Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hope you don't mind me nudging you, but can I draw your kind attention to this, a request which has been archived without reply? No problem, but I would like the fancy head-gear... Regards, BencherliteTalk 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Good to be in your court, Queen Durova.--Legionarius 20:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You're all very welcome, and thank you. DurovaCharge! 13:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
For a glimpse at how many miles I've walked in those moccasins, have a look at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. That vandal had been disrupting the project and degrading articles for a year before I became a Wikipedian. When I opened dispute resolution he simply ignored it and when I tried to contact sysops about his abuse they reacted as if I had a few screws loose. It took over a year of editing, building featured pages, and becoming a sysop before I earned enough reputation to get a real hearing. Eventually he got banned outright and I got known as someone who does complex investigations and takes on the hard cases.
I cowrote the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline because I didn't want anyone else to go through that kind of experience and I've put a focus into admin coaching this year because we need more good people to do this. That doesn't solve everything instantly - it's a volunteer project - so one other thing I do is offer two special user awards to editors who slip through the cracks, make some mistakes, and want to demonstrate their worth as editors.
It's up to you where to go from here. I've given away two of those resilient barnstars to other editors. Today I caught up to date on triple crowns and gave away a lot of awards, but I'm still waiting for a chance to hand out the first Valiant Return Triple Crown. DurovaCharge! 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So I did spend some time looking through that stuff and a lot of it is great advice. I have been worn down by this process and just don't have a lot of energy to commit to it. I have given the users enough information to look at and am clearly willing to discuss this but with the continued bickering and unresponsiveness by my many of the others involved - i just don't know how to proceed. If you would like me to provide you with some clarification on something - i'm happy to. But this is similar to what happened in the past - user's popped up who were unable to do anything but argue. Even when I removed myself from the disputes - the content is being disputed months later. It's hard to say that I'm the problem when even when i'm not really involved in a conversation - one user is continuing to frustrate the process. Let me know if there is something you'd like. I can provide you with many examples of content related edits; show you the one DYK i have had in the last month; or provide you with other good points. My user page also has some stuff that might help you out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And he still won't leave me alone: I just don't know what to do here. I was pointed to a discussion and made one post - it could not have been more clear. Yet he continues to try and engage me directly. If i don't respond he calls me rude, if i do - well you know what happens. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't appreciate being told I shouldn't ask someone to reconsider something. All they have to do is say no, not reply or delete my request altogether. It's really none of your business.►Chris Nelson 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
One week block on Chrisjnelson for gross and persistent violations of WP:POINT. My user talk page is not the place to come and pester someone who is trying to disengage from conflict. DurovaCharge! 02:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Hesperian 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm really thrilled to know that I've been honoured with the Triple Crown and to find my name in a select list of those who've achieved 3 feats in Wikipedia. It is people like you who make my day and enthuse me to further the free spirit of wikipedia. Thanks. I will wear the crown majestically. :-) --Idleguy 05:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you accept self-nominations for the Triple Crown award? If so:
Either way, I'll also nominate
-Laïka 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, didn't see this before. :)
In all three cases I was both creator and primary contributor. Orderinchaos 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want to be messy, so I'll just use this sections. The goal of being a more well rounded Wikipedian kept me going through FA, and gave me ideas for getting a Did You Know. This said, I'll use the form I see above.
Thanks a lot, Durova. :)
For the sake of accuracy (and since I like shiny imperial objects), I'll give you an updated list:
Thanks again. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you suggested it, would you please take these related articles to arbitration... I don't know how to do that...thanks...Avidor 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. :) —Nightstallion 15:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, sorry to bother you with this but I've just warned user:MoritzB with {{uw-chat3}} for continued disruptive soapboxing. I gave him a level 2 warning a couple of days ago for days of soapboxing, forum-ising and other inappropriate, tendentious & disruptive use of the talk page at White people. He has continued his soapbox about academic work of critical theory being "extreme leftwing" "marxism" or "neo-marxism" & that academic scholarship into the category "white race" is fringe (which is factually inaccurate) - see MoritzB's comments at Talk:White_people#No_Neo-Marxist_POV_is_needed - this continued until my post on 31st of August, in the following section (both are rather long and circuitous). After I left the warning MoritzB decided to remove the stop icon .
I'm just requesting some oversight to make sure I'm using the warning properly and just in case the situation escalates--Cailil talk 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 09:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw you were the first name listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. The above user has gotten her students to establish one account per "group" with the names of the individuals using those accounts listed on the main userpage. I note on the page meta:Role accounts that the French wiki did once permit one multiple-user account, though, because it wasn't officially opposed. I figured the Classroom Coordination Project would be the people to contact regarding this matter. In any event, I think User:Thelmadatter would like any assistance you might be able to offer her on this subject. Thank you. John Carter 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested a solution to her dilemma. Let's hope it's satisfactory. DurovaCharge! 02:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I've got Fangio on my talk page now. He took issue with my characterization that he resisted WP:COOL.
Here's what he wrote on the ArbCom/Evidence page and my response.
Here's the exchange on my talk page.
I have asked him to stop. I don't really see the point to why he's done it unless it's to save face in light of what appears to be an imminent finding by the ArbCom now. He's suggesting that I've misrepresented evidence. Even if that were true (which I don't think it is), it's not like there wasn't a sea of evidence in front of mine. While it's his right to take issue, the fact that he's doing it more than a week after I first posted that particular line seems rather WP:POINTy to me. jddphd (talk · contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jddphd (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The arbitration evidence page isn't an appropriate place for threaded discussion. Please de-thread and disengage. DurovaCharge! 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I have posted my idea for a small school project at the classroom coordination talk page. Please feel free to share any ideas there as replies before I create the page and also if you and your fellow members of the project a) think the idea is acceptable and b) think it is worthwhile. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"One thing I still fail to understand about this whole situation is that, as you say you knew that he didn't want to talk to you, why you tried to get him to talk. Because of your acknowledgement that you were aware that Jmfangio didn't want to talk to you, it's beyond me why you still would try to make him, and because of that, it seems that Jmfangio wasn't able to disengage, as he wanted."
This comment is in response to the statement that Chris made on his talk page, where he said "I know he really didn't want to talk to me" when he was explaining why he made the original comment to Jmfangio. Ksy92003(talk) 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to disturb you, but I do not feel not really good in bureaucracy here at WP, maybe you could point me out what should do further. I know, that you're not eager to get into Eastern Europe topics, but insults have to stop. Recent evaluations seems to exagerate further, and I've gotten an answer on my request, and do not know what to do next. This wave of insult on the nationality basis has to be stopped. Thank you in adwance.--Lokyz 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Gullucum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sockpuppet of a user you have indef-blocked. Please look at the linked sockpuppet case and make a decision. Best regards, Shalom Hello 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in this 'dark side of wikipedia' that Wikipedia cites you as an expert in. Also, I'm interested in doing further wikipedia-related projects, and you seem like an good person to chat about interesting ideas with. If interested, email me at v at santafe dot edu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanpoet (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with this sort of thing, and I believe it's more in your area of expertise. I'm looking into who created the hoax article Thai Airways Flight 358, which is currently at AfD. It appears that most of the work has been done by an anon (85.71.211.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) except for the addition of images for which a couple of named accounts (NicolasLord (talk · contribs · logs) and Lasagnelazane (talk · contribs · logs)) were used. I have checkuser info confirming that the IP is NicolasLord plus Wbkk (talk · contribs · logs), which created a now-deleted article on another perhaps non-existent, non-notable airplane accident (Flight 009). Lasagnelazane is different by checkuser but was used to add info supporting the hoax to the above article, so if it's not a sockpuppet, its a meatpuppet. Another account, Despoh (talk · contribs · logs) may also be involved. So this sockpuppetry seems pretty clear cut. None of the accounts are blocked, and the IP is still trying to keep the hoax alive by reverting changes to other related articles Mayday (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), List of Mayday episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and China Airlines Flight 120 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). So really my questions to you are, should this go to WP:SSP or WP:ANI (because it is ongoing)? And generally, what more types of things should I be doing when looking into this sort of thing? Thanks, -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that the situation has been resolved in a rather deus ex machina way, would you consider removing/shortening your block of Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs)? Basically what I believed all along has now been confirmed - Chris is a good faith user who was provoked by a disruptive user. That doesn't mean that it is ok to be uncivil, but as blocks are preventative and there is no longer anything to prevent and as Chris is a long-time positive contributor, I'd like to suggest unblocking. Thank you. --B 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarification, I'm allowed to edit things totally unrelated to the NFL, right? I believe I'm only banned from NFL-related articles with the exception of roster templates and 2007 Miami Dolphins season. Is that correct? Just don't want to get blocked for editing some totally random article I come across.►Chris Nelson 18:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI: 70.113.76.108 (talk · contribs) is continuing the same edits after the 1-week block you enforced. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I decided to stubbify it rather than delete, as I consider it intrinsically important enough to have been worth the work. I have had successful and productive discussion with other Columbia people--I will try to find this one--and perhaps we should try to contact the university in a more systematic way. I have, unfortunately, no relevant personal contacts. 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Anthere 06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I know that you've probably had enough of this topic for a lifetime, but would you mind taking a quick look at the bottom of User talk:Chrisjnelson? Throughout his time here, Chris has unknowingly introduced many many copyvios into the text of football player biographies, and claims that this topic ban prevents him now from cleaning them up. Hmnnn ×Meegs 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
When the block was lifted (I forget when that was, probably around a couple days ago, it should be on my talk page) Durova said to talk to her in a few weeks.►Chris Nelson 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I placed this discussion on ANI, but it was archived without getting the 'resolved' tag. Anyway, as you can see from my and Chaser's evidence, Dannycali's edit history has everything from writing a fictional wrestling storyline as if it were fact, repeated incivility despite multiple warnings, failure to sign talk page posts, RfA and AfD disruption, etc. Two of his most recent posts were to insult myself and another editor named Mandsford. I don't know what if anything should be done, but I do think at least he should be cautioned once more by an admin to remain civil and not personally attack, but because this is a habit and because of a history of disruptive behavior, maybe a sterner message should be sent? Anyway, just wanted to bring it all to someone's attention. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova:
This is Lucas Rubin - I am the Director of the Fundraising and Sports Management programs at the School of Continuing Education at Columbia University. I note that you have nominated the SCE's page for deletion on account of a conflict of interest (not that there was anything to delete when I last looked - someone had already done so to most of it). The school just established this entry, and I am trying to correct the information for my programs (fundraising and sports) so that they are historical and informative rather than a recitation of information available on our website. In this regard, please note the specific changes which I made to the MS in Fundraising program notes, which - rather than being advertorial, etc, - are rather a history and outline of the program as is appropriate for Wikipedia. As such, I would very much like them for them to be permitted (I have not yet written the entry for Sports but will do so later this week). Continuing and Extension studies at Columbia actually has a long and interesting history and definitely has a place on Wikipedia. I well appreciate your concerns, and would like to address them in a more scholarly and appropriate fashion.
Thanks!
Lucas
P.S. Please note that I am one program director here at the School and am speaking for myself alone and the programs for which I have charge, though I will advocate among my colleagues as neccessary. Thanks.
Please take a look at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Why in popular culture articles are an asset to Wikipedia and do not violate policies and feel free to add additional instructions or edit what I have to make it more acceptable if necessary. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (I asked GRC to withdraw it as it would be considered canvassing as written, but of course you are able to see it--do you agree with me in that respect?)DGG (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh,...I agree! I had posted info about the other buyers (and had kept an eye out for the other buyer articles), but I put it above the Craiglist subsection and wasn't sure if it was buried or not relevant. I had asked a few other editors for info, but I had no replies, so... The seller is stuck right now, so watching the feedback page should provide some clues if the articles are being created and some idea what they are...is that what you're talking about? btw, your "dark-side" post was one of the first things I ever read here, and it's one of the concepts I keep in mind when editing. Flowanda | Talk 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova. It has come to my attention that DaGizza has decided to step in and coronate, so here are the details for your records
Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Currently there are discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show and here Talk:Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show. Basic summary. The Jargon page was created to help bring the main article up to GA status. We followed a similar article which just achieved GA status (see Rush Limbaugh and Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show), yet, inconsistently, in that article it helps but on this one it's up for deletion. Any comments you can add, pro or anti, are welcomed. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have some concerns as to whether this is an appropriate use of Wikipedia user space. Thoughts? Raymond Arritt 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. No complaints from me. I have never been through the sanction process here before so I am not at all in the know and I've never been in any kind of rule based arbitration that finalizes so abruptly and without defendant input. The only other systems that don't include some sort of mitigation after court findings that I know of, are in China and some developing countries. The process is strange to me. However, I still think your suggestion for explanation is appropriate and constructive.
Regarding myself after this situation, I am now unsure what constitutes disruptive editing. After my research I have to conclude that I believe LAEC's edits and comments to be an understatement. The controversies are stronger than he states, and the problems on the ALA article seem to me to be far more troublesome than he has stated. This seems to be the basis of LAEC's and my brief disagreement. Indeed, I think I am about to present information there that is far more realistically unpalatable than LAEC has presented. That now puts me in an awkward position. If you can offer me advice on how to present the information without disruption I would be grateful. Or just point me in the right direction if your time is short. Regards Lingorama 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Proposed decision#Another_reincarnation.3F looks suspicious and maybe worth a check. --B 04:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I'd like to nominate someone for the Imperial triple crown. Here are the details;
If you need other details such as links and so on to verify this, feel free to message me on my talk page and I will find them. LuciferMorgan 10:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I have suggested an alternative sanction for Giovanni33 at WP:CSN here. I trust that a less severe sanction like this will be more palatable for those who believed the indef-ban was too severe. Also, the ones requesting "parity" (El C et. al.) are refering to previous content disputes, which need to be resolved separately through WP:DR, WP:RfM, WP:RfArb, etc. I'm hoping that this can be the basis for a new consensus. Cheers--Endroit 14:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You may be particularly interested in the latest events on his user page. He has rescinded his legal threats, and indicated some understanding of the situation. I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other, simply informing you of something I thought you should be cognizant of. Be well! Vassyana 14:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
YAM returned from his block and immediately resumed POV pushing on Web 2.0, inserting the same original research that he's been citing to his favorite spam. His comments on the talk page show no sign of understanding our rules. He's read my warning and disregarded it. I believe another, longer block is needed to prevent further violations of WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. - Jehochman Talk 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like your comment on the new proposal I just put on CSN here regarding an editor who is harassing an admin on and off of Wikipedia. I know this is something we talked about, and I find it as reprehensible as you probably do. SirFozzie 23:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If you read WP:3RR carefully you will see that reverting any 4 edits on the same page in 24 hours is a violation. The edits do not have to be by the same editor or on the same part of the article. This detail has caught many editors out. Sophia 06:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been challenged to a mediation by a user named Aeroblue here [] and you are listed as one of the mediators.
I 'signed' the agreement and I wrote up my reasons for deleting a small section of the article 'aircraft noise'. Aeroblue continues to call me a vandal on the discussion pages and that I broke a Wikipedia rule but he does not respond on the mediation page.
I explained on the article discussion pages and the on mediation page why I felt that his comments are irrelevant to the topic of 'airport noise' and why they are also very political in nature.
I am very unfamiliar with what the process is here for resolving this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npsguy (talk • contribs) 04:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia just isn't very good at resolving problems with longstanding editors who also have longstanding behavioral problems…" Wikipedia is even worse at resolving problems with completely disruptive new editors (at least those who don't speak English) and obvious socks who are routinely extended the assumptions of good faith we deny one another.Proabivouac 08:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your additions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Evidence, you may also be interested in adding Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay per the Federalist Papers. —Viriditas | Talk 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The people in the city call it Kyiv when writing in English, as does the US government, but a few editors at Talk:Kiev/naming resist all logic in moving the page. One relevant, but obscure, policy, WP:Naming conflict#Types of entities, says that populated places can self-determine their names. Kyiv is a transliteration from Ukrainian to English, and Kiev is Russian to English, so ethnic pride is involved. The disputing editors will never come to agreement in my opinion.
I support moving the page, per policy and common sense, but talk is endless when people won't listen in good faith. This has been to RFC and gone in circles many times, fueling conflict and bad will amongst the editors. What shall we do? - Jehochman Talk 10:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. You have asked a few times for someone to show you some evidence, which was not forthcoming concerning claims of John Smiths extensive edit warring and other misbehaviors. Since you have been requesting that, I want to present you with some material for you to look at and consider.
*Edit warring and the Block Logs:
My proposal regarding John Smith and myself was for the community to impose either a 1RR parole or a topical ban on Mao related articles, as you had asked me. Many thought this to be very easonable and it gained some acceptance. The latter would solve the undue weight/ pov pushing--his inserting the revisionist Jung Change theories (not even a historian), into main history articles--one of the main issues he edit wars about. When the edit warring is combined with adding content that violates an important WP tenant (undue weight), its doubly bad. That is when I stepped in to counter him. His extensive edit warring over silly issues such as dating systems (BCE vs BC), I did not enter, as I don’t about most disputes I encounter. I may revert once or twice at most, preferring to discuss at talk, or simply walk away. I’ve done this many times. This shows improvement over my early days on this issue.
I think a careful analysis of our respective block logs reveals John Smith’s is fact worse despite initial appearances, discounting puppetry on mine: his extensive edit warring and pov pushing over many issues with multiple editors reveals only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, block logs do not do justice to the breath and scope of the problem, as they are often products of both chance and active opponents (those that quickly report you, and admins who quickly act to block, while others who go under the radar but do the same or worse in practice). So in actuality, what his block log shows (as bad as it is—and the same goes for many editors who want to see me banned, btw), can only be partly helpful. Yet, while I think he has been very lucky and fallen under the radar of admins taking action against him, his block log nonetheless is worse than mine in respect to edit warring.
Among my evidence, I show Wikistalking, John Smith’s apparent puppetry, and unbelievable edit warring, which point to a serious disruptive editing practice that needs to finally be addressed. To show I do not exaggerate, I bring to your attention some 37 reversions by John Smith’s edit warring---made in a single day! I think this has to be a record. These are content disputes that he instigated across several related articles. Take a look at his contributions on the recent date of Aug. 6th here:
Here is some of edit warring, and gaming the system over several articles (and unlike the 3RR report I made on him, this is with other editors—not me):
Take a glipse into Jin Dynasty:
And, Ming Dynasty:
Note that he reverts with such uncivil edit summaries such as this: (rv; vandalism; also Ghost please use edit summaries and gain consensus first)
And, Southern and Northern Dynasties 4 revert just over 24 hours:
7 reverts with several users on History of the Americas (wont list them all here but take a look):
Nanking Massacre--Same edit warring, multiple reverts in the course of a day:
So as not to break 3RR he waits a day and reverts 3 more times:
This goes on until the article gets protected by admin Deskana.
*John Smith accusing people of Wikistalking him is a familiar refrain. See his comments to this effect hurled at many an editor:
"(reverting wikistalking - PHG let me resolve this with the other user)"
Here he also accuses an admin, KillerChihuahua, of wikistalking him: "(rv; please stop wiki-stalking - I was making the terms consistent with the earliest non-stub version)"
He accused this other editor wikistalking to an editor who awarded him a barnsstar a while back, and this sympathetic editor looked as his charged and concluded: "It seems like you are already discussing this elsewhere. I don't see any evidence of stalking, just that you two don't seem to get along wherever you meet. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)"
More accusations of others wikistalking him: "(→Wikistalking an POV pushing)"
He goes on an admin board reporting this, asking, “Can someone please get the wikistalkers off my back?”
This editor responds to John Smith’s crying “Wikistalking,” with what is really going on. I quote:
"Wikistalking? ROFLMAO. Pushing POV across several articles indicates a need to make certain it doesn't happen everywhere. It's hysterical when an editor, who's been shown to push a certain POV, whines about wikistalking, just to throw off the scent. Well, now I'm watching you too John Smith. I guess I'll be accused soon. I don't actually care, because it's so funny. You've made my day. Accusing KC, a well-known administrator on this project, of wikistalking is like accusing me of believing in the myth of Jesus. Never going to happen. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)"
John Smith, even makes this following comment when I pointed out he was wikistalking me: He tacitly admits it on the talk page to a Point Violation: “As I pointed out, if you believe I am wikistalking then your past edits mean you did the same thing to me. John Smith's 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)”
Suspected sock puppet:
Foula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Evidence:
One of User:John Smith's extensive edit warring on WP is for the use the BC/AD dating format (as opposed to BCE/CE) across multiple pages here on WP, as I’ve partly shown above, but there’s more:
User User:Foula then arrived who created the now-deleted Template:History of China - BC, and an exact duplicate of Template:History of China except that all the BCE/CE was replaced with BC/AD—what John Smith argued for about this template. The new account then inserted the template into several articles. John Smith then proceeded to mass insert the template into a number of other articles as minor edits. John Smith's and Foula were the only two accounts that tried to insert the duplicate template into articles.
Note that Foula had only made edits related to this BC/AD vs. BCE/CE date format issue. It was apparent that this was a sock to other editors. See: . Given an awareness of John Smiths editing, if it is him, he has used it in an abusive fashion given that they were double voting:
And, a poll on the MoS for China-related articles.
meatpuppetry is also very likely.
John Smith's has this mysterious anon IP addresses who show up, and come back when John Smiths needs extra reverts— always from the same location. This has been termed his "Hungarian friend" because it shows up to help John Smith's out after he made three reverts. Having IPs from the same range show up only to make the same reverts (and do nothing else) that John Smith's did, after he made three reverts himself, is very clear to me. I think we can infer that given these anon IPs only make edits to revert to John Smith version (including making very particular, idiosyncratic edits that are favored only by John Smiths—it because so obvious that any other speculation is harder to believe. See: Hungarian friend There are a lot of IP editors from Hungary who agree with John Smith's. Here another one of John Smith's Other Hungarian friend with the same modus operandi.
With user Foula, it is suspicious thing is that the account was new and the only thing the user edited mirrors the issues John Smith's has edit warred over-- and that Foula and John Smith's were the only ones to try to mass insert that duplicate template into articles. This would probably be an allowable use of a sock but Foula has also voted with John Smith's.
This was brought up for user check here, and serves as an example of how use checks are using quite differently for different people. Apparently, vote fraud where sock votes did not affect poll outcomes do not qualify for check user requests. I think it should be checked, and to WP:NOP to see if they're proxies.
I ask that John Smith realize there is a problem with himself. If he is able to, I’m sure he will agree that my agreement with parity is in fact very generous, and one he is wise to accept. I don't think any of us should feel entitled to revert more than once a day anyway--that is edit waring. I’m open to accepting things for the good of WP, but he just wants to keep doing what he has been doing. Thank you.Giovanni33 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I submitted the evidence but was told my Newyorkbrad that the case was closing. The motion to close was voted on and evidently passed.--Fahrenheit451 03:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Per this request, I would be happy to admin delete this post from the article history or back your deletion of the same. -- Jreferee T/C 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Byenow said that removal was an accident. I read it. The debate on the article is only now ending and so you you decide to butt in and spark trouble out of nowhere. The issue didn't concern you. Although, I assume the user will be annoyed, because it was an annoying baselss block by you, I have encouraged the user to just ignore such provocation and if necessary make a complaint about you. However, I hope you will stop immediately. Lormos 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It's up to Byenow to decide. I ignore such provocation however. I told him he should too, but it was pretty annoying Lormos 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I have noticed you from elsewhere on WP ;) and have found your essay "The dark side" - very good! - too bad the "seen it all, caught it all" message couldn't be balanced by someone else's "beh - done it all, got away with it all" !!
In your essay you mention sleuthing to determine actions, methods, circum-wiki-ing. I will therefore ask you a somewhat basic question which I also asked Georgewilliamherbert (so far):
When I look at any given article, a question which often springs to mind is why - when did it get this way and who made it this way? gwh caught my attention in a talk page where he (assuming he) mentioned checking back 500 diff's.
My question to you is: is there any tool which would let you highlight a piece of text and query to find the diff where it first appears? Next, would you find such a tool of utility? And warning, many more questions and ideas may follow :)
Thank you and happy wikiing Franamax 10:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.