Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Durova - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 21:01, 11 October 2006 (→[]: response to Durova). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:01, 11 October 2006 by Thatcher (talk | contribs) (→[]: response to Durova)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Durova

Voice your opinion. (41/1/0) Ending 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Durova (talk · contribs) – Durova has been here for about a year now, and has been a versatile and helpful user. In articles, Durova contributed a lot to Joan of Arc, now a featured article, and on historical and military-historical articles in general. In maintenance work, Durova has helped out with Requests for Investigation, WP:RFC and Abuse Reports. Overall, this good user should be mopified. >Radiant< 15:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Nomination accepted. Durova 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

STATEMENT: The edit counter reports over 7000 total edits with nearly 3000 main space edits and close to 2000 Misplaced Pages space edits. I belong to the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and the Harmonious Editing Club as well as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history where I started the Middle Ages task force. I was one of the core contributors to a proposal that achieved guideline status last month as Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. In addition to Joan of Arc, two lists I started have become featured lists as Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and List of notable brain tumor patients. Ten of my new articles have been highlighted at Did you know? Durova 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I’d like to help two backlogged pages: Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation and Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Complex vandalism and personal attacks are often interconnected so addressing these matters requires patience, sleuthing, and judgement. I’ve had experience dealing with similar situations as a regular participant at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Durova 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My first and toughest accomplishment was raising Joan of Arc to featured article quality. Compare the version just before my first edit to the current page. It's important to have a strong article for a famous historic figure and a high traffic page. After the English language article became an FA other editors translated it into Indonesian and Chinese so now Joan of Arc is a featured article on three different language editions of Misplaced Pages. In conjunction with that biography I seem to have become the first editor to raise an In popular culture section to featured list status. The French and German Wikipedias already had similar pages that focused on high culture such as paintings, sculptures, and operas. I translated material from these two Wikipedias, organized the potluck of information at the English language article, and sourced and expanded the information. Durova 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Shortly after I became a Wikipedian another editor warned me that Joan of Arc was a battleground. That experience was – pardon the pun – a trial by fire. Several other good editors had quit the page or quit Misplaced Pages over that article before I joined the project. I was learning Misplaced Pages at the same time as I dealt with two disruptive editors. One refused to join the talk page and edited through an AOL IP range and the other changed usernames midway through our interactions. Mostly I did the right things: cited my edits, shared concerns on talk, opened article mediation, opened peer reviews, and opened RFCs. To see the opinions of seasoned editors who returned read Shazaam!’s comment at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Joan of Arc and Wjbean’s message at Talk:Joan of Arc#New Visions section. The essay Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons summarizes much of what I learned from that experience. Another positive outcome is the Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing guideline, which I hope will improve resolutions for similar situations in the future.
For a more recent example of how I've handled conflict, see Talk:Charun, related user talk pages, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Glengordon01. I found the situation through Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts after the dispute had already been through WP:3O and a request for formal moderation had been filed (but never picked up). I contacted both editors and attempted to find a common ground. When that failed I consulted the editor who had offered the third opinion and then opened a user conduct RfC on one of the disputants. That paved over most of the potholes: since the end of a four week page protection the article has grown to 23 footnotes and 13 sources. The two editors in question will probably never be friends, but nobody got blocked or quit Misplaced Pages. The archives on these conflicts demonstrate how I've matured in an editor, which I hope merits trust as an administrator. Durova 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
May I rephrase that? I prefer to think of the question as Under what circumstances would I consider blocking a user? While I'd certainly rather encourage productive contributions than use admin powers, I'd like to extend everyone an assumption of good faith. Some situations are fairly simple: repeated vandalism after block warnings, violation of 3RR. In more complex instances where someone appears to be gaming the system, Wikistalking, or disruptive editing I'd look at past precedents and possibly - in unfamiliar circumstances - consult with a more experienced admin. If I'd attempted to mediate enough that an editor could question my objectivity I'd probably recuse myself from actually performing the block. In conjunction with that I'd be open to requests for review and block from other admins in similar circumstances. Editors should be reasonably confident that blocks are based on rules and not personalities. Durova 15:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • I'm going to make a general remark here about the Gundagai editor. I don't feel Durova's response to that situation is sufficient reason to oppose her RFA. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this proves she is too easy on unredeemably disruptive editors. While one disruptive editor might drive away several good contributors, there are plenty of other admins, so having a few with a light touch is probably a good thing. Thatcher131 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Nominate and support. >Radiant< 15:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong support per my experience Pavel Vozenilek 17:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support the user has contributed to the wikipedia community, not only with a strong editing history, but also with contribtions to essays such as Light one candle and No angry mastodons--Golden Wattle 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support.  Grue  20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Excellent editor. No worries at all. --FloNight 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support -- I have encountered Durova in several places here and have been impressed with her understanding of Misplaced Pages. Andrew Levine 20:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support--MONGO 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Always seen thoughtful comments from this editor. Seems very well versed in editing articles as well as actively involved in wikipedia space. Will be an asset with respect to building this encyclopedia. David D. (Talk) 20:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Suppport. --Interiot 20:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Great editor already, would be even better with the tools. Hello32020 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support per above --Esteban F. 21:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Sure. Kusma (討論) 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support of course. -- Grafikm 21:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per nom and others. Rama's arrow 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Exactly the kind of person we want with the tools. She could use them and she has an excellent record. Agent 86 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support 7,000 edits in the time span of one year shows not only experience but a strong commitment to Misplaced Pages. Would make a great sysop! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Strong support. Excellent editor, measured, neutral. Helpful to call in to the talk page when the dispute seems deadlocked. --Irpen 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Michael 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support - great editor. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Irrationally Strong Support.—After carefully reading (twice) Talk:Ich bin ein Berliner, I am convinced that Durova is adequately thoughtful and reasonable in response (or in lack thereof). I fully respect Prohibit Onions viewpoint; I admire a Brit’s defense of America's JFK; but I don’t share Prohibit Onions’ concern about Durova’s sense of humor. I’m far more concerned that she (anyone whose Misplaced Pages name is borrowed from Nadezhda Durova, the first female officer of the Russian army, can surely be referred to as she) initiated and earned the bronze star for List of notable brain tumor patients. The more I read, the more I liked. She is admin material. Give her the button/unbutton powers. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    But hey, an edit summary usage for Durova of 92% for major edits and 85% for minor edits. Let's bring that up; editors have to set a standard. Williamborg (Bill) 02:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. uncharacteristically strong support nothing but positive interactions, observed plenty of creditable behaviour under adverse field conditions. trust with tools, glad to have as admin. Pete.Hurd 02:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, excellent editor in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support Passes my criteria †he Bread 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support a good editor who will make good use of the admin tools, Tewfik 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support excellent devoted editor abakharev 05:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support excellent all round editor. Good communicator and explainer. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - I believe that she'd make a great admin. ←Humus sapiens 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support - Durova has contributed excellent material to articles and maintained a level head in some very exasperating situations. Will be a great admin. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - And glad to do so, now that Durova has responded to my one concern.  ProhibitOnions  07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Wishing to be the first to support Durova, I added this page to my watchlist as soon as it was created three days ago. What a pity I was asleep when the voting started :) --Ghirla 07:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Doesn't seem to like AfD's, but in light of the sheer breadth of experience in WP namespace I won't hold it against her. ~ trialsanderrors 08:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support without any hesitation whatsoever. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Strong support. Extremely polite, excellent contributions and generally a pleasure to work with. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support experienced and dedicated Wikipedian. I was impressed by his answer to question three, as it illustrates an honesty and ability for self-actualisation. I also like that he's willing to tackle some of the more complex vandalism problems. hoopydink 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Errabee 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support good WP:space work.-- danntm C 14:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support- great articles, and I think this user really needs the admin tools. NCurse work 16:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support In my opinion, this user would be a great admin. --Siva1979 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Looks like an honest, hard working user. Nice work on Joan Of Arc. NauticaShades 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Impressive article writing and a good attitude. Thatcher131 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, sorry. Despite some good edits, Durova has shown what appears to be an unwillingness to engage in discussion. She added what was in essence a "my professors said so" argument to Talk:Ich bin ein Berliner , suggesting strongly she hadn't read either the discussion — as the positions she brought up had all been raised on the same page, in some cases several times ("I am a Danish", etc.) — or the article itself (it did not state, as evidently thought, that there was unexpected laughter, which she explained "was almost certainly apocryphal"). Durova did not reply to any of the responses to her comments. After nine months without contributing to the article she added a disputed flag to it , and once again added essentially the same argument-from-authority to the talk page , along with other remarks that suggested she still didn't get it ("And the question of whether the donut in question is sold in Berlin is moot"); again these were replied to, and again Durova did not respond.  ProhibitOnions  21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support
In that circumstance it was actually rather difficult to source my information (which was why I kept it to the talk page rather than the main article). I was concerned by references that claimed the rumor originated in an article that was published several years after I first heard this from German language instructors. What can I say, other than that every professor of the language I ever had made a point of raising that example in class? Considering that most of them were native German speakers on the faculty of Columbia University, it seemed reasonable to raise the point on the talk page. The example wasn't mentioned in our textbooks so I can't actually cite it. Mea culpa: I neglected to check back the page after my last post. I would certainly have responded if I had received a request at my user talk page. Please accept my apologies if this caused disruption. Durova 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll accept that. Just remember that this was a page with a long history of vandalism and the like, so it always helps to check the talk history to see if something has already been proposed; if you come back and discuss a little more, you might even win everyone else over.  ProhibitOnions  07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose sorry. Your comments regarding the "Gundagai editor" make me doubt your judgement. Sorry. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    There's a tough call and I'm not surprised to see someone come down against me, especially since the dispute is ongoing. I would have come on board if this editor's posts had been refactored rather than blanked. As it is - since even the IP's reply to RfC got blanked - I do think this person deserves a fair shot at reconciliation before ArbCom. If this person declines mentorship and mediation or WP:3O fail, then you'll have my wholehearted support. Durova 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think we have much of a realistic shot at reforming the Gundagai anon, but I don't see what was out of line about Durova's suggestion. There is a big difference between not showing good judgement and disagreeing over which established procedure should be used to handle a problem user. Andrew Levine 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    I think the concern is that she responded favorably to the editor's claims of being mistreated without also asking the editor to be accountable for the behavior that led up to the events of October 4. In addition, the blanking is more complex than it appears because the editor had been blocked for 24 hours for incivility, and was evading the block, and so blanking the edits was arguably permitted under WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks. If I thought this was an indicator that Durova would generally be lax with problem editors, I would be concerned. I haven't analyzed her history and I am not expressing an opinion at this time, just a little explanation. Thatcher131 16:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    There are several points here so I'll do my best to break them down briefly.
    1. I'm concerned about the extent of the blanking - that it included Village Pump, an uninvolved editor's user talk page, and RfC.
    2. I'm concerned that this sets an exploitable precedent.
    3. I'm concerned about selective enforcement: uncivil behavior on the other side of this dispute has not resulted in warnings or anything else.
    I don't necessarily think of this as an instance of railroading, yet I could see this becoming a precedent for an actual railroading with a different set of people. It doesn't seem like too much to ask to give one wholehearted try at reconciliation before ArbCom. Durova 19:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I think the conduct of the other editors will get scrutinized as well if the case is accepted. I'm looking for a remedy along the lines of the Kven user case, personally. I have no problem with anyone trying a light touch with the editor one more time but given the difficulty of contacting her, and her recent response to Sarah Ewart (who had nothing to do with the blanking incident) I am dubious. I don't think a light touch is the same thing as an error in judgement. Thatcher131 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose E-mail is not enabled. While I read some old comments on your talk page about privacy and transparency, I feel an admin should have e-mail enabled, for example in the case of blocked users who do not realize they can post to their talk page or who want to contact your privately. You can maintain your privacy by using a service such as gmail, which can be accessed through a web browser and is untraceable. You can only get on gmail right now if someone invites you, so if you would like to e-mail me at thatcher131 at gmail.com I will send you an invitation. Thatcher131 19:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've enabled the e-mail. Misplaced Pages hasn't sent me the confirmation e-mail yet so it might be a few hours before I can receive messages. Durova 19:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
E-mail is now confirmed and operational. Durova 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral