Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Back Room Dealings
> Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > Durova
Achromatic
Over at AN/I, there's a discussion about the "interference" of an editor with another's work. Essentially, two users (Ottava Rima and Awadevit) have come repeatedly into conflict with each other re their work on FACs.

Notably absent from any of the (extensive) discussions is our sleuth, Durova. People weigh up options, debate merits, question admins.

But no, that won't do.

Durova steps in, with her first remark on the case being this "proposed remedy":

QUOTE
Ottava Rima has an extensive and recent block log and responds aggressively to feedback. Awadewit has written two dozen featured articles and has been scrupulously patient and polite. Don't blame her for this thread, please. I urged her to initiate it. The plain fact here is that Ottava Rima's disruptive actions pose an imminent danger of interrupting the productivity of our most productive Wikipedians (Awadewit and others). I propose a partial ban of Ottava Rima from WP:FAC; Ottava Rima may nominate his or her own material and participate fully at those nominations, but may not comment on any other nominations. This restriction would be reviewable after one month and may be lifted if Ottava Rima's civility and responsiveness to feedback improve.


Wait, hang on. Durova meddling? Say it ain't so. Luckily, more than a few people are on the ball, firstly Jbmurray, and then SandyGeorgia tries to dig a little deeper:

QUOTE
Hold on, how does this work? You "urged" Awadewit to initiate this ANI, you don't comment on it, and then come in with this solution... I mean, whatever the merits of the proposal, this doesn't look very good. It rather looks as though you had decided that it would be a good idea to ban Ottava from FAC, and then asked Awadewit to initiate a complaint so that you could do so, regardless of the discussion. This may not have been what happened, but frankly something looks a little fishy here.


Durova backpedals a little, excuses, etc, none of which really explains why she tried to go around process, and then comes out with this surprisingly astute observation:

QUOTE
Oh, absolutely. Now that I think about it I can see your concern about the potential for wikipoliticking, and I suppose I ought to have contacted you in advance. Eighteenth century literary history happens to be a topic where I have some knowledge, so the factual merits had my attention. One of my weak points, perhaps, is that I sometimes approach matters that are apparent to me on that level without fully anticipating the political dimensions other editors may interpolate. WP:AGF seems like it's supposed to take care of that, but it doesn't always.


As a footnote, her "proposed remedy"? Steamrolled into oblivion, as it should have been.
Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE
Oh, absolutely. Now that I think about it I can see your concern about the potential for wikipoliticking, and I suppose I ought to have contacted you in advance. Eighteenth century literary history happens to be a topic where I have some knowledge, so the factual merits had my attention. One of my weak points, perhaps, is that I sometimes approach matters that are apparent to me on that level without fully anticipating the political dimensions other editors may interpolate. WP:AGF seems like it's supposed to take care of that, but it doesn't always.


BLAH BLAH BLAH from Ms. D. Thank God people catch her in the act, in real time. Imagine she used to have street credibility.

QUOTE(Achromatic @ Mon 28th April 2008, 1:32pm) *

Durova backpedals a little, excuses, etc, none of which really explains why she tried to go around process, and then comes out with this surprisingly astute observation:

Oh, she's plenty astute... about the blah blah. Unfortunately that does not mean that she will not take whatever leash for abuse she's given and run with it, all the way to the bank and back and all over the faces of whomever she deems, willy nilly to be cannon fodder. What you've observed here is her *astute*-ness being applied as a means of wriggling out from under the fence when someone stomped on her sneaky little hands, and caught her in the act. All of it is sheer unmitigated bullshit, in florid vocabulary, the likes of which gives the easily impressed the idea that she has any self-perception whatsoever. But read between the lines ... the potential for wikipoliticking means: "that I'm gaming the system to screw some poor bastard without sufficient street cred to withstand the eventual outcome", or the faux humility of admitting an area of error which framew her attack as a difference in personal approach referenced on level of knowledge (hers being superior?) rather than being truly humble and saying, 'gosh, sorry, I snapped at someone. I am in a mood today' or something more truly contrite which brings the real issue to the fore. She's just simply never wrong, and if caught, would prefer death by firing squad, Mata Hari style to a simple, human apology. It's rather sad, if she didn't have such a high body count - but she does.

As for her assertion that "Eighteenth century literary history happens to be a topic where I have some knowledge", let me introduce you to her favorite part of it:

Edit: Oh.My.God. Her blog page has a picture of a guillotine on it. I put this picture here as a spontaneous joke, and she had it up there. That is a scary, scary, coincidence. I simply made mention of her eighteenth century braggado, and picked up the head chopping thing as a joke. She already had it on her blog page (shudder). Maybe she is more astute than I'd understood.

FORUM Image
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.