User talk:Durova/Archive 29

Triple Crown

Hi, I've only just spotted your triple crown & wonder if you can self nominate? If so:

• DYK 18 so far - see my talk page recent ones include; Observatory, Bristol, Royal Fort Red Lodge Museum, Bristol & Arno's Court Triumphal Arch
• GA 4 - include Chew Stoke, Chew Magna & Kennet and Avon Canal
• Featured:
  • Articles: Chew Valley Lake, Chew Valley & Mendip Hills
  • Lists: List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset, Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal & Grade I listed buildings in Bristol

If you need more info let me know.— Rod ^talk 09:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x

Hi Durova. As someone familiar with the Dereks1x situation, I think your input would be useful here. Thanks. · jersyko talk 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Imperial triple Crown

G'day, greast idea for an award; I'm nominating myself for:

• 17 DYKs (so take your pick - but last two were Omphalotus nidiformis and Actinotus helianthi)
• 2 GAs (Diplodocus - did a whole bunch of editing before it was GA'ed in mid 2006, Kereru)
• a few FAs, but I'll stick with Banksia integrifolia and Stegosaurus as the ones I contributed most to (though I actually nominated neither on the FA list, there its Triceratops and Diplodocus

I can supply diffs etc. if required. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CEM on Cole (again)

We could really use your help (again) on the CEM on Cole, on the main page if possible. Am I missing something here? csloat 07:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown?

Does it count if two or more are the same? (I could get through with V. thapsus XD)

• DYK: Common Milkweed ([1])
• GA: Verbascum thapsus ([2])
• F: Image:Hippo skull dark.jpg ([3]) or Verbascum thapsus ([4])

User:tompw apparently think I was a significant contributor in getting List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry featured, so I guess I only need some work before I can try for an imperial crown. Keep an eye out for Cornus canadensis! Circeus 11:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

Hi Durova. As you may recall, some time ago you protected my userpage, and I just now realized that this prevents me from editing. Can you please fix this? Burntsauce 21:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually your user page has been unprotected since last month. Durova^Charge! 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible article?

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

• Flora and fauna of Greenland

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the surface of it I don't see any problem with this. Durova^Charge! 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

I noticed that you indefblocked User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, he seems very ill and may die soon. Why not pardon all his wrongdoings before and honorably rehabilitate this user as an act of compassion (a man possibly on deathbed, please!), or if he has already died, unblock him posthumously and symbolically? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wooyi,

First off, let me apologize to Durova for posting this message on her talk page. I am not trying to evade my block by doing so, but I felt it absolutely necessary to respond somehow to Wooyi as I was made aware of this editor's concerns for me. Anyway, if you see my talk page, I have updated it accordingly to indicate that my health has drastically improved. That's not to say that I don't still have some problems (I can no longer eat nuts, popcorn, seeds, corn, berries, etc. and my stomach doesn't look too good), but I seem to be over the really dangerous problems. I sincerely appreciate your kind efforts and concerns, as you seem to be a really good and kind person, but I do NOT expect to be dying any time soon. I am completely out of the hospital at this point. Thus, if you wish to discuss anything further with me, please do so on my talk page. Again, I'm truly sorry for using an anonymous IP to post this on your page, Durova, as I'm doing my best to avoid creating any new accounts (I have not created anything after the Horace Horatius one) or anything else in the hopes that maybe several months from now you'll give me one more chance as you suggested a month or so ago, but I wanted to save you and Wooyi unnecessary trouble on my account as I should be okay. Again, your concern and efforts are admirable and really touching and I feel bad to have to use a friend's computer to reply and I hope doing so in this circumstance won't anger Durova too much, but I hope that this clarifies my situation and wish you all a pleasant day. Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. --172.145.228.116 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is egregious. Le Grand Roi, not only are you trying to evade your block, you actually have evaded it by posting to this page. You ought to have used e-mail. This recent bit about Category:Deceased Wikipedians and some supposedly grave illness means nothing more than last fall's stunt about that supposed six week business trip you claimed to be taking last fall while you actually started that black hand sockpuppet and edited through the Ohio State University IP address. Your credibility is nil. In response to this attempt to abuse the good faith Wikipedians might extend toward a legitimate illness I am doubling the schedule for my offer of reinstatement: stay off Wikipedia for eight months, starting today, and I'll consider unblocking you. If you violate this offer you can restart that calendar from the date of your next edit and set it to one year. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Duvora, please reconsider your apathy. A person is physically ill and may die at any moment. Let's at least offer some consoling measures, please. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We assume good faith in absence of evidence to the contrary. This person has consistently lied - that strong word is accurate here - and long ago squandered any credibility. Per Le Grand Roi's own admission at this thread, the "condition" (ahem) is considerably better now. I believe a few weeks ago he or she claimed to be dead? Move along, nothing to see here. Durova^Charge! 20:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

he/she didn't claim to be dead...as a dead person can't talk unless you are a psychic. The user said he/she was very ill and may die in his/her talk page post. And now it may be better but still... You know, compassion toward the sick and suffering is always important in any societies. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern, Wooyi, I greatly appreciated it. You are a kind and generous editor. Durova has unblocked me as of today, so I want to thank her as well. If you are both Americans, then I hope you had a happy Independence Day yesterday! If not, then I hope you are enjoying your summer! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Submissions for Review

Look, somebody is using my talk page as a precursor to Wikipedia:Submissions for Review (WP:SFR) Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this? Durova^Charge! 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We were discussing the possibility of a new notice board. Somebody came to my talk page and asked me to review material for addition to the encyclopedia. Obviously there is a demand for this service. Now, how do we take care of that? Jehochman ^Talk 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Durova. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown application

Hey, I'd like to apply for an Imperial Triple Crown. Here are my credentials:

• Did You Know Articles
  • Standard Oil of Kentucky — November 26, 2006
  • Gettysburg Cyclorama — May 8, 2007
• Good Articles
  • NFL Playoffs — February 22, 2007
  • Gettysburg Cyclorama — May 24, 2007
  • U.S. Route 40 — May 26 2007
• Featured Articles
  • Timeline of chemistry — April 12, 2007
  • New England Patriots seasons — April 21, 2007

I have 3 GA's because I didn't know if you needed 6 distinct articles, and Gettysburg Cyclorama was both a DYK and a GA, so I waited until I had 6 articles to qualify. Thanks a bunch for managing this program. I know people poo-poo things like Barnstars and this, but I think that recognition programs are beneficial and you do a great job. Later! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for submitting that. My Wikipedia time is at a premium right now but I'll get around to those triple crown awards shortly. Cheers, and keep making those great contributions! Durova^Charge! 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(Holds hand up and fidgets) - don't forget Circeus and me :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't mean to be pushy, because you DO do very important work here at wikipedia, but it looks like triple crown appilcations are getting backlogged. There's half a dozen or so on your talk page. Again, thanks for all you do! Just don't want you to forget about us! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazing Facts RFC

I began an RFC on this article. I would welcome your review of the dispute. If you are an sda however please say so upfront. My opponent has been questioned on other sda articles about his bias. I can't see how he can complain if I quote Amazing Facts itself. Thank you.70.108.103.178 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So far the RFC is just myself and maniwar. He seems determined to make sure his POV prevails. The article is now looking more like a tool for proslytizing. He has been accused of POV on sda issues before by others. How can more people participate in the RFC? We need someone who is not an sda to take a look at it.70.108.103.178 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would stick to the issue, you continue to lash out at me and personally attack me. I am asking you to deal with the issue and again refrain from coming after me. I encouraged you to call for rfc, which you did. Had I been POV, I would not have cared and would not have informed you, several times, to call for rfc. Additionally, this one sentence you want in, has been deleted by numerous editors, for over a year now for many reasons. As far your accusation that I am charged with POV by other editors, you will quickly see that those issues were resolved and the editor who called me POV, was banned a couple times for different reasons, mainly his POV. So, do not fabricate. I again, say, focus on getting others to comment and leave me out of it. Focus on learning how to edit in wikipedia, and also go to wp:rfc and ask them to comment if you want others to give input. No one is commenting, see my note to you on the article's talk page, because you have not posted in the proper places asking for comment. Anyway, happy posting. --Maniwar (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another Anacapa IP

Hi Durova, I hope you're keeping well. I've just spotted another new IP being used by Anacapa: 128.111.95.45 has made the same type of POVPUSH edits to the Project Gender studies talk page. The IP is in Anacapa's range, it is in Santa Barbara, CA (like the others its from University of California, Santa Barbara) & its using the same language and style as Ancapa to edit. Below are some examples of the POVPUSH on May 27th & 28th:

Tagging Project Gender studies as POV again [5]

On Project Gender studies talk page [6]

about Project Gender studies on Project reform [7]

On Gender studies[8]

POVPUSH on Sex differences[9] "sections relating to gender-feminist propaganda about gender-differences that are both POV and have nothing to do with sex differences. This confusion is what feminists have been banking on for political power plays as they pervert and the meaning of both terms."

same again on Talk:Antifeminism[10] here 128.111.95.45 answers comments made to 128.111.95.237 (an Anacapa address).

Since you warned Anacapa's account this is third POVPUSH by this editor. Is it time to consider making a report to WP:AN?--Cailil ^talk 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova, you might want to look at this post by Anacapa. They used IP 209.129.49.65 to make it, which is an IP thay have previously used for months, it's also clear from the text that it is Anacapa making the post. It was made after their comments below but before your reply.

The post was to talk shunning, and its basically a soapboxing statement.[11]

Some editors on wiki gang in parochial interests groups to censor, silence and slander editors who are 'problematic', politically incorrect or otherwise 'difficult' for the gang to control. This is the kind of conduct one sees in totalitarian tyrannies. Shunning is likely to build the reputation wikipedia already is gaining as a place where Maoist mobs rule.

Maybe I'm being harsh but isn't also a personal attack and a serious breach of WP:AGF?--Cailil ^talk 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Matrix17

Hello. You just unblocked this user in a seemingly drive-by fashion with apparently no discussion with anyone. I am just checking that you are, of course, aware that this user was blocked for a little more than just creating one article and that the block was revisted on ANI a week ago, where unanimous opinion was that she should stay blocked? – Steel 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I explained this situation to Durova and left it up to her to decide what to do. The user was blocked upon a faulty assumption. Then an unblock request was declined without explanation. Yes, this user has a history of problems. Hopefully they will take Durova's advice and join WP:ADOPT. If that fails, and you feel the user needs a community patience ban, please follow the necessary steps.

I don't think this discussion is a consensus, because it didn't address the issue of the article surviving AfD. That issue was finally raised here, but the discussion was deleted before anyone had a chance to comment. To me, this seems fundamentally unfair, which is why I investigated and reported this incident to Durova. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What about this discussion where you yourself said "I am fine with the above resolution. Steel, thank you for blocking the sock"? – Steel 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin trainee. I reported the facts to Durova and she made the final decision. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. So, you told Durova about the above discussion and she went against that? – Steel 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not show that thread to Durova, because it occurred after I emailed her my report. She was away for a few days. Sorry, I am monitoring a lot of things around here, so I don't rely on memory, and I did not see that discussion when I went back through the record and gave her a second update. Are you feeling upset about this? Jehochman ^Talk 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not so much upset about someone reversing a block which wasn't even mine. Rather, confused that the person did so against consensus, without discussion and without full information. – Steel 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The only harm I've done is to occupy a few minutes of your time. Sorry for that. The block can always be restored, but shall we wait a little bit to see if Durova has thoughts? We don't know what investigating she may have done, or what her reasoning was. If Matrix17 steps out of line in the meanwhile, feel free to reblock. Durova specifically stated this in her comments to me. Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reblocked Matrix upon learning that Durova wasn't informed of the most recent ANI dicussion and so probably wasn't aware of this. This can, of course, be reversed if necessary, but perhaps after Durova explains her reasoning which is currently elusive and not obvious. – Steel 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was aware of the ANI discussion from last week. On a purely technical level I can't justify keeping an editor blocked for six months for creating a "non-notable" biography that turned out to survive AFD. I thought that reasoning was clear from my post and, to my knowledge, no other putative violation had occurred since the expiration of the previous block. I have no intention of wheel warring, however, so how about a middle ground of restoring editing privileges if Matrix17 enters WP:ADOPT?

BTW: in future, please contact me directly before reversing my actions based upon assumptions about how much I know. I believe WP:AGF requires you to suppose that I have adequate information. The onus shouldn't fall upon me to refer to or disclose e-mails, since that could compromise sensitive discussion. Durova^Charge! 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Olive branch

Actually all AGF requires me to do is assume that you're acting in what you see as the best interests of the project, which I have never questioned. Also, I did contact you directly; this is your talk page.
Incidentally, I didn't reblock matrix immediately - I only did that after Jehochman above indicated that he didn't inform you of the most recent ANI discussion. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume that you were therefore unaware of it given your relative inactivity over the past few days.
On a lighter note, contrary to popular belief I have no serious objection to Matrix being unblocked. I hope you appreciate my concern, however, when a drive-by user emails a totally uninvolved admin and she unblocks against consensus. If you or someone from WP:ADOPT is willing to keep an eye on Matrix, great, unblock. – Steel 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately my online time is minimal and the unblock happened before I had a chance to respond to your post. I'll leave a note at Matrix's user page about the program. The ball's in his or her court. Regards, Durova^Charge! 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the inspiration

Your WP:CN inspired me and several other editors to create a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Any advice how to advertise it and streamline its operations would be much welcomed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Libelous warning

You sent an unspecific warning about POV problems to me. This is a cheap shot unless you provide some sort of specific and constructive criteria for your concerns. I work on loaded issues where politicized mob ideologues make the rules. To take issue with mob POV is no cause for concern here. If you have genuine POV concerns please offer them. Otherwise please spend your time tackling the truly ugly personal cheap shots that people use against people like me who bring in content that counters the credulous content that prevails on a Maoist Mob rule encyclopedia. I suggest you read Fast Company's cover story on Jimmy Wales and his proud red bandana to see that I am (as usual) sourcing my pov's. Anacapa 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cailil has provided an excellent and amply documented report. Bear in mind that your post treads on the margins of a legal threat, which I am choosing to treat leniently. Your speculations about my political leanings make me chuckle: it's no secret at Wikipedia that I'm a United States veteran of the War on Terrorism. When I see red bandanas I think Bloods, not Maoists. Durova^Charge! 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown stuff

Nobleeagle (talk · contribs) (retired)

• Cricket World Cup - FA
• Indian cricket team - GA
• Vikram Singh - DYK

Hesperian (talk · contribs)

• Banksia brownii, Banksia integrifolia, Banksia epica, Yagan - FA
• The Atlas of Australian Birds - GA
• Tryal Rocks

Moondyne (talk · contribs) - see User:Moondyne/contributions

Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)

• Samuel Adams - FA
• Lee Smith (baseball) - GA
• What's the Story - DYK, many others

Idleguy (talk · contribs)

• Kargil War - FA
• Atlantique Incident - GA
• Yusuf Adil Shah - DYK

There are likely heaps more.....There are many guys who just skip GA and go straight to lots and lots of FAs, eg Nichalp, Rama's Arrow, PDH etc, all of whom have many DYKs also. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin coach

Hey, I saw your post on the Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests discussion page and it looks like you might do some interesting work here on WP. I'd be very grateful if you'd let me know what all it entails. Thanks--Helgers7 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you've dropped by! I specialize in complex investigations, doing my best to keep Wikipedia free of manipulation by ideological or profit-driven editors. A summary of one of my cases is available at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc.

This week I'm just keeping my head above water. If you'd like to plunge in then paddle over to WP:COIN or WP:SSP and start looking into the requests. Most of the time these things are pretty straightforward, but there's no telling when they'll get really interesting. Durova^Charge! 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Vandalism

An editor erased 30% of your talk page so I reverted it to keep things in order for others who may wish to comment. Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And that editor is, in all likelihood, a sockpuppet of a banned user. I'll describe why offline if you like. Durova^Charge! 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you like. Somebody was defending him on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy News

Search engine optimization . SandyGeorgia was extremely helpful. Thank you for the motivation. Jehochman ^Talk 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Durova^Charge! 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you and Armedblowfish will adopt me when he fixes the problems with his server. -PatPeter 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have a standing offer to any formerly banned editor that I'll award the Barnstar of Resilience for starting a new article that gets highlighted at Template:Did you know?. If you'd really like to thank me, go earn that barnstar. Happy editing! Durova^Charge! 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP triple crown

I just found User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle when I submitted John J. Bernet as a DYK suggestion today. I think I've got the necessary requirements for this recognition.

DYK

• American Car and Foundry; 2004-12-03
• Bourbonnais train accident; 2005-01-29
• Ralph Budd; 2005-02-24
• Pioneer Zephyr; 2005-02-26
• Matthew Baird; 2005-04-21
• Franklin B. Gowen; 2005-03-06
• John B. Jervis; 2005-03-11
• Iowa Interstate Railroad; 2005-05-25
• William Barstow Strong; 2005-06-03
• Cyrus K. Holliday; 2005-07-06
• Ginery Twichell; 2005-07-17
• Timken 1111; October 2005
• El Gobernador; 2006-01-23
• Scott Special; 2006-05-13
• California Southern Railroad; 2006-07-12
• There have been others where I did not get a notice on my talk page.

GA

• Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad; 2005-10-23
• Scott Special; 2006-05-12
• California Southern Railroad; 2006-07-23
• There have been others that have since been delisted, but these three remain on the GA list today

FA

• John Bull (locomotive); 2004-12-21
• Franklin B. Gowen; 2005-03-19
• Pioneer Zephyr; March 2005
• Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works; 2005-10-27

Featured Portal

• Portal:Trains; 2006-01-04

My article creation rate has slowed as I work through Category:Unassessed rail transport articles, and update Portal:Trains, but there will definitely be more on the way. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 14:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hotpotatoes

He created his account at 12:56 pm Eastern (9:56 your time), and his only edit is to the community ban discussion on Anacapa. I smell a sock ...Blueboy96 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Put in a Checkuser request--he's already been blocked, but want to cement it.Blueboy96 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 Likely. C'est fini, je pense.Blueboy96 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The enforcement part of CEM

Hi Durova - please see my last comment on the [CEM] from about a week ago. Is there any actual enforcement to the community enforceable mediation? Will there be any consequences to Armon's stalling of the process, or incentive for him to continue it? It really seems ridiculous that we are still stalled months later on minor wording issues in the "microproblem" or that he has not even had to take seriously my comments and propositions regarding the "macroproblem." I realize the debate seems tedious, but it affects a lot of the other articles as well (currently MEMRI, but I have been reluctant to edit on any Middle East-related topics as a result of this). I hope there's something that can be done other than simply throwing up our hands and saying the mediation was a failure. csloat 19:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

user page

Hi - how can I get this user page changed? This user, I believe, is another sock of Dereks1x, but he seems to have left so I am not pursuing it at this time. But I don't think I should have to put up with this wording on his user page. Thanks Tvoz |talk 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:National Front.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:National Front.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If I had more time I'd be glad to help. Try posting a request at the talk page of WP:COIN. Durova^Charge! 23:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I'm thinking of using Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation but for the mediation to work, we need a mediator who is willing to involve himself/herself, review all the evidence, and make a final remedy decision. Would you like to be that mediator? I'd really appreciate it. If you would like more information please feel free to ask. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 00:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your interest in the program. Offline business is taking up most of my time these days. I suggest you talk to Navou. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 02:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Hajji Piruz 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mop handling coaching

Ya, I was hoping to get some pointers on how to handle a mop, should I actually be given one. Pointers please? :D - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (as in, can you give me a few more tips apart from what you had above? Finals overwhelmed me.)

It will probably be a couple of weeks before I have time. Hope you can be patient. As you can see above, even my triple crowns are backlogged. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock user

Matrix17 has been blocked against your will by steel again. And matrix17 really doesnt deserve to be threated this way ´he contributes to wikipedia in a nice way. Please unblock user. Have a nice wikiday...

I'll presume this unsigned comment from a throwaway account is either Matrix17 or a meatpuppet: actually I didn't reblock you. Another sysop did that. We've agreed to unblock you again if you join the WP:ADOPT mentorship program, which you can do by cutting and pasting a template to your user space. You can post to your own user space during the block. When you find a mentor, send them my way and I'll take care of the unblock. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Matrix17's talk page is protected so he or she can't edit it. Vints 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig's comments on csloat/armon

Please feel free to refactor my comments there, as is your wont, if you feel them to be unproductive. From my vantage point Isarig's contribution to that mediation effort is anything but productive and I responded to them as I believed appropriate. However, I know that another new voice coming in can often further complicate this kind of process so I apologize if my comments do so. Unless they become decidedly more productive I'll be ignoring Isarig's further posts, so please excuse me if I don't respond to whatever issues he might raise in posts containing insults or personal attacks. Honest thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been modifying my comments on the mediation page by inserting his comments inside my own([12], [13]), reverting despite my repeated objections. I see it as a disruptive act on his part - one which I've asked him twice not to repeat. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown winner's circle

Do you take nominations for this? Or is this just something you award people as you stumble upon them? -RunningOnBrains 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, as I did not bother to read the rest of your talk page first, I'd like to nominate both myself and User:Thegreatdr. Both I and he have two FA's and multiple GA's and DYK's. -RunningOnBrains 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you list the specific articles for those nominations? Thanks for your interest (I'm trying to catch up with the triple crown backlog atm). Durova^Charge! 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Brunei

Hey, what's Brunei like to visit? yalbik 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very hot, very humid. Typical rain forest climate. One of the world's few absolute monarchies. Traditionally the people live in villages by the rivers. Some still do (see Water Village (Brunei)). An old local saying is that they'll never set foot on land until they're buried in it. The Sultan hasn't been able to persuade them to move so he's given them electricity, schools, a mosque, and a hospital on the main water village. I visited it by water taxi and sampled the local tea and pastries.

In other areas where flooding destroyed smaller villages the sultan built new villages with first world architecture and amenities (and that particularly remind me of California stucco housing developments). When the villagers resisted moving the sultan gave them the homes for free. The country doesn't have much private enterprise becuse the sultan is a generous employer, but at the current rate of drilling they'll run out of oil in about twenty-five years.

Fortunately, while the oil money lasts, they've had no need to damage their environment and nearly 90% of the country remains virgin rain forest. The country is on the island of Borneo, the only place in the world where orangutans live. When someone asked about a zoo our guide pointed to the window and smiled. "Our whole country is a zoo." So I didn't get to see the orangutans, but I supppose the orangutans weren't especially curious to see me. I've got a few other anecdotes about the place that are probably better to share by e-mail. Durova^Charge! 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown eligibility

If I remember correctly, you mentioned that the good article could be the same as the featured article if these steps were accomplished sequentially. If so, I have search engine optimization as my WP:GA and WP:FA, and Mahalo.com as my WP:DYK.Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Durovina

This user copied to his/her user page part of my own userpage, claiming that she/he uploaded images that he/she did not. Do you think it's appropriate? --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the strange comment on this user's page, or the very peculiar list of user edits, including lots of page moves. This looks like a sock of a banned user. Reported at WP:ANI. [14] Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 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 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown nom

Hello, I'm here to claim the second round.

• DYK: There are a lot to choose from at User:Howcheng/DYK, but I'll go with the latest one: Edward F. Boyd.
• GA: I now have four under my belt. We used Rancho Camulos last time. Let's go with the related topic Ramona.
• FP: I believe Image:Crops Kansas AST 20010624.jpg has not been submitted yet.

Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

An old friend?

Check this out. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

vandelism on Madison West High School entry

I believe Shmoogle728 has vandalized the Madison West High school wikipedia entry. Look at the user's edit to the Strongest Man Competition, and then the claim about this person being a freshman at Madison West High School.

request for a dispute clarification if you would agree on an informal procedure

Greetings, I've found your posts in talk section of user http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Cailil, so I believe you might be able to solve the situation here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Lost_Angel "personal attacks on User:Edgarde" section (last one there).

• Situation is: - I got a warning which I don't agree with at all and my posts in discussion sections are constantly stalked and scrutinized by this user.
• I would like to request your supreme intervention to pull the warning and encourage the user to stop stalking and scrutinizing my posts.
• more information is in the body of the message in question - I have an arbitrary court hearing form filled up, so please read it for clarification.

Thank you and sorry for taking your time with this.Lost Angel 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry

In your view, Kent Hovind- yes or no to allowing courtesy deletion if he requested it? JoshuaZ 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just butting in here.... Hovind may be violating NPOV by suggesting deletion. He seems to be the victim of the Law of Unintended Consequences, which applies to all articles and all subjects, regardless of who started the article. He has no say in the matter now, other than to correct actual libel. If we allow people to cover-up their misdeeds by deleting uncomfortable articles at their request, we are aiding and abetting misuse of Wikipedia. We often think of Wikipedia being misused to promote a person or damage a person, but it also works the other way around if we allow the person to control what is written about them. As long as it isn't libelous and is well sourced, we should keep it. IMHO. -- Fyslee/talk 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi...keep up the great work and keeping this mess straight.

Thank You

It looks like my Request for Admin has closed successfully at (58/8/2). Your support is a thing I'm very grateful for. I consider it my duty to try to live up to the trust that you and others have shown in me. And regarding our discussions, trust me, I will definitely be thinking things several times over before I actually do things! I won't bother you with the details now, since you have a lot on your plate (shoot me an email if you have free time), but I realize even more than ever, that an ill-considered word or phrase can be a very very very bad thing. If I end up being half as good as you with this kind of thing, I think I'll be a credit to Wikipedia. SirFozzie 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I think you'll do fine. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 16:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacement Jane Austen Article

I am researching and writing a replacement for the main article on Jane Austen. I've substantially finished the "Life/Works/Criticism" sections (you can see from the outline where I plan to go from here). I believe that it is both customary and good manners to invite comments and constructive criticism before I make a wholesale substitution. You've been at least somewhat active in commenting on the existing article.

The replacement article may be found here: Replacement Jane Austen Article

Please review it and leave comments on the talk page of the original Jane Austen article or on the talk page of the replacement article. I plan to travel for the next week or so but will collect comments and respond when I return. Simmaren 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see this article getting the serious attention it deserves. I'm not any expert on Austen biography or criticism so I'll defer to other editors on the specifics. My first impression is that you're doing fine work and I'd love to see it uploaded. Durova^Charge! 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Message recieved with Durova's signature, but posted by another user

I received a message on my user page (not my talk page) today from the user Person24, however the message had your signature at the end. The message itself was also very odd, stating that "this" IP address has been blocked for violations of WP:POINT. I removed the message (mainly because it was posted in the wrong place), but an archive can be viewed here: [15]. Note that the "J" in "June" is lowercase, meaning the signature may have been manually created by Person24. I left a message on Person24's talk page about the post and am currently waiting for a response. I believe the message may have been a personal attack in response to a message that I left on the user's talk page about image uploads. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was cut and pasted from an IP address block I imposed on 6 April. That IP hasn't edited since then so I didn't reimpose a block there, but it's a safe bet they're the same person. In all likelihood he or she has used other sockpuppets. Since Person24 is now blocked indefinitely for impersonating me, you're welcome to request a checkuser if you think the person has come back on another account. Thanks for the heads up and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA/"Attack Sites"

A while ago I proposed mediation for conflicts on the (currently protected) NPA policy page having to do with the inclusion of "attack sites" proscriptions: Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Mediation_request_proposal. While most of those on the "individual judgment/context-sensitive issue" side of the debate have indicated interest in doing this, most of those on the absolutist side (with the exceptions of ElinorD and SOPHIA) have not. I proposed this before I had never heard of "community enforceable mediation," which, if it is implementable, seems like the kind of approach this conflict needs... if "the community" can get those involved in the debate to come to a sticking agreement of some sort, rather than continue edit warring the issue(s) to death.

Before I read about this, I was thinking of starting a formal mediation request once NPA became unprotected and then compelling the revert warriors to undergo it, but i don't know if this would be feasible either. Either way, anything is worth a shot, as the reams of discussion so far only seems to have left people more entrenched, and a refereed debate may at least keep the NPA violations down on the NPA page. Is CEM the right approach? Please advise. Thanks, —AL ^FOCUS! 05:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Be aware that CEM is an experimental process. Go ahead if you'd like to try it. It's designed to be a low key alternative to arbitration. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Thank you for your comment. I guess I consider the current deletion process an inappropriate venue for discussing issues like this. To me, the question of whether an individual merits an encyclopedia article is completely separate from the question of whether he or she wishes the article to exist. If an AfD discussion ends roughly split about whether or not the individual merits an article, then perhaps it is best to consider the individual's wishes. But if half of the people commenting believe that the individual merits an article, but the other half believe the article should be deleted because of the subject's wishes, then there really isn't a disagreement about whether or not the subject merits an article, and taking the subject's wishes into consideration isn't as appropriate because there is strong consensus about whether the individual merits an article.

If, for example, an AfD ended with, say, 50% of people voting "keep", 25% voting "delete" because they don't think the individual merits an article, and 25% voting "delete" because of the subject's wishes, then what we have is 75% of the people believing that the individual merits an article, 25% believing that the individual does not, and 25% believing that the individual's wishes are most important. Even though 75% believe that the individual merits an article, the "keep"/"delete" ratio is 50-50, and the closing admin, under BLP, should consider the individual's wishes, which only 25% of those voting felt were relevant.

If we want the individual's wishes to be a reason for deletion in and of itself, we should say so. And if that were the case, then I think the closing admin shouldn't be able to take the individual's wishes into consideration, because the people voting already would have. That is, I think there's a difference between a "keep"/"delete" split and a "keep"/"delete per the subject's wishes" split. The former represents a lack of consensus about whether the individual merits an article, at which point maybe the subject's wishes should be considered, but the latter represents a lack of consensus about whether the individual's wishes should be considered in the first place. I'm not really addressing the more morality-oriented points you made at my talk page because I think that's an entirely different discussion from anything that should be relevant to AfD or DRV. If we are to consider those issues, I think we should be doing so at a different forum, perhaps something like WP:OPTOUT. Right now I don't think our policies on this whole issue are as thought out as they need to be, especially with the volume at which the questions have started to be raised. --Maxamegalon2000 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to find one you don't have already

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For resolving complex BLP issues, including the deletion of a problematic article on the 14th AfD nomination. Jehochman Talk 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Durova^Charge! 14:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Great comment

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the whole Brandt saga, but I would like to applaud you for one of the sanest and most thought provoking comments I've read it a while.--Kubigula (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I wonder sometimes how much people read these things. It's good to know they aren't missed. Durova^Charge! 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

HTML Refresh Language

hi durova,

re your posting to delete the html refresh language entry i posted yesterday, i have posted the following in the deletions discussion but not sure if i posted it in the correct space. I am thus sending this direct to you as well.

Please follow the reference to the IETF archive for the draft that is in the article. This is the IETF's own storage of drafts so addresses the issues of WP:V and WP:RS. This article was added as an adjunct to the history section of the Ajax (programming) article to provide a complete picture of alternatives that exist to that strategy. As for "blatant WP:COI" I again point to the reference to the officially saved IETF draft which means the the only source for this article about a computer language is on an internationally recognised organisations web site and not on Rosswnelson's web site as was stated above. I have also attempted to keep the article strictly neutral and would be happy to accept any suggestions on how to improve this in the content.

regards

ross nelson

LionheartX

A user named LionheartX making a lot of POV changes (generally pro-Chinese). I see that you blocked him in the past (although, this took some looking because he constantly blanks his talk page). I would appreciate your help in keeping an eye on this guy. Thanks. Alexwoods 21:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've sworn off that problem. Durova^Charge! 00:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Please check this diff. I think it clarifies and also accomplishes the change we were seeking. The key point is to distinguish between disruptive incidents by otherwise valued members of the community, and disruptive accounts that serve no purpose except to make trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks adequate for Wikisleuthing of complex vandalism. Let's see whether anyone objects strongly enough to revert it. The most reasonable part of the criticism we've seen is that bad faith editors could try to misuse a change to railroad productive contributors in content dispute. If you make any further amendment, try your best to insulate against that. Durova^Charge! 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Hi Durova, I'm trying to honor your request to take on some of the work at COIN. I'm kind of unfamiliar with the territory, so any feedback or words of guidance are welcome. There be lions in that room! -Pete 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for chipping in. Most of the notices at that board fit into three basic categories. Sometimes people make WP:COI mistakes in good faith when they're new to the site - we try to steer them in the right direction with polite user talk page posts. Another group of posts doesn't need much action because the edit history is old or there doesn't turn out to be an actual COI problem. The thing to really watch for is ideologically driven or profit motive abuse.

If you think you see the latter situation, assume good faith if possible and leave a polite warning. Update the noticeboard thread with specifics if you think administrative intervention is necessary. Article semi-protection is a simple solution to many COI problems. I'll also do full protections, user blocks, and (in extreme cases) user bans.

This area can be an interesting hobby if you like solving detective mysteries. There's no telling where a particular request may lead. Durova^Charge! 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds about like what I see, but your breakdown is useful. I've already commented on two cases, and on the "talk" pages of several articles listed by the bot. Seems fine so far, maybe I'll report back after some some more work. -Pete 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if anything strange pops up. I'll be glad to give pointers as needed. Most of it is intuitive and common sense. Every once in a while you'll find a real sneaky vandal. It can be quite satisfying to uncover that type of abuse and put an end to it. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Invisible Water Soluble Safe Non-Toxic Barnstar

I hereby award you this Invisible Water Soluble Safe Non-Toxic Barnstar in recognition of the fact that, while for me to give you a visible barnstar might be construed as inappropriate given your position [here], your contributions to wikipedia patently merit recognition. Since the more I see the more I am impressed, you are, from this point until your next bath, shower, walk in the rain, or next Thursday at the latest, my hero. SheffieldSteel 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Golly, thanks. I've just fixed up some homemade herbal glycerin soap and I'll be sure to enjoy the barnstar with it. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 05:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Herman Edwards

Is this what you meant to do? JoshuaZ 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the catch. I've fixed that better now. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with Positive Coaching Alliance?

Durova, you seem to have chimed in on my poor first foray on wikipedia on the Positive Coaching Alliance page. Is there a way to simply remove the page until I better understand wikiquette? Thanks for any help or guidance you may provide.--PositiveCoach 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC) PositiveCoach

If the assertions at that article are true then it's certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. As volunteer editors we need to see some independent verification such as citations of news reports about your organization. It can also be problematic for a representative of any organization to attempt to write the Wikipedia article about it. The usual prose style of professional marketing/public relations writing doesn't fit well with this project. So you have several options here. I'll outline them and you can choose or ask me to elaborate if you need clarification.

• Join Wikipedia's WP:ADOPT mentorship program. That will put you in touch with an experienced editor who'll help you learn the ropes around here.
• Post suggested changes to the article's talk page. Wikipedia editors particularly like to see line citations to reliable sources. Then ask relevant WikiProjects to evaluate and adapt your suggested changes.
• If you're concerned that a high Google return for the current version of this article would embarrass the firm, you could try nominating it for deletion. Note your reasons in the deletion request. I'm not certain the nomination would carry because the organization does appear to be notable, but if that doesn't result in a deletion there's also a fair chance some uninvolved editors would improve it while it's under consideration.

Thanks for the polite reply and best wishes. Years ago I used to moonlight as an athletic instructor and positive reinforcement always seemed to work best. Durova^Charge! 05:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

COFS

From the standpoint of fairness, I'd like to express that I think COFS is not getting a fair shake here.

1. There is/was a question about sock puppets, due to the IP address. This seems to have been resolved by establishing that the COS in LA has a proxy. As I can't see IPs, I am not in a position to know if Misou and/or COFS edits from multiple (different) respective IPs or not. However, observing their edit styles, it seems to me that they are different people.
2. Then there was the issue about WP:COI. Different people seem to have a different definition of what COI truly involves and to what degree sanctions should be placed on an editor with any degree of COI. In this case COFS has clearly indicated that there is not an 'employment' relationship. While it does not completely address the relationship, it does remove payment from the picture. That leaves 'volunteer' of some sort, and a volunteer is simply that, a volunteer. People volunteer for things for a variety of reasons, and it usually indicates some level of interest or dedication to what they are volunteering for. This could indicate some level of COI, but I think that is stretching things pretty thin and thats where we would have to start banning multiple users in multiple articles. Personally, I have no interest in biting into that apple. It's a dangerous road to start down.
3. Then there is the issue of COFS being and unmanageable edit warrior. A careful look at COF block log indicates only two blocks for 3RR edit warring (the rest of the blocks were unblocked). I can point you to several editors who edit from an anti-cult perspective with more blocks than that. One editor in particular has 4 blocks under an old name and 3 recent blocks under a new name and has been 'forgiven' for as many as 7RR without being blocked. This isn't 'about' that editor so it is not relevant who it is. The point is, COFS only has 2 blocks for 3RR, which hardly defines an edit warrior when compared to the other editor's 7 blocks and at least 12 lucky breaks (that I counted)
4. Then there is the issue of meatpuppets. This is a weak argument, since all pro-Scientologists and anti-Scientologists could easily be considered meatpuppets, given the strongly polarized views on the subject.

In my opinion, people are adding all this smoke together, without truly looking at the details of the facts, and they are forming an opinon based on a feeling, rather than the facts in front of them. The block history establishes that COFS is not an edit warrior. There has been no RfC on COFS, which suggests that nobody has engaged COFS in any unresolved disputes.

To me, this is a matter of "lets accuse COFS enough times of enough things so that people start associating 'COFS' with 'problems'.

It's one thing to say that COFS won't cooperate, but the facts are, neither side is willing to compromise any more or less than the other.

Something needs to be done, certainly. But, sacrificing COFS in the name of NPOV is not the solution.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, such as they are.

Peace in God. Lsi john 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My reply is at WP:CN. Durova^Charge! 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gray

I understand you don't do investigations anymore, by request anyway, but your comments on WP:CN were most gratifying since I'm pretty sure something involving gray ethics is going on among some supporters as well. Thanks for your open-minded, yet astute approach in mediating the issue. Anynobody 10:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Gray ethics? You opened the AN/I to find out if your 3-month long list of offenses against Justanother violated any specific rules, and you wanted to know the exact location of those rules here. Then when your motives were questioned and you are told it is unacceptable, rather than stick to your original stated goal of 'finding out if it was acceptable' it looks like you posted a bunch of links intended to justify your behavior here.

Then after an admin had enough of the nonesense and closed the closed the discussion, you reopened it and tried to add this?

Now you suggest that going after COFS for gray ethics is acceptable? Sir your anti-Scientology campaign has been well documented. You began this charge against COFS, and now when you have nothing black and white, you shift over to gray and suggest that is acceptable? Be very careful that someone does not look at your conduct for gray. Lsi john 12:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll open this offer to all concerned in the dispute: if you believe some other editor has violated enough policies to merit community sanctions, draw up a report with evidence in your own user space. An example of an early report I did is User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. Be mindful to avoid crossing the line into Wikipedia:Attack page. In the meantime, please refrain from trading accusations with each other. I strongly recommend mediation. Durova^Charge! 14:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I respectfully decline. I have no desire to get anyone kicked off of wikipedia nor banned. I'd have thought that would have been obvious by now. I'm not here to 'compile' paranoid lists, thanks. The only reason I respond the way I do, is to help identify WP:KETTLE situations, when abusers attempt to draw unsuspecting good-faith editors and admins into their campaign to get someone booted. Lsi john 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually if there is a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed it's much better to put together a well referenced and well reasoned report. When I was a new administrator I would have referred your request to the request for investigations noticeboard and I'd like to get that noticeboard reactivated. In the meantime I've been training a talented core of up-and-coming wikisleuths, some of whom are now administrators, and you have my assurance they'll look into requests with impartiality. Set forth evidence with plenty of page diffs that connect all the dots, don't try to stretch the facts, and be the first to step forward with appropriate mea culpae regarding any mistakes you may have made. We just want to keep this site fair and honest. Durova^Charge! 21:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Again I decline. I would much prefer to participate in editing articles than shooting ducks in a barrel. If you're truly interested in impartial investigation, several suggestions have been made on the sanctions noticeboard. Peace in God. Lsi john 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, I didn't intend to start a fight on Durova's^Charge! talk page. I simply agreed with the idea that those defending COFS might be collaborating offline. You've created another example of what I was talking about here. You seem to have taken the question I asked on WP:ANI pretty personally considering your lack of involvement; Justanother's ultimatum to Orsini. You're mentioning of the situation here, and on the WP:CN reminds me of how Justanother has reacted in similar situations. If you want to continue this "discussion" consider posting it on my talk page, but please don't use my posting here to agree with another editor as an excuse to whatever it is you are doing on another person's talk page.

Durova^Charge!, do you have more cases like the rogue editor described in your report? (It's both interesting and educational.) I'll see what I can put together on this situation. If it looks as convincing as the case you cited, I'll proceed with some kind of action but I have a question. Assuming I have enough evidence, is it worth the time and effort? (in your opinion). Anynobody 03:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, why are you bringing me into this conversation? Especially if you "didn't intend to start a fight" here. That is weird. --Justanother 05:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody (and Justanother also), If you're interested in putting together this type of report then be prepared to have your own actions scrutinized. Here's another example by one of my admin coaching students: User:Cailil/Complex vandalism on feminism and gender studies related articles. That one ended in a siteban and here's an ongoing case I've been reviewing: User:LUCPOL/Vandal:R9tgokunks. I cowrote the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline in order to make it easier to address this type of problem. When a report checks out then, depending on the situation, I take action or bring it to community discussion with my endorsement. Sometimes things go through arbitration. Several of the wikisleuths I've trained helped uncover a long term vandal when they were newish editors. It requires a thick skin and some patience, but it's a fascinating hobby. Durova^Charge! 05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree with your statement that wikisleuthing is fascinating, for several reasons beyond whatever the point of the sleuthing is. By that I mean exposing a sock or meat puppet is interesting, but reading about what made them do it is the really fascinating part; Evading a ban, performing PR for their groups/ideas, personality issues, the list goes on and on. I'm starting to think that no matter how much a person tries to vary their persona in order to operate puppets, something always gives them away if one knows what to look for and has enough patience to let the puppeteer(s) expose themselves. I also have a thick skin, so I'll see what I can put together. Thanks for the information, Durova^Charge! I really appreciate it.

Justanother I didn't "bring" you into anything, unless using your name counts. Lsi john's posts remind me of your behavior, which further reminds me of one last thing I wanted to ask Durova^Charge!.

Some pages I can't see, deleted pages or admin only archives, as you're no doubt aware. If I run into a situation where research I need is on one of those types of pages would it be ok to ask your assistance? (I of course understand any help would be at your convenience, you have a lot more going on than any of my research requests I'm assuming.) Anynobody 08:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

violation of "do no harm"?

I am having an edit war over a poorly sourced "list of known Toupee wearers" that I feel clearly violates both BLP and WP:NOT as a list of useless and potentially harmful trivia. A new user and an anon keep ignoring my reversions and warnings. I bring this to you bc "do no harm" seems to be dear to your heart, and being accused of wearing a hairpeice could not only hurt someone deeply, but bring litigation.VanTucky 22:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Now they have removed all the living people, so it's just a bad trivia section now. VanTucky 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that view has been attributed to me rather than something I've expressed. My actual view is that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. So I've no particular opposition to living persons being included at a list of toupee wearers, so long as those entries are reliably sourced and the individuals themselves don't protest. Then again, in the interests of fair disclosure I happen to be a woman who has too much hair on my head - so maybe I'm not the best person to evaluate the potential for harm from such inclusions. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice disclosure of your hair "POV" there. Oh you gals and your emotional considerations! Why can't you just ignore people's legitimate feelings? VanTucky 05:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

for you

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I, VanTucky, award you, Durova, this Brilliant Idea Barnstar for founding Category:Eguor admins, which works to combat the feelings of a "sysop cabal" in Wikipedia (especially my own). VanTucky 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Durova^Charge! 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's a brilliant idea too, in the spirit of your concept I created Category:Eguor editors. Anynobody 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your post

I am offended by your suggestion that I am involved in undefined and unspecificed offline complicity. And I take exception to your implication that I have somehow contradicted myself.

I feel you owe me an apology for attacking my character.

Peace in God. Lsi john 23:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already invited the editors at that thread to take the matter to arbitration if any of them take strong exception. You are welcome to raise conduct issues there if you believe there is any case to be made. If you'd like to handle things in a less formal manner I suggest you demonstrate goodwill by apologizing to Jehochman for this incivility. It hasn't been my intention to offend your feelings or anyone else's although I do stand by my actions. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So you justify making uncivilized bad-faith and unfounded character assassinations against other editors, as long as you can point to something someone else did, that you consider wrong?!!! Durova, collusion and complicity, are very serious charges to make against someone. You carelessly made them with no evidence of any wrong doing. It's called defamation of character or character assassination without merit. In mainspace it would be a violation of WP:BLP. It's improper and you were way out of line to do it, regardless of anything that anyone else did.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no comparison between this response, where I identified a specific problem in a specific post, where Jehochman had misrepresented 25-hour old edit history as: fresh COI edits here, and your conduct, where you made spurious and unfounded accusations/allegations of offline complicity and implied wrong doing, and then mis-represented my posts as contradictory/conflicting and left an edit summary "evidence of collusion". a) Declaring them to be fresh, when they were 15 & 25 hours old, was improper. b) Declaring them to be COI edits, was yet another unfounded claim. There is no indication that COFS has a conflict of interest in editing those articles. There has been no determination by WP:COIN that restricts COFS from making Scientology edits. Therefore, Jehochman's post was improper, and I said so and I said why. I backed up my 'shame on you' to Jehochman with specific information. He claimed they indicated evidence of current edit warring, yet no block was issued and no report was even filed and the posts were 25 and 15 hours old respectively.

As for what I owe Jehochman, quite frankly, that is none of your business. Besides which, I am involved (in what you would call off-line complicity) with him regarding the issue and we have addressed the situation already by email. Though I prefer to use the term 'communication'.

You, on the other hand, did not questioned my judgment with a polite rebuke. You attacked my character, my integrity and my honest, without any supporting evidence.

The fact that you would somehow justify uncivilized and rude conduct on your part by pointing to a comment made by someone else as 'also bad' says a lot about your character.

The fact that you would tie an apology for your conduct to some action on my part says a lot about your character.

You are clearly unwilling to look at your own conduct and acknowledge your mistakes and appologize for them. I'm sorry to see that your arrogance runs so deep. It appears we have nothing further to say to each other on this issue.

Best regards. Good luck on your journey. Lsi john 13:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As one of "COFS's defenders" I guess I should also be somewhat offended at this post on the part of Durova, whom I was under the impression was a fair and and respected admin. But it was not specifically directed at me and I am way too experienced an editor a human being to be put-off by that sort of vague accusation of impropriety so I kinda skipped right over it. It was, however, very specifically addressed to Lsi john and he is within his rights to request an apology. But my real concern is whether there was an intended chilling effect; i.e. an effort on the part of Durova to scare off any editor that might dare oppose her will. That would be pretty arrogant. --Justanother 14:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, I see you've posted to Jimbo's talk page. Part of my reply is there. To both of you, I have no axe to grind here. I'll look into any well-substantiated report of serious policy violations by any editor. You are welcome to come to me with whatever reports you choose to research, and please do so in a calm and reasoned manner. Be aware that this aggressive conduct attracts scrutiny. For instance, the preliminary research I did that located the contradictory posts about COFS also revealed this odd interpretation of policy. Actually featured content standards favor large numbers of sources and line citations, and those expectations have risen steadily over time. I've contributed three featured pages so I speak from experience. Although I haven't looked into this situation in great detail as of yet, so far it has all the earmarks of something that turns out this way (rule 131). My actions have withstood scrutiny many times and I welcome more scrutiny. If that initial impression is mistaken then of course you have no reason to fear scrutiny either. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, perhaps in my effort to remain civil, I was not as clear as I could have been. I believe that your post here is a personal attack. And now your post here, where you imply I am a vandal, is also a personal attack. And, describing my posts as contradictory is also a personal attack. I respectfully request that you stop making such public statements.

Regarding your opinion on excessive quotes, if you believe that {{quotefarm}} is an unnecessary and improper template, then you should seek to have it removed from wikipedia. Classifying my statement, that we are not supposed to have quotefarms, as odd, is certainly your choice, but doing so in an accusatory manner is also a personal attack. Implying that you will 'look into this situation', shows incredibly bad faith on your part, and indicates that you do, in fact, have an axe to grind. My edit history is public record, and you are more than welcome to scrutinize it. However, I request that you not make public 'observations' about my edits that could be construed as a personal attack.

If you believe you have a case that can be prosecuted through wikipedia's AN, AN/I, Medcab, Arbcom or whatever other forum, then please do so. Until such time, please refrain from public speculation about my edits, intentions or activities where such speculation could be construed as a personal attack. Lsi john 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting that you acknowledge that you will stop attacking me. Thank you. Lsi john 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova: As a courtesy to you, so you understand why I have such strong feelings about this: I was wrongfully and falsely accused of something years ago, and it took thousands of dollars and several years to disprove the lies and clear my name. Perhaps this also will explain why I speak so strongly in cases like the one where COFS is being railroaded without any formal Arbcom proceedings. I have severe negative reactions to witch hunting.

You said previously that this (investigating and banning) is a 'hobby' for you. What you need to understand and take into considerstaion, is that your 'hobby' is affecting people's lives. Lsi john 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova^Charge! and I are not the only editors to have/had suspicions about your behavior Lsi john. I've actually seen a couple of other editors at various times express concern, one example of which I happened find while looking for something else:

Similar conversation with another editor. Anynobody 04:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

John, I too was falsely accused (in a commercial dispute) and paid a very significant amount of money to clear my name. I empathize with your situation, but you have to understand that Durova is like a Jedi, trying to defend Wikipedia from the dark side: commercial and ideological manipulation. If she's confused and said something wrong about you, please be calm and just present the facts. She's extremely reasonable and readily apologizes if she makes a mistake. Your reaction makes you look guilty. Please, employ all your strength to be civil even if you want to throw your shoe at somebody. Jehochman ^Talk 04:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A favour regarding SEO etc

Hi, Durova: given your experience with SEO and notability etc, may I ask a favour (and the favour is extended to Jehochman if he's reading): I have a friend who is considering offering WP articles to her clients along with her other services. She knows nothing about WP, never edits here, never reads the site, and I've been trying to explain to her why that's a bad idea. The problem is that - despite my extensive experience with WP - her inexperience makes it difficult for her to understand the risk involved, as well as the consequences. I know there are important pages, WP:N, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, etc, but I feel that, with her inexperience with WP, those pages would be too complex for her to understand. Is there an essay, or a more brief, general article, that outlines WP's culture v/v this issue, as well as the consequences of being red-flagged as a COI or SPA editor? Thanks in advance, you can reply here. Anchoress 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is! See Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An awesome essay, Jehochman, I've read it before. However, it's a bit too complex for her, I think, and the emphasis on linkspam will probably turn her brain off because she won't see how it relates to her ambition to write articles for clients. Thanks for reminding me of that essay, however, I like it very much. Anchoress 21:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple shock treatment. You can point her to User:MyWikiBiz and say that this is what happens to users who "sell" Wikipedia articles. I also recommend User:Durova/The dark side. I've added an "Edit for hire" section to the SEO essay, so maybe that will be helpful to her. Thank you for the feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, Anchoress. Actually I've written directly to the Foundation when I came across a firm that advertised Wikipedia article writing services. That could have resulted in an indef block from the Office if that company's Wikipedia account hadn't been dormant for several months (they didn't seem to actually get much business for it). I strongly advise your friend to tread cautiously. There's a huge and underappreciated potential downside to reckless WP:COI editing at this site: when the press latches onto a case that has the appearance of impropriety it becomes international news and that can have career ending consequences. If your friend is serious there are ways to edit ethically with a COI, but most of the relevant business press articles are written by people who know little about this site and whose recommendations point their readers in several dangerous directions. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Omaha Steaks

Sorry if you might be a vegetarian... This is the reason I came here in the first place. We have a passel of mischievous socks trying to whitewash and promote Omaha Steaks. Could you semi-protect this for a couple weeks so we have a chance to educate the company representatives. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm no vegetarian, and sure thing. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do no harm

I can't follow your objection to the proposed principle "Do no harm" in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration [16].

Firstly you say:

The logical consequence of a do no harm precept is to demand evidence of harm, which a BLP subject may prefer not to provide since the evidence and any onsite analysis of it could defeat the purpose of courtesy deletion (such disclosures and related analysis would be indexed on Google with a prominent page ranking).

Fine. But then you say:

It's safe to conclude that silence from a BLP subject implies no objection; those who do object deserve to be treated with dignity.

Firstly, how do I know that the subject of the article has even heard of Wikipedia?

Secondly, your reasoning assumes that the precept is about how to treat objections. That principle isn't addressed in this arbitration (no objections having been received in any instances submitted in evidence). Rather, this is a general expression of the equivalent phrase in the BLP, and applies to our ethical duties at all times.

Thirdly, your two statements appear to be incompatible. In your first statement you give an excellent reason why the subject of an article might want to avoid openly objecting ("the evidence and any onsite analysis of it could defeat the purpose of courtesy deletion ("such disclosures and related analysis would be indexed on Google with a prominent page ranking)") but then you decide that "It's safe to conclude that silence from a BLP subject implies no objection." This doesn't make sense.

Yours. --Tony Sidaway 07:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

During the recent discussions about Angela Beesley, Seth Finkelstein, and Daniel Brandt I saw some editors try to estimate whether harm was done. It's rather hard to rebut a no harm was done here argument without supplying information about actual harm - and there's the catch-22. All we really need to know is that the BLP subject doesn't want an article about himself or herself on this site. It's possible to know that much and verify its authenticity through the Foundation without going into the reasons behind that desire (which is pretty rare anyway).

Basically I consider it a much sounder principle than do no harm to give weight to a subject's expressed wishes. If that still appears to be contradictory then I'll do my best to clarify further. Durova^Charge! 15:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's easy enough to rebut "no harm was done here": set the onus in the opposite direction: those who think an article should exist, must demonstrate that it does not do any harm. This is how the arbitration committee puts it:

Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

The proposal (here) is currently running 9-1-0 on the proposed decision. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and I appreciate your perspective here. I hope I'm mistaken about the potential for a chilling effect. That's my candid opinion, though, and I'll stand by it. Durova^Charge! 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Bus stop

Hi--I'm just wondering if the indefinite block of Bus stop is a bit excessive. Although I'm sympathetic to his situation (and in a large part in agreement with his central concern), I'm not a supporter of his actions. Having said that, he's been an excellent editor in other articles, in particular visual art. Is it possible to block him for a longer "cooling-off" period that would expire, such as a month? If he were to continue to be disruptive after that, than, yes, an indefinite block may be necessary. I guess I'm just concerned that there appeared to be an active campaign to egg him on, and although he was his own worst enemy at times, there seemed to be others involved that were not merely victims. Thanks for listening. Freshacconci 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The problems I saw were quite serious. That said, I'm willing to be reasonable. How does this sound? If he pledges to enter mentorship and pledges to avoid the article for three months. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I passed along the offer to Bus stop. It's up to him now. Freshacconci 16:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If I might add a perhaps additional qualifier that, should he feel the urge to engage in any other such repetitive edits, he seek some sort of mediation (rather than oppose it). I note that this is apparently the second time he has engaged in behavior such as this, the first being in regards to Michael Richards, and that this repetition of potentially problematic behavior is my reason for trying to dissuade him from similar activity again in the future. Otherwise, as the person who first proposed action against him, I only sought his being kept from editing the articles related to the content in question, not from wikipedia as a whole, and think that he probably has made enough positive contributions elsewhere to be given the chance to continue to work on and develop that content. John Carter 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

From his insistence he has done no "disruption" and the continuous allegations of anti-semitism and a Catholic agenda (I'm atheist by the way), I find the notion of letting him continuing editing alarming. What assurance do we have he'll accept responsibility for his actions, and start taking WP:NOR and WP:RS to heart (besides e.g. cutting and pasting passages from policy pages and twisting them into a segue to preach "Bob Dylan is a Jew. This is a list of Christians. We do not contrive parameters to put a Jew on a list of Christians" ad nauseum as he has done for [one wish this was an exaageration] ~4 months?) He still has made no apologies for his conduct, nor shown any willingness whatsoever to WP:AGF and consider maybe other people's edits are well-intentioned and have merit...can a mentor change one's personality? Not everyone has had to witness and often be on the receiving end of that disruption since last November, I have and I believe 8 months is enough to consider someone irredeemable if they have never taken responsibility, never admitted any wrongdoing every time they've been blocked, and persist in the same rhetoric and behavior. If mentorship is the option, I hope I'm wrong and a mentor can help make one more introspective and be receptive to WP rules. Tendancer 17:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that, should he be found to engage in similar behavior in the future to any extent (I think four problematic edits would probably be enough to qualify here), the extant record of his previous behavior would probably be enough for someone to perhaps request and get at least a short term block on him. Should that behavior continue despite a block or similar censure again, I don't imagine that there would be any objection from anyone for another, probably more permanent, block. John Carter 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found Bus Stop to be a cogent, intelligent and useful editor on art-related articles, and I'd like to see him be reinstated, perhaps keeping his distance at this point from the Christianity convert article, its talk page and Bob Dylan as well. It would help if John Carter would ease up on him a little also. Modernist 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think John's been reasonable. I too, am troubled to see him blocked entirely, as he seems to be a good contributor beyond the subject matter in question. However, if this really is an obsession to him, it may reach a point where he attempts an indirect course of editing by convincing others of his faulty position without consideration of the responses of the other editors involved (as he has previously 'advertised' his argument on talk pages, specifically in response to me, but without my original response for reference or with my own response to his comment... apparently, he finds context an unnecessary nuisance). If he behaves (and he did get pretty bad recently), then there is really no reason why he should be banned entirely. He seems to be knowledgeable and useful in other subjects- just not this one.--C.Logan 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider me a hard-liner. I would like to see him make an apology or any kind of acknowledgement, and admit he has broken rules, and has been disruptive, and show some understanding what the rules stand for and why they are important for wiki. The "as long as he edits other articles" is more of a "as long as it's not my backyard" approach, all that will accomplish is we'll end up with an editor who disrupts wikipedia elsewhere. Just reading his talk page history, there had been plenty of other editors who found his conduct questionable even on the editing of art-related articles. Yes indefinite seems a harsh punishment, but the goal here is not punitive but preventive. What reason is there for anyone to think he'll not continue editing in his pattern? Even now, he's still refusing to admit he did anything wrong and accuse others of a conspiracy. Tendancer 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the above opinion, particularly regarding Bus stop's continuing denial of any wrongdoing and ongoing accusations. Maybe, if Durova would find this acceptable (and my apologies for all of us misusing your talk page like this, by the way) we could ensure that Bus stop receive a more active form of adopt-a-user than is usually the case. Have their ever been cases where the adopter also functions, to a degree, like a Probation officer, as in being someone that other users can contact should they see the subject engage in problematic behavior, and who has some degree of influence over the subject him/herself, possibly including blocking? If there have been, or if rules for doing so could be established, that might come close to being acceptable to the majority of the parties involved. And establishing such a system if it hasn't already existed might be useful in the future for similar cases as well. Again, sorry for all these off-topic posts on your page here, Durova. John Carter 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tendancer, it's unlikely you'll get any sincere apology from someone who appears to have a sincere belief that his or her actions are justified. All I ask is that this person pledge to enter mentorship and avoid a particular article for three months. If Bus stop does that and further problems arise then you can report them to WP:AN along with this history and any administrator can take appropriate action. Sometimes editors can become productive if they just stay away from a hot button area - as I describe at User:Durova/Recusal I could have gone down the wrong road myself. And to John Carter, I proposed WP:CSN and started WP:CEM along similar lines to your thinking. If you've got useful and workable ideas in this area I'm all ears. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that I'm in way over my head here, given my lack of familiarity with a lot of things, and that you've probably thought of most of this before. But maybe if the {{adoptee}} could be adjusted a little to include a statement to the effect of "If you have any concerns regarding the conduct of this user please contact the adopter" or creation of a new template like "How's my editing? Please leave a note [User talk:Adopter|here]", or "This user has a short fuse on the subject of [foo]. Please forgive him if he's been out of line, or contact [X]". With any luck, the adopter or supervisor would be an admin or someone with a good deal of knowledge of the policies involved, and someone who has demonstrated some ability in working with individuals with the interests of the adoptee, like most of the adopt-a-users. I might think one of the later two might be preferable for someone who's been around for quite a while and might seem a bit too experienced to have been "adopted". I suppose that the "adoptee", in this case Bus stop, would have to agree to it as well, but under the circumstances I don't think that that's likely going to be a problem. I know I've also seen several pages where editors have {{User ADHD}}, {{User ADD}}, {{User Aspie}}, and so on, and maybe, depending on how many users have such things, and/or have occasionally problematic conduct as a result, link to the page of some admin or group who has some experience of them personally or have volunteered to work with editors with such conditions in general. I don't know if any of that would be "workable", but it's the best I can think of. John Carter 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a decent idea to present to the folks who run WP:ADOPT. I've never been a formal part of that program - I just have a high opinion of it. Go see what they think. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 01:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please restore or explain

Durova,

I am puzzled by your deletion of my post to WP:CSN here. It is in keeping with the two prior posts, one of which resulted in a block by you for Bus stop and the other resulted in a recommendation by you for a ban on COFS.

On your talkpage, above, you specifically asked for detailed information about anyone who should be banned. I went to quite some effort to compile that information for you. Now it appears that, contradicting your offer (above) to help, you simply delete the thread.

To my knowledge, neither of the two editors, who were reported in the prior posts, have an RfC against them, yet, in your edit summary, you suggested that I open an RfC. And, my post followed the example of both of those previous instances (and included everything you asked me for), and yet you deleted it.

It seems now that you are agreeing with Justanother on the usage of the CSN board, which is inconsistent with your previous ruling and recommendation.

I request that you restore my post there, or explain the difference between my post and the two that you have both left there and ruled on. At the very least, the post should be restored and marked 'archive' for documentation purposes (as I have seen done on AN and AN/I).

I really am trying to stay on wiki-break, specifically due to this entire situation. But I find it rather frustrating and contradictory, and a bit confusing.

Best Regards, Peace in God. Lsi john 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is in my edit note. That board is for specific community sanctions proposals. If you'd like to write up a report about inappropriate conduct, the place for that is your own user namespace (taking care not to cross the line into an attack page). The way you presented things looks very much like a request for comment and the editors at WP:CSN routinely close that type of post and refer the matter to the other venue.

It might shed light on my perspective to read my essay User:Durova/Recusal. When I was a new editor, fresh out of the military, I was rather shocked by what I saw on the talk pages of the World Trade Center article. My uncle had been one of the last people to escape from that disaster and I swore in and went to war because of it. I soon realized that I couldn't collaborate on that topic and stayed away after a couple of talk page posts. Whenever I encounter editors who've run into policy trouble I bear in mind how easily I could have gone down the same path myself. It may not seem this way to you, but I've been handling the Scientology matter with kid gloves: if I were on some sort of mission against COFS I could have blocked him myself - and bear in mind that my offer to review investigative reports applies equally to both sides of this issue. This site does have certain standard ways of doing things and you appear to be unfamiliar with them. That's one reason mentorship could be very useful to you. Another reason is that you'd get advice from someone totally uninvolved and objective. I understand Scientology is a polarizing subject for some people and if you've been burned by someone else it may be difficult to trust my assurances. Durova^Charge! 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm more confused now. Sorry. I thought my proposal was for community sanctions against Smee. I simply gave more documentation than the prior two proposals, in order to avoid being accused of attacking him or of making unfounded accusations against him. Why do you suggest my complaint go to RfC but the two previous complaints were within the policy of that notice board?

As for Scientology being polarizing, I'm not a Scientologist and I've rarely made any edits to any Scientology articles.

As for being burned, well, I've been burned a couple of times by taking 'advice' and then having my efforts posted and declared to be 'disruptive'. And, burned by you, by speaking out and having you issue what I took to be a threat of a ban if I don't enter a mentor program.

Per your offer of assistance (above), please review what I posted and help me repost it in the correct format, in order to proceed in the same fashion as the COFS and Bus stop threads. I believe that Smee's history is much more disruptive and well documented than COFS, and it should not be any problem at all for you to help me establish the correct format, in order to proceed with a community ban (or mentorship program) for Smee. Lsi john 19:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And, as I said before, I have no interest in the wikipedia litigation process. I compiled the information, per your request, as it seemed appropriate to the current thread. You have expressed a desire to 'clean up wikipedia' (my words), so I provided sufficient information to 'get started' on an issue. If you are unwilling to assist or pursue this, I will simply write it off to the contradictory, conflicting and unexplained actions of wikipedia, and some of its editors and admins. Peace in God. Lsi john 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. After carefully reading the top of the CSN page several times, it appears you are correct. The post against Smee was inappropriate for that page. As are the posts against COFS and Bus stop (and others?).

I originally had the feeling that the COFS (and Bus stop) threads were inappropriate, but was led to believe they were valid, by yourself and Jehochman. I trust you will be deleting those other two posts, and unblocking Bus stop?

I consider the matter closed from my perspective. Thank you for your patience. Lsi john 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the COFS thread has been closed by El C at my request. I felt I was too involved with several of the users to close it myself. (Hello there, Lsi john.) Bishonen | talk 21:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. Lsi john, the other threads were specific requests for sanctions so they were appropriate for that board. I have no intention of silencing your concerns. It's just better to route these things appropriately. Go ahead and open a page at WP:RFC and if you think there's a case to be made against me you're welcome to present it there. I hope the situation irons itself out. Durova^Charge! 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

I would like to request a "Triple Crown" award. Please see my userpage for a list of my significant contributions. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 05:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FA: Anna Laetitia Barbauld (primary editor)

GA: The Age of Reason (primary editor)

DYK: 1794 Treason Trials (primary editor)

Make that an "Imperial Triple Crown." Awadewit | talk 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

FA: Mary Wollstonecraft (primary editor)

GA: Mary Martha Sherwood (primary editor)

DYK: Priestley Riots (primary editor)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori

As a user who has previously been in contact with this person, I am asking if you would be willing to be the second person to certify the basis for this dispute. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not entirely unwilling to consider this request, it's been quite a few months since I blocked this editor. I see the editor has garnered a steady collection of userblocks since then. Am I really the best person to approach for this purpose? You may do better to approach someone whose interaction has been ongoing. Durova^Charge! 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durova

I've sent you an e-mail. I'm not sure what to do in the future (in regards to the person mentioned in the e-mail). Advice would be appreciated. --Iamunknown 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be right on it. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, if I ask too much of you in the e-mail, let me know (I just saw User talk:Durova/Admin 2). If you only give advice on how I should approach this and future cases, I would sincerely appreciate that. --Iamunknown 17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your day for e-mail

It seems to be your day for e-mail! Peace.Lsi john 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of polio survivors

Hi Durova,

I've been working on the List of polio survivors with two other editors who are interested in polio-related articles. We are reaching the end of the process and hope to submit it to FLC soon. I'd very much appreciate if you could look at the text and point out any areas for improvement. Thanks, Colin°^Talk 22:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and helpful comments. Colin°^Talk 17:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Durova,

Maybe I didn't make as much use of this relationship as I could have, but I thank you for what I did end up getting from it. I've had your page on my watchlist, you got me to participate over at COIN a little bit, which I'd like to actually be more active at than I am right now, and your interaction with other users has been a good example for me. Your triple crown motivated me to work on getting an article to GA status, and writing another article that ended up at DYK... just one FA away now :-). I ended up requesting adminship this past week and was successful. I look forward to working with you on some of the new tasks and at the classroom coordination once September rolls around. So, I guess you have one less student now. I'm still learning though, so I might throw a question your way now and then. Thanks again! Sancho 03:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Durova^Charge! 18:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Business FAQ

You may be interested. That's just a start, please do expand and edit mercilessly if you feel motivated :) Kamryn Matika 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good start. I suggest you link to WP:COIN and recommend that business people who suspect black hat attacks report suspected activity there. Also - and I leave it to you to evaluate this - I wrote the User:Durova/The dark side essay to counteract a serious underappreciation of the PR risks of careless activity. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I think I'm eligible for a triple crown based on my content. DYK = Rollie Hemsley, GA = John Baldwin (founder), FL = 2004 NFL Draft. Hopefully the FL counts, not positive if it does. Wizardman 22:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Lekociv

Hi Durova, my protection had nothing to do with that account. I was alerted to a problem there by another, regular editor, and some of the criticism being added to it made it a clear BLP violation. I'm going to leave it protected until they produce some reliable third-party sources on talk that show there's enough for a well-rounded bio, rather than an attack page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Brian Reddyb

Thanks for your handling of the Brian Reddyb issue. I'm glad an admin finally had the common sense to see through the hoax and take corrective action. However, I was wondering... do you think it might be prudent to run a checkuser on Sanchezsteamer? Even though I'm almost convinced that it's the same person as Reddyb, the evidence is not conclusive, and I would prefer if we could avoid risking complications being raised in the future.

Regarding the Wikipedia:Requests for investigation movement, personally I've become somewhat sceptical about the effectiveness of such noticeboards, especially following a recent case I was involved in where several admins on WP:AIAV refused to block a blatant and persistent vandal because of (what I perceive to be) a ridiculous loophole in Wikipedia policy (see [17], [18], and [19]). I only pursued the Brian Reddyb issue because I knew it was a clear-cut case from the beginning. Notwithstanding, I sincerely wish you the best of luck if you believe in reviving Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. Cheers. CounterFX 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User with four edits, starting July 3 after previous sock was blocked, seems extremely familiar with WP policy, and has posted a bizarre copyright notice. I suggest an indef block for sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Hablar 21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have issued a request for a checkuser against Chiefofmsiss1 on grounds of evasion of the ban. It should not be long before the account is blocked. CounterFX 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms. Jehochman ^Hablar 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That thread

Not entirely surpised it has its detractors ... but this really is one of the funniest things I've seen in more than three years on the project. MastCell hit the nail on the head--it's life's most profound mysteries that inspire the most hilarious jokes. Best, Antandrus (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice to disprove the old saying "If you can keep your head while others around you are losing theirs.. you probably don't understand what's happening" ;) Seriously.. it's a very strange coincidence, but that's all it was. SirFozzie 16:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wise RFC comment

I am very proud of John for this comment. [20] Jehochman ^Hablar 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Durova, I'm not sure I understand your question to RIR. From what I can tell, RIR has been involved with mostly anti-viewpoint information. I find the post to be very contradictory and suspect someone 'signed' RIR's signature. Though only a checkuser could confirm that. Peace.Lsi john 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I misread the diff and didn't realize RIR was 'quoting' someone else. Peace.Lsi john 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unclear as to the point of your question. RIR has provided negative information and didn't say that s/he didn't have an opinion about Juice Plus. Are you implying a former employee? Because, in fairness, I see the possibility of this being an example of your 'loose' non-attack non-accusation statements. If RIR said 'no relationship', then it should be 'no relationship'. For you to then suggest one, simply based on proximity, is not good faith. Peace.Lsi john 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the anonymous IP was actually RIR and not someone impersonating him/her ? You've accused them of lying, based on what? Peace.Lsi john 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it wasn't my intention to stir up a shitstorm here, but here goes. Given the information at hand, John's comment was quite reasonable and I wanted you, Durova, to see that he was making valuable contributions. The IP info about RIR is a new, and somewhat surprising revelation to me, and shows how well my mentor conducts complex investigations. For the record, I became interested in this RFC in the first place because of another surprising geographic connection--Elonka and Julia Griggs Havey (a Juice Plus spokesperson and distributor who had edited the article) live in the same city. That looked slightly odd to me, the same way RIR's presence near Juice Plus HQ is also an odd coincidence. At this point, I am definitely not suggesting actual wrongdoing by anybody, but if we investigate one geographic connection, we should also investigate the other too, in fairness to both sides. Darn it! I wish I could just ignore this whole situation, but I can't. Jehochman ^Hablar 21:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, my objection is not with the suspicion. My objection is not with the investigation. My objection is with the very unprofessional, careless and wreckless accusation. There is no reason to believe that RIR Lied, even if she lives right next door to the plant. By implying she lied, insisting on an explanation, categorizing it as 'oddly coincidental', we cross the line from quietly investigating to publically accusing.

I have a very decided opinion about several companies and universities in my area, but that does not mean I have a conflict of interest. And my proximity to them should NEVER be used to suggest evidence that I've lied in a very direct and explicit statement about conflict of interest.

My concern is that Durova does not even realize the potential damage and harm she is doing when she makes these wreckless accusations. Peace.Lsi john 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I like to forgive mistakes by other people in order to work with them and help them improve. Hopefully, other people will treat me the same way, because I make plenty of mistakes myself. Being perfect isn't a requirement for participating here. Jehochman ^Hablar 22:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, and the very important and significant distinction there, is that you acknowledge your mistake(s). Tarnishing someone's reputation, with accusations of lying and masking a COI, with no evidence other than the proximity of an ISP, and then when questioned, instead of acknowledging and saying "oops, sorry", dragging in an unrelated Arbcom, is quite different. The key is "Ask and ye shall be forgiven." (ASK). Peace.Lsi john 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I see that the accusations are flying fast and furious here. Just for the record, no, I am not friends with Havey, but yes, the geographic connection is one of the reasons that I was working on her article, because the fact that she's a "St. Louis author" is the reason I heard of her at all. I've also helped out with other articles related to St. Louis and Missouri, as I'm a participant at WikiProject Missouri. But to my knowledge, Havey and I have never physically met, and I absolutely positively have no business relationship with her or Juice Plus. --Elonka 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought, Elonka, which is why I didn't mention it at the RFC. Perhaps RIR saw something about Juice Plus in a local newspaper and got inflamed about a local company using pseudoscience to push a dubious product, in her view. (I am not saying that is the case, just illustrating a possible perspective). Jehochman ^Hablar 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In the box

I'm sorry if the talk box seemed like a criticism of you, no offense or criticism was meant. Su-Jada didn't use headings but instead simply placed the "header" in bold and this didn't include an [edit] option, which implied to me that even though he/she signed it a couple of different times it was still one post. I know that posting in the middle of another user's longer messages is allowed and there is a good chance Su-Jada probably meant to make them === type headings. Rather than editing his/her posts I figured this was a good compromise to avoid confusion, no offense to Scientologists but I've found them apt to complain about such actions for questionable reasons. (I've read through several older arbcoms and afds where the posting gets so out of order I've just stopped reading. I'm trying to keep that from happening here.) Seriously though, I meant nothing against you, I posted in the box too. Anynobody 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmartincalle

No conflict of interest exists or intended. Submissions factual. Documented. Best way to proceed? Remove blocks? Best advise! Thank you.

Those submissions may be factual. Unfortunately the writing style was not neutral in tone and the material was supported by citations. Suggest posting suggested changes to article talk pages with citations in standard format and opening article content requests for comment on the material. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop

Bus stop has accepted the terms of adoption, so I have unblocked him. I'll mostly be in touch with him by email. Fred Bauder 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help there. I hope it works. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Matrix17

I don't know if you watchlist his talkpage, but I unprotected it and he has added an adoption template.--Isotope23 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I've requested that if anyone adopts him they contact you or I so he can be unblocked.--Isotope23 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if anyone unblocks him once he finds a mentor. If either of us are unavailable, the mentor is welcome to cite my posts at WP:AN. Durova^Charge! 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiduel?

Do you want to have a contest to see who can get the most articles promoted to WP:GA status between now and Labor Day? One point for each article nominated that passes. Additionally, for each article nominated, the duelists have to provide one GA review. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Slap me with that crocheted glove again: I've been looking into textile arts lately and the area's in terrible shape. Unfortunately most of the readily available resources are how-to books that are weak on history or theory. So I plan to spend more time in article space but doubt the work will be GA quality. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest alternative terms if you discover an appropriate battlefield. :-) Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing you aren't a Princeton man. Epistles at dawn? Durova^Charge! 04:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, look at this top-importance article. The major stuff is start-class, a good share of the minor topics are either duplicate or not yet created, and spam permeates the topic. I'll be doing basic work over there before I dream of another GA. Durova^Charge! 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 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 13:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image upload question

Dear Durova, I uploaded my first image ever to Wikipedia today. The image is a scan of a Danbury pumpkin queen that I made on my photo scanner of an old, original photograph taken by FRANK R. PONESCA, PHOTOGRAPHER 748-3033, P.O. BOX 1102 DANBURY, CT., which I purchased from eBay and which I still own. Anyway, I wanted to double-check on the copywright aspect of the image in the sense that I scanned it, paid for the original picture (not a copy, but an old actual black and white picture) and still own this picture, or if technically Mr. Penesca (whose status I am not sure of and have not been able to determine) retains anything here. Also, the picture is obviously at least decades old and so I'm curious if that means anything. Also, according to http://cgi.ebay.com/Pumpkin-Harvest-Queen-Danbury-Old-photo-1966_W0QQitemZ110072972234QQihZ001QQcategoryZ14279QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem eBay: Pumpkin Harvest Queen? Danbury Old photo 1966, the image is from 1966. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you purchased only the print itself and not the underlying rights, then Mr. Ponseca or his heirs would need to release it under GDFL or other copyleft licensure. The fact that you have an original print wouldn't make any difference. Licensure is a different matter from physical copies. In this situation you should assume that someone else owns the negative and any other prints that were made, and since that person did profit from your eBay purchase that person has a legal right to hope for future profits. Regards, Durova^Charge! 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. That makes sense. I'll continue to see if I can get additional permission. If not, then I'm okay with it being deleted on the 16th July as the tag on the image currently says. Also, although I plan to limit my presense on AfDs, as a sort of trial, I have contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hydra_in_popular_culture. This time around, I have done more in the way of discussion, attempting to improve the article, etc. Anyway, if you have a chance to check my recent edits concerning that to see if I am going about it better, I would appreciate it. If not, no big deal; I understand if you are busy. I just want to be sure that I'm doing things right now. Thanks for your time and help. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in with me. I wish I had time to become your mentor, but to be frank I'm much better at admin coaching than this sort of thing - I'm in the middle of an arbitration case and my friends are urging me to spend more time in article space. WP:ADOPT is a great program. Please try it. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a whirl. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm sorry to bother you with this, Justanother seems to disapprove of the actions I've taken to resolve my password dilemma. Would you mind taking a look at the thread on my talk page? Anynobody 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting way of putting it. --Justanother 06:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Anynobody's user talk since most of the discussion is already there. Justanother, if I overlooked some part of your objection please clarify. I can't solve the bureaucrat issue since I'm not a bureaucrat. Durova^Charge! 08:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. What is "interesting" about his "way of putting it" is that I fully support his efforts to recover his password and even started a petitiion to support his identity claim. And he knows that full well. What I object to is simply his misleading use of images on his talk and user talk page. And he knows that full well. I find it "interesting" that he would misrepresent my position, that is all. Hopefully, misrepresentations of my position are going to end soon. --Justanother 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he's misrepresented it then please explain your objection to the image use. I'm not sure what you mean about that. He cooperated about the signature so maybe we can reach an acceptable agreement about the unresolved issue. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I disapprove of disguising one page to look like another. I do not think that is in the best interests of this project. I support his efforts to recover his old account. --Justanother 05:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, and say it so often, but he is just trying to tie up your time and mine with irrelevant material (there's a term for it Scientologists use which eludes me at the moment.) It's probably why he is still talking to you here instead of back on my talk page where this crisis originates.(I hesitate to use it but by reading his rhetoric I get the impression he'd like nothing more ((on Wikipedia at least)) than to distract you from the evidence mentioned in the section below).

This is why I refuse to acquiesce to his request on face value, something I would only do with an editor I have lost WP:AGF in. Does t hat mean I'll refuse all request by such editors, of course not as I do my best to abide by policies and guidelines but more importantly reason and logic. (As I said on my talk page, if he had stated he was having difficulty accessing the redirect pages I wouldn't (and didn't) hesitate to make that available.) Anynobody 09:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The only one wasting anyone's time is you, AN. It would take you two minutes to remove those images. If that. --Justanother 12:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, maybe it's better to tread lightly on this one. Anynobody is taking steps to remedy the situation and it could look quarrelsome for you to continue pursuing this aggressively, seeing as you're both in the same arbitration case. If this is a serious problem then uninvolved editors will step in. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Slightly related, but honest question from same editor

I am having trouble understanding why it's difficult to get feedback sometimes. Am I coming off as sarcastic or belligerent when I ask direct questions? diff For example in the diff, I asked how you would term the behavior which led me to describe a conversation when another editor was being a jerk. (I didn't mean to imply I think he is always a jerk and I can explain more on that if you want to know, but it'd be going off topic so I won't in this post.) I just wanted to know if there is a better way to describe that kind of behavior on Wikipedia.

Here I wanted feedback too, on a couple of issues: User talk:Jehochman/Archives 25#Question However I think he thinks I'm trying to make some kind of point related to the arbcom which I'm really not trying to do.

What am I doing wrong? (really) Anynobody 05:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This post looks like you're asking for mentorship. I'm better at admin coaching than I am at mentoring, but I have a very high opinion of the WP:ADOPT program. Now when I say this I speak only for myself: if I were an arbitrator I'd be wondering about several things. Can the named parties in this case work together on the small stuff? Are there primary aggressors here or is everything ugly? Are they straightforward or are they talking out of both sides of their mouths? Can the editors here stay on topic and keep the dispute contained or is this a wildfire? What sort of remedies would restore the priority of creating a collaborative encyclopedia?

Basically the best thing to do is be calm and reasonable. If you make a few mistakes, own up to them and correct them. If you state something in good faith that a reasonable person could misinterpret, then clarify yourself and perhaps do a good faith strikethrough. And remember it's the Committee's opinion that counts. Try to avoid digressive stuff. Durova^Charge! 05:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that isn't what I was talking about, this is the other problem I have. By trying to be less "direct" I've actually given you an impression I didn't mean to. Here's the short SHORT version:

1. Why did you not respond to the question I asked on my talk page? (cited in the diff.)
2. Why won't Jehochman clarify what he meant/ tell me if I was being unclear elsewhere on this page?

Anynobody 06:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. That thread was dragging on and basically unproductive. I think Jehochman made a good call there, even if a couple of loose ends remained.
2. I haven't discussed this with him offline, but I'll venture a guess based upon my own impression. Contentious side discussions aren't good for anyone. They eat up a lot of time and make things look like nobody can get along.

Durova^Charge! 06:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect :) This is exactly what I was hoping for in form, as to the actual answers themselves I'll just make one more point for each in the interest of clarity.

1. Some editors take the concepts of WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL more seriously than others, in case it comes up again please know this. Behind honesty they are my biggest concerns when it comes to dealing with others, so if I say someone is acting like a jerk (or jack ass, that's the most severe simile I've used to equate editor behavior) I'm not making an attack but pointing out less than good behavior (as I see it).
2. It's his choice whether or not to answer my question about feedback, of course so I'll just assume he didn't want to hurt my feelings. Please encourage him to be more specific when issuing warnings about bad behavior, general warnings are usually ignored by those they are directed at and can instead be heeded by those it wasn't.

I'm sorry it took so long to resolve this confusion, but I think we more or less understand each other much better having worked through it. Anynobody 07:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My remarks

I'm sorry if you were offended by my comments. I specifically addressed the content of your evidence. Your evidence is not evidence. It is an diatribe on COI, and only makes sense when read with a 'presumption of guilt'. And, does not seem to specifically address the current situation much at all. I did not comment on your motives. As you imply, my insight into your motives (both conscious and subconscious) were not, and are not relevant.

I have the highest regard for your research abilities and for your abilities to write essays. I also believe that you are a well respected editor who has contributed to numerous articles.

So, again, I'm sorry if you misread or misinterpreted my comments or found them to be offensive in any way. Peace.Lsi john 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks then, and no offense taken. I've been collecting notes and diffs toward other topics that relate to this arbitration and intend to post more evidence. Some of those notes address COI and COFS. Another thing I've been examining is whether I've overreached. Looking at the early part of my involvement, I think I took the middle road: during the May COIN thread I hoped warnings would work while two editors (including Jehochman) were asking for a block. Then when the matter went to CSN I immediately shifted the discussion from a siteban to a topic ban and proposed an unusually short time frame. To be fair to both you and Justanother - especially in light of a post Justanother made to the RFAR talk page after that thread closed - the current banning policy language doesn't shed light on community topic bans and IMHO what it does say about community bans is unduly alarming because it pretty much equates ban with siteban.

Back to the present case, among my offline notes is a section that relates to the strongest accusations you've posted about me. I'd rather not present that as evidence because I hope you were just upset at the time and didn't really mean the things you wrote. If I have your assurance of that being the case, and that you'll try to be milder in the future, then I'd be happy to let that rest.

I do, however, intend to show the Committee some other evidence. Please bear in mind when you read it the example from the recent Chris Benoit story: there's a big difference between asking questions about circumstances and accusing someone of wrongdoing - the IP editor in that instance happened to live in the same town as the World Wrestling Entertainment headquarters. Naturally enough, that did prompt people to wonder whether he or she had connections to WWE or information that could help the case. Some commentators even wondered whether that person had criminal involvement, yet no rational person was calling that fellow a murderer. Durova^Charge! 06:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I'm encouraged by your willingness to self-examine your own involvement. Thank you. Please take time to read my thoughts (below) slowly.

My challenge, historically, has been that you make very sound arguments, and yet, in my opinion, you (sometimes) fail to link them to the current situation (unless guilt is presumed). In light of this, take a moment to re-examine your statement on the current arbcom. I feel that it reads like a prosecutor's closing arguments, with the entire 'evidence and cross examination' missing. You've not given anyone a chance to 'challenge' your interpretation of evidence, because you haven't provided any evidence. I read it as: This case is similar to 'xyz' and they were found 'guilty' therefore COFS is "'guilty'..and I recommend: 'abcd', and here are the other cases that support me: 'defg'. Or prove me wrong with diffs." But you fail to demonstrate 'why' it is similar. Read it without your background knowledge and see if you don't agree (or at least understand my reading of it).

Another suggestion: Read your evidence as if you absolutely know that the CoS is 'not guilty' of COI. (The essence of presumption of innocence). And from that perspective, see how you feel about what you wrote.

My challenges with using the Sock blocks as the sole 'evidence' are twofold: a) they didn't address COI, which is the foundation of this case. b) someone may have blocked based 'solely' on the RFCU and an anti-COFS complaint. Were there sock blocks? sure. Were they reasonable blocks? I don't know. They all had unblock comments which at least suggest someone reconsidered in some way. Because, in fairness, if no COI NPOV editing was done, then no 'guidelines' were violated.

My challenge with using AN/I (and other) threads, is that anyone can open frivilous threads. I could fill your talkpage with examples of them. Just because COFS got reported, does not (and should not) translate to guilt.

I think all the evidence needs to be provided for scrutiny by all, not just evidence of prior blocks, but evidence which supports those blocks. Because, in my opinion, once an account is tagged as a sock (correctly or otherwise), it is fairly easy to convince someone to re-block and compound the evidence of blocking. We may disagree, but I'd hope that you'd at least consider that I could be right. Because that is what I am doing; assuming that it is a possibility. Which then makes it incumbent upon us to fully examine all the evidence, and present it to the arbitrators.

I also request that you re-consider the sequence of your presentation. Other cases are only relevant if we have facts to compare against them. Until our 'facts' are presented, we have no basis to compare this case to other cases. Lawyers use 'other cases' to get their evidence 'included' or their arguments 'accepted' by the judge. And, they must show 'exactly' why the two cases are related and why it applies... and then it still falls back to the 'evidence' of the current case. By being in 'summation mode', you're putting the cart before the horse.

You said: "there's a big difference between asking questions about circumstances and accusing someone of wrongdoing". That is both true, and false. It depends on a) how its worded. b) the context in which the question is asked. c) who is doing the asking.

e.g.:

"I notice you have leather straps hanging on the wall. Do you still beat your wife?" is a question about circumstances. But, isn't it also an accusation?

The case of the WWE you cite does not translate well to this situation. a) They were not talking about a 'person', because they had not identified a person. They were only discussing 'facts' and 'evidence'. b) The facts they were discussing were very specific to the case. "he didn't show up due to the death of his wife" .. posted before they found his wife's body... is pretty damned specific and warrants an answer to the question "how did you know?". (as compared to my example below).

"Future violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA will go to WP:ANI" - Implies that there have already been violations, or 'future' would be redundant. Therefore this statement can be considered an accusation.

"ABC adamantly denies any professional relationship to company XYZ. Yet the IP they use is within easy commute distance of company XYZ. Would ABC please explain this striking coincidence?" - In this context, the word 'yet' (Webster: often used to imply the negative of a following infinitive) reasonably translates to 'liar'. Calling it a 'striking coincidence', reasonably translates to 'not a coincidence at all' (especially in light of the prior usage of 'yet'). Since, by definition, a coincidence can't be explained (or it wouldn't be a coincidence), asking them to 'explain' a coincidence, is reasonably interpreted as "you lied, prove you didn't". Note the difference here as compared to your WWE example above. Mere proximity is not incriminating. In contrast, a website showing a W2 or 1099 which connected the individual to the company WOULD be grounds for an "explain this" question.

When these types of questions are asked by a 'layman', they do not carry nearly the weight as when they are asked by someone in 'authority'. And therefore, those in authority bear the responsibility of curbing their public speculation.

And, finally, regarding your objections to what you call my 'accusations' about you: In the context that some may have been worded too strongly or discussed your motives or adjenda, it was emotional. In the context that they described your actions, they reflect my views. When you use two of my diffs and recommend someone investigate offline collusion, you are making an accusation. When you post two of my diffs and say they contradict, you are making an accusation. When you say that you 'know where this leads', and provide a link to 'long term vandal exposed', you are stating that you know the person is a vandal and are therefore 'making an accusation'.

Perhaps you see it as simply 'suggesting a possibility'. I see it differently. People in positions of authority do not have the luxury of 'suggesting/implying the possibility of improper conduct' and then claiming it's not an accusation. I believe you referred to it as a 'double standard'. Ok, I can accept that. I believe everyone 'should' curb their public speculation and I believe administrators 'must' curb it. Those in authority should be held to a higher standard, yes.

With respect to any of it qualifying for admission into an arbcom case, well I don't think that any WP:DR has been followed between us, so taking it directly to arbcom would be very premature. The committee is interested in 'conflict of interest' as it relates specifically to Scientology. They are not interested in any misunderstandings that we have yet to resolve. And, more importantly, I have no desire to 'file' any case against you. My only desire is that you open your mind to understanding why I feel the way I do. I would like you to be able to read everthing that I've written to you (here and elsewhere) from my perspective. I'm not asking you to 'agree' with me. I'm asking you to understand me.

Best Regards. Peace.Lsi john 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

section break - just because

(outdenting) One way that Wikipedia is different from most places is that being an administrator doesn't confer additional authority. So if you're concerned that disagreeing with me would be like trying to argue against the testimony of a police officer, that's not the case at all. I'm able to protect a page when an edit war is waging and I'm able to block someone who types "Debbie loves Steve" on fourteen different articles in less than an hour, but long before I became an administrator Jimbo went out of his way to dispel any mystique about that: sysops are just people who've been entrusted with certain tools.

Nobody bats .1000 and I've been wrong before. I've struck through statements and apologized. I've even reversed my opinion at arbitration, but I don't sway easily. So here are some of the things I've had in mind.

• Noticeboard stuff - mere existence of one or more threads doesn't impress me. Particular posts on those threads sometimes raise my interest. You're absolutely right that some troublesome editors lodge frivolous complaints. Every sysop has seen that dynamic. The tricky part is, it can take a lot of digging to get to the bottom of things. Some frivolous complaints are made in good faith. Occasionally a really outlandish-looking complaint turns out to be ture. Sometimes an editor who sure-as-heck looks dodgy has a legitimate point and is just really bad at expressing it. Noticeboards aren't part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system and to the extent that your and Justanother's procedural objections have merit, I think that's the strongest point. And if you think any editors have abused process by raising frivolous complaints you should definitely get your ducks in a row and present that as evidence.

• COFS's block history:

1. 6 April - block for removing links (one hour, shortened by the blocking admin)
2. 9 April - 3RR on a Scientology-related article (24 hours, ran its course)
3. 23 April - 3RR (48 hours, ran its course)
4. 29 April - WP:SOCK (indefinite, reduced on 3 May to 1 week)
5. 22 June - edit warring, removal of sourced information (24 hours, good faith unblock)

• That's a lot of blocks in a short period of time, and what's particularly troubling in my view is how the final one cited removal of well-sourced information. That tells me this editor hasn't been catching on to how we do things here. If you want to contest that history, I recommend you do so point by point at arbitration and substantiate your views with as much evidence as you can muster.

• COFS's checkuser result is a good topic for the arbitration to examine. I don't have checkuser privileges and, like most sysops, I trust the result of those findings.

So to tie those elements together, user blocks tend to get longer when several blocks in swift succession don't stop a problem. I considered a brief topic ban to be a milder remedy than a long block. Now you've raised several objections that my reasoning seems to disregard AGF. Have a look at the matter this way: if I do assume that everything you say is true then there's a much more serious dilemma here than my opinion or ArbCom's. Scientology has gotten at least its fair share of negative press, so if anti-Scientology activists actually have been undermining Wikipedia's coverage of the topic then wouldn't it stand to reason that they'd exploit any appearance of impropriety by Scientologist editors here at Wikipedia? Especially if they could make a credible argument that improper conduct originates from CoS itself? This is one of the ten most popular websites in the world. The press is pretty quirky about which Wikipedia stories it reports - I think they're largely unaware of how this site operates - but if I take everything you and Justanother say 100% at face value then you're contending with people who have an agenda to push and are media-savvy.

I've argued in the past that the basic principles behind WP:COI are How would something reflect on you if it became public knowledge without your disclosure? and Avoid the appearance of impropriety. So when you ask me or ArbCom to suppose COFS hasn't done anything wrong, please give evidence to distinguish between this and similar situations where the problems are very real: when someone had access to a congressional office IP address it didn't make much difference to the press whether that person was an unpaid intern or a congressman's top aide. I don't think it serves anyone's interests to divorce the site's definition of COI from the definition the rest of the world is likely to apply. Durova^Charge! 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You start out with a misunderstanding of my reference of 'authority'. It is not that you have more authority. It is not that I believe I can't disagree with you. And, it is not that I believe I can't successfully 'testify against you'.

The problem I am describing is that your position gives more weight to your statements/decisions/actions. Being an administrator conveys an amount of respect from the community, thus the statements of an administrator are given more weight and respect and are assumed to be true and correct.

1. If a newbie posts on your page "stop harassing me", people would likely assume the newbie is overreacting and dismiss it.
2. If a newbie posts on my page "stop harassing me", people would pause to wonder.
3. If an admin posts on my page "stop harassing Joe", people will very likely believe I am harassing and would need proof that I'm not.

Therefore, if an administrator strongly suggests (accuses) someone of being a "long term vandal", the odds are that 'opinion' will be retained in the minds of everyone who reads it. And, it is likely that the diff will be cited by someone in the future as 'proof' of their claims. And that is why I believe it incumbent upon administrators to keep their 'suspicions' private. If an admin carelessly voices 'suspicion', it can easily be heard as an 'accusation'.

You have just provided a list of ALL the blocks. I have a question for you. Did you personally thoroughly investigate the circumstances and evidence for EACH BLOCK?

If not, then you have just demonstrated my point about admins having significant credibility. By accepting (on faith) that the blocks the blocks are 100% accurate and proper, without researching each one you, you are assuming that the admin did not make a mistake and was not misled. And if you claim 'those' admins don't make mistakes, then the question becomes: "Are you of the same caliber as those admins?" If so, then again, your 'speculation' (accusations) carry significant weight and will be believed without research.

Now lets look at the block evidence:

1. 18:42, 6 April 2007 ChrisO blocked with an expiry time of 1 hour (Temporary block - please stop removing links)

   18:58, 6 April 2007 ChrisO unblock (Block no longer needed)

2. 19:12, 9 April 2007 DESiegel blocked with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Sterling Management Systems see [[WP:AN/3R])
3. 16:14, 23 April 2007 Yandman blocked (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 48 hours (3RR)
4. 21:33, 29 April 2007 Coelacan blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: confirmed block evasion, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS)

   18:09, 3 May 2007 Coelacan (Talk | contribs) unblocked COFS (contribs) (these are obviously meatpuppets, and should not be used for vote-stacking or other violations of WP:SOCK, but unless there is further disruption, the block is reduced)

   18:10, 3 May 2007 Coelacan (Talk | contribs) blocked "COFS (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (puppetry block reduced)

5. 16:04, 22 June 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "COFS (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (edit warrning, effective sockpuppeting)

   16:48, 22 June 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) unblocked COFS (contribs) (per talk page)

You suggest 'thats a lot of blocks' translates to 'guilty'.

I ask:

1. Removing Links: Why did the first block only last 16 minutes? Why was there a block at all? What links were removed? Did ChrisO really look at the links to see what was being removed? Were the links legitimate? Are the links that got removed in the article today? Exactly what is this block? I've never heard of a block for removing links.
2. Edit Warring: 3RR is always bad. However, this case is about COI, not 3RR. What does the AN/3RR report say? What material was being warred over? Who reported COFS? Were they edit warring too? Did COFS get an appropriate 3RR warning? Was this a 'judgment call' or was it a flagrant violation? There is no 'excuse' for 3RR, and yet before we use a 3RR block as proof of a 'bad editor', we should carefully examine the circumstances around the block.
3. Edit Warring: 3RR is always bad. (see previous note).
4. Abusing Multiple accounts / Block Evasion: From what we know today, this was due to multiple editors, not multiple accounts from the same editor. Therefore this block does not add any evidence and should not be included, as it unduly prejudices the case. It equates the the same evidence already presented - RFCU. Counting it 'twice' is unfair.
5. Edit Warring/socks pupppeting: 44 minutes: I believe (though I may be mistaken) this was a misou block, not a COFS block.

So, rather than 5 blocks on COFS, 'in an incredibly short time', we only have 3 blocks (2 3RR and 1 for removing links). And, more importantly, NONE of them translate to COI.

And, your conclusion that the quantity of blocks (3) translates to a 'bad apple' (my word), would then apply, for example, to Smee, who has 7 blocks for 3RR, and at least 6 free-passes during the same time frame. Had Smee been blocked for every 'actual' violation of 3RR, there would be a minimum of 13 3RR blocks on his record. And I'm not making this about 'smee', I'm giving a comparison. You think a community ban should apply to someone with effectively 3 blocks, but you've not made any effort to get someone banned who has 7 blocks (and should have at least 13). When I view it this way, I see a serious imbalance in the logic of your justice.

And lastly, our COI guideline versus the world's definition. Our guideline does not say that a person with COI cannot edit. It says they cannot edit 'with POV imbalance'. And, more specifically, our guideline does not say to 'avoid the appearance' of COI. As editors, should we avoid the appearance of coi? Sure. As administrators, should we enforce that? Not unless its in the guideline/policy.

If you want the guideline changed, an arbcom against COFS is not the proper place to do that.

Peace.Lsi john 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you are discussing those blocks, please see this. --Justanother 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In which case, it is a double problem, because we're still listing 5 blocks as evidence and we've already eliminated 3 of them in the previous CSN thread. And my (3) above really is (2).. Peace.Lsi john 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

COFS can address her block history herself. And the last one for "removing sourced material", well, there are plenty of valid reasons to remove sourced material and I hardly think that block should have occurred. --Justanother 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)Well, you're saying you've eliminated three of them. To my reading the April 29 block wasn't eliminated but reduced to about two weeks. The others aren't necessarily baseless either - I've done plenty of good faith unblocks when I knew problems existed and I wanted to give the editor a chance to improve. So I wasn't satisfied when I saw that post at CSN, Justanother. Now it's time to make your argument to the Committee rather than to me, but I think your case could be stronger if you dug into the underlying edits that were responsible for those blocks and the discussion that surrounded them rather than parsing the unblock portion of the edit history.

As for a sysop's word carrying weight, I suppose in the narrow context of a block that wasn't contested and overturned you have a point: that puts the ball in your court. Other than that, my statements carry no more inherent meaning than yours. The Committee usually favors the best reasoning and evidence regardless of who presents it. The Committee by no means does my bidding - it isn't uncommon for their members to disagree with me on policy and process (occasionally those differences of opinion have been quite strong). Sometimes I've been dead wrong and I've struck through statements and admitted it. Show me some new evidence to change my mind. Or perhaps more importantly, post a strong case to the arbitration evidence page. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm rather offended by your response. I specifically took time to address each of the blocks. I regret that my only logical conclusion is that you only skimmed my post. You have clearly done absolutely no research on the blocks and are taking them at face value. Your reply reads like you've dug in your heels and refuse to even consider my view, with not a hint of indication that you actually read my post. I'll refrain from describing your attitude, lest you take offense. Peace.Lsi john 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC, reply to Durova) As I said, I think that COFS is the best one to address her specific blocks and what led up to them. I just know the circumstances about the ChrisO block because it was my RfC that COFS was acting on and the 4th (?) one with the RFCU is obvious - it was premature, was shortened, and served no purpose, IMO, as there was nothing wrong going on other than the issues which we are (supposedly) addressing now at the arb and which were not addressed at that time. (I will take my leave now.) --Justanother 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I wanted to avoid embarassing you publically like this, which is why I tried to keep this in email. But since you wanted it on-wiki we ended up here. Hopefully you'll take time to actually read what I posted and reflect on it. I'm still more than willing to discuss this off-wiki or by phone. Best regards. Peace.Lsi john 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend you. To speak to one example, I think it would make a stronger presentation if one of you summoned the diff or diffs where COFS deleted sourced information and supplied specific policy-compliant reasons. The Committee's opinion is binding at this phase and mine isn't, so direct your reasons to them. I'll be paying attention also. Another thing I recommend is to be moderate in your suppositions and rigorous about supporting your accusations: you're asking for a lot of good faith for yourselves and COFS. I happen to have been very busy this afternoon and unable to respond to every bullet point. We have honest disagreements about the merits of the block history: please summon your best evidence and give the Committee a dry just-the-facts-ma'am presentation. Durova^Charge! 00:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you're too busy to give a proper amount of attention to this matter. Though that confirms what I've been saying. You are neither reading carefully nor investigating this matter completely, and you've provided no evidence to support your public accusation of guilt.

If I correctly understand your position, it's basically: "Guilty without research, because I'm busy, prove me wrong." Sorry Durova, but that isn't how it is supposed to work. As the accuser, the burdeon of proof is on you. You have not brought up diffs that support the blocks, and I have explained why they are insupportable as evidence in your case.

Hopefully your schecule will clear up enough to do some responsible investigation and provide proper evidence in this arbitration, otherwise it may end up dismissed. Peace.Lsi john 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And the other reason I was reluctant to address this publically is due to the trolling it may attract from outside parties. There will always be those who can't resist jumping into the middle of our conversation to inject irrelevant things. I think we return to handling this via email before that happens. Peace.Lsi john 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john the arbcom won't be dismissed, that phase is already passed. Case Opened on 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) and if you don't believe that link here's a more obvious one: Under the pink Active Arbitration cases box on the right side. They may find no wrong doing but the case will get some kind of ruling.

Frankly, harassing Durova with arguments you believe to be important is just going to prove an inappropriate pattern of behavior. (Even if Durova suddenly said, "Gee you're right I was silly to start that arbcom case." we're past the point of no return.) Unless you mistakenly thought she could cancel the arbcom, in which case that is a question you should have probably asked before mounting this campaign. Anynobody 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think all further discussions belong at the case pages. If you have something good to say, make it available to all of us where we will see it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)