User talk:Durova/Archive 67

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:D-Day5.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 6, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-06-06. howcheng {chat} 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The description looks great; thank you again. That image was tons of work. :) Durova^Charge! 22:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Another: File:Storming the bastille 4.jpg is going on Bastille Day. howcheng {chat} 23:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice. :) Do you have one for July 4? There's time to get to work on that. :) Durova^Charge! 00:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do, my first successful FP nom! [sorry to steal it :-)]~ ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, looks perfect! Great find you have there. Durova^Charge! 02:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons Deletion Request

Hi Durova, I was wondering if you could take a quick look and opine here. I'm not very experienced with Commons standards and I understand you're pretty involved over there. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at the discussion. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I know you're busy! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

De nada. :) Durova^Charge! 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

closing

lmao at your edit summary when closing the April Fool's Day thread on admin. board .. loved it - I'll go copy beans now ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

FP?

Would this have a chance at WP:FPC? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Try picture peer review. Lovely composition, borderline but acceptable dimensions. Surprisingly small filesize though. Be sure to articulate the encyclopedic value. Durova^Charge! 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

One has been opened here. Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Currier and Ives Brooklyn Bridge

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Currier and Ives Brooklyn Bridge2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 10:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Midnight at the glassworks

Thanks for supporting file:Midnight at the glassworks2.jpg at W:FPC. There was some concern about the contrast in the restored image (i.e., that there was too much of it). I made an alternative which all things considered I prefer too. Could I bother you to ask for a support alternative at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Midnight_at_the_glassworks? Thanks again! -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The aesthetics of fast film and macho men

[Nice] find. --KP Botany (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Admittedly, it seemed just as odd to me when I first read it in a photography guide almost 25 years ago. The main interest seemed to be visually reproducing the textures of female skin by getting as fine a grain as possible, and then doing something different for men. One might intuit the average gender and sexual orientation of photographers from those principles, but that would be original research. ;) Durova^Charge! 21:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Nebelostfriesland.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 23, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-23. BTW don't forget about the POTD blurb for the Hotel del Coronado image. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 03:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Lighthouse in Oswego2.jpg follows on march 24. howcheng {chat} 04:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Back sort of

Still not really able to contribute a lot...currently offline collating glacier stuff, but have been reading about User:ScienceApologist....I see you were mentoring him based on a comment you posted at an RFAr page. What happened with that? Not accusing you of course, but I find his three month ban to be atrocious and even found his 6 month topic ban excessive. As you probably know, I feel that editors who are misusing this website to promote pseudoscience to be one of our biggest problems, and therefore feel that they deserve little latitude, if any. As JzG and Raul have clearly stated, we have to deal with the problems of "civil POV pushing" editors...it is not surprising that ScienceApologist would get disgusted when arguing with morons.--MONGO 20:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The mentorship is still ongoing. We're handling several things; principally he's drafting improvements to an important article, and when it's ready to bring live I intend to proxy edit it into mainspace (with the Committee's permission, which we're optimistic will be okay). He might become the first Wikipedian to write a featured article while sitebanned. Durova^Charge! 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, he's more committed than I would be under the circumstances. Though not fully in understanding of what (sarcasm coming) vile misdeeds he committed to deserve his ban, as far as I am concerned, civil POV pushers that undermine the encyclopedic quality of our articles need to be told to fuck off in no uncertain terms. Crucifying those that stand guard against these morons (many of which are simply internet trolls, hellbent on causing problems) just because they had a low pain threshold for stupity is a problem this website needs to remedy.--MONGO 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's all right with you, let's discuss in general terms? It isn't always easy to distinguish POV pushers from constructive editors. Constructive editors sometimes misunderstand each other while skilled POV pushers go through the motions of cooperation. No one makes that call correctly 100% of the time; the more tense an environment becomes the easier it is to get that wrong. Yet over time, POV pushers on all topics will recycle the same rather limited set of tricks. That's one of the things that makes Raul's Laws the best page on Wikipedia.

One of the things Jimbo has said is that it's usually best to be as polite and reasonable as possible when dealing with people who seem to be acting unreasonably. If they really are reasonable then they'll come around, and it's easier to reconcile because no one has lost face. If they really aren't reasonable then polite restraint will make it obvious to a consensus of observers where the real problem is located. That isn't an easy standard to live up to, but there's merit to the approach. Durova^Charge! 22:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Stunt Pyrotechnics Luc Viatour.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 25, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-25. howcheng {chat} 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) Durova^Charge! 20:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Progress

How's the Article Discussion Page (ADP) coming? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure I catch your reference. Is this about Ayn Rand? Durova^Charge! 22:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha. No no. And it's not about SA either! Just joshing you about the idea proposed for a discussion board for article and article content issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

;) Durova^Charge! 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Bernhardt Hamlet2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 26, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-26. howcheng {chat} 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks wonderful. One question though: the text refers to British stage history rather than French stage history. In that context perhaps it's best to mention that this photo was taken to promote her London performance as Hamlet? Durova^Charge! 16:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The article only discusses British stage history, so that's what I had to work with. But I added your suggestion in there. howcheng {chat} 20:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious about your survey: how many of these came from art auction sites, personal blogs, and other stuff that the uploader should've known darn well were either unreliable sources (possibly misidentified even if public domain) or were bound to change when the item sold? Durova^Charge! 02:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured sound?

Dear Durova, well, I am not musically talented instrument wise, but what about reading something, like uploading a sound file of say me reading part of a poem or something? Do we have/need anything like that? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We haven't had anything like that yet. You might ask at featured sound talk. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of The Raven, but I see we already link to audio readings in the article. Oh, well, maybe something else. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked public archives for PD material? Durova^Charge! 03:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance, but I am not sure what you mean by "PD material"? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

public domain Durova^Charge! 04:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I feel like "duh" should have known! Anyway, no, but I suppose that can be something to consider as well. I already have a good credit and a DYK credit, as well as numerous rescue credits. The "featured" credit is the missing link as it were of things I've yet to accomplish here. Will think some more on it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The easiest place to look might be the Commons archives. They do have material that's unused and unrecognized. Btw sorry about punctuation earlier. Was typing with one finger while eating a pizza. ;) Durova^Charge! 04:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally missed whatever punctuation error and for the record...I wish I had pizza right now too!! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Polish Institute and Sikorski Museum

This place have a large collection of historical images; we use many of them as fair use. Per our recent discussion, how would you suggest I go about asking them to license their collection under free license, to get the best chance of succeeding? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you speaking of material that's in public domain? If so, all we need is availability. If this is copyrighted material then the thing to find out is whether the museum owns intellectual rights over the items in its collection. Durova^Charge! 22:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of what they have may be in PD but is not online, some of what they have is not... how do we go about it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything PD can be uploaded. Material that is not PD but which they own the rights to, they can relicense and upload. The Bundesarchiv released hundreds of thousands of images in low resolution versions under copyleft license, in order to retain copyright over the full versions. I'd like to introduce you to the editor who has been interfacing with the German institutions; he recently persuaded the University of Dresden library to release a quarter milliion images. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, please do :) Most of what they have is not online :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Will see what I can do. :) Durova^Charge! 17:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Patrick Street Cork2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 04:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Robert Kennedy CORE rally speech2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Now there's two Kennedy's at the FP People section! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Will try to scrounge up two Bushes to keep the politics balanced. The Republicans are in the lead at featured sounds. ;) Warmest regards, Durova^Charge! 04:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Sheep club2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 30, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-30. Additionally, I put in a caption for the Hotel del Coronado (Template:POTD/2009-03-29), which you may want to verify. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ask Seddon. Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

EMG

Has finally started responding, however, as can be seen from this diff, and others, in not one of his posts(from the time of making this comment) has he addressed the collected evidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 05:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is continuing to claim innocence, and is not agreeing to the terms that you set should he want to continue to edit here. This is just like Jeremy said, he won't admit to any wrong-doing, and will continue to act like he is innocent. I would believe we have a ruff consensus for a ban here, and his behavior tonight just shows he isn't willing to change or admit he did wrong.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to the punch.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the user is now banned, would you be at all opposed to blanking all his talk pages, with a redirect to the main account, and indef protection?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly opposed. He can use email to appeal. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks n.n Please do so soon, the user is continuing to soapbox on their sock's talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As you may be aware, I am not an administrator. So actually protecting that page would need to be done by someone else. Durova^Charge! 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia assignments chat time

Please take a look at the proposed time for the chat on Wikipedia classroom assignments works for you, or propose another one.--ragesoss (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Durova^Charge! 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Rating embroidery articles

Per Cirt's request, I have moved Embroidery and English embroidery from the Textile Arts portal Selected Article rotation as they have not been rated. If you have time, could you do me a favor and rate those? Thanks. - PKM (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Will try. Durova^Charge! 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hello,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cowardly lion2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 1, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-01. Oh yeah, I just had to reference that Kenya flash for this since it will be for April Fool's Day. ViperSnake151 01:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

could you please help out?

I am currently a graduate student, working on a semester project regarding Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be able to privately answer a few questions in reference to your personal experience with Wikipedia in order for me to get your view on the website. The questions are on my user page, and if you could answer in them in word and e-mail them to the address shown that would be really helpful. Your anonymity is assured, and any personal information you give will never be used outside of this questionnaire. Thank you for your time.Curesearcher (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, I am sorry. My comments directed to you (and the rest of the community, I will be leaving a comment for Cirt as well) were unfair and you had a right to be suspicious of my activities. If nothing else you need to know that I know I treated you unfairly.

I was wondering if you would be able to help me with my project. as I noted, the wikipedia school and university page isn't really geared for research into the community itself, and I would like to learn how to navigate that problem. I know I am kinda doing this backwards, I should have gone to someone before this, but would you be able to help me out just navigating this whole problem?Curesearcher (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re National parks of Morocco

Hi, been doing work to update our site's coverage of African geography. You're probably the best person to come to with this: the template for national parks of Morocco has a redlink for Ayachi National Park, but it's getting zero unique returns at Google and Google Books. Could this be an error? Durova^Charge! 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Durova. Well, in fact Jbel Ayachi is part of the Eastern High Atlas parc established in 2004. That includes other mountains such as Masker, Aberdouz, Msedrit etc in the provinces of Khenifra and Errachidia. You probably couldn't find it in Google since most of the information are whether in Arabic or French.

This is the official portal. At both the left and right sides of the page, you'll see the 10 national parks of Morocco —there aren't 14 as the template says. I'll try to help out. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Template corrected. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. :) While you posted, was bringing live a bit of Egyptian history. If it isn't too much to ask, would you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Karnac? Warmest regards, Durova^Charge! 06:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK help

Dear Durova, I am not the best at making heads or tales of some of these how to list instructions. Thus, by any chance would you be so kind as to help list the following as possible DYKs?

This? As you can see I expanded the article considerably. Could we ask, "Did you know that Will Kane was Gary Cooper's second Academy Award winning role?" or "Did you know that Will Kane is ranked fourteenth on Entertainment Weeklys list of Top 20 Heroes of all time?"

This? As you can see, I have also expanded this article considerably. Could we ask, "Did you know that SingStar ABBA is the first band specific SingStar video game?"

This? Once again, I made significant revisions and think we could ask "Did you know that Tomb Raider is credited with popularizing the third-person shooter genre of video games?"

I think both of these have real potential for a DYK and I would greatly appreciate if you would be so kind as to help list these. I think I did it correctly, but if not, please fix any errors. Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, if you want to do it yourself, you just have to fill in these parameters for each article under the appropriate date(s):

{{subst:NewDYKnom|article=|hook=... that __(fact here)___?|status=|author=|nominator=|image=|comment=}}

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I did it correctly as I just nominated a few I've been working on. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance, Ed. A Nobody, a few key things to remember with DYK expansions: the article must increase in size by at least a factor of five, it must have a total of at least 1500 characters (not counting infoboxes or tables, I think), and the hook must be cited. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Only one thing I saw wrong with the hooks: they need links! :-) Add whatever links you think are applicable, and the link to the article you expanded must be in bold. Regards, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am working to address these now. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Aerial house3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 1, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-01. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; are we sure now? ;) Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure. I certainly didn't schedule the Wizard of Oz one. howcheng {chat} 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban reviews

Wikipedians who want to help set up a more orderly mechanism for reviewing community bans are welcome to discuss here. From emails exchanged last November (all my own words; sensitive names redacted and a few minor changes). Durova^Charge! 03:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Outline plan

1. Set up a dedicated e-mail address for ban review requests.
2. Establish an ad hoc community ban review committee.
3. Publish standard parameters for unblock consideration. A set of regular expectations, open to reasonable modification.
4. For requests that receive serious consideration, post onsite to a known location for one week for input and feedback.
5. Unprotect their user talk page during that time so they can answer questions and work out a structured return. (If this privilege gets abused, then of course the talk page would be reprotected and consideration closed).
6. For requests that remain unclear after 1 week, bring to WP:AN.
7. Maintain a log of closed requests, and have a standard schedule for considering second or third requests.

Elaboration

The ad hoc ban review committee would consist of willing volunteers who are established members of the community. Mostly admins, a couple of checkusers, and ideally at least one formerly banned editor on an advisory level. Should be good for the mix to have input from someone who's been on that side of the fence and returned to good standing.

The ban review group wouldn't reconsider Jimbo's bans or ArbCom bans or--broadly speaking--behavior that's crossed the line into probable illegality. The idea would be for folks who've done decent work and just needed to reorient back on the positive to have a fair chance of returning in a reasonable and clearly defined way.

It appears that most of the unban requests that come ArbCom's way originate from the community. There's no absolute reason they must devolve to ArbCom; that's just been customary. I doubt anyone realized things could fall through the cracks particularly badly (as an instance did in 2008). If the community takes back its portion of bans for its own consideration, then the ones the Committee reviews will be cases it knows best. Advantages of this proposal include:

1. Reviews that pass pre-screening and come under serious consideration are publicized. This provides fair opportunity for community feedback and in particular addresses the problem that's arisen in the past where an editor who's behaved poorly toward particular people gets foisted upon the community again unbeknownst to them (sometimes under a new username).
2. It publishes a set of standard expectations for legitimate return. People who are on the outs want to know where they stand. They want some clear path back to good standing.
3. It moves on a clear schedule and has an archival system, with instructions on how to handle multiple appeals. Therefore, appeals that get seriously considered at all will have multiple eyes upon them and not fall through the cracks.
4. Let's face it: the community's track record for forming consensus on these things is much swifter than the Committee's. The Committee has other things to do. Bans whose background had nothing to do with any arbitration case are better decided by the individuals who were present and acting upon the case as it unfolded. And if a banned editor who is not restored to editing turns to the Committee for a subsequent appeal, arbitrators will have a convenient way of getting up to speed on the matter.

Recusal

I'm familiar with the concept of propriety. I believe according to the statistics I've recused from more full cases than any other arbitrator this year. If you have a complaint, please bring it up on the case pages; I've made a promise to explain non-recusal in some cases. However, I'm not convinced by your rationale of contributions that "pertain to a religion which has come under some of the same criticism as Scientology," especially as I am not even a faithful adherent of said faith.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with my contributions in Salt Lake City and Mormon history, but perhaps you could elaborate a cogent theory of how it appears improper—on the case pages. Cool Hand Luke 03:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It has appeared that you singled out Cirt as you have no other involved party, and rebuked him publicly on talk pages as he was attempting to cooperate with you. You led the most recent talk page discussion away from its designated purpose and sidetracked to examine one editor's Commons uploads. No one forced you to take that direction, and you can hardly complain about receiving a response in kind. You are an SPA at that sister site, and in a manner that bears relevance to the present case. Moreover, the crude response to my question comes uncomfortably close to an accusation of religious bigotry. If you know what my actual religion is, the inappropriateness of such a statement would be even more glaring than it is without context: respect for other religious traditions is a high priority within my own--members of our service committee risked their lives to rescue Jews from the Holocaust, and one of our clergy members was murdered by the Ku Klux Klan for supporting Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. Is that hint enough? I have always defended the editors in this case against bigoted statements regarding their faiths. WP:KETTLE, sir. Where I post the concern is irrelevant: you answer to your conscience. Mine would weigh very heavy right now if our places were traded, which thankfully they are not. But you and I are different people. Durova^Charge! 03:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled by the way you've responded to me. I haven't accused you of any such thing, and so you don't need to prove your tolerance to me. I believe you. I wish you'd believe that I was sincerely asking you about the practice on Wikimedia Commons. Cool Hand Luke 04:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the way you talked down to Cirt at user talk last week, and how you veered off topic today to lecture him--specifically stating that he had failed to take a hint that was by no means obvious or pertinent to an article talk page. In the same thread you followed up on my very explicit intention to recuse from further comment or involvement by asking a question which, at the very least, did not take the recusal seriously--and which could very easily been repeated out of context as an implication that I had been derelict in administrative responsibilities. Your whole conduct at that page invited reminder that you are an SPA at the site you were discussing--an SPA of a sort that generates an appearance of impropriety in light of your refusal to recuse from the arbitration--and your over the top response reinforces the appearance. Why is an arbitrator even debating content with the participants of an ongoing case? 06:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep accusing me of being an SPA at Wikimedia commons. I don't think I am one, and I'm not sure why it matters. I'm going to ask you a question, and I don't want you to think I'm accusing you of anything (as my previous questions have not accused you of anything).

Is there an SPA policy on Commons? It doesn't seem like Commons would have as large a concern for POV editing that Wikipedia does; all images add to the commons. I haven't been able to find the policy, but I'm no commonist.

If you think there's issues with my behavior, take it to the case pages. I think that the POV in these articles is a crucial feature of this case, and I find it without even looking for it (that photo caption was found by searching for substitutes with the string "David Miscavige" "Creative Commons"—it was the top result, and the caption was inappropriate as no one denies). I don't think that my responses have been over-the-top, but I'm open to a reality check from non-advocates. Cool Hand Luke 06:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So far we haven't seen eye to eye. So let's try a different angle: the side of Currier and Ives that nobody wants to mention anymore. Try rewriting these captions to excise the racism.[1][2][3] Those aren't alone; the Library of Congress hosts 185 gross racial caricatures by one of the most respected printing firms in US history. Currier and Ives were by no means unique in that regard. It was the tenor of their era, so such images require explanation in historical context. Nearly everything I upload on certain subjects has to be recaptioned to undo racism, Orientalism, and various other bigotries. Commons contributors to certain fields choose between quantity and quality; the Bundesarchiv recently released 800,000 images to Commons. It was a wonderful gift, but it needs plenty of recaptioning also. Polish editors have been reporting that the Germans of four or five generations ago were no more enlightened than the Americans. Of course my proactive offer to you to discuss new concerns could be safely ignored, and Cirt could be singled out on article talk for unique criticism, because his automated uploads are unlike anyone else's automated uploads and your authority as an en:wiki arbitrator extends to another project where you have less than a hundred edits--one where both Cirt and I are administrators--and no one could dare turn the mirror back on you to show how unflattering that seems.

Whether you have recused from no other cases or all of them is irrelevant to the advisability of recusing from this one. What might be more pertinent is to consider whether diffs such as this would impress uninvolved observers as the kind of calm dispassionate statement that settles mild concern about whether an arbitrator might perhaps be a little too close to a subject to quite be at his best. This is the first time I can recall an arbitrator debating relevant content at an article talk page while a case is ongoing. Is it truly your opinion that a dispute that has had four arbitrations in four years and has actually been in offsite news is the best place to try such an innovative approach? Does it not perhaps blur (or even cross) several ethical lines? I like you, Luke, and I don't want to see you head down the same path that Charles Matthews and FT2 did. So you go ahead and do what you think is right; I've done everything I can to explain the problems I see with it. If this perception is nonsensical then you have nothing to worry about. Just remember, Charles thought I was off point and off topic until he initiated a dispute resolution and I responded here. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You never answered any of my questions, including the one above. I did talk to someone more experienced on commons, and I understand that such images are frequently listed for ages without deletion; what happened was entirely normal. You could have told me that, but you instead saw "baiting" with "leading questions," where I asked one in good faith. You see me "singling Cirt out for unique criticism," when I asked him only to FIXIT, which he did without complaint (as I note he has done throughout this case). Your intemperate advocacy hasn't impressed me, but I could be persuaded if uninvolved people think it's objectionable for me to reply to your accusations as I did. Cool Hand Luke 16:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nor have you answered mine. We are talking past each other quite effectively, but your accusation of 'intemperate advocacy' is most undue. Wasn't it earlier this month that you received a diff of an equally baseless assertion when someone had presumed I was an apologist for Jossi? Have another look at the ArbCom mailing list for the correspondence about ScienceApologist and Privatemusings, or get a quick summary here. Read the Bluemarine case and see how I supported the siteban of an editor I later mentored. Or go through those emails I sent for this case and review the instance when I nearly proposed Cirt for a topic ban. Baseless accusations of partisanship are a favorite game of certain Wikipedians, and it is most disappointing to see that from an arbitrator who has ready access to so much material that disproves the notion many times over. Durova^Charge! 17:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I don't think you're a partisan, but your communications on this case have been intemperate to the point of counter-productiveness. It might not be your fault; It's hard to read one's own tone (which is why I would welcome a reality check on my own comments).

Please make any further statements in a suitable forum. Cool Hand Luke 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I've reviewed the situation and see no reason for Cool Hand Luke recusal in this case. I'm not shy about giving my opinion to an arbitrator if I think that they need to back away from a situation. I do not think that that his involvement at Commons or here would cause him to be unable to make a impartial ruling in the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Flo, I have been waiting since September for an answer to an email query. It's not as if it's a big matter or anything--I was only the Poetlister sockfarm's number two priority target for character assassination after SlimVirgin, and he only kept it up for well over a year, and since you're the only en:wiki arbitrator who was active at Wikiquote while he lied about the circumstances of his 2007 en:wiki siteban although I assumed as much good faith as possible, but couldn't quite understand what you were thinking here, since unlike the other participants you knew the full background. I don't know what I've ever done to you to deserve the bland nonanswer, couched in the style of a college rejection letter, that you returned after three polite queries that were spaced over several weeks. But if we really are on such chilly terms that not even being an honest whistleblower of one of the most damaging sockmasters in WMF history is enough to merit a serious reply, then please drop the pretense and stop coming to my user talk page. Most of the emails I ever sent you disappeared into a black hole. After that episode I stoped trying. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As I told you in my email reply to you, your email to me was not a priority since it did have any direct bearing on the situation. That continues to be the case. The volume of mail that I receive that must be read and answered is extremely high so I rarely reply if the matter does not require a response.

I commented here because CHL brought your comments to the attention of the Arbitration Committee and asked for feedback about whether he needed to recuse. I thought a public comment was best for reasons of openness and transparency. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)