User talk:Durova

To all who post here: I am currently having hardware problems and may be unavailable at times in the near future. Durova^Charge! 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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 15 16

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[1], 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.[2], 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 [3]. 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)