User talk:Durova/Archive 43

Remarks on the Vanished user case[edit]

It ain't gonna happen. Arbcom, being a collection of normal human beings, will defend its own against perceived threats from outsiders. We've drawn attention to the matter; continuing to press the issue only makes the rest of us look bad. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, do we condone that? Many people construe silence as consent. I had already commented on the case. That compels me to speak again now, even if the statement is purely symbolic. Durova^Charge! 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not construe silence as either endorsement or criticism. There are a variety of factors that lead us to refrain from commenting on behavior outside the context of an actual case. Also, the idea that arbcom is sufficiently united to blindly defend its members against any outside threat is, well, rather quaint, compared to reality. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not so much what I construe as what an uninvolved observer might reasonably conclude. I had no direct involvement in the circumstances that led to Adam's case, yet I watched a third of the Committee vote on my own case before I could present half my evidence. In light of that, I gave up. I wanted to stop further drama even if the outcome were wrong. Yet quaint would be far too mild a term for some of the conclusions that did get drawn in very public offsite venues. I don't want another human being to endure that unfairly. Not Vanished user, not Physchim62, not anyone. We are the eighth most popular website in the world; the Committee's findings set a public example. This site depends on volunteers. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Charles wanted addressed was the issue you just raised with respect to yourself and Adam. Only applied to a newbie non-admin probably using his real name who was denied the ability to defend himself in a "case" decided on by three self selected people over the course of mere minutes. If what was done to you was unfair, then how much more unfair was that rush to judgement and condemnation of the newbie? And what then is the solution so it does not continue to occur? How do we ensure due diligence in the very public condemnation of real people that occurs when admins block and defame people using the language that was used here? Why do some admins feel that they can block others for questioning their behavior by calling it a violation of BLP or CIVIL, yet they themselves feel entitled to any defamation they please based on their own faulty reasoning processes and then refuse to allow the victim to speak in their own defense and refuse to even discuss the issue later? Is this something for you to defend or to fight against? Defending the right of admins to make mistakes is one thing, but to defend their right to make a mistake and then to sit on that mistake in a way that hinders a review of that mistake is something else. I would hope you would fight for other admins to be as conscientious as you always were in ensuring for proper and adequate case reviews. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, regarding defamation. That has a specific meaning in law and should never be used loosely. If you wish to advance that then please - at the very least - substantiate it with diffs. I'd prefer we avoid legalese altogether. Do you have comment on this evidence? When I was a sysop I took great care in the blocks I reviewed. One of the things this case weighs is the relative merits of supporting two types of volunteer. On the one hand, administrators who have some power, who are imperfect, who probably act with good intentions, who have long track records of service to the project, and who occasionally get it wrong. On the other hand, users who have very little power, who are imperfect, whom we are enjoined to assume act with good intention, who have little history of service to the project, and who are off on the wrong foot. The traditional response to this has been to correct the error, discuss things, and move on. If Wikipedia rarely confronted ideological or profit motivated manipulation then I would give your thesis considerably more scope, but in fact we are a big target. Whatever you think of my mistake last month, I was also predicting WikiScanner-level scandals months before the WikiScanner came out and I was nearly the only editor to see that coming. The problem is very large and very real. If you insist on taking such a hard line then please walk the walk and fill the gap that opened when I finally made one mistake. Durova^Charge! 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I was nearly the only editor to see that coming". I highly recommend that you discuss this statement in private with long time wikipedians. Thank you for engaging with me in this discussion, I appreciate the time and effort. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was at WP:COIN, dealing with the requests there and mentoring people to help keep the board running. Where were those people you speak of? Durova^Charge! 00:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? WP:COIN? "in private with long time wikipedians" refers to people you personally trust and respect and will believe if they tell you something you don't want to hear. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to hint at something, please say it outright. Very few people actually walked the walk about addressing conflict of interest problems. This has not been a community priority. Even while the WikiScanner scandal was breaking news I saw serious longtime Wikipedians outline every major area other than investigations and assert that this site didn't need any more sysops. I could give scores of examples, but here's just one.[1] That new editor didn't get the help he was asking for, so he went out on his own and did what he thought he had to do. By the end of the year the dispute was in arbitration and he got topic banned, which was pretty sad because I later gave him a resilient barnstar for a new article he started. He was willing to work within our structure, asking for help, ready to be a real editor. Long time Wikipedians weren't giving him the time of day. Durova^Charge! 01:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read http://hewitt.wikicensored.info/ to see what it feels like to the newbies, how they misunderstand what is going on, and the resulting bad publicity for wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I read this in light of several circumstances. I had nothing to do with the underlying case, which is adequately explained at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown. This isn't the first time an academic has been sitebanned for self-promotional disruption in violation of multiple core policies. It's rare for someone from the ivory tower to behave that way, but it does happen. Durova^Charge! 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova Triple crown Userbox (Proposed)[edit]

Know that you are busy with other things, but here's an infobox I made based on a pic on Jimbo's page and an IP userbox. I might move it to User:UBX/triplecrown. Tell me what you think. Miranda 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a triple crown.

Interesting. Totally on your own initiative, why not? I neither advocate nor discourage userboxes for triple crowns. As long as the award stimulates good contributions I'm satisfied. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks. Miranda 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown request[edit]

Don't know if you're still doing these, but here are my three articles:

Thanks for your consideration. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Your Majesty. The crowns will be delivered shortly. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of apologies ...[edit]

I hope you saw my own little apology and clarification here. Paul August ☎ 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cheers and happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On 21 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article crochet thread, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Congratulations, another pictured slot. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Check out my userpage, I'm missing one GA for the Napoleonic crown (5 triple crowns, right? ;-) ) --Maxim_(talk) 23:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, awesome. :) Go for it! Durova^Charge! 23:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the GA. Check out my userpage. --Maxim_(talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)c[reply]

Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, that's fantastic! I'll go update the awards right away. Keep up the good work and happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 20:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Maxim, no wonder you nominated Calgary Flames for GA. Just had to get those extra jewels, eh? ;o) Reso lute 21:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Imperial crown jewels[edit]

Many thanks. Much appreciated. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Durova^Charge! 06:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown attempt for WillowW[edit]

User:WillowW
- DYK:Edwin J. Cohn
- GA: Harold Pinter
- FC: Photon

She has a zillion other FAs as well. All on her user page. I couldn't find out about other GAs and DYKs but I am sure she has more. Will you put an announcement on her page? Thanks.--Filll (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awarded. Durova^Charge! 02:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown attempt for Orangemarlin[edit]

User:Orangemarlin

Also, I would be grateful if you would put an announcement on his page? Thanks.--Filll (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're so sweet to name these. I was just doing some year end number crunching and now I'll have to rework the tallies. :) Happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 07:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown request[edit]

Merry Christmas! Chris.B (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I'm afraid not, I just threw in a number of articles in hope that they would qualify for something :P . I do, however, have a GA nom and I've contributed to another that's on hold. Chris.B (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, soon as they get approved let me know and I'll expand this to a triple and quadruple set. You're quite close to the Napoleonic crown, actually. If you'd like a boost, have a look at the PD image archive I'm compiling. I've been looking for stuff that could be feature-worthy with a little improvement. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okies, I'll do so (that is, provided that they pass!). Your list looks really useful; I was actually looking for something along those lines to help choose historic images for FPC. Thanks, Chris.B (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, thank you. I also see I've made you re-tally the figures, so that's a double thank you. :) Chris.B (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've gone through dozens of categories to search for those images, including the entire Commons PD-US and PD_US Gov't listings. Haven't done a hard count of the numbers I've surveyed, but it's well into five figures. Seems a shame to leave some of those in the slush pile. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Mind you, the standards for historic images are quite high. I recently tried for Winston Churchill but its technical flaws evidently outweighed any "historical value". Chris.B (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nods, here's a glance at what I'm doing. You may need to zoom in to really see the difference.

San Francisco earthquake of 1906.
San Francisco earthquake of 1906, after artifact and scratch removal.

Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March of FAs and GAs[edit]

I think this is fantastic to encourage more of these (I have not been very diligent in producing them myself). However, I wonder if there are any outside evaluations of our "best" articles. I see some of our moderately good articles, but I never see any outside review of GAs and FAs (Do our A rated articles fall between the two, or below the GAs?). --Filll (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Those are interesting questions that mostly fall outside the scope of the triple crown program. Basically if you want one yourself, then the simplest way to qualify would be to join a GA or FA drive. It isn't that hard to check out a few books from the local library and contribute 10 line citations. Another option, if you're interested in images, would be to check out the user page I've set up for public domain photos already in the archives that are potentially feature-worthy. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops[edit]

I'm really sorry Durova, I just reverted you by accident - I simply clicked the wrong button - hope you understand. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL, you stole his crown jewels! I don't even want to go there... Cheers and happy holidays, Durova^Charge! 02:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Hi there[edit]

Yup, I want to get one of those tri-crowns before my editing tenure is over. :D But there is a problem I seem to be facing. I don't know what article to start that I have any knowledge on. Maser ^(Talk!) 03:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could join a WikiProject in an area of interest and chip in on a GA or FA drive. A few library books help a lot with that. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you'll ever be a sysop again? Not that I'm pressuring you back into it or anything, though. Just curious. :D Maser ^(Talk!) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the community to decide. For now I'm enjoying the relief from all that pressure. Look how many archives this talk page has. You should see my e-mail files too. A lot of people solicited me for help because they knew I'd answer them. That cut down on my mainspace work a lot. So now I'm treating this as a welcome breather. Jimbo's said the tools are no big deal. We've all said it. It's a healthy exercise to walk that walk. :) Durova^Charge! 03:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. Adminship is sort of like being involved in government affairs, but without actual authority: It sounds like a highly respected position, but it turns out it's basically maintenance work and constant babysitting of editors. I would like to be an admin someday because oftentimes I find myself commenting on administrative noticeboards, participating in WP:AFD non-admin closures, and assist in anti-vandalism efforts quite often. I think, once I get around 2000-3000 edits, I'll apply for it. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure seeking mentorship from me is such a good idea these days. Just keep doing good work and play things by ear. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 04:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-sock barnstar[edit]

Thanks. I don't even know if I agree with the sock's contention; I don't know much about that particular dispute. I quite agree with you that his methods are inappropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a very good thing for the site if more people distanced themselves from that kind of behavior. Durova^Charge! 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received your e-mail[edit]

And I just wanted to let you know that with me, it was never personal, inasmuch as I didn't wish you, as a person, ill. I simply felt that your actions, not just in the !! case, but in a general sense, weren't in keeping with what I would have done on the project, or what I think should be done on the project. But for me, it was never personal. And I wish you all the best at this holiday season as well. You're a good editor, and a credit to the project in your work in the mainspace. Mr Which ??? 21:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd extend a little benefit of the doubt there. Dispute resolution progressed in a way that denied me fair opportunity to respond to criticisms. And bear in mind, please, that the bulk of my volunteer work had been spent resolving problems like this so they didn't degenerate to the point of lawsuits or news stories. We really need more people to help in that area. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been hashed and re-hashed. I have never, and will never, have any use for secret evidence-gathering. That said, I truly believe that you were acting in what you felt were the best interests of the project. I just don't agree with your methods, nor do I believe they actually were in the best interests of the project. But I do not doubt your motivations were of pure intent. I don't think you were trying to harm the project at all. And my last note was simply to let you know that as far as I'm concerned, bygones are bygones. I think you're a good editor, and your work in the mainspace is a credit to the project. Mr Which ??? 22:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would you say about this? I was totally upfront about that in a situation where most people wouldn't have been candid, and the upshot has been that an attack site presents a distorted version of events that denies the graphic harassment and paints me as if I had been vindictive and illogical. The counterpart to demanding full onsite disclosures of everything is that you need to draw a very hard line against attempts to revictimize people who have already been harassed. If you can find a practical way to accomplish that, more power to you. Durova^Charge! 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that unless WP decides to take away the cloak of anonymity, and actively participate in the prosecution of those who actually harass and stalk other editors, then there's nothing we can do. Transparency never hurts anything, and who really cares what attack sites are posting about us? You know who you are, you know what your motivations were, and to me, that should be enough. Sometimes it has to be. Seriously though, I'm trying to put together an article on Elise Primavera from scratch, and I really don't have time to revisit all these issues. I simply dropped you a note to respond to your e-mail requesting we mend some fences. I feel like I've let you know that from my end, I think highly of you as an editor of the mainspace, and that it's not personal for me. I hope that's enough. Mr Which ??? 22:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wish the laws were as enlightened as you believe they ought to be. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On 23 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stitch marker (crochet), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hi Durova, I mentioned this when I gave the article a small copy edit, but I'm always delighted to see the wide diversity of Wikipedians' interests, and it was neat to see a crochet article on DYK! A good picture too... faces of people from the 18th century and buildings get a little tiring after awhile ;) --JayHenry (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TCWC[edit]

I was wondering if you get an article to GA status, but then you get it to FA status, can it still count as a GA and as an FA? Happ y Holi days! Dreamafter ^Talk 02:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. Durova^Charge! 02:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‎

Well, if you get an article to DYK, then to GA, and then to FA, would that count as all of them? Happ y Holi days! Dreamafter ^Talk 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how Pastordavid got his first triple crown. Durova^Charge! 15:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year![edit]

From Amandajm (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks! Durova^Charge! 06:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Durova. Hope you and yours have a joyous holidays :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown Request[edit]

User:Mike Searson
DYK: Cyclura nubila caymanensis, Cyclura cychlura figginsi, Cyclura rileyi cristata, Cyclura ricordi, Galapagos Land Iguana, Lesser Antillean Iguana, Doris M. Cochran
GA: Blue Iguana, Green Iguana, Ernest Emerson, Aikido
FC:Ernest Emerson,Aikido

Thanks for your consideration and have a Merry Christmas! --Mike Searson (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, the crown jewels have been delivered. Please let me know as soon as you get some more featured content and I'll upgrade the Winner's Circle notes for you to sets of three and four. Cheers and happy holidays, Durova^Charge! 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template Request[edit]

Hi, thanks for the link to the Wikipedia project classroom. I am requesting a template that says something like this:

This article has been deemed useful for teaching and learning purposes.

If you can't do it, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, Independent147 (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try Wikipedia:Requested templates. I see a few problems with the idea, though. At the very least it ought to link to a specific version of the article that was deemed useful. Later disruption or vandalism might have recurred. Another problem is that we really don't have any way to vet instructor qualifications. It would be rather easy for a vandal to "teacher-template" a series of pages. This could be particularly sticky in areas where instructors themselves participate in an ongoing dispute. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education - I have no particular reason to doubt the ethics of any of the participants at that case, but that should convey the idea. Also note Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown, who appears to have been an MIT professor. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joyeux Noël[edit]

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup! Durova^Charge! 21:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Do you speak English and French fluently or not? If not, then how well? Just curious you see. Dreamafter ^Talk 22:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can do in French is read. See Pierre Cauchon for an example of my translation work. In German my conversational skill is still good enough that a few months ago a native speaker told her sister I'm fluent, but I don't get much chance to practice. When I was at my best with German native speakers sometimes couldn't tell I was a foreigner. I speak it with a Hamburg accent. I also speak broken Spanish with a Mexico City accent. Durova^Charge! 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thank you. Dreamafter ^Talk 22:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navajo rug[edit]

Hi Durova, Merry Christmas Eve! I think Navajo rug would be fine, but I'm not really a stickler for the rules. When you nominate the hook, I'd suggest just saying something like Self nom. Expanded x times and am continuing to expand. I realize it's a little short at the moment, but I'm still working and think it's an interesting topic or something like that. Most people don't mind an occasional exception. Lists, references, "see also" sections, templates don't count toward the total, so it's already over a 4x expansion by my count. It was only two paragraphs of body text before, so I think this one should be just fine. Looks like nice photo opportunities as well :) Nice work on this one! --JayHenry (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added a bit more to it since I posted that. Taking a short breather right now. Thank you for the advice and happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 02:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost arranged the pictures much as you have them, then couldn't decide, but thanks for changing them - it's definitely right now. (Back to the kitchen, merry merry...) - PKM (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art history stubs[edit]

Things like the Titian are art stubs, not art history ones. Relatively few articles are classified as art history rather than art, and no works of art, however old. Frankly I'm not sure what the benefit of shoffling them from one pile to the other is anyway. They are more likely to get attention in the art pile I would think. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay then and thanks. Durova^Charge! 02:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I now see we have a 500 strong Category:Painting stubs, which is a depressing find - not the Christmas present one wanted! All the best for yours. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well at least it helps to get these stubs assembled in some sort of order. My brain is numb from too many additions to Navajo rug in one day. Was looking for something simple and relaxing. Best wishes and happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Durova[edit]

Thanks for putting the "WikiSanta" image on your talk page; I've borrowed it. Merry Christmas, Durova, and a happy New Year to you. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 03:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, how thoughtful! Merry Christmas. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Triple Crown[edit]

Now, I have to dig through your User Page to find why I deserved it!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, your wish is my command. I received a third party nomination for you. Here were your articles:

DYK: List of world's largest wooden ships
GA: Herpes zoster
FC: Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

Durova^Charge! 10:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USMC Investigation Update[edit]

Merry Christmas:

We're still trying to get this added.

On September 7th, Marine investigator Colonel Charles Jones concluded that "the questions over deployment and fund solicitations were misunderstanding, not misrepresentations. All parties were acting in good faith. There fore as to the topic, there really isn't anything further to discuss." Major Amy Thomas (USMC)

http://www.matt-sanchez.com/2007/12/misunderstandin.html

I resigned my ops a month ago and can't edit protected pages anymore. Suggest you post a request to a noticeboard. Happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 09:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]