User talk:Durova/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Qed Media and iFreelance

Hi Durova, I thought I'd pass this along to you for review and any action: [1] You probably have better tools than me, but a quick search on the variations of company and online names brings up several associated user names (User:Defendmyname and additions at Ripoffreport.com (though one of the article sources may be legit), along with a user space article [[User:Qed-news] that is (old) spam. It looks like the editor/s don't have a lot of edits here and may not be aware of wiki policies (although they seem to be savvy enough to be able to dominate three search pages on Google on the keyword of their choice. The editor is also a member of SEW, although I don't know how active/known. Flowanda | Talk 02:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Examples needed

Could you possibly help by indicating the examples you have used once more, in response to the following edit: [2] You can find them more easily than I. DGG (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] ArbCom questions

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

  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, DurovaCharge! 08:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 talk 06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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. DurovaCharge! 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 Wikipedia: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 Talk to me 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 [would] get to comment too"--Cailil talk 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 [3]. It's very, very scary to see that an editor's positive contributions to Wikipedia 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. ViridaeTalk 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. ViridaeTalk 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. AgneCheese/Wine 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. ViridaeTalk 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. AgneCheese/Wine 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" [4] Is this the way you want to see Wikipedia 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 Talk 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. DurovaCharge! 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! DurovaCharge! 23:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ned Scott here, although I haven't really had any interaction with you and I dont know all the in-and-outs of everything, I dont think one mistake should be the judge of a users ability, judgement, or faith. I have seen you do so much good here, that a couple mistakes here and there, as long as they are fixed and made known, are just fine. I made some mistakes here and everyone I have worked with has AGF with me, so I dont see why this shouldnt apply to you too. Keep up the good work, and if there is a recall vote or anything like that, you can expect a support vote from me!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving!

Photograph of pumpkin pie.
Photograph of pumpkin pie.

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

Isn't that like eating your young? ;) Happy turkey day to you too. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 17:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you have me on that one! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. ;) DurovaCharge! 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, DurovaCharge! 04:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article about Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and search engine marketing and optimization. My post is titled: Wikipedia Article Quality Assessment and Ranking Tips for Users and Search Engine Engineers. Check it out and add a comment if you see something missing, something that is incorrect or if you have additional recommendations that would be helpful for either users of Wikipedia and/or search engine engineers from Google and other search engines. :). Thanks and Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova

Durova -

Without prejudice, I've opened a draft at Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Some questions

Hi Durova! :) I know your probably swamped, but if you have a second, I posted some questions for you here. Just basic stuff so that the community can get a better picture of your thought process and the input that led you to make the oops ya did.

Don't stress.  :) You're a great asset to the community, and in the game of life, this is just a blip on the radar. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you're pretty busy, so I thought I'd post the questions directly here. They're absolutely integral to developing an understanding of how you function as an admin-- please answer them as soon as you have a second:

1. What was the "secret evidence" that was emailed?

This is relevant to considering Durova's behavior. If the evidence was generally sound, it's less of a big deal. If the evidence was completely tenuous, it's a reason to question her judgment. The community has a right and a need to know which it is. The Enemies of the Project already have a copy, so there's no harm in letting the rest of us see it to-- either post it here, or people will wind up going to look for it at the BADSITES, and nobody wants that.

2. Precisely who was the secret evidence emailed to?

A full list of the names that the evidence was emailed to should be furnished. If Durova picked a representative sample of unbiased, respected admins, then that speaks to her credit. If she picked a select group which seemed predisposed to have an opinion, that suggests her judgment might be poor. The community needs to know which it is.

3. Person by person, what were the responses that Durova received back?

If everyone emailed back endorsing the block, Durova had good reason to suspect her logic was correct. If everyone emailed back opposing the block but Durova ignored them, that points to poor judgment. The community needs to know what the feedback was.
Relatedly, if anyone noticed the evidence was erroneous, they should be commended. If anyone endorsed the block, failing to see that the evidence was in error, we should know it, so that the community can devote a little more scrutiny to their judgment in the future, to prevent this sort of thing happening again.

These should be non-controversial requests for information. I trust answers will be forthcoming. Let me reiterate-- I see this more as what NASA does after a shuttle explodes-- not trying to question motives or assign blame, so much as seeing where the system broke down, and how it can be fixed. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughtful questions, and I appreciate your advice and concerns. Right now I'm gathering evidence for a different part of the arbitration. Posting to let you know I acknowledge this. DurovaCharge! 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :). I've said it other places but I'll say it again because I know there's been chatter. My interactions with you have always been 100% positive, and before this mess started, you were somebody I largely trusted. Even if you've made some big oopses, I truly believe you are a "Good Person" (TM) and acting out of a sincere desire to protect the project.
Lots of arrows being slung your way, some by me, so it's good to take a time out to remember ultimately everybody's just doing their best in their own way, and while disagreement is unavoidable in a project like this, there's absolutely no hard feelings . :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request

Hi,

As I've have been reviewing the RfC opened to discuss your conduct, I was wondering: could you offer a summary there of the corrections/refinements you have made to your investigative methodology? I don't wish to ask you to apologize again, as you've done that sufficiently. An account of corrective measures taken to prevent recurrences in the future, though, might go a long way toward resolving the concerns of those who remain discontented. I realize your methodology is confidential, but the disclosure of certain general corrective measures (eg., "I'll involve more people", or "I'll wait longer for more input before acting", or "I won't act in the absence of a larger body of evidence") would be helpful. My request arises from my own instinct on first reading the RfC: "Mistake made, lesson learned, forgiveness proper"... but I would appreciate knowing what lessons were learned with some degree of specificity. I'm uninvolved in this, and have no intention of joining in the dispute myself -- this is just a constructive suggestion that I think can help move everyone forward. Thanks and best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good suggestion. I've done that in several places already but so much noise has surrounded this that I'm not surprised it's hard to find. There's also been a lot of paraphrasing that isn't quite accurate, even from some people who support me (and I trust completely they meant it in good faith). I'll make a clear statement on that soon in a location that's easy to find. DurovaCharge! 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom questions redux

Posting a new section so this doesn't get missed. The length is really up to you; I'd suggest somewhere between short and long, but you can look at entries already on my talk page to judge what a good length is. Ral315 » 19:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formal recall of your adminship

The RfC has been up for over 48 hours and that means it is now certified. According to your statement, if six editors called for your recall in an RfC, you would submit to a recall. At least 20 editors on that page have endorsed your recall, so I'm now starting an official recall thread here.

[edit] Recall

We are formally requesting that Durova resign her adminship privileges, effective immediately, based on evidence presented here and here and under the procedures set by Durova herself. In order to regain adminship privileges, Durova will need to formally request it through the RfA procedure.

Endorsed by:

  1. Cla68 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Lsi john (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, when I wrote those terms I really didn't anticipate that an RFC would start on a holiday weekend and go to arbitration just a few hours after certification. So I haven't had an adequate chance to respond to the accusations yet. As you can see, I'm just starting my evidence now. It's only fair that I should have an opportunity to defend myself. ArbCom has the power to desysop me also. Let's take things one step at a time. DurovaCharge! 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I suggest starting the defense/rebut side as another section here below the recall endorsement thread, with a space for supporters of your defense to endorse it. Cla68 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not you 'anticipated' them really begs the question. You set the terms and those terms have been met. You've made everyone jump through hoops and they have jumped through your hoops. Either you are going to honor your word or you aren't. You've certainly been afforded much more consideration than those you sleuth. Lsi john (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
And there's nothing in those terms that says I need to stand for reconfirmation before there's been an adequate opportunity to respond to the accusations. DurovaCharge! 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Now would be an excellent time to and place to explain and defend yourself then. I have left some questions above that pretty much are essential to my own view of your behavior. If your list was made up of the entire arbcom and they all endorsed your actions, for example, I wouldn't request recall. If your list was biased or flawed (say, made up of people with less than 100 edits), or if you were warned by a senior editors to not implement the ban, then I'd be more inclined to request recall. I'm imagine I'm fairly typical in this regard, and the rest of the community would also like to hear your answers in contemplating recall. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As you can see from my contributions, I'm actively posting evidence to the case right now. Would you have a look at this section, please? DurovaCharge! 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A definite start, and I for one won't call for your recall until you've had a chance to talk more-- I know you've been away, and this must hit you like a ton of bricks. I would encourage people to give you at least another 24 hours before even considering making the final votes to formally begin the recall process.
But if I were you, I'd focus more on the recall than the arbcom. Arbcom cases take forever-- you could wake up tomorrow and find yourself under a recall vote (or at least, morally bound to submit to a recall vote). --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Recall is a voluntary process and exists entirely at the discretion of the administrator who chooses to participate. If there really is a compelling case for recalling me, then the people who advocate it should have no objection to me presenting a full case or the community having time to digest it. DurovaCharge! 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to repeated queries I'm setting a firm time frame right now: I will stand for reconfirmation after the arbitration case closes if I am still a sysop. DurovaCharge! 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

'scuse me? You've already made your "voluntary process" quite clear, voluntarily, and those criteria are now clearly met. If there is a compelling reason for re-confirming you, you should have no objection to presenting your full case to the community. The fact that you failed to anticipate that keeping your word would be an inconvenience is hardly exculpatory. I don't know what game it is where you can move the goalposts anytime you start to lose. sNkrSnee | t.p. 00:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If there is a compelling case for recalling me, then those who support my desysopping can have nothing to fear from whatever I present in my defense. That was not feasible due to the timing of the RFC and RFAR. Nothing in this contradicts what I've already offered: it just clarifies a matter that hadn't been stated before. Some people have asked a question and I've answered it. I'm going to continue preparing and posting my evidence to the case now. DurovaCharge! 00:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It totally contradicts what you've offered, and it had been stated before, by you! To wit:
If you think I've misused sysop powers, then here's what to do:
Talk to me.
Open a request for comment on me.
If five other editors agree with you, then check out the parameters at Category:Administrators open to recall. I'm one of the administrators who has volunteered to stand for reconfirmation if there's reasonable doubt about my actions. Recall standards at that category have relaxed since I joined yet I'll abide by the original terms of participation.
You do say at the end that you'd prefer if we play games instead, so I guess that part was sincere. sNkrSnee | t.p. 01:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Cool.. Could you elaborate a little on what you mean by the phrase "stand for reconfirmation"? Does that mean you now agree to submit to a new RFA, but only after the Arbcom case has concluded? Or does that mean you will decided whether or not to submit to a recall after the arbcom case is concluded? I suspect you mean the former, but people are going to want to make sure you don't mean the latter. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If the Committee desysops me that would be unnecessary, of course. Yes I'll go through a new RFA when the case closes, since it's likely there will be at least six editors who still want that. DurovaCharge! 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone who is generally in support of a recall (I'm not definitely in favor of desysopping - my !vote in such a proceeding would be based largely on my impression of what Durova has learned from this situation and what steps she's taking to prevent something similar in the future - but I think the process is justified at this point to gauge the level of the community's trust), I think Durova's plan to wait until ArbCom decides on the existing case is reasonable. It seems to me too much of an imposition on her to ask her to handle the same case on multiple fronts. (Apologies for the excessive parenthetical above!) JavaTenor (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone who is (at this time, based on available info) willing to endorse a recall, thats fine too to wait. • Lawrence Cohen 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The Rfc was initiated as a (her) precondition to recall, by people who wanted to shut down discussion un AN/I (done). ArbCom was urged by some of those same people, in the Rfc. NOW it's being argued that ArbCom relieves her of her previous obligation to stand for confirmation, which was the whole point. I think she calculates ArbCom is her best bet for vindication, based on the fact that at least one member of ArbCom was in on her evidence (and I wonder if there's a conflict of interest here?), and that this will make it easier to deflect questions in a recall. Instead of showing her evidence, she can just point people to ArbCom instead, which is how this all started. I'd rather she made her case to the community, like she promised. If ArbCom wants to look at it after then fine. Also, I'm ignorant of process - is there any assurance they would render a verdict prior to her election? sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willing to abstain from using tools?

Durova, given all the muss and fuss here, between the RFAR and proposed removal of adminship there, and the now pending recall RFA, would you be willing to hold off on doing anything like blocking more users or doing admin tasks till both issues are resolved? • Lawrence Cohen 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care if you refrain from using deletion, protection, or so forth, but I would very much like to see a clear statement that you will cease all "sleuthing" and that you will refrain from blocking anybody you suspect of being a "sockpuppet", "puppetmaster", or any other sort of "dangerous influence" until after this situation is resolved. I'd like it even better if you would acknowledge that your "sleuthing" activities are ill-founded and that you will abandon them entirely, but I don't really expect that you'd agree to that. Kelly Martin 01:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if she stops sleuthing, it has nothing to do with her admin tools. Asking her to not block based on that information is another thing. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It matters very much to me. Her "sleuthing" activities are the core of the problem here. I don't think it's any more acceptable for her to gather false and defamatory "evidence" against good-faith editors to be presented to some other administrator than it is for her to do so and use it as grounds to issue blocks herself. Yes, there's at least a chance that the second admin will go "Hey, stop that, you're full of shit" -- but apparently she gave a couple dozen supposedly "trusted senior editors" to the chance to that on the !! block and none of them did, either. Instead of appointing someone to inspect her questionable work product, it seems to make more sense to simply shut down the generation of the questionable work product. Your mileage may, of course, vary, but I for one want to see the sleuthing stop, immediately. Kelly Martin 06:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
May I ask for your good faith and patience? For most of last week I stayed away from the ANI thread in order to reduce the drama and RFC was over almost before it started. Now there's an arbitration case and it's a lot of work to gather all the diffs and cover all the bases. I made a bad call last week and I've apologized profusely. Most of those apologies, and the statements of what I'd do to correct the mistakes that led to the need to apologize, have been lost in hyperbole. I'll be presenting more evidence so please review it with an open mind. DurovaCharge! 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy: We want recall NOW

I’m surprise at your hypocrisy, Durova. I thought you know better than this. It doesn’t matter whether you have adequate opportunity to respond to the accusations. The community can judge for themselves. People don’t care if you’re on holiday or you just made that up as a stalling tactic. Hell, it doesn’t even matter if arbCom found you to be innocent. The arbCom decision is totally irrelevant to your future as a sysop. Those 2 processes don’t overlap. As long as your terms are met, you should follow your pledge. You made the choice to add yourself to the open to recall category, now deal with it. If you really think the community has faith in you, then why wait? You don’t need admin tools to defend yourself in the arbCom case. Talking about time frame is semantics and bootless wikilawyering. Let’s draw a parallel. For example, if I added my name to the open to recall category, then after my terms are met, I claim there is no specific timeframe and that I will stand for reconfirmation exactly one year after my terms are met. How ridiculous does that sound?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually would have supported if you decided to stand for reconfirmation, since I don’t know the specifics about the !! block and the fact that your critics tried to draw parallel between !! block and LionheartX block pissed me off a whole lot. But I’m not too sure if I would support you now. Your stalling tactic is getting a little embarrassing. Dodging the recall process would only disappoint more people and make you exponentially less likely to continue to serve as an admin.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So your point is that Durova should be on Wiki 24-7, all the time? I mean seriously, its was Thanksgiving in rl, Wikipedia is not that important to miss out spending time with your family. If she says that she is busy in real life because she is with family or on vacation then WP:AGF!! I've gone long times without going on Wikipedia, thats not a crime, listen to Jimbo and calm down, theres no rush, its not like Durova is going crazy all over Wikipedia. Lets give her some time to clear her head and defend herself.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that’s not my point. I know ‘pedia is not that important. But follow the process instead of wikilawyering is all I’m saying. For the last few days, we have gone from the AN/I thread (archived by force) to RfC to met her terms for recall and now she’s making a fuss about timeframe. And remember, recall is not automatic desysopping but rather a reconfirmation of the community’s trust. If she doesn’t believe in the process, why did she sign up for it? And seriously, when your future in ‘pedia is on the line, you shouldn’t be just stalling for time. I remember the UI spoofing incident (Wikipedia talk:User page/UI spoofing), I didn’t sleep at all that night and I don’t complain. Funny how no one gave me the time to clear my head and defend myself. What a double standard.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If my "future in 'pedis is on line" I would want to take my time so I can present my case. I wouldnt want things to suddenly happen and rash decisions to be made. I have no clue about your case, and I'm sorry that you felt shorted in any way, but that is neither now nor here. I think we should listen to Jimbo (assuming you clicked on the link) and not jump to any rash decisions. The title of your heading here is "Hypocrisy: We Want Recall NOW" which is basically calling Durova a hypocrite and also saying that you want thing to happen "NOW" instead of letting the processes do what they were made for. I cannot answer why she signed up for it, but you have to admit since there is no policy to follow here, and that recall is completely up to the person signing up for it, that Durova can do whatever she pleases when it comes to recall. If she says that she is not ready for the recall, then stop annoying Durova and let her go about her business. And again, listen to Jimbo and just stop with the drama and calm down. Please. (Durova, sorry about clogging your talk page with this commentary)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, if the category of recall is meaningless, it should be nominated for deletion instead of using it for self-promotional purposes. I’m not purposing any rash decisions. The arbCom case is going to take care of the final decision making and that would take at least a month. But Durova’s admin status does not impede her ability to defend herself in the arbCom case. Even if the recall motion is passed (and meet her term), it doesn’t mean she would be desysopped. Also, she doesn’t need to defend herself at that front since the community can make its decision. I’m not calling Durova a hypocrite (read my statement in her RfC, I praised her good judgment in the past), but her behavior thus far is disappointing and does not inspire confidence.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess my main point here is if that is all you meant, then just say that. Coming here with ALL CAPPED words and calling for a rash decision doesn't instill confidence in your points. Thats all I have to say, hope you have a good day/night.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No kidding. This a voluntary process that was originally intended to be a fair and orderly way of reviewing admin's actions and possible abuse. However this current "spectacle" has turned more into lynch mob and I see no reason to fault Durova wishes to follow the more fair and orderly route of having the Arbcom review her actions. She is certainly following the spirit and intent of the process if not the bureaucratic letter. AgneCheese/Wine 03:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If the RFC had run its normal course it would still be in its early stages and I'd be presenting my evidence there. DurovaCharge! 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can continue to make excuses to delay the inevitable. You can continue to demonstrate a lack of respect to the community’s wishes and the general interest of wikipedians. But they will only further erode the community’s confidence in your capability as an admin. Please read User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_19 for your own benefit. Not surprisingly, most of us here already lost all our respect for you.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, at best there is no consensus here, what is your reasoning for having this go so fast anyways? Its not like she is a vandal running around blocking whoever she feels like, she is a trusted user (as the community did give her admin status) and she made a mistake that I'm sure she really regrets. Seriously, give it a break, it is obvious that Durova is not going to listen to you and she is going to let the process work. Jimbo even said that the block was bad but, and I quote, "A bad block was made for 75 minutes. It was reversed and an apology given. There are things to be studied here about what went wrong and what could be done in the future, but wow, could we please do so with a lot less drama? A 75 minute block, even if made badly, is hardly worth all this drama." Listen to Jimbo, he knows best.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...and now for something completely different...

You have apparently misrepresented me as a bigot, as "evidence" in your current ArbCom dispute. I have not yet participated in that thread's mainspace, and was not watching it closely (I came across it by chance). You failed to ask me for clarification, or provide me any notice. Several people have pointed out how painfully ridiculous your mistake was, but you have neither retracted nor commented. AGF negates NPA, as any attempt to believe that you honestly misunderstood my comment results in an insult to your intelligence.

You have accomplished the unthinkable - making John Cleese even funnier. You have also made a serious and indefensible accusation on my character. Also, I'm one-half German, but not a bit British. sNkrSnee | t.p. 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will strikethrough promptly. It would have been more gracious to have provided this explanation without sarcasm, and with a little regret for the unintentional offense given. DurovaCharge! 03:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you just suggest that I owe you an apology? For offending YOU? sNkrSnee | t.p. 04:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I extended this to Privatemusings for unintentional offense I had given, even though other editors complained that Privatemusings had been rude to me.[5] Differences of opinion aside, we're all still people. Please refactor. DurovaCharge! 04:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, you probably have no idea how funny your misreading of conversation on Giano's talkpage was. It is in your best interest to stop asking for apologies and instead try to laugh a little bit. Seriously. Why not take tonight and tomorrow off and see if you have a different perspective on Tuesday? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you were amused. Last Friday I got some advice to take a few days' wikibreak. It was good advice, but two unintended consequences have been that some people suppose I've disrespected process regarding RFC or that I'm dragging my heels about recall. Would you like to trade places with me for two days? ;) DurovaCharge! 05:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is life after adminship

I've not encountered you often in the past, but although we've often been on the opposite side of the issue I've found your contributions and comments illuminating and useful. Others have also often expressed respect for your work.

At the moment I don't think your adminship is tenable, nor do I think a reconfirmation would be helpful (it certainly wouldn't reconfirm your adminship). I suggest that a voluntary resignation might be better for Wikipedia. There is life after adminship. In many ways it's easier. If something needs to be done, a non-admin editor can always get an admin to do it, whereas for an admin the presumption tends to be that he'll do it himself.

So I cordially invite you to join the many good Wikipedians who have voluntarily become former administrators. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)