User talk:Durova/Archive 42

Triple crown

I just got a DYK for Are You There? (annoyingly, I ended up moving over the update it was in, so the DYK awarding is in my name.) User:Ssilvers also points out I helped with Maritana, another DYK, but realise that my contribution is somewhat limited - cast list and image, mainly, as Ssilvers got to most of it before I could. The GA and FA can be taken from my previous list, I guess. =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you format the full submission, please? You could probably do that from memory. I've got a lot of submissions to review. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Here ye go.

• Adam Cuerden
  • DYK: article(s): The Happy Land, Are You There?, Maritana (check that last)
  • GA: article(s): Arthur Sullivan, Gilbert and Sullivan, Thespis (opera), etc.
  • FC: page(s) Image:Defence-of-Paris.png, Ediacaran biota, W. S. Gilbert, Evolution, Image:StrasbourgSiege.png, Image:Thespis_-_Illustrated_London_News_Jan_6_1872.png, etc, etc. [Note that I had to get someone else to stitch together a couple of the FPs, so they might not show under my name, but I certainly did the research that found them and the initial scans.]

Have the slight problem that so many of the GAs I make seem to go on to FA, but, never mind =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Awarded. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured you could use a WikiHug...

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

...but a WikiSmile was the best template I could find. You're going through a difficult time now, and I agree with Alex Bakharev: this is a time when you need our protection and support. I don't speak out often; and when I do, it's often in semi-serious outrage at some nitwit debating whether an article should have eighteen copyvio images in it, or just the usual five. This is not one of those times. This is a time where I honestly feel you need faith in your abilities and love more than anything in the world, and I hope a subtle WikiSmile can help you to get through this mess. Take care. :) Orethrius (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That's touching. I really appreciate it. Cheers! Durova^Charge! 05:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Thread on AN/I

Well done. The ability to laugh at oneself is a large part of my definition of a "classy" person. I loved the title of the thread, loved the way you've handled it. - Philippe | Talk 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm packing up those puppets today and sending them to the children who deserve them. Might make a couple of others before Christmas: there are two more kids on my list. I've started a lion, think I'll make a lamb for his sister. Cheers. Durova^Charge! 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova Operates Numerous Sockpuppets... We'll give you the "facts", the rest is up to you... ~ The Register. #2,514 on Alexa - and falling fast. Rklawton (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments

... are rather strong, but so is the strong whiff of "courteous" relationships going on in this community. My communications with all other members are aboveboard, for all to see. Any other arrangement is, by my definition, corruption of the principles of openness which Wikipedia once stood for. So no thank you, I do not care to "refactor" my comments, nor do I wish to hide them on a secret mailing list. Cleduc (talk)

Well, I apologize for having offended you. I confirmed this biography subject's wishes by the same means as I confirmed every other BLP article I nominated for deletion. Although I respect the impulse to see these requests posted directly onsite, confirming their authenticity would be problematic that way. Do you have a better suggestion for how to go about it, if this isn't sufficiently above board? Durova^Charge! 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not offended me, so no apology is necessary on that account. Your recent actions damaged this project, for which you have already apologized. This AFD draws disturbing parallels with the ongoing controversy, particularly as it involves the now-ominous word "courtesy" and a Foundation insider. The timing of this action could not have been worse: you presently have poor credibility with the community at large. In the best case, this AFD demonstrates very poor judgment on your part. Cleduc (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous history of nominating two of Wikipedia's most prominent critics' biographies on the same basis ought to dispel that supposition. Our policy is WP:AGF. I hope everyone weighs the nomination on its own merits, and in light of the precedents cited, without reference to unrelated events. WP:AFD is supposed to be a referendum on the article, not the nominator. Durova^Charge! 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand AGF quite well, thank you, along with the line in red – so if I were you, I wouldn't be dropping that particular card right about now. In any case, thanks for the memories. Cleduc (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, and I apologize for any impropriety. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If it makes any difference to clarify, this nomination was an outgrowth of a discussion I've been having with a Harvard student who's writing a thesis on Wikipedia. For about six weeks we've been in periodic contact. This site's deletion dynamics play a role in her study and she recently mentioned the different outcomes of some similar biography nominations. I had nominated some of the other pages, but never this one. The timing was awkward, I agree, but the previous nominations set such a clear precedent for objectivity that I doubted anyone would contstrue mischief. I haven't nominated anything on that student's behalf, really, (this was my idea) and it's doubtful the result of this would even happen in time for the thesis deadline. I won't deny we were curious. Another nomination seemed justifiable after half a year and the other precedents. Angela Beesley agreed to try it. Durova^Charge! 01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

remedies

Hi, I hope you agree this is a fair request?[1] DurovaCharge! 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no experience with these procedural matters, and haven't thought deeply about the implications. So instead of agreeing that it is a fair request, I'll just say that I fully trust you've made the request in good faith and for good sensible reasons. Hesperian 11:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 16:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

I was reading the article on Joan of Arc and saw that the suggestion that Joan may have had a hormonal abnormality dismissed as "Old fringe theory" warmed over.

I am interested in learning more about Joan and would like to know (particularly if there are any online documentary resources that might help) why the theory was discredited, and possibly any related theories. Particularly I am intrigued by the suggestion that Joan may have been both schizophrenic and transsexual (i.e. female-to-male Harry Benjamin syndrome).

Thank you,

--Lil Miss Picky (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the two things that I described as old fringe theories warmed over were the claim that she was saved from death at the stake and the claim that she was a man. I don't think I ever called schizophrenia a fringe theory; it gained some traction in the twentieth century. Medical explanations are significant enough that the article does cover them. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Durova. It wasn't my intention to suggest that you were calling schizophrenia a fringe theory. What has engaged my curiosity is the question of whether Joan had reasons other than the obvious ones in the historic record for adopting masculine dress. If you are able to shed any further light on the issue I would be very grateful. --Lil Miss Picky (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

drama and you?

Everywhere I look right now you seem to be in the thick of controversy. Unfortunately it has the effect of making the debate about you and your reactions and not the issue. Can you please back off, even for a week or two. Someone else can make the points. Giano, for instance, rarely participated in AfD - your presence makes sure he is. But a week after your mistake you are nominating high profile articles for deletion - stirring the Daniel Brandt pot, and commenting on high-profile RfArbs - and I can't remember what else. Now some of the comments you make, I agree with. But it is beginning to look like you are seeking drama as some sort of vindication for what happened to you - and you are certainly not helping the issues. I'm not asking you to withdraw from the community - but perhaps do something non-controversial for a month or so. Thanks.--Doc^g 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't anticipate this nomination would be so tetchy. A couple of sections above this I explain the timing. It was done in good faith and I honestly thought my history of having nominated Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt was sufficient to dispel any suspicions of impropriety. When I found out Mercury had closed the discussion and saw my name invoked at AN I had to make an immediate statement to dispel suspicions. I'll stay out of DRV, per your advice. If anyone calls for my input there, would you please cite a diff of this statement in reply? Thank you, and apologies for the hassle. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't think nominating something for the seventh time would be tetchy? You thought because it was like Brandt is would be otherwise? Now, I'm very happy to see the article go, but if you didn't see this was going to be trouble then I'm not sure what wiki you're on. And if you don't realise that anything you touch right now is going to be even more dramatic than it needs to be I'm not sure either. If you really don't want drama, don't go looking for it - because right now it looks like you're too keen. When I find myself involved in more than one drama a week, I generally go and find an article no-one is going to care about.--Doc^g 17:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rand Fishkin nomination had gone pretty smoothly and the Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein outcomes seemed to sit with the community pretty well in the long run. So I estimated that there would be some debate on the merits for this nomination, but less contentious than last summer's debates had been. At the time when I nominated Angela Beesley I placed my faith in the community to weigh the AFD solely on its internal merits and on the precedents of those three other cases. I thought my record on the subject was so scrupulously unbiased that no other factors would play into it. Or at worst, I expected that if anyone tried to construe mischief then the community would promptly cite AGF and Occam's razor. After all, since I got pilloried for failing to assume enough good faith then AGF ought to be on everyone's minds now and our standards should be higher than usual. I guess that was naive and I'm sorry for that mistake. Right now my hands are tied by my pledge to stay out of the DRV. So if you see any conspiracy insinuations, I'd appreciate very much if you apply your excellent scrutiny to challenge them. I'll try to improve in that regard; thank you. Durova^Charge! 21:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, could you address this kind of obvious disruption: throwaway IP insinuates misconduct.[2] Durova^Charge! 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a troll, best ignored.--Doc^g 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Block my user temporary

Hello. This is not a joke but my Block log is empty. So I want you to block my user account for a time of 30 min. Please do so as my request. D@rk ^talk 19:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dark, we don't block users accounts on request per the blocking policy. The blocking tool is only to be used in serious circumstances for misconduct so we can't just do it for a "joke". It's not good having a block log entry anyway. Sorry, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Well, the reason why I wanted you to block my account temporary was because my block log is empty and that was killing my nerve because my block log hungered for a little temp. block as a request. Well, in that case, I can't also brake the rules of Wikipedia. D@rk ^talk 14:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't do that even if I wanted; I've resigned my administratorship. Be proud of your clean block log. I had one too until I made a mistake while I was multitasking and indeffed myself for a minute. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Marginal notability seems ill defined at best

First of all, I've been meaning to tell you of my appreciation for your efforts in aiding that Harvard kid. I may be starting on my own thesis there before Spring (on a topic wholly unrelated to wikipedia, mind you), and the only reason I'm not thanking you on behalf of the University and all of academia is that's obviously far beyond my bailiwick. But, long story short, if you ever do reapply for adminship, you've earned my vote.

As for Ms. Beesley, I wouldn't have known her from a hole in the ground. Today I've learned "Ŝi estas kunfondinto kaj vicprezidanto por la komunejaj rilatoj de Wikia Inc." and even though my Esperanto is, to put it mildly, rusty, I am certainly perplexed that such a person would want to pull a "Daniel Brandt" to begin with; yet, of course, at the same time that's absolutely none of my business. There should be other avenues available for someone who probably has WP:OFFICE on speed dial; but maybe she'll sleep better a night believing she's gone about it the "right wey." However, I don't share that belief in this case.

What I ultimately reject here is the way "marginal notability" -- a rule invented for, if you'll pardon my French, "freeks and geeks" -- is now being used to delete a biography which actually meets notability in all respects: a sourced biography of a corporate officer of a powerful and well known corporation. Arguably, corporations in many ways run our lives in this modern world, and the number of board members in our world are a small and powerful subset of the general population (even smaller considering many sit on multiple boards). I don't particularly care for a precedent which enables them all to disappear from our knowledge base. Don't think others won't come forward with the argument that if Ms. Beesley was "marginally notable" then they must be too; that's where lawsuits come from. I guess I just believe that's a bad thing. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the legal angle is interesting here. You might want to contact the Foundation and see what Mike Godwin thinks. As far as I'm aware Wikipedia should be legally safe in either case as long as it draws upon on reliable public sources, but I'm no lawyer so I'll defer. Regarding the rest I'll share some general thoughts.

Every now and then Wikipedia runs into a situation where two policies intersect and the challenge is to find some balance that satisfies enough people to achieve consensus. I encounter thoughtful and articulate people all across the spectrum. Here the WP:V and WP:BLP policies run into each other. Now your post sounds like you don't think BLP plays a role at all. I respect that. I've also seen arguments that it does carry weight, and I've seen arguments go all the way to the other extreme and assert that BLP trumps verifiability completely if the biography subject wants to opt out. I didn't write these policies; I just looked for some kind of balancing point that would be consistent and durable. I did not want to carve a special exception to standard policy for particular individuals. I also wanted to avoid the slippery slope. Now we've traditionally done courtesy deletions in specific kinds of cases, such as children of politicians who never sought the limelight in their own rights: So-and-So is the son of Big Kahuna, and gets arrested for drunk driving, and that gets reported in the papers. Well that's certainly verifiable. Yet most Wikipedians were willing to say Look, this got attention because of an accident of birth. He didn't go out of his way to seek the public eye. Give him some peace. Maybe you take such a hard line that you don't think that argument carries weight. Yet I hope you appreciate that before I nominated Daniel Brandt's and Seth Finkelstein's bios, we did have that kind of precedent.

So the BLP policy shifted a bit in a way that opened the door to a broader interpretation. I had nothing to do with that change. And I had seen how much strife resulted from the rare individuals who really weren't that famous and who wanted out. I came in very late to the Daniel Brandt issue. It had started before I became a Wikipedian and looked like a real vortex. There were plenty of other things that needed attention. So if I step into a situation that's already a pile-on, I try to bring something new to the table that hasn't been hashed out dozens of previous times. I had some trepidation that any intervention at all would land me on "Hive Mind". That turned out to be an accurate prediction. Yet whether I'm right or wrong, I base my decisions on what I think is best for Wikipedia.

Bottom line is, I think the site runs more smoothly and we earn more goodwill by allowing courtesy deletions up to a point. If you want to go into the matter in greater depth I could cite 250 years of precedent for why Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia to encounter this dilemma, and if I were writing a doctoral dissertation that might come very close to its central thesis. I think it's one of the ideas I suggested to that Harvard student, although her interests went in different directions. I'd love to read her paper when she finishes. The challenge I faced last June was to locate durable principles. What could cover the entire spectrum from Daniel Brandt to Angela Beesley without opening the door to damaging Wikipedia's coverage of world events? Suppose Donald Rumsfeld requested courtesy deletion?

The "dead trees standard" is what I proposed. That principle has not gained consensus support per se. I continue to assert it in hopes that it will either generate consensus or generate something better. So far all I've been able to say is concurring opinions have usually gone along with it. So far it's the only argument I've seen that sets a clear dividing line between your WP:V hardline and Daniel Brandt's WP:BLP hardline. I hope you aren't offended by the comparison. My point is that other arguments have been nebulous and vulnerable to the slippery slope. It does seem to carry some weight because four of the five biographies I've nominated on that basis have succeeded. The fifth was arguably more notable than the others and I extended that nomination as much for the vehemence of the request as on its substantive merits. Remember that these are human beings who may have very personal reasons for their individual decisions. Wikipedia may strive to ascend the ivory tower, but in reality it has ascended the Google rankings. This is the most popular reference site in the world. It is the eighth most popular site on the planet. It is the most visited dot-org on the Net. A Wikipedia biography will almost certainly rank among the top ten Google returns for a name search (among living people who have biographies here). Consider yourself for a moment in Daniel Brandt's shoes, or in Seth Finkelstein's, or in Rand Fishkin's, or in Angela Beesley's. These are real living people. How many miles would you want to walk in those moccasins? Durova^Charge! 05:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If Daniel Brandt was an enemy of some other site other than Wikipedia (for example Indymedia or even Youtube), would he even have an article here? I doubt it. For the amount of drama his page existing has caused, and given that it's most definitely not a self-promotional, it should just be done away with. Just my 2c. Orderinchaos 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Durova, they are real, they are living, and they are people. I suppose I subscribe to the Feiler Faster Thesis. I have learned things from history, by which I mean the dead tree resources you mention. For example, I have learned not to invade Russia in the dead of winter. And I hope the average reader of wikipedia doesn't repeat that mistake. But for the most part, I'd want real time information about people who might affect my life in some way, or the lives of those around me. If I was walking in such a person's shoes I'd want the world to know about me also. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, suppose you were me. A couple of tech presses ran stories about me last week. I happen to know that the only journalist who even tried to check with me for accuracy was Seth Finkelstein. Remember this site's standard is verifiability, not truth. What does a living person do if material is verifiable but still off kilter? Durova^Charge! 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I've been mentioned in Slate Magazine and on National Public Radio[3] so we are both perhaps a few reliable sources away from being marginally notable wikipedians; I'm not exactly quaking in my boots or expecting to see Dan Rather trot in from around any corner. Your question of truth versus verifiability is of course one we encounter all the time, and simply needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis; for example, recently at Talk:Giovanni di Stefano the subject has made repeatedly clear that some information, despite being printed in a dozen otherwise reliable sources, simply isn't true, and he is certain to go completely ape if we repeat it. Still, it's information I'd want to at least consider if I was ever going to consider hiring this man. When it's one person versus 1.8 billion English speakers, my urge is to side with the readers and they can sort things out for themselves. Otherwise... ::shrug:: what is truth? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately with these low level notability cases, there may not be enough reliable sources to achieve adequate coverage or balance. Rand Fishkin was basically notable for two things: being the CEO of a small company and for how he proposed to his wife. His company has its own article and the marriage proposal was a lark. The way he explained it to me, being in Wikipedia seemed kind of cool at first. Then it became a drain on his time to monitor changes to the thing. There was always the chance that some business competitor might try strategic vandalism. After the novelty wore off he decided the bio was a waste of time. The net loss to 1.8 billion English speakers is Wikipedia no longer informs them about how one fellow bought an ad during a sporting event to propose to his girlfriend. If this site ever hosts a List of unusual marriage proposals we could document it there. Durova^Charge! 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think that's fine. A geeky marriage proposal would certain fall under the "Freaks and Geeks" clause, as far as I am concerned. But I quote Pontius Pilate above because once we accept "truth" is an impossible standard, and that we nevertheless have a duty to inform readers about living people, however unfortunate it might be, a few otherwise good people are going to get crucified in the process. It's a messy business. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Durova^Charge! 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How's about something uplifting as a distraction...an 5-14 triple crowner?

Ok then, hmmm. GAs my weakest link but:

• Omphalotus nidiformis - quite a bit
• Kererū - quite a bit
• Diplodocus - quite a bit (now FA)
• Deinonychus - quite a bit (now FA)
• Gorgosaurus - quite a bit

FAs - 5 best (of lots)

• Lion- quite a bit
• Banksia ericifolia - quite a bit (from stub I created)
• Banksia spinulosa - quite a bit (from stub I created)
• Amanita phalloides - quite a bit (mainpage-September 13, 2007)
• Red-tailed Black Cockatoo - quite a bit

DYKS - 5 of 37....

• Treatment of schizophrenia
• Southern Right Whale
• Blue-faced Honeyeater
• White-breasted Robin
• Clitocybe dealbata

..umm which diffs? Page history counter a good bet? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding! Napoleonic crown awarded. Durova^Charge! 03:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite protection of article Guernica (painting)

Do you really think it's a good idea to have the article Guernica (painting) semi-protected indefinitely? You protected it nearly a year ago as an anti-vandalism measure. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and unprotect it if you think that's appropriate. I was a pretty new administrator when I did that. Durova^Charge! 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator; I can't unprotect. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw this request appear on my watchlist: I've done it for you both. Acalamari 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're both welcome! Glad to help. :) Acalamari 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment please

Your input is required here [4] Thank you. Giano (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

So I'm contacting you. Thank you for your comment, by the way. Hiding T 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you set up a gmail account your location can't be traced from the headers. I'd like to chat with you candidly. Doesn't matter to me whether you reveal your old account. I've walked a few miles in similar moccasins. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• away.hiding Hiding T 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You've got mail. Hiding T 10:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Private Correspondence

I have to admit that, as irritating as Irpen can be, on the self-revert he was right. It strikes me that the community as a whole has finally come to the point where we're ready to start taking in the lessons of the mistake that was made. There are glimmers that more and more people are seeing what happened as symptomatic of a problem within the community, and not just one admin who went off the reservation so to speak. I don't know if you read wiki-en-l, but this evening we have been having a fairly constructive discussion about the problems of harassment and stalking. One point in particular that seems to be gaining greater acceptance is that victims of such abuse need to be supported by some formal structures within the community and with the support of the Foundation, and that an off-shoot mailing list just isn't enough. It's my own opinion that WP:PRIVATE isn't part of the solution; I cannot think of a way to write it that won't create a chill on the part of victims from coming forward and seeking support to address what is actually a real world problem. We need to get this problem into the light of day, and not allow it to fester under the carpets any longer. Risker (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already thanked Irpen for the advice. I unsubscribed from the wiki-en-i mailing list a couple of weeks ago. WP:DENY and WP:DFTT are very strong disincentives against onsite discussion, and in my own experience amateur attempts to resolve the problem were far more stressful than the problem itself. Durova^Charge! 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't blame you for staying away from wiki-en-l lately, it's been a bit of a cesspool, but the mods seemed to take the bull by the horns over the weekend and put a bunch of folks on various forms of moderation, so perhaps it will become more constructive again. It certainly seems to go in cycles. One of the things we have been talking about is the need to make connections with law enforcement, particularly cyberstalking units. I agree that this is too serious an issue for a volunteer group to tackle on its own. Risker (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Risker, you don't know the half of it. Durova^Charge! 05:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. My own little cyberstalking episode was probably relatively mild compared to what some have gone through. It's difficult, however, for the community to understand the seriousness of the situation when it is kept behind closed doors. I think you're probably old enough to remember when nobody would talk about wife abuse, let alone convince the police to charge the guy; well, society isn't all the way there, but things got a lot better for the abused women when society as a whole started realising it *was* a big deal, and changed the way that victims and abusers were treated. Aude has been working on some statistics that may be useful in identifying those at greatest risk; it would be interesting to know if his data correlates with the information you have. Risker (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Risker, I don't mean this analogy toward you in particular, but I'm reminded of a scene from Driving Miss Daisy where Jessica Tandy goes to hear a speech by Martin Luther King, praises his work, and talks about how glad she is that times are changing. And then she leaves her black chauffeur on the curb while she walks into the auditorium. Morgan Freeman watches her go and then mumbles They ain't changed all that much. In cases of harassment it remains socially acceptable to deny the problem and blame the victim. Those are two specific responses I've encountered repeatedly from Wikipedians who were in a position not only to know better, but to actually solve some of the problem. There have been other related issues also. I would have been much better off if I'd kept my mouth shut. My concentration and my judgement didn't slip until I had serious worries about the competence of some of the people who were ostensibly trying to help me. Trolling is easier to endure than disloyalty. Durova^Charge! 06:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While being considered "irritating" by Risker (especially by Risker) upsets me and sends me into a cycle of self-reflection, I just want to say that I fully concur with what is said above about harassment. But there is more to it. It cannot be doubted that editors like Giano, !!, myself (I actually cannot be put on par with those massive FA writers although I did write a lot of articles too) would do anything we can to assist in preventing and addressing the harassment problem. As such, battling of this real problem needs to be engaging for the good editors. Personally, I wouldn't want to be on the list or at #admins but the thought of such media being used outside of very few legitimate purposes, and especially with the illegitimate use taking over, makes me protest those media as a whole because this media start to cause more harm than good on balance. Maybe it is partly Durova's fault that the topic of the list was shifted from harassment towards "investigations" to a degree that "investigations" had to be spun off. Investigations were always what she liked to do (with best intentions I don't doubt) for a long time.

I remember our first strong disagreement with Durova (we had many more disagreements and full agreements alike since then but there were only agreements prior to that incident.) And it also happened to be about "investigations". And for absolutely no good reason there was this mysterious to me insistence to take the issue to the email. Nothing prevents misunderstanding like openness and clarity. Secrecy is justified in few limited circumstances and does a huge disservice if it is overused. --Irpen 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I don't think it's really fair to assign blame on that basis. Remember, my error last month was to assign fault after extensive (but insufficient) research while using a flawed paradigm. The antidote to that is not clearwater speculation. Nor, when the topic happens to be cyberstalking, is it adequate to demand full disclosure onsite. I have no intention of giving the people who harass me instruction on how to get under my skin better. The strongest thing I've had going for me through this ordeal is how much of the harassment I've been able to laugh at and how little they realize what actually gets under my craw. This looks like an attempt to leverage the release of information that would surely be used to harm me by asserting presumptive blame. Durova^Charge! 06:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To expand upon that with refrence to Irpen's link, I was attempting to mediate a very delicate dispute between Piotrus and Ghirla. I really wanted to foster a nonconfrontational admosphere and try to overcome a lot of bad history between two of this website's most productive volunteers. I have great respect for both of them. If Piotrus erred, and if I erred, that just wasn't a helpful way to assert it--without diffs and using a confrontational tone. I would gladly have reviewed any evidence you wished to provide, and was willing to be persuaded. We're all human beings here and I estimated that Piotrus would be more receptive to input from me as a neutral party. My goal was not secrecy but diplomacy. I hope that makes sense when I put it this way. Durova^Charge! 06:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova, sorry for being blunt, but please get all the facts straight. You seem a little confused on what this was about. --Irpen 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify that statement? Durova^Charge! 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova: This big drama stuff isn't your fault. Sure the original block was a mistake, and although you may not want to hear this getting your email redacted after it hit the public record probably wasn't the best move. But, you should never have been put into the situation that got you in this mess in the first place. As a volunteer the organizations duty of care to you is if anything greater than their duty of care towards their employees since there's no quid pro quo in this for you. The problems are systematic, they're process problems and organizational structure problems. If this hadn't happened to you, sooner or later it would have happened to someone else. I won't detail what I think the structural problems may be because better minds than mine are hashing it out as I type and this isn't the forum for it anyway. But yeah, hard cases make bad law, and I will venture one opinion on the structural problems that got you into this mess in the first place. As it stands now proposed Private correspondence policy won't fix any of the structural problems. If anything they'll make them worse. That I brought up whistleblowing wasn't as a hit on you or your situation. It's a process thing. It's to ensure that there are avenues that can be taken within the organization to resolve pathological issues that can't be addressed through normal channels. Whistleblowers take a huge risk and generally suffer greatly even under conditions where they're utterly vindicated and have statutory protections (That's why a lot of the time with already pathological organizations they try and do it anonymously). Often when the whistle is being blown it isn't over a matter of a single person, it's over organizational dysfunction that's being covered up for very human reasons like pride, fear, a siege mentality or the like. I guess wikipedia, for better or for worse, has become a large (gargantuan really) high profile organization with real influence even though it's largely run by volunteers and it's just going to have to deal with that. Me? I'm still sitting here wondering whether this whole newfangled arbcom thing is a good idea. Unsubscribing from WikiEN-l was probably a good idea BTW a wiki structure allows conflict to diffuse, mailing lists are in your face. I've always thought of it as useless personality centered dramaville. I'm sorry if I upset you with my comment on whistleblowing. Cheers. - V (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Generally I'm very receptive to feedback, but my spine stiffens when I perceive something as an attempt at coercion or intimidation. That's how I perceived the report's publication and I asked for it to come down as a matter of principle. Durova^Charge! 06:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We also need a whistleblowing protection system... DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean when you articulate that? Durova^Charge! 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just my feeling, but if someone feels a particular conversation covered under "private correspondence" is in the public interest due to corruption concerns, misuse of power, et cetera, then they should be protected as whistleblowers should they choose to release the information. It's all fine to then say "oh, well just send the evidence to ArbCom", but what if members of ArbCom were involved, indirectly or directly? The community are fickle, but they are also the basis of consensus which is one of the basic core principles of Wikipedia. I understand the need to eliminate disruption and trolling, but doing it in such a covert and Nineteen-Eighty-Four way, and having all trace of such an assessment oversighted as if it were a serious security risk does irreparable harm to the trust and integrity of the community these actions are supposed to protect. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You've read the post I blanked at Irpen's request? And you've read my answers to that question at arbitration? This looks like you're renewing that line of conversation. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

O_o Huh? No, I was just using an example, I didn't mean to bring that up. I just think it's necessary, that's all, because fighting these awful issues is bad enough, but we should not become the very monsters we fight. And I'm not accusing you of that at all, I just think you got a little carried away, but I just want it thoroughly explained to me why whistleblowing shouldn't be protected, or, if it can't, it implemented into policy and practice somewhere, because general convention isn't going to cut it - I mean, the ArbCom were hairs away from banning Giano, for Pete's sake. That can't happen anymore. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism. Actually the stress ate into my concentration and critical thinking. When I acted I thought I had been thinking very clearly, and over the next two hours I realized all the mistakes I had made. It's quite embarrassing to become known for one's worst moment and be unable to atone for it. Yet it's important to get an expert legal opinion on copyright when you compose that part of policy, and the danger of reckless revisions might make the proposal unworkable. Durova^Charge! 06:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

IANAL but IIRC strictly speaking in the UK and Australia (and probably other jurisdictions around the world) simply forwarding an email is a copyright violation. People just do it anyway because it's socially acceptable. - V (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That scenario probably also falls outside the realm of Wikipedia's dispute resolution. But to post any copyrighted material onsite is a matter that necessarily concerns the project on many levels. Durova^Charge! 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

American copyright law is based on the U.S. Constitution which allows limitations to free speech for the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and not for purposes of privacy. The doctrine of fair use articulates an area where free speech is not allowed to be limited by copyright laws. Your e-mail

1. lacked commercial use;
2. there was and is an educational reason to publish it;
3. the publication of it was for criticism and not profit;
4. and the criticism was for the purpose of allowing a self-governing encyclopedia writing community to better self-govern itself.

There is exactly zero copyright infringement in the publication of your private/secret email that was a work document related to the self-governance of the Wikipedia community. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Was, I studied writing in graduate school. A course in related law was required curriculum. That gives me a better understanding of copyright than the average person, but it does not qualify me to offer legal opinions. I asked that the Foundation counsel consider this issue. It's his opinion that matters; that's his job. I have never corresponded with Mike Godwin directly; so far as I know there could have been no favoritism. I have been told he approved the request, and my copyright was honored. As I stated at arbitration, I could have been persuaded to release my rights if I had been approached in a reasonable manner, but I was not. The report was wrong; I realized that 75 minutes after I acted and reversed the block myself, extended apologies, and pledged improvements. I had opened the thread at the administrative noticeboard myself. As Jimbo Wales has stated, there was no compelling reason to publish this report days after I had already taken the appropriate self-correcting actions on my own initiative. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am torn between just letting this go versus answering in full; so perhaps I should just touch lightly on a couple things, then let you have the last word. Advances in technology have created changes that have caused recent changes in copyright law and a great interest in them in the general public (DMCA, RIAA, GFDL, GNU, etc.). Your judgement about how much you know and how much others know may not be as good as you think. I read what the purported reply by Godwin was as written on the talk page (of Cary Bass wasn't it?) and it did not say what you just said. It did not say to delete. It did not say fair use did not apply. You made a mistake to ask it be deleted. Bass made a mistake to delete and another mistake to refer to DMCA. Fair use means that your release is not needed. People "in the loop" do keep saying there was no reason to publish it but those of us not "in the loop" were utterly shocked at what we saw was going on behind closed doors. Utterly shocked. Some believed that the "no canvassing" rule was being honored and were shocked that there were private lists. Others like me that assumed all manner of private talk was going on were shocked at the completely backward logic of indef blocking someone purely because they were too good! What in the world was going on we wondered that would let thinking like this go unchallenged in what we had assumed were among intelligent people. Something somewhere was broken in the machinery of governance and those with their hands on the levers of that machinery were oversighting and saying don't look behind the curtain and that just made people not in the loop ever more upset and sure that what was broken was being covered up. You can not apologize for what you did not do. And what people are the most upset about is not anything you did, but instead they are upset that wikipedia is broken and they demand that wikipedia be made better. It is not about you; it is about wikipedia's informal dysfunctional self-governing mechanisms that you shed light on. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I had not invoked DMCA. Cary Bass was mistaken to note it, but I don't think such a minor distinction should have caused a fuss. Either way it was a copyright issue that involved no legal threat. He informed me he acted with Mike Godwin's approval. That's what matters and I have every reason to believe he did that correctly. That particular e-mail was out of character with both my usual self and with the usual discourse at the cyberstalking list, which was mostly exactly what the name implies. It should be pretty easy to verify some of the background: Google the usernames of the people who have declared participation in the cyberstalking list and correlate various kinds of negative claims about us by active members of a certain web forum. That isn't the only reason the e-mail list existed, but it was one reason. Arbcom's anger with me demonstrates how uncoordinated my action actually was. I thought I had been thinking clearly, thought I had performed adequate diligence, and thought I had spotted the same kind of long term sock that Burntsauce and Dannycali had been. Those two accounts plus Alkivar and Eyrian had made little or no defense at arbitration. My research on previous cases had been far different from that report. Obviously I got this one wrong in a big way. As soon as I realized that I did all I could to atone for it. Nobody bats 1000. In retrospect I saw that I had exposed myself to considerably more stress than usual and that had affected my concentration and judgement. Unfortunately some people were very keen to spin the events with unwarranted conjecture and the community was weak at keeping check on even the admitted violations of WP:SOCK and WP:BAN, all of which hindered the rational lessons learned conversation I wished we could have. It's probably too soon for that even now. If there's one thing I could ask of you, please use my example for good and remind people on both sides of future site debates to assume good faith in the absence of rigorous evidence to the contrary. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Also, your long hours day after day month after month in helping Wikipedia are truly appreciated by those of us who are trying to improve Wikipedia. And your current calm and caring demeanor and calls on all sides to exhibit good faith truly pay for your "sins" in this matter. I wish for you the best. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a few off-wiki links about you at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 45#Helpful Links that I think are fair.--Laughitup2 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Durova, thank you so very much for your con-nomination. I look forward to (carefully) using these new tools you found me! --A. B. ^(talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Durova^Charge! 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Patience Barnstar
		If for nothing else, that you haven't snapped and bitten off anyone's head given how absurd this has all been. I probably would have! Lawrence Cohen 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

It galls me that people can think they can anonymously comment or discredit people and think they can get away with it- I guess they are relying on the fact that those who are worried about being too combative will say nothing and let it go. I hate it when people who work very hard could be ruined by such things. No need to thank me- I just felt it was necessary to speak up. Monsieurdl (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[5] Durova^Charge! 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Piling on

The Saints' Star One of the things that is often credited to saints is having the "patience of a saint" and displaying a remarkably humble disposition. Anyone who would be willing to withdraw their adminship voluntarily in the first place and also civilly respond to the criticism you have received since then has I think demonstrated both of those characteristics. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And, trust me on this, several of the so-called "real" saints weren't what one would call perfect people throughout their entire lives, and made a mistake or two or more. That isn't held against them by the churches, and I don't think it would be fair for us to apply that standard either. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, John. Would you please replace this with a different award? I am a war veteran. My grandfather had a purple heart, a real one, and it was a miracle that he survived. The thought is very much appreciated, but the metaphor is too strong. It may give offense. I'm much obliged. Durova^Charge! 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. The discussion indicated that such objections might be anticipated. Anyway, maybe the change above is more appropriate anyway.John Carter (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No apologies needed, and thank you for being so thoughtful. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 16:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mata Ortiz

Please check your commons talk page... --tomascastelazo (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, done. :) Durova^Charge! 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown request

Hello, I've apparently qualified for this award.

• DYK: List of Myself ; Yourself episodes
• GA: Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series
• FC: List of Fate/stay night episodes (FL)

Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate request

My apologies Durova. I did not see a similar request for the same user. I hope you don't mind, but I moved my comments into this subsection of the original request. Anyway, the user has now met the requirements for a "Imperial Triple Crown Jewels". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Original posting
Hello, I stumbled upon your Triple Crown award page and would like to say that this is a very cool and worthwhile idea to help encourage editors to create high quality editors. Anyway, to the point, I would like to put in a request for a fellow editor.

• User:Sephiroth BCR
  • DYK: List of Myself ; Yourself episodes, List of Tsukihime, Lunar Legend episodes, List of Gunslinger Girl episodes
  • GA: Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series, Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series)
  • FC: Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (FA), List of Fate/stay night episodes (FL), Naruto manga chapters (FT)

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Edit: My apologies, another DYK popped up today. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Hello. Updated my application, as I've acquired another DYK. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, this is the first time a featured topic has been submitted. Your Imperial Majesty, the jewels will be delivered shortly. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K.

O.K. Durova, I have 4 FA's, 1 FL, 9 GA's and 28 DYK's. Do I make the grade (smile). Come on over my user page and check it out. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK - Granny square

On 12 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Granny square, 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.

--Cirt (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll try to bring you others soon. And per the comments at DYK talk I promise the images won't be of human heads or buildings. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work, it's a pleasant surprise to see you doing some good content contributions yourself. And contrary to other comments, heads and buildings are fine as well, hehe. Cirt (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Actually I've created several new articles for that WikiProject. I just hadn't tried to enter any of them for DYK until this month. I've done 13 DYKs overall (mostly on other subjects). That project has a lot of gaps and a lot of substubs so I may be a regular contributor for a while. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Time out?

Durova, I don't mean to be rude, but in light of your continued comments all over policy pages, Wikipedia: project space, ArbCom pages, AfD's, RfAdm, RfArbs, WP:AN, WP:ANI, Jimbo's talk, arbitrator's talk page, award-distribution, etc., etc., etc., that is your continued participation in attempts to be running the Wikipedia instead of writing it, please reflect more on the advises several people have given you, myself included. Please consider a long-term withdrawal fully into the article space, something you do very well when you do it. This withdrawal would be perfect if it also covered ceasing the invisible, but I assume still ample, email communication, google-chat with "connected" wikipedians, etc. I tried my best to help you by trying to defuse some of your questions, including, what I viewed as a big misunderstanding of the old incident. I am sorry that I am putting this in such a blunt form but you aren't a timid girl either, and besides, several similar messages from others seemed to have been insufficient.

If you intend to follow my advise, I will try to sweeten it a little :). You pick an article or a topic, related to Russia (which I know interests you) and I will put aside time to help if you want. Admittedly, I am not Ghirla, but I also have written a thing or two around here.

Thanks again for your consideration and I did not mean to have this soundi patronizing, demeaning or otherwise uncivilly. When I am pissed off I either write articles or take a wikibreak. Worked wonders for me. Cheers, --Irpen 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, the contribution history presents a somewhat skewed view of my work. I'll bear that in mind because--you're right--that is the first thing people check. In article space I've created two DYKs this month with a third nomination underway. WikiProject Textile Arts has only two active members right now: those DYKs are an attempt to generate more interest. To supplement the DYK that ran earlier today I created an entire Commons category[6] from seven of the hundred images I've uploaded in the last six weeks. Many of those photos were of handcrafted items I've designed and made (there are copyright reasons for that), and believe me, some of those shots represent a lot of labor. I've been working to fill the visual gaps in some underrepresented areas. I've nominated two FPs on Commons recently and the second might actually succeed. I've also created articles for the Simple English Wikipedia and been doing Commons ambassador work. The triple crown awards are actually backlogged by a few days right now; people keep submitting requests. I've participated in only two AFDs and have no immediate plans to try more. Durova^Charge! 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to discount your article-space contribution. I did not even say there should be more of that (why would I?) I said that in view of what we all know there should be less of the rest and, preferably, none of the rest, including off-line, for a good and long period of time. I suggested more article work only because I know it helps to take a break from running wikipedia. Fishing or hiking helps just as much and is even better for health. But Wikipedia is an addiction, ask me how I know, and a complete withdrawal from running it to writing it manages to do the trick without overcoming the addiction itself, while going to the flight school, skiing, diving or windsurfing (I don't know what is your favorite dope), requires actually to take a break which is not always possible (or easy). --Irpen 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I trust you intend that in good faith. You've always impressed me as sincere. Maybe it'd be good to do what I do: break for crochet, or jewelry making, or photography, or paper mache, or a good strong cup of coffee (and actual real life work). When you're done please have another look at what you wrote there. That's not your best moment. With respect, Durova^Charge! 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. By "dope" I meant one of those activities ("flight school, skiing, diving or windsurfing") not knowing which one is your cup of tea. It was not meant to hint towards any of the illicit drugs, alcohol or that kind of thing. If this read differently, it was not meant like anything of that sort. --Irpen 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm addicted to caffeine, Irpen. Nothing else. I think I get what you're trying to say. Bear in mind that some of this site's most dedicated volunteers eventually got harassed into leaving the project because they took on the difficult disputes. I'm changing my focus, and maybe you have a point and I ought to change more. There would be a different problem if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them. Durova^Charge! 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: the dope misspeak maybe explained by my en-3. I meant exclusively the hobby when it is strong enough to be considered an addiction. I have a couple of healthy activities to which I am addicted that are WP unrelated and I want to learn to fly small planes one day on top of that. My phrase was meant to say no more. I wanted to refer to whatever healthy hobby you have. Nothing else.

That said, I am disappointed that you still don't see the main problem, judging by your response. Anyway, if you want to pick an article and need help with Russian sources, let me know. I think I rest my case wrt what I was trying to say. Happy edits. --Irpen 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, maybe it's a matter of perspective. I think I can understand your own viewpoint and how that's heartfelt and solid advice. Thank you. Maybe my perspective is distorted by position; I'm aware of that possibility. I'm also aware of a lot of information you don't have and some of it makes me willing to risk further hits to my own reputation on principle.

At any rate, that's a great idea you have about Russian sources. I've never added line citations to the Nadezhda Durova biography. Other than a couple of translations of her memoirs there's not much available about her in English. I know she also wrote four novels. If I had a collaborator who spoke Russian I think we could raise that to GA. Would you (or maybe Alex or Ghirla) like to try? Durova^Charge! 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"There would be a different problem if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them." If you are saying you can't take a week off, then your hubris is showing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider what's happened, WAS. The last time I followed someone's advice and took a few days' wikibreak, RFC opened and some Wikipedians accused me of disrespecting process by not responding immediately. There's no way to please everyone. Sometimes I'm wrong - we all make mistakes - and I'm glad to accept correction. But I have to follow my own conscience. I apologize for any lack of clarity if that looks like hubris to you. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see your point. I apologize for causing you to think you needed to apologize. :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfAR

Yes, you are correct, I worded that badly in that I was thinking more of the proposed block against Giano. I will refactor that. BLACKKITE 07:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 07:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

If "refactor" means "strike it out", I'll ask: why? I didn't gloat, kick, or use insulting names, and treated him far better than he treated me.Kww (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you never need to walk a mile in my moccasins, or his. He didn't treat me well either. Several people have asked you to reconsider that. I hoped the request would carry weight, coming from me, under the circumstances. Please think about it. Durova^Charge! 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the deleted looks worse than anything I actually said.Kww (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

COI

I should have done this a while ago. I was not thinking that there would be a possible COI issue with closing your AFD. I should have thought better and I apologize. Best, Mercury 02:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And anyone who has doubts about your integrity in this is welcome to query me. I did not know you intended to close it and if you had asked me I would have advised you not to. Durova^Charge! 02:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My talkpage

Replied there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Durova^Charge! 23:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury

Durova, while I do mention you several times, I'd like to apologize if I make it sound as if I have a particular problem with you. I do think the block of !! was a bad call, but you relinquished the mop and all of these calls for more information from you are in extremely bad form and meant to continue drama, IMO. I mainly mentioned you, because of the reasons Mercury mentioned above. The COI should have been obvious to anyone in both cases where he used his tools in regards to you. I believe you (possibly at DRV) said that if he had approached you, you would have advised him not to close it. To me this shows a real lack of judgment on Mercury's part, and it's part of a pattern I've witnessed from him since before he became an admin. I opposed his RFA, because of his informal mediation of sensitive articles about children who had been abducted. He showed poor judgment there, and often attempted to prop up a now banned contributor who wanted to reveal as much personal information about these kids as possible. It continued with some things I witnessed at the now defunct CSN noticeboard in closing threads and other clerk related actions, as well as his block of Orangemarlin. These lapses of judgment are a pattern I've seen with him, and I mentioned your name only to show that the pattern continued. I'm sorry if you felt that I was calling you out in anyway, as I think that with your resignation as an administrator, you've given more than your pound of flesh, and you should be allowed to move on. Again, I apologize. AniMate 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

adminship

Now that you made some sound judgments and brilliant insights in the Mercury affair. I was wondering if it is a good time to nominate you for adminship. Or is it a bit too early?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Certified. We (Durvoa and I) decided to rather concentrate on the content. I already put aside some time on the coming weekend to dig Russian sources on Nadezhda Durova. We will make a great writing tandem. --Irpen 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much Irpen. CG, I'm very flattered by the offer. I'll walk some more miles in these moccasins. One of the happiest times when I was a new editor was collaborating with Ghirlandajo and Alex Bakharev on the real Nadezhda Durova bio. She was an amazing woman. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I nominated Durova before you did, Certified.Gangsta. And don't put me in cement boots while saying "it's nothing personal, just business". Let's mark the calenders for January 15. That's two months of thinking, enough for a RFA.Chergles (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the support. Let's not mark calendars yet. The community is very divided now. At the moment I'm on Commons doing some photoshop cleanup on a historic image that's nominated for featured picture. It's kind of a relief to have time for this kind of thing without people soliciting the use of the tools. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 01:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

I often help out with DYK. I happened to see your name and hook while looking to help out DYK. The hook is scheduled to appear in a few hours. I last remember seeing your name involved in some controversy. It's wonderful to see that you are still a major contributing editor to WP after this. (Kids, don't click on this link! Prone to create nightmares!)

With WP so big, many people never meet each other except in fights in at ANI, AN, etc!Archtransit (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, dye lot, was selected for DYK!

On December 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article dye lot, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NP, it's worth it if it brings more volunteers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Viridae^Talk 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

Miranda

• DYK: Norma Boyd
• GA: Dreamgirls
• FC: List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters

Miranda 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesty, excellent work! The crown will be delivered shortly. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown Request

User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow

• DYK:Cape Fear Shiner
• GA: Cape Fear Shiner
• FA: California Condor

Is there anything else that I need to do? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesty, excellent work! As a Californian I found the condor article particularly interesting. Your crown will be delivered soon. Durova^Charge! 04:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that you enjoyed the condor. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

DYKs

Almost surely not enough DYKs, I fear. Ah, weel! I shall work on that later =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If the concept isn't too girly-girl for you, there are tons of stubs and gaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts. Head over to ropemaking or leather if the rest is too estrogen-laden. ;) Durova^Charge! 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

new cat idea: History of the textile industry

Hallo, I see you removed the "textiles" cat from Salts Mill. I'd assigned it for want of anything more precise, to reflect its connection with the textile industry. Looking round again today, I would like to create a new category Category:History of the textile industry as a subcategory of Category:Industrial history and also of Category:Textiles. I'd assign it to various historic mill buildings (not all of which are currently Category:Industry museums or Category:Textile museums), and the people and inventions referred to in Timeline of clothing and textiles technology (from 18th century) and Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution. There is already a Category:History of the petroleum industry as a precedent. I've looked at WP:CAT and can't see a problem with this, but thought I'd run it past you as you've been working on the textiles category. What do you think of the idea? PamD (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty good idea. Go for it! Thanks for contacting me. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 08:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, nice work. Thanks for chipping in! Durova^Charge! 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

I was moving hooks to the next update. Made a mistake and moved yours. Fixed it by putting it back (Dec 17). I noticed that you have a photo. Modify it by adding "pictured". Got to run now are I'd do it. If I do it in haste, I may make more errors like I just did. Archtransit (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez article revision

We've submitted a revision, 3 people voted yes, one voted no. shouldn't that make the revision to the Adult Career Section good?
Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've replied at article talk. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This stupid Nazi-Thread on Jimbos talkpage

Hi Durova,

look at this diff. He posts a babel with “This User likes Swastikas”. My problem is in first line: In Germany it is forbidden by Law to use the symbols of e. g. the NSDAP, the lawgiver doesn't ask who used this symbols decades before or if it is rotated, stretched or turned. The lawgiver says: A swatika is a swatika is a swastika and I banned them from public. Wikipedia isn't allowed to show it, because the Servers are located in Amsterdam oder St. Petersburg. We are allowed to do so, because of Wikipedias aim to change the world and spreading knowledge and so on. Quoting § 86 Strafgesetzbuch “der staatsbürgerlichen Aufklärung, der Abwehr verfassungswidriger Bestrebungen, der Kunst oder der Wissenschaft, der Forschung oder der Lehre, der Berichterstattung über Vorgänge des Zeitgeschehens oder der Geschichte oder ähnlichen Zwecken dient” are the only reasons to show a swastika. Posting a picture from the Nazi Party Rallye with lots of Swastikas in an article about the Nazi Party Rallye is ok, but messing around in a discussion with this Babel is no-go and just trolling, because this is not educational, no news coverage, no arts, no science and so on. A prosecutor won't ask, where wikipedias server are standing, he will ask who wrote it and where lives he. Mms is a “man on a mission” and didn't want to believe and got blocked for one year a few minutes ago, not because of the swastikas, because wasn't able to compromise. I won't make a report at my police post and if he is lucky, no one else will do. Perhaps my english is to rusted to go proper into the circumstances of this case, but I hope you can unterstand my Problem now. Best regards and a merry Christmas Achates (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I read that in the context. The editor was making the argument that the German language Wikipedia is an international project, hosted on U.S. servers, and not necessarily bound by German law. I'm familiar with German legal prohibitions against the use of swastikas. Not being a lawyer, I will not venture an opinion about whether that editor's interpretation was correct. I do venture a few other opinions about it: it was sarcasm and it was rude. If that had happened on the English language Wikipedia he could have been blocked for violation of our policy Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. See Godwin's law. Durova^Charge! 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

He is blocked for a year on dewiki, I think he will hang around at Jimbo's Diner for the next days and weeks, before he comes to our Arbcom. Have a nice time with him, before we get him back. Happy Holidays. Achates (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And of course German is spoken in Austyria and Switzerland as well, where the laws may be different, so we must not confuse the German wikipedia with Germany, they are no more synonymous than is this wikipedia with England. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect for the German editor's perspective, I have some appreciation for how divisive that issue is in the German-speaking world: my grandparents not only cut off all contact with their European relatives, they never spoke the names again. Not even fifty years later when I went to Germany and wanted to do genealogical research. I was the last member of the family to learn the language.

If he thinks creating swastika userboxes is the way to illustrate an argument about free speech over here, he's going to be disappointed. I don't endorse his choices; I just object to the back-and-forth accusations of Nazi sympathies. To my own way of viewing things, giving someone an undeserved reputation for bigotry is considerably worse than blocking them for a year. And it's particularly tough to burn someone's bridges ahead of them that way at a project where most people can't read the original context. Durova^Charge! 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen, brother

With regard to your comment on the Cuerden case.

In the interest of keeping that page on topic, I'll reply here.

I don't believe that I supported any meaningful sanctions against you in the recent arbcom case in which you were involved. I believe that "admin recall" is a misguided policy, and recent events have borne that out in at least two cases. I think that it is unfortunate that you resigned your bit. The case never would have even been accepted had you not implied, by directing queries about your block to the arbcom, that we were somehow involved in the decision to make the block. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The implication had been unintentional and I clarified it as soon as I saw it construed, then repeated the clarification until it became pointless to continue. Have a look at the edit history of that IP address on the Adam Cuerden proposed decision talk page: one of the things I've learned how harmful it is to countenance disruptive behavior. Too often, Wikipedians tolerate any post that supports their own views. It carries inherent clout to ask the people on one's own side to conduct themselves with dignity and moderation. If more of us took the initiative there then the community would be less polarized. Durova^Charge! 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)