User talk:Durova/Archive12

a/s/l?

r u a chick

This type of post is like the voice of nature calling Please check my edit history. To answer your question, yes I am a chick. You have also been blocked for 48 hours for vandalizing various pages. Thank you for coming to an administrator's user talk and making that simpler for everyone. Durova^Charge! 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Think of this as Evolution In Action...Doc Tropics 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 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 22:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Final warning?

Hi, did you go through the diffs I made available? Why issue me a final warning before a first warning? I would have liked it if you had banned me for complaining about another user's harassment. He's an experienced user and I'm a newbie? Experienced users are always right? Thanks, dont mind my sarcasm, I'm just pissed off with wikipedia's standards of objectivity. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read every one of your page diffs. I strongly recommend you join Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Whatever bias I have has worked in your favor because I would normally block an editor who has been in violation of eight different policies and guidelines. I haven't done that in your case because your mistakes appear to have been sincere efforts to improve the encyclopedia and you do have valuable knowledge about the music of India. Your diffs didn't confirm your assertions of bad faith and your suppositions about how I conducted the investigation are far from the mark. He hasn't harassesed you; he noticed that you had some problems and cleaned up after you. I hope you adjust to the way we do things here. Durova^Charge! 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject France

The above project has been proposed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#France, would be needing some willing helpers to merge and bring together the various active Wiki Projects related to France. Let me know if you have some suggetion or ideas for it. STTW (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Great idea - I'm kind of surprised there isn't a France project already. Now that I've climbed onto the administration treadmill I break a sweat just staying in place. Keep me posted if this gets underway. I already owe the Military History WikiProject more time than I can give it. Durova^Charge! 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Creepy Crawler

The Userpage 'Spiderman you edited isn't actually a userpage. it's a regular page named User:Spiderman. THe user's got... issues... with wikipedia. Just so you know. I've been following up on getting him banned. he's got a 72 hour ban, and I'm going to go ot checkuser next, following allegations he's a sockpuppet.ThuranX 02:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I implemented the 72 hour block. Go and run the checkuser and get back to me if it comes in positive. Durova^Charge! 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to be at a wedding for the next few days, and cannot guarantee I'll be able to follow up on the checkuser. I submitted it a few days ago, but it still hasn't been acted upon. I do intend to follow up, and haven't 'disappeared' nor lost interest in follow up. Just letting you know, since you handledthe initial incident stuff. ThuranX 02:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it came back declined, the alleged other accounts were too old to check. I have, however, set speedy delte tags on all the faked Userpages he created. I'm not sure if there's much more that can be done, or how to pursue avenues that are available, but if you leave a message, when I return, I'll follow up. ThuranX 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Thanks for your reply. I have a request that you verify my understanding of a Wikipedia criterion; I do not want to make erroneous statements about articles, particularly those with which I've been involved. On the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church that has been the subject of some controversy, one of the editors who has actually made a number of beneficial contributions to the format and content of the entry (so not a hostile editor by any means) has added a "NPOV" tag citing the percentage of references, primarily those regarding doctrinal statements if I read his reasoning correctly, coming from the official Church website itself. He suggests that the article either be deleted or merged with another entry.

My response is that, after reading through the NPOV guideline, I find nothing that speaks of the percentage of references that must be independent, provided that the statements ARE verified by external sources. Further, although the views of the movement are held by a small minority, the restrictions based upon "viewpoint" are not wholly applicable, since the article does not solely present statements of beliefs, but also events of some import related to the Church's existence. The discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_Seventh_Day_Adventist_Church#NPOV_tag

If this requires an official Request for Comments, please inform me if that would be better; I would just like to know (from an admin. standpoint) if my understanding of the policy as I have read it is a valid one. Thanks. Zahakiel 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say requires, but WP:RFC looks like a good way to settle the matter. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember

Any new info on the Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Asian_fetish_vandal? They still around, etc? 68.39.174.238 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the vandal has been inactive for several months. Durova^Charge! 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Steve Scherf

You might recall this post at WP:AN/PA wherein user:Scherf reported various disturbances relating to Steve Scherf and Gracenote. Due to COI issues on Scherf's part, I got involved with the BLP and reverted this negative, unsourced assertion; then left a comment on the talkpage here. There followed a number of reverts with more talkpage comments for a couple of days.

When the article was still unsourced, I had suggested to Mr. Scherf that it might be possible to nom the article for AfD and he approved/requested that I do so. At that point, a "reliable" (contrasted to earlier attempts) cite was attached to the objectionable material here and I responded by attempting to reach a compromise and use neutral wording. Most recently, Mr. Scherf posted a rather lengthy missive on the talkpage here voicing his ongoing frustration, and I again reverted the material.

At this point, the issue has gone beyond my ability to resolve on my own, and I left a note on the talkpage advising that I would be seeking admin intervention, and suggesting that the article be deleted. At this point I'm officially doing both. Tag, you're "it". Doc Tropics 08:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You could still nominate it for deletion per the notability guidelines. I don't know whether it would succeed but it's worth a try. Post diffs for me if Kinslayer violates more policies and I'll react accordingly. Another possibility is to do a checkuser (or if this doesn't fit a suspected sockpuppet report) on the similar accounts that attack the page. I already extended a Kinslayer block for sockpuppetry - although that was a slam dunk situation and this isn't. The biography vandalism doesn't seem frequent enough to protect the page. So if there's something here that needs sysop tools then get back to me (I don't have checkuser powers). You and Steve can do the rest yourselves. Regards, Durova^Charge! 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks D, your help is always appreciated. I have posted the AfD here and your input would be welcome. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Threw in my two cents - looks like the nomination will carry. Good work. Are you thinking of running for adminship? I've got a spare mop in my closet if you're interested. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw and appreciated your comments; things look good so far. LOL about your spare mop. Yes, I'm interested, but I was thinking maybe February or so. I have a 3RR block in my log, so it seems prudent to let that fade into history a bit, while I continue learning. You know I "stalk" you, right? You're one of the admins I've been learning from. I know quality when I see it : ) Doc Tropics 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

True, and it's less than a month old sigh. I'll keep a feather duster near the extra mop for when you feel ready. May I have the honor of nominating you when the time comes? Durova^Charge! 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I now refer to that unfortunate event as the "Election Day Fracas"; there's a brief discussion here with the blocking admin. As for the nomination, I assure you dear lady, it is I who would be honored. Judging by some recent comments and emails, I might even be able to scrounge up a couple of co-noms. In the meantime, let me know if I can help you out with anything : ) Doc Tropics 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my hopes to blow some NSA agent's cover story seem to be fizzling so you might lurk around Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Each time I try to walk away one of the involved parties ropes me back. I hope it doesn't happen again but at this point the very least I'm compelled to do is monitor the case for any new allegations that invoke me. If you get involved in investigations as an administrator - or even as an editor - this sort of thing will probably happen from time to time. I really do my best to earn a squeaky clean reputation that I can invoke on occasions when someone attempts to smear me. By nature I'm a smartass and a prankster: in real life my idea of a good joke is to have an evening out with the girls and during the third round of drinks suggest Suppose you gave Santa a lap dance and asked him which list you're on? Of course that kind of humor is thoroughly inappropriate with strangers so I keep things straitlaced here. Durova^Charge! 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I had been aware of both situations, and made a comment at the pump about the first. I'd been watching the second ebb and flow across your talkpage for a while. Your patience and good advice, and even your referee's whistle, were all put to the test. I guess that's what you get paid the Big Bucks for? Humor is an important part of how otherwise serious contributors can keep their sanity in this wacky-wiki-world. Unfortunately, what gives one person a pleasant chuckle can be offensive to another, so we've always got to watch ourselves. I know, I have a similar "problem" myself. But seriously, if you ever go through with the Santa thing, please, let me know how he answers : ) Doc Tropics 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Befuddled administrator reads bank balance searching for Big Bucks...sobs uncontrollably upon discovering they don't exist...wonders why she doesn't lead Paris Hilton's charmed life). ;) Durova^Charge! 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

At least know you have the appreciation of a grateful public. {bows deeply} Pete K 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Davey Havok

Hey, there's an edit war going on over at the Davey Havok article by a number of IPs. Can you please semi-protect? Thanks. -- Kerowren 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Durova^Charge! 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Template

I happened to notice that you, I think in error, endorsed the Assume Good Faith portion under "arbitrators". Pete K 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the catch. Durova^Charge! 13:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFI

If a user account or IP is single-minded or disruptive, it is evident from looking at a few contribs; asking for specific diffs is needless when in some cases every contribution is an example of the behavior in question. It just delays processing and allows the person to continue. —Centrx→talk • 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is no point in moving a listing to "Under investigation" if nothing whatsoever has been done with them. The point of this split is so that entries in the "New" section can be summarily dismissed if appropriate, without clogging up the page, so that only legitimate requests that warrant further monitoring are in "Under investigation". Most of the entries in this long list were totally defunct, and could even have been removed initially. —Centrx→talk • 04:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That reads as if my choices have irritated you. Am I right in guessing the tone or is this an effect of it's-just-text-can't-see-your-face-or-hear-your-voice? I admit I'd been waiting for the end of the month to archive some of those requests - my time has been short this week and I got roped into another arbitration case. Part of why I move requests down to open is because sometimes those editors do return to provide new evidence. There hadn't been much systematic maintenance on that board when I got mopified: mishmash case headings, IP requests and user account requests jumbled together, and the board was getting flagged for backlog because plenty of cases were going days with no reply at all. I'm not sure exactly how longstanding those problems were, yet I like to think I've gotten it running a lot better. So now - and I respect what you do generally - it's disheartening to see you come here with that post.

Here's an analogy: some years back I adopted a stray cat. He had wandered around the neighborhood for at least a year and nobody was feeding him. So I set out a plate of cat food. At first he was terrified and wouldn't approach it until I went indoors. Then, peeking behind the curtain, I could see him gobble because he was nearly starving. After a month he trusted me enough to come indoors and when he saw I had another cat food dish (I did have another cat) he took a flying leap for it, devoured every stale morsel, and licked the bowl. After two months he tried to get finicky: he turned up his nose at dry cat food and started holding out for a canned meal. So I told him, Do you want to be my cat or not? Durova^Charge! 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a shaggy cat story to me : ) Doc Tropics 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

new toy

Kirill Lokshin and me have developed a new toy (discussion):

External images
helms
Front Rear

Implemented in an article it can look like in Mongol bow (including some misunderstanding) or Indian Wars. While we (mostly me) think it is a great thing (contrary to the long frustrating negotiations for images that can not keep up with the rapid expansion of articles and new requests), it would require some people to use it and not overdo it. You just have to google missing images and insert the url with a short description. I would really appreciate it, especially for the feedback. Thank you a lot. Greatings Wandalstouring 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

finished template with guidelines. Wandalstouring 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination for California Gold Rush

The California Gold Rush article has been nominated for Featured article status. If you would like to comment on this nomination, please go here to leave your comment. To leave a comment on that page, click the [edit] link to the right of the title California Gold Rush.NorCalHistory 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova, for your continuing support! The intent of the article was to balance both good and bad events and effects within the article. If you'd like to touch it up, please feel free, or let me know what you're thinking of, and I'll be glad to do it. Again, thanks! NorCalHistory 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of that was already addressed before I got to it, but I tweaked a little. BTW it's probably worth mentioning in one of the articles (maybe Gold in California) that it's still possible to pan for gold in the state. Hobbyist stores still sell prospecting supplies. I've tried it a couple of times but - like most people nowadays - the few grains I got weren't worth much. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova - Thank you, thank you for your early and continuing support which was essential to achieving FA status for this article. Thanks! NorCalHistory 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Cactus as this week's WP:AID winner

MER-C 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

California Gold Rush FAC map

Following up on the suggestion to include a map in the California Gold Rush article, two maps are available. If you get a chance to go to my talk page, both maps are posted there for your review, and any comment you might have would be appreciated! NorCalHistory 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor X / Joan of Arc

Hi Durova, noticed your post on Talk:Joan of Arc. I think Voln's edit history raises legitimate suspicions of sockpuppetry, since s/he got involved in editing disputes on several pages soon after registering--it looks like the user had already been active on these pages. I'm not certain whether this is Editor X, but I'm not as familiar with that person's activities as you are. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I agree something fishy is happening here. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My summary focused on what had been the most recent behavior at that time. Voln's participation parallels the original account. Compare the following:

• ...since the type of male clothing she was wearing had "laces and points" by which the pants and tunic could be securely tied together, such clothing was the only means she had of preventing the attempted rape she was being subjected to at the hands of her English guards.[1]
• The Condemnation transcript is not the only source concerning Joan of Arc's motives for wearing male clothing. The witnesses at the Rehabilitation trial provided many quotations from her on the subject, as do many chronicles and the like. The motive was not "disguise", but rather the usage of this clothing as a defense against rape since the hosen and doublet could be tied together to make it difficult for her guards to pull the hosen off.[2]

Not only do these reflect identical points of view on an idiosyncratic topic even among Joan of Arc enthusiasts, both posts employ similar syntax. The first of these quotes comes from User:AWilliamson dated 8 October 2004 (that account's second edit ever at Wikipedia) and the second is Voln's post of 3 December 2006. As you can see from that account's history, AWilliamson edited extensively on the topics of Joan of Arc and Cross-dressing.

The rabbit hole goes even deeper: when AWilliamson first registered he revealed his full name, declared that he was the owner of the website I mentioned at Talk:Joan of Arc, and claimed that he was at work on a project to translate all relevant documents about Joan of Arc into English. Voln claims extensive familiarity with the original sources in their original languages.[3] Within three days of registering AWilliamson was already embroiled in an edit war[4] and in a couple of weeks he was in mediation for a dispute about cross-dressing and Joan of Arc.[5] Soon he was removing polite posts that asked for references from his talk page and claiming the editors were sockpuppets (these editors were uninvolved in the mediation case).[6] By the time the account was six weeks old the mediation dispute had turned ugly.[7] Some of his factual assertions in that thread are eye-popping.

The interpersonal conflicts never ended and by the middle of 2005 he had abandoned the account to edit as an AOL vandal. I've got several reasons for thinking this. A particularly compelling reason is an early edit where he edited before logging in, then signed on and changed the signature from an IP address to his username.[8] He hadn't begun deliberate exploitation of AOL's randomized IP ranges yet - and how many Reston, Virginia AOL customers have this much knowledge of Joan of Arc, plus interests in cross-dressing, homosexuality, and Catholicism? He later tried to cover his tracks by redirecting User:AWilliamson to User:AWilliamson. - a subtle change most editors won't notice if they try to trace the account history. I believe AWilliamson is the original account because early posts use HTML tags instead of Wikimarkup[9] and have newbie errors about adding signatures.[10] It seems he began re-registering as a sockfarm in mid-2006 after I posted the IP ranges to the long term vandalism noticeboard. I don't have any smoking gun for that conclusion, but I've noticed a series of new accounts that act like sockpuppets.

So there's the result of my detective work. What's your call: am I Dr. Sherlock or Inspector Clouseau? Durova^Charge! 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Might as well throw this in: AWilliamson's opinion about Joan of Arc's clothing draws heavily upon a 1929 study by Adrien Harmand that's available only in French.[11] Unless I've missed something in that source or another relevant work, AWilliamson has drawn an original and weakly substantiated conclusion that the garments Joan of Arc is known to have worn at the peak of her career are the same type of apparel that was available to her in prison at the very end of her life. So as far as I know, the two quotes above describe Williamson's original research. Durova^Charge! 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, alter your sig to Durova^Holmes. That is some impressive detective work Sherlock. Doc Tropics 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Think I should carry the matter beyond this talk page? I tried to raise it a couple of times previously, but the complexity and duration of the problem seemed to work against me. I wasn't so well known in the community back then and my ducks weren't so neatly in a row - I probably went across as kooky when I attempted to describe the problem. I haven't tracked the disruption at the other subjects with equal care: whenever I looked I was pretty sure he remained a troublemaker elsewhere but I was pessimistic about my chances of being taken seriously. Durova^Charge! 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This definitely seems to merit more attention, but it's not the kind of situation that is easily handled by normal processes. The depth and complexity of the edit history issues make it daunting, as does the specialized academic nature of some of the points being discussed. From what I've seen, ANI may not be the best venue for this; it's more geared towards handling obvious violations. That would leave the DR process; maybe you should start with an RfC? If your suspicions are correct, this will probably be time-consuming and require the full process, unless the editor wanders off again and disappears. I'll be interested in seeing what happens, I might even poke around : ) Doc Tropics 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite my comment (above), your post at ANI is probably a good way to start. I realized after seeing it that it will hopefully attract some attention from editors who would be interested in the sleuthing aspect, and probably more able to follow-up than an average RfC responder. Good move. Doc Tropics 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Kudos for all the work in tracking this down! Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Durova! User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc is some excellent sleuthing! Kudos to you for all of your hard work! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Holmesian indeed. This is good evidence that User:AWilliamson is engaged in long-term disruptive editing through multiple accounts. Personally, I think the evidence is strong enough that obvious socks like User:Elizabeth87 can be blocked on sight--one of his/her edits is basically a long cut-and-paste from Allen Williamson's website. Other accounts that basically self-identify as AWilliamson should be blocked.

On the other hand, I don't think that things are as clear with Voln. Your investigation gives us strong reasons to be suspicious--I find both users' interest in Harmand's theories to be decisive, and looking back through AWilliamson's contributions I think there's a strong similarity in style and tone. But there's space for other editors to have reasonable doubt, still--I don't think you've found a smoking gun that will convince everyone. Furthermore, while Voln's contributions might have violated WP:POINT, I haven't seen any serious policy violations from this account. So it's hard, I think, to say that this account is a seriously disruptive one at this time.

I agree that WP:ANI, while not ideal for this sort of thing, might be a good place to get more input. WP:SSP is useless right now, it seems, and WP:RFCU probably would not help much in this situation, since there are so many AOL users. An updated post to long-term abuse might also be helpful. From a prevention standpoint, the best thing is to have a group of alert editors watching the associated pages.

As an aside, I hadn't realized before just how much POV-pushing there had been on Joan of Arc, and how strange some of it was. It's even more impressive that you raised it to FA status with such kookiness involved, and it's also impressive that you kept your cool the whole time. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the thread Voln started lower on this page? I agree - proceed with caution - yet this strains even my sense of fairness and good faith. Durova^Charge! 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Durova, I'm a little behind--I saw the thread below, but not the post to WP:ANI. Things seem to be moving towards a community ban, which seems like an appropriate outcome. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If any doubt remains, have a look at some diffs from Voln's talk page. This says "Archiving" in the edit note and an exceptionally small archive was created. The types of complaints and the topics covered bear an eerie similarity to AWilliamson, particularly The Bible and homosexuality and Homosexuality and Christianity; talk page blanking and misleading edit summaries are also trademark Williamson tactics.[12] He also performed a similar blanking that included the removal of a final block warning while marking the edit as minor.[13] Durova^Charge! 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, if this editor ever takes advantages of dynamic IPs or edits under proxies, please tell me and I'll have it squared away quick. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you slay the AOL behemoth? Durova^Charge! 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Two of the administrators I deal with daily are quite experienced with dealing with dynamic IPs and open proxies, so just let me know. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		"This whole situation is turning out to be a lot like an iceberg, where you see only a small portion sticking up in the air, but when you look below the surface, you discover a huge quantity of exploding penguins." -- Dave Barry Whatever the outcome, you deserve a barnstar for tracking down and meticulously documenting this corpus of edits. Choess 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk deletionism

I noticed you're a member of 'Wikipedians against censorship'. You're also frequently active at the ref desk. Yet I haven't seen any comments by you on the (lengthy!) discussions at the talk page on the deletions of other people's posts. Just in case you missed that, I thought I'd point it out to you. I've also put up a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship#5 December 2006. DirkvdM 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I threw in my two cents. Thanks. Durova^Charge! 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Listen please, I'd like this locking of the page removed now. This locking and RfI on me is a bit of a joke because the 72.91.169.22 is Riveros11 and User:72.91.28.223 whom both refer to himself in this and other complaints as if he Riveros11 is a third party. Please see detailed documentation, here [14]. I am not the only victim.

• Riveros11 has been using 72.91.169.22 and other IPs to build up a bogus case against me and others in order to block me out from editing the article. Whilst continuing to to do his edits using the Riveros11 user name so that we could not see what he was up to.

The background to this case is that Luis [User:Riveros11|Riveros11]] is a teacher and recruiter for this millenarianist group the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and they have an IT team working on this article to ensure that nothing that contradicts its PR can exist there. Not even links for ex-victims as per The Family, Moonies and Scientology etc. Ditto, that no materials can be references from their "scriptures" or publications as per other religions and groups. What this is all about is blocking any questions being raise. Ditto, The Family, Moonies and Scientology etc all have critical or opposition sections and links which he has removed from this one.

The history goes back to when he was suspended from a public discussion forum for making personal attacks on others which he has continued to lay blame on me for. I was the victim of those attacks. See, [15]

With references to consistent claim that I accepted to use the sources he provided and have requested discussion of reliable sources, policy is clear; [16]

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)

* it is relevant to their notability;

* it is not contentious;

* it is not unduly self-serving;

* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;

* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

I put in for RfC, mediation and arbitration and the guy refused to participate whilst all the time using these alternative IPs to try block me out. I am glad I found all this to understand what is going on because it had all been hidden. 195.82.106.244 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. You could register and in four days you'd be able to edit like everyone else. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusations

I don't understand why you're making accusations against me, especially since we were on the same side with regard to the Hobbins issue. We should be on the same side with regard to the current debate over Pernoud, unless you reject Pernoud's viewpoint. I had thought otherwise. But what did I ever do to you, Durova? Voln 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to clear your name then agree to a checkuser. If it comes back negative then you'll have my sincere apologies. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a very simple, straightforward solution; and it's certainly the easiest way to resolve the issue. Doc Tropics 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What's interesting here is that he refers to my opinion of Pernoud's viewpoint - but I haven't posted at all to the current discussion of Pernoud. In fact the most recent post where I refer to her even briefly is from 25 October where I mention her name among several and link to a section at Joan of Arc facts and trivia that cites a book she coauthored as a reference. To really understand how much I respect Pernoud, Voln would have to dig deep in the archives or actually remember debates that occurred a year ago. Which is more probable? Durova^Charge! 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Occam's razor suggests you could reasonably add this to the evidence collection. Note also, there is no denial of the allegations, just a mournful cry of "Why are you picking on me?". Doc Tropics 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a checkuser is warranted here, but I'd like to point out that it's just an IP check, and a determined sockpuppeteer can easily set things up so that the checkuser comes back negative. The results will not necessarily be decisive. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a checkuser has been warranted for a very long time, but their rules are strict and unless I'm mistaken we might need some formal exception to perform one without his consent. However, opinions at the other thread have been unanimous for a community ban even if it bypasses checkuser. The inconsistency in his post above suggests that this is the same person and as Doc points out he hasn't denied the allegation. I'll give him a reasonable interim for response before proceeding. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is involved in a "checkuser" and how reliable is it? In other words, is this a case in which I can possibly be exonerated or will it be so vague that you can reach any conclusion you want? Since you say that a ban has already been decided (!) this sounds rather much like a classic witch hunt. I'm condemned before the trial has even begun.

By the way, I had assumed you supported Pernoud's viewpoint because you take credit for an article which closely conforms to Pernoud's view and often cites Pernoud's books. Your recent behavior suggests that my assumption was wrong. Voln 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Prior to Voln's post of 6 December, a checkuser was performed without my request and its results were communicated to me via e-mail. That message did not specifically grant permission to discuss its content and I treat Wikipedia-related e-mail as confidential by default. My delay in this response was due to delays in getting that clarification. I am satisfied by the checkuser results.

The proposed community ban has proceeded in accordance with Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I should not have to explain twice that my investigation was unrelated to my opinion of a specific historian or any other POV of mine. Voln's unwillingness to discard bad faith POV presumptions, along with a response that probes for information without denying the charge or agreeing to a checkuser, constitutes further circumstantial evidence that this is indeed Allen Williamson. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The original post deserves an answer on its own merits. I don't use a POV filter when I decide whether I think an editor has violated policy. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel: I was even the sole supporter at an arbitration case for an editor whose ideology I deplored. When AWilliamson was new Fire Star stated that he had the makings of a fine contributor.[17] He probably could have taken credit for the Joan of Arc FA instead of leaving it for me to pick up. I invited him into mediation over a year ago but he refused to join - tried to have things his way by back door methods instead - and sometimes I wonder how a person who's so devout builds a moral justification for those tactics. Sooner or later those choices do catch up. I don't hold a grudge. I did for a few weeks last summer when I sifted through thousands of edits to restore the article, but today I'm more saddened by the misspent potential. Maybe prayer or spiritual counseling would help. That's beyond my expertise; best wishes. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk

Regarding your comments here, I think you misunderstood the issues at the reference desk. See my reply on the talk page there. -- SCZenz 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've followed up. Durova^Charge! 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi. User:Srkris, whom you warned a few days ago has not changed his ways. He has been uploading copyrighted images and faking the copyright information even when we have shown clearly the source of the images. He is even ignoring an admin's explanations and naming the tagging as 'bad faith edits'. He is also pushing is POV in the [[Carnatic music] article by repetedly deleting cited information. I need some help dealing with this difficult user. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Venu62 is tagging images with licenses (particularly those uploaded by me) with copyvio tags in a baseless manner. I have clearly specified the licensing. Wikipedia allows newspaper images (low-res images), and I have appropriately mentioned that they are newspaper images. Venu62 is trying to make destructive edits to my articles and images since he has something personal against me. One admin tried to show me that they are against wikipedia's guidelines, but I proved to him that they are not. I request help against Venu62's destructive edits. He has particularly been stalking me and editing the same articles immediately after me. He is guilty of WP:STALK ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the images in question are either copyright violations, or misuse of Fair use tags. Thanks. --Ragib 19:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I explained before, no Wikistalking is occurring here. Skris is probably violating copyright and has definitely violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I was extremely lenient in giving a final warning rather than a block for the earlier behavior and Skris has received multiple warnings from other users since that time. One week block. Strongly recommend Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user upon return. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr Durova, the multiple warnings you mentioned are bogus warnings. You blocked for bogus warnings? You are in need of better understanding and some humility. Dont use your admin powers right and left to block editors who have made a lot of positive contributions to wikipedia. The pot which has complained to you is calling the kettle black. 59.92.87.43 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another admin has doubled the original block for IP evasion. Please refer to me as Ms. Durova. Durova^Charge! 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc vandal

Hello. I got your message, and I will look into the diffs you provided in the next day or so to see if they fit User:AWilliamson's patterns as I remember them. I will provisionally agree that your proposal seems very likely. Also, I blocked an anon IP for 1 week (whom I believed you mentioned) who was vandalising recently at Joan of Arc and other articles. Cheers! --Fire Star 火星 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to weigh in at the WP:ANI thread? Your experience on this case would be valuable. So far the support for a siteban has been unanimous, yet as an involved editor I've declined to perform it myself. Durova^Charge! 03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentor statement on talk page

Hi Durova, I noticed you made a statement to Mr. Shubert on the talk page, "I suggest you discuss the proposed venue with your mentor.." If by mentor you mean adoptive editor, you might have missed recent developments. The Hybrid (who adopted him) un-adopted him following an unsuccessful mediation between Shubert and some of the rest of us: User:The_Hybrid/Dispute. I have lodged another [formal complaint] against him, since the attacks on editors resumed immediately after the incidents recorded on that page. I notice it's way down on the list of Administrator tasks to accomplish, but I hope something can be done soon; it has made work on Adventist-related pages extremely difficult in the presence of so rampant a critic. Thanks. Zahakiel 04:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Un-adopted? Thanks for the update; that's surprising. I had hoped he could be nursed along. And he's still making pretty much the same claims on the article talk page. Then I recommend a user conduct WP:RFC per WP:DE - either he gets the message and reforms or it could establish the basis for a topic ban or a user ban. Thanks for your patience. Durova^Charge! 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you possibly look at Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church again. E.Shubee has brought up the "Trademark infringement" topic again. Cheers, Ansell 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See below. Durova^Charge! 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

nice job

Just stopping by to say GREAT JOB on the joan of arc find!⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: [18] ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Durova^Charge! 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ANI thread

Could you please take a look at this WP:ANI thread. Some user frivolously claims policy that, in his opinion, allow him to troll and harrass editors with impunity. This behavior in this very thread is another good demonstration of his attitude. Thanks, --Irpen 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The user to whom User:Irpen is referring is me. You can also leave a message on User talk:Oden if you want to. --Oden 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So why does this come to me instead of Alex Bakharev? He's an excellent administrator who already knows the dispute in some depth. I think he'd be better suited to address the complaint. Durova^Charge! 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Irpen is my friend. I feel I am not completly unbiased in the disputes there he is involved Alex Bakharev 05:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since Alex spoke favorably of me so many times, I specifically chose not to ask him. I chose to ask you since we never interacted in POV disputes and since you have a long experience from WP:PAIN to be able to see whether the user activity is indeed trolling. Please don't feel pressured. If you want to stay out of this one, this is just as well. --Irpen 06:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered by your trust. At the moment I've cut down on my noticeboard work due to an arbitration case and the close of a very lengthy investigation. So I'll look into this if you want but it could take me longer than usual. Durova^Charge! 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am concerned that neither User:Durova or User:Alex Bakharev have reflected upon whether User:Irpen's comment here as well as on WP:ANI might be considered trolling?
• Since User:Irpen seems to be very relentless in pursuing this matter further, I have considered starting a RfC on User:Irpen, but there is already one (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen), and I am not sure of how to proceed when the user in question already has a RfC.
• I would appreciate it if you can keep me informed of the outcome.

--Oden 09:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex has recused himself and I haven't investigated deeply enough yet. If you'd prefer to bring this to another administrator who can act more swiftly, you're free to do so. Please drop a note here if you do. Durova^Charge! 14:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will. --Oden 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking for help

Hi Durova - I'm looking for an admin who might be able to help with an article (Bhatra) where I'm the only regular registered editor. An anon editor has a different view from mine about what qualifies as verification, and he may have misinterpreted a 'third opinion' asking him to cite sources. If you'd like more detail please ask, but for now let me just say that he's citing the "(Balas) Janamsakhis which is called sub tu vadi Janmsakhis translation, the highest of all janmsakhis By Surdar Javar Singh". I cannot trace this anywhere, there have been other troubling moments, and I feel in need of some advice/help. If you're busy with other things, could you possibly suggest where I should go next? Many thanks --HJMG 19:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (PS This may sound as if it needs specialist knowledge, but I don't think that's the issue.)

Wow, that does seem far outside my expertise. I'll have a look at the matter and see if I can help. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your help - especially when you have so much else to attend to. --HJMG 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope your disagreement irons out without too much further trouble. By the way, one of your posts at article talk mentions that a book reference was unavailable in your library. You may be able to obtain it through interlibrary loan - ask a reference librarian. Durova^Charge! 22:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuing vendetta

Hi, I am truly sorry to make your work as an administrator such a busy one, and this is like the 3rd time I have posted here. On the talk page for the article so often in question, Mr. Shubert is trying yet another tactic to get it altered or deleted. I really do not see him ever stopping his attacks on the entry, the organization it's about, and other Wikipedia editors (myself included). I registered a formal complaint on the AN, adding to Maniwar's that's been there for some time... but the complaint has been there "for some time." Even mediation has failed here, and it's pretty clear to me that this editor is not interested in improving Wikipedia, but in "fighting" with others to establish it as a vehicle for his opinions. He will mis-quote others, mis-word Wikipedia policy, and enlist the aid of sympathetic individuals that he "enjoys" speaking with since they appear to be allies such as this, and this (even if they are suspected sockpuppets) just to try and build credibility. I truly think this has been allowed to play out far too long, and I hope something can be done soon, for the opposition to Adventist-related articles appear daily, and this article above seems to be the particular object of his unwelcome affections. Thanks a lot, and sorry again. Zahakiel 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of brief in my last explanation so maybe it wasn't clear. If you'll take a look at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing you'll find a set of steps for taking care of this situation. Keep in touch with me as you go. I'll have a look at Shubee's latest activity and perhaps apply another block, but you really ought to pursue the leads I've given you. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also encourage you all to make comments here RFI Complaint on this. --Maniwar (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One month block issued. If the problem resumes when he returns then open the WP:RFC and seek a community siteban. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; advice from both of you has been taken in light of the wording of his unblock request, which essentially boils down to, "I'm right, and everyone else is too ignorant or careless to realize it." Zahakiel 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment for the administrator. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Lyme disease

Do you think the semi-protection of Lyme disease is really necessary? I've got the page on my watchlist and follow it quite closely, so I know there's a long-term vandal attacking the article from time to time, but his vandalism was quite manageable as of late. On the other hand, there are enough anons who positively contribute to the article, making it worthwhile to keep the article unprotected and just revert the vandal from time to time, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, then I'll unprotect with the recommendation you run a user conduct WP:RFC on the anon. Do you know whether this is a variable range IP or just someone who switches computers? Durova^Charge! 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really investigated much in that direction yet, but the report by another friendly anon sums it up pretty well. An anon complained about the neutrality of the article, then started vandalizing after he didn't got what he wanted. I'm not sure if an RfC is really needed here, the case is quite clear as, the anon has stopped arguing his point and just vandalizes from time to time now. I'd treat him like any other vandal, as long as appears only every now and then. --Conti|✉ 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like this has gone on for several months. If you're comfortable watching and reverting then so be it. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ANI Joan of Arc Discussion

Durova,

I'm replying to the note you left on my talk page.

It would be easier to do it here obviously, but since we're discussing accusations that have been made on the ANI page as justifications for a siteban I think they clearly need to be discussed there instead. So I put today's message over there.

Maybe it's time to drop the thread however since other editors already voted for a siteban. But first read what I wrote over there. EReference 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Read and replied. I confined my citations to one relatively easy-to-get book. I appreciate the challenges you raise - I really do - and I hope you appreciate my contention that this person has been laying deliberate traps. Do you oppose the proposed community ban? Durova^Charge! 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I placed another reply on the ANI page. I'm hoping this portion of the discussion will be brought to a close for reasons I stated in my response there.

I noticed that you just recently made a comment on this talk page which seems to be related to the same siteban issue. While there may be legitimate reasons for a siteban, a checkuser in this case isn't likely to be adequate proof. Wasn't the issue here the use of AOL IPs? That had come up on the ANI page early on, where I had explained that AOL IPs or groups of IPs are never associated with a single individual and cannot be associated with an individual due to the way AOL's system works. A checkuser might prove that the account is using AOL, but then tens of millions of people use AOL. EReference 08:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sockpuppetry case? Asking for advice.

Hi, Durova.

I just found that new user SanIsidro (who I already had to warn for PAs, that's why I noticed the change) has started his own page with the following blatant self-accusation: This page is alternately used by Balino, Albino, Cupidon, LaBota, Manticorn, DerStorm, and many others. Cheers! Most of these users are rather new users with conflictive historials, some of them already banned. They are: User:Balino-Antimod, User:Albinomite (banned), User:Cupidon, User:LaBotadeFranco, User:Manticorn (banned) and User:DerStormtroper (banned). I was about to report him for sockpuppetry but find the technical difficulty that I am supposed to know who of all these users (if they are independent users at all) is the puppetmaster. I really don't know how to act in this case but it seems to ask for some sort of action. ANI?

Regards, --Sugaar (Note the page was later blanked by an anon user[19]) --Sugaar 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: in SanIsidro's "first" edit to WP here, he announces his intention to use sockpuppets and multiple accounts in order to spread the "Truth". Also, he made an odd and potentially improper post in the middle of a section on KC's talkpage here. This clearly needs some attention...Doc Tropics 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, this is related to the investigation where I recused myself. Please seek the attention of a different administrator. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it was a totally diferent case. Anyhow I only wanted to know how to report it. Never mind. --Sugaar 12:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Blcoked user editing anonymously

Hi, User:Srkris, blocked for one week by you, has returned and has been editing anonymously:[20], [21]. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree these are similar. You should file a checkuser request to verify the claim. Let me know the result. Durova^Charge! 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser request was declined, I don't know why. If a blocked user User:Srkris can continue to abuse and vandalise WP, then there is no stopping anyone from doing anything. See: [22], [23], [24], [25]. He is quite happily violating 3RR and other guidelines by simply not logging in. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See the continuing icivil behaviour: [26], [27]. He has been reverting the copyvio notices from the images as well: [28], [29], [30],[31]

Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue is being handled by two admins already. See also User_talk:Durova#Help_needed and User_talk:Utcursch#Its_my_website.21 59.92.87.43 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've double checked. The block extension looks appropriate. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For contacting police when a user, possibly a vandal, placed a suspected suicide note on Wikipedia. Thank you for caring about this user, even when you didn't know his or her true purpose. Congratulations. Yuser31415 06:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc at chinese wikipedia

Hi, I just read your compliment on Village pump, I'm glad you like my translation, it's all thanks to your original works. I will keep translating English articles into Chinese, please let me know if you have other works need to be translated, cheers. Lectert 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied in more detail at the other editor's talk page. Keep on translating articles! Kudos, Durova^Charge! 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal

For the chinese hoax explorer - the cultural thingy - Cultural depictions of Zheng He - I do hope you or someone can do it - the menzies myth (I am old enough to remember the early craze for von daniken) needs to be moved from claims to authority to just another myth - I think the proposed articcle would be good - hope it happens (just dipped in I hope I got the right gist of things) SatuSuro 08:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I haven't wanted to proceed without feedback from other editors. Will start the page when I have time. Regards, Durova^Charge! 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For your work against the Joan of Arc vandal

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Premeditated Chaos, award you this barnstar in recognition of your efforts against the Joan of Arc vandal. You've put in a lot of hard work and time, effort that most wouldn't be willing to give. Awesome. ♠PMC♠ 09:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Columbia University and BC jokes

Hi Durova,

Thank you for your comments on the Columbia University talk page regarding the removal of Barnard Jokes. I don’t think any consensus will be reached any time soon. Do you think there is any point in bringing this issue to the Arbitration Committee? Best, Matan 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope not. Arbitration is a nightmare. Try formal mediation first. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New page

I recently set up the List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients and I thought you might be interested in making this better. Remember 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll help it when I have the time. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Durova^Charge! 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate case

You wrote "I doubt a community solution is feasible". What about AfD'ing the article? The group meets WP:MUSIC guidelines but like most such articles, the article is mostly promotional anyway. It's not worth the hassle of keeping it around. The encyclopedia will be fine without it. 67.117.130.181 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that alternative when I requested the arbitration case. I suspect it would survive AfD, especially since it does have references. Durova^Charge! 14:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Old blanking on Talk:Joan of Arc

Durova, I don't you if you've noticed this, but awhile ago CF18000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) creatively blanked some material from Talk:Joan of Arc--he removed material from the main talk page, created Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive06, but didn't put everything he removed into the archive--the section "Clothing section revert" is missing from the archive. I'll put the missing material in now, but judging from the material he removed and his user contribs, this is yet another sock of Editor X. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note the activity of En1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), including this diff. Looks like another sock. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably right and good to restore, although the last portion of the material blanked appears to be copyvio. At that time I suspect the account that posted copyvio material was a different sock because it also blanked a Wikistalking warning from my user talk page while posting more of the same nonsense - if you check about 5 or 6 archives back on this talk page you'll see what I mean. Durova^Charge! 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The account posting the copyvio has nothing to do with Editor X, I think, but the person who blanked out the section that refers to Allen Williamson's publication about Joan's clothing is probably Editor X. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Read this diff before you make up your mind.[32] If you follow Netsnipe's other links from around that time you'll find a nexus of accounts that seemed to spring into existence for the purpose of blanking talk page edits that related to improprieties at Joan of Arc. In addition to blanking my posts at Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse and covering over Netsnipe's wikistalking warning, another account blanked my informal RFC requests at the Catholicism and atheism Wikiprojects - as a result of getting no responses I put the article up for Wikipedia:Featured article review. The long and short of it is I think Editor X has a rather deep drawer of socks. Durova^Charge! 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Is there a canonical list of AWilliamson socks/suspected socks somewhere? I hadn't realized that IdlP, QFMC, and Rm104 were part of this coterie.

Also, have you noticed Durova. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and "her" contributions to Talk:Cross-dressing/Cross-dressing Discussion Archive 2 - Joan of Arc? Very creative. I'm going to repair the damage to the Talk:Cross-dressing archives right now, but you might want to block the account... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No I hadn't noticed it. That's deplorable. Yes of course I've banned it. Would you repair this account's other damage, particularly to the Talk:Joan of Arc archives? I'd been meaning to sleuth down some historical information that had seemed to have disappeared. I appreciate your help with all this - in one way or another I'm juggling three different arbitration cases while this is going on. Regards, Durova^Charge! 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, Durova, "you" like to blank a lot of talk pages, it seems--see this edit by "Durova." (with the period at the end) to Talk:Joan of Arc/NPOV1. Mr. Williamson really seems to enjoy blanking a page, then moving it to disguise his tracks. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that blanking. BTW regarding the list of suspected sockpuppets, you could update the list at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets. I hadn't altered it since its creation but a couple of other editors have modified it this month. So it's roughly a year out of date. Durova^Charge! 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I got the rest of the blanking, including some material that En1 "forgot" to include in Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive05. What a huge pain--almost everything AWilliamson and friends had written was blanked out. It's all on my watchlist now. It might be good to move the archive pages back to their original titles, though. I'll add some names to the HAJARS page. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I can move the pages back to their original names. I only moved two, because the rest of the new pagenames are fine. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help. And regarding the headaches, imagine what it felt like last summer when I cleaned up the article. Durova^Charge! 02:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've submitted an evidence statement. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:EReference

If User talk:EReference isn't on your watchlist, you might be interested in looking at a discussion he and I are having--it's a spin-off from the Editor X thread on WP:ANI. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you request a checkuser on that account I'll support you. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your congratulations

Thanks! I was flattered by the whole thing, actually. It's nice to know one's work has been noticed by others! | Mr. Darcy talk 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)