Hi Durova/Archive 21! I'd like to ask a favour, the Wikiproject Tyne and Wear is currently being changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject North East England and a lot of the categories need to be changed to represent the new name, I'm in the process of the change over but I cannot move the categories, only sysops can so could you please move the following categories to the name suggested after the arrow, it would be greatly appreciated.
I would appreciate it if you could do this as the name change has discussed here, here and here and all users seem in support but I'm willing to do most of the work anyway, I am asking you because you have always been a freindly admin and the requested moves is badly backlogged and the change over is in process now. Anyway could you please leave me a message on my talk page about this and tell me if you have done all of them so I can removed the tags on them. Thanks! Best Regards - Tellyaddict ( Talk) 13:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It seems like this guy has gotten himself into pretty much trouble, and it looks like he's going to need some help. I'm glad to be the one to help. -- דניאל - Danielr ocks123 contribs 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!
Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...
If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.
If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 03:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I listed this for admin attention several days ago. update Could you be so kind as to replace the copyvio version with the version I posted at the temp page? Thanks San_Blas,_Nayarit - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :P Navou banter / contribs 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For the many steps you've taken to empower the community. Thank you for having faith in us. Kla'quot 06:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
Durova,
It looks like you might have your hands full now, but if you ever need more bodies, let me know -- I would be happy to be a CEM/CEM-in-training. TheronJ 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sitting at 6/4/1/0, the chance of the case being accepted isn't very good. I think the WP:ADOPT may help, but that would mean that the community-based ban has to be overturned. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) I've responded here regarding the case. I'll see what I can do with the other pages; in the mean time, try to resurrect discussions at Banning Policy. Adding: There's no need for you to hold off on it; if you think you have enough support, by all means go for it. Adding more: I like what you did at CEM; however, I may have suggestions (I need to look over it again to solidify my suggestions, though.) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No, not Alcoholics Anonymous, Agapetos_Angel. For the last few weeks, I've been trying to mediate the Sarfati-Talk page. Last night, this comment appeared (later [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati&diff=next&oldid=114950430 edited), and I would like you, being an experienced admin, to give me some pointers on how to proceed.
Oh dear. The trouble is, actual lifting of the topic ban would have to be done by ArbCom and that sort of post works against AA. Suggest leaving a note to that effect on the IP talk page, along with a recommendation that if AA really wants to return the way to appeal would be via e-mail to an arbitration clerk. An apology for not understanding procedure might be understandable, especially if this is one isolated post and AA hasn't evaded the block otherwise. Durova Charge! 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've done slightly more research - mainly the edit history of the IP 60.242.13.87. Here are some highlights.
Problematic edits of various types over several months:
Physical sciences:
In addition to Jonathan Sarfati:
I strongly doubt that this is the same person as Agapetos Angel. In my observation AA was a better Wikipedian. I don't mean this as a slam re: her arbitration, but I did award her a shared barnstar. This editor is on a route that could lead to userblocks. Although this user participates at a variety of topics, I've also noted an interesting correlation between this pattern and the Jonathan Sarfati biography:
Taken together with uncritical edits at the Jonathan Sarfati page, vigorous arguments for retention at that page's deletion nominations, and a distinctive interest in the AA arbitration case, I conclude there is a nontrivial possibility that Jonathan Sarfati edits Wikipedia using this IP. Durova Charge! 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, since allegations have been raised by an anon that by Durova's investigation appears to be Sarfati himself and Otheus (who's had a personal ax to grind against me for some time now) saying that myself and JoshuaZ are out of line issuing blocks against User:58.162.2.122 for violation the terms of the Agapetos Angel RFAR, I should point out three things: 1) the arbcomm ruling states "Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." User 58.162.2.122 falls within not only this IP range and geographical location (as does User:60.242.13.87 here goading you to take action), but was specifically the subject of evidence in the RFAR and has consistently walked in the footsteps of Agapetos Angel despite the restriction placed on such by the ruling. 2) Since the ruling was first made, in fact less than 48 hours after the ruling, those behind the 58. IP have disrupted Jonathan Sarfati and related articles with tendentious edits, arguments/rants, and personal attacks. 3) JoshuaZ and myself have been the only admins regularly tending that article, 4) All blocks made by us were logged on the arbcomm ruling page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Log_of_blocks_and_bans going back to the first one on May 1 2006 and no one from the arbcomm has objected, which no doubt they read. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was reading one of your comments over at the archived ban/block discussion of BD. [16] You mention that:
According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, it's a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians that matters. Feel free to comment, but involved parties don't decide this.
Yet I see a large number of involved editors:
If we count SlimVirgin there were 13 votes to ban and 6 of them from involved editors. I am not saying if these involved editors were fair or unfair just that they were involved. And perhaps BD can add to the list. So we have a indef ban closed in less than 24 hours and heavily influenced by involved editors. Something seems wrong with that picture. Is there anything I can do to help BD? Thanks. -- Justanother 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't going to reply to this, but a post at another user talk page that invoked my name leads me to change my mind: silence implies consent so I ought to speak up. This thread demonstrates a logical fallacy called proof by assertion. It's just a list of names with no reason whatsoever why any of their input should be discounted. BabyDweezil's own request for arbitration only offers evidence of a content dispute with one of them. We don't throw out votes just because someone issued a user block or made a comment at WP:AN.
That clause at WP:DE was designed to prevent cliques of POV edit warriors from railroading good people out of the project. Suppose there's a dispute at opera. Ten Arnold Schoenberg fans are trying to WP:OWN the article and say that Schoenberg is the greatest composer in music history. Then along comes a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart fan who raises some WP:NPOV issues and tries to balance the coverage. The Schoenberg fans huddle together somewhere and decide to run this Mozart fan out of the project. They tag team him, heckle him, and goad him into a WP:3RR block. Finally the Mozart fan gets frustrated and commits an act of vandalism. That's where I come along. While I'm browsing the page I see the words I'd rather eat ten pounds of rancid warthog meat than listen to Schoenberg. So I click edit and type removed vandalism in my summary. About two weeks later the Schoenberg fans start a community ban thread on the Mozart dude and all ten of them support the ban. Well none of those ten votes count because those are the people who've been disputing with the Mozart guy all along. But my vote's valid and the fact that I reverted his edit doesn't make me involved. I was just performing routine housekeeping. The Mozart guy might accuse me of bias, but that claim carries no weight because I hardly ever edit that type of article and he can't read my mind. (My actual opinion is that I'd like to move Arnold Schoenberg from List of composers to List of cruel and unusual punishments, but that's beside the point). Even if I issued a block for vandalism on Mozart dude, I haven't been a party to his dispute, and it's perfectly valid for me to support or oppose at the ban discussion. Mozart guy can't drive out the sysop who issued the WP:3RR block on that basis either, unless Mr. Mozart can prove that the other admin had been part of the opera content dispute, and in that situation Herr Mozart could have opened an administrator conduct WP:RFC because sysops aren't supposed to issue a block to gain the upper hand in a quarrel.
I hope that clarifies the distinction. Durova Charge! 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
After the recent reforms, where can I ask a neutral admin to look at some personal attacks (examples: accusations of vandalism and mental instability(?) in edit summary, selfproclaimed exper, mocking ethnicity (Jewish...), suggesting the word 'Polish' is an insult), and issue a warning?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What is all of this doing on Durova's talk page anyway? Dr. Dan 13:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chase: I've attempted to intervene in response to this kind of request before and, with respectful apologies to the people concerned, I wasn't very successful at it. You know the alternatives: WP:ANI, a petition to another administrator, or ArbCom. The only additional option I could provide is to launch WP:CEM if you'd like to hammer this out for yourselves. Durova Charge! 15:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for dsturbing you again - although after this one [19] I do feel obliged to report a trolling action of an admin. Untill now I did feel free to edit whatewer I felt I had some expertise on, althoug edit summaries like (tag {{WikiProject Lithuania}} for Lokyz) seems to me like stalking and tring to push me to behave unreasonably. Therefore i do demand deletion of this edit summary and a personal appology with a promise I'll be not stalked in the future.-- Lokyz 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC) P.S -just another message of personal character emerged [20]. If it would be an any other emotional editor I'd agree to shut up, although it is an admin trying me to push to behave unreasonably. Well, i did not expect this from Wikipedia's administrator who, as he did tell himself, is enjoying benefits of being administrator of this project in an academic world.-- Lokyz 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Despite the recent flare up, I don't consider Lokyz incivility to be substantial enough to warrant spending my time on DR procedures. The level of disruption (from my perspective) is not worth it - it could have been easily dealt with with a formal warning, but anyway my comments did have some intended impact: he has actually apologized to Halibutt. Although I am saddeded that he took my gesture of good-will (as I explained on his talk page) to be stalking, I see no reason to sink time into DR. I will also make certain not to commend Lokyz on any useful edits he makes in the future (seeing as he considers this stalking).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus your talk did not answer my call, i still expect either apology or any other action.-- Lokyz 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Durova, please check this out. Can you please leave a note on his talk page asking him to not remove sourced information? I've tried but to no avail. Thanks, Khoi khoi 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems a new user is possibly acting in questionable faith. SpamWatcher ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contribs consist of bring Category:Marketing research companies articles to the attention of WP:WPSPAM, without actualy making edits. It appears there may be some adgenda and others are now noticing them (see [21]). Also the tone of this individual is a bit disturbing. Would like your view. Have only seen this type of behavior before when its for retribution. -- Hu12 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read it some time. >Radiant< 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was afraid this had to end like that. Here are my thoughts (not suggestions)
As for my personal opinion this WP:CEM is long overdue. And in my opionion it (sadly) will lead us nowhere. Because of diferent education, because of proportional "size" of the nations involved, and not the least because of the google books, that is predominant of free of charge or out of copyright books source (i.e. not necesary the best).
So there is my conclusion: we might try it, just i do have very limited amount of time to spend on it, because of my job workload. Furthermore i do not want to reveal my personality, simply because of strict job rules. And I do repeat - I will certainly have a limited amount of time to spend, so it might become longlasting, unless there will be some editors who'll help to back my ideas. Thank you for your time to read my opinion-- Lokyz 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova! Can you please deactivate my userpage for a shortly time? I need to create it one more time. Please do not block my user. Just deactivate my userpage. Thanks. ARII 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
He's still doing it: [22], [23]. Khoi khoi 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Those personal attacks were directed at me. He has the Arbitration clerks email as well as the email of the Arbitration committee. If you think he needs an unblock please ask User:Newyorkbrad to initiate the unblock or collect whatever evidence is needed. User:Newyorkbrad is the arbitration clerk for this case and they deal with getting blocked users evidence everyday. -- Tbeatty 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova, being that you were a bit out of the loop relative to these two users you should know that although others are claiming they are one and the same the checkuser evidence was never conclusive. Having seen the unfolding of this story I can tell you that there were serious differences in editing styles and character between these two users. User:BhaiSaab was given a definitive ban relative to his conflict with User:Hkelkar which was a separate issue from HE. I don't see it as fair at all that these two are being lumped together given the significant differences the two accounts exhibited with respect to each other. ( → Netscott) 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I started to take the proposed tag off CEM and write it into WP:DR but I stopped and reverted what I was doing as soon as slim posted to talk at cem. I was unsure about proceeding to write it into WP:DR with the objections recently posted. I am unsure if those objections affect consensus, need second set of eyes. v/r Navou banter / contribs 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For your valiant attempts to advise another editor. Though unsuccessful in the end, your efforts were most admirable. Smee 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. I'm not certain precicely which editor you mean here, but I like to bear in mind Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Redemption: All banned editors are theoretically redeemable. The canonical example is Michael, who was hard-banned as a persistent vandal but has since reformed and become a good editor. The door may close but it doesn't necessarily lock. Even an editor who doesn't reform is less likely to cause additional problems if they believe they've been handled with fairness and courtesy. Durova Charge! 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed Vandalism from the user page and here on the talk page. You're making some troll very upset, keep up the good work ;) SirFozzie 23:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The same dispute appears to be going on at History of the Knights Templar. There doesn't seem to be any need to protect that page now, but there may be in the future. FYI. >Radiant< 10:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. On his talkpage, LionheartX has made a case for being unblocked on the conditions that he limit himself to one account and avoid controversial and/or disruptive behavior. The unblock request has been up for almost a week, and I'm inclined towards unblocking him, but I'd like to give you a chance to comment first. Picaroon 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You seem like a good admin and I would like to become one someday. Would you be able to be my coach? Hmrox 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is. I have to go to bed right now because of school. When can we start? Hmrox 01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea and i am suprised it hasn't been done already. Please let me know when the project lifts off! Kind regards,
Zesty Prospect 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I proposed a change to WP:3O both on the talk page and on the village pump. You seem to have a good understanding of dispute resolution, so any feedback, criticisms or advice you could offer would be earnestly appreicated. Vassyana 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) My input might not suit the paradigm implied by that question. You see, I've done a lot of work with various aspects of dispute resolution over the last year or so. Most of the time I accept a given system as-is and operate within it. Most informal dispute resolution is informal. There's no real problem if article content WP:RFC morphs into mediation and everybody cooperates with that direction. I don't recall ever seeing a 3O that was closed because somebody draconian swooped down and proclaimed Tsk tsk, this is really a fourth opinion. We can't have that. What I have seen is people jumping in on the planning side and demanding to know what makes some venue unique (at least in its theory and structure).
Over at WP:CEM I've spent six weeks explaining uniqueness to a series of people who ask Why do we need yet another type of mediation? Well we need it because Wikipedia has no such thing as binding mediation. The only place in dispute resolution where policy and content issues dovetail is ArbCom. The committee is swamped with cases and the site needs a streamlined alternative - some other way to give sysops clear guidelines for intervening - something less onerous on the disputants. Jimbo Wales and several members of the arbitration committe have all agreed CEM's a good idea. Yet I get very probing and insightful and challenging questions. Most of those questions were things I'd already anticipated. A few of them brought things to my attention about the proposal's clarity and wording and a couple of those questions led me to think That's a good point. Yeah, let's accommodate that. How does this solution sound to you?
So your proposal would be a serious change to 3O - maybe not to the way it works in practice - but to the way it works in theory which is also important. The first time I looked up dispute resolution options I had been an editor for about two weeks. Most people who come to DR aren't too different from that. Maybe their first article wasn't a hornet's nest, but they browse through a list wondering What's all this stuff? What's right for me? What does it mean? Some of the ones who don't understand the choices will walk away - maybe away from dispute resolution and maybe away from Wikipedia. What benefit would your alteration provide that 3O doesn't already have? And would those novice users understand it? Durova Charge! 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Today I saw the deletion discussion of a page which you allege Jonathan Sarfati is a vandal. But I would like to say that although according to evidences the user account with his name may well be a vandal, but we cannot prove it is Mr. Sarfati himself. In your "vandal" page maybe you can just say the user is a vandal instead of saying Sarfati is a vandal, because that would be unproven personal attack. Remember the presumption of innocence. Wooyi 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
They definitely fit the definition given in the first paragraph - persistent conflicts over content, two established editors, and conduct problems (3RR, accusations of sock-puppetry flying fast and furious). The problem I'm having is that I don't really have any pull here. I ended up reporting these users for 3RR as a total fluke and really haven't been following their issues. For some reason, one of them has fixated on me as the person that will solve all their problems. Assuming good faith, I'd say this guy is really trying to get something solved and is asking me because we've interacted. Assuming slightly less good faith, this particular editor may think that I will be easier to fool because I've been an admin for all of one week and really don't do DR much. Natalie 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Durova, you need to either completely delete this page or remove any reference whatsoever to the individual it references, regardless of whether or not he is the vandal. This page infringes on some very serious BLP concerns. If you'd like to email me privately regarding this, I'd be happy to explain it further. Cary Bass demandez 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest asking a checkuser about that (I see Uninvited responded to the request, so possibly him). As a clerk, I generally try to remain neutral about whether requests should or shouldn't be run. I s'pose you're as free to re-file as anybody, though. Hope that clears things up a bit. – Luna Santin ( talk) 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
From Natalie's advice, I decided to check with you about a dispute going on between User:Mudaliar and others including myself regarding the articles Mudaliar & Sengunthar Sengundhar Kaikolar Kaikolan Devadasi.
Regarding article Mudaliar many editors have found that the User:Mudaliar is intent on glorifying his group Tondai Mandala Saiva Vellala - TMSV and slandering the group Sengunthar alias kaikolar. All our edits are being simply reverted. I and User:Mudaliar have been engaged in this editing and reverting over the past 4 months. I got bored and left. I came back and found that User:Mudaliar was doing the same with other editors. However he thinks that these other editors are sock puppets of me. He also has been using many sock puppets as stated by himself in the talk page of Admin Dina. Instead of engaging in revert wars, I think I'll leave the articles as they are i.e. the version preferred by User:Mudaliar and conduct a survey. So we need a fair mechanism to conduct the survey and avoid being influenced by opinions from sock puppets. Further we need the visitors of the page to be notified that a survey is being conducted as the survey is at the bottom of the talk page. Again when I try to put it on top, it is being deleted.
Secondly regarding articles Sengunthar Sengundhar Kaikolar Kaikolan they all refer to the same group of people with just different variations of spellings. So it needs to be merged or redirected. However User:Mudaliar prevents the redirection and insists on slandering the group in all these articles.
Thirdly regarding article
Devadasi, a term used to refer to temple prostitutes and system in India he insists on stating that the group Kaikolar are the ones who supplied girls to this system.
The group that actually supplied the girls were Isai Vellala, a branch of Vellala to which User:Mudaliar also belongs. Irrespective of who supplied the girls, User:Mudaliar claims that all these girls from all the 26 states throught India were from the Kaikolar. Kaikolar were restricted only to one southern most state of India. Due to his repeated reverts, people have lost interest in the fair process of Wikipedia editing.
Finally, out of frustration he has posted in the talk pages of the following articles statements slandering Sengunthar what he calls a request for comment.
Unfortunately I also was involved in the same revert wars for a day before I realized my error and got out of it.
So we need a way to deal with this jobless person. I have been taking timeouts of a month in between my edits. However nobody has been able to stop User:Mudaliar and his edit wars.
The main reason seems to be that he as a member of Tondai Mandala Saiva Vellala has been stealing the genealogy proofs of other similarly named group Tondai Mandala Vellala alias KondaiKatti Vellala for his glorification. When I point this out, he goes berserk and starts attacking my group Kaikolar.
I have also suggested that we have a disambiguation page about the Mudaliar article similar to Gounder article, both of which are titles used by various groups in Tamilnadu in India.
Many people have faced his unprofessional and childish behavior. So currently I am at the state where I just want to lock up the article after conducting a survey.
Venki 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova,
Natalie_Erin ( talk · contribs) told me that you would mediate a dispute between Venki123 ( talk · contribs) and I in the above mentioned articles.
I have backed up my statements with valid research papers recognized in India and at the International level. I once again furnish below these details for your quick reference:
1. Mudaliar is the title of Tondaimandala Vellalars only. Its the surname of Tondaimandala Vellalars in South India. Its a feudal title like Baron, Count etc., There are ample proofs for this assertion. I have given a few below. Note that the research has been done by authors from the US, UK, India etc. Other castes claiming it is analogous to people adding "Duke", "Viscount", "Baron" at the end of their names and claiming to be of aristocratic birth. This is not acceptable and the truth is evident if you go through the references.
Citations from research papers:
a). Irschick, Eugene F. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. direct web reference: http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft038n99hg&brand=eschol
b) Order and Disorder in Colonial South India Eugene F. Irschick Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1989), pp. 459-492, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X(1989)23%3A3%3C459%3AOADICS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B
c) Castes & Tribes of South India - ET.Thurston, VII 361 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Castes-Tribes-Southern-India-Thurston/dp/8120602889. Edgar Thurston was a British Officer in Colonial India and was the curator of the Indian Museum of History, Madras, India even after Indian Independence.
d) http://www.saivaneri.org/keralal-pillai-history.html
2. Relation between Devadasis and Sengunthar, Kaikolars
Citations from research papers and books:
a)The Erotic Sculptures of India Y. Krishan Artibus Asiae, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1972), pp. 331-343
(proves that kaikolan musicians = devadasis) http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3648(1972)34%3A4%3C331%3ATESOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
b)Artisans in Vijayanagar Society, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, 417-444 (1985)
This research article explains the blood relation between the Devadasis and the Kaikolar. ("Devaradiyar (dancing girls who have very close kinship ties with the Kaikkolar link 1: http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/22/4/417 link 2:
c) Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/19/1/47?ck=nck
Text Quoted from article: "At least one woman in every Kaikkola household was, according to age-old tradition dedicated to the temple as a devaradiyar or devadasi. The devaradiyar enjoyed special privileges in the days of the Vijayanagar empire and were the only women permitted a direct audience with the king".
d) Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/19/1/47?ck=nck
This research article (along with references to an inscription) describes how a devaradiyar or devadasi won special privileges for the Kaikkolas from the king Deva Raya II (A.D 1433)
e) Some Enquiries into the Condition of Weavers in Medieval South India, Indian Historical Review, Vol. VI, Nos. 1 and 2
f) This article talks in much detail about how women from the Sengundhar/ Kaikola caste get into the sacred prostitution in temples.
"Contending identities: Sacred prostitution and reform in colonial South India Priyadarshini Vijaisri A1, A1 Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi" South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group Issue: Volume 28, Number 3 / December 2005 Pages: 387 - 411
g)Another reference book Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God. Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu by Leslie C. Orr, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279(200210%2F12)122%3A4%3C919%3ADDADOG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T
Please read through atleast a few of the above articles.
Moreover, Venki123 ( talk · contribs) is using socket puppets to push his point. He also has been abusing me and other users repeatedly. Please see below for yourself:
1. as of 20:27, 22 March 2007 2. as of 20:49, 9 February 2007 3. as of 20:48, 9 February 2007 4. as of 22:35, 9 February 2007 5. as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 6. as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 7. as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 8. as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 9. as of 22:37, 9 February 2007 10. as of 22:37, 9 February 2007
More vandalism by Venki123 ( talk · contribs) 1. Revision as of 20:50, 22 March 2007 Why has he deleted heavily referenced sections ? 2. revision (22:15, 22 March 2007) See how he has deleted the entire talk page and replaced with his post. He is well aware that he should not delete other editors' posts in the talk page. He has just blanked out the talk page and replaced with a few sentences of his own. 3.Vandalism through socket puppetry: Revision as of 16:01, 21 March 2007 Check ip:70.49.175.94. Luckily Agathoclea ( talk · contribs) caught it and reverted his edits.
There are plenty more articles like the ones above where he uses extremely filthy language and threatens me.
Venki123 (
talk ·
contribs) is unable accept my references even though they are completely valid and were written by world reknown historians like Edgar Thurston, etc. who was a British Officer in Colonial India and was also the curator of the Indian Museum of History at Madras, India for a long time after Indian Independence.
Venki123 ( talk · contribs) has been abusing me and other editors repeatedly and aims to divert this as a dispute when in fact the only thing he has been doing is vandalise articles and delete heavily referenced sections using socket puppets. Now, he is trying to get these articles protected and destroy the work of other editors who have taken time to add sources as these edits are not favorable to him. I suggest this person evaluate his ulterior motive and do something constructive instead of killing the spirit of Wikipedia. Mudaliar 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you look at this removal of information from the article Pamela Jones, and tell me if you think that the material fails WP:BLP in any way? The editor in question, intimated it should be removed, and when it was edited and a compromise amongst other editors (not him) had been reached, he decided it should go anyway, and rather then get stuck into an edit war, I figured I'd look for an outside, neutral opinion. The link is [25]. I figure looking at it informally before getting a WP:3O or WP:RfC on the article. Thanks :) SirFozzie 03:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Druv,
My 2 cents worth on this.
It gives the Wiki a bad image when this happens. personally I feel Venky (he comes in different names in different forums) has a track record of insulting vellalars, kallars, Maravars and Others and making bold claims without proof. A check on his logs will prove, Venky has claimed
- Buddha was a kaikolar, Nallur/Jaffna Kings are Kaikolar, Kaikolars are Pallavas, Kaikolars are the first to have the Mudali surname, Vellalars have never used the Mudali Surname historically, Kaikolars are the only martial caste in Tamil Nadu and Vellalars have no history in Tamil Nadu. Can he prove authentically any of the above? Each and every one of his above contentions are wrong, Most of it can be proved with a Google search or chekcing up at the nearest library. I hope the admins make sure that any representation is through academic sources and references. Let him prove his above contentions first. IN the meantime, Mudaliar is doing a good job keeping Venky away. At least Mudaliar has proven his edits with authentic sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vjackson ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello, Durova. I was wondering if you could take a look at this [26]. This user has made edits to several Barrymore-related articles asserting that John Drew Barrymore is the love child of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald. I was thinking about tagging the statement with 'citation needed', but given that it's quite a claim and that it was not previously mentioned in any of the articles, I thought something stronger might be in order. If you have a chance and could let me know how you would handle it, I would be most appreciative. - Skinny McGee 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I suspect that the user:mudaliar is once again using sock puppets for his arguments. If you just go through the user contributions of the user vjackson, the only contribution he has ever made was to commend user:mudaliar on his job. Can we check whether it is sock puppet of user:mudaliar ? However this user:mudaliar is known to create multiple sock puppets. See this login User:Karikala_Cholan who is another recently active editor who had no history before. Seems to me that all these are sock puppets of User:mudaliar.
Venki 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The origen of the Chilean population is spaniard, (to see demography of Chile ) the Chile economy does not have a 58% of poverty, is impossible with the entrance per capita and the HDI of Chile. The word Mestizo is never used in the hispanic world to describe people who are predominantly European as is the case for most Chileans. Firstly, as you may know, in Latin America it is used for those who are predominantly amerindian in their ancestry. (It would apply in Mexico and Central America). Secondly, there is no defined ethnic group in Chile which can be defined as mestizo, there are just people with more or less Indian bood, Spanish origin being nearly always the larger part of the ancestry. There is no sense of common belonging shared exclusively by people with amerindian ancestry which excludes people who dont have this ancestry. This is a vital characteristic of an ethnic group. The word mestizo is pejorative in our language and should be used as little as possible. Ill give you an example. When the movie "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince" came out in the Spanish speaking world, it was translated into Harry Potter and the Prince, because of the negative connotations that the word mestizo implied. Finally, in our cultural community, Latinness, Spanishness (or if you want to use racial terms "whiteness") is an expansive concept which does not exclude people placind then in a different ethnic group on the basis of their blood being "tainted" as happens in the Anglo Saxon world. Although, I agree that that in certain countries where racial divisions have been stronger due to a much larger Amerindian community, (such as Peru or Guatemala or Mexico)this leads to implications regarding identity and ethnicity..
MY SOURCES
1,. THE WORLD VALUES WORLD CHILE 2006 [
[27]]
3.- SPAIN GOV. [ [28]]
4.- CIA [ [29]]
Antarcticwik 06:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
After few months of peace and quited, this incident does not fill me with hope it will last. Per our mediation, I asked Ghirla to refactor or apologize to a comment I consider offensive, he refused - accusing me of molesting, baiting and harassing. Could you ask him to reconsider his behaviour? If this is a sign of things to come, I see no other way but to restart the mediation or ArbCom proceedings if it fails.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I did some poking around and left my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#G2bambino_wikistalking. Thanks! Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 17:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for your feedback and conclusion on this report. It was very much appreciated. Can we also put semi-protection on the Star Wars Galaxies article also? This was the other article used as a major resource in the report. Roguegeek ( talk) 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I did some digging on User:BenH's suspected sockpuppet IPs, and found that most of them trace to Embarq. Would it be appropriate to post the abuse email contact? As you've probably seen, he's violated Embarq's AUP several times over. Combine that with the hope that the community ban passes, and we should be able to nip him in the bud. Blueboy96 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you here that blocks should ideally be preventative rather than punitive. But the reality is different. It is hard to draw an exact line between the two notions. A clear example of the preventative block is blocking a user in the midst of the vandalizing spree. At the same time, the block intended for the user to "get the message" that something is unacceptable, is at least both punitive (for past misbehavior) and preventative (to make new misbehavior less likely, while this is rarely achieved by a block, as we both know.) That said, I do not support blocking Darwinek from editing but desysopping here is both preventative and punitive. It will make sure that abusive blocks will not recur, since the past lessons did not teach the user anything, apparently, and punitive, since the user will understand that abusive behavior (not just as an admin but as an abusive talker) has consequences as deadminning may be a penalty for that. Deadminning is harsh enough to relay a message, I think, and combining it with a ban would hopefully be unnecessary. -- Irpen 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova/Archive 21! I'd like to ask a favour, the Wikiproject Tyne and Wear is currently being changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject North East England and a lot of the categories need to be changed to represent the new name, I'm in the process of the change over but I cannot move the categories, only sysops can so could you please move the following categories to the name suggested after the arrow, it would be greatly appreciated.
I would appreciate it if you could do this as the name change has discussed here, here and here and all users seem in support but I'm willing to do most of the work anyway, I am asking you because you have always been a freindly admin and the requested moves is badly backlogged and the change over is in process now. Anyway could you please leave me a message on my talk page about this and tell me if you have done all of them so I can removed the tags on them. Thanks! Best Regards - Tellyaddict ( Talk) 13:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It seems like this guy has gotten himself into pretty much trouble, and it looks like he's going to need some help. I'm glad to be the one to help. -- דניאל - Danielr ocks123 contribs 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!
Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...
If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.
If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 03:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I listed this for admin attention several days ago. update Could you be so kind as to replace the copyvio version with the version I posted at the temp page? Thanks San_Blas,_Nayarit - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :P Navou banter / contribs 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For the many steps you've taken to empower the community. Thank you for having faith in us. Kla'quot 06:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
Durova,
It looks like you might have your hands full now, but if you ever need more bodies, let me know -- I would be happy to be a CEM/CEM-in-training. TheronJ 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sitting at 6/4/1/0, the chance of the case being accepted isn't very good. I think the WP:ADOPT may help, but that would mean that the community-based ban has to be overturned. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) I've responded here regarding the case. I'll see what I can do with the other pages; in the mean time, try to resurrect discussions at Banning Policy. Adding: There's no need for you to hold off on it; if you think you have enough support, by all means go for it. Adding more: I like what you did at CEM; however, I may have suggestions (I need to look over it again to solidify my suggestions, though.) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No, not Alcoholics Anonymous, Agapetos_Angel. For the last few weeks, I've been trying to mediate the Sarfati-Talk page. Last night, this comment appeared (later [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati&diff=next&oldid=114950430 edited), and I would like you, being an experienced admin, to give me some pointers on how to proceed.
Oh dear. The trouble is, actual lifting of the topic ban would have to be done by ArbCom and that sort of post works against AA. Suggest leaving a note to that effect on the IP talk page, along with a recommendation that if AA really wants to return the way to appeal would be via e-mail to an arbitration clerk. An apology for not understanding procedure might be understandable, especially if this is one isolated post and AA hasn't evaded the block otherwise. Durova Charge! 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've done slightly more research - mainly the edit history of the IP 60.242.13.87. Here are some highlights.
Problematic edits of various types over several months:
Physical sciences:
In addition to Jonathan Sarfati:
I strongly doubt that this is the same person as Agapetos Angel. In my observation AA was a better Wikipedian. I don't mean this as a slam re: her arbitration, but I did award her a shared barnstar. This editor is on a route that could lead to userblocks. Although this user participates at a variety of topics, I've also noted an interesting correlation between this pattern and the Jonathan Sarfati biography:
Taken together with uncritical edits at the Jonathan Sarfati page, vigorous arguments for retention at that page's deletion nominations, and a distinctive interest in the AA arbitration case, I conclude there is a nontrivial possibility that Jonathan Sarfati edits Wikipedia using this IP. Durova Charge! 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, since allegations have been raised by an anon that by Durova's investigation appears to be Sarfati himself and Otheus (who's had a personal ax to grind against me for some time now) saying that myself and JoshuaZ are out of line issuing blocks against User:58.162.2.122 for violation the terms of the Agapetos Angel RFAR, I should point out three things: 1) the arbcomm ruling states "Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." User 58.162.2.122 falls within not only this IP range and geographical location (as does User:60.242.13.87 here goading you to take action), but was specifically the subject of evidence in the RFAR and has consistently walked in the footsteps of Agapetos Angel despite the restriction placed on such by the ruling. 2) Since the ruling was first made, in fact less than 48 hours after the ruling, those behind the 58. IP have disrupted Jonathan Sarfati and related articles with tendentious edits, arguments/rants, and personal attacks. 3) JoshuaZ and myself have been the only admins regularly tending that article, 4) All blocks made by us were logged on the arbcomm ruling page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Log_of_blocks_and_bans going back to the first one on May 1 2006 and no one from the arbcomm has objected, which no doubt they read. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was reading one of your comments over at the archived ban/block discussion of BD. [16] You mention that:
According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, it's a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians that matters. Feel free to comment, but involved parties don't decide this.
Yet I see a large number of involved editors:
If we count SlimVirgin there were 13 votes to ban and 6 of them from involved editors. I am not saying if these involved editors were fair or unfair just that they were involved. And perhaps BD can add to the list. So we have a indef ban closed in less than 24 hours and heavily influenced by involved editors. Something seems wrong with that picture. Is there anything I can do to help BD? Thanks. -- Justanother 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't going to reply to this, but a post at another user talk page that invoked my name leads me to change my mind: silence implies consent so I ought to speak up. This thread demonstrates a logical fallacy called proof by assertion. It's just a list of names with no reason whatsoever why any of their input should be discounted. BabyDweezil's own request for arbitration only offers evidence of a content dispute with one of them. We don't throw out votes just because someone issued a user block or made a comment at WP:AN.
That clause at WP:DE was designed to prevent cliques of POV edit warriors from railroading good people out of the project. Suppose there's a dispute at opera. Ten Arnold Schoenberg fans are trying to WP:OWN the article and say that Schoenberg is the greatest composer in music history. Then along comes a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart fan who raises some WP:NPOV issues and tries to balance the coverage. The Schoenberg fans huddle together somewhere and decide to run this Mozart fan out of the project. They tag team him, heckle him, and goad him into a WP:3RR block. Finally the Mozart fan gets frustrated and commits an act of vandalism. That's where I come along. While I'm browsing the page I see the words I'd rather eat ten pounds of rancid warthog meat than listen to Schoenberg. So I click edit and type removed vandalism in my summary. About two weeks later the Schoenberg fans start a community ban thread on the Mozart dude and all ten of them support the ban. Well none of those ten votes count because those are the people who've been disputing with the Mozart guy all along. But my vote's valid and the fact that I reverted his edit doesn't make me involved. I was just performing routine housekeeping. The Mozart guy might accuse me of bias, but that claim carries no weight because I hardly ever edit that type of article and he can't read my mind. (My actual opinion is that I'd like to move Arnold Schoenberg from List of composers to List of cruel and unusual punishments, but that's beside the point). Even if I issued a block for vandalism on Mozart dude, I haven't been a party to his dispute, and it's perfectly valid for me to support or oppose at the ban discussion. Mozart guy can't drive out the sysop who issued the WP:3RR block on that basis either, unless Mr. Mozart can prove that the other admin had been part of the opera content dispute, and in that situation Herr Mozart could have opened an administrator conduct WP:RFC because sysops aren't supposed to issue a block to gain the upper hand in a quarrel.
I hope that clarifies the distinction. Durova Charge! 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
After the recent reforms, where can I ask a neutral admin to look at some personal attacks (examples: accusations of vandalism and mental instability(?) in edit summary, selfproclaimed exper, mocking ethnicity (Jewish...), suggesting the word 'Polish' is an insult), and issue a warning?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What is all of this doing on Durova's talk page anyway? Dr. Dan 13:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chase: I've attempted to intervene in response to this kind of request before and, with respectful apologies to the people concerned, I wasn't very successful at it. You know the alternatives: WP:ANI, a petition to another administrator, or ArbCom. The only additional option I could provide is to launch WP:CEM if you'd like to hammer this out for yourselves. Durova Charge! 15:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for dsturbing you again - although after this one [19] I do feel obliged to report a trolling action of an admin. Untill now I did feel free to edit whatewer I felt I had some expertise on, althoug edit summaries like (tag {{WikiProject Lithuania}} for Lokyz) seems to me like stalking and tring to push me to behave unreasonably. Therefore i do demand deletion of this edit summary and a personal appology with a promise I'll be not stalked in the future.-- Lokyz 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC) P.S -just another message of personal character emerged [20]. If it would be an any other emotional editor I'd agree to shut up, although it is an admin trying me to push to behave unreasonably. Well, i did not expect this from Wikipedia's administrator who, as he did tell himself, is enjoying benefits of being administrator of this project in an academic world.-- Lokyz 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Despite the recent flare up, I don't consider Lokyz incivility to be substantial enough to warrant spending my time on DR procedures. The level of disruption (from my perspective) is not worth it - it could have been easily dealt with with a formal warning, but anyway my comments did have some intended impact: he has actually apologized to Halibutt. Although I am saddeded that he took my gesture of good-will (as I explained on his talk page) to be stalking, I see no reason to sink time into DR. I will also make certain not to commend Lokyz on any useful edits he makes in the future (seeing as he considers this stalking).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus your talk did not answer my call, i still expect either apology or any other action.-- Lokyz 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Durova, please check this out. Can you please leave a note on his talk page asking him to not remove sourced information? I've tried but to no avail. Thanks, Khoi khoi 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems a new user is possibly acting in questionable faith. SpamWatcher ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contribs consist of bring Category:Marketing research companies articles to the attention of WP:WPSPAM, without actualy making edits. It appears there may be some adgenda and others are now noticing them (see [21]). Also the tone of this individual is a bit disturbing. Would like your view. Have only seen this type of behavior before when its for retribution. -- Hu12 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read it some time. >Radiant< 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was afraid this had to end like that. Here are my thoughts (not suggestions)
As for my personal opinion this WP:CEM is long overdue. And in my opionion it (sadly) will lead us nowhere. Because of diferent education, because of proportional "size" of the nations involved, and not the least because of the google books, that is predominant of free of charge or out of copyright books source (i.e. not necesary the best).
So there is my conclusion: we might try it, just i do have very limited amount of time to spend on it, because of my job workload. Furthermore i do not want to reveal my personality, simply because of strict job rules. And I do repeat - I will certainly have a limited amount of time to spend, so it might become longlasting, unless there will be some editors who'll help to back my ideas. Thank you for your time to read my opinion-- Lokyz 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova! Can you please deactivate my userpage for a shortly time? I need to create it one more time. Please do not block my user. Just deactivate my userpage. Thanks. ARII 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
He's still doing it: [22], [23]. Khoi khoi 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Those personal attacks were directed at me. He has the Arbitration clerks email as well as the email of the Arbitration committee. If you think he needs an unblock please ask User:Newyorkbrad to initiate the unblock or collect whatever evidence is needed. User:Newyorkbrad is the arbitration clerk for this case and they deal with getting blocked users evidence everyday. -- Tbeatty 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova, being that you were a bit out of the loop relative to these two users you should know that although others are claiming they are one and the same the checkuser evidence was never conclusive. Having seen the unfolding of this story I can tell you that there were serious differences in editing styles and character between these two users. User:BhaiSaab was given a definitive ban relative to his conflict with User:Hkelkar which was a separate issue from HE. I don't see it as fair at all that these two are being lumped together given the significant differences the two accounts exhibited with respect to each other. ( → Netscott) 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I started to take the proposed tag off CEM and write it into WP:DR but I stopped and reverted what I was doing as soon as slim posted to talk at cem. I was unsure about proceeding to write it into WP:DR with the objections recently posted. I am unsure if those objections affect consensus, need second set of eyes. v/r Navou banter / contribs 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For your valiant attempts to advise another editor. Though unsuccessful in the end, your efforts were most admirable. Smee 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. I'm not certain precicely which editor you mean here, but I like to bear in mind Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Redemption: All banned editors are theoretically redeemable. The canonical example is Michael, who was hard-banned as a persistent vandal but has since reformed and become a good editor. The door may close but it doesn't necessarily lock. Even an editor who doesn't reform is less likely to cause additional problems if they believe they've been handled with fairness and courtesy. Durova Charge! 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed Vandalism from the user page and here on the talk page. You're making some troll very upset, keep up the good work ;) SirFozzie 23:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The same dispute appears to be going on at History of the Knights Templar. There doesn't seem to be any need to protect that page now, but there may be in the future. FYI. >Radiant< 10:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. On his talkpage, LionheartX has made a case for being unblocked on the conditions that he limit himself to one account and avoid controversial and/or disruptive behavior. The unblock request has been up for almost a week, and I'm inclined towards unblocking him, but I'd like to give you a chance to comment first. Picaroon 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You seem like a good admin and I would like to become one someday. Would you be able to be my coach? Hmrox 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is. I have to go to bed right now because of school. When can we start? Hmrox 01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea and i am suprised it hasn't been done already. Please let me know when the project lifts off! Kind regards,
Zesty Prospect 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I proposed a change to WP:3O both on the talk page and on the village pump. You seem to have a good understanding of dispute resolution, so any feedback, criticisms or advice you could offer would be earnestly appreicated. Vassyana 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) My input might not suit the paradigm implied by that question. You see, I've done a lot of work with various aspects of dispute resolution over the last year or so. Most of the time I accept a given system as-is and operate within it. Most informal dispute resolution is informal. There's no real problem if article content WP:RFC morphs into mediation and everybody cooperates with that direction. I don't recall ever seeing a 3O that was closed because somebody draconian swooped down and proclaimed Tsk tsk, this is really a fourth opinion. We can't have that. What I have seen is people jumping in on the planning side and demanding to know what makes some venue unique (at least in its theory and structure).
Over at WP:CEM I've spent six weeks explaining uniqueness to a series of people who ask Why do we need yet another type of mediation? Well we need it because Wikipedia has no such thing as binding mediation. The only place in dispute resolution where policy and content issues dovetail is ArbCom. The committee is swamped with cases and the site needs a streamlined alternative - some other way to give sysops clear guidelines for intervening - something less onerous on the disputants. Jimbo Wales and several members of the arbitration committe have all agreed CEM's a good idea. Yet I get very probing and insightful and challenging questions. Most of those questions were things I'd already anticipated. A few of them brought things to my attention about the proposal's clarity and wording and a couple of those questions led me to think That's a good point. Yeah, let's accommodate that. How does this solution sound to you?
So your proposal would be a serious change to 3O - maybe not to the way it works in practice - but to the way it works in theory which is also important. The first time I looked up dispute resolution options I had been an editor for about two weeks. Most people who come to DR aren't too different from that. Maybe their first article wasn't a hornet's nest, but they browse through a list wondering What's all this stuff? What's right for me? What does it mean? Some of the ones who don't understand the choices will walk away - maybe away from dispute resolution and maybe away from Wikipedia. What benefit would your alteration provide that 3O doesn't already have? And would those novice users understand it? Durova Charge! 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Today I saw the deletion discussion of a page which you allege Jonathan Sarfati is a vandal. But I would like to say that although according to evidences the user account with his name may well be a vandal, but we cannot prove it is Mr. Sarfati himself. In your "vandal" page maybe you can just say the user is a vandal instead of saying Sarfati is a vandal, because that would be unproven personal attack. Remember the presumption of innocence. Wooyi 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
They definitely fit the definition given in the first paragraph - persistent conflicts over content, two established editors, and conduct problems (3RR, accusations of sock-puppetry flying fast and furious). The problem I'm having is that I don't really have any pull here. I ended up reporting these users for 3RR as a total fluke and really haven't been following their issues. For some reason, one of them has fixated on me as the person that will solve all their problems. Assuming good faith, I'd say this guy is really trying to get something solved and is asking me because we've interacted. Assuming slightly less good faith, this particular editor may think that I will be easier to fool because I've been an admin for all of one week and really don't do DR much. Natalie 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Durova, you need to either completely delete this page or remove any reference whatsoever to the individual it references, regardless of whether or not he is the vandal. This page infringes on some very serious BLP concerns. If you'd like to email me privately regarding this, I'd be happy to explain it further. Cary Bass demandez 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest asking a checkuser about that (I see Uninvited responded to the request, so possibly him). As a clerk, I generally try to remain neutral about whether requests should or shouldn't be run. I s'pose you're as free to re-file as anybody, though. Hope that clears things up a bit. – Luna Santin ( talk) 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
From Natalie's advice, I decided to check with you about a dispute going on between User:Mudaliar and others including myself regarding the articles Mudaliar & Sengunthar Sengundhar Kaikolar Kaikolan Devadasi.
Regarding article Mudaliar many editors have found that the User:Mudaliar is intent on glorifying his group Tondai Mandala Saiva Vellala - TMSV and slandering the group Sengunthar alias kaikolar. All our edits are being simply reverted. I and User:Mudaliar have been engaged in this editing and reverting over the past 4 months. I got bored and left. I came back and found that User:Mudaliar was doing the same with other editors. However he thinks that these other editors are sock puppets of me. He also has been using many sock puppets as stated by himself in the talk page of Admin Dina. Instead of engaging in revert wars, I think I'll leave the articles as they are i.e. the version preferred by User:Mudaliar and conduct a survey. So we need a fair mechanism to conduct the survey and avoid being influenced by opinions from sock puppets. Further we need the visitors of the page to be notified that a survey is being conducted as the survey is at the bottom of the talk page. Again when I try to put it on top, it is being deleted.
Secondly regarding articles Sengunthar Sengundhar Kaikolar Kaikolan they all refer to the same group of people with just different variations of spellings. So it needs to be merged or redirected. However User:Mudaliar prevents the redirection and insists on slandering the group in all these articles.
Thirdly regarding article
Devadasi, a term used to refer to temple prostitutes and system in India he insists on stating that the group Kaikolar are the ones who supplied girls to this system.
The group that actually supplied the girls were Isai Vellala, a branch of Vellala to which User:Mudaliar also belongs. Irrespective of who supplied the girls, User:Mudaliar claims that all these girls from all the 26 states throught India were from the Kaikolar. Kaikolar were restricted only to one southern most state of India. Due to his repeated reverts, people have lost interest in the fair process of Wikipedia editing.
Finally, out of frustration he has posted in the talk pages of the following articles statements slandering Sengunthar what he calls a request for comment.
Unfortunately I also was involved in the same revert wars for a day before I realized my error and got out of it.
So we need a way to deal with this jobless person. I have been taking timeouts of a month in between my edits. However nobody has been able to stop User:Mudaliar and his edit wars.
The main reason seems to be that he as a member of Tondai Mandala Saiva Vellala has been stealing the genealogy proofs of other similarly named group Tondai Mandala Vellala alias KondaiKatti Vellala for his glorification. When I point this out, he goes berserk and starts attacking my group Kaikolar.
I have also suggested that we have a disambiguation page about the Mudaliar article similar to Gounder article, both of which are titles used by various groups in Tamilnadu in India.
Many people have faced his unprofessional and childish behavior. So currently I am at the state where I just want to lock up the article after conducting a survey.
Venki 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova,
Natalie_Erin ( talk · contribs) told me that you would mediate a dispute between Venki123 ( talk · contribs) and I in the above mentioned articles.
I have backed up my statements with valid research papers recognized in India and at the International level. I once again furnish below these details for your quick reference:
1. Mudaliar is the title of Tondaimandala Vellalars only. Its the surname of Tondaimandala Vellalars in South India. Its a feudal title like Baron, Count etc., There are ample proofs for this assertion. I have given a few below. Note that the research has been done by authors from the US, UK, India etc. Other castes claiming it is analogous to people adding "Duke", "Viscount", "Baron" at the end of their names and claiming to be of aristocratic birth. This is not acceptable and the truth is evident if you go through the references.
Citations from research papers:
a). Irschick, Eugene F. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. direct web reference: http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft038n99hg&brand=eschol
b) Order and Disorder in Colonial South India Eugene F. Irschick Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1989), pp. 459-492, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X(1989)23%3A3%3C459%3AOADICS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B
c) Castes & Tribes of South India - ET.Thurston, VII 361 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Castes-Tribes-Southern-India-Thurston/dp/8120602889. Edgar Thurston was a British Officer in Colonial India and was the curator of the Indian Museum of History, Madras, India even after Indian Independence.
d) http://www.saivaneri.org/keralal-pillai-history.html
2. Relation between Devadasis and Sengunthar, Kaikolars
Citations from research papers and books:
a)The Erotic Sculptures of India Y. Krishan Artibus Asiae, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1972), pp. 331-343
(proves that kaikolan musicians = devadasis) http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3648(1972)34%3A4%3C331%3ATESOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
b)Artisans in Vijayanagar Society, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, 417-444 (1985)
This research article explains the blood relation between the Devadasis and the Kaikolar. ("Devaradiyar (dancing girls who have very close kinship ties with the Kaikkolar link 1: http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/22/4/417 link 2:
c) Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/19/1/47?ck=nck
Text Quoted from article: "At least one woman in every Kaikkola household was, according to age-old tradition dedicated to the temple as a devaradiyar or devadasi. The devaradiyar enjoyed special privileges in the days of the Vijayanagar empire and were the only women permitted a direct audience with the king".
d) Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/19/1/47?ck=nck
This research article (along with references to an inscription) describes how a devaradiyar or devadasi won special privileges for the Kaikkolas from the king Deva Raya II (A.D 1433)
e) Some Enquiries into the Condition of Weavers in Medieval South India, Indian Historical Review, Vol. VI, Nos. 1 and 2
f) This article talks in much detail about how women from the Sengundhar/ Kaikola caste get into the sacred prostitution in temples.
"Contending identities: Sacred prostitution and reform in colonial South India Priyadarshini Vijaisri A1, A1 Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi" South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group Issue: Volume 28, Number 3 / December 2005 Pages: 387 - 411
g)Another reference book Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God. Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu by Leslie C. Orr, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279(200210%2F12)122%3A4%3C919%3ADDADOG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T
Please read through atleast a few of the above articles.
Moreover, Venki123 ( talk · contribs) is using socket puppets to push his point. He also has been abusing me and other users repeatedly. Please see below for yourself:
1. as of 20:27, 22 March 2007 2. as of 20:49, 9 February 2007 3. as of 20:48, 9 February 2007 4. as of 22:35, 9 February 2007 5. as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 6. as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 7. as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 8. as of 22:36, 9 February 2007 9. as of 22:37, 9 February 2007 10. as of 22:37, 9 February 2007
More vandalism by Venki123 ( talk · contribs) 1. Revision as of 20:50, 22 March 2007 Why has he deleted heavily referenced sections ? 2. revision (22:15, 22 March 2007) See how he has deleted the entire talk page and replaced with his post. He is well aware that he should not delete other editors' posts in the talk page. He has just blanked out the talk page and replaced with a few sentences of his own. 3.Vandalism through socket puppetry: Revision as of 16:01, 21 March 2007 Check ip:70.49.175.94. Luckily Agathoclea ( talk · contribs) caught it and reverted his edits.
There are plenty more articles like the ones above where he uses extremely filthy language and threatens me.
Venki123 (
talk ·
contribs) is unable accept my references even though they are completely valid and were written by world reknown historians like Edgar Thurston, etc. who was a British Officer in Colonial India and was also the curator of the Indian Museum of History at Madras, India for a long time after Indian Independence.
Venki123 ( talk · contribs) has been abusing me and other editors repeatedly and aims to divert this as a dispute when in fact the only thing he has been doing is vandalise articles and delete heavily referenced sections using socket puppets. Now, he is trying to get these articles protected and destroy the work of other editors who have taken time to add sources as these edits are not favorable to him. I suggest this person evaluate his ulterior motive and do something constructive instead of killing the spirit of Wikipedia. Mudaliar 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you look at this removal of information from the article Pamela Jones, and tell me if you think that the material fails WP:BLP in any way? The editor in question, intimated it should be removed, and when it was edited and a compromise amongst other editors (not him) had been reached, he decided it should go anyway, and rather then get stuck into an edit war, I figured I'd look for an outside, neutral opinion. The link is [25]. I figure looking at it informally before getting a WP:3O or WP:RfC on the article. Thanks :) SirFozzie 03:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Druv,
My 2 cents worth on this.
It gives the Wiki a bad image when this happens. personally I feel Venky (he comes in different names in different forums) has a track record of insulting vellalars, kallars, Maravars and Others and making bold claims without proof. A check on his logs will prove, Venky has claimed
- Buddha was a kaikolar, Nallur/Jaffna Kings are Kaikolar, Kaikolars are Pallavas, Kaikolars are the first to have the Mudali surname, Vellalars have never used the Mudali Surname historically, Kaikolars are the only martial caste in Tamil Nadu and Vellalars have no history in Tamil Nadu. Can he prove authentically any of the above? Each and every one of his above contentions are wrong, Most of it can be proved with a Google search or chekcing up at the nearest library. I hope the admins make sure that any representation is through academic sources and references. Let him prove his above contentions first. IN the meantime, Mudaliar is doing a good job keeping Venky away. At least Mudaliar has proven his edits with authentic sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vjackson ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello, Durova. I was wondering if you could take a look at this [26]. This user has made edits to several Barrymore-related articles asserting that John Drew Barrymore is the love child of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald. I was thinking about tagging the statement with 'citation needed', but given that it's quite a claim and that it was not previously mentioned in any of the articles, I thought something stronger might be in order. If you have a chance and could let me know how you would handle it, I would be most appreciative. - Skinny McGee 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I suspect that the user:mudaliar is once again using sock puppets for his arguments. If you just go through the user contributions of the user vjackson, the only contribution he has ever made was to commend user:mudaliar on his job. Can we check whether it is sock puppet of user:mudaliar ? However this user:mudaliar is known to create multiple sock puppets. See this login User:Karikala_Cholan who is another recently active editor who had no history before. Seems to me that all these are sock puppets of User:mudaliar.
Venki 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The origen of the Chilean population is spaniard, (to see demography of Chile ) the Chile economy does not have a 58% of poverty, is impossible with the entrance per capita and the HDI of Chile. The word Mestizo is never used in the hispanic world to describe people who are predominantly European as is the case for most Chileans. Firstly, as you may know, in Latin America it is used for those who are predominantly amerindian in their ancestry. (It would apply in Mexico and Central America). Secondly, there is no defined ethnic group in Chile which can be defined as mestizo, there are just people with more or less Indian bood, Spanish origin being nearly always the larger part of the ancestry. There is no sense of common belonging shared exclusively by people with amerindian ancestry which excludes people who dont have this ancestry. This is a vital characteristic of an ethnic group. The word mestizo is pejorative in our language and should be used as little as possible. Ill give you an example. When the movie "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince" came out in the Spanish speaking world, it was translated into Harry Potter and the Prince, because of the negative connotations that the word mestizo implied. Finally, in our cultural community, Latinness, Spanishness (or if you want to use racial terms "whiteness") is an expansive concept which does not exclude people placind then in a different ethnic group on the basis of their blood being "tainted" as happens in the Anglo Saxon world. Although, I agree that that in certain countries where racial divisions have been stronger due to a much larger Amerindian community, (such as Peru or Guatemala or Mexico)this leads to implications regarding identity and ethnicity..
MY SOURCES
1,. THE WORLD VALUES WORLD CHILE 2006 [
[27]]
3.- SPAIN GOV. [ [28]]
4.- CIA [ [29]]
Antarcticwik 06:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
After few months of peace and quited, this incident does not fill me with hope it will last. Per our mediation, I asked Ghirla to refactor or apologize to a comment I consider offensive, he refused - accusing me of molesting, baiting and harassing. Could you ask him to reconsider his behaviour? If this is a sign of things to come, I see no other way but to restart the mediation or ArbCom proceedings if it fails.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I did some poking around and left my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#G2bambino_wikistalking. Thanks! Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 17:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for your feedback and conclusion on this report. It was very much appreciated. Can we also put semi-protection on the Star Wars Galaxies article also? This was the other article used as a major resource in the report. Roguegeek ( talk) 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I did some digging on User:BenH's suspected sockpuppet IPs, and found that most of them trace to Embarq. Would it be appropriate to post the abuse email contact? As you've probably seen, he's violated Embarq's AUP several times over. Combine that with the hope that the community ban passes, and we should be able to nip him in the bud. Blueboy96 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you here that blocks should ideally be preventative rather than punitive. But the reality is different. It is hard to draw an exact line between the two notions. A clear example of the preventative block is blocking a user in the midst of the vandalizing spree. At the same time, the block intended for the user to "get the message" that something is unacceptable, is at least both punitive (for past misbehavior) and preventative (to make new misbehavior less likely, while this is rarely achieved by a block, as we both know.) That said, I do not support blocking Darwinek from editing but desysopping here is both preventative and punitive. It will make sure that abusive blocks will not recur, since the past lessons did not teach the user anything, apparently, and punitive, since the user will understand that abusive behavior (not just as an admin but as an abusive talker) has consequences as deadminning may be a penalty for that. Deadminning is harsh enough to relay a message, I think, and combining it with a ban would hopefully be unnecessary. -- Irpen 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)