User talk:Durova

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

Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Antarcticwik 2

I don't think the block worked, he's still doing the same thing without any edit summary or explanation on the talk page. Khoikhoi 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 48 hours. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Khoikhoi 01:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA?

Durova, awhile back you kindly offered to nominate me for RfA, and I declined, primarily because I was too busy. Things are a bit slower right now, so this seems like as good a time as any to give it a shot, if you're still willing. I can see you've got a lot going on right now, so I feel sort of bad about asking... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely pleased you've taken up my offer of nomination. You're a credit to the project. Durova^Charge! 12:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akhilleus Durova^Charge! 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, thanks. I answered the questions, but haven't formally accepted yet, because User:Dev920 mentioned a couple of days ago that she'd be interested in nominating me; I sent her a message yesterday, and want to give her a chance to respond before moving ahead. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's up. Thanks for nominating me, we'll see what happens now... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Christian Fellowship Entry

Hi, I was wondering if we could add a protection template on the Victory Christian Fellowship page too, since it has similar issues with the Every Nation page and is currently undergoing mediation. Thanks! Varsha Daswani 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've full protected the page. Durova^Charge! 12:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Varsha Daswani 03:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SCO Group

Hi. Was it really necessary to semiprotect The SCO Group? The attempted gutting of the article by suspected SCO staffers pretty much stopped a couple of days prior to your protection, the edits were fairly easily dealt with by reverting at the time, and the attention from the likes of digg and various SCO-watchers around the net should have a salutary deterrent effect. Being caught out has backfired somewhat on the POV-pushers, so the adminning is perhaps unnecessary... --Aim Here 09:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP abuse tends to spike whenever something like that gains outside attention, whether or not it comes from those original IPs. I set the semi for a week with an eye toward easing the tasks of our hardworking RC patrollers. Is anyone offended by the decision? Durova^Charge! 12:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding soft ban

I do not believe that discussion belongs there, I think it is more of an incident as there does not appear to be a proposed action. The banning action has already occurred. very respectfully, Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that? Looked like CN stuff to my eyes. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice, please?

Hi Durova,

What is the best way to deal with this situation with User:Soxrock?[1][2] (His accounts all tag back to User:Soxrock.)

Investigating all four accounts (edits and contributed images) has shown no evidence that there is any attempt to violate policies like WP:3RR or WP:Sock. In addition, he does seem to be working to resolve the Fair Use Rationale issues with his images.

Thanks for your advice.

Take care,

Larry --Lmcelhiney 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a polite request to the main account asking for a summary of the multiple accounts' purposes. That would help ease other editors' worries. Durova^Charge! 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my mentor! I knew that you would be able to add the "Wisdom of Solomon" to this question! --Lmcelhiney 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, thanks. Let's wait to see whether this works before singing my praise (although I like the tune). ;) Durova^Charge! 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Your urgent help would be most appreciated here. -- Jreferee 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job you've been doing. I can't wait. :) Durova^Charge! 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus RfA

Hello, considering that you have nominated User:Akhilleus for admin, would you care to state your approval under the "Support" column? I know that you've already said "Strong support" in your nomination, but I don't believe the bots count that in their half-hourly updates. Thanks. -- Kyoko 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point. I expected the closing bureaucrat would count it, but just in case... :) Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite mistaken...

You are quite mistaken in your statement that my concerns "are welcome via the proper channels."

Letter and fax to Jimmy Wales, October 16, 2005: IGNORED

Fax to Brad Patrick, April 23, 2006: IGNORED

Fax to Danny Wool, September 9, 2006: IGNORED

Please unprotect the talk page on my bio. It's the only place where I can address concerns about my bio on Wikipedia. Daniel Brandt 69.148.173.125 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Brandt, although this has been my only involvement in your situation with Wikipedia I'm aware of the basic background. Please give the Foundation a chance to address the specific concerns you raised on the article talk page. That's a different matter from deleting the biography entirely. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble brewing at WP:Spam over DermAtlas

A notice was posted to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest about this situation: [3]. I really dislike when people gather and start talking about an editor without inviting that person to the discussion. I've gone to the editor's talk page and tried to soothe things. [4] What do you think about this? Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored my comments per your request

Sorry, Durova.. I have refactored my comments, but as I said in my reply on the Talk: Daniel Brandt page, I stand by my basic belief that he is trying to annoy folks in to getting rid of the article just to be rid of him. SirFozzie 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Prob. To be honest, my temper is the one reason why I haven't focused on trying to become an Admin. I follow WP:Spade way too much (Grins) SirFozzie 14:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I offer an alternate paradigm? I'm familiar with the history of Students for a Democratic Society and Mr. Brandt's approach could be viewed as an outgrowth of their ethos. He's spent at least the past fifteen years or so as a technology critic and he's rather good at it. My impression of his website and his posts to Wikipedia Review is that some of it feels SDS-ish in the confrontational and hyperbolic style (although Wikipedians deserve a share of responsibility for adding fuel to that fire) yet Mr. Brandt has also performed a good deal of substantive research. He isn't a troll in the sense of someone who looks for a cheap laugh by trying to get a rise out of people. I think he believes in what he's doing: he's recognized Wikipedia as a growing nexus of power in the information age and has serious doubts about the mostly anonymous people who run this site. If I look at the matter that way I have to agree he has a point, although I hope he doesn't post my name at his website because I do get personal threats occasionally and I enjoy going to the grocery store without worrying whether some unbalanced person I've userblocked will leap at me in the bread aisle. I sort of wish I could sit down for a cup of coffee with this fellow. He's led an interesting life. Durova^Charge! 15:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with THAT part of it, I just really strenuously disagree with the methods that he's chosen. At some point, Mr. Brandt turned Wikipedia Review into an attempt to endorse/enable a chilling effects strategy on WP. For example, if you check the link in the Talk: Daniel Brandt, they have a staff member mentioning that I refactored my comments, saying "Apparently, SirFozzie is a member of the Adopt-a-User Campaign. Maybe he can be dissuaded from teaching his next "adopted" n00b all the cool ways to insult BLP victims...?". It's a double standard, plain and simple. The ends do not justify the means. SirFozzie 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That illustrates my point - people used to have this sort of conversation about SDS forty years ago. That group got attention by pushing buttons and using radical transgressive methods. One of the things I find interesting about this conflict is that, as an outgrowth of the open source software movement, Wikipedia itself is somewhat of a descendant of the '60s New Left (that's one reason Conservapedia and Britannica distrust us). If I were a graduate student in the social sciences I'd probably be writing a dissertation on this because it's a fascinating dynamic. As it is my role is to apply precedent and policy to the best of my ability. Regards, Durova^Charge! 15:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on WP:AN/I

I didn't care for it. It is not a "good call" to block editors you are in a content dispute with, and User:Avraham was wrong to do so. User:Asucena doubtless deserved a block, but Avi needs to take care not to allow himself to be painted as abusive. He should have posted to WP:AN and let someone else do it for him.

Characterising me as "persistently" and "aggressively" refusing to assume good faith is out of order. I'd like you to retract that. I think it is tantamount to a personal attack. We might disagree on the issue at hand but I posted only briefly on it, and you spoke to me just the once. I did not agree with you. To then defame me shows a lack of good faith on your part, not mine. Please don't continue with it. Grace Note 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome posts that point out blocks that are made during content disputes. Your participation has gone considerably farther than that. You also characterized my decision as politically motivated, twice, after I had first offered evidence to the contrary and again after I reminded you of your good faith obligation not to do so. At the previous ANI thread you endorsed speculation that Asucena was a Likudist, yet afterward you posted to Asucena's user talk page to insinuate conflict of interest on the part of people who posted there. Yes, I do have worries, and I do think your participation has been aggressive and counterproductive. My first statement to that effect was addressed directly to you. Since you ignored it I've followed up by sharing my concerns with the community. That reflects neither defamation nor bad faith. Durova^Charge! 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mudaliar

Hello Durova,

I deleted that text as the particluar person has edited my post on your talk page. Check this:[5] and then look where this person has added his/her post [6]I'm not that dumb to delete someone else's post from your talk page and think that you'd not find out. I removed the post as that person has not signed and it looks as though I posted it. Why did this person edi9t my post. He should have posted above me or below me but not in the middle of my post. He just added his post after my greeting. Please unlock the Mudaliar article.Mudaliar 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and that influenced my decision. It would have been better if you had moved that post rather than deleting it or if you had mentioned the interthreading in your edit post. I hope protection slows things down for you enough that mediation works. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this: [7]. This is vandalism by 164.164.96.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This person has been just adding random names to the list of famous people at the bottom. Who is Arvind and who is Rajesh? This is blatant vandalism. I have not been edit-warring,. I was only reverting vandalised edits. This is so unfair. As for the edit on your talk page, it was a genuine mistake. I apologize for not appending that post at the end and for not leaving a reason in the subject line. Mudaliar 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Follow up if that IP performs any more vandalism. I hope things calm down and get back to productive editing. Regards, Durova^Charge! 15:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this :[8]: more vandalism by 164.164.96.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).Mudaliar 15:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be appropriate for me to issue a block based on an edit that took place in January. You may post a block warning on this IP's talk page if you consider it appropriate, but I suggest you do so for today's edits rather than for old ones. The article is protected for 7 days. Durova^Charge! 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For outstanding...

I am really impressed with your time and atttention to WP:CEM and I believe the program will be helpful to the project. I don't see any objections to the trial so a little later today I'll write it into DR and associated pages. Additionally...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For outstanding devotion to the community in the area of content, and content dispute resolution, diligence in assisting other editors to understand DR process, sacrifice of time to form and refine the proposal; you have shown great credit upon yourself, the community, and en-Wikipedia. I Navou award you this, Barnstar of Diligence. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the outstanding contributions! Best, Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CEM

I've added it to the template, and WP:DR. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help. When you have time, let's have another chat about potential adminship candidacy. I was looking up your contributions last week and a quick review suggests it could good for you to spend some more time in article space, maybe raise something to GA if you haven't already done so. It's important to have enough experience down in the trenches writing articles. Durova^Charge! 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is uncanny how we are on the same page regarding certain things. I had the same thought, fearing editcountitus (sp?) my projects edits are about 250 more than mainspace. I thought to myself, unbalanced. I nominated the Combat lifesaver article for GA, it is my goal to have that, and 68W FA. I have to work out the GA issues with combat lifesaver. Let me spend some more time in the trenches and I'll come back at you about a potential candidacy. Thanks for your confidence in my abilities. :P Cheers, Navou ^banter / _contribs 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a fine job. One thing I have noticed, though, is that sometimes skewed ideas come from an editor who gets very involved in the Wikipedia namespace side of things before doing enough good ol' article writing. I haven't seen that come from you. But it's a good thing generally because the experience might inform your decisions later on. Happy editing! Durova^Charge! 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of power???

As an administrator, you are entrusted with a great deal of power. Are you abusing it?

I asked a legitimate ethics question to the person you nominated. If you didn't like the question, you could have told me. I did put it back but revised it to sound even nicer.

Are you aware that you may be putting yourself in a very unethical position when it appears as you are censoring legitimate questions posed to someone you nominated. Politicians who receive benefits then vote for pork barreled laws are accused of ethics violations. However, ethics is also for you and me. If the question is legitimate, by hiding it makes it can look like you have something to hide.

Furthermore, although there is a dispute between Jersyko and me, the dispute is still on talking terms, not vandalism or swearing. Even if he's your friend, as an administrator, it's your duty to act in an impartial way. Corruption is not only in Washington, DC. If we are not careful, we (as people) can fall into the same trap.

Even at this point, with your ban starting in seconds or minutes, I am still civil. I haven't accused you of anything but I've raised some very thought provoking questions that you should ask yourself. Dereks1x 03:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Harassing and Intimidation using profane language at Mudaliar

Hello Durova,

203.101.45.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is abusing profusely and swearing constantly to intimidate all the editors and push his point. I suggest a block. Check this:[9], [10] Thanks,Mudaliar 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block on the IP, 1 week semi-protection on both articles. Durova^Charge! 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Proofs for sections in article Mudaliar by editor User:Mudaliar

Regarding article Mudaliar this vandal User:Mudaliar who insists of adding sections without proofs and ignores proofs from Government gazettes. He is unable to substantiate his claims with references. See his statement [11] on the Talk:Mudaliar where he refuses to give proof and substantiate his claims. At the same time adds the sections with false references and persists in edit warring for over 4 months with over 10 other editors including myself. I have tried RFC, Mediation and I am finally at the arbitration stage. I have tried CheckUser on him and found out that he was already using multiple sock puppets and current coming on a well known proxy as User:Kariakala_Cholan [12]. Please advice on how to handle this issue.

Venki 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Durova,

Please see my references I have provided on your talk page which are all academic or research articles. As for K. Cholan, its not my socket puppet.Mudaliar 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me the link to the checkuser result. Durova^Charge! 01:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proactive approach to schools

Greetings. On Wikipedia_talk:Abuse_reports you made a post regarding:

"an approach that garnered some interest from other editors at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#I_just_don.27t_get_it. For problem school IP vandalism I've started contacting the school. Early response has been excellent. Durova 22:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the thread. Is it still available or can you repeat the information? We have been struggling with a prolific sock puppet problem and are now raising the question of doing a range block on a University. Defense against this sockmeister is coordinated at User:Abecedare/Maleabroad and the range block idea is at User_talk:Abecedare#Why_not_ask_for_a_range_block.3F. Any suggestions on what to do, and how to approach the University of Calgary about this problem? Buddhipriya 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at your thread to resummarize. Durova^Charge! 01:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting sections substantiated by proofs in the article Devadasi by User:Mudaliar

User:Mudaliar is deleting heavily referenced sections about the Yellamma Devadasi cult in Karnataka in the article Devadasi. This is a clear example of vandalism. Please see difference [13].

Venki 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, please take a closer look at the difference, I have simple re-arranged the sections in a better way. The section that Venki123 (talk · contribs) is accusing of me deleting is still in there. Venki123 (talk · contribs) is simply trying to protray me in bad light.Mudaliar 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venki, I know a section move when I see one. Don't waste my time with frivolous complaints unless you'd like me to investigate your own contribution history in detail. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dereks1x

Hi Durova. I just noticed your comment at Dereks1x's SSP here. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but it appears that you're saying that you blocked Dereks1x but not the puppets. However, it doesn't appear that Dereks1x has been blocked. Did you block one of the socks instead? Just curious. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This subsequent comment by Dereks1x at the SSP was what tipped me off that he's not blocked. You're apparently my meatpuppet, btw. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]