User talk:Durova/Archive 63

Re RfC

I have just caught up with your extended comments at SlrubensteinII. That was a conduct RfC but not about my past history on the site; so I regard those as misplaced.

In my current ArbCom candidature, on the other hand, the hustings provide a forum where they would be visibly on-topic. I have already dealt there with two aspects of the Hoffman case. The admin at the centre of that case and I have been in touch, and dealing with our joint history in that way. This has moved the situation on.[1][2]

From my point of view, the RfC served its purpose: it resolved a dispute and cleared the air. What is more, it is misleading to say there was no significant content to it, though the talk page is much more interesting reading than the RfC itself. Between Slrubenstein and me there remains a big distance on blocking policy, and policy generally. In legal terms it is like the difference between common law and statute law, with me being on the side of the written policies I was referencing. Now, that is not something to dismiss lightly, and in fact I want to digest it for a little while before deciding where it leads. Unwritten customs and norms do matter here.

Further, there is more to the User:Mervyn Emrys situation than many of the RfC participants would allow. I am going into this saddening aspect of the business offline.

So, while contesting your view of me expressed at the RfC, I invite you to treat me as a serious, thoughtful person. I do feel caricatured. Like everyone else, you may raise points about me from the period 2006-2008 at the hustings. It is fairer on me, I say, if you make your points there, since it is a forum where I am properly held to account.

Charles Matthews (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, Charles. Opinions vary on whether statements about the filing party are appropriate at conduct RFCs. A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you regarding venue. As a practical decision on this occasion I wanted to raise the concerns in a manner that minimized drama. If you review my posts to the Matthew Hoffman case you'll find ample good faith extended toward you. It's good to see you and Slrubenstein settling your differences.

Your offer to bring the matter to your ArbCom candidacy questions makes a lot of sense. A reason why I hadn't seriously considered doing so at this juncture is that I'm one of the people conducting candidate interviews for WikiVoices. The WikiVoices regulars who set up the interview structure agreed to recuse from that side of things. Of course if you agreed to a candidate interview (and we'd love to have you) another interviewer could be provided.

OK, very reasonable. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to be considered, though, is whether to raise the concern about Oversight in another venue. Not sure where that would go; probably over at Meta. When I interact with Mathsci in the future I want to know how serious his lapse of judgment was. He has disclosed to me what took place last summer and his regrets about it. But what happened in October remains an open question. Did he wander into a gray area where reasonable people interpret policy differently, or did he have a lapse in judgment so serious that Oversight was necessary? Whether or not you want to dwell on that, it makes a big difference in how much I trust him from now on. I'm probably not alone in that worry. You introduced that doubt to the discussion and then you kept it an unanswered question. Mathsci insists Oversight didn't play a role. I want to believe him. Yet if he's given a false assurance that redoubles my concern. It just isn't fair to a longtime contributor or to the community to hang that doubt in the air. If no clause in the Oversight policy covers this situation then maybe one ought to be written because this certainly appears outside the spirit of that function. You could eliminate the concerns that might take that further by replying: was it used or not?

Jehochman and SlimVirgin have had full accounts, in confidence. I could just mail the version SlimVirgin had, which was lightly tweaked. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I embarked upon the conversation with Mervyn Emrys above I wanted to present a dilemma: in order to uncover two of this website's most dedicated vandals (JB196 and the Joan of Arc vandal) I did something not too different from what Mathsci did and I was thanked for it on both occasions. That's not to say Mathsci was right--circumstances certainly weren't the same. Yet having climbed pretty far out on a nearby limb gives a good perspective on how dimly lit the policy really is in that part of the woods. I have asked both the Committee and the community to clarify, thus far with no success. Hardly anyone takes interest in such matters until actual instances occur, and then too often it gets discussed in terms of personalities rather than principles. As you can see, the conversation with Mervyn never reached achieved the basic agreement over good faith where such dialog could begin. To be candid, I look at this and am appalled. I feel remorseful for not intervening and the only excuse is virtual certainty that any attempt would be fruitless. Although you and I disagree on a few key occasions and in particular ways, you do a great deal for this project and are a very valued member of the community. Can we both agree that if Mervyn had gone to that poster's userpage, the reception would likely have been far less friendly?

Since I am dealing with Mervyn Emrys offline, I should prefer to address this with you on a confidential basis offline, also. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing comes to mind. When you refer to the RFC you assert it is misleading to say there was no significant content to it. Could you point to any example where I expressed such a notion? My opinion did explicitly state Charles is not the only involved party whose conduct merits scrutiny. There wasn't a need to reiterate points that had already been entered elsewhere in formal opinions. In the Midnight Syndicate arbitration I posted a similar fill-in late in the proceeding and explicitly stated it as such. Was the omission of a corresponding avowal what prompted your surmise? And that segues to my request that you review your correspondence with Shoemaker's Holiday during the lead-up to the Matthew Hoffman case: are you quite sure it elucidated all that your RFAR represented?

The argument that the RfC had "content" is my counter to the idea that I was simply being vindictive in pursuing the RfC. Dispute resolution was here used properly: not all the "comment" was of gemstone quality, but there are pearls in there. So I was defending the process, as appropriately applied in this case, and leaving the matter resolved as to editors and clarified as to general matters at issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the rest, when I raised concerns at that arbitration you didn't reply, last month at your user talk you called me off topic. At RFC talk you sidestepped again. Fewer than 24 hours elapsed after my post before the RFC closed. During that time I didn't tell anyone at all that I had posted. Yet ten experienced and respected people signed on that quickly, some calling it the very heart of the matter. I didn't mention the clarification motion you filed on the Tobias Conradi case, but to be candid I consider it very bad form that you failed to acknowledge your authorship of the motion in either the header or with an initiating section signature, yet voted upon it as arbitrator in the same post.

Not so much bad form as unfamiliarity with the current generation of templates there. Since I voted as "proposing", explicitly, I hope you will accept the explanation. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal stated that your purpose was to get ahead of events: isn't that the purview of community-based motions and consensus? I kept this out of the opinion because it wasn't a direct parallel between last winter's case and this fall's RFC, but it fits into the pattern of stratification-inducing actions. Whether the pattern is deliberate or not, it gives me pause. You and I appear to disagree on one issue fundamentally: I view such a pattern, if adequately documented, with broad relevance. It speaks to the core of our site culture; its ripples have far-reaching impact upon the choices of our fellow Wikipedians. Read Raymond arritt's words from last December if you doubt that assertion. First I regarded the matter as an aberration, then sought to interact unobtrusively. There have been suggestions to open an RFC on you; I don't want to do that. The private correspondence could drive it to RFAR--you know how things go. Is there a better way? Durova^Charge! 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome a broad-brush election question, in due form. The hustings are a good place to address both the bigger issues, and the record of candidates. They should serve to record debates, and allow us to draw lines under some past events. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I haven't forgotten you. An earlier draft reply got eaten by my cat (well not really). This is a summary. You already have an explanation of why I am not posting election questions. Regarding email, it does not inspire confidence to see you invite me to correspond offsite in the same post as you demonstrate the very cause of my reluctance.

Earlier this thread you stated it is misleading to say there was no significant content to it [the RFC]. After I reminded you that I had asserted no such thing, you returned a longer explanation of that opinion's wrongness. Now if the leadup had taken place offsite, another Wikipedian reading this thread could suppose I had been befuddled or out of my depth.

Fortunately, since the previous discussion was entirely on-wiki, I have the power to demonstrate that you were going on about a complete red herring. That's a power I prefer to retain. And the reason I value it--which I've alluded to twice already--is my belief that your off-target communications in a series of a series of emails prompted you to seek and obtain the desysopping of a fellow Wikipedian, and in doing so you bypassed the dispute resolution that had been set up to resolve exactly that sort of good faith miscommunication. Allow me remind you, he has made over five dozen featured content contributions, is a sysop in good standing on a sister WMF site, and has never been the subject of dispute resolution except in relation to the case you initiated. Contributors of his talent and dedication are few and far between. There is no one else at WMF who restores historic etchings half as well as he does. I should know; I'm second best. If there's any silver lining to that arbitration it's that he and I met and began collaborating on media content.

Now this is not a personal grievance. You're a fantastic contributor and I wish you the best. Yet none of us are perfect. I'm not; I recognize my shortcomings and do my utmost to rectify them. Would that you did the same. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've an email

One fired your way, regarding Seddon's RfA.
Looking forward to hearing back from you, AGK 18:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Another for you just sent. AGK 17:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Issue moot now. Apologies for the intrusion, AGK 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need your advice

My edits in articles related to activities of the OUN-B and it secsessor Congress of Free Ukrainians my data removed by group of editors under different spices. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. :Users prefer to ad hominem instead ad rem comments on my edits[10] - reverting my edits instead I try to follow the reccomendations [11]. Things are removed - a documented link between Nazi and OUN-B actions and "tail" of OUN-B secsessor (like genocide became the tool of Ukrainian nationalist dreams, laying the foundations for a prospective – and chimerical – Ukrainian state on the basis of conquest, subjugation and, ultimately, the annihilation of Ukraine’s principal enemies in eastern Ukraine – Jews and Poles and similar other facts removed.) Could you please advice me a solution in this matter - does anyone can assist me at least in fixing some of my typo instead of blanking and replace correct Wiki link - new order in Europe and Moscovite with an irrelevant link "to new order in Europe" and "Moscovite" - So at least this side of my edits will not be a Casus belli. Thank you in advanceJo0doe (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be engaged in an edit war with several editors. It would be a good idea to gain consensus for your edits before reinserting the same material again. If you try mediation or a content request for comments. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 15:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to got any respond from them about thier consern about my referensed data, and why they return texts which actually does not exit at sources given as ref- but they refuse to do so (even in uncivil manner - see only one from manyexample below)- they comes simply to refert my edits. RFC was placed at least two times but noone responde - since topics are too complex. Please advice a solutions. I've seen a clear bad faith editing (no contribution - only reverts and blanking) and spoiling the WP reliability by inserting hoaxes. Thank you in advanceJo0doe (talk)

Editors simply don't want to discuss any WP:V, NPOV, RS referenced facts [12] [13] [14] [15]. Only and simply reverts - becouse WP is assumed as soap box for distributing OUN-B version of history. Thank you in adviceJo0doe (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a good candidate for mediation then. Entirely outside my understanding, so not much else I can do besides suggest dispute resolution. Hope it helps. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [16] - no intent to discuss. I don't think if DR helps - I've spent almost a year in attempt to made WP a reliable source - a MB of text hundreds of links, citation etc.[17] [18] [19] [20] - it have a tiny results - my achivement only [21] and [22] rest - again blanking, blanking,blanking, misrepresent my text and at last uncivility. May be exist an alter way? What about WP:VAN?Jo0doe (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest filing a medcab request, myself. Tends to contain the fires, at any rate. I might mediate. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try to do so - but how to better identify an issues with articles - as for instance here [[23]] and here [24] ? - Users refused to accept my referenced edits becouse ....? (may be they don't like to have this info in article?) Like this comment [25] .Jo0doe (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really is beyond my abilities. Recommend mediation. Durova^Charge! 16:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI: the editor above has been disrupting articles for years, provoking at times some uncivil comments from others (I admit to having been provoked). He has been warned of such behavior here: [26] and here: [27] Despite such warnings he continues to smear others, such as here when he implied that members of the Ukrainian community abroad are Nazi collaborators or murderers: [28] andwhen he even accused other editors of supporting Nazi collaborators: [29]. Glancing at his edit history [30], it's mostly either low-level edit warring (doesn't violate 3R, but has been reverting other people's works every few days for months if not years) or unpleasant arguments on the talk pages that take up others editors' valuable time. If you think that I'm just another edit warrior, feel free to look at my own record of contributions, partiuclrly barnstars received for working cooperatively with those who have different viewpoints [31], etc. and compare it to that of the editor above.Faustian (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) What I don't understand is why this thread is even here, much less why it has grown. I am not a mediator and cannot block if disruption exists. Nor do I have the requisite understanding to determine whether this is a content dispute or misuse of sources. Unfortunately all this can achieve is a few rather obvious referrals elsewhere. Durova^Charge! 15:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for continuing it! Faustian (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sexual content

Bold move and highly appropriate to call "consensus" so early. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Hi Durova. I'm confused by this comment. Was that directed towards me? - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any confusion, no. It was directed at the editor whose user page it was. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thanks for clarifying. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bus stop

Hi Durova, per your request, I have unblocked Bus stop and release him into your capable care. I have left the terms of his probation at User talk:Bus stop#Unblocked. If he becomes a problem, please let me know and I will re-block him. For your, his, and my sakes, I hope he becomes a productive editor. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative projects!

Dear Durova, while I am still referencing the rock song stubs, I have also started working with User:DGG on Talk:War and Peace#characters. Anyway, given that your username deals with a Russian who fought in the Napoleonic Wars and the novel concerns Russians in the Napoleonic Wars, I thought you might be interested in helping. If not, no big deal and again, I am also still working on those rock stubs too. In any event, I hope all is well with you. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the offer, and am so glad to see you doing good work in both areas. It's been nearly 20 years since I read War and Peace. Doubt I remember many of the character names now besides Boris and Natasha and Bullwinkle. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also read the cliff notes and seen both the American and Russian cinematic adaptations (I think the two most famous). I guess I am more pro than anti-Napoleon, so it's from the opposite perspective of mine. And while I say more pro- than anti-, that does not mean I do not have some serious issues with Napoleon as for example I cannot stand adultery. Anyway, you know they do have a Bulwinkle pinball game on Xbox Live Arcade now... Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EfD

Notice of request for deletion of editor Durova :)

Durova, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Durova and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). RockManQ ^(talk) 03:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 04:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really should archive your page. RockManQ ^(talk) 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I claim semi-wikibreak as an excuse. :) Durova^Charge! 00:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you missed a troll-sock, the all-important Conservapedia troll (sorry Conservapedia) :) RockManQ ^(talk) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I thought you should be aware of this thread related to Bus stop (under "Question").[32] Ty 04:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for interviewing me earlier today :-) - I know I really appreciate it when people I've chatted with send me a note indicating that they enjoyed the experience, and I most certainly did, so here is said note! - I've dropped the file into Seddon's talk page already, and hope it came out ok :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incident report at WP:AN/I concerning Scientology articles

I won't contest closing and moving it to arbitration enforcement, but would like to ask for an explanation. My understanding is that ArbCom and AE are for dealing with content disputes. The process is intentionally slow and cumbersome, something that I generally agree with. But now that I have had a chance to go through the ArbCom case on Shutterbug, I don't believe it's the proper mechanism for dealing with this issue. During that arbitration, checkuser verified multiple accounts using Church-owned IP addresses. Now, the arbitration came to the conclusion that Shutterbug's proxy server claim was plausible, so it remained in the realm of content disputes.

But closer examination of the checkuser results and the contributions of the involved IP addresses renders that explanation extremely unlikely to the point where it ceases to be an issue of content and starts being an issue of WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and WP:ROLE. I didn't write the report to contest content additions or arguments over them. I wrote it because I feel it amply demonstrates that editors are editing specifically on behalf of the Church of Scientology. This is something that should lead to a permanent topic ban.

I will go ahead and take this to AE if you wish. But I think with fresh eyes on the issue, it will turn into a case of WP:SNOW. --Good Damon 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AE is not the same as opening a full arbitration case. And I don't recall anywhere in the case that ArbCom concluded the proxy server claim was plausible; could you show me where it says such a thing? What I do recall is this. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Responsibility_of_organizations Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans. Durova^Charge! 18:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed the ArbCom came to that conclusion because the editors in question were permitted to return to the articles despite technically being confirmed as socks. Otherwise, I can't imagine why they weren't indefinitely topic-banned, along with the IP addresses in question. But in any event, it's time for me to move the discussion to AE. --Good Damon 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the concern was that Scientology critics frequently tried to skew the articles, and few editors other than Scientologists corrected the errors. The hope was to contain the problem in a bilateral manner, allowing discretionary intervention at AE if either side got out of hand. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... That smacks of trying to make a right out of two wrongs. Considering that all at once these accounts are active again, I think that's a decision that definitely needs to be undone. I have no irons in the fire about Scientology itself one way or the other, but I have strong feelings about having no choice on whether to work with sockpuppets other than not working on the article at all. --Good Damon 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither do I have any irons in the fire one way or the other on the topic itself. Got dragged into the thing after a conflict of interest noticeboard thread, and brought it to arbitration because a change in the disruptive editing guideline had started allowing partisan editors to decide sanctions discussions. So when COFS was up for a temporary sanction, partisans on both sides and filled the discussion with so much verbiage that hardly anyone else would take a look at it. In retrospect I should have simply blocked for one month and walked away; instead I tried to negotiate a lesser remedy and wound up opening an arbitration case that dragged out three months. The whole time I was trying to explain to the Scientologist editors that the way they were trying to solve one PR problem created an appearance of impropriety that risked a far bigger problem. It would really have been in their own best interests to have adjusted to that feedback: before the case closed the WikiScanner came out and the got exactly the headlines I had warned about. Anyway, that was eons ago in wikitime. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Brandeisl.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 30, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-30. howcheng {chat} 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmm, yes. There's a confession to make, though. I cannot--absolutely cannot--promise to refrain from eating a pumpkin. Can you forgive me? Durova^Charge! 02:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can! :) Best, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA question

Hello, Durova. You have new messages at Pohta ce-am pohtit's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The podcast is live

Durova, thanks again for participating in the recent podcast about controversial articles. We're happy to announce that it's live, and you're invited to listen to the finished product in all of its OGG format glory. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 02:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the heads up. It was a pleasure. Durova^Charge! 17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use Of Old Photos - 1940s

Hello Durova! Thank you for your consideration. I am still very new, trying to remember to do everything right, and learning html. I have photos to post on the article "Dixie Roberts". I worked on that article last Feb. At that time, Willow helped me alot, she is so nice. She said you could help me with the photos. I have seen from your page that you are so busy, so i kept putting off doing this, and I was busy on a couple of books, myself. But now Ms. Roberts is in a medical facility, so I think it is prudent to work out the details about using these photos, soon. These photos are from circa 1940's, and the photographers are long gone to their photographic reward in the sky! Dixie has the original photos. I gather that this means she owns the copyright, since the images are of her. Is there a form that she could sign or something like that, where she could give permission to post photos? I guess that would mean a form for releasing the photos into the public domain? Or would I have to make up a form for that? Once she signs a form like that, I assume I must get a copy to the wiki somehow, and then I can post a photo, or a couple of photos, right? (Are we limited to one photo? Or can a couple be posted?) Most of her photos are just of her. But there is one photo of her and Gene Kelly, which would be fun to post. But is that problematic, since he is in the photo? It is an original photo, and no one else is in it but the two of them, and they are looking at the camera, so they knew their photo was being taken. Thanks for any help you can offer, I will try not to take up too much of your time. I LOVE your sock puppets! (My books are in the sewing/craft field) MimiBelle (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your patience and hard work. It's too bad this comes up on a holiday weekend or I'd double check with the Foundation immediately. But perhaps under the circumstances an ordinary form letter would be adequate. The simplest thing would be to locate a public domain release form online and fill out the details. You could also get that from a paralegal service or a lawyer (it's not my place to give legal advice; these are just options). Once she signs it, please let me know and I'll see about getting this processed through the OTRS system. The system is set up for people who have email, etc., but in a case like this we'll find a way to work around that. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much Durova I will work on this now. I am still new at this and it took me a while to find this page again, I thought i had put it on my watchlist, and so i thought that would tell me when you replied, but its very weird, what comes up for me on my watchlist is a bunch of edits that it looks like you made on Dec 1 about some poor girl in San Diego who was being harassed, in a rated-x way. Clearly haven't figured out all the bells and whistles here, yet. MimiBelle (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

"I would like an answer to the query I actually posted." That hits the nail on the head. I wish you success. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Elinor brought up some things I hadn't known before, particularly about how the mailing list thread got started. Sad course of events. Durova^Charge! 06:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback?

Hello! I have set up Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody should you wish to comment. Please note that I am notifying a handful of experienced editors who are familiar with me as I am particularly interested in anything they have to add. If you do not wish to comment, that is fine too. Also, please note User:A Nobody#Articles to help Durova with. :) All the best! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Not sure what to do about editor review, since that's generally used as a prelude to RFA. Durova^Charge! 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even though I have had some offers, I am not thinking about running at this time. Maybe you can look at some of the rock stubs I have added references to and provide feedback or suggestions with those? Again, if not, no big deal. I just started that page as a general, "How am I doing?", question to the community. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved! There's an area so much in need of editors who know what sourcing is about. If it's not too much trouble, you might try the 'cite web' and 'cite book' templates. I've been using them on pages such as That International Rag and I'm Just Wild About Harry. Best, Durova^Charge! 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Is there a page somewhere that explains those templates? I do not believe I have ever used them. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I've never seen one. They're pretty much self-explanatory. I tend to grab one and copy/paste new data into it. Very useful when citing the same source more than once. For multiple citations to the same source, give the source a name in its first use and then simply use the name in subsequent cites to it. Hope that makes sense? Durova^Charge! 18:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat, but I may try to see if I can find a page on them. Also, one of my main hopes of what I do for this project is to make it more pleasant and enjoyable to edit on. So, in addition to welcoming users and wishing people a happy Thanksgiving, I have even tried a little humor as seen at User talk:Casliber#Joke for today. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well if it's humor you want there's one type of deletion debate you might want to join. User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion Durova^Charge! 18:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't believe I want any of those editors deleted... :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A harmless place to be an inclusionist? Durova^Charge! 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the last time I commented in an Articles for Deletion, I actually argued to delete (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoodyRimShot... :) Hey and for what it is worth, I just made some proposals at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Brainstorming: two ideas.21. I really believe in the first idea and would be happy to even start a draft in my userspace when I have time. I anticipate some thinking the second idea as being intended as a joke or something, but who knows, sometimes we have to really think outside of the box and try things. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A hall of fame idea got proposed a couple of years ago and didn't go too far. There's something else you might be interested in that I've been drafting. It's a bit delicate but it's up your alley. Recently another formerly banned editor returned to Wikipedia. I had been the original blocking admin and I initiated the AN thread to end his ban; he had more than satisfied my standard offer to support a return request. A month before I started the AN thread I had written to the Arbitration Committee requesting his unblock, but they hadn't acted. During the AN thread itself an administrator stepped forward to supply additional background. The banned editor had actually been making polite and proper appeals to ArbCom for seven months, each of which met an initially favorable response and then fell into a black hole. The administrator was angry and frustrated by that series of failures, and expressed concern that this kind of mishandling could turn would-be reformers into hardened vandals. I wish the situation had come to my attention sooner: before the ban that editor had been making good contributions except for one hot button area.

So, not to make a poster child of one individual who's better off with a quiet return, I worry how many other people may have fallen into that same black hole. The community has been delegating its ban reviews to the Arbitration Committee. I knew it was difficult for ArbCom to keep on top of that responsibility but hadn't imagined matters could be as bad as this. Well the community can take back that responsibility; we solved that instance in three days. So I'm drafting a proposal for an ad hoc community ban review process. Basically it would give banned users a dedicated email address to contact, publish rough guidelines for the sort of appeal that's likely to be successful, and publish individual ban reviews that merit serious consideration. For one week, anyone who has input can weigh in on an instance (offsite if necessary if harassment was a concern). Some requests would get delisted, other times the blocking admin would lift the block. Instances that aren't resolved after one week would go to AN. A small team of experienced admins and checkusers would volunteer in the area.

What someone like you brings to the table is a perspective the rest of us don't have: you've been on the other side of that fence. Somewhere in between opening the floodgates and letting viable requests disappear into a sinkhole for months on end, there ought to be a fair and efficient way to handle this. If we don't want banned editors to sock and vandalize, we should give the ones who are capable of returning a clear and consistent path back to good standing. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, I think once someone is indeffed or banned, they are almost always more or less permanently "tainted". To some degree those of us who have experienced one or the other, no matter how many good faith or constructive contributions we make or how hard we try to rehabilitate our reputations, a stigma seems to always remain. I think it is fairly apparent in my case for example that some will always assume bad faith and distort/exaggerate things. Part of the reason why I tried to leave in September was not just because of the private matters I do not care to discuss online but also because of what seemed like I would never get a fair break from certain editors and even though of the times I've been blocked...first by you, but you then unblocked me. The second admin to block me hasn't edited since and Wizardman undid that one relatively quickly too. I next got blocked for edit warring with someone who had name called against me (at least three times I can recall off hand and yes, actual name calling) and seemed to be disrupting my attempt to vanish and I figured reverting disruption/trolling would be okay. Oddly enough I was blocked about a second or so after being warned, which in its own right seemed wrong, because you'd think you'd get warned and not blocked immediately after, but anyway, the next two admins also undid their blocks and something like a username block is not really a big deal anyway. But even though the bulk of what you see on my block log is easily explained, some will always look at as a "gee, you got blocked multiple times"... I suppose to some extent when one knows that no matter what he or she does, some others will never be forgiving or understanding, he or she may feel as if there's not much to lose anyway and that is what makes some previously banned or indeffed editors just persist using sock accounts. When I look at certain threads on me and I see the mischaracterizations and what have you, it is about enough to make me think at times, why bother? I do so, because I do not like being bullied, but even so there have been some bizarre misrepresentations of my contributions here that have made me outright disgusted that at times make editing here feel pointless (fortunately, several editors have by contrast been more than encouraging and friendly). For example, though, after I tried to vanish, I had one account turn up as likely me. An account that never edited in any of the same discussions as me, an account that thus never vote stacked, and that never harassed other editors or any of the malicious things typical of sock accounts. That one account. And yet, here and there, someone might make the false claim that after vanishing I used sockpuppets plural, which just isn't true. Checkusers did three checks on me this fall. One came back as likely, the others as unlikely or inconclusive. If I were using multiple other accounts, which I am of course not, I would have to think in one of the three checkusers these would have turned up. And yet, again here and there, I'll still see someone claim falsely as if I was using multiple accounts after I vanished. And thus it is fairly obvious that some of them have made up their minds about me and that's that. What should be most telling though is that after my name change, I have already amassed all of these (User:A_Nobody#Barnstars.2C_cookies.2C_smiles.2C_and_thanks) and have even been able to start a User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts. I can only hope that those who are objective can see the positives. As far as for others who have been banned or indeffed, it varies depending on why they were indeffed or banned. There are some that probably have no really redeemable qualities. And yet as human beings we should be forgiving, we should be understanding, etc. We should not just give up on people and turn them into worse than they otherwise would be. When I started editing I knew little about this site and how it works and what is and is not effective compared to what I know now. People need time to grow and learn and to develop skills, try new tactics, etc. in order to get at what actually works. But in any event, being on this side of the fence as it were oftentimes feels as if to some degree I am always on this side of the fence in some editors' eyes. Even if I had dozens of featured articles or what have you, I really do think that some would still fixate on past disputes. And that is what it is I guess. Sorry if the above is disjointed as it is 2:09 AM where I am... Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's tough: my view has always been that a past ban shouldn't be the scarlet letter. In some ways you bring more to the table, because you've had the integrity to make a turnaround. Durova^Charge! 07:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said though, I have done as much and some do recognize as much, but there always seem to be some who never will. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so

:-P --190.25.111.9 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to return and edit usefully after the block ends, it'd be good to have another contributor. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Best regards PHG (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

Hi there! Do you think this image has any "potential featurability"? I stumbled across it and was pretty impressed by the technical quality, particularly when compared to similar images. It doesn't have much wow, but there are few featured portraits and I was wondering if it has the potential. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical level I don't notice any obvious objection. Question is the 'wow' factor. Have you put it up for peer review? Durova^Charge! 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I have now :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsportsmanlike???

Hey D, it's been awhile, hasn't it? Part of my platform is that the we mustn't keep electing the same old types of candidates, and I am putting my money where my mouth is by clearly identifying and describing this type of candidate. If I must muzzle my opinions about poor candidates in order to remain "sportsmanlike," I'd be at a loss as to how to warn the community about the types of characters I believe would not serve the community well (especially since I'd have to endure everyone's bitching about their poor decision when they realize next year the makeup of ArbCom has not changed one iota). Being phony, fake-polite and generally unctuous was never my game. There is a time and a place for bland generalizations and offering warm, constructive, encouraging criticism; elections are not one of them. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to make that post as a pure voter, another thing to do so while your own hat is in the ring along with them. Durova^Charge! 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voter, canididate, Jerimiadic heckler: The Fat Man wears many hats (actually, he has sewn multiple hats together to accommodate the circumference of his pulpy, wobbly head.). See my answer to Giggy's question 6. Besides, according to Elonka[33], I'm only a "joke" candidate anyway. I hope we can still be friends, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I put together a report in response to a request for clarification on an arbitration case. That meant setting aside other priorities, reviewing 174 image uploads, and double checking the public domain claims on dozens of them--including research in two languages. That was seven hours out of my day, all because I care about the integrity of two Wikimedia Foundation projects. Take a mile in those moccasins and ask yourself how funny the joke is. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need not defend your industriousness to me; I have witnessed it in spades, and some say you would have made a fine Arbitrator yourself. However, this year you're stuck with candidates such as myself. I invite you to read the answers to my candidate questions if you don't believe I "care about the integrity of" WMF projects; I believe I care about it more deeply than do the candidates I'm opposing. Perhaps my writings will persuade you that I'm not in this for lulz. If not, I trust we can still be friends. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we both do the sportsmanlike thing? I'll withdraw my oppose on your candidacy if you withdraw your opposes. Not campaigning for anyone by saying this--I haven't read all your posts and daresay we agree about several. It was the tone, not the substance that raised concerns. Durova^Charge! 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No dice, fair cavalry maiden! The Fat Man doesn't cut backroom (or, in this case, front room) deals! He will continue to sanctimoniously and unabashedly speak the truth (though I can't disagree with you that I need to work on my tone; I've been told that IRL too). When I forcefully oppose, say, jdforrester and Carcharoth, I will try not to sound quite so saucy. That is the only concession you will win tonight.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, then. Not really aiming for concessions. You retain both my respect and my opposition. Cheers! Durova^Charge! 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]