Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Durova

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Durova

Durova has withdrawn this, archive request. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links for Durova: Durova (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Durova has experience both as an admin and a producer of superb content. Her photographic restoration skills are legendary, as her string of Featured pictures, both here and on English Wikipedia will attest. She has also organised an image organisation project, en:User:Durova/Landmark_images, also described at User:Durova here, which has organised people to restore even more photographs and images.

Her admin work has been exemplary, dealing with awkward and difficult situations with tact and kindness. She has advocated for scalability, an important view for a growing project. She has also worked on en-wiki, where she did not shirk from trying to deal with controversial subjects, again, something that a bureaucrat must be willing to do. As such, I think that she has both the time in the trenches, and the judgement to make an excellent bureaucrat. Adam Cuerden 01:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the nomination. I accept. Durova 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support as nominator. Adam Cuerden 01:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Majorly (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regret, I move to  Neutral - while I have had a good experience of Durova, I have come to think that two months is really a bit too fast... bureaucrats aren't needed that desperately. Come back in say, three months and I'm sure you'll pass all the way. Majorly (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Filll 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Durova should be fine. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support abf /talk to me/ 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Foroa 11:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — Rlevse • Talk • 12:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully  Oppose, participating in RFAs (here) is a must; RFAs here and on the English Wikipedia are two separate concepts. Furthermore, Bryan pointed out that this candidate has only been an administrator for two months, which is less than some of the community would consider ideal experience. There may be some additional issues as well. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 16:47, 17 May 2008 (GMT)
    • The systems have their differences but it's the same principle - evaluate the discussion, close accordingly. It's common sense. RFA participation would be nice, but it's not a must. And do you consider two months to be not enough? The community so far disagree. It's just you at the moment. I'd also like to know what the "other issues" may be. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Yes, definitely. I may not be experienced on the commons, but I know that Durova has excelled with images on here and Wikipedia with numerous Featured Pictures. Sunderland06 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support --Szczepan talk 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Sure. rootology (T) 08:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Rastrojo (D•ES) 10:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durova had a somewhat controversial tenure as an administrator at en:wp. We are not en:wp, and experience there does not directly translate here, either positively or negatively, it is merely a factor to consider. (Meaning: Experience on other wikis is a bonus, but not a guarantee of success. Difficulties on other wikis are things to be taken into account, but not a guarantee of failure) I think that for the most part she's been a fine administrator here, but I think it's too soon for a bureaucratship in this particular case. Normally 2 months is adequate but I think this is a special case. I've considered the comments of others before deciding, and it is not without regret that I say this but I think I cannot support, and in fact must  Oppose, without prejudice to a try a bit later on. (after the community has had a chance to see more of her approach here) I would ask that others consider the matter carefully and not just take my word for it. If the community in the end decides to support this time, I will gladly work with her, for I have no doubt whatever about her intentions being in the right place.) ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sucks like you wouldn't believe. I (co-)nominated Durova for adminship. Every interaction I've had with her on Commons has been excellent. I've overlooked the EnWP stuff because in this case I don't think it bears relevance to her being a 'crat here, but I still find myself concurring with O and Lar. I agree absolutely that her intentions are in the right place, and I would like to say some positives—as an admin (and non-admin) Durova has done some excellent work in some highly difficult and contentious areas around the Commons, and has done some really top notch work. I have never, ever regretted my nominating her for adminship here. But, much to my regret, I find myself having to  Oppose this RfB. I'm really sorry. giggy (:O) 01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather weak  Oppose right now, per Lar. ~ Riana ⁂ 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Oppose per Lar. His tenure at EN worries me. - 米乐· 地阿伯 11:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose for several reasons. I continue to prefer that the leadership positions on Commons be filled by a more diverse group of users. Progress has been made but Commons' would benefit from having more Commons admins, 'crats, CUers, Oversighters with a broader background. Also Commons most definitely has a different set of customs and policies than Wikipedia-English (or any other wiki) so Commons 'crats need to have substantial experience on Commons that Durova does not have. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral per FloNight, whilst agreeing with others that Durova is doing excellent work as an admin on this project. WjBscribe 14:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A fun and productive editor who isn't cut out for positions of power and authority. --Duk 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't care about whatever drama occured at en wp, but I think you have not been with us long enough. Maybe later. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per a number of the comments above I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 10:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This should be on a subpage. giggy (:O) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, Durova's RfA is at Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Durova. giggy (:O) 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little too soon I think. She is only an admin for two months and has since then never commented or voted in an RFA. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand RFA: at English Wikipedia I've done extensive coaching of promising editors and every one of the people I've worked with that way has passed RFA. I've probably written more than my fair share of nominations, yet I've been as likely to nominate as to vote at all. That doesn't mean I'm disengaged or out of touch: it means I favor a hands-on approach with a genuine commitment to training and follow-through. Taken together, I have nearly a year and a half of experience as an administrator on WMF projects. Durova 10:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thinking about this further, I should expand: admin coaching as I've practiced it isn't about gaming the RFA process so much as about finding people who want the tools for the right reasons and equipping them with skills that would serve them well afterward. Some coaches have been known to advise students to pad their edit count; I never did. Instead I'd send them to do useful things that helped the project and prepared them for sysop responsibilities, such as RC patrol. If a candidate is well prepared the RFA mostly takes care of itself. The rest is about communicating with the voters. Durova 10:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that Durova's short admin experience here is a red herring. She clearly has a lot deeper experience as an admin than most, and is even a very successful admin coach!--Filll 16:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question I trust Durova and she definitely makes a great admin—no question about that—but she hasn't been one for that long, which I could easily overlook if she was more active with RfXs. Participating in these aren't just for the procedural experience or to get in touch with what the community wants, it also provides an opportunity for others to observe and form an idea about the participate themselves. Right now, I'm leaning towards support but not ready to vote yet so I'm asking a question instead. :P Durova, what would you say is the best way to deal with POV disputes on Commons. How does this project's stance on NPOV differ (if it all) from Wikipedia's? (General question, but here's a situation: If, let's say, two somewhat established editors are editwarring over how an image is categorized due to conflicting POVs, what's the best way to resolve the issue? Protect the "wrong version", direct them to the talk page, then do nothing? Give them a warning for editwarring and block if they continue? Offer a third opinion? All of the above? Something else?) Thanks. Rocket000 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would look around to see what other factors might be at work. Maybe there's an acceptable compromise that the participants haven't already considered: if the parent category is cluttered with related material then a new subcategory might satisfy both parties' concerns. Sometimes a language barrier plays a role and, if so, I'd seek assistance from a bilingual person if the language in question isn't one I understand. The response may depend on how well I know the underlying topic: one common error in textile arts is to mistake crochet for knitting--the difference is obvious to someone who does both crafts--so in a case like that I'd identify the stitch and provide contrasting photographs so the non-crafter could see which category is technically correct. Another scenario are conflicts that migrate from other WMF projects. Let's say two editors are revert warring over whether a sample of handmade lace is Russian or Ukranian: I'd approach that in the hope that they're both reasonable people. If one of them can point to an online archive of historic lace patterns and the other just thinks it resembles a family heirloom, we may be able to resolve the matter; but if one has been hard banned from the Russian, Ukranian, and English Wikipedias and starts resorting to taunts then I'd step in with a warning, and then a block if necessary, and follow up at a noticeboard if that editor is a known sockpuppeteer. NPOV itself is a stable concept, yet the methods of applying it are somewhat different at a visually oriented project in a multilingual setting. Durova 16:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much for your reply. It sounds like you would take the more involved approach. Conflict resolution. That's good. Although, it's hard (at least for me) to be involved enough to discuss the subject of the dispute while remaining neutral enough to still play the role of an admin. To be honest, I'm still undecided. I have Lar's words to consider, and well, there are a few issues from en.wp that I have been trying to not let affect my vote (e.g. my original question was going to be about transparency). Rocket000 04:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually we have 8 Crats. Normally that should be enough. Why we need 2 more? Before I vote, I would like to get an answer. How much of the actual 8 Crats we have are active? I ever have a problem, if too much person have such rights. Marcus Cyron 13:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say our most active crats right now are Eugene and Patricia. Activity goes in waves, I'm not as active as I'd like to be (too much drama on en:wp perhaps?)... but I do try to step in when I can. Usually I find one of them beats me to whatever it is that needs doing. The activity logs would shed some light as well. I know you and I differ on this point, I think it's OK to have more crats than you absolutely need (the experiment on Meta is fascinating... it must be driving you crazy :) )... but I agree, right now I think things are being handled OK. That's in my view no reason to oppose. Hope this helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it helps, thanks. And I don't look for causes to oppose, I 'm looking for causes to  Supportmote ;). Marcus Cyron 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks to the people who participated here, I'm withdrawing this candidacy. It was something of a surprise when I saw the call for new candidacies on AN. What actually happened was that I asked a couple of people whether it would be a good idea to give this a try (nobody else had stepped up yet) and one of them rushed off and nominated me before I had really decided. That enthusiasm ranks among the highest compliments I've received in my Wikimedian career; thank you very much Adam. With gratitude toward all who've spent their time here, there are others who are well qualified. Best regards, Durova 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Durova&oldid=66954818"