I have made some changes to the board, transcluded the header, and added archives. My question is, how do we get Essjaybot II to archive it automatically similar to the other noticeboards? Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That question is out of my field. I appreciate the effort you've put into this. Looks like the board creation might have jumped the gun, though. Perhaps a few words from you at WP:AN would prevent this from appearing in the wrong light to some people. Durova ^Charge! 04:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I posted at WP:AN, I agree with the proposal, however, if I have gone beyond consensus, I welcome reversion of my revisions. :P Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 04:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for posting. We'll see how it goes. Mostly support, so things are probably fine. Durova ^Charge! 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

(reduce indent) Hopefully. Also... if you get some free time, would you critique me. Link is in my sig. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 04:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I had looked from your sig and browsed that board - it certainly needs replies. One good turn deserves another. Durova ^Charge! 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It's there, although there's nothing in it that couldn't be said here just as well. Durova ^Charge! 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

(reduce) Yeah your right... could have said it here. I like the threaded discussion though. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

In your opinion, do you think I'm ready for the mop? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Not yet. I've looked up your edit summary. [1] You've been active for less than three months and only have about 500 mainspace edits. That's pushing things even for the more generous RFA voters. I like to see people who've spent more time down in the trenches. It makes a difference. Get to work on that combat lifesaver page and raise it to a good article, become active in a Wikiproject. You're on the right path. Give it some more time. Durova ^Charge! 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I do appreciate your feedback here on my my ER2... I have not yet considered a wikiproject yet, thanks for pointing it out. Youi appear experienced, if I do have questions regarding wikipedia every now and again, would you be averse me emailing you? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

(outdent) Go for it. Cheers, Durova ^Charge! 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I am interested in training to be a mediator. G e o. Talk to me 02:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I see from your user page that you're a checkuser clerk and you have mediation experience. That looks good. How's your experience with arbitration? Durova ^Charge! 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I am an Advocate, and a member of the AMA's Arbitration Team. Anything else? G e o. Talk to me 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The proposal you posted to WP:CN raises my eyebrow a little. Care to discuss the genesis? Durova ^Charge! 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That proposal is something i have been kicking around for awhile. G e o. Talk to me 03:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Then let me ask you a question (crib this with as much side reading as you like) describe two community enforced mediation cases you wouldn't accept and one that you would close without resolving. No names please. Just make them up as scenarios. Durova ^Charge! 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

A adds a properly cited link to Che Guevara. B is a sysop, who goes in and reverts the contribution as vandalism. A files for CEM, B agrees. A refuses to discuss anything except for calling for B's desysopping. I would close the case and point to Arbcom.

C and D disagree about how Chiropractic should read, and file for CEM. I would not accept that case , because I could be seen as having a bias.

E and F are arguing about a edit to Warcraft, E requests an Advocate and I am assigned. E and F file for CEM, I would not accept the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo.plrd ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC). reply

You know what I like? None of those are lifted from existing talk discussions but they're all valid examples. Okay, I'll list you as a trainee. One heads up: there's a range of people on the trainee list, not necessarily one person better than another but some I've worked with extensively before. Don't feel slighted if I make someone else a full mediator ahead of you - it isn't quite the same starting gate for everyone. Hope you're cool with that. Durova ^Charge! 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

i understand completely G e o. Talk to me 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm asking all the trainees to look at the thread near the bottom of the proposal page where an editor points out how community mediation could go wrong. Add your thoughts at the bottom. Cheers, Durova ^Charge! 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Wow, thank you for offering! Sure, I'd like very much to be coached by you. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Let's start with why you'd like to be sysopped. And if you haven't read it already, wander up to the image at the top of this page and click the link at the caption. I specialize in complex investigations, so if AFD closures are what you'd like to do I wouldn't be that much help. But the stuff I do handle is darned interesting. Cheers, Durova ^Charge! 21:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I'd like to be sysoped because I have a lot of time on my hands, and I feel I could better use it with the tools. I'd like to help with WP:AN, and it's subpage, WP:AN/I. I have them on my watchlist, and I read a bit occaisionally, but I don't feel helpful, since most discussions are admin-related. I also just learned about WP:SSP, and I plan on helping there as well. Then there's CAT:CSD, CAT:RFU, and CAT:PER. Finally, the obvious WP:AIV. I've already read the link you mention, and think it includes a few valuable lessons all admins should keep in mind. I don't really like AFD; it bores me, so I only go when I'm already bored. :) I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "complex investigations", but it sounds just fine for my taste (is it for sockpuppetry?). · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

They aren't always so shifty, but one particularly troublesome one I took down is summarized at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. Durova ^Charge! 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Wow, POV pushers usually don't come that bad. I had a similar instance when I was mediating at the White people article, but they were willing to discuss. I was wondering though, why did you write that long page? It must have taken up a lot of time. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It was considerably less work to document his damage than to continue tracking it and fixing it. I wasn't an administrator yet at the time when I first wrote that up and the whole business was so weird and complex that people reacted as if I were nutty when I mentioned it. Most investigations aren't nearly that complex. Just remember that sort of person does exist. Now that Wikipedia's become one of the top dozen Alexa sites there's an increasing problem with a different sort of problem POV editing: not out of ideology but for the profit motive. The recent Microsoft incident that made headlines is the tip of that iceberg. If this sort of thing interests you, that's what I handle. When an editor is new I do my best to get them on the right track. It isn't always clear at the outset whether someone could become a productive Wikipedian, and of course that's what we want to generate if possible. Does this sort of thing whet your appetite? We've got a shortage of detectives at the project and I'd like to help fix that by coaching some people in what I do. Durova ^Charge! 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It sounds very interesting; I'd love to help. Of course, I'll probably be very bad, but maybe I'll get it after a while. :-) · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Just for starters then, try scanning WP:ANI for unanswered investigation requests over one day old. That noticeboard usually has a few of them. Ask the posters to provide page diffs if they haven't done so already and check the relevant page histories. Be aware that a fair portion of the time the editor who requests an investigation is the primary instigator of the problem (the request is a political move for that sort of person). Check in with me as needed. Durova ^Charge! 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, I will do that soon. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, the best I could find was WP:ANI#User:Publicroutes, and WP:ANI#Vandalism and personal threats from anonymous IP. These two seem obvious cases, and, I think, should be on WP:SSP, or given warnings and blocked. I'll try on WP:SSP later, to see if I have more luck there. · AndonicO ^Talk 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

(outdent) SSP could use the help. Durova ^Charge! 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Did I do it right here? Or am I supposed to answer differently? · AndonicO ^Talk 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

If I fit the mold, I would like to help as a mediator. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 01:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I like what I saw. Do you have any experience with arbitration? Durova ^Charge! 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

No real experience with arbitration, however, I believe I have the traits. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

There's a thread near the bottom of the proposal talk page that outlines how this type of mediation could go wrong. Read it and post your comments there. Durova ^Charge! 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

(ri) Ok. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I've added you to the list. Durova ^Charge! 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I ran across the Community enforced mediation page and would be interested in becoming a mediator in training. I've done a small bit of work at WP:3O and attempted to take a case for Mediation cabal, but the person who brought the case never got back to me. I think this forum has a lot of potential to improve on both of those processes (though not necessarily supplant them entirely). Off-wiki, I have received formal consensus training and attempted to start a mediation group at my undergraduate college (I went to Haverford College and was actually co-Chair of the Honor Council there). I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have for me - you can reply either here or on my talk page. Thanks in advance, JaimeLesMaths ^{( talk! edits)} 06:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

What's your experience with arbitration? Durova ^Charge! 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BTW, have a look at the long thread near the bottom of the proposal talk page. It outlines some ways that the program could go wrong. I'm asking all trainees to add their responses at the bottom of it. Durova ^Charge! 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

For arbitration experience IRL, I had to chair a pretty wrenching trial at Haverford (I was Porkchop). If you read the abstract, you'll see that there were many different opinions, but we were able to come to a consensus, and I think we made the right decision. My philosophy is that it's generally best when the parties involved work out the problem on their own, but, in some cases, those solutions don't address the violation of community standards that occurred. Through a public, on-wiki process where every Wikipedian can observe and comment, I believe that we can address those issues when rulings are made. In terms of WP:ARBCOM, I've never been involved in a case, but I've read almost every case decision. I think that most of ArbCom's decisions are just and for the good of the whole Wikipedia community. There have been a few cases that didn't adequately address the problems, and those often necessitated further cases. I also believe that most people can be rehabilitated, and I believe that most decisions recognize that, not banning someone unless it's truly deserved. I'll take a look at that other thread and comment there. -- JaimeLesMaths ^{( talk! edits)} 10:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Additionally, I proposed a mediation board at my undergraduate college, one that could be used as a step before Honor Council. I've posted my proposal of that mediation group here, if you're interested. Feel free to cannabalize any idea you find intriguing. -- JaimeLesMaths ^{( talk! edits)} 11:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That sounds good to me. You're in. I'll add your name to the list. Durova ^Charge! 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks muchly! I've taken on a WP:MEDCAB case ( Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Hectagon) in the meantime, as per your suggestion. -- JaimeLesMaths ^{( talk! edits)} 05:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Of course I'm quite willing to discuss the underlying policy issues. However, the point is that in the past few weeks, Jeff has filed two mediation requests (both rejected) that boil down to "has Radiant stopped beating his wife", and is trying hard to depict me as a tendentious editor, disruptive stalker, and "someone who has never made any positive contributions", on several public forums including the admin noticeboard. We really can't be having a decent conversation until he stops making such attacks and accusations, and is willing to discuss in a civil manner instead. Unfortunately, he has flat out refused to stop making personal attacks until I make him "concessions". So like I said before, if someone (e.g. you) can get him to retract those accusations and attacks, and to stop making them in the future, I'd be happy do discuss our disagreements. >Radiant< 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Except that you have acted as a tendentious editor and I never called you a stalker. I was planning on escalating this to ArbCom last week, but since I'm sure neither of us want that and we both approve of Durova's proposal, I figured it might be a way to solve our problem AND advance a rare common goal between the two of us. So it's up to you, the ball is in your court - we can do it Durova's way or we can go the ArbCom route. *shrug* -- badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

May I suggest some structure to this? A community enforced mediation would be a chance to say I won't if you won't and demonstrate you can both walk that walk. You'd both talk things over and figure out how to move forward. Would you be willing to try that? Durova ^Charge! 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• It appears Jeff is not willing to try that - see WP:RFAr for details. >Radiant< 10:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I've posted. The window remains open here, but it looks as if the committee will close it soon. Durova ^Charge! 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• We've started this though. >Radiant< 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I hope it goes well. Best wishes, Durova ^Charge! 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm really happy to hear that you are interested in participating. Please send me an email when you can! It is sordonez@wikimedia.org. We definitely need more volunteers to deal with press.

sandy --~~~~

Replied by e-mail. Durova ^Charge! 21:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Durova, you offered to look into this violation of CIV/NPA. I think the whole thing was forgotten when WP:PAIN was discontinued, and the matter remains unresolved. Would you still be interested in picking up where we left off when Ghirlandajo returns? Appleseed ( Talk) 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Ghirla and Piotrus had tentatively agreed to mutual civility parole through mediation. So if Ghirla becomes more active and that agreement proceeds it would probably cover the type of behavior in that diff if that problem happened again. Considering the site nearly lost one of its most productive editors in the two months since that diff, a request based on that comes across as ungracious. Durova ^Charge! 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

In that case I shall observe the mediation with great interest. Durova, your interaction with Ghirlandajo may have been positive, but many editors have not been that fortunate. Productivity is no excuse for personal attacks and incivility, which drive good editors away from WP. Appleseed ( Talk) 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I realize the Eastern European topics have seen a lot of disputes - often involving editors who are themselves very active and generally positive to the project. To the extent that I can I'd like to help people work past that and focus more energies on improving Wikipedia. Let's hope things move forward. Regards, Durova ^Charge! 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

What is a major problem is certain users frivolously invoking WP:CIV and WP:NPA simply to get an upper hand in the content disputes by calling for their opponent's blocks or simply deflecting the discussion from the issues at hand. This, for instance, is a recent example of such trick. Unwarranted accusations of personal attacks are outright offensive but ther repeatedly recur. What was done to several editors multiple times has become more difficult to repeat as WP:RFI and WP:PAIN has been deleted specifically due to the instances of their frivolous use. I hope the community will make it clear that resorting to wikilawyering to win the content disputes is frown upon. WP:CIV and WP:NPA being written and aimed to address the instances of the real abuse are misused all too often to get an unethical advantage against the content opponents by submitting misleading and frivolous complaints. -- Irpen 05:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You and I come from different perspectives on this, yet I think we share the goal of wanting the problems to get solved with fairness. Obviously my proposal for community enforced mediation has some of its origins in those topics. If you know other one-on-one situations (besides Piotrus-Ghirla) within the broader context of Eastern European topics where the editors are longstanding users with basically positive contribution histories, you might suggest they talk to me about opening a case. I'm suggesting that on the hunch that a few well-placed and basically voluntary mutual civility paroles or revert paroles might calm things down on that area in general. The proposal has Jimbo's support and the support of several members of ArbCom, so if there's an actual case to hear I think the community would approve it experimentally. I'd mediate the earliest cases myself. Does that sound like a promising solution to you? Durova ^Charge! 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that this is a good idea in theory but I do not know whether it will work. The problem is that all sorts of dispute resolution pages attract all the breeds of wrong people whose contribution only inflame matters. The basic idea of the process' being voluntary is that both sides have to agree on who mediates between them. Editors like you, JzG and maybe a couple of others are unlikely to raise any objections from the party acting in good faith and whose interest is truly to resolve the problem. But nothing can prevent all sorts of wrong people who are just eager to participate from inflaming matters. My experience with the several users most active at the Mediation pages has been mostly negative and I just do not want to name names. It would be wonderful if you could mediate yourself all the time but, firstly, you do have other commitments onwiki and in RL and, besides, as shown by the ridiculous case that was the final straw to bring about the WP:RFI deletion, even you can be duped into making some hasty decisions which, like in the case of Piotrus' requested block of Dr Dan. Similarly, the unwarranted Appleseeds wikilawyering against Ghirla at PAIN triggered the deletion of that inflammatory page. I am now thinking that this page should follow suit. If the new type of mediation you propose can be kept free from intrusion of those who should not be there and if you could be not only fair but firm in cracking down on wikilawyering being presented as the serious complaints, this might actually work very well. -- Irpen 19:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

We've got two different issues here and somewhat different philosophical views on both of them. I'll address the boards first. In my experience, some people will attempt to exploit any format for tactical gain in a dispute. I've seen it at WP:RFC, at WP:30, at the administrators' noticeboards, at arbitration, at Village Pump, etc. They depend on baiting the other party to muddy the waters and present something that looks superficially valid. The disadvantage to removing boards that magnetize that sort of behavior is that the same people roam more freely, exploiting the good faith of different good editors who don't have the chance to see the history. When WP:PAIN and WP:RFI had enough oversight, that sort of problem editor got weeded out of the project faster and with less attrition from the good users the troublemaker was antagonizing. I understood the logic of rolling those two boards together because they did overlap, but I believe it was a serious mistake to get rid of them both. What I'm seeking to do is cultivate more potential admins who specialize in complex investigations. That hasn't been a priority at RFA and it ought to be - and that shortage is the reason things broke down in that area. I was on the ground floor when it happened so I think my analysis counts for something. I believe you're sincere and doing what you believe is best for the project. So I hope you respect where I'm coming from too.

As for the mediation idea, Guy and I are used to dealing with editors who act in bad faith. We've both sent quite a few disputes to arbitration. Nobody bats .1000 at that game, but (if you follow the baseball analogy) we're good at reading the pitches or we wouldn't be in this league. Durova ^Charge! 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thanks for your thoughts on this issue. I don't know what that user "Langara College"'s problem is. I have a feeling that is a sock puppet name for another user that has been harassing me. These people have been harassing and trying to gang up on me for some time now. I appreciate that you see that I am a serious editor and that my contributions are worthy ones. Thanks again for your thoughts. Sorry that these people are wasting your time. - Donteatyellowsnow 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, from the edits and diffs I saw you may have been too quick to assume bad faith on topics that relate to Canada's entertainment industry. I wouldn't be surprised if some editors felt alienated. How about extending an olive branch? Durova ^Charge! 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Durova,

I would like to ask you the favour of being an admin coach for me. I have been active as an editor since July 2006, with some lulls in activity last fall. I've been working mainly on bringing one page, Royal Canadian Air Cadets towards featured article status, but have also participated in the editing and cleanup of some other articles. I like to contribute to discussions on articles for deletion and have been recently contributing to discussion regarding notability guidelines. I welcome new users when ever I notice they have made an edit to an article I've been working on. I also have recently started warning users/anons for vandalism, spam, etc. I would like to eventually become an administrator because there seems to be many a backlog that I could help out with. I don't know what you will expect from me in this relationship, but I have generally had time lately to make about 10 edits per day. Some direction in rounding out my experience at Wikipedia would be appreciated as well as any comments about my current contributions, or whatever has seemed to be helpful in the past. One more thing that interests me is how to help out in a situation like was brought up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#11-February-2007 regarding a suspected sock-puppet. Sancho McCann 07:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Notability guidelines have developed significantly since I was a regular at AFD a year ago. If your primary interest is getting ready to close deletion discussions - a worthwhile goal - then I wouldn't be the best coach for you. The other areas come closer to what I do. I mop up after vandalism now and then, but what I really specialize in are complex investigations and dispute resolution. I've raised three different pages to featured status (one article, two lists) so I may be able to help you there, although my specific knowledge of Canadian Air Cadets is almost nil. That's what I do - so if you think I'm the right coach for you let me know. Cordially, Durova ^Charge! 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, yes please, I would like to get a little closer to the dispute resolution and handling of vandalism / incivility / etc. as well as any coincidental help you might be able to provide about the Air Cadets page. I feel somewhat comfortable with the various issues with notability and AfD discussions regarding notability and will develop in that area yet, but while you're available, I think it would be a good opportunity to explore these areas that you're familiar with. How should I start? Sancho McCann 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

For the article, begin by converting the list sections into prose. Try answering some article content requests for comment. That's how I started involving myself in dispute resolution. You'll encounter a little bit of everything over there. Check in when you have questions. Durova ^Charge! 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I thought you would like to see this Talk:Waldorf Education#Swedish Study and User talk:Fergie#Swedish Study, hopefully it will not get out of hand and things will settle down back into consensus reaching practise. Cheers Lethaniol 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Good luck. Although to be candid, the arbitration side of that debate has taken up far too much of my time. I do my best to avoid the content portion. Otherwise I'd never accomplish anything else. Durova ^Charge! 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Couldn't have done it without you! NorCalHistory 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Drop me a line when you're back from your Wikibreak. Great work you've done, and it's been a pleasure interacting with you. Best wishes, Durova ^Charge! 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not at all surprised to read your comment at Talk:Stephanie Adams that "playmates" are automatically accorded wikipediaworthiness. After all, any and every other mainstream product of the US entertainment industry seems to be. (Ditto for that part of the Japanese entertainment industry that has penetrated the US consciousness.) But you've got me thinking: Since I have zero interest in Adams, what the hell am I doing over there anyway? I really don't remember how I arrived there in the first place, but I probably read on WP:ANI or similar of some fight going on there and went over to help remove the silliness. You're most welcome to take over from me. And if, as I guess, you're as little interested as I am, perhaps you could invite the porn-loving admin Anonemouse (or similar name). -- Hoary 23:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm just there to keep the site running smoothly. Nothing more or less than that. I rarely visit the pornography pages unless it's to answer an RFC. Durova ^Charge! 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Then we're pretty much equal, the difference being that when I was first drawn to that article the mud there stuck on my boots. Consider yourself lucky that it hasn't stuck on yours too. -- Hoary 00:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I've dealt with much worse than that article. Garden variety vanity POV, if you ask me. Routine stuff. Let's hope the disruption has ended. Durova ^Charge! 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, agreed. A minor point above: I've now remembered the precise name of the most excellent User:AnonEMouse. Oh, and if you're a <span class="cliche">glutton for punishment<span> and care to see me in truly disputatious (and unpopular) mode, peruse Talk:African American Vernacular English. -- Hoary 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC) PS and if you're looking for a real mess, how about this? -- Hoary 06:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

ROFL, gl. Fortunately the Stephanie Adams page has quieted down. Durova ^Charge! 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Wanted to thank you for having enough conviction in me, by making me your first nomination for adminship. Wikipedia just got a whole lot bigger, with a lot more buttons. Thanks again, won't let you down!-- Hu12 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Congratulations! Now make me proud. :) Durova ^Charge! 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, I thought you'd be able to give me a little advice on a situation I'm in whilst mediating a MedCab case, seeing as it's part of the training, as it were. Whilst mediating Surrealism, it's become apparent that one of the parties that I have mediated with has been operating a veritable army of sockpuppets in order to get one link (which was widely regarded as spam) onto the article. Whilst I tried my best to be objective the whole way through, this sockpuppetry threatens most of wikipedia policies and has been damaging what is otherwise a very comprehensive article. I filled a SSP, but stopped short of RfCU because it was blatantly obvious that it wa sthe same user (text and writing paterns etc.). Neither that nor an AN/I really attracted any response. Now I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way to take this forward is to the ArbCom, because one user more than anyone is pushing this link and is completely violating all conduct policies I can think of. The article has been the source of some heated debate (both this user and another have had a 3RR block because of it) but there is a definite need for some formal arbitration. The sheer number of sockpuppets stops any real mediation. The question I have is, as a neutral mediator, am I allowed to give advice to one party as to how to file a RfARB or does this present a conflict of interest? Ultimately, my main concern is the damage this is doing to the article and wikipedia in general, and this is where I have a dilemma. I've given links below to relevant info in case you wanted to get more idea of what I was on about. Thanks.

MedCab case page
Surrealism Talk Page (discussion is nearer bottom)
SSP Case Page
AN/I posting
Jem 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I gather from your statement that you're convinced this person doesn't intend to mediate in good faith. This sort of problem generally gets handled on the community level these days. One trouble is, SSP has been backlogged lately. (That's part of a systematic problem I'm working to fix - something to discuss another time). To address your immediate situation, I recommend investigating whether the editor is using sockpuppets to evade a current block. RFCU can only be used in a narrow range of situations and that's one of them. Otherwise you could build a circumstantial case for sockpuppetry and - if things are severe enough - possibly seek a community siteban for disruptive editing. Put a case together with the help of the productive editors, connect all the dots and substantiate the assertions with enough page diffs. I'll give some feedback and suggestions, then if it's solid I'll give it my backing on the noticeboards. Best wishes, Durova ^Charge! 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see here for ongoing problems with sloat: User_talk:JoshuaZ#edit_warring_on_memri_page. Frankly, I don't see any other option but arbcom at this point. Do you have any other suggestions? Otherwise, I guess I'll have to ask for your assistance in putting in the request. <<-armon->> 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think ArbCom is right for this. Durova ^Charge! 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

How dare you make such a critical comment at my idea about the wiki-cartoon. It is not to make a joke out of Jimbo Wales or troll him; but a professional idea. With a professional plot, and I'm not a vandal but a professional editor, what a disgraceful comment. It's plot is about a artifact of knowledge known as the wiki-oracle, which contains all knowledge to the world, and Jimbo and his friends control it to create a perfect world. But when a group of vandals and their armies of sockpuppets appear and steal it. They imply to create a world of patent nonsense with it, and its an ongoing thing. I did not mean any offence by this. Retiono Virginian 13:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Note: Just because it features the vandals does not mean it promotes it. But rather shows you how it happens and why people do it, and teaches people not to spoil the work of others. Cartoons have badguys...remember. Retiono Virginian 13:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The problem is with the troll side. The existence of such a cartoon would give problem editors something to shoot for - a kind of trophy for disruption. Whether or not you intend it that way, it would still amount to franks and potato salad for the trolls. That might be soled if you made up fictional users and portrayed them as self-defeating in the spirit of America's Dumbest Criminals or the Darwin Awards. If you went that route I could even supply some anecdotes. Sometimes, frankly, I laugh out loud when I see what some problem editors do at this site. Durova ^Charge! 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I have nominated a category you created, Category:Eguor admins, for renaming. You can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Thanks, VegaDark 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, no opinion on the rename. Durova ^Charge! 18:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You might be interested to know that User:Ghirlandajo is active again (RfAr was dismissed w/o prejudice). - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed. While no evidence of the new disruptive behaviour has surfaced, shall we try to resume the Mediation before it happens - or cross fingers and hope we will never have to?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  06:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I suggest that Piotrus who is e-r-r, not without fault, to put it mildly, in this mess, avoids speaking about other's "disruptive behaviour" for the sake of his own as well as the common good. Whether the mediation resumes or not (and I fully support the idea provided that third parties against who any of the two users have objections, are kept off that process) the best thing Piotrus can do is to stop seeking various punishments of his content disputes opponents through invoking various policies at various boards. [2] [3] [4] -- Irpen 07:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Sigh. Irpen, please stop accusing me of imagined crusades against you and your friends. Like it or not, some people here try to enforce WP:CIV, to much crying among certain trolls (and misguided users, which I find rather sad - you should concentrate your efforts on fighting real dangers instead of imagined ones). PS. Durova, you may find this page and discussion interesting for some brainstorming about how to deal with WP:CIV issues.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Piotrus, your propensity to try to expunge your content opponents has been sufficiently exposed. Diffs above are here to read. And here is some more: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I find expungement of good edtiors a greater damage than expungement of good images. -- Irpen 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Sigh. Why don't you cry about the evils of WP:3RR? There are dozens of 'good editors' being blocked there every day! Preposterous, really. You should really go for removing 'block' feature from MediaWiki entirely, you know - why think small and concentrate on me, just one among the thousands of 'evil blockers' and their minions? ;p --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You must admit that I am equally critical to your opponents when they try to do this to you [10] [11] and Halibutt. [12] -- Irpen 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed. I respect your POV on this, but respectfully disagree with you. I believe WP:CIV and related policies were invented and accepted as important policies by the community for a reason, and allowing editors to trample them represents a terrible danger for this project. I can understand arguments that some prolific contributors may deserve special treatment and I could understand if you'd drew a line between Ghirla and Dr. Dan - but I cannot fathom what makes you defend certain editors whose primary contribution is flaming others and who don't contribute almost anything positive to this project at all.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I simply oppose widening of WP:CIV which I see only a tool against truly filthy mouthed users rather than a weapon in content disputes. Baiting an enemy and having him blocked for WP:CIV when he takes the bait has become a well-known trick. Another one is concocting a complaint by presenting several out of context diffs. Save WP:CIV for users like AlexPU and grow a thicker skin when dealing with Ghirla and Dr Dan. -- Irpen 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Endulge me and tell we what is the similarity between Ghirla and Dr. Dan. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  06:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I see your point. With all respect to Dr Dan (and I hope he won't be upset if he reads this), he is no match to Ghirla as there may be less than a dozen all over the project who are. But Dr Dan is your content opponent and an editor, not a flamer or a troll and your trying to present him when his objections to your POV are difficult to handle. And, based on your remark above, I assume that at least you will now know better than doing this with Ghirla. -- Irpen 06:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Irpen, it doesn't upset me in the least. I respect the immense contributions of Ghirla and his efforts to challenge propaganda and call the bluff on trolls during their "Troll Fests". Besides WP, is a pleasurable side effort in my life, making it impossible to "match" many contributors and their works. Anyway, why is all of this on Durova's talk page? Dr. Dan 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Referee whistle. Time out. Durova ^Charge! 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova, thanks for semi-protecting Antje Duvekot back in November; that was much needed. I think it might be time to try lifting it for a while, though; perhaps whoever had the personal grudge has moved on. -- Allen 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I unprotected. Awyong J. M. Salleh 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Re: [13] and other recent edits of that user. As you can see he didn't seem to have learned anything from his block. Would you recommend ANI, CB or what other place where I can seek help in reigning this increasing torrent of incivility?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think the advise Piotrus received from the opponent in the above link is a sound one. I have been saying it all long. The annoying habit of lecturing, threatening and frivolously reporting the content opponents to get an upper hand in content disputes has to be addressed some way, I believe. -- Irpen 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Irpen, consider why I am asking on advice on Durova's page, not yours...--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  04:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I know why. Because once you duped Durova into blocking Dr Dan before he got a chance to respond and you are trying again. However, you will learn that people will start being skeptical to your "reports" as they gain experience. -- Irpen 04:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I will await Durova's reply whether she consider herself 'duped' by me with much anticipation... --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  04:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll make myself brief. Reading this creates a mixed emotion of sadness and humor depending on whether I look at this as a new attempt to censor me or a continuation of the old one. The new one is in regards to content disputes in the recent articles and talkpages of Operation Wilno, the Ponary massacre and Paneriai, Ypatingasis burys (or matters concerning it), and probably one or two I've missed. Without rehashing it here, it boils down to information added, reverted, or deleted by contributors that are not to the complaining party's liking. That's the humorous part. The sad part, is a series of veiled threats and warnings to myself and others, with an almost gloating and smug-like quality to his having engineered my 24 hour block. Almost as if he's wagging his finger at me, and one or two other contributors, that this is what my current behavior and now their's, will lead to again. Durova, as you know via our private correspondence, that I could have chosen to continue the previous fray, by posting examples of their uncivlity and sniping towards me. I chose not to because I ultimately thought it childish and a waste of yours and my time, not because there wasn't a basis to do so. As a matter of fact, the talk pages of the above linked articles have a few new ones for your perusal. Finally I ask all interested parties to allow people to freely express themselves, and allow a balanced approach to the information being portrayed in the different articles, without a heavy-handed and constant demand to censor and block people. His inability to work with people without this constant need, is revealing and something he needs to work out for himself. Would it be uncivil to ask him to grow up? Unfortunately, I think it's more at the root of the problem than he realizes. Dr. Dan 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

In response to the original question, I was the first editor to welcome Ghirla back on his user talk page. When I did so I reminded him that the door remains open for mediation.

To Irpen, the appropriate way for you to express any suggestions regarding Piotrus's comments at my user talk page would have been via private e-mail directly to me. Had you chosen that option I would have asked your reasons and read any diffs you provided. Since this is my user space and you are not a neutral party, any advice of that nature would have been better if I had delivered it myself. What you have done instead is way over the WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL line. You are interfering with a mediation which no one has asked you to join. Cease and desist. Durova ^Charge! 18:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Durova, where exactly do you see any WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL in my entries? Where exactly is a single uncivil word there? As the matter of principle, I am opposed to the hidden off the record wiki-related communication except in few instances where issues such as privacy are involved. Openness of the communication on-wiki and availability of diffs to prove who said what and disprove the accusations that something was said (or done) which in fact wasn't always makes onwiki the preferred way of communication. The diffs I provided do not relate to any private info and me posting this in the open allows to have them easily checked and confirmed (or disproven) not only by you but by Piotrus as well. If I would have provided you with the diffs privately, Piotrus would have no chance to see them and should my diffs have been just a set of cherry-picked entries presented out of their context, he would not have been able to show them so. At the same time, that he saw them and had nothing to respond only proves their validity and relevance. (On the side note, the unnecessarily off-wiki communication on wiki-related matters produces a lot of other harm.)

If I am to provide any input to the Piotrus/Ghirla mediation process, I will do it in the open as there is no sensitive info involved. If it is your demand that I stay away from commenting on Piotrus in your userspace, please make sure you tell him not to bring his frequently repeated complaints to your userspace either. It is his endless complaints aimed at achieving of the blocks of his opponents that prompt me to step in. I never post to your (or anyone's) talk page on my own initiative just to whine about Piotrus in general. I think that private snitching (veiled informing on others) is plain wrong and if I see Piotrus' behavior warrants the intervention, I will take it to the proper steps of DR and not to the talk pages of cherry-picked admins who I will try to present with my side of the story and dupe them into blocking him giving the other party no chance to react and respond. (Sounds familiar?) This is as far as my posting to your page is concerned.

If, additionally, you demand that I do not comment on the Piotrus-Ghirla mediation, please make sure such requirement is OK with Ghirla (one of the meditating parties). Since mediation is by definition a voluntary process, both parties have to agree on the preset conditions. If Ghirla is fine with me shut-off from the mediation effort, fine with me as well. I think my feedback is valuable since I observed Piotrus' concerted effort to drive Ghirla off the project over the content disputes between his and Ghirla's POVs (via frivolous complaints posted all over wikipedia, including even DYK submissions page) and this campaign contributed to the current situation immensely. I see a great potential damage in one side being able to post the made up accusations which, if presented out of context, may make an impression of a block-worthy behavior. If you are sure that you will never again allow to get yourself manipulated by such complaints, and issue unwarranted blocks (reminder, blocks hurt good contributors immensely), I will just watch and see what happens. -- Irpen 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You may certainly comment upon the mediation. There is a page set aside for comments. What I ask that you not do is attempt to censor the participants or transport a conflict onto my user space. Cease and desist. Durova ^Charge! 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I have a request (since if not addressed such claims have a habit of returning like a boomerang): could you answer this question - do you consider yourself 'duped' by me?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I consider Irpen's use of that term to be part of his incivility here. Piotrus or anyone else should be able to comment that Ghirla hasn't been uncivil lately without fear that anyone would construe that into a chance to renew a dispute. The basis upon which Irpen opened that line of discussion is a logical fallacy called tu quoque. Logical fallacies require no reply other than to identify them as such. Please stop quarreling in my user space. Durova ^Charge! 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I considered the verm "to dupe" ( wiktionary entry "to swindle, deceive, or trick") appropriate in the context it was used but I am ready to substitute it with its dictionary synonyms "deceived and tricked" if the term is the problem. Having said that, I stand by my statement. -- Irpen 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Stand by it if you insist, but please don't add to it. If I need to make another request along these lines it will be to WP:AN to ask for indepent review and appropriate action. Durova ^Charge! 20:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Durova! Knowing your good skills in various areas, I would like to ask you - could you additionally review this 3RR case and state was there 3RR violation or not. Thanks! M.K. 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the trust, but my fairness has been questioned by certain editors involved in the larger dispute. If you want a definitive opinion I suggest you approach an administrator who has had no involvement at all on Eastern European topics. Durova ^Charge! 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

But I do not know anybody :( could you recommend somebody? M.K. 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm tempted to throw out a few names...but why not post on WP:AN and say why I referred you? Normally I wouldn't suggest that step. Tread lightly so it doesn't get perceived at WP:POINT. Durova ^Charge! 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for advice, but am I correctly understood ask for admin from WP:AN? M.K. 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Tell them I sent you. Durova ^Charge! 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

There is no need to do anything at this point. Piotrus promised not to edit the article for 24 hours. Blocking him would not accomplish anything in the conflict wrt this article and will only add an needless entry to his block log. Time to move on. -- Irpen 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Irpen, now I seeking to understand if were 3RR violation or not. M.K. 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova, today I spent a long time looking through the history of Talk:Surrealism trying to figure out what's going on with User:Classicjupiter2. I'm posting at your talk page rather than WP:CN because I'm not sure everything in this post is appropriate for the noticeboard. I think the allegation that Classicjupiter2 has been a problem at the article for two years is credible; he himself said that "there has been a three year plus edit war in regards to any mention of the 'Chicago Surrealist Group'." This seems to start at least as early as Summer 2004: see Talk:Surrealism/Archive_02#Keith_Wigdor_and_Daniel_C._Boyer, for instance. The dispute spreads to a bunch of Surrealism-related articles, including Chicago Surrealist Group. As far as I can tell, there's a real-life dispute between different artists/groups about who's really a Surrealist, and it shows up in a range of WP articles as edit wars over content & the inclusion of external links. For more on the history of this dispute, see User:Akhilleus/Classicjupiter2.

The thing is, the editors he's been fighting with most recently, TextureSavant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and TheEvilPanda ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are basically single-purpose accounts devoted to this conflict. EvilPanda has 2 contributions in June 2006; otherwise, everything comes after 19 Jan 2007 (and stops on 12 Feb). TextureSavant was created on 22 Jan 2007, and immediately seemed familiar with the dispute at Surrealism and the concept of sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry also seems to be a longstanding problem on this article, going back to at least July 2006 (there's some real fun stuff in Talk:Surrealism/Archive 07), and I don't think it can all be blamed on Classicjupiter2. I'm having a very difficult time figuring out what's going on.

I'm not sure how to address the problem. Aside from the fact that TextureSavant didn't make a convincing case for banning Classicjupiter2, I'd have a hard time supporting a ban proposal made by an SPA. As for the article, the talk page is semi-protected and the article is fully protected, so maybe mediation can simply proceed without new socks popping up. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

If there's a long term POV sockpuppeteer on one side and single purpose accounts on the other, this may be a matter for ArbCom. In the past two key deciding factors I've considered for whether to present a case to the committee are:

1. Is this an off-wiki dispute that migrated here?

2. Do you see any realistic potential for compromise?

Durova ^Charge! 19:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Or this may be a matter for Talk:K.d. lang in case there is LezCom involvement. Whatever the origin of the dispute surely there is a constant craving among all parties for a solution.

Arkhamite 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't see how you draw that connection, Arkhamite. Durova ^Charge! 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Durova, I think it's fair to say that this is an off-wiki dispute that now includes WP; I haven't done in-depth investigation, but there's stuff on forums & usenet that relate to what's going on, and the parties have seemed familiar with each other from the start of the dispute. I'm not sure whether I see a possibility for compromise or not; there's been editwarring since 2004 on the same set of issues, but no one ever tried to go through DR, except for some user conduct RfCs that look more like extensions of edit warring than attempts to solve a problem. At this point I'm weakly inclined to see how further mediation might work; the option of going to arbitration would still be open, obviously. Classicjupiter2 seems to be editing entirely through sockpuppets and IPs right now, so the whole thing might be moot anyway. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I brought the Midnight Syndicate dispute to the Committee and referred the Waldorf Education dispute there under similar circumstances: both hadn't done more DR than RFC, but they were bitter off-wiki disputes that had migrated to our site. My doubt here is whether ArbCom is even necessary. If someone presents me with a well-reasoned and well-referenced case for long term disruption I'll critique it and - if it's good enough - I'll present it to the community myself. What I've heard so far are basically allegations of misconduct. The only evidence I've seen so far is that the user has sockpuppets. There needs to be more before the community would ban. Durova ^Charge! 21:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Durova, at this point I don't think ArbCom is necessary--page protection has a way of calming things down. If problems resume after page protection is lifted, I might recommend going to arbitration, but I don't see any urgency right now. Anyway, I'm sorry that TextureSavant presented a non-case to the CN page; I advised him to look at other cases as a model, but I should have given him more explicit guidance, it looks like--it's not even clear that he understands how to create a diff, let alone what's required to present a compelling case of editing abuse.

By the way, for evidence that this the on-wiki problems reflect a real world dispute, you might want to look at [14], [15], [16], [17]. I'm pretty confident the IP edits in those diffs are by the user later known as Classicjupiter2, but another series of diffs would be necessary to establish that... --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! I tried to introduce again the poster for the 2002 presidential election of which you talked about on Talk:National Front (France), but it seems to have been deleted. I wonder why? If it was a copyright problem, and you were the uploader of it, I call your attention to Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Promotional_material, where you can find a "political poster" fair-use template, which will block any attempt to delete it under pseudo-copyright concerns. Cheers! PS: by the way, since I'm at it, you might be intereted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Macrohistorical_battles_tied_to_the_existence_of_European_civilisation. Tazmaniacs 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Images that aren't linked to any article get deleted automatically. The last time this image got discussed consensus agreed that the quote had been faked. If you can demonstrate that the quote was genuine then there would be a reason to reinsert it. In that case we could re-add the English line translation I had provided in the caption. Durova ^Charge! 21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

G'day Durova. You might remember me from that brouhaha with User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and his army of doppelgangers late last year. I just thought I'd mention that the various warnings etc that you gave him over that affair have been removed, per his rationale that they're archived in the history. He did so back in early January, so I don't know whether it's too late to do anything about it - or even whether it matters overmuch, since his contribs show that he's reformed these days anyway (no AfD participation at all) - but since you were the "Johnny on the Spot" when this first happened, I just thought I'd let you know. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I protected his user talk page. Durova ^Charge! 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You're probably reading it already, but with respect to your "essay sweep" comment, see the admin board. >Radiant< 12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up. I'll go take a look. Durova ^Charge! 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think your proposal about it is reasonable, and those one-man unlinked essays are suitable for MFD. >Radiant< 09:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Durova ^Charge! 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova,

When you responded some time ago to Randroide’s “request for clarification” related to this article, you stated that you thought it was appropriate for us to go to arbitration on the dispute over this page. Randroide has just blocked, after two weeks of discussion, my latest attempt to take the issue to mediation; saying that he now wants an RFC. At the same time he is using your reply as justification to embark on significant edits to one of the articles under dispute. Can you please ask him to refrain from making the dispute worse than it already is? I have now attempted, without success, to launch one RFC process, and two requests for mediation. Given these circumstances, my question is whether it would be appropriate now for me to make a direct request for arbitration to try and achieve a resolution of such a long running dispute. What do you think? Southofwatford 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, arbitration would be the right decision at this point. The dispute has been brewing for long enough with no signs of resolving through other processes. Cite this recommendation from me with a diff in your request. Arbitration looks like the only way to bring closure. Durova ^Charge! 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you are having hardware problems but does your email work? If it does and you don't mind, I would like you to email me please. I am new and take a lot of medications (sick right now with a major flare going on, so my being a newbie may take a bit longer than the normal editor but I have gotten a lot of support and help from multiple editors (you can see this on my talk page). I am trying to learn by lurking mostly at different locations. I am finding a lot of disturbing things that makes me wonder if I should be here at all. Anyways, if you would be kind enough to email me I would appreciate it. -- Crohnie 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I can get e-mail. My online time is somewhat reduced these days but I can access hotmail from any computer. Durova ^Charge! 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I sent you an email, please respond back via email if you would when you have time. Thanks, -- Crohnie 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you resend? I rechecked my inbox and don't see anything from you. Durova ^Charge! 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure as I had it sent to me too. It is the address on the left side that says "email this user" right? -- Crohnie 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Sent it again just now, maybe it is just slow getting to you. Let me know if you still don't get it. I am off to cook now. Have a great night or day (where ever you are! :) ) -- Crohnie 23:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I still haven't gotten it. Durova ^Charge! 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I received your email and responded. Just wanted to let you know in case the same problem occurred. Thanks so much for taking the time for me. I have enjoyed reading your posts. -- Crohnie 20:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

-- GordonWatts 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Please resend. I haven't gotten it. Durova ^Charge! 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Is there any way we can chat privately?