I have just caught up with your extended comments at SlrubensteinII. That was a conduct RfC but not about my past history on the site; so I regard those as misplaced.
In my current ArbCom candidature, on the other hand, the hustings provide a forum where they would be visibly on-topic. I have already dealt there with two aspects of the Hoffman case. The admin at the centre of that case and I have been in touch, and dealing with our joint history in that way. This has moved the situation on. [1] [2]
From my point of view, the RfC served its purpose: it resolved a dispute and cleared the air. What is more, it is misleading to say there was no significant content to it, though the talk page is much more interesting reading than the RfC itself. Between Slrubenstein and me there remains a big distance on blocking policy, and policy generally. In legal terms it is like the difference between common law and statute law, with me being on the side of the written policies I was referencing. Now, that is not something to dismiss lightly, and in fact I want to digest it for a little while before deciding where it leads. Unwritten customs and norms do matter here.
Further, there is more to the User:Mervyn Emrys situation than many of the RfC participants would allow. I am going into this saddening aspect of the business offline.
So, while contesting your view of me expressed at the RfC, I invite you to treat me as a serious, thoughtful person. I do feel caricatured. Like everyone else, you may raise points about me from the period 2006-2008 at the hustings. It is fairer on me, I say, if you make your points there, since it is a forum where I am properly held to account.
Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal stated that your purpose was to get ahead of events: isn't that the purview of community-based motions and consensus? I kept this out of the opinion because it wasn't a direct parallel between last winter's case and this fall's RFC, but it fits into the pattern of stratification-inducing actions. Whether the pattern is deliberate or not, it gives me pause. You and I appear to disagree on one issue fundamentally: I view such a pattern, if adequately documented, with broad relevance. It speaks to the core of our site culture; its ripples have far-reaching impact upon the choices of our fellow Wikipedians. Read Raymond arritt's words from last December if you doubt that assertion. First I regarded the matter as an aberration, then sought to interact unobtrusively. There have been suggestions to open an RFC on you; I don't want to do that. The private correspondence could drive it to RFAR--you know how things go. Is there a better way? Durova Charge! 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Charles, I haven't forgotten you. An earlier draft reply got eaten by my cat (well not really). This is a summary. You already have an explanation of why I am not posting election questions. Regarding email, it does not inspire confidence to see you invite me to correspond offsite in the same post as you demonstrate the very cause of my reluctance.
Earlier this thread you stated it is misleading to say there was no significant content to it [the RFC]. After I reminded you that I had asserted no such thing, you returned a longer explanation of that opinion's wrongness. Now if the leadup had taken place offsite, another Wikipedian reading this thread could suppose I had been befuddled or out of my depth.
Fortunately, since the previous discussion was entirely on-wiki, I have the power to demonstrate that you were going on about a complete red herring. That's a power I prefer to retain. And the reason I value it--which I've alluded to twice already--is my belief that your off-target communications in a series of a series of emails prompted you to seek and obtain the desysopping of a fellow Wikipedian, and in doing so you bypassed the dispute resolution that had been set up to resolve exactly that sort of good faith miscommunication. Allow me remind you, he has made over five dozen featured content contributions, is a sysop in good standing on a sister WMF site, and has never been the subject of dispute resolution except in relation to the case you initiated. Contributors of his talent and dedication are few and far between. There is no one else at WMF who restores historic etchings half as well as he does. I should know; I'm second best. If there's any silver lining to that arbitration it's that he and I met and began collaborating on media content.
Now this is not a personal grievance. You're a fantastic contributor and I wish you the best. Yet none of us are perfect. I'm not; I recognize my shortcomings and do my utmost to rectify them. Would that you did the same. Durova Charge! 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
One fired your way, regarding Seddon's RfA.
Looking forward to hearing back from you,
AGK 18:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My edits in articles related to activities of the OUN-B and it secsessor Congress of Free Ukrainians my data removed by group of editors under different spices. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. :Users prefer to ad hominem instead ad rem comments on my edits [10] - reverting my edits instead I try to follow the reccomendations [11]. Things are removed - a documented link between Nazi and OUN-B actions and "tail" of OUN-B secsessor (like genocide became the tool of Ukrainian nationalist dreams, laying the foundations for a prospective – and chimerical – Ukrainian state on the basis of conquest, subjugation and, ultimately, the annihilation of Ukraine’s principal enemies in eastern Ukraine – Jews and Poles and similar other facts removed.) Could you please advice me a solution in this matter - does anyone can assist me at least in fixing some of my typo instead of blanking and replace correct Wiki link - new order in Europe and Moscovite with an irrelevant link "to new order in Europe" and " Moscovite" - So at least this side of my edits will not be a Casus belli. Thank you in advance Jo0doe ( talk) 07:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) What I don't understand is why this thread is even here, much less why it has grown. I am not a mediator and cannot block if disruption exists. Nor do I have the requisite understanding to determine whether this is a content dispute or misuse of sources. Unfortunately all this can achieve is a few rather obvious referrals elsewhere. Durova Charge! 15:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Bold move and highly appropriate to call "consensus" so early. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I'm confused by this comment. Was that directed towards me? - Rjd0060 ( talk) 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova, per your request, I have unblocked Bus stop and release him into your capable care. I have left the terms of his probation at User talk:Bus stop#Unblocked. If he becomes a problem, please let me know and I will re-block him. For your, his, and my sakes, I hope he becomes a productive editor. Cheers,-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Durova, while I am still referencing the rock song stubs, I have also started working with User:DGG on Talk:War and Peace#characters. Anyway, given that your username deals with a Russian who fought in the Napoleonic Wars and the novel concerns Russians in the Napoleonic Wars, I thought you might be interested in helping. If not, no big deal and again, I am also still working on those rock stubs too. In any event, I hope all is well with you. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Durova, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Durova and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). RockManQ (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you missed a troll-sock, the all-important Conservapedia troll (sorry Conservapedia) :) RockManQ (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought you should be aware of this thread related to Bus stop (under "Question"). [32] Ty 04:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
for interviewing me earlier today :-) - I know I really appreciate it when people I've chatted with send me a note indicating that they enjoyed the experience, and I most certainly did, so here is said note! - I've dropped the file into Seddon's talk page already, and hope it came out ok :-) best, Privatemusings ( talk) 09:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I won't contest closing and moving it to arbitration enforcement, but would like to ask for an explanation. My understanding is that ArbCom and AE are for dealing with content disputes. The process is intentionally slow and cumbersome, something that I generally agree with. But now that I have had a chance to go through the ArbCom case on Shutterbug, I don't believe it's the proper mechanism for dealing with this issue. During that arbitration, checkuser verified multiple accounts using Church-owned IP addresses. Now, the arbitration came to the conclusion that Shutterbug's proxy server claim was plausible, so it remained in the realm of content disputes.
But closer examination of the checkuser results and the contributions of the involved IP addresses renders that explanation extremely unlikely to the point where it ceases to be an issue of content and starts being an issue of WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and WP:ROLE. I didn't write the report to contest content additions or arguments over them. I wrote it because I feel it amply demonstrates that editors are editing specifically on behalf of the Church of Scientology. This is something that should lead to a permanent topic ban.
I will go ahead and take this to AE if you wish. But I think with fresh eyes on the issue, it will turn into a case of WP:SNOW. -- Good Damon 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Brandeisl.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 30, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-30. howcheng { chat} 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Durova, thanks again for participating in the recent podcast about controversial articles. We're happy to announce that it's live, and you're invited to listen to the finished product in all of its OGG format glory. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 02:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Durova! Thank you for your consideration. I am still very new, trying to remember to do everything right, and learning html. I have photos to post on the article "Dixie Roberts". I worked on that article last Feb. At that time, Willow helped me alot, she is so nice. She said you could help me with the photos. I have seen from your page that you are so busy, so i kept putting off doing this, and I was busy on a couple of books, myself. But now Ms. Roberts is in a medical facility, so I think it is prudent to work out the details about using these photos, soon. These photos are from circa 1940's, and the photographers are long gone to their photographic reward in the sky! Dixie has the original photos. I gather that this means she owns the copyright, since the images are of her. Is there a form that she could sign or something like that, where she could give permission to post photos? I guess that would mean a form for releasing the photos into the public domain? Or would I have to make up a form for that? Once she signs a form like that, I assume I must get a copy to the wiki somehow, and then I can post a photo, or a couple of photos, right? (Are we limited to one photo? Or can a couple be posted?) Most of her photos are just of her. But there is one photo of her and Gene Kelly, which would be fun to post. But is that problematic, since he is in the photo? It is an original photo, and no one else is in it but the two of them, and they are looking at the camera, so they knew their photo was being taken. Thanks for any help you can offer, I will try not to take up too much of your time. I LOVE your sock puppets! (My books are in the sewing/craft field) MimiBelle ( talk) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
"I would like an answer to the query I actually posted." That hits the nail on the head. I wish you success. Tom Harrison Talk 16:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have set up Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody should you wish to comment. Please note that I am notifying a handful of experienced editors who are familiar with me as I am particularly interested in anything they have to add. If you do not wish to comment, that is fine too. Also, please note User:A Nobody#Articles to help Durova with. :) All the best! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 21:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well if it's humor you want there's one type of deletion debate you might want to join. User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion Durova Charge! 18:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
A hall of fame idea got proposed a couple of years ago and didn't go too far. There's something else you might be interested in that I've been drafting. It's a bit delicate but it's up your alley. Recently another formerly banned editor returned to Wikipedia. I had been the original blocking admin and I initiated the AN thread to end his ban; he had more than satisfied my standard offer to support a return request. A month before I started the AN thread I had written to the Arbitration Committee requesting his unblock, but they hadn't acted. During the AN thread itself an administrator stepped forward to supply additional background. The banned editor had actually been making polite and proper appeals to ArbCom for seven months, each of which met an initially favorable response and then fell into a black hole. The administrator was angry and frustrated by that series of failures, and expressed concern that this kind of mishandling could turn would-be reformers into hardened vandals. I wish the situation had come to my attention sooner: before the ban that editor had been making good contributions except for one hot button area.
So, not to make a poster child of one individual who's better off with a quiet return, I worry how many other people may have fallen into that same black hole. The community has been delegating its ban reviews to the Arbitration Committee. I knew it was difficult for ArbCom to keep on top of that responsibility but hadn't imagined matters could be as bad as this. Well the community can take back that responsibility; we solved that instance in three days. So I'm drafting a proposal for an ad hoc community ban review process. Basically it would give banned users a dedicated email address to contact, publish rough guidelines for the sort of appeal that's likely to be successful, and publish individual ban reviews that merit serious consideration. For one week, anyone who has input can weigh in on an instance (offsite if necessary if harassment was a concern). Some requests would get delisted, other times the blocking admin would lift the block. Instances that aren't resolved after one week would go to AN. A small team of experienced admins and checkusers would volunteer in the area.
What someone like you brings to the table is a perspective the rest of us don't have: you've been on the other side of that fence. Somewhere in between opening the floodgates and letting viable requests disappear into a sinkhole for months on end, there ought to be a fair and efficient way to handle this. If we don't want banned editors to sock and vandalize, we should give the ones who are capable of returning a clear and consistent path back to good standing. Durova Charge! 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Best regards PHG ( talk) 16:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! Do you think this image has any "potential featurability"? I stumbled across it and was pretty impressed by the technical quality, particularly when compared to similar images. It doesn't have much wow, but there are few featured portraits and I was wondering if it has the potential. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 16:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey D, it's been awhile, hasn't it? Part of my platform is that the we mustn't keep electing the same old types of candidates, and I am putting my money where my mouth is by clearly identifying and describing this type of candidate. If I must muzzle my opinions about poor candidates in order to remain "sportsmanlike," I'd be at a loss as to how to warn the community about the types of characters I believe would not serve the community well (especially since I'd have to endure everyone's bitching about their poor decision when they realize next year the makeup of ArbCom has not changed one iota). Being phony, fake-polite and generally unctuous was never my game. There is a time and a place for bland generalizations and offering warm, constructive, encouraging criticism; elections are not one of them. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just caught up with your extended comments at SlrubensteinII. That was a conduct RfC but not about my past history on the site; so I regard those as misplaced.
In my current ArbCom candidature, on the other hand, the hustings provide a forum where they would be visibly on-topic. I have already dealt there with two aspects of the Hoffman case. The admin at the centre of that case and I have been in touch, and dealing with our joint history in that way. This has moved the situation on. [1] [2]
From my point of view, the RfC served its purpose: it resolved a dispute and cleared the air. What is more, it is misleading to say there was no significant content to it, though the talk page is much more interesting reading than the RfC itself. Between Slrubenstein and me there remains a big distance on blocking policy, and policy generally. In legal terms it is like the difference between common law and statute law, with me being on the side of the written policies I was referencing. Now, that is not something to dismiss lightly, and in fact I want to digest it for a little while before deciding where it leads. Unwritten customs and norms do matter here.
Further, there is more to the User:Mervyn Emrys situation than many of the RfC participants would allow. I am going into this saddening aspect of the business offline.
So, while contesting your view of me expressed at the RfC, I invite you to treat me as a serious, thoughtful person. I do feel caricatured. Like everyone else, you may raise points about me from the period 2006-2008 at the hustings. It is fairer on me, I say, if you make your points there, since it is a forum where I am properly held to account.
Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal stated that your purpose was to get ahead of events: isn't that the purview of community-based motions and consensus? I kept this out of the opinion because it wasn't a direct parallel between last winter's case and this fall's RFC, but it fits into the pattern of stratification-inducing actions. Whether the pattern is deliberate or not, it gives me pause. You and I appear to disagree on one issue fundamentally: I view such a pattern, if adequately documented, with broad relevance. It speaks to the core of our site culture; its ripples have far-reaching impact upon the choices of our fellow Wikipedians. Read Raymond arritt's words from last December if you doubt that assertion. First I regarded the matter as an aberration, then sought to interact unobtrusively. There have been suggestions to open an RFC on you; I don't want to do that. The private correspondence could drive it to RFAR--you know how things go. Is there a better way? Durova Charge! 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Charles, I haven't forgotten you. An earlier draft reply got eaten by my cat (well not really). This is a summary. You already have an explanation of why I am not posting election questions. Regarding email, it does not inspire confidence to see you invite me to correspond offsite in the same post as you demonstrate the very cause of my reluctance.
Earlier this thread you stated it is misleading to say there was no significant content to it [the RFC]. After I reminded you that I had asserted no such thing, you returned a longer explanation of that opinion's wrongness. Now if the leadup had taken place offsite, another Wikipedian reading this thread could suppose I had been befuddled or out of my depth.
Fortunately, since the previous discussion was entirely on-wiki, I have the power to demonstrate that you were going on about a complete red herring. That's a power I prefer to retain. And the reason I value it--which I've alluded to twice already--is my belief that your off-target communications in a series of a series of emails prompted you to seek and obtain the desysopping of a fellow Wikipedian, and in doing so you bypassed the dispute resolution that had been set up to resolve exactly that sort of good faith miscommunication. Allow me remind you, he has made over five dozen featured content contributions, is a sysop in good standing on a sister WMF site, and has never been the subject of dispute resolution except in relation to the case you initiated. Contributors of his talent and dedication are few and far between. There is no one else at WMF who restores historic etchings half as well as he does. I should know; I'm second best. If there's any silver lining to that arbitration it's that he and I met and began collaborating on media content.
Now this is not a personal grievance. You're a fantastic contributor and I wish you the best. Yet none of us are perfect. I'm not; I recognize my shortcomings and do my utmost to rectify them. Would that you did the same. Durova Charge! 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
One fired your way, regarding Seddon's RfA.
Looking forward to hearing back from you,
AGK 18:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My edits in articles related to activities of the OUN-B and it secsessor Congress of Free Ukrainians my data removed by group of editors under different spices. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. :Users prefer to ad hominem instead ad rem comments on my edits [10] - reverting my edits instead I try to follow the reccomendations [11]. Things are removed - a documented link between Nazi and OUN-B actions and "tail" of OUN-B secsessor (like genocide became the tool of Ukrainian nationalist dreams, laying the foundations for a prospective – and chimerical – Ukrainian state on the basis of conquest, subjugation and, ultimately, the annihilation of Ukraine’s principal enemies in eastern Ukraine – Jews and Poles and similar other facts removed.) Could you please advice me a solution in this matter - does anyone can assist me at least in fixing some of my typo instead of blanking and replace correct Wiki link - new order in Europe and Moscovite with an irrelevant link "to new order in Europe" and " Moscovite" - So at least this side of my edits will not be a Casus belli. Thank you in advance Jo0doe ( talk) 07:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) What I don't understand is why this thread is even here, much less why it has grown. I am not a mediator and cannot block if disruption exists. Nor do I have the requisite understanding to determine whether this is a content dispute or misuse of sources. Unfortunately all this can achieve is a few rather obvious referrals elsewhere. Durova Charge! 15:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Bold move and highly appropriate to call "consensus" so early. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I'm confused by this comment. Was that directed towards me? - Rjd0060 ( talk) 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova, per your request, I have unblocked Bus stop and release him into your capable care. I have left the terms of his probation at User talk:Bus stop#Unblocked. If he becomes a problem, please let me know and I will re-block him. For your, his, and my sakes, I hope he becomes a productive editor. Cheers,-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Durova, while I am still referencing the rock song stubs, I have also started working with User:DGG on Talk:War and Peace#characters. Anyway, given that your username deals with a Russian who fought in the Napoleonic Wars and the novel concerns Russians in the Napoleonic Wars, I thought you might be interested in helping. If not, no big deal and again, I am also still working on those rock stubs too. In any event, I hope all is well with you. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Durova, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Durova and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). RockManQ (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you missed a troll-sock, the all-important Conservapedia troll (sorry Conservapedia) :) RockManQ (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought you should be aware of this thread related to Bus stop (under "Question"). [32] Ty 04:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
for interviewing me earlier today :-) - I know I really appreciate it when people I've chatted with send me a note indicating that they enjoyed the experience, and I most certainly did, so here is said note! - I've dropped the file into Seddon's talk page already, and hope it came out ok :-) best, Privatemusings ( talk) 09:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I won't contest closing and moving it to arbitration enforcement, but would like to ask for an explanation. My understanding is that ArbCom and AE are for dealing with content disputes. The process is intentionally slow and cumbersome, something that I generally agree with. But now that I have had a chance to go through the ArbCom case on Shutterbug, I don't believe it's the proper mechanism for dealing with this issue. During that arbitration, checkuser verified multiple accounts using Church-owned IP addresses. Now, the arbitration came to the conclusion that Shutterbug's proxy server claim was plausible, so it remained in the realm of content disputes.
But closer examination of the checkuser results and the contributions of the involved IP addresses renders that explanation extremely unlikely to the point where it ceases to be an issue of content and starts being an issue of WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and WP:ROLE. I didn't write the report to contest content additions or arguments over them. I wrote it because I feel it amply demonstrates that editors are editing specifically on behalf of the Church of Scientology. This is something that should lead to a permanent topic ban.
I will go ahead and take this to AE if you wish. But I think with fresh eyes on the issue, it will turn into a case of WP:SNOW. -- Good Damon 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Brandeisl.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 30, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-30. howcheng { chat} 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Durova, thanks again for participating in the recent podcast about controversial articles. We're happy to announce that it's live, and you're invited to listen to the finished product in all of its OGG format glory. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 02:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Durova! Thank you for your consideration. I am still very new, trying to remember to do everything right, and learning html. I have photos to post on the article "Dixie Roberts". I worked on that article last Feb. At that time, Willow helped me alot, she is so nice. She said you could help me with the photos. I have seen from your page that you are so busy, so i kept putting off doing this, and I was busy on a couple of books, myself. But now Ms. Roberts is in a medical facility, so I think it is prudent to work out the details about using these photos, soon. These photos are from circa 1940's, and the photographers are long gone to their photographic reward in the sky! Dixie has the original photos. I gather that this means she owns the copyright, since the images are of her. Is there a form that she could sign or something like that, where she could give permission to post photos? I guess that would mean a form for releasing the photos into the public domain? Or would I have to make up a form for that? Once she signs a form like that, I assume I must get a copy to the wiki somehow, and then I can post a photo, or a couple of photos, right? (Are we limited to one photo? Or can a couple be posted?) Most of her photos are just of her. But there is one photo of her and Gene Kelly, which would be fun to post. But is that problematic, since he is in the photo? It is an original photo, and no one else is in it but the two of them, and they are looking at the camera, so they knew their photo was being taken. Thanks for any help you can offer, I will try not to take up too much of your time. I LOVE your sock puppets! (My books are in the sewing/craft field) MimiBelle ( talk) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
"I would like an answer to the query I actually posted." That hits the nail on the head. I wish you success. Tom Harrison Talk 16:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have set up Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody should you wish to comment. Please note that I am notifying a handful of experienced editors who are familiar with me as I am particularly interested in anything they have to add. If you do not wish to comment, that is fine too. Also, please note User:A Nobody#Articles to help Durova with. :) All the best! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 21:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well if it's humor you want there's one type of deletion debate you might want to join. User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion Durova Charge! 18:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
A hall of fame idea got proposed a couple of years ago and didn't go too far. There's something else you might be interested in that I've been drafting. It's a bit delicate but it's up your alley. Recently another formerly banned editor returned to Wikipedia. I had been the original blocking admin and I initiated the AN thread to end his ban; he had more than satisfied my standard offer to support a return request. A month before I started the AN thread I had written to the Arbitration Committee requesting his unblock, but they hadn't acted. During the AN thread itself an administrator stepped forward to supply additional background. The banned editor had actually been making polite and proper appeals to ArbCom for seven months, each of which met an initially favorable response and then fell into a black hole. The administrator was angry and frustrated by that series of failures, and expressed concern that this kind of mishandling could turn would-be reformers into hardened vandals. I wish the situation had come to my attention sooner: before the ban that editor had been making good contributions except for one hot button area.
So, not to make a poster child of one individual who's better off with a quiet return, I worry how many other people may have fallen into that same black hole. The community has been delegating its ban reviews to the Arbitration Committee. I knew it was difficult for ArbCom to keep on top of that responsibility but hadn't imagined matters could be as bad as this. Well the community can take back that responsibility; we solved that instance in three days. So I'm drafting a proposal for an ad hoc community ban review process. Basically it would give banned users a dedicated email address to contact, publish rough guidelines for the sort of appeal that's likely to be successful, and publish individual ban reviews that merit serious consideration. For one week, anyone who has input can weigh in on an instance (offsite if necessary if harassment was a concern). Some requests would get delisted, other times the blocking admin would lift the block. Instances that aren't resolved after one week would go to AN. A small team of experienced admins and checkusers would volunteer in the area.
What someone like you brings to the table is a perspective the rest of us don't have: you've been on the other side of that fence. Somewhere in between opening the floodgates and letting viable requests disappear into a sinkhole for months on end, there ought to be a fair and efficient way to handle this. If we don't want banned editors to sock and vandalize, we should give the ones who are capable of returning a clear and consistent path back to good standing. Durova Charge! 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Best regards PHG ( talk) 16:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! Do you think this image has any "potential featurability"? I stumbled across it and was pretty impressed by the technical quality, particularly when compared to similar images. It doesn't have much wow, but there are few featured portraits and I was wondering if it has the potential. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 16:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey D, it's been awhile, hasn't it? Part of my platform is that the we mustn't keep electing the same old types of candidates, and I am putting my money where my mouth is by clearly identifying and describing this type of candidate. If I must muzzle my opinions about poor candidates in order to remain "sportsmanlike," I'd be at a loss as to how to warn the community about the types of characters I believe would not serve the community well (especially since I'd have to endure everyone's bitching about their poor decision when they realize next year the makeup of ArbCom has not changed one iota). Being phony, fake-polite and generally unctuous was never my game. There is a time and a place for bland generalizations and offering warm, constructive, encouraging criticism; elections are not one of them. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)