You write "None of the footnotes provide... an access date for online citations, nor are any of the book or magazine citations presented in a standard format." I can't find anything in the MOS or in the pages for GAs or FAs that asks for access dates for URLS (except for Wayback Machine URLs) or that specifies the acceptable formats for book and magazine citations. Could you please provide wikilinks to those particular resources? ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I've responded on the article talk page. Wikipedia accepts several formats such as the Chicago Manual of Style or Harvard Referencing. At this moment I don't recall which guideline specifies a recommendation to include access dates, but most GAs and FAs do have them for website references. Best wishes, Durova 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

for taking the extra time to comment on how to improve the article " Copenhagen Fire of 1728". Those are good ideas. By the way that's an impressive number of good articles you seem to be reviewing. Nice work. Hemmingsen 15:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you. There's been a call for reviewers to help with the backlog. Durova 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova! You're more than welcome... I loved that essay; nice work!!. Even after more than two years here, I'm glad to see there are still more great pages to find and read. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice to see you editing again. You'd been missed. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Durova 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Please reconsider your opinion at the proposal to delete this redirect. I am the essay's creator and principal contributor. Its editors all agree that WP:MASTODONS is a better shortcut. This deletion request is not part of any broader effort to delete acronym shortcuts from essays in general: it is a specific request pertaining to one essay only and has full support from the people who are active at the page. Durova 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Though I thought that shortcuts were supposed to be, well ... short. Looking at the page you already have a WP:CHILL, WP:CHILLOUT, WP:KEEPCOOL, WP:MASTODON, and WP:MASTODONS; which all seems kind of excessive. With 5 short-cuts listed in the article, why the urge to delete the 6th, which is the only one of sensible length? Nfitz 14:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You've got a good point. I didn't create any of the shortcuts. I support the deletion of this one and would probably support deletion of others. WP:MASTODONS best reflects the essay's spirit. Durova 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You might check out this arbcom case. -- EngineerScotty 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Durova 20:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Am I off-base on the notion of putting the burden of proof on the tendentious? If not, do we need to rethink the proposal under a different name? Mangoe 18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Policy already states that the burden of proof rests with any editor who wants a disputed edit to remain. If I understand the bend of this thread, we have two editors participating in this discussion who have been through ArbCom and who (to varying degrees) have attempted to introduce the concept of notable and verifiable but unpopular views into this discussion. I think it would be a bad idea to graft that onto this proposal. Other guidelines and policies cover misbehavior that falls within the realm of encyclopedic debate. Durova 19:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

It's interesting. Since we're already the number 17 Alexa site our articles usually appear among the top returns at search engines. Has it been hard for your friends to locate our pages? Durova 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

no theyre not having trouble, i am, because i have to open up my email in another window type in their email adderss cut and paste the text of the url or both and send, its kinda tedious and im spoiled and used to doing it with newsarticles the more synergistic way, i think its a good idea, how can i make this happen? Qrc2006 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not really involved on the tech side of this site, but if you use Internet Explorer there should be an option to e-mail a page directly. Open the File menu, select Send (which opens a submenu) and choose Page by e-mail. Durova 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for your kind words. On balance, I enjoy being part of the WP community, if I leave, it won't be out pique, just because it's no fun any more. However, it's full of very nice people and I would miss talking to them, so I will probably take a break and see if I want to resume. Gleng 16:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Good grief. It's good to laugh. Have to admit that there have been some surreal moments.

Read your essay, and you have my sincere respect; it's beautifully written. Gleng 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks a lot for getting involved in the Deucalionite case. It's always good to have more uninvolved people monitoring the situation. You might be interested in a note I left to User talk:JoshuaZ about the issue. As for the victim of the plagiarism, Deucalionite has actually in the meantime apologised to her ( User talk:Nauplion), and I have hopes the whole affair might in the end have one positive outcome in earning us a great new expert contributor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I've left a follow-up at Deucalionite's talk page. Thanks for the explanation. Best wishes, Durova 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I have more experience than you. But it does seem to me like this is a dispute that will never be settled. Glengordon seems completely unwilling to budge, listen to reason, cooperate, or anything else. I was thinking of opening an RFC myself a few weeks ago, but decided to wait to see if another attempt to resolve the dispute would be made by someone else. Now that it has, I would think an RFC would be the best route to go. (Posted to my talk page as well) ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk / Contribs) 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

(condensed from other talk page) I've opened the RfC. It needs two editors for certification and probably has the best chances of succeeding if both are neutral parties. Would you like to be the other one? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Glengordon01 Durova 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I've erased pure personal attacks on my own talk page from Scottandrewhutchins: "Everyone is laughing at you (blah, blah, blah)". Only other trolls would support this destructive behaviour for more than a month straight. I won't contribute to Charun anymore, so you don't have to worry about it anymore. -- Glengordon01 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Replied at Glengordon01's talk page. Durova 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, there. Please take the time to vote for the various candidates over at Core_biographies#Voting_booth. If you can, try to read a bit about the candidates you don't know about so you can get a better idea of how to vote. Thanks! ♠ SG →Talk 10:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Saw your question at the Village Pump: I'm on IE6, and it looks fine from here. Sandy 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for checking. Durova 02:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help concerning my publishing the first of my books. The hand-written manuscript is completed for the first book in my series, I had not stated that explicitly in my original post.

As a continuation of that post, do you know any good places where I can submit parts of my work to see if it is fit (such as magazines, etc). Any information you may have would be greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Xel Pos'tare 13:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC) CaptainXel

No publisher would consider a handwritten manuscript. You'd have to get it converted into a word processing document. Publication of individual chapters in magazines generally makes it harder to sell a novel. You'd be better off writing separate short stories and seeking publication for those. Read the magazines and get a feel for what they buy. I've already named two of the more prominent ones at your user talk page. Writer's Market lists others. You seem to be very new to writing. I suggest seminars and/or workshops. Don't be surprised if you find yourself rewriting that novel several times before it sells. Durova 13:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

in the discussion concerning Wikipedia:Tendentious editors. Of the 3 proposals pushed so far (the original, User:Mangoe's alternate, and the attempt to reunify them that I put up), I'd be willing to support any of them.

I am concerned, however, that disputes over minutiae might hurt things. Discussion of the differences between the three has stalled (perhaps for the weekend; I'm switching internet services so am currently without Internet access from home--I'm writing this at work)--one of the deficiencies of the Wikipedia policy proposal mechanism is that it's too easy for opponents to a proposal to sandbag it with debates over minutiae and such, keep a consensus from forming, and then slap {{ rejected}} on it claiming "lack of consensus". This proposal isn't old enough yet to do that, and other than User:Electrawn (whose objection seems to be "this won't succeed if put up for a vote", which is a non-objection in my book), there isn't any significant opposition.

I'm not sure why you think you upset someone with your participation--you certainly haven't said anything to upset me.

So... in the interest of keeping things moving:

• Can you support Wikipedia:Tendentious editors as it currently stands?
  • If no, what changes need to be made in order to for you to support it?
• Can you support Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Burden of proof is it currently stands?
  • If no, what changes need to be made in order to for you to support it?
• Can you support Wikipedia:Tendentious editors/Merger proposal is it currently stands?
  • If no, what changes need to be made in order to for you to support it?
• Of the above three, which do you like best? Any changes to that policy which would make it better?
• What should the policy be called?

Please, when you get the chance, answer on Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editors (we've too many talk pages going).

I will post a similar set of questions at User:Mangoe's home page. I'll post my own thoughts at the talk page as indicated above.

Thanks, and I look forward to your continued participation!

-- EngineerScotty 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Down in flames

Our proposal seems to have been co-opted by, um, well, a clutch of tendentious editors. I'm just about ready to go back and try to get the move undone, but frankly I don't have much hope for it. Mangoe 22:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Could you explain, (if you have time), how to have an article put in the did you know section on the main page? Thanks. | AndonicO 12:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Template talk:Did you know Read the rules before nominating. Best wishes, Durova 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I guess I'm going to have to spend more time on Wikipedia now! | AndonicO 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply

That conflict seems to have died down. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Glengordon01, Glengordon01 agreed to stop editing the page. The RFC and the article talk page have been quiet for several days now. Do you think it's time to unprotect the article? Four weeks seems like a long time for page protection. Cordially, Durova 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree. Let's try unprotection. — Mets501 ( talk) 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Glengordon01's penchant for page histories kept my edit at your advice from being of any help. -- Scottandrewhutchins 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see Glengordon01's user page for his continued libel of myself and others. I pointed these out with ^{citation needed}, but he will probably erase them. -- Scottandrewhutchins 10:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I've asked him to change it. Please do not alter his user page again. I suggest you refrain from replying to him directly and notify third parties if this continues. In my opinion this merits an alert at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but I'd like to give him the chance to fix this himself before I take things to that point. Incidentally, a proposal I have been working on was upgraded to a guideline yesterday. It's at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Best wishes and I hope this blows over soon. Durova 17:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I posted that as a rhetorical device to try and get across DiLorenzo's sloppy and maddening style. I'm inclined to agree with your view on Lincoln. Hope that didn't come off as overly defensive. Stilgar135 16:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Not at all, and thank you for challenging the anonymous post. Cheers! Durova 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

For the tips on Martin Velíšek! If you get a chance, could you tell me how to get the name links to work, so that all versions of the name, with or without discritics, link there? I can't find instructions on how to do it... Cheers, grendelsmother 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The instructions are at Wikipedia:Redirect. Just create a new page for each version and redirect it to the main article. Regards, Durova 17:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for some very kind responses to my review. I do decide on GA nominees pretty often. Once you think the article is ready to nominate, drop me a line on my talk page. I'll probably recuse myself from actually deciding on the candidacy, but I'd be glad to give it another once-over just prior to a GA try. Best wishes and keep up the good work, Durova 09:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your continuing interest. My thought is to let the article cook for another month or so, to let others chime in, and then move forward. This is a fun topic, and one that I think would be a good GA and a very good FA topic! Thanks again. NorCalHistory 17:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Much information responsive to your excellent suggestions has been added to this article. Would it be possible for you to take a peek at it? More refs are on their way. NorCalHistory 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Much better! My one concern for GA is in the introduction. Several phrases are introduced in quotations without actually being cited. You've really put some excellent work into this. You should be proud. Keep me informed, Durova 06:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I first read this article in the early stages of peer review. The editors here have done a fine job of improving it. In my opinion you're safely into good article territory and possibly featured article quality. I've recused myself from awarding GA because I participated in peer review, but since that's about to close I recommend you open a good article nomination. Warmly, Durova 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you again for your warm encouragement which was extraordinarily helpful. I expect that we will proceed with a good article nomination. I'll keep you up to date! NorCalHistory 10:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi how are you? Thanks for your reviews on Indonesia article. I was thinking about your words about GA nomination. Do you think, as the issues have been done, could it pass GA nomination? Because I don't think we can stand for another GA failure, T.T Cheers -- I mo eng 12:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

If I saw this at GAC I would certainly promote it. Usually though I leave it to other editors to promote the articles I've peer reviewed. I can't guarantee the result, but I'm quite optimistic. In fact I'll compliment it this far: the main thing I think stands between the current article and FA status is the brilliant prose requirement: do your best to find a good copyeditor, preferably someone who knows Indonesia well. I've visited several neighboring countries (Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, etc.) but I've never been to Indonesia - so I hesitate to step in more than I have. Keep up the good work and stay optimistic: I think you'll have a featured article by the end of the year at the rate things are improving. Best wishes, Durova 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your suggestion, I just wrote it on their talk page. Thanks again -- I mo eng 05:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments, 'fraid I'm gone though. Good luck. See [1] Gleng 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Gleng, best wishes to you. I hope this is a Wikibreak rather than a permanent departure. There's one piece of good news I'd like to share before you go: the tendentious editors proposal has been promoted to an official guideline under the name Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Wikipedia is still a new project and the kinks are still getting ironed out. It's unfortunate that you had bad luck early on - and I'll do my best to help make it a place where you'll feel comfortable returning. Respects and regards, Durova 02:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I had good luck as well as bad; editors Dematt and Fyslee are both true stars, amongst many, and it was a priviledge to know them. I'll post an essay sometime on sources. Otherwise, I'll watch and see; I really hope this works, am certainly not sour about the project. All the very best. Gleng 10:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I saw your post on the ACLU talk page. Anything you could do to help out, even just watching the page for vandalism, would be great. Thanks for your input and I hope to see you again. Jasper23 08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I swear, you are everywhere I go. I have been dealing with RFCs, and I see your name alot. I agree with what you say. You are a real help to Wikipedia. I just wanted to thank you personally. You do alot for this site. -- Connor K. 20:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• blush* Thank you very much. It feels good to read that. I'll try to live up to your opinion. Warmest regards, Durova 04:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Microorganism was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Davodd 03:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

With reference to your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Editors Who Are Vandals, and Thugs and Ferals, I object strongly to being called a vandal, thug and feral. The anon has failed to respond to the RfC raised in July til now in October, despite contributing regularly to wikipedia since then (her contributions since the RfC have been documented at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*, the IPs used by her up to the time of the RfC are listed at the RfC. Her suggestion "I have hardly ever been here." is disingenuous. She has consistently abused me since July. For the time being I will continue my wikibreak until somebody removes the personal attacks she has posted, including at Village Pump.

Despite her assertions on User talk:Thatcher131, I most emphatically do not know that she has "the other verifying info re Coolac", why should I - she has never cited anything in support of the alleged massacre.

The accusations of plagiarism were discussed at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales#Plagiarism of Bruce Elder.

My issue with her latest contribution about Yarri at Gundagai was its lack of balance, even in the context of the cite provided (I have the Butcher book). In the context of the anon's past edits, she uses the wikipedia as a soapbox (when not attacking it or various editors she has tangled with).

Her response to the RfC did not deal with the issues raised there of her breaches of

1. No original research and Verifiability
2. No personal attacks, Civility, Etiquette
3. Blocking policy

I am happy to discuss the efforts I made to bring the editor on board. I did try.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 10:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• I have not escalated the RfC to mediation as she had not responded in over two months. Mediation requires two people. I am happy to participate in a mediation but I see little point in raising one given my past dealings and her lack of reponse to the RfC. -- Golden Wattle ^talk 11:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

...and to add to that, the anon has been made aware of the RfC at every opportunity, in block messages and at their many talk pages. We're just being played for fools whilst they sit back and joke at the disruption caused. -- Longhair\ ^talk 11:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have not called anyone names or endorsed any name calling. Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are taking place on both sides here. I have read every one of the talk pages and block logs listed for this IP at the RfC and have not seen an invitation to the RfC at any of them. The IP did respond immediately at RfC when I recommended it and that response got reverted via popups. Popups were also used to delete this IP's posts to the article talk page and to the Village Pump. Another uninvolved editor who responded to the Village Pump appeal even complained that posts to their user talk page got deleted.

Many of those popup deletions do meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. To my eyes that looks like a backdoor attempt at a community ban. I certainly would have preferred if the other editors had tried to open formal mediation. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen a Wikiquette alert, a third opinion request, or an article request for comment. If my reading is correct, an arbitration request was made instead and got turned down as premature.

If the waters hadn't been muddied here I'd suggest a community topic ban through WP:DE, but this is the most aggressive overuse of popups I've ever seen. The standard solution to unsigned talk page comments is to flag the comments as unsigned, not to delete them. That gagging may well have provoked statements of frustration. This person has trouble expressing himself or herself perhaps because English is a second language or because of some disability, and I think those circumstances require me to assume good faith. A further reason I extend good faith to this editor is that ABC News certainly satisfies WP:RS while the arguments other editors have given for deleting that citation violate WP:V. Please lead by example when encouraging others to respect site policies: tone down the popups to standard levels so that they revert only obvious problems such as obscenities and breaching experiments and let the IP know on the article talk pages. Go ahead and open that request for mediation - the worst that could happen is that they refuse to join. Perhaps the community will decide to ban this user and if that happens then wholesale reversion would be appropriate, but not until then. Respectfully, Durova 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• You state I have read every one of the talk pages and block logs listed for this IP at the RfC and have not seen an invitation to the RfC at any of them. Refer for example to User talk:203.54.9.207 as evidence that you have not throughly researched that specific avenue. Communicating via the IPs talk pages was found generally to be a waste of time. She was advised of the RfC at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales - see Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales/Archive 1#Request for Comment - that she was aware of the RfC from 26 July, the date it was posted, is apparent from her post on 26 July editing the section advising of the RfC.

I'm glad to see there was a talk page where this user was advised. My original statement remains true: in response to the assertion that this user was invited repeatedly at talk page and block notices in every reasonable manner, I checked all of the variable IPs specifically listed at RfC. It stands to reason that if there really had been an extensive effort that I would have uncovered at least one invitation that way. My review made no claim of completeness. What I wanted to see was whether a reasonable person could have missed those warnings in the places you specified. My conclusion in was that it would have taken substantial sleuthing to find it. This was a good faith test rather than a challenge to your integrity: I wanted to see whether I could extend this IP user the benefit of the doubt. Durova 08:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I tried to pick up most IP addresses but didn't pick up all.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. As well as the notification on the Talk: Gundagai page, she was also made aware of the RfA at for example, User talk:203.54.9.43 but chose not to respond to it directly. She did state on 17 July Also, this is about an Australian, I am Australian and Coolac is in Oz and RM is an Australian. Jurisdiction is Australia. The Arbitrators need to recognise that. [2] indicating perhaps some confusion as to what the arbitration might be about. Though with this post of 1 August [3] which included the edit summary "smirk" she stated SimonP, they dont know how to mediate either! I'll go find Jimbo in vp and see if he has a help manual he can send them.

RfA and RfC are two different animals. As I noted, the RfA didn't go anywhere - so again (to walk a mile in this IP's moccasins) the single notice of an RfA at a user talk page wouldn't necessarily have sent me sleuthing for an RfC, especially if I had been a new user. Durova 08:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• but she did definitely know about the RfC as she edited several times on the talk pages immediately under the notification, for example [4].-- Golden Wattle ^talk 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. In terms of blocking and comments (pre RfC) - refer to User talk:203.54.186.125, including the edit she was blocked for - perhaps that will give you an idea of the sorts of exchanges we have been priveleged to deal with. Note, the edit she was abusing on the RMC page was merely the placement of a Military History wikiproject notice.

Yes, that's rude. Not obscene, though - I've certainly seen people get away with far ruder statements for much longer without being blocked. Not that it excuses this, only that the hammer has fallen harder than usual here. Durova 08:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Well this sort of edit or this, which may not be obscene but is certainly very rude, has been going on for three months - and there are probably hundreds, some perhaps more crudely expressed - how long is longer? When will anyone take action?-- Golden Wattle ^talk 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. In response to your suggestion This person has trouble expressing himself or herself perhaps because English is a second language or because of some disability: The anon herself has stated that she is not an Indigenous Australian and that her family has lived at Gundagai since the 1840s, [5] hence English is indeed her first language. She also claims to have two uni degrees and is doing another. [6]

Point made: that rules out English as a second language. The university degrees do come off as a bit of a stretch here. Yet I'd like to add that I have known people who had multiple university degrees and whose written communication was about equal to this person's, due to a brain tumor or Parkinson's disease. It's hard for those people to participate online at all - and I'd rather risk serving a crumb or two to a troll than shut out some honest contributor. You may be right: this person might really be a troll - so in that case the best way to make that clear to uninvolved editors is to walk the straight and narrow so the community can view this as black and white. Trolls thrive in muddy waters. Durova 08:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. She has decribed her self as "I AM A 55 YEAR ODL GREY HAIRED WOMAN WITH A LOT OF ACADEMIC AND PRACTICAL SKILLS, A MESSED UP ARM WHICH MESSES MY TYPING UP AND A LOT OF CONTENT HERE TO POST HERE FROM THE AUSTRALIAN STUDIES/ARCHAOLOGY/HERITAGE/SOCIAL SCIENCE/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE QUALS I HAVE ACHIEVED THE LAST 10 YEARS." (sic - her caps lock) [7] As for disability, while I consider her netiquette abysmal I will otherwise not comment. Her arm was broken during July, for which I expressed due sympathy at one stage ( User talk:203.54.186.75). I find it surprising that her arm would still be broken and thus her typing still "messed up"; the issue is not "messed up typing" anyway, it is vitriol and abuse.

I spent half a year in graduate school in a cast due to a broken wrist (two freak breaks to the same lousy bone). If I ever break that wrist again the next surgery will be a salvage operation and my orthopedist has warned me I'd spend a full year in a cast: unusual but not impossible. Yes, this sort of nexus of accidents does push the limits of credibility - to balance that I don't find this user exceptionally uncivil. If Wikipedia generally enforced netiquette this strictly it would be easier to agree with you. Durova 08:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. You state Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen a Wikiquette alert, a third opinion request, or an article request for comment. I raised the matter at the Australian Wikipedians' Noticeboard to seek comments on the content posted. [8] I consider that noticeboard a useful 3rd opinion request and I received replies from 3 editors, none of whom could find sources to support her edits and all three supported that sources should be cited. See Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 21#Gundagai for the discussion. I also raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120#Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking on 13 July and Bidgee had also raised the matter there: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120#203.54.186.125. I also made a request at WP:RFI [9]; reiterated on 2 August due to lack of response [10]. I would have thought aUser RfC also was in the same league as it is listed as being the first stage in the dispute resolution process - the problem is that her editing is not confined to one article but many, all with the samePOV and often unsourced assertions.

I'm very glad to see you used these other means. I have no problem whatsoever with deleting unverifiable information. It's the deletion of the sourced edit and the posts to talk pages and Village Pump that raised my antenna. Durova 08:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Reversions: after several weeks of exchanging discussion with this editor, I advised her on the Talk:Gundagai page (and any other editor) that attacks would be reverted as they violate policy. [11] I also advised my stance at the RfC and nobody failed to endorse the approach.

   I have spent many many edits refactoring her talk page comments and adding unsigned tags, for example, [12] [13] [14] - how many edits would you choose to add tags to? I have made many many many such edits on her bahalf. The issue of reversion of unsigned comments was raised at the RfC, nobody said keep adding unsigned tags. I have asked her to sign several times extremely politely, for example [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Other editors have also asked her to sign [ [20] [21] and added tags [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] but she still wilfully ignores us all.

   Persistently unsigned comments breach Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility. I have raised this at the RfC and it is on this basis that I revert her unsigned comments as previously advised to the community. Given that I have advised the community of my approach in numerous places, I find your inference my reversions are vandalising offensive. If the community didn't like my approach, there has been plenty of opportunity to say so previously.

   Your approach also fails to recognise she has made hundreds of edits, many of them even though not quite all, degrading the quality of articles and talk pages.

Someone who's a better coder might have to set me straight here - but if popups have been configured to revert this user's unsigned edits couldn't popups be configured to flag the same statements as unsigned while leaving them on the page? I agree that unsigned statements are frustrating - and IPs who persistently refuse to register or sign posts rarely have anything useful to contribute. The things that really pinged my editorial radar were as follows:

1. The IP's response to the RfC got reverted by popups.
2. The IP's polite (but unsigned) posts to article talk pages were getting reverted by popups.
3. The IP's sourced edit got reverted with an unreferenced claim that the IP's reliable source had gotten the story wrong.
4. An uninvolved editor complained that comments to their user talk page had been deleted.
5. Several of the IP's edits to Village Pump had been reverted by popups.

That just didn't smell right. You and the other editors more closely involved might feel differently because of the history, and having read your responses I've shifted in some of those points, yet as an outsider that raised the question in my mind: if this person is really all wrong then why not give them enough rope to hang themselves? Let the edits stand and bring the user through the traditional dispute resolution process. This response did have the appearance of gagging. Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Although you state I have not called anyone names or endorsed any name calling you have implicitly endorsed name calling, by for example not even expressing a concern that they are less than acceptable, by not commenting or drawing attantion to for example, WP:NPA, you are condoning her comments.

By the same reasoning you might say I implicitly endorsed the mildly uncivil posts by other users on the same thread by not explicitly condemning them either. Usually I find at RfC that when two sides are roughly at that level it's more productive to focus on specific issues and suggestions. That tends to orient people away from finger pointing and toward collaborative problem solving. Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. I feel no longer empowered to refactor comments or in fact even to edit on Wikipedia. Apart from this post and a correction to the Gundagai citations, I won't be back until somebody deals with this pest, I can't lodge a WP:PAIN complaint as nobody has chosen to warn her for no personal attacks - in fact the community seems very ahppy with her edits - they get what they desrve I guess. As per above, perhaps you could assume good faith of editors who have been in the space a long time - your response above indicates to me anything other than that. Of course I am prejudiced, even recognising that prejudice I am offended by your comments. If you weren't prepared to read the RfC and associated diffs, ie put in the hard yards, it probably would have been better not to comment. For example, if you had read the RfC, you would have known that the matter had been before WP:ANI and WP:RFI - the links to both are prominent.

I'm sorry to see you doubt your commitment to Wikipedia over something like this. Yes, I knew about AN/I - which usually amounts to asking for user blocks. I pointed to the areas of dispute resolution that are more aimed at bringing editors into harmony. Perhaps there's a way this editor can develop into a productive contributor. Maybe that won't happen - and I helped craft the WP:DE guideline in order to streamline the process so that the community can deal with disruptive editors in a more streamlined manner. What I'm saying is that somewhere in the last few months some editors agreed on a course of action that sets a dangerous precedent. What if some other group of editors tried the same thing without good justification? I certainly wouldn't like it if my edits had been deleted so aggressively. In fact I doubt I'd remain civil. So - with all respect for your sincerity - there's a part of me that wants to extend an honest chance to this editor. If they accept a mentor and agree to formal mediation, would you be willing to give them a second chance? Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Yarri: Even the anon doesn't think the ABC cite is any good, it is hardly the ABC news, it is published by the ABC but with an author appended who is almost certainly not an ABC employee, it hasn't even been copyedited. The anon suggests it was written by a child in response to a competition [30]. The ABC article was taken heavily from Butcher's book which both the anon and I own. The issue with her post about Yarri is that she has taken the citation very much out of context [31] (note this post is very inaccurate as it refers to the 1860s not 1879 and kicking to death does not equal "maltreating and teasing" ... "Kicked around"). As per my post to User talk:NuclearUmpf, there is an issue about context. Although my comments were in response to the ABC cite, they apply equally, if not more so to the cite being taken from Butcher's book - totally out of context and the wrong inference being placed - even the 1879 Gundagi Times article quoted more extensively by Butcher makes it clear the behaviour was not condoned by the community and the young men were reprimanded.

Ah! Okay, the IP agrees that it fails WP:RS. That's a horse of a different color. Disregard my earlier remarks on that topic. Point conceded. Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Earlier post to NuclearUmpf: I note that someone has found a cite for Yarri being mistreated. The ABC story however, also mentions This true story focuses on what may be the first act of 'Reconcilation' in Australin history. ... The rescues are an important demonstration of the common humanity and goodwill that the Aborigines maintained towards the white settlers in spite of the diseases, depopulation and social disruption they had suffered since the advent of the Europeans. For their efforts Yarri and Jacky Jacky were presented with inscribed bronze gorgets (medallions) to be worn around their necks. ... For the remainder of their lives, Yarri and Jacky Jacky were entitled to demand sixpences and other trifles conductive to Aboriginal comfort from all Gundagai residents - which demands, when in reason, were not refused. ... Although Yarri was well treated by most white people as he got older, he did not get the same respect from everyone, as an article in the Gundagai Times dated 29 June 1879 shows: (incident cited) Today there are a number of monuments in Gundagai which honour the memory of Yarri. I don't think that the current statement The community is said to have developed a special affinity with the Wiradjuri people. Although Yarri was maltreated on at least one occasion afer the flood,[5] Gundagai people believe that the flood and its aftermath was the birthplace of reconciliation. quite conveys that contemporaries of Yarri honoured him and Jacky Jacky specifically in their lifetime, that is the mention of the incident unbalances what was otherwise previously a brief mention and the paragraph now needs to be rebalanced to present a more neutral version of the history - leave in the incident of mistreatment but refer to contemporary and later community positive treatment of Yarri also.

No need to discuss the matter further: if that ABC story isn't reliable, then it shouldn't be cited. Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Perhaps you would like to advise how you think best to deal with edits such as this one? Note the cite given as footnote 5 [32] was the reference for the claim for reconciliation. The then premier of NSW stated with reference to the town: "the possibility of reconciliation long before the term was invented", the local MLA stated: "Reconciliation has been well on the way in Gundagai in the 150 years since Yarri rescued 40 white settlers with his bark canoe". Footnote 3 which does not link to the assertion but the site is elsewhere referenced has the assertion "Gundagai people believe that the flood and its aftermath was the birthplace of reconciliation." [33] Both cites were available to the editor to check before she graffitied the article in her inimitable style. I have fixed the refs in response to the call for citations properly and politely inserted by another editor.

Properly sourced edits always trump uncited claims. Again, if this is truly an example of disruptive editing then the step model at WP:DE charts a good course. I would have no problem with wholesale popup reverts if a community ban or topic ban were already in place. Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. In conclusion, you ask me to lead by example, I believe I have been polite at all times, sometimes, exceedingly polite as at User talk:203.54.186.75 and Talk:Tom Wills. I have spent hours explaining policies to the editor and for my pains I have been vilely abused. That the community (including you - somebody who is considering adminship I understand) allows the abuse to stay is extremely disturbing to me. What example are you setting when you don't even see fit to prevent the abuse of others? I am not the only disenchanted editor out of this [34]. I'll be back on wikipedia when somebody deals with her and not before.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

In the words of Mae West, It's not what you do, it's the way you do it. What really worried me was that popups were being used to silence this editor without a formal ban. And frankly, even in ArbCom cases, that sort of jumping the gun just isn't done. I stand firm in that opinon. What I'm basically urging is work within the system rather than outside of it. May I suggest two essays I wrote? They're at Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and Wikipedia:Light one candle. Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Another uninvolved editor who responded to the Village Pump appeal even complained that posts to their user talk page got deleted. I have look and can't find where the editor responded and complained. Reason why it was reverted was that it was unsigned and the Anon was block. The Anon is calling me by my name (My old user name and the reason I have changed my name is that I don't want people looking up my phone number as well as address) and I can't edit it out or I will get attacked for removing it.

Okay, privacy and confidentiality are reasonable concerns. Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are taking place on both sides here. I have never made a personal attack but the Anon has made many personal attacks not just against me but to anyone who doesn't agree with her or proves that she is wrong. The Anon has also vandalised the Wagga Wagga article to make a point [35].

Maybe not every individual editor has made personal attacks. The popups did shut out enough material that they looked like an assumption of bad faith. Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I will be also taking a break until the Anon is dealt with. -- Bidgee 03:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It's a sad day for Wikipedia when two long standing trusted contributors (who might I add, show 100% compliance with treating others with civility, signing their posts, and always citing reliable sources) are considering leaving or otherwise taking a break from the project. I'm still about if there's anything you wish to discuss Durova, but I'm in no way interested in defending my actions when dealing with this long term serial anonymous pest. The RfC on the matter says it all. -- Longhair\ ^talk 03:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I hope Wikipedia is better when you return. I also hope you can see my perspective. If you'd like a glimpse of how many miles I've walked in the same shoes, read User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. I was the only productive contributor who didn't quit the page (and Wikipedia) during that IP's heyday. I try to make it easier for others to resolve similar situations. You've seen the reasons behind my reservations and you've addressed several of the most serious concerns. What I hope you'll do is return and give this one honest go at mediation (which I hope works) and if it doesn't work then work through WP:DE. Respectfully yours, Durova 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for your responses. I'll wait it out a while and see if anybody else deals with her, as I said perhaps nobody else cares. I am truly jaded (and therefore perhaps do need a wikibreak!). She is currently editing the talk:Gundagai page with her rants. 203.54.9.98 ( talk · contribs) : it is an IP address she has edited from before and the talk page brought back memories! Requests to sign posts, attacks on another editor, warnings of NPA ...all from early July :-) I think I have indeed followed WP:DE and have been lingering around stage 4 and 1/4 for several months. Regards-- Golden Wattle ^talk 10:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Nadezhda Durova was brought to my attention by another editor. What an interesting subject! A belated thanks for adding to Wikipedia. A WPMILHIST tag has been added. I've also assessed it at B-class, though I think it is a good candidate for GA. — ERcheck ( talk) 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That's very kind of you to say so. If I get around to adding line citations it might be, but it still might fail GA for over-reliance on one source because available material in English are very limited. My Russian collaborators on the page would be more help. Durova 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw you created and made List of notable brain tumor patients a featured list. I was hoping you could have a look at List of HIV-positive people and give me some critique. I only was trying to clean up this list but by now perhaps it could (eventually) become a featured list. Garion96 (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Very good overall. If you're looking at WP:FLC I'd suggest changing the column space so the names read on one line. The comments section could get a little narrower. Featured list guidelines also suggest including an image. You might try basketball player Magic Johnson, who raised HIV awareness through his decision to go public about his infection. This list is well organized and very well referenced. Reviewers will ask about completeness, so I suggest addressing that in the introduction. I'd say this is very close to FL. Keep working and let me know when you're ready to try FAC. Warmly, Durova 17:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments. I will try to look for an image. Would it be overkill to have an image in the lead and one for every section, or just only one in the lead? I also was thinking of Magic Johnson or Freddie Mercury, but it's a list and consensus seems to be no fair use images in lists. I haven't been able to find a free images for those. I will let you know when I am ready for FAC. Thanks again, Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I've contacted the Magic Johnson Foundation to request copyright permission to reproduce his image on your list. [36] Will let you know if they grant the permission. Durova 05:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Similar minds think alike. :) I just asked that too (not the same source). Oh well..double chance. Garion96 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, I think it's ready now for FLC. The intro is expanded, I changed some sources (after peer review) and I added an image. Arthur Ashe for now. That can always be changed to Magic Johnson if one of us receives good news. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I see this is still in peer review, so let's allow that to conclude in case any new suggestions come to light. I'd love to open the nomination for you, if you wouldn't mind? Thanks again for the compliment of imitating my list and congratulations on your effort. This is great work. Durova 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the compliments, also thanks for the offer. Since this is my first nomination I'd prefer to do it myself. I don't know if or how many others will follow. :) I don't expect much more responses from peer review, but I will wait a few days to see if something comes up before I nominate the list and close the peer review. Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

As I wrote that someone commented on peer review. I will try to adress those concerns. Garion96 (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

With my nomination for adminship ongoing I'm spread a little thin at the moment, so please let me know when you raise this candidacy. I'd like to give it my strong support. Warmly, Durova 06:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you mean to say FAC and not FLC? You said the same on the AfD on List of.. Hep C. Colin° ^Talk 17:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I guess a typo crept in along the way. I mean featured list. Durova 23:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

FAC, FLC...too many abbreviations here. :) I put it up for Featured List Candidate here. Garion96 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the support and the star for me and Trezatium, also well spotted that I definitely wasn't the only one working on that list. Garion96 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Need it badly? Perhaps not. But there's always lots of things to do that need help, so it's certainly useful. I have looked over your contribs; while I don't know you well enough to nominate you, I would be among the first to support you if you were nominated by yourself or someone else. I'd say go for it. >Radiant< 09:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Why Durova is not an admin? I could have volunteered to nominate her, but I'm afraid my name is odious to many who would oppose anything or anyone I suggest. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, both of you. I'm still on the fence about this so I'll give the nominee questions a hard look and think about how I would answer and where I would be most useful. Durova 03:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• On reconsideration, I have decided that I will nominate you if you would accept it. >Radiant< 14:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd be honored. Thank you. Durova 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Durova. Please fill in the questions at your leisure, and transclude it on WP:RFA when done. Good luck! >Radiant< 15:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have filed a formal request for arbitration regarding the anonymous Gundagai editor. Please make any statements you feel are appropriate. Thatcher131 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Might take me a couple of days - I'm a little busy atm - but I'll join you soon. Regards, Durova 02:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I see you're recommending someone talk to the Anon? Can I trouble you to try, see if you have more luck than the rest of us? Thanks, Ben Aveling 08:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I recommended formal mentorship at Village Pump. An experienced mentor would be the best option. Will do what I can informally. Durova 14:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, good luck. Ben Aveling 05:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• • I have never seen a 'ben avelign' before. Where do these unknown to me people spring from. Dont they know that if they are going to be involving themself in someone else's business, they introduce themselves to that person first?? Pretty odd carry on.

Actually arbitration is serious business for Wikipedia and it shouldn't be surprising that unfamiliar people are becoming interested in this situation now that it's been on Village Pump also. Probably these people would contact you if you had a user account, but since you don't have a user talk page they can't actually do that. That's your oversight, not theirs. It would be a good idea if you registered. Also, as I suggested, signing your edits would be a show of good faith. I strongly recommend you get a member's advocate or a mentor. The links are Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates and Wikipedia:Mentorship. I'm not a formal mentor and I don't have time to give as much help as you need. The main reasons I haven't supported the arbitration request are that you did respond to RfC as soon as I suggested and I think reconciliation ought to be tried, but if you don't take other steps soon to show you're willing to abide by site standards and cooperate with other people I will strikethrough my current statement and support arbitration. Durova 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Gundagai article antics continue. Did some editing there today, some with Wattle. (Asbestos Hill etc, then the Asbestos). Then along came a stirrer reverting. Then the edits got put back. Then gone again. Then put back. In between a stirring visit or two by the toolbags. Then big threat claiming the cache on my computer loaded old page. This is so silly re my computer as its set to empty when browser closed but I then also empty the Internet files, then 7 times out of 10, clean disk and defrag. <<Just a habit I have. So, the claim that I may have had old cache image was nonsense. Also, the history files were different. Its also set to new page each time I move. So, I got banned, and when I came back, my reply noting all this was also missing off the Gundagai discussion page. I then put it on the Rfc thingy then thought I might let you know also. Its not about me. Its about that they can do this to anyone and it is bullying etc.

Have to go finish an essay due Friday so thanks.

• Nothing was reverted. The Anon has been uncivil on Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales -- Bidgee 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the reversion issue would settle much more easily if you signed your talk page edits. Just type the "tilde" symbol four times at the end of your message - it's the squiggly character over the letter n in some Spanish words like piñata. If you don't have that on your keyboard then scroll down below the "Show changes" button and look just below the words, "without permission" on the screen. There's a Sign your name option with four tildes written in. Click that and your post is signed - it makes talk pages much easier to follow when everyone does that. Regards, Durova 14:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

To all concerned: please do not repost the exchanges from my user talk page to the Village Pump. I requested discussion with me to move here in order to keep that page clear for other matters. It really isn't set up to deal with in-depth issues like this. Thanks, Durova 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think I sorted it durova. I will just ignore them. I should have done that from the start. I got some stuf fon page tonight and with no one coming it chipping me or messing stuf fup, it was nice and peaceful plus content got posted on wik. Ty for your support. Its probably been tiring for all but it was pretty bizarre also.

Cheers

Please see my comment above. I don't actually support your behavior - I've extended you the benefit of the doubt because of unusual circumstances. If you're willing to adapt to site policies I'll be glad to help you along, but you have to make some changes to do that. Durova 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

If you look at the talk page, she accuses others of reverting her edits. If you look at the article page history, you will see that she was the only one to edit the article for a span of 6 hours, except for two {{ fact}} tags added by Bidgee. You will also see how she responded to my explanation of how to use the history tab to see this for herself. Thatcher131 05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I've seen. As I commented below that's precisely the sort of behavior that has made me append my ArbCom statement as tentative and would make me strikethrough and support arbitration. Since the anon is blocked right now (and we all have lives away from our computers) I'll give this two to three days. Respectfully, Durova 05:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• On your RfA page in response to some comments by Sarah Ewart, you stated As far as administrator involvement goes, it did make me uneasy to see one of the administrators deny being an involved party when I suggested recusal at Village Pump, then later state at my talk page that he or she was considering leaving Wikipedia over this affair. You seem to have confused me with Longhair. I have never denied being an involved user. I am taking a wikibreak from editing articles as others are not prepared to remove defamatory comments that the anon made about me; Longhair is not taking a wikibreak. Although Longhair received abuse for his admin actions, he has never been in a content dispute with the anon, hence he sees himself as univolved. I would be prepared to support him in his stance on this.

Despite some other admins being briefly involved in the past in supporting myself and Bidgee, the two main editors involved in the content, generally we were unsupported by the community, other than Longhair, despite going to WP:AN/I, RFI, RFC ... We took a lot longer to develop our stance of reverting and blocking the user than others who have been recently involved. And that is not because she was any less hostile initially as evidenced by her very earliest responses to me [37]. Note also I would not be seeking a community ban, the anon has excellent contributions to make based on extensive local knowledge and an interest in history. See for example her edits of yesterday, prior to her block: 203.54.9.178 ( talk · contribs · block log).

I also note that while she abuses me, she also has stated that she is prepared to deal with me: The Gundagai article antics continue. Did some editing there today, some with Wattle. (Asbestos Hill etc, then the Asbestos). Then along came a stirrer reverting. ... [38] Between us we do actually have a modus operandi that actually means things get contributed and her abuse is removed in the meantime; the present situation is not in that equilibrium.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It's impossible to say what is going on with her. During the Oct 11 edits, she made some changes, Bidgee added {{ fact}} tags to some of them, she removed them by adding citations. Very normal. And then she accuses someone of vandalizing her edits and calls us liars for trying to explain that the page history shows otherwise. Thatcher131 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I've replied further down on this page. Durova 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Sleuthing

• Above you stated I'm glad to see there was a talk page where this user was advised. My original statement remains true: in response to the assertion that this user was invited repeatedly at talk page and block notices in every reasonable manner, I checked all of the variable IPs specifically listed at RfC. It stands to reason that if there really had been an extensive effort that I would have uncovered at least one invitation that way. My review made no claim of completeness. What I wanted to see was whether a reasonable person could have missed those warnings in the places you specified. My conclusion in was that it would have taken substantial sleuthing to find it. This was a good faith test rather than a challenge to your integrity: I wanted to see whether I could extend this IP user the benefit of the doubt.

Further evidence that this user was advised is evidenced by the block logs documetned on the talk page of the RfC which was the page I used to document activity post RfC. You will see that for example on 4 August she was advised by the blocking notice 203.54.186.120 ( talk · contribs · block log) by me. The RfC page did state that the activity after the time of filing the RfC was on the talk page and I had placed a section there for recording the history of blocks which did give the block warning notices. I have just updated the history for some of the October activity.

As above, I have no doubt still she would have seen the advice on the article talk pages - she edited immediately below the advice using the section header Request for Comment [39]. I cannot see how you can come to a conclusion that "substanital sleuthing" was required. Note also [40]-- Golden Wattle ^talk 23:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Uncivil behaviour

On your RfA page you stated with reference to the Gundagia anon dispute I'm concerned about selective enforcement: uncivil behavior on the other side of this dispute has not resulted in warnings or anything else. - Can you please name an instance where I have been uncivil or who you see "the other side as" and who on that "other side" has been uncivil? For example, I also do not believe Bidgee has ever been uncivil. Noting that we had both been to AN/I, actively participated in the RfC, the reversion approach had been documented, .... uncivil is hardly to my mind an appropriate descriptor if reversions are what your areferring to. See for example User talk:203.54.174.219 for an example of exchanges between Bidgee and the anon; I can't see anything to criticise about Bidgee's behaviour, once it is taken as a given that uncivil and unsigned edits and edits by blocked users are reverted; the user was blocked for a week [41] from the IP they edited from on 4 October, they were covered by that block at the time of the reversions you have referred to. I don't really wish to wikilawyer but I am still disturbed at the lack of good faith you continue to show and your public assertions showing that lack of good faith.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You've posted at length to my talk page in the last couple of days. I'll try to cover the major points briefly.

1. Given the direction that things are going now, I may very well reverse my position at the ArbCom request. I'll give the anon a little longer to take some kind of good faith action. I was impressed at the beginning of my interaction that the anon responded to RfC as soon as I suggested it. When I saw that response reverted I was sympathetic and hoped other efforts could follow. The window of opportunity isn't shut yet, but it's on the way to closing.
2. Here's one example of incivility that raised my antenna at the beginning, posted by Longhair at Village Pump on 6 October: They're only here to be a pain in the arse at every article they edit... I'd put that at about the same level as the phrasing, "vandals, thugs, and ferals." What I really would have liked to have seen (from someone other than myself and the anon) is some flag-raising or refactoring - sort of "That's a bit harsh, you'd catch more flies with honey than vinegar."
3. Re:sleuthing, I did that check specifically in response to a claim that the anon's user talk pages and block notices contained frequent invitations. That pretty much invited me to do precisely the kind of check I performed.
4. From Longhair's post to my user talk page on 9 October: It's a sad day for Wikipedia when two long standing trusted contributors (who might I add, show 100% compliance with treating others with civility, signing their posts, and always citing reliable sources) are considering leaving or otherwise taking a break from the project. I'm still about if there's anything you wish to discuss Durova... Unless I've read that wrong, that looks like Longhair was considering leaving the project.
5. Looking over the posts of the last week at my talk page and Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales, it appears that my extension of good faith has had the unintended effect of emboldening this editor's disruption. I'd like to thank you for your patience. I'm going to post an addendum to my ArbCom statement now, then give two or three days for this to turn around. If that doesn't happen I'll strikethrough my statement and endorse the request.

Regards, Durova 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Question 4 - the other editor is User:Bidgee Golden Wattle ^talk 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I stand corrected. Durova 03:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Anon has been removing the unsigned tags and then has call me a vandal [42].

I don't like being called a vandal when I haven't done anything wrong. -- Bidgee 04:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for highlighting that for me. I'll bear this in mind. Regards, Durova 04:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually it looks like the anon was calling Longhair a vandal for this deletion [43]. While that's somewhat more understandable, it's still name-calling. Durova 15:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I've decided to take one more day before deciding on a new statement at ArbCom. On the good side, I'm glad that since your latest block you haven't gotten into any tussles on talk pages. I'm also glad to see what looks like productive editing.

Now here's the problem: up until that block your behavior was pointedly disruptive. The only really blatant incivility I'm seeing is yours. You even lashed out at an administrator who had dropped by the Gungadai talk page to leave a polite note. I'm not very pleased about how you've reposted my statements from this page into other places, using out-of-date comments to imply that I support you when really all I've done is extend the benefit of the doubt. Other comments you made at the ArbCom request look downright defiant.

You've stated that no one ever explained why signing posts is a good idea. Mainly it helps to make threads readable. If nobody signed their posts then it would be very hard to follow where one statement ends and another begins or who posted what. Signing also date stamps information, which makes it easier to check the history of a thread later on. Most editors get into the habit of signing posts after their first week or so. I've read your reason for not signing and here's the catch: Wikipedia has to provide some sort of identifier per the terms of the GDFL contract that all users agree to publish under when people enter information here on any page. Wikipedia really doesn't operate according to your interpretation of Australian Internet privacy law. The way to resolve privacy concerns is to create a fictitious username, which also has the benefit of generating a user page and user talk page. You mentioned above that you wished another editor had introduced himself or herself before commenting about you - well the way to make those introductions possible is to register an account.

The way things are taking shape, I'm changing my mind toward agreeing that arbitration is a good idea. If you haven't done so already I suggest you read up on arbitration and I repeat my recommendation a third and final time that you seek a formal mentorship. The improvement to your editing is a step forward - but only one step - and you've also taken several steps backward. Last week I went out on a limb for you and you've mostly demonstrated that your detractors are right. Fair-to-middling editing work isn't enough to make up for the hassles you're creating for other people. The main goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not to engage in backstage dramatics (and that is what this looks like to me). So if you really want to continue improving your favorite pages I suggest you take this arbitration very seriously and become more responsive to feedback. Respectfully, Durova 02:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have now struck through my old arbitration request statement and written a new one. Durova 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Durova, for clarifying your opinions and thoughts both here, at RfAr, and on the RfA page. I just wanted to let you know that I have been reading everything and I appreciate the time and effort you've taken in looking at both sides of the issue. Cheers, Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 03:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Merci for the response on the Humanities board. I think you can explain to others just what I am bringing to their attention. I think it is double-standarded. See here for an example of confusion: Talk:Rachel_Bilson#Jewish_American_father_and_Italian_American_mother.3F.21. Harrison Ford is a good example. He's paternally Irish Catholic Christian and maternally Russian Ashkenazi Jewish. I would accept Jewish as shorthand for Israeli. Hasbro 09:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Months back I attempted to introduce a consistent standard where this applies to lists. It was persuasive at WP:AFD votes and quietly gained support as a proposal until I went offline for two days. When I returned we had chaos that never settled. You might find the archive informative. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession Also, regarding ethnicity in a different setting, check Talk:Milla Jovovich. This is a hot button issue where consensus is hard to build. I'm not certain you'd find agreement that this is a double standard and frankly I'm not certain I would agree because these designations get added for such different reasons and a person's background may have everything or nothing to do with their life's work. See Lise Meitner also. And thanks for the compliment. Feel welcome to call me beautiful, wise, and all sorts of other nice things. ;) Best wishes, Durova 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply