User talk:Durova/Archive 15

Query

I know you're very busy, but if you have time, would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Weirdoactor? The thread will explain - and apologies for waylaying you like this. Please let me know if there is anything I can do - thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was away for a few days and the thread isn't active anymore. Post again if this is still important to you. Durova^Charge 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, all resolved now, although it seems the mere fact that I had posted here asking you to take a look was a factor, so you were of assistance even when absent! How cool is that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone, unarchived

Voila! —SlamDiego 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

Hi Durova, On 4 Jan, DianaW commented that she thought she had been banned from editing the article on R.S. and then has not made any more editing of the Waldorf-related articles she earlier has been involved in, until once, five days later.

On 6 Jan, someone registers as "Wikiwag", and writes on 9 Jan "I've never edited on Wikipedia before." Yet, already the second day as registered user (7 Jan), "Wikiwag" makes appr. 27 edits of the article on Waldorf education, complete with edit summaries for basically all of them. According to WP:SP such behaviour is characteristic of sock puppets. Wikiwag then in discussion has developed a similar mutually supportive and defending partnership with PeteK as DianaW and at his Talks page has expressed support of him. Could you check if "Wikiwag" is a sock puppet of DianaW? Thanks, (and - regarding "gun slinger" - we do have the old "Sleep on" series from the 1990s with Brian Benben on Swedish TV..:) Thebee 12:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do (if you are inclined to). Waldorf critics generally do NOT use pseudonyms for the very reason that it reduces credibility. Wikiwag, as far as I know, is an independent and fairly neutral editor. He/she defended one of TheBee's edits today. I would be surprised/shocked if this person was a known critic and I'm very certain it is not DianaW. Pete K 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed Wikiwag has defended more of TheBee's edits and positions. I don't know who Wikiwag is, but this editor is trying very hard to be diplomatic, neutral and helpful. OTOH, here are a few of TheBee's recent comments:

• [1] - Insult Wikiwag
• [2] - Insult Pete
• [3] - Asking for user's name
• [4] - implying user is DianaW
• [5] - "Showing Colors"

I'm not suggesting the debate is not heated, but the rule that applies to glass houses should apply here. Thanks Durova! Pete K 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Durova,

I don't see any more contributions by Wikivag after some intense discussions. Did you check if it was a sock puppet? And would you reveal a state secret if you told that you found that to be the case, and who the existing user behind it was??

Thanks, Thebee 12:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a few days behind. Had a very bad cold this week. The standard place to report suspected sockpuppets is WP:SSP. Durova^Charge 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the new editor was finally intimidated enough by personal attacks and allegations to leave (who can blame them). Another one bites the dust, I guess. <shaking head> Pete K 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a long note at Bee's talk page. For all involved, this is the sort of misunderstanding that shouldn't happen. Blocks don't work that way and a few mouse clicks can confirm that Diana wasn't blocked at all. Durova^Charge 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K:

"I suspect the new editor was finally intimidated enough by personal attacks and allegations to leave"

Wikiwag has described him or herself as "a 6'2", 190lb man" who likes to be adressed "Captain" or "Sir", and immediately wrote and edited with expertise and knowledge of the subject here at Wikipedia (appr. 27 perfect edits of a controversial article already the second day), has participated with fervor and intensity in the discussion, and almost immediately made a detailed analysis of the Arbitration, giving me and Hgilbert, but noone else the responsibility of implementing the ArbCom decision, (untruthfully) also claiming I had been responsible for the Arb request, and immediately telling how very much he or she liked it when I seemed to do something that in time could get me banned, when I wrote something.

"Wikiwag" has displayed very much the same character, attitude, emotional language, behaviour and buddy relation to Pete K as I'm familiar with from Diana W. I very much doubt that kind of person would be intimidated by a few comments about a suspected Sock puppetry, the way Pete K now tries to describe it, who also has described the removal of a duplicate Article probation box by him at the main page of the article on WE (in addition to the existing one at the Talks page), at first added by "Wikiwag", and then reinserted by Pete K again when I removed it, as "aggressive", and then added the duplicate directly below the existing one at the Talks page instead, telling people they should really look at the red sign and be careful about what they write .... Thebee 21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And there we have it... the extent of TheBee's foundation for the claim of sockpuppetry. An apology to DianaW would be in order here, as well as one to Wikiwag. Pete K 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the wikipedia rules or protocol here, and I sure hope I am not told that pursuing this problem will get me banned. I take false accusations seriously. I'd like somebody who can checkuser or whatever it's called, to set this straight. The accusation can be easily disproven and it should be - people should not be left to wonder if I am who I say I am here. I don't use fake ID's. What can I do about this, Lethaniol? Please advise. I think I will copy this to Durova as well since thebee apparently asked her to check on this, and I was not aware of this as I had stopped "watching" her page. (Hi Durova. Sorry to hear you've been ill.)

I am doing my best to contain just how furious this makes me. Keep in mind, thebee will reprint entire pages here on his own personal websites (he has three of them), and I have no recourse as to what he says about me there short of contacting a lawyer. I have a thousand complicated things going on in my life at the moment including serious illness in my immediate family and I should not log back onto wikipedia to find that someone has been counting how many days I've been away and spreading rumors about me. Is it possible for a person to be NOTIFIED when they've been suspected or accused of something? I only find this crap by accident! I should not have to monitor the talk pages of every last individual who's ever commented on these articles including admins, in order to be sure no one is making up crap about me. Please advise me if there is recourse.DianaW 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers aren't easy to get and since no actual blocks happened in this case it would be a stretch to ask for one here. Being post-arbitration might make an exception in this case...I'll look into it. In the meantime please take it easy. Durova^Charge 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, Diana works as editor for different employers. If she has written her postings from different work places, that might make it difficult to investigate the issue, if she has taken this into account if using different UserIDs at Wikipedia. The IPs if sock puppetry is involved however probably ought to be in the same city area. As for Wikiwag, I have apologized to Wikiwag for at one time addressing him or her as "Mylady" instead of as "Captain, Sir", as Wikiwag has told is the way he or she likes to be addressed. Thebee 10:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And another side note: If the investigation does not identify DW as the one using the mentioned ID as a sock puppet, the way of starting and continuing to edit at WC by this ID still shows most of the described characteristics of a sock puppet, as described by WP:SOCK Thebee 13:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thebee wrote here: "On a side note, Diana works as editor for different employers." I am stunned to find this here. How dare you? You have no right to discuss my employment on wikipedia. No right at all. I have never told you who I work for, nor have I ever, once, even conceivably mentioned on the Internet who my employers are - never.

Still, to address the substantive point requires one thing only: Check user. I write every posting from one computer. You will not find multiple IPs. (I don't think there have been any exceptions. I am sometimes at my parents who are in a different state, and have occasionally gotten online there but I don't think I've even browsed wikipedia there. There are several computers in our home, networked, but as far as I recall I've only used this one to write on wikipedia.) I suppose there is the off chance wikiwag is in the same city as me, but the odds of that are low. Check user will tell us. Thebee needs some kind of reprimand for discussing my employment situation here. I don't even know where he got the information from.DianaW 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that above he suggests that even if checkuser were to clear me, he will not view that as a reason NOT to go on accusing me of sockpuppetry.

Please let me know what I need to do to have the arbitration committee address this. If it results in me being banned instead of him, so be it. I cannot tolerate that he is able to falsely accuse me with no recourse (he has repeated the accusation again today, and above implies that he will repeat it even if shown that it is not true). Durova, I was going to paste in my request here again but I'm sure you're following the relevant pages at this point - see thebee's talk page. Thanks.DianaW 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On

"Thebee wrote here: "On a side note, Diana works as editor for different employers." I am stunned to find this here. How dare you? You have no right to discuss my employment on wikipedia. No right at all. I have never told you who I work for, nor have I ever, once, even conceivably mentioned on the Internet who my employers are - never."

I do think you or Pete K has told here at Wikipedia that you work for different employers and in what capacity. Like you, I have not mentioned who you work for and don't know that. Ane even if I knew and it had been mentioned here, I would not mention it. In a similar way I have not, except once I think, adressed or referred to you with your full name, though you expressly have told it here at Wikipedia. I have not. Yet, you repeatedly have mentioned my full name in disussions.

On:

"Please note that above he suggests that even if checkuser were to clear me, he will not view that as a reason NOT to go on accusing me of sockpuppetry."

What I have written says nothing about this. Of course I will expressly apologize to you for having expressed my suspicion that you might have used a sock puppet, if this turns out not to have been the case and have no problem with this. I'd even consider inviting you for a dinner on me as compensation, if I visit the US again, though I maybe doubt you'd accept it. I think Pete K at one time expressed a similar suspicion in strong words about me in one discussion, without giving any specific reason for this, and in the discussion requested that this be investigated. As it was rubbish, I simply told that I only use my registered account, and left it. Regards, Thebee 14:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this, but any discussion about Diana's employers was about YOUR COMMENTS and how they personally affect her opportunities of employment. It wasn't freely produced information, it was trying to get you to understand how serious this issue is. Obviously, it didn't work. Pete K 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is one example (of what is apparently considered "admin shopping") documented by Pete, see the arbitration evidence page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Evidence and scroll to Harassment by thebee.

It is definitely not worth more time than this, as it is absurdly time consuming to flip from page to page trying to correlate dates to establish a pattern. I have noted before that I'm often bemused by the notions of "civility" at wikipedia (and think they really work against productiveness, as they encourage petty score keeping on very trivial matters, but that's another issue I suppose). It would not have occurred to me that remarking on this pattern of thebee's that is clearly evident to those following these conflicts over a period of time was "incivil" of me, let alone that it was a "serious accusation" as Durova said. I don't think of it as a serious accusation. It's just childishness. It would be as childish of me to "document" it as it is of him to do it. That's my notion of civility. "Documenting" and "reporting" nonsense like this escalates it. I noted it not to get him in trouble with someone but to point out how difficult it is to even know what one has been accused of when the accuser's own activities are devilishly difficult to keep track of. I hope this clarifies somewhat, and maybe even gets me off whatever hook of "incivility" I'm currently on.DianaW 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thebee, I have said many times that I am a medical editor but I am certain beyond doubt that I have not described who my employers are, where they are, or how many of them there are. Your assumption that the people I work for, if freelance, are in the same city is itself off base. If I were using multiple accounts, they could as easily come from addresses in Hong Kong as from my physical location in the States. All the major publishers that I have worked for have offices all over the world and a minority of people are physically in those offices using those computers on a given day. Your conspiratorial theories about what we will learn if we get a check user are goofy. We will learn simply that DianaW and wikiwag are not the same account. You will not have grounds to go on insisting there is anything suspicious about this. Even if wikiwag and I were in the same general area it would not mean he/she is me, as I live in a very large metropolitan area. (There are 5 Waldorf schools that I could drive to from where I sit at the moment, and active local chapters of anthroposophists in several towns within driving distance, not to mention doubtless anthroposophical projects I don't know about. There are therefore hundreds of people associated with these institutions or projects who could decide to contribute to anthroposophy-related topics.)

Conversely, there are literally dozens of cities that wikiwag could be posting from and it would not prove thathe or she is NOT me. This is nonsense.DianaW 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On

"Here is one example (of what is apparently considered "admin shopping")"

The three admins mentioned are admins who had been or were directly involved in the articles my questions referred to. Thebee 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line

I queried a checkuser clerk and the response was not very encouraging.[6] Bee, go ahead and try WP:RFCU if you're serious about this and if they turn down the request take it over to WP:SSP. It would be best to have a completely neutral investigator look into the claim. In my experience checkuser has come back negative every time when a challenged editor responded, Yes, let's get a checkuser. I'd like to clear the air. The actual sockpuppets get evasive. I doubt this is worth pursuing: the other account seems to have gone inactive and Diana wasn't actually blocked when it was active.

Regarding personal information, don't post anyone's information other than your own to Wikipedia unless that other person already disclosed it on this site and the situation makes its repetition necessary. If I were a checkuser admin and the request had been accepted for investigation then it might have been relevant to e-mail something along those lines. I've already explained that I don't have that ability. Diana has complained repeatedly during this dispute that certain people have made unwelcome and inaccurate disclosures about her personal life. This is a major foul. The corrolary to that, for Pete and Diana, is to be careful what you disclose. Sometimes people have tried to coax information out of me by posting guesses that seem to invite correction (the most common one is the supposition that my username makes me Russian). So Diana, tell me if you would like part or all of this thread deleted. Out of respect for your privacy I'll make that your call. Durova^Charge 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova, So, does the bottom line address the question of one editor being calling the integrity of another editor into quesion by claiming they are a sockpuppet? Does Diana have any recourse for this behavior by TheBee? Can Diana, herself, request a checkuser? Or does it have to be the accusor who does this? I suspect TheBee will drop this now and we will always be left with the question. And, again, what about Wikiwag and his right to edit these pages? What happened to being nice to the newbies? I'm disappointed that a neutral editor has disappeared - apparently over this. Pete K 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Diana could post a request at WP:RFCU or WP:SSP. So could you, but neither of you are obligated to do so because Diana is presumptively not a sockpuppeteer. I've just finished a longer post on the subject at Bee's talk page. Bee should take this through formal channels or drop the issue and be very conservative about mentioning it further unless a result comes back positive. Durova^Charge 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. I won't be requesting an RFCU but it's good to know that Diana can put this issue to rest if TheBee continues. Pete K 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

not an awilliamson sock puppet

i have been blocked for being a suspected sock puppet of awilliamson. i see you unblocked elizabeth87 who you thought was falsely accused. i was hoping to convince you that i have been falsely accused as well. for starters, i am australian. all of my IP addresses should confirm this. your article "Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc" states that the vandal "refuses to discuss changes on the talk page". A quick look at my contributions will show several entries in the relevant talk page. your article states the vandal enhances the "reverence toward Joan of Arc". I am a doctor and an atheist and feel that Joan's visions might have been hallucinations. My edits (until i grew tired of battling the catholic fundamentalists and stopped editing) were along these lines. Take a look at my edit of Joan of Arc of may 4 2006 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joan_of_Arc&diff=prev&oldid=51467413. I removed the drivel "Since this is an unproven assumption about the nature of God, the medical community would not normally use it as the basis for a diagnosis of mental illness" with the note "the medical community generally considers people who hear voices from god to be mentally ill". Is that consistent with this awilliamson fellow? My contribution history will not show any alterations to any footnotes, as mentioned in your article. also, my edits were in no way limited to joan of arc. several edits related to australian issues. my efforts to get the block lifted so far has been in vain. the administrators who looked at the block focussed on the fact that i stopped editing a while back, and they didn't begin to explore the merits of the case against me. (they also took offense at me pointing out this fact). there is no wikipedia policy i know of where users on a wikibreak are denied natural justice. again, would appreciate having my name cleared. Cwiki 124.185.86.106 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're unblocked. Please accept my apologies on behalf of Wikipedia's administrators. This was a very unusual situation. If it makes a difference I'll explain briefly: one of the site's most sneaky and persistent vandals had been attacking that page among others for two years. He changed tactics periodically in order to evade scrutiny. In fact, before reading your message here, I deleted the note you had left to the Joan of Arc talk page because I thought that was trolling. Now I'm eating my own words because I ask other people not to use the t-word unless they're certain. It stings to be caught on the wrong side of that and it looks like you got stung quite inadvertently. My note in your unblock history should clear the air. Thank you for coming to me so that I could clear this up and feel welcome to return if you find the need. Regards, Durova^Charge 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Cwiki 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're back

Hope the cold is getting better. SirFozzie 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's prompted me to chase down references for a neglected stub. Durova^Charge 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fun with Anthroposophy

Hi Durova,

I have a favour to ask - this mentorship is hard work - but I think it is working, and things have got a bit more civil over the last few days since I got by feet wet and involved see - User_talk:Lethaniol/Pete_K and Talk:Waldorf education.

The favour is a few questions - I have been putting a lot of effort into this work and I want to know if it is worthwhile? Do you think my direct interventions have been helping? Is there anything I have been doing wrong, or could do better? Should I step back and not get so involved? And such like - your opinions would be very valuable to me :) :)

Cheers Lethaniol 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but nobody's been blocked this weekend, so you must be doing SOMETHING good! I very much appreciate the time it took (having myself spent 18hrs here on Saturday and going on 12hrs here today) and I want to express a very heartfelt THANKS! If I could figure out how to give you one of those star thingies, I'd do it (and one for Durova too for rolling up her sleeves in the arbitration). BTW, how DO people award those? Pete K 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol, I've already given you one barnstar. You are very seriously on the road to becoming the first editor to receive a second award from me (which is kind of like getting a second Academy Award or a second Nobel Prize...in its own small way). I just don't want to see you burn yourself out. All of the named editors in the Waldorf case would benefit from mentorship. You've taken two of them under your wing in a formal sense and are digging much deeper into the matter than mentorship really requires. If you want to double as mediator, that's your perogative. There's no guarantee how this will turn out. Whatever the outcome, you've done your very best.

And Pete, check out Wikipedia:Barnstars. Durova^Charge 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For "getting to the bottom of things" in the Waldorf Education arbitration - Pete K 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aw shucks...thanks. :) Durova^Charge 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Durova yes I need to be very careful that I do not burn out on these issues or I will be no use to anyone!

On another issue - see User_talk:Thebee#Adoption, I have been trying to explain to TheBee some of issues but he keeps going off track - I would like to ask - if you agree with my advice - can you re-iterate it to them - maybe two people saying the same thing will be better than one. Cheers Lethaniol 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bee's posted the request, which is the main thing. Since the dispute has been polarized for so long it's probably healthy to have another editor who won't be seen as tainted by any advocacy for the Pete/Diana camp. It would certainly take some pressure off you. There's the chance that warring factions would interpret any difference of opinion between you and the other mentor through a confrontational filter. Yet that seems more than balanced by the benefit that Bee (and HGilbert, etc. if they choose) would receive. Let's hope the whole thing settles down soon. Durova^Charge 01:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to move the WP:SSP discussion from TheBee's talk page to this page? I'm concerned that it resides on TheBee's talk page and could look bad to arbitrators looking at it later. Would it be too much of an imposition, Durova, to ask you to move it here or to Lethaniol's talk page? I would do it, but I suspect it would look bad. Thanks! Pete K 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. I don't understand why you think it's necessary. Could you explain that more fully? Durova^Charge 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. First, I think it's bad manners to go to TheBee's talk page and discuss all the things we are discussing *about him*. I know he has asked me personally to leave his talk page in the past and has deleted my comments there so I suspect he doesn't like what's going on there right now. Second, I think we've already been asked to nix the ongoing discussion (by Lethaniol, I think - he/she drew a line - wow, I just realized I don't know Lethaniol's sex, I've been assuming Lethaniol is a "he"). And finally, TheBee has control over the archiving, editing and selectively deleting the page content. The reason to keep the discussion there is that a mentor will know what they might be getting into... although that might make it more difficult for TheBee to get one to volunteer. It's your call, I'm just thinking we haven't been invited there, technically, and that maybe the discussion should be in more neutral territory. Pete K 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If Bee complains about my posts I'll move them. You know how to find a page diff: his deletions won't matter if you need to locate evidence later. And if Lethaniol advises me to move them for Bee's sake I'll comply. I appreciate your discretion. I've lobbed the ball to the other side of the net. Let's see if anyone volleys. Durova^Charge 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. I think I've even let Thatcher get under my skin tonight, so I'd better sign off before I regret it. Thanks again and good night. Pete K 05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

article issue

Okay okay, it's Joyce Kilmer, you might have seen a notice on WP:ANI about it yesterday, I guess my post to the village pump was a little passive aggressive. I'm concerned that User:ExplorerCDT is being exceedingly abusive on the talk page and in his editing activity in his laudable quest to single-handedly bring the article to a higher standard. I was frankly shocked at the abuse he is piling onto other well-intentioned editors, including User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), with whom he seems to have an uneasy truce at the moment. He even requested a peer review but doesn't seem open to the edits that came about as a result. The article history demonstrates a long trail of him reverting other editor's changes; it's not just about his recent feud with User:Alansohn. Of course, every edit he makes could be defended one at a time but it all adds up to him being the article's stated gatekeeper. Also, today he completely commandeered the talk page with a vast FA to-do list. Perhaps this hasn't added up to anything actionable, but I wouldn't touch that article with a 10-foot pole knowing that everything I might do is open to his scorn. Thanks for your attention and sorry if you think this is a tempest in a teacup on my part for bringing it up!--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I realized that it was not ExplorerCDT who added the to-do list structure to the talk page, I misread the history.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. What a surprise to find Joyce Kilmer a locus of dispute! I'll give this some thought. What I read between the lines is a rather erudite attempt to rehabilitate Kilmer's reputation that verges on original research. I don't want to deflate what appears to be some very hard work, but if it had been my call I wouldn't have promoted this to GA. Instead I would have given some extensive notes. It definitely won't pass WP:FAC while this brews so maybe the matter will resolve itself. Durova^Charge 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of what I figured - it won't become a FA if this is still an active issue, so it may work itself out. Thanks for your attention!-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because I once laughed about Kilmer's reputation with Kilmer's own grandson over three glasses of wine at Columbia University, I set out to write a few comments and delivered quite an essay. We'll see if this does any good. Durova^Charge 04:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion lacked structure and direction, which resulted in heated posts about minor issues. STRUCTURE: I archived the old talk page and commandeered the talk page with a vast FA to-do list in an attempt to get the editors to move away from heating up over issues that are minor in moving an article from GA to FA status. Providing them structure for their discussions through the FA to-do list has better focused their discussion and has stemmed the flow of raising new minor issues. DIRECTION: The structure helped slow the heated posts, but something else was needed to keep the hands from being idol. Durova's contributing FA directions specific to the article (see my comments below) should help move the article forward in a civil manner. -- Jreferee 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Oden has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Oden 12:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Need for protection again

Hi there, need you please to semi-protect Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service because a user blanked the page and his user name is a personal attack against me, a link to this history is here as mentioned earlier his username is a personal attack attack against my real life name, and it goes against Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I do think this user is a sockuppet of Wateva100 and I'm aksing you to block him and his IP address to stop this vandalism for good.

I think that this user is an impersonater of User:wateva100. I believe that both accounts are belonging to somebody who I know and that their vandalising the article to annoy me. Now the Dieguy Username is an personal attack on me because Guy is my name and it's threating towards me. If you need to aks me any more questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks for all your help.

Tellyaddict 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article again. Now a link to the article's history doesn't tell me much about the rest of your complaint. Who is this and how is the username a personal attack? What makes you think this is a sockpuppet of that particular user? You've definitely got a long term problem and I'd like to help. I just need more solid information. Durova^Charge 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if you could be a bit more specific about to whom you are referring when you say in the edit summary of the Tyne & Wear fire article that "returning vandal strikes again". When looking at the history, it appears this comment could be interpreted as a reference to me as the most recent editor - and I'm sure that's not the case, but I wonder how other editors would see it. I'm trying extremely hard to improve this article and Wikify, which seems to be bugging one user in particular. Also, I know admins get asked to do all sorts of things at little notice, often with no background to a query, dispute or complaint; but it would really help the regular editors of an article if you could explain your actions by adding to the article's talk pages. NB: Thanks for your help, this message does not require a personal response. Regards. Escaper7 12:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'll go there. Durova^Charge 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Ilena & Mentoring

I saw your comment on User_talk:Ilena and am not sure what if any of the comments about mentoring are directed toward me. To clarify my position, I'm not trying to mentor her in any way. I'm trying to minimize the problems she's been having since the first ANI about her, mostly by removing inappropriate comments from her on Talk pages that serve no purpose other than to create conflict and hostility. I did make a recent attempt to help her with Sally Kirkland which I thought went fairly well. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to assume she would take my edits in good faith. --Ronz 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clarifying. Durova^Charge 07:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Kilmer

Thank you for taking the time to provide your insight on the Joyce Kilmer talk page. I too have been trying to figure out why all the hostility. The friction has been over minor issues that I do not think will make or break achieving FA status and I could not figure out why the hostility until your post. I think you are right that the slant of the article may be causing some of the friction, but I do not think any of the editors intend to slant the article one way or another. You also pointed out that the article received a GA award, but did not receive extensive notes on what needs to be done to move the article from GA towards FA status. I think the friction over minor issues arose because of a lack of major issue direction on how to move the article forward from GA towards FA status. The article review you provided gives the editors good direction on what to do next, which hopefully should end the hostilities over the minor issues. Again, thank you for your help and insight. -- Jreferee 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I stuck my neck out on that one. It's a good sign that no one took offense. Now if only there were a similarly devoted group improving Hart Crane or Gertrude Stein... Durova^Charge 13:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, the editors on the Kilmer page are reasonable. Here is something you deserve:

File:Firm but fair.png

The Firm but Fair award

---

For her insightful, no nonsense, 'no big production number' efforts to keep things civil on the Joyce Kilmer talk page, the Firm but Fair award is hereby awarded to Durova. -- Jreferee 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks also for your help in focusing Talk:Joyce Kilmer toward the goal of WP:FA. Durova^Charge 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

I e-mailed you. Prodego ^talk 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied twice. Durova^Charge 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

you were once concerned with 'blogging'

I remember you once blocked an IP user (El Jigüe) for 'blogging'. What do you think about this case? [7]. EJ was usually giving links and thus expressing his views, but here we have a user who has clearly mistaken Wikipedia for MySpace.Constanz - Talk 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific and show more diffs. Durova^Charge 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Watergate AID Nom

I saw your comment on the nomination, and I thought it was an accurate criticism. My only thought is that you should add the information into the article. <3Clamster 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I considered that before nominating the article. If sysop chores didn't keep me so busy I'd put more work into it myself. Frankly I don't have the time to give the page what it deserves. I've been the main contributor to three featured pages and after a few edits I slowed down and said whoa, this needs a team effort. Durova^Charge 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)