User talk:Durova/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peter Dodge[edit]

Maybe you are confused? Peter is not an administrator. He would be better described as a mediator or mentor in the Ilena dispute. David D. (Talk) 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Will refactor, thanks. DurovaCharge 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

... for this. A voice of sanity! I was starting to feel like I was taking crazy pills. Without digging into the details of this feud, it's high time some boundaries were set. Thanks for doing so. MastCell 23:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur: I have withheld from commenting due to the unfortunate fact that my attempt[1] was not well received[2], and I did not wish to inflame the situation. I strongly support your efforts and actions, and should you wish for assistance of any kind please let me know if I could be of any help to you. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. There is something that would help. I'm going to encourage Ilena to join the formal mentorship program at WP:ADOPT because I honestly think the informal mentorship is not serving her well. I anticipate some resistance to that recommendation and it would be useful if other voices joined with my own - that is if you agree with me. DurovaCharge! 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I find that an excellent suggestion; this is precisely the type of situation I feel ADOPT can help with. Ilena will need to realise that her adoptor is there to help her understand Wiki-policies and how to work within the system, not get her own way, which may be problematic. I suggest you encourage her to choose an administrator or other long-standing, experienced editor; otherwise it may cause more problems than it solves (blind leading the blind). It will take perserverance and patience, as well as considerable knowledge of Wikipedia's RULES. I will certainly add my voice to yours, if you feel it will help - and I will withdraw as soon as it appears I am aggravating the situation, as that will accomplish nothing. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've posted the recommendation and made it as easy for her as possible. DurovaCharge! 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


For your comment at the SMH blog. Well said. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) DurovaCharge 02:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your User page[edit]

One of the things I love about WIkipedia is reading people's user pages, because I learn so many intersting things. Yours is great. I wonder if this woman was in the Russian history books for many years. For a long time, women were absent from US history books. That has slowly changed. You have inspired me. Maybe I will consider Myra Bradwell (first woman lawyer in the US) or something like that ....I don't know who the first woman officer was in the US army. Something I will have to investigate.Jance 05:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. To estimate by commemorative artistic works, she appears to have been well known in Russia consistently rather than someone who was forgotten and revived. Her aristocratic heritage doesn't appear to have worked against her during the Soviet era. If she inspires you to create a new article, wonderful. Have a look at User:Durova/Did you know? for tips on how to get it onto Wikipedia's main page. If your effort makes the cut at Did you know? then drop me a line I'll give you a barnstar. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 05:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

AN/I comments on my article cleanups and AfD submissions[edit]

Thanks for your attention to the problem I was having. I have come to accept that the other editor will continue to dance and tightrope semantics in order to continue to act the victim unless there is nobody else to play their game. So, I am removing myself from the situation and won't be responding to their request to strike anything nor return to defend my words/actions. I leave it entirely to your own discretion as to whether you want to address them further, but at this point it's just more likely that I'll never need to interact with them again if I just go on my way on this one. Thanks again for your help in the situation. ju66l3r 08:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Disengaging is a very wise move here. In the interests of WP:AGF I'll suppose this has inadvertently touched on a very raw nerve. Occasionally - and more in real life than Wikipedia - I have seen some neutral statement or action touch off a very hot response from a person whom I knew was normally rational and cordial and who happened to have been immediate family to one or more Holocaust survivors. Polite distance is the best course when that happens. Regards, DurovaCharge! 14:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much for the Barnstar! I am honored. --Hu12 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for earning it. That was a lot of hard work I'm sure. DurovaCharge! 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I do appreciate your attempts to defend me against Peter's very unfair and counterproductive dealings with me. I'm already stressed enough, without being treated like a criminal by the attorney of the one who has (figuratively) been "raping" me. That's how it must feel. I pity rape victims who are treated the way Peter is treating me. Isn't there anything that can be done to get him to act reasonably, instead of him constantly defending her abhorrent actions and thereby facilitating them, thus becoming an "accessory to the crime" (I think that is basically the legal parallel to what he's doing here.)?

Please get him to stop. You are an admin and can block him, or at least give him a severe warning for misconduct and "abetting a crime." I am not the one on trial. Ilena is, yet he keeps censoring me and making me jump through hoops. He's not even an admin, so I don't even have to do anything he says, but in an exercise of good faith I am bending over backwards to resolve this situation in a just manner, which is not done by ignoring and allowing her actions, but to get her to stop it and get her to provide documentation for her accusations. -- Fyslee 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was composing a query to his user page when your message posted here. I really thought yesterday that when I posted the diff of her change to your heading with my block notice that he would change his mind about WP:AGF. There's some chance he may not have seen the diff she produced on your page which demonstrates she does have the technical skill and chooses not to use it. So I was going through your userpage history to find that edit of hers. If he doesn't budge then I recommend you open a user conduct RFC on Peter. You'd be a better person than I to open it. I've really never seen a mentor act in this way before.
Regardless, I'm the editor the community entrusted with the sysop tools. I've informed Peter and Ilena of their options if they think I act improperly. They've chosen not to use those options so - though I shy away from forceful terms - these aggressive interpretations look like smoke and mirrors. Don't be intimidated. You're in a hostile environment there so my candid advice is that if I say you've no need to respond to something, or to a class of similar somethings, don't offer any grist for their mills. My other main suggestion is to be cautious regarding WP:CIVIL. If you follow the letter and spirit of all site policies then one of two things will happen:
  1. Ilena will discern genuine good faith and respond in kind.
  2. Ilena will continue to be unreasonable, in which case a very one-sided situation is easy to resolve administratively.
What often happens in this type of situation is that the primary aggressor lays an abundance of bait. It's a test of character to the parties being baited. I'm active on this matter now so let me do what I do best. Look up the diffs I asked you to post to Ilena's page, then read up on WP:RFC in case my outreach to Peter doesn't succeed. Contact me by e-mail if you need to communicate anything confidential, and thank you for your cooperation and patience. DurovaCharge! 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to supply the diffs, although it seems like just what Peter has been demanding. You mention it a couple times at least, so which single diff of mine (so I can find the precise time and original wording) needs to have diffs provided as evidence. -- Fyslee 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
To give this a quick response, the first two posts of that thread offer links that would be better converted to diffs and ask the reader to check your edit history. Well, check the edit history yourself and produce a few diffs to back it up. Also in posts where you claim you retracted something, show that you actually did. And where you claim Ilena did something, give the diff that she did. I'm afraid I can't take this casually right now and since her actions have compelled me to set the bar high on her fairness requires it high for you as well. Otherwise I could be accused of a double standard.
I've extended her block and posted to WP:AN as mentioned below. If it becomes necessary I can also page protect her user talk. Let me know if you want the links and edit history that disclose your real world name deleted. I can get those things out of the page history. DurovaCharge! 23:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if the disclosures of my real world name were deleted. She knows perfectly well that her use of my name on Wikipedia means that search engines will promote her agenda against me and I will be even more exposed to hateful attacks by others because of it. -- Fyslee 05:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
And I followed up on this at Fyslee's user talk when I read it, but Peter's userpage indicates he's grieving a loss in the family that happened two days ago. Suggested holding off on RFC in light of that. DurovaCharge! 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have read your message and have no intention anyway of starting an RfC, although if someone else started one I might participate. I find the usual official methods for dealing with issues here (RfM, RfC, etc. so cumbersome and time consuming that I usually avoid them and try to deal with the person on my own talk page or other places they are active. -- Fyslee 05:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look...[edit]

... at User talk:Ilena? She's posted a link to an off-wiki attack page she's generated against Fyslee. The link was removed by Ronz, but it looks like both a pretty clear violation of WP:NPA ("Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack") by a blocked user, as well as discouraging evidence of a failure to learn from the situation. MastCell 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've extended the block to one week and posted to WP:AN. DurovaCharge! 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits makes happy reading. Most of the massive contributors are already admins, have been admins, do not want to be admins, have left, have block logs as long as your arm, and so on. If you're looking for names to whisper in the right ears (sorry, I forgot, TINC), here are a few. I have not closely examined them, but they seem like people who could do the job without too much drama:

If I think of any others, I'll drop you a line. Keep up the great work, it's much appreciated among the toiling masses! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro[edit]

You are right; if Cal Worthington warrants an encyclopedia article, Shapiro probably does. I do not think either one does. But maybe Wikipedia does not have standards of notability and professionalism that I would expect of an encyclopedia. Thanks for weighing in.Jance 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I followed up on the talk page. I think there's an advantage to this approach in that it gives the inclusionists a basis for keeping the article without pushing WP:BLP or its potential ramifications - and the basis exists without stretching precedent. Electrons are cheap. Personally I don't think I'll ever understand why Wikipedia has articles on elementary schools: an institution of learning where students need to take naps on rubber sheets doesn't do it for me. But they're in, they're staying in, and their existence doesn't harm me. I'll put my energies into sleuthing down sneaky vandals who actually damage the site. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for investigation[edit]

About three weeks back, you replied to my request for investigation into the behaviour of an anon editor. Just in case that's not on your watchlist, I wanted to point out that he's back doing the same thing, making pro-British POV edits. Again, I want to stress that England is a fine country and I have nothing against the British, but this guy needs a wake-up call.--chris.lawson 22:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. It might be a day before I have time to get on that. I appreciate your patience. Regards, DurovaCharge! 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I'm going to be on a semi-wikibreak starting Sunday for about two months anyway.--chris.lawson 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A personal request[edit]

As someone whose fairness I admire, can I ask you to take a look at the thread Wp:an/i#Mastcell_wikistalking, at AN/I? I think it could use a referee, if you have the time. MastCell 20:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I missed that storm until after the waters had settled - or at least until after the thread got archived. It concluded with a block warning against the other party, which seems reasonable.
As a side note I'll suggest one thing that can do wonders in this type of situation: walk away from the disputed articles for a month. Let the other side do their thing. About two thirds of the time the edit warriors get bored when there's no one to spar with. After things have cooled down pretty nicely, go back and suggest some changes on the talk page. Implement them after a few days if nobody complains. If the other editor does come back then open an article content WP:RFC at that point. Most people's tempers will have cooled somewhat by then and you'll probably get the article straightened out. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 00:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Good advice. I've advocated that approach to others in the past, but found it harder than I thought to apply it myself in that situation. Live and learn. Thanks, and see you at the Ilena/Fyslee RfArb. MastCell 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Just about everyone finds it harder to apply that to themselves. DurovaCharge! 02:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Since I see you are active at WP:RFI, could I ask you to look at a request I filled recently? Unlike Ghirla, whose contributions to Wikipedia were immense, we have a much simpler case here: a user whose major contributions to Wiki are flaming and trying to defame much more active editors. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block as requested. As an aside, since this happens to touch on Eastern Europe I wonder whether the editor will speculate about my nationality based on my username. Things like that have happened enough times before that I'm thinking of adding a few lines to my admin disclaimer. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Now that was uncalled for! The user respectfully asked for more time to properly respond and he gets a block. That's not a fair treatment or justice or whatever you want to call it. It feels like sitting on someone's face ("Oh, you want a chance to defend yourself? Good, here's your block!") And the fact that he's busy and won't be around anyways is not an excuse for a block. He might as well deserve to be blocked, but not like this... in a rush and without any dignity and due care. Renata 22:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the evidence and consider the block meritorious. Based on what the editor posted it appears unlikely to interfere with his actual editing. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry another editor point this already here, nevertheless my statement is here. BTW, Durova if you intervene in this case are you also review and this material, because user:Piotrus stared to labeling "extremist" term all around and this issue also corresponds on Dr. Dan`s case in RFI. Could, you be so kind and advise on this issue too. Thanks, M.K. 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Replied on RFI talk page to RFI-related issues, and I will actually second the request for neutral comments on KG page. Such comments have deterred M.K from disrupting Armia Krajowa article, and I hope they will help cool him down again in this case :> -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt action. Hopefully this will him give something to think about. PS. On the sidenote, yes, I have recently seen nationality speculations about you by Mr. Blass (I seem to be on his email list, which means in 'bad days' I get 5-10 emails from him... sigh). PS2. A good disclaimer is Wikipedia:Babel (languages) - and it's quite useful, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Durova. I am also surprised by your block of Dr. Dan. I think you jumped the gun. The issue is hugely long and complex and basically narrows down to Piotrus' tactic to expunge his content opponents and win the disputes in such way more than to anything else. I am honestly surprised that you bought it this time and imposed a block that, as it seems to me, would only aggravate matters and will further encourage Piotrus to pursue his tactic against other editors. See more in my comment at WP:RFI. --Irpen 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather think we should concentrate on some people's habit to try to hide their abuses and those of their pals by unfounded accusations which have been already disproved. You can delay the community hammer, but eventually it always comes down, Irpen. And so I am heartened to see that there are members of the community, like Durova, who can see a difference between civil content creators and uncivil talk page warriors, and are not afraid to act.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Durova would see things differently once she gets to the bottom of this. That will happened if Ghirla ever comes back to Wikipedia and the mediation resumes. --Irpen 08:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'm back online. The key point I read in Dr. Dan's assertion was that Piotr's points were untrue. Piotr supplied enough diffs to demonstrate that they were true and the continued duration weighed in my decision. Dr. Dan does have the right to expect me to apply equal standards to both sides of this dispute and I am willing examine evidence he presents. If that culminates in a mediation request I'd refer you elsewhere, but I'll gladly look at the policy side of things. DurovaCharge! 00:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova, give me an hour to post diffs to Piotr's malaise to RFI page (he insists as if he forgot) but my point is that blocks hurt people. I think your block was unnecessary. I hope I am allowed to say so. Regards, --Irpen 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes not blocking one person hurts other persons' more, Irpen. Have you considered that?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Respectful disagreement and discussion supported with diffs is a very good thing. I'm a reasonable person and my opinion sometimes gets swayed that way. Do me a favor? I'm composing a statement for ArbCom in another window. Drop me a reminder here when your statement (or statements) are ready. Regards, Durova.

In case you missed, I posted a whole set of diffs to RFI that doubtlessly reveal the Piotrus' method to use different tricks to get his opponents blocked. Now, that PAIN is deleted, he found another venue. He now demands that I also provide diffs of his Polonocentric POV-pushing into articles. I hope it is unnecessary and I explained why at RFI. You should be fairly familiar with the editing conflicts that proceeded the latest Piotr/Ghirla escalation. Those were running for years. If you think it is necessary, though, I will spend some time digging for more diffs.

IMO, this board should follow PAIN into history. It is misused and abused as a substitute for Wikipedia:Request to block my opponent page.

Once this issue is settled, I will submit this whole board for deletion. Of course WP:ANI can also be used for Wikilawyering but the advantage of ANI is that it is looked by too many eyeballs and chances to dupe others at ANI are smaller than at PAIN and RFI.

I think, Durova, that you are taking upon yourself too much a thankless task to sort out the deep disagreements and serve a judge. You do it much better than most others since you are willing to dig deep but this is frustrating and time consuming. That's why almost no one but yourself does it so far. And this is too much to ask, I think. --Irpen 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the nod, Irpen. As Halibutt knows, I'm not perfect. I'll do my best here. In case there's a delay I should explain: I may have to get a new power supply for this computer, which might take me offline for a while because it's an older model. RFI plays second banana to ArbCom and there's a request moving toward acceptance in which I'm a named party. So if I get sidelined those are the reasons. DurovaCharge! 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we are ready. Irpen provided a few old, already discussed and discard by community diffs (most of them were raised by Ghirla at my RfC and you know the end result). I'd appreciate it if you could ask Irpen - whom I have known for years to be a rather reasonable editor - to stop defaming me with his accusations of 'Piotrus is trying to block his opponents' and 'Piotrus is pushing nationalistic Polish POV'. I find them offending and completly unfounded. As for Dr. Dan, I guess the next few days will show if he will change his behaviour. His recent edits include several helpful if minor copyedits and another rather strange discussion post ([3])... PS. Thank you for your time. Unfortunatly Irpen objected to WizardyDragon's offer to help deal with our case (and in rather strong words), so unless another person who reads RFI decides to take the case (and RFI's backlog is not an optimistic sign), you may be our only hope :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not following your RfC Piotrus and dug the diffs from scratch. That's for one. I am not aware they are rejected as they cannot be. They are just diffs, no more no less.

As for me being reasonable or not, the issue of Piotrus seeking to expunge his opponents were raised by me in a softer form earlier many times. Unfortunately, they did not resonate with him. By now, I have to be more blunt because this continues to this day.

My objections to WD's participation in conflict resolution are based on his disastrous involvement I've seen in the past. He likely acted with good intentions but his involvement turned a small fire into a big one. He apologized and I have no more issue with him to settle. I trust Durova to handle this if she wants although I think this is a huge waste of time.

The entire RFI is just a new magnet for trolling which PAIN was in the past. --Irpen 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro & Your comment[edit]

Thank you for the input - and consideration of this article/issue. The version now that Tyrenius reverted to in an attempt to save the article, is mostly Sarah's version. I do not believe Sarah misrepresented any sources. All of the garbage that was there before misrepresented sources. I don't know that that editor will reinsert that content -- I believe he only did that to show "notability", when I challenged the article's inclusion. Without that to somehow tie the subject to something actually notable, such as the effect on ethics rules, all there is of note for this attorney is some scummy ads and records of one-year disciplinary actions. Sarah did about all that one legitimately could with the material she had to work with. And if that is sufficient notability for Wikipedia, then far be it from me to object. Jance 23:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. In fairness to the inclusionists, the resulting stub could be useful for someone doing research on the history of advertising in American legal practice. It wasn't many decades ago that lawyers couldn't do more than list name, number, and address in the telephone book. While it wouldn't be right for an editor do attempt original research on that topic, a history or law student searching for the nadir might want to examine that example. Or if you really have touble swallowing that reasoning (and it's a stretch for me too) then try the following slogan: Save an electron! Become a deletionist. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Since Fyslee has refused mediation regarding the issues pertaining to himself and Ilena, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the time for a formal complaint about Peter's involvment and lack of neutrality in this situation needs to be filed. He has improperly raised a faulty RfM that was unsuccessful because of his own blunder, and now he has escalated conflicts here by raising an RfArb that I cannot possibly participate in in any proper manner. It is simply too time-consuming. It is now 03:10 AM here in Denmark and Peter is doing more damage to my stress levels than Ilena did! This is so unfair and unreasonable. Please get him to drop it and do what he can to de-escalate, rather than escalate. He is - all by himself - creating more controversy and wasting our time. Even a simple RfC, which would be proper, would be hard for me to deal with, but it would at least be fair, IF he did not raise it. He has a serious COI in the matter, especially since he so clearly often favorized and protected Ilena, even defending her and deleting my attempts to provide diffs in my defence. -- Fyslee 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A good first step on your part would be raising issues with a user directly, instead of speaking behind their back. It's not very nice, nor is it really considered very civil. You do not have to participate in the Arbitration, although it is highly suggested you do if the Arbitration Committee takes it on, as they may take action against anyone involved as they see fit, in relation to the matter. Consensus was that this venue was the appropriate one, per a comment Durova said herself, as well as comments by several other uninvolved users. As such, I listed it. Daniel Bryant was originally going to be the one to list it, but I was the one that ended up doing it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 06:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter wasn't the first to propose arbitration on WP:AN. Actually Daniel Bryant is a member of the arbitration committee. Although arbitration isn't fun it does proceed at a leisurely pace. You could take a weekend off and not miss much. At this point - although it's never something I like to see happen - that looks like where this is headed. DurovaCharge! 00:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Daniel is what? No, he hangs around, helping the clerks, but he is not a member of Arbcom. Thatcher131 00:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, right you are. I'll strike through. What was I thinking? Thanks for catching my foul ball. DurovaCharge! 00:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The confusion may have been caused by the fact that he ran in the Arbitration Committee elections, but was not appointed at their resolution. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
For the most part this week you and I have been at odds, but I think you're right on the money with that guess. Regards, DurovaCharge! 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not really insane and stuff, you know. Really, really. :)
In more seriousness, I respect and value your contributions. You have been a reasonable, fair, and level-headed administrator. Not all admins are like this, sadly, but that only makes me value this all the more. In light of that, I was seriously disappointed in what was a very heavy-handed approach to solving the matter. While I do not doubt your good intentions, I think we can both agree that it did not work as intended and the end result has become a very sticky mess. I apologise if any of my comments contributed to this.
As Jimbo would likely say, "maybe they just need a hug". No, really though - diplomacy has worked some serious wonders before on Wikipedia, and Jimbo takes the approach he does in that regard because it works, and in many cases, that approach has held Wikipedia together through some otherwise terribly divisive matters. A proposed descision (that is likely to become an endorsed final descision) in the Husnock case sums it up well:
Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 05:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I'm still drafting that statement to ArbCom yet I want to say that I hold no personal animosity toward you. Your more serious allegations regarding my behavior appear to arise from a hasty reading of the relevant material, which is understandable in light of a recent loss in the family. You have my sincere condolences; I have lost relatives too. I have been swift in retracting or correcting my actual errors. You would demonstrate good faith if you did the same. DurovaCharge! 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thebee and Wikiwag[edit]

Greetings Durova,

Please forgive me for drawing you back into this sorry mess. But I need to have something cleared up; I am NOT a puppet. I am however, being continually harassed by Thebee. A posting on Thatcher131's talk page suggested that you might be helpful in getting him to stop. I've also written this response to his continued harassment.

Frankly, it's probably a moot point, since I'm just going to ignore him from now on, anyway. But I would really like this joker learned individual to see some kind of consequence for his reprehensible behavior.

Thank you for your attention.

- Wikiwag 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's slow down a moment. First, please strike through the epithet. I have every reason to believe that editor is a professional teacher from Sweden editing in his (I think that's the correct pronoun) area of expertise. Yes, this user has had problems. Your earliest posts referred to the arbitration case so you're aware of those. Good faith has been worn thin on those pages. I've already advised Bee to assume good faith regarding you. Bee does have a good point that it's very unusual for a brand new editor to come to Wikipedia at a post-arbitration dispute and discuss the arbitration in the first few edits.
I was too heavily involved in the arbitration to be in a good position to offer warnings or blocks at this point. If you genuinely think this merits action then you could take it to WP:ANI. Another way you could clear the air - if you choose - is to be forthcoming about how you did take this unusual path into Wikipedia. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Done - Thank you for your response and I apologize.
For the record, Thebee pushed me in the direction of familiarizing myself with the arbitration, when he deleted my first few edits on the grounds that they were "polemical." If you read here, you'll see that I started out being good natured, deferential and civil towards him. With all due respect to you, I will make no apologies for giving him what he asked for and interpreting the facts and the substance differently than he. That does not however, give him the right to conduct himself in such a disruptive manner or capriciously sling about baseless accusations. If there is any doubt, have someone do a user check. That will prove beyond any doubt the veracity of my assertions that I am a unique user.
As far as clearing the air is concerned, I was forthcoming and have been so on my user page. I submit that I have done more to move this article to NPOV , call for calm and good manners than Thebee ever has or in my opinion [by virtue of my experience with him], ever will. If anything, it is I who deserves an apology from him.
Thank you again for your help. - Wikiwag 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll drop a few words at his user page. For the record, since I was heavily involved in the arbitration case it wouldn't be appropriate for me to issue user blocks on Waldorf-related problems if things come to that. I suggest you follow up at WP:AN/I if necessary. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks :-) - Wikiwag 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

IP Address still vanadlizing SeaWorld pages![edit]

At 16:11 on January 15th, 2007 I posted a notice regarding IP address If you recall, this person would post rumors and their own speculated theories to several SeaWorld pages. You blocked this person from editing any pages to Wikipedia. After the block was lifted, this person once more started to post rumors on the same SeaWorld articles. A Wikipedia bot, reverted this person's information, "21:30, 19 January 2007 Shadowbot (Talk | contribs) (RV -- Reverting edits by due to detected spam.)" However, this person edited the article by adding more un-referenced speculations. They ignored my plea and other people's warnings to stop editing pages, unless there is cited references. Me and several other people have listed our pleas and warnings on the history pages, discussion pages, and on this user's talk page. Please stop this person from destroying Wikipedia! SWF Senior Trainer 12:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a 48 hour block and referred the editor to WP:ADOPT. Let's assume good faith and suppose this is someone who wants to help the site and isn't familiar with how Wikipedia works. They might become productive with the right guidance. Follow up if the problems continue. Regards, DurovaCharge! 15:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for issuing another block. Unfortunately, this person is still vandalizing SeaWorld pages! This time, he/she edited the Tilikum (Whale) page by adding incorrect information from a birth back in 2005. I reverted the page and stated why the information was incorrect. Obviously, this individual is ignoring the blocking, talk pages, history pages, and all warnings. I am now suggesting that this person be blocked longer than just a few days. It is taking too much of my time and everyone else's to insure the accurateness of these particular articles! Besides, this person has been given numerous chances and ignores all avenues. SWF Senior Trainer 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand this can be frustrating and we sysops do our best to be fair to both sides. Often enough a newcomer just doesn't understand Wikipedia and becomes productive. When they don't respond to feedback and continue the same problem behaviors I attempt to communicate with them and escalate the blocks. This time it's one week. It will be longer if the problems recur. DurovaCharge! 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A few notes regarding the Arbitration[edit]

I'd like to point out a few things reading through the statements at the arbitration there, and feel a few things should be addressed or noted, so here goes:

1. The evidence section comes later. The diffs are useful, but I highly doubt the Arbitrators read into them that much at this juncture.
Fair enough. Then would you refactor the things that cannot be supported by evidence such as the allegation of hypocrisy? At least tone it down to some better faith term such as misunderstanding. I don't think my actions have been consistent with deliberate hypocrisy and even if they were it's unfair to make that assertion about my frame of mind. DurovaCharge! 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's kind of irrelevant in light of the below. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. RFC isn't going to go anywheres. You know that. You stated as much on AN. I'm surprised you brought it up on RFAR in light of that.
I'm surprised you think I brought it up there. I didn't. DurovaCharge! 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned it in passing in your statement. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Behavioural problems and disputes related to poor behaviour are outside of the Mediation Committee's remit. if the Arbitration Committee thought that Mediation was a viable alternative, the case would have been rejected and referred there. The Arbitration Committee takes a dim view of people posting cases if other steps could have been taken.
One of the few points where Ilena and Fyslee seem to be in agreement is that they would prefer mediation to arbitration. Although you have a good point about the limits of mediation I made the suggestion in good faith. Their reactions hadn't been clear at the point where it came up on AN. DurovaCharge! 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in right here, but it's here my comment is relevant. [Durova, please read this, because your comment here indicates you may not have noticed my change of heart. (Over and out. Carry on...;-) -- Fyslee 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
4. There is no serious legal issue surrounding this case, at least, not insofar as a legal threat or problem for the WikiMedia Foundation. Office is extremely unlikely to get involved - this occurs only on the prompting of a party. I can ask Danny if you wish, to be sure, but I doubt that is a feasible or reasonable alternative. It should be noted that WP:OFFICE is explicitly a temporary solution, as well. This is clearly stated on the WP:OFFICE page.
Has a lawyer advised you of that? I'm not qualified to make that determination and, so far as I know, nobody who is qualified has taken a good look at this. I think it's reasonable to request that sort of review under these circumstances. DurovaCharge! 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Danny is one of the people that deals with legal issues on and regarding Wikipedia. Again, I can ask him if you wish. In my only semi-informed opinion as a student of Canadian Law, I see no such issues. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Your conduct is something I have explained my problems with several times on Ilena's talk page, as well as a lengthy post on my own. If you have questions, ask. I don't bite. Much :)
Your teeth do seem to be rather sharp this week. In good faith I assume that's out of character due to your recent real life stresses. I would have appreciated it very much if you had raised some points with me before handing them to the committee. If you had asked how Ilena could substantiate her allegations about Fyslee's connection to Barrett I would have advised e-mail. DurovaCharge! 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Anything that's come off as abrasive, I didn't mean to, and I apologize for. However, I'm also someone very apt to say something is wrong if I see something wrong. I presented legitimate, if poorly worded, complaints about your decisions. I firmly believe that any administrator should be able to step up to the plate and provide a solid reasoning and backing for their actions. I shouldn't have to petition you for recall to do so, and while it may not have been your intention to come off as such, you seemed to say in one of your comments "if you want an answer, petition for my recall." But in light of what seems to be going on, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that we are both taking each other's words out of context. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. I'd hardly call my support of Ilena zealous. I proposed an community ban of her at one point, but it met with strong opposition.
That was what I observed in my interactions. DurovaCharge! 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
My opinions on the matter are strong, and not all of them run in support of Ilena. In fact, few do. The thing is, I am someone that believes in rehabilitation (per se) instead of punishment. To put the quote above in context, Ilena's reactions to your demands were often much more sensitive than you seemed to anticipate. In such a situation, it is often more helpful to soothe those hurt feelings than continue your demands. As I've said previously, try to defuse a situation, not escalate it. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. jpgordon's statement, discussion with him regarding it, and off-wiki discussion with some other arbitrators leads me to believe that the case will be accepted to look at Fyslee and Ilena's behaviour almost exclusively. I'm willing to retract the points I made regarding your conduct if you will do the same.
If you do so I will follow in suit. Please be understanding if my hardware problems cause a delay. DurovaCharge! 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually did that prior to seeing your response here, as an act of good faith and an attempt to try to mend some bridges. I would appreciate it if you did the same. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8 Ilena too, was responsive to requests for change - it's why I hold out hope that she may yet become a good contributor.

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on very limited time here with a borrowed computer and can't post the usual diffs, but please have a look at the Gundagai editors arbcom case and the surrounding discussion at my talk page (August-September 2006). DurovaCharge! 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested as to what the relevance, or put in a better way, the context, is? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The anonymous editor who eventually got banned posted to the Village Pump before the ArbCom case opened. I responded in good faith since there seemed to be some merit in her complaint. In response to some advice of mine she participated in the user conduct RFC on her behavior but a bot from another editor deleted her participation there. That won her some sympathy from me and I tried to mentor her informally, but she ran out the lease on my good faith. Initially I opposed arbitration. When it became clear that she was exploiting my goodwill I struck through my initial statement and supported opening a case. I made every effort to reach out to her before I changed my mind. DurovaCharge! 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA, RfC, RfM, ???[edit]

Since the basic issue is not one that can properly be addressed in an RfM, and the RfC ship has sailed, I am now willing to participate in this RfA. I now believe this forum will be better than a mere RfC, simply because we get more high power admins involved, more witnesses and participants, and the decision will be more binding. This matter is simply too important for an RfC, where things are more informal and less binding. Jimbo Wales himself should be involved. If he was aware that Ilena Rosenthal herself (providing he knows her reputation) was here at Wikipedia in any capacity, I'd think he would be on the alert for the possibility of disruptive activities with huge personal consequences for editors and for articles, and that he would want to protect his "baby" from damage. Please reword your statement at the RfA to take account of my present mindset. I believe that this forum will be the most fair forum that it is possible to assemble, and that's what I want. -- Fyslee 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • With due respect, Jimbo is unlikely to get involved, or at least, in the way you'd hope. Jimbo has always been a very strong advocate of mentorship, diplomacy, and discussion as opposed to administrative action in these such situations. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I read somewhere that he steps in if there is a tie situation, but that probably won't be necessary. -- Fyslee 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Specifically, Jimbo steps in when the Arbitration Committee itself gets out of line, or acts in ways that may do more harm to the encyclopedia than good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, just a warning. Posting incendiary statements such as "I wonder how many people she may have driven to suicide in the past few years?" will not win you much favor and is considered a personal attack on Ilena. Please refrain from such practices and read up on WP:CIVIL. Levine2112 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructie criticism. You're right on. Statement sanitized a bit now. -- Fyslee 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I haven't seen the post where Levine's quote comes from so I hope this isn't out of context. I keep a personal Richter scale for stress. Maybe someday I'll post the whole list. Wikistress rates a two, one step above I stub my toe. When I stood an armed watch in predawn hours aboard a United Nates Navy warship that was moored to the pier of a Muslim country while the Abu Ghraib scandal made worldwide headlines, that was a five. Nine and a half was the time I survived being struck by lightning. If the word suicide occurs to you even hypothetically in connection to Wikipedia, shut off the computer and get some fresh air. Call up a friend and go to the movies. And if any degree of serious thought lurks behind that word, get in touch with professionals who are trained to help out with that sort of thing. I mean it. Wikipedia's no big deal. DurovaCharge! 02:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be stressful at times, but this type of constant bombardment I've been under is not normal here. It's typical for Usenet, which is why I have never participated there. I'm hoping the RfA will "fix" it. -- Fyslee 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, I suggested WP:ADOPT to Ilena and I think it would be a good thing for you to consider too. It can help reduce Wikistress to have an experienced editor for a sounding board. ArbCom would likely view it as a positive sign if you enter the program and it may help you avoid repeating some of the missteps that contributed to the case being opened. DurovaCharge! 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

When you get time please have a look at Waldorf Education and its talk page[edit]

Hi Durova,

I think things are moving at Waldorf Education with all editors concentrating on that. But I would like your opinions both on the quality and neutrality of the article, as well as the behaviour of the editors. I would be very grateful whenever you have time Cheers Lethaniol 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That will be tough to do with my current hardware problems. Perhaps an article content WP:RFC would be the better route. Regards, DurovaCharge! 00:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a RFC would be a bit formal for the guys at the moment - maybe in a week or two. If you get your hardware issues sorted - have a look, if not no worries. Cheers Lethaniol 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:3O might be another option. It looks like I need to order parts for an older machine so I hope things run smoothly by then. Here's hoping your Wikistress isn't overwhelmed. And thank you very much for taking on that task as a favor to me. Warmly, DurovaCharge! 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Durova, I saw your statement on the RfA for Barrett v. Rosenthal. You are correct that a CA supreme court case is not binding precedent for other states. However, the CA case is based on other non-CA precedent and the plain language of the federal statute. It could ultimately go to SCOTUS, but I would be very surprised if SCOUTS would overturn the ruling. More likely would be a Congressional act to change the statute. I would be most interested in seeing what you find out wrt Wiki legal dept on this issue. thank youJance 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The WMF Legal Department won't comment on issues that don't affect Wikipedia. Unless Wikipedia recieves a complaint about an article, or a threat of litigation, they will not act. Even if they do, this is something they will not discuss publicly on most occasions. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This touches on something Peter mentioned above and I'll respond to both points here. When a firm asks its legal counsel for advice the advice usually works on three levels. First is whether the firm is actually on the right side of the law. The two other questions are whether someone appears to be litigious enough to cause a fuss and whether a judge would dismiss it or send it to trial. Even if the firm gets vindicated at the close of the trial they may not want to risk that expense and hassle. We aren't the people that Wikimedia Foundation has entrusted to make that kind of decision, so I think the right thing to do is to ask for the attention of the people who are qualified to do that. The situation I want to avoid is one in which an actual court case opens and people analyze the situation in retrospect wondering why matters went as far as arbitration without anyone suggesting the foundation's attorneys have a look at things. Do I consider that likely? Not necessarily, but not entirely unrealistic either. If it does happen I certainly don't want it to be on a matter where I've been directly involved. Fair enough? DurovaCharge! 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enoguh, although Danny and Brad will be the people that deal with such an issue if it arises. I severely doubt anyone would be blocked over the matter, although revisions may be oversighted gratiutously if OFFICE ever does become involved. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007[edit]

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage note[edit]

RE: [4]. Sorry for the late reply, however I would be interested in becoming involved more.--Hu12 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm having hardware problems at the moment, but as soon as that's cleared up I'd like to discuss that with you in more depth. Thanks for your interest and keep up the good work. Cheers, DurovaCharge!


I applaud your stance in implementing this policy. Tyrenius 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For standing up for civility. Tyrenius 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. DurovaCharge! 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


You seem to be in a stressful situation. Hopefully this flower will brighten your day.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you very much. DurovaCharge! 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:My query to Jimbo[edit]

(I still think Jumbo is a weird name, but anyhow.) I think that Meta handles the type of situation you describe - Excuse me, in ext-Wiki affaris I'm a noob, what exactly is this "meta" you speak of? Dåvid Fuchs [talk • contribs] 01:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He means Meta wiki. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I prefer she, though. DurovaCharge! 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought he meant Jimbo, which is definetely a he. My bad :-) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)