If you're not biased, then tell me what you think about Jan Czarnowski. Please check it out. Tell me if this is notable or not (either it is, or its not) and then if you think its not, AFD it. That will show if you're biased or not. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Think I'm being unfair? Okay, open an admin conduct WP:RFC on me. Muster the best evidence you can find. I'm open to recall and I've voluntarily chosen to stand by the original terms of my participation after standards at that category loosened. If five editors in good standing agree with you I'll run for reconfirmation as a sysop. It's that easy. Durova Charge! 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)
Matt57, good research on a topic like this often involves going to the library. It's not civil to demand that Durova spend her volunteer time doing your bidding. Besides, Durova doesn't seem to have any particular interest or experience in Polish history. I don't understand why you are badgering her with such a hostile tone. Wikipedia has 4 million articles. I suggest you change focus, pronto, since you're obviously very upset about Elonka's view's on the images of Muhammad controversy. You are not an impartial party when it comes to editing articles about Elonka's relatives. Even if Elonka did something wrong a long time ago, that doesn't
excuse you from observing site standards. Your first concern must be your own behavior, not hers. If you keep going, the result may be a block to prevent you from driving away productive editors. -
Jehochman
Talk 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know your opinion about this proposal. -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrt to your evidence: Are you sure you're not mixing up pseudonymity with anonymity? The former allows for an exact pinpointing of the person in question, the latter doesn't. Or am I missing something? — [ aldebaer ] 00:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
i don't see what 64.91.201.195 could have possibly done to deserve a block for 1 week, much less a block at all. HUH? Andrewb1 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
can you show me those edits? i've gone through his contributions and there is nothing wrong with any of them. Andrewb1 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Edits to Judge Judy are similar in nature to the sockfarm. Also note the sockfarm's initial block was 24 hours, extended to 1 week for block evasion to complain at my talk page.
These additions are similar in tone to the blocked accounts. Nobody bats .1000 so feel free to take this to checkuser. I'll lift the block myself if I'm mistaken. Durova Charge! 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
that doesn't mean they are the sockfarm. i'm sure there are many people out there who are like that. i think the block should be lifted; the description of this case and judge judy's attitude is important to the viewer. Andrewb1 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
the edits you outline hardly constitute "disruption". Andrewb1 01:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova. Last year you helped a couple of us editors out with another editor who was acting in a very uncivil manner. We are having to deal with the same problem with the exact same editor yet again. Please see edits here and here. Here he blatantly goes after an admin. Threats of legal action can be found here and here. I think it's obvious that he's well aware of the policies. Through your actions last time, things did calm down for quite some time. I'm sorry for everyone to have to ask for your help again, but is there anything you could possibly do? Roguegeek ( talk) 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
He's withdrawn the threat so I've unblocked him. Durova Charge! 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, hope you're well, geekwise and otherwise. For some reason, I trust you giving a good opinion on this particular matter (perhaps because of past fun and games): I'm back at Wiki editing at both Global Warming and the Killian wikis. (I'm sure that fills you with the warm and fuzzies.) The Global Warming stuff has been going the way these things should work -- mostly on point debates, consensus building, and keeping debates among the regular editors lively but more or less convivial (I did get a troll editor a teeny bit upset when I did my analytical trick.) I was even given the go ahead to add a major section (although I think I liked it better when I was a care free, happy go lucky, smartalecky Usenet troll). With the Killian stuff, though, I've already run into malicious IP sockpuppets and admins who aren't thrilled with my attitude when I kind of, sort of, maybe imply that they might not be fully on top of things and that they should deal with the issues, like, now. The Killian Documents wiki already has full protection from further editing because of this. You have any tips to keep me from getting really annoyed? If so, sharing them would be most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
See Black hole information paradox. The Black star theory has been ridiculed, but it seems interesting none the less. - Jehochman Talk 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your assistance on the Bret Wolfe entry. Maybe you could also help me create an "unbiased" entry or lead me to an appropriate template. I have tried to set appropriate /examples to the various selections people have questioned. Is IMDB not a valid source...what would be a better route? I don't want to appease the difficult people on the discussion page but I would like to set an example of appropriate WIKI. Thanks for any and all help. Bretwolfe
Hi Durova, I was wondering if we might discuss lifting or relaxing my topic ban. You said to talk to you in a few weeks and we'd reevaluate it. Feel free to look at my contributions since that point. I have stuck to the things I said I would - the 2007 Miami Dolphins season and NFL roster templates. I have reverted vandalism on some NFL player pages, but only when it was blatant vandalism such as profanity and stuff. I figured this would be okay, as it really didn't make sense to ignore vandalism when I saw it. Anyway, think about it and let me know.
Also, I know I haven't come up with a list of those potential copyvios, so if you'd like me to do that before the topic ban is lifted I'd be happy to do it tonight. I kind of forgot for a little bit and I've been pretty busy with classes and other stuff, but I'll do it tonight. Quite frankly, I'm bored out of my mind and I'd really enjoy being able to work on NFL player articles again. I think with the other user banned it's far less likely things will ever escalate anywhere close to that point again. And of course, you could definitely monitor my behavior and re-institute a topic ban if you feel it's necessary. Anyway, think about it and get back to me when you have time. I'm very to resume more extensive contributions to the NFL project. Thanks.► Chris Nelson 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Durova - I wanted to let you know that yesterday I mistakenly violated my restriction by reverting more than once on a page. They have all since been reverted away from my last version so there's currently nothing wrong with any of the pages, but I slipped up due to habit and having no restrictions until recently. User:Ksy92003 outlines my violations at User talk:Picaroon. I can honestly say this was a mistake and I would never intentionally violate my restriction. I mean after all, it would be quickly noticed and I'd only face more punishment so why would I do it on purpose? Anyway, just wanted to make you aware and you or someone else can decide any punishment if necessary. I'm of the opinion that a one-time honest and harmless mistake might be worth going unpunished, but I'll understand if you think I should be reprimanded in some way. And obviously, if I make a mistake like this again a punishment would definitely be deserved. Thanks.► Chris Nelson 23:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm, time to get out my slightly dusty referee whistle and redirect this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Supply diffs with the report, please. Durova Charge! 01:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In hindsight, I guess there really was nothing that came out of the comment; I was just trying to defend myself from other people possibly thinking that I was being incivil. I have struck it out. Ksy92003 (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A bit of clarification. I don't know what to make of this exactly, but I need some small clarification on Chris' suspension. Now, on the article Clifton Dawson, Chris reverted me on September 25, before he was alerted of the suspension. Today, he reverted Yankees10 ( talk · contribs). He did revert twice in a week span, but only one of the reverts came after the verdict was handed down. As a result, I don't know what to make of it. The suspension, does it treat the edits before the suspension as the first revert? Ksy92003 (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Chris, please pay attention to what I'm going to say in this comment. I noticed a couple things about this. First, Chris left a comment at User talk:Yankees10 after Yankees10 reverted him with a reason as to why he made the revert in the first place, which shows that he has full intention of avoiding violating his restriction. Second, I make the assumption that Chris didn't realize he had reverted once before the time that he reverted on Friday. If he did know, he either wouldn't have done the second revert, or he assumed that it wouldn't violate the restriction.
If I were to make the verdict here, I'd let this slip because the exact terms of the restriction weren't made specific. Since it would be a week next Wednesday, If I were you, just as a precaution, I wouldn't revert any page a second time if it is within a week, even if the first revert came before Wednesday. After Wednesday, then we won't have to worry about those edits before the restriction because the week would expire.
I believe that you did nothing wrong in this case, mostly because the terms weren't made perfectly clear to anybody, which is why I said "as a precaution," and because I don't think you purposely reverted the same article twice, and you show an attempt at trying to discuss this with another user, which is something required per your restriction. Somebody else might interpret it otherwise and say that you did violate it. I think the best route to take is look at the page history before you make a revert, and don't make it if you already reverted once in the past week, even if that edit came before Wednesday. Ksy92003 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, sorry to bother you again. User:A B Pepper is continuing to be disruptive and incivil. When I warned them for attacking User:Afaprof01 they reponded with a personal attack to me [3]. There is a long litany of problems with A B Pepper - which I brought to the attention of Seraphimblade days ago - since then the problems have escalated. A report explaining A B Pepper's disruption is up here. I am really sorry to drag you into this but this guy is one of the most extreme cases of incivility and bullying on WP that I've come across [4] [5] [6]. Taking into account the IP account A B pepper used ( User:75.132.95.79), they have received a full set of soapboxing warnings and repeated notification of their breaches of WP:CIVIL. They know exactly what they are doing and they are continuing to do it-- Cailil talk 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see this thread. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Trulexicon posted on the URL http://ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=367096 that he is a sock puppet. It's the second one down in the voting. I posted this information on both articles but I wanted to make sure a good administrator researched this. Thanks for your time, off to work, (hopefully my typing will improve), -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're not biased, then tell me what you think about Jan Czarnowski. Please check it out. Tell me if this is notable or not (either it is, or its not) and then if you think its not, AFD it. That will show if you're biased or not. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Think I'm being unfair? Okay, open an admin conduct WP:RFC on me. Muster the best evidence you can find. I'm open to recall and I've voluntarily chosen to stand by the original terms of my participation after standards at that category loosened. If five editors in good standing agree with you I'll run for reconfirmation as a sysop. It's that easy. Durova Charge! 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)
Matt57, good research on a topic like this often involves going to the library. It's not civil to demand that Durova spend her volunteer time doing your bidding. Besides, Durova doesn't seem to have any particular interest or experience in Polish history. I don't understand why you are badgering her with such a hostile tone. Wikipedia has 4 million articles. I suggest you change focus, pronto, since you're obviously very upset about Elonka's view's on the images of Muhammad controversy. You are not an impartial party when it comes to editing articles about Elonka's relatives. Even if Elonka did something wrong a long time ago, that doesn't
excuse you from observing site standards. Your first concern must be your own behavior, not hers. If you keep going, the result may be a block to prevent you from driving away productive editors. -
Jehochman
Talk 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know your opinion about this proposal. -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrt to your evidence: Are you sure you're not mixing up pseudonymity with anonymity? The former allows for an exact pinpointing of the person in question, the latter doesn't. Or am I missing something? — [ aldebaer ] 00:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
i don't see what 64.91.201.195 could have possibly done to deserve a block for 1 week, much less a block at all. HUH? Andrewb1 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
can you show me those edits? i've gone through his contributions and there is nothing wrong with any of them. Andrewb1 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Edits to Judge Judy are similar in nature to the sockfarm. Also note the sockfarm's initial block was 24 hours, extended to 1 week for block evasion to complain at my talk page.
These additions are similar in tone to the blocked accounts. Nobody bats .1000 so feel free to take this to checkuser. I'll lift the block myself if I'm mistaken. Durova Charge! 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
that doesn't mean they are the sockfarm. i'm sure there are many people out there who are like that. i think the block should be lifted; the description of this case and judge judy's attitude is important to the viewer. Andrewb1 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
the edits you outline hardly constitute "disruption". Andrewb1 01:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova. Last year you helped a couple of us editors out with another editor who was acting in a very uncivil manner. We are having to deal with the same problem with the exact same editor yet again. Please see edits here and here. Here he blatantly goes after an admin. Threats of legal action can be found here and here. I think it's obvious that he's well aware of the policies. Through your actions last time, things did calm down for quite some time. I'm sorry for everyone to have to ask for your help again, but is there anything you could possibly do? Roguegeek ( talk) 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
He's withdrawn the threat so I've unblocked him. Durova Charge! 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, hope you're well, geekwise and otherwise. For some reason, I trust you giving a good opinion on this particular matter (perhaps because of past fun and games): I'm back at Wiki editing at both Global Warming and the Killian wikis. (I'm sure that fills you with the warm and fuzzies.) The Global Warming stuff has been going the way these things should work -- mostly on point debates, consensus building, and keeping debates among the regular editors lively but more or less convivial (I did get a troll editor a teeny bit upset when I did my analytical trick.) I was even given the go ahead to add a major section (although I think I liked it better when I was a care free, happy go lucky, smartalecky Usenet troll). With the Killian stuff, though, I've already run into malicious IP sockpuppets and admins who aren't thrilled with my attitude when I kind of, sort of, maybe imply that they might not be fully on top of things and that they should deal with the issues, like, now. The Killian Documents wiki already has full protection from further editing because of this. You have any tips to keep me from getting really annoyed? If so, sharing them would be most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
See Black hole information paradox. The Black star theory has been ridiculed, but it seems interesting none the less. - Jehochman Talk 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your assistance on the Bret Wolfe entry. Maybe you could also help me create an "unbiased" entry or lead me to an appropriate template. I have tried to set appropriate /examples to the various selections people have questioned. Is IMDB not a valid source...what would be a better route? I don't want to appease the difficult people on the discussion page but I would like to set an example of appropriate WIKI. Thanks for any and all help. Bretwolfe
Hi Durova, I was wondering if we might discuss lifting or relaxing my topic ban. You said to talk to you in a few weeks and we'd reevaluate it. Feel free to look at my contributions since that point. I have stuck to the things I said I would - the 2007 Miami Dolphins season and NFL roster templates. I have reverted vandalism on some NFL player pages, but only when it was blatant vandalism such as profanity and stuff. I figured this would be okay, as it really didn't make sense to ignore vandalism when I saw it. Anyway, think about it and let me know.
Also, I know I haven't come up with a list of those potential copyvios, so if you'd like me to do that before the topic ban is lifted I'd be happy to do it tonight. I kind of forgot for a little bit and I've been pretty busy with classes and other stuff, but I'll do it tonight. Quite frankly, I'm bored out of my mind and I'd really enjoy being able to work on NFL player articles again. I think with the other user banned it's far less likely things will ever escalate anywhere close to that point again. And of course, you could definitely monitor my behavior and re-institute a topic ban if you feel it's necessary. Anyway, think about it and get back to me when you have time. I'm very to resume more extensive contributions to the NFL project. Thanks.► Chris Nelson 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Durova - I wanted to let you know that yesterday I mistakenly violated my restriction by reverting more than once on a page. They have all since been reverted away from my last version so there's currently nothing wrong with any of the pages, but I slipped up due to habit and having no restrictions until recently. User:Ksy92003 outlines my violations at User talk:Picaroon. I can honestly say this was a mistake and I would never intentionally violate my restriction. I mean after all, it would be quickly noticed and I'd only face more punishment so why would I do it on purpose? Anyway, just wanted to make you aware and you or someone else can decide any punishment if necessary. I'm of the opinion that a one-time honest and harmless mistake might be worth going unpunished, but I'll understand if you think I should be reprimanded in some way. And obviously, if I make a mistake like this again a punishment would definitely be deserved. Thanks.► Chris Nelson 23:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm, time to get out my slightly dusty referee whistle and redirect this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Supply diffs with the report, please. Durova Charge! 01:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In hindsight, I guess there really was nothing that came out of the comment; I was just trying to defend myself from other people possibly thinking that I was being incivil. I have struck it out. Ksy92003 (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A bit of clarification. I don't know what to make of this exactly, but I need some small clarification on Chris' suspension. Now, on the article Clifton Dawson, Chris reverted me on September 25, before he was alerted of the suspension. Today, he reverted Yankees10 ( talk · contribs). He did revert twice in a week span, but only one of the reverts came after the verdict was handed down. As a result, I don't know what to make of it. The suspension, does it treat the edits before the suspension as the first revert? Ksy92003 (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Chris, please pay attention to what I'm going to say in this comment. I noticed a couple things about this. First, Chris left a comment at User talk:Yankees10 after Yankees10 reverted him with a reason as to why he made the revert in the first place, which shows that he has full intention of avoiding violating his restriction. Second, I make the assumption that Chris didn't realize he had reverted once before the time that he reverted on Friday. If he did know, he either wouldn't have done the second revert, or he assumed that it wouldn't violate the restriction.
If I were to make the verdict here, I'd let this slip because the exact terms of the restriction weren't made specific. Since it would be a week next Wednesday, If I were you, just as a precaution, I wouldn't revert any page a second time if it is within a week, even if the first revert came before Wednesday. After Wednesday, then we won't have to worry about those edits before the restriction because the week would expire.
I believe that you did nothing wrong in this case, mostly because the terms weren't made perfectly clear to anybody, which is why I said "as a precaution," and because I don't think you purposely reverted the same article twice, and you show an attempt at trying to discuss this with another user, which is something required per your restriction. Somebody else might interpret it otherwise and say that you did violate it. I think the best route to take is look at the page history before you make a revert, and don't make it if you already reverted once in the past week, even if that edit came before Wednesday. Ksy92003 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, sorry to bother you again. User:A B Pepper is continuing to be disruptive and incivil. When I warned them for attacking User:Afaprof01 they reponded with a personal attack to me [3]. There is a long litany of problems with A B Pepper - which I brought to the attention of Seraphimblade days ago - since then the problems have escalated. A report explaining A B Pepper's disruption is up here. I am really sorry to drag you into this but this guy is one of the most extreme cases of incivility and bullying on WP that I've come across [4] [5] [6]. Taking into account the IP account A B pepper used ( User:75.132.95.79), they have received a full set of soapboxing warnings and repeated notification of their breaches of WP:CIVIL. They know exactly what they are doing and they are continuing to do it-- Cailil talk 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see this thread. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Trulexicon posted on the URL http://ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=367096 that he is a sock puppet. It's the second one down in the voting. I posted this information on both articles but I wanted to make sure a good administrator researched this. Thanks for your time, off to work, (hopefully my typing will improve), -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)