User talk:Durova

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

If you've come here to discuss my actions as an administrator, please read this disclaimer.

Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Re: Striver User page

I have read your post on Striver user page [1] and cannot control myself not to reply it here. First supposition you have is that Muslim or those you were attacked by USA enemy had anything to do with 9/11. Which me (and I think striver may be too) do not accept. Those who attacked on Iraq and Afghanistan are bigger terrorist then OBL and no doubt in my mind that Bush has no comparison in terms of superiority as a terrorist as compare to OBL. --- ALM 14:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You read too much into my words. My post did not suppose what you claim it supposed. In fact, as someone who joined the armed forces only because my family had nearly been killed, I viewed politics from a perspective unusually suited to criticize Bush: I think anyone on earth is more likely to take up arms when they believe their own family is threatened.

My message to Striver objected to a broad sarcastic statement that slurs all United States servicemembers. That - in its own way - is as objectionable as any broad sarcastic statement against any large group of people. The world would be a more peaceful place if people on all sides stepped away from that sort of thinking. Durova^Charge! 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was in USA working in "Silicon Valley" as a software engineer when 9/11 happened. I never thought bad about USA and used to do work all day sincerely to earn money and respect.

When 9/11 happened (please believe me I has nothing to do with it) "they" made my life "miserable". What I meant from miserable? Due to the risk for my family (my son and my wife) I cannot to explain those post 9/11 events related to my life here in detail but I wish you can imagine them yourself. Should I also go and take arms? Against whom? I have many American friends; those nice people had nothing to do what happened with me. Hence I tried to forget those post 9/11 events related to me (but not sure I can ever forget those). However, unlike me, you choose a different path which was not a right path.

See, my only brother is currently a solider in Army and my father is a retired Army Col. However, I wish my brother never joined Army and I do not like Pakistan Army. Because my brother might be sincere but then some ugly general send him to kill some innocent person. My brother talks with me to giving life while fighting with enemy. But what if he lose his life, fighting with someone who was not an enemy? It is because he will go on the mission told to him by idiot Pakistani Bush (Mr. Musharraf), and with all his sincerity I really doubt about those mission and those fake enemies. Those solider might be good people with good aims but those mission might not be good to go.

USA is responsible for each civilian killed in Iraq because of sectarian violence there. Because that violence was not there before the "invasion". There was peace before they arrived. They enslave countries, bomb them and given them civil wars as gift. --- ALM 16:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I read it before going to the ANI comment. If i had read those first, i might have ended up being offended, but reading your sincere and open message, i can not help but understand that my user page contributed to you feeling uneasy. I apologies for that, and i will try to take steps in order to help avoid or lessen the risk of that in the future. Thanks again and peace. --Striver 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Striver. And ALM, your post is a vague in some details, but if somebody discriminated against you after 9/11 you have my sincere sympathies. One of the tough parts about undertaking military service is that a person doesn't know exactly what the larger policies will be or what they'll be ordered to do. If someone in power makes a bad decision then those further down can only refuse to perform their part if the order violates the law. When I was on deployment I volunteered to stand extra armed watches because I thought - if anyone has to fire this weapon, let it be me and not some poor kid who's just trying to earn money for college. Instead of firing on anyone I was able to help save lives, but that was mostly the luck of the draw. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Request from GuardianZ

GuardianZ has been blocked from Wikipedia and is unable to edit beyond his/her user talk page. He/she left a {{helpme}} asking that you be contacted since you might be able to help. Please see the comment on his/her talk page. —P^urpleRA^IN 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replied but the advice didn't take very well. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

I know you're probably busy; but I've been impressed with the way you handle disputes (like Charun) and the creative solutions you come up with for such problems as school ip vandalism, and the suicide threat.

I stumbled across this RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, and it looks like something you might be able to help with. I provided my opinion, but the requester really seems to want admins to respond, and your admin tools might help you to see some things (from deleted articles, etc) that could possibly clarify the sockpuppetry accusations (though if checkuser couldn't confirm it, maybe your admin tools wouldn't be much help after all). Anyway, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it I'm sure everyone involved would be grateful. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well golly, with a compliment like that how can I refuse? I'll see what I can do to help. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Deskana who performed the original indef block agreed to look into this at about the same time when I started to dig around. My impression of the situation is that this is very probably a sockpuppet, and if so this deserves the same indef block as the sockmaster account, but I'll defer to an admin who has more history on the case. Hail me again if you think it's necessary. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Deskana wanted that onto WP:ANI again. These guys have started several ANI threads without a nibble so I did some detective work. Mainly I'm looking into the sockpuppetry charge, which is by far the most serious. Not everything I see checks out so far. I've left a long post on the RFC talk page to ask for more information. Durova^Charge! 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate

You say that some of your diffs were removed by a clerk? That may have been a mistake; we are training up some new clerks. Can you give me a diff so I ca see what happened? You should be able to enter any evidence you want on the evidence page except diffs from a formal MedCom mediation. Ask me if you have any questions. Thatcher131 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)]

It was in the original request (not the evidence page) under evidence of previous attempts to resolve the dispute.[2] Durova^Charge! 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Compare that to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Involved_parties. In the other case, my attempt to resolve the dispute was allowed to stand as a basis for opening the case against User:Agapetos angel where another editor presented my name in a context that implied I had tried to talk with AA and she had refused. Actually she had requested that I initiate an overture and the editors who opened the case against her had basically ignored me; then they cited my failed mediation attempt as a reason for opening the case. I strongly objected because she had actually proven so cooperative at a previous RfC that I had awarded all the editors on that page a collective barnstar. So since that evidence was allowed to stand (which essentially dragged me into arbitration) I don't see why similar evidence I submitted myself got deleted from an equivalent presentation. Durova^Charge! 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, what happened was that you placed it in the hidden template section, [3], so I reverted, [4] and then placed it in the proper section. [5] Dionyseus 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was then left out when the case was formally opened. There is no place in the opened case main page template for evidence of prior DR. I suspect that the arbitrators want to see prior DR on the main RFAR page to help decide whether to take the case, but don't want it on the main page of the opened case. (Likewise, there is no section for "proof you contacted the other parties" since when making an application, it is important that it not be a stealth filing, but when the case is opened, the clerks do the notifications). I see no reason you shouldn't add it to your evidence section. If you think it shows good faith on the part of one but not another party, you could highlight that by proposing a finding of fact on it. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Thatcher. About the only thing it would demonstrate is evidence that I tried to work things through with these editors. When I reviewed the matter I really couldn't come out and say one party seemed more cooperative or rules-abiding than the other. If you think the committee would value those diffs at this stage I'll present them again. Otherwise I'll strikethrough the first paragraph of my statement. What it looked like to me was a business dispute that drifted onto Wikipedia - a situation for the committee's discretion rather than my own. Durova^Charge! 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what they will want. If you would rather not present formal evidence you could add the diffs into your statement on the main page. Probably they'll both get page banned or probation; if you think your diffs might mitigate a finding that they were disruptive they might help the arbs. Thatcher131 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, if I thought my diffs mitigated this situation I wouldn't have opened the case request. I'll go ahead and modify my statement a little. Thanks for the help. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: AWilliamson / Joan of Arc vandal

Durova, after investigating the archives of Talk:Joan of Arc I find myself convinced that a checkuser on User:EReference is warranted. However, if I'm reading WP:RCU properly, we need to wait until the matter of a permaban for Williamson and socks is resolved, because the alleged violation is essentially a "Vote fraud on ongoing vote", and the RCU page says to wait until after the vote is concluded to report the sock. Alternatively, we could just note in the WP:ANI thread that EReference is suspected to be a sockpupet, as you've already implied in your latest post there. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's really need to state that more explicitly there. Durova^Charge! 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that there's an indef block on some of the accounts, I'll check into the ethics of performing bans on the probable sockpuppets. While I was checking WP:RFCU to see if you'd already placed a request, I noticed CC80 - another suspected Williamson sock - among the names at a declined request. The activity on this account is rather interesting[6] with familiar patterns of interests, a couple of blocks for edit warring, and trademark talk page blanking. Durova^Charge! 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, You've accumulated a solid body of evidence, and gotten community support for a ban of the sockmaster and all puppets--as long as you have good reason to think an account is a sock, I think you've got the license to block it. Even without the explicit support you've been given by the community, WP:SOCK still implies that administrators can and should block any abusive sockpuppets.

I agree with you about CC80, and note that this account has been avoiding Joan-related articles. Perhaps the scrutiny is scaring him off. Do the editors of the homosexuality-related articles know about him? Would it be worth publicizing his activity on those articles' talk pages? At any rate, I'll add CC80 to the list at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets, and put in an RFCU on EReference. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I filed an RFCU, and include CC80 and User:Xandar. Check out the contributions of the latter--there's sustained activity in Apr-May 2004, only one edit in 2005, intermittent activity in Mar-Aug 2006, and a recent burst of activity. If this is Mr. Williamson, either he's very careful to keep a list of all his username/password combos, or he's been registering with a long-term email account. Either way, it's quite impressive to maintain a sock account from 2004. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little less confident of User:Xandar, although that account also interested me at first. Since AWilliamson was just learning to sign his sig in October 2004 it seems doubtful. Might as well check it though. I'd like to post notices on the talk pages for the relevant Wikiprojects since I strongly suspect Williamson still tries to disrupt his other subjects of interest where I rarely edit. He'll probably keep hopping from article to article unless the active project participants know to look out for him. The only open question is where to direct editors to report the problem: I turn away too many suspected sockpuppet reports from WP:RFI to send people there in good faith. Since this is such an unusual case and I'm the investigator who knows it best, I've considered offering my own talk page - but I want to make sure from the community first that it's ethical for me to handle things that way. Durova^Charge! 14:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

BooyakaDell/JB196

Hey Durova, first of all, thanks for poking your head in to the RfC on User:BooyakaDell.. Other articles the IP Vandal targeted that I dealt with him was Extreme Warfare, Wrestling Spirit (BooyakaDell actually came back for this one [[7]], and a couple other articles that have since been deleted. Howver if you look at the RfC, the biggest evidence is in a link that Booyaka/JB keeps adding to the Xtreme Pro Wrestling article, to a hosted site and articles for a "forthcoming book" that Jonathan Barber is writing called XPW: Bleeding was only half the job. It was proven that User:JB196 was Jonathan Barber in the AfD for Bleeding Was Only Half the Job, and the article he had written was deleted on grounds of WP:VAIN and WP:OR. For BooyakaDell to continually try to reinsert that link into the XPW article is proof that he is a sock of User:JB196. We've filed two WP:AN/I reports with this info, but things are pretty jammed up over there, and no admin has seemingly read/commented on it. Forgot to sign, and taking advantage to add more. If you look at WP:AN/I's archive 155, there is other observations from other editors who dealt with JB196 that the posting style (spamming tags on articles) and the signature style was the same. SirFozzie 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize it must be frustrating to proceed this long without more replies from admins so bear in mind that this project has only one admin for every 2700 registered accounts. This new reply tells me very little I don't already know. Yes, I've already read that ANI thread. It contained very few diffs, none of which pertain to my questions. I weighed the linking issue before I posted my query.

Those three articles you name don't do much to support your contention that this banned user continued disrupting as an IP and then registered six weeks later when pages got semi-protected. Xtreme Pro Wrestling hasn't been protected at all. Wrestling Spirit was protected from 10 September to 4 October and again from 23 October to 18 November. Wouldn't an evasive user have registered during the block rather than afterward? You might make a weak case for Extreme Warfare, which was protected from 8 October to 16 December, but again the long delay between the block's imposition and this new account's first edit really don't convince me.

If there are other reasons not already expressed at RFC or ANI why you think this is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, then follow up with specific page diffs. You're making a very serious charge against this user. Durova^Charge! 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I realise this point may be circumstantial - but it could be that JB196 is aware of the checkuser limitation, and hence delayed the creation of the BooyakaDell account. I recall someone (it may have been Fozzie) observing that there was IP editing going on in between the banning of JB and the creation of Booyaka of the same ilk. I don't know about the details of that myself, but I thought I would point that out. JB is trying to be clever and it appears he is succeeding.

But that's not the root reason for this message. If you can't accept the evidence thus far as proof - surely because of the similarities of editing behaviour, Booyaka should be treated the same way as JB196 even if they are by some miracle two different people - and banned anyway? Curse of Fenric 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument has changed multiple times throughout this dispute. First you insist I am JB196, now you're saying I'm not. If you can't make a decision and stick with it then you should not be making such accusations.BooyakaDell 21:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)