User talk:Durova

This editor is a
**Veteran Editor IV**
and is entitled to display
this
**Gold Editor Star**.

Welcome to my user talk which is not Wikipedia's complaint department, despite all appearances to the contrary. If you're wondering about the 273 in the signature, it's the number of my featured credits. Most of my content work is performed in image processing software, which leads to a skewed and amusing onsite edit count.

Want to restore images? See Commons:Potential restorations: dozens of images ready and waiting for you.

Honoring Iran newly posted to my blog.

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 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

s:Wikisource:Song of the day

This seems to be lagging; I'm nudging ideas about for the s:main page and would like to know if this is going anywhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good nudge. Perhaps the thing to do is downgrade to a weekly feature, at least for the time being. Have transcribed three more early Irving Berlin songs today, which helps a little. Thoughts? Durova^Charge! 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to troll stuff up from your archives ;) but I missed replying. The main point of chat on this is at s:Talk:Main Page#Future directions. See Steve's comment about a music extension, which I don't know boo about. I'm thinking that the main page should have more diverse content and occasional mp:modules about Songs and other bits would rotate in periodically. This is pretty much what I think you're saying about a weekly feature. I'm nosing about for other featurable stuff and will get you new uploads on in some manner. (see also;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context for Schutzenberger group

Howdy, what sort of context for Schutzenberger group are you looking for? The first sentence establishes that the article is about mathematics, specifically the theory of semigroups, and even more specifically the theory Green classes in the long tradition of Clifford with historical citations given. Would it help to say that this is part of abstract algebra? JackSchmidt (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would help to say that it is part of abstract algebra. A bit more background, please, and if there's a practical application. Thanks for the query. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Does this sound right: partly the problem is the jump from "mathematics" to "semigroup theory" in the opening sentence, but then partly the problem is the article is basically a stub with no examples, motivation, or history in the main article itself.

Do you mind if I switch in abstract algebra for mathematics, remove the {{context}}, and add some stub sections with {{expand}}? I think the main problem is the article is a stubby little dicdef, so the introduction does not have anything to summarize (or introduce really). There is some growing consensus at wp math that "everyone" recognizes abstract *algebra*, so that we should introduce articles as "abstract algebra", "geometry", or "mathematics" if neither of those two. This one was introduced in the old style, "mathematics" and then immediately the most restricted area of study covering it. I think the request for background and applications is better served in the main body of the article first, and then summarized back into the lead. I doubt there are any especially "practical" applications, but the article should at least describe how it is applied to semigroup theory. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks. As a general rule it's good to write introductions for a nonspecialist audience. Isaac Asimov's nonfiction work was brilliant at that sort of thing. Was recently helping with an improvement drive for the optics article, and encouraged the main author to write the introduction for his inner fifteen-year-old: bright and interested, but lacking formal education. Sounds fair? Durova^Charge! 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I make a point of improving the articles I understand in that direction, however the math articles, indeed *just* the algebra articles, with this problem are too numerous for our existing editors, so we try to focus on the more important articles (we actually managed to have group theory and group (mathematics) at least to GA status and maybe even FA, I forget). This article (schuetzenberger) I think is part of a single editor's drive to eliminate a huge bias in our algebra coverage, as this editor is approximately our sole source of semigroup material (which is classical, important, has applications to "practical" fields like differential equations, etc. but is not taught to young students of math at most universities). I suspect he will take the hint from my edits to this article and start polishing his others, preferably at the more important ones first.

The main reason I wrote instead of being bold is that I believe strongly that cleanup tags should only be used on articles that should expect to be improved in the short term; that is, they mark priorities not just problems. Hence I was inclined just to remove the context tag and add "stub", but I thought that would be rude, and so instead randomly made this article a priority for half an hour and did what I could. We take "context" very seriously and try very hard to get a reasonably uniform "at least this much context" on every math article, but this one already met that (low) standard. There are still hundreds that don't even meet that low standard (people come in, make a 2 line article with nothing but the definition and leave forever; some create 200 articles like this and then leave). Most of them are even uncategorised, so we cannot easily find them; indeed, I've found some that have not been edited in over 5 years. At any rate, time for that part of the lunch break where I actually eat lunch. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Thanks very much for your effort there. Another sentence or two of background could be sufficient. It's tough to write general encyclopedia articles in a field like yours where most of the conversation occurs between specialists and a great deal of background is presumed. My hat goes off to you (and really wishing I were capable of assistance). Best, Durova^Charge! 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Durova

Your user page mentions "In part because of her example, Russia and the USSR had the highest participation of female wartime combatants of any Allied nation during World War I and World War II." Whereas the facts are true, most Russians would disagree with the link between them: The vast majority of women who fought in WWI and WWII did not have access to her book and hardly knew her existence (she is not famous in Russia. Most Russians would say that Durova "is the famous animal trainer"). The answer to this high participation is in the spirit of low- and mid-class Russian woman of that time. Materialscientist (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Do you have sources for that? Durova^Charge! 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

As the mentor for SA I thought you might be interested in this since SA is brought up in discussions about banned users editing articles they are banned from. Abd is referring to SA's spelling corrections while he was banned as a reason for Abd to assume he could ignore his ban from Cold fusion and the talk page. Abd made a reference correction on the article and then reverted himself. Abd got blocked for 24 hrs. for breaching the ban. Now Abd is stating that the SA situation gave him the reason to be able to edit the article but that he didn't breach the ban because he reverted himself thus no change to the article was done. To me I have to admit this is wikilawyering but since SA keeps being brought up in multiple locations, I thought maybe you should be aware of all of this. If no, please ignore. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making the claim Crohnie claims. I am not "able to edit" Cold fusion, nor am I seeking that right. I did believe that the ample precedent set in the SA case, with many editors opining that harmless spelling corrections do not, in themselves, violate a ban, allowed me to make a harmless correction to the article that I happened to notice, but I did not rely solely on that, because in the SA case I had raised the problem of complicating ban enforcement, hence, then, I suggested self-reversion as a very efficient way of "suggesting" a correction, such that any editor could implement it quickly, if willing to take responsibility for it. I had done this with SA's spelling correction to Cold fusion, after it was reverted as ban violation by Hipocrite, and, as an example of how the community viewed spelling corrections, see [1]. That opinion by WMC was not an isolated opinion.

Based on the prior sequence with SA, I strongly believed that the community did not consider harmless edits to violate bans, generally. And if the edit didn't violate a ban, self-reverting it, specifying the ban, would not increase an offense, it would remove it. It may depend on whose ox is being gored, because some of the same editors who supported SA's right to make harmless corrections argued strongly that I was a blatant ban violator for doing much less.

The continued discussion isn't about my case, and most comments seem to either ignore my case or make assumptions about it that are unwarranted. I'm not seeking to be able to make minor corrections to articles under ban. I DGAF, I would not knowingly risk the level of disruption that arose over a spelling correction, nor, in fact, would I go through the clumsy process that editors have suggested a banned editor should use. (SA rejected similar suggestions, for very good reasons. It was actually suggested that I bring up a typo correction to the current cold fusion mediation!) However, I am seeking to find ways that banned editors in general can make small and harmless contributions to the project, without complicating ban enforcement in any way that isn't worthwhile, given the benefit of the identification of errors. (Routinely, a promptly self-reverted edit, unless seriously disruptive in itself, should be considered moot for a ban, and if an editor should happen to be blocked by someone not seeing the reversion, the block should be lifted. I did specify, when I suggested self-reversion, that intention to revert per ban should be stated in the original edit summary, and I did this with the edit above. Self-reversion removes the necessity for an admin enforcing a ban to actually view the edit to determine that it's harmless, or not, and such review can wait for a complaint.)

The SA case is why I believed, when I made the edit, that it was indeed harmless and would cause no trouble. I was wrong, but I did not create the disruption over this, it was created by another editor who, quite in line with massive community opinion before, objected to my being blocked by WMC, and it was only later that I even realized the irony of this, given the opinion diff'd above. I didn't even put up an unblock template, even though I had very strong grounds to be unblocked (i.e, no intention of violation, and promise to not violate even under the more restrictive understanding).

Crohnie was involved in the conversion of my ban by WMC to a community ban, SA was not brought up in any way that added opprobrium to his situation. He was openly trying to disrupt ban enforcement, and he's paid the price for that, as he obviously was willing to do from the beginning, and I would still defend him if he made an IP edit with a harmless spelling correction, and someone tried to pin block evasion on him for that. He wasn't blocked for making spelling corrections, but for defiant intention. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just brought this to Durova's attentions since she is SA's mentor. You were told that this method was not acceptable per this. I don't want to get into anything here about this, I just thought Durova should be aware of SA's name being used in this controversary. He is not able to state anything said about him himself, thus if Durova would like to say something in his behalf she should be aware of this. If there is nothing to do, then Durova will just say so or ignore my post. Nothing devious is intended by this notification, sorry if you feel I had other motives. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detail. The issue under discussion at Banning policy isn't about me, though some seem to think it is. I was told not to make these edits, by the community, post-facto, and the fact that the arguments are preposterous makes not a whit of difference, I won't repeat them. There was nothing in this that was said about SA that he hasn't really, said about himself, and my emphasis has been on what he properly did, not what he improperly did. Sorry to bother you, Durova, I hope this hasn't been a complete waste of your time, there is some interesting stuff around how to deal with banned editors that will ultimately require broader attention. But it's not about me, nor, really, about ScienceApologist. I hope you are leaving this off to do something better. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for coming to my user talk. There's something I haven't announced to the community generally. A few days ago I wrote to the Committee to announce phase-out from mentorships. Will continue assisting SA through the FA drive, but will be looking for someone else to assume responsibilities from there. Durova^Charge! 16:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of restoring old pictures...

...I thought you would be interested in this news - [2], [3]. Cheers. Remember (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insurability

I think this topic is inherently notable. I cleaned it up. I will get cites ASAP. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I read your blog for the 1st time, and I like it. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You've got a good point there. The last couple of days I've been patrolling the back end of the new articles list--things that were about to drop out of the system without getting any human eyes upon them. The calls are a bit tough sometimes. Looks much better already, glad to see the subject getting proper attention. Best, Durova^Charge! 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Bearian (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added more to that and the related Insurable interest stub. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a stub anymore. Are you considering DYK? Durova^Charge! 18:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Isidore Village

This was a huge stinking mess, but it appears to be a real location in the Philippines. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) What do you recommend I do with this type of thing? For a while yesterday our buffer at the back end was down to seven hours, which means risking a Siegenthaler-like gaffe (helpful admins scrapped a few BLP howlers in a jiffy). Keeping up with the pace of article creation means I have enough time to add a category or two to articles who have none, and sometimes wikify a bit. Occasionally the things I've prodded look like there's an article waiting to be made about the subject (just not enough in the material on the page to work from). Suggestions? Durova^Charge! 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry, 2 rescuable articles out of 100s (<2 % false positives) is not bad. Keep doing what you were doing. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help needed

This is a sourced image of the counterdemonstration in Iran. There are claims that it has been photoshopped to create a larger crowd such as this File:Iranian-rally-doctored-photograph.jpg suggests to prove. We could use the sourced image for a documentation about that in the 2009 Iranian election protests. We think, it's fair use to use the sourced image as a documentation of the demonstration and its possible manipulation. Thanks a lot and if you don't have time I would be grateful if you could help us find another image restorationist who could help us to get it into presentable standard. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would I help? It's an intriguing claim, yet WP:NOR is something we need to guard against. Could you link to the relevant discussion on the talk page? Durova^Charge! 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion. We have the original source. We have a blogger claiming something and we can check the verifiability of that claim (do we get the same results with a closer look?). We are just testing a myth that is rumouring in the web. I hope that's not considered OR. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. Thanks for asking. :) Durova^Charge! 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor found a reliable source, the Svedish Expressen is quoting the manipulation and showing the photo. Hope that's enough to make you work your magic. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with this sort of thing it would verge on original research for me to interfere. Thanks for finding a source. :) Durova^Charge! 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm despite the obvious logic not quite convinced that the photo shown by the newspaper must be the same as the version used to show the photoshopping. If we could have an enlarged version of the original image for comparison, the reader could verify the claims. See, revolutions are dirty affairs and people fight with all tricks. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what we happen to have are low resolution digitized scans. Without seeing a reliable digitization directly from the original newspaper, I can't rule out the possibility that the blogger him- or herself might have clone stamped in order to concoct a claim. It's also possible that higher resolution copies might reveal greater detail. In strict policy terms I am not a reliable source for this either. As an editor all I can really say is that it appears to have enough merit to explore further. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Commons serial copyvio uploader

Hi Durova. In my travels I came across some images by a Commons editor Darz Mol. This particular image File:Carles Puyol 18abr2007.jpg drew my attention as it's also featured on this website. It got me looking at his whole collection of contribs, which looks like the collection of a pro sports photographer, yet strangely there is no metadata anywhere. Additionally his contribs are used on an awful lot of Wikis so it could be somewhat dodgy if his images are suspect. I'm not too au fait on procedures within Commons so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Have fun with it :) --Web Hamster 14:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Music Barnstar
		Awarded to Durova for her exceptional singing on Skype! I don't know what you were singing, but it didn't sound to bad. – (iMatthew • talk) at 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I made a technical correction to your signed comment here. Hope you don't mind; and in any case feel free to reword or revert. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thank you for the restoration of the caricature image. I believe my edit summary was sufficient communication of my opinion of your image of Priestley flipping the bird. You are welcome to revert my edit - I will not edit war. I just added a colon and made it an inline link to the flipping the bird image so that interested parties could still see it.

If you want to communicate seriously in this RfC, might I suggest you avoid edits and comments like this. I also fail to see the relevance of comments like this to serious communication about the image alignment, much as I respect your substantial work with images. I also do not understand how making an image of Priestley flipping the bird contributes to serious communication about left or right alignment in an RfC.

Finally, I also appreciate it when people take the time to acknowledge the substantial time I put into peer reviews, such as the one I did for you with Sprang. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I needed to rewrite the post. It would have solved the problem much more promptly without risking confusion (and getting overlooked) to have been notified instead. The intention was somewhat flippant, but not meant to offend. And I apologize for the tardy response to your review, which was quite helpful. :) Durova^Charge! 03:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have asked you first, and apologize for not doing so. I would be glad to look at Sprang again whenever you want - just ask (or list it at PR). I am a bit cranky for reasons offline, so I am calling it a night before I say anything else that is unkind - sorry. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need; am a bit cranky myself this week. A good rest and a good meal tend to do wonders for one's personality, so am sticking to routine page patrol and Photoshop. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia Triple Crown nomination

Hi Durova. I wish to nominate myself for the WikiProject Australia Triple Crown, and was hoping you would humbly review my request? The articles for the nomination are as follows:

Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JF shmaltz bottles.jpg

Hey Durova. You nominated this image for deletion, but never provided a rationale. Perhaps a Twinkle error? ÷seresin 08:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. Removed. :) Durova^Charge! 16:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXI

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.[reply]

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triplecrownftw

Dude, Image:Triplecrownftw.PNG is one of the best things ever! Why would you not want WP:TRIPLE to be adorned with such a fabulous image? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Au Clair de la Lune children's book 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 26, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-06-26. The Featured Sound File:Au Clair de la Lune (1860).ogg will also appear. howcheng {chat} 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons issue

Hi Durova, I seem to remember that you're an admin on Commons, or at the least, very active there based on your strong image work and contributions? If so, can you please deal with this image over there? It's a image of Kristinia DeBarge's upcoming album, and the license it's listed under is likely false, as album covers are mainly non-free, and Commons is for free images. Thanks. Acalamari 02:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Are you seriously edit warring with me regarding a sectionheader on my talk page, Durova? Please think this through more carefully. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the edit summary, you edit conflicted with me as I was composing a followup post which segued more closely upon the preceding discussion. You could not have realized that when you added the header. It hardly constitutes edit warring to correct the misunderstanding once with a descriptive edit summary. You don't seem quite yourself today; consider a little WP:TEA perhaps? Durova^Charge! 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to hush by a complete stranger, who after I said I was done with the discussion followed me to my talk page and quite frankly seems to have lied. He said he wanted to talk; I asked a question and he ran off to QVA with the heading "KillerChihuahua vs. (Me)" which resulted in, of all things, someone else templating yet another party for making a few rhetorical comments on my page.

Regarding the 'future' page, I see your point on the potential for inherent selection, but fail to see how your "view" is helpful in addressing that. At the risk of ruffling your feathers again, your view reads to me like "I don't like where it is because it will be a skewed view of the community, (but rather than trying to suggest how to fix the skew) I say we dump this completely!" which is not very helpful IMO. Then you object to my phrasing, which is fine, but your high-handed insult of "It's very odd to come to this page and find KillerChihuahua ... demonstrating any type of respect at all--" Really? Now you are saying I'm not myself, but your opening line on my page says "Killerchihuahua habitually doesn't show respect". Read it a few times. I don't say that's what you meant, mind you, merely that is what the words you used say. Yes indeedy, I am having a crappy time of it today. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the suggested solution is on the talk page: wait an appropriate span of time and restart on neutral ground. I was equally harsh on ArbCom for recently opening an RfC on content--which is explicitly outside their mandate. Participation in that RfC in any way other than to protest its premise would have risked the perception of validating the untenable premise. Which was sad, because I would gladly have considered the matter very seriously if Kirill Lokshin had opened it on his own authority as an editor rather than attempting to wrap a false mantle of authority around the initiative. Likewise, would have addressed Giano's initiative seriously if it had occurred on neutral territory. A weakness of our fluid wiki structures is that they're quite vulnerable to subtle modifications of far-reaching political importance, which tend toward aggregating power within a limited set of hands. Even if neither Kirill nor Giano intentionally subverted format, it remains a very salient concern to avoid precedents which enhance that vulnerability. View this as something akin to a hard line opposition against gerrymandered discussion. Durova^Charge! 17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming an administrator

I was wondering how to become an administrator. I have a lot of spare time on my hands. I feel that I could help wikipedia more. I see that you were an ex-administrator. Any information could help Ft12 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not having reviewed your contribs or having interacted with you very much, it's hard to say. Why would it interest you? Durova^Charge! 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could I have handled matters differently?

As per the section title, i'd like some input from you as to how I could have presented my complaint at AN/I better. Clearly, some of my intentions are being misunderstood. I am dismissing those misinterpretations, as some of them are arising from people who clearly have an ax to grind. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXII

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 21:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Civility

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Canada WWI Victory Bonds2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 1, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-07-01. The French version is also on the same day, but only in the Main Page version, as it doesn't fit into the default template. howcheng {chat} 05:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fitting in both language versions. :) Durova^{273 featured contributions} 13:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You impress me :)

File:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Wow.. just wow. -- œ ^™ 08:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golly...thank you very much. :) Durova^{273 featured contributions} 13:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison message

Just a note that User:Alison is retired from enwiki. I notice you were trying to contact her. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite retired, (mainly dealing with a persistent banned user).. but she is RL-ing for several weeks. Good on her :) (Hey D, how's it going?) -- SirFozzie 128.222.37.53 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, Fozzie! Been wondering how you've been. :) Durova^{273 featured contributions} 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing ok. Been here and there, correcting a couple things, but not wanting to stick my head up at the various places where there's too much heartburn for too little results. -- SF 128.222.37.53 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN#Troll?

Your request for evidence is reasonable, and I've provided some. But even if it was not your intention, the picture and caption you added seems to be making fun of someone trying to report harassment of another user, and you may want to remove it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; done. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to puzzle out some sense from that decision

I've still been trying to figure out the logic of that decision, and I think I might have finally figured out the assumptions that RGD and his compatriots on the Committee are acting under. I think it might go something like the following:

* Editors who have a discernable pro-Scientology POV and editors who have a discernable anti-Scientology POV are always coming into conflict.

* We have previously blocked and banned multiple editors who have violated the rules in order to serve their pro-Scientology or anti-Scientology POV.

* These efforts have failed to eliminate all violations of the rules in order to serve pro- or anti-Scientology POVs.

* Therefore the problem is not editors who violate the rules in pursuit of a pro- or anti-Scientology POV, it is editors who possess such a POV.

* Therefore all editors in whom such a POV can be discerned are equally guilty of all Scientology-related disruption and equally deserving of the most drastic punishments.

What do you think? I think it explains a lot of the bizarre aspects of the case:

The frequent dismal failure of the evidence in the case to convincingly show a pattern of poor behavior -- it wasn't being looked at for behavior, but merely for evidence of possessing a POV.
The imposition of sanctions on multiple editors who had not edited on the topic, or on Wikipedia at all, in a year or more -- the real offense the ArbCom wanted to punish was simply possessing a POV, and while actively editing towards that POV would be an extra offense, an editor who had ceased editing would still be guilty of possessing a POV.
Certain statements RGD has made defending the ArbCom's decision: "The editors who have been topic-banned fit squarely either into the pro- or anti- factions, or walked in link-step with them. Least there be any doubt, there are the editors who, over the years, have got the topic into the toxic mess it is today. There is no evidence whatsoever that the passage of time has changed the deeply held beliefs of the topic-banned editors or influenced their ability to behave correctly." [4](emphasis added) -- the rehabilitation the ArbCom wants to see and believes it is entitled to compel is editors changing their deeply held beliefs. It is not enough to simply not edit in a way that violates policy, because as we have seen, it is provably not enough to stop editing altogether. Merely "fitting squarely ... into the pro- or anti- factions" is the offense.
The frequent insistence that the topic-bans were not "punitive" but "preventative" and "rehabilitative" -- obviously it makes no sense to say "we are topic-banning someone who hasn't edited in a year as a necessary step to prevent any rule-violating editing and rehabilitate the editor to one who no longer edits poorly." But if you convince yours that every editor with strongly-held beliefs on a subject is by essence a rulebreaker just waiting to happen, you can convince yourself that a topic-ban is necessary to "prevent" the inevitable expression of that POV in toxic editing, is necessary to cure them of their "strongly-held beliefs" to "rehabilitate" them.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this is the unspoken principle upon which the decision turned: that the ArbCom felt it was entitled and/or mandated to sanction belief rather than behavior. Quite an alarming arrogation, frankly. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be illuminating to look at matters from different perspectives. Here's the log of blocks from the arbitrator I've been debating, from the time when he first got sysopped until the end of 2008 when he got elected to the Committee.[5] A few things stand out. One is that he had less than a year of experience as an administrator and another is that of the few blocks he did make, he had blocked only nine registered accounts. Only two of those nine accounts had created a userpage, which suggests two conclusions:

He had offended almost no one.
He had hardly ever made a tough call.

These may be superb traits for a lead coordinator of the military history project, but they don't equip a person very well for suddenly plunging into a decision-making role at this website's toughest long term disputes. As you can see from our discussion, he didn't know there was a procedure for adding new parties to a case--so he probably didn't intentionally circumvent the normal opportunity for comment and feedback. Yet when provided with examples from past cases that demonstrate he did break with convention, he doesn't withdraw his earlier claims that my perceptions were flawed or discuss whether his divergence resulted in problems; he just changes the subject.

Part of this situation results from our site processes and culture for elections that favor this type of candidate: what we really need as arbitrators are folks who are more experienced in stubborn disputes. Yet people who play it very safe and offend no one are most likely to get elected, which means it's a roll of the dice how they actually turn out. It isn't very surprising that we wind up with some who find themselves in over their heads, and who would rather deflect criticism than learn from it.

The problem is how to remedy problems when we get a critical mass of people like that. A false meme spread through the Committee during the case that I'm a partisan in this dispute, which is really silly. Since it did take hold, I have half a mind to change course a bit. Had been prioritizing one instance in particular because it's the starkest, but really it's a nonpartisan problem that sanctions have been applied because of 1-2 year old behavior that never recurred, and of sanctioning upon the basis of poorly selected diffs where no visible evidence of policy violation exists. I can think of two ways of addressing that: one would be to outreach to editors on both sides of the fence who got swept up that way, and enter a bipartisan appeal; the other would be to amend site policy to prevent this from happening again. Your thoughts? Durova²⁷³ 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say about RGD makes perfect sense and actually fits in perfectly with some things I'd already suspected. When I found out about the arbitration, and discovered I'd been added to it with no previous attempts at dispute resolution, and saw RGD juggling edit counts to try and manufacture an appearance that I came to Wikipedia with pushing a POV on Scientology foremost on my mind, I said to myself "this is someone who is entirely overwhelmed by the thought of doing their job correctly, and has therefore dealt with the stress by mentally redefining their goal into something they find more manageable." The real shock was finding out that the ArbCom was now primarily made up of such people; you've provided a very convincing scenario of how the culture of Wikipedia elections produced such an ArbCom.

Both your suggestions, of the bipartisan appeal and of amending site policy, seem to be good ideas. What specific amendments to site policy would you envision, though? I'm finding it hard to formulate some that don't sound to my own ears just like restatements of the obvious -- the ArbCom should not be wasting its time formulating penalties against editors who haven't edited in years -- or of existing policy -- arbitrations are a last resort, to be used only after other methods of DR have failed. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's usually been standard that very old behavior isn't sanctionable unless it forms part of a continuing problem. I suppose there ought to be reasonable exceptions to that: a few things might be so serious that they'd be actionable long afterward (grave offsite harassment, for instance). Do you have ideas how to craft that with suitable flexibility? Durova²⁷³ 00:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more it seems that it's useless to amend site policy until Wikipedia gets an ArbCom which is willing to abide by site policy. Considering that the current ArbCom was ready to punish ChrisO for not speedy-deleting an article which had survived not just one but four AfDs, one has to wonder just to what degree they even understand current policy, let alone can be trusted to abide by amended policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Hi, I've filed an appeal of the restriction on me issued by Thatcher over on AE [6]. Thank you!radek (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up for a mention on AN/I

FYI: I mentioned you here at WP:AN#Flameviper ban review regarding your last comment in the last discussion of this user in which the user showed an interest in editing a sister project. Auntie E (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will have a look. Durova²⁷³ 16:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added my own comment in Flameviper's unban discussion at AN. If he actually meets the terms of WP:Standard offer I'd support the unban, but I see that you wrote: Doesn't seem like we're quite there yet, but would be glad to support Flameviper's return a little way down the road if he goes along with that. Can you clarify why he still falls short, in your opinion? EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that it's been six months since his last socking episode? Durova²⁷³ 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors in the unban decision, including Jpgordon, now appear to believe he has not socked in the last six months. I updated the rationale for my own vote. While I still oppose unbanning, I admit that he would now meet the terms of your WP:Standard offer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up about that; will amend my opinion at the thread. Durova²⁷³ 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXIII

Delivered by –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Albert Pujols

Hey Durova, saw your reverts on AP's article... being as I've seen at least three IPs adding that fake steroids information on the article or talk (well, three IPs, maybe same user?), I was wondering if you'd be willing, if you weren't already, to help and keep the article on your watchlist for a while to help keep this garbage out (since it doesn't seem to be at a level for requesting semi-protection or anything yet). Thanks! umrguy 42 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it's a BLP and the nature of the additions, semiprotection wouldn't be such a bad idea. Will try to keep an eye out in the meantime. Durova²⁷³ 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikiproject Rehab request

Sure, I'll try to fill in till another volenteer shows up. I don't know if I would have the time, as I'm volunteering on Tuesday through Thursday mornings. What would I have to do?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Am looking for new mentors for a few people I'm phasing out from mentoring (not their fault; external factors). The one who is most in need of a mentor is Bluemarine. Right now his status is in limbo: he was community banned, then arbitration banned, then ArbCom modified his bans to allow limited editing, then the arbitration restriction expired. He's in good standing at Commons. It's openly acknowledged that his real name is Matt Sanchez: not an easy situation, but much less combustible than it used to be a year or two ago. Would like to structure a proposal that would basically be a topic ban, to allow him to edit on topics where he has a lot to offer (such as the war in Afghanistan) while keeping clear of the subjects where things ran into trouble before. Interested? Durova²⁷³ 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much time would it take a day? And yes, I am interested, but could I also have some advice?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately things have improved to where there are fairly long times when nothing needs to be done at all, with short bursts when action is necessary. With a bit of foresight most of the problems can be avoided. Mr. Sanchez travels often for work and doesn't have a lot of time to edit. The biggest part of the task would be getting up to speed at the beginning, to understand the background. Durova²⁷³ 16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been away for the holidays the past few days, hence no response earlier, but would be willing to try. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else I need to know?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a gchat to get up to speed on the history would be a good idea. Durova²⁷³ 16:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John: ScienceApologist also needs a mentor. Interested? Durova²⁷³ 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where could I get up to speed on the history?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biography text, the talk page history, and the arbitration case would be good places to go. Durova²⁷³ 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found two of them, where's the biography text?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, here we go again Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be a bit quicker to hop into chat and get summary highlights. Your choice. Durova²⁷³ 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]