phrasing is "Feminist whistleblower, Christina Hoff-Sommers also shows how feminist misandry leads directly to misogyny by establishment feminists against (the majority of) women who love men in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women."

I also found a warning that Irishguy gave to one of Anacapa's IPs for POVPUSHing in November '06. I've deatiled it in the the report. Have you any advice on how best to proceed here. Should I respond to Anacapa or just WP:DENY?--Cailil ^talk 17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's appropriate to give an NPOV warning. Thanks for your paitence. Durova^Charge! 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're going to laugh when you read this but ... how should I phrase this warning? I was going to use the {{uw-npov1}} and add the diff and additional text ask Anacapa to "Please take note of the NPOV policy's guide to asserting opinions. Your characterization of the views is not conforming to the policy. I have not reverted your edits as I hope you will rewrite the information in accordance with NPOV" - is that the best thing to do or should I just use the template and the diff? Sorry for the question, I'm just a bit nervous of using the NPOV template--Cailil ^talk 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I left it myself. Durova^Charge! 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please protect the deer

The Deer article is in dire need of permanent semi-protection. Nearly every other edit is vandalism, and the other one is to revert it. -- Fyslee/talk 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given it six weeks of semiprotection. Usually we don't make these things permanent. Let me know if problems resume when this expires. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's irritating when everytime it pops up in my watchlist it's a waste of time to check what's going on. -- Fyslee/talk 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If this sort of thing happens elsewhere on your watchlist, don't hesitate to ask for page protection. It's a very simple check to confirm the need for protection and any sysop can implement it quickly. Durova^Charge! 20:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New sock of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles?

You might remember the unblock discussion over ISOLA'd ELBA (talk · contribs), who you thought was a sock of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs) while I argued their only sin was handing out too many barnstars (to the wrong people). After unblock Isola continued working on userpage-type activities and also handed out lots of welcome templates, including one to a sock of SummerThunder. Isola recently had a bunch of their user pages deleted on MySpace grounds, but one, User:ISOLA'd ELBA/awards was just recreated by DaGrandPuba (talk · contribs). This person also edits video game articles, so it seems suspicious. I don't know Le Grand Roi all that well so I will leave handling DaGrandPuba to your judgment except to say please be sure before you decide to block. —dgies^t_c 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I was coming here to say something to you totally separately regarding this user. If you could take a look at Parma, Ohio: it has an edit war that has been (I kid you not) going on for 1.5 years. It's impossible for me to tell which are sockpuppets of User:Mycroft.Holmes and which are sockpuppets of his enemy (e.g., User:Mycroft.Holmz) (is this Le Grand?). It makes my head hurt just to look at it, but both users have a ridiculous history of sockpuppetry and going anonymous to edit war (e.g., User:Dianestover = User:164.107.223.217, as recent history shows), as well as spelling out their arguments in the edit summaries. This page has such an awful history of sockpuppetry that I'm tempted to bring it before Arbcom just to have them put a 1RR rule on the page or something (yes, I've been watching this page before I had this account, and I've been watching these same antics forever). The Evil Spartan 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I strongly recommend you both support the revival of WP:RFI - too many people post appeals to me directly and Wikipedia loses out when real life keeps me busy. I've had to cut down on my volunteer commitment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova (talk • contribs)

Actually, I've been thinking about that myself. On my previous account (yes, I had one), I actually !voted for deleted. It took about 3 seconds to realize this was bad, as ANI became clogged with reports which were so complex, and which everyone ignored. Now half the stuff on ANI doesn't even get a response. And it's all my fault! The Evil Spartan 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad to learn about your change of heart. What that board really lacked was enough good editors to keep up with the work. I've been training a team of Wikisleuths since then, a few of whom have gotten sysopped, and hope to revive RFI when we have enough good people to run it. If you run across any promising candidates please send them my way. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:COI and Template:COI2

Shaking my head. People need to spend a few minutes in the trenches before suggesting disarmament. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed WP:SNOW on the discussion. Deletionists really ought to take a few minutes and ask before putting things on the block. Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

Hi there, when have you set the date for my coronation as the next Tsar of Bulgaria? :) Here's my proof of noble descent:

• DYK: That's easy, I've got something like 20, you can find notifying tags all over my user talk. For the sake of the historical topic, Medieval Bulgarian royal charters may be a good choice.
• FA: Significantly contributed to (a bit like co-wrote) Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria and entirely rewrote Simeon I of Bulgaria.
• GA: Quite humble in that respect, I only have one: Banat Bulgarians. Sadly, I need one more to ascend to the throne of the Bulgarian Empire.

Royal greetings, Todor→Bozhinov 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Hi! I don't know if it's okay to ask questions like this hear as I'm not much of an editor (i dont know what i can add and im not online all that often), but I see that you edit Joan of Arc related articles and so, well, maybe you could help answer a question: we watched a movie in class the other day that implied that Joan of Arc was raped by guards during her trial. It was some older movie, but anyway, I heard elsewhere that she was a virgin, so was this true? If so, that's absolutely horrible! Anyway, I was just curious if you knew. Again, I'm sorry if we're not supposed to ask these kinds of questions or not, but I dint see anything about by taking a quick glance on the article (sorry if its there and I glossed over!), and I was just really curious. I'll check back on your page in a few days to see if you responded, but if not, no big deal, just curious and you seem to be some kind of expert on her, which is cool! :) Thanks either way! :) A fellow Joan of Arc fan! --172.144.16.113 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Durova is about just now (I think she's pretty busy offline) but I don't expect she minds you asking questions about articles she's contributed to.

Our article does have a mention of this; it's in the first line of the Execution section. Apparently she was sexually assaulted and may have been subjected to attempted rape.

In future, you'll probably get a quicker response to questions like this from the Reference Desk, in this case the Humanities desk, which takes History questions. I hope this response is helpful - check back here a little later to see if Durova can flesh out my answer with a better explanation. All the best, --YFB ¿ 23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the fast reply! Sorry I missed that in the article and that’s really too bad that such a thing would happen to such a strong woman (or to anybody for that matter!). The movie our teacher showed kinda just had a couple guards look at her funny, but you could tell something was up! Well, thanks again! Maybe when I’m older in a few years, I’ll get an account and have something to contribute, ‘cus I think aol gives us new numbers every time we log on otherwise :(. Is there some kind of age requirement for Wikipedia? Is this site safe? I’ve seen some nasty stuff on some other pages . . . Well, gotta run. Thanks again! Still a Joan of Arc fan! --172.133.120.41 15:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The nullification trial that took place a couple of decades after her death has some conflicting testimony about sexual abuse. We can say with certainty that English soldiers guarded her, although normal inquisitorial procedure would have been to use an ecclesiastical prison that would have had female guards. So the opportunity for abuse certainly existed. One nullification trial witness admitted that he had touched her breasts and that, in response, she shoved him away. The point of disagreement is whether the abuse went beyond that level of inappropriate touching.

Part of the context to consider here is political and economic and even military: the English government was financing her trial and the trial lasted far longer than they had anticipated. The Duke of Bedford also delayed offensive military campaigning that season until after her execution, either because his superstitious troops feared they could not win while she remained alive or because too many of his military commanders had been captured the previous year and he planned to lead the troops himself. So the English government pressured the ecclesiastical judges to bring the proceeding to a speedy conclusion. One of the nullification trial witnesses asserted that a serious sexual assault occurred shortly after her abjuration and that the assailant was a high ranking English nobleman. The law prevented them from executing her until she relapsed, so perhaps rape (or its threat or attempt) was one of the tactics used to hasten her death. Durova^Charge! 20:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear miss (mrs?) Durova, thank you very much for the detailed response!If i ever do get an account and feel competent enough to edit articles when i'm a little older, i'll keep you and yummifruitbat in mind of good wikipedians to ask for help. Enjoy the summer! :) Joan of Arc asker! --172.130.224.152 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See, I had a feeling Durova would make a better job of it! :-) By the way, I meant to address the other part of your question. There's no age restrictions on Wikipedia; making an account is free and you can get one at any age - it'll help you to keep track of any questions you ask here or at the Reference Desks, for one thing. Some of our most prolific administrators are in their mid-teens. Wikipedia is probably as safe as many other websites (we ask that minors restrict the information they disclose about themselves for their own protection) but it isn't censored for younger users, so you may come across strong language, nudity and sexual topics. There's a very broad range of subject areas which don't include that sort of content, so if you exercise the same level of caution and common sense as you'd use in other parts of the internet, you can keep away from most "nasty stuff". You don't have to write whole articles or be very knowledgeable about a particular topic to get involved, either. There's plenty of editing tasks (spelling fixes, adding images, formatting and cleaning up vandalism, for example) which don't require any specialist knowledge. We'd welcome your contributions whenever you feel ready. Thanks for your questions - if you have any others (about Wikipedia or anything else, with the possible exception of JoA), you can always ask them at my talk page. All the best, --YFB ¿ 19:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again and I hope you're enjoying the extended Memorial Day weekend! Go Joan! --172.144.146.32 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions, torches and pitchforks

I think we need to emphasize the need to investigate COI and SPAM reports fully before jumping to conclusions. There's a lot of real abuse, so we need to be careful not to mistake ignorance for malice. See this one.[27] Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 07:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Durova^Charge! 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

CEM

Hi, Durova. What will happen then? If Tajik would stay be blocked indefinitely, would this mean that both the ArbCom and CEM be closed? Actually, both cases never started. What do you recommend? Am i allowed to continue editing normally from now on? Regards. E104421 08:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like the status on the CEM clarified, since if CEM is closed, arbitration will proceed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, CEM is closed. The case request no longer qualifies because of the sockpuppetry. To the best of my knowledge arbitration would go forward, but that's up to the Committee. Durova^Charge! 20:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh, we lost the last chance to discuss the conflicts. I'd like to thank you for all your patience, help and hard work. I'm rather impressed your willingness to solve the disputes. Thank you again. Regards. E104421 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka might be able to help with web-related article?

Do you think your friend User:Elonka would be willing to look at Search engine optimization and leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization? I need more opinions about the reliability of online sources to help overcome the last objection of my friend User:SandyGeorgia. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

I'm trying to verify a comment left on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians about Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. While I've removed the comment pending investigation, could you e-mail me about Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's status, particularly the block on the account. In particular, I'm trying to determine if the comment at User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Message_for_Durova_and_BigHaz is real or tied in with sockpuppet usage. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very strange; I've semiprotected the deceased Wikipedians list for two weeks. Contact me via e-mail if your question has deeper ramifications. Durova^Charge! 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No deeper ramifications. Someone placed a comment about Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles maybe being dead on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians and I was trying to determine the veracity of that. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)