User talk:Durova/Archive 25: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:06, 29 January 2023

Admin coaching

I've seen that, even if you currently have 3 students, you are still open to coaching. So, I'm asking if you accept me as student in the admin coaching program. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to. You could start by reading my essay on adminship (linked from the image of trolls at the top of this talk page) and if that doesn't scare you off entirely, tell me why you still want to get mopified. ;) Durova^Charge! 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read your essay :-) and I really enjoyed it. Well, why do I consider adminship? Here there are five reasons, not in particular order. First, because actually I received two nominations (one formalized at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Snowolf and another on IRC) both refused. Second, because it's written everywhere (including in your essay) that WP needs more admins. Third, because I'm a new page patroller, and there admin tools are quite useful. Fourth, because in this way I haven't to bother admins that I found around asking them if they can update NPWatcher's authorized users list on my behalf (I'm a NPWatcher moderator). Fifth, more general and important: I enjoy taking part in this project. I'm interested in the community and technical part of wikipedia, rather than the contents. Many people, especially the ones which are here since the early days, keep saying that we're building an encyclopedia (which is right, of course) as reasons to voice their opposition to technical admins, but Jimbo Wales itself said "It's merely a technical role", speaking of adminship. Not all people who are employed at Britannica actually write an encyclopedia ;-) and this is a community-drive project, so community/technical-related task are wider that in a printed encyclopedia. So, since there is need for admins, I enjoy taking part of this project and I think that admin's duties are technically/community related (which is the part of wikipedia that I like most), why not offering myself as volunteer? Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, new page patrolling is certainly a good reason for getting the tools. I'm impressed by your total edit count and by the time you've been a registered user, although to be candid some voters will express doubts about a candidacy at this time because your activity has been so concentrated in the most recent few months.

Sometimes people who try for adminship don't have enough breadth or depth of experience to understand why consensus has formed in certain areas. In terms of article space edits what's your proudest achievement...any GA or Did you know? entries? Have you been in any conflicts and how have you dealt with them. As a sysop, no matter how nice you are, certain people will become antagonistic just because you hold that little bit of power. Wikipedia needs admins who can be firm while keeping their cool. And in particular I look for good editors who have an interest in sleuthing. I'd like to help mopify more people who'll dig beyond superficial vandalism and uncover the sneaky stuff. Durova^Charge! 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my mainspace count don't means good articles or did you know. It means Wikignome :-). I asked you to be my admin coach because I don't think I'm ready for adminship. I think that I need more training in order to be a good admin. Many peoples are impressed by my editcount, but it's not something strange. It really doesn't means nothing (I think one of these days I should remove it from my page, people are taking it in too much consideration) except wikignoming and counter vandalism. I registered this account back in 2004, I added the Lee Enfield rifle family to a disambiguation page. Then I didn't do nothing until mid-January 2007. I really don't remember why, but I started editing, reading policies, discovering what is behind the encyclopedia. I started vandal fighting, and while I was waiting for approval (VandalProof), I started new page patrolling, which I enjoyed. Then I discovered XfDs and RfAs, and I started contributing mainly to UCFD. I cannot say that I've been in conflicts here, but there are two episodes that maybe you need to know. First, my block. In the middle of the Essjay controversy, I decided to give Essjay a barnstar, even if I had expressed heavy criticism regarding him. When I took this decision, I wasn't on the PC, so the next morning I connected to WP with my pda for a couple of minutes, just to give him the barnstar. The barnstar stated for your "worthless contributions". I meant to say something like that their value cannot be judged, without realizing that it means that haven't any value. English isn't my native language, unfortunately. When I came back, I've noticed that Pschemp blocked me. I felt sad, because I felt that blocking me for one month when if Pschemp only had looked at my recent contributions she would have found (in the straw poll regarding essjay) that I supported Essjay and said that he should keep his roles, wasn't fair. I used the unlock template and asked the first admin that I found on IRC if he could take a look at it. He quickly unblocked me, and then another admin (upon my request), removed the autoblock. I written to Pschemp on his talk page, but I never had an answer. The other, there have been filed a sockpuppet allegation regarding me. The issue has been closed since there haven't been evidenced against me.

Well, I'm here to learn. We should always learn, and here at WP, I have much to learn. I've read that you are specialized in complex investigations, something on which I know nothing, and this is why I requested to be trained by you. It's something totally new for me, but I understand its importance and I'm ready to learn ;-)

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once you hop into a rabbit hole there's no telling how deep it will go. The deepest one I plugged so far is chronicled at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. WP:SSP and WP:COIN usually have some requests that need fulfillment. You don't need the tools to investigate a case and you can get back to me whenever you need tips or if page protection or blocking seems appropriate. For a middling complexity case I solved a few days ago look up the Melaleuca (company) entry at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 5. E-mail me offsite for specific investigation techniques. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

216.165.158.7

I noticed your block of 216.165.158.7 just recently, since I've had some problems dealing with 216.165.158.7 regarding the Photoshopping article. What I saw just now in particular was that you suspect that 216.165.158.7 is a logged-out User:Glengordon01. I, however, have seen some circumstantial evidence suggesting that this person is actually User:DreamGuy, when consulting the Photoshopping edit history - DreamGuy and 216.165.158.7 each made similar edits with similar edit summaries at different times. Since this is relevant to blocks and so forth, I figure that this information is worthwhile to you. Hope it helps, Nihiltres 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a checkuser is in order here... --Sn0wflake 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't bother per WP:DUCK. Just keep me informed if problems resume.~~ Durova^Charge! 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, if you think DreamGuy is a sock and he evades the block on the IP then go for it. Durova^Charge! 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for dealing with 216.165.158.7... I had been meaning to give him harsher punishment, but couldn't really since we got caught up in a "content" dispute... if you can call POV-pushing that. I will keep an eye on him in the future, and if his actions continue to follow the same pattern, I will apply a permanent block. Regards, --Sn0wflake 21:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Edit warring over stuff like this is certainly WP:POINT in light of prior discussion and borders on WP:VANDAL. This user's conduct has always been uncivil and the recent barb about who has no business writing an encyclopedia is absurd: people who cannot contribute without picking fights are the ones who don't belong here. Follow up as needed. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

The Global warming article has been protected for edit warring again, just a week or two after it was un-protected. This can't go on. You have a cool head, so do you have any suggestions? The standard advice to "work it out" doesn't seem to fit -- there's a steady stream of new actors who care little for previously reached consensus. Raymond Arritt 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any political hot potato topic gets that kind of activity. Has there been an article content request for comment on it lately? Durova^Charge! 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was one back around December. The RFC brought a few useful comments on the writing style, but nothing to help resolve the perpetual squabbling. (Tony put in a RFC for Global warming controversy, but I don't remember it being much help.) Global warming goes through periods of noise and quiet but this is the most sustained period of high-level animosity that I can recall. I've only been on WP in a serious way since around September, so maybe it's been like this in the past. Usually there are only a few long-term bad actors who provide a low level of background noise (one of whom is on WP probation and seems to be mostly working over at Conservapedia lately; another narrowly missed serious sanction a couple of months ago[1]). It does get very frustrating, but I guess we just have to live with it. Thanks for your input to the process. Raymond Arritt 02:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Raul's laws of Wikipedia, #5. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finance and profit...

I wonder if this is a connection[2]

--Lmcelhiney 01:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of contributions last August, probably nothing to worry about. Interesting userpage, though. Good eye you have. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown

I like this, especially the valiant portion. I especially like the attitude that all editors are able to come back from the edge. Keep it up. Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've had a standing offer for a while that I'd hand the Resilient Barnstar to any editor who got a new article into Did you know? after getting sanctioned by ArbCom. Handed out one of those resilient stars yesterday, which got me to thinking... :) Durova^Charge! 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am THIS close on the Triple Crown...

I have got the following credentials:

Standard Oil of Kentucky: Created article, Made DYK on Nov. 26, 2006
NFL Playoffs: Substantially reworked and referenced article, made GA on Feb 22, 2007
Timeline of chemistry: Created and did much of the work for, currently a featured list nominee at WP:FLC. It currently has 5 editors in support and none opposed. The page list a requirement of only 4 supports. The discussion stands to close in a few days, and I anticipate promotion.

I will let you know how it goes! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! You might be the first (unless someone who already qualifies requests it). Keep in touch. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mudaliar Page - Page Vandalism

Venky is back to his old tricks. He is unnecessarily vandalising a protected site. He has applied for arbitration and let us wait for it. HIs Conduct is wrong here. HE has removed referenced stuff and added false information. I am new to Wiki .. but he has no need to remove referenced stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weldingveerasamy (talk • contribs) 08:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'll protect the page again. Durova^Charge! 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown

I generally skip GA and go straight to FA. Can I submit two FAs instead? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly hand you a barnstar if you like, but the triple crown is a special deal: if I were giving one to myself I wouldn't qualify for the crown jewels becase even though I've got 10 DYKs and 3 featured pages I've done only one GA. So I'll make this your choice: reply if you want a barnstar for your current work or go burnish something up to GA. With your experience that shouldn't be hard to do. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 00:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be fishing for barnstars. :) I'll nominate for GA before FACing things in the future. I want to get me an Imperial crown... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! Part of the idea is to inspire people. Thanks for the support and I'll keep your golden ornaments waiting. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets part 2

Something else has come to light, based on this edit to Jill Teed's talk page. The user in question has been blocked indefinitely, and the suspected sock puppets include a large number of 216.194 prefixed IPs, which as you can see by an earlier ANI report are used by the editor in question. Is there enough evidence to support an indefinite block, or is more needed? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more digging just to be on the safe side, and these ANI reports should be enough I hope.

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, indef blocked. Would you take care of the userpage templates? Thanks, Durova^Charge! 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Can I just clarify the block/ban status though? The case was sent to the arbitration committee, and according to this it never actually got to a formal hearing but two arbitrators recommended he should be "banned by acclamation". So is that actually a community ban, or just an indefinite block? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth going for a community ban do you think, as you've more experience in that area? Naturally I'm volunteering to actually make the WP:CN recommendation, I'm just making sure it's worth it. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block is usually good enough. Durova^Charge! 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like he's editing again - 216.194.2.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Any chance of blocking the IP please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the IP a month, which may be a bit short under the circumstances. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Back again. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 month block. Would you do the honors with the templates? Might as well put this up for a community ban at WP:CN. Looks like we'll be playing whack-a-mole for a while. Durova^Charge! 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've already templated it as a SSP, not sure what else needs doing under the circumstances. I'll get the WP:CN information prepared later. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to whack this mole please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If I do this enough do I earn a stuffed animal? Durova^Charge! 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly! I'll probably create a SSP sub-page, that way any previously uninvolved admin can deal with it if needed as well. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open case at WP:COI/N for 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs)

Hello Durova. Since you blocked 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 4 April for personal attacks, I wonder if you knew there was a case open on him at the COI noticeboard. This editor has self-identified as Nicholas Stix, and repeatedly inserts links to his own articles. No-one has figured out the next step. Maybe there is a way to limit him so he does not insert links to his own work, or commit further incivility. EdJohnston 15:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't edited since the block so follow up if problems resume. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown

Did You Know: Hero of Belarus ([3]), Capital punishment in Belarus ([4])
GA: Belarus ([5]), Hero of the Russian Federation [6]
FA: Order of Canada, Flag of Lithuania

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Imperial crown jewels are headed your way. Wonderful work. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 00:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the crown and the jeweles, but I kinda don't want an official title. I like the bling, but you can keep the title. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know: Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches (Wikipedia:Recent additions 41), Canon Episcopi ([7])
GA: Stregheria, Janet Farrar
FA: The Waterboys, Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches

Jkelly 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Majesty, your crown jewels await you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Regarding WP:RFPP, I had thoughts regarding the backlog. I was going to assist the backlog by doing the obvious declinations, acting in accordance with the guidance at WP:ADMIN "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions." Do you believe this will be a contentious or controversial action on my part, requiring consensus, or easily accepted if my judgment is sound. What are your thoughts? v/r Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds excellent. Thanks for offering to pitch in. Durova^Charge! 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Durova, I'd like to thank you again for nominating me in my successful RfA.

As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage.
--Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Let's hope nobody aims for your heel. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection

Hello Durova. I'd like to request semi-protection on the Star Wars Galaxies and Chevrolet Camaro articles. The Galaxies article continues to be hit with an abnormal amount of vandalism ever since protection lifted a week ago and it's getting difficult to keep up with it. The Camaro article is also seeing an abnormal amount of vandalism lately. Again, it's hard to keep up with it. I'm sorry if this isn't the forum to request this protection. Please, if you can, direct me to the right spot to make this request. Thanks! Roguegeek (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've given Star Wars Galaxies two weeks of semiprotection and one week for Chevrolet Camaro. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 00:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowns

Well, if you ask, let me brag a little :) I have written ~15 FAs (counting partial contribs as halves); few dozen of articles that were DYKed and several GAs and reviewed A-class articles. Details are on my userpage, although I note the highest current status (some FAs and A-class, for example, have had GA status in the past but are now beyond it). PS. My userpage lists all of my DYKs and FAs... perhaps I should number the DYKs - I lost track :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past GAs that graduated to FA are acceptable. The winner's circle is my spot to applaud you so by all means submit as many sets of articles as possible. Just be sure you include equal numbers for each qualifying requirement. For instance I wouldn't qualify for the crown jewels because I have only 1 GA (even though I've done 10 DYKs and 3 featured pages). Durova^Charge! 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown

Hi Durova! I just wanted to say that I think your new triple crown awards are a great idea. I see you've already awarded two, so things are off to a good start. I'm sure it will be quite a while before I'm ready for one, but it's nice to have something to shoot for! The 'valiant return' award is my favorite - works out nicely, doesn't it? Thanks, Skinny McGee 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm posting to the talk pages of WP:RFAR and WP:CN so look out for competition. I've always said I'm glad to welcome editors back so it's about time I proved it. My offer to you for a GA barnstar still stands. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 03:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown and me

That sounds pretty cool. Here's a sample of my stats.

DYK's - 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone ([8]) , Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma ([9]) , List of Delaware hurricanes ([10])
GA's - Hurricane Dog (1950) ([11]), Hurricane Lili (1984) ([12]), Tropical Storm Leslie (2000) ([13]), Hurricane John (2006) ([14])
FA's - Tropical Storm Edouard (2002), Tropical Storm Henri (2003), List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900), List of retired Pacific hurricane names, List of snow events in Florida

Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Your Imperial Majesty, I'll deliver your jewels promptly. Please bear in mind that the official register will truncate your GA and FC contributions because of the number of DYK entries. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank thee for the honor you have bestowed me. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy

I have time, so if you still want to have a chat about a potential candidacy, I'm open. v/r Navou ^banter / _contribs 07:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what angle? Durova^Charge! 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect of preparing for candidacy do you want to discuss? Durova^Charge! 17:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I'll defer to you as far as where I need to prepare, however, as far as what I want to do; I more focus on the maintenance aspect. C:CSD is an area I have helped to create a backlog, could help to undo the backlog. WP:AIV needs assistance, and so does WP:RFPP. I would need to tools in these areas. As I gain more experience, I'll flesh out. Of course, I still write the encyclopedia. What do you think? Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to Wikipedia namespace have been excellent. You've got my trust, but in order to earn the trust of the consensus I suggest you put more focus into article work. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Ok, I'll hit you up when after some time. For now, I'll see what I can't do to bring up those two articles I mentioned previously (has been an ongoing goal). Those two articles are proving more difficult to bring to GA then I had anticipated. :P Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a challenge. I think you're up to it. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 14:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

charged :) --Bhadani (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Let me know when your trainees are ready for RFA. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmafarer may need more than a warning

User talk:Dharmafarer came back from a spam-related block and immediately started working on the Piya Tan, which appears to be an organizational conflict of interest. I've left a COI warning on both the article and user's page. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous block doesn't seem to have had any effect so I've given this one a weeklong block. Durova^Charge! 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Thank you very much for commenting on my editor review. Regarding to the NPOV undue weight proposal, it is only my personal opinion and it does not affect my adherence to the current policy, including the policy I may disagree with, unless the policy is changed by community consensus. I've not, and never will, push my personal opinion disruptively in editing Wikipedia, and I think WP:POINT policy is correctly made for that.

I am not considering any RFA as of now (the previous two RFAs of me were both too early, this one just failed recently), but should I ever become an admin, I would enforce policies regardless of my personal opinion on the policy.

Also, I will try to be more familiar with our community consensus and process, as you pointed out that I am unfamiliar with those. Indeed, I do not know much about how the NPOV policy was made by consensus, if you would like to explain to me I will greatly appreciate.

Again, thank you and happy editing!

--Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very polite and thoughtful reply. May I suggest something? As part of your preparation for another try at adminship, head over to WP:RFC from time to time and answer some of the requests for comment. It's useful and interesting and over the course of a couple of months I think you'll see why the undue weight clause is very useful. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI Opinion

In your COI opinion on William Connolley, you wrote, ". . . and apparent weakness of their understanding of the underlying science." I'm truly sorry you choose to believe this, especially considering you have no foundation for you pejorative statements. You have failed to understand the difference between not making Wikipedia a scaremongering and unbalanced Web site and not understanding the science. You have failed to understand to difference between adhering to Wikipedia's policies and not understanding the science. It's sad you chose to use these misunderstanding as rudiment for your decrees.

Additionally, your ultimatum for scientific papers or nothing is fairly unrealistic. I never saw "must have coauthored the same published peer-reviewed scientific paper" as a requirement in WP:COI. Realistically, George W. Bush would not be allowed to delete controversial material on Alberto Gonzales that is sourced, despite never having publishing scientific papers together. As a rule of thumb, if two people have a close relation with each other, extreme caution and scrutiny should be used when they are editing one another's Wikipedia articles. So please keep this in mind before you make another colossal mistake.

Mr regards, ~ UBeR 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment doesn't mention any of the three arbitration cases I cited as precedents and overlooks the reasons I articulated for supposing these editors were unfamiliar with the professional culture of science and scientists. You mischaracterize my request as an ultimatum and the analogy you attempt to draw is false equivalence. At any rate, I'm quite satisfied with my analyticial abilities. I held that case open several extra days awaiting additional evidence that was not forthcoming. It's time to let that matter go. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial triple crown, I guess :)

An interesting idea, just like CEM :) Basically, just see User:Daniel.Bryant/Userpage/Contributions. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 03:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel.Bryant
- DYK: Beaumont House (RA), Samuel Davenport (RA), TSS Kanowna (RA), Bellot Strait (RA)
- GA: 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies, July 2006 Java earthquake
- FA: Central Coast Mariners FC (FAC), FIFA World Cup hat-tricks (FLC)

Your Imperial Majesty, crown jewels will soon be yours. Due to the award requirements your DYK contributions will get truncated at the winner's circle. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 04:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rewards

If people are only doing stuff because they want to get a medal, they're doing it for the wrong reasons. We'll end up cultivating an expectation of reward, and then people will get to the point where they won't bother doing something if they can't get a barnstar for it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that's a particular danger with this award as opposed to others? The bar is pretty high to earn a triple crown. Durova^Charge! 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and if the bar's high, are editors going to start lording it over people, or just silently thinking themselves superior because they have an award and others don't? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone starts "lording" over others because of this award, then they are absolutely stupid, and will lose respect pretty quickly. It'd be similar to administrators who "lord" over others, yet on a more farcical scale... Daniel Bryant 07:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PatPeter

In blocking PatPater for a year, you accused him of writing a hoax suicide note. It is not clear to me, however, how you arrived at the conclusion that it was a hoax. Yes, he returned to editing and didn't kill himself, but that doesn't mean it was a hoax. He may have actually planned on doing it and had a change of heart, as an emotionally unstable person is prone to doing. Obviously that would not be a hoax. He may have been very depressed and left the note as a reflection of that, which in my book still wouldn't be a hoax. A hoax would be a non-suicidal editor looking for attention by claiming he was going to commit suicide. Is there any evidence that points to that in this case? Everyking 07:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's take either possibility here.

The note was serious, the person really was contemplating suicide.

In this case, emotionally unstable people should not be editing here, things can get pretty volatile.

The user was playing a hoax, and never intended suicide at all.

Good. They get a year's block for causing tremendous disruption.

Basically, whether it was a hoax or not, the block was correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all of the effort that was spent on and off wiki trying to stop this guy from ending his life, if it turns out to be a hoax or used to disrupt Wikipedia, that block was a fine one indeed to issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with either of your conclusions. In the first case, I think emotionally unstable people can make perfectly good editors, and a person can simply be going through a period of distress and be perfectly stable later on. Would you feel comfortable letting him edit again if he professed to be emotionally stable and not contemplating suicide? Furthermore, things on Wikipedia can certainly get stressful, but what could be worse in this context than being blocked for a year? Being able to contribute productively to a community project could do a lot of good for his mental health, while suffering a lengthy block could do a lot of harm to him emotionally.

In the second case, I feel that it would still not be justified because there is no reason to believe he had any idea that what he wrote would be widely read and be treated as a crisis situation, with the police and his school being called. I find it impossible to believe he could have thought that would be a desirable outcome, anyway, because it led to an intrusion in his real life. So I feel he had no understanding of what would happen and therefore any "disruption" he intended was probably limited to a couple of other editors already associated with him. At most, he might have thought this would cause some worry and expressions of sympathy: not a nice thing to do, since it plays with other people's emotions, but very mild as Wikipedia disruption goes. Perhaps in combination with a history of other disruption it could warrant a block (although I still think a one-year block would be excessive, as it is in virtually all instances), and while in looking at his contribution history he does not seem to be much of an article editor (admittedly I looked at only about the latest 150 contributions), real evidence of this would need to be presented, beyond just his angry response to learning what people had done about his suicide note. Everyking 08:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold decisions can be controversial and I respect your right to disagree. I'm posting a reply to WP:AN about my handling of this situation. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your judgement for what it's worth. Skult of Caro (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this was some sort of prank or joke it was shockingly unfunny and cruelly making light of something that has caused a lot of people significant pain in their lives. — MichaelLinnear 05:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, both of you, but in case this was trolling let's not be shocked. Someone out there has very poor judgment. We've done what we can. Durova^Charge! 05:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeboid block

Just a few thoughts. I am not acquainted with Zeboid or the other person you blocked. I have seen Zeboid's posts a bit, but not paid deep attention to them. I saw that someone raised a COI issue with William Connolly. Not sure what that was about either. So my comments are really not related to those specific matters nor directly to personalities (but I may have to address personalities a bit to make my point). Instead, I want to talk briefly about policy and blocking in this specific instance and then move on to something else that is related but perhaps a bit obscure.

It seems to me that just because two editors are acquainted and agree with each other, this should not be sufficient reason to block them for meatpuppetry. People associate with like-minded people. I do no think that this is something wikipedia should be in the business of policing. But, as far as I can tell, you blocked these offenders pretty much only on that basis and without much other consideration or review. Furthermore this was a block for a week -- an unusual amount of time for a policy that is not subject to a bright-line test. Very odd and it seems really harsh.

But there is something more here that is troubling. I came to the Global Warming article page without any particular bias against the science or the topic. I generally agreed with the article but I found it to be needing improvement in structure. I also felt that it was somewhat slanted in one direction -- it had some fairly obvious bias to my eye. I want to make this next statement pretty strong: Simply taking that position was sufficient to earn exceptional abuse, without cause by a number of editors chief of them being William Connolly who is an admin and Raul who is a member of Arbcom. I have no doubt that were I to have brought a complaint against William he would have been handled under wikipedia policies and (given the block you just gave to Zeboid, he might have well earned a 1 week block for his actions seem as bad or worse). I did not pursue this because I consider it an annoyance and I prefer to spend my time in other ways rather than charging other users, digging up diffs and so on. But, (and here is my point) there is a chilling effect of your block and other similar actions I have seen. Think about this:

A group of editors working strongly together.
Who are egregiously abusive to good faith editors -- when they disagree with the group
Who, even when repeatedly asked to observe civility and assume good faith, flatly refuse.
A group who include admins and arbitrators
Who, when they are challenged on matters of neutrality are not only upheld, but their accusers are blocked on somewhat vague matters.
And finally, these blocks are unusually long.

It gives a bad appearance.

I do not want you to get the impression I am coming to the defense of Zeboid or anyone else you blocked. I simply do not know them well enough to know if their actions are defensible. But, I want to suggest the one week block was a bit too much. It is possible that if they did something wrong, they were inflamed to that by the concerted behaviors of a block of powerful editors and this should be considered. When a fairly large group of powerful editors agrees, even tacitly, to a collection of coordinated behaviors, it is really no different than the Meatpuppet and Point problems you raised with Zeboid. Yet these editors have never been called to account for these actions, while those who do not agree with them are attacked harshly and every possible remedy is brought against them. It is, on its face, not really right. And though I am not inclined to bring complaints.. as I said, it is a waste of time, now I even wonder if I might get blocked should I ever try to assert my reasonable rights. You may assure me all is well, but I have not observed it to be so. --Blue Tie 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block notice supplies adequate reasons for the block. Some of the key points there appear to have escaped your notice. If you have trouble understanding how policy applies and fear getting blocked for reasonable actions I suggest you try the mentorship program. Durova^Charge! 14:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as the reason:

Tony and Zeeboid both voted within 5 minutes of each other at the same AFD and both admit to being close associates. Whether that work is volunteer or paid is irrelevant to the meatpuppetry and vote stacking clauses of WP:SOCK. Also, unlike Connolley and Mann, Zeeboid and Tony have aggressively pursued an editor with baseless claims of malfeasance and have extended this conflict of interest discussion to absurd lengths through logical fallacies and wikilawyering. That's WP:POINT and you're both blocked for a week.

I see a quick vote in succession is listed. Apparently a belief that there is a sockpuppet issue but not proof. Meatpuppetry and votestacking does not preclude that people may voluntarily work together. You claim that Zeeboid and tony did certain things but there is no set of diffs, so the key points probably escaped my notice because they were not substantiated, but only declared to be so. Thanks for the mentorship offer. Do you think it is appropriate for an editor who has been on wikipedia for several years and particularly active for the last 12 months? I think I understand how the policies apply, but I have seen them enforced in varying ways and some people seem to get "free passes" for obscure reasons. (Note that I generally think people who get nailed, get nailed for good reasons, though I often seen punishments as more harsh than necessary). With that sense of things do you believe that Mentorship would be useful? --Blue Tie 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not offered to become your mentor. Instead I have referred you to a program where you could get a mentor. As you can see from the traffic at this talk page, I handle more issues singlehandedly than many WikiProjects and some noticeboards. Any experienced Wikipedian can answer your questions about policy implementation and you would do well to contact one of the people who volunteer for that purpose. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 15:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you were not offering. I was asking in general. But as you are busy, I will not trouble you on this. I wanted to register my concern. That is all. --Blue Tie 16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are expected to enforce policy, and Durova's action in this case was helpful in resolving a ~~very-long-running~~ voluminous COI issue. Short blocks (one week) for what appears to be a clear, narrowly-specified rule violation are easy to justify, while long blocks might require more discussion of evidence. I think Durova did the right thing here. EdJohnston 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected my own comment above. As ~~UBeR~~ Blue Tie points out the debate wasn't 'long-running', though it was long-winded. It generated 176 kb of text in the COI discussion, about 15 pages single-spaced, at 66 lines per page. EdJohnston 18:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must be more going on than the links show. I note that the first post was on 4 April and the action was on 8 April. And I would not have thought of 4 days as being long-running. But everyone is different. But I do not understand how a 4 day COI issue is long-running when a 7 day block is short. I admit I did not review some rule violation (I couldn't, there were no diffs). Did you see the violations? Durova says she is very busy. Overload could cause errors. Not saying that happened but I did not see any reason for a block. I also do not have to see it. After all I was not the admin. But in context, without clear reasons, it has a bad appearance. --Blue Tie 16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova has committed the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, simple as that. ~ UBeR 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad you think so. I took great pains to preclude even the appearance of doing that. At any rate, I kept the investigation open several extra days to accommodate potential new evidence and it's high time we moved on. Durova^Charge! 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of what? Coauthorship of published peer-reviewed and scientific papers? That's unrealistic and you should know that. Nor is it a requirement on WP:COI. You banned two people for merely knowing each other. If one cannot see this double standard, I'd say they are blind. ~ UBeR 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is futile and WP:POINT-y, a policy which you appear to have read.[15] I am a neutral and uninvolved party who responded to a call for investigation and accommodated all reasonable requests as well as some unreasonable ones. If you insist on assuming bad faith, that is not my problem. I cautioned repeatedly at that thread that I was close to issuing blocks for disruption. I wasn't kidding. Durova^Charge! 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware inquiring was making a point. Needless to say, you still avoid the main question. I do not care personally, but it casts are very suggestive shadow on your reasoning and character. ~ 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, Durova blocked for a very clear violation of WP:MEAT; I suggest you read that policy, and stop Wikilawyering. It would also be a good idea to stop impugning Durova's character; I consider your comments a violation of WP:NPA and I'm placing a warning on your talk page to that effect. If you really insist that Durova's block was mistaken, take it to WP:ANI rather than extending the discussion here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) UBeR, I have this page on my watch list, and I for one am tired of hearing the same accusations over and over again. Please find a better outlet for your energies. There's a long list of autobiographical articles at WP:COI/N. Why don't you go there and help us investigate some of them. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Hi Durova,

I'm one of your admin students (I approached you under a different signature). I've been quite out of touch with you since I asked for your help, but have still been contributing. I recently found an area that seems like interesting work: copyright violation investigations, for both text and images. It seems for images to be a difficult task. One question that I have is how can I verify that the person who has claimed to release a work under the GFDL actually has the rights to do so? For example, I've received notice via e-mail releasing under the GFDL an image that I found on a website (the e-mail was from the contact on the website). How do we check that he/she isn't violating copyright themselves?

Also, can you give some direction as to how I should proceed with this article: Jerusalem Declaration. First, it seems to not be an encyclopedia article, but primarily a reproduction of a work. Also, the statement at the end is confusing to me: (Note: documents of this sort are freely reproducible, although technically not "public domain"). Sancho 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Jerusalem Declaration I recommend a transwiki to Wikibooks. Could you give the specifics on the copyright question? Volunteer work over there is a much needed area and I'm glad you're taking it on. I'm no lawyer but I do understand a bit about copyright as it applies to written text. My understanding of image copyright issues is somewhat weaker. Best, Durova^Charge! 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]