User talk:Durin

Mail for me

• See User talk:Durin/archive for all prior discussion from this page.

Issue with fair use images.

Greetings, I was contacted by Will Pittenger. He suggested that some images on my talk page were not allowed there because of Fair Use, you can read the conversation here. These images are my own (re)creation of various logos. They have been correctly tagged and fairuse has been certified where I have not been able to release them to the public domain. I believe that eventhough they are copyrighted, the definition of "Fair use" would mean that the person that created them is allowed to display them... In anycase I don't believe this argument is valid - an example of this is the Image:Stargate-color.png image. Obviously this image is of a copyrighted work ([{Stargate]]), but it has been allowed on numerous userpages - and if we get down to semantics it should not be allowed to be released under a public domain licence because it is of a copyrighted work. Anyway, that's my rant, have a good day - Fosnez 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the man...

And don't let anyone tell you otherwise or get you down. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliment :) --Durin 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Allen Hynek

Hi, Durin: On 14:41, 18 April 2006 you reverted vandalism ("(Reverted edits by 84.133.10.155 (talk) to last version by Bwilcke"). Again and again user 84.133.etc. replaces the passage that is not to be found in the given reference ("Revelations"), I read the book and especially searched for the quote, but did not find it. Moreover, what the quote says is included in the surrounding paragraphs anyway. So I don't know why 84.133.etc. replaces the wrong passage, and he refuses to give his reasons, on the contrary, he again begins to insult me ("(Bwilcke, stubborness won't help, this just ain't right so you better shut up"). I know him, he is a German whose contributions are confined to enter or provoke edit-wars - like here - and to rare minor (mostly unreasonable) "corrections". He likes to insult not only me but also others (e.g. got blocked once for incredible contentions about the familiy of another user, unknown to him).

Could you help, please?

Bwilcke (forgot my password) -- 84.176.56.251 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me, but you might be better served by bringing this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am currently less than capable of responding to your request in a timely manner. You may receive a quicker response the admin noticeboard. --Durin 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Bwilcke — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesFort (talk • contribs)

Email

You have (at least) one :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IPs

A whole heap of IP's just leave venom on talk pages; I assure you that this is not such a message. Just wanted to let you know that the entire community appreciates your level-headed approach to just about everything that happens over here. 70.53.130.253 07:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you :) --Durin 12:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship

I was thinking of nominating myself toward the middle of March, when I expect to begin a long period of free time and thus higher activity. Outside obligations over the next two weeks will limit my contributions to time-sensitive project pages and maintenance of my usual articles. Thank you for your consideration, and I would certainly appreciate your support, but when the time comes I will probably nominate myself. BTW Encephalon appears to have made 3 edits in the past 2 months so you have a very generous definition of activity! Best, Christopher Parham (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was looking at the time difference over the last 50 edits :) True; 3 edits in the last two months. I didn't see that. Still, you did say you'd approach him first and I respect and adhere to commitments. As to self nom; be careful. I will re-iterate that I don't care who nominates you, just that it's blatantly obvious you should be an admin. Be aware; self nominations, even of long experienced users have a ~20% less chance of success. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_82#2006_RfA_In_Review for supporting data backing this up. Even noms of users >10,000 edits have an 18% better chance if not self-nommed. That's significant. It's silly really; all things being equal, there isn't any reason a self nom should have less of a chance of success than a non-self nom. Maybe there's something peculiar about self-noms that causes them to do poorly, or maybe it's contributors viewing self-noms poorly, or a combination. That's hard to discern. But, the track record says; don't self nominate if you want to succeed. There's no a single category of self-nomination users (based on edit counts) that has a better than 50% chance of success. I recommend you find someone to nominate you. If you want me to, I'll conduct a review of you. --Durin 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  Just a comment on your self-nom analysis—you seem to be ignoring the possibility that there is another correlation between self-noms and chances of success that is entirely separate from people using that as a basis for support/oppose. I tend to think such a correlation is a more likely explanation. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't ignore it. I just don't think there's a ready way to discern it. There obviously is a reason. I just don't know what it is, and I doubt anyone else does. :/ --Durin 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing: avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. But I don't know how we'd design a double-blind study on this.... Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Of course. The only thing I draw from it, which I admit is potentially misguided, is that having someone else self nom you helps to avoid this pitfall if the pitfall is rooted in the against-self-nom opinion of people voting at RfAs. If nobody is opposed to self noms because they are self noms, then its pointless. But, if some are opposed to self noms in general, then you avoid that by getting someone else to nom you. We have seen people vote oppose because it was a self nomination. *shrug* I don't care. If he wants to self nominate he can. I just want him to be an admin, and I think the best course of action is to get a nom from somebody else. --Durin 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• If people indeed view self-noms as intrinsically worse, then that is unreasonable and I see little reason to endorse such unreasonableness by catering to it. If indeed there is something other intrinsic failure that is correlated with self-nomination, then either I have this failure or I do not, and whether I self-nominate or not will not be relevant. Personally I feel nomination is useful for candidates who are unfamiliar with RfA. I am, if anything, far too familiar with it, so there is really no reason why I should be incapable of speaking for myself. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• de-indent Admirable, and I agree with you. I just hope the guinea pig doesn't get skewered. :) --Durin 21:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I hope you seriously consider running for ArbCom during the next elections. With your calm approach, facilities of analysis, and respected standing in the community, you would be an asset to the project in that role. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• thud. <dazed, confused look> whaaa? Ok, I'll grant this; I try desperately hard to remain cool under fire. I am still deeply embarrassed by some actions of mine more than a year ago and it's served as a cold, hard lesson for me since then. That said, I've never thought I would be well suited to ArbCom. Forgive me for traipsing into the court room analogy for ArbCom, but I see myself in such situations as more of a lawyer than a judge. Maybe someday I might be interested. Not right now though. Regardless, thank you very much for the kind words. Recent events have left me feeling very despondent about Wikipedia. It'll never be enough to make me leave Wikipedia; I won't ever leave over a conflict. But, when you've been run over by the steamroller a few dozen times you get to the point where you ask "Can I please ask you to grease that wheel? Please?" :) I suspect being on ArbCom is much like having the steamroller run over you *all* the time. --Durin 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll second Doug Bell on this one. --Kim Bruning 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image use

Well, that's arlight.

Thank you for clearing that up with me.

--> •Tbone55•^{(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (Autograph Book)} 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• No worries. Happy to help! --Durin 21:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

But just one question - is there anything besides editing articles that i can do to contribute to wikipedia?

Thanks,

Norkus007

• Absolutely! There's a number of ways to help. Have a look at User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary which shows the main current backlogs. Many of them have to do with articles, but there's plenty of others as well. Related, see User:Dragons flight/Category tracker. Help is always needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where you can help close AfDs that are obvious keeps or no consensus. That should be enough to get you started. If not, feel free to ask! --Durin 13:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Well of Loneliness - Cape 1928.jpg

Do I take it from your edit summary that you removed Image:Well of Loneliness - Cape 1928.jpg from Portal:United Kingdom/Featured/July 2007 (twice) simply on the basis of the tag? Do you apply the same strict rationale to images that appear in Wikipedia space, such as in WP:TFA (like this one has)?

Even assuming that a brownish page bearing the title of a book, its author, a logo, all within a black border, and little else, is capable of being protected by copyright, I don't understand the relevance of 1923 to a work published in the UK in 1928. While I am no copyright lawyer, as I understand it, there is no record of who created the title page, so, by my reckoning, copyright ran out in the UK after 70 years, in 1998. (The author of the text inside died in 1943, so the whole book - not just the rather banal front cover - will be out of copyright in October 2013). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I do apply the same rationale elsewhere. The reason is that it provides a clear line of delineation; we've tagged the image as being used here under fair use. Thus, it is not to be used outside of the main article namespace. If we suspect it's available under a free license, we need to verify that this is the case and then change the tag to reflect the new, better understanding of the image's copyright status. Then it can be used anywhere.
• There isn't anything to assume that the work is copyrightable. If I were to pen a book, title it "Nice Day", and have my publisher make the cover of the book blanch white with the words "Nice Day" in the middle of it, it is copyrightable. Even if a work is simple in nature, it can be copyrighted.
• The author of the text is in fact the author of of the cover as well; it's his book. His estate has rights to the book that are still extant, unless we otherwise verify that this is not the case. Reviewing Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#General gives us some direction in this. In particular, the tag {{PD-old}} indicates "for images where the author died more than 100 years ago (1907)". The author has not yet been dead for 100 years. Given that amazon.com is currently selling this book [1], it seems fair to conclude this work is still under copyright. Thus, by extension, the bookcover (even of the original) is still under copyright as well.
• If you can provide evidence that this work is in fact available in the public domain or released under some other free license, then please do so on the image's description page and update the tag to reflect that. At that time, the image can then be used on Portal pages or any other non-main namespace page. Until then, it may not be used outside of the main namespace. Hope this helps, --Durin 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine - well, strict rules create hard cases, of course. Someone has tagged this as "fair use" because it is a book cover, I guess. I wonder if book covers dating before 1923 have such tags? I have posted a query about copyright status on the image talk page, for what good it will do.

Other than its date of original publication, and going by the UK copyright rule of publication plus 70 years, or author's life plus 70 years, I have no idea whether this image is free or not - how would I find out? The fact that Amazon sell copies of a work is neither here nor there, really: ignoring typographical arrangement, which would have a new copyright in a new edition, I am sure they sell Shakespeare, Milton, etc. (The edition that you link has a very different cover, incidentally.)

I'm not sure it is as simple as saying that the author of a book automatically obtains copyright on the cover attached to her book by her publisher. It seems very unlikely to me that Radclyffe Hall created this cover (she, incidentally, and it is a celebrated early work of lesbian fiction, so your "his" is quite amusing), and I am sure she did not create the cover of the version that you have linked.

You will get the copyright on your blank "Nice Day" cover simply by the act of creating it, but you will have a devil of a job showing that my "Nice Day" poster is am infringing copy of it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned about the use of pronouns in this matter. I stand corrected, but no insult was intended in any respect if you took any.
• The general rule of thumb we follow here is that we assume something is copyrighted until proven otherwise. I'm sorry I can't point you to more resources on how to obtain information on that edition's copyright status. I wish I could, but I'm not a UK resident. --Durin 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no offence taken (and my apologies if you thought I had). I am sure she would not mind. Anyway, I have managed to confuse myself thoroughly by looking through our many and various pages of guidance on the subject of copyright, fair use and public domain. Never mind - life is too short to worry too much about the copyright status of a scan of a book cover that it almost 80 years old. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

With specific regard to WP:TFA, the featured article page has been given an exception to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Exceptions are rare, and to my knowledge have only been granted with regards to the main page and pages directly related to it (such as WP:TFA). --Durin 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. The rationale for this exception is to allow use that advances (the page says "necessary", but I am not convinced that even TFA is "necessary") the goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Given that the image is being used here to illustrate an explanatory blurb on a portal, just like it was in TFA, I don't see how this is any to TFA - surely a brief description of a work, accompanied by an image of it, is the archetypal "fair use"? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The use of fair use images on portals has been debated repeatedly before, and no proposal to allow it has managed to pass. Personally, I'd rather not see fair use images used on the main page; it's screaming out "we're free, but not really!". But, the decision isn't mine. As for whether something is fair use, maybe it is. The legal particulars though are deprecated here in favor of policy. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 says "even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law". So, while it may be fair use, it doesn't matter. Policy trumps the use in this case. --Durin 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Has it? I must have missed those debates, fascinating thought they no doubt are. It seems a bit peculiar to have a policy that denies us legal use of images, but there we are. All with the best of intentions, I am sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The basic core of the stance goes to ease of management. If we allowed fair use when it is legal, then we'd need a defense of the legality of the fair use in that case. We have a hard enough time getting people to add fair use rationales to images, much less add fair use rationales for why it is fair use everywhere it is used. Instead, we provide a clear line of demarcation; no fair use outside of actual articles. It's easy to manage, easy to explain. We don't have to be legal experts in fair use to be certain of whether a use is right or wrong; we just follow policy. --Durin 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking up

I award you this wiffle bat for your thoughtful commentary at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Clerks. As always, you present well researched and careful opinions in a polite and courteous manner, always putting the project first, and I want to be the first to say that I appreciate it a great deal. Each time I see you speak it seems my respect for you is elevated :) Thank you for bringing your voice of reason and kindness to the project. Kyle Barbour 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Many, many thanks. Recent events have left me a bit less than cheerful. Thank you very much for your kind words! --Durin 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was fast :) My pleasure. Don't let it get to you. I, for one, hope that you continue your fine habit of voicing your perennially meticulous opinions for a long time coming. Kyle Barbour 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Some people just don't happen to like my opinions :) No worries, there's a viewpoint for every editor here. --Durin 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

tiffs

Some bizarre things happening in wikipedia these days. All i can say is i'd rather have more like you. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's frustrating to me because my every intent in posting this in response to him was to point out that I understood his outburst was not something he had control over, and I forgave him for it. No attempt on my part was made to act or sound as if I was somehow superior to him. My every statement on Wikipedia has continually and routinely shown that I do not hold any good-faith user in any higher or lower respect than I hold myself. This includes even Jimbo, whom I have taken to task twice before for what I felt were errors on his part. Regardless, I recognized post-facto that there were other ways of interpreting my comment towards him. Because of this, I apologized twice to him [2][3]. In the last, I specifically asked him "If there's something more that I can do to make up for this error on my part, by all means please let me know." Despite this, he remains offended and continues to attack me for it. I think his userpage at this point counts as a personal attack towards me in lieu of my continued (and still extant) apologies to him. If he wants to leave Wikipedia, that's his business and I wish him the best of luck in future endeavors. But, it is inappropriate for him to use his userpage as a soapbox to blast other editors on Wikipedia. In fact, it is directly against our userpage guidelines and Jimbo's wishes. See Wikipedia:Userpage#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, and specifically the quote from Jimbo "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". I have no means of defending myself on his userpage. It is inappropriate for me to post a rebuttal there. It's inappropriate for me to remove the personal attack, since I'm the target of the personal attack. Yet, the attack remains. I've apologized twice now. I remain at his disposal if he has a suggestion on how I can make amends. I never, ever, intended any sort of insult towards him. My intent was solely to forgive him the outburst against me and to move past it.
• I appreciate your compliments! --Durin 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For this~ I came across it and noticed Hitler, it got hit about fifty times in the next ten minutes. You're awesome. --Hojimachong^talk 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome! --Durin 02:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking for some advice

I have read User:Durin/Admin voting measures, and would like some advice about your expectations for prospective admins. My first RfA (last November) failed because I had less than 500 edits and little-to-no experience of XfDs, deletion policy, and similar matters. Since then I've chalked up over 3,000 edits, participated in hundreds of XfDs, participated actively in vandal-fighting (mainly RC patrol), and gained a lot of policy experience. Needless to say, I also have a clean history (no blocks etc.) and have never been involved in a serious dispute (except as a member of the AMA, through which I participate in dispute resolution). Would you consider me a suitable candidate for adminship? (I know I am in violation of your rule about flashy signatures, but would be willing to change back to a regular signature if it would make you more likely to support me at RfA.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't support or oppose people over flashy signatures :) It does affect my choosing to nominate them, but it's really a pretty isignificant point. It sounds from the above like you've done your homework. Without reviewing you further than the above presentation of yourself, it seems like you should have an easy time at RfA. --Durin 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So if I self-nom for RfA, would you be prepared to support? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• First, I'd need to review further before I could. Second, I don't expect to be participating in any RfAs. --Durin 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking for some (image) advice 2

Durin, I came across Image:24DNTV.PNG earlier today. The image is currently listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 3 because, as the rational says, "This image is essentially a copy of the 24 logo displayed at http://www.fox.com/24/ and it is currently labeled as in the public domain. If this image is changed to fair use, it will have to be deleted under CSD-I5, since this image is only being used on userboxes." It has started an uproar at the IFD and the image's talk page. I know you very amicably and sensibly resolved the Google-box issue. Would you consider becoming involved in this one as well? --Iamunknown 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, but no thanks. I'm stepping back, at a minimum, from any adminship duties (just resigned), FU issues, WP:CHU, and WP:RFA. Enough people have found my contributions in these areas to be damaging to the project that it is better if I step aside. For what it's worth, Image:24DNTV.PNG is a blatant copyright violation and is clearly a derivative work. People can complain if they like that "it's just numbers!". But, in reality, it isn't just numbers. You could make the same argument about the Google logo. It's just letters! It's the font used, the color on the numbers, the arrangement of the numbers...these combined create a copyrightable element. There are plenty of logos out there that are little or nothing more than letters/numbers. Yet, they are protected. Thus, any assertions that this image is fully in the public domain are absolutely wrong. --Durin 04:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Changed my mind and added a 'delete' note. I was motivated to do so by the rational for it being PD at the image's talk page. --Durin 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Hoosiers

Accepting your logic, four of them don't have articles... Lambertman 01:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Having red links to future articles is ok. One of the ways we know particular articles are needed is how much they are linked to. --Durin 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, accepting your logic, no other pages link to them. Surely if they were notable, that wouldn't be the case. Lambertman 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirming de-adminship request

To steward: Confirming de-adminship request. --Durin 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To others: I am not going to discuss why this is happening. It has nothing to do with any comments anyone has made to me of late, either on my RfB or anywhere else. This is not a fit of animosity towards the project or any users. I don't expect to be able to convince some people of this, but my reasons are based in sound, rational decisions I made some months ago. For those of you who might be sad that I am stepping down as admin; forget about it. One admin of >1000 is meaningless. One editor of tens of thousands of active ones is meaningless. What any of us do here is meaningless in the grand scheme. We are all worker ants, and inconsequential by ourselves. There's been plenty of crises that Wikipedia has faced. Most recent of this was the Essjay situation. Wikipedia will continue on, and these crises will be largely forgotten. Me stepping down as admin isn't even newsworthy on Wikipedia, so it's hardly consequential. Relax. Go edit. Do something productive. --Durin 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But you're like THE go-to guy for WP:FU. Sad to see you leaving adminship. Can't say losing such a productive admin is meaningless, but if this is what you want, then we can't stop you. Hopefully w'll still see you around.--Wizardman 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Find somebody else. Personally, I think the fair use system is horribly, horribly broken here. I think it's a matter of time before the Wikimedia Foundation finds itself the subject of a very serious lawsuit over copyright abuses. Only then, only then will something be done to truly enforce copyright around here. That is, if Wikimedia survives the lawsuit (though with the recent fund drive clearing a million dollars, they might have deep enough pockets to survive it now). My efforts in the fair use realm were little more than attempting to spoon-bail the entire Nile River into the desert. They were laughably inadequate. I conducted something like 3,000 fair use image abuses over the span of about a year. At one point, I know there were in excess of 45,000 abuses by one estimate. Another estimate had it over 70,000. There just isn't enough horsepower under the current system to properly police the copyright violations on this site. I've raised this issue multiple times, but nothing happens to correct this massive shortcoming. --Durin 03:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is shocking and disappointing. If you had made these decisions months ago, then perhaps you shouldn't have done an RfB in the first place. --Hemlock Martinis 04:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'm quite happy at the outcome of the RfB. I fully expected it would not pass. I did not submit it with the hope that it would. I submitted it with the hope that it might be enough to bring people to conclude the RfB system, at a minimum (if not the RfA system in toto) is broken. Hopefully it helps to push the cart in that direction. If by some miracle it had passed, I would have happily conducted myself appropriately as a bureaucrat and done the job I had volunteered to do. But, I considered that an extremely remote possibility. I did not lie in any respect in my RfB, nor would I. It was not a falsely based attempt at wasting anyone's time or effort. I hope some good will come of it. I don't expect it will, but the effort had to be made. If we don't make the effort, we're doomed. RfB is badly broken. Consider; if we applied the same level of expectations to WP:ARBCOM, we would have promoted just three people to ArbCom during these past elections. *3*. That's it. But, the project decided in advance that any such arbitrary measures would hopelessly gridlock ourselves into oblivion, and took a different path that allowed ArbCom to do its job. Thus, a number of candidates with less than 90% were given seats on ArbCom. I can easily argue that it would "make sense" to have the threshold at ArbCom be 95%; after all, it is the most important and most difficult to accomplish position on Wikipedia. Surely we need *really* good candidates, right? Only two candidates met that threshold. Yet, Jimbo added 7 people to ArbCom. The RfB process is, not entirely said without my tongue in cheek, gridlocked by bureaucracy and an unwillingness to see the end purposes of the project. Instead, people are too wedded to the process itself. Ironically, I'm the one being called a "process wonk". Rather funny really :) --Durin 04:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, a lot of the oppose comments in yours were pretty foolish. Had I been available I would've argued a lot more than just my one comment. Even so, I disagree with your decision to resign. You can do far more good on the inside than on the outside. --Hemlock Martinis 07:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• That might be the case, and it might not be. I've received enough hate spewings that it is obvious my presence in these matters is very disruptive to Wikipedia. Nothing is more important than the project. I tried for a very long time to bring about positive change, with the result being a considerable amount of hate generated towards me. I effected no change in the process. The math becomes rather easy :) Case in point; I raised the issue of clerks on Wikipedia. In particular, the WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U clerks which were created without discussion on Wikipedia, without any consensus to do so. It was unilaterally done, and became an exclusive club. When someone did something that they were 'responsible' for doing, they attacked that person (me). Now, I need to wait on a waitlist of interminable length in order to help out, to volunteer? This is blatantly, absolutely ridiculous. When I raised the issue in abstract, I was heavily attacked by multiple people. Nobody apparently sees enough of a problem with this to say "Um, this is blatantly anti-wiki". It's hysterical really. If this sort of bureaucratic mentality is allowed to prevail, Wikipedia is going to be in very sorry shape in the future. New users are our lifeblood. This sort of behavior turns people off in droves; exclusionary clubs always do. --Durin 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry (read: shocked) to see this. I've always had respect for you as an admin and hope that you will sometime choose to re-accept adminship. --BigDT 04:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't any need. There's plenty of admins to fill my role. I wasn't even one of the top 20% most active admins. My admin activities have apparently been a serious detriment to the project, to boot. So, no need to keep the admin bit. The goals of the project trump every other consideration here, and every user here. There are, I'm sure, a number of people who appreciated my efforts here as an admin. But, that can be said of any admin here, even the worst ones. There is no admin forcibly de-adminned who did not have supporters. I don't mean to minimize your kind words. I just want to note that in the grand scheme I'm just as meaningless as an anonymous IP making a spelling correction from "hte" to "the". I matter not. Five years from now, you'll be hard pressed to even remember me :) As I said above, relax, go edit. --Durin 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation above (to H.M.) which sheds a little more light on your thought process, although frankly given the timing it is inevitable that people will conclude you left in response to the unsuccessful RfB, and I wish you had waited a few days if only to avoid people reaching, albeit wrongly, that conclusion. May I ask whether you intend to remain involved as an editor, as I hope, rather than leave entirely. And I would also be interested in your comments, if any, on the issue I raise here. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 04:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wish I could respond to you, in full. I have the utmost respect for you. Unfortunately, I can't. I will probably contribute to the discussion at WP:RFA, since as I've noted above I think I've successfully proven the RfB system, at a minimum, is horribly broken. --Durin 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely...both Rfb and Rfa are lousy. Nice thing is, if you decide you want to be readminned, all you have to do is ask...and presto! (But I am deeply troubled by your desire to be deadminned and hope you reconsider...quickly) Not to disparage those that opposed your Rfb, but honestly, what is the big deal...I see no evidence you would have promoted admin nominees without a clear consensus, and well, bot flags and changing usernames...those are just more tools. So the opposition seemed to more interested in using your Rfb nomination as an opportunity to make comments as preposterous as "I cannot think of a more unsuitable candidate to occupy such a position"...a more unsuitable candidate? Okay, yeah, sure, that makes a lot of sense. As far as you nominating yourself so soon after Essjay resigned, so what...like you were standing over some guy YOU just killed off just so you could get his old job! Facts are, with Essjays leaving, there is reason to seek a replacement, and what's the sense in waiting...I simply don't get it.--MONGO 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I could be re-adminned. But, there really isn't any point. My primary work here really wasn't as an admin anyways. Yeah, I did a bunch of deletions and occasionally (very occasionally) used blocks to enforce policy. But, my work as an admin is readily replaceable. There won't be any significant harm to the project by my not conducting admin work. If instead of resigning my adminship bit I had just stopped doing admin stuff, nobody would have noticed. Same applies with giving up the admin bit. Nobody will notice in terms of actual impact on the project.
    • Rebecca (Ambi)'s comment was pretty funny. I was on her shitlist for a long time (User:Rebecca/Users to watch). People raised a massive fuss about other people's shitlists, and those were deleted. That one still exists. I expected an oppose from her, just because she hates me. It's an irrational oppose, and speaks a heck of a lot more about her than me. I also really thought Kelly Martin's oppose, which was the first on the RfB, was absolutely hysterical. Contrast her statement with a message she left on my talk page back in December [4]. Obviously two-faced. I'm perfectly willing to accept criticism when it's based in some reality. But, these comments are about as disconnected as they come.
    • Part of the reason why I wanted to give up the adminship has to do with your de-adminship. I *almost* gave it up when you were de-adminned. Your deadminning is possibly the most irrational thing I've seen on Wikipedia. The arbitrators never could satisfactorily answer the challenges I put before them. The net result of their actions proved very chilling to my actions. I almost entirely stopped editing contentious pages after that ruling. Their ruling essentially came down to that if you're an admin, and you use your privileges on a contentious page, you stand to lose your privileges. I.e., the vandals and trolls win. *shrug* If that's the Wikipedia they want...
    • The timing of the RfB opposition is just political grandstanding. It proves part of what is wrong with RfA and RfB. It's political. When someone applies should be absolutely meaningless, unless we have pre-determined election cycles as we do with ArbCom. I refuse to play these political games. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to game systems into our political favor so we can spend our volunteer times in ways that we want. Anybody running for RfB now needs a political adviser and a public relations/image consultant just to make sure they don't screw up. Oh what a tangled web we weave. --Durin 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Durin, I promised not to join in the chorus of voices, but given your engagement in the discussion I'm going to go against my previous promise. I hope you reconsider. I hope if you don't, you stay as an editor. I'll even stop saying we don't need to reform RfA and RfB if you do. You've proved your point, OK? I get it. Please reconsider. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is such terrible news. I think you have been an excellent admin, taking on the thankless task of dealing with fair use issues. I would have supported you in the RFB, though I was waiting a few days before voting for anyone. From what I've seen of you as an editor, you have done excellent work too. We need you to stick around. --Aude (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll re-iterate what I've said before. All of us are worker ants, and there's nothing that I do that is irreplaceable. I'm not even in the top 1/5th of most active administrators. My lack of activity as an administrator will not be noticed, and if I hadn't stepped down and just stopped doing admin stuff, nobody would have noticed. It's only because I publicly (by way of this talk page) did so that anybody has even noticed.
• Nobody's yet produced any reason why I should come back. Now, don't take that wrong; I'm not asking people to say "we need you, please come back! Especially because XYZ" etc..etc..etc.. I am saying that there isn't a reason why I should come back as an admin that makes sense in the context of the worker ant analogy. We've had plenty of people considerably more involved in the project than I who have stopped doing what they do, with no significant impact to the project. Stop 1 along the tour of such people is Larry Sanger. Even if Jimbo himself left, Wikipedia would continue on. We might miss some people, but the actual functioning of the project goes on. It is important to stay focused on what it is we do here and forget any social/political ramifications of any one user staying or leaving. It's quite meaningless. If Larry can leave without the project collapsing, it sure as heck is the case that any of us can leave without any particular impact on the project. :) --Durin 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Top 1/5 of administrators? such numbers don't matter that much. I noticed you taking on tough issues, which surely will bring trolls and some backlash. I don't have the patience or temperament to handle issues such as fair use, and won't be replacing you and your efforts. I'm not sure who will. You will be missed and not that easy to replace. --Aude (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As for "nobody would have noticed", I would have noticed since I now have the "User rights log" pages bookmarked and look at them and like to see what's going on. --Aude (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, losing one (good) administrator is quantitatively worse than losing one non-admin; the mean active admin is demonstrably more productive than the mean active non-admin, that's why the wind up as admins. Merely numerically, we should wish you well without your sysop bit and carry on. There'll be a new admin promoted shortly, and plenty more after that.

Numerically, though, is not what Wikipedia is about. Rarely has so much been produced by so few for so many. Rarely does something so open to abject collapse hold together. The admins are to a pretty key extent, the glue that holds this place together. (Non-admins: clearly you are of essential vitality too, but this place would be a bit like 28 Days Later without the admins, only it would not take so many days to descend.) Durin, a good admin, one who learns their way and studies their craft, who gets it right more than wrong and who has a high feedback coefficient when they do get it wrong becomes a guide for others to follow, footsteps to mark the way. Long-serving admins (yes, you are, NoSeptember says so) have an accumulated body of knowledge — institutional memory, if you will — that others, admins and non, learn from and develop in light of. A softly-spoken but unafraid admin can, by virtue of having the buttons to mean what they say, see to it that a thing is done right and not wrong. A well-established admin, Wikipedically-expert in a field can lend that guidance that the rest of us need in that field, and show how something can be done and made to stay done, or undone can caused to remain undone. Then others learn how too, and go on to teach still others. This, really, is the value of a Good Admin. You are, by all accounts, such an admin.

Now, we have some admins-emeriti that do very well, thank you, without the bit, and you will too. But I think the question has to be whether the project, in the short-, medium- and long-terms has benefit that could be derived from the experienced retaining their buttons still. That, probably incalculable, equation is the acid test. Do at least consider it. Splash - tk 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Very well spoken.
• I have to admit that the issue of "accumulated knowledge" is part of what kept me going after fair use violations. About 3-4 months into it, following my clearing out every violation in every userbox, I came to a point where I wanted to give it up. I stayed in it precisely because of the accumulated knowledge bit. With the self-training on this issue, and knowing right off when I see an image whether it is highly likely to be a violation, or one that seems likely but I have reviewed before, I was very efficient at handling it. Maybe there were others better than I; but I was good at it. I could zip through pages like Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States in seconds and immediately spot those that had it wrong. But, the fair use issue is one that is realistically impossible to fight. As I noted above, I was spoon-bailing the Nile into the desert. I think I got Repetitive strain injury from it :) So, while I did help in that realm, ultimately it doesn't matter. Nobody can beat the fair use problems. Want to know what one of the most hysterical things about fair use abuses is? On every...every...page we say "The free encyclopedia". Yet, Raul654, one of the most trusted users on Wikipedia, routinely puts up a featured article with the picture being a fair use image. We're a free encyclopedia, yet we're hawking our wares with non-free imagery. Ridiculously stupid and absurd. The culture here vis-a-vis copyrights is way, way off base and nobody cares enough to do anything about it. Nobody will care enough until there is a lawsuit. There will be one. Count on it.
• As to getting it right more often than wrong. I'll grant that I probably did. But, enough people here have concluded that I am a highly disruptive presence. I find it absolutely hysterical that I am found at fault for eventually protesting User:Husnock's attacks against me. For more than a week he conducted a verbal assault on me, making all sorts of accusations from minor to breaking the law against him and his family. Nobody raised a finger in protest for quite some time. It was only after I pointedly talked to two members of ArbCom that anything happened, and yet STILL he went unblocked with no serious warnings. The guy was uploading a dizzying array of images in blatant violation of our policies here. When I called that into question, I was roundly attacked for it. I have enough patience to watch paint dry on a few dozen houses while he flailed wildly against me. Apparently, I should have never said anything, else I'll lose in an RfB. Oops, can't do my job here because I might upset somebody enough to protest me at any turn. User:RickK was right. Read his userpage. I encountered someone who was worse than a vandal or troll. I encountered someone who was blatantly violating copyright. For trying to get that resolved and protect the project, I am prevented from volunteering my efforts in ways that I think can help. For doing the right thing, I am prevented from doing the right thing. That's a fatal flaw.
• The net sum of this is that it doesn't matter if I can provide a guide or not. Oddly enough, I did provide a guide at WP:GRFA. For my efforts, I was soundly attacked and accused of all manner of things.
• Wikipedia is not a meritocracy. As a result, it suffers from a huge number of problems. Of course, it would suffer from other problems if it were. What Wikipedia operates on is social currency. If people like you, then you can do what is right. But, if you do what is right too much then people won't like you. If people don't like you, you won't be allowed to volunteer in ways that you can help. Within this framework, it's impossible for me to do what I am best at. I can't do the right thing.
• Want to know what the RIGHT thing is? The right thing is for me to go and remove any mention of clerks from WP:CHU and restructure the page to be more user friendly and accepting of people. Essjay (forgive me for walking on graves, I know not what I do and can't imagine why I should care about the political ramifications of that) unilaterally decided that WP:CHU should have clerks. He didn't discuss it in the open with anyone. He didn't bring it up on the WP:CHU talk pages. He didn't bring it up at WP:BN. He just instituted it. To hell with consensus, to hell with working within the community. Have a look at the now deleted User:Essjay/Never pee in the sandbox. Essjay was deliberately and blatantly creating a little fiefdom for himself and his pet clerks. Anyone who dared mention this was problematic was shredded. Now, if I go to WP:CHU and do the right thing, I will be labeled as disruptive. If I keep it up, I'll be blocked. Ridiculously absurd! But you know what? Nobody's going to do a damn thing about it.
• Every person here should be fighting tooth and nail against this ridiculous bureaucratic growth. Yet, nobody will. Count on it. Nobody is stupid enough (well, apparently except me) to raise issues with these things. To do so spends social currency. To do so means that down the road you're going to be prevented from doing things because you can't win an election. So, unless you become a mainspace gnome and stay out of the way of the social (read: non-mainspace) areas of the project, you're screwed. It's a silly, stupid system but that is what has been wrought.
• The lobster is being boiled. But, the only people in a position to do anything about it are the other lobsters in the pot. You're all victims of yourselves. --Durin 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed your RfB, sorry i could not comment. If you are getting opposed by the likes of Kelly Martin and Ambi, and you not a trolling vandal (you're not), then you must be doing a lot right. You would have got my vote for sure. I realised long ago that the social element was a problem here. Esperanza was an open version but clearly there are similar groups operating behind closed doors. There are just too many who care about the clubs and cliques rather than the encyclopedia itself. There must be a thesis in this for someone. David D. (Talk) 17:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I once noted that rather than being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is an experiment in sociology and that indeed someone could base their PhD work on it. There's certainly plenty enough raw data. --Durin 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• My feelings echo what Splash has said. Just because we all are "worker bees" does not mean that we shouldn't fight to keep each worker bee going, especially the veterans. The project may not miss the work you do as an individual, but that is a quantitative measure. Wikipedia was not built on the sum of this type of quantitative measure -- it was built because of the influence every member of the project has had on every other member of the project and their work. This makes members of the project, especially proven veterans like yourself, much more valuable than their individual work. -- Renesis (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Even if we label the group of people in opposition to me as a minority (which I doubt), it's still a significant enough minority that there really isn't a reason why I should not view myself as a disruptive, interfering, officious, inflexible user. I'm using about 1/5th of the pejorative terms used against me :) Maybe 1/10th :) I'm in the way. The needs of the project outweigh my needs...which are none. I have no 'need' to edit here, or 'need' to be an admin. A better expression of support for the project would be to take every measure to correct the attitudes of people like User:Sumoeagle179 and User:Gmaxwell, who opposed my RfB because I eventually became irritated, after days and days and days of verbal onslaught and nobody raising a finger to help me, with User:Husnock's blatant attacks upon me. I bent over backwards to accomodate Husnock, doing everything under the sun to educate him, help him, and get him to understand the copyright issues here. Instead of being told I did the right thing, I was treated like crap, and worse told that if I raised an issue with how I was treated, I was "inflexible" and "overly sensitive to criticism". I guess my even raising this issue here proves I am overly sensitive. Ok, I guess we shouldn't be overly sensitive to a user blatantly and willfully violating our copyright policies. Better yet, we should tear down any user who stands in support of our copyright policies; they are inflexible policy wonks after all. --Durin 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC) PS: Congrats on the username usurpation :)

  While you may have had your share or more than your share of insults thrown at you, I disagree with your assessment that they are correct and/or representative of enough people to label you as in the way or disruptive. In addition, anyone who opposed you "per Kelly Martin" should be ashamed of themselves, as her statement was completely out of line, unhelpful, and a pathetic appeal to those who are sorry for the loss of Essjay (as if we should mourn for a period before we make sure we can get done without him what was being done with his help). -- Renesis (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  I fully expected Kelly Martin to oppose my RfB. She is still bitter about the failing of her RfB, and blames me for it. An interesting contrast to her position is this edit she made leaving me a message on my talk page back in December. I also fully expected Gmaxwell and Rebecca to oppose; both have hated me for as long as I opposed Kelly Martin. *shrug* --Durin 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well, apparently that's what you get for spending your social currency! :) -- Renesis (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  "Brother/sister, can you spare a dime?" :) --Durin 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image thought

Durin, I know that you've probably thought of this before, but here goes: would it feasible to find out, by analyzing a dumped Wikipedia database, which fair use images are being used in non-article space? Would you consider helping out with that? I would like to, although I admit I would be unable to contribute to the analysis of the dump. --Iamunknown 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's actually been done. That was one of the estimates that arrived at a figure somewhere in the 40 thousands of fair use image violations. That was roughly a year ago. Not sure when. But, yes, it's been done. It's a great idea of course. The crucial thing that is really needed is to have something to act on that data. There's been calls for a bot to do the work by more people than myself. Nothing has come of it yet. One of the chief underlying problems to all of this is that there are a *dizzying* array of people who simply do not care whether they are violating copyright. I recently ran into a user who was mad as heck at me because I was making his userbox not look pretty. So, if we have a bot enforcing fair use image abuse, people will intentionally tag images improperly so it gets past the bot. If we had 50 people working every day on fair use image abuse, we'd incur similar problems. It's pretty much a no-win situation. That's why I think it will take a serious lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation before anything is really done about this.
• And you want to know what the kicker in all of this is? This is just *images*, which are usually relatively easy to figure out. I don't even want to think about the textual copyright violations that are all over the site. It's a wonder to me that a lawsuit hasn't been filed yet. --Durin 13:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Are people who are in power to make policy among the dizzying array? If not, then we might be able to get copyright violations to be a blockable offense. --Iamunknown 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • All policies at Wikipedia are editable by anyone. So, I assume you mean people in board and/or ArbCom positions? I don't know of anyone at those levels who is making copyright violations. People do get blocked if they repeatedly violate our copyright policies. --Durin 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to agree. Even if Wikimedia itself can survive a major lawsuit or two, one of our goals is to produce a body of open content that others can use... Given how frequently we find copyright problems, and how ineffective our process for discovering and preventing copyright problems is, it really degrades the value of the content we distribute, because it's nearly impossible for someone else to comb through and try to fix all the copyright issues. --Interiot 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The very thing that makes Wikipedia work, an open model, can ultimately not work within the constraints of copyright and have any chance of success. There will be a lawsuit. When it happens, Wikipedia is going to have to take a very long, very hard look in the mirror. What we are ultimately can not be. Other major sites have been sued before, most recently youtube. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. --Durin 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason for resigning

Durin, I wish that you hadn't resigned. I know you felt it appropriate because you felt that your activities weren't appreciate and, even worse, spurned. I'm sorry I never supported you; I always admired your work with fair use images. Besides going on a fair use removal rampage, is there anything you think I could do to help you out? And further, is there anything you think I could do to help out Wikipedia at large? --Iamunknown 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think I need to separate this out and respond to the apparent reasons. I did not resign because my activities weren't sufficiently appreciated or because they were spurned. I resigned for private reasons that are tied to a decision I made some months ago. I do feel that I am sufficiently enough an obstacle to Wikipedia that my presence is unwanted and disruptive. I can cite a large number of users who believe this. Some of these same users insist I am inflexible and incapable of taking criticism. The proof against that is my willingness to step away. If, as they say, I am as bad as they think then obviously the best course of action is to remove myself from editing. If that's not proof of being flexible and open to criticism, I'm at a loss as to what I could do to prove otherwise. Regardless, it has little to do with why I resigned my adminship. I've probably blurred that distinction in some posts of mine. Consider the error on my part corrected, and take this statement in whole. --Durin 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• As to what you can do to help the project; you're a volunteer. Find things that interest you here, and conduct yourself appropriately. It's that easy. I think you already know what to do. So go do it :) --Durin 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know which users you are referring to, I'm going to talk with them. --Kim Bruning 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

24DNTV.PNG

When you undo someone else's edits to put in a tag they removed, it would be helpful to review the rest of their edits to see if they were helpful. I had to merge your edit with that of another editor because of this lack of care. Nardman1 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like it might be helpful not to remove the tag in the first place. --Iamunknown 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Husnock/Durinconcerns

FYI, User:Husnock/Durinconcerns has been nominated for deletion. Since it concerns you, you may wish to offer a !vote on it. --BigDT 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has been an amazing source of comedy for me today. Months back, Husnock launches a full-on assault against me, accusing me of a dizzying array of actions consistent with gross misconduct, including even breaking the law in real life. Nobody dares to step in and actually do something about it. Can't step on any toes now can we? That would be unseemly and others might not like what we do. So, let Husnock go on his week+ long diatribe against Durin. So, Durin eventually fights back.
• Months later, at his RfB, Durin's RfB is torpedoed in part because he eventually fought back.
• A day later, someone comes along and says "Gosh, maybe that blatant attack page against Durin wasn't such a hot idea afterall".
• This is just _too_ funny! I dare anyone to write better comedy than this stuff. Robin Williams would have a hay day with this!
• In the end, it doesn't matter if it's deleted or not now. It already had the effect of, at least, partially destroying my persona on the project. That it was allowed to exist at all is proof positive of the ridiculous lackadaisical attitude taken with regards to personal attacks. It might even be best to leave it undeleted, as a monument to incompetence; not to Husnock of course, but to the others who should have stepped in and nipped it in the bud. --Durin 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Promotional images galour

Durin, I've decided to start tagging promotional images for speedy deletion if the image is in fact repeatable. I created a custom template, and have only orphaned and tagged one image / notified one uploader. Since you have experience with fair use images, would you consider offering any suggestions? Feel free to dirctly edit my template at User:Iamunknown/promomsg or comment on the talk page. I've invited Calton as well, since I know that s/he has a lot of experience with tagging user's pages. Thank you, Iamunknown 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• That looks fantastic! Nice work! There's a disruptive user who's uploaded some images in this category. You might want to use that template on Image:PaulCayard.jpg. :) (yes, that image probably should go) --Durin 13:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Further

Just wanted to restate what I said earlier...that I am disappointed that another seasoned admin had relinquished their tools...but if the decision is the best one for you, then I support your action. I also agree with your commentary above...if you do much more than wikignome your way around the project, then an Rfa is going to have some opposes and an Rfb is going to be nearly impossible to achieve...needless to say, I haven't noticed exactly how many have attempted to get a crat slot, but as you know, we haven't promoted anyone to that level since June 2006...that's a long time on this website. I believe the chance for a successful promotion is so low, it keeps a lot of potential candidates away since, well, who likes to lose. I really hate seeing people not learn to forgive(?) petty disagreements or use Rfa/Rfb oppose votes for revenge purposes. I suppose it is hard for some people to let go of past disagreements...and that to me, as it seems as well to you, to be simply a sign of immaturity. I'm about to hid out to the middle of my state and see if I can't get a few images of the half million Sandhill Cranes that fly through here every March...check the webcam I just checked it but only saw Mallards:[5]--MONGO 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some time ago, I set out on a particular plan of action with regards to bureaucratship and adminship. The vast majority of what I have done since then, in so far as it has related to those roles, has been in support of that plan of action. Being at the point I am now, after months of effort, provides me the podium on which to lampoon RfA and destroy it. It needs to be destroyed because it is destroying the project by way of interfering in our purpose here; that of building an encyclopedia. RfA has for quite some time now contributed to preventing us from achieving that goal. I have to admit that it was hard to countenance the idea of spending every scrap of social currency I have here in order to achieve this goal. But, the needs of the project outweigh any other consideration. Nevertheless, it's been a hard road for me. A few things galvanized me along this path. One was the essay at http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html. Two was the absurd (and provably so) forcible de-adminning of you. Three was the amazingly ridiculous attack upon me for helping out at WP:CHU by Essjay and his clerks.
• One other aspect that galvanized me was Essjay, though not in relation to his actions towards me but rather the way in which he was previously revered. I anticipated something happening to Essjay. I didn't know what, but I expected it to happen. Why? Because the higher you rise in any structure, the further you have to fall, and the more firm your foundation must be to prevent that fall. No other user other than Jimbo himself had the kind of power that Essjay had on Wikipedia. He had every bit that you could have here; checkuser, oversight, admin, bureaucrat, boardvote, arbcom. He achieved all of these things in less than two years at Wikipedia. Astronomical, meteoric rise in responsibilities and privileges here. If you view yourself as nothing more than every other editor on Wikipedia, as a nobody who happens to have some extra privileges, then you're probably ok. Essjay was anything other than this. He was exceptionally proud of his accomplishments here, wore them as badges, and displayed them all over his userpage. To me, that was a sign of impending doom, especially in a system that is tied to respecting every user from the outset, and not having any significant meritocracy structure. To me, what I thought was the last straw that foretold the impending doom was when he was (a) hired by Wikia and (b) appointed to ArbCom when a significant number of other candidates who had actually run garnered enough support from the community to be well capable of filling the role. I bear no malice towards Essjay. In fact, I feel sorry for him because within a very short time span he was ripped from his lofty position, trashed in the dirt, and forced to resign. Worse, because of its real life effects, he had to quit his job at Wikia. Somewhere in Kentucky there is a very despondent person who was thoroughly addicted to Wikipedia and has been treated like shit and tossed out into the cold on the nearest rubbish heap. Deserved or no, his current emotional state is probably exceptionally low, and his prospects for getting a job are affected since his name is now all over the press.
• These things proved to me that the system is broken, and horribly so. It was time to add my voice to the maelstrom of people who insist this system is broken. For my own part, my position is the system is broken because we have drifted very far away from our core principles. I believe the core principles are solid and can work because they rely on the presumption that the vast majority of humanity will work towards the common good. I still believe that. I think we all must believe that on some level or we'd call it quits from humanity. --Durin 14:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd largely agree with the above. Generally when people seek every status that was coded into the software, its a problem. As for RfB, I've posted a quick expectation list here. I could image some users who could pass that, as long as we allow for people to have made some occasional mistakes. Voice-of-All 20:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

I uploaded a picture but messed it up can you put it on speedy deletion so it can be deleted right away? {{[Image:800px-Kya Universe copy.png]}} -hotspot

• Just add the tag {{db-author}} to it, and an administrator will see that it gets deleted. --Durin 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]

okay thanks-hotspot

On the Fair Use of images in Userboxes

I recently constructed two Userboxes {{Cyprus File}} and {{Rastapopoulos Panoussis}}. You proceeded to edit the photos away on the grounds that they violated the fair use criteria. I am very new with Userboxes, but I assumed that that using photos whose use is deemed fair on Wiki articles would also render their use in Userboxes fair. Is that not the case? I would appreciate it if you took some time to explain why they are not acceptable in your view. Thanks Rastapopoulos 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly. I usually append User:Durin/Removal of fair use images to edit summaries when I remove fair use images. That should go a long way to explaining. The basic policy is this; fair use images are allowed on actual encyclopedia articles, though if free license images can be found to replace them they are usually deleted. Outside of the main article namespace, in places such as userboxes or userpages, fair use tagged images (usually have a big red C on them) are not permitted to be used. Hope this helps, --Durin 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to expain this. Am I correct in understanding that *all* userboxes that include photos are no longer allowed by Wiki? If not, can Userboxes be linked to photos under any circumstance? Finally, does your commentary at User:Durin/Removal of fair use images reflect official Wikipedia policy? Thanks again Rastapopoulos 14:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rasta, userboxes can have images but not images that are fair use. That is, we can use public domain images, GFDL etc but not images under standard copyrights. JoshuaZ 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Concur with JoshuaZ. Yes, User:Durin/Removal of fair use images reflects official policy. It is virtually entirely based on Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, which is official policy. If you find free license images that you want to use on your userbox, then feel free to use them. A good place to start to find such images is at Commons. --Durin 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Perfectly understood, thanks folks Rastapopoulos 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you for being so pleasant about this! So often I see users going ballistic because their userbox was affected and (to quote many) "doesn't look pretty anymore". --Durin 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm only unpleasant with unpleasant people :) Later, Rastapopoulos 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about the icon on my World of Warcraft userbox. To solve the problem, I've since created a series of letter-based icons that everyone can use as I have put them in the public domain, and have already uploaded five of them. 21 more to go :) -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cup (NSCL)

Hi. I'd be glad if you reviewed this. It's twice reposted material. I've just been correctly admonished for tagging it as repost, as it's not been to AfD. With my A7 tag, if an admin deleted, can they salt the article without it having been to AfD? Seems an oddity of policy if that's correct. --Dweller 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't mean to be brusque, I'm not an editor anymore really. My focus is pretty limited at this point to a few specific things. You might be better served taking this up at WP:AN. --Durin 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. You weren't brusque, just a little mysterious! --Dweller 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Read this for starters :) --Durin 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh my. I'm too knackered to "get" the basis for the discussion, but you're clearly under some pressure. I wish you well (I'll spare you the patronising tea/wikibreak/psychiatrist claptrap). You're someone I've seen around a lot and have immense respect for. Please remember that the vast majority of rank and file Wikipedians, the ones who don't massively chime in on these debates, are immensely grateful for the help people like you offer. People like me fill your talk pages with requests for help, just as vandals fill your pages with abuse. Both should be worn like medals around your neck. --Dweller 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I like wearing them like this (see signature) :) --Durin 23:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Durin, I believe your extremely stressed out. Please do take a wikibreak and go on a nice and relaxing for a holiday. Thereś no point in continuing with wikipedia politics. I do hope you take my comments seriously. If you reply to this post, I will assume you are pretty stressed out. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• <hysterical laugh> If I reply it's proof I'm stressed? Let me get this right; I got myself (intentionally I might add) in a position in which I could protest a number of problems with Wikipedia. I stridently oppose a number of things that I find problematic with Wikipedia. And now I'm being told to leave Wikipedia? If you want me to leave Wikipedia on such terms, you're going to have to block me. Yet, there is no reason to do so. I have disrupted nothing. I have attacked no one. I have pilloried a number of concepts at Wikipedia, to some success I might add with the elimination of clerks at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. I'm sorry, but your attempt at silencing me is not working. --Durin 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I not asking you to quit wikipedia. Neither do I believe in blocking people, more so people I hold in high regard. You are stressed, your reply indicates that, these sort of replies never used to come from you. To respond to each point: 1) I have not said you attacked anyone 2) I have not asked you to quit wikipedia 3) I am not attempting to silence your free expression. 4) I am not willing to block people on mere whim. From my perspective it seems to be that you feel that wikipedia hates whatever you say. I sure assuming good faith could help here. I not asking you to leave because you are protesting. From your posts at WP:BN, WT:RFA and this page it looks like you could do with a holiday. (A real one -- for your health). You can always continue the discussion after you return. Sorry if my advice was ill taken. I wont reply any more. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate your input. I do not view Wikipedia hates whatever I say. Frankly, I don't care if every person here hates what I say. It is of no consequence to me. I have no social currency here and I do not want any, as it is central to my protest. As I pointed out in an earlier edit of mine, if people want to scoff at me that's fine by me. It further proves the absurdity of their position. I'm backed up by the five pillars. They are backed up by a desire to push bureaucracy into a system that just doesn't need it. My health is fine, and I assure you that I am (a) being quite rational in my approach and (b) this is a planned out process for me, at least in overarching plans of action. Of course I can't plan out every word that I say in advance :) --Durin 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Addendum; saying "I won't reply anymore"...I just don't understand. Feel free to not reply if you like, but discussions are what make this place tick. Without them, we are nothing. --Durin 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nichalp, I just wanted to add here...you are correct to an extent in the above; I took your comments too harshly and I apologize. I jumped too fast in seeing incoming knives. I'm sorry. --Durin 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Trusted users

Thanks for the note, in a lot of ways this whole issue revolves around the selection of a group of editors and identifying them as trusted. The problem there is that (no matter how hard you try to prevent it) it becomes a status symbol. Much like becoming an admin is now...not the same thing but it's become a goal for many people. The best way to do this sort of thing is to let everyone participate and if someone has a track record of not getting it or screwing things up, you have a word with them...ask them to stay away or whatever. Anyway, thanks. RxS 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Which is why Rdsmith4's refactor of the clerk system at WP:CHU into "assistance" was brilliant. Totally removed the status symbol. You might want to see my latest reply to the WP:BN board. Insanely long post, but perhaps worth the read. --Durin 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup.

Hear hear. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Present

Online on wiki and irc now. --Kim Bruning 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Durin...

...I have gone into hibernation on Wikipedia due to several reasons, most important being other neglected priorities in life catching up with me. Also, I thought, as long as you are around, there would be a steady stream of admins mentored by you. I just noticed that you have resigned your adminship and have also got an inkling of why you have done that. I respect your decision and also thank you for spending a lot of valuable time in the construction of this project and in developing leaders. I hope (and I am definite) that you would stay on as an active user as Wikipedia needs users in good standing like you to take the project to greater heights. If you feel like dropping a reply to this, please do so on my talkpage as I would continue to be very irregular on Wikipedia and lose track of this conversation. --Gurubrahma 06:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship and dewiki

I'm trying to contact you in IRC right now but you're not responding. sebmol 17:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship IRC

Hi Durin, I am referring to your request on DE. I am on IRC right now, logged in as AT-wp. Cheers --Berolina 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Damn. Where'd I leave my delete key... --Durin 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I agree that social currency is sometimes a barrier to doing the right thing but I also think you undervalue it tremendously. I would still defer to you in matters of fair use images, not because I want to be your friend, but because you have taken the time to amass a level of expertise that I am unwilling to do; it is more efficient for you to know some things and for I to know others than for both of us to try to know everything. I know who in my department will help me with a problem and who will try to undermine me so I avoid him. That is applicable here just as well. The key is finding the right balance but that is true in any human endeavor. Anyway, as I said I appreciate your thoughts but not ncessarily your methods. Thatcher131 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• <Nod> I hope you don't think I'm trying to undermine you. --Durin 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD Started

I've gone ahead and opened up the page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Durin/Husnock images/2nd nomination. I think it would be better for everyone. I did suggest merging the material into an offical page, so that your index work is not erased. Werewolfman07 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

FOTW GIF image --> uploaded SVG

Durin, Image:Flag of FOTW.svg is licensed under CC-BY-2.5. I assume it is legally considered a derivative work of the flag at FOTW. It seems silly that the uploader can claim copyright and thus offer a license for his/her image. Furthermore, I find no indication at the FOTW website that the image is licensed as such. I just want clarification: do you think the claim is as ludicrous as I do? I intend to tag or otherwise list the image for deletion. --Iamunknown 07:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• In general, if somebody recreates something by re-drawing it, they don't gain full rights to the image because they made it. Imagine if I drew the Coca-Cola logo and made a million t-shirts with it. Coca-Cola would be on me faster than I could put one of the t-shirts on. --Durin 13:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• The author erred on this one. National flags are not copyrighted, but the use of them are restricted in some countries. FOTW is not a nation, so claiming to put up a flag as cc-by-sa would be a copyvio, since the image by default would be copyrighted ('trademarked' would be something of an apt analogy.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:RFCU and clerks

I saw the change this afternoon and I appreciate the message, this way I won't forget ^^. I have a lot on my hands these days so I will wait for things to settle down and I will probably give a hand later. Thanks again! -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks for letting me know. I too will probably wait until things calm down a bit, and see how things are going on the clerking front before jumping straight in! Thanks, Martinp23 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to catch up on things...

I was away for a few days, and inactive for several weeks (while failing to put up a wikibreak sign), and then, when I started looking around again, I discovered several things had happened. First, I found the Essjay controversy, and then I read your talk page and found that things had been happening here as well!

So... I'm wondering what to make of it all. I've read some of what you've written here, and I generally agree with it. Not quite sure what to make of the "RfA is broken" thing, but I recently have been coming to the realisation that some aspects of adminship are very different from editing. Is it not worth considering a real separation of powers, with housekeeping admin powers separated from the more controversial admin powers (blocking, for example). It has always seemed crazy to me that those wanting to just edit, and be able to edit more efficiently, have been forced to spend time on block actions and policies. Ditto for copyright enforcement. The credentials thing (Essjay) is a bit of a red herring, as the default status should be not to believe on-wiki claims about users. A textbook case of WP:V, but applied to a user, not an article. One more thing, and please don't take this the wrong way, you mentioned Essjay having badges of honour decorating his user page, saying who he was on Wikipedia and what he did. I was actually reminded of your rather nice user page, which is similarly well organised. I would actually say (though I can't remember exactly what Essjay's page looked like) that there is a fine line between a well-organised page and a self-promoting one. Anyway, just some thoughts. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Carcharoth 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really want to comment too much on Essjay. He's an example, but there are plenty of others. I've seen an increasing number of user pages that have cute little icons in the upper right of their userpages. It's become vogue to do so, I think in part because it's different (for now anyways). Essjay had about 20 icons of different things he was responsible for either by way of volunteering or by way of appointment, all lined up in the upper right of his page. That's badge wearing to me. In the long run, it doesn't matter what a user puts on their userpage. It's not the encyclopedia. But, when the essence of badge wearing gets in the way of our purposes, then it becomes inherently bad. It helps to foment ideas like "I am better than these editors, because I've been given this trust". That's inherently anti-wiki. We trust all users, even anonymous IPs, to edit our most precious resources here; encyclopedia articles. Barriers to editing, barriers to volunteering should be torn down with vigor wherever they are found. --Durin 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Durin/Husnock_images

I came across User:Durin/Husnock_images at MfD. A derivative work is a violation of a holder's copyright in many countries, including the United States, if created without permission. For this permission to be valid, Wikipedia requires this permission to be on file with the Wikipedia Communications committee. See when permission is confirmed. You do not need to ask Husnock if he has such permission, Husnock must provided such permission to the Wikipedia Communications committee. After the Wikipedia Communications committee receives the permission, somebody with access to OTRS will come along and tag the article or image with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }} providing evidence of the received email and clearing the status of the item in question. Until that time, the image may proceed through a normal deletion process. If you have any questions, User:Jkelly has considerable experience with the Wikipedia Communications committee. -- Jreferee 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... just by way of background, Durin is one of our leading experts on these issues and had been engaged in addressing these issues with Husnock for months. The matter has been through lots of threads on various noticeboards as well as a lengthy arbitration case, and I think you can take it that Durin is aware of the requirements to a greater extent than just about anyone else around. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions: what is the backgounrd of...

...people using the term "!votes" and opposed to "votes" and what does the former signify that the latter does not? --Iamunknown 22:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hell sir, and welcome to RfA. Would you like that in chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla? That's about what it amounts to. RfA is not a vote, but it is a vote, but since it's not a vote and it is a vote it's an opinion which has the weight of a vote that isn't a vote and i'mgoingcrazyjusttryingtokeepupwithitallandinsteadi'mjustgoingtocallit "!vote". You understand the math of !x, yes? --Durin 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The math of x!? 1*2*3*...*(x-2)*(x-1)*x :D --Iamunknown 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, !x not x! :) Boy, I remember the days of my old high school calculator taking 4 seconds to figure out 69!. But, the math is fuzzy to me...I recall !x meaning "not x". --Durin^2 * sqrt(Durin_Talk) * (n-1)! 22:48 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, yes! I know that now. So, its a vote, but not (with the logical operator "!") a vote. Doesn't that just perpetuate the madness? --Iamunknown 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • To bad we can't get into a time machine and go back to Bedlam Hospital, circa the 18th century. The parallels that could be drawn between it and RfA would be most illuminating. :) --Durin 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • History, in all its many forms, is oddly soothing. It demonstrates that things were different back then, but it also demonstrates that things haven't really changed that much. Human nature and all that. Carcharoth 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank-you for informing me of the changes at WP:RFCU. Jerry 17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking help from someone you never thought would

Believe it or not, you had served to educatate me on site policies and I thank you for that. Regardless of who you think I am, you will have to agree I haven't vandalized or disrupted this site and complied with your effort to have the questioned pictures removed from this site. With that said, as you have expressed an interest in enforcing policies, please look into this [6]. You once said you would be concerned about any account abuse, not just me. Just tell me what you think of the situation above; all I ask. Thanks -Pahuskahey 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's irrelevant. There isn't going to be consensus to close this MfD as delete, so another vote by someone to keep it has little bearing on the outcome. I'd just ignore it. --Durin 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More fair use : bot soon to start up

Have you seen Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BJBot 3? Bots may soon do the dirty work. Glad to see you back at work removing or linkifying fair use images. --Iamunknown 02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I'm not back doing that work. Just the occasional drive by. Hardly editing at all anymore. --Durin 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: SuccessRatevsEditsatRfA.png y-axis label/units

I may be terribly confused and please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this graph say that, for example, a candidate with about 2400 edits has about a 0.9% success rate? Shouldn't the y-axis scale be 0, 10, 20, 30, ..., 100 to match the label Success Rate %? Katalaveno^T_C 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• .4 = 40%, .5 = 50%, etc. --Durin 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am aware of the decimal to percent equivalents, and I know you do too. But the y-axis label the in the graph includes the percent symbol --> "Success Rate %". I just thought, that, technically, since the scale used in the graph are the decimal equivalents, the percent symbol should not be used in the label. Katalaveno^T_C 12:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --Durin 12:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

License of Image:Newspapercover-copyright.png

Durin, please correct me if I am wrong. I think the LGPL is a "viral" license. As such, shouldn't Image:Newspapercover-copyright.png be tagged with the commons:Template:LGPL license since Image:Nuvola apps knewsticker.png, from which it is derived, is licensed therein? --Iamunknown 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• *shrug* feel free to change it if you like. --Durin 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Fair Use Images

Hello Durin! I'm terribly sorry about the logo that I used on a userbox. I was not aware that such use is not legal on wikipedia. As such, to my revelation of this new information, it is most likely obvious to you that as the uninformed user I am, it is likely that I have made this mistake previously. It should have been obvious to me, as I was feeling quite unique and innovative in being the first to include the school logo in a schools userbox! In addition to the image from a UCSD userbox, I also removed several images from Template:User UCSD Colleges that would also fall under such scrutiny for this violation of policy. Thank you for your service and education to Wikipedia and your fellow wikipedians! --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 06:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Sock Puppets

I have no issue with the candidate, and i am not accusing him of sock puppetry. I am trying to explain what is happening hear and i have good faith in the candidate. However, editors User:Kashwialariski and User:Ayatollah Rhobijniehave a commonality between this edit by User:Kashwialariski and this edit by User:Ayatollah Rhobijnie. I warned the one editor to stop trying to mess with it and 1 minute later, the one stopped and the other started making the same actions. If you feel that is not enough evidence of sock puppetry, then feel free to unblock them (I only blocked for a week anyways). (Chris Kreider)]] 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am not an administrator, and even if I were I would not undo another admin's actions. I would instead ask the blocking admin to do so, and if my arguments in favor of undoing were insufficient, then they are insufficient. As to the sockpuppeting, so what? This RfA was doomed to failed anyways with less than 300 edits. There wasn't any point to igniting the RfA with gasoline and accusations of sockpuppetry just to destroy the RfA. It was already destroyed when it was posted. On the chance that the original nominee just have a few friends hanging out with him working on the RfA, we should have left it alone rather than go out of our way to insult them with accusations. Everybody likes to jump on the "kill the sockpuppets!" bandwagon. I just didn't see the point here, even if they were admitted sockpuppets. The RfA is dead. --Durin 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I respect that. I did not attempt to kill the rfa, however I knew it was already going to fail. Furthermore, i stopped where I did and assumed good faith that the 2 sock puppets were the only 2, while they all look suspicioulsy like the candidate himself. I however did not have enough evidence and had to assume good faith on the part of the candidate. I have talked with him, explained why I did what I did and am trying to help him. I respect your opinion, and thank you for bringing it up. In the future, I will try to deal with such acts more tactfully. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I did not support the month long block of user:Kermanshahi. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I do not support it either. Absolutely the wrong move. Constructive user, who even if he abused sockpuppets made a slightly bad error, being blasted right off the project. Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. --Durin 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RfAs

Thanks for the reminder. I usually do [7]- it slipped my mind as I was looking for the close templates shortcuts Chrislk02 asked for at WP:ANI... WjBscribe 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

rfa - change vote mechanism to better scale?

i saw your note on the german wikipedia, what do you think of rolling votes? --ThurnerRupert 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

My User Page

Who do you think you are to come in and edit my user page. It's mine, not yours. I don't care what policy I may have been breaking, you are not currently an administrator so don't touch what isn't yours.
NewYork1956 07:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• You may not like the policy, but the policy is not flexible on this. The policy is clear; no fair use images are allowed on userpages. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. All images that were removed from your userpages are copyrighted, non-free license images. I am re-removing the images, and reporting this incident to WP:AN/I for further review. If you insist on having such images on your userpage, you will be willfully violating Wikipedia policies which will result in a block. Whether I am an admin or not is irrelevant. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. --Durin 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Durin is correct above. And furthermore: your userspace is not your property. The space provided there is graciously provided by and at the expense of the Wikimedia Foundation, its donors, and the user community specifically to facilitate your contributions to Wikipedia. It is not your exclusive domain, and it is subject to our policies and community normals just as much as any other page. If you'd like a free personal webpage which is under your exclusive control, I invite you to use MySpace. However, on myspace if you do manage to get noticed violating their policies, rather than fixing it they tend to just disable your account. --Gmaxwell 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have been happy to remove them myself if it was discussed with me. You wrote "such usage is directly against our policies." "Our?" What do you mean "Our?" Like I said you are not an administrator and you certainly do not own Wikipeida.
NewYork1956 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• If an administrator directly told your user page was in direct violation of "our" policies, would you even listen to them? It is irrelevant. These are our policies, because there is consensus that they are our policies. If you are unwilling to act consensually, then Wikipedia may not be the place for you. --Iamunknown 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• NewYork1956, I'm sorry that you feel the way that you do. It was never my intention to annoy you or anyone else in removing fair use images. Nevertheless, from time to time there are people like you who become excessively irate when these removals are performed and complain vociferously about them. This is precisely why I initiated the RfC on this matter to see if there was consensus support for the manner in which I was doing things. The was overwhelming consensus that I was. Had such consensus not existed, I would not be doing things in the manner that I am. You can think as negatively about me as you like. I am not concerned. Please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images#I.27ll_get_you_to_stop_by_hurling_insults_at_you.21. If you still insist that I am acting so terribly, then I recommend you begin taking action to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia. I make no claims of owning Wikipedia. Indicating "our" indicates ALL of us, including you. OUR policies are listed at Category:Wikipedia_official_policy. If you're not willing to abide by OUR policies, then being part of "our" (which everybody is, who is here) is perhaps something unacceptable to you. All the best, --Durin 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I can hardly give a shit. I'm not going to fight it any further.
NewYork1956 03:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

FU userspace list

drum roll User:HighInBC/FU in userspace. Posted at AN or ANI (forget which one) earlier today. Right down your alley. --Iamunknown 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. cat <file> | grep Image | wc ...2542 images. cat <file> | grep User | wc ...4683 violations. That's less than I would have expected. Of course, it's only userspace, not all other workspaces outside of mainspace. --Durin 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked HighInBC if his or her data collection could extend to all namespaces except articles and known exceptions, and s/he said that, with the next data collection, the query.php interface could be extended to capture all such violations. So we may have a list sooner or later. :-) --Iamunknown 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It'd be nice if that could be done and regularly updated. The last time we did something like this, we had over 40,000 violations. --Durin 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that it's not catching all the fair use images... --Gmaxwell 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ya, it's not perfect yet. I think HighInBC is trying to automate the lists with a bot to remove images that are no longer violations, update regularly, etc. Hopefully it'll work sooner or later. --Iamunknown 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Image:Wowiconjp.jpg

Will do! Avatarfan6666 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting statistics problem

I wonder what to do with all the survey forms I link to from here. Any ideas? --Kim Bruning 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! to Durin

Have you seen WP:TROUT before? I just came across and laughed rather hard. :-D Hope all is well. I see that you are still active WP:FUC patroller, sorry to hear it isn't as satisfying. I just removed about 100 instances of Image:TugsLogo.jpg (there are still several more including caches that haven't updated yet), it was a gas. You might find all the instances of Image:Flag of the Olympic Movement.svg worth your while sometime; I've removed a few, but there are so many, its frustrating. Regards, Iamunknown 19:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen RFB YAY.... wait, you opposed?

Actually, based on the "a group is its own worst enemy" text, having Mackensen as a bureaucrat might be favorable.

If he's the only person running on that platform, perhaps I might agree with your opposition.

On the other hand, what if some other people ran based on the same platform, so that the "single scary bureaucrat" effect can be diminished? In that case, we'd have an RFA more strongly run by consensus. An improvement, at the very least. :-)

--Kim Bruning 15:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC) *considering putting my money where my mouth is*

Kim, are you considering doing our first combined RfA/RfB? NoSeptember 15:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the A bit and the B bit can be set independently. :-P --Kim Bruning 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. If I recall correctly, to promote a bureaucrat you use the admin promotion page and select the extra radio button for bureaucrat. NoSeptember 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

*Checks*. Hmmm, at the very least stewards are allowed to give Sysop, Bureaucrat, and Bot flags separately. (According to Special:Userrights on my local mediawiki install) --Kim Bruning 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA archives page

How comes on the RFA archive page, the years cannot be edited? Simply south 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• What page are you referring to? Why would you want to edit the years? --Durin 01:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It would just be easier to edit 2007 than edit the whole page to place an archive. Simply south 09:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hit the edit button, scroll to the bottom. What's so hard about that? :) --Durin 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mail

You have some. Haukur 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thanx for closing my RfA...--Cometstyles 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:B8amack

On User talk:B8amack, you said to the user usurpation takes 30 days. It only takes 7. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Moralis

Very interesting indeed. The sight of the RfA-bots breaking brought a tear to my eye. We'll have to see if you get bureaucrat buy-in, but I think it's a good step. Mackensen (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's an interesting experiment, if nothing else. I expect the nom to fail, because editcountitis types are ruining it. The only hope is if the bureaucrats have the courage to recognize foolish arguments for what they are. --Durin 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I intend to comment there once my RfB is over and my hands are free again. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Stepping down as admin is one of the best moves I've ever made here. It *really* freed up my hands. --Durin 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to show some mercy by changing to Neutral, but I still think it was terribly ill-advised to conduct this experiment. It shows poor judgement both by Moralis and by those that wanted this experiment. But as he is a relatively new editor, I can forgive him for that and I hope his judgement will grow in time. Errabee 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• At least don't hold him hostage for it. Others suggested the change, I approached Moralis for agreement to modify it, and I implemented it. Moralis was barely involved. As I noted elsewhere, the value of an experiment is not affected by whether it fails or succeeds. --Durin 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I won't, but the value of this particular experiment is not large as I could have told you the outcome beforehand. BTW, despite your request no more proposals be made, I've made a radical new proposal on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform, and I was wondering how you felt about that. Errabee 14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • As noted elsewhere, you're presuming the only possible outcomes are acceptance of the format or no. There's plenty to be learned otherwise, as WT:RFA is demonstrating right now. I'll look at your proposal. --Durin 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Moralis RfA

I was quite surprised that you misread my comment. I specifically said that I was not holding the format against the candidate. Is any other reason necessary to oppose than a lack of experience? You seemed to question the rationality of my grounds for opposition, as if they were incidental or something, and I do take some exception to that. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I know you specifically stated that. That said, I don't see a reason to mention it on the RfA itself. Evaluate the candidate. Comments on the format can be directed to the appropriate sections of WT:RFA. As to experience, he's been here 2.5 years. I don't personally feel his "lack" of experience is a factor. In a consensus building structure, discussion and questioning of others positions should be a natural process, not one questioned. I'm sorry you feel offended. It's not my intention. --Durin 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment from WT:RFA:

"*Just inserting my strenuous objections here. I have no love for numbers, but the current format is so much more difficult to comprehend substantively. Trying to follow all the arguments at once is head-ache inducing. This change converts RfA into AfD -- what a disaster! When I come to a big AfD to close it, I expect to have my head spinning. If RfA follows that road, expect people to pay less attention to what others say, and worry more about making their own voices heard through endless sub-commenting. I pity the poor b'crats who will have to solve this mess! And this RfA is for a "non-controversial" candidate. Sheesh. If Danny's had been run this way, we seriously might have reached a MB of text."

I'll add a few more points. I noticed several supporters giving the candidate credit for the RfA change. I assume you will respond to them just as vigorously, telling them to separate feelings over the candidate from the format.

Perhaps you shouldn't have run this thing on a pre-existing RfA. I know that if I had commented early, and then been refactored, I would have been very confused. Try it on a fresh one.

The reason that "questioning" at RfA is very unnatural and counterproductive is: 1) way too many people go there. If everyone questions everyone, the discussion will become a massive AfD, as I say above; 2) much of the disagreement is just a difference in personal standards. No amount of arguing is going to convince me that a candidate with less than 100 WP edits is ready -- if they been here for 2.5 years, I'm even more concerned, because they're edits don't show dedication to the project. Maybe they're a fantastic writer, but they don't have the minimal "nuts-and-bolts" experience necessary for adminship yet. That's why the old format was better. Everyone said their piece, there was a small level of interplay if anyone said anything truly incorrect or absurd, and then the b'crats closed. Screw numbers -- it's not the numbers I appreciate, but the economy of the discussion, because anything more quickly spirals to an absurd proportion. We are an encyclopedia -- I don't mind wading through an AfD for an article's sake, but I cannot imagine wading through one just for a functionaries sake. That seems to me to be the very definition of process gone mad(ly inefficient.) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, AFD is currently superior to RFA. (or was... at least they're now both equally bad ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC) There's a big difference between the appearance of efficiency and actual efficiency. ;-)

Sometimes... but I find it hard to value the "efficiency" of any system that makes following discussion on even the simplest points next to impossible. I don't see how anyone can follow that RfA, least of the poor candidate whose never been through one before. Are we aiming to make the process as opaque as possible? Xoloz 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Kim, sometimes interjecting a quip is a substitute for confronting the real difficulties of an objection! ;) Xoloz 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way...

Here's my thought on RfA reform: if the need for admins is acute enough that it is time to throw caution to the wind it bit (I acknowledge, from a meta-analytic level, that's probably true), then just lower the standard of promotion, by community consent, to 65% or something. That way, "conservatives" like me can still voice our concerns, but the ability of our personal high standards to forestall the growth in the number of admins will be lessened. More "bad seeds" will get through, but that seems an easier alternative than turning RfA into AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• First, it's not a vote. Second, if you lower the standards in time people will adjust their standards to make them stricter. It's a temporary bandage. A temporary solution to a permanent problem. Votes must die. --Durin 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I don't believe I ever used the word "vote", my friend. However, "counting" is a way to digest large amounts of information into simple, easy-to-understand form. You know those graphs you make so well? Same principle. As for me, because my objections to any candidate are something I actually take seriously, I won't be adjusting my standards for some numbers game. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I wonder if you've somehow started to respond to these suggestions reflexively. First, you ignored the disclaimer in my comment at the RfA itself, making an irrelevant objection; then, you assumed I was talking about "voting", when I neither meant nor said any such thing. Xoloz 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sigh. --Durin 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hard day? :) Xoloz 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, for reasons (1) not expressing myself as much as I'd like because I'm focusing on another experiment right now and (2) having to deal with totally obtuse users like you ;) --Durin 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments on RfA reform

I appreciate your contributions highly toward RfA reform. However, I am going to politely ask if you could please lower the tone a bit. In particular with use of the CAPS LOCK, I know you have strong feelings toward the topic, but I am trying to get involved with this reform too, and I am still a new comer, hence why I ask if you do not bite my head off to early on. Please note that I am actually a supporter of this experiment of yours. ;) Camaron1 | Chris 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• If it helps, there's no intention to bite you. I might be nibbling on a toe nail though :) Yes, I occasionally use all caps to emphasize points. I could *do* it in a number of ways but, caps is just one way. --Durin 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the understanding reply, be careful with my toenails. ;) Camaron1 | Chris 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm the heck down man

Your comments on the Moralis RfA were uncalled for & borderline uncivil. My opinion is my opinion & if it was a normal RfA, you wouldn't have the cheek to question it - most oppsoe votes are left as is, maybe with a bit of commenting, but never as much opposition as you showed. So you're saying that Moralis, with under 800 edits, should become an admin? Now the reason I like the tally is for SNOW reasons, where a crat can quickly see if there's like a milion oppose votes to a couple of supports. Without the tally, they cannot make this quick & obvious judgement & thus, an RfA like this can go through. The only reason Moralis has that many votes is because of the format - if it was a normal format we'd all say, goodbye, try again later. I resent the fact you accused me of saying that I wish crats only to count votes & not consensus - I never said such a thing & my reasons for wishing the tally was there are stated above. I don't wish to discuss this any more with you as you're obviously in a combative mood. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any intention of "calming down". Your comments against Moralis were *WAY* out of line. Accusing him of a stunt? Good grief. You owe him an apology.
• As to the rest; responding to people's comments is viewed as bad in the current climate of RfA. This is bad for RfA. Discussion should be a GOOD thing in an RfA, not a bad thing. Keep in mind that votes have *nothing* to do with consensus. Nothing. I strongly recommend you divorce yourself of the notion that edit counts are some indicator of a person's trustworthiness. They are not. PLENTY of admins, in fact some of the most famous people on this project starting with Angela, were promoted with far less than 1,000 edits. I fully intend on continuing my attempts at reforming RfA. If calling a person accusing another of "stunts" way out of line is uncivil, then take it to WP:AN/I and have me banned from the project. You should be ashamed, but aren't. Yes, I do think Moralis should be an admin else I would not have supported his RfA. --Durin 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell me to be ashamed once more & I will report you on AN/I. Spawn Man 03:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please. You accuse Moralis of playing a stunt, when it was me who reformatted the RfA. Then you jump on my case for supposedly making personal attacks? Fine. You should be ashamed. Moralis did nothing more than try to help Wikipedia and you blatantly insulted him for it. Worse, you hold him accountable for my actions. Go report me. --Durin 04:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• After reading the intro to your talk page, your attitude makes considerably more sense now. You're argumentative by nature. Best thing here is for both of us to walk away from each other. Good day. --Durin 04:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)