Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:52, 24 November 2007

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I'll reply here if you post here. I have recently changed my volunteer commitment per these parameters.
Start a new talk topic.

Qed Media and iFreelance

Hi Durova, I thought I'd pass this along to you for review and any action: You probably have better tools than me, but a quick search on the variations of company and online names brings up several associated user names (User:Defendmyname and additions at Ripoffreport.com (though one of the article sources may be legit), along with a user space article that is (old) spam. It looks like the editor/s don't have a lot of edits here and may not be aware of wiki policies (although they seem to be savvy enough to be able to dominate three search pages on Google on the keyword of their choice. The editor is also a member of SEW, although I don't know how active/known. Flowanda | Talk 02:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the heads up. I've passed this along to the Foundation. You've earned a barnstar for this one. Durova 10:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples needed

Could you possibly help by indicating the examples you have used once more, in response to the following edit: You can find them more easily than I. DGG (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the request. I think I can put together something from public evidence that gets the point across. Durova 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Misplaced Pages Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ral. I'll get it there. Best, Durova 08:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible impersonator ?

I just noticed User:Doo Roe Vah. They state on their user page that they shouldn't be confused with you, but I thought I'd let you know. Probably bears watching, but I'm willing to WP:AGF for now. -- Flyguy649 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Already taken care of by other sysops. Thanks. Durova 06:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Recall

A number of users have asked requested you stand for reconfirmation of your administator status, in line with your "talk to you" statement here. You do not appear to have responded to them. Is it your intention to respond or are you awaiting the start of a formal dispute resolution process? Catchpole (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have responded by correcting my mistake, apologizing, opening my actions to scrutiny, assuming full responsibility, and pledging improvements. Durova 09:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're admitting that you're not actually open to recall, dispite what you've said repeatedly in the past? Physchim62 (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit to having very little knowledge about many things, however, I can read what you have said and what many experienced and well respected editors have said re: your actions of late. There is a very succinct conclusion that now awaits your actions. At least 6 editors have asked for your recall, Durova. The page and subpages are now hidden in the ANI somewhere.

This issue will only end when you have completed what you have publicly stated you would, in fact, do, under these circumstances. You have stated publicly that you are open to recall. Said statement is widely distributed all over the internet. There is no chance for you to continue on as you did in the past, and the likely outcome of your running for any office successfully is dashed by any sort of dichotomy in your behavior, herein. ErgoEgo (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that an archive of yesterday's recall discussion may be found here. sNkrSnee | t.p. 15:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Durova is still a redlink, despite an RfC being clearly stated by Durova as a recall condition. Recall is a voluntary procedure, and one may set whatever conditions one wishes. If I want to set the condition that twenty-three people must drop off a sealed envelope with a single black stone at a certain location at midnight on a certain date to recall me, I can do that. It would be silly, but I can do that. Durova has set RfC as a condition, and that's not silly, it's a well-established process for consideration of such things. Durova has stated that RfC is a prerequisite. Of course, at an RfC, those who support the person get to comment too. Is that the trouble here? Seraphimblade 17:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note the above link is no longer red. sNkrSnee | t.p. 04:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Seraphimbalde is spot on. I personally don't see a reason for recall. Durova made a mistake and corrected it. Also the manner in which User:Lsi john mooted recall (the "are you just grandstanding" remark) was border line incivil and strikes me as harassment, and as Mercury pointed out above, that user seems to have some kind of ax to grind with Durova. Getting back to recall issue: requests for comment & Arbcom are long standing and normal mechanisms for recall/desysoping, but as Seraphimblade pointed out "those who support the person get to comment too"--Cailil 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Shhhh! Not before everyone on "the list" up is blocked! JzG and Sarah should start with ErgoEgo! 172.203.210.247 (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now made my decision after reading Durova's evidence email on Giano's talk page . It's very, very scary to see that an editor's positive contributions to Misplaced Pages were used as evidence against him to prove evil intent. It's also scary to see that kind of mind set with someone that's been entrusted with admin priviliges. I now support this recall of Durova's adminship. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I don't believe you've made a mistake so serious that you should be desysopped, but it's clear that there are a significant number of well meaning editors who do believe that you should be recalled. Since you have volunteered to submit a reconfirmation RfA if five editors request it, I think you should do so. I look forward to being able to adding my sig in your support there.-gadfium 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the "evidence" used against him to justify the block has confirmed my suspicion that your "investigations" are a menace to well meaning editors and a joke. I hear by ask you to stand for reconfirmation. This makes it nine people who have asked, nearly double the amount you required and while the formal RfC is not underway, the ANI subpage is an informal one. If you really believe the community supports you, then you should reconfirm your adminship. If that is th case, you have nothing to lose by doing it. Viridae 08:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova made one major mistake in her block of User:!!...and it is an aberration, not a pattern. Durova otherwise has been spot on with all her other investigations, so no, we do not desysop for one major mistake. If you can find other mistakes, (as I have on your part, which is why I asked you, Viridae, to step down) to support her recall, then please do so.--MONGO (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Aactually, it is a pattern from my point of view. To indef block someone on that kind of flimsy evidence, is riduculous. She has had a total of nine people asking her to reconfirm, four more than she sets out in her requirements. Viridae 11:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To call for desysopping for one good faith mistake is ridiculous, especially when there are far more disruptive and damaging case of Admin abuse out there. Durova is not an Alkivar and certainly not a Robdurbar. She made a mistake, one that was quickly corrected and apologized for. A mistake that also will undoubtedly serve as a valid and poignant lesson which is unlikely to be repeated. If we had a rash of good edits being blocked by her then we would have serious disruption to the project and a cause for recall. Right now we just have a rash of mob mentality that is seriously misplaced. Agne/ 12:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a mistake, that was downright terrible judgement, made on secret evidence which she frequently touts as such but can't reveal becase that would compromise her investigation. It is only because she blocked a very good contributor wit over a hundred DYKs that someone actually questioned it. And I am not calling for her desyopping, she has given that five editors in good standing can ask for to stand for recopnfirmation. I am the ninth such editor. If you really think she has the communities trust, then the recomfirmation will pass without a worry. If she doesn't she shouldnt be an admin. Viridae 12:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My 18 year old's radiator was overheating and she thought adding some soda could "cool it down" enough to where she could get home. Not only was that a mistake but it was a costly case of "downright terrible judgment". However, she's human and she will never make that mistake or one close to it again. Did I take away her keys and say she had to retake her driver's exam? No. Things like that happen and she is all the wiser now. It is a far different scenario then if she was driving drunk and endangering her life and others. It would be "downright terrible judgment" on my part to lose context of things and over blow the seriousness of her mistake. Similarly it is terrible judgment to think that Durova's mistake constitute her being unfit to serve as an admin. Again there are far more damaging cases of Admin abuse that should be under such intent scrutiny rather then good faith 75 minute mistake of one of the project's hardest working admins. Agne/ 13:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Durova has to go because we cannot trust her judgement. It is quite possible that next time, and there will be a next time (remember too the previous times) she will succeed in keeping her "evidence" completely secret. Has even one of you, so keen to retain her services, bothered to consider that the consequences if !! had been a new good faith editor? Hundreds of people edit as confident IPs for years before registering an account. Sooner or later they will find a reason to ban me for ever, do you want the Durova's of this world to run the show, like the secret police in some third rate tin pot country? The secret society numbering Arbs and CheckUsers to whom she showed the "evidence" did not bother to stop her, neither did her "five fellow sleuths" Is this the way you want to see Misplaced Pages go? Giano (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, passing something to others and taking silence for consent is a fallacy. Additionally, it simply passes blame. It's the "see what you made me do" strategy. However, I have every doubt that the "consulted" individuals did not read the evidence, and I am absolutely sure that there was no urge to block a user on the basis of it. That is all this user's own culpability. Geogre (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• You may have a point Geogre, except Durova goes on to say "I discussed the investigation in depth with roughly five people, all sleuths like myself" now to me "in depth" does not sound like a one sided conversation. Giano (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• I think Geogre has hit the mark. - Jehochman 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A lighter note

While I did a "WTF" with that whole user:!! thing at first, I can also understand that people are human, and that single mistakes shouldn't be used as a reason to lose faith in an editor, or even their methods. I certainly hope you don't lose faith in yourself in all this, as the wikimob can be very overwhelming and unforgiving. Regardless of who did what or what was good or what was bad, a lot of undue weight is being put on this. I don't know the ins and outs of all this, but if you take away all the reactions, the incident itself really wasn't a big deal. I'm sure you know all of this already, and don't need someone to tell you this, but I'll leave this comment anyways as a sign of support. -- Ned Scott 09:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It's a good gesture to express it. Thank you. Durova 09:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

With all the drama on the page moved from AN/I, it's a wonder you want to keep being an admin, let alone anything else. Still, keep your chin up. If nothing else, it's brightened up what was a bad day for me. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Compared to real wartime service this is peanuts. I have a personal theory every M-14 gains three pounds an hour, especially on a midwatch. Happy holidays! Durova 23:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that like eating your young? ;) Happy turkey day to you too. Best regards, Durova 17:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you have me on that one! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship nomination

Would you be willing to nominate me for an adminship? I've edited off and on for a few years now, and have a couple hundred edits. Although that number is low compared to others, I have familiarized myself with a large number of the community rules. I would like to expand my horizons in terms of helping with the project. There are a bunch of things adminwise that I would like to reform with the consensus of the rest of the community, and I would like to obtain some admin experience to see whether the ideas are feasible or not. Thanks.Ngchen (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of time on the project you're doing all right, but I'm pretty sure the voters like to see more activity. What makes you think about adminship? Read my most recent talk archive and if that doesn't scare you away, let's talk. ;) Durova 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read the stuff. It appears you've been involved in some controversy, the details of which I am unaware. It will suffice to say that to my knowledge it involves your sock-hunting, and certain people believing that you were overzealous. I myself currently am not interested in sock hunting. I personally believe in generally giving people the benefit of the doubt unless the case is clear. Checkuser can be useful, although nothing can ever be 100% proven. I remember the banning of TingMing and his assorted socks, including Nationalist, which checkuser returned as "only" likely. Part of my desire to become an admin is to push for a more uniform policy with regard to blocks, bans, and the like. A small minority currently is chafing at the somewhat arbitrary nature of the length of block that's given troublemakers, for instance. Anyway, to be perfectly honest, if you aren't convinced that I's survive the request for adminship right now due to a low edit count, I'd be glad to wait a while until I get more edits in. I have to say I believe edit count can be overrated with regard to how well someone understands the system.Ngchen (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say definitely get some more editing experience under your belt. Go wherever your interests lead. Keep in touch. I'm not quite certain why you're interested in the tools, but there's no rush about that. It's good to meet you (shakes cyberhands). Cheers, Durova 04:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Article about Misplaced Pages at SearchEngineJournal.com

Hi Lise, I believe that you will find my (long) article at SEJ from today interesting. Considering the fact that you also write for SearchEngineLand.com about Misplaced Pages and search engine marketing and optimization. My post is titled: Misplaced Pages Article Quality Assessment and Ranking Tips for Users and Search Engine Engineers. Check it out and add a comment if you see something missing, something that is incorrect or if you have additional recommendations that would be helpful for either users of Misplaced Pages and/or search engine engineers from Google and other search engines. :). Thanks and Cheers! --roy<sac> .oOo. 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's pretty good, actually. A basic introduction to article space. Pretty accurate too. Durova 01:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for a triple crown

Hello, hope I qualify!

• Jacklee
  • DYK: Judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore, Singapore Stone
  • GA: Sources of Singapore law, Boosey & Hawkes
  • FC: Richard Hakluyt

— Cheers, JackLee 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I qualify for several, I think. But how can I bear such weight? :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Durova

Durova -

Without prejudice, I've opened a draft at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Durova. I've done this because:

1. The discussions were still swirling mindlessly on subpages, talk pages, and probably endless cabal back-channels, so having it in one place is better,
2. People keep calling for recal to proceed, and you'd stated (apparently) that a request for comment was part of it,
3. Because it's meant to be a non-judgmental way for problems to be resolved.

Ok, normally it's more like a free-fire zone where the rules about civility and personal attacks get ignored, but maybe this time will be different.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, you have been named in an arbitration case. Please add a statement when you can. Dmcdevit·t 11:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Double Triple Crown Award....?

Ummm, I think I qualify; if you would be so kind as to bestow one upon me, I would be humbled and very grateful.

• DYK: I have created 73 DYKS
• GA: 9 GAs
• FA: BioShock, Lion

Thanks. -- Anonymous Dissident 05:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)