Okay so we setup a new poll here, but can anon users vote? (I'm referring to 138.25.252.110's vote.) Zarbat 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

They can try. I guess the admin who tallies the responses will look at the anon's history. This seems to be a unique IP with a modest contribution history over quite a few months. I really don't know their standards there - it's hard to call the play from this distance. Durova ^{Charg e!} 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova,

Just for the record, I answer Randroide comments,

1)The quotes are not from a blog but are from a forum in the official website of the conspirationists so one that heavily supports Pedro J. I took it from there because if were not true would have been contradicted by the administrators who are known as fanatic supporters of the "cause".

2)Randroide was simulating that he was sincerely interested in the issue so I tried to help him references and tips. I should have not been so moron since he was only trying to evade himself from the fact that El Mundo investigations are completely unsupported by any world class newspaper execept one phrase in one article in the Guardian. Anyway this issue is completely unrelated with the article and I named just to give some context. Randroide engage inmediately as a way to evade.

3)I am a person who normally works with books. If required I can offer books that explain the process that leads to the coup d'etat in 1981 and the implication of LM Anson that is well known here. The problem is that I suspect that Randroide insistence on this is just another way to evade from the main question so I will no be so moron again to engage.

Randroide is trying to use you as you probably have noticed.-- Igor21 16:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Forums aren't an appropriate source either, but books from reputable (non-vanity) publishers would be fine. It looks like the editors on this page could use some outside input about reliable sources. Not having visited Spain and knowing only basic Spanish, my advice has its limits. I strongly recommend an article content WP:RFC. Regards, Durova ^{Charg e!} 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The quotes about Pedro J opinions in the 80s about dirty war against terrorists were published in a magazine and it is given the name of it and the date of publication. Pedro J was the director of the magazine. The forum was not what gives the veracity but just a reference for people accesing instantly. And as I said, in the heavily ideologized website where this forum is, a false and inconvenient statement of one their heroes would not have survived ten minutes.

Regarding LM Anson I will give the source in his own article from fully reliable books to not allow Randroide in his escape from what is being discussed in 11-M. Since Anson's newspaper is just copying El Mundo, his credibility (as low as it is) is not relevant. In fact he left the newspaper some months ago and now works in El Mundo.

I think your help have been unvaluable by establishing that not any published thing in a newspaper is automatically gospel. I will continue proving that El Mundo is doing investigation not supported by facts and that contradicts primary sources thus being of not use here except for "alternative theories" section as has been done in 9/11 with this kind of material. I will read RFC. Thanks. -- Igor21 16:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

That post makes me doubt that you understand what I've been saying: it is inappropriate to link to a forum just because one editor considers that more convenient than a proper citation. Likewise, if a given newspaper is generally respected as a reliable source, then Wikipedia does not pick and choose which of its stories are reliable (unless other reliable sources subsequently debunked a particular story). Durova ^{Charg e!} 16:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Should I understand that a newspaper article should be quoted even when evidently contradicts the primary source that is also accesible? Should I understand that a single newspaper that has been the one to create the story must be quoted even when nobody else believes such story?-- Igor21 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Copyedit that question just a little bit and it would make a good WP:RFC article request for comment introduction. Durova ^{Charg e!} 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks - sorry to have to raise it again. 4u1e 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Not a problem. Please add any new developments to the existing report. That would help another administrator to address the problem if I happen to be unavailable. Because these are unregistered IP addresses it would be inappropriate to impose a permanent ban. Let's hope that a month long block discourages this editor, but I'd be more than willing to renew it (or possibly extend as far as three months) if the problem crops up again. Regards, Durova ^{Charg e!} 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello.

User:Deathrocker, in his talkpage, is claiming I behaved bad (I am referring to his comment against the 48 hours block). My old "friend" Kingjeff is also keeping on claiming that I edit in "bad faith" (see here for some of the other cases in which he called my edits "bad faith"). Where is the correct place to answer to their allegations? I can't keep on checking their edits to defend myself, but at the same time I cannot afford to let them attack me without countering their false (in my opinion) claims.

Best regards Panarjedde 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've asked them to raise the matter at WP:RFI if they decide to pursue it. So far they haven't. You might want to bookmark that page. Durova ^{Charg e!} 23:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova,

Thanks for your amended RfC comments. I tried to explain in the PAIN - but maybe didn't do a good job - that I was under the impression that ever since the Encyclopedia Dramatica controversy, off-Wiki attacks were being taken much more seriously. I also have seen quite a AfD's where an editor pointed out that other editors were soliciting votes off-Wiki, (meatpuppetry) and had never seen anyone object to that documentation as being innappropriate content to post on-Wiki.. Considering all that, I thought that PAIN was an appropriate avenue to pursue, but I guess since there were no corresponding on-Wiki attacks DIRECTLY associated with the off-Wiki attacks, there was no proper place to complain about such an incident. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If the attacks occurred only off Wikipedia then the proper thing to do is to raise concerns with the administrators of the other website. I would have looked into the query if you had chosen to supplement that with evidence of Wikipedia personal attacks, but you chose not to do so. I don't think this needs going over again because I've already explained it several times. If you need someone to consult on site policies and standards then I recommend Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Durova ^{Charg e!} 23:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

WP:RFI seems to be more about direct vandalism and not bad faith editing. Kingjeff 00:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If it's a content dispute then that board won't resolve it, but if there's been misconduct and rules breaking then it should help straighten things out. RFI is for investigations - things that go into too much depth for WP:AN/I. If it's mostly about content then check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Regards, Durova ^{Charg e!} 06:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Durova, I'm sorry I missed this comment:

If you're serious about the allegation that one editor's financial conflict of interest affects the article then I hope you can present supporting evidence. If you do have that evidence - and you may quote me as necessary - then in my opinion as an administrator the appropriate step would be to open a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Note that I have only read your prose summary of the situation, not actually seen whatever evidence you may have, so this is a conditional recommendation. The dispute appears unlikely to resolve through lesser measures. DurovaCharge! 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have evidence. HGilbert is ... (deleted) ... Please have a look and advise me what to do. Thanks! Pete K 04:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Please open an ArbCom request and exercise discretion about another user's identifying personal information. An arbitration clerk can advise you on the proper procedure for providing that sort of evidence. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Regards, Durova ^{Charg e!} 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, sorry. Would it be OK to simply ask him to withdraw from editing voluntarily? I don't have a lot of confidence that this would happen, but if presented with the conflict of interest argument, he might see how this appears to others. Would you consider mentioning this to him? Pete K 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It's certainly all right to suggest it. Try citing Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or perhaps (depending on the details) WP:VANITY. Durova ^{Charg e!} 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If you wish to suggest that Wikipedia bans doctors from editing articles on medicine, scientists from editing articles on science, teachers from editing articles on education, and so on - because they all have a "financial interest" in the success of the subject in question - well, this is an interesting idea. It must be noted that most encyclopedias actually seek out people with expertise in a subject, rather than people with no experience therein.

Also see WP:VANITY#COI_in_POV_disputes, which suggests that in cases of a POV dispute, "it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. This is negative advice, but the existence of conflicts of interest as a fact of life here does not mean that assume good faith is past its sell-by-date. Quite the opposite." Hgilbert 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If a medical doctor edited a Wikipedia article so that it read like a public relations release for that particular doctor's medical practice or a university professor edited an article to make it resemble promotional literature for that professor's university then my advice would be the same. A Waldorf school is not just an alternative to public schools or another independent school; its curriculum and philosophy proceed from the worldview and the insights into the nature of the child that Rudolf Steiner has given us in Anthroposophy. That phrase and many others like it violate WP:NOT and WP:NPOV; insistence that the article read this way violates WP:OWN. As an administrator I strongly recommend you reconsider that position and collaborate in accordance with site policies because I would support a request for arbitration related to Waldorf education. Having read the above post, I am now considering opening that request myself. Durova ^{Charg e!} 12:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, Durova, it would be great if you did open the request. There has been so much of this sort of thing already from this group, it would look retaliatory if I opened the request. Inability to get a NPOV past the brochure language pushers has caused the Waldorf Education article to be stalled for months now. Pete K 15:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

That passage is "brochure language" because it was taken from the Waldorf companies internet "brochure". It was used in this article by another editor who was critical diff and complained about "anthroposophy" people and how too much stuff is all covered up. diff Pete K changed it to put his own opinion in there or own complaint about what school websites do or don't say, diff, without any source. But you think the part that is sourced has to come out because its too "brochure like" when the section is about what the school literature discloses. Take out the criticism about what it dose or doesen't in school "brochure language" first if you don't want examples of the "brochure language" used in the article. Too many are pointing fingers where they shouldnt'. Venado 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but this isn't the issue. The issue is whether there is a conflict of interest here. That brochure language exists in the article is not being contested is it? HGilbert is responsible for at least some of it... and for defending some that was introduced by others. Much of editing goes on in the back pages where language and references are being discussed. As I recall, I put my unreferenced comment in after a discussion that it could certainly be supported by taking a sampling of Waldorf websites. It went in without challenge on the discussion page. I would challenge references that go to brochures and PR material for Waldorf, BTW. Pete K 18:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think your withdrawing, are you? Your a founder of a Waldorf school and your a Waldorf reformist. And you know you cannot do your own sample testing for the articles. Thats original research, everybody knows you cannot do that for articles at wikipedia. That idea is not even very good research for researchers to do, do you think its okay to do a google study, pick some websites, and call it a research source? Venado 19:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but again this isn't the issue. I have no financial interest in whether Waldorf succeeds or fails. HGilbert does. That's a foul. This issue has nothing to do with whether I do good research or not - it has to do with whether HGilbert has the obligation to step down from editing the Waldorf Education article due to a conflict of interest. That's all. Nobody is suggesting he shouldn't continue editing articles about other subjects. Some of us have to spend hours arguing points with him about the language used here. He has a financial interest in the outcome of those arguments. It's like he's getting paid to argue the points. It's unfair and inappropriate. Pete K 19:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On this page yYou said you have a book about this issue "in the works". [1] Venado 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Durova: the phrase you quoted, in fact the whole section as it stands, was added by other editors, hostile to Waldorf; much of what you might call brochure language has been contributed by a range of editors, including Pete himself. Pete presumably didn't remove it, in fact added to it, because he supports brochure language that "exposes" Waldorf's "real" basis in anthroposophy.

I am astonished at the assumption that I am responsible for what Paka and Pete have done, or that I have defended this. I am astonished at Pete's comment about me being responsible for "some of it" when it has just been revealed that he is responsible for what was quoted as an egregious example of it. Why don't you quote another example of "brochure language", Durova, and we can track down where that one came from? This could be quite revealing. Do you really want to know who has been POV-pushing here? Hgilbert 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I have no financial interest in this article; I am not paid to write material, nor can it have any conceivable influence upon my income. Pete has a special personal interest in Waldorf being maligned, representing a clear conflict of interest which I'd rather not bring up here but am willing to if we are exploring this topic; he knows what I mean. Much of what Pete spends hours defending is "brochure language" and/or purely his own personal opinion, with no verifiable basis. The example quoted above is indefensible; why does it still stand? Hgilbert 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Anyone can look at the discussion pages and the edits and determine for themselves whether or not you have been defending brochure language. The article is filled with it and you've been fighting to remove the advert tag. Excuse me, but I am unable to find the diff you're pointing to that supports your claim that I am responsible for introducing brochure language. Could you provide it again or point me to it? As a Waldorf teacher, you absolutly benefit from how successful this article is in producing new customers to your school's doorstep. Without question. I won't be blackmailed by you, BTW, so if you can prove I would have any financial benefit from Waldorf's success or failure, bring it on. You don't, however, and want to tie my divorce into this. I have no financial ties to Waldorf - I don't even pay tuition. Whatever your mind has conjured up is of no relevance to this discussion - and I'm not giving you permission to bring details about my personal life here - but if you have something that you feel constitutes a financial conflict of interest and feel you can prove this, we can discuss it. You are a Waldorf teacher and you are producing brochure language on an article that can benefit you financially. This has nothing to do with POV pushing - it has to do with conflict of interest... and that conflict of interest in your case is clear and undeniable. Pete K 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The article has a lot of brochure language; it seems (according to Venado's research) that you and Paka are responsible for some of the worst of it. I'm waiting for Durova, a presumably objective observer, to find another egregious example so we can see who was responsible for that one.

You seem to have a financial interest vis a vis your planned book and a non-financial but extremely personal/emotional investment due to the aspect of your personal life you don't wish me to bring here. Perhaps you should withdraw from the article. I have no financial interest in this article. Hgilbert 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

We should note that Hgilbert has not suffered this reticence to discuss other people's personal lives in the past. In fact the reason Pete checked out what was going on with these articles on wikipedia articles in the first place, and got interested in editing them, was that someone (me) told him Hgilbert was over here spreading all kinds of ridiculous (and false) rumors about Pete's personal life. DianaW 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

LOL! You demanded that I specify details about the personal nature of PLANS people's conflicts of interest, actually, Diana, which is how Pete's name came into it - I regret having agreed to give his name. The conflict of interest is still valid, though I had one detail wrong about a particular part of a legal agreement that doesn't affect the case at hand, or the general conflict of interest. Hgilbert 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

There is NO conflict of interest on my part. I not only don't work for Waldorf, I have no financial contact with Waldorf or any Waldorf teachers or the Anthroposophical society. I don't think future plans to write a book, even if they come to fruition, constitute a conflict of interest before the book is written. I'd be happy to get a ruling on this by Wikipedia. However, once again, YOU have a conflict of interest. You work as a teacher for the school system you are promoting with this brochure language. The case is clear cut. Who said what, when and where doesn't matter at this point. Pete K 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Administrator blows referee whistle - the bottom line here is that Wikipedia's goal of providing encyclopedic information is not being achieved at this article. Productive collaboration is not occurring there, hasn't occurred in months, and people's energies are going to waste. Anyone can open a request for arbitration. Someone who knows all the angles of this dispute could open it better than I could (I'd be neutral but I'd probably miss some significant aspects). So first, consult an arbitration clerk - they're the experts on arbitration. You may mention my name as an administrator who recommended arbitration although I have no direct influcence on whether the committee actually accepts the case.

On a side note I do recommend recusal from articles whenever an editor's personal feelings interfere with objective contributions. For example, I never edit 9/11 or World Trade Center because my nearest relative was one of the last people to escape from the Twin Towers alive. I joined the armed forces and went to war because of that day - so while there's obviously quite a bit I could say on those subjects I wouldn't be good at collaborating. With due respect for the editors at Waldorf education, that's an example I'd like to hold forward for others to consider emulating. Durova ^{Charg e!} 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

"LOL! You demanded that I specify details about the personal nature of PLANS people's conflicts of interest, actually, Diana, which is how Pete's name came into it." Nope. You were over there stating that Waldorf critics (whom you did not think were listening; you'd been trashing critics for awhile without anyone opposing this) had no credibility because they were mostly people who did not have custody of their children! *Completely* untrue - pure invention. You were not discussing "conflicts of interest" regarding editing of these articles because no critics were editing those articles at that time - and had never previously. I incredulously demanded to know who you were talking about, never dreaming you'd pop names into the conversation - since there aren't ANY critics who fit that description - not one. I noticed later that you tried this, "I so deeply regret that she goaded me into naming names" excuse, but it's phoney baloney. DianaW 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

My user talk is not the place to conduct a dispute. You've all been at this long enough. Let an independent panel settle the matter. Durova ^{Charg e!} 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I am sorry you didn't examine Venado's citation of the diffs above, as it shows that another editor added the sections you find problematic, and that that editor is critical of Waldorf education. Please look at this quote from his post above: "It was used in this article by another editor who was critical diff and complained about "anthroposophy" people and how too much stuff is all covered up. diff Pete K changed it to put his own opinion in there or own complaint about what school websites do or don't say, diff, without any source." I hope you see that this was indeed shown on your talk page, even if you didn't take notice of it at the time (for whatever reason). Hgilbert 02:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I most certainly did examine Venado's diffs above. I also read Pete K's response to the one diff of his edit, a rebuttal which you fail to mention. Your own repeated assertion that Pete K has inserted brochure language remains unsupported as does the related implication that other involved editors named in the arbcom request inserted brochure language. I strongly caution you against attempting further guesses, particularly when referring to my role as an administrator in your statements to the arbitration committee. That sleight of word looks like very bad faith. Durova ^{Charg e!} 04:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, (and apologies to Durova for using this talk page again) the change I made WAS discussed even though there was no source provided. The discussion was a challenge to YOU to find even a single website that has adequate information about Anthroposophy on it. Here's the discussion:

"Phrases like "Some schools do not give sufficient information about..." without any citation or backup is pure weaseling. This is editorializing at its worst; it is simply an editor's opinion dressed up as fact. Hgilbert 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

"Nonsense. The truth is NO schools give sufficient information about Anthroposophy on their websites. But I'll challenge you to find some that do. Not links to information - but actual information on the website. I could easily take out the "some" and make the sentence a lot less weasly. Pete K 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

"This is a little backwards. To make such a claim, you must positively source or otherwise prove it - unsourced claims do not stand until disproved. I have provided a compromise wording that is indisputable. Hgilbert 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

"Thanks, but that's not truthful. I'll adjust your "compromise" wording to be more in line with the truth. Thank goodness I'm here and able to do this. Pete K 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

"What you call 'truth' is merely your opinion. What amount of information about 'anthroposophy' is "sufficient"? Once again, claims made have the burden of verifiability; you cannot merely claim anything and demand that others disprove it. Hgilbert 11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

While this edit didn't satisfy HGilbert (few edits do), it was discussed before it was made. Again, apologies to Durova. , if you would like to discuss this further (I still don't see the point you are trying to make in the links you have provided) - there is a discussion page on the Arbitration page. We should leave Durova's page for Durova's stuff. Thanks. Pete K 04:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Oops, sorry Durova (again) I didn't realize you were responding to this. Pete K 04:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The arbitration request is open and heading toward acceptance so you'd both really serve yourselves better by focusing your efforts there. I recommend the most heavily involved parties seek mentors and avoid continuance of the conflict on all other pages. If you haven't done so already, browse some past cases. Most of the statements in this request have been short on page diffs. Allegations carry little weight with the committee; page diffs do. It probably helps to be forthcoming about one's own mistakes and take personal initiative toward improving them as early as possible in this process. I mean this advice equally toward both sides. Durova ^{Charg e!} 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Another note on the arbitration: usually these cases move at a glacial pace. That may or may not be the way people would like them to proceed, but an editor could take a three or four day weekend and not miss much. That does give people the chance to get on with real life and prepare the best possible presentation. I serve no official function at arbitration and have no secret strings to pull: the committee probably views me as an uninvolved editor who happens to have sysop powers. Occasionally my role as an administrator might come into play. Since I really have very little to do with the present dispute I hope that doesn't happen much. From what I've observed, the committee does a very good job of examining all sides of a case: it isn't a chess game where one side gains an advantage by moving first or attempting to flank the opposition. Anything I comment here, however, is merely observation from an editor who's contributed evidence at a couple of cases. Arbitration is a necessary evil and one I strive to avoid. Durova ^{Charg e!} 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

What disturbs you about it? Arrow740 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Diff, please. Durova ^{Charg e!} 13:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you please tell me clearly what bothers you about my post? Also where is the personal attack noticeboard where I can read the complaint that was made against me? Arrow740 07:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I found the noticeboard. However I still request that you explain your post. I have a question for you. Let us assume (for the sake of discussion) that itaqallah is a bully. Am I allowed to say that to people he bullies? Also, none of his posts to the noticeboard constituted a "slur" against Islam. I said: "The fact that your religion forces critics to use the internet as their medium..." Is there something untrue about this? The internet critics who are cited in the articles itaqallah and I have been struggling over receive hundreds of death threats from Muslims. Arrow740 07:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd be glad to explain it if you would give me a link to the relevant post. Durova ^{Charg e!} 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Durova, i would like to bring to your attention this attack ("wahabi" is derogatory slur), and i had already recently reported this user for such behaviour. ITAQALLAH 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Is that a joke? Arrow740 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, here's the link to the report that I responded to: [2]. Regarding the alleged slur Wahabi, post evidence that this is a slur: what language it is a slur in and what it means in that language (not personal claims but links to reliable outside sources). Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

for one example, see the glossary document from CERIS of Pittsburgh University, here. other resources confirming that the term is either offensive or used to cause offense are as follow: for further references, see [3] (paragraph 6), [4] (second sentence), [5] (paragraph 2). ITAQALLAH 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

That's true. Wahabi's, according to what I was taught in Iran, are the most extreme Sunnis who believe killing shias gurauntees paradise. It might be wrong but that's what I was told. - Aminz 00:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, uncivil - but unless I'm missing connotations it's the sort of incivility that should get a warning. No content dispute should drag on this long. Have a look at WP:DR and see what stones are still unturned. Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Durova, but it is incivility. It is not related to the recent content dispute and should be considered separately. Frankly, if one refers to me as Wahabi, it would be an insult. Really. -- Aminz 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Furthremore, I think content disputes could only be addressed when all parties remain civil. Uncivil comments are only provoking. -- Aminz 02:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

All right then: go ahead and address it by leaving a warning template on the offending editor's talk page. Durova ^{Charg e!} 03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Wahabiism is a sect of Islam. A user complained that itaqallah was promoting Wahabi POV in Islam related articles, and I responded to him that by observing itaqallah's tactics, he could help keep Wahabi bias out of wikipedia articles. Hopefully, Aminz and itaqallah will continue to waste their time with these kinds of things. Arrow740 09:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding someone as Wahabi is clearly an insult. Al qa'da is also a reading of Islam, but an extreme one. -- Aminz 09:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I can regard anyone in any way I want, and I do. I didn't even suggest that itaqallah is a member of the Wahabi sect, though I suspect that he is. I guess you can ask him if you really care to know. What you were told in Iran about Wahabiism is probably just as reliable as what Saudis are told about the party of Ali. Arrow740 10:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No, you can not. -- Aminz 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Maybe you don't know what "regard" means. We don't have thought police on wikipedia, though maybe you wish we did. Arrow740 10:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

WP:CIVIL, Arrow. Give this a rest. Durova ^{Charg e!} 21:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

[6] ITAQALLAH 13:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

24 hour block. Durova ^{Charg e!} 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

As you can see, my time has been spread very thin lately. Post here with specific requests about how to prepare for your next RFA and I'll do my best to coach. Regards, Durova ^{Charg e!} 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Islam was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Dev920 13:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help. We already tried to talk to him several times (in fact this goes now on for more then 2 years outside of Wikipedia). We also made attempts to resolve this on Wikipedia like [7] but he refused to see the facts (as in his recent attack). He decelerated peace just to start the fight again. His "Group" consists of only one person and he tries to make our lives as hard as possible. For example he removed our mailinglist from Nabble [8] where he is now banned and he has his "forum" on his site where he and his sock puppets "talk" [9]. alicia, JS and admin are the same person. I am aware that these are outside issues but I just wanted to show you that he is not a normal troll, because he will not go away (we already ignored him for 3 month). Please tell us what we can do. I am tiered of the daily look on the watchlist just to find out that he vandalized (as [10]) the page of PanoTools, removed links [11] (24.17.56.230 is his IP address) or started a new article to flame [12]). Any advice would help. Thx. -- Wuz 14:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In that case a guideline worth looking into is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The WP:RFC I suggested at WP:PAIN could help one way or another: either by (one would hope) breaking the deadlock with fresh input from uninvolved editors or by establishing consensus for further administrative action. I suggest if you need to follow up (and you probably do) open your next report at WP:RFI. That's really designed for the more complex situations such as this. Best wishes, Durova ^{Charg e!} 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

hi um im bored want to talk about sometnig like, how the heck do you put a photo on your user page reply to user talk: Yes my name is sarah please.

Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Durova ^{Charg e!} 12:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello Durova. I noticed that on the WP:PAIN case you suggested a request for checkuser on an account that the other party thought had a sock. I would like to extend a friendly warning that unless the user has some evidence other than a name match, this kind of report may be taken as fishing by dmcdevit or another CU administrator. Just thought I'd give a friendly notice. Take care. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{( Talk to Me) ( My Contributions) ( Page Moves) ( Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually I was referring to a suspected sockpuppet report, where standards are a little more flexible. Durova ^{Charg e!} 12:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Durova, as far as I remember you were involved a bit in the Robert Spencer way back. User:Arrow740 argues that he is a reliable source for wikipedia [13]. Furthermore, he calls Academic scholars like Patricia Crone and Michael Sells as silly scholars [14]. I would be thankful if you could comment on that. Also, his edits are getting kind of uncivil towards Prophet Muhammad: "he had a mission as a egomaniacal anti-Semite with an unhealthy lust for booty. Report the facts, not excessive interpretation and biased wording of pro-Islam scholars." [15] Please note that the pro-Islam scholars whom he is refering is the Encyclopedia of world history , Oxford University Press. He is calling Prophet Muhammad anti-semitic. -- Aminz 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In context I think the appropriate double entendre to be topical. Also it says a lot about Aminz that he capitalized Academic. I'm looking at Spencer's two most famous books now. One is published by Regnery, a 60 year old subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, and the other is published by Encounter books, which seems to publish lots of reasonable authors like Spencer, but seems pretty prominent. He is also published by Prometheus. He's a best selling author and an excellent scholar. If he is a hired polemic so is Carl Ernst. You can't expect the ivory tower to look fondly at someone who eschewed getting a PhD from it and isn't an apologist for Islam. Anyway the Islamic Studies departments at major universities are left-wing groups, so this is the pot calling the kettle black. Muhammad was anti-Semitic. After assuming power in Medina he exiled two Jewish tribes, and as to the third, he beheaded all the men and sold all the women and children into slavery. The Quran contains numerous anti-semitic statements that shape Muslim views of Jews to this day, including that some were turned into monkeys by God. The sahih hadith say that they are sons of pigs and dogs, etc. Arrow740 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Durova, He says :"The Quran contains numerous anti-semitic statements that shape Muslim views of Jews to this day". From an academic point of view this view has no support (it for example contradicts Bernard Lewis and Mark Cohen and all other scholars) and from the perspective of wikipedia, it is incivility. -- Aminz 10:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

They might disagree but it is a fact. Muslim kids in Egypt are told that Jews are the descendants of pigs and dogs. That is a fact, and they showed videos of it on CNN this very day. Therefore, I'm right. Arrow740 10:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see the discussion here. There's one thing I'd like to add to it. Ernst is inside the establishment, Spencer is outside. Spencer is much more influential. That's it. They are both scholars. Arrow740 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Durova, He is now accusing prophet muhammad as anti-semitic, the position which no *scholar* have ever taken. Anti-semitism was a western phenomenon. See what kind of editors I have to deal with. P.S. some academic quotes:

"There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism", Claude Cahen, a distinguished Islamic historian states by comparing medieval Christendom and medieval Islam. Bernard Lewis states that "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history." -- Aminz 10:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

As usual with Aminz, this isn't the place for this discussion. However I will continue it. So there aren't any Muslim anti-Semites, eh? I'll have to store that piece of information in my brain for use later. There might not be an Islamic doctrine promulgating hatred of the Jews per se (though dhimmitude is oppressive and demeaning for all non-Muslims), but the statements are there in the Quran and the hadith, and they are well known. Arrow740 10:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Aminz has ceased to make constructive edits in Criticism of the Qur'an, and did not respond to my questions and comments on the talk page and in the edit summaries before reverting hours' worth of edits wholesale. Isn't there some kind of penalty for that sort of behavior? Arrow740 11:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Administrator blows referee whistle

Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia can't advance a hypothesis that Muhammad was anti-semitic unless some scholar somewhere has written that opinion. Like it or not, people who hold Ph.D. degrees in a subject and who publish through non-vanity presses about their field of expertise meet the definition of reliable sources. A particular Wikipedia article won't necessarily cite all of them per the undue weight clause at WP:NPOV. However, an assertion that the Ph.D. is biased or that this person's publisher is biased is not itself a reason to challenge suitability as an encyclopedic source even if that assertion is true. The appropriate solution to such perceived biases is to cite other reliable sources that reflect other views. Durova ^{Charg e!} 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for this helpful statement. The discussion now needs to move on. Itsmejudith 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with you. I'm not saying we shouldn't include the scholars I have a low opinion of, I'm just saying that we can't take someone's dismissal of Spencer very seriously. Also I never wrote in an article that Muhammad was anti-semitic, I just said it myself in response to a POV sentence of Aminz's in an article. Arrow740 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If someone who dismisses Spencer has a Ph.D. in the field and publishes through a non-vanity press, then the opinion meets Wikipedia's standards for encyclopedic content. Whether or not to take that opinion seriously is a matter for Wikipedia's readers to decide. Durova ^{Charg e!} 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The issue is that Aminz wants to keep Spencer out of all articles because he disagrees with him (though he is a professional scholar, a bestselling author who has been consulted by the US government, and a meticuluous researcher) and is using the dismissal of one or two very pro-Islam professors as justification. Arrow740 03:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've already explained how to handle this. The logic is the same regardless of who wants to exclude or include a source. Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Durova, you provided me a civility warning a few weeks back. Unfortunately, in doing so you have "fed the troll" in Duke53 and his cohart Sqrnjn. Could you please review the edit history on Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre and the article itself. It has become an edit war and Duke has threatened to revert everyone that counters his position. Between the two of them they accuse everyone else of vandalism as the revert others. The article should be frozen (can't think of correct term) until a solution is achieved. Any assisttance would be appreciated. There is already an admin involved in the editing but he, appropriately, is not able to act as an admin in this situation. You will note that I have posted warnings. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Durova, please do get involved; as you can (and will see) this guy's incivility hasn't ebbed one bit. He is now 'interpreting' things as incivility that simply are not. I explained to other editors that I would no longer be responding to him since he made false accusations about me using sockpuppets. His 'suggestion' to 'freeze' the article in question is also rather disngenuous, as he should be aware that I requested and received page protection and am attempting to get arbitration over this matter. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Per the disclaimer at the top of this page, please avoid the t-word. I don't interfere with open ArbCom cases or ArbCom requests. Otherwise reopen the noticeboard case so that other administrators can join the review. Provide page diffs rather than links. Respectfully, Durova ^{Charg e!} 01:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I would really appreciate it if you could make contact. I'm not looking for conflict, I would appreciate the opportunity to make you aware of the bigger picture surrounding my ban. Donnacha 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It was just a 31 hour block, not a ban. The report I responded to is at WP:PAIN. It includes several page diffs that demonstrated incivility and personal attacks as well as three previous warnings, two of which had been posted to your user page. All of those diffs checked out. Your unblock request claimed that you hadn't been warned before (which you had) and that the block was groundless. Actually, considering the degree of incivility, 31 hours was fairly light. I didn't count the previous block against you since the other administrator reverted it. Durova ^{Charg e!} 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Somebody you blocked, User:The_Kinslayer, seems to be looking for trouble... [16]. Just thought I'd bring that to your attention. — Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This user is also clearly editing anonymously to avoid the block as can be seen by the summary of this diff and when he signed his own talk page using the same IP as can be seen here. -- AuburnPilot ^talk 19:59, 17 November 2006 ( UTC)

This sort of information should go onto the noticeboard so it's all in one place. AOL IP address: not much point in blocking that, but I'll extend the block on the main account. Semi-protected the article page. Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

What is the story with this situation? Should there be a checkuser? And why did you "recuse" yourself? — Centrx→ talk • 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd have no objection to a checkuser, if that's what you're asking. Basically there's a nexus dispute around the editors of white people. They cross posted requests to several boards and opened up several overlapping requests, generally paying little heed to the noticeboard guidelines and ignoring my requests to standardize the presentation. At the start of this I began to look into the matter, but the evidence was inadequate. Soon another admin stepped in, probably based on a suspected sockpuppet report, and I saw no point in duplicating the same effort. The last I looked at it, the situation looked like it would wind up at ArbCom. Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The present page on WP:COI describes one type of conflict of interest, based on a wish to promote or put an activity or person in a positive light, because you have a very personal relation to the subject of an article, including an economical interest in putting it in a positive light.

What the WP:COI page does not mention is the opposite, that someone may have a more or less strong motivation to put a subject, a company, an activity or a person in a negative light, based on a more or less strong negative personal relation to it for one or other reason.

You may feel that you have been hurt of suffered damages in relation to some person, a company or other activity.

You have had a number of manuscripts rejected by a publishing company, or you think - rightly or wrongly - that some company has been the cause of a disease of a child of yours. You may have been a member of a band, gotten in conflict with the others and having had to leave, or working for a company and then having been fired, putting you in deep financial trouble.

To the most negative personal relations belong more or less bitter divorces.

One such would be the separation since May 2006 and divorce between Paul_McCartney and Heather_Mills_McCartney. How would Wikipedia consider the editing by one of them of the article on the other person after that divorce?

Another type of example would be a couple that have been married for long, and then divorce bitterly maybe partly based on diverging life views. They have their children in one or other special school form, and disagree over whether their children should continue in that special school, becoming part of a custody issue. One spouse may strongly support it, the other is strongly against it. One spouse may have a stronger relation to the school than just being a parent, maybe working there, even as a teacher, with even, at worst..., the "classical" mother-in-law or a father-in-law having a strong personal relation to the school, maybe even working there and supporting the divorce.

As one result, the spouse opposed to the school, in connection with or after the divorce, may start to write extensively in a negative way about the school or school form in different media or internet fora, maybe feeling it has been the primary cause of the divorce. How would Wikipedia view that as a basis for editing Wikipedia articles related to the school or school form?

Or Valentina Pedroni, the divorcing wife of Arun Nayar, about to then marry Liz Hurley, would start to edit the article on Elizabeth_Hurley. How would you view it if Pedroni started editing the Wikipedia article on Hurley?

Or Samantha_Lewes, former spouse of Tom_Hanks, recently accused of having abused his ex-wife, and she, if she had been still alive, had started editing the Wikipedia article on him.

Here (above) at your Talks page, you tell that you do not participate in the editing of the Wiki articles on World_Trade_Center and 9/11, because your nearest relative was one of the last people to escape alive and that you joined the military and went to war because of that day.

This is a principle question: how would you judge the different possible cases described, and is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline, not only on the "positively" biased interest, described by WP:COI, but also on this type of strongly emotionally negative relation as a conflict of interest somewhere?

Or - just seeing this - would you consider the official Wikipedia policy described at WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground to be the policy applicable in the hypothetical cases described?

Thanks, Thebee 15:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If 20 ex wives of Tom Hanks came here all saying the same thing... what then? Pete K 15:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Get these revolting personal insinuations off of Wikipedia. I hope the admin removes it and censors you. Nobody's divorce and custody arrangements belong on wikipedia. Lots of divorced people and single parents like Rudolf Steiner, too; shall we dig up court proceedings on all their divorces, too? Check through your own favorite anthroposophical email lists or consider the anthroposophists you know in real life. Might any of them happen to be divorced? Single parents?

And how are you going to get rid of critics who AREN'T divorced? We've been through this all before; I'm very happy to pull up the talk pages here that show Gilbert trying the same stunt. He wasn't reprimanded, at the time, becuase I was new to wikipedia and it didn't even occur to me. He should have been - he should have been booted for even having the nerve to try this junk. And he's the one getting all sensitive that "personal information" has recently been revealed on him - personal information being that he's a Waldorf teacher! not who he's married to or not, or anything about his FAMILY or CHILDREN. This is just so disgusting. DianaW 16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, has posted his own article about himself here promoting his ideas and book. I'd like to point out that no matter how TheBee characterizes any personal situation between any people, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove any of his claims. In the case of HGilbert's conflict-of-interest, there's nothing to prove - he's a Waldorf teacher, plain and simple. Now if we really want to talk about people acting out of grudges and vendettas, let's look at TheBee and his motives for providing this little tidbit in the Waldorf article - something that he cannot support and that he attributes, as the source for the comment, a group of 5 people including himself and Professor Marginalia. Pete K 17:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

PeteK, the level of aggression, personal attacks and incivility you have let loose and displayed here at Wikipedia against different people from the first day you arrived here on 20 Aug, defended by and defending DianaW, probably to most stand out as puzzling and difficult to understand.

One external observer has commented:

"Pete K, you are being incredibly aggressive. Please stop attacking editors. Disagreements are normal. Accusing someone of playing naive to do harm is, in my opinion, very inappropriate and demeaning. I cannot comment on the article because I know very little about it. But I can say that you are way out of line regarding Wikipedia’s policies in handling disputes."

You have been asked a number of times without success to stop your personal attacks and stay civil, 1 Sept., 11 Sep. (leading to a follow up condescending comment on the request 15 Sept.), 6 Sept., 14 Sept., 5 Oct., another one the same day, 5 Oct., 23 Oct., 26 Oct., 29 Oct. and 31 Oct..

At my talks page you describe your highly emotional negative view of and relation to Waldorf education and schools as the basis for what you write here, defend your repeated aggression here at Wikipedia, and tell that you feel no remorse about it.

You have also told that you are a divorced Waldorf parent, and that two of your children, in spite of your extremely negative view of and relation to Waldorf education, go to a Waldorf school accross the street.

At my site, I describe my background and among other things my relation to Waldorf education, and my experience during a number of years of the small anti-Waldorf fringe group PLANS in S.F., that you in cooperation with Diana intensely work at defending here at Wikipedia.

Above, I give a hypothetical description of a situation, that I know in different instances reflects aspects of relations between divorced Waldorf parents, where one divorced spouse more or less strongly supports that one of more of the children involved continues to go to a Waldorf school, while the other has become a more or less public and vocal Waldorf critic, and at times search for and extensively try to defame the Waldorf school, in those cases as part of a custody dispute.

You write:

"... no matter how TheBee characterizes any personal situation between any people, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove any of his claims."

Why not tell yourself what of my hypothetical description above is or is not applicable in your case, to make understandable your repeatedly high level of aggression towards Waldorf education, and basically all people who seem to be more or less exlicit supporters of it, and to make clear if what you write here in articles on and related to Waldorf education corresponds to and falls within the Wikipedia policy on what Wikipedia is and what it is not, as you have tried to clarify in relation to editor Hgilbert? Thanks, Thebee 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Frankly, Sune, I can't bear to read through another one of your posts. You cannot prove ANYTHING you have said above. I have no aggression AT ALL toward Waldorf education. I have had problems with a few misguided Waldorf teachers and administrators. I participate fully in my kid's Waldorf school, I volunteer my time, work at fundraising, I take classes on camping trips, I've even been asked to teach a couple of classes. So I don't really know what you are talking about here. I have no "remorse" for editing articles here... why should I? You believe anyone who doesn't gush at the idea of Waldorf must be part of an anti-Waldorf fringe group. That's YOUR problem, not mine. I think Waldorf needs to improve, (so do lots of people including Waldorf teachers) and I have indeed improved the school my kids go to (and have received thanks from many people there). So you're WAY off base.

The divorce you are talking about is over - there is no custody dispute - I ended up with the lion's-share of custody. You have invented this "custody battle" in your mind and now brought it to the pages here - and apparently on your own websites. If I have been critical of or even rude to you, it's pretty much because you have insisted on this kind of behavior towards me. You have started countless topics on talk pages throughout Wikipedia trying to disparage me, discredit me AND my family. You drag the personal details of my family and divorce (as you have invented them) onto Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't see why anyone should have to put up with this type of behavior from you. You bet - I lose my temper with you, and it sometimes comes out in my writing. Why don't you stop harassing me, and you might get less aggression. I haven't looked at your links, but I suspect they are all dated - I've tried very hard to ignore your rudeness and harassment lately. Yet here, again, you continue to harass me - trying to make a case that a divorce constitutes a conflict-of-interest. Please give it a rest. Pete K 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've already blown the referee whistle and made my call: take it to arbitration. Durova ^{Charg e!} 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you Durova! Pete K 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova, You might have noticed that there's a dispute in progress on Joan of Arc bibliography about the specific issue of whether Hobbins' new translation of the trial transcripts should be included. As the editor who started the article, would you care to comment? One of the things I'm curious is just how inclusive/selective the bibliography was intended to be. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Done. Durova ^{Charg e!} 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I am sorry to have to bother you again. Problems associated with the user E.Shubee have continued unabated since the lifting of his one-week block. Despite a "last warning" by user Maniwar for personal attacks issued on 19th October, 2006, he has since continued to make a number of unwarranted and personal attacks against users who have been posting contributions to Adventist related pages, such as the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church entry that I have been attempting to improve. In so doing, I have welcomed constructive criticism by editor JBKramer, and have done as all neutral commentators have suggested.

After the warning, E.Shubee accused user MyNameIsNotBob of "extreme, militant anti-Adventism" "purposely overlooking Wikipedia rules on notability and verifiability," because he disagreed with E.Shubee's proposed changes, which I also consider quite biased and unnecessary. Two days ago he accused me of being someone else (an individual named Walter McGill) and saying that I was not only misrepresenting myself, disguising my identity and providing false information on my user page, but also promoting "Notorious deception, delusion and fraud" by contributing to the article. Since he believes that the CSDA Church only has "four members," I imagine this is part of the reason he thinks that I am this other person since I happen to also be a member of that Church.

At almost every possible instance has sought to slip in inflammatory terms, links to his own personal research (that has already been disqualified by both editors and administrators as a valid resource) and weasel-words to the article mentioned above and its associated talk page. He has made it clear (from his comments to me and the content of his website and attempted contributions) that his reasons for this have less to do with interest for distributing neutrally-toned information and far more to do with a personal grudge. I realize that this is strong language, but I believe that this is a suitable description given the things he has said.

He has not shown any sign of seeking to communicate with other editors in a reasonable manner, and when confronted he will say that since he is a "true Seventh-day Adventist" anyone who opposes him is fulfilling some sort of conspiracy prophecy (as he states openly on his "talk" page).

Thank you for your time. Zahakiel 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This was a tough call: instead of issuing another block I've left a final warning on that editor's talk page and posted a link to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Follow up if problems resume. Durova ^{Charg e!} 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

For the record, similar issues are occurring with E.Shubee on Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Fermion 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I also looked into that. The tone on the discussion page there seemed to be more in line with the normal range of editorial discussion. Please explain with diffs if the problem has been duplicated on a subtler level. Durova ^{Charg e!} 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I spearheaded the "university students' Wikipedia survey" which you recently filled out. I thank you for your well-spoken input. It was one of the most insightful essays into the experiences of a Wikipedian I have read of many hundreds.

I hope to conceive of further questions for you in the near future. In the meantime, thanks again.

-jamie

Thank you for the comment. Let me know if you conduct a follow-up. Durova ^{Charg e!} 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

Hi Durova

First of all thanks for making an insightful and positive statement about the shennanigins surrounding the Steiner family of articles. I just want to clear up one thing: The allegations of 'brochure language' are being directed at TheBee and HGilbert, not PeteK and DianeW. When HGilbert complains about 'brochure language', he is actually complaining about this complaint being made against him (if you catch my drift). I completely agree with the rest of your assessment, it is the best statement made so far, but you might want to correct that one error. -- Fergie 10:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Oops, I have now read what you wrote again, and followed the link to the bizarre assertion by HGilbert that it is in fact PeteK who has introduced 'brochure language'. I see what you mean now- please disregard the parent post.-- Fergie 10:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi - I posted this to the personal attack noticeboard, but in case you didn't see it there -- Please read the personal attacks on my job ( [17] [18], which have nothing to do with the edit dispute. Isarig is citing disputes with other editors and totally mischaracterizing the debate on the Juan Cole page. The personal attacks are way out of line. csloat 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Responded at WP:PAIN. Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Durova,

Thank you for not deleting my complaint and for prompting me to read how to use diffs. In my haste to get the attacks stopped, I didn't notice the guide at the top of the page. At your earliest convenience, please arbitrate the complaint. I think it is a pressing matter because, when I read his user page, I become concerned that this is a dangerous individual with a volatile personality. I am especially concerned when I see the veiled threats he has made on the complaints page, itself, about calling me at home to "discuss" the matter. Thank you. Sam 02:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you're getting the hang of the site. It can be confusing at first - I've been there. WP:PAIN has a limited purpose and most of what I see looks like a content dispute. So my usual response would be to refer you to WP:DR. Your statement about veiled threats is a different matter: please post page diffs specifically to show that at the noticeboard thread. Respectfully, Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Pardon me, but do my diffs not already show him calling me "a troll," "a liar," and "a failed writer"? Please see this one [19] The attacks are in the green highlighted section (green in my browser, anyway.) None of those are content disputes, surely.

Further, this user shows some serious contempt for the process by carrying on on the personal attacks intervention board. That's where you will find the veiled threat to telephone me about all this. How do I diff to that? When you see stuff like that from a guy who boasts about his background as much as he does, on his user page, it's something a prudent man has to take seriously. Thanks, again. Sam 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Copy/pasted and replied to one of the two threads at WP:PAIN. Durova ^{Charg e!} 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Look, I gave you a link of my special contributions. I only want to remove them, please help. There has to be a way to remove my special contributions because I don't want to see them for the rest of my whole life. Please give me tipps, who shall I contact to remove my contributions. 193.154.194.38 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This is an unusual request. I'll ask other admins. Durova ^{Charg e!} 14:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Two responses so far have said no to a general blanking. If you've made particular posts that constitute libel then that would be different. Be specific and use my e-mail link if necessary. Durova ^{Charg e!} 16:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Randroide 12:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Hi, Durova. More bad news: reply

• New personal attack from Igor21: [21]

• I also posted libels from this user at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings, but no one is attending the issue. Please lokk at it.

I'm going to level with you: it's tough to adjudicate incivility within a content dispute. The underlying issue here really should have settled by now. I agree that diff is snide, but what really prompts concern is that for at least a month this article has been stalled over virtually the same issues. Head on over to WP:DR and look for some options that haven't been tried yet. Formal mediation is a likely choice for this situation. Best wishes, Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Good hello. I've listed diffs and relvant links for you at [22]. I will happily abide by whatever the investigators and arbitrators feel is best. On a side note, I saw from one of your posts taht you are a combat veteran (as am I, Panama with the 7th Light Infantry and the 1st Gulf War with the XVIII Airborne Corps) and I was curious as to when, where and with what organization.? If this is too personal a question please feel free to tell me to piss off (I'll take no offence), but I am curious. Cheers. L0b0t 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I joined the United States Navy because my uncle survived the World Trade Center from a high floor. Don't give me too much credit: I count as a veteran of the Global War on Terrorism but didn't see actual combat. During one of my deployments, though, my ship saved 113 civilian lives. Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I drop by the noticeboard from time to time when I'm particularly bored and often have occasion to see your always cogent and cordial work there; I was, though, especially impressed by this, most prominently the pithy ultimate two sentences thereof. I'd leave you {{ The Barnstar of Diligence}}, but my general disfavoring of PAIN (as, for various reasons, unnecessary and sometimes, by the fact of its existence, disruptive) might morally prohibit my awarding a barnstar for contributions made on such noticeboard; you'll have, I regret to say, to settle for my sincerest compliments: good on ya! :) Joe 04:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Golly, thanks. PAIN is a pain sometimes and if you know a better way of mopping those spills then by all means show me a better bucket. Durova ^{Charg e!} 06:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The user Sudharsansn has blanked my edits several times in his own talk page. [23]

And he justify it with comments I get to choose what stays and what does not [24]

• i gave him a civility warning

[25] for these actions [26], [27]

• And for blanking my comments,i gave him notyours warning [28]

• He didn't stop from that,he blanked everything again,first he removed the civility warning.

[29]

• then he erased the notyours warning

[30]

• I believe necessary actions should be taken to stop this vandalism.

thank you -- Iwazaki 17:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually there's a big difference between what editors can do in their own userspace and what they can do elsewhere in Wikipedia. An editor can blank warnings from his or her own talk page. They've still been warned and the warning remains in the history file. If you have any concern that a subsequent administrator might miss a warning you leave, be sure to include a few words about the warning in the edit summary line. Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Duvora thanks for the quick response.The diffs i have given you clearly indicate that,

• this user is clearly violating wiki policies by deleting things which look bad for him
• clearly invlove in personal attacks,such as using "stupid messages" and etc
• had deleted warnings,so he could have a atleast pretent to be good here,i call it deceiving and vadalism
• And had put forwarded a,message, very similar to a threat,not to post in his talk page or even if i post he has right to delete them.

look how all these started.I merely ask him not to make insults regarding my race.see my post and his reply [31]

Then he came up with this amazing reply, questioning my morals and saying i have no right to question him!! And called my comments stupid and asked me to stay away from his page.sounds like a threat!! [32]

Also, he has written something like "i love you" in my talk page and i asked him not say such a things. i love you. he has even deleted that !! SO ,he's basically deleting everything unfavourable to him.Isnt this a perfect examples of vanalism ??? And,only after that i gave him a couple of warnings(diffs given in my first post)And not surprisingly everything end up in the dust bin. I have given a summary of all my warnings, and hopefully admins wont miss them.But, isnt it better to have them back, in the talk page ??Where it really deserved to be. thanks -- Iwazaki 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, Iwazaki, this isn't vandalism and it isn't against policy. It's rather dishonest and rude, but not illegal here. Basically, as long as you're not making death threats or advocating child pornography, you're free to do what you want with your user/usertalk pages. What you can do is copy the discussion, with your replies, and keep them on your talk page. Don't worry, though, the history of the discussions on his talk page is kept, so if anyone needs to see if this user has been uncivil, he can. And any admin worth the paper their diploma isn't printed on knows you need to look at the edit summaries for prior warnings. As for his attacks on you, they're not really strong enough to warrant further attention. The best thing to do would be to not feed the troll if you feel this user is annoying you. Just ignore him, and concentrate on more important things, such as the encyclopaedia itself. yandman 07:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Although I don't like the use of the t-word, Yandman isn't far off the mark. As I stated before, an editor's own userspace is treated differently from the rest of Wikipedia. Administrators' scope of intervention there is a little broader than Yandman represents, but the blanking of warnings has been discussed and continues to be discussed. Right now the community hasn't reached consensus about restricting warning blankings, so - galling though it may be - editors can blank warnings as soon as they're posted. When and if other behavior merits a block I do weigh the blanking of valid warnings in determining how long to block. An editor who blanks a warning has proven that they've seen and read it. Durova ^{Charg e!} 15:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If you're online (I hope so) can you please check this? There's a Brazilian user editing info to exclude Mexico from several topics. He's reverting some articles in order to favor the "image of Brazil" and is being very uncivil.

The articles are Newly industrialized countries and Emerging markets. He also used personal humilliating attacks on my user page User_talk:AlexCovarrubias.

I tried to talk to him telling him that all that information was cited and verifiable (I even googled some info in portuguese because he doesn't seem to speak english User_talk:João_Felipe_C.S) and he continues to blank the info I added. Please take a look, I'm kinda sad this happened. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Alex, you might be better off taking this to WP:AN/I. This conflict is taking place in three languages, one of which I don't know at all. Durova ^{Charg e!} 02:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I hope it wasn't improper for me to post there. I responded to your request and provided diffs here. Is this helpful, or should I be "minding my own business"? -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

attack messasge deleted from this spot because it appeared next to my name. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Very helpful, thank you. We've had enough COI cases lately that got topic banned or site banned. If that editor really is here for honest purposes then a mentor could help him stay on the right side of policy. Durova ^{Charg e!} 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I tend to agree. He has the potential to be a good editor, but his only contributions so far have been to the two articles that mention him by name. If it would help the situation, I'd be willing to work with him on the articles. Since I hadn't heard of him or Gracenote until this came up at ANI, I think I'm fairly neutral and lacking preconceptions. However, I am not qualified to mentor anyone; in fact, I'd been thinking of requesting a mentor for myself : )

I'm glad I was able to help a bit with this; I've become very aware of how outnumbered and overwhelmed our admins are. I thought that maybe if I could look into the background and dig up some details it would save an admin some time. Let me know if I can do anything else to assist. -- Doc Tropics 17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

An extra pair of eyes is weclome, especially from an editor in good standing who has nothing at stake. The most useful time for that is early or very late - either before an admin has seen it yet or after the case seems stale (to see whether an editor has resumed problem behavior a week after a block expires, etc.). When a case is open and already being handled I tend to back off (even if I do some quiet digging) because I don't want to undermine another admin's efforts or start a wheel war. If the time comes when I really doubt an admin's decision I'd probably e-mail them privately. Thanks again for the help. Durova ^{Charg e!} 03:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks D, you're one of the admins I try to watch and learn from. Doc Tropics 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If you're trying to butter me up, it's working. ;) Durova ^{Charg e!} 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I am aware that he was a Democrat from the south, but when you refer to "Southern Democrats" that means that they are Conservative Democrats, Confederate supporters, or Dixiecrats.

It's best to discuss that kind of distinction on the talk page before deleting it. He was far from a typical Southern Democrat, but he was president. See what the regular contributors at the page think of the idea. Durova ^{Charg e!} 14:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova, with regard to the PAIN report on Iwazaki I would like to make it extremely clear that the user is only pointing to a non-existent problem to escape from the accusations that have been levelled at him.

Though I do not have to respond to his accusations in that thread, it is pretty much common-sense for anyone to understand that my comments should not be read as an isolated phrase but as one clause in a sequence of conversations. My usage of the term 'Sinhala goons' was a contextual remark and not an attack or anywhere close to being one. As per Durova's very own remark, there really is no evidence as such because it should be read in a sequence of events and discussions and not as a stand-out phrase. This is like highlighting only bad when we say that children should not be bad, I can't believe that somebody is actually pointing out to such a trivial remark when there is something on him. Neither did I have an idea of floating such a userbox nor did I create one. It was a casual remark mentioned as a counter for the "This user supports the killing of Tamils", which points to people of my race, which was in Iwazaki's userpage and was created by User:Lahiru_k

I would request you to look into the actual report and not let Iwazaki show that such escapism can let him go scot-free. Thanks Sudharsansn ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

There's really nothing new at the latest post to change my earlier decision. Durova ^{Charg e!} 16:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you a ILX/ILM regular? Probably not. In that case, I ask you to unprotect I Love Music and allow correct edits be made to that entry without reckless reverting. 220.253.117.129 10:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Responded at Talk:I Love Music. Durova ^{Charg e!} 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply