User talk:Durova/Archive 33

Jan Czarnowski

If you're not biased, then tell me what you think about Jan Czarnowski. Please check it out. Tell me if this is notable or not (either it is, or its not) and then if you think its not, AFD it. That will show if you're biased or not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent, eh? With yourself as the judge? I won't bite that hook. Please let it drop. Durova^Charge! 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There ya go, I knew it, heh. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Think I'm being unfair? Okay, open an admin conduct WP:RFC on me. Muster the best evidence you can find. I'm open to recall and I've voluntarily chosen to stand by the original terms of my participation after standards at that category loosened. If five editors in good standing agree with you I'll run for reconfirmation as a sysop. It's that easy. Durova^Charge! 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse there's nothing for me to use in an RFC, and you know that. My point is: you and others refuse to give an impartial assessment to these articles, because they were created by your friend. This is nothing that will justify an RfC. It just shows the state of affairs here. Admins are supposed to be impartial. In this case its obvious that you're not. Its a 3 line article. Is it notable? It should be easy to judge that. You refuse to give your opinion, and the reason for that is obvious as I said; you dont want to upset your friend. However ofcourse I would oppose you for an RfA for being unable to show impartial judgement in this whole affair. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm. It's not the article that has to be notable, but the subject of the article. I don't know enough about Polish history to judge that, and I suspect the case is similar for Durova. I don't know if you have a point (being rather uninvolved in your discussion), but using bogus arguments is not going to support it. --Stephan Schulz 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, these are serious breaches of WP:AGF. I'll spell out where my priorities are: I'm knee deep in a serious investigation where someone appears to have been disrupting a family of articles for a year and that cranked up to a whole different level recently because of two impersonation accounts that targeted a good editor. I want to put the breaks on that before it degenerates any worse. Plus an arbitration case just closed and some of the named parties are being disruptive, another arbitration case I've requested is moving toward opening, and a third case is in the voting phase where I needed to semi-protect both the evidence and the workshop phase because of the antics there. If you had asked nicely I might have looked into your request, but your actions demonstrate zero cognizance that you are in fact asking for a favor. I don't do favors for people who are rude to me. Durova^Charge! 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought determining the notability of a 3 line article with 1 reference would take perhaps less than a minute, especially for a seasoned admin. You should also AGF and consider my request to evaluate the article on an impartial basis but - I see you just dont want to give your opinion on the article so thats ok. I wont ask you again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, what bogus argument? Yes I mean the subject should be notable, obviously. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, you did not. Just two sentences above, you are again writing about the "notability of a 3 line article with 1 reference". The length and quality of the article is no indicator for the non-notability of the subject. "Special relativity is E=mc^². (Einstein, 1905)" would be a lousy article with just one reference, but the subject would still be very notable. To determine the non-notability of the subject, the article is no help (if it is well-written, it might help to establish the opposite, of course). --Stephan Schulz 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The number of references that could be found for an article, is a notability factor, is it not? "Multiple non-trivial sources" say the notability guidelines. If you can find ponly one reference (even that is questionable), that doesnt say a lot about the notability. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not been arguing about the number of sources that could be found, but about the number of sources currently in the articles. That is a function of the skill, dedication, and resources of the writer, not just the notability of the subject. --Stephan Schulz 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)
Matt57, good research on a topic like this often involves going to the library. It's not civil to demand that Durova spend her volunteer time doing your bidding. Besides, Durova doesn't seem to have any particular interest or experience in Polish history. I don't understand why you are badgering her with such a hostile tone. Wikipedia has 4 million articles. I suggest you change focus, pronto, since you're obviously very upset about Elonka's view's on the images of Muhammad controversy. You are not an impartial party when it comes to editing articles about Elonka's relatives. Even if Elonka did something wrong a long time ago, that doesn't excuse you from observing site standards. Your first concern must be your own behavior, not hers. If you keep going, the result may be a block to prevent you from driving away productive editors. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make that more explicit. Matt, I have already said no politely three times. If it weren't for the potential that direct intervention could be construed as bias (you already ardently and persistently attribute bias), I would have blocked you for disruption a long time ago. I am one step away from going to WP:ANI and requesting review and intervention by impartial administrators. Durova^Charge! 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Durova, dont threat me with a block. Take it to ANI if you think there's anything enough to justify a complaint.

Jehochman, once again, you're all focusing on me or anything else, rather than the article itself. I'm not asking Durova anymore to evaluate the article. I dont see what the commotion is now. Please dont threaten me with a block too. Why dont you all make an ANI complaint together if you think I did anything wrong or anything which can justify a complaint. Just do it. Dont make these empty threats. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, I don't like seeing people get blocked. Warnings are made in hope that editors will exercise self-control. Blocks happen when people can't regulate themselves. As a result of the message you left on my talk page threating retaliation should I seek RfA, and in keeping with Durova's last request that you stop, I've opened a thread at ANI. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'll see you all there. It isnt nice to be threatened with a block over nothing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Community bans

I would like to know your opinion about this proposal. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites RfA

Wrt to your evidence: Are you sure you're not mixing up pseudonymity with anonymity? The former allows for an exact pinpointing of the person in question, the latter doesn't. Or am I missing something? — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 00:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lexically, anonymity means without a name and pseudonymity means with an assumed name. Jane Austen published anonymously. Her first novel, Sense and Sensibility, was written "by a lady." Her second novel, Pride and Prejudice was written "by the author of Sense and Sensibility". All her later novels were written "by the author of Pride and Prejudice". GDFL licensure requires an authorship notation. Hence, Wikipedians who do not use their actual names are publishing pseudonymously. Durova^Charge! 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But you see what I mean by the difference? — aldebaer⁠ 07:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point seems to interpolate something that isn't necessarily part of the definition. Durova^Charge! 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Still, everyone on your list except for John le Carré is dead. And in his case, by now it's rather a nom de plume than a real pseudonym that would conceal his true identity. Online anonymity, esp. on Wikipedia, means a lot more. — aldebaer⁠ 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

64.91.201.195

i don't see what 64.91.201.195 could have possibly done to deserve a block for 1 week, much less a block at all. HUH? Andrewb1 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Lormos/Bopann/ByeNow: talk page blanking, block evasion, and edit warring. Take it to WP:AN if you disagree. I suspect the whole sockfarm is the reincarnation of a community banned editor. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

can you show me those edits? i've gone through his contributions and there is nothing wrong with any of them. Andrewb1 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Judge Judy are similar in nature to the sockfarm. Also note the sockfarm's initial block was 24 hours, extended to 1 week for block evasion to complain at my talk page.

• Hyperbolic addition: (even suggesting that CPS could be called on her simply because she, a mother of two, concocted this outrageous scam)[1]
• Hyperbolic additions: When they complained to Ms. Filkins, she allegedly libeled them on eBay. and Sheindlin also pointed out that even if the ad was for a photo only, that the description of a weight of 4.90 oz did not match the "items" she was selling. Judge Judy advised Kelli to get a job and to improve her moral standing for the sake of the children, and then awarded the statutory maximum of $5,000, to thunderous applause.[2]

These additions are similar in tone to the blocked accounts. Nobody bats .1000 so feel free to take this to checkuser. I'll lift the block myself if I'm mistaken. Durova^Charge! 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

that doesn't mean they are the sockfarm. i'm sure there are many people out there who are like that. i think the block should be lifted; the description of this case and judge judy's attitude is important to the viewer. Andrewb1 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the block should be lifted because of some altruistic motive? Or is it because you and the IP both share and interest in Harry Potter and neglect to capitalize the initial word in talk page posts? Durova^Charge! 02:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

the edits you outline hardly constitute "disruption". Andrewb1 01:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I filed the checkuser last night anyway, so I'm sure there are more blocks forthcoming. In the meantime, thanks for blocking the obvious WP:DUCKs. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

John Spikowski

Hello Durova. Last year you helped a couple of us editors out with another editor who was acting in a very uncivil manner. We are having to deal with the same problem with the exact same editor yet again. Please see edits here and here. Here he blatantly goes after an admin. Threats of legal action can be found here and here. I think it's obvious that he's well aware of the policies. Through your actions last time, things did calm down for quite some time. I'm sorry for everyone to have to ask for your help again, but is there anything you could possibly do? Roguegeek (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block for legal threats. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That was a little more than what I was expecting. Didn't know that specific violation was taken that seriously. It's definitely a lesson for everyone involved. Thanks for your quick response. It's very much appreciated. Roguegeek (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Durova^Charge! 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Even the slightest intimation of an actual legal threat at Wikipedia can have a chilling effect akin to SLAPP suits and would be the death of editing here if tolerated at all. It is taken very seriously. I even got in trouble (with a now banned editor) for stating to her that what she was saying about me here was libelous, and specifically stating that in spite of that fact I had no intention of suing her. Yet she tried to make an issue of it! Go figure. Of course her attempt did not succeed. Other people focused on what I actually wrote and did not intend to do, while she focused on "what could have been." A warning to tell someone to stop lying is perfectly acceptable since their personal attacks violate our policies here. -- Fyslee / talk 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

He's withdrawn the threat so I've unblocked him. Durova^Charge! 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting my "Grrr..." on again

Hey, hope you're well, geekwise and otherwise. For some reason, I trust you giving a good opinion on this particular matter (perhaps because of past fun and games): I'm back at Wiki editing at both Global Warming and the Killian wikis. (I'm sure that fills you with the warm and fuzzies.) The Global Warming stuff has been going the way these things should work -- mostly on point debates, consensus building, and keeping debates among the regular editors lively but more or less convivial (I did get a troll editor a teeny bit upset when I did my analytical trick.) I was even given the go ahead to add a major section (although I think I liked it better when I was a care free, happy go lucky, smartalecky Usenet troll). With the Killian stuff, though, I've already run into malicious IP sockpuppets and admins who aren't thrilled with my attitude when I kind of, sort of, maybe imply that they might not be fully on top of things and that they should deal with the issues, like, now. The Killian Documents wiki already has full protection from further editing because of this. You have any tips to keep me from getting really annoyed? If so, sharing them would be most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of my best tips are already up at Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. Also suggest avoiding hot button topics, whatever your hot buttons happen to be. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It could be my imagination but whenever I try to follow that "All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy" bit, I seem to find myself playing baseball while the other team is playing rugby. I put up with it for a short while and then I want to use that big ol' mastodon foot of mine and.... I suppose I could find a nice low key article like this, but I don't think that would float my boat, so to speak.... -BC aka Callmebc 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then go through formal dispute resolution, or if you suspect real skullduggery become a wikisleuth. Just don't let yourself be goaded into compromising your own reputation. Durova^Charge! 00:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting paradox may be solved

See Black hole information paradox. The Black star theory has been ridiculed, but it seems interesting none the less. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

I just wanted to thank you for your assistance on the Bret Wolfe entry. Maybe you could also help me create an "unbiased" entry or lead me to an appropriate template. I have tried to set appropriate /examples to the various selections people have questioned. Is IMDB not a valid source...what would be a better route? I don't want to appease the difficult people on the discussion page but I would like to set an example of appropriate WIKI. Thanks for any and all help. Bretwolfe

I recommend you post suggested changes with citations to the talk page and contact WikiProject pornography to request attention, particularly watchlisting. Feel free to look me up as appropriate. I wrote an article for Search Engine Land about how subjects of biography articles can participate without crossing the line of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. I almost never link to my offsite writings because I don't want to be accused of linkspam, but a Google search of my username should pull up the article quickly. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My topic ban

Hi Durova, I was wondering if we might discuss lifting or relaxing my topic ban. You said to talk to you in a few weeks and we'd reevaluate it. Feel free to look at my contributions since that point. I have stuck to the things I said I would - the 2007 Miami Dolphins season and NFL roster templates. I have reverted vandalism on some NFL player pages, but only when it was blatant vandalism such as profanity and stuff. I figured this would be okay, as it really didn't make sense to ignore vandalism when I saw it. Anyway, think about it and let me know.

Also, I know I haven't come up with a list of those potential copyvios, so if you'd like me to do that before the topic ban is lifted I'd be happy to do it tonight. I kind of forgot for a little bit and I've been pretty busy with classes and other stuff, but I'll do it tonight. Quite frankly, I'm bored out of my mind and I'd really enjoy being able to work on NFL player articles again. I think with the other user banned it's far less likely things will ever escalate anywhere close to that point again. And of course, you could definitely monitor my behavior and re-institute a topic ban if you feel it's necessary. Anyway, think about it and get back to me when you have time. I'm very to resume more extensive contributions to the NFL project. Thanks.►Chris Nelson 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case is moving toward a close with a new remedy. I hope that's sufficient and your topic ban is lifted. Please bear in mind that your actions will probably remain under scrutiny by at least a dozen sysops. Arbitration tends to have that effect. As long as you edit constructively you've got nothing to worry about.

BTW, I have a standing offer to give the Barnstar of Resilience to any editor who's been sanctioned by ArbCom. Just start a new article that gets highlighted at Template:Did you know. For tips on getting listed there see User:Durova/Did you know?. If you earn that there's another special award we could talk about. I've been waiting to give it to someone. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So it's totally lifted? Also, what does your first sentence mean exactly? I don't think I have any of those ArbCom pages on my watch list. I definitely expect I'll be watched after it all though, I wouldn't expect anything less.►Chris Nelson 02:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your topic ban is totally lifted. ArbCom is moving toward putting you on a type of parole. Durova^Charge! 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah okay. Thanks. What exactly would parole mean?►Chris Nelson 02:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. Strongly recommend you read the whole page. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Proposed_decision#Chrisjnelson_restricted_for_six_months Durova^Charge! 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Durova - I wanted to let you know that yesterday I mistakenly violated my restriction by reverting more than once on a page. They have all since been reverted away from my last version so there's currently nothing wrong with any of the pages, but I slipped up due to habit and having no restrictions until recently. User:Ksy92003 outlines my violations at User talk:Picaroon. I can honestly say this was a mistake and I would never intentionally violate my restriction. I mean after all, it would be quickly noticed and I'd only face more punishment so why would I do it on purpose? Anyway, just wanted to make you aware and you or someone else can decide any punishment if necessary. I'm of the opinion that a one-time honest and harmless mistake might be worth going unpunished, but I'll understand if you think I should be reprimanded in some way. And obviously, if I make a mistake like this again a punishment would definitely be deserved. Thanks.►Chris Nelson 23:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to even come here yet... but here are some of the important comments I left at User talk:Picaroon:

I saw the comment Picaroon left Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) on his talk page, about the result of the ArbCom case. I'd like to point out that since then, he was reverted me twice on each of the following articles:

1. Ted Ginn, Jr.‎.
2. Jonathan Smith (American football)‎
3. Derek Schouman‎
4. Brad Cieslak‎
5. Matt Murphy (American football)‎

At first, Chris denied that he had violated his restriction. Now, today, Chris said that he did, but didn't mean to. He are completely untrustworthy, and I feel that you did intentionally violate the restriction, just as I feel that you did intentionally call me a "Nazi."

But I stress this again: yesterday, he said he didn't do it. Today, he said he did do it but it was an "honest mistake." Which is the "truth?" To me, it seems that he did something wrong and is trying to make excuses to get out of trouble. Of course that's not my call, but I believe his reputation, as well as the evidence that he has lied in the past, are not in his favor.

Chris acknowledge reverting me once, the second of the two reverts on each page. Since Chris denied reverting any page more than once, here is the evidence supporting that he reverted the first time, which Chris says he didn't:

Let's look at Jonathan Smith (American football). Here is the edit that I made. Here is the following edit, made by Chris. Now, look here. You can see that there are no changes between the edit before mine and Chris' edit, which proves that he did, in fact, revert me the first time. In other words, you will see that Chris reverted me. The evidence strongly supports the claim that he violated his restriction five times.

And once again, I'll say this: To me, it seems that he did something wrong and is trying to make excuses to get out of trouble. His track record makes it near impossible to believe that it was just an "honest mistake." Ksy92003(talk) 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, because I'm such a moron that I intentionally violated my restriction the day after I was informed of it and right after a long ArbCom. That makes sense. As if it would go unnoticed...►Chris Nelson —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I never called you a moron. All I'm saying is that your past makes it hard for me to believe that you are telling the truth. But, as you say you were recently informed of it and it was the result of a long ArbCom case, it makes it even harder for me to believe that you would just completely forget about it. Ksy92003(talk) 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't, but anyone that would violate there restriction immediately after it was handed down, on a website that logs EVERYTHING no less, would have to be a moron.►Chris Nelson 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, time to get out my slightly dusty referee whistle and redirect this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Supply diffs with the report, please. Durova^Charge! 01:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't call you a moron or insult you at all, so I don't know why you make that assumption. But using your own words, I guess you're calling yourself a moron. I mean you say that somebody who whould violate their restriction right after it was issued is a moron, and since that's exactly what you did, you're calling yourself a moron. Not me. Ksy92003(talk) 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the Arb. enforcement, I'll get on that right away. Ksy92003(talk) 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please strikethrough the tit-for-tat. Durova^Charge! 02:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the response at the ArbCom enforcement page. The reason I did that for two reasons: 1) You suggested it, and 2) I wanted to make sure that Chris got an official warning about this and that he knew the consequences if it happens again. If it does happen again, though, I wouldn't expect any forgiveness.

I don't understand what you mean by "strikethrough the 'tit-for-tat'" statement, however. Ksy92003(talk) 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page is not an appropriate forum for editors to quarrel with each other. It would be good form and a gesture of goodwill if you struck through the comment to Chris that edit conflicted with the referee whistle. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, I guess there really was nothing that came out of the comment; I was just trying to defend myself from other people possibly thinking that I was being incivil. I have struck it out. Ksy92003(talk) 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 05:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just for the record, you can imagine that tensions have been running quite high for me, and sometimes, I might say things that would be considered... well, not harmful, but not helpful. These types of things, like my comment which I struck out, I say not thinking that anything bad could come out of it.

None of my comments have ever been intentionally offensive nor incivil, and if a comment appears such, then in all likelihood it is an accident and just a coincidence. Should something like that come up, then I'll always somehow adjust my comment to make it sound better. But I would never say anything offensive on purpose, and like that last comment, again, I was saying that in my defense. Ksy92003(talk) 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Sometimes when things get tense an editor who means well reaches for the right words and picks up the wrong ones. I've done it. We've probably all done it. Durova^Charge! 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit of clarification. I don't know what to make of this exactly, but I need some small clarification on Chris' suspension. Now, on the article Clifton Dawson, Chris reverted me on September 25, before he was alerted of the suspension. Today, he reverted Yankees10 (talk · contribs). He did revert twice in a week span, but only one of the reverts came after the verdict was handed down. As a result, I don't know what to make of it. The suspension, does it treat the edits before the suspension as the first revert? Ksy92003(talk) 05:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the revert on Yankees10 was unrelated to the revert from before, so I don't see why it would count.►Chris Nelson 06:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus, Yankees10 edit was made because he was mistaken on Dawson's two separate tenures with Indy, and after he reverted me (which I haven't undone) I posted on his talk page about it.►Chris Nelson 06:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I noticed that the revert to Yankees10 wasn't related to the first one on Tuesday. I don't know if you remembered that you had reverted me on Tuesday when you reverted Yankees10 today, but I did see that you asked Yankees10 to revert that, obviously because you would definitely violate your restriction.

Now, in my opinion, I don't think it makes a difference if the two different reverts are related; I think that the restriction is just any non-vandalism reverts in general, whether or not they are related. But I don't care about that. I don't think there is any disagreement in this case that there were two reverts, and the question isn't rather or not it should count if the two reverts are unrelated, but rather or not a revert before the verdict was handed down to you counts towards a revert towards the restriction retroactively. Ksy92003(talk) 06:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

These are good questions to ask at the noticeboard. If I were making the call I'd be inclined to be lenient at first, but I'd take a much harder line if I saw evidence that Chris were gaming the system, such as a diff of him canvassing another editor for a revert that would push over his limit. Chris, I recommend you take a conservative approach here. If you're uncertain about the scope of your restriction please e-mail your questions to the case clerk in advance of taking action in article space. Durova^Charge! 06:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I wasn't really canvassing because I was talking to the person I reverted. I felt he might have been mistaken but I wasn't going to revert him again, so I just wanted to let him know why I reverted him and if he agreed he could set it back himself. That's all.►Chris Nelson 06:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just tread lightly. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 06:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris, please pay attention to what I'm going to say in this comment. I noticed a couple things about this. First, Chris left a comment at User talk:Yankees10 after Yankees10 reverted him with a reason as to why he made the revert in the first place, which shows that he has full intention of avoiding violating his restriction. Second, I make the assumption that Chris didn't realize he had reverted once before the time that he reverted on Friday. If he did know, he either wouldn't have done the second revert, or he assumed that it wouldn't violate the restriction.

If I were to make the verdict here, I'd let this slip because the exact terms of the restriction weren't made specific. Since it would be a week next Wednesday, If I were you, just as a precaution, I wouldn't revert any page a second time if it is within a week, even if the first revert came before Wednesday. After Wednesday, then we won't have to worry about those edits before the restriction because the week would expire.

I believe that you did nothing wrong in this case, mostly because the terms weren't made perfectly clear to anybody, which is why I said "as a precaution," and because I don't think you purposely reverted the same article twice, and you show an attempt at trying to discuss this with another user, which is something required per your restriction. Somebody else might interpret it otherwise and say that you did violate it. I think the best route to take is look at the page history before you make a revert, and don't make it if you already reverted once in the past week, even if that edit came before Wednesday. Ksy92003(talk) 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Yankees10 reverted himself based on my discussion with him.►Chris Nelson 15:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I don't need to blow the referee whistle more than once. This discussion is unsuitable for my user talk page. I'm very close to deleting the whole thread. Durova^Charge! 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A B Pepper

Hi Durova, sorry to bother you again. User:A B Pepper is continuing to be disruptive and incivil. When I warned them for attacking User:Afaprof01 they reponded with a personal attack to me[3]. There is a long litany of problems with A B Pepper - which I brought to the attention of Seraphimblade days ago - since then the problems have escalated. A report explaining A B Pepper's disruption is up here. I am really sorry to drag you into this but this guy is one of the most extreme cases of incivility and bullying on WP that I've come across[4][5][6]. Taking into account the IP account A B pepper used (User:75.132.95.79), they have received a full set of soapboxing warnings and repeated notification of their breaches of WP:CIVIL. They know exactly what they are doing and they are continuing to do it--Cailil ^talk 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, you have the patience of a saint. Don't apologize for coming to me regarding this sort of thing. Your research and documentation is excellent, as always. I've extended the IP's block to three months and applied a three month block to the account. Let me know if any other socks slip out of the drawer. Durova^Charge! 05:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. A B Pepper claims to be leaving the project but if he does come back and returns to this type of behaviour I let you know--Cailil ^talk 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Odds are good he'll be back, especially if he figures out he got blocked by a sysop who wears a matching set of X chromosomes. Durova^Charge! 01:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking a stab at a semi complex investigation

Please see this thread. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a pair of scissors for your Gordian knot: if you suspect sockpuppet activity during the current block then file a request for checkuser at WP:RFCU and list all suspected socks that have been active in the last month or so. Durova^Charge! 01:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I may do so. I started a new discussion here and will see what happens. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you please check out articles Larry Sanders and Jimmy Wales?

Trulexicon posted on the URL http://ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=367096 that he is a sock puppet. It's the second one down in the voting. I posted this information on both articles but I wanted to make sure a good administrator researched this. Thanks for your time, off to work, (hopefully my typing will improve), --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that post isn't a Joe job? - Jehochman ^Talk 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Recommend reporting to WP:AN. Please see the disclaimer above. Durova^Charge! 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)