Over at AN/I, there's a discussion
about the "interference" of an editor with another's work. Essentially, two users (Ottava Rima
) 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":
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:
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:
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.