User talk:Durova/Archive 17

Help with 3RR

User User:Corticopia has already been blocked for breaking the 3RR. He just did it again in the article North America. Can you help please? Thank you. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You did so as well, and so did User:Yath. Pot, meet kettle. Corticopia 18:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second here -- Corticopia beat me to that revert by a split second, and it has already been explained to Alex numerous times, both on Talk:North America and on User talk:AlexCovarrubias, that his edits were in error. He claimed that a source was being misquoted when in fact Alex misrepresented himself, claiming that he had personally checked the source. Regardless of any past history, Corticopia should not be penalized for a 3RR here. His edits were in good faith, copiously explained and cited. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I already explained in North America talk page I was wrong and I even apologized to Jim Douglas. So I kindly ask you Durova to forget my petition. However I don't think Corticopia acted with good faith, since the section was about the use of NA not CA nor SA. Thanks and sorry again Jim. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a silly misunderstanding; I'm glad that's over! :-) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally this sort of thing should go to WP:3RR. I rarely issue 3RR blocks and this week I don't have much time online due to hardware problems. I'm glad you could work things out without intervention. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

JB196

I believe he has resurfaced and think your knowledge and skills could be useful at the checkuser I have posted on the topic. I was apart of JB196 from his BooyakaDell masquerading so your knowledge is much greater than mine during that period. –– Lid^(Talk) 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind it's been pretty much agreed upon these are all puppets that now need blocking. –– Lid^(Talk) 21:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and banned the whole drawer per checkuser comments. Please add the usual templates to the user pages - I don't have much time online these days until my new hardware part gets delivered. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I should've made it clearer but in the checkuser there were also four other accounts which were not part of the opening listing of socks but are puppets of the puppets that need blocking. ZimZamZang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), DarkUmp243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Blizzardofsnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Emblemsocietyx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –– Lid^(Talk) 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Durova^Charge! 23:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep you updated but the CU was run and uncovered 50+ sockpuppets in addition to the 8 originally investigated with the possibility of there still being more not found. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Those got banned already. I've supported the idea of a second-tier checkuser on his other socks: whack-a-mole. Durova^Charge! 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Help!!

Please help here.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slipped_disc#.5B.5BSlipped_disc.5D.5D

The old article was mistakenly never deleted. It should be deleted, and only a redirect left in place. All the significant content was merged a long time ago into the new article, which has been well accepted and is now the standard article. -- Fyslee 12:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you run this by another admin? My time constrants are getting in the way this week. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bug of History Viewer

I'm sorry for bothering you. I was talking about Wikipedia:Requests for investigation of which a history view shows a buggy display including your editings. I only changed the {{vandal|Tokyo Watcher}} section, and the system displays correct differences between my edit and any revisions except the last one of mine, so I hope you would see no vandalism occured. Thanks. --Excavator 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the overwriting of my posts happened incidentally and appeared to be vandalism in one of your own edits? Drop a line to the developers if that's the case. Durova^Charge! 22:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Block of Ilena

The block of Ilena has expired, but there seems to be an underlying autoblock that has not been resolved. If you could repeal it so she could participate in the RFAR, I would appreciate it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, editors who attempt to edit during a block can auto-reset the block timer. I'll look into things for Ilena. Due to time constraints while my system is down I won't be able to follow up swiftly if this doesn't work, so take this elsewhere if my attempt at a fix doesn't clear things up for her. Durova^Charge! 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gave things a shot and the system says her account isn't blocked. I don't know her IP address or I'd check to see if there's anything there. She ought to be able to edit. If not ask an admin who's more available than I am to help out. It might be a day before I'm back online and she shouldn't have to wait that long. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Old case

Hello,Durova. As I see you once again actively involved in your duties, may I ask you to review user:Dr. Dan's case in RFI. The case was deleted by another admin some time ago and we did not received your comments on your issued block and case as whole. Several contributors raised questions in case and how it was done. I believe it could benefit to all of as if you check it in the light of the issued block. Thanks in advance, M.K. 10:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well gee, I go there and find this. Just my luck: the whole thing comes up while I'm having massive hardware problems and I don't discover what's happening until the board gets deleted. What would you like me to investigate? Durova^Charge! 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not knew that it was deleted. Nevertheless I will remind you a bit, user:Piotrus ask you to investigate the case involving user:Dr. Dan, and you blocked Dr. Dan soon afterwards - [1] despite that person asked for giving time to produce answers. In the RFI various contributors raised questions about block itself and the case, which was produced out of content dispute using RFI as tool to block opponent (and this is why RFI was deleted). Later particular user's case was deleted by another admin. If I remember correctly you also said that you will investigate this case more deeply. Now the block remained, but without further investigation. M.K. 11:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember the case. I ran into hardware problems that weekend (which still aren't fully resolved) and although that seems to have something to do with why Irpen put the board up for deletion, I think it's a stretch of the imagination to assert that was the whole reason the board got closed. What exactly do you want me to do now? What particular aspect are you asking me to look into, and is my intervention still welcomed? Durova^Charge! 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That i want to say maybe evaluating presented situation you will reconsider your initial stance of blocking particular person.M.K. 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've posted an offer to Dr. Dan's talk page. Durova^Charge! 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Durova. M.K. 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Urgent Reuqest for help

Hi Durova,

I have urgent request for help/comment - TheBee has accused Pete W of libel on my talk page a couple of times over the last few hours, and I am unsure on how to proceed. I will write up my response but a second opinion on this issue would be invaluable. I would be very grateful Cheers Lethaniol 14:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it when conversations go there and on reviewing the thread I think arbitration review is the right move. I've been considering recommending to the committee that several of the parties be topic banned. I'll post to the individuals' user pages and give them an offer to sway my opinion before submit my formal statement. If I understand correctly, the current embroglio is Pete, Diana, and Bee? Please fill me in if there are other significant players. Thanks again for all your help. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought I already posted that DianaW has been gone for a couple of weeks now. The current conflict is between Pete K and TheBee. Pete K 20:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain how broad the scope of this review is. In my last interactions she was decidedly histrionic. Durova^Charge! 20:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf Arbitration

OK, thanks. I don't have much to say other than I've been doing what the ArbCom asked for - I've asked for guidance from the ArbCom without response, and have been working productively and cooperatively with several other editors to bring the articles up to what I believe the ArbCom is looking for. If you're looking for a bunch of diffs, I'll try to collect them as part of the ArbCom process, but I don't really have the time to make that a separate task right now (not intending to offend here, I really don't have the time). The talk pages show that I am actively discussing edits with several editors on both sides and removing the material and sources the ArbCom directed us to remove. I've been spending between 10 and 18 hours a day doing this as good faith - I certainly could have left it for someone else to do like several other editors have done - and I certainly didn't put all those Anthroposophical sources or brochure language into the articles in the first place. I've been working regularly with my mentor and learning as I go along about sourcing material and about working cooperatively. I'm unable to work cooperatively with TheBee and I'll take some of the responsibility for this, but certainly not the bulk of it which I feel belongs with him. Several other editors have also complained about TheBee's interference in the article. The rest of us (both sides of the issues) have been working together, going through the ToDo list, working out language on the talk pages, and considering each other's views. I may be taking a bit of a strong stance on some issues, but I think the overall improvement in the articles (the Waldorf Ed one has been our focus) is starting to show (considering the interference we've been getting). I think that's the main objective here. Thanks Durova - and if you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Pete K 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I trust that you're doing your best on the content side of things. I've also read your block history, which doesn't look like you're learning from your mistakes. I blocked you for personal attacks back in November and cautioned you about angry outbursts repeatedly, yet from what I read today the problem continues. You've been blocked this month for 3RR violation and edit warring. Back during arbitration I noted that when I called you on a civility foul you would apologize to me and then continue being uncivil toward the editor you had offended. These problems ought to have ended months ago. Sometimes this site has to end those problems involuntarily. You've had ample warnings that it could come to this. Although I spoke up for you at arbitration I don't think I can do that anymore. If you want to persuade me not to speak up against you you'll have to address your weakest points: sometimes Wikipedia has to lose the services of well-intentioned editors when, on the whole, their participation does more harm than good. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My weakest point is I have an editor who likes to push my buttons and who edits aggressively and uncooperatively. I don't know how to deal with it other than to try not to let it happen. Regarding the 3RR, I stand up for what I believe is right - even if it means I get punished for it. I've always been this way and it is (quite honestly) unlikely that I will change on this (nor do I want to). Some of my days are very long and I lose count of reverts. And, as always, there are far more editors on the Waldorf side of the issue than on the critical side (I hate to draw lines like this, but it is what it is). I think, personally, the ArbCom should have done more. We had a volitile situation, and they made it more volitile by making vague rules and leaving the same participants in the boxing ring - and then falling silent when legitimate questions were asked. Again, I feel that I'm the one who has been putting forth the most effort here and, thus, exposing myself to more activity - both in the articles and on the talk pages. Other editors who declined to do the grunt work are being rewarded for not helping out. It just doesn't seem fair. But hey, I'm guessing this is all pretty much out of my hands now so if you need to testify against me, I will understand - no hard feelings. Pete K 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete, every expectation I've placed on you is an expectation I placed on myself when I was in similar circumstances. You've seen my investigation of the Joan of Arc vandal. It took over a year to convince the community about what he was doing. I didn't violate 3RR or get blocked and he got community sitebanned. During the early months I also dealt with a second disruptive editor on the same page who actively baited me as much as he could. To him it was personal, but it wasn't to me. I didn't let him rope me into that game. As a result he quit the project and I got sysopped. Part of why that happened was because I was patient enough to sometimes leave inappropriate material in the page for days or weeks: the difference wasn't worth compromising my reputation and the article became a featured page eventually, which is what really mattered.

The way your response looks, it comes down to My biggest problem is that other user and I don't know how to handle it. The answer to that at arbitration review will probably be Here's a solution: keep him away from the pages where he keeps getting into conflict. We've already gone through promises that you'll try your best and that hasn't worked. Mentorship hasn't solved it either. If you have a better solution I'm all ears: take a few days, think things over, surf around the Wikipedia namespace, and look for a solution that I can stand behind. I'm doing my best to be fair. Durova^Charge! 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. There are no other pages for me, I'm sorry to say. I'm either editing these pages or I'm gone (again, just being honest). This has been a tremendous effort on my part, and a huge learning experience, and if it ends today, I'll move on to the next front quite honestly - and I'm being very candid here. I'm not a Wikipedian by any stretch of the imagination (although I've become very fond of the environment and even made a few friends here). The force that drives me to participate here as much as I do is a sense of responsibility to do what I can in one particular area of the information world that I'm involved with. I wish I had your patience and saavy about how to deal with these situations. I'm still sitting here wondering what I've done wrong to be accused of libel and stuff like that. I *really* feel I've done what the ArbCom has requested - and that I have been steadfast in trying to move forward and balance the POV while introducing a few things I feel are important. TheBee has been buzzing around my head trying to distract me, irritate me, threaten me - just as bees do I suppose. I don't have a solution like - I'll take Waldorf and TheBee can have Anthroposophy (even though that might make sense because of his COI with Waldorf) - and to be quite honest, the tweed-jacketed HGilbert rubs me the wrong way too when he posts WP:AGF notices on my talk page from his armchair. There are 30+ Waldorf-related articles to clean up - we're still on the first one and clawing and scratching for every sentence. If it took you a year on the Joan of Arc - I may have 20 or 30 years ahead of me - assuming I make it through this arbitration. I guess I'm just going to roll with the punches and see what happens here. Pete K 22:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, after a few months Joan of Arc got featured. In the meantime I improved a variety of related pages and started some new articles, two of which got into Wikipedia's main page as "Did you know?" entries, and branched Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc into a featured list. Yes, sometimes the edit warriors followed me to other pages and sometimes I needed to clean up after them. Most of what worked for me was to disengage and search the site for effective solutions. I'm glad you're candid about where your interests lie although I also wish they were broader. A lot of interesting programs and projects exist in the site's crevices. Mostly I learned what's here by surfing around on my own. It's possible there's some solution to your situation I don't know about: if you find it and want to try it I'll stand behind that. Otherwise I'll have to stand against you this time because of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. No hard feelings, but that's where my conscience is leading me. You deserve to know that and to have a fair chance at swaying my opinion. You've got several days so take your time. Regards, Durova^Charge! 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine - no hard feelings. I've got a Joan of Arc story for you. When I was 9 years old, my dad bought me a collection of prints of different, famous paintings - Degas, Van Gogh, Monet, etc. a very nice collection - maybe 30 prints in all - very beautiful. There was an elderly couple who lived across the street so I decided to share my new treasure with them. I showed them my new art and told them they could choose any one they wanted as a gift from me. I can't remember which one they chose, but they gave me a print in return. It was a beautifully framed, black (brown) and white version of [2] this painting of Sir Galahad. I was very excited about it - especially since Sir Galahad was my hero. They told me, at the time, the print was over 100 years old. When I brought it home, my sister said it was really Joan of Arc (and that the neighbors had fooled me) - and for years, I believed it to be Joan of Arc (as a 9 year old, I was kind of disappointed to have a "girl" knight - but it was a cool picture). Eventually, I found out that it was, indeed, Sir Galahad. I have cherished it all these years (I'm 54 now) and it's still here hanging in my home. It reminds me to conduct myself with honor (I know... I should have gotten the knight of civility instead). To tell the truth, when I looked up the picture to link it to this post was the first time I'd ever seen the painting in color - I'm embarassed to say, I thought it was actually painted in B&W. Pete K 06:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished reading TheBee's response on his talk page "Just as a first reflexion, whether I stay or not to me stands out as much less important than that Pete goes, not only because he is damaging to the balance of the Waldorf related articles, but because I think his general basic attitude to others at Wikipedia has been and is damaging in the long run." Please consider the possibility that this has been his intention all along. He has done this sort of thing to me twice before on different websites - intimidating me and provoking me trying to get me banned (actually three times but I wasn't banned from the third). TheBee has also stated of his own accord that he should be banned from the Waldorf article if he could take Diana and me with him. This would, of course, leave the very aggressive HGilbert to run the show as he has in the past. OK, it's 11pm and I started at 6am - so I'd better go enjoy what's left of my day <G>. Pete K 07:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To you plan to add or subtract anything from that, Pete? If not I'm ready to write my recommendation. Durova^Charge! 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Only yesterday (29 Jan) you wrote: "I expect to spend about one week deciding what position I'll take." when you asked me for comments. I have answered that I would think about what to answer you. Have you changed your mind regarding the time frame? Also, Pete K, maybe I can be left to describe my views for myself? Thanks, Thebee 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Durova, I'd like a little more time (if you're giving us the rest of the week) in case my workload lightens up a bit and I find a little time to write a proper statement. It may not change your mind, but I don't see any need to deny myself the time you've afforded me - just in case TheBee shoots himself in the foot or something. Pete K 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes to both of you: take the full week if you want. I'm pretty good at separating characterizations from my own observations and my own reading of evidence - diffs help if you must make a point. I suggest splitting this into two separate threads. What I prefer to see is a different orientation from each person that focuses on the realm under one's own control: responsibilities, choices, and solutions. I've already offered you the best solutions I know. Can you show me a new solution that hasn't been tried? Something I can stand behind and support in good conscience? Durova^Charge! 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The best solution that I've come up with, that will not discard the 80+ years of Waldorf experience by the editors you are considering recommending for banning is this:

• Since the Waldorf Education article is so controversial (I don't think anyone denies this) and it's currently locked, let's leave it locked.
• Allow one or two administrative persons to have access (see below).
• Let all edits be discussed on the discussion pages (we're supposed to be doing this anyway).
• Let only edits that are agreed to by consensus be made by (or allowed and overseen by) the administrative persons. Technically, we could be allowed to make the approved edits ourselves and I'm sure nobody would try to slip anything past everyone else.

This is what we have been trying to do with Lethaniol and I believe it has been working very well. We are focusing on editing, we are working out challenging language, and Lethaniol has been considerate of all sides of the issue and smacking us around when we edit war or start to get hot under the collar. I truly think this is great! It's not all that much different than the Waldorf Project that was attempted months ago, but rather than getting lost in all the project pages, this could just occur on the talk page. Also, the problem with the failed Waldorf project was that you needed to sign up and work through consensus, meanwhile, other editors were editing away freely. With this "soft" lock on the article, we could be assured that reasonable edits could be made and that the destructive behavior of edit-warring and personal attacks wouldn't get us anywhere. It would be my hope that after some period of time (I'll call it training) we could learn to work together on an unlocked, freely-editable article.

So technically, this would be an across-the-board ban on editing the article and limiting editors to discussion on the talk page. The one drawback that I see is that we will require an administrative oversight person to sign up for this. I would hope that perhaps Lethaniol might volunteer, along with TheBee's new mentor. Between them, they could, I think, cover the responsibility of opening and closing the editing valve on the article. Thorough discussion and spirited debate will certainly continue, but I don't think that's necessarily bad - and with moderated discussion, it might be very good. I know it sounds like I'm asking for our own personal administrators (that's because I kinda am) but with 30+ articles to contend with, maybe this isn't so unjustified (I'm not suggesting we lock them all up, just any that become battlegrounds). And really, the drain on so many adminstrators over the months must be at least as bad as assigning someone to this task part-time. Anyway, that's my best solution, and I think it's fair, doesn't ban anyone and still allows Wikipedia to draw from the knowledge base on these topics that is currently here. Thanks in advance for considering this option. I don't expect to add anything beyond this, so I'll yield the remainder of my week to TheBee. Pete K 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like there is going to be any room for an option, so with that... I bid you adieu. Thanks Durova... Pete K 03:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't throw in the towel just yet. I'll lay my cards on the table: a few days ago I was thinking of recommending that ArbCom topic ban all three of you. Diana's inactivity speaks against applying that to her. I'm weighing the possibility of recommending civility parole for you and Bee. In Bee's case that mainly regards the reception of Wikiwag - WP:BITE - these topics could benefit from fresh input. In your case, Pete, I'd suggest a stricter schedule of escalating blocks because I think your incivility has been a more serious problem. My reasons for leaning toward that instead of an outright topic ban are:

1. It's an intermediate remedy between general article probation and outright topic ban.
2. The schedule of escalating remedies could scale up to topic ban without further committee involvement.
3. As the sole remaining Waldorf critic, your presence there can have a balancing effect. If you go then there's a realistic possibility that the remaining editors will fail to satisfy the terms of article probation and wind up being topic banned themselves.

Durova^Charge! 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. I'm still hanging around while I monitor the arbitration and ensure that the claims of libel are shown to be unwarranted. It's not like me to throw in the towel, but I just can't deal with another arbitration and digging up evidence again - the stress is too great and my time is too limited. I posted up what I had collected already, but I'm not going to spend much time digging around to make my points - especially in light of Fred's focus on me. It really seems like a waste of energy. A lot of this could have been avoided if a more active role was accepted by the ArbCom - especially in interpreting their ruling and answering questions that were posed to them throughout this post-arbitration period. I absolutely agree with you that without my perspective, the articles will, in all likelyhood, slowly but surely move back to the brochure language they contained previously. While they can be very pushy at times, the pro-Waldorf editors probably won't be banned because fresh editors who are critical will be intimidated away from fighting for their edits and move on. Who will bring the aggressive behavior of these editors to light? That Wikiwag stayed in spite of TheBee's immediate onslaught is an amazing testament to his courage. I've already decided to back away from what I felt was my responsibility to balance these articles because the stress of fighting with three of them all day over a single word or phrase is just too much - but I'd like to be able to produce edits from time to time. I've already decided I don't need this in my life full-time. Pete K 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on Jimbo's page

Hi Durova! I was going to ask for clarification, but I think I figured it out. You seem to have linked to the wrong story in "The Chronicle of Higher Education"; it should have been this one from October, not November. Tim Shuba 23:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. It's fixed. Durova^Charge! 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Review of Waldorf education

The dispute over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a bit of a red herring, although it is important regarding those who are eager to edit war to keep the material in. As far as matters of substance, you need to look at quality of editing in terms of reliance on third party sources. Fred Bauder 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a red herring... we hear of this sort of thing all the time. Here is a case I'm personally familiar with. Here is another parent whose child has experienced Waldorf abuse. Sure, we can't cite these, but the problem is real and not isolated to this one teacher who happened to be important enough for a newspaper to write about. Why is it edit warring to keep this material in? Pete K 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Red herring" suggests misdirection or falsehood. This is fact supported by no less than 3 independent sources. I am not (was not) edit warring; just trying to find the right language. Or is the implication of a Senator's daughter simply too hot for Wikipedia to handle? Regardless, it doesn't change the facts. - Wikiwag 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's too hot for Wikipedia - and it is properly sourced. I think Fred believes it isn't important enough to include in the article. Pete K 05:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Referee whistle - take it easy. Fred wrote in reply to my request at his talk page. We weren't discussing whether BLP issues are a red herring to the case as a whole, instead we confirmed that I can keep my communication on-wiki because I don't plan to address BLP in my statement. I've chosen to communicate openly as a courtesy to the people who have something at stake in this review. When people misconstrue a few words out of context and quarrel, that gives me a reason to go to e-mail: your loss, not mine. I'll make that switch if this happens again. Durova^Charge! 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

VinceB

Ok, I understand, but if you look at them, they were nothing else, but content disputes, all declared vandalisms by T, not intrested in the fact (aka discussing on talkpage abt it), that I brought lots of on-line citations, and I'm collecting them since. See: User:VinceB/Immigration. I'd rather call Tankred's edits disruptive, and usually hostile, reverting as soon as he reaches the button, not looking, not hearing not talking or anything. And he's unusally lucky. Last time, I caught him lying 5 times[3], but it was deleted before investigation. I say that, and it has been proved many times before, that T is a notorious liar (see link), continous misinterprator and falsifier (in fact one of those proved lies are on yr talkpage, so in fact T has lied to you also abt me), again, proved, and he's been cathed for the 100th time again by me, and you still believe him, and accept his words without hesitation or cheking them????

ad2: I've got an apology for my behave on my userpage since oct 23.[4], and I admitted it a 1000 time since.

Maybe I should log in always, since I'm doing a lot of useful edits, but thankfully to Tankred, only as an IP, to save other editors from our polemy, and the fact that whatever I do, T reverts it without a word and/or also picks at it on the talkpage (sometimes, but usally not intrested in resolvilg content disputes by discussion). I only log in to edit those, wich you can find in my contrib list, to avoid agains the sockpuppet thing. BTW the edit why I was blocked is under discussion, and Tankred is editwarring on that page [5]. All my edits were due content disputes. silly thing, that I brought tons of ENGLISH speaking online citations, but no, T's unreachable and very universal book, wich proves everything is accepted. Bah... Maybe your behave would not be so neat by having a radical nationalist notorius liar on yr neck. Oh, and an impersonator, who's seemingly User:Arpad. I guess those IP's mentioned by Tankred are him. Maybe a checkuser is ought to be written out abt it. Can be a sockpuppet case opened with only an IP, to find out who's is it? --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And the slovakization edit,for wich I was reported for was in fact the revert of an edit of one of now indef banned User:Juro's sockpuppets, User:Koooon (page history). I wrote that checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Juro, and I was right. So a notorius vandal and sockpuppeteer was block thankfully to me. Juro and T were befriending fo a long time here on Wikipedia, and sice I've started with reporting User Juro, no wonder, that T was not intrested in talking to me, but blocking in any way he can reach. Well, he IS successfull in it. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel deeply offended by VinceB's comment above and I encourage you to check the diffs I provided in my post at WP:ANI.[6] VinceB got blocked because he changed a referenced text (citation from a book) in two different articles. He did not revert anything at that time. He just picked up a citation and changed its meaning to its opposite without deleting the reference to the source. If I did not have that page on my watchlist, a wrong statement would look like cited from a published source. I did not lie at WP:ANI and everything can be traced back. Tankred 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vince's most recent block already withstood review. I alerted him of his mounting block log. It's a polite heads up and a request that he try a paradigm shift for how he interacts here. At some point an editor collects enough of a history of problems that the blocks become much longer and the community takes an interest in solving the problem. If I intervene with more than advice I'll look at everything in detail. For now I'm posting in the hope that won't be necessary. I'd rather see conflicts resolved and friendly collaboration to improve the encyclopedia. If this is primarily a content dispute then look under any unturned stones at WP:DR. If the problem is primarily policy issues then a user conduct WP:RFC may be in order...if not now then not too far down the road. If Vince really is right then that will all come out in the wash, but in my prior experience his claims haven't borne up to scrutiny. WP:AGF has a shelf life when editors use it that way. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:DeanHinnen sock puppet of User:BryanFromPalatine

I am almost ready to quit Wikipedia, but I'll make one more effort.

Long ago, BryanFromPalatine needed to evade a block and created a sock puppet. A little later he needed to control the consensus on Jossi's moderation of the editing on Free Republic, and he created a bunch of socks.

Here is the checkuser archive that captures most of this; Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

Here is are all THREE of the SSP cases; [[7]]

Now we have User:DeanHinnen - He claims to be Bryan's brother. But as soon as he appeared he resumed Bryan's edits and resumed attacking me and resumed using the same damned words and phrases, and pasting in the same "evidence" against me. And he is a single purpose account without any doubt. He is a meatpuppet if he is not a sock puppet. And if you check the log of the RfC presently being prosecuted against me he even had Bryan as the co-certifier and wow do they sound alike. But even though he was acting as the agent of a banned user he was not blocked.

So I see all these socks and I decide that this cannot be allowed and I go through all the filings and investigation for the last three months and now suddenly I'm the bad guy. I feel really ill used. I should be given some credit for trying to help wikipedia rules get enforced but instead I get an inquisition and nobody will be my advocate.

I think Dean Hinnen has no standing to prosecute me as he is a sock or meat puppet of a banned user as he in fact proved when he made Bryan the co-certifying editor. Of course, now, Bryan got removed and TBeatty took over to certify it even though he was not a party to any of this at all.

I'm pretty disgusted here. I don't think it is MY skills at finding compromise that are at issue, it is the fact that I will not compromise or deal with an abusive sock puppet of a permanently blocked user. --BenBurch 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Confirmed_sockpuppets_of_User:BryanFromPalatine_via_checkuser. and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_NO_LEGAL_THREATS_by_User:DeanHinnen which I believe are what the RfC against me is in retribution for. --BenBurch 14:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I understand the frustration of dealing with editors who flout site policies. Reciprocal accusations are commonplace in longstanding disputes and - to an outsider - it really takes a thorough investigation to see what's happening. Due to hardware problems I'm not able to do that much today. You have my attention, however, and I will follow up on this as I am able. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

More Linkage;

Several checkuser requests all to be found here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

Here are his SSP investigations;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalantine_%28new%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%283rd%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%284th%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ArlingtonTX

The revenge Checkuser his suspected sock filed against me (and which his confirmed sock RE-filed);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BenBurch

THANKS!

• Another sock detected and removed; [8] --BenBurch 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I filed a SSP investigation; Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DeanHinnen --BenBurch 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardware

Where are you geographically, BTW? I fix hardware... --BenBurch 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

California. The fix is simple; I'm waiting for the part. Patching until it arrives. Durova^Charge! 15:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. A bit of a drive from Chicago anyway. --BenBurch 15:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And a much more pleasant place to be in January. You've got a great city: I spent two unplanned nights there when I passed through in the wrong season. ;) Durova^Charge! 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A balmy day here at 10 F. with a wind chill of -7 F. It was 3 F. when I got up this AM. --BenBurch 16:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How does the song go? "California Dreamin, on such a winter's day?" We're looking at least a couple inches of snow tommorrow. I hate winter. SirFozzie 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Weather's terrible today by local standards: fiftysomething Farenheit and drizzling. The only thing worse is an earthquake. *smirk* ;) Durova^Charge! 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rassenfrassenbrickenbracken no-goodnik superior weather person! SirFozzie 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (nicknamed Muttley by my friends, who are strangely enough weirder then me!

Remember the old cartoons where a little angel on one shoulder says don't and a little devil on the other says do it? The angel got pitchforked in his backside when I decided whether to post this.

Here in California we know what to do with snow. We put it on top of the mountains and go visit it. When we're finished skiing we drive down to a beautiful little restaurant by the beach and eat dinner on the patio while we watch the sunset over the ocean.

Of course when the really big earthquake comes we'll all be in the ocean, but we're sipping champagne until then. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• laughs* Thanks.. I needed that today (Stupid 24 hour illnesses) SirFozzie 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

HELP! I am being attacked on my talk page, and don't know how to stop it.

I ran across your name quite by accident, and seeing that you are a sysop (one of only two I've ever knowingly run across), I would like your advice and perhaps intervention. I am being repeatedly attacked on my Talk page by a clever editor who is repeatedly twisting my words, assuming bad faith repeatedly even after my attempts to explain that what I said was completely innocuous, and, even though I asked in a civil manner, will not stop his deceptive criticism of me - out of context - on my Talk page. I asked him to confine his comments to the Talk page in question (Talk:Jonathan_Wells; see discussion here), but he has refused to do so. The worst part is that he is an administrator! I would have thought that administrators would be held to a higher standard of behavior. I never thought it would give them a licence to blatantly and repeatedly violate "assume good faith" and also impugn editors' character on their Talk pages. He is accusing me of the very things he is actually doing. I am not fighting with him. I tried to ignore most of his outrageousness, and explain my statement, and in a civil way how his accusations against me appeared. I have tried hard to avoid having a fight by making my comments less pointed than they would be otherwise. If I have the ability to lock my Talk and User pages to prevent editing, I don't know how to do it. I am a relatively inexperienced user (no longer a newcomer, but still naive enough to think that people are honest and that the rules should be followed and that people should be civil), and I need HELP! I am watching his Talk page, so you may respond there if that is the most appropriate place. -Exucmember 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand. For future reference, it helps to supply page diffs when you request assistance. Try an article WP:RFC on the proposed title move. It would be a good idea to get more opinions on this hot button topic. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Both situations seem to have resolved themselves for the time being, thanks to others coming to help out. The title was moved to a compromise name, and several senior editors told my accuser to cool it. Anyway, thanks again. -Exucmember 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

This arbitration case has been closed. GuardianZ and Skinny McGee are banned indefinitely from the article Midnight Syndicate. Dionyseus is banned for three months from Midnight Syndicate. No present or past employee or associate of the band Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles (it is acceptable for such persons to make suggestions on the talk page; it is especially helpful if they identify themselves and the roles they play or played in the group). The complete text of the decision can be found at the link above. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad, Assistant Clerk, 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for the feedback.

I am afraid, however, that I couldn't say I was sure whether you were offering me a comment on my comment, or you were commenting solely on Zoe's interaction with the college instuctor, and the subsequent dialogue on wp:an. If you think there is a lesson for me please fell free to step up your bluntness a notch or two.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 02:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Durova^Charge! 16:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply

Hey Durova, thanks for your message. Sorry for the delay replying, but I'm on a semi-break and haven't been online a lot. I would like to respond to some of the points you made on both Peter's and my talk pages.

• As I mentioned at the time on ANI, I was quite familiar with this matter as I had stumbled into the nest at The National Council Against Health Fraud, Stephen Barrett, and Barrett v. Rosenthal. At the time I was unable to get too involved, other than resolving a copyright dispute, because I was caught up on Breast implants. There was already at least one admin (Dr Rubin) active on those pages, as well as Peter, but I did have returning to check out their progress on my list of things to do. Also, throughout the ANI discussions, I had been regularly reading the relevant talk pages, including Ilena's. So I was quite familiar with what had been going on and I feel that your statement that my reaction "lacks appropriate context" and your apparent (?) suggestion on my talk page that I wasn't fully aware of what was going on is not correct.

I meant the context of the discussions at Ilena's talk page that immediately preceded my post at Peter's page. Her page has been heavily refactored so those particular threads can only be read through the history file. Several editors were asking Peter to reconsider his choices and I had made several suggestions and requests to him before I posted to his page. The tone of your reply led me to suppose that you read that particular post of mine as a shot out of the blue rather than as the culmination of that other discussion. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I had been reading the talk pages and I understood that your post was one in a back-and-forth dialogue, not just a once off. I pretty much agreed with everything that you had been saying, I just didn't like the tone or the tone that I perceived in that particular comment. Sarah 08:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding Peter, you said, "I did not give him a block warning". I understand that and I don't think I ever said you did give him a block warning. I said that I was troubled that Peter felt that you may block him. Whether you think that feeling was justified or based on a reasonable foundation will depend on your perspective, but the fact is he genuinely felt that way and that was a concern to me because I consider Peter to be a valued and hard working member of the community.

I addressed the confusion promptly with clarification, apology for my share of the responsibility, and strikethrough. That's as much as I can do. WP:AGF places a share of responsibility elsewhere: if someone misreads a post and fails to ask for clarification, then overlooks prompt clarification when it is supplied, then the hurt feelings that result are simply not my fault. It is impossible to anticipate every potential misreading of a meaning and forestall that in advance. Part of the difficulties in the posts at Peter's page sprung from my attempts to do precisely that. It had seemed to me that Peter had skimmed my previous posts and reflected what he saw in bad faith so I provided more details and tried to head off possible misinterpretation. In retrospect that was a bad decision on my part because it introduced additional misunderstandings. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you did strike through and explained misunderstandings and there is absolutely anything else you could do or be expected to do. I also agree that it's not your fault if people decide to overlook your clarification and remain upset. You aren't responsible for what other people think or decide they want to believe. Thanks for clarifying your position further, it does help me understand where you were coming from. Sarah 08:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, I believe you don't actually think admins are Gods. I just thought it was unfair to use your adminship, RfA results and Peter's failed RfA to try to get the advantage in a dispute and it looked like you were trying to intimidate Peter into backing down, but I fully accept that you didn't intend to give that impression. To me, adminship just means we've been trusted with a couple of extra buttons, but a person's argument has to stand or fall on its own merit regardless of whether or not their name is listed on WP:LA.

Point taken. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• As far as the Ilena/Fyslee dispute is concerned, I agree completely that Ilene's behaviour has been appalling and I've thought that since I first came across them arguing. However, I think where we diverge is, I think Fylsee has also behaved very badly and I don't think he should be constantly cut slack because he retracts when pulled up. I see here on this page only a few days ago, he was once again editorialising about Ilena, stating "I wonder how many people she may have driven to suicide in the past few years?" His entire post is out-of-line, but I find that particular comment completely unacceptable yet he seems to more or less get away with such comments because he withdraws them when he's pulled up. It is my view, and this was my point on ANI, that Fyslee's comments, his editorialising, provoking commentaries are as unacceptable as Ilena's. Fyslee has been here since December, 2005, and frankly, I'm rather shocked that after all the talking and all the warnings and feedback, he hasn't figured out that speculating about another editor driving others to suicide is not only unacceptable on Wikipedia but unacceptable in most reasonable human interaction. Fyslee isn't stupid and when I see him make comments like that, I feel he is playing us. And I'm going to start blocking him myself if I see anymore of that kind of rubbish from him.

You're right; I agree about Fyslee and I had cautioned him for that. The trajectory for that type of problem runs a little slower than for the things Ilena was doing. If Fyslee had continued to post-strikethrough-post-strikethrough with hurtful words and leaving them up long enough for the sting to take effect, that would have led to formal warnings and blocks. The arbitration request opened during the interval of thank you for striking through, please disengage and it can look like gaming the system if this becomes a habit. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I won't go into too many details because it involves an email, but Fyslee really needs to accept responsibility for his own actions and how they have provoked and exacerbated the conflict, instead of blaming everyone else and painting himself as the victim (and comparing himself to a rape victim at that). And I've told him this privately. Sarah 08:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want you to know that I think highly of you and I apologise if I've given a different impression. I think you're a fantastic editor and administrator. All the best, Sarah 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: you're one of the administrators I attempt to emulate. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You say, "Her page has been heavily refactored so those particular threads can only be read through the history file." It is? Who refactored it? Not me. Thank you. Ilena 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronz and Peter, mostly Peter I think during the interval where I was active. That part would be difficult to read even without the refactoring: rapid posts on multiple threads with overlapping subjects, frequent changes of topic before existing issues got resolved, new accusations cropping up faster than anything was settling. I felt like I was tiptoeing through a minefield. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been blown away by your investigations and how quickly you took to adminship, so coming from you, that means a lot. Thank you. :) Sarah 08:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong, I have not lowered my expectations enough

I thought I had lowered my expectations sufficiently, but obviously I was wrong. You have now chosen to act as enabler for edits like this? From threatening to block Guy for some mild incivility to posting encouraging comments to someone calling me a "blatant liar"... I sure hope this is something personal against me, and not your new standard for behaviour in the community. Guettarda 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This response comes as a surprise. The other editor had invited me to provide a neutral third opinion, which is what I attempted to do in good faith. If I had anticipated you would draw a connection between that and JzG I would have recused myself. That had seemed like a nonissue after Guy told me he didn't take offense. If it wasn't a nonissue from your perspective then please accept my assurances that I bear you no personal animosity. My intention was to quell the conflict, not to worsen it. If you mistrust my evaluation then I suggest you seek others at WP:AN. Please return the good faith by toning down your post to this thread. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 21:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[Replied by email Guettarda]

Vandal help

Hey Durova, I saw this in progress and am not sure what to do, but knew you would. Thanks! [9] --Dematt 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the usual venue for this type of request. I happened to be online when you posted. Good catch! Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Got another one that just hitthe chiropractic page, too.. Full Moon? I'll report the vandal page above.. Thanks!!! --Dematt 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal help

Durova please check the article Mexico. User Corticopia is reverting a perfectly sourced material in order to get the article to say what he wants, not only what is sourced. I had to make a new account because he is "watching" my contribution page, he has gone that far. I am AlexCovarrubias. Please take a look. He accused me of erasing "sourced" material, so I compromised adding it again and opening a discussion, but he is not doing the same now that I provided sourced material. H.Heart 21:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to me, but my plate is pretty full today and I'm having system problems. I took an initial look into this and it seems like I'd have to check the dead-trees references to know which version is accurate. Would you post the query to WP:ANI? Durova^Charge! 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

More problems with user Isarig

Hi - I'm contacting you directly for assistance with Isarig (talk · contribs) again because I'm not sure what to do and because you are familiar with my complaints about him in the past. He has continued to be abusive towards me on a couple of pages that we both edit, and I have tried very hard to hold my tongue in spite of his assaults. Regardless of this, he has threatened over and over to report me to ArbCom for behavior issues that he refuses to specify (other than to say I am being disruptive and abusive). I'm not sure if it is appropriate to file another WP:ANI report against him under the circumstances, but I really would like his behavior towards me to stop.

The two pages in question are Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole and Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute. On Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole he has threatened arbitration (see also here) without explaining why, calling me "stubborn" and saying that I am refusing to compromise even though I explicitly agreed to two different compromises that he had also agreed to. His characterization of my actions was unfair and completely distorted the reality, which was that I had agreed to the same compromise as him. He continued to falsely maintain that I was "intransigent" and that I had "declined every one" of his suggestions.[10] I pointed out that I had agreed to his compromises, but he ignored that and continued to complain about my behavior.

On the Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute page it has been even worse -- he has continually over the past few days given every indication of spoiling for a fight. He grasped onto one argument in the dispute -- a claim that was tangential to the main argument at best -- and used it as a focus for condescending ridicule [11][12][13]. I begged him to stop the abuse and backed off that particular argument, even though I felt he was incorrect, simply to spare myself further abuse.

Things calmed down until I called another editor out about blatantly deceptive edit summaries (the other editor, Armon (talk · contribs), is one who almost invariably sides with Isarig.) Armon had been making substantive edits to the page, deleting an entire paragraph of sourced and relevant material, and marking his edit "minor" and putting something in the edit summary that was totally different from his actual edit. Armon was edit warring over this paragraph, but his labels in the edit summary were deceptive -- at first I thought this was an honest mistake, as he had made other edits along with the removal of the paragraph, but then he did it again and again. After the third time, I reverted him and asked him in the edit summary to stop using deceptive edit summaries; I thought that was the end of it when he reverted the paragraph deletion and used a cryptic but reasonable edit summary to describe this edit. Then he did it again - this time marking his deletion as "minor" and using the blatantly deceptive edit summary "Ref format". I called him on it again and he finally addressed the issue in the talk page briefly (not satisfactorily, but at least he was being up front about it). I see as I am writing this that Armon has now posted an attempt to explain his edit summaries on my talk page.

I only mention Armon's deception because when I called him on it, Isarig threw a fit, telling me it was a "personal attack," explaining that I was "repeatedly calling an editor a liar," and threatening to file complaints about my behavior, and when I asked him to stop picking on me, he responded with more threats and the condescending comment, "Is English not a language you are familiar with?"

I really don't know what to do here. I have been trying to be civil here, asking him politely to stop each time, but it doesn't do me any good. He is clearly singling me out for these attacks because of our prior history. I am worried about his ArbCom threats because I don't really have time to deal with any of this. I started editing Wikipedia because I believe in the project and thought that I had something positive to contribute to it. I don't have a ton of free time to give to Wikipedia, but I give my free time to it anyway because I believe it to be worthwhile. But if I am going to spend that time defending my right to be here, or bickering with another editor, it will seem a lot less worthwhile to me. I know my behavior is not always exemplary, particularly when I am under attack, but I am trying to stay out of the mud. Unfortunately Isarig seems determined to drag me into it. Is there anything you can do as an administrator to help, or anything you can suggest to me? Thanks. csloat 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This type of situation is difficult to manage: a content dispute between educated editors that bleeds into user conduct issues. I could patch the situation by enforcing WP:VANDAL, but that's been tried before without really solving your problem. Actually arbitration could be a reasonable alternative under these circumstances, but I've been through that mill enough times that I understand your desire to avoid it.

I'll go out on a limb here and propose an experimental alternative. Have a look at User:Durova/Mediation and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla. That was developing into a mediation-with-remedies or a do-it-yourself arbitration: rather than asking everyone to shake hands and play nicely, the two participants would submit themselves to community enforcement of arbitration-like remedies. I cannot guarantee the community would accept this approach if I proposed it for your dilemma, but if both you and Isarig are interested I'll see what I can do to create this opportunity. It wouldn't go through the formal mediation cabal. Instead it would be hosted in my own user space. The advantages this could have over arbitration is that it would be more dignified, streamlined, and less process-bound. You'd get to select your own remedies and enforcement guidelines as long as both of you agree to the solutions. Some details remain to be worked out, but that's the basic idea. Let me know if you both want to pursue this. Durova^Charge! 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this would be helpful; my sense is that if it requires Isarig to work together with me in any way, he will not be amenable. The problem here is not a content dispute that could be easily arbitrated, I think - it's a behavior problem that has overshadowed the content disputes. As you saw with the Quran controversy page, the behavior problem sometimes leads to the content disputes and not the other way around.

I think part of the problem is that Isarig has not been told his behavior is unacceptable. His main actions on Wikipedia articles are reverts, almost exclusively, and he constantly attacks other users in talk (as the AP:ANI showed, I am far from the only user who has this problem with him). He is smart about the 3RR, so he does exactly 3 reverts every day. WP rules say that the 3RR is not a license, but he constantly treats it as one and no admin has called him on it. I imagine he will continue to do so unless he is blocked or required to stick to a 1RR. The alternative is for users like me who disagree with him to begin treating the 3RR as a license too -- it becomes a meaningless escalation that only stops when one side is outnumbered or when an admin protects the page (as William Connoly did with the MEMRI page). Either way, it completely stalls progress on the page and wastes everybody's time.

I'm happy to try any kind of mediation if it seems like it would work but I'm not sure what we'd be mediating -- what I want is for the objectionable behavior to stop. I'm not sure he thinks he is engaged in any objectionable behavior. csloat 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The type of experimental mediation I'm proposing would be community enforced: Ghirla and Piotrus had agreed to mutual civility parole. That solution had never been tried outside of arbitration before: it would have invited sysops to block them for mild infractions regardless of any ongoing content dispute. One remedy the two of you might borrow from arbitration and try on yourselves is revert parole: limit yourselves to one revert a day and work out an enforcement scheme for how long the blocks would be and how they would escalate if the agreement were broken. If you browse the past arbitration cases you may find other precedents you could agree upon voluntarily. Both of you look to me as if you're intelligent and responsible enough to try this.

The dilemma we face here is that, even though the root of this may look like something other than a content dispute to you, it does have content elements and those elements occur at a scholarly level. The waters have also been muddied. A bold sysop sometimes steps into a content dispute when one side's actions remain saintly, but when both sides game the three revert rule and snipe at each other we tend to intervene only in the most obvious calls such as altering another editor's talk page comments. Deletion of cited material is obvious enough for me to act, so I could issue a short block there if you really want. Yet where would you be afterward? Anyone with a POV to push and a certain amount of smarts can figure out that policy enforcement and content enforcement dovetail only at arbitration. If they don't cross the line too often on the policy side and they demonstrate some level of scholarly expertise then they can generate a lot of frustration.

So if you want me to block for deletion of cited material, say so. If you'd like to try an experimental community enforced mediation, say so. Otherwise arbitration is your likely alternative. The silver lining to that cloud is how arbitration moves at a leisurely pace: you could leave down for a weekend and not miss much. The committee would give plenty of time to get your ducks in a row. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you believe a block is warranted for the deletion of that material, I think that would be a step in the right direction - as I've said, I think that part of the problem is that Isarig simply hasn't been told his actions are objectionable, so he thinks they are ok, and even endorsed by the admins. That said, he has stopped attacking me ever since Armon apologized for deceptive edits on my talk page, and he has indicated some willingness to accept the cited material on the MEMRI page if the paragraph is worded differently -- the thing is, he should be encouraged to word the paragraph differently himself in such cases rather than simply deleting it. So, if you could do something to address that specific behavior it would be helpful, but you're right that there are also other behavioral issues here that may require some sort of formal mediation. I'd be happy to enter such a process if Isarig is also willing to do so. I am certainly willing to abide by a self-imposed 1RR as well if we can agree to that. csloat 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Armon for 24 hours and left a policy note at the article talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to you request

I appreciate the polite request you sent me, and I understand you concern and suffering.

You say your uncle watched his boss die, as well as bodyparts dropping from the sky. This happened because of a loonatic US-backed terrorist group who decided to turn against its masters (or to support its masters by terrorising the population so that your beloved president could proceed with his plans, whatever).

I, on the other hand, witenessed the shelling of my hometown, the slaughter of its inhabitants, my relatives, as well as the the complete eradication of half the region by a terrorist state, using your US-made uranium-based weaponry.

I hope we do not get to the point where the two situations could be compared, or to a situation where fundamentalist suicide bombers could be compared to what is considered to be the most correct and righteous paramilitary organization, who has never conducted suicide bombings against civilians (or military), contrary to what your media might tell you.

I hope I made my opinion clear. Embargo 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's not particularly my beloved president, yet I see your point. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of your statements I respect your perspective. User space can be a good place to disclose one's biases and conflicts of interest in good faith. When this touches on sensitive issues I recommend doing so in a respectful and thoughtful way. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:M-butterfly.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:M-butterfly.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No angry mastodons

I just read this essay, and was wondering if you have a link to some WP page that deals with the widespread phenomenon of editing WP while drunk. Something along the lines of Lamest edit wars. Cheers. Hic!--Shtove 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually another editor added that particular bit, with a note that it added parallel construction to match my advice against editing while hungry. I confess to editing while under the influence of caffeine. Durova^Charge! 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking as punishment

Blocking users is supposed to be used as a means to prevent edity warring, not as punishment. In fact , the very second line of Wikipedia:Blocking policy states explictly and clearly that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure.". Given that the MEMRI page has been protected for several days, I can't see how your block of Armon, for actions he took several days ago is anything but a punitive measure, in clear violation of official Wikipedia policy. You have acted out of line in imposing this block, and I strongly urge you to reconsider this action. Isarig 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Improper_blocking_of_user_as_punishment now. Jkelly 02:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This complaint is inappropriate. By raising it at a noticeboard before I could log in and reply Isarig has compelled me to identify this WP:AGF violation of his to the community. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon

Hi Durova, I've unblocked Armon per his request, because I couldn't see a reason for the block. The only diffs I could see at that article involved a regular content dispute, and while I didn't agree with all his edits, I couldn't see anything that amounted to vandalism or disruption. I very rarely unblock without discussing it in advance with the blocking admin, but in this case, I felt that perhaps a mistake had been made. I apologize if I missed something. Please let me know if I did. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied at SlimVirgin's talk. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

ROLL

Thanks for the comment, and sorry that I've taken so long to respond, as I've been hectically busy IRL (incidentally, if I don't respond for a while, I suggest contacting Ral315). I see the confusion in the pronoun, and have cleared that up with parentheses. However, since I try not to make evaluative claims about evidence, I have returned it to "according to Durova". David Mestel^(Talk) 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. It must be very difficult to summarize these complex ArbCom cases in just a few sentences. Thanks for volunteering at the Signpost. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 19:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)