Jump to content

User talk:Durova

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sphemusator (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 11 December 2007 (→Joan of Arc). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I'll reply here if you post here.
 Start a new talk topic.

Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Triple crown request

Sorry to bother, but I've decided to nominate myself for one of the coveted Imperial Triple Crown Jewels awards.

--​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded. DurovaCharge! 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

The australian project - does it need crowns? Surely boomerangs or didgeridoos would be a lot more locale specific - crowns in australia are reflective of what a misunderstanding what australia is in the twenty first century even if prince charles camilla and lady di have downed more trees for the womens magazines of the last ten years than any other persons on the planet. Great idea to reward the achievers, pity about the symbols. Cheers - and all meant in good faith (and bet there is nothing in any of it that rewards the maintainers who have to tidy up after others - like stuffed up category tags, or oz arts with no cats etc etc) - so great idea and im not knocking it - but someone has to point out that there is more than one way to assert positive messages to the thin crowd on the ground who actually really do anything in the australia project - so thanks for that at least! SatuSuro 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it in terms of horse racing. Maybe that idea will go down better with a Foster's. :) Best, DurovaCharge! 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe - I prefer boags myself - but just because one horse gets a brrass razoo in november - doesnt mean that dyk countitis or fa or ga countitis is the best way to see how projects are kept up and running, my feeling is the horses right rear leg is being rewarded with a golden slipper when the real work of keeping projects away from the chop is usually the other three legs too - :) SatuSuro 11:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably about to be off wikipedia very soon for about another 3 months - I will try hard to ignore your stuff so as to not interfere with the positive aspect of it regardless of the redundancy - and put up a suggestion on the oz noticeboard for the real workers - the project creators and maintainers - with a drovers hat and corks - where the things that matter are things like coding the templates and starting and maintaining projects - and keeping watch over the hot spots in the projects - there are the places in my opinion that some editors who may never get a single FA GA or DYK actually save the projects from oblivion. Probably wont have the time to create the slouch hat and corks image - but in my opinion australia has got more from sheep/cattle drovers in the last 100 years than a crown ever did for the place apart from thousands of australians dying in wars - ok ive done my piece - I wish you peace and have a good christmas! SatuSuro 11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Triple Crown request

Hi. I believe I qualify for Triple Crown for work on the Australian wikiproject:

Thanks. RaNdOm26 11:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown

WikiThanks!
WikiThanks!

Thank you very much for the triple crown! You are an individual of great ideas and the triple crown is a most excellent one. Thanks again. LordHarris 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hoffman case

Hi Durova. I saw the evidence you posted at the Hoffman arbitration case. Can I ask how your evidence fits in with the following sections of evidence? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#MatthewHoffman account created in October 2005, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Evidence of MatthewHoffman's editing inexperience, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Awareness of Wikipedia jargon. Also, this case started when someone claiming to be Matthew C. Hoffman e-mailed an arbitrator, so the claim here is that there is a real person called Matthew Hoffman operating the account, which quite plainly means he is not a sock-puppet. I'm aware that articles like irreducible complexity suffer from lots of sock-puppet attacks, but is the answer really to put the article and related ones on parole? Has that really helped in past cases? Carcharoth 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "For an adult who takes the time to read documentation and look at examples of article text, it is trivial to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works before contributing." - should we expect such adults to not mind being suspected of being sock-puppets? Carcharoth 21:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted)

I have no direct involvement in the case and little else to say, although I may add more to my own evidence and participate at the workshop. What happened was that I noticed the case a few days ago, saw that someone had mentioned the possibility of offsite canvassing, and noticed that nobody had presented evidence directly to that effect. Several months ago I had seen a series of Discovery Institute blogs while I was doing routine searches on other subjects. It's rare for such an established organization to take those positions in an official manner, so it seemed like something worth following up more systematically.
I also don't see how you eliminate the possibility of sockpuppetry by that argument. All that really states is that someone who claims to be Matthew C. Hoffman e-mailed an arbitrator. I do not know whether that is actually the person's real name, although the Committee might have better information, but if it is true there's no particular reason to conclude that this person never used a previous account or edited unregistered by some IP address. That also provides no reason to exclude the possibility of offsite canvassing or meatpuppetry. That said, I have no definitive reason to conclude that either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry was involved in this instance. My evidence demonstrates that these are routine practices among activists in this movement, and that Matthew Hoffman's edit history is consistent with that hypothesis.
Reviewing the circumstances, I would have preferred very much if a longer and broader community discussion had taken place. To criticize the few uninvolved parties who did respond and to name them as parties to arbitration is counterproductive: these ban discussions need more input, not less. Probably some probational unblock with mentorship would have been my response if I had noticed this instance as it unfolded.
In response to your amended comment, my evidence demonstrated some background worthy of consideration. Most encyclopedic topics are not surrounded by specific activism of this type. DurovaCharge! 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"My evidence demonstrates that these are routine practices among activists in this movement, and that Matthew Hoffman's edit history is consistent with that hypothesis." - but if his edit history is also consistent with that of an editor who created an account two years ago and recently started editing, after lurking for some time, how do you distinguish the two? Is it more harmful to assume he is a sock puppet, or more harmful to assume he is a de-lurking user? And do the sites you mention routinely impersonate real people to push their POV? Surely impersonating real people is a crime in most countries? Carcharoth 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..."there's no particular reason to conclude that this person never used a previous account or edited unregistered by some IP address..." - by this definition, we are all possible sock puppets. Carcharoth 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should amend that to say there's no definitive reason to conclude that this person is a sock- or meatpuppet. In some respects the difference hardly matters: an account with a short history that quotes policy and demands the respect that would be accorded an experienced editor arguably deserves to get blocked like an experienced editor when he or she violates policy. By that standard it doesn't make much difference whether the policy knowledge comes from extensive lurking or some other means. The log for this account shows it had existed for two years. Or to look at the other side of this case, a fair measurement of Adam Cuerden's decisions ought to weigh the context of sustained disruptive activism. If this action had come out of the blue on some uncontroversial topic, then I'd have greater worries about Adam Cuerden's judgement. Clearly the administrators who volunteered on this subject had a lot of work responding to disruptive activism. I'd like to see article parole for this subject. That solution has done good things for Waldorf education and Scientology. I'd also like to see a better community banning policy, because the one we have right now has some serious shortcomings. DurovaCharge! 23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The 3RR block was uncontroversial and warranted. But I disagree with you on the 72-hour block. Where was the evidence of the allegation of harassment made in the block log? Where was the evidence of the allegation of "extreme rudeness" made in the block notice? Carcharoth 10:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd base the case on WP:POINT instead of rudeness because of the singlemindedness of article edits and talk page dialog. This person was persistently arguing against consensus. The tricky point it - and you may have a good case to make here - what's the difference between disruption and a legitimate minority view? When I gave this matter a first pass I was thinking this was an obvious candidate for an article content RFC. Then I looked into the off-wiki side of things and wasn't so sure that would work. And in fairness to Matthew Hoffman I'll mention the possibility that the article talk was being watched independently even if he had nothing to do with that movement. Based upon the Discovery Institute blog about an IP that got blocked after only three days of editing, the best interpretation of that situation is that the Discovery Institute keeps very close watch on Wikipedia articles at this topic. I suppose that depending on one's view of ID the chain of events can take a dramatically different appearance. DurovaCharge! 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really think people should be blocked for "persistently arguing against consensus"? And how do you balance between letting a new editor argue their point at one article before widening their interests (and in fairness and good faith the new editor assumption needs to be made in the absence of any article parole or evidence of sock puppetry), and deciding that this editor is only interested in one thing (ie. a single-purpose account)? One day, a week, two months, 5 edits, 20 edits, 100 edits? In this case it was one week and 19 edits (some quite long talk page posts, but that is nothing to be overly concerned about). Remember what Nascentathiest said: "I would be remiss in my responsibilities as an editor if I didn't respectfully suggest that, if an action is deemed necessary, a more restricted ban be instituted, perhaps from the Project for a few days, and a longer ban from the subject article and talk page - just to see if this is, indeed, a single-user account, or if "Matthew" can find other ways to contribute to the Project by editing other articles about which he doesn't have such strong feelings." - that would have been the perfect end to what had been a poorly-handled situation, and Adam turned round and (not wanting to "over-ride consensus") said "no". Extremely poor judgment. Carcharoth 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just realised I veered off towards the indefinite block again. Still, I don't think a 72-hour block for arguing on the talk page was warranted in the slightest. That has a chilling effect on talk page discussion. Carcharoth 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another point, returning to WP:BITE here, is that people using their real names will be affronted if they are accused of sock puppetry. If you used your real name and were accused of being a sock puppet, how would you feel? You can't just say "you registered two years ago and seem to know what you are talking about, so don't be so sensitive to allegations of sock-puppetry" - that devalues the seriousness of a sock-puppetry allegation. Carcharoth 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tough call is whether to treat an account with a very short edit history that acts this way as a new user or an experienced one - AGF leaves us with long term lurker. If I had been Adam I wouldn't have done it; I would have opened an AN thread in place of the 72 hour block. But I don't think the use of one's real name has any bearing on the decision. DurovaCharge! 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the point being that no-one realised it was a 2-year old account until I pointed this out after the arbitration case had been opened. It seems that most people don't click on the "logs" bit of a set of user links. I only noticed when I saw that the talk page welcome template was two years old. So it looks like most people were still assuming this was a new user, not a 2-year lurker, or at best kept silent about this. And it is not impossible to register an account and only sporadically lurk over 2 years before taking the plunge. If people lurking right now are seeing things like this happening, will that make them more or less likely to start editing Wikipedia and is that good or bad? (no, that's obvious, it's bad if lurkers decide not to get involved because they see how people are treated). Carcharoth 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I didn't even realize anything was going on until arbitration was underway. If I'd seen the noticeboard discussions I would have tried to work something out. May I put a totally different spin on this? I'm curious what you think of the examples I listed as evidence. Particularly the admitted sock accounts. How would you have handled them if you did or didn't know that they were socks? DurovaCharge! 11:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do that if you say how you think we should treat good-faith lurkers. :-) Carcharoth 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you and I have considerably different estimates of that. I'd certainly have handled the unblocking part more proactively, but I wouldn't come down quite so hard for blocking in the first place. Can we respectfully agree to disagree on a couple of points? DurovaCharge! 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This has been a useful discussion. Thanks. I'll have a look now, but it may take me a while to respond to your examples. Remind me if I forget. Carcharoth 12:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a brief look, mainly at the Chahax section. I'm not convinced, as the main thing I see there are reasonable arguments that should be rebutted, rather than silenced by blocking. A widespread and persistent pattern is needed before that crosses the line from being argumentative to being disruptive, in my opinion. Carcharoth 12:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "sock" issue is a bit of a red herring. Socks, in themselves, aren't the problem. The problem is tendentious POV editing that wastes the time of legitimate editors who are actually seeking NPOV articles. The process of finding the text for this can be difficult, and it involves, sometimes, editors to be bold even in asserting their own POV, but socks become relevant to this because a sock is risking little, especially if it is a sock of a user who has already been blocked, for socks, if they have a strong POV to push -- and often they do, that's why they are socks -- are not restrained by the prospect of sanctions. If a tendentious editor shows reasonable signs of being a sock *in the judgment of the administrator*, I consider it legitimate to block. Thus Durova was correct, even if she was erred. If an administrator never errs, the administrator is not bold enough to function as Wikipedia needs. Treating a block, which is easily reversible, as if it were a death penalty and imposing it in error a crime, is little short of insane. When an administrator uses blocking to preserve some personal agenda, *this* is a problem, and should be addressed directly.
Socks and tendentious editors should, in my opinion, be treated with the utmost courtesy. And firmness. An administrator who is functioning appropriately is acting on behalf of all Wikipedia users, and should keep that in mind; administrative actions are quite similar to the actions of a chair of a meeting; the chair rules on points of order, and has total freedom to do so, but is also always subject to appeal to the membership. A chair can order a member considered disruptive removed from a meeting. If the chair does this in a punitive way, it's offensive. But done as protection, it is quite proper whenever the chair, in his or her sole discretion, considers it necessary. And then if the members don't agree, any one of them can protest, and if any other member seconds the appeal, it takes priority. All these principles were worked out centuries ago.... Don't trust the chair to decide properly and neutrally: move that the office of chair be vacated! And then elect a new one. Don't like how a Wikipedia admin operates? Challenge it, that's proper, and the problem here is that the process became offensive and abusive, from what I've seen, to Durova. We should have been protecting her, even if it was necessary to correct an error. Administrators should not have to defend themselves or their action. I've been a chair of a national meeting of a very contentious group. If I was challenged on a ruling, I didn't argue it. I briefly presented my reasons -- and not necessarily all of them, and then proceeded with the appeal process, being not attached to any outcome. My job as chair was to serve the consensus, not my own opinions, and if the majority wanted to do something different, that was their prerogative, entirely. Besides, I make mistakes, I can be wrong, it's an important realization. (In a face-to-face meeting majority rule makes sense, because the alternative is not supermajority rule or consensus, it is minority rule; Wikipedia is different for lots of good reasons.)
It is a Wikipedia guideline not to describe how to damage Wikipedia. It's clear to me that certain puppet masters are becoming more sophisticated. I could describe what they are doing, and how I can still detect them -- even without checkuser, which, of course, I don't have and which is cumbersome to request unless one is familiar with it -- but that could then help other puppet masters more rapidly improve their techniques. I understand why Durova was reluctant to reveal her methods, and I find it offensive that it would be demanded that she do so publicly. Administrators are "trusted servants," and they either should be trusted or not. When an article I was working on was infested with sock puppets, a long-term anonymous IP editor who turned out to be the executive director of the major advocacy organization on the topic, COI editors, and the sock set up another sock to 3RR me out, an admin took a look at the situation and blocked almost everyone in sight, including two SPAs. When the administrator was challenged on the SPAs, he refused to explain his action and insisted it was justified. He was not, in any way, censured, nor should he have been. When I intervened to suggest that the SPAs could be unblocked and could be useful to the article, another admin unblocked them (and my intervention was cited). Which was also appropriate. I've somewhat regretted my intervention! -- but the principle was right. One sock has commented on Jimbo's user page that Devil's Advocates are important to Wikipedia, I agree. Within limits; the limit is that we aren't wasting much of our time dealing with repetitive POV edits, over and over.
--Abd 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this later addition to the thread. I agree with a lot of what you say here, providing the socks are correctly identified. Identifying on behaviour alone is difficult. Some people say page protection to force talk page discussion is preferable to blocking, others say blocking works better. I still see those heavily involved in sock puppet-infested article failing to consider new editors, though. Where do they come into this. Is it acceptable when they get caught in the cross-fire? Carcharoth (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, identifying on behavior alone is sometimes easy, sometimes difficult. However, there is a difference between identification and inference, between proof and probable cause, or even reasonable possibility. I wrote an unfortunately long comment to Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy on this.(diff). There is an unfortunately analogy used all too often. A block, particularly if it is subject to quick review, isn't "firing" a weapon. It should never be done in an offensive manner. There should be a presumption, in fact, that the user has innocently been caught in something that merely *looks* like a problem, the alleged sock or offender should be treated as by a professional keeping order in any place. The message that a blocked user gets should *apologize* to the user for any inconvenience. "I'm sorry, but the name on this warrant seems to match your name, I'll have to take you into custody." And the arrested person only gets hurt -- except for the inconvenience -- if they resist.
When a sock was created to report me for 3RR violation for reverting edits by another incarnation of the same sock (plus some cooperating with the first sock), I was blocked for a short time. I followed procedure and was promptly unblocked. It was a nuisance. Not an offense, that administrator did exactly the right thing: stop all possibly problematic action, then sort things out. Was the blocking of me an "error"? Actually, no. An officer acts according to the officer's discretion, according to the officer's understanding of the needs of the public, at the time of the action. Durova believed that she had sufficient evidence to block. She acted *correctly*. She also, by the way, acted correctly according to existing policy in everything I've seen that proceeded later, and *beyond* policy, including her resignation. I've chaired contentious meetings, and I would quite likely immediately resign as chair if it appeared that I did not have the support of a supermajority of the meeting, only under very unusual conditions would I continue based on a mere majority. Wikipedia suffers from severe participation bias, so knowing the true level of support for anyone can be quite difficult. Durova may also have resigned simply because she was tired of carrying that burden, she had taken on a difficult job likely to lead to stress.
There is a solution to the problem of participation bias, I'm actually surprised that there seems to be no discussion here regarding it. It's not like it's a secret. It would be experimental, to be sure, but it's also essentially free and efficient, by design. The small burden created is born only by those who choose to carry it, and no harm is done to those who don't participate. It was *designed* for Free Associations which Wikipedia resembles in many ways. (The user community, not the web site itself, which is equivalent to the service corporations which commonly accompany existing Free Associations. AA World Services, Inc., is *not* Alcoholics Anonymous, and has no control over the latter, nor does the latter have *legal* control over AAWS, Inc., it merely advises it.
The solution has also been invented by others, in part, and on Wikipedia it is called Liquid democracy; elsewhere it is more commonly known as "delegable proxy." Essentially, a relative small number of active people can represent a very large number (even the whole population of the planet, if everyone joined and named a proxy), with almost no effort. It's just a question of looking at a list of opinions, then considering which opinions represented, *roughly*, how many users. It's not really about making decisions by voting, it's about judging true consensus, with participation bias balanced out. And then there are other aspects too, that fall out from the concept and the natural freedoms that people have by default, some of which aren't obvious to most on first consideration. Call it noise filtering.
However, this isn't going to solve the immediate problem. Revising the messages displayed to blocked editors, taking all reasonable steps to ensure that a block is not an insult, and, further, starting to treat the discussions that ensue from contested admin actions are carried on in the same spirit of AGF that should really be required everywhere, not just in editing article pages. I'm actually a serious proponent of free speech, it's essential, *but* civility in discussion is what makes "free speech" possible in the real world. Without it, "unrestrained speech" too easily becomes a battle, and a lot of damage can occur.
While concern for newcomers is very appropriate, socks tend to hurt newcomers more than experienced editors. I know what to do when a sock starts reverting me, newcomers just go away with a very sour feeling about Wikipedia. Socks tend to not be polite with edits! They may wikilawyer the newcomer far beyond his or her capacity to research and comprehend, it takes time to become familiar with policies and guidelines.
It is also possible that even banned and thoroughly blocked editors could continue to contribute to Wikipedia; it's really very simple, and I've already seen it recommended, but systems have not been set up to make it easy. Essentially, if a blocked editor has a contribution to make, all that it takes is a non-blocked user willing to claim that the edit is legitimate and helpful to the project, to take responsibility for it. Ideally, though, an edit to an article by a sock or other blocked editor should be reviewed by someone familiar with the topic; I've seen socks be quite good at presenting a front that their edits are reasonable and opposition is disruptive, particularly to editors and administrators that aren't familiar with the issues. As we know, every article has its unique problems, which is one reason why there is WP:IAR. No set of rules can cover all the contingencies, that is precisely why we rely upon the group intelligence we call consensus. Eventually, tools might be created that would allow attribution of the edit to the original editor, plus an approval field by the editor taking responsibility for it. Indeed, this could make it much easier for experts and COI editors to participate. (WP:COI, I think, does suggest something like this for COI editors.
--Abd (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another fascinating read! The idea of liquid democracy is something that really needs to be discussed with a wider group. I would respond in more detail, but I have a little correction to make down below first... Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a balancing act. That's one reason I favor article parole. I wish there were a way to implement that without resorting to arbitration because there are certainly other topics that could benefit from early intervention (various national/ethnic dispute arbitration cases come to mind). I think we should look for ways to implement more safeguards without coming down too hard on the administrators who intervene in good faith on controversial areas. While it's important to AGF regarding new editors, I also think it would be a net loss for the site if the pendulum swings so far that administrators become afraid to intervene where it's needed. DurovaCharge! 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But maybe a better analogy is needed than a pendulum and the either-or mindset. There are win-win solutions that satisfy both philosophies. They just need to be worked out and put into practice. BTW, in case you weren't aware, I'm involved in two discussion that resulted from edits to this talk page. See User talk:Sinudeity and User:Metsguy234. It's probably best if you don't get involved directly in those discussions (see my contribs history if you have trouble tracking them down), but I'd be interested in your opinions on the varying approaches. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that searching for win-win solutions is a very good idea. Will check out those discussions you mention. DurovaCharge! 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Good work, Carcharoth, User:Neil on the block of User:Metsguy234. It *should* be swift like that. When I first saw this, just based on the edit here, I thought "Gee, that seems extreme. Guy asks about an article, is it true? Certainly, if we AGF, it could indeed be an innocent question. Then I looked at two other recent edits. Nope. "Moron." "cold-hearted evil dump." "stop trying to cover up the truth." And then, as his last edit, shortly after writing the quoted phrases, "has never personally insulted anyone." I'm not sure what he needs, but editing Wikipedia at this point isn't it. I'd assume that he could start over, if he wants, keep his nose clean, etc. Eventually. As to the article, interesting manifestation of WP:ABF. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I hate to break the news to you, but I didn't block Metsguy234. That would be User:Neil. I'm saying that the indefinite block was excessive, and that the block log and notice is misleading. See here for details. It is possible that Neil misread the year of the earliest edit, and thought that the account was created this November to attack Durova, but from where I'm sitting it was created last November after arriving from another wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I struck it out, sorry. Yes, this account was long term, a sleeper or innocent. The real issue was the immediate behavior. "Indefinite block"? Probably not, but definitely warranting bold and immediate action. It seems some forget that an "indefinite block" is no more "punishment" than any block that lasts long enough to be reconsidered for removal or strengthening. I'm amazed at the hysteria about all this. Yes, for a newcomer to be blocked could be traumatic; however, I don't really believe that an experienced editor, familiar with Wikipedia, would go away and stay away because of a block in error. And the block here, even though it is also attracting attention, was not an error. When the police officer tells a person to drop that gun, it is not an error if the person turns out, later, to have had a legitimate reason for holding it. When someone's behavior looks like it is a problem *to a neutral party*, it's quite appropriate to intervene to stop it. Stop first and ask questions later. It's appropriate to challenge an administrator who, too often, blocks what turns out to be innocent. But there are ways to mitigate the possible harm to newbies, and one of the problems is that admins are increasingly being coerced, effectively, to give solid justification for blocking, thus encouraging them to make more serious charges, thus creating more damage if a block isn't actually needed. Vicious circle. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But did you see how much effort it took to get unblocked? The first unblock request was denied. I helped fix a typo on the second (a typical newbie mistake). And the blocking admin only grudgingly unblocked, without any form of apology, and some people called for the block to remain in place. I'm still shocked at that and the lack of apology, to be frank. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

I placed your DYK in the next update but it was removed citing the short length. The overall length exceeds 1500 but someone else says it's 773 character, possibly because they didn't count all the references, etc. If you need help with it, let me know. I am always willing to help others write their articles so that it meets DYK criteria or to keep AFD candidates from deletion. Archtransit 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I was a little concerned about the length on that one, myself. I'll get right on it! DurovaCharge! 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion noted on the DYK page so there shouldn't be any complaints now! I love to help with DYK and to get good DYK hooks fixed. Nothing's worse that a good article failing to make DYK because of a technicality. In my opinion, it could be selected tomorrow! Archtransit 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

) Much appreciated. DurovaCharge! 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much. One of the lovelier barnstars if I may say so. Out of interest, which topics do/did you find the most interesting? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scotland in the High Middle Ages had me fascinated. I've never been to Scotland but there's a little bit of Celtic in me (Welsh). Living in a country where hardly any structure is more than a century or two old, history and ruins that go back so far have always fascinated me as something precious. Thanks for the hard work that went into making it featured. DurovaCharge! 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown nom - Doctor Sunshine

--BrokenSphereMsg me 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re. Triple Crown

Sorry about that, just wanted to save you the trouble. If you like, I can hand out the awards on your behalf, otherwise I don't think they should come and collect them... Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you like. Usually I do all the reviews myself, so it's kind of odd to be discussing this. But you're familiar enough with this and I trust your integrity. Could you route future noms through my user talk? Thanks, DurovaCharge! 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do (in the future). I need to run now, could you please dish out the crowns? Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 08:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one problem: both you and RaNdOm26 are claiming credit for the same DYK. Normally DYKs go to just one person. If either of you have a spare we could sort that out. I'll wait for your reply. DurovaCharge! 08:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm claiming Transfusion (EP), he's got Here I Am (Natalie Gauci song) (I have it for my Napolean TC because we both expanded on it - it can be removed from there if necessary). Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 08:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we can sort that out. I'm doing some Commons ambassador work ATM so I'll probably handle this tomorrow (it's late night in my time zone). DurovaCharge! 08:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a gorgeous piece of work? Mata Ortiz pottery shows up in regional museums but it doesn't seem to be very widely known.
Dihydrogen, why do you say you expanded the article by yourself? I think you expanded like about one or two sentences....??? RaNdOm26 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

I was busy with personal fmaily business (my dying mother), and noticed just now that you were under quite a series of attacks. Smile and don't get stressed. Bearian 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman

You proposed article parole, but I think it is actually called article probation. I've taken the liberty of changing that, so correct me if I erred. - Jehochman Talk 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Jewels

I believe I have qualified for the upgrade to the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels:

Thanks. Pastordavid 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles they come, and troubles they go.

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

Remember what dear old Oscar said, "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. " RMHED 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My wallpaper and I are having a duel to the death. :) DurovaCharge! 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It's happy to know you have resigned. The person who erased the previous message belongs to the Wiki-Administrators. So it's right... everything is spoiled here... how sad. --Mabuimo (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think she meant well. This talk page had to be semiprotected. I doubt that particular publication meets Wikipedia's standard for a reliable source. Anyway, I'm doing my best to be productive in other ways now, like category sorting at Commons and updating the Triple Crown awards. Best wishes to you, DurovaCharge! 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Joy
Joy

Marlith T/C has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith T/C 04:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That's sweet. :) DurovaCharge! 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chat

Hi Durova,

I was looking over your page and found the Triple Crown concept interesting. Did you come up with the idea? How does a person qualify for one? Take care Tony the Marine (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, basically you write one Did you know entry, help write a good article, and help create a piece of featured content). Cheers, DurovaCharge! 05:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article bead crochet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Good to see your DYK hook. It was interesting so I put it as a next update nomination. Sometime later, someone from Canada added my name to the credits on the next update page which got me a DYK recognition box. But you did all of the work save for my little edit, small expansion to get the article to meet the requirements, and a little notation noting that the hook was now compliant. As they say "don't kick a gift horse in the mouth". Thank you for your article idea and to that Canadian.Archtransit (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to do some more DYKs in the near future. WikiProject Textile arts is an underdeveloped area that has a lot of gaps and stubs. I tried to time Hawaiian quilt for Wikipedia's two millionth article as a nod to Hawaiian culture for giving us the word wiki. Hawaii's quilting tradition is a very big deal in the quilting world. The main challenge is finding sources that gear toward academic, cultural, and artistic aspects because most of the readily available texts are how-to books. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot; rhetoric

First, I want to thank you for taking on a subject (such as Irreducible Complexity) that I would fear to approach. That material, and particularly the insistence that Irreducible Complexity is science, and not Creationism, is actually very important in contemporary American politics. I don't believe it's possible to ever reach consensus as I do not, myself, believe that the same valuation of logical principles applies to all concerned camps. That said, I have some (unasked for) advice about what went wrong.

  • There are two main issues, broadly "disruptive edits" and "sockpuppetry". In the debate, and particularly in the gloss at Slashdot, these issues diverged; presumably enough had been said about disruptive edits, and attention focused on the sockpuppetry. This resulted in the apparent conclusion, "He's a sockpuppet for reasons I can't tell you, so I banned him" (which riled even me, previously unaquainted with the matter). If the sentence were, "The sockpuppet evidence contains confidential and private material which I have submitted to <committee of permed admins>; there is no consensus there yet. However, on the basis of continued disruptive edits documented <here> and the pervious warnings and bans by <admin So and So> documented <here>, I have banned the user for
  • The policy (or merely, precept) of "no private dialogue" is idealistic and IMO impossible. I favor closed meetings for committees (and particularly, private mail distros), for the simple reason that they can communicate privately anyway. This can be balanced by open meetings where the people to whom the committee is responsible (such as voters, or editors) can ask questions and demand answers. Democracy need not be impaired by privacy. Imagine Alice telling Bob, "Charlie makes me so nuts I want to strangle him. Will you talk to him for me?" If Charlie hears this he will be insulted. But the point of that sentence is to communicate to Bob (meaningfully, albeit emotionally), not to Charlie or the public. We all communicate like that all the time; private channels are not innately threatening, and I hope prohibitting them is not necessary to protect democracy, because I would judge it impossible (besides Orwellian). At LambdaMOO, the Architecture Review Board had a private distro (where we could talk about confidential things, like user account info; and where we could rant freely) and a public mail list (where questions could be asked, comments made, and answers demanded). We were often accused of elitism (a sure sign of unwashed plebs polluting our environment, of course :-) but we got by.

I regret the outcome and I hope you resume admin'ing at some point. Please drop me a note if and when you reapply. Pete St.John (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pete. Two such volatile subjects. It isn't often that I'd feel freer discussing intelligent design than discussing Wikipedian issues. Whatever I say on the latter tends to spark contention and get construed against me, so I'll just repeat that I'm sorry about the mess. With regard to the ID issue, I agree that a full NPOV treatment requires the different aspects of that debate receive distinct and respectful treatment. ID is significant in North American politics and carries some cultural weight. But to set aside my Wikipedian hat for a moment, I have difficulty accepting anything as science unless objective control group experiments are possible. I consider my own college major to have been a humanity even though the university classified history as a social science. After all, we can't find out what the history of the twentieth century might have been if Hitler had died in a trench during World War I. There are many worthy disciplines and meaningful inquiries that fall outside the realm of science. Science can't tell us that the Mona Lisa is a great painting or why Hamlet is a great play. A proposition may be untestable, but true. DurovaCharge! 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom statement

Hesperian revised his wording, so I removed your request for him to change it as moot. Hope you don't mind. Picaroon (t) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

np, ty DurovaCharge! 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another ArbCom statement

Would you mind commenting on the Nigel McGuinness RfArb that is directly below the one you just replied to? You helped me out some time back on the same situation and it seems to have recently escalated again with FCYTravis continuing to fight its inclusion. –– Lid(Talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Textile arts project

I think so. Seems to be the way of projects. - PKM (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I think I'll start/expand some more articles and try for a few more DYKs. Maybe that will raise new interesst. Meanwhile I've been over at Commons uploading some new material and improving the category assortments. Also removing some of the spam that's crept into the area and doing other wikignome stuff. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[1] just wanted to let you know. That's about the same as being slashdotted. --91.89.123.117 (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beesley

Can I humbly suggest that you having a spat with Giano on that page will tend to cause people to vote on personalities rather than look at the issues. I suggest you not be the one to debate with Giano right now.--Docg 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the fence about that. You're right. I'll withdraw. DurovaCharge! 16:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. He's being quite aggressive. Would you have a word with him too? DurovaCharge! 16:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not because I'm choosing between you, but because I (rightly) guessed a word in your ear might cause you to back off - whereas I guess (probably rightly) a word in Giano's will not. That's not equitable - but it is pragmatic.--Docg 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the prompt feedback. I had been on the fence about posting that one and was concerned about how it might appear. And please feel welcome to come to me whenever you have that kind of concern. If there's a new perspective or new evidence to change my mind, I'll change. :) DurovaCharge! 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to know what happened re: Mailing lists

There's a story in The Register about some slightly odd things going on with off-wiki mailing lists.We've actually sorted things out a bit, and put them in a row on our Village Pump page here: Village pump discussion

Durova has been getting a lot of messages, so we'd like to ask everyone to please check the village pump first, and maybe discuss and ask questions there, otherwise Durova's talk page would fill up in no time, and she wouldn't be able to do much anymore. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley AFD

Just FYI, a question (at the bottom) has come up as Angela specifically posted on her talk pages words to the effect that she never requested that this AfD happen. Lawrence Cohen 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; saw you just noticed. Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response on Angela nom

...does indeed satisfy my concerns, thank you. Because someone else had just queried you about it here, I rolled back the question that I left - no sense in several people asking the same question several different ways - trying to avoid pile-on. - Philippe | Talk 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DurovaCharge! 20:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at my talk page if you hadn't already read it, anyways I still believe that she is notable which is why I feel bad that she is the one wanting it deleted, I am torn about this, also does this AfD in any way affect all the other Languages, there are seven of them + Simple English? ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each of Wikipedia's 251 language editions decide their own standards. Follow your conscience regarding the rest; I've followed mine. Reasonable people sometimes disagree, although I very much hope you're persuaded. Best, DurovaCharge! 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I appreciated your last comment on the other talk page, which I hope will help lessen the tension there. I wasn't planning on posting on that page again, though. I thought the last comment from Ian was very reasonable and dropped off a note for Ned. I'm sorry to say that my motivation to enter this incident was a comment on Ned's talk page; I don't have yours on my watchlist. By the time I left my first note, a revert war was in progress. Your answer to the question seems to have averted any unfortunate consequences there, thanks for that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. DurovaCharge! 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Star

changed per recipient request
File:Resilient-silver.png The Resilient Barnstar
For enduring a press firestorm, like Joan at her stake. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, wow, whatever you did, you absolutely do not deserve this. I can imagine it must be tough. Please ignore the trolls and stick around. (Even if you don't know an internationally famous glamour model from a hole in the ground. :-) ) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely deserved. :) Keep strong Durova. Acalamari 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. And what can I say? The lady has been on display for much of her life just because of the body she inhabits. She just doesn't enjoy the attention anymore. In a very small way I think I can relate to that. Sometimes I've gone out for drinks with gay men just so I could enjoy a margarita without worrying how many strangers' eyes were on me. She hasn't cured cancer or ended a war or built a better mousetrap. Would any paper-and-ink encyclopedia cover her? I doubt it. DurovaCharge! 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er we're veering, but it's your talk page -- I don't think you've read the article very carefully. (Or maybe I just didn't write it very well, that's always a possibility. Please advise if you have any rewriting suggestions, I lack Awadewit's or Giano's talent, I have to struggle with every sentence until it gives up.) She wasn't cursed with her body from birth (Lorraine Chase? That means she had eyebrows.), she worked at it as a goal very hard from a very young age, in multiple ways (continuous contests, raising funds, exercise of course, even surgery). I can't speak for how much is enjoyed and how much it's merely a job plus ambition -- I imagine it's a little of each, as for most of us -- but it doesn't seem likely that her motivation has changed that much recently, as you'll notice some of those pictorials with interviews are quite recent, and she is actively campaigning for votes for Model of the Year for 2008 in her blog. This isn't about not liking the work or the fame any more, this is about not liking a specific part of her record. I imagine Bill Clinton isn't all that happy about the Lewinsky thing in his article either. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offended.[2] There's a video interview of me on the Internet (with droopy eyes, hadn't had my morning coffee yet). Where's your recent Kodak moment? DurovaCharge! 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject The Simpsons

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Triple crown

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

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

Sorry. Here ye go.


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

I figured you could use a WikiHug...

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

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

Thank you very much. That's touching. I really appreciate it. Cheers! DurovaCharge! 05:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Thread on AN/I

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

Thank you very much. I'm packing up those puppets today and sending them to the children who deserve them. Might make a couple of others before Christmas: there are two more kids on my list. I've started a lion, think I'll make a lamb for his sister. Cheers. DurovaCharge! 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova Operates Numerous Sockpuppets... We'll give you the "facts", the rest is up to you... ~ The Register. #2,514 on Alexa - and falling fast. Rklawton (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

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

Well, I apologize for having offended you. I confirmed this biography subject's wishes by the same means as I confirmed every other BLP article I nominated for deletion. Although I respect the impulse to see these requests posted directly onsite, confirming their authenticity would be problematic that way. Do you have a better suggestion for how to go about it, if this isn't sufficiently above board? DurovaCharge! 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have not offended me, so no apology is necessary on that account. Your recent actions damaged this project, for which you have already apologized. This AFD draws disturbing parallels with the ongoing controversy, particularly as it involves the now-ominous word "courtesy" and a Foundation insider. The timing of this action could not have been worse: you presently have poor credibility with the community at large. In the best case, this AFD demonstrates very poor judgment on your part. Cleduc (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The previous history of nominating two of Wikipedia's most prominent critics' biographies on the same basis ought to dispel that supposition. Our policy is WP:AGF. I hope everyone weighs the nomination on its own merits, and in light of the precedents cited, without reference to unrelated events. WP:AFD is supposed to be a referendum on the article, not the nominator. DurovaCharge! 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand AGF quite well, thank you, along with the line in red – so if I were you, I wouldn't be dropping that particular card right about now. In any case, thanks for the memories. Cleduc (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and I apologize for any impropriety. DurovaCharge! 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

remedies

Hi, I hope you agree this is a fair request?[3] DurovaCharge! 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with these procedural matters, and haven't thought deeply about the implications. So instead of agreeing that it is a fair request, I'll just say that I fully trust you've made the request in good faith and for good sensible reasons. Hesperian 11:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DurovaCharge! 16:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc

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

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

Thank you,

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

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

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

drama and you?

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

Yes, I didn't anticipate this nomination would be so tetchy. A couple of sections above this I explain the timing. It was done in good faith and I honestly thought my history of having nominated Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt was sufficient to dispel any suspicions of impropriety. When I found out Mercury had closed the discussion and saw my name invoked at AN I had to make an immediate statement to dispel suspicions. I'll stay out of DRV, per your advice. If anyone calls for my input there, would you please cite a diff of this statement in reply? Thank you, and apologies for the hassle. DurovaCharge! 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't think nominating something for the seventh time would be tetchy? You thought because it was like Brandt is would be otherwise? Now, I'm very happy to see the article go, but if you didn't see this was going to be trouble then I'm not sure what wiki you're on. And if you don't realise that anything you touch right now is going to be even more dramatic than it needs to be I'm not sure either. If you really don't want drama, don't go looking for it - because right now it looks like you're too keen. When I find myself involved in more than one drama a week, I generally go and find an article no-one is going to care about.--Docg 17:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Rand Fishkin nomination had gone pretty smoothly and the Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein outcomes seemed to sit with the community pretty well in the long run. So I estimated that there would be some debate on the merits for this nomination, but less contentious than last summer's debates had been. At the time when I nominated Angela Beesley I placed my faith in the community to weigh the AFD solely on its internal merits and on the precedents of those three other cases. I thought my record on the subject was so scrupulously unbiased that no other factors would play into it. Or at worst, I expected that if anyone tried to construe mischief then the community would promptly cite AGF and Occam's razor. After all, since I got pilloried for failing to assume enough good faith then AGF ought to be on everyone's minds now and our standards should be higher than usual. I guess that was naive and I'm sorry for that mistake. Right now my hands are tied by my pledge to stay out of the DRV. So if you see any conspiracy insinuations, I'd appreciate very much if you apply your excellent scrutiny to challenge them. I'll try to improve in that regard; thank you. DurovaCharge! 21:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, could you address this kind of obvious disruption: throwaway IP insinuates misconduct.[4] DurovaCharge! 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a troll, best ignored.--Docg 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block my user temporary

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

Hi Dark, we don't block users accounts on request per the blocking policy. The blocking tool is only to be used in serious circumstances for misconduct so we can't just do it for a "joke". It's not good having a block log entry anyway. Sorry, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Well, the reason why I wanted you to block my account temporary was because my block log is empty and that was killing my nerve because my block log hungered for a little temp. block as a request. Well, in that case, I can't also brake the rules of Wikipedia. D@rk talk 14:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't do that even if I wanted; I've resigned my administratorship. Be proud of your clean block log. I had one too until I made a mistake while I was multitasking and indeffed myself for a minute. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal notability seems ill defined at best

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

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

What I ultimately reject here is the way "marginal notability" -- a rule invented for, if you'll pardon my French, "freeks and geeks" -- is now being used to delete a biography which actually meets notability in all respects: a sourced biography of a corporate officer of a powerful and well known corporation. Arguably, corporations in many ways run our lives in this modern world, and the number of board members in our world are a small and powerful subset of the general population (even smaller considering many sit on multiple boards). I don't particularly care for a precedent which enables them all to disappear from our knowledge base. Don't think others won't come forward with the argument that if Ms. Beesley was "marginally notable" then they must be too; that's where lawsuits come from. I guess I just believe that's a bad thing. -- Kendrick7talk 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the legal angle is interesting here. You might want to contact the Foundation and see what Mike Godwin thinks. As far as I'm aware Wikipedia should be legally safe in either case as long as it draws upon on reliable public sources, but I'm no lawyer so I'll defer. Regarding the rest I'll share some general thoughts.
Every now and then Wikipedia runs into a situation where two policies intersect and the challenge is to find some balance that satisfies enough people to achieve consensus. I encounter thoughtful and articulate people all across the spectrum. Here the WP:V and WP:BLP policies run into each other. Now your post sounds like you don't think BLP plays a role at all. I respect that. I've also seen arguments that it does carry weight, and I've seen arguments go all the way to the other extreme and assert that BLP trumps verifiability completely if the biography subject wants to opt out. I didn't write these policies; I just looked for some kind of balancing point that would be consistent and durable. I did not want to carve a special exception to standard policy for particular individuals. I also wanted to avoid the slippery slope. Now we've traditionally done courtesy deletions in specific kinds of cases, such as children of politicians who never sought the limelight in their own rights: So-and-So is the son of Big Kahuna, and gets arrested for drunk driving, and that gets reported in the papers. Well that's certainly verifiable. Yet most Wikipedians were willing to say Look, this got attention because of an accident of birth. He didn't go out of his way to seek the public eye. Give him some peace. Maybe you take such a hard line that you don't think that argument carries weight. Yet I hope you appreciate that before I nominated Daniel Brandt's and Seth Finkelstein's bios, we did have that kind of precedent.
So the BLP policy shifted a bit in a way that opened the door to a broader interpretation. I had nothing to do with that change. And I had seen how much strife resulted from the rare individuals who really weren't that famous and who wanted out. I came in very late to the Daniel Brandt issue. It had started before I became a Wikipedian and looked like a real vortex. There were plenty of other things that needed attention. So if I step into a situation that's already a pile-on, I try to bring something new to the table that hasn't been hashed out dozens of previous times. I had some trepidation that any intervention at all would land me on "Hive Mind". That turned out to be an accurate prediction. Yet whether I'm right or wrong, I base my decisions on what I think is best for Wikipedia.
Bottom line is, I think the site runs more smoothly and we earn more goodwill by allowing courtesy deletions up to a point. If you want to go into the matter in greater depth I could cite 250 years of precedent for why Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia to encounter this dilemma, and if I were writing a doctoral dissertation that might come very close to its central thesis. I think it's one of the ideas I suggested to that Harvard student, although her interests went in different directions. I'd love to read her paper when she finishes. The challenge I faced last June was to locate durable principles. What could cover the entire spectrum from Daniel Brandt to Angela Beesley without opening the door to damaging Wikipedia's coverage of world events? Suppose Donald Rumsfeld requested courtesy deletion?
The "dead trees standard" is what I proposed. That principle has not gained consensus support per se. I continue to assert it in hopes that it will either generate consensus or generate something better. So far all I've been able to say is concurring opinions have usually gone along with it. So far it's the only argument I've seen that sets a clear dividing line between your WP:V hardline and Daniel Brandt's WP:BLP hardline. I hope you aren't offended by the comparison. My point is that other arguments have been nebulous and vulnerable to the slippery slope. It does seem to carry some weight because four of the five biographies I've nominated on that basis have succeeded. The fifth was arguably more notable than the others and I extended that nomination as much for the vehemence of the request as on its substantive merits. Remember that these are human beings who may have very personal reasons for their individual decisions. Wikipedia may strive to ascend the ivory tower, but in reality it has ascended the Google rankings. This is the most popular reference site in the world. It is the eighth most popular site on the planet. It is the most visited dot-org on the Net. A Wikipedia biography will almost certainly rank among the top ten Google returns for a name search (among living people who have biographies here). Consider yourself for a moment in Daniel Brandt's shoes, or in Seth Finkelstein's, or in Rand Fishkin's, or in Angela Beesley's. These are real living people. How many miles would you want to walk in those moccasins? DurovaCharge! 05:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Daniel Brandt was an enemy of some other site other than Wikipedia (for example Indymedia or even Youtube), would he even have an article here? I doubt it. For the amount of drama his page existing has caused, and given that it's most definitely not a self-promotional, it should just be done away with. Just my 2c. Orderinchaos 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Durova, they are real, they are living, and they are people. I suppose I subscribe to the Feiler Faster Thesis. I have learned things from history, by which I mean the dead tree resources you mention. For example, I have learned not to invade Russia in the dead of winter. And I hope the average reader of wikipedia doesn't repeat that mistake. But for the most part, I'd want real time information about people who might affect my life in some way, or the lives of those around me. If I was walking in such a person's shoes I'd want the world to know about me also. -- Kendrick7talk 07:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, suppose you were me. A couple of tech presses ran stories about me last week. I happen to know that the only journalist who even tried to check with me for accuracy was Seth Finkelstein. Remember this site's standard is verifiability, not truth. What does a living person do if material is verifiable but still off kilter? DurovaCharge! 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been mentioned in Slate Magazine and on National Public Radio[5] so we are both perhaps a few reliable sources away from being marginally notable wikipedians; I'm not exactly quaking in my boots or expecting to see Dan Rather trot in from around any corner. Your question of truth versus verifiability is of course one we encounter all the time, and simply needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis; for example, recently at Talk:Giovanni di Stefano the subject has made repeatedly clear that some information, despite being printed in a dozen otherwise reliable sources, simply isn't true, and he is certain to go completely ape if we repeat it. Still, it's information I'd want to at least consider if I was ever going to consider hiring this man. When it's one person versus 1.8 billion English speakers, my urge is to side with the readers and they can sort things out for themselves. Otherwise... ::shrug:: what is truth? -- Kendrick7talk 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately with these low level notability cases, there may not be enough reliable sources to achieve adequate coverage or balance. Rand Fishkin was basically notable for two things: being the CEO of a small company and for how he proposed to his wife. His company has its own article and the marriage proposal was a lark. The way he explained it to me, being in Wikipedia seemed kind of cool at first. Then it became a drain on his time to monitor changes to the thing. There was always the chance that some business competitor might try strategic vandalism. After the novelty wore off he decided the bio was a waste of time. The net loss to 1.8 billion English speakers is Wikipedia no longer informs them about how one fellow bought an ad during a sporting event to propose to his girlfriend. If this site ever hosts a List of unusual marriage proposals we could document it there. DurovaCharge! 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that's fine. A geeky marriage proposal would certain fall under the "Freaks and Geeks" clause, as far as I am concerned. But I quote Pontius Pilate above because once we accept "truth" is an impossible standard, and that we nevertheless have a duty to inform readers about living people, however unfortunate it might be, a few otherwise good people are going to get crucified in the process. It's a messy business. -- Kendrick7talk 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. DurovaCharge! 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok then, hmmm. GAs my weakest link but:

FAs - 5 best (of lots)

DYKS - 5 of 37....

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

Indefinite protection of article Guernica (painting)

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

Go ahead and unprotect it if you think that's appropriate. I was a pretty new administrator when I did that. DurovaCharge! 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator; I can't unprotect. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this request appear on my watchlist: I've done it for you both. Acalamari 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DurovaCharge! 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're both welcome! Glad to help. :) Acalamari 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment please

Your input is required here [6] Thank you. Giano (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

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

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

Private Correspondence

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

I've already thanked Irpen for the advice. I unsubscribed from the wiki-en-i mailing list a couple of weeks ago. WP:DENY and WP:DFTT are very strong disincentives against onsite discussion, and in my own experience amateur attempts to resolve the problem were far more stressful than the problem itself. DurovaCharge! 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't blame you for staying away from wiki-en-l lately, it's been a bit of a cesspool, but the mods seemed to take the bull by the horns over the weekend and put a bunch of folks on various forms of moderation, so perhaps it will become more constructive again. It certainly seems to go in cycles. One of the things we have been talking about is the need to make connections with law enforcement, particularly cyberstalking units. I agree that this is too serious an issue for a volunteer group to tackle on its own. Risker (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Risker, you don't know the half of it. DurovaCharge! 05:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right. My own little cyberstalking episode was probably relatively mild compared to what some have gone through. It's difficult, however, for the community to understand the seriousness of the situation when it is kept behind closed doors. I think you're probably old enough to remember when nobody would talk about wife abuse, let alone convince the police to charge the guy; well, society isn't all the way there, but things got a lot better for the abused women when society as a whole started realising it *was* a big deal, and changed the way that victims and abusers were treated. Aude has been working on some statistics that may be useful in identifying those at greatest risk; it would be interesting to know if his data correlates with the information you have. Risker (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Risker, I don't mean this analogy toward you in particular, but I'm reminded of a scene from Driving Miss Daisy where Jessica Tandy goes to hear a speech by Martin Luther King, praises his work, and talks about how glad she is that times are changing. And then she leaves her black chauffeur on the curb while she walks into the auditorium. Morgan Freeman watches her go and then mumbles They ain't changed all that much. In cases of harassment it remains socially acceptable to deny the problem and blame the victim. Those are two specific responses I've encountered repeatedly from Wikipedians who were in a position not only to know better, but to actually solve some of the problem. There have been other related issues also. I would have been much better off if I'd kept my mouth shut. My concentration and my judgement didn't slip until I had serious worries about the competence of some of the people who were ostensibly trying to help me. Trolling is easier to endure than disloyalty. DurovaCharge! 06:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While being considered "irritating" by Risker (especially by Risker) upsets me and sends me into a cycle of self-reflection, I just want to say that I fully concur with what is said above about harassment. But there is more to it. It cannot be doubted that editors like Giano, !!, myself (I actually cannot be put on par with those massive FA writers although I did write a lot of articles too) would do anything we can to assist in preventing and addressing the harassment problem. As such, battling of this real problem needs to be engaging for the good editors. Personally, I wouldn't want to be on the list or at #admins but the thought of such media being used outside of very few legitimate purposes, and especially with the illegitimate use taking over, makes me protest those media as a whole because this media start to cause more harm than good on balance. Maybe it is partly Durova's fault that the topic of the list was shifted from harassment towards "investigations" to a degree that "investigations" had to be spun off. Investigations were always what she liked to do (with best intentions I don't doubt) for a long time.
I remember our first strong disagreement with Durova (we had many more disagreements and full agreements alike since then but there were only agreements prior to that incident.) And it also happened to be about "investigations". And for absolutely no good reason there was this mysterious to me insistence to take the issue to the email. Nothing prevents misunderstanding like openness and clarity. Secrecy is justified in few limited circumstances and does a huge disservice if it is overused. --Irpen 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, I don't think it's really fair to assign blame on that basis. Remember, my error last month was to assign fault after extensive (but insufficient) research while using a flawed paradigm. The antidote to that is not clearwater speculation. Nor, when the topic happens to be cyberstalking, is it adequate to demand full disclosure onsite. I have no intention of giving the people who harass me instruction on how to get under my skin better. The strongest thing I've had going for me through this ordeal is how much of the harassment I've been able to laugh at and how little they realize what actually gets under my craw. This looks like an attempt to leverage the release of information that would surely be used to harm me by asserting presumptive blame. DurovaCharge! 06:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To expand upon that with refrence to Irpen's link, I was attempting to mediate a very delicate dispute between Piotrus and Ghirla. I really wanted to foster a nonconfrontational admosphere and try to overcome a lot of bad history between two of this website's most productive volunteers. I have great respect for both of them. If Piotrus erred, and if I erred, that just wasn't a helpful way to assert it--without diffs and using a confrontational tone. I would gladly have reviewed any evidence you wished to provide, and was willing to be persuaded. We're all human beings here and I estimated that Piotrus would be more receptive to input from me as a neutral party. My goal was not secrecy but diplomacy. I hope that makes sense when I put it this way. DurovaCharge! 06:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, sorry for being blunt, but please get all the facts straight. You seem a little confused on what this was about. --Irpen 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify that statement? DurovaCharge! 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova: This big drama stuff isn't your fault. Sure the original block was a mistake, and although you may not want to hear this getting your email redacted after it hit the public record probably wasn't the best move. But, you should never have been put into the situation that got you in this mess in the first place. As a volunteer the organizations duty of care to you is if anything greater than their duty of care towards their employees since there's no quid pro quo in this for you. The problems are systematic, they're process problems and organizational structure problems. If this hadn't happened to you, sooner or later it would have happened to someone else. I won't detail what I think the structural problems may be because better minds than mine are hashing it out as I type and this isn't the forum for it anyway. But yeah, hard cases make bad law, and I will venture one opinion on the structural problems that got you into this mess in the first place. As it stands now proposed Private correspondence policy won't fix any of the structural problems. If anything they'll make them worse. That I brought up whistleblowing wasn't as a hit on you or your situation. It's a process thing. It's to ensure that there are avenues that can be taken within the organization to resolve pathological issues that can't be addressed through normal channels. Whistleblowers take a huge risk and generally suffer greatly even under conditions where they're utterly vindicated and have statutory protections (That's why a lot of the time with already pathological organizations they try and do it anonymously). Often when the whistle is being blown it isn't over a matter of a single person, it's over organizational dysfunction that's being covered up for very human reasons like pride, fear, a siege mentality or the like. I guess wikipedia, for better or for worse, has become a large (gargantuan really) high profile organization with real influence even though it's largely run by volunteers and it's just going to have to deal with that. Me? I'm still sitting here wondering whether this whole newfangled arbcom thing is a good idea. Unsubscribing from WikiEN-l was probably a good idea BTW a wiki structure allows conflict to diffuse, mailing lists are in your face. I've always thought of it as useless personality centered dramaville. I'm sorry if I upset you with my comment on whistleblowing. Cheers. - V (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Generally I'm very receptive to feedback, but my spine stiffens when I perceive something as an attempt at coercion or intimidation. That's how I perceived the report's publication and I asked for it to come down as a matter of principle. DurovaCharge! 06:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

What do you mean when you articulate that? DurovaCharge! 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my feeling, but if someone feels a particular conversation covered under "private correspondence" is in the public interest due to corruption concerns, misuse of power, et cetera, then they should be protected as whistleblowers should they choose to release the information. It's all fine to then say "oh, well just send the evidence to ArbCom", but what if members of ArbCom were involved, indirectly or directly? The community are fickle, but they are also the basis of consensus which is one of the basic core principles of Wikipedia. I understand the need to eliminate disruption and trolling, but doing it in such a covert and Nineteen-Eighty-Four way, and having all trace of such an assessment oversighted as if it were a serious security risk does irreparable harm to the trust and integrity of the community these actions are supposed to protect. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've read the post I blanked at Irpen's request? And you've read my answers to that question at arbitration? This looks like you're renewing that line of conversation. DurovaCharge! 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O_o Huh? No, I was just using an example, I didn't mean to bring that up. I just think it's necessary, that's all, because fighting these awful issues is bad enough, but we should not become the very monsters we fight. And I'm not accusing you of that at all, I just think you got a little carried away, but I just want it thoroughly explained to me why whistleblowing shouldn't be protected, or, if it can't, it implemented into policy and practice somewhere, because general convention isn't going to cut it - I mean, the ArbCom were hairs away from banning Giano, for Pete's sake. That can't happen anymore. DEVS EX MACINA pray 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your criticism. Actually the stress ate into my concentration and critical thinking. When I acted I thought I had been thinking very clearly, and over the next two hours I realized all the mistakes I had made. It's quite embarrassing to become known for one's worst moment and be unable to atone for it. Yet it's important to get an expert legal opinion on copyright when you compose that part of policy, and the danger of reckless revisions might make the proposal unworkable. DurovaCharge! 06:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL but IIRC strictly speaking in the UK and Australia (and probably other jurisdictions around the world) simply forwarding an email is a copyright violation. People just do it anyway because it's socially acceptable. - V (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That scenario probably also falls outside the realm of Wikipedia's dispute resolution. But to post any copyrighted material onsite is a matter that necessarily concerns the project on many levels. DurovaCharge! 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Was, I studied writing in graduate school. A course in related law was required curriculum. That gives me a better understanding of copyright than the average person, but it does not qualify me to offer legal opinions. I asked that the Foundation counsel consider this issue. It's his opinion that matters; that's his job. I have never corresponded with Mike Godwin directly; so far as I know there could have been no favoritism. I have been told he approved the request, and my copyright was honored. As I stated at arbitration, I could have been persuaded to release my rights if I had been approached in a reasonable manner, but I was not. The report was wrong; I realized that 75 minutes after I acted and reversed the block myself, extended apologies, and pledged improvements. I had opened the thread at the administrative noticeboard myself. As Jimbo Wales has stated, there was no compelling reason to publish this report days after I had already taken the appropriate self-correcting actions on my own initiative. DurovaCharge! 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&oldid=177230549"