User talk:Durova

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I'll reply here if you post here. I have recently changed my volunteer commitment per these parameters.
Start a new talk topic.

My volunteer commitment has changed until further notice per this description.

Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

IP addresses

Where in the world did you get this idea: [1]? I'm currently under the impression that it's the exact opposite; after all, it is just a discussion. The Evil Spartan 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If I'm mistaken on the principle I'll withdraw the assertion. It's been quite some time since I was a regular at WP:AFD and process has become a lot more complex in the interim. The bottom line in this particular instance (which I can dredge up from recent ANI archives if necessary) was that I made that post while I was doing an investigation for which I later blocked a sockfarm. It was a rudimentary form of the the JB196 methodology applied to biographies of gay male porn stars: gut the citations, tag the pages mercilessly, add some egregious BLP violations, and then have several socks howl for deletion. Due to the subject matter hardly any regular Wikipedians had been paying attention, but the vandal had been active for several months. Durova^Charge! 04:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For the idly curious, it appears that current policy is that IP addresses can vote but their vote can also be ignored. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How to discuss an AfD Franamax 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And this was precisely the sort of situation where the IP contributions ought to be ignored. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me a piece of advice?

Could you give me a piece of advice, please? Let me tell the story.

1. Some time ago, I had a content disagreement with User:Commodore Sloat who deleted a relevant and referenced view of Yossef Bodansky and other sources he did not like [2] from article Operation Sarindar. This text is still deleted and the article is in terrible shape.

2. Besides that article, we had little interaction. I tried once to edit article Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but csloat warned me that he will accuse me of wikistaling if I continue: [3], so I was afraid of editing this article. Next time, I tried to restore a more neutral version of article The Intelligence Summit (it is linked to Operation Sarindar), and this time csloat reported me as a "wikistalker" to WP:ANI: [4]. Administrators decided that his accusation was bogus.

3. When I made a comment in RfC of csloat (you know about it), he came uninvited to my talk page with a variety of personal accusations: [5]. I asked him several times to stop, but he refused. He stopped only after intervention of an administrator: [6] .

4. Csloat had constant arguments with Armon, but Armon is not active for more for two weeks. Now, when Armone is gone, Csloat came to edit an article that I am currently working with. He never edited this article before. Csloat is making massive deletions of relevant and perfectly sourced text [7] . Of course I object: [8], but he continue reverting the sourced text: [9]. Please note how he modified my comments at the talk page [10]

He blames me of WP:SYN. But I only cited work "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky in the article "Communist terrorism", and used other similar scholarly sources. What kind of WP:SYN is that? Finally, he nominated this article for AfD, exactly as he did previously twice with article Operation Sarindar.

So what do you recommend? May be I am wrong here? Well, I do have certain bias as everyone else, but I work hard to cite most reliable sources... and I am very frustrated when someone blindly deletes this work, instead of adding more alternative sources/content, as I always suggest.Biophys 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The alteration of the talk page comment is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and it happened recently enough to take action. I've blocked for 24 hours. Really recommend arbitration on the overall dispute. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will think about your recommendation.Biophys 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In re Nashville School of Law

I saw where a temporary hold was placed on the article. Much appreciated... I think that was reasonable under the circumstances, and I will support that. My only concern at the moment is that regardless of whether the underlying problem is characterized as vandalism or merely as a content disagreement,* we're dealing with an anonymous IP user who refuses to hash out differences either on the article's discussion page or on my page. Additionally, what IP did--and I don't mean to belabor this--was not only to back out all my edits, but also to outright delete an entire section that was written by a third person. So, really, there are two issues: The content disagreement as to my own edits...but I still think the section deletion might qualify as vandalism.

(* Bear in mind this user was warned by other admins for vandalism due to similar edits made in the past.)

Thanks again, Witzlaw 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

One reason why this is difficult to administrate is that the article is short on referencing. These problems usually resolve themselves when more citations are added. If the IP editor continues to blank material that's properly referenced then you could notify sysops at the WP:AIV board and get a swift response. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Point is well taken, I agree that it is short on references; additionally, the section that IP removed, "Accreditaton and bar passage data," has no cites at all. I'll take a look at that and see what I can find. But I personally added 6 of the 9 cites the article now has (and corrected a seventh), and when IP performed his edits, he removed three of them (and backed out the correction).

I propose to watch and see what IP does once the freeze is lifted. I tend to think he'll simply revert again, as he did before. At that point, a possible strategy might be to reinsert edits piecemeal (with cites), rather than simply revert, and see just what he backs out. Would that be a reasonable approach? Thanks again, Witzlaw 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Very reasonable. That approach makes the situation very clear to third parties and much easier to remedy. Don't be shy about reporting the deletion of referenced material as vandalism. Just remain polite and patient and keep making the page a better article. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions to Raul's laws

How true! Thanks Egfrank 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 15:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment to the WhiteCat/NedScott RfArb

I nearly wet myself laughing at the discussion of lame pages you linked to. --Rocksanddirt 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Milestone

I now have over 5,000 edits!! :) Thanks for allowing me to "return"! :) Things seem better this time around: [11], [12], [13] and [14]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good going. :) Durova^Charge! 23:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Merci! :) Sincerement, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor

I'm not sure exactly where the best place is to report this, but User:Chrisjnelson is up to some personal attacks again today. I only bring this up to you, because I know that you dealt with him before. Frankly, i'm just sick of his disruptive antics. Bjewiki 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From earlier tonight:

[15]

[16]

[17]

What the hell? First of all, those second two are not person attacks. Secondly, Ksy92003 was causing problems at that talk page, driving the discussion off-topic with personal attacks. We were trying to have a civil discussion, and after Pats1 made an argument that convinced me to change my opinion, Ksy92003 started calling me untrustworthy and a liar. He continued to go on and on and still maintains he's done nothing wrong there. I don't think he needs to be reprimanded or anything and I wouldn't go anywhere to report him, but my point is he's the one at fault there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris - As far as I can see in that conversation, Ksy92003 disagreed with you, but you were the one who sunk to personal attacks like "Are you F&*$ing Blind", "grow up", and something involving pubes. Actually, i'm not sure which of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL they violate, but it's one of the other. Bjewiki 03:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ksy most certainly derailed the entire discussion and provoked the flamefest it is right now with his completely unnecessary and unprovoked "Chris is a liar..." comment. Pats1 ^T/C 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the proper place to report this kind of thing is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. The diffs certainly were uncivil and tu quoque is not a defense. I'll give this a very brief 24 hour block with the caveat that I may refuse to act in the future. My user talk page is not the site's complaints department. To Chris, I'm going easy this time, but bear in mind the arbitration decision states you may be blocked for a month after five blocks accrue. One down, four to go. Please don't continue the count. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just wasn't sure where the correct place was. Won't happen again. Bjewiki 09:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As an observer to this all, I think it's a little ridiculous that Chris gets a block and Ksy92003 gets none. This isn't the first time at all the two have butted heads. Ksy92003 was no stranger to both the jmfangio incidents and the later incident I believe occurred on this talk page. Ksy92003 has even taken up asking Chris if he "could monitor Chris' edits in case he should break his arbitration." It wouldn't surprise me if he made an attempt to provoke Chris into doing just that. The discussion at Talk:2007 New England Patriots season#Section heading was entirely on-topic and productive for the first 3 comments, at least. And then, only because Chris stated an opinion in the talk differently from his stance in the initial edit conflict, Ksy92003 posted this as part of his response: "You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie" Ksy92003 Revision as of 21:37, 30 September 2007. I can't see at all how this comment is appropriate to this discussion. I can't see at all how Ksy92003 wasn't planning on provoking Chris (he's seen it happen before). I can't see at all how this is maintaining a civil discussion on the subject matter. Should Chris had responded to this personal attack (if you call what Chris said uncivil and PAs, then you have to say the same with Ksy92003)? Of course not. But it was in defense to an attack on is character, not an unprovoked attack on Chris' part. Pats1 ^T/C 11:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason is rather simple: no diffs were provided of anyone's behavior other than Chris's at the time when I responded. Please bring your evidence to WP:ANI. Durova^Charge! 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll do so. But I find it interesting that you didn't hesitate to read the diffs and block ChrisJNelson but refuse to do so now. Pats1 ^T/C 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I had already made repeated efforts to direct these grievances away from my user space (see another thread above) and explicitly stated that I may refuse to respond again. This statement was made without prejudice toward either side. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion (FYI-explict link, FrankB 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Moreover

Hi! Haven't seen you for a while, but my bad--I've been off in RL--don't think we've EVER interacted outside Xfd spaces. Hope you don't mind the above note, but that {ANI-notice} template is pretty weird acting! I added the link since it took a while for me to find that ANI section, and only succeeded when I finally decided to search your user name. The template wouldn't let me edit the section (I suspect it's supposed to be subst'd--I'll ask CBD to check into that.), and the edit link button starts editing the template itself. That seems to be a Bad thing sort of effect. Not to mention, it's apparently not updating argument {{{1}}}} properly when whatever is generating it is, adding it here. That shoulda gave the link I added from a quick look at what I didn't want to edit! <g>

I only happened by as I was about to drop a question on Pats1 since I just recently began editing NE Patriots articles, saw the 'ruckess', and wandered over. So it's a good heads up (for me) to know a few of these guys have a "history" together. I'll see what I can do to keep a lid on things. Cheers! // FrankB 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know we haven't. And I don't mind the note at all, thanks. Out of curiosity, which XFDs were these? Durova^Charge! 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Global warming

Sorry to bother you with this, but Global warming has taken a turn for the worse lately. You have taken an interest in the goings-on around that article from time to time. If you'd rather not get mired in it (which I could perfectly understand), would you be able to refer me to another neutral admin who could provide a voice of sanity? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've floated the idea before about trying some kind of community based article probation. Would you be interested in pursuing that? Otherwise a request at WP:AN would be the most likely avenue. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Biophys (talk · contribs) posted a note to my talk page threatening to take me to ArbCom if I don't stop removing violations of WP:SYN on two articles. I feel that his threat is out of line. All users should work to avoid original research on the encyclopedia, and I think it is inappropriate for him to ask me to "look the other way" while he creates articles in violation of Wikipedia policies. I have every intention of editing constructively and being cooperative, but I don't think Wikipedia policies on original research are meant to be bargaining chips.

Do you think I am being unreasonable here? I have to be honest and admit that my interactions with certain users on Wikipedia over the past few months have been extremely discouraging, and I have been on the verge of abandoning my participation in the project completely. I certainly have no wish to spend the next several months collecting evidence in a pissing match against Biophys (even though I think it's pretty clear and obvious that his violations of WP:SYN are severe and that my deletions of those violations are justified). The truth is, if editors here generally feel I do nothing to improve the encyclopedia then I don't think I should be here at all. I believe you have played fair with me as an admin even when I didn't agree with your decisions, so I'm asking you for advice -- how should I be responding to the kind of threat that Biophys is making on my talk page? Obviously I should try to be civil, but should I accept his offer and ignore the pages in question? Should I start the arbcom proceedings myself? Aren't there other ways of resolving the disputes on the two pages in question? Or do you think that the Wikipedia project in general would be better off without me? csloat 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I've walked away from pages because I didn't want to press things into arbitration. Polite distance and patience can be very useful. Other times I've stood firm, come what may. I've sent disputes to arbitration that had far fewer attempts at dispute resolution than your situation. Really, although arbitration is slow and painful, it's also swifter and less uncomfortable than letting some bad situations fester. I really recommend you consider it seriously. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Kindness

I normally don't do this, but I see that you no matter who asks you, you're always willing to lend a helping hand.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for continually lending a helping hand to all those who come to your user page seeking help and for always providing options and solutions. --Maniwar (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Durova^Charge! 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

An idle curiosity

While working, ironically, on the American wine article I came across your posting on seachengine land. Your posting is certainly an intriguing idea but out of idle curiosity, why did you decide to hone in on Wikipedia's wine articles as your examples for this piece? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to focus on a single topic and looked for material that would make a good set of examples. Started out with automobiles, segued to tires, and six degrees of Wikipedia later I got to wine. It didn't really take that long to settle on the topic. It actually provided more material than I had space to use.

• The Korbel Champagne Cellars of Sonoma County, California are located on the site of a former old growth redwood forest and have a reproduction of a historic building from Prague. Images of either could generate traffic to their websites from other encyclopedic topics.

• The Plan Bordeaux, which aims to remedy an economic crisis in France viticulture, doesn't have an image for any one of the over 1000 winemakers it represents. The article also doesn't exist in French. Not surprisingly, sources describe the program as spectacularly ineffective.

Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova - please contact me - Ronz is out of control

Durova: Per an earlier note I emailed you on but got no response via email or via myTalk page, I am asking that you check out the myTalk page for author/editor Ronz who (while perhaps in a noble effort to keep content vetted) has himself actually made matters worse on a number of topics he has no editorial expertise on (and hence should defer/recommend or solicit others to join in on) and/or has actually made changes that make entrees more partisian

Check out Knowledge Management software as being one - is it odd that after three requests of him he has not removed NetSuite and/or has left the companies listed in the body instead of relying on the external link (which by the way having a link to Lockheed (and allowing that) is clearly an omission he has enforced on others.

Durova, this is not a sarcastic/angry email, rather one out of concern. Again, read his myTalk page and you will see Ronz himself is guilty of many of the areas he feels he is defending against.

Respectfully

Topiarydan Dan Schramm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topiarydan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being tardy. Have you tried a request for comment or a third opinion on the topics? Knowledge management software really isn't a topic where I claim expertise. Durova^Charge! 04:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry on Editing the Victory Christian Fellowship Page

Dear Administrator,

I have been a contributor for the Victory Christian Fellowship page. When Every Nation entry underwent mediation, the Victory Christian Fellowship page was also included in the process (as Victory is affiliated with Every Nation and they were facing the same issues on editing). I understand that when a page is under mediation, no one is suppose to alter it while an agreement is not reached.

I haven't been active with Wikipedia for a time because of work concerns but I have found a published material about Victory Christian Fellowship that is worth posting as a reputable source. Will I be allowed to do this now? Is mediation finished for this page?

Please let me know. I will put my posts on hold until I get permission from you. I would like to do this according to proper Wikipedia procedures.

Thank you very much for your time and advice.

Blessings,

Chickywiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickywiki (talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your questions would be better directed to the mediator who handled that. Durova^Charge! 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

wiki SEO abuse

Ok - today I was in the midst of some SEO adventures, and have noticed a website that has been abusing wiki - at least I would call it abuse.

I went through their inlinks with yahoo site explorer and changed as many of their meddlings back to what they should have been. But I don't have the time to do it all - and would like to try to prevent this from happening again.

If you could help at all - I, and the other people in our search category would greatly appreciate it.

here is a link to their backlinks, so you can see what they were doing. http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actionprintinginc.com

there were a few blatantly missrepresented links, and a few from wiki europe I believe.

Thank you, again.

wiki SEO abuse

Ok - today I was in the midst of some SEO adventures, and have noticed a website that has been abusing wiki - at least I would call it abuse.

I went through their inlinks with yahoo site explorer and changed as many of their meddlings back to what they should have been. But I don't have the time to do it all - and would like to try to prevent this from happening again.

If you could help at all - I, and the other people in our search category would greatly appreciate it.

here is a link to their backlinks, so you can see what they were doing. http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actionprintinginc.com

there were a few blatantly missrepresented links, and a few from wiki europe I believe.

Thank you, again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matusz13 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, for best results, please report cases like this at WP:COIN. Wikipedia has a special page called linksearch that you can use to quickly identify all pages that link to a particular domain. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I // CSN archiving ideas

If (when, relaly) the CSN is shut down and its operations folded into AN/I again, I was hoping that we can set it up that any ban archiving represents a duplication of the report, which ideally would still go into the AN/I archives, keeping AN/I holistic and intact, and allowing us to, if needed, group multiple threads regarding a ban into one section in the Ban archives, possibly (probably) identifying sections by user, not original AN/I thread titles? or is all of this so patently obvious that I'm wasting time typing it? ThuranX 05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple issues here.

• Ban discussions were randomly distributed between WP:AN and WP:ANI. I expect that pattern to resume if CSN goes.
• CSN existed to discuss a range of options, not just bans. When community sanctions are successful they ought to reduce both editor burnout and the need for sitebanning. An exclusive focus on sitebans (to the extent of linguistically confusing all bans with sitebans) is a substantial part of the problem CSN sought to remedy.
• All community sanction discussions merit archiving. The experimental and unsuccessful ones can be as informative as the ones that concluded in a remedy.

I've been approaching this with regard to anticipated site growth over the next three to five years. Scalability is essential. Over that time frame I doubt the administrative boards can continue to handle this flow. What will be essential is to have a stable database of what sanctions exist (for active reference) and what proposed sanctions didn't succeed (for statistical research and occasional citation in later particular DRs). Do you get what I'm driving at? Durova^Charge! 05:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an archiveal template specifically for such discussions which is recognised by a bot and automatically placed into a dedicated archive? Viridae^Talk 05:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That'd make sense. Durova^Charge! 06:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

CSN discussion

Hi there Durova, I believe there was a discussion going on a week or two ago about limiting the input in CSN debates of people who are personally involved in the case. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to locate the thread now. I wonder if you can tell me if this debate still going on. Did it have an outcome, and where might I be able to read it? Gatoclass 03:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, here's the most recent discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Community_Ban:_proposals_for_new_wording. Actually that limitation used to be in force for half a year and got dismantled last spring. It was a key provision of the original consensus that got the disruptive editing proposal promoted to guideline status. Here's a report I wrote up during last spring's debate when a new group of people challenged the previous consensus: Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Previous_uninvolved_discussions_at_this_talk_page.

The change got enacted because some editors had a legitimate but IMHO minor concern. They implemented a very bad tradeoff. Here's what went on: some disruptive editors try to game the blocking policy by claiming any sysop who gets in their way should be disqualified as an involved party. Some editors get away with that once or twice before everyone else agrees they're being absurd. The group of editors who removed the involvement clause from the guideline didn't want more of that game. Unfortunately the new language opened the door to a much more destructive game: sanctions discussions where little clans of POV warriors dig trenches and fire rounds at each other. It makes no difference at all what board the discussions occur on: back under the original guideline we could step in and tell the partisans to step back and give evidence. The actual decision would rest in uninvolved parties' hands. That solution worked quite well. After the change some discussions nearly became a free-for-all. One editor who was up for a topic ban canvassed half a dozen potential supporters until I stepped in and indeffed him. Because of that guideline change I've brought three other cases to arbitration and in all three of those at least one side of the dispute got hopping mad at me for intervening. I've been trolled offsite as a result. That's the real problem here.

I've been hands on with this stuff for a year so my comments may make dense reading. You're very welcome to ask follow-up questions if some of this is unclear. Durova^Charge! 06:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I don't know what it is, but I'm interested in being coached by an admin (Admin coaching?). I'm more experienced, but I'd like a little bit of a polish so I can move higher up the ranks later on. You mentioned at the Requests for Adminship RfC that's you're looking for new people to coach, so I thoguht I'd drop you a line. Thanks for your time. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 08:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

More experienced is an understatement! I'm flattered by the request. First, a slight correction: adminship isn't a higher rank than anybody else. Sysops just get a few extra tools and do cleanup. The particular kind of cleanup I do is complex investigations and dispute resolutions. It's something like reading mystery novels but with real world results for solving the puzzle. If that sounds interesting to you then have a look at WP:COIN or WP:SSP. Nine times out of ten the solution is obvious, but there's no telling how deep a particular rabbit hole may go. I'll be glad to offer investigative tips via e-mail or gmail chat. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 08:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)