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 13 14

Query

I know you're very busy, but if you have time, would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Weirdoactor? The thread will explain - and apologies for waylaying you like this. Please let me know if there is anything I can do - thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was away for a few days and the thread isn't active anymore. Post again if this is still important to you. Durova^Charge 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone, unarchived

Voila! —SlamDiego 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

Hi Durova, On 4 Jan, DianaW commented that she thought she had been banned from editing the article on R.S. and then has not made any more editing of the Waldorf-related articles she earlier has been involved in, until once, five days later.

On 6 Jan, someone registers as "Wikiwag", and writes on 9 Jan "I've never edited on Wikipedia before." Yet, already the second day as registered user (7 Jan), "Wikiwag" makes appr. 27 edits of the article on Waldorf education, complete with edit summaries for basically all of them. According to WP:SP such behaviour is characteristic of sock puppets. Wikiwag then in discussion has developed a similar mutually supportive and defending partnership with PeteK as DianaW and at his Talks page has expressed support of him. Could you check if "Wikiwag" is a sock puppet of DianaW? Thanks, (and - regarding "gun slinger" - we do have the old "Sleep on" series from the 1990s with Brian Benben on Swedish TV..:) Thebee 12:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do (if you are inclined to). Waldorf critics generally do NOT use pseudonyms for the very reason that it reduces credibility. Wikiwag, as far as I know, is an independent and fairly neutral editor. He/she defended one of TheBee's edits today. I would be surprised/shocked if this person was a known critic and I'm very certain it is not DianaW. Pete K 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed Wikiwag has defended more of TheBee's edits and positions. I don't know who Wikiwag is, but this editor is trying very hard to be diplomatic, neutral and helpful. OTOH, here are a few of TheBee's recent comments:

• [1] - Insult Wikiwag
• [2] - Insult Pete
• [3] - Asking for user's name
• [4] - implying user is DianaW
• [5] - "Showing Colors"

I'm not suggesting the debate is not heated, but the rule that applies to glass houses should apply here. Thanks Durova! Pete K 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Durova,

I don't see any more contributions by Wikivag after some intense discussions. Did you check if it was a sock puppet? And would you reveal a state secret if you told that you found that to be the case, and who the existing user behind it was??

Thanks, Thebee 12:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a few days behind. Had a very bad cold this week. The standard place to report suspected sockpuppets is WP:SSP. Durova^Charge 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the new editor was finally intimidated enough by personal attacks and allegations to leave (who can blame them). Another one bites the dust, I guess. <shaking head> Pete K 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a long note at Bee's talk page. For all involved, this is the sort of misunderstanding that shouldn't happen. Blocks don't work that way and a few mouse clicks can confirm that Diana wasn't blocked at all. Durova^Charge 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K:

"I suspect the new editor was finally intimidated enough by personal attacks and allegations to leave"

Wikiwag has described him or herself as "a 6'2", 190lb man" who likes to be adressed "Captain" or "Sir", and immediately wrote and edited with expertise and knowledge of the subject here at Wikipedia (appr. 27 perfect edits of a controversial article already the second day), has participated with fervor and intensity in the discussion, and almost immediately made a detailed analysis of the Arbitration, giving me and Hgilbert, but noone else the responsibility of implementing the ArbCom decision, (untruthfully) also claiming I had been responsible for the Arb request, and immediately telling how very much he or she liked it when I seemed to do something that in time could get me banned, when I wrote something.

"Wikiwag" has displayed very much the same character, attitude, emotional language, behaviour and buddy relation to Pete K as I'm familiar with from Diana W. I very much doubt that kind of person would be intimidated by a few comments about a suspected Sock puppetry, the way Pete K now tries to describe it, who also has described the removal of a duplicate Article probation box by him at the main page of the article on WE (in addition to the existing one at the Talks page), at first added by "Wikiwag", and then reinserted by Pete K again when I removed it, as "aggressive", and then added the duplicate directly below the existing one at the Talks page instead, telling people they should really look at the red sign and be careful about what they write .... Thebee 21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And there we have it... the extent of TheBee's foundation for the claim of sockpuppetry. An apology to DianaW would be in order here, as well as one to Wikiwag. Pete K 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the wikipedia rules or protocol here, and I sure hope I am not told that pursuing this problem will get me banned. I take false accusations seriously. I'd like somebody who can checkuser or whatever it's called, to set this straight. The accusation can be easily disproven and it should be - people should not be left to wonder if I am who I say I am here. I don't use fake ID's. What can I do about this, Lethaniol? Please advise. I think I will copy this to Durova as well since thebee apparently asked her to check on this, and I was not aware of this as I had stopped "watching" her page. (Hi Durova. Sorry to hear you've been ill.)

I am doing my best to contain just how furious this makes me. Keep in mind, thebee will reprint entire pages here on his own personal websites (he has three of them), and I have no recourse as to what he says about me there short of contacting a lawyer. I have a thousand complicated things going on in my life at the moment including serious illness in my immediate family and I should not log back onto wikipedia to find that someone has been counting how many days I've been away and spreading rumors about me. Is it possible for a person to be NOTIFIED when they've been suspected or accused of something? I only find this crap by accident! I should not have to monitor the talk pages of every last individual who's ever commented on these articles including admins, in order to be sure no one is making up crap about me. Please advise me if there is recourse.DianaW 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

not an awilliamson sock puppet

i have been blocked for being a suspected sock puppet of awilliamson. i see you unblocked elizabeth87 who you thought was falsely accused. i was hoping to convince you that i have been falsely accused as well. for starters, i am australian. all of my IP addresses should confirm this. your article "Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc" states that the vandal "refuses to discuss changes on the talk page". A quick look at my contributions will show several entries in the relevant talk page. your article states the vandal enhances the "reverence toward Joan of Arc". I am a doctor and an atheist and feel that Joan's visions might have been hallucinations. My edits (until i grew tired of battling the catholic fundamentalists and stopped editing) were along these lines. Take a look at my edit of Joan of Arc of may 4 2006 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joan_of_Arc&diff=prev&oldid=51467413. I removed the drivel "Since this is an unproven assumption about the nature of God, the medical community would not normally use it as the basis for a diagnosis of mental illness" with the note "the medical community generally considers people who hear voices from god to be mentally ill". Is that consistent with this awilliamson fellow? My contribution history will not show any alterations to any footnotes, as mentioned in your article. also, my edits were in no way limited to joan of arc. several edits related to australian issues. my efforts to get the block lifted so far has been in vain. the administrators who looked at the block focussed on the fact that i stopped editing a while back, and they didn't begin to explore the merits of the case against me. (they also took offense at me pointing out this fact). there is no wikipedia policy i know of where users on a wikibreak are denied natural justice. again, would appreciate having my name cleared. Cwiki 124.185.86.106 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're unblocked. Please accept my apologies on behalf of Wikipedia's administrators. This was a very unusual situation. If it makes a difference I'll explain briefly: one of the site's most sneaky and persistent vandals had been attacking that page among others for two years. He changed tactics periodically in order to evade scrutiny. In fact, before reading your message here, I deleted the note you had left to the Joan of Arc talk page because I thought that was trolling. Now I'm eating my own words because I ask other people not to use the t-word unless they're certain. It stings to be caught on the wrong side of that and it looks like you got stung quite inadvertently. My note in your unblock history should clear the air. Thank you for coming to me so that I could clear this up and feel welcome to return if you find the need. Regards, Durova^Charge 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're back

Hope the cold is getting better. SirFozzie 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's prompted me to chase down references for a neglected stub. Durova^Charge 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)