User talk:Durova/Archive 24

Editor Review

Durova: I am not asking for an RFA at this point, I feel the need to make that clear, lest my intent be misconstrued. All I am interested in knowing is your thoughts on the feasability of an RFA run for me. Is my edit count good, is my quality good, have I handled myself well? Most importantly, do you think an RFA would succeed for me? I ask only so I can self-assess my Wiki-career. Thanks a lot. --HubHikari 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, didn't find your name on the ER list. You've been a Wikipedian nearly as long as I have and you're an RC patroller, which are both positives. A clean block log is good. At fewer than 1000 total edits, though, you're a long way from viable candidacy. I'd like to know why you want the tools. Either way, try raising a page to WP:GA or WP:FA - it feels great to see your hard work on the site's main page. Keep fighting vandalism and if you're really serious help out with some undermanned sysop areas such as WP:SSP and WP:COIN. Check in with me from time to time, especiallly if something particularly good or bad happens. Durova^Charge! 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

With the admin tools, I can start carving big, meaty hunks off the backlog of CSD and RFPP pages. From what I can see, the backlog there needs all the help it can get... I could also patrol AiV and help in that respect; there are too many vandals running around. I've installed TW and Lupin's navpop JS extensions, so I feel I'm a cut above your average editor in that respect. And re: ER, a link off my user page directs people to it. I guess it's not current anymore. I'll relist it later...maybe. Sorry for the slow followup; didn't realize you'd post your reply back to your own talk page. Sorry about that. Thanks for the heads-up(s); I'll catch you later. --HubHikari 08:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Hang out at the admin boards a bit, brush something up to GA or featured list quality, and we'll talk about candidacy when you're around 3500 edits. Drop by with questions as necessary, especially if you start to run into any disputes. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do the honors

detective Durova. Handy link. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, indef blocked. Would you handle the templates? I'm snooping through 131 links to beeradvocate.com to see whether anyone has been brewing up spam. Durova^Charge! 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New essay

For the folks who drop by or watchlist my talk page, here's my latest composition: User:Durova/The dark side. I've got some mixed feelings about it so I'm not really circulating it yet. Let me know what you think. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're pretty well dead on, though the problem you identify isn't any way limited to here (people think they're a lot smarter and that everyone else is a lot dumber than is really the case). I think everyone should be required to work on some sort of opensource, collaborative project at least once in their lives, where everything they do is scrutinized by hundreds or thousands of people. It gives a new meaning to "keeping you honest". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I like what you have there. I'll give a more thorough look later, after I wake up. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? Jehochmann already linked to it from another essay. I've put it up on the community portal. Wish me luck. Durova^Charge! 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but I really need to reference that essay. There's going to be a major article on http://www.searchengineland.com/ within a few days, and then a conference session in New York next week. We're going to get a lot of attention, and I want to make sure people see your comments. They are critically important because many commentators (even some of my friends) are giving out bad advice to SEOs. I really need to educate our (SEO) community so they understand why being sneaky is a really bad idea. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize; I'm flattered. May I be of further assistance? Durova^Charge! 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what can be done on the public relations front. If you happen to be in the NYC area next Thursday, I am thinking about having a last minute meet up with Wikipedians and SEOs. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your e-mail isn't enabled. Contact me offsite, please. Durova^Charge! 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration on article Mudaliar

Hi Durova,

Since the mediation has failed, the next step on the article Mudaliar is arbitration. However I noticed that the [1] arbitration request page has been overwritten 3 times by some different arbitration requests. Is this going to arbitartion or not and how can I check the status?

thnx Venki 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you try an article content request for comment first. If that breaks the deadlock it would be much less painful than arbitration. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, the actual arbitration request page is WP:RFAR. If you'd like to seek assistance I recommend WP:ADOPT as a good mentorship program. Durova^Charge! 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The MfD page

I've recast my vote for speedy deletion and explained why to the others. Question: concerning FeloniousMonk's personal attacks against me in his latest reply, how might I best respond? FM has declared he will no longer engage me in direct conversation (as if he ever had). --Otheus 11:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, I suggest sitting on the sidelines for a bit. I've filed a new WP:RFCU to help clear the air. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your inquiry: There's currently a motion to suspend the case pending WP:CEM. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lionheart X and Taiwan National Baseball Team

I am writing you because you obviously have a history with Lionheart X. He changed the name of the Taiwan National Baseball Team article back to Chinese Taipei National Baseball Team despite the agreement in the discussion page that it should remain as Taiwan because its history predates the use of the term Chinese Taipei. If you could follow up on this, I would appreciate it. ludahai 魯大海 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please report to WP:ANI. I've washed my hands of that matter. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've stepped in. We'll see what happens. Regards, Ben Aveling 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I hope your help turns around this situation. Best, Durova^Charge! 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

The Gettysburg Address article needs to be permanently semi-protected because of its nature as the subject of history classes, leading to high school students constantly vandalizing it. -- Fyslee/talk 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given it 3 months. Everyone should be out for the summer by July, vandalizing baseball articles instead... ;) Durova^Charge! 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That's a good one. Maybe articles should be placed on an automatic seasonal protection schedule. I think that all controversial articles should be on permanent semi-protection, and other high profile (Feature) articles like this one as well. -- Fyslee/talk 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (continues below)

Wikipedia as a reliable source

Citizendium is already much further along in this regard, but of course they have a higher goal than Wikipedia -- they want to (gasp!) make articles into RS! It's a shame that isn't an actively-pursued goal here. They have already put into place some ideas I've had for a long time, and which are a condition for ever achieving that goal: (a) registration of all users (they insist on real names); (b) approval process based on submitted applications; (c) article oversight by admins; (d) semi-protection of reasonably developed articles; (e) progression of articles to approved and fully protected status as reliable sources; (f) further editing only by permission. I wish that such a goal was offically pursued here. -- Fyslee/talk 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked into the German language Wikipedia's stable versions system? That seems to be a happy medium and there are plans to adapt it to the English language version. Durova^Charge! 15:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't, simply because my German is zilch (I took Spanish in high school). All the German I can understand is because I can speak Danish, which is slightly related. Does it sound anything like the Citizendium model? I don't see any reason why Wikipedia couldn't just copy the Citizendium model for getting featured articles stable and reliable. -- Fyslee/talk 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Different model from Citizendium. Basically stable versions creates a class of articles that could still be edited by anybody, but anonymous or newer users' edits wouldn't go live until an established editor reviews them. It's been under discussion for a long time and I believe the current status is that WMF is working on the technical end of adapting it to the larger English language project. And as for Citizendium, I've traded some brief correspondence with Larry Sanger and I respect what he's doing. I wish him the best with it. I don't plan on going over there because I prefer not to disclose my real world identity to the general public. As a sysop I deal with some of the most troublesome people who populate this site and I'd rather not become a target for personal harassment. The Foundation knows my real name and I don't mind providing my bona fides offsite to people I trust. Durova^Charge! 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I share the same concerns. I have looked at it, but am not sure whether I want to edit there yet. The concept you mention sounds reasonable. The articles just need to be stabilized. I don't see an absolute need for only professionals to be editors and authors. It's amazing what amateurs, high school kids, and of course lots of retirees, can accomplish here. Not all are vandals or fools, but those who are spoil the experience and lessen Wikipedia's credibility. There is where Larry Sanger's advice needs to be applied with firmness:

"show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." [2]

-- Fyslee/talk 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That quote is also at the top of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, a guideline I coauthored. Durova^Charge! 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry's not a dumb guy! I think his words there need to be taken more seriously and applied more firmly. I often see editors whose block logs are a mile long, for example, and yet they are still here. -- Fyslee/talk 18:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any wiki project devoted to this end? -- Fyslee/talk 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There's WikiProject spam, RC patrol... WP:SSP and WP:COIN are in constant need of volunteers. Durova^Charge! 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That represents a lot of time and brain power being wasted on non-editing procedures. If registration were required and Larry's words were applied, we'd save a good portion of that. That wouldn't be enough though. I think a test based on wiki policies and guidelines should be passed before being allowed to edit more serious or contentious articles. A wikiuniversity course needs to be established as a project. -- Fyslee/talk 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a perennial proposal and I'm not the decision maker. Durova^Charge! 01:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RfAr - mediation

Hi. In response to your inquiry on User talk:Penwhale, the arbitrators are indicating that the mediation should proceed. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision#Motion to suspend the case pending mediation. Thanks for taking the lead on this. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for being proactive. Penwhale already got back to me too. I'll try my best here. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

70.23.199.239

You gave this person a 48-hour block. He hasn't edited since yesterday, which was only one post, on his own talk page, above. There's been been heat on both sides. I don't claim to speak for 70 -- and I understand the admin's mission to enforce policy -- but I feel that this action only worsens existing hurt feelings. Please, please reconsider. Yakuman (数え役満) 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That person can post an unblock request if he or she wishes. If you wish to defuse tensions then the best thing you could do is tone down your own posts regarding that dispute, not so much toward me as toward the involved parties. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been making quite an unjustified ruckus at Template:Dominionism as well, and is now claiming that 3RR does not apply to that template. 151.151.73.169 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How is that user making a ruckus at that template? Please be more specific. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

more personal attacks. have reported at WP:AN/I. Doldrums 09:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WMC COI

Regarding these allegations of COI against William M. Connolley: I'm not sure if this is relevant (which is why I'm commenting to you about it here first), but according to Tony, Zeeboid works for Tony at his "Race to the Right" talk show ("Zeeboid (who, in the interest of full disclosure, is one of the staff of my show and one of the show's researchers)..." [3]). Both Z and T have been commenting on the COI discussion, and have both voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific data withholding‎, within 5 minutes of each other [4] [5]. For my own future reference in dealing with wikipedia administration issues, I'd be interested in your opinion about whether this connection is relevant to either of the discussions. Thanks for your time! --Nethgirb 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for the links. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

re:the dark side

i see where you're coming from (WP:BEANS) but the point being was that none of those things have even the slightest chance of working. i was going for a 'yeah, we know ya'll try that like all the time' approach. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That essay went through several offline drafts before I posted it. While I sympathize with the spin you'd like to give, I deal with too many users who read anything in bad faith. That sort of person would skim the list, think of two or three things that aren't on it, and try those. They'll do that regardless of the length of the list, so eventually we'd end up blueprinting the stuff that's actually bothersome to catch. I'd prefer if that sort of person did trip up in the obvious ways. When I can catch them quickly I can catch more of them. Durova^Charge! 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Okee doke, it's your essay! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 05:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) And keep up the good work. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

Hey, you worked on the sockpuppet accusation against me. Can I ask you a question? Jonawiki 14:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Durova^Charge! 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been at a work-related crisis for a while, my part in it now starting to calm down. Took a quick look at all the drama that occurred. Thanks for your advice on mentoring, will look into it and thanks for your polite and measured response.

Here's my situation and questions: I'm not a sockpuppet. Magonaritus and I are actually room-mates. We have different interests (as you can see in our different editing histories) but we also have some shared experiences (we both went to UCC and we both played Star Wars Galaxies). I'm not sure what the wiki term for this situation. We're not exactly "meatpuppets". What are we supposed to do in this case? Stay away from each other on Wiki? Post publicly on our user pages the nature of our entanglement? I looked around Wiki but had a hard time finding anything that officially describes how to handle this kind of situation. Can you point to me the official policy on how to handle this situation? Thanks. Jonawiki 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of posting your entanglement to your user pages. At the close of the SSP report I also advised you to join WP:ADOPT. I can understand two college buddy roommates sharing the same interests and the same computer, but that comes with some caveats:

• • • It's almost inevitable that you'll also discuss Wikipedia together and since you're both active Wikipedians that puts you in pretty much constant peril of the meatpuppetry clause at WP:SOCK.
    • Since you do originate from the IP address and you do share the same interests, policy and practice onsite is to treat you as the same editor. That means if it looks like you're tag teaming at an article and you each do 2 reverts in the same day, you'll likely both get blocked for a total of 4 reverts. If you participate in community discussions such as WP:AFD, I strongly recommend that one of you recuse yourself if the other has already participated.

It would be a good idea to make swift and diligent use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process such as article content requests for comment if you get into any edit disputes. In other words, make an extra effort to walk the straight and narrow path to counteract the possible appearance of impropriety. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate accounts?

Hi Durova,

While wandering through the history on Kryptos, I pulled a thread and discovered that user:Hiram and user:Kryptos are the same user. The contributions show nothing of an illicit nature, in fact Hiram only seems to have created a User page. Neither shows activity since 2005.

Please advise on the appropriate path for me to follow?

Respectfully,

--Lmcelhiney 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If neither has been active since 2005 then it seems like a dead issue. Durova^Charge! 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. I suspected that, but wanted to be sure that I hadn't missed something. Have a good day!

--Lmcelhiney 12:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Beer

I would appreciate it if you would enforce WP:NPA here. — goethean ॐ 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the participants to refactor and depersonalize the dispute. Follow up if things stay heated. Durova^Charge! 02:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Credit where it's due

Since I have complained about when (IMO) you got things wrong, it's only fair that I comment when (IMO) you got things very right. Handled this well too. Guettarda 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody bats .1000. I try my best, and thank you. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

...that Sara Gruen’s historical novel Water for Elephants recounts that circus workers were sometimes thrown off the circus train in the middle of the night, a practice known as "redlighting"?

The article was selected![6] Hooray! - Skinny McGee 02:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Your barnstar will be ready in a moment. Keep up the good work. :) Durova^Charge! 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Durova! I love my barnstar! Also, I appreciate the new challenge - I'll see what I can do. - Skinny McGee 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Durova. Thank you for your comments on the Maharish COI complaint. I think Dseer may be going ahead with RfC or ArbCom as you advised. I think it's a good step. It would be nice to resolve this. You mentioned parole as an ArbCom sanction. Could you please tell me what that is? TimidGuy 10:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Article parole basically puts an article or a topic under the magnifying glass. It puts the subject onto the radar of the site's administrators and asks the participants to collaborate peacefully and neutrally. If serious problems continue then one or more editors could face serious sanctions such as a topic ban. Durova^Charge! 13:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. This is helpful to know. And apologies regarding my response to your post in the discussion. Dseer had been rounding up allies, and I was so rattled by this whole thing that when you appeared, for some reason I thought you were one of his allies. I would normally have been more cordial and appreciative. TimidGuy 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not a problem. A flameproof jacket is required apparel for a Wikipedia sysop. ;) Durova^Charge! 15:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It would help to stop reframing for an audience, TG. Rounding up "allies" for what, and where are they? Philosophus, etc. had already abandoned the COI discussions, and the only outside comments since I started on COI other than admins was two character endorsements of you while attacking me. Again, it isn't personal, and it isn't about piling up character endorsements, if you simply comply henceforth with COI as has now been clearly explained, none of this drama is necessary. --Dseer 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, Durova. Regarding rounding up allies, I was referring to these posts by Dseer on user Talk pages over a recent two-day period: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] When you appeared, I mistakenly thought you were one of them and wasn't as appreciative of your suggestions as I otherwise would have been. TimidGuy 16:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gallery Entries

I want to reply to your comments upon the articles posted about artists. Would there be a chance to keep some of them posted without any connection referring to the Gallery? I understand the concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bereznitsky-gallery (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for a polite and conscientious response. We've got two levels of concern here: Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You'd resolve the former by avoiding mention of the gallery, but in order to handle the latter the best route is to restrict your comments to talk pages. Read up on Wikipedia:Notability (people) and contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art regardng those of your artists who seem to meet the criteria. As you can see from this page, my own time is spread pretty thin. It would be a very good idea if you joined the mentorship program for specific guidance. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 13:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Chuckle

I just noticed this on Jimbo's talk page: [14]. Have a look at Number 7. LOL. By the way, I loved your dark side essay ... keep up the good work! Antandrus (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I enjoyed the link. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know

I did a quick scan of WP:CN and noticed one discussion had been sectioned for what appeared to be a voting structure. I have refactored. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was on my way out the door when I saw that and only had time to restore my own edit, which had been altered. The editor who did that is on editor review and I left some comments there. Durova^Charge! 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess what has resurfaced?

Take a look at the recent edit history of Charun. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a 1 week block for WP:POINT and WP:NPA. Durova^Charge! 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For dealing with last night's situation. Also more administrator input on this sitaution would be welcome. User:JB196 managed to force though a Joe job on one site, and as it was successful he's trying it again. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, he just hit my user page, promising to continue. I put them over on RfCU, see if we can root out his latest sock farm before it starts SirFozzie 18:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop on that project so you'll have to contact the admins there. Refer them to me for an explanation if necessary. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)