Misplaced Pages

User talk:Durova: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:10, 20 November 2007 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →Barnstar: thank you← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:21, 18 October 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators30,065 edits I'm Just Wild About Harry listed for good article reassessment (GAR-helper) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Not around|3=May 2017}}
<div id="talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 0em 1em 0em 1em; text-align: center; padding:5px; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
{{User:Durova/templates|pagetop}}
].]]


''Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. I'll reply here if you post here. I have recently changed my volunteer commitment per ].<br >
''
] I've met a lot of Humans 1.0. ].]]
{{Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report}}
</div >
<div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333 ; padding: 5px; width: 495px;">'''Archived talk ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]'''</div>


<div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333 ; padding: 5px; width: 495px;">'''Archived talk ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]'''</div>
==Block==
----
I have posted some questions on my talk page, and should be grateful for some answers. If you don't want to speak publicly, there are a number of people who can pass messages along.


== ''The Bugle'': Issue CXVIII, January 2016 ==
I would like to understand how this has happened. In particular, I am concerned at the privacy implications of "reports" being compiled on editors and circulated amongst closed lists of "senior editors". We have an ArbCom and a limited list of editors with checkuser and oversight privileges for a reason, and this seems to cut right across it. -- ] ] 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::I've hard blocked the above IP address, per instructions from Dmcdevit, because it is a Tor node. There is a strong possibility that it is posted by a banned editor. - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, and I've deleted the post per ] and ]. I've no doubt that banned sockpuppeteers would love to see me give up sock investigations. They've forfeited the right to post those opinions here, though, and (if anything) the attempts amount to an endorsement of my overall work. Thanks for the block, Jehochman. And I'll reply to !! right away. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm half tempted to unprotect this talk page. It's becoming a good honeypot for TOR nodes. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


{| style="width: 100%;"
== ] ==
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" |
{|
| ]
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div>
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
* Project news: '']''
* Articles: '']''
* Book review: '']''
* Op-ed: '']''
* Timeline: '']''
</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=701440818 -->


== ''The Bugle'': Issue CXIX, February 2016 ==
Hi Durova. I appologise in advance for not doing this in an email, I just don't think it's the correct venue given that today's events all seem to be surrounded by things happening off wiki. What I want to do is make a couple of suggestions to you when conducting things like this in the future. The only reason that you wouldn't release any information about the block is that you feared your techniques of finding socks would be found out, I really don't believe this is a very good excuse for keeping things from the community, nor do I believe it is a good reason for only ArbCom to scrutinise the block. I think you've stated that in the future you will pass the information to the arbitration committee - well how about you actually post this on-wiki when there aren't any privacy concerns? There were plenty of people who wanted to take a closer look at this block but for obvious reasons, were unable to do so.There was no need whatsoever for this secrecy. I also see no explanation as to how the mistake happened. I saw a two line appology and little commentary as to how you arrived at the wrong conclusion. In cases such as this, I would suggest you owe the community an explanation for why a respected editor was blocked on what obviously must have been rather dubious evidence with only a slective few being able to view it. My final concern here is that your unblock message to !! was poor to say the least. I don't believe "false positive" gives any true indication as to the scale of your mistake here and doesn't really clear !! of any wrongdoing. I would expect that in the future, you would make more effort to clear the name of the condemned in logs which are unremovable. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm having a go at you, it's not supposed to in any shape or form, I'm just a little concerned at how things were handled today. ] 01:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:Ryan, I respect your thoughtful response. However I disgree quite strongly with the supposition that there's no need for secrecy here. Nearly everyone who's seen my sock investigations agrees that some of the methodologies are sensitive and should be kept confidential, and among people who know my work best I tend to get advice that I err on the side of openness. If I wanted to make this all much simpler I'd abandon the ''I'll tell as much as I can and take the rest offsite'' approach and then, in a large measure, I'd evade this criticism because no one would be the wiser. I don't think that would be a good solution because I do appreciate intelligent feedback and challenges. At any rate, my approach in the future is to route this directly to ArbCom, and if I happen to be on the Committee I'll let another member act as demonstration that I'm not trying to be the Lone Ranger. This site ''does'' have a problem with banned editors who engage in long term sockpuppetry. These people operate as a team and share strategies. It takes a lot of work to uncover them. I've expanded upon my earlier apology at !!'s talk page. If the ones I previously offered look hastily written, they were. My principal aim when I wrote them was to correct the problem and clear the air as swiftly as possible, once I confirmed the new evidence that had come to my attention. My goal was to minimize the harm I had inadvertently caused and to restore people's confidence. I was fielding quite a few queries at once and didn't want to keep anyone waiting. So the first apologies were sincere and simple. In comparison to other mistaken blocks that have occurred at this site, few administrators have been as swift in correcting their own error, as forthcoming with apologies, or as heavily criticized for the effort. If there's something more I can do to set things right I'll readily do so, but full disclosure of my investigative techniques would cause far more harm than good. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


{| style="width: 100%;"
::::I see the predicament here... On one hand we know the harm done by these SPs that go unnoticed and cause massive damage to hundreds of articles before we they get caught as well as SP gangs that know WP well enough to game the system and undermine the project; on the other hand we have people like you that have the time, patience and skill to unravel these SPs' shenanigans and get them blocked. The tension between the need and the method, and the eventual "false positives" makes this a hard call. IMO, bringing the evidence to the ArbCom will do no good, as they are usually busy and will be unlikely able to review the evidence in detail. You said you shared your evidence with a dozen trusted members of the community, but did you get their support for a block, or just a no reply? ] <small>]</small> 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" |
:::::Yes, that's pretty much the predicament. I got about 5 responses from editors I trust. None of the ones who discussed it in detail were arbitrators or checkusers, that I recall. The original account of this user seems to have been an open secret in some circles, so in retrospect I'm still surprised that a cursory glance hadn't sent up any red flags. Chalk that up to experience, and something I'll work harder to handle with discretion and respect in future. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
{|
::I do respect you sorting the problem out as soon as it came to your attention that the evidence wasn't quite right, and I fully understand why the apologies may have appeared short as you were actively trying to fix the situation. I think the problem here is we obviously have two very different schools of thought about what things should and shouldn't be discussed on-wiki. I strongly believe that we should only resort to offering private evidence to ArbCom when we really have no other option (we should always attempt to discuss issues ourselves) - I don't think this was a situation that required the level of privacy that you gave it. I agree that we have an obligation to look out for banned editors and do everything we can to remove them from the project, I just think that when a respected user is accused of such an offense, we should look to discuss the issues in house and offer the opportunity for the community to review such actions. I do think it's a good idea for you to refer future evidence like this to the committee first before blocking as it would most likely stop the drama which has followed in this instance. I know you do a lot of hard work in your investigations and more often than not come up with the right answer, but please try not to be complacent - there's plenty of trusted people willing to review evidence here, and I think now more than ever we would expect you to seek more advice than you did this time before blocking. Having said all of this, I want to make it clear that I still have a lot of respect for you, and although I think you made a serious error of judgment with this one, you obviously do a lot of hard work for the project. ] 02:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
| ]
:Pardon if you've posted this elsewhere, but it would be useful to know who you sent this "report" to and who responded positively that the user should be blocked on the basis of that information. Or at least, the numbers in each group. It seems clear to me that providing this information would expose nothing about your methods not risk exposing any private information. If you're uncomfortable about releasing this information it would be useful to know why you feel this needs to be kept secret. ] ] 02:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div>
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
* Project news: '']''
* Articles: '']''
* Book review: '']''
* Op-ed: '']''
* Timeline: '']''
</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=705057126 -->
:Since you are completely inactive, I have removed your name from ] so as to not continue cluttering up your talk page with newsletters you probably aren't reading. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 22:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


== POTD notification ==
You said "given the amount of time my report circulated and the people who had access to it ..." It has been my experience that most arbcom members and most others do not actually investigate much or even read all the evidence; but as this is an unpaid time drain, rely mostly on the opinions of trusted others. This can produce a situation where everyone thinks ''someone else'' checked something out. I had a situation decades ago where a secret government report was being "verified" by three separate US government agencies and the question was raised by someone about to act on the intelligence assessment "Is this three separate verifications or are they all relying on a single classified source?" After an investigation it turned out that all three were indeed relying on a single classified questionable source that had been judged reliable solely because three separate agencies were reporting it (but because the source was secret, none of the three revealed that source - a "need to know" categorization issue even though all involved had top secret security clearance). I hope you can see the issues and problems involved here. ] (]) 02:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
]]]
Hi Lise,


Just to let you know, the Featured Picture ] is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on July 17, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at ]. Thank you for all of your contributions!&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
To ask one additional question, I think it's worth noting that without you ever revealing the information that led you to make your report, as soon as the block was opened for public discussion evidence was rapidly brought forward to rebut your claims. Would it be possible in the future to open your suspicions for public discussion ''before'' making a block? That is, instead of saying "I have blocked..." what about "I intend to block.... Is this idea ludicrous?" This would certainly have prevented this incident, and again, there would be no need to reveal your proprietary investigative techniques. ] ] 02:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
{{-}}


== Interest In Learning Restoration Practices ==
(edit conflicted)
::It's very difficult to convey this in purely theoretical terms. I've got a trusted-user version of the evidence I submitted to the Alkivar case. Maybe that will help clear up the basic issues about confidentiality: everyone who's seen it agreed that it was substantive and that it needed to be handled with care. The specific report I circulated for this case was shorter: about 2 printed pages with 28 diffs and a 7 point methodology. Obviously that second report wasn't as good as I thought it was, since it swept up a false positive. So I'd like to study that more to refine the techniques rather than circulate it further. I'd rather not say specifically who I circulated it to, and ultimately the responsibility rests with me for not following up better than I did. I got roughly 5 responses, all positive. That seemed like reasonable diligence when I acted this morning. Now I have to call that another lesson learned.


Durova, per your userpage I am reaching out to see what I can assist with in re: restoration of images or other documents that can be uploaded to Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia. I have no knowledge of this subject at the moment and am a fledgling user, so any information you have will be beneficial—necessary programs, practices and all the rest. Cheers! ] (]) 17:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
::The main reason why I handle certain evidence offsite is because I know my edits get watched by precisely the people I work so hard to foil. More than 90% of the material I use is public information, but my methods of parsing it seem to be better than most. It's those methods I want to keep out of the hands of the people who try to exploit this site, because they'd get better at sockpuppeteering, proxy editing, and general exploitation if they could. Again, it's easier to convey this with reference to specific examples. In fact, once a trusted editor sees the specifics they usually understand the rest without any more explanation from me. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, Christopher, that's an interesting point. I've pledged to route this through ArbCom in the future in order to assure proper double checking. Your solution might work also. It's something to chew on, at least. I've always been uncomfortable with the community banning formulation of, ''indef first, discuss afterward''. Since I've made a public pledge I'll uphold it. I'd also be willing to discuss this alternative solution, at least theoretically. These are difficult blocks to implement. Some of the hardest of all, in fact, since when they're right they're non-obvious. And the non-obvious part is highly exploitable if it gets discussed onsite. I've been looking for a way out of that Catch-22. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::The fact that 6 people were fooled in this case doesn't make me optimistic that 15 (minus whatever Arbs are inactive) won't be fooled in a future case; contacting ArbCom on a private basis, in my view, isn't a meaningful improvement compared to your current process of due diligence.
::::In this case, the community was able to provide you some new evidence in less than an hour that convinced you to change your mind. I think that opening your suspicions (but not your evidence) for community discussion before blocking would materially improve the success rate of your investigations without revealing anything about your methods. The community doesn't and shouldn't have the final say when there is significant private evidence. But excluding the community's wealth of information serves only to make it less effective. Ultimately, the long-term success of your work depends on your blocks being correct, so I think it would behoove you to open your conclusions for community comment before acting on them. ] ] 03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's the kind of assumption that I think a more hands-on look would settle. My evidence here was about 2 pages long and 28 diffs. My evidence to the Alkivar case was originally submitted in segments. The Alkivar portion itself had been about 6 pages in the text document with several times that number of diffs, distilled from about 30 pages of text notes and diffs. I had a separate presentation of about the same size and depth for Burntsauce. I really don't want to say any more than that onsite. If you're earnestly curious I'll see (and respond to) that curiosity at my inbox. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I don't see how that's a response to what I wrote. To what assumption are you referring? The extent of the research you provided in this or other cases is not relevant, nor are the contents of your inbox. The question is whether or not you intend, in future investigations, to refer blocks to the community before implementing them. There can be no doubt that had you done that in this case an error with potentially serious consequences would have been avoided. Nor is it reasonable to believe that you will ever, as a single individual, be able to investigate so thoroughly that the 1000+ member community could not add any potentially important information to inform your conclusions. I don't really see a downside here and I think there is significant upside in terms of your success rate in making these blocks. ] ] 04:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::The pledge I've given is to route this type of thing through ArbCom in the future and let them examine it and act. If I happen to be on the Committee I'll route it through formally and let another arbitrator act. That way the community will have reasonable confidence that my evidence has undergone proper scrutiny. In my experience ArbCom is very good at distinguishing good evidence from flawed evidence. Most people seem to be satisfied by that pledge. Do you have a better suggestion? In addition, I'll be tweaking my methodology in light of this and I'll be much more careful about making sure a checkuser actually gets run. My report was in the hands of some people who had that ability, but I wasn't actually certain whether any of them had checked it out that way. It's my responsibility that I didn't follow up on that explicitly, so I'll learn and improve from that. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I've already suggested what I view as a better suggestion: asking the community for input before making a block (without revealing any of the information you wish to keep private -- all you really need to say is the name of the editor you are suspicious about). Again, I just don't see a downside to this. It's also a constructive step to ensure that checkuser evidence is also introduced into your decision-making. But I don't think this will eliminate the capacity of the community to add fruitfully to the process. ] ] 04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::That's a very sensible idea. It may take a little while to wrap my head around how I'd square that with the pledge I made about routing this stuff through ArbCom. And in general, I do like to discuss things proactively. As a challenge here, what would you say about the very legitimate concern this editor has about potential damage to his reputation? I wouldn't want to raise clouds of suspicion or drama unnecessarily, and as I think about this I'm uneasy about posing this kind of question to people who won't be seeing the best evidence I've got. They can't view the query in context. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::In my view, this would be something to do just before blocking, after taking your private investigation as far as it can go and deciding that on that basis you would block. So there's zero additional risk of damaging reputation -- surely an announcement of suspicion, swiftly clarified, is better than an indefinite block, swiftly reversed. At least, it does not appear forever on the block record. I think there would be a meaningful net gain in the drama department -- historically, inappropriate blocks of established contributors have been the single biggest cause of drama and avoiding them is probably the most important consideration in improving your process.
::::::::::As for the fact that the public won't have access to the private information you have, it will still be up to you to take all that information and decide whether or not to block. I view you taking things to the community as more of an information-gathering exercise than a search for consensus. The community doesn't have a final say on blocks that reference private information; if nobody can provide information that satisfies your concerns, you can still block subject to ArbCom review. ] ] 05:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Something like that has worked pretty well in reverse. I have a standing offer to community banned editors that I'll discuss an unblock with them after six months if they do some simple things such as respect ]. When someone approaches me about that I open a thread at ] and see whether anyone has an objection to restoring their editing privileges. Mind if I chew on this one? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Obviously the decision is up to you. I don't think it needs to be an explicit decision, nor need it be applied in every situation depending on the severity of the evidence in question. ] ] 05:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
To avoid perpetuating any errors of fact, am I correct in saying that your block message was your first attempt to contact ]? ] ] 03:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes, and that was my error. I'm quite sorry for it. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


== POTD notification ==
==Tor blocks==
]]]
Hi Durova. Just a quickie about your blocks of these Tor nodes - {{User|24.242.78.69}} and {{User|134.48.216.41}}. I presume you meant those to be hardblocks given present open proxy policy, but the software doesn't seem to be allowing me to unblock them in order to reblock. Could you have a look and see if it'll work for you? <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 02:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lise,


Just to let you know, the Featured Picture ] is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on September 24, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at ]. Thank you for all of your contributions!&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 01:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
: Dmcdevit has instructed me to hard block Tor nodes for 5 years and add {{tl|openproxy}} to the talk page as the block message. - ] <sup>]</sup> 03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
{{-}}
::Actually I've been working at high speed all day. I was looking for a policy page on open proxies, but didn't find one in my haste, so I simply implemented standard 1 year blocks. There was another such proxy I blocked at this talk page before I semiprotected it. If either of you could help out with that I'd be much obliged. If there's a silver lining to this drama, it's that it became a rather good honeypot for TOR nodes. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


== Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity ==
:::No problem with helping, except that I get an error message whenever I try to unblock those IPs so I can reblock them. Dunno if one of you will have more luck. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello! There is currently a ] of a bot to manage the ] ] by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the ]. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be ''uncontroversially'' removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at ]. Thank you! ] (]) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Popping in to say that I can't unblock/reblock them either. MediaWiki claims that the "block ID" cannot be found. Strange. <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;]::''']'''</span> 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:MusikAnimal@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MusikBot_II/Inactive_MMS_targets&oldid=748573976 -->
==wikisleuths==
I am a computer guy and think I would fine this very interesting, please let me know ] (]) 13:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
== ] listed for discussion ==
] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. <!-- User:FastilyBot/Task12Note -->
<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">ATTENTION</span>: This is an automated, ]-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details. Thanks, ] (]) 23:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
:::::I see that WJBscribe finally got the reblock to go through, as I was writing my message. <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;]::''']'''</span> 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Durova. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
::::::I managed to do it, for some reason the software seemed to be treating them as autoblocks rather than standard IP blocks... <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks all. Thank you very much. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Autoblocks. Let's investigate further. What would trigger autoblocks? Could those be triggered by a blocked user attempting to login through those nodes? - ] <sup>]</sup> 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
:::::::::That is what causes autoblocks - but they would have to be recent blocks (within a day or two) and there don't seem to any blocks that correspond with the autoblock IDs I unblocked - #697367 and #697368 (see ). Autoblocks are separate from those on the IP itself - the presence of both doesn't usually cause this sort of thing. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
], and "]" is not prescriptive of hard or soft blocks. ] reached consensus for soft-blocking but not for hard. Consistent with the policy statement that "while this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets", we are ], so we can't be hard-blocking every Tor node. ··]] 03:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
:So what's the correct procedure here? Soft block for 5 years? I'd like to be clear on this, please. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=813406725 -->


== User group for Military Historians ==
::Jimbo is by his own admission in a minority on this one. Softblocking Tor nodes is a bad idea - accounts editing from softblocked IPs don't get autoblocked. So a sockpuppeteer can easily take advantage of a softblocked Tor node to get maximum mileage out of his socks knowing that one of them getting blocked will have no effect on the next. The real way forwards in my opinion is for a consensus to develop for us to allocate '''special:IPblockexempt''' (presently assigned only as part of the sysop user right) to be able to be individually allocated to good users who wish to edit from a Tor address, so they are unaffected by the hardblock. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Is there a short and practical answer here? I'm basically looking for an in-the-field solution to ''That disruptive post originates from a TOR node. So how can I close that loophole quickly without generating additional drama?'' <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Greetings,
::::My reading of the open proxy policy talk page shows neither side as a clear minority. I say softblock for 5 years, with account creation disabled. This remains controversial, because consensus for hard-blocking was never reached, and some admins do it anyway. A significant set of soft-blockers would probably become hard-blockers if ] was finally implemented. In the meantime there is no universally agreed-upon procedure. I say soft. Dmcdevit says hard. Jimbo says soft. Discussion trailed off a couple of months ago and it's all unresolved. The ''particular'' loophole you mention will be sufficiently plugged with a soft block disabling account creation. ··]] 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Misplaced Pages. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at ].
:::::::I disagree that disabling account creation is sufficient - it presumes the sockpuppeteer wouldn't already have sleeper socks. Experience teaches us to presume the opposite I think. Durova, I recommend hardblocks and I believe the majority favour that approach, Coelacan disagrees both with that advice and my assessment of consensus. You aren't going to get a concrete answer on this I'm afraid. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 04:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Geez, the whole topic seems like a minefield. Should we work toward a consensus on this one? Seems like anything I do could be raised against me by a politically motivated editor who's determined to assume bad faith. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members&oldid=545621623 -->


== April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive ==
:::::::Consensus may be hard to find, I believe the options are:
:::::::#No new features - softblock Tor
:::::::#No new features - hardblock Tor
:::::::#Have a new type of softblock that doesn't make accounts using the IP imune from autoblocks - use that for Tor
:::::::#Make '''special:IPblockexempt''' individually assignable - hardblock Tor
:::::::#Withdraw '''special:IPblockexempt''' from admins - hardblock Tor
:::::::Option 3 still requires developer work. As to Option 4, the mediawiki extension for it has been written it seems - I think it would just need consensus. But I think there will be quite a range of views as to which is the best option. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 04:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the ] is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
::::::(ec) Durova, anything any of us do is subject to that kind of criticism. <tt>;)</tt> I think it's safe to say that whether you pick hard or soft blocks, admins are going to defend you. Nearly everyone is supportive of softblocks at least. I have technical reasons for recommending a limitation on hardblocking, but I'm not going to scream about it. I agree with WJB that ''preferable'' to reopening policy discussion is to push for ipblock-exempt as a technical measure. ··]] 04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks. I'll do my best to stay within the realms of what's reasonable and customary. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


* tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
== ] ==
* adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
* updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
* creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.


As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
You wish to improve your investigative methods. Society has a long history of trying to perfect its ability to ascertain right/wrong truth/fiction. ] based on ] between '''opposing''' sides has been established by science and modern society as the best that can be achieved. The opposite of that is a one-sided star-chamber evaluation where group-think reigns unopposed. ] (]) 07:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of ], and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
Your investigative method lacks a ]. ] (]) 07:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up ].
:Where do you get these ideas about my investigative methods? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 08:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


For the Milhist co-ordinators, ] and ] (]) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
::You say that your response to the failure of this strategy:
<!-- Message sent by User:AustralianRupert@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=831112019 -->


== goat ==
:::''I have placed an indefinite block on this account as a disruptive sockpuppet. Due to the nature of this investigation, our normal open discussion isn't really feasible. Please take to arbitration if you disagree with this decision. Thank you. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)''


]
::is this strategy:
goat


] (]) 02:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
:::''Iamunknown, I've already pledged to route future investigations of this type through and let them handle it. Or, if elected, I'll let another arbitrator act upon my investigations as proof to the community that I'm not being the lone ranger. Incidentally, TOR nodes keep posting cricitisms of my actions to this thread. It's become a rather good honeypot for that purpose. ;) DurovaCharge! 01:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)''
<br style="clear: both;"/>


== ] ==
::which, in my opinion, lacks the free ] assets of this strategy:


], a featured picture ], has been proposed for replacement with ]. Your comments are welcome at ]. ] 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
:::''I've already suggested what I view as a better suggestion: asking the community for input before making a block (without revealing any of the information you wish to keep private -- all you really need to say is the name of the editor you are suspicious about). Again, I just don't see a downside to this. It's also a constructive step to ensure that checkuser evidence is also introduced into your decision-making. But I don't think this will eliminate the capacity of the community to add fruitfully to the process. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)''


== ] nominated for replacement ==
::] (]) 09:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I see what you're driving at. In practice, one reason I've opened my investigations to any trustworthy Wikipedian is to encourage precisely that kind of independent feedback. The basis I've used for responding to queries has nothing to do with whether the editor normally agrees with me and everything to do with whether I think they'll handle the information with due discretion. There is, of course, some potential for inadvertent selection bias in that approach. To the extent that it's feasible this semi-open method counteracts the tendency you warn about and I accept a level of risk with the information in order to maintain that degree of checks and balances on my research. The downside of this approach is that it also exposes me to a high degree of criticism. Some people expect all their questions to be answered onsite, so in good faith I explain repeatedly why there are limits to that. Then another set of people jump to conclusions and suppose I haven't used one or more rather basic quality checks. So that leads to a different set of conversations where I do my best to reassure people that those bases are already covered, without tipping my hand too much for the people who follow these discussions in the hope of gleaning information to become better sockpuppeteers. I know there's an active interest because, among other things, both this talk page and ANI had to be semiprotected today to seal off disruption from TOR nodes.
:::So I weigh this advice to "introduce" checkuser evidence to my decision-making against the fact that it's been part of my procedure for a long time, not used universally but perhaps worth it all the time as a good just-to-be-sure thing, and also useless against the folks who are using these TOR nodes. I'm more than just a step or two ahead of that level of advice. The people I've been foiling know I'm often ahead of them too, farther ahead than I let on, and they're trying like mad to figure out where I am and how I got here. I make no pretense of being perfect, which is why I invite criticism. Often it arrives in redundant or superfluous form. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 10:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::I feel that I'm not being clear, so let me be blunt: Before blocking a username based on complex analysis, secret or not, say "I'm planning on blocking " at AN and give it a day to a week depending on the response. Give as much extra data as you feel comfortable with knowing that if you give too little, others may unblock. But the idea is for '''devil''''s advocates to have their day. You don't get that by asking angels. Your friends will pat you on the back, thinking "I trust her", and tell you what you want to hear. Friends of so and so will speak up with truths and/or lies; but they will give you data others don't have and can't give. It is not about others evaluating your data; it is about others adding data you don't have and can't get from your friends because they don't know it either. ] (]) 12:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::And I'll be equally blunt: look at the drama on ANI right now. ArbCom has an excellent record of parsing formal evidence efficiently. That's the solution I've pledged to adopt. I'm rather surprised by the insinuations you continue to make that some coterie of friends rubber stamps this research. It's a rather inappropriate assumption to make in the first place, and to persist at this point is clearly the wrong side of ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 12:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for being blunt. I had no idea you were assuming bad faith in my trying to help you. I'll walk carefully away from this discussion now. Good luck to you. ] (]) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Replied at Was's talk. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


], a featured picture you nominated, has been ] with a ]. Your comments are welcome. ] 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
== Blanking of posts on ANI ==
*The same applies for ] - see ] and ]. ] 18:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you really think you're the best person to be doing this? Please stop blanking edits on ANI for whatever reason: you are in enough controversy as it is, and you are only adding to the drama. If edits need be removed, we have more than enough admins with ANI on their watchlists to do it. ] ] 12:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, these actions are appropriate. Per ], posts by blocked or banned editors may be removed by any editor. Most of the IP posts I removed admitted that they were ban-evading posts and originated from TOR nodes. I also removed posts by two sockpuppets of ], who is the most thoroughly banned former editor. A lot of the sysops who know what he is would be afraid to intervene. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 12:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You should reread ]: it does not allow for reversion "on sight", only ] allows that. These posts should not have been reverted unless they were disruptive, and ''in no case'' should they have been reverted by your good self! Don't you realize that the whole point of the discussion is that many users, including several admins, appear to have lost faith in your application of your administrative discretion as regards sockpuppetry? A little bit of ] would go a long way: otherwise I will be quite happy to supply you with industrial excavation equipment if you really wish to enlarge the hole that you find yourself in. ] ] 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, a little bit of ] would go a long way. Why this combative tone? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


== Precious ==
: Hey, Physchim62, take it easy, would you? No need to increase the drama here.] <small>]</small> 17:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
{{user precious|header=Nadezhda Durova images|thanks=for quality articles such as ], ] and ], for taking excellent care of countless historic photographs, in fine galleries, for service from 2005, - Lise, repeating from ten years ago:}}
::] is yet another of the Misplaced Pages policies which you would do well to read, as you have not applied it in several recent cases. ] ] 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
:::Says the fellow who has insinuated that other admins are taking bribes, with no supporting evidence. ] (]) 18:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
| title = Awesome
::I did not say they were "taking bribes", and I had more evidence than Durova has been willing to share with the WP Community in many of her allegations over the last couple of months. ] ] 18:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
| image = Cscr-featured.svg
:::That's true; you merely suggested that they were "selling their services as Misplaced Pages admins." There's a ''huge'' difference. </sarcasm off> ] (]) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
| image_upright = 0.35
::::Please, let's spread the wikilove. This conversation grows out of a thread where some individuals have obviously done their best to sow dissention. Let's rob those people of the pleasure of success. Physchim62, I trust that you came here in good faith. The kind of sysop work you usually do is very different from the kind I usually do. Once in a while, in all likelihood, each of us makes a mistake. I trust that you know far more about name redirects for chemistry articles than I do, even if one of your decisions is mistaken and you correct yourself 75 minutes later. Yesterday one editor got blocked for 75 minutes and I corrected myself. Minus drama, that's all that really happened. Physchim62, there's an adorable photograph of a stuffed elephant on your userpage with a link to the ] essay. I laughed with pleasure the first time I saw that photo and I'm very flattered that you enjoyed a list of reminders I wrote to myself about how to handle difficult moments onsite. That essay was made for moments like this one. Let's put it to use. With respectful regards, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
| bold = ]
I'm glad you've met my ], let's see what they say:
}}
:'''Jote''', my expert on socks, believes that you are the alternate account of another well-known Misplaced Pages editor. Unfortunately, I can't tell you why. Jote says that he will only share the information with certain trusted users. Let's be glad that he doesn't actually have a block button (and that it's difficult to type when you're a stuffed donkey).
Miss you --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
:'''Harry''', the Large Wet Haddock™ who oversees my own administrative actions and those of others, cannot understand why you haven't resigned your sysop bit yet, given that you are open to recall and that the unease over your actions is so great. He would like to know what if you under what circumstances you would be open to recall, as he believes that you have simply placed the category link on your user page for decoration.
:'''Jumbo''', my pet angry mastodon, is, of course, angry (as is his nature) at the comparisons of administrative actions which you make above. He believes that administrators have discretion in their actions, but are expected to use some common sense. To compare the block of a long-standing and useful user to a technical problem over redirects is, in his eyes, insulting to those who spend their time contributing to this encyclopedia.
I provide , should you wish to use it. ] ] 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


] --] (]) 08:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
: I do not know what you intend with these type of comments, but sarcasm is a trait that is neither valued, nor useful. May I suggest that you move on to more useful endeavors? ] <small>]</small> 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Thank you today for what you did for ]! --] (]) 04:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
== Target selection? ==


A year ago, you were recipient no. ] of Precious, a prize of QAI! --] (]) 10:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Durova. One thing I haven't seen discussed, though there has been so much I might have overlooked it, is how you got on the trail of investigating !! in the first place? Did you 'pick' !! for investigation because of something they did? Or are you running some sort of large scale analysis methodology against all users which picked up some sort of 'apparent correlation'? I don't need to know any 'proprietary hunting methods'... just whether the chicken or the egg came first. Did you decide to investigate !! and then come up with correlations or get correlations from a generic search tool and therefor decide to investigate !!? --] 12:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:Would it make much difference to you either way? One of the things I like to do is keep the sockpuppeteers guessing. If they knew the extent of the automation I use, or how things come to my attention, then that could be very useful to them. A really successful sockpuppet is one that never gets scrutinized in the first place. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::Well, I was going to try to relate the way you go about selecting people for investigation with the way we handle checkuser requests. We don't just run checkuser on anyone and everyone... we use it only when there is already a reasonable pre-existing suspicion of wrongdoing involving multiple accounts. This is primarily to comply with Wikimedia's privacy policy, but it also serves the function of protecting people who are doing nothing apparently wrong from intrusive investigation and unwarranted suspicion. If you are doing a global search then you are investigating ''everyone''. If you are picking people... I'm not aware of anything which would have placed !! under suspicion prior to investigation. We have rules and restrictions around when checkuser can be used, an ombudsman commission to investigate alleged mis-use, logs which can be reviewed by multiple parties to uncover any problems. Your methodology, whatever it is, seems to be just as capable of intruding on privacy and creating unwarranted suspicion... but has none of these safeguards that we place on checkuser. You send your results to a chosen group of people for review, with the unfortunate side-effect of expanding the breach of privacy, but there are no controls on who you investigate in the first place or why you do so. The act of investigation ''itself'', regardless of what is found or done with the information, is an intrusion - which is why we restrict it to cases where there is reasonable suspicion for checkuser. --] 09:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:::My methodology uses information that is already publicly available to anyone on the planet who has an Internet connection. People who run checkuser, of course, receive full and candid answers to all their questions. I've explained a bit more about this particular instance over ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hearst and Morgan.jpg==
== Defender of the Wiki Barnstar ==
]
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping those who intend to disrupt, off this project. Misplaced Pages is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! ] (]) 20:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you very much. Cheers, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice -->
==Hey==
Keep your chin up, Durova.. you handled everything well once you got the additional evidence. ]. ] (]) 21:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks very much. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


I'll second that. I can't imagine having to post that "nevermind" in full view of the entire community. Hang in there. :-) ] (]) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC) <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
== Barnstar ==
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"

|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
|rowspan="2" |

|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Resilient Barnstar'''
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
|-

|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | You've earned this many times over.] (]) 04:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you very much. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
== Precious anniversary ==
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Two}} --] (]) 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

== FAR for Joan of Arc ==

I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!--Template:FARMessage--> ] (]) 18:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

=== Featured Article Save Award for ] ===
There is a ] nomination at ]. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. ] (]) 14:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

==File source problem with File:Clapboard farmhouse in Florida 1911.gif==
]
Thank you for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the ].

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a ] and ask for a chance to fix the problem.<!-- Template:You can request undeletion -->

Please refer to the ''']''' to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a . If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no source-notice --> ]] 07:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

== ] ==


Hello {{u|Durova}},

As one of the original parties to the "Durova" arbitration case, you may be interested in the current ]. A motion has been proposed to modify principle 2 by removing copyright-related wording from it.

Best regards,<br>] (]) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

== Arbitration motion regarding Durova ==

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
{{ivmbox|Principle 2 of ], ''Private correspondence'', is changed from<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) <s>or their lapse into public domain</s>, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. <s>See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights.</s>}}<br>to<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.}}}}
For the Arbitration Committee,
]&nbsp;] 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding Durova}}'''

== Best wishes ==


I miss Durova. I hope she is doing well. ] (]) 01:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
==Smile==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
{{{1|<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup>}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! {{{2|}}} <br /> Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
</div><!-- Template:smile --> --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you very much. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:21, 18 October 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Durova has not edited Misplaced Pages since May 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
The WikiCup.


Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you are completely inactive, I have removed your name from this page so as to not continue cluttering up your talk page with newsletters you probably aren't reading. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Ty Cobb sliding2-edit1.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on July 17, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-07-17. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Interest In Learning Restoration Practices

Durova, per your userpage I am reaching out to see what I can assist with in re: restoration of images or other documents that can be uploaded to Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia. I have no knowledge of this subject at the moment and am a fledgling user, so any information you have will be beneficial—necessary programs, practices and all the rest. Cheers! Finktron (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:MonroeStreetBridgea.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on September 24, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-09-24. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

wikisleuths

I am a computer guy and think I would fine this very interesting, please let me know BernardZ (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Wappen Rdecraon.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wappen Rdecraon.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Durova. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Misplaced Pages. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Misplaced Pages Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

goat

goat

Programmer520 (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle.webm

File:Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle.webm, a featured picture you nominated, has been proposed for replacement with a higher resolution version. Your comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Duck and Cover. MER-C 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

File:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg nominated for replacement

File:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been nominated for replacement with a higher resolution version. Your comments are welcome. MER-C 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Nadezhda Durova images

Thank you for quality articles such as Nadezhda Durova, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and Congress of Arras, for taking excellent care of countless historic photographs, in fine galleries, for service from 2005, - Lise, repeating from ten years ago: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Awesome
Ten years!

Miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ten years again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for what you did for State Route 74 (New York – Vermont)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2121 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hearst and Morgan.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hearst and Morgan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Jousting helmet.jpg

Notice

The file File:Jousting helmet.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Joan of Arc

I have nominated Joan of Arc for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Joan of Arc

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Clapboard farmhouse in Florida 1911.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Clapboard farmhouse in Florida 1911.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mattbr 07:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request: Durova

Hello Durova,

As one of the original parties to the "Durova" arbitration case, you may be interested in the current amendment request about the Durova case. A motion has been proposed to modify principle 2 by removing copyright-related wording from it.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Durova

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Principle 2 of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova, Private correspondence, is changed from
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights.
to
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Durova

Best wishes

I miss Durova. I hope she is doing well. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for I'm Just Wild About Harry

I'm Just Wild About Harry has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: