User talk:Durin

• See User talk:Durin/archive for all prior discussion from this page.

Merry Christmas

I have to be at my parent's house at 8:30 tomorrow... you'd think I'd get some sleep. As for adminship, about a month ago I'd noticed myself on User:Durin/My guidelines for admin nomination and was flattered. But I decided I just wanted to get the RfA out of the way so I accepted the first time anyone wanted to nominate me... it's nice to have admin tools and not have to bug other admins to get stuff done. Anyway, Merry Christmas! --W.marsh 05:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for unprotecting

Hello Durin,

I noticed you were the one who protected the article on How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits; rightfully so, I saw some of the vandalism that was going on there and it was not a pretty sight. In the meantime, however, I've written a rather lengthy article on the sprite comic that bears that name and would like to ask for the article to be unprotected so it can be put up. --R. Wolff 23:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've unprotected it. Bear in mind there will be watchful eyes. If the article you put up in place of it is not a well crafted article, it's likely it will be speedy deleted again. I recommend you flesh out the article prior to posting it. --Durin 01:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks. I like to think it worked out okay. --R. Wolff 10:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Me and Adminship

Thanks for the comments on my talk page, I really appreciate it. About the comment on the RFA discussion page, I didn't mean for it to come off the way it did. It was not intended to scream nominate me!nominate me! I just wanted to point out that I felt kinda weird repeatedly posting on a page that was populated almost exclusively by admins. When Tito talked to me about it, I saw that there was a complete different message there. Perhaps I should remove it? Anyway, about the edit summeries. Yeah, I usually only use them for when I'm making changes to a previous edit or edits. When I'm posting or creating a new article, I don't use them that much. It shows in the histories. I'll start using them all the time now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh no worries about the comment. I didn't find any problem with it! It perked my curiosity, that's all. All the best, --Durin 18:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just concerned other people will get the same wrong impression (which is understandable), because it kind of comes off that way. That's why I'm considering removing it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but...

Hi,

I'm really quite honored that one of my favorite WPians thought of me, but my outside view at the Martin RFC really sums up my feelings at present. I find it hard even to muster the energy to do my regular rounds of maintenance and policy discussion (minimal as they've been lately) when it seems that a certain culture in the high leadership is committed to disparaging open discussion. I'm not leaving outright (because, unlike what they tried to do with you, I haven't been persecuted directly) -- I'm just a little down on the long-term fate of this noble endeavor. Certainly, if the ArbCom elections affirm specific people, my expectations will sink even lower.

Even if I weren't feeling this way, I have other reasons for enjoying normal usership. I get to be a (usually quite civil) "bulldog" (ala T. H. Huxley) for the policies I support, without having to worry about "reputation" and all that. :) I think good admins (like you, and Splash, and Radiant) need a dedicated support staff that is happy to be more anonymous.

The only thing that's ever swayed me is the change in policy that puts deletion logs behind a veil, which makes DRV hard to follow occasionally. On balance, though, I still think its better to stay where I am. I'll probably reconsider around my 8,000th edit; I have been adding edit sumaries more consistently than the last time you analyzed me! (55%) :)

Best wishes, and keep up the fight for fairness and happy 2006!, Xoloz 21:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sorry to hear you don't want to be an admin. I think you would be excellent. I would like to say that despite your general despair, that being an admin is important even if you find yourself in such a situation. This is in fact part of my underlying reason why I decided to stick it out. There are plenty of people in any sufficiently large group with whom you are going to radically disagree. I found one in KM. That's easy enough to understand and accept. But, if that group that radically disagrees with you makes attempts at controlling whatever it is the group is doing, then there is an underlying fundamental philosophical question that needs to be addressed. That question can't be satisfactorily addressed by having those who disagree with the radically disagreeing subset leave the project. So, then the question devolves to; is satisfactorily addressing the issue(s) a worthy goal? That devolves even further; is Wikipedia itself a worthy goal? I think the answer is yes; and I think you do to, since you're still here despite your reservations.
• In particular on your points:
  • I don't think you'd have to worry about reputation if you became an admin. I used to be concerned about it. Now, I'm not. I really don't care what my reputation is anymore. What I do care about is upholding the highest ideals of the project as best I see and can do. I can not reasonably expect everyone to never find fault with my actions. All I can do is act in good conscience, and to heck with reputation. I think you could find the same.
  • In specific regard to the outside view you mentioned; note that of the current 12 who support the view, fully half of them are administrators themselves. Your sentiment is obviously one that several people share. How do we best go about solving the problem? As noted above, not by leaving the project. Instead, we become *more* involved and seek advice from each other and discussion among everyone to help foster a more positive project. These are wiki-growing pains. We can't get past them by having the very people who could solve these problems walking away.
  • Anonymous support staff? :) Well, to be bluntly honest...I have no friends here. I've never desired friends here, and I don't look to others to gain support. See my comments about reputation. I don't need anonymous support staff. That's not arrogance, it's just recognition that I can't please everyone all the time. So, I go about doing the best I can all the time, and that's the best I can do. If some more anonymous people agree with me, so be it. But, it's never been a goal. So, if you became an admin you would not be depriving me (or, I think, really anyone else) of an anonymous support staff. In looking through your edits, I was frankly surprised to see you'd contributed to my RfC. I got curious to see what you said. You were largely supportive; but I didn't remember that.
  • Yes, your use of edit summaries is now 86.6% over the last 500 edits :)
• One of the things I like about you as a potential admin is that you'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar to say "I do" :) I don't nominate people who are actively seeking adminship, or who heavily flaunt themselves. In your comments, I've found you to be a thoughtful, reasonable person. These are great qualities! I've also seen your distribution in admin appropriate areas is radically different then others I have nominated or reviewed; 161 edits to WP:MFD, and 206 to WP:DRV. That kind of participation in those areas is rare. My only concern on you so far is whether you're too much of a deletionist for my taste, but your comments on your user page about saving articles from the brink speaks volumes on that count. 1051 edits to WP:AFD? Good lord. You're an AFD machine! Wikipedia *needs* you as an admin.
• So, tell me again you don't want to be an admin :) But, think it over first. You've already admitted you have a need for the priviledges inherent in being an admin; ability to see deletion logs. With admin privs, you'd be a lot more effective at WP:AFD and WP:MFD as well. I won't continue my review of your contributions until you say "yes", but everything I've seen so far is very, very promising. Come on! Say it! The priest is waiting...two little words..."I do" :) Holding a ring (or is that a ball and chain? :)) and tapping my foot, Durin 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is quite funny, and certainly put a smile on my misshapen face. :) First, old business... I had typed an additional comment that actually just "edit conflict"ed with you. :) Below:

Coincidentally, I just happened across your "generational" comment at RFA talk, and find it quite interesting and likely correct. Much as I love reading King Lear, I'm not much for living in a giant recreation of it, so my wiki-mood will probably pick up when (and if) the elders learn to accept reality or die off. Xoloz 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, as for what you've said: I completely agree, first, with your philosophy on Wiki-friends; I don't use this place to socialize, and I don't go looking for allies. I do make mental lists of contributors I find to have the highest judgment, and I am fiercely loyal in defending them, if only because I believe sound judgment is the key virtue in any quest to compile the world's knowledge. This is what I meant by "anonymous support staff" -- I don't want you, or anyone, to remember me in particular; my goal is simply to give my sometimes verbose, rational support to those views (and their advocates) most likely to make this place sane, harmonious, and efficient. I have my wiki-friends (or wiki-models, I guess) who probably don't even know that I deeply respect them. I wouldn't have had occasion to let you know previously, except that you were persecuted, and I don't take well to the persecution of the just.

Afd... yes, if you'll look at the study of AfDs listed on User:Scimitar's page, you'll see I was almost in the top 30 at that time, and my votes were very close to 50/50, I'm proud to say. :) I don't vote religiously any more, for timesaving reasons, because I put a tremendous amount of thought into the votes. I consider that my tiny vote obliges me to ask whether the topic belongs in the corpus of human wisdom, and I don't vote delete unless I'm sure that the article needs to go. I count User:Kappa as one of those users whose judgment I honor, and (among the many reasons I decline adminship) I am happy to remain a normal user as long as he does. I now frequent DRV more often, to stop abuses of process, and help stop unilateralists (through reasoned argument) from acting before consensus is reached.

Your philosophical appeal calling me to adminship was not unpersuasive. :) I agree that the project will only improve if rational actors increase their involvement (I am self-deprecating by nature, but I will admit that I'm at least a rational actor.) Your argument has clearly lifted my spirits, and given me reason to renew my dedication, following your example. :) I'll need time (probably quite a bit) before I agree that I'm to up the adminship challenge, though, so you shouldn't wait long at the altar, handsome though you are, I'm sure! :) One thing you, and everybody, should know is that (if and when I ever do take up the yoke of admin responsibility), I intend to resign and resubmit myself to RFA at least yearly. I believe strongly in the Cincinnatus/Geo. Washington example, and I'd like it if all admins did this. (You don't need too, of course, nor the others I admire... but something needs to be done to bring unilateralism to heel, and a change in community standards must start somewhere.) As I said, that consideration is for the future, because I'm content and well-suited to usership for now. Thanks so much, though! Your effort was even more intelligent and compelling than I'd expect, and I have high expectations of you. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Thank you for the feedback that you left on my userpage. As you noticed, I am still rather new to Wikipedia and I am trying to find my place in the community. I would like to take the credit for the message that I left on the talk page of the person whose article I requested be speedied, but it is a subst that is at the bottom of the CSD page. Movementarian 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Whoops! To many such templates these days to keep track of. Regardless, your intent was spot on. Good show! --Durin 20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Suitability for adminship

Hi Durin, I've been a contributor on en. for some time now, and I would like to get some feedback regarding your evaluation my potential suitability for adminship. I've reviewed your personal requirements, and I believe that I'm the type of person who you're looking for and is well suited to the added responsibilities. I have no 'admin lust for power' (smile), but I'm always looking for ways to be a more effective contributor. A review of my history will show that I am civil, I avoid edit warring, I work towards finding consensus in conflict, and I'm an active participant in the project side of Wikipedia (often in the form of VfD nomination, but also in RFA when appropriate). I thank you for your time, and best regards. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to review you! Give me about a day, ok? --Durin 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm starting work on the review. According to Kate's tool, you are a tool. No wait, that's what your userpage says :) You've got 996 deleted edits. That's a lot! Are the majority of these speedy taggings, or what? --Durin 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'd guess that about 990 are from speedy delete taggings, one is from a misguided but well intentioned Guide to moving article I wrote back in 2004 before learning what Wikipedia was WP:NOT that was VfD'd (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Guide to Moving), and the last couple are probably articles that I cleaned up or copyedited at some point that were merged or VfD'd after the fact. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Wanted to let you know, I am working on your review. I'm nearly done with everything except reviewing your user talk and mainspace talk page contributions (that takes a while). I think I should complete this tomorrow. Everything looks good so far. --Durin 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks for the update! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• I haven't forgotten about you or anything. I only got so far on Friday. Time hasn't been in my favor of late. --Durin 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No hurry, thanks for the heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to thank you again for working on this. Looks like you've got quite a crowd of people vying for your attention! If you'd like to do this some other time, I'll totally understand, just let me know. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Beyond minor edits, you're first on my list of wiki-things to do. Some real world things are greatly impacting my wiki-time. I'm trying; really, I'm trying! Thank you for your patience! :) --Durin 13:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Possible RfA nomination

Greetings also, and Happy New Year!

Thanks for your kind offer to consider nominating me for Adminship. Can I get back to you on this in a few days, as I would like some time to consider whether I would accept a nomination. I have become somewhat disillusioned with Wikipedia over this whole Userbox / Kelly Martin fiasco in the past few days. On the other hand, being an Admin would allow my voice on matters to be heard a bit better, and it would certainly help with the vandal fighting - something I've not done much of since Sam Hocevar's godmode script appears to be broken at the moment :( Time to test it out again!!

Not sure if I'll make the 3,000 mark by January 9th, but I'll let you know once I've considered matters for a bit. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed your Admin related subpages - lots of useful reading there to help!! And, no, I am not going to read the section with the advisory health warning about falling asleep and whacking your forehead on the keyboard. Looks like good advice to me :) --Cactus.man ✍ 11:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of any disputes happening (and they are always happening) having a diverse admin base is important to the success of the project. As I related to another individual, if there is a problem with the project we can't solve it by walking away. Thus, the question becomes...is the project worth it to solve the problem? I think the answer is yes. Considering your activity level, I think your answer is yes too. Ref User_talk:Durin#Thanks_very_much.2C_but... for more on this. Take your time; like I found in Xoloz, one of the things I like to see in someone is to not actively be seeking adminship. As for advisory health warnings; *laugh* :) (or is that maniacal laughter? ;)) --Durin 15:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Durin.

Your assessment is correct. My recent disillusionment left me feeling particularly uncreative, so I have been working away on drudge tasks instead. The only possible conclusion is that I obviously do believe that the project is worthwhile, which is why I am still here. I have been reading your admin pages and looking at the various reading materials for prospective and actual admins, and doing a fair bit of thinking about your original question.

I agree with you that a diverse admin base is a good thing. I have followed discussions on WP:AN and related pages for some time now, and think some of the behaviour and decisions made there are questionable. I have rarely contributed because I felt that either it was more in the realm that admins only should comment on or, as a "little person", my opinion would be unheard or ignored. I realise now how wrong that view is, and everybody's voice should be heard if they have something valid to say. After the New Year "Wikipedia riots" I determined to become more active in these areas, and also matters like voting in RfA and the upcoming ArbCom elections. Ironically, your message arrived out of the blue as I was reading through the RfA pages, considering starting to vote. I have avoided this for the time being until I resolved whether I would accept your potential nomination or not.

I have decided that I will accept a nomination, if I meet your various criteria for potential nominees. I am probably a bit light in some contribution areas, but that is something that I have already determined to address. I leave that evaluation up to you. So, I will leave you to do whatever it is you do for 2 hours, whenever that may happen, and thanks again for considering me for nomination. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughtful words above prove all the more to me your worthiness as a person, wikipedian and potential admin. I have another nomination review in the que that I am working on, so it might be a little bit before I can begin yours. Also, as I predicted, you cleared 3,000 edits on January 9th :) I would like to note something to you regarding speaking up regarding questionable actions of admins: I've attempted to do this myself, and have met with mixed results. It is possible that if you take similar action, that you will incite the wrath of some particularly defensive admins. I believe too many admins view adminship as a permission slip to behave in very nasty ways with impunity. This is counter to the project, but from this chair it appears ArbCom is unwilling and/or incapable of intervening. I'd like to see this change, but until it does be very careful and polite in how you address admins that you feel are behaving improperly. It can lead to a great deal of stress and wikihardship for you. --Durin 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, your prediction on my edit count was spot on and I hereby unilaterally promote you to the post of Head of WikiPrediction. Looks like all the drudge work dragged me up to 3000 after all :) And thanks for the advice, it's pretty much the conclusion I had come to over my time watching WP:AN. I am sure you understand that I was being diplomatic with my language above. As I said earlier, I intend to refrain from voting in any RfA until such time as I am either not nominated, or any nomination for me is over. It would be too much like trying to win friends and influence people for my taste, given that I know I may be in that very position soon. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether I should apply the same policy on voting for the ArbCom candidates. I change my mind on this almost hourly, but my voting finger is twitching madly!! What is the accepted ettiquette on such things? Any advice gratefully accepted, thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

When was the last time that I didn't edit wikipedia for a day?

Yes, the subject line says it all. I'm going on holidays soon and won't be able to edit wikipedia for a week, so my question is: taking into account my time zone of UTC +8, when was the last time I didn't edit wikipedia for a whole day? This has been quite hard: I've always had the urge to check my watchlist and make at least one minor edit every day for the last six months or so. When I leave on the 8th of January, I'd like to be able to think ""this is the first day I haven't edited wikipedia in xxx days/weeks/months".

Thanks, Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• September 15th and 16th of 2005 (adjusted for your time zone) you had no edits. --Durin 14:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) PS: Keep in mind this does not include deleted edits, of which you have 186. I have no time stamp for them. --Durin 14:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for that. That's kind of scary that I've been editing for 112 days straight - I must be addicted! Most of my deleted edits were marking speedies, and I always did those after a ton of minor edits, so I think that figure is accurate.

• As for being an administrator, I'd like to, but not yet. The main problem I have is that I sometimes do things on impulse which I will later regret. For example, what exists now of talk:procrastination, when I removed a significant chunk of info without discussion just because user:kyrex said it didn't belong. If I was elected to adminship, I would use my powers carefully, knowing that they are a privilege, not a right. Therefore, I'd like to know what I can do to improve for adminship, thinking about a future nomination.
• I am also quite surprised that there are not more people with a vision impairment on wikipedia. The only admin I know of who uses a screen reader is user:Academic Challenger, and I know that user:Weichbrodt and user:Cannona also work a lot on blindness-related articles. I tried to teach a blind friend of mine how to use wikipedia, and the biggest problem she had was the links, because jaws paused after reading every link title. There are other ways to get around the site which are easy once you get used to them, but they require the user to be knowledgeable about how their screen reader functions on the internet. Most screen reader users do not employ the full power of their screen readers, especially on the internet. Most don't know how to use forms effectively, and I guess that is why not many blind people contribute to wikipedia. Graham/pianoman87 talk 05:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom advice

Hi Durin! Since you are one of the users here who I respect greatly for your thoughtful insight and knowledge, do you have any advice as to how I should vote?

My current slate consists of Charles Matthews, Dmcdevit, Everyking (controversial, I know, but I think a voice who speaks against bans can be a good thing on Arbcom), Filliocht, Merovingian, Mindspillage (this is the only current arbitrator I feel like supporting just now), Nandesuka, Ral315 and SimonP.

Any others you think I ought to add to the list? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is a difficult question. I myself have not fully answered it. I can tell you who I am not voting for and the reason for it. First, the reason: There is a very serious and growing problem within Wikipedia. Some of the nature of this problem is outlined by me here. But, that does not cover the entire problem. I've been pondering how to scope the problem for a while, in an attempt to clearly define exactly what the problem is and do so in as concise a manner as possible so as to gather people within Wikipedia in a unified voice to declare the problem as real and in need of being solved. I've been in discussions with a number of people both here and offline in trying to achieve this. At this point, I don't think I'll be able to complete this work before the elections begin, and I certainly won't be able to garner support sufficient to sway people's voting patterns to produce an ArbCom that is willing to tackle the issue. I wish I'd really understand the gravity of the situation some months ago, but I was not as fully aware of it then as I am now. As much as I understand it at this point in time, these are the factors that play into this problem:
  • Casual disrespect for new users by admins, some members of ArbCom, and even Jimbo. Not only must you be an experienced user to have your voice heard (and even being an admin doesn't count as experienced anymore), but you must also be acceptable by some nebulous standard before your voice carries any weight. In short, if you're not in the 'in' group, your voice lacks merit.
  • Willful ignorance of policy and guidelines by some admins, and ArbCom supporting their actions in many cases.
  • ArbCom's utter unwillingness to hear a case against some people yet clear willingness to hear cases against other admins who behaved much in the same way. I.e., major bias within ArbCom.
  • ArbCom's several recent decisions and explanations which have, in summary, left all policies as meaningless. Policy is, according to ArbCom, defined as "common sense" and by how we do things. Both of these definitions of policy are nearly entirely encompassed within individual judgement rather than community judgement; this is starkly against what so much of Wikipedia tells us it is supposed to be; consensus.
• As one of the people I am working with said, Wikipedia is no longer "genuinely free and intellectually open" and may never have been so. Yet, it defines itself as such. This leaves the project in a constant quandary. The ongoing utter disrespect for new members of our community is causing quite a number of people to leave, even if they aren't the ones being disrespected. They realize that we can not long live if the project insists on casting asperions on the very lifeblood of our work. Further, they realize we can not change this with the status quo as it is; an unrepentent ArbCom that refuses to enact change, and Jimbo supporting them in such at every turn. Thus, the project to them is untenable. Their view has merit, and I am increasingly becoming of the same view.
• ArbCom must change to heal this problem. It will take some very dedicated, intelligent individuals to solve this great problem. I believe the following people are either utterly incapable of helping to heal the growing rift or are actively contributing to the problem (in alphabetical particular order, and I am not going to cite evidence for each; very time consuming): Aranda56, Fred Bauder, Golbez, Kelly Martin, Ilyanep, Jayjg, Jdforrester (James F.), Luigi30, NSLE, Snowspinner, Tony Sidaway. Were David Gerard running, I would vote against him for abuse of checkuser priviledges. But, he's not. Nevertheless, I fully expect David Gerard to be re-appointed to ArbCom by Jimbo at some point. There may be others that I will vote against on the same grounds as above. I haven't completed my analysis yet on a number of candidates.
• The only candidates on your list that I have reviewed to some extent are Mindspillage and Nandesuka. Mindspillage I am leaning somewhat in favor of based on the evidence I have seen of recent. But, I have to say I have a gut feeling this might not be a good choice, but I have nothing to support that feeling right now. I will most likely vote in favor of Nandesuka. I think he will do a great deal towards solving the problem. Hope this helps, --Durin 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your well thought out response. Some of the people you mentioned are ones who I have had good and positive experiences talking with, including Kelly Martin (mutual support on each of our RFAs my conversations with her have been good), Tony Sidaway (always treated me well personally), and Golbez (brilliant vandal hunter). Yet, I know that the liberal interpretation of IAR professed by means that I will be opposing them which will be really painful. It will be made especially painful by this being an "open ballot" rather than a closed one. I guess I will have to tell myself that I am judging their suitability for Arbcom, and not their worthiness as Wikipedia editors. With Golbez I can tell myself that putting him on Arbcom will mean taking a powerful vandal fighter out of the RC patrol arena (which is a horrendously bad thing which should immediadately disqualify him for ArbCom).

There are two problems which I think are quite serious with Wikipedia right now, problems which I feel have increased since I registered my username in March. First is the increasing amount of vandalism which is overloading the RC patrollers. Today, I find myself reverting old vandalism which has slipped past the RC patrol more often than I have ever done before. The second is an overreliance on the IAR guideline by administrators, those charged with upholding our policies, something which, I agree with you, has been backed up too much by the ArbCom. I'll admit, I have invoked IAR a few times, for instance, today I decided to speedy keep this AFD debate without any real policy support it apart from taking a chance that nobody will protest. But I have seen more and more invocations of IAR since last summer, invocations used to override community consensus rather than to expediate it. It motivated my decision to write an essay on IAR in my userspace.

The Arbcom I'm looking for will be a bit more eager to accept cases like this one and the "Wheel warring" case brought by Radiant!, and a bit less eager to accept cases like this one. I feel that the Webcomics case was a horrendous waste of time, and after a lot of bickering and ill will in the workshop, it ended in the ArbCom telling everyone to play nice and that saying that someone is "not capable of making reasonable judgments of notability" is not a personal attack (Well, I think that 4-3 is insufficient and that you need five supports to pass it, I'll give some merits to Kelly, Fred and Jayjg for being sensible on that finding). It is because of the same problems you mention that I am intending to vote for only one of the incumbants.

Well, I feel it's time for a break now. At any rate, thanks for your thoughts. You are looking for the same qualities in the candidates that I am looking for, and I think that our votes in the election may look quite similar. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular

I created the article Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, English name for Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular in Portugal. Due to possible copyright problems it was temporarily blocked. In the meanwhile somebody deleted the article, forgotten that a Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology/Temp already exist.

Then I created the article Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular using the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology/Temp I had created also.

Now there is a Singaporean article in the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, for an institute from Singapore. I think we should create a disambiguation page...

There's a small confusion here with the designations.

Bye.Armindo 14:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your explanation, and good work! I've deleted the temp page now. --Durin 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Subpage deletion

Thanks! Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Xerocs

I noticed you've posted some comment to this user regarding his unblocking, I've checked and it appears the autoblock kicked in, can you undo this?

19:37, 6 January 2006, Talrias blocked #77721 (expires 19:34, 7 January 2006) (Autoblocked...

Thanks --pgk^(talk) 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ah. That's what happened. The block created a xerox of itself. :) Yeah, I'll look into it. --Durin 21:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Durin, for talking with Xerocs. It looks like you're off to a good start with showing him the Wiki-ropes. FreplySpang (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA

Cheers for reverting, I wasn't exactly sure, perhaps I should have asked on WT:RFA. Sorry 'bout that. NSLE _(T+C) 00:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA

I replyed to your questions in my RFA, Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I replyed again, I honestly 100 percent never knew that I removed M0RHI comment until now and I would had fixed it if I knew. and I'm tagging the Image:Leiriadis.gif as nosource as I saw the original edit summary as PD by the user and I thought PD and that was a mistake in my part. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly this is the last chance I got in becoming a admin, I'm heading down the path of inactivty and if I become a admin, I probaly won't have time to use the powers as I got baseball season coming up, and also after baseball season ends, I'm going to have surgery for a bad arm defect that had since birth and I'm probaly going to be in a cast for months until fall, and after that I will be in my senior year of high school and my GPA is a bit low and I probaly won't be in wikipedia again. Should I withdraw my RFA, as I honestly have no time for wikipedia coming up and if I get elected I probaly won't have anytime to enjoy it. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I just came to add a separate note but see you wrote this here Jorge. I would not withdraw your nomination. You have to realise that you need thick skin to go through these type or peer review. Those that are critical are trying to be constructive. You have many supporters too. You saw what Celestianpower and Christopher Parham said in your defense. Just let it play out. More importantly if you show you do not have a thick skin this may go against you with regard to adminship too. This very issue came up in your first two RfA's

Other points that I think could help you along are the following. 1) If I were you i would not play the broken toe card (or arm for that matter) it can only go against you since it might seem like you are trying to get the sympathy vote. 2) Think hard before replying to criticism. Be humble and definitely not overly defensive. Other editors will come to your defense if the criticism is too harsh. So often I have seen RfA's turn for the worse when the candidate gets defensive. 3) Don't say to other users this is my last chance i am not editing in wikipedia for another nine months. the obvious reply is then come back in a year. So again, just let it play out. David D. (Talk) 01:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdrew, I just won't have the time. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm just going to be to inactive soon, I might edit here or there around but still not planning to edit much until Fall and if I do it's going to be on commons or to get the Terry Bradshaw article into featured, thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Acually, now that I have some time in my hand, as I can't have doctors clearance for baseball because of my arm, I accpect your offer, I'm still going to be editing much less than before, and I lost my desire for becoming a admin for now. But still Thanks :) --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting an RfA

Thanks for fixing the formatting. It looks a lot better and now I see how the correct formatting keeps the numbers intact. David D. (Talk) 01:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin Criteria

I saw your discussion of people's admin criteria and was curious what you thought of mine. Besides the usual criteria like "shouldn't blow up the wiki" : there's one in particular: the candidate should have a good understanding of the policy trifecta. Since you have very strong thoughts about abuse of the ignore all rules guideline in particular, what do you think of asking candidates about their understanding of it?

Kim Bruning 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hey! You're back! Does this mean your dissertation is done? How did it go? Revisions? If so, how bad? Oh wait...nevermind (just looked at the block log)...you're visiting somewhere and the unblock is temporary :/ Bummer! As to your questions; yes I think asking an admin's interpretation of WP:IAR would be a good idea as a 4th question. As for reviewing your criteria, my wife is expecting me to get off the computer right now so I gotta run :) I'll get you some feedback over the weekend. --Durin 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia riots

(Note: This blurb references Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Wikipedia riots.) Hey Durin, I just read what you said about the rioting on Wikipedia. You're not the only one who has noticed this glaring problem in our little community. You've always been one of my favorite members as I've wandered about here, and this incredibly apt and timely statement you made only reinforces that thought. Now, enough stroking your ego. I'd like to share my thoughts on the issue with you, and see where it brings us. Firstly, the most glaring problem with our community as it stands relates to class, but it's actually just an "age" issue: Old vs. new. Many admins who have been here a long time have begun to exhibit signs of what I interpret as anti-wikiness, which is to say, they are hostile to newbies and their newfangled ways. I think the whole userbox controversy (which I participated in by starting that dreadful RfC which nevertheless brought the issue to the forefront; had I not done the RfC, someone else would have) is a symptom of this, and it manifests itself in other, more nefarious ways. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are nice and all, but sometimes, consensus simply is needed. Old-timey admins seem to have gotten the idea into their heads that if what the community decides to do interferes with WP:ENC, it should go. What I believe was forgotten in the whole mix was what a wiki is, fundamentally, and that is a community-driven, community-written encyclopedia. Piss off the community, and you have an encyclopedia falling apart at the seams. Not to mention you've sold out your original intent simply because Wikipedia does not as closely represent the ideal encyclopedia as it is believed it should. Is this view invalid or inferior? Perhaps not, but nonetheless I find it a disturbing development, and absolutely against the fundamental principles this encyclopedia was founded with. Your further thoughts on this would be appreciated, Durin. I think a lot of admins need to wake up, and soon, or else Wikipedia may little resemble its former self in a few short months. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. I was actually contemplating starting an RFC on this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Means vs Ends, and playing with the idea that Ends and Means were two users of Wikipedia... not sure it would work though, and would be quite a lot of effort. What else is there, though? Seriously propose Wikipedia:User Sanction Review? (See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Talrias.) Form a Wikipedian group, Wikiproject:Wikipedians for Due Process, to coordinate efforts to enforce and develop policy? (I think part of the problem is that policy hasn't kept up with community needs, which leads to excessively loose interpretation and associated arbitrariness.) In general, there are too many people who don't seem to understand why respecting due process (with as little bureaucracy as possible, of course) is in Wikipedia's best long-term interest, even if on any given day it's a pain in the arse. Finally, I'd like to see Jimbo agree not to intervene in everyday affairs (I'm thinking of the Marsden affair), because it's like the President making a citizen's arrest on a suspected mugger: (a) he's surely got better things to do and (b) it subverts ordinary processes, which is not in Wikipedia's long-term interest. Rd232 ^talk 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing that might help in the very long term would be a fundamental revision of how editing works; I call it "WikiSquared". At the moment, all revisions go public immediately, and any peer review of whether the revision should be made occurs after the fact. But ideally, changes should be reviewed before being made public to the ordinary reader, with edits made to a temporary version, and being reflected automatically in the public version under certain rules (eg the edit is a revert; is to an article with only one contributor; is supported by X other editors; is unopposed after X minutes, etc). With appropriate rules (which needn't be fixed, or apply to all articles), this would more or less kill vandalism, and reduce the risk of edit wars being played out in public. It would require a massive software change though. (It also sounds a bit complicated, but done right, with the software doing the heavy lifting, it would be very simple.) Rd232 ^talk 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BorgHunter/Rd232 (some of this is not direct response, but related things as well):

• I dare say that not only are we not the only ones who have observed this, but I am of the opinion that if we put together a well thought out petition regarding the global issue, we'd get hundreds of signatures.
• Have a look at this. In particular, "Respected editors also respect the anarchic "accept all comers" approach". This is utterly false in practice. The "elite" have made disregarding the opinions of newcomers routine. As one person who would stand against us put it, "It's not how many sign, but WHO signs". The reality is, there is a social strata in Wikipedia. Our documentation says otherwise. The disagreement is disruptive. The people who insist on their being a social strata are way out of line. This includes much of ArbCom as it exists now and Jimbo himself (in my opinion...I will need to research this more to understand his view better).
• Have a look at this, especially item #3. Juxtapose one ArbCom member's (granted, taken out of context but relevant anyways) comment "Screw process". Note that the page says these foundational issues are "essentially beyond debate". Interesting, no? ArbCom has turned their back on the foundational issues and casually disregarded them.
• As another ArbCom member put it, policy is "common sense". Of course, what is common to you or me might be labeled as insane by someone from a very different culture than either of ours, yet they are contributors to Wikipedia. "Common sense" based policy for a community as large as this leads to anarchy. Nickptar outlined a great example of how this can go horribly wrong. Another hypothetical example; imagine if I went on a deletion spree against elementary schools or pokemon character articles!
• Extending the second point above, the idea of "community" is casually disregarded as well. The community does not matter, according to some, because we are not here to build a community. Thus, the idea of community is irrelevent. This is, of course, absurd. Without the community, you wouldn't have contributors.
• What constitutes a riot on Wikipedia? Note that this is not the easiest of questions to answer. It's not the same as in person; we don't have thousands of people rushing the streets with police in riot gear chucking tear gas canisters and hosing people down with high pressure water cannons. As a result, I think quite a few people are failing to recognize just how serious the problem is because what we think of a riot (as imaged above) simply can not happen at Wikipedia. So, defining exactly what a riot is can help to show just how bad the situation is. There's many things which can point to there being a riotous environment; how frequently are good editors leaving (this is very hard to gauge)? How often are wheel wars happening? How frequently are admins becoming inactive? Can you guys think of others? These might be important metrics to help gauge the health of the community. Or, the state of unrest.
• User sanction review might be a great idea. As Mindspillage said on WP:RFA talk, "[Arbcom isn't] actually equipped to handle really fundamental issues of Wikipedia culture such as are being brought up". So, perhaps there does need to be another structure in place. Right now, there is little enforcement of anything going on. I believe a state of anarchy exists. I can't find where I read it now, but I read another ArbCom member saying that ArbCom isn't punitive, but corrective. I.e., ArbCom won't punish for past actions. ArbCom will only take action to prevent future damage to Wikipedia. Personally, this is ridiculous. Let's take real life. A person robs ten banks, knowing it is against the law. He is arrested and brought to trial. He then says under oath, "I promise not to do it again". The judge rules that since his future risk to society is non-existent thanks to his promise, that he can go free. ArbCom isn't a court, but the notion that we should not be taking punitive action because someone promised not to do it in the future is frankly absurd. Wikipedia related behavior; KM and TS. KM has still not made any assurance that she won't go on a userbox deletion spree again. TS, after the whole debate began (and he was well aware of the debate...he had previously commented on the RfC) went on a userbox deletion spree exactly akin to KM's. But, according to ArbCom, since he stopped there's no reason to intercede. I.e., so long as you stop doing <x>, there's no consequences for having done <x>.
• Wikipedians for due process might also be a worthy idea. But, it will be adamantly opposed just like sanction review would be.
• Hypocrisy is, in my opinion, rampant among a number of these people. I hate to use this as an example, as I really do not want to focus on KM, but note that even a week after this deletion spree began by her in part to delete userboxes that had fair use images in them, KM has a fair use image in a userbox on her user page. The use of it there is illegal under copyright law. The idea of "do as I say, not as I do" is rampant in this general group of people who have decided policy is meaningless.
• I think one of the chief problems isn't that policy hasn't kept up, but rather that policy can be changed by anyone, anytime. If it is "OFFICIAL policy" (emphasis mine) why is it that anyone can edit it at any time? All policy and guideline pages should, by default, be protected. This might seem anti-wiki, but you can't have a system of laws (and really, that's what policy/guidelines is interpreted as by many people; rightly or wrongly that's how they see it) that can change on a whim, with little or no community input. It'd be like changing from week to week whether marijuana is legal or not. Result? People who want to dabble in <x> activity but want to stay within the bounds of the law can end up getting caught in a "gotcha" because policy keeps on changing, right underneath their feet. Example; I recently put a non-notable band article up for AfD on the grounds that it failed WP:MUSIC. Little did I know, CSD A7 had changed a few weeks earlier to allow such articles to be speedied. If another user saw me do this, they could easily think "Hey, he's an experienced user and admin. He thought it should go through Afd!" and follow suit on other articles.
• Rd232, I agree that Jimbo shouldn't be involved as you noted.
• WikiSquared sounds like a great notional idea. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to be implemented because so much in the way of the software would have to change.
• Vandalism is a very serious issue threatening Wikipedia. I saw an editor recently who noted that he looks at the last 500 (as opposed to last 50) recent changes when doing RC patrol, and looks at the oldest changes first. I started doing this and found an amazing amount of undetected vandalism. The number of changes per day per admin continues to increase. I.e. the number of changes that should be reviewed measured as "work load" is going up (and rapidly). I recommend both of you start doing as this editor suggested and I do now. Jimbo's reaction to vandalism? Stop IPs from making new articles. Result? The number of changes per day per admin continues to rise at the same rate, and not surprisingly the number of new users heavily spikes. Yes, I have data to back this up. I'm taking a snapshot of Special:Statistics every day.

I would like help in creating a discussion area for us and others of similar mind to hammer out a focused statement of sorts, to outline the scope of this general problem with the intention of fostering change, perhaps with a petition drive. The problem is we'd likely be victimized by people who radically disagree with us. As such, I think this needs to be a page in user space, and not Wikipedia space. That will give us more latitude to be exclusionary to people who attempt to hijack the process (as happened at WP:GRFA at while back, when Ambi and TS stepped in). I know excluding people sounds anti-wiki. Perhaps it is, but what I am looking for is preventing abuse of process, and not really excluding people; just excluding people who insist on abusing the process. Thoughts? --Durin 20:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

One problem, as I see it, is that those who see a conflict between the interests of the encyclopedia and the interests of the community don't have the right mental model of how this thing works. The interests of the community are the interests of the encyclopedia since the former is building the latter.

"But", some honest editors think, "when the community decides to do things that go against the interests of the encyclopedia I have to act against it even if I need to ignore all rules in doing so."

But the problem with this approach is that you're substituting your own judgement for that of the larger community. You could be wrong. In fact it's fairly likely that you're wrong. The community never decides to go against the interests of the encylopedia. There doesn't ever arise a situation where everyone agrees that action X is bad for the encyclopedia and yet X has huge support within the community. What does occur is that people disagree whether action X is bad for the encyclopedia or not - a fundamentally different problem. - Haukur 11:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A very valid point, and does a good job of encapsulating a good portion of the problem. More on this on a subpage. --Durin 16:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Greeting

Thanks for the welcome! After a week here (I mean as a User), I'm hooked. (How do you get anything else done??) Yes, let's get together sometime. Just not in January, when my Real Work Life will be unusually complicated. -- MikeGasser (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• As with anything, balance. I'd be happy to meet with you. This place is a fantastic resource, and despite criticisms does pretty well overall. This article from Nature magazine compares Wikipedia to Britannica, and Wikipedia does well. There are significant issues that face this project however. Some of them can be quite depressing. General advice; ignore the idiots as much as possible and press on with the work and knowledge you have.
• I don't believe we've ever met before...we might have, but I'm not sure. We definitely know each other through one handshake; I know Fred C., Raja S. (you know he's over at the B school now?), Devin M., Cathy R., etc. If memory serves, you were on Devin or Cathy's committee (or both)? --Durin 16:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding the idiots seems like great advice. (I've already seen one of "those kinds of discussion" that was tempting, but I could see it could end up being a huge time and effort sink.) Yes, I was Devin's co-advisor and knew Fred well (I was on his committee, and he was once my AI). -- MikeGasser (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement thoughts

Please move this to a sub-page, Durin, where we can discuss drafting a statement. Here are some ideas.

---

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is written by an open, democratic society of equals.

The society is open because everyone can join it regardless of creed, interests or political opinions.

The society is democratic because decisions are made through an open process where every voice is heard. This does not mean that everything is decided with a majority vote. It certainly doesn't mean that we vote on what the facts about a given topic are. In fact votes are used only as a last resort while a discussion to reach a consensus is the preferred method of resolving disputes.

It is a society of equals because every contributor has the same chance to contribute. In a debate the best argument wins, regardless of the person making it.

---

I just wrote this in five minutes and I'm not wedded to any of it but I'd be interested to hear whether you were thinking along similar lines. - Haukur 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Process is Important. I was thinking about a more general statement of principles but this essay is also excellent. - Haukur 17:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete my article

Why don't you just delete my fucking article? I consider all this discussion and the placing of "eviction notices" on my articles to be quite insulting. Katherinejohnson 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Because it isn't "your" article anymore, and we have processes/procedures in place to manage deletion of articles. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for reference. More questions? Happy to answer! --Durin 18:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Todays Articles

Durin, when you get a chance will you look over my User page and see if I am making the correct adjustments? Will you also look at the articles that I have edited today... I like them better than what was originally in place of them but I don't want to see them deleted.

Ellsworth AFB

Aviano AB

Thanks xerocs 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:AnnapolisGraduation.jpg

That is a very good idea! I never thought of notifying the uploader before. I will remember to do that from now on. Raven4x4x 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I full well know my self nomination will fail, but I want to see where I could improve, I am filling out the questions now. At least with a nomination behind me, people will recognise me for when I apply next time, Wikipedia is a big place! User:Dueyfinster 21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is, there is so little to go on people are most likely all going to say the same thing; insufficient experience. I'll give you a tip; don't put comments at the top of people's talk pages. Put them on the bottom :) --Durin 21:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My edit summaries...

I know I was at 100%. It was our conversation and your advice (or lecture, whichever way you look at it) that made me always, ALWAYS use edit summaries. It takes but a second, but could save minutes and minutes of work. I try to answer my critics. Thanks for the advice. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, dood

Sorry to hear you ended up in the USN. I actually can't contribute anything about Iraq. That's Pentagon policy as I'm not a "spokesperson." In fact, I should probably take reference out the USMC reference completely. But I'll still contribute where I can. Semper fi! UncleFester 07:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yo ho ho

No, I'm not a pirate, but I would like to speak to you again! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 22:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

AAP

• Please take a look at Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll. I think I'd like to pose those questions to the community. If it needs rewording or if I've missed something, I'd appreciate your opinion. Radiant_>|< 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Broken RFA

I dislike the tone you used in your edit to the "homework" discussio on RFA Talk. My guess is you've missed a lot of the recent flap about userboxes, Kelly Martin, MSK, and all the various RFC's that have been happening. It has gotten to the point where the politics are everywhere, and it's hindering actually contributing to the encyclopedia. I was trying to go about my business and add articles or flesh out stubs I had created, and I kept getting "You have new messages". Further, when I look at my watchlist, I see all kinds of edits to talk/user pages with seemingly unending vitriole and spite. We had something of a perfect storm at the beginning of this year -- the ArbCom votes, the userbox "scandal," and some seriously overworked or otherwise weary admins. What resulted was all three becoming various incarnations of witch hunt, popularity contest, and lynching. Character assasination is happening continually. I think that the most important flaw in the RFA process is that it has led us here. As Radiant said, we have over 800 admins. It's not like we're exactly hurting for more. The real problem is the admins we have are either involved in squabbling at length over various things or are otherwise deluged with the tide of malicious behavior. Something has to happen to help us get back on track of working on the encyclopedia, and changing the RFA process is probably the lowest hanging fruit. All the various WP:* "rules" aren't presently helping us. People are ignoring policy everywhere, and creating new policy that simply reinforces their idea that their behavior is correct or good faith. I'm interested to hear what your perception of the current situation is. Avriette 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you disagree with my tone. I readily admit to be a bit tired of hearing it's all RfA's fault, yet not a single person has been able to present evidence that RfA is to blame. I am well aware of the riots that broke out around the beginning of the year. Though I did not comment on the userbox fiasco, I closely watched it. You might like to see my edits here and here for some output from me regarding this situation. I believe it is quite serious. As for having "enough" admins; one of the primary tasks for admins is reverting vandalism. One metric for determining whether we need more admins or have enough is the number of edits per day per admin; i.e. the number of edits that need to be reviewed per admin, on average, to ensure that vandalism does not creep into the encyclopedia. You might be surprised to know that this number has shown an 80% increase over the last 10 months. Indeed, it appears RfA isn't promoting admins fast enough, even though the rate of admin promotions has been increasing as well. At this juncture, there is no evidence to suggest that RfA is the problem. It's conjecture. Are there bad admins getting through? Yes. RfA's fault? Hard to establish that, and even if there were that we could come up with a process to fix the problem. The source of the problem isn't, in my opinion, RfA. It's ArbCom and Jimbo. For example, for refusing to take a stance on wheel warring, and in fact in Jimbo's case engaging in it to a degree himself. See WP:RFAR#Wheel_warring. So far, it's 3-0 rejected. ArbCom has effectively vacated policy; it no longer applies. What matters is "common sense" and experience of past traditions. This is a terrible situation. You might like to have a look at User:Rd232/WikiProject Policy Matters (proposal) and Wikipedia:Process is Important. These are a step in the right direction I think. We are too large and too diverse of a community now to rely on "common sense". What is common sense to you might not be so to me, and vice versa. Process and policy must develop in consensus developed ways, and be enforced as such. --Durin 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not interpreting my comment as an attack. I had hoped that wouldn't come across as one. I'm not convinced we disagree on this subject. I agree with everything you said, but I think I would generalize it and say that "something is wrong," and to find the "source of the wrongness" is quite hard. Further, because the community is so embroiled and polarized right now, coming to a level headed decision would be hard. For that matter, I don't know that a level headed decision in this community anymore. It seems that we've reached a sort of critical mass. I don't think the problem is that RFA isn't promoting admins rapidly enough, it seems to me that the admins aren't doing enough, or the software isn't protecting itself well enough. I'd rather come up with a way to protect the site through the software than depend on people who (understandably) get upset. The state of the site and the recent "riots" have led to people crusading on one front or another, and this too hurts any chance for reconciliation from the... wetware. Avriette 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we have different vantage points with some similarity in views. I wouldn't say we disagree really. I've despaired that there is any one person who can solve all of the problems or find a core problem that undermines the impact of the other problems. I think we can induce change that corrects some of the problems. One of these is the current ArbCom election which is unseating a number of current ArbCom members. Re: vandalism. Yes, it's hard work fighting vandalism and the software needs to evolve to handle it far better than it does now. I've some thoughts about this here. For my own part with regards to the riots, I haven't gotten involved. I am very self-strict about sticking to policy. With an exception, this has kept me out of trouble. I have seen the impact of the riots, and I am quite upset about it. --Durin 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading all of the comments on your above links, I am deeply saddened to agree with most of it. Hopefully it's not all as dire as it seems, especially since it seems to have happened so rapidly. That having been said, I am not sure I see a solution. The RFA modification "brainstorm" seems to be a feature of the greater ill. Avriette 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring - inquiry

Hi, Durin! I try to comport myself to absolutely the highest standards of behavior as an admin and community member, and so whenever I hear that I've done something bad, I like to try to investigate so that I can apologize to anyone who needs an apology, and so I can learn from the error and try to improve in the future.

[Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll#Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers|In this poll] you suggest that I've engaged in wheel warring, but I don't really know of a case of this. I take so few admin actions that most of the cases where I do, there is some special circumstance. I hope you can be so kind as to indicate what you meant, so that I can make appropriate amends or, in the case that I disagree with your assessment of what happened, I can at least try to better explain myself.

For the record, I strongly agree with the sentiment that wheel warring is a very bad thing, and the culture around it needs to change.--Jimbo Wales 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)