User talk:Durova/Archive 41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Triple crown request[edit]

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

--​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​talkcontribs 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Awarded. DurovaCharge! 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)

Triple Crown request[edit]

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

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

Triple Crown[edit]


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)

Matthew Hoffman case[edit]

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)

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)

(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)
"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)
  • ..."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)
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 Vanished user'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 Vanished user'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)
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)
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)
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 Vanished user turned round and (not wanting to "over-ride consensus") said "no". Extremely poor judgment. Carcharoth 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Vanished user 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)
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)
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)
OK, I'll do that if you say how you think we should treat good-faith lurkers. :-) Carcharoth 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

(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)

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)
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)
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)


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)

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)

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)

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


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)

  • 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)

Triple crown nom - Doctor Sunshine[edit]

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

Awarded. DurovaCharge! 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

re. Triple Crown[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)


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)

Crown Jewels[edit]

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

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

Awarded. DurovaCharge! 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Troubles they come, and troubles they go.[edit]

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)

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


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)

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)

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

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

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


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)

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)


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)

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)

Slashdot; rhetoric[edit]

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

21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
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)


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)

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

Purple Star[edit]

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

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)

Definitely deserved. :) Keep strong Durova. Acalamari 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

WikiProject The Simpsons[edit]

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

I added links to Recent Additions and to Featured Content Candidate pages. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
I added links to the various GA Review/passes. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
Hrm, the "Recent Additions" links are redlinks at the moment. Should they just be left like that because we know they'll turn blue when the material is archived and new archive pages created? Cirt (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
Sorry to be slow about this. DurovaCharge! 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I was just curious if I formatted the various links appropriately? I saw a similar model being done on your Triple Crown page for the WP:AUS folks. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Very awesome. Thank you for the crown! Also, would I ask for a separate crown, since I am eligible to get normal crown, or does the Wikiproject one count as the one? Sorry if that sounds confusing... xihix(talk) 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)