Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Durova

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Durova

Final (81/0/1) Ended Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:39 UTC

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

STATEMENT: The edit counter reports over 7000 total edits with nearly 3000 main space edits and close to 2000 Wikipedia space edits. I belong to the

I've checked again and 7000 was an undercount. Looks close to 9000. Durova 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia 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:

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Durova 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: My first and toughest accomplishment was raising

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)[reply

]

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 Wikipedia over that article before I joined the project. I was learning Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joan of Arc and Wjbean’s message at Talk:Joan of Arc#New Visions section. The essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons summarizes much of what I learned from that experience. Another positive outcome is the Wikipedia: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

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.[2] The two editors in question will probably never be friends, but nobody got blocked or quit Wikipedia. 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)[reply

]

4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Question from

5. What do the policy of

WP:SNOW

mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules summarizes things pretty well. It's better for people with sysop powers to ignore rules by handing out a judicious warning sometimes in place of a block. Basically I view the policy and essay as reminders not to become blindly process-driven. Common sense counts for a lot at Wikipedia. Durova 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Durova's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit summary as of 22:42, October 10 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple of responses have speculated on this: yes I'm female. Durova 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply
  ]

1. Nominate and support. >Radiant< 15:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support per my experience Pavel Vozenilek 17:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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
   talk 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Support.  Grue  20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Excellent editor. No worries at all. --FloNight 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support -- I have encountered Durova in several places here and have been impressed with her understanding of Wikipedia. Andrew Levine 20:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support--MONGO 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
   ]
9. Suppport. --
   Interiot 20:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Support Great editor already, would be even better with the tools. Hello32020 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Support per above --Esteban F. ^(con.) 21:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sure. Kusma (討論) 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support of course. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support per nom and others. Rama's arrow 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
16. Support 7,000 edits in the time span of one year shows not only experience but a strong commitment to Wikipedia. Would make a great sysop! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
18. Support. Michael 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - great editor. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Irrationally Strong Support.—After carefully reading (twice)
    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)[reply
    ]

    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)[reply]

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)[reply]
23. Support, excellent editor in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Passes my criteria †he Bread 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support a good editor who will make good use of the admin tools, Tewfik^Talk 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support excellent devoted editor abakharev 05:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong Support excellent all round editor. Good communicator and explainer. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - I believe that she'd make a great admin. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
30. Support - And glad to do so, now that Durova has responded to my one concern.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^-трёп- 07:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
33. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support without any hesitation whatsoever. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong support. Extremely polite, excellent contributions and generally a pleasure to work with. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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^{Conas tá tú?} 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support
    Errabee 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. Support --
    T | C) 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support good WP:space work.-- danntm ^T _C 14:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support- great articles, and I think this user really needs the admin tools. NCurse _work 16:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support In my opinion, this user would be a great admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. Looks like an honest, hard working user. Nice work on Joan Of Arc. NauticaShades 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Impressive article writing and a good attitude.
    Thatcher131 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Support Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Per nom, questions and interactions. Garion96 (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Familiar face on the PAIN board.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Everything looks good to me. I remember you from many months ago when a real amusing gem of an accusation was made against us. (Your response.)
    masterka 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
48. Support per all above.--Húsönd 04:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support per above and the nom. 1ne 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support per above,for efforts for neutrality.Can bring a different point of view.
    Mustafa Akalp 14:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
51. Support. -
    iablo 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
52. Support. An impressive resume. Themindset 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. - Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Answer to question 4 displays competent understanding of the policy and application. —
    talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
55. Support – solid editor, calm user when in conflicts, and seems to have good grasp on Wikipedia...why not? —Mirlen 21:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. In my (limited) experience with Durova, I found Durova to be reasonable and knowledgeable of policy. The answers to questions above confirm my initial perception. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support per nom, answers, comments above. Newyorkbrad 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. Strong editor, shows civility, is not a jerk. Passes my criteria lol. Nishkid64 00:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - we need more hands at
    JesseW, the juggling janitor
    01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Dude! This girl has written essays! Charlie MacKenzie 08:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Very solid editor; wish she participated more at AfD. Eusebeus 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Strong Support This editor knew enough to go out of the way to state the superb number of edit counts. Why am I saying this? Because there are a lot of people who have editcountitis who might vote oppose without this information. This user is smart. It is clear that there isn't a good reason to oppose and even the opposers have mostly changed their mind. -- RM 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    May I comment on that? I wanted to wait and see whether I could really sustain my commitment to Wikipedia. I also wanted to wait until I felt I knew the site and ripened as a Wikipedian. I probably would have waited until early next year to request adminship if Radiant hadn't posted a call for new admins at Village Pump. Durova 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think my point was well made and your comment enforces my opinion of you. Frankly, you could have been an admin a long time ago. In an age where people get voted down in RfA for now having good enough article writing experience, you've proven that you have that. -- RM 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for your support. Cheers, Durova 16:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64. Support. Have interacted with her before and had the impression of her as a fair and thoughtful contributor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support I've seen Durova around, interacted with her on Charun (a difficult situation), and think she'd make a good use of admin powers. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. ^{wat's sup} 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
67. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support; excellent and thoughtful editor, most likely will be an equally excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. While I suspect that Durova might not always use the stun gun as much as would be appropriate, not using the tools is not the same misusing the tools. I trust this user not to misuse the tools. Regards, Ben Aveling

    Somehow my softest moments have been coming up for discussion here. I'm capable of taking strong positions too. One example is Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich#$0.02. Durova 02:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70. Support. Hemmingsen 09:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. Seems to be a good and level-headed editor. Cardamon 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. -Will Beback 19:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. of course. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Sorry I'm late Support. As Per Kirill.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support, excellent editor --- Deville (Talk) 14:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Will make an excellent admin.UberCryxic 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support thanks for clarifying your position, Durova.
    Talk) 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
79. Support per experience and dedication to making the project better.
    es2221 23:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
80. Support - we've only recently crossed paths and we didn't kick things off on a high note at all did we? I felt you were a little quick to accuse me of foul play and willing to make negative assumptions regarding my behaviour in what has become a very complex dispute spanning many months. Administrators are only human (I think, I saw a bot here last week), so they can and will make mistakes. To give you the benefit of the doubt I don't think you realised in the first instance the vast scope of the problem you'd stepped into before your comments regarding myself were aired. That said, your willingness to step into the ring of fire in the first place when many others didn't shows an admirable quality in you that I admire. Your willingness to help others out in very very testing situations can only be of benefit to Wikipedia. All things considered, you have my support. -- Longhair\^talk 09:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Fine candidate who I remember seeing around a lot about a year ago, seems very level-headed and highly unlikely to abuse the tools. I'm glad Durova's stuck around and is now at RfA. --W.marsh 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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 [3], 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 [4], and once again added essentially the same argument-from-authority to the talk page [5], 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  ^(T) 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support[reply]

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)[reply]

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  ^(T) 07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose sorry. Your comments regarding the "Gundagai editor" make me doubt your judgement. Sorry.

   Talk) 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   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)[reply

   ]

   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)[reply]

   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

   Thatcher131 16:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   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)[reply]

   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. Regarding your RFA, I don't think a light touch is the same thing as an error in judgement.

   Thatcher131 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Thanks for your response Durova (and thanks to Thatcher for clarifying some points). I will give what you have said further thought, look through some of your edits again and review my !vote before the close of your RfA. I really dislike opposing good people and I honestly didn't mean to sound like I was "coming down against [you]". But I do find some of your comments concerning and I think I have to be honest about that.

   I understand your concern for what (I think) you perceive to be the "under-dog" (that is a very Aussie quality which I appreciate and value :-)) in this dispute. However, I'm very concerned that we now have two excellent administrators and a very valued long term editor who feel they have been banging their heads against a brick wall for the last six months with no support or backup, despite asking for it several times, to the degree that they feel they cannot continue on. I understand your fear that rolling back her edits may set a precedent, but I don't share it. I do not agree with reverting edits simply because someone has not signed, but I think it was okay for them to do this during the times that the anon was meant to be under a block. As Thatcher notes above, this is arguably acceptable within the blocking policy. In addition, I think the actions you have objected to are merely reflective of the extreme stress and frustration they were under for a sustained period of time. Golden Wattle did ask a number of times for help, but it seems little was forthcoming. My personal opinion is that yes, they have made mistakes, but the outcome and the situation that you have been critical of is really a manifestation of the fact that we, as a community, failed to adequately support and assist these people when they asked for it.

   Thanks again for your comments and for clarifying your opinion. I will take it all under consideration. Cheers,

   Talk) 12:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   As far as administrator involvement goes, it did make me uneasy to see one of the administrators deny being an involved party when I suggested recusal at Village Pump, then later state at my talk page that he or she was considering leaving Wikipedia over this affair. In an ideal world that would be the point where I'd recuse myself (if not sooner) yet I can understand the dilemma if no other administrator filled the gap. Most of this developed before

   RFC and probably seek a community topic ban before things degenerated this much. I've been willing to extend the benefit of the doubt here because the waters got muddied. There's a flexible limit on that good faith and I've cautioned the IP at my user talk page that if he or she doesn't show more willingness to cooperate and compromise soon I'll strikethrough my statement at the ArbCom request and change my position. Durova 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I have responded directly to Durova at

   talk 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Rather than add to the discussion here, I'll save any detailed discussion on this matter for the ArbCom case which looks likely to be accepted. I'm having trouble keeping up with the many threads this dispute has broken into already without fragmenting it further. I think you've got a case of mistaken identity though. I was never involved with the content dispute, and never said I was leaving Wikipedia at all. I've had some recent time off though for personal reasons, but I'm still here. -- Longhair\^talk 09:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Since this matter is ongoing, I'd like to suggest that interested editors review the discussion on my user talk page and other relevant pages. The beginning of this thread is now slightly out of date. I've responded to Golden Wattle at my user page where the above concerns are expressed in more detail. I've also placed an addendum on the ArbCom request to express the chance that I may reverse my position. Since the anon was blocked before I could reply at my talk page I'll give 2-3 days to see improvement before deciding. Durova 05:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Having slept on the matter I'll eat a couple of my own words and comment a little further. There wasn't a mistaken identity about the recusal suggestion - and in the interests of consistency I'm pretty strict on myself about disclosure and recusal. I've never edited on

   9/11 or related pages. Rarely, I've commented on related pages and I've always disclosed the root of my bias: my closest relative survived the World Trade Center attacks from a high floor - was actually one of the last to escape alive - and as a result I joined the armed forces rather late in life and went to war. I don't say this to boast, merely to explain that I step aside when something on Wikipedia becomes too personal for objectivity. Although that example strays from the current topic, I hope it offers perspective on my standards as an editor. Durova 17:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I stand corrected about this identity. It turns out that an administrator was referring to a third unnamed editor in a message to my talk page. The phrasing appeared to be self-referential. Durova 03:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I have now struck through my original statement at the arbitration request and written a new one in support of arbitration. The reasons are expressed in the new statement. Durova 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply

   ]