User talk:Durova/Archive 9

RFI

The result of someone going to RFI should not be that they decide to stop editing the article because of disruptive editing. [1] —Centrx→talk • 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem there was that this wasn't a regular contributor to the article. I've replied in more detail at the RFI. Durova 00:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You were right. Now that the dust is settling I've contacted the Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza/Barnstar_Brigade#Graphic_design_request Barnstar Brigade to request graphic assistance for an award I'd like to hand out here and a few other places: The Bulletproof Barnstar. It would go to Wikipedians who demonstrate "grace under fire" in maintaining high standards of conduct under adverse field conditions. Durova 03:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

IP blocking

No IPs are not blocked indefinitely unless it is an open proxy, and even that is not a permanent case. Most people have connections such that if they disconnect and reconnect they will be assigned a new IP. Even IPs where this not the case are re-assigned from time to time and would generally never warrant blocking for more than a year. Any time you block an IP indefinitely, it means that many people will not be able to edit and that some other admin is going to have to deal with it and unblock it. —Centrx→talk • 18:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

With problematic schools, I have been blocking them for some long period of time (most recently: until February 2007), but anon. only (and disallowing account creation), with a message like: "Vandalism. If you would like to contribute to this encyclopedia, you may create an account at home and use it at school.". —Centrx→talk • 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiding comments

How can I archive some comments on my talk page? Lieutenant Dol Grenn 23:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Durova 01:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Help needed for more continued reverts

Durova, I have rewritten what I believe is a very neutral, organized and well researched article on the Midnight Syndicate topic, and just a few hours later it was reverted again by the same previous users that had been blocked before. I have given my reasons and all references on the talk page, while the other users have not provided valid reasons for reverting to an inacurate history and self-promotional version of the article. Plus they keep making personal attacks, and though slight digs now, it may escalate as in the past. I really need another unbiased viewpoint on this. Thank you. Oroboros 1 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The best help I can offer is to suggest WP:RFC. I've actually gone the extra mile and opened the request for you, so please summarize your position on the article talk page. Best wishes, Durova 03:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

PAIN

Hello there. You might want to know that I responded to your comment before mine was removed by someone. //Halibutt 22:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. I wasn't consulted but the removal is appropriate. Durova 23:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet I'd like to hear from you on the question I asked. Also, please be so kind as to respond on my talk page, I can't monitor all user pages. //Halibutt 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page with WP:POINT warning. Durova 22:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Durova, but I still did not get a reply. How come M.K. calling me a nationalist is different from me calling him a nationalist? Double standards perhaps? Nyah, I know I didn't deserve fair treatment and perhaps I should simply stand back and be happy I'm spat on. And no, you don't have to reply to this comment, I know perfectly well what to do now. //Halibutt 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You did get a reply, which you have acknowledged by blanking both the reply and the accompanying policy warning from your talk page.[2] If, as you claimed, "there's little difference between calling someone a nazi (sic) and a nationalist," and "nationalism is something I hate and something that in my culture is regarded as somewhere between being an idiot and being a dangerous psycho," then perhaps an administrator in your own native language's edition of Wikipedia would evaluate your complaint differently. In the English speaking world these terms are neither equivalent nor synonymous. It was not calling the other editor a nationalist that you proposed, but calling him several stronger and unmistakably pejorative terms. Perhaps that, like the blanking you performed within eight minutes of posting here, was something you also forgot. Durova 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah, now I get it. Thanks. "Nationalist", "person to force wikipedians out", "psychopath" - yes. "Nazi" and so on - no. As to the blanking, I will blank any accusations from my page, including unfounded accusations of WP:POINT. Regardless of what you think of yourself, posting questions at your talk page is not exactly "disrupting wikipedia". Cheers. //Halibutt 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I break it down:

• Nationalist - normally okay. Burden falls on the complaintant to show otherwise unless context makes it a euphemism for something worse, as in You're what they called a nationalist in 1942 Berlin.
• Idiot, psycho, Nazi - unacceptable.
• Person to force Wikipedians out - could go either way. Depends on whether diffs support the claim. In your instance no diffs were offered.
• Posting a couple of questions to my talk page - perfectly fine.
• Posting the same question to my talk page repeatedly after I've answered it repeatedly on another page and another administrator has deleted the thread as irrelevant, and offering no new evidence to reconsider - WP:POINT. Deleting my warning from your talk page doesn't make it less so. I now have verified examples where you have - to say the least - mischaracterized events, which means I could no longer extend an assumption of good faith toward claims you might make in some future dispute. It's high time you let this drop. Durova 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that your accusation of WP:POINT was completely unfounded. Posting a comment at your talk page does not qualify as disruption of Wikipedia in any rate, especially that your latest comment above was in fact what I was asking for since the very beginning. Too bad I got accusation of WP:POINT and bad faith before I got a serious response... As to your latest remark, note that this works both ways, I'll think twice before I trust your judgement in the future, given your recent trigger-happiness. But still, I wonder how would you qualify the recent action in which one of your fellows suggested I'm a dick or fuckhead? A friendly euphemism perhaps? //Halibutt 12:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

When I became an administrator both the WP:PAIN board and the WP:RFI boards were backlogged. The English language edition has fewer than one administrator for every 2000 registered accounts. You came to WP:RFI with an inappropriate complaint and simply would not let it drop long after the point when any reasonable person would pursue other avenues. WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA all apply to your actions. Despite this egregious behavior I have not supported the user conduct request for comment against you. Under the circumstances I have been kinder than you deserve. This is a final warning: if I hear from you on this subject again, you can explain your policy interpretations to another administrator in your unblock request. (cross-posted to Halibutt's user page). Durova 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I don't think we've ever meet on en.wiki, but I happen to have Halibutt's talk page in my watchlist. I've read the warning you've just posted there and can't believe my eyes. Are You, an Administrator, threatening a user with a block for discussing with you in your talkpage ?!! I hope I misunderstood the situation. --Lysy^talk 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I've been accused of being overzealous (my reputation is that I'm a softie) so in light of your criticism and I've posted a query at WP:AN. In my own view I issued the block warning for a week of incivility, disruption, bad faith, and personal attacks. We'll see what other administrators say and if they view this as you do I'll adjust my actions accordingly. Durova 02:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at Halibutt's talk page. If it's his post you've read then I understand your reaction. My summary is at the RfC. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course you'll have more intimate insight into the situation than I do. I've not traced back all the interaction of you and Halibutt. But the block threat struck me as a strange way to handle the situation. Normally if a user is harassed or simply does not wish to continue the discussion in his talk page, he'd ask the other party to go away from his userspace and that should suffice. No, if this is an administrator, should he support it with block threats ? I appreciate you asking at WP:AN and I'll leave it to be answered there. (I also appreciate your "softie" reputation and hope you'll prefer to keep it that way :-) ) --Lysy^talk 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a university student from Warsaw who followed up a rejected complaint at PAIN with incessant demands that I explain, in detail, why nationalism is different from Nazism. That's like a university student from Atlanta demanding explanations of why people in Georgia don't name their sons Sherman. It's like a Jewish university student in Tel Aviv demanding explanations of why Israel needs to exist. If this hadn't been an established editor I would have blocked him for disruption. Durova^Charge! 02:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As one administrator to another, I have to say that I find your conduct in this matter too strict. As far as I see it, Halibutt questions were civil, your replies - particularly blocking threats based around always controversial WP:POINT - seem rather overzealous. Administrators exist to serve other users, and the 'block' powers should be used only as a last resort. To see block threats flying twice in your replies - where a simple EOT as Lysy noted would would be enough - is dissapointing. I don't think Halibutt attempted to bait you (into what), but he failed to understand why his post was not acceptable for WP:PAIN, and did not agree with your reply. Again, such a disagreement could be handled either by continuing civil discussion or by the parties agreeing to disagree and stop talking (or seek a mediator if necessary). Block threats to discourage one user from pursuing the issue don't seem like the best reply. Of course, as a friend of Halibutt I am not neutral here, and I am perfectly aware my view of this entire situation is biased. PS. I read Halibutt's summary of your exchange on his talk page, as far as I can follow all the links, it seems reasonable, and I feel you have misunderstood him and/or taken comments by others he quotes as insults against you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You don't have particular cause to worry on Halibutt's behalf. I would recuse myself from actually performing a discretionary block on Halibutt and would refer the matter to an impartial administrator for review and action. Under the circumstances that seems like the fairest thing to do. Regards, Durova^Charge! 01:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was not worried about that, you are too experienced an admin for me to doubt you'd block a user you are in some conflict with. I saw your request for comments at ANI and decided to offer my biased two cents, for what it's worth. And thanks for commenting on Hali's RfC; while I may not agree with your view we certainly need more outside comments to see who is right and who is not - with your exception, the discussion features old regulars who repeat old arguments...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What's with the exclamation mark page

I don't consider the subject very controversial, that's just weird blocking editing of it.--Mastne 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The admin who performed the block explained it in the edit note. If you want more information, then ask that admin. Durova 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blatant and Overt Electioneering and Partisan POV Pushing

In the John Kerry article re 'botched joke controversy'

• "Adding more to the Remarks Section

• "I believe that more should be added to the recent remarks section of this article. There should be more about the reaction from soldiers and soldiers families. Also, this could hurt many democrats for reelection in the 2006 election. One day, although it might not be, we could look back on this and think that this could have been why the republicans kept Congress. Bcody 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC) From said user's page "My Opinions I support President George W. Bush, and believe that the world is a safer place with Saddam out of power and Osama hiding in a cave."" Blatant and Overt Electioneering and Partisan POV Pushing - F.A.A.F.A 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you contact this editor and express your concerns directly. Durova 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I do it right this time?

[3]. You can vote too :) Zarbat 11:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You've certainly raised the question in the proper manner. I really don't know whether you've found the right solution or not. Durova 14:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well all I want is consistency. If they're called "Indigenous Australians" then there should be nothing wrong with calling their culture the "Indigenous Australian culture". If the latter term is out of the place, then I'm guessing the first one is too. Zarbat 07:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one of the people who professes enough knowledge of the subject to make that determination. You've opened an appropriate discussion so we'll see how it goes. Regards, Durova 13:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to advertize to get outside comments on these polls? Can I do an RFC? Zarbat 08:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Durova 08:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion - Thanks

Tnx for your input - advice taken. It looks as though we may have reached an acceptable compromise (i.e. everyone's unhappy now ;) Tomandlu 14:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

May I quote you on the definition of an acceptable compromise?  ;) Durova 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Saint Joan of Arc

Hello ! I guess you'll be busier than ever now that you're (deservedly) an admin. Just a quick note to say that we have a newish editor who changed the first sentence of Joan of Arc to begin Saint Joan of Arc ... . If I remember rightly, you noticed that this seemed to have caused problems (i.e. in the visions section). Anyway, I've put it back the way it was. All the best ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Good call. Cheers, Durova 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

☆

Thanks for your kind award. It's all the more meaningful coming from you! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And long overdue. Wear it well. :) Durova 13:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just spotted this edit. The fact really happened, but my English is not good enough to rephrase it. Could you help to English this addition? P.S. The picture at the top of this page made me laugh out loud! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited the statement. Could you find a source for it? I know the tradition was true - that was true in most of Europe until very recently. BTW if you find other statements that are in similar need of copyediting attention, drop me a line. (And thanks for the chuckle). Durova 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to source the claim. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

11-M

Hello Durova.

Following your kindly request I have launched a new iniciative to try to arrive to something in the Madrid Bombings article. I hope that everybody will act also constructively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Let.27s_use_an_accepted_model --Igor21 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable proposal. I hope it works. Paid a visit to that talk page and all I've done is changed a copyrighted image to a link (the talk page doesn't count under fair use parameters). Durova 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Durova, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator general Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Húsönd 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New Progressive Party

I've tried to get rid of the worst problems on this page, but having someone with a better eye and more knowledge of Puerto Rican politics would be great.

Thanks,

Ed Unneland

Heh, you flatter me. My knowledge of Puerto Rican politics is very limited. As needed I'll use the sysop buttons for page protection or problem user warnings/blocks. Hope that helps. And please sign your posts with four tildes. Regards, Durova 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In spite of myself I've given this a look. More obvious nonsense is gone now and the page has a nascent Notes section. Durova 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Proactive

I'm intrigued by your proactive approach to contacting schools; it sounds like a great opportunity to turn a negative into a positive. I'm interested in pursuing it, especially since I tend to have a good rapport with educators, but I'm a little squeamish about the cold-calling aspect of it. I'm just a volunteer here with no status or connection to anything "official". Is it really ok for me to just pick up the phone and say "Hi, I'm Doc T. and I'd like to talk to you about Wikipedia..."? I'm sure I could phrase it so I don't sound like a Bible salesman, but you see my point? BTW - I'm not aware that anyone ever ran my stats before; it's nice to be noticed :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 09:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose it scored a couple of points that I identified myself as an administrator. But really I'm a volunteer too and not much different from you. Call yourself an editor. Or a vandalism patroller. What really made the difference, I think, was being polite and specific. In the first e-mail I summarized the matter (eight blocks for vandalism in less than a year) and offered to discuss the problem and help them solve it. They invited me to telephone so I spoke to two people and sent a couple of follow-up e-mails. My later e-mails included links to the user talk page, the user contributions, the block log, and a few recent vandalism samples. They loved the suggestion about assigning the kids to edit local history (this was Plymouth, Massachusetts). I don't know whether they've identified the kids yet, but often enough it's one small group who name each other in their edits. If you ever encounter a school employee who wants someone more "official" (not that it seems likely) then drop me a line or post to WP:AN. And thanks again for the positive response. If this works for more editors then maybe I'll write an essay to share the solution. Durova 09:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, I was going to ask for the specifics of how you handled it. I sure don't see how this approach can hurt (except by bungling the initial contact), and it's easy to imagine informal programs teaching students to use their resources and make constructive contributions. It would be worth an essay at the very least if you can get positive results this way. More like a whole new Wikiproject if it catches on with even a small percentage of editors. I'll try to stay aware for a situation that might apply. It's been a pleasure Durova :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 10:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you guys don't mind me sticking my nose in here. I'd go with "a Wikipedia editor," Doc. An "editor" sounds as respectable as an "admin" to non-wiki people. Last year I contacted an author who was being quoted as saying something he never said. I just identified myself as an editor from Wikipedia and I got a fantastic and very fast response. I don't think you need to be an admin to follow Durova's example and get similar results. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra input. I don't mind, but it's not my Talkpage :) I guess "a Wikipedia editor" does sound like enough credentials to open a dialogue with. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 10:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I'm glad to share some space for a positive. There's one other thing I forgot to mention. They also wanted the current block explained to them and a little bit of background (they'd ask, I'd answer) about how Wikipedia works. The people I spoke to knew about the site but hadn't actually edited themselves. One thing I made certain to explain is that they still had access to read the encyclopedia. Durova 14:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is just horribly embarrassing. At first I felt stupid because I'd never thought to use the "whois" button you mentioned; wasn't even really aware of it. I recently came across an Anon IP I wanted to try tracking down as you suggested, but I can't find the "whois" button! There is no "whois" in my Toolbox, no matter what Userpage or Talkpage I go to. Are you sure you're not sending me on some kind of digital Snipe hunt, or am I just godawful dumb? Please take pity on me before my head explodes :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Failing the WHOIS link (I cant see one either), there are publically available services (whois databases, reverse DNS, xlookup, etc etc). The one I've always used (purely through phpbb forums I've run) is hereCrimsone 21:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My bad...It's the "IP Info" link on the far left of an IP talk page that gets you to the information. Not necessarily much good on private lines, but usually gets you an e-mail, contact name, and phone number for a school. I'd better go fix that thread at the Pump if anyone is still reading. Durova 21:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm just butting in from Special:Recentchanges... do you know about WP:ABUSE? You might like to share ideas with some of the folks there. (I'm not sure how active they are at the moment.) Snipewise, if you go to a "User talk" page for an IP user that has at least one comment on it, there's a box at the bottom with links for "IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS". An example chosen at random is here. The "IP info" link takes you to dnsstuff.com, which is a very useful site for this sort of thing. Cheers, FreplySpang 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both Durova and FreplySpang I found the button and called off the Snipe hunt. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Golly, I didn't anticipate this would generate so much interest. Don't tell me I'm the first Wikipedian to actually contact a school and work on this proactively? Durova 22:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all! There's already a Wikiproject about it at WP:ABUSE. As far as where I learned about this discussion.... I saw an interesting edit to your talk page on Recent Changes, and came snooping! :-) FreplySpang 22:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was my "pathetic cry for help", I guess I should tone down the drmatics :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, kind of like intercepting the mail. Cheers, :) Durova 22:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

The anonymous Gundagai editor is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gundagai editors#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Um

Why what way? I've put my cards on the table, full disclosure, WYSIWYG!

I'm just curious to see if people respond to that, or if it really is what I think it is: adminship not as a key to the toolshed, but as something else entirely.

Honestly I'm more invested in the process than I am in the result... I might perform maybe 5 to 10 (ok, maybe 20 to 30) sysop chores a day if I'm "elected", which is of course a drop in the bucket, but I really think adminship should be about adding drops to the bucket, not accepting a huge responsibility. We have 8 (EIGHT!) active admins on wikibooks. We're all so overburdened that we just shrug off the backlogs. I've been actively campaigning to get more admins, because even if they only used the tools once a day, at least it would be one less thing I had to do. The wikipedian community seems to be misinterpreting the whole thing... it's really about giving someone keys to the janitor's closet, not approving a member of the local junta.

I am completely overqualified to be a "newbie" admin. My "sin" on the RfA is full disclosure. If I was more determined, I'd disclose less, but is that really how it should be? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 21:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

John, I agree with many of your sentiments, but in most RfA's the candidates actually try to say something good about themselves :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote a halfhearted request and of course it's getting rejected. Then you went out of your way to post about the rejection on Village Pump. Not WP:POINT in the blockable sense, but come on. If you had set out with a goal to deflate the hopes of a group of on-the-fence editors who wonder whether they're good enough for adminship, you couldn't have staged it better. I don't want to form a low opinion, but what good faith option does this leave? You're an admin on another project - I can't suppose this represents ignorance. If you don't want to get sysopped then withdraw. Please don't go out of your way to bring down the hopes of others who may really want it and intend to use it well. Durova 21:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc -- and please... it's Johnny -- as far as I'm concerned, I only said good things about myself. I'm a vandal/spam patroller, a good faith editor, and a respected administrator on other projects. Anything "bad" I had to say was just an aknowledgement of my ignorance and/or dislike of certain wikipedia policies.

Durova: I'm not in this for a silly kick. I'm in this to make people think. I fully intend to argue the "no" voters into changing their votes. And I hope the experience will make them look at future candidates differently. I'm not fooling around trying to make a point, but rather trying to break a log jam... I'm not emotionally invested, but I'm fully invested intellectually, and this is something that's needed doing for a long time. I'm the right guy to do it, and I'm trying to do the right thing. "Win" or "lose" (totaly wrong terms to apply to an RfA (in my little world), but accurately describing the way wikipedia's RfA is looked at), I'm going to have fun, my detractors are hopefully going to have fun, and my supporters might be frustrated, but I'll make that up to them if necessary. But it's all about fun: I wouldn't care so much about wikipedia if I didn;'t have so much fun helping wikipedia be the great thing that it is! --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on your contributions to other Wikimedia projects I'll trust that - although I really don't know what it is that you're trying to get at with this candidacy. I'll even support you in good faith. Wish you'd explain it better. Durova 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get sysopped... just doing it in my own way, as I do most things :). To be honest, I'm not great at straightforward explanations. If you want to support me, interrogate me, because I tend to know better what people want to know when I'm faced with frank, direct questioning. This whole conversation whould probably be there, not here. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've linked here and added my words. If you want me to help in a more meaningful way I'll give it to you cut and dried: withdraw this nomination, wait a month, and prepare yourself for the next attempt. I could probably help you draft a better statement for your second candidacy - I studied writing in graduate school and held a teaching assistantship there. None of the requests I've seen that began this badly ultimately succeeded. Sleep on it if you aren't sure and then take a fresh look in the morning: if you'd never heard of you what impression would the candidate statement give? My vote of confidence doesn't count for a whole lot. I'm not super-known and I have a bit of a reputation for putting my money on underdogs. My last two underdogs got wholloped at ArbCom so that doesn't put you in great company (I think you're a much better greyhound though). I also rarely vote at RFA. That's how I call this. Make of it what you will. Durova 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm gonna ride it out (another quirk of my personality). If the vote gets closer, I'll let my friends (and regular "opponents") know about my RfA and let the landslide begin. I'm not emotionally invested, but I am having fun, and that's what it's all about.

And yes, your analysis was right on. I'm a wikimedian, more than a wiki(name your project). Wikibooks has some problems, and I address them in the same boorish/headlong way I'm addressing this particular wikipedia problem. I guess the big difference "over there" is that everyone knows me (we're a smallish community), and knows what to expect. Let's see how it goes: maybe we'll both be pleasantly surprised! --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC Halibutt

Hello! I have listen your wise advise and asked an comment for Halibutt`s behavior. Have a good time. M.K. 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a skim. Looks good so far. Will look into it in more detail shortly. Thank you for the heads up. Durova 01:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a statement under the Outside views section. At least one editor has to co-certify within two days or the request will be deleted. Also note it was an article content RfC that I recommended, not a user conduct RfC. Durova 02:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that I misinterpreted your words. If will be the necessity, I am ready to redraw them. Just give me a note. Cya. M.K. 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

Thanks for your help. I'm not sure if there is something I should do as part of reconciliation?

Try to sign your posts. ;) You might open a request at WP:RFC and draw in other opinions if you can discern a pattern to this editor's deletions and think this person could become more cooperative. I'm all for friendly resolution. That said, it isn't specifically your responsibility to take action. It's the other editor who's been blocked and needs to change. Kudos to you for asking and for keeping an open mind. If anything can help resolve this constructively it's that positive attitude. Cheers, Durova 00:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab link fix request

Hello. While fixing links to the Soviet Republic disambiguation page, I ran across one in the locked Republic article. Would it be possible for you to go to Republic#Republics reducing state religion impact and change the Soviet Republic link to Soviet Republic? Once the link in Republic is fixed, all of the links to this dab page will have been corrected. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Durova 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!) Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. What's New? The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

AfD discussion closed by non-administrator situation

Hi, an AfD nomination I started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_30#Frot) recently ended and I can't find the editor who gave the decision (User:Maxberners) on the list of administrators, I know non-administrators are allowed to do this in some cases, but I don't really don't think this was an unambiguous "Keep", I didn't want to raise the issue on the admin. board because it wasn't exactly vandalism and I wasn't quite sure if this was the correct procedure or not in this case, then I saw that you were active on the admin board. Could you look into this please?Onhm 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to confirm this with another administrator. I haven't been active at AfD in many months. However, standard practice is to retain status quo unless a supermajority decides to do anything else. So the only thing you'd really be inquiring here is whether the closing note would read keep or no consensus - either way the action would be to keep. I count 13 keep votes and 4 merge, but I haven't looked at this with the care that a closing administrator would use (checking edit histories to discount new users, etc.). So it's kinda close to no consensus, maybe in the debatable range, but is there enough at stake to be worth the effort? Durova 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

huh?

To what does this refer? I'm honestly confused.

It really looks like you cross posted to WP:RFI in good faith, so please take this as a friendly tip rather than a warning: it's better to post a page diff from the edit history or introduce a quotation and use italics if you really feel the need to cut and paste. Emulating another editor's signature is bad form, and an administrator's signature is dangerous territory. Another user (who was in a very different position from your own) when from a one week block to a site ban for impersonating an administrator the other day. I don't think anyone will misinterpret the particular cross post you did, but don't make it a habit.

Argyriou (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff where you copied my signature.[4] Durova 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Something is messed up in the history there. That diff shows only removal of text, not me adding anything. I suspect the problem may be some sort of edit conflict; this diff shows what I intended to add to the RFI page. If I did copy your sig, it was accidental as part of an edit conflict, not by any intention of mine. Argyriou (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case never mind. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd Question About A Possible Glitch?

I was just clicking the Random article link when it took me to this page: Web 3.0. Is it a glitch or is it normal for protected pages to show up via Special:Random? -WarthogDemon 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean protected deleted pages? I'm not sure. You could ask at Village Pump. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)