At the Jim Clark ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) talk page, you recommended WP:RFC and WP:RFI to help us block puppets. Do you think they would be more effective than WP:SSP, as I am concerned about adding unnecessarily to admin workload? ( WP:SSP works for this article but sometimes has a couple of days backlog.) Is there a technical way to detect and preemptively block sleeper accounts? It might be good to start an RFC when the puppetmaster's one month block expires, if his sisruption continuesbut I have never been Please answer on my talk page rather than the article one, as I don't think we should discuss ways to stop a proven disruptive editor in plain sight. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 12:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:SSP would be an alternative. I recommend WP:RCU in conjunction with whatever alternative you try. Basically the request at WP:RFI belonged in another section. Watchlist requests usually apply to multiple random vandals rather than a single puppetmaster. Regards, Durov a Charge! 14:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 18:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
...it's really wonderful. I bookmarked it should I ever get crazy (er, "experienced") enough to become an admin.
One thing; the "wrong version" link in the Page protection section is broken; it has "the" as its link text. You were probably intending for the sentence to read "Likewise, if you think I've protected the (link)wrong version(/link)". I was going to fix it for you; but that seemed a bit presumptuous, so I thought I'd drop you a line instead. See ya out there! -- weirdoactor t| c -- 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I noticed that you posted a block warning to the IP address that El Jigue has been using, and I also understand why you felt that the time had come to do so. Since you are contemplating the possible need for future administrative action in this case, I would much appreciate it if you could take the time to read my somewhat different take on things that I have posted to GoodDay's talk page here Many thanks in advance for this. Dasondas 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish, El Jigue would become a registered user. He's views are educational & informative. I'd love to chat with him, on his registerd personal 'talk' page, about Cuban related past/current events. GoodDay 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Dasondas, Polaris and others (here and elsewhere) thank you for the kind support. My view is that when history is hijacked by any kind of government, a second opinion of dissatisfied voices is needed. In the early days when I read Cuban history, I rapidly found that even academics, have been mislead on Cuba. Later I found that commonly history is quite subject to such manipulation. For instance examining the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 circa, where both sides were cruel wicked and murderous, where as at first I was just vaguely troubled by the inconsistencies with portrayal of the Franco forces and their actions, there did not seem be an "even playing field." Thus when as a young man I watched the movie "For Whom the Bell Tolls" I could never forget that character "Pablo" and his bloody ways. Recently I read what seems to be a level headed, even handed book, (Payne, Stanley G 1970 The Spanish Revolution. First Edition W.W. Norton Chapter 10 and elsewhere)and I was simply horrified at the scale of the killings by both sides. With relation to Cuba I read at first about the "Race War of 1912 [1] and was horrified by the killings of Blacks by Monteagudo’s Cuban troops. However, as I began to read more and listen to narrations of those who saw those days, I realized there was much more involved than mere repression. It became clear that the frustrated rebels, were burning out of even Mambi (Cuban Independence Fighters) property. An exception I believe was Quintin Bandera, whose ruthless uneducated actions had brought shame to the Mambi (!Diga Garbanzos!). The lack of support by most Black Mambi doomed the rebellion, and the links to the Haiti showed what was being attempted was a physical take over of an area of eastern Cuba, by the “Separatistas de Color.” In other words these Separatistas were attempting “ethnic cleansing”, by any means possible. Of course in eastern Cuba so close to Haiti that brought back memories of the horrors of that rebellion, without the justification of slavery or legal segregation. Then, even the New York Times was screaming for intervention to stop this…. Thus it became clear that while this unpleasant and bloody event is portrayed very unevenly. While writing a book on family memories, I sought help from academics and remember calling up such as Aline Helg (University of Texas, author of Our Rightful Share: The AfroCuban Struggle for Equality, 1886-1912), and tried to contribute the oral histories. Instead I was rebuffed angrily, accused of racism etc. for trying to balance the circumstance. Helg it turned out knew less about the facts on the ground than I did, but stubbornly refused to consider any balance, or to question why the Separatistas were trying clear all others out of the area. El Jigue 11-7-06
That is your opinion, in my view what you doing is merely protecting the official propaganda personas of high level Cuban officials. Since Cuba is a closed society any non-official sources can be conveniently classified by fiat as "gossip," thus leaving only official sources as acceptable. BTW Raul is said, by reliable forces, to have put numerous well armed elite military forces on standby, to destroy or attempt to destroy any challenge to his rule. All this merely helps prove my point that ideological conformity can and is being enforced in these Wikipedia pages, thus denigrating the reality and perception of Wikipedia. El Jigüe 11-8-06
I saw your response to Methodology's complaint. Sarah's response was to delete Meth's comments on an article talk page and then to block Meth - I think indefinitely. If you wish to see examples of Sarah's over the top activities(imo) I suggest you simply start with looking at what she's done with this article [2] Sarah also blocked me for a week,btw, so I won't claim to be unbiased in this matter. ottawaman 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Durova, a response from me is coming. I just got home and have a couple of IRL things I need to do first, but I'll be back soon. Cheers, Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 09:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi; I hate to beat a dead horse on this one; I long gave up on the issue, but I recently noticed that you archived a large discussion in RfI without responding to it: [4]. The user had several people complain about him in the investigation, and others on the talk page. I don't have much desire to see him "punished" - but I would like to see what the reasoning was for glossing over the issue, if you thought his edits were not POV enough to warrant a comment to his talk page. Thanks. - Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you'd left a comment on this user's Talk page in your capacity as an admin and I thought you might be the best person to mention this issue to, since you've at least had some contact with the user in question:
I'd left a comment on the user's Talk page about an apparent double-"vote" in an AfD, which was only revealed by accident. An anonymous user (very possibly Le Grand Roi himself, just not logged in) then made this edit to the Talk page moving my comments to "the appropriate location". I couldn't find this location, and it certainly wasn't on his page anywhere, so I reverted it on the grounds that that was where it belonged (if this was out of process, I apologise). Le Grand Roi, now logged in, re-reverted it and explained that he'd moved it to a Village Pump discussion he seems to have begun to explain his activities.
I'm stepping back from this one, after explaining the basis for my comments at this Village Pump discussion, but I was hoping you might be able to sit the user down metaphorically and explain the ground rules to him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, my apologies. Vandalism is a bit high right now, and I thought your addition was instead a blank; it won't happen again :/ JoeSmack Talk( p-review!) 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. I noticed that you've had some contact with User:Fix Bayonets! in the past at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans. I recently started a user conduct Rfc regarding Fix Bayonets! conduct at Sons of Confederate Veterans and elsewhere, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. I would appreciate any input you have, if any. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You mentioned at Le Grand Roi's Village Pump-a-thon that you wanted Diffs relating to his duplicate voting. The RFI on him seems to be moving along relatively well as is, but if you still want them just let me know and I'll provide them. I'm working on the theory that each AfD he entered into is suspect, so it might take a bit of time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you can do it, but like I said at the RFI, I'd be keeping an eye on some of those IPs of his to see if anything fishy occurs during the 6-week block. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Durova, can you have another look at the activities of E.Shubee at Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. His behaviour has not improved and is rather trollsome. I am coming to you because I feel that if I say anything there I will just be feeding the troll. Your assistance is very much appreciated. Thank you. -- MyNam e IsNotBob 22:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I will refrain from using the t-word in the future. Will discuss with the other editors what they think appropriate to do when the block expires. MyNam e IsNotBob 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can advise us how to go forward with this article. Mediation has failed as two users, User:Pete K and User:DianaW refuse to enter the mediation process. One of these users is making aggressive edits and reverts; he is also making many personal comments (for which he has again been banned for 24 hours) on talk pages. Edit wars continually result; discussion on talk pages results in aggressive attacks and personal comments rather than helpful process. There seem to be only two alternatives; let an aggressive, single-issue editor make all changes he wishes (including removing factual material, inserting pure unverified opinion, and labelling the article with the advert tag, which other editors -though not all - feel is grossly unjustified) or enter edit wars (that result in the article being locked). Can you suggest a helpful process? Hgilbert 11:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I gave you a link. I wanna know, my name is signed in in the history and I wish to clear my name. Is it possible or will it stay for the rest of my whole life? XXMad99ManXx 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I went looking for that "multiple page move" thing.... I think you are referring to this, but it seems to be for a different purpose (moving page A->B, B->C, etc.; so the target of the first move has to be the source of the second; this is not what I'm doing). Any ideas now? Here's a list of pages that need to be moved:
"Australian Aboriginal" going to "Indigenous Australian":
and
Gee, I didn't know there were so many! What to do?
Zarbat 04:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durova, regarding your block of EJ, I don't blame anyone for coming to that conclusion after your brief introduction to his eccentric behaviour. Though I disagree with the move (as I have stated on his talk page) in light of EJ's exceptional circumstances. Could you give me some info on how the block will work? If EJ registered, would this all be forgotten? -- Zleitzen 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, unfortunately the Adopt-a-user is designed to help new users. El Jigue, being a long standing editor, will likely take further umbrage at this suggestion. To my knowledge he has never taken up any suggestions from others to amend his editing habits and I am certain he will not take up this offer. The only options as far as I can see are this.
In weighing up these options in the past, it has always been my belief that the former option is preferable. And thus I have never sought to block EJ, despite the fact that even I was named in his notorious dossier of "pernincious influences" on the internet! -- Zleitzen 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Durova. I just wandted to let you know, I wasn't troubled in anyway by El Jigue posting on my personal talk page. In the future if he does post there again, I'll (again) simply edit it out. When El Jigue comforms to policy, then I'll respond to his posts on my personal 'talk' page. Again, thank you for your concerns, I appreciate it. GoodDay 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to investigate and semi-protect the Zodiac Killer page. That will be a huge help to the rest of us who are trying to rewrite and, most importantly, insure the accuracy of that article.
One quick question: How long will the semi-protection status last?
Best. Labyrinth13 20:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I created the Wikipedia:Editor honesty as you suggested at the Village Pump (is it just me, or do you accidentally type Village Pimp every time you type that. Humerous malapropism, ain't it). Read it and make comments. Spread the word about it. See what everyone else thinks. Be bold and edit it yourself. Make comments on the talk page. You know how all of this works. -- Jayron 32 05:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I've posted a question (partially referring to you) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is removal of warnings a no-no?.
Atlant 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You may not be aware of it but she did issue a warning to me in the archived PAIN case. She did so before your resolution and I've been trying to get her to understand that, as she made no mention of it in the case, you and the other administrator that issued more neutral rulings were not aware of it. I am therefore with an archived case (archived also very hastily by Shell Kenney) and three contradictory rulings: a warn, a rather supportive resolution by you and a more neutral "no say" one by the third administrator, whose name I keep forgetting. I've kept a long talk with Shell Kenney on the issue but she doesn't seem to understand. I'm about to go to mediation of AN but first maybe you should talk with her and try to reach a consensus. Thanks. -- Sugaar 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question.
Though I know you had limited experience only dealing witht he WP:PAIN incident. --
Nuclear
Zer0 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I interpretated your words in a wrong way. Are you saying that calling people "clown" and "moron" is a mild attack, that deserves no block, if people was not uncivil in the past? And are you saying that calling people "coward" because they hide their attacks is, instead, a personal attack deserving a warning?-- Panarjedde 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked User:Deathrocker. I think you should be careful of Panarjedde. I don't know what exactly what happen between these two, but, any complaint by Panarjedde should be taken an extremely close looking at by any administrator. Don't take this as me trying to say you're right or wrong. But I think you might want to review your decision on Deathrocker block just to make sure you made the correct decision. Kingjeff 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about the investigation thing. Can you give me the link to the case? Kingjeff 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we use Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for both me and Deathrocker? This would directly indicate if your claim is right (Which I know is not). Kingjeff 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Am I safe to assume you'll do the request? Kingjeff 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Can I also user this Panarjedde. I can't assume good faith with him and I would like an investigation to see if I'm correct or not. Kingjeff 04:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
About your RFCU, you need to do the second step which is to add this {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:Kingjeff}} to here. I don't know if you know that or not...and I was going to do it for you, but I wasn't sure if you hadn't done it because you weren't finished writing the report. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. The checker said me and Deathrocker are unrelated. You said you wanted to do some kind of investigation thing.
Kingjeff 14:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Randroide 09:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Hi, Durova.
User Igor21 wrote:
ONE:
The "source" provided is an unrelated quote taken... from a blog!!! [8]. He is talking about Pedro J. Ramírez, a famous living person.
Moreover: He gives these unchecked (and unrelated to the issue) quotes as a "reason" to do not use " El Mundo" (the second spanish newspaper) in the article.
Please, ask him if he checked the quote to be true, because...
TWO
I asked thrice for a source for this bold affirmation. He gave me a rather vague source:
"Fraga" is Manuel Fraga, a famous living spanish politician.
The "source" given by Igor21 does not exist, due to two simple facts.
1. The Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación criminal actions started in october 1983.
2. The first "Época" magazine was published in march 1985 [11].
After pointig these facts to the user, he wrote me a lenghty text in sapnish in my userpage with no sources [12].
The "many sources" are, after all, a single non-existent source.
...or maybe it was in a different magazine.
...he "thinks" that the source, now, was the magazine Cambio16. Or maybe not. Who knows?. He gave me a false source previously.
I am going to waste a saturday morning in the library anyway to check this User assertions, so please ask him to recall as carefully as he can which are those sources, because my (scarce) time is going to be used to check his assertions.
THREE
He gives no source. Anson is w:es:Luis María Anson, a famous living person.
...I almost miss this one. I discovered this libel checking all the user contributions while creating this message for you, Durova. I can not keep pace with this user.
Please, Durova, do something.
Call me silly for asking this, but how are you and Elizabeth getting along? Did her sister Catherine ever get married? I presume you are referring to Kitty, that hopelessly silly child. Yes, she did, and at least she managed to avoid bringing the same disgrace upon her family as her equally silly sister Lydia did. Elizabeth and I are quite happy together, with three children who know how to comport themselves in public, and who see their maternal grandmother as little as possible, for the sake of their father. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Durova, please help me. Opiner wants to add POV tag to the article Reformations_under_Islam without providing any source that contradicts what is written. Please, please comment on that. -- Aminz 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
But we are not experts. Can an editor just dispute an article because he doesn't like it? -- Aminz 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Or, shouldn't we explicitly know how the POV problem can be resolved. -- Aminz 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I was waiting to hear. -- Aminz 00:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you've said Move this request to the appropriate section (new requests) and cite page diffs per the noticeboard rules. I'm sorry for this but I'm a new user and i don't know where is the appropriate section and where is the new requests? Can you help me?-- Karcha 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
At the Jim Clark ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) talk page, you recommended WP:RFC and WP:RFI to help us block puppets. Do you think they would be more effective than WP:SSP, as I am concerned about adding unnecessarily to admin workload? ( WP:SSP works for this article but sometimes has a couple of days backlog.) Is there a technical way to detect and preemptively block sleeper accounts? It might be good to start an RFC when the puppetmaster's one month block expires, if his sisruption continuesbut I have never been Please answer on my talk page rather than the article one, as I don't think we should discuss ways to stop a proven disruptive editor in plain sight. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 12:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:SSP would be an alternative. I recommend WP:RCU in conjunction with whatever alternative you try. Basically the request at WP:RFI belonged in another section. Watchlist requests usually apply to multiple random vandals rather than a single puppetmaster. Regards, Durov a Charge! 14:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 18:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
...it's really wonderful. I bookmarked it should I ever get crazy (er, "experienced") enough to become an admin.
One thing; the "wrong version" link in the Page protection section is broken; it has "the" as its link text. You were probably intending for the sentence to read "Likewise, if you think I've protected the (link)wrong version(/link)". I was going to fix it for you; but that seemed a bit presumptuous, so I thought I'd drop you a line instead. See ya out there! -- weirdoactor t| c -- 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I noticed that you posted a block warning to the IP address that El Jigue has been using, and I also understand why you felt that the time had come to do so. Since you are contemplating the possible need for future administrative action in this case, I would much appreciate it if you could take the time to read my somewhat different take on things that I have posted to GoodDay's talk page here Many thanks in advance for this. Dasondas 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish, El Jigue would become a registered user. He's views are educational & informative. I'd love to chat with him, on his registerd personal 'talk' page, about Cuban related past/current events. GoodDay 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Dasondas, Polaris and others (here and elsewhere) thank you for the kind support. My view is that when history is hijacked by any kind of government, a second opinion of dissatisfied voices is needed. In the early days when I read Cuban history, I rapidly found that even academics, have been mislead on Cuba. Later I found that commonly history is quite subject to such manipulation. For instance examining the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 circa, where both sides were cruel wicked and murderous, where as at first I was just vaguely troubled by the inconsistencies with portrayal of the Franco forces and their actions, there did not seem be an "even playing field." Thus when as a young man I watched the movie "For Whom the Bell Tolls" I could never forget that character "Pablo" and his bloody ways. Recently I read what seems to be a level headed, even handed book, (Payne, Stanley G 1970 The Spanish Revolution. First Edition W.W. Norton Chapter 10 and elsewhere)and I was simply horrified at the scale of the killings by both sides. With relation to Cuba I read at first about the "Race War of 1912 [1] and was horrified by the killings of Blacks by Monteagudo’s Cuban troops. However, as I began to read more and listen to narrations of those who saw those days, I realized there was much more involved than mere repression. It became clear that the frustrated rebels, were burning out of even Mambi (Cuban Independence Fighters) property. An exception I believe was Quintin Bandera, whose ruthless uneducated actions had brought shame to the Mambi (!Diga Garbanzos!). The lack of support by most Black Mambi doomed the rebellion, and the links to the Haiti showed what was being attempted was a physical take over of an area of eastern Cuba, by the “Separatistas de Color.” In other words these Separatistas were attempting “ethnic cleansing”, by any means possible. Of course in eastern Cuba so close to Haiti that brought back memories of the horrors of that rebellion, without the justification of slavery or legal segregation. Then, even the New York Times was screaming for intervention to stop this…. Thus it became clear that while this unpleasant and bloody event is portrayed very unevenly. While writing a book on family memories, I sought help from academics and remember calling up such as Aline Helg (University of Texas, author of Our Rightful Share: The AfroCuban Struggle for Equality, 1886-1912), and tried to contribute the oral histories. Instead I was rebuffed angrily, accused of racism etc. for trying to balance the circumstance. Helg it turned out knew less about the facts on the ground than I did, but stubbornly refused to consider any balance, or to question why the Separatistas were trying clear all others out of the area. El Jigue 11-7-06
That is your opinion, in my view what you doing is merely protecting the official propaganda personas of high level Cuban officials. Since Cuba is a closed society any non-official sources can be conveniently classified by fiat as "gossip," thus leaving only official sources as acceptable. BTW Raul is said, by reliable forces, to have put numerous well armed elite military forces on standby, to destroy or attempt to destroy any challenge to his rule. All this merely helps prove my point that ideological conformity can and is being enforced in these Wikipedia pages, thus denigrating the reality and perception of Wikipedia. El Jigüe 11-8-06
I saw your response to Methodology's complaint. Sarah's response was to delete Meth's comments on an article talk page and then to block Meth - I think indefinitely. If you wish to see examples of Sarah's over the top activities(imo) I suggest you simply start with looking at what she's done with this article [2] Sarah also blocked me for a week,btw, so I won't claim to be unbiased in this matter. ottawaman 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Durova, a response from me is coming. I just got home and have a couple of IRL things I need to do first, but I'll be back soon. Cheers, Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 09:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi; I hate to beat a dead horse on this one; I long gave up on the issue, but I recently noticed that you archived a large discussion in RfI without responding to it: [4]. The user had several people complain about him in the investigation, and others on the talk page. I don't have much desire to see him "punished" - but I would like to see what the reasoning was for glossing over the issue, if you thought his edits were not POV enough to warrant a comment to his talk page. Thanks. - Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you'd left a comment on this user's Talk page in your capacity as an admin and I thought you might be the best person to mention this issue to, since you've at least had some contact with the user in question:
I'd left a comment on the user's Talk page about an apparent double-"vote" in an AfD, which was only revealed by accident. An anonymous user (very possibly Le Grand Roi himself, just not logged in) then made this edit to the Talk page moving my comments to "the appropriate location". I couldn't find this location, and it certainly wasn't on his page anywhere, so I reverted it on the grounds that that was where it belonged (if this was out of process, I apologise). Le Grand Roi, now logged in, re-reverted it and explained that he'd moved it to a Village Pump discussion he seems to have begun to explain his activities.
I'm stepping back from this one, after explaining the basis for my comments at this Village Pump discussion, but I was hoping you might be able to sit the user down metaphorically and explain the ground rules to him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, my apologies. Vandalism is a bit high right now, and I thought your addition was instead a blank; it won't happen again :/ JoeSmack Talk( p-review!) 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. I noticed that you've had some contact with User:Fix Bayonets! in the past at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans. I recently started a user conduct Rfc regarding Fix Bayonets! conduct at Sons of Confederate Veterans and elsewhere, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. I would appreciate any input you have, if any. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You mentioned at Le Grand Roi's Village Pump-a-thon that you wanted Diffs relating to his duplicate voting. The RFI on him seems to be moving along relatively well as is, but if you still want them just let me know and I'll provide them. I'm working on the theory that each AfD he entered into is suspect, so it might take a bit of time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you can do it, but like I said at the RFI, I'd be keeping an eye on some of those IPs of his to see if anything fishy occurs during the 6-week block. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Durova, can you have another look at the activities of E.Shubee at Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. His behaviour has not improved and is rather trollsome. I am coming to you because I feel that if I say anything there I will just be feeding the troll. Your assistance is very much appreciated. Thank you. -- MyNam e IsNotBob 22:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I will refrain from using the t-word in the future. Will discuss with the other editors what they think appropriate to do when the block expires. MyNam e IsNotBob 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can advise us how to go forward with this article. Mediation has failed as two users, User:Pete K and User:DianaW refuse to enter the mediation process. One of these users is making aggressive edits and reverts; he is also making many personal comments (for which he has again been banned for 24 hours) on talk pages. Edit wars continually result; discussion on talk pages results in aggressive attacks and personal comments rather than helpful process. There seem to be only two alternatives; let an aggressive, single-issue editor make all changes he wishes (including removing factual material, inserting pure unverified opinion, and labelling the article with the advert tag, which other editors -though not all - feel is grossly unjustified) or enter edit wars (that result in the article being locked). Can you suggest a helpful process? Hgilbert 11:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I gave you a link. I wanna know, my name is signed in in the history and I wish to clear my name. Is it possible or will it stay for the rest of my whole life? XXMad99ManXx 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I went looking for that "multiple page move" thing.... I think you are referring to this, but it seems to be for a different purpose (moving page A->B, B->C, etc.; so the target of the first move has to be the source of the second; this is not what I'm doing). Any ideas now? Here's a list of pages that need to be moved:
"Australian Aboriginal" going to "Indigenous Australian":
and
Gee, I didn't know there were so many! What to do?
Zarbat 04:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durova, regarding your block of EJ, I don't blame anyone for coming to that conclusion after your brief introduction to his eccentric behaviour. Though I disagree with the move (as I have stated on his talk page) in light of EJ's exceptional circumstances. Could you give me some info on how the block will work? If EJ registered, would this all be forgotten? -- Zleitzen 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, unfortunately the Adopt-a-user is designed to help new users. El Jigue, being a long standing editor, will likely take further umbrage at this suggestion. To my knowledge he has never taken up any suggestions from others to amend his editing habits and I am certain he will not take up this offer. The only options as far as I can see are this.
In weighing up these options in the past, it has always been my belief that the former option is preferable. And thus I have never sought to block EJ, despite the fact that even I was named in his notorious dossier of "pernincious influences" on the internet! -- Zleitzen 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Durova. I just wandted to let you know, I wasn't troubled in anyway by El Jigue posting on my personal talk page. In the future if he does post there again, I'll (again) simply edit it out. When El Jigue comforms to policy, then I'll respond to his posts on my personal 'talk' page. Again, thank you for your concerns, I appreciate it. GoodDay 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to investigate and semi-protect the Zodiac Killer page. That will be a huge help to the rest of us who are trying to rewrite and, most importantly, insure the accuracy of that article.
One quick question: How long will the semi-protection status last?
Best. Labyrinth13 20:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I created the Wikipedia:Editor honesty as you suggested at the Village Pump (is it just me, or do you accidentally type Village Pimp every time you type that. Humerous malapropism, ain't it). Read it and make comments. Spread the word about it. See what everyone else thinks. Be bold and edit it yourself. Make comments on the talk page. You know how all of this works. -- Jayron 32 05:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I've posted a question (partially referring to you) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is removal of warnings a no-no?.
Atlant 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You may not be aware of it but she did issue a warning to me in the archived PAIN case. She did so before your resolution and I've been trying to get her to understand that, as she made no mention of it in the case, you and the other administrator that issued more neutral rulings were not aware of it. I am therefore with an archived case (archived also very hastily by Shell Kenney) and three contradictory rulings: a warn, a rather supportive resolution by you and a more neutral "no say" one by the third administrator, whose name I keep forgetting. I've kept a long talk with Shell Kenney on the issue but she doesn't seem to understand. I'm about to go to mediation of AN but first maybe you should talk with her and try to reach a consensus. Thanks. -- Sugaar 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question.
Though I know you had limited experience only dealing witht he WP:PAIN incident. --
Nuclear
Zer0 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I interpretated your words in a wrong way. Are you saying that calling people "clown" and "moron" is a mild attack, that deserves no block, if people was not uncivil in the past? And are you saying that calling people "coward" because they hide their attacks is, instead, a personal attack deserving a warning?-- Panarjedde 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked User:Deathrocker. I think you should be careful of Panarjedde. I don't know what exactly what happen between these two, but, any complaint by Panarjedde should be taken an extremely close looking at by any administrator. Don't take this as me trying to say you're right or wrong. But I think you might want to review your decision on Deathrocker block just to make sure you made the correct decision. Kingjeff 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about the investigation thing. Can you give me the link to the case? Kingjeff 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we use Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for both me and Deathrocker? This would directly indicate if your claim is right (Which I know is not). Kingjeff 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Am I safe to assume you'll do the request? Kingjeff 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Can I also user this Panarjedde. I can't assume good faith with him and I would like an investigation to see if I'm correct or not. Kingjeff 04:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
About your RFCU, you need to do the second step which is to add this {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:Kingjeff}} to here. I don't know if you know that or not...and I was going to do it for you, but I wasn't sure if you hadn't done it because you weren't finished writing the report. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. The checker said me and Deathrocker are unrelated. You said you wanted to do some kind of investigation thing.
Kingjeff 14:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Randroide 09:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Hi, Durova.
User Igor21 wrote:
ONE:
The "source" provided is an unrelated quote taken... from a blog!!! [8]. He is talking about Pedro J. Ramírez, a famous living person.
Moreover: He gives these unchecked (and unrelated to the issue) quotes as a "reason" to do not use " El Mundo" (the second spanish newspaper) in the article.
Please, ask him if he checked the quote to be true, because...
TWO
I asked thrice for a source for this bold affirmation. He gave me a rather vague source:
"Fraga" is Manuel Fraga, a famous living spanish politician.
The "source" given by Igor21 does not exist, due to two simple facts.
1. The Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación criminal actions started in october 1983.
2. The first "Época" magazine was published in march 1985 [11].
After pointig these facts to the user, he wrote me a lenghty text in sapnish in my userpage with no sources [12].
The "many sources" are, after all, a single non-existent source.
...or maybe it was in a different magazine.
...he "thinks" that the source, now, was the magazine Cambio16. Or maybe not. Who knows?. He gave me a false source previously.
I am going to waste a saturday morning in the library anyway to check this User assertions, so please ask him to recall as carefully as he can which are those sources, because my (scarce) time is going to be used to check his assertions.
THREE
He gives no source. Anson is w:es:Luis María Anson, a famous living person.
...I almost miss this one. I discovered this libel checking all the user contributions while creating this message for you, Durova. I can not keep pace with this user.
Please, Durova, do something.
Call me silly for asking this, but how are you and Elizabeth getting along? Did her sister Catherine ever get married? I presume you are referring to Kitty, that hopelessly silly child. Yes, she did, and at least she managed to avoid bringing the same disgrace upon her family as her equally silly sister Lydia did. Elizabeth and I are quite happy together, with three children who know how to comport themselves in public, and who see their maternal grandmother as little as possible, for the sake of their father. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Durova, please help me. Opiner wants to add POV tag to the article Reformations_under_Islam without providing any source that contradicts what is written. Please, please comment on that. -- Aminz 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
But we are not experts. Can an editor just dispute an article because he doesn't like it? -- Aminz 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Or, shouldn't we explicitly know how the POV problem can be resolved. -- Aminz 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I was waiting to hear. -- Aminz 00:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you've said Move this request to the appropriate section (new requests) and cite page diffs per the noticeboard rules. I'm sorry for this but I'm a new user and i don't know where is the appropriate section and where is the new requests? Can you help me?-- Karcha 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)