Hello, hope I qualify!
— Cheers, JackLee – talk– 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Much obliged – and the chewing gum was yummy ;-) — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 23:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, I think I qualify; if you would be so kind as to bestow one upon me, I would be humbled and very grateful.
Thanks. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, does this mean that you're leaving Wikipedia? Are you going to stand for reconfirmation as an admin? I hope you're doing okay. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I came here to inquire about your withdrawal as a candidate for ArbCom, and find this instead. Just wanted to offer Moral Support which, when combined with a dollar, might buy you a cup of coffee. But there you go. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I'm sorry you had to resign your adminship. I believe we have lost one of our best administrators here. However, I do respect your decision, and hope that you will continue to edit and improve the encyclopedia, as your work is definitely appreciated. Best wishes. Acalamari 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I had not asked for your resignation I commend you for honoring your word. I hope to be able to support you in a future RFA. Haukur ( talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to see all that happen. It [your resignation of the tools] was a net loss for the project. When it is all said and done, it is what each individual does for themselves that counts. I respect you for the professional way you conducted yourself the entire time. You've class. Salute. Best, Mercury 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, letting people like that grind you down is just ... WHAT - David Gerard ( talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You've walked a few miles in these moccasins too. Much obliged for the support. Warmly,
Durova
Charge!
21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not lose sight of what is important, the project. I hope you continue to contribute, and look forward to supporting a future RfA. But I must say, the us vs. them mentality I am seeing surrounding this incident cannot be conducive to a good editing environment for anyone involved in this insane dispute. Following from afar, and giving you moral support, IvoShandor ( talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, by giving up you are strengthening the trolls, socks and misfits that have infested this place. Don't let them win. All of us make mistakes; the trolls just wait for one by a strong admin, and pounce on it. Just brush them off and keep up your good work. We need you as an admin here. Crum375 ( talk) 20:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where she has given up. I see where she has, admirably, honored her word to stand for recall. I did not believe she would do that and I was wrong. Durova, for misjudging you on that, I apologize.
If, as so many claim, admins are merely mortal users with a few extra buttons, then unless Durova leaves wikipedia (which I sincerely hope she does not), the project will still benefit from her contributions.
This is a sad day for wikipedia, and 'blaming' the 'other side' or claiming 'mob mentality' does a disservice to everyone involved. I hope everyone (myself included) can sit back and reflect on their contributions (and/or lack of contributions) to this entire process. From those who were out for blood, to those who were quick to try to bury it, and everyone in between.
Durova, I have always believed that you operated from a place of good-intentions, and I believe that you have much to offer the project as a whole. In fact, I look forward to editing with you in mainspace.
Lsi john ( talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I like to add my support here for what Zocky is saying. It makes a lot of sense. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for honouring your recall pledge or whatever happened (maybe I missed the latest events.) How I would feel is that none of them stuck up for you, I know they did with words in support, but no people stuck their neck out to say that they were some of those that ok'ed/were aware of your plan on the list etc. I would feel annoyed in your position that I was made to take all the flack despite your seeking several people's ok before you acted on your !! beliefs. Don't you? I mean nothing bad by my words here I'm just saying, and I hope you take them in the spirit in which they are meant, that's how I would feel if no-one came forward- it would seem a bit of a betrayal. Or maybe you are soon going to be too busy in real life to be an admin anyway or something, so it doesn't matter that you were sacrificed? And no to the other people's comments, most if not all of the editors involved in the RfC etc. are not trolls. Merkinsmum ( talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. :) Acalamari 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For exceptional class, professionalism when none was due, and dedication to the project through everything: I, Mercury , give you the The Resilient Barnstar Mercury 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Seconded. IvoShandor ( talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you! Durova Charge! 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping those who intend to disrupt, off this project. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! Wikipedia has not become that significant due to "perfect editors" but due to good intentions by its contributors. Your hard work, defending Wikipedia and its aims was and hopefully is in future much appreciated! -- Stan talk 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you. What a thoughtful way to express it. I really appreciate. Cheers, Durova Charge! 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I am sorry to hear that you resigned as Wikipedia admin [1], but how User:Tony Sidaway put it: " There is a life after adminship". I had never a problem with you or did see you do anything wrong, but I know several people who "hated" you, including some of my friends. From what I learned (I saw many pages on the internet about you that show "how bad" you are) is the only valid problem somebody could have, the problem that you are overly protective of Wikipedia. As I said at the Requests for comment/Durova discussion, it could be called WP:COI that applies to you when it comes to issues in Wikipedia :) (I hope you get the joke in this statement). I hope that my suggestion to the general problem makes any sense to prevent issues like this one in the future.
Thank you again for your help at the COI Noticeboard. I just checked at the RS Noticeboard, nobody there seems to see to do anything about my request, what I consider to be a good sign.
Don't let yourself down. You are as qualified as before to write helpful articles for SEL about Wikipedia. You see, even me, who is not a Wikipedia admin either steps out to write at SEJ to eductate people about it. :)
If you need any help, don't hesitate to stop by my talk page and let me know about it. Cheers! -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe I actually qualify for the Deluxe Edition Imperial Triple Crown Jewel Thing-a-ma-bob:
I see you're resigning as an admin. I don't know anything about the process or what happened, but the comments on your talk page give me cause to believe that I should be sad at this news. Best wishes. – Scartol • Tok 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is appropriate or not, but just in case it is...
On the question of your request for adminship:
You have one. :) Acalamari 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I very much appreciate your message, and your recognition that my perspective had some validity. I do feel badly that you have borne the brunt of the community's antipathy toward proactive attempts to root out "black hats." I am well aware that you are not the only administrator who has indef-blocked editors with what was apparently insufficient evidence, and I did allude to that in both my outside view and as a reason for supporting your desysopping. I do read AN/I from time to time, and have on many occasions seen a pile-on of other admins supporting blocks for no apparent reason other than their belief that the blocking admin probably knew what they were doing; only occasionally do I see any sign of others actually reviewing the evidence or checking the contribs list. I sincerely believe that you have recognized and accepted that support for "pre-emptive" campaigns is not as strong as you had thought, and that there were impacts which you had not anticipated. I hope that others will recognize this as well.
I have heard in many places that you are a talented researcher and encyclopedic writer. Wikipedia needs people with those talents very badly - 30 seconds of "random articles" makes it very clear. While it would be entirely understandable if you wished to take a bit of time-out to re-evaluate all that has happened in the last few days, you should know that there is always a place for you here. Just as, from the responses you and others have made with respect to my presentation of a different perspective , I have been reassured that there is a place for me, too. I wish you the best, whether or not you decide to continue contributing here. Perhaps our paths may cross again, although I hope the next time will be on the talk page of an article we are jointly trying to improve.
-- Risker ( talk) 05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It takes integrity to relinquish "the tools" after recognizing one made a mistake. I don't mean to sound inconsistent, since I can and have pointed out other mistakes, but you should consider an immediate nomination (either self or otherwise) for admin status again. Pobody's Nerfect, and I think you do a good overall job as an admin. (Also, it seems unfair to "punish" you for behavior that has in the past been rewarded/respected after one public incident. If you were warned, and then continued doing the same stuff, that'd be a whole other matter. However in this case you really weren't given any real indication that the community was so opposed to sleuthing, until it freaked out.) Anynobody 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
I’m of the opinion that the RfAr is needless drama. I mean, this RfAr is sailing through faster than BADSITES did, and it was only hours after your RfC. If we had an RfAr for every time an admin made a bad mistake, we’d be swamped. It disgusts me how many people are goading you for one mistake, and I’m surprised you haven’t tired of the crap and left. If it comes to an RfA, you have my axe, and not in your back. Will ( talk) 10:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC) |
I wanted to say that you have handled yourself with real grace and integrity in the aftermath of 'the mistake'. Ideologically, I don't think we could be further apart in our views about 'what is best for Wikipedia', but I admire your composure and efforts to make peace in the face of what must be very upsetting comments and events. You are taking the full heat of a backlash against a movement/philosophy of which you were only a small part and I think that is unfortunate and unfair. Hopefully, when the dust has settled you'll be allowed to put this behind you and move on. I don't agree with some of your ideas, but I know you pursue them with the best of intentions. Be well. -- CBD 12:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You know I think you were mad to resign, the users accusing you could not loose the argument they started. You resign - they win because they make it more difficult to stop unconstructive editting. You stay on - they win because "you were just grand standing." Having said that I must be honest and say that I'm not in favour of secret evidence I've been thinking it over for a while and sincerely I don't see the need for it, and even if there was one I cannot conscience its use in any circumstance. Anyway I hope some of the pressure is off you know and that things will get back to normal soon-- Cailil talk 14:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)Sharing with other admins didn't work in this case. The thing I pledged to do was to route through ArbCom formally and let them act as an official body. The Wikipedia:Confidential evidence proposal started up shortly afterward and I support it. Durova Charge! 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Recently the phrase "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" has been circling my head as I edit here. You may find some resonance. Incidentally, I found, um, User talk:Cwiki today whilst on something entirely unrelated. Less fuss back then, I guess. All the best. Hiding T 14:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my request to apply for triple crown:
Damn, I'm just 1 DYK short of getting imperial triple crown :P OhanaUnited Talk page 15:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As I now qualify for the triple crown, I have a quick question. I have mulitple FCs and GAs, so can I pick what I believe to be the best article FC and GA I have achieved, or does it have to be the first one I got? Gran 2 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Gran 2 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I nominate Durova for administrator. Durova is a trusted and respected member of the Wikipedia community. Nobody is perfect. Durova understands the importance of transparency and oversight, a very important quality in an administrator. There was a recent case of a block that she reversed. This review of her own actions is good evidence that Durova would be a responsible administrator again. Some others of lesser integrity might insist that they are right even if they know that they were heavy handed. Furthermore, since confidential evidence was in debate, she has taken steps to insure that it is used cautiously in the future. That kind of experience gives her even more insight and wisdom that the average administrator candidate. As Jimbo Wales said,
"I advise the world to relax a notch or two." A bad block was made for 75 minutes. It was reversed and an apology given. There are things to be studied here about what went wrong and what could be done in the future, but wow, could we please do so with a lot less drama? A 75 minute block, even if made badly, is hardly worth all this drama. Let's please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from [2] )
Durova has been in Wikipedia for over two years and has over one year of actual administrator experience. She made contributions to the Joan of Arc article, which became a featured article and which she calmed the flames (no pun intended) of edit warring there. She has made tens of thousands of edits. She continues to make mainspace edits unlike some candidates who stop once they become administrators. She also has compassion and insight. She knows how to counsel sockpuppets and can judge which ones have a hidden potential, some of whom later went on to constructive article creation and building. She has been successful in turning hate into productive work for Wikipedia. So if you hate her, have a heart and see if you can support her RFA. As Jimbo Wales said about Durova, "let's please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for".
Why not think it over for 1-2 weeks and use the above statement as evidence of nomination. Chergles ( talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Chergles, thank you very much. I'm spending more time in mainspace now, as some people have advised. When I think I've regained the community's trust I'll take up your offer. Jimbo's said the tools are no big deal; I've said it too. We probably all have. It's a healthy exercise to walk that walk. Durova Charge! 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep this handy and consider using it in the future...don't wait too long. Chergles ( talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd probably support a nomination in future, if you keep this attitude. :-) Are you sure you want to be an admin again though? Often you can do more if you're not, actually. ^^;; -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, although I have to point out I have never been sanctioned by ArbCom of anything - the closest I have come was the general Eastern European editors restriction, and the finding that me and Irpen had (have) some issues. Not sure of this qualifies me for Valiant return which requires an arbitration sanction or a lifted siteban.
On another note, I am appalled at the witchunt that has been unleashed upon you. We are human and make mistakes - and apparently for some its a great excuse to take potshots. Please be assured that you are not alone. Good luck, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, nominating myself below. I think we all need a little more wikilove right now... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, while I am disappointed that you felt compelled to resign as an administrator and withdraw your candidacy for arbitration committee, I nevertheless commend you for not giving up on the project altogether and for your willingness to apologize and correct any mistakes. If you and I could make peace after our rocky beginning a year ago, others can and should as well. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you use articles from previous awards to satisfy the 2,3,4... etc requirements for each level (so for the double, you only need one more DYK, one more GA?) Just wondering because (to me, at least) the wording is a bit fuzzy. Best of the looming holiday season, David Fuchs ( talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my request to apply for triple crown:
Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For the crown. As for your question... having little "life" helps :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I qualify for the new Napoleonic triple crown:
It was not clear to me whether I should list all the GAs, FAs, and DYKs that I have or just the sets of five. Here are the sets of five. If you want more info, see my userpage. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm one human being with ten fingers who types 75 words a minute when well pumped with coffee
Might have some more DYKs, but User:Ssilvers usually handles the noms for them.
Adam certainly did substantial work on Maritana, which was DYK, so I think that makes him Imperial. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
... for your good work, which is not forgotten in light of having messed up once. Thanks for apologizing graciously, and acting to correct yourself as fast as you could. We are only human, and can't demand perfection of each other. We can request civility and you have provided that. Possibly most of all, thanks for not dumping the whole Wikipedia idea, along with the shiny buttons.
I think that if you conduct yourself as well as you usually have, and still have an itch for the admin powers back in several months, you will probably get them; even with the support of many who criticized this specific action, but are wise enough to tell the difference between the actor and the action. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In the discussion we've had, we wished to ask you if you could bring down the six crowns to the different users to five, as there are really only five very actively engaged users in the Wikiproject. If not, it's OK then. xihix( talk) 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Individual crown sounds great. But... we just don't have that many active users. DYKs, yes, but GA and FAs... there are very few people who do that stuff (and Halibutt was for the most part chased away by trolls). Sigh...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You did the right thing, for yourself and for the project, by giving up your sysop status as you had said you would. That said, I'm very disappointed to see that you were abusing the community's faith with your secret sleuthing activities. Should you give up those bad faith witch hunts, I will support you in half a year should you decide to ask for reinstatement. Isarig ( talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, just coming off of an extended wikibreak, and just caught a glimpse of everything that went down. Let me just say that I have seen you around plenty since I arrived here, and have always found you nothing but helpful as an editor and an admin. Chin up and all that. Pastordavid ( talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI - I got a call from a reporter today doing a piece on corporate astroturfing on Wikipedia. I filled him in as much as possible, and (among other recommendations) I suggested he might want to talk to you and Jehochman, since that is an area in which you both specialize. Raul654 ( talk) 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the "Spiffier triple crown", but I think I may qualify for the Imperial Napoleonic version
Username: User:Rodw
I really must sort out a copy of this lot somewhere!— Rod talk 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Out of the FC, Stanley Cup is an FA, and the others are FLs. I have a few A-Class articles, they're similar to the lists, but I haven't taken them to FLC because they're too short. Cheers! -- Maxim (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you had recently awarded an occasional collaborator of mine, a particularly gaudy bauble. I came here to claim my own, but I see you have recently had your own troubles. IMHO the more you contribute to the project, the more you get caught in the snares of pettifoggers. From what little I have seen (from above) you have acted with honesty and integrity, and that earns my support.
Damn, more featured content. I need more featured content ... Keep smiling. Kbthompson ( talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Your majesty, it is finally time for me to upgrade to Imperial status:
If it pleases you, Cirt ( talk) 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
...for the Jewels 2.0!-- Legionarius ( talk) 00:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I know some have been calling on you to release the names of the five editors that you said supported your evidence of malfeasance by User:!! before you applied the block. I believe, however, that those five editors should first be given a chance to show their personal integrity by coming forward on their own and explaining why they supported your evidence. In that regard, I've created a section here for them to identify and explain themselves. Since you know who they are, could you please ensure that they receive this message? Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering, would it be possible to also make it have people who have gotten blocks to get this award? I'd like to get this award, as I used to vandal a lot about two years ago (I should have gotten banned, surprised I didn't), and I was blocked a few months ago, too. Since then, I have been doing much for the encyclopedia. So uhh, yeah, could you add blocks too? xihix( talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I qualify for a Imperial Napoleonic triple crown winners...*guilty face*
See also User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The only other pics from Commons that I had in mind were either, Kwik-E-Mart, Star 1, Star 2, or the Pink donut from that picture. Cirt ( talk) 08:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
– MDCollins ( talk) 11:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Your signature is one of the coolest sigs I've ever seen. Dalekusa 14:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you're not letting recent events get you down. We all make mistakes, and it's only because you were involved with difficult and controversial stuff that yours was so visible. Not the end of the world, although there are people who are acting as if it was. Don't let the bastards get you down!
That aside, can I nominate a couple of people for Triple Crowns? I hope it's ok for me to nominate them rather than them doing it themselves!
I think these are right, but I could have messed up somewhere. MacDui has another article at FAC, but that wouldn't change anything.
If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to ask! Very best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What the heck? I have -no- idea what happened there. What is all that garbage text? I just copy/pasted the same message to yourself, !!, and Giano. • Lawrence Cohen 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's just come to my attention today that the new standard triple crown image includes an element that's sensitive to some people. It isn't my intention to offend so I'll be photoshopping a replacement very soon.
Also, for those who are interested, I've got a working proposal for the Simpsons WikiProject award. They're three DYKs short of qualifying so this will probably be the first one. Durova Charge! 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Amandajm 13:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have raised the question of who, and for what purpose, sent Giano II a copy of your report. It is on the basis that that individual may have questionable motives and should be - if known - a party to the ArbCom proceedings. A bit late in the day, I'm afraid, and I'm sorry to have disturbed what little peace you may have started to acquire. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I read this and started to respond there but I decided I would respond here instead. More appropriate.
The problem is not one block. It is not one error. It is that you were -- to all appearances -- running a secret process for what was in essence a Witch-hunt. Perhaps, had your Method actually been a good and valid process, it would have been winked at. Certainly it would not have come to light and you would have gone on. But it was very unscientific. Very biased. Untested. Unreliable. Yet you apparently believed it like it came down from a mountain carved in stone. And when you were questioned you implied that it was some sort of group thing -- still done in secret. Very star chamber. And through all of this, you have never really seemed to understand the problem. This is deeply troubling. I can sort of look through a glass and see things your way -- protecting the project -- but undue weight in that focus led you wrong. Somewhere on the road between good and bad you got lost but -- perhaps worst of all -- you still do not seem to know it.
"It was a mistake -- No one is perfect". And so on. To you, it was the error of the bad block which you quickly corrected so your humility should be a saving grace. In holding that perspective and continuing to say it, you confirm the view of the community that you are clueless about what was really wrong. In particular most people recognize that if you had not erred in the block, you would have continued to follow your Method and you would have been convinced you were doing good. And after several days and many comments, you still seem to not understand. Notice here that you now say the report was experimental. Think about that. You blocked someone indefinitely as an experiment. Yet to you that is somehow a valid thing to have done or at least something people should take into account before thinking you did something wrong. If you do not see what bothers people about experimentally judging and executing users in a secret process -- well -- it confirms that you should have given up the tools.
Add to that the whole idea of running around wikipedia looking for opportunities to clandestinely identify socks and block them without any appeal process. Many editors see this as a very paranoid and authoritarian trait. Why not just stop worrying about infiltration, just let the hurts of the past go and instead of seeking out evil, correct behaviors that lead to edits that stray from the guidelines. Basically... do not take a stance that automatically voids "Assume Good Faith".
I have tried to think about how this could have been handled so that you might have only been slapped a bit, but the vow of secrecy associated with the matter meant that people would feel you were "serving" them what they wanted to hear instead of what you thought, even if you said everything perfectly. So I do not think you could win. But had you at least said "Wow, I can see that have really got off the beam -- and I'm never going to seek to block socks again because I clearly have a blind spot problem with this and I'm gonna take a 6 month break from admin duties to get some perspective", that might have done something. Hard to say.
Well, at least that's my view and I hope I have been ... perhaps... helpful to you as you seek to understand the outrage and frame your responses to people. If not, feel free to delete this right away.
Now, having said all of that, I think that this must have been just horrible for you. I suppose that with wikipedia being an important part of your life, your soul is feeling pain. I do not know how it has affected you, but my heart goes out to you and I respect and admire the courage you have shown throughout. As someone once said to my father when he had a kidney stone: "This too shall pass." I hope that though I have been very critical, you will believe me when I say that I am absolutely not an enemy to you. -- Blue Tie 01:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel up for helping sort out a crank editor with an extreme POV? - perhaps even help bring a popular article back up to FA status? It might take your mind of the present silliness. If so, give me a shout (no obligation). Rklawton 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry one mistake cost you your bit. To err is human but you acted swiftly when you realized it was an error. The furore that has arisen since reminds me of the battles in political circles that never seem to achieve anything and are more about playing to the crowd and exercising ones ego. I have been impressed with your patience and dignity through this. I'd also like to apologize for not taking the time to read your e-mail when it was first sent out as I was snowed under with real life work and did not appreciate its significance. Sophia 09:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The price you have paid for making one bad block is ridiculous. I don't think I have ever seen anything like it...but take solice in knowing that arbcom doesn't appear to have commented that they had any intention of removing your sysop bit. I'm more convinced than ever that this project has some fundamental flaws that might take the efforts of a God-King to straighten out. It doesn't appear that WE as a community are effectively dealing with drama queens, those who misuse the dispute resolution process and other negative influences. Should you run again for admin, you'll get my support.-- MONGO 10:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! LordHarris 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova ( talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! ( talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've left a comment here, at the Aussie noticeboard - I think we should be able to get the numbers, so you can start photoshopping that koala :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Regards-- Matilda talk 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Two more Australians :-) -- Matilda talk 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the award, I am very pleased to have received it - it is such a fine upsitting (as opposed to upstanding) koala. I am sure some of the people I have listed as nearly made it have indeed qualified but I haven't had a chance to do the research to match them to their GA and FA contributions or find their DYKs - and there are others who I haven't listed yet in the nearly made it section who are also eligible. I hope other Australian wikipedians will look to fill in these gaps and nominate their colleagues for this elegant award.-- Matilda talk 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The
November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot
01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
A nomination for the much coveted triple-crown.
Thanks for the consideration, and thanks for maintaining this excellent little motivational tool for improving wikipedia. Pastordavid 05:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, hope I qualify!
— Cheers, JackLee – talk– 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Much obliged – and the chewing gum was yummy ;-) — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 23:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, I think I qualify; if you would be so kind as to bestow one upon me, I would be humbled and very grateful.
Thanks. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, does this mean that you're leaving Wikipedia? Are you going to stand for reconfirmation as an admin? I hope you're doing okay. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I came here to inquire about your withdrawal as a candidate for ArbCom, and find this instead. Just wanted to offer Moral Support which, when combined with a dollar, might buy you a cup of coffee. But there you go. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I'm sorry you had to resign your adminship. I believe we have lost one of our best administrators here. However, I do respect your decision, and hope that you will continue to edit and improve the encyclopedia, as your work is definitely appreciated. Best wishes. Acalamari 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I had not asked for your resignation I commend you for honoring your word. I hope to be able to support you in a future RFA. Haukur ( talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to see all that happen. It [your resignation of the tools] was a net loss for the project. When it is all said and done, it is what each individual does for themselves that counts. I respect you for the professional way you conducted yourself the entire time. You've class. Salute. Best, Mercury 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, letting people like that grind you down is just ... WHAT - David Gerard ( talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You've walked a few miles in these moccasins too. Much obliged for the support. Warmly,
Durova
Charge!
21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not lose sight of what is important, the project. I hope you continue to contribute, and look forward to supporting a future RfA. But I must say, the us vs. them mentality I am seeing surrounding this incident cannot be conducive to a good editing environment for anyone involved in this insane dispute. Following from afar, and giving you moral support, IvoShandor ( talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, by giving up you are strengthening the trolls, socks and misfits that have infested this place. Don't let them win. All of us make mistakes; the trolls just wait for one by a strong admin, and pounce on it. Just brush them off and keep up your good work. We need you as an admin here. Crum375 ( talk) 20:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where she has given up. I see where she has, admirably, honored her word to stand for recall. I did not believe she would do that and I was wrong. Durova, for misjudging you on that, I apologize.
If, as so many claim, admins are merely mortal users with a few extra buttons, then unless Durova leaves wikipedia (which I sincerely hope she does not), the project will still benefit from her contributions.
This is a sad day for wikipedia, and 'blaming' the 'other side' or claiming 'mob mentality' does a disservice to everyone involved. I hope everyone (myself included) can sit back and reflect on their contributions (and/or lack of contributions) to this entire process. From those who were out for blood, to those who were quick to try to bury it, and everyone in between.
Durova, I have always believed that you operated from a place of good-intentions, and I believe that you have much to offer the project as a whole. In fact, I look forward to editing with you in mainspace.
Lsi john ( talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I like to add my support here for what Zocky is saying. It makes a lot of sense. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for honouring your recall pledge or whatever happened (maybe I missed the latest events.) How I would feel is that none of them stuck up for you, I know they did with words in support, but no people stuck their neck out to say that they were some of those that ok'ed/were aware of your plan on the list etc. I would feel annoyed in your position that I was made to take all the flack despite your seeking several people's ok before you acted on your !! beliefs. Don't you? I mean nothing bad by my words here I'm just saying, and I hope you take them in the spirit in which they are meant, that's how I would feel if no-one came forward- it would seem a bit of a betrayal. Or maybe you are soon going to be too busy in real life to be an admin anyway or something, so it doesn't matter that you were sacrificed? And no to the other people's comments, most if not all of the editors involved in the RfC etc. are not trolls. Merkinsmum ( talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. :) Acalamari 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For exceptional class, professionalism when none was due, and dedication to the project through everything: I, Mercury , give you the The Resilient Barnstar Mercury 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Seconded. IvoShandor ( talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you! Durova Charge! 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping those who intend to disrupt, off this project. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! Wikipedia has not become that significant due to "perfect editors" but due to good intentions by its contributors. Your hard work, defending Wikipedia and its aims was and hopefully is in future much appreciated! -- Stan talk 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you. What a thoughtful way to express it. I really appreciate. Cheers, Durova Charge! 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I am sorry to hear that you resigned as Wikipedia admin [1], but how User:Tony Sidaway put it: " There is a life after adminship". I had never a problem with you or did see you do anything wrong, but I know several people who "hated" you, including some of my friends. From what I learned (I saw many pages on the internet about you that show "how bad" you are) is the only valid problem somebody could have, the problem that you are overly protective of Wikipedia. As I said at the Requests for comment/Durova discussion, it could be called WP:COI that applies to you when it comes to issues in Wikipedia :) (I hope you get the joke in this statement). I hope that my suggestion to the general problem makes any sense to prevent issues like this one in the future.
Thank you again for your help at the COI Noticeboard. I just checked at the RS Noticeboard, nobody there seems to see to do anything about my request, what I consider to be a good sign.
Don't let yourself down. You are as qualified as before to write helpful articles for SEL about Wikipedia. You see, even me, who is not a Wikipedia admin either steps out to write at SEJ to eductate people about it. :)
If you need any help, don't hesitate to stop by my talk page and let me know about it. Cheers! -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe I actually qualify for the Deluxe Edition Imperial Triple Crown Jewel Thing-a-ma-bob:
I see you're resigning as an admin. I don't know anything about the process or what happened, but the comments on your talk page give me cause to believe that I should be sad at this news. Best wishes. – Scartol • Tok 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is appropriate or not, but just in case it is...
On the question of your request for adminship:
You have one. :) Acalamari 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I very much appreciate your message, and your recognition that my perspective had some validity. I do feel badly that you have borne the brunt of the community's antipathy toward proactive attempts to root out "black hats." I am well aware that you are not the only administrator who has indef-blocked editors with what was apparently insufficient evidence, and I did allude to that in both my outside view and as a reason for supporting your desysopping. I do read AN/I from time to time, and have on many occasions seen a pile-on of other admins supporting blocks for no apparent reason other than their belief that the blocking admin probably knew what they were doing; only occasionally do I see any sign of others actually reviewing the evidence or checking the contribs list. I sincerely believe that you have recognized and accepted that support for "pre-emptive" campaigns is not as strong as you had thought, and that there were impacts which you had not anticipated. I hope that others will recognize this as well.
I have heard in many places that you are a talented researcher and encyclopedic writer. Wikipedia needs people with those talents very badly - 30 seconds of "random articles" makes it very clear. While it would be entirely understandable if you wished to take a bit of time-out to re-evaluate all that has happened in the last few days, you should know that there is always a place for you here. Just as, from the responses you and others have made with respect to my presentation of a different perspective , I have been reassured that there is a place for me, too. I wish you the best, whether or not you decide to continue contributing here. Perhaps our paths may cross again, although I hope the next time will be on the talk page of an article we are jointly trying to improve.
-- Risker ( talk) 05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It takes integrity to relinquish "the tools" after recognizing one made a mistake. I don't mean to sound inconsistent, since I can and have pointed out other mistakes, but you should consider an immediate nomination (either self or otherwise) for admin status again. Pobody's Nerfect, and I think you do a good overall job as an admin. (Also, it seems unfair to "punish" you for behavior that has in the past been rewarded/respected after one public incident. If you were warned, and then continued doing the same stuff, that'd be a whole other matter. However in this case you really weren't given any real indication that the community was so opposed to sleuthing, until it freaked out.) Anynobody 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
I’m of the opinion that the RfAr is needless drama. I mean, this RfAr is sailing through faster than BADSITES did, and it was only hours after your RfC. If we had an RfAr for every time an admin made a bad mistake, we’d be swamped. It disgusts me how many people are goading you for one mistake, and I’m surprised you haven’t tired of the crap and left. If it comes to an RfA, you have my axe, and not in your back. Will ( talk) 10:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC) |
I wanted to say that you have handled yourself with real grace and integrity in the aftermath of 'the mistake'. Ideologically, I don't think we could be further apart in our views about 'what is best for Wikipedia', but I admire your composure and efforts to make peace in the face of what must be very upsetting comments and events. You are taking the full heat of a backlash against a movement/philosophy of which you were only a small part and I think that is unfortunate and unfair. Hopefully, when the dust has settled you'll be allowed to put this behind you and move on. I don't agree with some of your ideas, but I know you pursue them with the best of intentions. Be well. -- CBD 12:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You know I think you were mad to resign, the users accusing you could not loose the argument they started. You resign - they win because they make it more difficult to stop unconstructive editting. You stay on - they win because "you were just grand standing." Having said that I must be honest and say that I'm not in favour of secret evidence I've been thinking it over for a while and sincerely I don't see the need for it, and even if there was one I cannot conscience its use in any circumstance. Anyway I hope some of the pressure is off you know and that things will get back to normal soon-- Cailil talk 14:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)Sharing with other admins didn't work in this case. The thing I pledged to do was to route through ArbCom formally and let them act as an official body. The Wikipedia:Confidential evidence proposal started up shortly afterward and I support it. Durova Charge! 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Recently the phrase "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" has been circling my head as I edit here. You may find some resonance. Incidentally, I found, um, User talk:Cwiki today whilst on something entirely unrelated. Less fuss back then, I guess. All the best. Hiding T 14:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my request to apply for triple crown:
Damn, I'm just 1 DYK short of getting imperial triple crown :P OhanaUnited Talk page 15:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As I now qualify for the triple crown, I have a quick question. I have mulitple FCs and GAs, so can I pick what I believe to be the best article FC and GA I have achieved, or does it have to be the first one I got? Gran 2 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Gran 2 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I nominate Durova for administrator. Durova is a trusted and respected member of the Wikipedia community. Nobody is perfect. Durova understands the importance of transparency and oversight, a very important quality in an administrator. There was a recent case of a block that she reversed. This review of her own actions is good evidence that Durova would be a responsible administrator again. Some others of lesser integrity might insist that they are right even if they know that they were heavy handed. Furthermore, since confidential evidence was in debate, she has taken steps to insure that it is used cautiously in the future. That kind of experience gives her even more insight and wisdom that the average administrator candidate. As Jimbo Wales said,
"I advise the world to relax a notch or two." A bad block was made for 75 minutes. It was reversed and an apology given. There are things to be studied here about what went wrong and what could be done in the future, but wow, could we please do so with a lot less drama? A 75 minute block, even if made badly, is hardly worth all this drama. Let's please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from [2] )
Durova has been in Wikipedia for over two years and has over one year of actual administrator experience. She made contributions to the Joan of Arc article, which became a featured article and which she calmed the flames (no pun intended) of edit warring there. She has made tens of thousands of edits. She continues to make mainspace edits unlike some candidates who stop once they become administrators. She also has compassion and insight. She knows how to counsel sockpuppets and can judge which ones have a hidden potential, some of whom later went on to constructive article creation and building. She has been successful in turning hate into productive work for Wikipedia. So if you hate her, have a heart and see if you can support her RFA. As Jimbo Wales said about Durova, "let's please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for".
Why not think it over for 1-2 weeks and use the above statement as evidence of nomination. Chergles ( talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Chergles, thank you very much. I'm spending more time in mainspace now, as some people have advised. When I think I've regained the community's trust I'll take up your offer. Jimbo's said the tools are no big deal; I've said it too. We probably all have. It's a healthy exercise to walk that walk. Durova Charge! 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep this handy and consider using it in the future...don't wait too long. Chergles ( talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd probably support a nomination in future, if you keep this attitude. :-) Are you sure you want to be an admin again though? Often you can do more if you're not, actually. ^^;; -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, although I have to point out I have never been sanctioned by ArbCom of anything - the closest I have come was the general Eastern European editors restriction, and the finding that me and Irpen had (have) some issues. Not sure of this qualifies me for Valiant return which requires an arbitration sanction or a lifted siteban.
On another note, I am appalled at the witchunt that has been unleashed upon you. We are human and make mistakes - and apparently for some its a great excuse to take potshots. Please be assured that you are not alone. Good luck, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, nominating myself below. I think we all need a little more wikilove right now... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, while I am disappointed that you felt compelled to resign as an administrator and withdraw your candidacy for arbitration committee, I nevertheless commend you for not giving up on the project altogether and for your willingness to apologize and correct any mistakes. If you and I could make peace after our rocky beginning a year ago, others can and should as well. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you use articles from previous awards to satisfy the 2,3,4... etc requirements for each level (so for the double, you only need one more DYK, one more GA?) Just wondering because (to me, at least) the wording is a bit fuzzy. Best of the looming holiday season, David Fuchs ( talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my request to apply for triple crown:
Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For the crown. As for your question... having little "life" helps :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I qualify for the new Napoleonic triple crown:
It was not clear to me whether I should list all the GAs, FAs, and DYKs that I have or just the sets of five. Here are the sets of five. If you want more info, see my userpage. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm one human being with ten fingers who types 75 words a minute when well pumped with coffee
Might have some more DYKs, but User:Ssilvers usually handles the noms for them.
Adam certainly did substantial work on Maritana, which was DYK, so I think that makes him Imperial. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
... for your good work, which is not forgotten in light of having messed up once. Thanks for apologizing graciously, and acting to correct yourself as fast as you could. We are only human, and can't demand perfection of each other. We can request civility and you have provided that. Possibly most of all, thanks for not dumping the whole Wikipedia idea, along with the shiny buttons.
I think that if you conduct yourself as well as you usually have, and still have an itch for the admin powers back in several months, you will probably get them; even with the support of many who criticized this specific action, but are wise enough to tell the difference between the actor and the action. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In the discussion we've had, we wished to ask you if you could bring down the six crowns to the different users to five, as there are really only five very actively engaged users in the Wikiproject. If not, it's OK then. xihix( talk) 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Individual crown sounds great. But... we just don't have that many active users. DYKs, yes, but GA and FAs... there are very few people who do that stuff (and Halibutt was for the most part chased away by trolls). Sigh...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You did the right thing, for yourself and for the project, by giving up your sysop status as you had said you would. That said, I'm very disappointed to see that you were abusing the community's faith with your secret sleuthing activities. Should you give up those bad faith witch hunts, I will support you in half a year should you decide to ask for reinstatement. Isarig ( talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, just coming off of an extended wikibreak, and just caught a glimpse of everything that went down. Let me just say that I have seen you around plenty since I arrived here, and have always found you nothing but helpful as an editor and an admin. Chin up and all that. Pastordavid ( talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI - I got a call from a reporter today doing a piece on corporate astroturfing on Wikipedia. I filled him in as much as possible, and (among other recommendations) I suggested he might want to talk to you and Jehochman, since that is an area in which you both specialize. Raul654 ( talk) 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the "Spiffier triple crown", but I think I may qualify for the Imperial Napoleonic version
Username: User:Rodw
I really must sort out a copy of this lot somewhere!— Rod talk 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Out of the FC, Stanley Cup is an FA, and the others are FLs. I have a few A-Class articles, they're similar to the lists, but I haven't taken them to FLC because they're too short. Cheers! -- Maxim (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you had recently awarded an occasional collaborator of mine, a particularly gaudy bauble. I came here to claim my own, but I see you have recently had your own troubles. IMHO the more you contribute to the project, the more you get caught in the snares of pettifoggers. From what little I have seen (from above) you have acted with honesty and integrity, and that earns my support.
Damn, more featured content. I need more featured content ... Keep smiling. Kbthompson ( talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Your majesty, it is finally time for me to upgrade to Imperial status:
If it pleases you, Cirt ( talk) 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
...for the Jewels 2.0!-- Legionarius ( talk) 00:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I know some have been calling on you to release the names of the five editors that you said supported your evidence of malfeasance by User:!! before you applied the block. I believe, however, that those five editors should first be given a chance to show their personal integrity by coming forward on their own and explaining why they supported your evidence. In that regard, I've created a section here for them to identify and explain themselves. Since you know who they are, could you please ensure that they receive this message? Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering, would it be possible to also make it have people who have gotten blocks to get this award? I'd like to get this award, as I used to vandal a lot about two years ago (I should have gotten banned, surprised I didn't), and I was blocked a few months ago, too. Since then, I have been doing much for the encyclopedia. So uhh, yeah, could you add blocks too? xihix( talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I qualify for a Imperial Napoleonic triple crown winners...*guilty face*
See also User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The only other pics from Commons that I had in mind were either, Kwik-E-Mart, Star 1, Star 2, or the Pink donut from that picture. Cirt ( talk) 08:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
– MDCollins ( talk) 11:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Your signature is one of the coolest sigs I've ever seen. Dalekusa 14:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you're not letting recent events get you down. We all make mistakes, and it's only because you were involved with difficult and controversial stuff that yours was so visible. Not the end of the world, although there are people who are acting as if it was. Don't let the bastards get you down!
That aside, can I nominate a couple of people for Triple Crowns? I hope it's ok for me to nominate them rather than them doing it themselves!
I think these are right, but I could have messed up somewhere. MacDui has another article at FAC, but that wouldn't change anything.
If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to ask! Very best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What the heck? I have -no- idea what happened there. What is all that garbage text? I just copy/pasted the same message to yourself, !!, and Giano. • Lawrence Cohen 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's just come to my attention today that the new standard triple crown image includes an element that's sensitive to some people. It isn't my intention to offend so I'll be photoshopping a replacement very soon.
Also, for those who are interested, I've got a working proposal for the Simpsons WikiProject award. They're three DYKs short of qualifying so this will probably be the first one. Durova Charge! 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Amandajm 13:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have raised the question of who, and for what purpose, sent Giano II a copy of your report. It is on the basis that that individual may have questionable motives and should be - if known - a party to the ArbCom proceedings. A bit late in the day, I'm afraid, and I'm sorry to have disturbed what little peace you may have started to acquire. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I read this and started to respond there but I decided I would respond here instead. More appropriate.
The problem is not one block. It is not one error. It is that you were -- to all appearances -- running a secret process for what was in essence a Witch-hunt. Perhaps, had your Method actually been a good and valid process, it would have been winked at. Certainly it would not have come to light and you would have gone on. But it was very unscientific. Very biased. Untested. Unreliable. Yet you apparently believed it like it came down from a mountain carved in stone. And when you were questioned you implied that it was some sort of group thing -- still done in secret. Very star chamber. And through all of this, you have never really seemed to understand the problem. This is deeply troubling. I can sort of look through a glass and see things your way -- protecting the project -- but undue weight in that focus led you wrong. Somewhere on the road between good and bad you got lost but -- perhaps worst of all -- you still do not seem to know it.
"It was a mistake -- No one is perfect". And so on. To you, it was the error of the bad block which you quickly corrected so your humility should be a saving grace. In holding that perspective and continuing to say it, you confirm the view of the community that you are clueless about what was really wrong. In particular most people recognize that if you had not erred in the block, you would have continued to follow your Method and you would have been convinced you were doing good. And after several days and many comments, you still seem to not understand. Notice here that you now say the report was experimental. Think about that. You blocked someone indefinitely as an experiment. Yet to you that is somehow a valid thing to have done or at least something people should take into account before thinking you did something wrong. If you do not see what bothers people about experimentally judging and executing users in a secret process -- well -- it confirms that you should have given up the tools.
Add to that the whole idea of running around wikipedia looking for opportunities to clandestinely identify socks and block them without any appeal process. Many editors see this as a very paranoid and authoritarian trait. Why not just stop worrying about infiltration, just let the hurts of the past go and instead of seeking out evil, correct behaviors that lead to edits that stray from the guidelines. Basically... do not take a stance that automatically voids "Assume Good Faith".
I have tried to think about how this could have been handled so that you might have only been slapped a bit, but the vow of secrecy associated with the matter meant that people would feel you were "serving" them what they wanted to hear instead of what you thought, even if you said everything perfectly. So I do not think you could win. But had you at least said "Wow, I can see that have really got off the beam -- and I'm never going to seek to block socks again because I clearly have a blind spot problem with this and I'm gonna take a 6 month break from admin duties to get some perspective", that might have done something. Hard to say.
Well, at least that's my view and I hope I have been ... perhaps... helpful to you as you seek to understand the outrage and frame your responses to people. If not, feel free to delete this right away.
Now, having said all of that, I think that this must have been just horrible for you. I suppose that with wikipedia being an important part of your life, your soul is feeling pain. I do not know how it has affected you, but my heart goes out to you and I respect and admire the courage you have shown throughout. As someone once said to my father when he had a kidney stone: "This too shall pass." I hope that though I have been very critical, you will believe me when I say that I am absolutely not an enemy to you. -- Blue Tie 01:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel up for helping sort out a crank editor with an extreme POV? - perhaps even help bring a popular article back up to FA status? It might take your mind of the present silliness. If so, give me a shout (no obligation). Rklawton 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry one mistake cost you your bit. To err is human but you acted swiftly when you realized it was an error. The furore that has arisen since reminds me of the battles in political circles that never seem to achieve anything and are more about playing to the crowd and exercising ones ego. I have been impressed with your patience and dignity through this. I'd also like to apologize for not taking the time to read your e-mail when it was first sent out as I was snowed under with real life work and did not appreciate its significance. Sophia 09:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The price you have paid for making one bad block is ridiculous. I don't think I have ever seen anything like it...but take solice in knowing that arbcom doesn't appear to have commented that they had any intention of removing your sysop bit. I'm more convinced than ever that this project has some fundamental flaws that might take the efforts of a God-King to straighten out. It doesn't appear that WE as a community are effectively dealing with drama queens, those who misuse the dispute resolution process and other negative influences. Should you run again for admin, you'll get my support.-- MONGO 10:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! LordHarris 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova ( talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! ( talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've left a comment here, at the Aussie noticeboard - I think we should be able to get the numbers, so you can start photoshopping that koala :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Regards-- Matilda talk 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Two more Australians :-) -- Matilda talk 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the award, I am very pleased to have received it - it is such a fine upsitting (as opposed to upstanding) koala. I am sure some of the people I have listed as nearly made it have indeed qualified but I haven't had a chance to do the research to match them to their GA and FA contributions or find their DYKs - and there are others who I haven't listed yet in the nearly made it section who are also eligible. I hope other Australian wikipedians will look to fill in these gaps and nominate their colleagues for this elegant award.-- Matilda talk 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The
November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot
01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
A nomination for the much coveted triple-crown.
Thanks for the consideration, and thanks for maintaining this excellent little motivational tool for improving wikipedia. Pastordavid 05:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)