I know you're very busy, but if you have time, would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Weirdoactor? The thread will explain - and apologies for waylaying you like this. Please let me know if there is anything I can do - thanks much. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Voila! — SlamDiego 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, On 4 Jan, DianaW commented that she thought she had been banned from editing the article on R.S. and then has not made any more editing of the Waldorf-related articles she earlier has been involved in, until once, five days later.
On 6 Jan, someone registers as "Wikiwag", and writes on 9 Jan "I've never edited on Wikipedia before." Yet, already the second day as registered user (7 Jan), "Wikiwag" makes appr. 27 edits of the article on Waldorf education, complete with edit summaries for basically all of them. According to WP:SP such behaviour is characteristic of sock puppets. Wikiwag then in discussion has developed a similar mutually supportive and defending partnership with PeteK as DianaW and at his Talks page has expressed support of him. Could you check if "Wikiwag" is a sock puppet of DianaW? Thanks, (and - regarding "gun slinger" - we do have the old "Sleep on" series from the 1990s with Brian Benben on Swedish TV..:) Thebee 12:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting the debate is not heated, but the rule that applies to glass houses should apply here. Thanks Durova! Pete K 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a few days behind. Had a very bad cold this week. The standard place to report suspected sockpuppets is WP:SSP. Durova Charge 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
And there we have it... the extent of TheBee's foundation for the claim of sockpuppetry. An apology to DianaW would be in order here, as well as one to Wikiwag. Pete K 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, Diana works as editor for different employers. If she has written her postings from different work places, that might make it difficult to investigate the issue, if she has taken this into account if using different UserIDs at Wikipedia. The IPs if sock puppetry is involved however probably ought to be in the same city area. As for Wikiwag, I have apologized to Wikiwag for at one time addressing him or her as "Mylady" instead of as "Captain, Sir", as Wikiwag has told is the way he or she likes to be addressed. Thebee 10:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thebee wrote here: "On a side note, Diana works as editor for different employers." I am stunned to find this here. How dare you? You have no right to discuss my employment on wikipedia. No right at all. I have never told you who I work for, nor have I ever, once, even conceivably mentioned on the Internet who my employers are - never.
Still, to address the substantive point requires one thing only: Check user. I write every posting from one computer. You will not find multiple IPs. (I don't think there have been any exceptions. I am sometimes at my parents who are in a different state, and have occasionally gotten online there but I don't think I've even browsed wikipedia there. There are several computers in our home, networked, but as far as I recall I've only used this one to write on wikipedia.) I suppose there is the off chance wikiwag is in the same city as me, but the odds of that are low. Check user will tell us. Thebee needs some kind of reprimand for discussing my employment situation here. I don't even know where he got the information from. DianaW 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note that above he suggests that even if checkuser were to clear me, he will not view that as a reason NOT to go on accusing me of sockpuppetry.
Please let me know what I need to do to have the arbitration committee address this. If it results in me being banned instead of him, so be it. I cannot tolerate that he is able to falsely accuse me with no recourse (he has repeated the accusation again today, and above implies that he will repeat it even if shown that it is not true). Durova, I was going to paste in my request here again but I'm sure you're following the relevant pages at this point - see thebee's talk page. Thanks. DianaW 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is one example (of what is apparently considered "admin shopping") documented by Pete, see the arbitration evidence page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Evidence and scroll to Harassment by thebee.
It is definitely not worth more time than this, as it is absurdly time consuming to flip from page to page trying to correlate dates to establish a pattern. I have noted before that I'm often bemused by the notions of "civility" at wikipedia (and think they really work against productiveness, as they encourage petty score keeping on very trivial matters, but that's another issue I suppose). It would not have occurred to me that remarking on this pattern of thebee's that is clearly evident to those following these conflicts over a period of time was "incivil" of me, let alone that it was a "serious accusation" as Durova said. I don't think of it as a serious accusation. It's just childishness. It would be as childish of me to "document" it as it is of him to do it. That's my notion of civility. "Documenting" and "reporting" nonsense like this escalates it. I noted it not to get him in trouble with someone but to point out how difficult it is to even know what one has been accused of when the accuser's own activities are devilishly difficult to keep track of. I hope this clarifies somewhat, and maybe even gets me off whatever hook of "incivility" I'm currently on.DianaW 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thebee, I have said many times that I am a medical editor but I am certain beyond doubt that I have not described who my employers are, where they are, or how many of them there are. Your assumption that the people I work for, if freelance, are in the same city is itself off base. If I were using multiple accounts, they could as easily come from addresses in Hong Kong as from my physical location in the States. All the major publishers that I have worked for have offices all over the world and a minority of people are physically in those offices using those computers on a given day. Your conspiratorial theories about what we will learn if we get a check user are goofy. We will learn simply that DianaW and wikiwag are not the same account. You will not have grounds to go on insisting there is anything suspicious about this. Even if wikiwag and I were in the same general area it would not mean he/she is me, as I live in a very large metropolitan area. (There are 5 Waldorf schools that I could drive to from where I sit at the moment, and active local chapters of anthroposophists in several towns within driving distance, not to mention doubtless anthroposophical projects I don't know about. There are therefore hundreds of people associated with these institutions or projects who could decide to contribute to anthroposophy-related topics.)
Conversely, there are literally dozens of cities that wikiwag could be posting from and it would not prove thathe or she is NOT me. This is nonsense. DianaW 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I queried a checkuser clerk and the response was not very encouraging. [6] Bee, go ahead and try WP:RFCU if you're serious about this and if they turn down the request take it over to WP:SSP. It would be best to have a completely neutral investigator look into the claim. In my experience checkuser has come back negative every time when a challenged editor responded, Yes, let's get a checkuser. I'd like to clear the air. The actual sockpuppets get evasive. I doubt this is worth pursuing: the other account seems to have gone inactive and Diana wasn't actually blocked when it was active.
Regarding personal information, don't post anyone's information other than your own to Wikipedia unless that other person already disclosed it on this site and the situation makes its repetition necessary. If I were a checkuser admin and the request had been accepted for investigation then it might have been relevant to e-mail something along those lines. I've already explained that I don't have that ability. Diana has complained repeatedly during this dispute that certain people have made unwelcome and inaccurate disclosures about her personal life. This is a major foul. The corrolary to that, for Pete and Diana, is to be careful what you disclose. Sometimes people have tried to coax information out of me by posting guesses that seem to invite correction (the most common one is the supposition that my username makes me Russian). So Diana, tell me if you would like part or all of this thread deleted. Out of respect for your privacy I'll make that your call. Durova Charge 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
i have been blocked for being a suspected sock puppet of awilliamson. i see you unblocked elizabeth87 who you thought was falsely accused. i was hoping to convince you that i have been falsely accused as well. for starters, i am australian. all of my IP addresses should confirm this. your article "Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc" states that the vandal "refuses to discuss changes on the talk page". A quick look at my contributions will show several entries in the relevant talk page. your article states the vandal enhances the "reverence toward Joan of Arc". I am a doctor and an atheist and feel that Joan's visions might have been hallucinations. My edits (until i grew tired of battling the catholic fundamentalists and stopped editing) were along these lines. Take a look at my edit of Joan of Arc of may 4 2006 - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joan_of_Arc&diff=prev&oldid=51467413. I removed the drivel "Since this is an unproven assumption about the nature of God, the medical community would not normally use it as the basis for a diagnosis of mental illness" with the note "the medical community generally considers people who hear voices from god to be mentally ill". Is that consistent with this awilliamson fellow? My contribution history will not show any alterations to any footnotes, as mentioned in your article. also, my edits were in no way limited to joan of arc. several edits related to australian issues. my efforts to get the block lifted so far has been in vain. the administrators who looked at the block focussed on the fact that i stopped editing a while back, and they didn't begin to explore the merits of the case against me. (they also took offense at me pointing out this fact). there is no wikipedia policy i know of where users on a wikibreak are denied natural justice. again, would appreciate having my name cleared. Cwiki 124.185.86.106 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. Cwiki 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hope the cold is getting better. SirFozzie 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I have a favour to ask - this mentorship is hard work - but I think it is working, and things have got a bit more civil over the last few days since I got by feet wet and involved see - User_talk:Lethaniol/Pete_K and Talk:Waldorf education.
The favour is a few questions - I have been putting a lot of effort into this work and I want to know if it is worthwhile? Do you think my direct interventions have been helping? Is there anything I have been doing wrong, or could do better? Should I step back and not get so involved? And such like - your opinions would be very valuable to me :) :)
Cheers Lethaniol 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Lethaniol, I've already given you one barnstar. You are very seriously on the road to becoming the first editor to receive a second award from me (which is kind of like getting a second Academy Award or a second Nobel Prize...in its own small way). I just don't want to see you burn yourself out. All of the named editors in the Waldorf case would benefit from mentorship. You've taken two of them under your wing in a formal sense and are digging much deeper into the matter than mentorship really requires. If you want to double as mediator, that's your perogative. There's no guarantee how this will turn out. Whatever the outcome, you've done your very best.
And Pete, check out Wikipedia:Barnstars. Durova Charge 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For "getting to the bottom of things" in the Waldorf Education arbitration - Pete K 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
Would it be inappropriate to move the WP:SSP discussion from TheBee's talk page to this page? I'm concerned that it resides on TheBee's talk page and could look bad to arbitrators looking at it later. Would it be too much of an imposition, Durova, to ask you to move it here or to Lethaniol's talk page? I would do it, but I suspect it would look bad. Thanks! Pete K 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay okay, it's Joyce Kilmer, you might have seen a notice on WP:ANI about it yesterday, I guess my post to the village pump was a little passive aggressive. I'm concerned that User:ExplorerCDT is being exceedingly abusive on the talk page and in his editing activity in his laudable quest to single-handedly bring the article to a higher standard. I was frankly shocked at the abuse he is piling onto other well-intentioned editors, including User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), with whom he seems to have an uneasy truce at the moment. He even requested a peer review but doesn't seem open to the edits that came about as a result. The article history demonstrates a long trail of him reverting other editor's changes; it's not just about his recent feud with User:Alansohn. Of course, every edit he makes could be defended one at a time but it all adds up to him being the article's stated gatekeeper. Also, today he completely commandeered the talk page with a vast FA to-do list. Perhaps this hasn't added up to anything actionable, but I wouldn't touch that article with a 10-foot pole knowing that everything I might do is open to his scorn. Thanks for your attention and sorry if you think this is a tempest in a teacup on my part for bringing it up!-- Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oden has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:smile}}, {{
subst:smile2}} or {{
subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- Oden 12:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, need you please to semi-protect Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service because a user blanked the page and his user name is a personal attack against me, a link to this history is here as mentioned earlier his username is a personal attack attack against my real life name, and it goes against Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I do think this user is a sockuppet of Wateva100 and I'm aksing you to block him and his IP address to stop this vandalism for good.
I think that this user is an impersonater of User:wateva100. I believe that both accounts are belonging to somebody who I know and that their vandalising the article to annoy me. Now the Dieguy Username is an personal attack on me because Guy is my name and it's threating towards me. If you need to aks me any more questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks for all your help.
Telly
addict 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment on User_talk:Ilena and am not sure what if any of the comments about mentoring are directed toward me. To clarify my position, I'm not trying to mentor her in any way. I'm trying to minimize the problems she's been having since the first ANI about her, mostly by removing inappropriate comments from her on Talk pages that serve no purpose other than to create conflict and hostility. I did make a recent attempt to help her with Sally Kirkland which I thought went fairly well. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to assume she would take my edits in good faith. -- Ronz 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to provide your insight on the Joyce Kilmer talk page. I too have been trying to figure out why all the hostility. The friction has been over minor issues that I do not think will make or break achieving FA status and I could not figure out why the hostility until your post. I think you are right that the slant of the article may be causing some of the friction, but I do not think any of the editors intend to slant the article one way or another. You also pointed out that the article received a GA award, but did not receive extensive notes on what needs to be done to move the article from GA towards FA status. I think the friction over minor issues arose because of a lack of major issue direction on how to move the article forward from GA towards FA status. The article review you provided gives the editors good direction on what to do next, which hopefully should end the hostilities over the minor issues. Again, thank you for your help and insight. -- Jreferee 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. And thanks also for your help in focusing Talk:Joyce Kilmer toward the goal of WP:FA. Durova Charge 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I e-mailed you. Prodego talk 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember you once blocked an IP user (El Jigüe) for 'blogging'. What do you think about this case? [7]. EJ was usually giving links and thus expressing his views, but here we have a user who has clearly mistaken Wikipedia for MySpace. Constanz - Talk 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the nomination, and I thought it was an accurate criticism. My only thought is that you should add the information into the article. <3 Clamster 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I know you're very busy, but if you have time, would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Weirdoactor? The thread will explain - and apologies for waylaying you like this. Please let me know if there is anything I can do - thanks much. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Voila! — SlamDiego 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, On 4 Jan, DianaW commented that she thought she had been banned from editing the article on R.S. and then has not made any more editing of the Waldorf-related articles she earlier has been involved in, until once, five days later.
On 6 Jan, someone registers as "Wikiwag", and writes on 9 Jan "I've never edited on Wikipedia before." Yet, already the second day as registered user (7 Jan), "Wikiwag" makes appr. 27 edits of the article on Waldorf education, complete with edit summaries for basically all of them. According to WP:SP such behaviour is characteristic of sock puppets. Wikiwag then in discussion has developed a similar mutually supportive and defending partnership with PeteK as DianaW and at his Talks page has expressed support of him. Could you check if "Wikiwag" is a sock puppet of DianaW? Thanks, (and - regarding "gun slinger" - we do have the old "Sleep on" series from the 1990s with Brian Benben on Swedish TV..:) Thebee 12:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting the debate is not heated, but the rule that applies to glass houses should apply here. Thanks Durova! Pete K 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a few days behind. Had a very bad cold this week. The standard place to report suspected sockpuppets is WP:SSP. Durova Charge 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
And there we have it... the extent of TheBee's foundation for the claim of sockpuppetry. An apology to DianaW would be in order here, as well as one to Wikiwag. Pete K 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, Diana works as editor for different employers. If she has written her postings from different work places, that might make it difficult to investigate the issue, if she has taken this into account if using different UserIDs at Wikipedia. The IPs if sock puppetry is involved however probably ought to be in the same city area. As for Wikiwag, I have apologized to Wikiwag for at one time addressing him or her as "Mylady" instead of as "Captain, Sir", as Wikiwag has told is the way he or she likes to be addressed. Thebee 10:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thebee wrote here: "On a side note, Diana works as editor for different employers." I am stunned to find this here. How dare you? You have no right to discuss my employment on wikipedia. No right at all. I have never told you who I work for, nor have I ever, once, even conceivably mentioned on the Internet who my employers are - never.
Still, to address the substantive point requires one thing only: Check user. I write every posting from one computer. You will not find multiple IPs. (I don't think there have been any exceptions. I am sometimes at my parents who are in a different state, and have occasionally gotten online there but I don't think I've even browsed wikipedia there. There are several computers in our home, networked, but as far as I recall I've only used this one to write on wikipedia.) I suppose there is the off chance wikiwag is in the same city as me, but the odds of that are low. Check user will tell us. Thebee needs some kind of reprimand for discussing my employment situation here. I don't even know where he got the information from. DianaW 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note that above he suggests that even if checkuser were to clear me, he will not view that as a reason NOT to go on accusing me of sockpuppetry.
Please let me know what I need to do to have the arbitration committee address this. If it results in me being banned instead of him, so be it. I cannot tolerate that he is able to falsely accuse me with no recourse (he has repeated the accusation again today, and above implies that he will repeat it even if shown that it is not true). Durova, I was going to paste in my request here again but I'm sure you're following the relevant pages at this point - see thebee's talk page. Thanks. DianaW 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is one example (of what is apparently considered "admin shopping") documented by Pete, see the arbitration evidence page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Evidence and scroll to Harassment by thebee.
It is definitely not worth more time than this, as it is absurdly time consuming to flip from page to page trying to correlate dates to establish a pattern. I have noted before that I'm often bemused by the notions of "civility" at wikipedia (and think they really work against productiveness, as they encourage petty score keeping on very trivial matters, but that's another issue I suppose). It would not have occurred to me that remarking on this pattern of thebee's that is clearly evident to those following these conflicts over a period of time was "incivil" of me, let alone that it was a "serious accusation" as Durova said. I don't think of it as a serious accusation. It's just childishness. It would be as childish of me to "document" it as it is of him to do it. That's my notion of civility. "Documenting" and "reporting" nonsense like this escalates it. I noted it not to get him in trouble with someone but to point out how difficult it is to even know what one has been accused of when the accuser's own activities are devilishly difficult to keep track of. I hope this clarifies somewhat, and maybe even gets me off whatever hook of "incivility" I'm currently on.DianaW 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thebee, I have said many times that I am a medical editor but I am certain beyond doubt that I have not described who my employers are, where they are, or how many of them there are. Your assumption that the people I work for, if freelance, are in the same city is itself off base. If I were using multiple accounts, they could as easily come from addresses in Hong Kong as from my physical location in the States. All the major publishers that I have worked for have offices all over the world and a minority of people are physically in those offices using those computers on a given day. Your conspiratorial theories about what we will learn if we get a check user are goofy. We will learn simply that DianaW and wikiwag are not the same account. You will not have grounds to go on insisting there is anything suspicious about this. Even if wikiwag and I were in the same general area it would not mean he/she is me, as I live in a very large metropolitan area. (There are 5 Waldorf schools that I could drive to from where I sit at the moment, and active local chapters of anthroposophists in several towns within driving distance, not to mention doubtless anthroposophical projects I don't know about. There are therefore hundreds of people associated with these institutions or projects who could decide to contribute to anthroposophy-related topics.)
Conversely, there are literally dozens of cities that wikiwag could be posting from and it would not prove thathe or she is NOT me. This is nonsense. DianaW 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I queried a checkuser clerk and the response was not very encouraging. [6] Bee, go ahead and try WP:RFCU if you're serious about this and if they turn down the request take it over to WP:SSP. It would be best to have a completely neutral investigator look into the claim. In my experience checkuser has come back negative every time when a challenged editor responded, Yes, let's get a checkuser. I'd like to clear the air. The actual sockpuppets get evasive. I doubt this is worth pursuing: the other account seems to have gone inactive and Diana wasn't actually blocked when it was active.
Regarding personal information, don't post anyone's information other than your own to Wikipedia unless that other person already disclosed it on this site and the situation makes its repetition necessary. If I were a checkuser admin and the request had been accepted for investigation then it might have been relevant to e-mail something along those lines. I've already explained that I don't have that ability. Diana has complained repeatedly during this dispute that certain people have made unwelcome and inaccurate disclosures about her personal life. This is a major foul. The corrolary to that, for Pete and Diana, is to be careful what you disclose. Sometimes people have tried to coax information out of me by posting guesses that seem to invite correction (the most common one is the supposition that my username makes me Russian). So Diana, tell me if you would like part or all of this thread deleted. Out of respect for your privacy I'll make that your call. Durova Charge 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
i have been blocked for being a suspected sock puppet of awilliamson. i see you unblocked elizabeth87 who you thought was falsely accused. i was hoping to convince you that i have been falsely accused as well. for starters, i am australian. all of my IP addresses should confirm this. your article "Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc" states that the vandal "refuses to discuss changes on the talk page". A quick look at my contributions will show several entries in the relevant talk page. your article states the vandal enhances the "reverence toward Joan of Arc". I am a doctor and an atheist and feel that Joan's visions might have been hallucinations. My edits (until i grew tired of battling the catholic fundamentalists and stopped editing) were along these lines. Take a look at my edit of Joan of Arc of may 4 2006 - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joan_of_Arc&diff=prev&oldid=51467413. I removed the drivel "Since this is an unproven assumption about the nature of God, the medical community would not normally use it as the basis for a diagnosis of mental illness" with the note "the medical community generally considers people who hear voices from god to be mentally ill". Is that consistent with this awilliamson fellow? My contribution history will not show any alterations to any footnotes, as mentioned in your article. also, my edits were in no way limited to joan of arc. several edits related to australian issues. my efforts to get the block lifted so far has been in vain. the administrators who looked at the block focussed on the fact that i stopped editing a while back, and they didn't begin to explore the merits of the case against me. (they also took offense at me pointing out this fact). there is no wikipedia policy i know of where users on a wikibreak are denied natural justice. again, would appreciate having my name cleared. Cwiki 124.185.86.106 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. Cwiki 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hope the cold is getting better. SirFozzie 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I have a favour to ask - this mentorship is hard work - but I think it is working, and things have got a bit more civil over the last few days since I got by feet wet and involved see - User_talk:Lethaniol/Pete_K and Talk:Waldorf education.
The favour is a few questions - I have been putting a lot of effort into this work and I want to know if it is worthwhile? Do you think my direct interventions have been helping? Is there anything I have been doing wrong, or could do better? Should I step back and not get so involved? And such like - your opinions would be very valuable to me :) :)
Cheers Lethaniol 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Lethaniol, I've already given you one barnstar. You are very seriously on the road to becoming the first editor to receive a second award from me (which is kind of like getting a second Academy Award or a second Nobel Prize...in its own small way). I just don't want to see you burn yourself out. All of the named editors in the Waldorf case would benefit from mentorship. You've taken two of them under your wing in a formal sense and are digging much deeper into the matter than mentorship really requires. If you want to double as mediator, that's your perogative. There's no guarantee how this will turn out. Whatever the outcome, you've done your very best.
And Pete, check out Wikipedia:Barnstars. Durova Charge 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For "getting to the bottom of things" in the Waldorf Education arbitration - Pete K 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
Would it be inappropriate to move the WP:SSP discussion from TheBee's talk page to this page? I'm concerned that it resides on TheBee's talk page and could look bad to arbitrators looking at it later. Would it be too much of an imposition, Durova, to ask you to move it here or to Lethaniol's talk page? I would do it, but I suspect it would look bad. Thanks! Pete K 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay okay, it's Joyce Kilmer, you might have seen a notice on WP:ANI about it yesterday, I guess my post to the village pump was a little passive aggressive. I'm concerned that User:ExplorerCDT is being exceedingly abusive on the talk page and in his editing activity in his laudable quest to single-handedly bring the article to a higher standard. I was frankly shocked at the abuse he is piling onto other well-intentioned editors, including User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), with whom he seems to have an uneasy truce at the moment. He even requested a peer review but doesn't seem open to the edits that came about as a result. The article history demonstrates a long trail of him reverting other editor's changes; it's not just about his recent feud with User:Alansohn. Of course, every edit he makes could be defended one at a time but it all adds up to him being the article's stated gatekeeper. Also, today he completely commandeered the talk page with a vast FA to-do list. Perhaps this hasn't added up to anything actionable, but I wouldn't touch that article with a 10-foot pole knowing that everything I might do is open to his scorn. Thanks for your attention and sorry if you think this is a tempest in a teacup on my part for bringing it up!-- Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oden has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:smile}}, {{
subst:smile2}} or {{
subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- Oden 12:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, need you please to semi-protect Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service because a user blanked the page and his user name is a personal attack against me, a link to this history is here as mentioned earlier his username is a personal attack attack against my real life name, and it goes against Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I do think this user is a sockuppet of Wateva100 and I'm aksing you to block him and his IP address to stop this vandalism for good.
I think that this user is an impersonater of User:wateva100. I believe that both accounts are belonging to somebody who I know and that their vandalising the article to annoy me. Now the Dieguy Username is an personal attack on me because Guy is my name and it's threating towards me. If you need to aks me any more questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks for all your help.
Telly
addict 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment on User_talk:Ilena and am not sure what if any of the comments about mentoring are directed toward me. To clarify my position, I'm not trying to mentor her in any way. I'm trying to minimize the problems she's been having since the first ANI about her, mostly by removing inappropriate comments from her on Talk pages that serve no purpose other than to create conflict and hostility. I did make a recent attempt to help her with Sally Kirkland which I thought went fairly well. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to assume she would take my edits in good faith. -- Ronz 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to provide your insight on the Joyce Kilmer talk page. I too have been trying to figure out why all the hostility. The friction has been over minor issues that I do not think will make or break achieving FA status and I could not figure out why the hostility until your post. I think you are right that the slant of the article may be causing some of the friction, but I do not think any of the editors intend to slant the article one way or another. You also pointed out that the article received a GA award, but did not receive extensive notes on what needs to be done to move the article from GA towards FA status. I think the friction over minor issues arose because of a lack of major issue direction on how to move the article forward from GA towards FA status. The article review you provided gives the editors good direction on what to do next, which hopefully should end the hostilities over the minor issues. Again, thank you for your help and insight. -- Jreferee 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. And thanks also for your help in focusing Talk:Joyce Kilmer toward the goal of WP:FA. Durova Charge 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I e-mailed you. Prodego talk 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember you once blocked an IP user (El Jigüe) for 'blogging'. What do you think about this case? [7]. EJ was usually giving links and thus expressing his views, but here we have a user who has clearly mistaken Wikipedia for MySpace. Constanz - Talk 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the nomination, and I thought it was an accurate criticism. My only thought is that you should add the information into the article. <3 Clamster 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)