User talk:Durova/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for a triple crown[edit]

Hello, hope I qualify!

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, your triple crown (and a stick of chewing gum) have been delivered. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged – and the chewing gum was yummy ;-) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I qualify for several, I think. But how can I bear such weight? :D -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My triple crowns will be a little tardy this week, for obvious reasons. Piotrus, if I had time to photoshop I'd create a platinum edition for folks like you. Bring 'em on. :) DurovaCharge! 21:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Triple Crown Award....?[edit]

Ummm, I think I qualify; if you would be so kind as to bestow one upon me, I would be humbled and very grateful.

Thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, the jewels have been delivered. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied at the editor's talk page. Please format a submission. DurovaCharge! 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Dear Durova, does this mean that you're leaving Wikipedia? Are you going to stand for reconfirmation as an admin? I hope you're doing okay. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I came here to inquire about your withdrawal as a candidate for ArbCom, and find this instead. Just wanted to offer Moral Support which, when combined with a dollar, might buy you a cup of coffee. But there you go. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still need another dollar or no Starbucks would serve me. ;) Thanks. DurovaCharge! 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I salute you for having the character to stand by your statements that you would place yourself up for recall. I doubt very seriously if many others would actually do the same as peacefully as you have. I also sincerely hope that you once again put yourself forward as an admin candidate, and look forward to being able to vote for you. I'm fairly sure that several vandals have taken the less obvious route that the ones you have caught have, and think that it is very much in wikipedia's interests to see such actions continue, even if occasional mistakes are made. And given the complexity of the vandals you pursue, your right/wrong ratio is amazingly good. No one is perfect, it is irrational to hold anyone to that level, and I don't think many others here would demand that you be perfect. But your actions to date in all areas, including those of today, more than qualifies you for the respect of all of us. And if you let us know how those of us who would want to could get the dollar to you I'm fairly sure you'll get enough money to be able to buy at least a few gallons of your choice. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't quit, Durova (unless that would make you happier). If I received the same level of abuse and attention that you have this week every time I said or did something stupid, I'd probably feel rather miserable. One wonders how many wives and kids have been spared black eyes by editors who channel their aggression toward well-meaning online strangers instead; perhaps this project is of some social benefit after all. We all have our unfortunate tendencies, but as an editor, I have long admired your tireless energy and always felt you conducted yourself with a refreshing level of civility, dignity and generosity. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note[edit]

I just wanted to say that I'm sorry you had to resign your adminship. I believe we have lost one of our best administrators here. However, I do respect your decision, and hope that you will continue to edit and improve the encyclopedia, as your work is definitely appreciated. Best wishes. Acalamari 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I had not asked for your resignation I commend you for honoring your word. I hope to be able to support you in a future RFA. Haukur (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

I'm really sorry to see all that happen. It [your resignation of the tools] was a net loss for the project. When it is all said and done, it is what each individual does for themselves that counts. I respect you for the professional way you conducted yourself the entire time. You've class. Salute. Best, Mercury 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh what[edit]

Dammit, letting people like that grind you down is just ... WHAT - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

terrible indeed... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The mob wins again. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The worst is over. You have done the best thing for Wikipedia. You will find that you have retained the respect of those who already respected you, earned the respect of those who doubted you, and have denied a casus belli to those who never respected your great contributions in the first place. Keep the faith. You will find that you are not alone. --Tony Sidaway 20:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You've walked a few miles in these moccasins too. Much obliged for the support. Warmly, DurovaCharge! 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have acted according to the true meaning of "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Leading by example is hard, but rewarding. And a bit does not make or break a community leader. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not lose sight[edit]

Let's not lose sight of what is important, the project. I hope you continue to contribute, and look forward to supporting a future RfA. But I must say, the us vs. them mentality I am seeing surrounding this incident cannot be conducive to a good editing environment for anyone involved in this insane dispute. Following from afar, and giving you moral support, IvoShandor (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a stab at you or anyone in particular, just that this dispute seems particularly nasty, at least to some, and it's important that we don't lose sight of our real goals. IvoShandor (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I thought you needed advice, god knows there is no shortage of that around here. ;) But maybe some words of cheering up and support, after all, most of us are here for similar reasons. Good luck with everything. I should let you know, I'll be taking one of those imperial crown jewels for two of everything soon, I swear it. :)IvoShandor (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coolness. :) DurovaCharge! 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider[edit]

Durova, by giving up you are strengthening the trolls, socks and misfits that have infested this place. Don't let them win. All of us make mistakes; the trolls just wait for one by a strong admin, and pounce on it. Just brush them off and keep up your good work. We need you as an admin here. Crum375 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Two votes explicitly stated so far, probably another six or seven can be expected from the comments above. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where she has given up. I see where she has, admirably, honored her word to stand for recall. I did not believe she would do that and I was wrong. Durova, for misjudging you on that, I apologize.

If, as so many claim, admins are merely mortal users with a few extra buttons, then unless Durova leaves wikipedia (which I sincerely hope she does not), the project will still benefit from her contributions.

This is a sad day for wikipedia, and 'blaming' the 'other side' or claiming 'mob mentality' does a disservice to everyone involved. I hope everyone (myself included) can sit back and reflect on their contributions (and/or lack of contributions) to this entire process. From those who were out for blood, to those who were quick to try to bury it, and everyone in between.

Durova, I have always believed that you operated from a place of good-intentions, and I believe that you have much to offer the project as a whole. In fact, I look forward to editing with you in mainspace.

Lsi john (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John. Best regards. DurovaCharge! 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me second what John said. Despite Durova could certainly figure out my thoughts in relation to this incident, I saw that they were expressed by others already much more eloquently than what I could have possibly said. More generally, I think Durova made a mistake by switching her Wikipedia activity to the full-time wikipolitics related matters. It have been seen from many examples that such shifts have a huge overall negative effect on users, a general rule to which I can find only few exceptions.
That said, I would echo the earlier call by Ghirla and many other editos for Durova to return to productive mainspace content editing. It is by far more exciting than "running" the Wikipedia itself while the latter is merely addictive. For instance, Durova's contributions to the Russia-related topics have been excellent and I am looking forward for more of that. --Irpen (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me third what John said. Honoring one's word is the honorable thing to do, and your contributions to the encyclopedia are in no way diminished by the lack of a few buttons. Sadly, your experience will be somewhat diminished, mainly by the lack of the ability to view deleted edits.
That said, I urge you to abandon sifting through other editors' contributions in search of sockpuppets. Your "methodology" is really unsound and quite (please read this as gently as I mean it, I don't know a gentler word) hilarious. It's really just a collection of generally known and mostly obvious ways to spot either returning users, both legitimate and illegitimate, or simply savvy people who had read project pages or edited anonymously before registering. The methodology can't be fixed by incremental improvements, because its basic premise is that good edits early in the editor's career are an indication of bad intent, when in reality they're overwhelmingly more likely to be an indication of a smart and thoughtful person. Check my first edits five years ago. I assure you, I was noone's sockpuppet and I never saw a wiki before.
Moreover the whole aura of secretive detective work in a righteous fight against the thugs and the harassers may be fun and addictive, but it's deeply unhealthy and directly in conflict with the interests of the project. It's based on the questionable belief that there are large numbers of centrally coordinated people who are trying to take over Wikipedia and on the completely mistaken impression that they have a realistic chance of achieving that. At least my experience shows that they are best ignored off-wiki and outargued in debates here.
While I believe that blocks should always be only preventative, adminship is a different matter. It's granted on the community's trust in the editor's good faith, integrity, reason and competence. If it is not seen to be taken away for gross breaches, it carries no responsibility and loses its authority, leaving nothing but naked power. So I can't support you in your recall RFA, of course without any prejudice for future attempts.
Best regards, Zocky | picture popups 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
since I'm not sure if you're watching User talk:Zocky my talk page, I'll copy this and reply here. User:Zocky/Picture Popups is one of my javascript tools. You can check it out if you're using Firefox.
You've seen my worst investigation, bar none. I was trying something experimental and out of context it looks ludicrous. Nobody bats .1000. Came off a string of successes, got overconfident, etc. Want a gander at some of my better work? DurovaCharge! 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, really, overconfidence and all that is not the problem. Please get out of the whole sleuthing thing for a while, edit articles, and when you look back on it in a few months, I'm sure you'll be able to see how ridiculous it looks. Your version of reality fails the Occam's razor. Here's a much simpler explanation:
Among the "problem editors", the vast majority are in no way connected to the "attack sites". They include a number of obsessive vandals, a number of obsessive POV pushers, and a an ever changing cast of drive-by trolls. All of these have always existed, and all of them are contained by appropriate tools and methods, mostly by editing the mainspace and article talk pages, and without any need for your investigations. It's a question of uncited factoids vs. referenced material, not editors in good standing vs. sockpuppets.
Then there are the dreaded "attack sites". Of the people who congregate there, few actually edit Wikipedia, and most of them legitimately. The garden variety trolls from there can be dealt with just as the independents. It's true that those sites also contain examples of lowlifes who think getting people in trouble in real life or exposing people's children to public ridicule are good ideas, but those are best handled with stern ignorance, formally worded replies, and real life law enforcement where necessary. Again, your investigative methods can't reveal anything that casual editing of Wikipedia combined with a checkuser request doesn't.
On top of it being useless, it's destructive. Wikipedia is about content, not personalities. If a typo is corrected by a banned user's new account, the typo is still corrected and we're better off. Even if your methodology worked, blocking productive accounts on that basis would be a net loss for the project. It's also divisive (obviously) and even unethical: scrutinizing accounts who have done nothing wrong is one thing, but telling made up stories about them, even if worded neutrally or vaguely, i.e. "According to my research, !! is a sockpuppet of BadGuy123" or "Anybody else think !! looks fishy?", is malicious gossip about people behind those accounts.
Please, take the "no reasonable admin" bit from the ArbCom case seriously. This wasn't a small slip up in execution, it was an unavoidable consequence of what you were doing. You need to abandon it completely for a while and concentrate on some other work on Wikipedia or even something in your real life. (We all need to remember to step back from the screen sometimes.)
When you feel like it, do the research and make A Long Time Ago or Anatoly Bogatyrev turn blue. I'm sure that it will make you feel much better about Wikipedia and yourself as a Wikipedian than blocking a thousand sockpuppets of Sc4ryDud3 ever could. With that thought, I gracefully bow out of this debate and wish you the best in the future.
Happy editing, Zocky | picture popups 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to add my support here for what Zocky is saying. It makes a lot of sense. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not deeply involved in Wikipedia but even from a light level of involvement I can see that its character is changing. Something very much like it happened to Usenet before a lot of you were born. The constant factor is humans in all text social interactions. Such interactions are known to go off the rails into flame wars. It's often the most productive members of the group who attract the flame and get driven out. (If you don't do anything, you don't attract attention.)
I think the problem is compounded by the changing character of the work. A few years ago there was vast and rewarding work to be done. It attracted a huge number of people and is now mostly done. The effort has shifted to deleting articles (which rewards a different type of people) and the necessary but dangerous work of defending against those who would tear Wikipedia down or subvert it.
I have some relatively powerful mental tools available (evolutionary psychology) and a lot of experience. But I don't know how to cope with mob type social problems such as we have seen in this event. For sound reasons rooted in the stone age, a prime motivator for humans is seeking social status. Since social status is more or less the integral of attention, people seek attention. Especially in an all text media, a lot of people are rewarded by attention without consideration of it being positive or negative. (They seem to apply an absolute value function.)
How you translate such insights into action or policy has eluded me for many years. Even discussing them on the net has resulted in me being lambasted from the bench by a federal judge.
Back to the matter at hand. Durova dealt with a lynch mob with as much grace as I have ever seen. In my considered opinion, those attacking her have lost status.
Best wishes in whatever you do next Durova. Keith Henson (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, Keith. And some of us are a bit older than one might guess. ;) DurovaCharge! 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some respect is due/ a question[edit]

Thanks for honouring your recall pledge or whatever happened (maybe I missed the latest events.) How I would feel is that none of them stuck up for you, I know they did with words in support, but no people stuck their neck out to say that they were some of those that ok'ed/were aware of your plan on the list etc. I would feel annoyed in your position that I was made to take all the flack despite your seeking several people's ok before you acted on your !! beliefs. Don't you? I mean nothing bad by my words here I'm just saying, and I hope you take them in the spirit in which they are meant, that's how I would feel if no-one came forward- it would seem a bit of a betrayal. Or maybe you are soon going to be too busy in real life to be an admin anyway or something, so it doesn't matter that you were sacrificed? And no to the other people's comments, most if not all of the editors involved in the RfC etc. are not trolls.Merkinsmum (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome[edit]

After what happened the last few days, I award you this star for keeping a cool head, remaining civil, and being honorable about the whole situation. Acalamari 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. :) Acalamari 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For...[edit]

The Resilient Barnstar
For exceptional class, professionalism when none was due, and dedication to the project through everything: I, Mercury , give you the The Resilient Barnstar Mercury 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Seconded. IvoShandor (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DurovaCharge! 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, I was gonna give you one myself, just because. I edited the barnstar to reflect my seconding, I hope you don't mind, if it's a problem just remove and know that I seconded it, count that as two awards then. :).IvoShandor (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully my first and last barnstar[edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping those who intend to disrupt, off this project. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! Wikipedia has not become that significant due to "perfect editors" but due to good intentions by its contributors. Your hard work, defending Wikipedia and its aims was and hopefully is in future much appreciated! -- Stan talk 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What a thoughtful way to express it. I really appreciate. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear the news, but there is a life after...[edit]

For a semi-obscure reason that she will probably recognize. - Z

Hi Durova, I am sorry to hear that you resigned as Wikipedia admin[1], but how User:Tony Sidaway put it: "There is a life after adminship". I had never a problem with you or did see you do anything wrong, but I know several people who "hated" you, including some of my friends. From what I learned (I saw many pages on the internet about you that show "how bad" you are) is the only valid problem somebody could have, the problem that you are overly protective of Wikipedia. As I said at the Requests for comment/Durova discussion, it could be called WP:COI that applies to you when it comes to issues in Wikipedia :) (I hope you get the joke in this statement). I hope that my suggestion to the general problem makes any sense to prevent issues like this one in the future.

Thank you again for your help at the COI Noticeboard. I just checked at the RS Noticeboard, nobody there seems to see to do anything about my request, what I consider to be a good sign.

Don't let yourself down. You are as qualified as before to write helpful articles for SEL about Wikipedia. You see, even me, who is not a Wikipedia admin either steps out to write at SEJ to eductate people about it. :)

If you need any help, don't hesitate to stop by my talk page and let me know about it. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thoughts and concern. That's a dangerous line of interpretation on WP:COI, though. Thanks for the support. DurovaCharge! 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's just another example of misuse of of the WP:COI guideline, but I hope I made it clear that I was only metaphorical speaking. And you are welcome. It was the least I could do. It helps to know that people notice and care IMO. I hope it also does that in your case. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get me one o' them triple crown dealies?[edit]

I believe I actually qualify for the Deluxe Edition Imperial Triple Crown Jewel Thing-a-ma-bob:

Scartol

I see you're resigning as an admin. I don't know anything about the process or what happened, but the comments on your talk page give me cause to believe that I should be sad at this news. Best wishes. – Scartol • Tok 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, the jewels have been delivered. :) DurovaCharge! 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support in future RfA[edit]

I don't know if this is appropriate or not, but just in case it is...

On the question of your request for adminship:

  • Support Based on the fact that, as you say, no one bats a thousand. You have clearly acknowledged the error and you have obviously taken the very painful and often bitter criticism to heart despite the tones used to deliver it. On the question - do you trust Durova not to abuse the tools? I'd have to say lesson learned, time to get back to work +sysop Durova. AvruchTalk 02:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Avruch. Lara❤Love 06:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have every confidence that you have learned from your own mistakes in this matter, and you will be an even better admin for it when you get promoted again. :-) ATren (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All editors make mistakes. Only those who admit them should be admins. Rklawton (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

You have one. :) Acalamari 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't come through yet. DurovaCharge! 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Received, and thank you very much. DurovaCharge! 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) Acalamari 03:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be happy[edit]

Be happy. You will come out of this better and stronger. Your friends respect you and even strangers have noted your quiet dignity. My wish for you is for you to be happy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message[edit]

Durova, I very much appreciate your message, and your recognition that my perspective had some validity. I do feel badly that you have borne the brunt of the community's antipathy toward proactive attempts to root out "black hats." I am well aware that you are not the only administrator who has indef-blocked editors with what was apparently insufficient evidence, and I did allude to that in both my outside view and as a reason for supporting your desysopping. I do read AN/I from time to time, and have on many occasions seen a pile-on of other admins supporting blocks for no apparent reason other than their belief that the blocking admin probably knew what they were doing; only occasionally do I see any sign of others actually reviewing the evidence or checking the contribs list. I sincerely believe that you have recognized and accepted that support for "pre-emptive" campaigns is not as strong as you had thought, and that there were impacts which you had not anticipated. I hope that others will recognize this as well.

I have heard in many places that you are a talented researcher and encyclopedic writer. Wikipedia needs people with those talents very badly - 30 seconds of "random articles" makes it very clear. While it would be entirely understandable if you wished to take a bit of time-out to re-evaluate all that has happened in the last few days, you should know that there is always a place for you here. Just as, from the responses you and others have made with respect to my presentation of a different perspective , I have been reassured that there is a place for me, too. I wish you the best, whether or not you decide to continue contributing here. Perhaps our paths may cross again, although I hope the next time will be on the talk page of an article we are jointly trying to improve.

--Risker (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did a stub last night, a bit of wikignoming, and am implementing some improvements into the editing award I've been running. I agree it's a healthy thing to have time for more of that. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 02:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good form[edit]

It takes integrity to relinquish "the tools" after recognizing one made a mistake. I don't mean to sound inconsistent, since I can and have pointed out other mistakes, but you should consider an immediate nomination (either self or otherwise) for admin status again. Pobody's Nerfect, and I think you do a good overall job as an admin. (Also, it seems unfair to "punish" you for behavior that has in the past been rewarded/respected after one public incident. If you were warned, and then continued doing the same stuff, that'd be a whole other matter. However in this case you really weren't given any real indication that the community was so opposed to sleuthing, until it freaked out.) Anynobody 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too look forward to supporting you when you are ready to run again for administrator, which I hope will be soon. . You are one of the long-term administrators I have learned the most from, and trust the most. Perhaps you could have been more sparing in your use of confidentiality, and perhaps your few errors may have been the result of involvement in more than one person's share of difficult investigations. You have worked by your own standards, the highest standards in Wikipedia, and what you've now chosen to do is the direct and honourable thing that I would have expected of you. DGG (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RfAr[edit]

The Resilient Barnstar
I’m of the opinion that the RfAr is needless drama. I mean, this RfAr is sailing through faster than BADSITES did, and it was only hours after your RfC. If we had an RfAr for every time an admin made a bad mistake, we’d be swamped. It disgusts me how many people are goading you for one mistake, and I’m surprised you haven’t tired of the crap and left. If it comes to an RfA, you have my axe, and not in your back. Will (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you have my tank...well, it's a bit out of date...but it sure looks intimidating anyway--MONGO (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive[edit]

I wanted to say that you have handled yourself with real grace and integrity in the aftermath of 'the mistake'. Ideologically, I don't think we could be further apart in our views about 'what is best for Wikipedia', but I admire your composure and efforts to make peace in the face of what must be very upsetting comments and events. You are taking the full heat of a backlash against a movement/philosophy of which you were only a small part and I think that is unfortunate and unfair. Hopefully, when the dust has settled you'll be allowed to put this behind you and move on. I don't agree with some of your ideas, but I know you pursue them with the best of intentions. Be well. --CBD 12:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lunatics have taken over the asylum[edit]

You know I think you were mad to resign, the users accusing you could not loose the argument they started. You resign - they win because they make it more difficult to stop unconstructive editting. You stay on - they win because "you were just grand standing." Having said that I must be honest and say that I'm not in favour of secret evidence I've been thinking it over for a while and sincerely I don't see the need for it, and even if there was one I cannot conscience its use in any circumstance. Anyway I hope some of the pressure is off you know and that things will get back to normal soon--Cailil talk 14:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree re: "secret evidence". I have no problem with it. For example, I'm dealing with a persistent vandal of a drug mfg's article. When I blocked his IP(s), he sent me an angry e-mail. From that I was able to identify this person in real-life, confirm his status as "crank", and have his e-mail account suspended by his service provider. With this secret evidence in hand, I won't (and don't) hesitate to revert and block this person's edits on sight. However, I also don't feel inclined to share this off-wiki information with anyone other than the mfg's legal representatives (who probably won't need my help identifying him anyway as he's not all that sophisticated). I'm an admin because I'm trusted. I'm trusted due to my history of constructive, good faith edits and my willingness to heed the consensus. In those regards (and others), Durova's performance exceeds my own. I regret her resignation as there was clearly no consensus regarding her future as a sysop. Rklawton (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, and this is only a maybe, it might be possible to have you and Durova, and maybe some others, set up communication channels so that if a situation where such secret or difficult to follow evidence proves relevant to an individual user, you could "bounce" the evidence off each other before submitting it to some formal body. That would also give the non-initiators of the investiagion a chance to review the evidence, and see if there is any additional evidence pro or con that they can find which might prove relevant. I personally do think having such investigations take place is potentially extremely useful to wikipedia, and the more people who would be willing to get involved in doing it, the better. It might also slightly reduce the chance of getting a "false positive" as well, which so far as I can tell is the only potential problem in instances like this. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might freak out a lot of people as cabalish. Rklawton (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a proposal called Wikipedia:Confidential evidence you may want to join. DurovaCharge! 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating! I prefer a variation of v.3 which would state that admins are free to use secret evidence but upon request from any another admin must turn over their evidence to that admin OR turn it over to arbcom (per v.3) OR recuse themselves from the matter. As I've given this relatively little thought, I'm open to other ideas. Rklawton (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always played it that I'm free to use whatever secret evidence to do whatever, but only I can only use information that I have submitted to the wiki to justify my on-wiki behavior. I don't think just bouncing things off other admins is a good plan. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rklawton, your standard has a fatal flaw: if one administrator is untrustworthy, then certain problems either get leaked or never get resolved. I followed a practice very close to that and got pilloried for it last week. DurovaCharge! 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the leaker violates the trust, then the matter should be brought up on AN/I or ArbCom. The main reason you were pilloried was you gave your opponents the option to request a recall - and they took it. Without this option the matter would have gone to AN/I where any number of admins would have said "she fixed the mistake and apologized, so what's the big deal?" And the matter would have been dropped. Rklawton (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And we would never have found out just how fundamentally and fatally flawed the methods and practices really were. Lsi john (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't have the context. I posted something about that to the Wikipedia-en-I list before I unsubscribed today. It's very hard to step back from a mistake and say whoa, I was wrong there - I thought I was acting in good faith and I thought I was thorough enough but I wasn't. Harder still to step forward and say that in front of large numbers of people. There have been logical gaps and unintentional bad faith assumptions on both sides here. Normally dispute resolution would have filled that in, but this case moved very strangely. Let's let the whole thing cool down. DurovaCharge! 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, I concur with letting the whole thing cool down, and I've said as much several places. Yet, as long as the 'sour grapes' comments keep coming there will remain the urge (from the other side) to remind everyone that there is fire behind the smoke, regardless of what some would have us believe. I've said its a sad day for wikipedia, and I meant just that. I've said you have much to contribute, and I also meant that. And I've been claiming for months that your methods and premises are flawed, and I also meant that. Having you de-sysopped was 'not' my first choice, as you know from all of our e-mail exchanges over the past few months. However, what is done is done. When I got blocked for 3RR (unrelated to Durova), it was 24 hours after I had made my 3RR edit. That was punitive, not preventative. Where was justice for me? Where is the note on my block log that the block was improper? I objected, I was told 'tough shit', and I got over it and moved on. Regardless of whether any particular person feels Durova got the shaft or got what she deserved, life isn't fair and nobody promised that it would be.
My suggestion is that Durova request that people stop posting about this on her page altogether and let the arbcom run its course. I was among the strongest of those in the 'oppose' category and I was among the first to offer words of peace and she reciprocated... Setting my (and other's) fundamental objections aside for the sake of this thread, even Durova acknowledged that this incident was one of her worst investigations. Wikipedia is about community decisions and community action. Calling it a 'mob' when it goes against what we dislike is 'sour grapes'. In summary, from what I've seen, the 'oppose' contingent has pretty much stopped opposing... now how about if we see some reciprocation and let this cool off. Durova isn't dead and she hasn't even hinted that she was leaving. Lsi john (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so Lsi john. By sharing with other admins upon demand (the first option) or the ArbCom (the second option), we would have had ample opportunity to identify flaws in methodology or analysis if any. If an admin chooses to recuse themselves instead (option 3), then any actions taken against an editor (warn, revert, or block) can be reversed as "unjustified". Rklawton (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rklawton, I'm not sure that I even follow that. There is nothing in this case which warrants secrecy. And, time and again I have heard that admins are just editors with a few extra tools. So, "sharing with other admins upon demand" is hogwash. Sharing with the community on demand is the issue, and the community demanded. Not to mention that allowing 'admins' to review-and-close has a chilling effect and only adds to the 'cabal' fears. Lsi john (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Sharing with other admins didn't work in this case. The thing I pledged to do was to route through ArbCom formally and let them act as an official body. The Wikipedia:Confidential evidence proposal started up shortly afterward and I support it. DurovaCharge! 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events[edit]

I applaud you.

Recently the phrase "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" has been circling my head as I edit here. You may find some resonance. Incidentally, I found, um, User talk:Cwiki today whilst on something entirely unrelated. Less fuss back then, I guess. All the best. Hiding T 14:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure we've run into one another when I was under another username. I've certainly seen you around. Of course, now I've told you that I'll have to kill you. Hiding T 14:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good luck trying. I'm a war veteran. ;) DurovaCharge! 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown[edit]

This is my request to apply for triple crown:

Damn, I'm just 1 DYK short of getting imperial triple crown :P OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, please come back when you get that next DYK! I really enjoyed the Stanley Cup article, but this is the first featured portal that's been submitted for the award so I think I'll use that instead. Can't wait to promote you to an imperial jewel winner and lift them all! Cheers, DurovaCharge! 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OhanaUnited, can you kinda pick another FC other than the Cup? You reviewed as a GA, but you haven't edited it since June/July when you promoted it. Maxim(talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10 cites is the threshold for inclusion. That seems to be satisfied. People can share credit for the same article if it was written collaboratively. DurovaCharge! 23:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Maxim(talk) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

As I now qualify for the triple crown, I have a quick question. I have mulitple FCs and GAs, so can I pick what I believe to be the best article FC and GA I have achieved, or does it have to be the first one I got? Gran2 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want. Choose your favorites. As long as you present them in sets (1 of each, 2 of each, 3 of each) I'll list as many as you want. 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see, in which case:

Thanks! Gran2 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, please enjoy your triple crown with a donut. DurovaCharge! 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Gran2 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

I nominate Durova for administrator. Durova is a trusted and respected member of the Wikipedia community. Nobody is perfect. Durova understands the importance of transparency and oversight, a very important quality in an administrator. There was a recent case of a block that she reversed. This review of her own actions is good evidence that Durova would be a responsible administrator again. Some others of lesser integrity might insist that they are right even if they know that they were heavy handed. Furthermore, since confidential evidence was in debate, she has taken steps to insure that it is used cautiously in the future. That kind of experience gives her even more insight and wisdom that the average administrator candidate. As Jimbo Wales said,

"I advise the world to relax a notch or two." A bad block was made for 75 minutes. It was reversed and an apology given. There are things to be studied here about what went wrong and what could be done in the future, but wow, could we please do so with a lot less drama? A 75 minute block, even if made badly, is hardly worth all this drama. Let's please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from [2] )

Durova has been in Wikipedia for over two years and has over one year of actual administrator experience. She made contributions to the Joan of Arc article, which became a featured article and which she calmed the flames (no pun intended) of edit warring there. She has made tens of thousands of edits. She continues to make mainspace edits unlike some candidates who stop once they become administrators. She also has compassion and insight. She knows how to counsel sockpuppets and can judge which ones have a hidden potential, some of whom later went on to constructive article creation and building. She has been successful in turning hate into productive work for Wikipedia. So if you hate her, have a heart and see if you can support her RFA. As Jimbo Wales said about Durova, "let's please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for".

Why not think it over for 1-2 weeks and use the above statement as evidence of nomination. Chergles (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need a diff to arbcom and to the 30+ editors opposed to your nomination? Why not let this thing cool down instead of fanning the flames? Lsi john (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is the dark side of Wikipedia. Anything someone doesn't like, they call it trolling. Why not call those opposing editors troll? Why not refer to the above people who support Durova as an administrator? Was Jimbo Wales trolling, too? Chergles (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC) AvruchTalk Lara❤Love ATren and others, all trolls, too? As Jimbo Wales said about Durova, "let's please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for". Wait, didn't Jimbo qualify as a troll by your criteria? Chergles (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I called it like I saw it, given that Durova had just asked people to let this cool off. I'm sorry if you think its dark to want things to cool down. If you'd prefer to have the entire ruckus begin anew, by all means, continue.. Lsi john (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only dark side is to call others "troll". Chergles (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chergles, thank you very much. I'm spending more time in mainspace now, as some people have advised. When I think I've regained the community's trust I'll take up your offer. Jimbo's said the tools are no big deal; I've said it too. We probably all have. It's a healthy exercise to walk that walk. DurovaCharge! 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I predict February, 2008 as the right month for that. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why February of 2008? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The beginning of the month is two months away and the end is three months away making it two to three months. Three months is a standard period in many ways; for example it was the time period Durova offered to Private Musings to stay away then come back to be reviewed. Between now and then, we will finish the fundraiser, elect new arbs, move our HQ to SF, have one or two more drama-fests, and Durova will have had a nice break from admin work. It feels right. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this handy and consider using it in the future...don't wait too long. Chergles (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue. ;) DurovaCharge! 22:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, fellows. Please turn down the heat and refactor. DurovaCharge! 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. John, here's my hand to shake if you'd like to ' '''' (ok, it's my 5 fingertips/paw prints). Chergles (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hand in return. No hard feelings. I think everyone is on edge and, as I stated above, things will cool down faster if everyone backs off a bit. Lsi john (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (Eliminating the wikilink to "troll" in your message is a welcomed sign. Chergles (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, I'd probably support a nomination in future, if you keep this attitude. :-) Are you sure you want to be an admin again though? Often you can do more if you're not, actually. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I disagree with the above. But you might like to have the chance to actually work on some articles for a while. Somehow, I get the impression that if you choose to request adminship again, you won't have any trouble whatsoever in getting at least double figures of people willing to nominate you. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I started a stub last night, did some wikignoming. Created a new deluxe edition of the triple crown award. Reading through the nominations is always a pleasure. I learn a lot from it. DurovaCharge! 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, where does it say you can't do these things as an admin? I've seen admins work on articles. Anynobody 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other requests kept eating into my editing time. I haven't done a good DYK in months. Time to seek some balance. :) DurovaCharge! 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider doing both for two reasons. 1) Dividing time between admin and editor roles would minimize the chances of burnout on one task or the other. 2. Regardless of how long you let things get "cooled down", they'll heat right up again as soon as you're nominated for admin. Essentially, there is probably going to be more drama whether you are nominated now or later. Like removing a band-aide, let's just get it over with as quickly as possible. Anyone who wants to make a big deal about past errors can simply be reminded of their own, remember nobody's perfect. Anynobody 07:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You reversed your own bad block after 75 minutes. ArbCom was on the wrong path to force you to relist at RfA immediately after the close of the ArbCom case, and I think your giving up the tools was a selfless act. Such an RfA very likely would have been disruptive. ArbCom said you only had to relist at RfA, and I likely would have speedy closed it if it became disruptive. You resigned from being an admin in the heat of the situation. You play a very important roll at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and it would be a significant loss to Wikipedia to not have your admin assistance at that board. Whatever you decide to do, you have my support. -- Jreferee t/c 10:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. DurovaCharge! 17:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Valiant return triple crown winners[edit]

Thanks for the tip, although I have to point out I have never been sanctioned by ArbCom of anything - the closest I have come was the general Eastern European editors restriction, and the finding that me and Irpen had (have) some issues. Not sure of this qualifies me for Valiant return which requires an arbitration sanction or a lifted siteban.

On another note, I am appalled at the witchunt that has been unleashed upon you. We are human and make mistakes - and apparently for some its a great excuse to take potshots. Please be assured that you are not alone. Good luck, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments from Jimbo himself here, in which he seems to think that this whole recent matter against Durova has been a bit of a tempest in a teapot, witch hunt, call it what you will. Of course, what does he know? John Carter (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, guys, refactor. DurovaCharge! 00:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I was talking about the Napoleonic crown. Nishkid64's got one and I thought you'd probably qualify too: 5 or more entries in each category. Thanks for the support. DurovaCharge! 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, nominating myself below. I think we all need a little more wikilove right now... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DYK: 161, full list at User:Piotrus (scroll down under Daily Fa reading or search for string "Did you know")
  • GA: 11 counting 2 articles promoted to A status by WP:MILHIST and 2 articles that are now FAs. Full list at User:Piotrus - scroll down to green box or search for string "GArticles"
  • FA: 15 which were written mostly by me, scroll down to blue box or search for string "My best work"

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, which two FAs are former GAs, please? DurovaCharge! 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two latest ones: Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and History of Solidarity. Sigh. I feel old; I remember when GA were fist introduced... honestly, didn't think they would work. Shows what we really know, huh? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survival of witch hunt "award"[edit]

Dear Durova, while I am disappointed that you felt compelled to resign as an administrator and withdraw your candidacy for arbitration committee, I nevertheless commend you for not giving up on the project altogether and for your willingness to apologize and correct any mistakes. If you and I could make peace after our rocky beginning a year ago, others can and should as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the thought. I've blanked the award, though, because it may be divisive. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 01:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was more of a nice gesture than an actual award as I'm not sure how to make the barnstar templates (hence the quotation marks above), but I did want to offer additional reassurance as I can imagine the ongoing matter must be incredibily stressful. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen Wikipedia:Personal user awards? DurovaCharge! 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Triple Crown Award question[edit]

Can you use articles from previous awards to satisfy the 2,3,4... etc requirements for each level (so for the double, you only need one more DYK, one more GA?) Just wondering because (to me, at least) the wording is a bit fuzzy. Best of the looming holiday season, David Fuchs (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you met User:Cirt? His productivity is nothing less than amazing. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding qualifications, yes, contributions are cumulative. And I've never met Cirt. Go ahead and nominate him. :)
Also, I made an offer to WikiProject The Simpsons and I'm thinking of making this a general offer to any WikiProject: if six members of the project earn a triple crown entirely on project work, I'll create a special edition triple crown for the WikiProject. The Simpsons project would have a donut in place of the middle crown. Since the qualification for "major contributor" on GAs and FCs is ten citations, this would encourage collaborative work. Sounds good? DurovaCharge! 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool idea, actually. By the way, have you thought about advertising the Crown via Template:Wikipedia ads? David Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only reservations are that there are somewhere over 1000 active projects out there, and project membership can be dubious (I don't think even I know how many I've joined), and sometimes, for instance, an active member of one project and hanger-on at another might improve an article for the first project, but still have it "recordable" for the other. Having said that, though, any sort of way to recognize WikiProject success is one I can't object in any way to. John Carter (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really mind overlap. And the ad template sounds cool. I've never done one of those before. Let me catch up with Piotrus's award first. He's got tons of contributions. :) DurovaCharge! 02:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Triple Crown Award[edit]

This is my request to apply for triple crown:

Hmm... trying to get these is strangely addicting... *edit edit* David Fuchs (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teehee... :) Coming right up, Your Imperial Majesty. :) DurovaCharge! 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown (Imperial)[edit]

Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the shiny crown jewels! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am honored[edit]

For the crown. As for your question... having little "life" helps :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Chuckling) Twelve of each! And with only a shortage of GAs holding you back...you're going to drive me back to the drawing board to imagine something even more grand. 'Grats. You deserve the props. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Napoleonic triple crown[edit]

I believe that I qualify for the new Napoleonic triple crown:

It was not clear to me whether I should list all the GAs, FAs, and DYKs that I have or just the sets of five. Here are the sets of five. If you want more info, see my userpage. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sets of five or greater, please. As long as they're equal numbers. And wow! Great work. DurovaCharge! 17:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, the award has been delivered. DurovaCharge! 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[very funny edit conflict] Ok. I think I have set this out correctly - sets of eleven (with some double-counting, which I believe is allowed). I contributed the majority of the material for these articles, which I believes qualifies me as a "significant contributor". Awadewit | talk 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eep. Okay, I'm creating a new triple crown so that you and Piotrus will have something to shoot for. ;) DurovaCharge! 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Healthy competition is productive! Awadewit | talk 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One More Cup of Coffee[edit]

I'm one human being with ten fingers who types 75 words a minute when well pumped with coffee

Try the Kona Peaberry. It will get you up to about 120.  :) —Viriditas | Talk 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, thanks for the chuckle. Much appreciated. :) DurovaCharge! 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Triple Crown[edit]

Might have some more DYKs, but User:Ssilvers usually handles the noms for them.

This earns the standard crown. I'll be happy to upgrade for the next DYK. :) It'll be a little bit before I award it; I have 11 articles left to review for a Napoleonic crown nomination. This is fascinating stuff! DurovaCharge! 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam certainly did substantial work on Maritana, which was DYK, so I think that makes him Imperial. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't start it, though. I'll have to hold out. DurovaCharge! 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

... for your good work, which is not forgotten in light of having messed up once. Thanks for apologizing graciously, and acting to correct yourself as fast as you could. We are only human, and can't demand perfection of each other. We can request civility and you have provided that. Possibly most of all, thanks for not dumping the whole Wikipedia idea, along with the shiny buttons.

I think that if you conduct yourself as well as you usually have, and still have an itch for the admin powers back in several months, you will probably get them; even with the support of many who criticized this specific action, but are wise enough to tell the difference between the actor and the action. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) DurovaCharge! 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Simpsons Wikiproject Crown...[edit]

In the discussion we've had, we wished to ask you if you could bring down the six crowns to the different users to five, as there are really only five very actively engaged users in the Wikiproject. If not, it's OK then. xihix(talk) 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could do that. :) And the threshold for inclusion at GA, FL, and FA level is 10 citations. So there's no problem if several people share credit for the same article. You each have to do your own DYKs, though. Sounds good? Thanks for all the hard work and happy editing! DurovaCharge! 18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for Crown award[edit]

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for nominating him. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WikiProject triple crowns[edit]

Sigh. Individual crown sounds great. But... we just don't have that many active users. DYKs, yes, but GA and FAs... there are very few people who do that stuff (and Halibutt was for the most part chased away by trolls). Sigh...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get them to chip in 10 cites each at a GA or FA drive, they qualify. Best wishes. DurovaCharge! 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to encourage User:Poeticbent to do so with Krakow. Unfortunatly, he got swarmed by trolls and has stopped contributing much since then. Some days I really wonder if we are not losing the fight with trolls... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the phrasing of this section is still a bit ambiguous, as I'm not sure specifically what the second paragraph means. Maybe a little more clarity there might help. I of course have yet to write even one GA, so I don't look to be involved anytime soon, but some of the projects I work with might. And I think the "for that project" might be kind of difficult to determine in some cases. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do to clarify. DurovaCharge! 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope it's better now. It'll be much simpler to understand once there's an actual example. DurovaCharge! 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding your ArbCon case[edit]

You did the right thing, for yourself and for the project, by giving up your sysop status as you had said you would. That said, I'm very disappointed to see that you were abusing the community's faith with your secret sleuthing activities. Should you give up those bad faith witch hunts, I will support you in half a year should you decide to ask for reinstatement. Isarig (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig, please refactor. Dispute resolution proceeded in such a way that I was never provided a fair opportunity to defend myself. DurovaCharge! 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Durova, just coming off of an extended wikibreak, and just caught a glimpse of everything that went down. Let me just say that I have seen you around plenty since I arrived here, and have always found you nothing but helpful as an editor and an admin. Chin up and all that. Pastordavid (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) DurovaCharge! 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astroturfing[edit]

FYI - I got a call from a reporter today doing a piece on corporate astroturfing on Wikipedia. I filled him in as much as possible, and (among other recommendations) I suggested he might want to talk to you and Jehochman, since that is an area in which you both specialize. Raul654 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You know my e-mail. Feel welcome to pass it along. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown[edit]

Thanks for the "Spiffier triple crown", but I think I may qualify for the Imperial Napoleonic version

Username: User:Rodw

I really must sort out a copy of this lot somewhere!— Rod talk 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! It'll be a little while to review all of these. Thanks!
Awarded. DurovaCharge! 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks— Rod talk 07:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown[edit]

Out of the FC, Stanley Cup is an FA, and the others are FLs. I have a few A-Class articles, they're similar to the lists, but I haven't taken them to FLC because they're too short. Cheers! --Maxim(talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, the crown jewels are on their way. Thanks for the hard work! DurovaCharge! 04:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown request[edit]

I noticed that you had recently awarded an occasional collaborator of mine, a particularly gaudy bauble. I came here to claim my own, but I see you have recently had your own troubles. IMHO the more you contribute to the project, the more you get caught in the snares of pettifoggers. From what little I have seen (from above) you have acted with honesty and integrity, and that earns my support.

Damn, more featured content. I need more featured content ... Keep smiling. Kbthompson (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty, good work! You can count the East End of London article as a second GA if you want to go for the imperial triple crown jewels. Just need one more featured item. :) Cheers, DurovaCharge! 04:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, your eminence ... Kbthompson (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Merry Crown upgrade[edit]

Your majesty, it is finally time for me to upgrade to Imperial status:

If it pleases you, Cirt (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your Imperial Majesty, the imperial jewels have been delivered. DurovaCharge! 02:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very merrily honored. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

...for the Jewels 2.0!--Legionarius (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sleuthing Five"[edit]

I know some have been calling on you to release the names of the five editors that you said supported your evidence of malfeasance by User:!! before you applied the block. I believe, however, that those five editors should first be given a chance to show their personal integrity by coming forward on their own and explaining why they supported your evidence. In that regard, I've created a section here for them to identify and explain themselves. Since you know who they are, could you please ensure that they receive this message? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant return triple crown[edit]

Hello. I was wondering, would it be possible to also make it have people who have gotten blocks to get this award? I'd like to get this award, as I used to vandal a lot about two years ago (I should have gotten banned, surprised I didn't), and I was blocked a few months ago, too. Since then, I have been doing much for the encyclopedia. So uhh, yeah, could you add blocks too? xihix(talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many blocks did you accumulate on your previous account? All I see is one 24 hour block half a year ago on this one. So I've never been sorry to say this before, but you look like an editor in good standing. DurovaCharge! 04:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous account? I've never had one. In my first edits and some a few months later, I only vandalized, which I should have been blocked for... I also would have thought that block would be enough. This sucks :( xihix(talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comf* Please don't get yourself sanctioned by ArbCom to earn this award. It's not worth it. ;) DurovaCharge! 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note to Xihix (talk · contribs)'s effort, please see Talk:The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer. I compiled the sources, but it's up to Xihix (talk · contribs) to do what he will with them, I'm done as far any actual content contribution to the article itself. But I just wanted to double check with you to make sure it was okay to blockquote portions of those articles on the talk page in the course of discussion about the article. I saw Jossi (talk · contribs) had already done it above on the talk page, and quoted a much more material at that, so it should be okay? Cirt (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Seems all right to me. DurovaCharge! 17:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

re. Spiffier triple crown, new awards available[edit]

I think I qualify for a Imperial Napoleonic triple crown winners...*guilty face*

See also User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*bumps* Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get the hint. Busy week. :) DurovaCharge! 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DurovaCharge! 17:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donuts and other goodness[edit]

The only other pics from Commons that I had in mind were either, Kwik-E-Mart, Star 1, Star 2, or the Pink donut from that picture. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Are you female? TheShifter112 (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you? Cirt (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I am. DurovaCharge! 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a reliable source for that? *grins* Rklawton (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I wasn't referring to you, Durova, but to the new user. Kind of an odd place to crop up and ask a question after only one other edit, huh? Cirt (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There's a video interview of me out there on the internet. I'm either a woman or a darned good female impersonator. And I think my boyfriend could be persuaded to sign an affadavit. ;) DurovaCharge! 21:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown request[edit]

–MDCollins (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DurovaCharge! 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool sig[edit]

Your signature is one of the coolest sigs I've ever seen. Dalekusa 14:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown request[edit]

Awarded. DurovaCharge! 19:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, that, and the other[edit]

I hope you're not letting recent events get you down. We all make mistakes, and it's only because you were involved with difficult and controversial stuff that yours was so visible. Not the end of the world, although there are people who are acting as if it was. Don't let the bastards get you down!

That aside, can I nominate a couple of people for Triple Crowns? I hope it's ok for me to nominate them rather than them doing it themselves!

I think these are right, but I could have messed up somewhere. MacDui has another article at FAC, but that wouldn't change anything.

If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to ask! Very best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's just come to my attention that some of the material in the new triple crown award actually is in current use, so in order to be respectful I'm going back and photoshopping a new version. Be a little bit. DurovaCharge! 18:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded. DurovaCharge! 04:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weird edit[edit]

What the heck? I have -no- idea what happened there. What is all that garbage text? I just copy/pasted the same message to yourself, !!, and Giano. • Lawrence Cohen 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Strange things happen, I guess. I'm a bit concerned about the proposal you wrote. Has the appearance of trying to give legal advice. DurovaCharge! 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the intention, at all. But theres clearly a big disconnect between ArbCom not making policy, and the fact that Giano's usage of your email was Oversighted, but User:!!'s evidence version is perfectly acceptable. Since its only a matter of time before correspondence not related to just internal stuff comes up it seemed like a good idea to start the proposal, and from the talk on the decision page. • Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there was a software glitch earlier that was causing some rather strange edits to occur. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, another was found here. • Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted about this on ANI and technical. This appears to be systemwide and pretty invasive. spryde | talk 20:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad I AGF'd about it then. Under stressful circumstances that kind of glitch is apt to be misinterpreted. Thanks for the posts to ANI and VPT. And regarding the larger issues, I think it would be a good idea to let this settle down and then have a community discussion when everyone has a little time and distance to be objective. There are some important issues here that ought to be established so that people know how to stay on the right side of things. In the THF-David Shankbone case I asked the Committee to determine one of the most specific and crucial parts of the issue, but I just couldn't generate anyone's interest at the time. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown images[edit]

Proposed award for Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons - I think I'll stay with brown frosting because pink frosting might bring the image into questionable copyright territory. This donut is already public domain.

It's just come to my attention today that the new standard triple crown image includes an element that's sensitive to some people. It isn't my intention to offend so I'll be photoshopping a replacement very soon.

Also, for those who are interested, I've got a working proposal for the Simpsons WikiProject award. They're three DYKs short of qualifying so this will probably be the first one. DurovaCharge! 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The brown frosting is great. Chocolate is my favorite anyway.  :) And now, time for a wiki-donut-break. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Re Crowns, coronets etc- of the three shown to left here, 1. is the Royal Crown of England, 2. is the coronet of a Viscount 3. is the crown of the Prince of Wales.
Of the three you put on my page, one is the coronet of a Marquess and the other is the coronet of an Earl, and I don't know what the one with the feathers is.
It appears that all of the ones you are choosing from this particular series of pics are in current use as honours in Great Britain. Whoever uploaded them to wiki from whatever source they came from, really should have identified each crown.
It isn't appropriate to use them, anymore than you would award, for example, a Victoria Cross to someone for good work on wiki. I know this sounds boring of me, but these awards are given to people for outstanding service to their country. Some titles are very old- of the current nobility some have honours that have passed through their families since the 14th century. Some of the awards, however, are recent; Life Peerages are given frequently, while a number of hereditary titles- some earls and quite a few viscounts were also created in the 20th century for outstanding service.
Amandajm (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. I suppose they weren't labeled clearly. I'll put more work into using acceptable substitutes. The intent here is to encourage and thank hard work for Wikipedia, not to offend. DurovaCharge! 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was passing through and noticed the predicament. I made this hopefully as a suitable replacement. I used the same crowns as the standard triple crown and a smaller crown from the same source. Let me know what you think. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Actually I've been in Photoshop experimenting with composite crowns. Basically I'm mixing and matching some different elements so that the resulting image is clearly a crown, but isn't representative of anything in particular. It takes a bit of work to create something that looks good in the end. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of images are you using, if they happen to be svg, you'd be able to keep it as a svg instead of converting it to a lesser quality png or jpg like the originally triple crown. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I've been using the free images from Commons. Been working in Photoshop and converting to .jpg when I upload. Had some slow going getting rid of the distracting background for the imperial crown jewel award the other day, and put quite a bit of work into the Napoleon image also. The extra crown that seemed most suitable almost disappeared into Napoleon's shirt, so I put a lot of work into tweaking both the costume and the crown in order to get a tolerable result. So this morning I pieced together elements of a noble crown with elements from the coat of arms of Santiago, Chile. It turned out to be much slower going than I had anticipated and the result doesn't satisfy me. I'm sitting back now and working on other stuff while I think it over. DurovaCharge! 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing a good job with Photoshopping. Good luck with it. Hopefully no one will feel offended by the new images. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova! The part of each crown that specifically relates to the honour that they represent is the things that stick up around the coronet part, so the leaves, silver balls, crosses and fler de lys indicate by the number and placement what is the rank of the person wearing it. You could photo shop completely different symbols in place of these.

Amandajm 13:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you re ArbCom[edit]

I have raised the question of who, and for what purpose, sent Giano II a copy of your report. It is on the basis that that individual may have questionable motives and should be - if known - a party to the ArbCom proceedings. A bit late in the day, I'm afraid, and I'm sorry to have disturbed what little peace you may have started to acquire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. If that sort of action had been necessary in order to restore a Wikipedian's editing privileges then I'd certainly understand. As it was, the block had already been lifted with profuse apologies. Feel free to follow up by chat or e-mail, or here. DurovaCharge! 23:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it as I have bought it up as Evidence; whatever the right and wrongs of both the report and Giano's posting of it - and of ArbComs findings in the matter following the heightened responses following its publication - there is another party to the proceedings that has not (and may not) face sanctions for the consequences of sending the mail to Giano. I would also comment that I have made much the same comments at Giano's talkpage. I think it is a matter for ArbCom to consider, even at this late stage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding your recent comments[edit]

I read this and started to respond there but I decided I would respond here instead. More appropriate.

The problem is not one block. It is not one error. It is that you were -- to all appearances -- running a secret process for what was in essence a Witch-hunt. Perhaps, had your Method actually been a good and valid process, it would have been winked at. Certainly it would not have come to light and you would have gone on. But it was very unscientific. Very biased. Untested. Unreliable. Yet you apparently believed it like it came down from a mountain carved in stone. And when you were questioned you implied that it was some sort of group thing -- still done in secret. Very star chamber. And through all of this, you have never really seemed to understand the problem. This is deeply troubling. I can sort of look through a glass and see things your way -- protecting the project -- but undue weight in that focus led you wrong. Somewhere on the road between good and bad you got lost but -- perhaps worst of all -- you still do not seem to know it.

"It was a mistake -- No one is perfect". And so on. To you, it was the error of the bad block which you quickly corrected so your humility should be a saving grace. In holding that perspective and continuing to say it, you confirm the view of the community that you are clueless about what was really wrong. In particular most people recognize that if you had not erred in the block, you would have continued to follow your Method and you would have been convinced you were doing good. And after several days and many comments, you still seem to not understand. Notice here that you now say the report was experimental. Think about that. You blocked someone indefinitely as an experiment. Yet to you that is somehow a valid thing to have done or at least something people should take into account before thinking you did something wrong. If you do not see what bothers people about experimentally judging and executing users in a secret process -- well -- it confirms that you should have given up the tools.

Add to that the whole idea of running around wikipedia looking for opportunities to clandestinely identify socks and block them without any appeal process. Many editors see this as a very paranoid and authoritarian trait. Why not just stop worrying about infiltration, just let the hurts of the past go and instead of seeking out evil, correct behaviors that lead to edits that stray from the guidelines. Basically... do not take a stance that automatically voids "Assume Good Faith".

I have tried to think about how this could have been handled so that you might have only been slapped a bit, but the vow of secrecy associated with the matter meant that people would feel you were "serving" them what they wanted to hear instead of what you thought, even if you said everything perfectly. So I do not think you could win. But had you at least said "Wow, I can see that have really got off the beam -- and I'm never going to seek to block socks again because I clearly have a blind spot problem with this and I'm gonna take a 6 month break from admin duties to get some perspective", that might have done something. Hard to say.

Well, at least that's my view and I hope I have been ... perhaps... helpful to you as you seek to understand the outrage and frame your responses to people. If not, feel free to delete this right away.

Now, having said all of that, I think that this must have been just horrible for you. I suppose that with wikipedia being an important part of your life, your soul is feeling pain. I do not know how it has affected you, but my heart goes out to you and I respect and admire the courage you have shown throughout. As someone once said to my father when he had a kidney stone: "This too shall pass." I hope that though I have been very critical, you will believe me when I say that I am absolutely not an enemy to you. --Blue Tie 01:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mistaken assumption at the start of your statement. You appear to suppose that the !! block was based on a method I did routinely. Quite the opposite: that was an attempt to streamline research that had previously been much more exhaustive and case-by-case. You see, this incident has really never had a straightforward discussion, and because I've been misquoted a lot and because a lot of mistaken assumptions have been bandied about, they've gained considerable currency. But when I respond, a storm erupts and nothing stays focused or readable. I'm bowing out until things calm down. DurovaCharge! 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow we may have edit conflicted and your response was not showing up. So I add a bit now and I hope it will show up. Incidentally, I did not assume you had done it before... but anyway.. never mind. I hope you will stay with the wikipedia project. --Blue Tie 01:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second what BT wrote, and a bit more. This might not be easy to read, but ... sit tight. Read what your (second) harshest critics are saying - Blue Tie, Geogre, Alecmcconroy - they're not that harsh. They recognize people make mistakes, even admins. But don't defend yourself any more. No one (almost) is out for your blood any more. You put down the tools, that's all anyone could have asked for. The difference will be if you keep trying to defend yourself, people will think you're not really sorry. Stop. Let other people mention that it was only a 75 minute block, because it was. That's what other people are for. Anything you write to defend yourself doesn't help, and could make it worse. If people you yourself write you respect think you don't recognize that you made an error in judgment, they might not give you back the tools later. You were a soldier, right? Bite the bullet. If you want to say something, make it an apology. If you can't make any more apologies, go write articles, or play with some kids, or whatever, but stop defending your actions. You don't need to defend yourself, nothing worse will be done to you, it won't help ... but it may hurt. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sailor, actually. I don't mind taking the heat for things I did. It's taking the heat for things I didn't do that grates. Good advice. DurovaCharge! 02:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AnonEMouse that you should continue to resist the urge to respond, but I'll also add: the amount of restraint you have shown is extraordinary - much more restraint than I could ever hope to have if I were in your shoes. It may sound paradoxical, but I feel more respect for you now than I did before this whole episode. I really mean that. ATren 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. :) DurovaCharge! 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's time for something completely different[edit]

Feel up for helping sort out a crank editor with an extreme POV? - perhaps even help bring a popular article back up to FA status? It might take your mind of the present silliness. If so, give me a shout (no obligation). Rklawton 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's new? DurovaCharge! 03:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still designing my Christmas cards. Why, what's new with you? Rklawton 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought you had some specific thing for me to pitch in and help with. ATM I'm taking a break from triple crown reviews to work on a craft project. Still sitting by the computer, so is anything pressing? DurovaCharge! 04:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and all that Jazz[edit]

I'm sorry one mistake cost you your bit. To err is human but you acted swiftly when you realized it was an error. The furore that has arisen since reminds me of the battles in political circles that never seem to achieve anything and are more about playing to the crowd and exercising ones ego. I have been impressed with your patience and dignity through this. I'd also like to apologize for not taking the time to read your e-mail when it was first sent out as I was snowed under with real life work and did not appreciate its significance. Sophia 09:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The price you have paid for making one bad block is ridiculous. I don't think I have ever seen anything like it...but take solice in knowing that arbcom doesn't appear to have commented that they had any intention of removing your sysop bit. I'm more convinced than ever that this project has some fundamental flaws that might take the efforts of a God-King to straighten out. It doesn't appear that WE as a community are effectively dealing with drama queens, those who misuse the dispute resolution process and other negative influences. Should you run again for admin, you'll get my support.--MONGO 10:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown request[edit]

Thank you! LordHarris 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awarded. DurovaCharge! 05:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova (talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Triple Crown[edit]

I've left a comment here, at the Aussie noticeboard - I think we should be able to get the numbers, so you can start photoshopping that koala :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have 5 people! Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 00:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teeheehee...I love it! Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 00:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more nominations for the Australian triple crown - hopefully some more to come


Regards--Matilda talk 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

            • No need to apologise. I'm keeping it anyway. Cheers! —Moondyne 05:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more Australians :-) --Matilda talk 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awarded. I can hardly keep up with your project! Saw the roster of people who are close to making it. Let them know I'm happy to hand out more. :) Cheers, DurovaCharge! 04:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the award, I am very pleased to have received it - it is such a fine upsitting (as opposed to upstanding) koala. I am sure some of the people I have listed as nearly made it have indeed qualified but I haven't had a chance to do the research to match them to their GA and FA contributions or find their DYKs - and there are others who I haven't listed yet in the nearly made it section who are also eligible. I hope other Australian wikipedians will look to fill in these gaps and nominate their colleagues for this elegant award.--Matilda talk 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)[edit]

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown Nom[edit]

A nomination for the much coveted triple-crown.

Thanks for the consideration, and thanks for maintaining this excellent little motivational tool for improving wikipedia. Pastordavid 05:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awarded. Thanks for nominating. :) DurovaCharge! 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova/Archive_40&oldid=1144561171"