Hi Durova, I thought I'd pass this along to you for review and any action: [1] You probably have better tools than me, but a quick search on the variations of company and online names brings up several associated user names ( User:Defendmyname and additions at Ripoffreport.com (though one of the article sources may be legit), along with a user space article [[User:Qed-news] that is (old) spam. It looks like the editor/s don't have a lot of edits here and may not be aware of wiki policies (although they seem to be savvy enough to be able to dominate three search pages on Google on the keyword of their choice. The editor is also a member of SEW, although I don't know how active/known. Flowanda | Talk 02:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you possibly help by indicating the examples you have used once more, in response to the following edit: [2] You can find them more easily than I. DGG ( talk) 04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed User:Doo Roe Vah. They state on their user page that they shouldn't be confused with you, but I thought I'd let you know. Probably bears watching, but I'm willing to WP:AGF for now. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
A number of users have asked requested you stand for reconfirmation of your administator status, in line with your "talk to you" statement here. You do not appear to have responded to them. Is it your intention to respond or are you awaiting the start of a formal dispute resolution process? Catchpole ( talk) 09:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This issue will only end when you have completed what you have publicly stated you would, in fact, do, under these circumstances. You have stated publicly that you are open to recall. Said statement is widely distributed all over the internet. There is no chance for you to continue on as you did in the past, and the likely outcome of your running for any office successfully is dashed by any sort of dichotomy in your behavior, herein. ErgoEgo ( talk) 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Shhhh! Not before everyone on "the list" up is blocked! JzG and Sarah should start with ErgoEgo! 172.203.210.247 ( talk) 00:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I don't believe you've made a mistake so serious that you should be desysopped, but it's clear that there are a significant number of well meaning editors who do believe that you should be recalled. Since you have volunteered to submit a reconfirmation RfA if five editors request it, I think you should do so. I look forward to being able to adding my sig in your support there.- gadfium 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the "evidence" used against him to justify the block has confirmed my suspicion that your "investigations" are a menace to well meaning editors and a joke. I hear by ask you to stand for reconfirmation. This makes it nine people who have asked, nearly double the amount you required and while the formal RfC is not underway, the ANI subpage is an informal one. If you really believe the community supports you, then you should reconfirm your adminship. If that is th case, you have nothing to lose by doing it. Viridae Talk 08:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
While I did a "WTF" with that whole user:!! thing at first, I can also understand that people are human, and that single mistakes shouldn't be used as a reason to lose faith in an editor, or even their methods. I certainly hope you don't lose faith in yourself in all this, as the wikimob can be very overwhelming and unforgiving. Regardless of who did what or what was good or what was bad, a lot of undue weight is being put on this. I don't know the ins and outs of all this, but if you take away all the reactions, the incident itself really wasn't a big deal. I'm sure you know all of this already, and don't need someone to tell you this, but I'll leave this comment anyways as a sign of support. -- Ned Scott 09:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you be willing to nominate me for an adminship? I've edited off and on for a few years now, and have a couple hundred edits. Although that number is low compared to others, I have familiarized myself with a large number of the community rules. I would like to expand my horizons in terms of helping with the project. There are a bunch of things adminwise that I would like to reform with the consensus of the rest of the community, and I would like to obtain some admin experience to see whether the ideas are feasible or not. Thanks. Ngchen ( talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lise, I believe that you will find my (long) article at SEJ from today interesting. Considering the fact that you also write for SearchEngineLand.com about Wikipedia and search engine marketing and optimization. My post is titled: Wikipedia Article Quality Assessment and Ranking Tips for Users and Search Engine Engineers. Check it out and add a comment if you see something missing, something that is incorrect or if you have additional recommendations that would be helpful for either users of Wikipedia and/or search engine engineers from Google and other search engines. :). Thanks and Cheers! -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova -
Without prejudice, I've opened a draft at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova. I've done this because:
Ok, normally it's more like a free-fire zone where the rules about civility and personal attacks get ignored, but maybe this time will be different.
CygnetSaIad (
talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova! :) I know your probably swamped, but if you have a second, I posted some questions for you here. Just basic stuff so that the community can get a better picture of your thought process and the input that led you to make the oops ya did.
Don't stress. :) You're a great asset to the community, and in the game of life, this is just a blip on the radar. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 14:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you're pretty busy, so I thought I'd post the questions directly here. They're absolutely integral to developing an understanding of how you function as an admin-- please answer them as soon as you have a second:
1. What was the "secret evidence" that was emailed?
2. Precisely who was the secret evidence emailed to?
3. Person by person, what were the responses that Durova received back?
These should be non-controversial requests for information. I trust answers will be forthcoming. Let me reiterate-- I see this more as what NASA does after a shuttle explodes-- not trying to question motives or assign blame, so much as seeing where the system broke down, and how it can be fixed. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 09:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
As I've have been reviewing the RfC opened to discuss your conduct, I was wondering: could you offer a summary there of the corrections/refinements you have made to your investigative methodology? I don't wish to ask you to apologize again, as you've done that sufficiently. An account of corrective measures taken to prevent recurrences in the future, though, might go a long way toward resolving the concerns of those who remain discontented. I realize your methodology is confidential, but the disclosure of certain general corrective measures (eg., "I'll involve more people", or "I'll wait longer for more input before acting", or "I won't act in the absence of a larger body of evidence") would be helpful. My request arises from my own instinct on first reading the RfC: "Mistake made, lesson learned, forgiveness proper"... but I would appreciate knowing what lessons were learned with some degree of specificity. I'm uninvolved in this, and have no intention of joining in the dispute myself -- this is just a constructive suggestion that I think can help move everyone forward. Thanks and best wishes, Xoloz ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Posting a new section so this doesn't get missed. The length is really up to you; I'd suggest somewhere between short and long, but you can look at entries already on my talk page to judge what a good length is. Ral315 » 19:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The RfC has been up for over 48 hours and that means it is now certified. According to your statement, if six editors called for your recall in an RfC, you would submit to a recall. At least 20 editors on that page have endorsed your recall, so I'm now starting an official recall thread here.
We are formally requesting that Durova resign her adminship privileges, effective immediately, based on evidence presented here and here and under the procedures set by Durova herself. In order to regain adminship privileges, Durova will need to formally request it through the RfA procedure.
Endorsed by:
In reply to repeated queries I'm setting a firm time frame right now: I will stand for reconfirmation after the arbitration case closes if I am still a sysop. Durova Charge! 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you think I've misused sysop powers, then here's what to do:
- Talk to me.
- Open a request for comment on me.
- If five other editors agree with you, then check out the parameters at Category:Administrators open to recall. I'm one of the administrators who has volunteered to stand for reconfirmation if there's reasonable doubt about my actions. Recall standards at that category have relaxed since I joined yet I'll abide by the original terms of participation.
As someone who is generally in support of a recall (I'm not definitely in favor of desysopping - my !vote in such a proceeding would be based largely on my impression of what Durova has learned from this situation and what steps she's taking to prevent something similar in the future - but I think the process is justified at this point to gauge the level of the community's trust), I think Durova's plan to wait until ArbCom decides on the existing case is reasonable. It seems to me too much of an imposition on her to ask her to handle the same case on multiple fronts. (Apologies for the excessive parenthetical above!) JavaTenor ( talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, given all the muss and fuss here, between the RFAR and proposed removal of adminship there, and the now pending recall RFA, would you be willing to hold off on doing anything like blocking more users or doing admin tasks till both issues are resolved? • Lawrence Cohen 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I’m surprise at your hypocrisy, Durova. I thought you know better than this. It doesn’t matter whether you have adequate opportunity to respond to the accusations. The community can judge for themselves. People don’t care if you’re on holiday or you just made that up as a stalling tactic. Hell, it doesn’t even matter if arbCom found you to be innocent. The arbCom decision is totally irrelevant to your future as a sysop. Those 2 processes don’t overlap. As long as your terms are met, you should follow your pledge. You made the choice to add yourself to the open to recall category, now deal with it. If you really think the community has faith in you, then why wait? You don’t need admin tools to defend yourself in the arbCom case. Talking about time frame is semantics and bootless wikilawyering. Let’s draw a parallel. For example, if I added my name to the open to recall category, then after my terms are met, I claim there is no specific timeframe and that I will stand for reconfirmation exactly one year after my terms are met. How ridiculous does that sound?-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually would have supported if you decided to stand for reconfirmation, since I don’t know the specifics about the !! block and the fact that your critics tried to draw parallel between !! block and LionheartX block pissed me off a whole lot. But I’m not too sure if I would support you now. Your stalling tactic is getting a little embarrassing. Dodging the recall process would only disappoint more people and make you exponentially less likely to continue to serve as an admin.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 02:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that’s not my point. I know ‘pedia is not that important. But follow the process instead of wikilawyering is all I’m saying. For the last few days, we have gone from the AN/I thread (archived by force) to RfC to met her terms for recall and now she’s making a fuss about timeframe. And remember, recall is not automatic desysopping but rather a reconfirmation of the community’s trust. If she doesn’t believe in the process, why did she sign up for it? And seriously, when your future in ‘pedia is on the line, you shouldn’t be just stalling for time. I remember the UI spoofing incident ( Wikipedia talk:User page/UI spoofing), I didn’t sleep at all that night and I don’t complain. Funny how no one gave me the time to clear my head and defend myself. What a double standard.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
First off, if the category of recall is meaningless, it should be nominated for deletion instead of using it for self-promotional purposes. I’m not purposing any rash decisions. The arbCom case is going to take care of the final decision making and that would take at least a month. But Durova’s admin status does not impede her ability to defend herself in the arbCom case. Even if the recall motion is passed (and meet her term), it doesn’t mean she would be desysopped. Also, she doesn’t need to defend herself at that front since the community can make its decision. I’m not calling Durova a hypocrite (read my statement in her RfC, I praised her good judgment in the past), but her behavior thus far is disappointing and does not inspire confidence.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 03:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If the RFC had run its normal course it would still be in its early stages and I'd be presenting my evidence there. Durova Charge! 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You can continue to make excuses to delay the inevitable. You can continue to demonstrate a lack of respect to the community’s wishes and the general interest of wikipedians. But they will only further erode the community’s confidence in your capability as an admin. Please read User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_19 for your own benefit. Not surprisingly, most of us here already lost all our respect for you.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 04:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You have apparently misrepresented me as a bigot, as "evidence" in your current ArbCom dispute. I have not yet participated in that thread's mainspace, and was not watching it closely (I came across it by chance). You failed to ask me for clarification, or provide me any notice. Several people have pointed out how painfully ridiculous your mistake was, but you have neither retracted nor commented. AGF negates NPA, as any attempt to believe that you honestly misunderstood my comment results in an insult to your intelligence.
You have accomplished the unthinkable - making John Cleese even funnier. You have also made a serious and indefensible accusation on my character. Also, I'm one-half German, but not a bit British. sNkrSnee | t.p. 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've not encountered you often in the past, but although we've often been on the opposite side of the issue I've found your contributions and comments illuminating and useful. Others have also often expressed respect for your work.
At the moment I don't think your adminship is tenable, nor do I think a reconfirmation would be helpful (it certainly wouldn't reconfirm your adminship). I suggest that a voluntary resignation might be better for Wikipedia. There is life after adminship. In many ways it's easier. If something needs to be done, a non-admin editor can always get an admin to do it, whereas for an admin the presumption tends to be that he'll do it himself.
So I cordially invite you to join the many good Wikipedians who have voluntarily become former administrators. -- Tony Sidaway 18:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I thought I'd pass this along to you for review and any action: [1] You probably have better tools than me, but a quick search on the variations of company and online names brings up several associated user names ( User:Defendmyname and additions at Ripoffreport.com (though one of the article sources may be legit), along with a user space article [[User:Qed-news] that is (old) spam. It looks like the editor/s don't have a lot of edits here and may not be aware of wiki policies (although they seem to be savvy enough to be able to dominate three search pages on Google on the keyword of their choice. The editor is also a member of SEW, although I don't know how active/known. Flowanda | Talk 02:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you possibly help by indicating the examples you have used once more, in response to the following edit: [2] You can find them more easily than I. DGG ( talk) 04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed User:Doo Roe Vah. They state on their user page that they shouldn't be confused with you, but I thought I'd let you know. Probably bears watching, but I'm willing to WP:AGF for now. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
A number of users have asked requested you stand for reconfirmation of your administator status, in line with your "talk to you" statement here. You do not appear to have responded to them. Is it your intention to respond or are you awaiting the start of a formal dispute resolution process? Catchpole ( talk) 09:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This issue will only end when you have completed what you have publicly stated you would, in fact, do, under these circumstances. You have stated publicly that you are open to recall. Said statement is widely distributed all over the internet. There is no chance for you to continue on as you did in the past, and the likely outcome of your running for any office successfully is dashed by any sort of dichotomy in your behavior, herein. ErgoEgo ( talk) 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Shhhh! Not before everyone on "the list" up is blocked! JzG and Sarah should start with ErgoEgo! 172.203.210.247 ( talk) 00:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I don't believe you've made a mistake so serious that you should be desysopped, but it's clear that there are a significant number of well meaning editors who do believe that you should be recalled. Since you have volunteered to submit a reconfirmation RfA if five editors request it, I think you should do so. I look forward to being able to adding my sig in your support there.- gadfium 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the "evidence" used against him to justify the block has confirmed my suspicion that your "investigations" are a menace to well meaning editors and a joke. I hear by ask you to stand for reconfirmation. This makes it nine people who have asked, nearly double the amount you required and while the formal RfC is not underway, the ANI subpage is an informal one. If you really believe the community supports you, then you should reconfirm your adminship. If that is th case, you have nothing to lose by doing it. Viridae Talk 08:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
While I did a "WTF" with that whole user:!! thing at first, I can also understand that people are human, and that single mistakes shouldn't be used as a reason to lose faith in an editor, or even their methods. I certainly hope you don't lose faith in yourself in all this, as the wikimob can be very overwhelming and unforgiving. Regardless of who did what or what was good or what was bad, a lot of undue weight is being put on this. I don't know the ins and outs of all this, but if you take away all the reactions, the incident itself really wasn't a big deal. I'm sure you know all of this already, and don't need someone to tell you this, but I'll leave this comment anyways as a sign of support. -- Ned Scott 09:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you be willing to nominate me for an adminship? I've edited off and on for a few years now, and have a couple hundred edits. Although that number is low compared to others, I have familiarized myself with a large number of the community rules. I would like to expand my horizons in terms of helping with the project. There are a bunch of things adminwise that I would like to reform with the consensus of the rest of the community, and I would like to obtain some admin experience to see whether the ideas are feasible or not. Thanks. Ngchen ( talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lise, I believe that you will find my (long) article at SEJ from today interesting. Considering the fact that you also write for SearchEngineLand.com about Wikipedia and search engine marketing and optimization. My post is titled: Wikipedia Article Quality Assessment and Ranking Tips for Users and Search Engine Engineers. Check it out and add a comment if you see something missing, something that is incorrect or if you have additional recommendations that would be helpful for either users of Wikipedia and/or search engine engineers from Google and other search engines. :). Thanks and Cheers! -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova -
Without prejudice, I've opened a draft at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova. I've done this because:
Ok, normally it's more like a free-fire zone where the rules about civility and personal attacks get ignored, but maybe this time will be different.
CygnetSaIad (
talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova! :) I know your probably swamped, but if you have a second, I posted some questions for you here. Just basic stuff so that the community can get a better picture of your thought process and the input that led you to make the oops ya did.
Don't stress. :) You're a great asset to the community, and in the game of life, this is just a blip on the radar. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 14:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you're pretty busy, so I thought I'd post the questions directly here. They're absolutely integral to developing an understanding of how you function as an admin-- please answer them as soon as you have a second:
1. What was the "secret evidence" that was emailed?
2. Precisely who was the secret evidence emailed to?
3. Person by person, what were the responses that Durova received back?
These should be non-controversial requests for information. I trust answers will be forthcoming. Let me reiterate-- I see this more as what NASA does after a shuttle explodes-- not trying to question motives or assign blame, so much as seeing where the system broke down, and how it can be fixed. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 09:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
As I've have been reviewing the RfC opened to discuss your conduct, I was wondering: could you offer a summary there of the corrections/refinements you have made to your investigative methodology? I don't wish to ask you to apologize again, as you've done that sufficiently. An account of corrective measures taken to prevent recurrences in the future, though, might go a long way toward resolving the concerns of those who remain discontented. I realize your methodology is confidential, but the disclosure of certain general corrective measures (eg., "I'll involve more people", or "I'll wait longer for more input before acting", or "I won't act in the absence of a larger body of evidence") would be helpful. My request arises from my own instinct on first reading the RfC: "Mistake made, lesson learned, forgiveness proper"... but I would appreciate knowing what lessons were learned with some degree of specificity. I'm uninvolved in this, and have no intention of joining in the dispute myself -- this is just a constructive suggestion that I think can help move everyone forward. Thanks and best wishes, Xoloz ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Posting a new section so this doesn't get missed. The length is really up to you; I'd suggest somewhere between short and long, but you can look at entries already on my talk page to judge what a good length is. Ral315 » 19:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The RfC has been up for over 48 hours and that means it is now certified. According to your statement, if six editors called for your recall in an RfC, you would submit to a recall. At least 20 editors on that page have endorsed your recall, so I'm now starting an official recall thread here.
We are formally requesting that Durova resign her adminship privileges, effective immediately, based on evidence presented here and here and under the procedures set by Durova herself. In order to regain adminship privileges, Durova will need to formally request it through the RfA procedure.
Endorsed by:
In reply to repeated queries I'm setting a firm time frame right now: I will stand for reconfirmation after the arbitration case closes if I am still a sysop. Durova Charge! 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you think I've misused sysop powers, then here's what to do:
- Talk to me.
- Open a request for comment on me.
- If five other editors agree with you, then check out the parameters at Category:Administrators open to recall. I'm one of the administrators who has volunteered to stand for reconfirmation if there's reasonable doubt about my actions. Recall standards at that category have relaxed since I joined yet I'll abide by the original terms of participation.
As someone who is generally in support of a recall (I'm not definitely in favor of desysopping - my !vote in such a proceeding would be based largely on my impression of what Durova has learned from this situation and what steps she's taking to prevent something similar in the future - but I think the process is justified at this point to gauge the level of the community's trust), I think Durova's plan to wait until ArbCom decides on the existing case is reasonable. It seems to me too much of an imposition on her to ask her to handle the same case on multiple fronts. (Apologies for the excessive parenthetical above!) JavaTenor ( talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, given all the muss and fuss here, between the RFAR and proposed removal of adminship there, and the now pending recall RFA, would you be willing to hold off on doing anything like blocking more users or doing admin tasks till both issues are resolved? • Lawrence Cohen 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I’m surprise at your hypocrisy, Durova. I thought you know better than this. It doesn’t matter whether you have adequate opportunity to respond to the accusations. The community can judge for themselves. People don’t care if you’re on holiday or you just made that up as a stalling tactic. Hell, it doesn’t even matter if arbCom found you to be innocent. The arbCom decision is totally irrelevant to your future as a sysop. Those 2 processes don’t overlap. As long as your terms are met, you should follow your pledge. You made the choice to add yourself to the open to recall category, now deal with it. If you really think the community has faith in you, then why wait? You don’t need admin tools to defend yourself in the arbCom case. Talking about time frame is semantics and bootless wikilawyering. Let’s draw a parallel. For example, if I added my name to the open to recall category, then after my terms are met, I claim there is no specific timeframe and that I will stand for reconfirmation exactly one year after my terms are met. How ridiculous does that sound?-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually would have supported if you decided to stand for reconfirmation, since I don’t know the specifics about the !! block and the fact that your critics tried to draw parallel between !! block and LionheartX block pissed me off a whole lot. But I’m not too sure if I would support you now. Your stalling tactic is getting a little embarrassing. Dodging the recall process would only disappoint more people and make you exponentially less likely to continue to serve as an admin.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 02:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that’s not my point. I know ‘pedia is not that important. But follow the process instead of wikilawyering is all I’m saying. For the last few days, we have gone from the AN/I thread (archived by force) to RfC to met her terms for recall and now she’s making a fuss about timeframe. And remember, recall is not automatic desysopping but rather a reconfirmation of the community’s trust. If she doesn’t believe in the process, why did she sign up for it? And seriously, when your future in ‘pedia is on the line, you shouldn’t be just stalling for time. I remember the UI spoofing incident ( Wikipedia talk:User page/UI spoofing), I didn’t sleep at all that night and I don’t complain. Funny how no one gave me the time to clear my head and defend myself. What a double standard.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
First off, if the category of recall is meaningless, it should be nominated for deletion instead of using it for self-promotional purposes. I’m not purposing any rash decisions. The arbCom case is going to take care of the final decision making and that would take at least a month. But Durova’s admin status does not impede her ability to defend herself in the arbCom case. Even if the recall motion is passed (and meet her term), it doesn’t mean she would be desysopped. Also, she doesn’t need to defend herself at that front since the community can make its decision. I’m not calling Durova a hypocrite (read my statement in her RfC, I praised her good judgment in the past), but her behavior thus far is disappointing and does not inspire confidence.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 03:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If the RFC had run its normal course it would still be in its early stages and I'd be presenting my evidence there. Durova Charge! 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You can continue to make excuses to delay the inevitable. You can continue to demonstrate a lack of respect to the community’s wishes and the general interest of wikipedians. But they will only further erode the community’s confidence in your capability as an admin. Please read User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_19 for your own benefit. Not surprisingly, most of us here already lost all our respect for you.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 04:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You have apparently misrepresented me as a bigot, as "evidence" in your current ArbCom dispute. I have not yet participated in that thread's mainspace, and was not watching it closely (I came across it by chance). You failed to ask me for clarification, or provide me any notice. Several people have pointed out how painfully ridiculous your mistake was, but you have neither retracted nor commented. AGF negates NPA, as any attempt to believe that you honestly misunderstood my comment results in an insult to your intelligence.
You have accomplished the unthinkable - making John Cleese even funnier. You have also made a serious and indefensible accusation on my character. Also, I'm one-half German, but not a bit British. sNkrSnee | t.p. 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've not encountered you often in the past, but although we've often been on the opposite side of the issue I've found your contributions and comments illuminating and useful. Others have also often expressed respect for your work.
At the moment I don't think your adminship is tenable, nor do I think a reconfirmation would be helpful (it certainly wouldn't reconfirm your adminship). I suggest that a voluntary resignation might be better for Wikipedia. There is life after adminship. In many ways it's easier. If something needs to be done, a non-admin editor can always get an admin to do it, whereas for an admin the presumption tends to be that he'll do it himself.
So I cordially invite you to join the many good Wikipedians who have voluntarily become former administrators. -- Tony Sidaway 18:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)