User talk:Durova/Archive 37

Bluemarine

Could you shed some light on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/bluemarine_(2nd)#User:bluemarine — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that needs to be said here? He isn't blocked anymore. I lifted that block because he explained through offsite communication that the statement was not a legal threat toward Wikipedia or any Wikipedian. The context had been unclear at the time when I originally acted. Durova^Charge! 06:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification. The legal action was in no way directed toward Wikipedia, but toward MSNBC and Youtube.Matt Sanchez 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dbromage

Durova, out of courtesy I'm informing that I have mentioned you as part of evidence in action against user Dbromage. The user is suspected of utilizing at least two sock puppets, and there is also evidence of meat puppetry. The user is also vainly awarded himself a barnstar. I was unsure were my complaint should go so I have put it [1] and here [2]Tezza1 15:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't confirmed your conclusions, bear in mind. No prejudice either way; I just haven't given this a look in a while. Durova^Charge! 17:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock puppet of Dbromage, Thin Arthur has responded to my allegations. Please see Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage for his response. This user has also taken action against me here [3]. Tezza1 12:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need for endorsement of community sanction on Sadi

The reason that action is there is because there currently is no block. Jehochman blocked, Phsychim62 unblocked, Sarah blocked, DragonflySixtyseven unblocked, and that's where it sits. If the conclusion is that Sadi should be blocked, it has to actively done at this point.Kww 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there isn't any community ban and the Committee could impose its own. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

E-mail sent. Ral315 » 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Null Device SSP

The Null Device posted on your talk page denying the prior Check User case you brought against The Null Device. There is a new SSP case against The Null Device, here. -- Jreferee t/c 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. As my summary at that checkuser request explains, I considered several plausible scenarios at the time when I filed it, some of which might have cleared The Null Device of suspicion. Durova^Charge! 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown nomination

User:Aboutmovies
- DYK: Oregon Coast Range (and many more)
- GA: Provisional Government of Oregon (and several more)
- FC: Oregon State Capitol (FA)

Aboutmovies is the champion of all things DYK/GA/FA for WikiProject Oregon and deserves this award (with Oregon White Oak Cluster :)). Let me know if you need more/better proof. Thanks! Katr67 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, coming right up! Durova^Charge! 02:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Oregon triple crown nom

User:EngineerScotty
- DYK: Rose Quarter (and several more)
- GA: Oregon wine (and several more)
- FC: New Carissa (FA)

EngineerScotty whips up fully cited, lengthy articles and makes it look easy. As a mere WikiGnome, I stand in awe of his powers of article creation. Katr67 03:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while! Glad to hear he's doing great work in article space. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely an expert Wikipedian

I've seen your name around, here and there. AfD, maybe, VP, possibly. I know you're dedicated to the project, and the five pillars, so I'd like your opinions on an essay I'm trying to resurrect. I think we can give scientific experts some amount of due recognition, but not without first recognizing the true Wikipedia experts such as yourself and the people you give awards to (such as EngineerScotty, which is how I came to your page in the first place). TIA. Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about opening that for a content-related request for comment and listing it on the community bulletin board at the community portal? Durova^Charge! 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is why I wouldn't call myself an expert editor, because I'm not familiar with the community bulletin board, or how to list things there. Though I'm sure I'll figure it out if I click around long enough. ;) Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go.[4] Durova^Charge! 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the triple crown!

Good to hear from you again. WRT adminship, I'll have to decline at this point--I've been busy editing articles and ignoring meta stuff, and after a wikispammer called my home phone number a while back to complain, my wife insists that I stay off RC patrol and such. :) (Such happens when you leave your real name on your homepage and your number is in the phone book...) At any rate, thanks! --EngineerScotty 05:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA stuff

Ok - many thanks first. However there is sense in which I'd have preferred to see others with the rights helping out on the blacklist. A. B. is obvious (& I think weakening) however equally Siobhan is a quality worker who I am trying to persuade... If you are interested then maybe comments might help? If I can help with anything let me know, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you see someone who looks like a good candidate for admin coaching, send them my way. I specialize, so people who want to do WP:CSD wouldn't be well placed with me. I'm particularly interested in sleuths and people who'll help run WP:COIN and WP:SSP. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 15:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate the retraction. I understand where your coming from as the recent level of vandalism has taken a very different turn than the early vandalism the project experienced. It used to be someone posted "poopyface", some bad word, or changed a random fact and they left. Lately, the level of disruption includes sleepers, intricate long term plots, trust abusers, etc and the admin response has been ratcheted up. My concern is that innocents are being caught up and that puts a black mark on the whole project as there have been more and more "I got banned for editing X" posts growing on forums around the Internet. Sleepers are always a problem but they will be caught eventually as they will want to continue the behavior that caused their main account to be banned (the very definition of a sleeper). In the mean time, if they do contribute positively to the project, the project wins.

I think your proposal is a decent one compared to the alternatives. I still don't like the secret evidence thing but it is the lesser of two evils. I am going to go back to vandal patrol now as I need to rethink my contributions to the admin side of this whole thing. I just put my first created from scratch article out and want to keep improving the project's view of my little corner of the world. Cheers! spryde | talk 20:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a fairly small but active cluster of people who cause most of the headaches in this regard. And it's never been uncommon for those disruptive people who get banned from Wikipedia to raise vocal complaints in other fora. Again, you have my apologies for the mistake. I'll do my best to learn from it. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I seem to be getting into an edit war over Poi (juggling) with with B9 hummingbird hovering. I'm not sure if you are the right person to ask, but I would very much appreciate it if you would look at what is going on here and give me some direction - Geronimo20 00:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried an article content request for comment? WP:RFC is the link. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 00:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI dicussion

Hi, Durova: if you happen to have some time and interest, I'd love it if you'd pop over to this discussion about some edit warring users I'm trying to handle. I've been trying to work on a community sanction for these users, but I'm quickly finding that they aren't too willing to do this. The last recourse I can think of short of ArbCom is to ask another editor to have a look at it, so that's what I'm doing now. If you're not interested or can't, I understand, but I thought I'd at least try. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CEM dilemma: one editor objects to identical sanctions as false equivalence. Stakes everything on the distinction. Might be too complex for the community to solve without their agreement. If it's been through formal DR already, could be a candidate for arbitration. Durova^Charge! 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks a lot for the input. That gives me an idea of where to go from here. I think I will let this sit for part of today. If no one's come up with any Solomon-like wisdom to solve this by evening PST, I'll make a request to the Committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment

User:One Night In Hackney has done a lot of spade work with regards to a possible sockpuppet account being used to get around not one, but two ArbCom remedies (The Troubles and the Great Irish Famine ArbCom cases). Would you look at the evidence Here and tell me if you agree with him (and of course, myself) SirFozzie 21:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone got to that. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ome Henk vandal

Here are two IPs:

217.233.230.136, blocked for 'legal threats and general trolling' [5]

and 217.233.221.43, blocked for vandalism [6] Michaelbusch 23:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe these will turn out to be throwaway addresses. If problems continue I'll apply longer blocks. Please keep me in the loop. Durova^Charge! 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs all belong to a server farm owned by Deutsche Telekom, so I've requested that the semi-protection on Ome Henk be restored. Michaelbusch 23:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP block

This is an open proxy (a specialist subject of mine!) according to Wikipedia:Open proxy detection. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callmebc oopsie

You said in WP:AN that User talk:Callmebc protection was reduced to semi. I see a "source" tab there. I think you deprotected his User page instead, perhaps due to confusion involving his redirect to Talk. Thought you might want to give it another tap. (SEWilco 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, you're offline. I'll ask someone else. (SEWilco 22:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

One more comment about Greg and you.

One more comment about Greg and you. Self-promotional half-truths that are at best misleading, and according to higher ethical standards constitute lies, are so common in the media as to be literally unremarkable; while at organizations with exacting standards of validity/truth such as what Wikipedia aspires to be it is a cause of great concern. Greg's self-promotional misleading statements at Wikipedia are cause to exile him from Wikipedia because his efforts here are incompatible with the aims and goals of a NPOV encyclopedia; but his similar efforts in talking to the media are par for the course in that venue. Greg has shown too little understanding that Wikipedia is not a part of "the media" as he understands it; while you seem not to distinguish between his self promotion on Wikipedia and off of it. "Well, that's just Greg promoting himself again" is better than "Greg is lying about Wikipedia!" Nuance and savoir-faire are always useful. WAS 4.250 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I haven't followed up on specifics faster. I actually hadn't anticipated the discussion would go on this long and it's something I'd rather not dwell on, but as I have the chance I'll get to that. At the moment (to be candid) I'm finishing a handmade present for a little girl's birthday. I'll be baking peanut butter cookies for her soon. It's much more satisfying. :) Durova^Charge! 02:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I like reading Douglas Adams' "Mostly Harmless" better than dwelling on Greg ...

Tricia began to feel that the world was conspiring against her. She knew that this was a perfectly normal way to feel after an overnight flight going east, when you suddenly have a whole other mysteriously threatening day to deal with for which you are not the least bit prepared. But still.

There were marks on her lawn.

She didn't really care about marks on her lawn very much.

Marks on her lawn could go and take a running jump as far as she was concerned. It was Saturday morning. She had just got home from New York feeling tired, crabby and paranoid, and all she wanted to do was go to bed with the radio on quietly and gradually fall asleep to the sound of Ned Sherrin being terribly clever about something. But Eric Bartlett was not going to let her get away with not making a thorough inspection of the marks. Eric was the old gardener who came in from the village on Saturday mornings to poke around at her garden with a stick. He didn't believe in people coming in from New York first thing in the morning. Didn't hold with it. Went against nature. He believed in virtually everything else, though.

'Probably them space aliens,' he said, bending over and prod-ding at the edges of the small indentations with his stick. 'Hear a lot about space aliens these days. I expect it's them.'

'Do you?' said Tricia, looking furtively at her watch. Ten minutes, she reckoned. Ten minutes she'd be able to stay standing up. Then she would simply keel over, whether she was in her bedroom or still out here in the garden. That was if she just had to stand. If she also had to nod intelligently and say 'Do you?' from time to time, it might cut it down to five.

'Oh yes,' said Eric. 'They come down here, land on your lawn, and then buzz off again, sometimes with your cat. WAS 4.250 08:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I was wondering what was happening :D. Seems there is no longer an alert asking you if you are sure to be willing to block yourself. -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teehee...trying to multitask... ;) Durova^Charge! 03:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEO

I've read a lot of your SEO articles. I think you've done a great job explaining Wikipedia to the SEO world. I do think you have a conflict of interest with regard to conflict of interest policies (funny, that), but, it's all in the open, and that's sufficient for me. Rklawton 04:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reason that I have a conflict of interest there? I don't make any money from the column and it cost me money to explain Wikipedia to the audience at the conference. When I started doing the column I acted pseudonymously in order to avoid any appearance of seeking personal gain, but Kohs and his buddies insisted on "outing" my actual identity. So I put it in the byline to reduce that hassle, and now he tries to insinuate that I'm on the make. I view this as outreach - a proactive effort to prevent COI, spam, and related problems before they occur. If the idea that this constitues a COI gains traction, then that would effectively exclude everyone who knows Wikipedia site standards and policies well enough to explain them from communicating to the public in other venues. That situation would serve the ends of a handful of banned users at the expense of everybody else. If there's some angle here I haven't considered then please explain it. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you were paid to write those articles and that you are an SEO/marketing consultant. However, I'm more than happy to eat my words (it's an acquired taste, but I'm used to it). Rklawton 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see more experienced Wikipedians publishing offsite, actually. The public is hungry for information about Wikipedia and most of them don't know how to navigate this site and learn about things that seem obvious to you and me. Last month I was in contact with a Harvard undergraduate who is planning to write her thesis about Wikipedia and the dialog was a real eye opener for both of us: obviously she's intelligent and she has no reason to conceal her level of understanding, yet she was finding it difficult to transition from a reader of this site to an analyst of its dynamics. A lot of this site's structure is counterintuitive. We're the experts on Wikipedia and most of use learn a thing or two about writing by the time we have a five digit edit count. Durova^Charge! 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first attempts at understanding Wikipedia comprised vandalizing an article one of my students cited in order to "prove" to her that Wikipedia was not reliable. I'm sure you can guess the subsequent chain of events. Rklawton 05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, although please tell me you teach junior high school? Durova^Charge! 05:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until I implemented an explicit ban on referencing Wikipedia, I had college juniors and seniors citing it in their papers. Raymond Arritt 05:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I taught MIS at Western Illinois University. It was a great lesson for the whole class, though. Rklawton 05:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh). In ninth grade my English teacher gave the class a stern lecture about the proper use of encyclopedias and forbade us from citing one ever again. More high school freshman classes ought to be like that. Durova^Charge! 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with being paid to write or lecture about wikipedia. Durova's activities whether paid or not do not constitue a COI. Her activities both in writing about Wikipedia and in fighting to help wikipedia at wikipedia (including editing our COI policy, if she has done so) are beneficial to wikipedia and there is no conflict of interest there. She should get paid for her efforts outside of wikipedia; and I hope she does. Note that 20,000 dollars are going to be paid to Wikipedians for creating copy-left copyrighted illustrations for WikiMedia/WikiPedia. Money is not evil. WAS 4.250 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial triple crown and DYKs

I'm not quite there yet, but I was wondering, can I submit a succesful DYK article that I expanded from a stub, but did not outright create? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you got the DYK from it, sure. Wikipedia has tiny little stubs on so many topics that I'll even encourage this, in order to get more substantive articles. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 05:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great, I had an idea for something but I wanted to check with you before submitting it, which is a bit of a way off anyways. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On an unrelated note, I dropped you an email. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Help with Help

I think the user help interface could use a serious makeover. We should accommodate the user's perspective. Here's a stab at the short list:

I want to find information (anyone)
I want to fix something I read (very basic markup)
I want to write an article about Wikipedia (journalists)
I want to write an article for Wikipedia (advanced markup, pillars, policies)
I want my students to learn about Wikipedia (professors, teachers)
I want to make money using Wikipedia (opportunists)
I want to vandalize Wikipedia (vandals)

Each link (whatever the final list) should send users along a path tailored to his or her particular type of interest. Thoughts? Rklawton 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Past the first two levels things get quite complicated. Durova^Charge! 05:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at that point it's more of a web of destinations. I'm just proposing perspective-oriented roadmap. To quote Donald Sutherland's character in Kelly's Heroes "I don't know what makes them go, baby. I just drive them." That is, I don't need to read about pillars when all I want to do is correct a fact (etc). Would it be useful for me to expand this draft into the 2nd level? Rklawton 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience a huge amount of self-selection occurs. Most people can't navigate on their own from there because they get overwhelmed. Wikipedians tend to think it's self-evident because we're the ones who passed through that natural filter. Durova^Charge! 06:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hence the need for various roadmaps. Unless Wikipedia benefits from this self-selection. However, I don't think it does. Rklawton 06:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, most of them stall at the first link I show them and need to be led by the hand. These are bright people - maybe some brains are wired to get around over here and others aren't. Durova^Charge! 06:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And some people wouldn't read instructions no matter how well written. I started reading directions when I took up skydiving as a sport. Rklawton 14:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) I went skydiving once. I had just walked away from a pretty good job with a bright future in order to move across the country and try a monkish existence as a graduate student. My one luxury was a Harley-Davidson Sportster (it got 50 miles to the gallon, I saved $1000 a year on insurance and $500 on parking fees by using it instead of a car, and Harleys seldom depreciate - so even that wasn't so much a luxury). The day after I bought the thing I rode it up the coast highway, taking hairpin turns through cliffside fog until I turned inland and stopped at Hollister. I figured jumping out of an airplane was the least risky decision I made that month. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Bus stop ==

Hi. I propose reopening Bus stop's case, now at AN because the CSN has closed. I would like him to have one last chance. I would like to propose he is invited to return with a probation period of six months. Three months with no edits to any Judaism-related articles and a further three months of "open" editing. Evidence of bad-faith edit-warring or gross incivility during that probationary period should result in a permanent site ban. Before I posted at AN I wanted to discuss the idea with you, and if you approve the idea in principle (we need not go into the detail of the measures here, but leave that for AN discussion) I would also raise it with one or two others involved in the original CSN debate. Yours as ever. --Dweller 11:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TURNIP. I did my best to bring him back under probationary agreements and he repaid that effort by sending nasty e-mails to me and about me for quite some time afterward. No good deed goes unpunished, and somebody might as well explain to him that the proper Yiddish slur for me is not putz but shiksa. In spite of that, I'm still willing to extend the standard offer: six month waiting period from the date of his last troublemaking. If nothing happens in the interim, talk to me next March. Durova^Charge! 17:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're saying he sent you an unpleasant email in the last couple of months? Sadly, that's not entirely a surprise. Are we talking incivility? I'd like to formally record this at WP:AN as a milestone. --Dweller 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly it was to other people, raising rude complaints about me. Once in a while some of them sent me a heads up. Let's WP:DENY recognition. If he minds his manners for six months I'll support his return, same as I'd do for most other community banned editors. Occasionally I change those terms for egregious behavior, but I'm really not all that offended. Durova^Charge! 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm going to make a post to AN tomorrow. Please keep an eye on it, as I'll namecheck you. Night night. --22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NearestAvailableNewt

Don't understand why you blocked Newt. He is a second account of mine, but I don't think I've ever used him in a way that breaches WP:SOCK. I'm not too worried: I can just stop using the account, but I'm curious what the reason for the block was since he hasn't edited at all in over a month, and even then I can't see any really bad edits. AndyJones 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It showed some characteristics similar to a series of disruptive sockpuppets I'd been investigating. Thanks for disclosing that the account is yours and coming to me. Sure, I'll unblock promptly. Apologies for the inconvenience. Durova^Charge! 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe I'll put a note on the User: page so that it's transparent. AndyJones 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope my note in the block log helps. As you may be aware from the Alkivar and Eyrian arbitration cases, we've had a rash of problems with sockpuppet accounts that try to do end runs around multiple policies. This cluster happens to be radical deletionists, and you have my apologies in advance if any other action to remedy that problem causes inconvenience for the site's legitimate deletionists. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW I consider myself more of an inclusionist. I think I was one of the commentators in the first (deleted) RfC for Eyrian. (Anyway, I'll take this conversation off my watchlist, now. Thanks again for your help.) AndyJones 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppetry & new incidents

I was looking over the SSP page, and am unsure how to proceed. In John Lennon, user Sixstring1965 was indef banned as a sockpuppet. Since then, he's gone through a number of sockpuppets, all trying to edit the article and other Beatles-related articles. the list of his socks is here. In the article and discussion, three users are seeming to be further socks (User:Realsanpaku, User:24.168.17.212, and Jeffrey O. Assmunch, a dig at admin User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson).
My question is this, I am unsure who to file the SSP report on, or if there is a special route to go with confirmed sockpuppeteers. I've learned that RfCU sometimes doesn't get processed inthe case of confirmed sockpuppets. I want to act fairly expeditiously, as the socks are agreeing with each other that the article should be deleted, which seems a salted earth form of vandalism. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Write it up on whichever version is the oldest or has the longest edit history. If there's active AFD disruption then raise at WP:ANI please: vote stacking is bannable. Durova^Charge! 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did this happen

A grand miscarriage of justice seems to have gone under everyones noses. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Grats! You know I rarely vote unless I've coached the candidate, right? I don't really watch RFA that closely or I would have chipped in. Now have a bucket and some Lysol. :) Durova^Charge! 09:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big spam issue

Some input would be appreciated. There has been a long tem issue with a publisher of several notable and not so notable magazines being spammed on the project. See WT:WPSPAM case. Its been added to the AntiSpamBot, but I fear the abuse of wikipedia will continue. A few others of interest, or not[7][8]. As for the publisher, there are legitimate uses for these links, such as refs, however the spammers seem to be relentless. Any thoughts?--Hu12 06:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another excellent report! Was that more of your work? If so, kudos. What efforts have been made to contact this publisher and communicate site standards? Durova^Charge! 06:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Caught this one back in may, resurfaced in October when User:MER-C posted some additional spam activity. Nothing was ever done with it. As a result of recent spamming I resurected my old report, and got to work. Because of the extent of this problem, I don't know if i can go this one alone. Only contact has been on the talk pages. I'm of the mind to blacklist them all, but don't want to spend the next 2 months dealing with complaints.--Hu12 07:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than take that radical step, let's think about some formal outreach. Try e-mailing the Foundation your report and ask for office intervention. Sometimes businesses respond to a formal approach. This is likely part of their business plan with direction from management - too organized and persistent to be one of their employees. Tell the Foundation I referred you, and let me know if you have any trouble getting their attention. Keep up the great work, and don't be a stranger. :) Durova^Charge! 08:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi Durova, long time since I bothered you last. User TTN is actively wiping out TV episode articles because of an interpretation that he and a minority came to. The discussion was not a broad discussion and therefore the interpretation is held by only a handful of people. He is going around Wikipedia deleting and redirecting all articles he deems as unworthy of wikipedia. Many, and I also believe, this is in violation of POV, instruction creep, OWN, and possibly others. This has been balked at by the majority and even when consensus is sought on the article, that one editors overrules the consensus with his opinion and redirects the articles. I don't believe this is what wikipedia is about and I feel that he is alienating many. His user page gives a good example of those who disagree with him. When someone asks him why, he directs them to wp:Episodes or something like that. I also believe that he is guilty of violating 3RR on many counts, but he states he is not and that I am misinterpreting it. What are your thoughts on this if you don't mind sharing. One of the many examples is List of 3rd Rock from the Sun episodes‎, but his talk page and talk history will have a plethora of examples. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raise this at WP:ANI with diffs and evidence, please. Durova^Charge! 19:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Y'all may wish to consider the following: [9], [10], [11], and [12]. I hope that helps. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is turning out to be a pain. The community is obviously against this craziness, but there is not enough impartial editors and not one central place to take this. WP is becoming too large a bureaucracy and there should be an easier way to deal with issues like this. I've been pretty laid back about this, but the more I research, the more I see that the community needs to step in and help with this issue. A MOS guideline is being used as a bat to force people to adhere to one editors opinion. --Maniwar (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my world. (Any advice?) spryde | talk 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to revive the requests for investigations board on a better basis than it used to run: with clerks, more sleuths, and at least one checkuser. Link me to the thread you've started and I'll see what I can do. I'm one person and I've got other commitments (I can't solve everything) but I do want to move this along. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Marseille

Hello. User:Plangent has started edit warring on Marseille. He claims all the images have to be of a uniform size, but I am unaware of this directive. He left a message on the talk page of Marseille for a short period and then went ahead with his vandalism. He has never edited this page before and seems to be wikistalking me. I introduced many of the images on this page as well as a fair amount of carefully researched content. He has already been tendentious and pedantic on my own page and seems to have a strange point of view of fr.wikipedia, which conflicts with wikiproject France. He apears to have no expertise on the content of the article and is simply reformatting the images because he wants to. I do not know why he started talking to me on WP. I suspect he is gaming the system. His own edits are mostly on trivia. --Mathsci 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better for WP:ANI or an article content WP:RFC than as a personal appeal to me. I could full protect the page for a little while if you want? Durova^Charge! 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Matt Sanchez

When can changes to the article be added? Why is a "military expert" needed? Who is currently in charge of editing the article?

Matt Sanchez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.127.14 (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't really have a top-down structure like that - nobody is "in charge" of editing anything. It's supposed to be collaborative. Durova^Charge! 15:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no set time for it to be unprotecdted either. When the editors work things out you can go to requests for page protection. In the meantime you can have biographies of living persons policy concerns at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 15:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Notre Dame vandal?

I noticed you posted the Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Notre_Dame_vandal notice. I fear 70.113.73.42 (talk · contribs) might be the same person, with similar non-cited edits (such as Joe Montanta's nickname, just like Seaver11171944 (talk · contribs). Do we need another checkuser? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked a few diffs from the history. Sure looks like him. If you want to assemble a systematic case I may be able to do a WP:DUCK block. Otherwise go ahead with checkuser. Durova^Charge! 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

Durova, a belated thank you for awarding me the triple crown. Pastordavid (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WPSPAM debate

I find it almost laughable that there is even a debate about this. This organization knew what they were doing. People that are damaging the wiki willfully should not be permitted to be here.[13] --Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've weighed in. You could open an RFC on it if that's not enough. Durova^Charge! 00:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova

I notice that you've recently protected the Giovanni di Stefano article. I'm not sure if the protection is required, and would say that you really have to kind of look at the edit history strangely to diagnose an edit war at all! - In any case, I've popped a note on the talk page to that effect, and wanted to mention it to you directly also.

I'm happy to discuss any aspect of editing behaviour at that page, and would like to see the protection lifted. Thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP and WP:V aren't things to be taken lightly. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - I've replied on the talk page. best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is cute

Do you like?

Durova
for ArbCom.
The cavalry is here!

Mercury 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL! Oh that's adorable. I'm flattered. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:!!

Hi Durova, I tried to post to the ANI thread about this, but I'm getting way too edit-conflicted. Anyway, is there some chance you can send the data to some uninvolved admins, or if it's too sensitive, to get some admins who've seen the data already to comment? I think it might reduce the wikidrama. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like it? E-mail me please. It's already been circulating for two weeks and I don't want the circle to get much larger for security reasons. Durova^Charge! 17:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind

I hope you don't mind, but I added a few questions to your question page. But please feel free to ignore/delete if you think they are too blunt. I am not a troll, but I fear asking tough question might give me the appearance of one. Mahalo nui, Durova. --Ali'i (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look over there. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 18:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email, but forgot to sign it. Yes, it's from me. E kala mai for my stupidity. :-) --Ali'i (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break

Seriously, it looks like your judgment is getting skewy. Blocking an editor like User:!!, who has contributed far more to the encyclopedia than you realise, on evidence that you refuse to discuss speaks very poorly of you. I am afraid you are seeing things that are not there. Try something else for a while before you get burned out, this isn't a game of whack-a-mole. Catchpole (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My report on the matter had numerous diffs and came to about two printed pages. And it was correct to the point of this not being the editor's first account. I'll be blanking or archiving this query soon as a courtesy to the editor. But without having seen the report, I don't think you can really attempt to rate it. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]