I am not yet eligible for a triple crown, but it is something I strive towards. As such, I have a question for you. Does there need to be two separate entities for the GA and featured content requirements? Or does taking one article from nothing to GA and then to FA meet the criteria? — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I also have not yet reached eligibility, but I'm curious. I have a DYK for M-35 (Michigan highway) and I've nominated the same article for Good Article review. Would this single article count for both criteria? I'm assuming that if it does and I see the article through to Feature Article, then I'd have a triple crown from the same article. Imzadi1979 05:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
DYK:
Harry Love (lawman) - article creation:
[1], promotion:
[2]
GA:
Rancho Camulos - article creation:
[3], promotion:
[4]
FP:
Image:TamarackMiners CopperCountryMI sepia.jpg - upload:
[5], promotion:
[6]
--
howcheng {
chat} 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. I have some question about the CEM and the conditional unblock. Are we allowed to edit during the AbrCom & Mediation period? If we are, what are the conditions? Surely, we have to keep ourselves away any controversial issue related with the revert parole and the articles of conflict. I guess it's ok to comment on any talk page? About the CEM, what's the procedure? What's your plan? Kind regards, E104421 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
You banned user Center-for-Medieval-Studies more then a year ago but I found today a text that he left in the article on Baguette : 08:55, 6 June 2005 Center-for-Medieval-Studies He wrote :
The French government recently codified into law a specific type of baguette, the "baguette de tradition", which can only be made using pre-modern methods. This classification was the result of the efforts of historian Steven Kaplan, who specializes in the history of French bread from 1700 - 1770. Kaplan called upon the French to reject the modern baguette - which he denounced as a "tasteless, odorless monstrosity" - in favor of more flavorful, original types of French bread. The key, Kaplan's research suggested, is the 18th century practice of allowing the yeast to develop overnight, which results in bread with a cream-colored interior (rather than the familiar white) and a much more pronounced flavor and smell which is widely regarded as superior to the modern baguette.
Did someone try to find the mistakes that he wrote in the wikipedia?
-- YoavD 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, thank you for all your help and encoragement with the User:Anacapa report. I'm really really sorry to burden you with this question but I need a frank objective opinon on whether I'm being a dick. I'm involved in a dispute on talk feminism about the insertion of the word perceived into a line describing feminist concerns. Basically it is being argued, by an editor called Altoids Man, that feminism "perceives" gender inequality as favouring men. And that this is a "controversial minority view". I totally dispute this. I have explained that such gender inequalities can be sourced from agencies such as the UN.
I'm holding my line on this (under a some pressure) because I know that the introduction of a phrase like "perceived" blurs mountains of notable, factual evidence of gender inequality favouring men, info produced by indepent bodies. I know its at the level of semantics but I don't believe the proposed edit is accurate or responsible encyclopedic writing. I also consider the claim that gender inequality favours women an WP:ATT exceptional claim needing an exceptional source. Maybe I missed something but I never saw that as a minority, controversial opinion. I feel he that there is an element of Reductio ad absurdum in a few places by Altoids Man, but I maybe wrong.
Altoids man has recently shifted his edit request. It began with an interesting complaint that feminists perceive gender inequality that favours men over women. And he attempts to prove this (almost mathematically) [7]. He later moves the argument saying: "The viewpoint that inequalities exist is a POV, the viewpoint that supposed inequalities favor men over women is not fact, but opinion, or POV. This is an opinion that anyone is free to take, and that opinion apparently belongs on this page" And now he puts it on the the requests for comment on WP:GS and Project Sociology that I have misrepresented his edit request and that he just wants to correct NPOV in the article.
His edits were reverted by User:AntiVan and User:Orangemike, his comments on talk page are disputed by myself [8] Orangemike and User:Strangerer [9] - though Altoids notes in his response to my RfC on WP:GS and Project Sociology that there are only 2 editors disputing his claim. After Orangemike pointed out he was the only one arguing for this edit [10] Altoids Man called for help from user:Wikidudeman.
I am sorry to burden you with this but I find this discussion very stressful and I worry that I may not be giving User:Altoids Man enough slack-- Cailil 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. please don't feel obliged to "get involved" in the discussion I realize you have a lot of other things going on, so if I am being a dick just tell me :) You know its kinda funny but so far everyone involved in this argument (perhaps with the exception of strangerer, whose gender I can't assertain) is male. I wonder if that comes across?-- Cailil 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
hey Durova, i'll uh.... um... give you a high five if you start to use edit summaries more! please? ;-) JoeSmack Talk 18:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Quack quack. This edit gives him away, if the IP and Croatian articles alone aren't enough. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel( Talk) 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you yet again but I was just wondering about the User:Anacapa report. It's just been archived - does that mean the discussion is effectively closed or can comments still be made on the archive page? -- Cailil talk 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Just in case Durova doesn't see this for a bit, it means that the discussion is closed for now. If there's any new reports or you need to add something new to the text, we can certainly reopen the discussion. 23:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. It seems a banned user is back again, using a sockpuppet User:Norman84 and an IP 195.56.91.23. After I have seen VinceB's typical IP range, his typical edits, and his typical comments, I asked for CheckUser. My request was declined by User:Dmcdevit as unnecessary because he found that it is indeed VinceB's IP and behavior without CheckUser. [11] Could you block those new sockpuppets please? Thank you in advance. Tankred 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Scribner ( talk · contribs) noticed that the protection you applied to Aces High (computer game) expired and has been editing like crazy to interject what I think is some wacky NPOV. Any suggestions on strategies? I've asked him to review WP:NPOV, but I think he might be someone with a personal grudge, maybe someone who was kicked out of the game. I'm uncomfortable communicating with him as an admin because I've added content to the page, any chance you'd be able to take a glance at his recent edits to the article and, if you agree with my assessment, perhaps give some guidance to the user? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 04:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You recently made a comment on the HSMP page regarding a link that kept getting removed. It would seem that there is a determination to focus on who posts a link rather than the relevance or merit of the link, regardless of the comments of others stating that the link is a useful resource. Indeed, there seems to be a bit of paranoia in evidence, with foundless and false accusations being made. All rather silly, and I am surprised at the degree of fuss being made about this, but is there any way you could do something to sort this out?
The page in question is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme#External_Link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spooky69 ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
No, I feel it is a point of principle, a form of accreditation, entirely relevant to the article that I wrote and of benefit to those interested in the subject, although that clearly seems to be of little interest to some. It would also seem that 'discouraged' is interpreted as 'not allowed'. The view being expressed by your rather dismissive comments is that this is some sort of gambit to promote a website that is already one of the top sites in it's niche and I feel that this is a rather narrow-minded and cynical view, which entirely ignores the value of the link to those interested in the subject. One visitor tried to say that the link was worthwhile, only for further unfounded and incorrect accusations to emerge against this visitor. Is this generally how things are at Wikipedia? The article that existed prior to my involvement was almost entirely incorrect and hopelessly out of date. Is this attitude meant to encourage people to submit articles based upon sound and extensive professional knowledge? I also remain somewhat perplexed by the previous statement that the link would be acceptable and welcome if it went to a non-commercial site, meaning in reality that it was provided by someone without any commercial knowledge of immigration law. There is a 'holier than thou' attitude being shown and I find it rather unsavoury. Spooky69 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Back off? That is an interesting choice of phrase and rather combative. I thought this was a discussion? Editors who have no interest in the subject have opposed the link, but I have no doubt that more editors than the one evident so far would feel it is useful. Should I simply remove the article? I feel that the link constitutes some form of accreditation, aside from being valid in relation to the article, and the idea was not simply that of self-promotion, irrespective of the entrenched view that some might have. I fear that perhaps you do not realise how important this particular visa is for a great number of people and how useful the points calculator is for such people. I would be interested in what Durova thinks about this, as this is where the original suggestion to let other editors comment came from. Unfortunately, when a comment was forthcoming it was dismissed. Spooky69 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I read WP:POINT but do not see how that is entirely relevant. I have not reverted the article to include the link. I have tried to discuss this but my points have been largely ignored. Another editor suggested that the link was of value but this was ignored and accusations were cast. I can see the conflict of interest argument in the terms stated above, and of course my opinion is likely to be biaised, but this does not mean that I am automatically wrong. Again, I am simply trying to discuss this issue. I was prompted to do so after I had not reverted the article to include the link and waited for someone to say something after what seemed like a logical suggestion from Durova. The reality was that someone agreed with me and their view was all but dismissed, which somewhat contradicted the suggestion made by Durova. Are you saying that if someone else adds the link then you will not remove it? With regard to wikilawyering, I have no idea what this is but I do own a legal services company... Perhaps some decent discussion would provide better understanding and encourage me to contribute again in the future. Spooky69 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's happening again.... See WT:BAN#Community ban section is instruction creep. -- Ben TALK/ HIST 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems the same IP which left the "rest of eternity" comment on PatPeter's page is now editing. I considered blocking 67.167.255.36 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a user evading a block, but since it seems to be constructive, couldn't decide. I figured since you were the one to officially extend the block to one year, I'd let you give the verdict. - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the next step in the mediation? The discussion has started to deteriorate and the only participant besides myself and Armon is Blue Tie. Armon frankly isn't dealing with the issue at hand and is instead posturing in an arrogant manner about what appears to me to be a false issue. We could really use a hand here. Thanks. csloat 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I am a teacher at a school called Hogwarts and was wondering if you had heard of it. Is it covered by the project? Please let me know. Many thanks, Zesty Prospect 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, in reponse to this comment by me you said:
I apologise if it seems offensive to you in any way, but having looked very hard at it I don't know what you mean. Could you please explain? I reproduce my comment in full below so that we can discuss it on this page:
This is nothing more or less than a long plea to entrench unnecessary instructions in our already quite adequate banning policy. Wikipedia policy is policy as it is enacted on Wikipedia, not whatever tripe has been written in this document. If you can persuade the administrators to jump all the hoops that have recently been written (without much discussion that I can see) into this policy document, then it will become Wikipedia policy. Othewise it makes more sense to restore it so that it accurately reflects actual policy.
-- Tony Sidaway 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this user banned, or just indefinately blocked, in addition to being desysoped for abuse. This seems very similar to the case of Freestylefrappe, who was once an administrator, now banned.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I would, but I wouldn't know where to put him, community ban, arb ban, ban from Jimbo Wales.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Durova, if I've wasted your time by bringing this up.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been in conversation with Armon and cloat on the mediation page but I believe it has not gotten anywhere. Maybe you can offer some help or offer some parting suggestions. -- Blue Tie 05:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
| Saw this on AN/I Looks like here we go again, and this bout of whackamole is disturbing, as he seems to be using accounts for only 1/2 edits, and then discarding them (I guess he thinks he has a better chance of getting them to stick if they just look like random edits). Probably an open proxy as well. :/ SirFozzie 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about a couple of things regarding your blocking event. First, what led you to believe that I had anything to do with this User:JB196? I've looked at some of his edits (inactive since September, mind you), and I guess you were seeing that we were both editing wrestling pages. That's a blockable offense on Wikipedia? The reason I happened to hit some wrestling pages was because I was looking for WP:BLP violations, and I happened to begin with Ko Jong-Soo (not a wrestler) and was working my way down a list, alphabetically. While working on pages about a poet, a model, a football player, and a businessman, I wandered into a wrestler or two, and BAM, I get blocked from editing Wikipedia. How intolerant is that? Second, you recommended that I join WP:ADOPT, when in fact if you would have spent two seconds looking at my User page, I've had the Adoption template posted since late February! (Still not adopted yet.) I guess what I'm saying is that you've shown some measurable level of disregard for me as a thoughtful editor of Wikipedia, and yet your "tone" (if I may call it that) suggests I should be very humble and apologetic toward you. Why is that? Is there some "royal status" on Wikipedia, of which I'm not yet aware? -- WikiGnosis 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: The user doesn't appear to be interested in appealing the block, and has characterized being blocked for WP:NLT as a joke. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The situation has changed, if you'd like to offer an opinion on the subject at WP:AN/I#Wikignosis_block_for_legal_threat. Y'all don't have to agree with me, but to make sure all sides are represented, I'd appreciate your insight. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, you are the one who unblocked this puppet-master. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion Now given that this user has engaged in another series of spamming and POV pushing [12] even after the abuse of unblock templates [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]) has actively campaigned and recruited many of his "allies" to comment on this case. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. I think this is definitely time to indef. block him (or community ban him). Thanks-- Certified.Gangsta 08:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:POINT involves disruption in order to prove a point. It doesn't just mean "making a point," and I have no idea why you invoked it, as I don't even see a point being made. Please think more before throwing that claim around. Dmcdevit· t 09:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, no new socks to report, no overbearing tussels anywhere else on or off WP. Kinda weird, huh? Anyway, hope you're not stressing out, and you have something fun to do this weekend. :) SirFozzie 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova,
Are you a Russian? If so, so am I; read my profile. If you are Russin email me at [e-mail removed].—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ентар ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 April, 2007 (UTC)
Could I apply for a triple crown? I've brought La Camisa Negra article to DYK, several articles to GA status ( No Doubt, Juanes, Love. Angel. Music. Baby., Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song), Luxurious, and Crash (Gwen Stefani song)), and both What You Waiting For? and Hollaback Girl to featured status. ShadowHalo 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you're on the right track with that one, this guy didn't seem like JB196 to me. --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I request your help in figuring out what this user is doing with SampleBrokerageDoc and their other edits. I have asked them what they are doing but I haven't recieved any response. Many thanks. Bass fishing physicist 13:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have a spare moment, you might want to have a look at this character. Recently-created account with no substantive edits I can find, but gave an award to the indef-blocked Le Grand Roi Des Citrouilles for some reason. I'm not saying "ban-evasion" just as yet, but it looks a bit odd. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
An editor is avoiding participation in a consensus building discussion, making revisions/reversions to an article that seem to go against the building consensus. Several editors that are participating in the discussion have reverted the changes. I've looked around the dispute resolution pages, but there's nothing there that seems to apply here since this isn't a dispute: the other editor isn't even communicating. Any suggestions? Sancho 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ben, I see you've tried for adminship and the only real objection was lack of experience. Would you like me to become your coach? Durova Charge! 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You've been doing a lot of work on the process side of things that's been diligent and appreciated and mostly on target. Now and then the lack of experience at plain ol' article writing shows itself in your comments. I recommend to all of my coachees that they get at least one GA under their belts. Some time at article content RFC seems like another good fit for your interests that would hone your skills. You never know what you'll find and it's an excellent introduction to conflict dynamics. And if you haven't already read the page, have a look at Raul's laws of Wikipedia. Durova Charge! 06:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
User:172.162.73.121 has recently appeared advocating "keep" on a series of AfDs, as well as (as you can see) vigorously defending Isola'd Elba/Le Grand Roi/whatever he's calling himself these days. The rationales tend to be vaguely reasonable, but there's something suspicious about the MO. Was a CheckUser ever run establishing the IP Le Grand Roi was using? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Add User:164.107.223.217 to that list. In fact, the majority of the AfD here is suspect, as a series of anons have appeared and are behaving precisely in the way that your friend and mine did beforehand - even down to choices of words etc. I've got that AfD watchlisted, and if the anons keep appearing I'll handle it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear BigHaz, I am NOT Isola'd Elba. Period. Moreover, Le Grand Roi has given up on editing Wikipedia. Again, period. And if this place is going to be accusatory, fine, so shall I give up on editing. Good night and good bye. -- 172.162.73.121 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin is outraged at Talk:List of HIV-positive people and has asked "Can anyone explain how Wikipedia is improved by having it?" Colin° Talk 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I just spotted the return of Anacapa ( talk · contribs). They've been using a number of IPs during march and April but last night (April 30th) they reactivated their user account. They are engaged in a subtle POVpush on Rape, Incest and Shunning (where they have broken WP:AGF arguing that some editor are apologists for tha practice). I've updatyed the report and I'm wondering if there's enough evidence to reopen at CN and should I engage Anacapa on their talk page directly (ie asking them if they are drop in editor)? I've asked Coelacan about this too-- Cailil talk 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Durova, I've just emailed you-- Cailil talk 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I advised Cailil to consider withdrawing the request if the discussion doesn't shift soon. [29] If you think I'm being unnecessarily pessimistic, please do let Cailil know if might be best to wait it out. ·· coel acan 05:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova User:Tony Sidaway just deleted the report at CSN along with others that were still being discussed (I can't find them in an archive) - is this normal or is it an effect of MfD? I was under the impression CSN was bot archived-- Cailil talk 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not yet eligible for a triple crown, but it is something I strive towards. As such, I have a question for you. Does there need to be two separate entities for the GA and featured content requirements? Or does taking one article from nothing to GA and then to FA meet the criteria? — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I also have not yet reached eligibility, but I'm curious. I have a DYK for M-35 (Michigan highway) and I've nominated the same article for Good Article review. Would this single article count for both criteria? I'm assuming that if it does and I see the article through to Feature Article, then I'd have a triple crown from the same article. Imzadi1979 05:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
DYK:
Harry Love (lawman) - article creation:
[1], promotion:
[2]
GA:
Rancho Camulos - article creation:
[3], promotion:
[4]
FP:
Image:TamarackMiners CopperCountryMI sepia.jpg - upload:
[5], promotion:
[6]
--
howcheng {
chat} 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. I have some question about the CEM and the conditional unblock. Are we allowed to edit during the AbrCom & Mediation period? If we are, what are the conditions? Surely, we have to keep ourselves away any controversial issue related with the revert parole and the articles of conflict. I guess it's ok to comment on any talk page? About the CEM, what's the procedure? What's your plan? Kind regards, E104421 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
You banned user Center-for-Medieval-Studies more then a year ago but I found today a text that he left in the article on Baguette : 08:55, 6 June 2005 Center-for-Medieval-Studies He wrote :
The French government recently codified into law a specific type of baguette, the "baguette de tradition", which can only be made using pre-modern methods. This classification was the result of the efforts of historian Steven Kaplan, who specializes in the history of French bread from 1700 - 1770. Kaplan called upon the French to reject the modern baguette - which he denounced as a "tasteless, odorless monstrosity" - in favor of more flavorful, original types of French bread. The key, Kaplan's research suggested, is the 18th century practice of allowing the yeast to develop overnight, which results in bread with a cream-colored interior (rather than the familiar white) and a much more pronounced flavor and smell which is widely regarded as superior to the modern baguette.
Did someone try to find the mistakes that he wrote in the wikipedia?
-- YoavD 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, thank you for all your help and encoragement with the User:Anacapa report. I'm really really sorry to burden you with this question but I need a frank objective opinon on whether I'm being a dick. I'm involved in a dispute on talk feminism about the insertion of the word perceived into a line describing feminist concerns. Basically it is being argued, by an editor called Altoids Man, that feminism "perceives" gender inequality as favouring men. And that this is a "controversial minority view". I totally dispute this. I have explained that such gender inequalities can be sourced from agencies such as the UN.
I'm holding my line on this (under a some pressure) because I know that the introduction of a phrase like "perceived" blurs mountains of notable, factual evidence of gender inequality favouring men, info produced by indepent bodies. I know its at the level of semantics but I don't believe the proposed edit is accurate or responsible encyclopedic writing. I also consider the claim that gender inequality favours women an WP:ATT exceptional claim needing an exceptional source. Maybe I missed something but I never saw that as a minority, controversial opinion. I feel he that there is an element of Reductio ad absurdum in a few places by Altoids Man, but I maybe wrong.
Altoids man has recently shifted his edit request. It began with an interesting complaint that feminists perceive gender inequality that favours men over women. And he attempts to prove this (almost mathematically) [7]. He later moves the argument saying: "The viewpoint that inequalities exist is a POV, the viewpoint that supposed inequalities favor men over women is not fact, but opinion, or POV. This is an opinion that anyone is free to take, and that opinion apparently belongs on this page" And now he puts it on the the requests for comment on WP:GS and Project Sociology that I have misrepresented his edit request and that he just wants to correct NPOV in the article.
His edits were reverted by User:AntiVan and User:Orangemike, his comments on talk page are disputed by myself [8] Orangemike and User:Strangerer [9] - though Altoids notes in his response to my RfC on WP:GS and Project Sociology that there are only 2 editors disputing his claim. After Orangemike pointed out he was the only one arguing for this edit [10] Altoids Man called for help from user:Wikidudeman.
I am sorry to burden you with this but I find this discussion very stressful and I worry that I may not be giving User:Altoids Man enough slack-- Cailil 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. please don't feel obliged to "get involved" in the discussion I realize you have a lot of other things going on, so if I am being a dick just tell me :) You know its kinda funny but so far everyone involved in this argument (perhaps with the exception of strangerer, whose gender I can't assertain) is male. I wonder if that comes across?-- Cailil 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
hey Durova, i'll uh.... um... give you a high five if you start to use edit summaries more! please? ;-) JoeSmack Talk 18:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Quack quack. This edit gives him away, if the IP and Croatian articles alone aren't enough. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel( Talk) 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you yet again but I was just wondering about the User:Anacapa report. It's just been archived - does that mean the discussion is effectively closed or can comments still be made on the archive page? -- Cailil talk 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Just in case Durova doesn't see this for a bit, it means that the discussion is closed for now. If there's any new reports or you need to add something new to the text, we can certainly reopen the discussion. 23:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. It seems a banned user is back again, using a sockpuppet User:Norman84 and an IP 195.56.91.23. After I have seen VinceB's typical IP range, his typical edits, and his typical comments, I asked for CheckUser. My request was declined by User:Dmcdevit as unnecessary because he found that it is indeed VinceB's IP and behavior without CheckUser. [11] Could you block those new sockpuppets please? Thank you in advance. Tankred 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Scribner ( talk · contribs) noticed that the protection you applied to Aces High (computer game) expired and has been editing like crazy to interject what I think is some wacky NPOV. Any suggestions on strategies? I've asked him to review WP:NPOV, but I think he might be someone with a personal grudge, maybe someone who was kicked out of the game. I'm uncomfortable communicating with him as an admin because I've added content to the page, any chance you'd be able to take a glance at his recent edits to the article and, if you agree with my assessment, perhaps give some guidance to the user? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 04:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You recently made a comment on the HSMP page regarding a link that kept getting removed. It would seem that there is a determination to focus on who posts a link rather than the relevance or merit of the link, regardless of the comments of others stating that the link is a useful resource. Indeed, there seems to be a bit of paranoia in evidence, with foundless and false accusations being made. All rather silly, and I am surprised at the degree of fuss being made about this, but is there any way you could do something to sort this out?
The page in question is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme#External_Link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spooky69 ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
No, I feel it is a point of principle, a form of accreditation, entirely relevant to the article that I wrote and of benefit to those interested in the subject, although that clearly seems to be of little interest to some. It would also seem that 'discouraged' is interpreted as 'not allowed'. The view being expressed by your rather dismissive comments is that this is some sort of gambit to promote a website that is already one of the top sites in it's niche and I feel that this is a rather narrow-minded and cynical view, which entirely ignores the value of the link to those interested in the subject. One visitor tried to say that the link was worthwhile, only for further unfounded and incorrect accusations to emerge against this visitor. Is this generally how things are at Wikipedia? The article that existed prior to my involvement was almost entirely incorrect and hopelessly out of date. Is this attitude meant to encourage people to submit articles based upon sound and extensive professional knowledge? I also remain somewhat perplexed by the previous statement that the link would be acceptable and welcome if it went to a non-commercial site, meaning in reality that it was provided by someone without any commercial knowledge of immigration law. There is a 'holier than thou' attitude being shown and I find it rather unsavoury. Spooky69 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Back off? That is an interesting choice of phrase and rather combative. I thought this was a discussion? Editors who have no interest in the subject have opposed the link, but I have no doubt that more editors than the one evident so far would feel it is useful. Should I simply remove the article? I feel that the link constitutes some form of accreditation, aside from being valid in relation to the article, and the idea was not simply that of self-promotion, irrespective of the entrenched view that some might have. I fear that perhaps you do not realise how important this particular visa is for a great number of people and how useful the points calculator is for such people. I would be interested in what Durova thinks about this, as this is where the original suggestion to let other editors comment came from. Unfortunately, when a comment was forthcoming it was dismissed. Spooky69 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I read WP:POINT but do not see how that is entirely relevant. I have not reverted the article to include the link. I have tried to discuss this but my points have been largely ignored. Another editor suggested that the link was of value but this was ignored and accusations were cast. I can see the conflict of interest argument in the terms stated above, and of course my opinion is likely to be biaised, but this does not mean that I am automatically wrong. Again, I am simply trying to discuss this issue. I was prompted to do so after I had not reverted the article to include the link and waited for someone to say something after what seemed like a logical suggestion from Durova. The reality was that someone agreed with me and their view was all but dismissed, which somewhat contradicted the suggestion made by Durova. Are you saying that if someone else adds the link then you will not remove it? With regard to wikilawyering, I have no idea what this is but I do own a legal services company... Perhaps some decent discussion would provide better understanding and encourage me to contribute again in the future. Spooky69 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's happening again.... See WT:BAN#Community ban section is instruction creep. -- Ben TALK/ HIST 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems the same IP which left the "rest of eternity" comment on PatPeter's page is now editing. I considered blocking 67.167.255.36 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a user evading a block, but since it seems to be constructive, couldn't decide. I figured since you were the one to officially extend the block to one year, I'd let you give the verdict. - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the next step in the mediation? The discussion has started to deteriorate and the only participant besides myself and Armon is Blue Tie. Armon frankly isn't dealing with the issue at hand and is instead posturing in an arrogant manner about what appears to me to be a false issue. We could really use a hand here. Thanks. csloat 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I am a teacher at a school called Hogwarts and was wondering if you had heard of it. Is it covered by the project? Please let me know. Many thanks, Zesty Prospect 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, in reponse to this comment by me you said:
I apologise if it seems offensive to you in any way, but having looked very hard at it I don't know what you mean. Could you please explain? I reproduce my comment in full below so that we can discuss it on this page:
This is nothing more or less than a long plea to entrench unnecessary instructions in our already quite adequate banning policy. Wikipedia policy is policy as it is enacted on Wikipedia, not whatever tripe has been written in this document. If you can persuade the administrators to jump all the hoops that have recently been written (without much discussion that I can see) into this policy document, then it will become Wikipedia policy. Othewise it makes more sense to restore it so that it accurately reflects actual policy.
-- Tony Sidaway 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this user banned, or just indefinately blocked, in addition to being desysoped for abuse. This seems very similar to the case of Freestylefrappe, who was once an administrator, now banned.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I would, but I wouldn't know where to put him, community ban, arb ban, ban from Jimbo Wales.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Durova, if I've wasted your time by bringing this up.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been in conversation with Armon and cloat on the mediation page but I believe it has not gotten anywhere. Maybe you can offer some help or offer some parting suggestions. -- Blue Tie 05:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
| Saw this on AN/I Looks like here we go again, and this bout of whackamole is disturbing, as he seems to be using accounts for only 1/2 edits, and then discarding them (I guess he thinks he has a better chance of getting them to stick if they just look like random edits). Probably an open proxy as well. :/ SirFozzie 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about a couple of things regarding your blocking event. First, what led you to believe that I had anything to do with this User:JB196? I've looked at some of his edits (inactive since September, mind you), and I guess you were seeing that we were both editing wrestling pages. That's a blockable offense on Wikipedia? The reason I happened to hit some wrestling pages was because I was looking for WP:BLP violations, and I happened to begin with Ko Jong-Soo (not a wrestler) and was working my way down a list, alphabetically. While working on pages about a poet, a model, a football player, and a businessman, I wandered into a wrestler or two, and BAM, I get blocked from editing Wikipedia. How intolerant is that? Second, you recommended that I join WP:ADOPT, when in fact if you would have spent two seconds looking at my User page, I've had the Adoption template posted since late February! (Still not adopted yet.) I guess what I'm saying is that you've shown some measurable level of disregard for me as a thoughtful editor of Wikipedia, and yet your "tone" (if I may call it that) suggests I should be very humble and apologetic toward you. Why is that? Is there some "royal status" on Wikipedia, of which I'm not yet aware? -- WikiGnosis 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: The user doesn't appear to be interested in appealing the block, and has characterized being blocked for WP:NLT as a joke. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The situation has changed, if you'd like to offer an opinion on the subject at WP:AN/I#Wikignosis_block_for_legal_threat. Y'all don't have to agree with me, but to make sure all sides are represented, I'd appreciate your insight. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, you are the one who unblocked this puppet-master. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion Now given that this user has engaged in another series of spamming and POV pushing [12] even after the abuse of unblock templates [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]) has actively campaigned and recruited many of his "allies" to comment on this case. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. I think this is definitely time to indef. block him (or community ban him). Thanks-- Certified.Gangsta 08:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:POINT involves disruption in order to prove a point. It doesn't just mean "making a point," and I have no idea why you invoked it, as I don't even see a point being made. Please think more before throwing that claim around. Dmcdevit· t 09:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, no new socks to report, no overbearing tussels anywhere else on or off WP. Kinda weird, huh? Anyway, hope you're not stressing out, and you have something fun to do this weekend. :) SirFozzie 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova,
Are you a Russian? If so, so am I; read my profile. If you are Russin email me at [e-mail removed].—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ентар ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 April, 2007 (UTC)
Could I apply for a triple crown? I've brought La Camisa Negra article to DYK, several articles to GA status ( No Doubt, Juanes, Love. Angel. Music. Baby., Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song), Luxurious, and Crash (Gwen Stefani song)), and both What You Waiting For? and Hollaback Girl to featured status. ShadowHalo 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you're on the right track with that one, this guy didn't seem like JB196 to me. --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I request your help in figuring out what this user is doing with SampleBrokerageDoc and their other edits. I have asked them what they are doing but I haven't recieved any response. Many thanks. Bass fishing physicist 13:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have a spare moment, you might want to have a look at this character. Recently-created account with no substantive edits I can find, but gave an award to the indef-blocked Le Grand Roi Des Citrouilles for some reason. I'm not saying "ban-evasion" just as yet, but it looks a bit odd. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
An editor is avoiding participation in a consensus building discussion, making revisions/reversions to an article that seem to go against the building consensus. Several editors that are participating in the discussion have reverted the changes. I've looked around the dispute resolution pages, but there's nothing there that seems to apply here since this isn't a dispute: the other editor isn't even communicating. Any suggestions? Sancho 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ben, I see you've tried for adminship and the only real objection was lack of experience. Would you like me to become your coach? Durova Charge! 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You've been doing a lot of work on the process side of things that's been diligent and appreciated and mostly on target. Now and then the lack of experience at plain ol' article writing shows itself in your comments. I recommend to all of my coachees that they get at least one GA under their belts. Some time at article content RFC seems like another good fit for your interests that would hone your skills. You never know what you'll find and it's an excellent introduction to conflict dynamics. And if you haven't already read the page, have a look at Raul's laws of Wikipedia. Durova Charge! 06:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
User:172.162.73.121 has recently appeared advocating "keep" on a series of AfDs, as well as (as you can see) vigorously defending Isola'd Elba/Le Grand Roi/whatever he's calling himself these days. The rationales tend to be vaguely reasonable, but there's something suspicious about the MO. Was a CheckUser ever run establishing the IP Le Grand Roi was using? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Add User:164.107.223.217 to that list. In fact, the majority of the AfD here is suspect, as a series of anons have appeared and are behaving precisely in the way that your friend and mine did beforehand - even down to choices of words etc. I've got that AfD watchlisted, and if the anons keep appearing I'll handle it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear BigHaz, I am NOT Isola'd Elba. Period. Moreover, Le Grand Roi has given up on editing Wikipedia. Again, period. And if this place is going to be accusatory, fine, so shall I give up on editing. Good night and good bye. -- 172.162.73.121 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin is outraged at Talk:List of HIV-positive people and has asked "Can anyone explain how Wikipedia is improved by having it?" Colin° Talk 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I just spotted the return of Anacapa ( talk · contribs). They've been using a number of IPs during march and April but last night (April 30th) they reactivated their user account. They are engaged in a subtle POVpush on Rape, Incest and Shunning (where they have broken WP:AGF arguing that some editor are apologists for tha practice). I've updatyed the report and I'm wondering if there's enough evidence to reopen at CN and should I engage Anacapa on their talk page directly (ie asking them if they are drop in editor)? I've asked Coelacan about this too-- Cailil talk 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Durova, I've just emailed you-- Cailil talk 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I advised Cailil to consider withdrawing the request if the discussion doesn't shift soon. [29] If you think I'm being unnecessarily pessimistic, please do let Cailil know if might be best to wait it out. ·· coel acan 05:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova User:Tony Sidaway just deleted the report at CSN along with others that were still being discussed (I can't find them in an archive) - is this normal or is it an effect of MfD? I was under the impression CSN was bot archived-- Cailil talk 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)