I just happened to notice that Durova recently passed a request for adminship on Wikisource with unanimous support. Are the wikistalkers finally forgetting to bother her on all the sister projects? I sure hope so...

Here's the permalink to the RFA: http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title...d=811076#Durova

Durova's been doing really good work on Wikisource. There and Commons are the two places she most deserves it; it's where she really shines.

Durova's been doing good work on Wikipedia, too.

The photo restoration work she's done has been stunning, IMO.

The music stuff is good too. Not that I'm an expert on free media etc. She can even crochet. Renaissance woman.

Yeah! Check this out:

That's her own stuff, BTW

Come on, this is just blatant advertising, and she isn't even a member.

She'll turn on 'em... Just you wait.

Durova is an excellent Wiki(m)edian in my experience. Sure she made a big mistake last year, but she's held her head up and continued, despite the mud slung (slinged?) in her direction by various trolls. I have a lot of respect for her and her work. There's really not much I can say that's bad!

If this thread doesn't bring back the Kohser, then what will?

We haven't yet mentioned the fact that Durova STILL hasn't retracted or apologized for that deliberately misleading and defamatory comment about Kohs, after the Brian Bergstein interview.

Nor has she ever really admitted that her self-professed "sooper-sleuthing" abilities are based pretty much entirely on thin air...

Other than those two things though, I guess she's no worse than most. Hell, why not make her a "bureaucrat"? Giver her a corner office and her own coffee machine, and she'll be all set.

Nobody in this world is perfect, as I well know... but I find myself more in agreement with you, Alex, than I do with Somey. (some of the criticism was trolling, and some was legitimate, to put a fair point to that part, and Somey raises issues that are meaningful, but still)

Would I like to see a full accounting? Maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe it is best at this point to let sleeping dogs lie, and only draw lessons from some things so they cannot happen again.

But more importantly, apologies can't be forced to be in the exact format that one wants them to be in. I think Durova has apologized to the community in myriad ways... chiefly by the hard work she has done on a number of wikis, in a number of areas. I'll take that defacto apology any day over a perfectly formated apology and nothing else in the way of project contribution. Some belittle those who only try to rule and who contribute nothing content wise. No one can make that accusation and have it stick here, Durova's content contributions are nothing short of superb.

Further, I've had direct experience working closely with her on a mentoring and I've found her approach to be thoughtful, considerate, collaborative and well grounded. I'd work with her again on such a thing any time.

Belittle me for this as you will, but there you have it.

Consider that I am still unfairly blocked on Wikipedia and the history of what she has done to achieve such block, which included my daughter being exploited there and to claim the whole disruption policy is about me, it is obvious that she is not the considerate or collaborative.

The pain still continues to this day for which she has done.

If there is belittlement, then it must be in the way to ignore what bad she has done so that you and others remain on her good side.

And anybody coming here to WR, knowing where people communicate and some which have been blocked by her or her friends... and trying to say... oh look at all the good she has done... is questionable attitude indeed.

Quoting myself:

Both Durova and Greg have since pointed out this ultra-fabulous edit, in which Durova deleted all of the material in question, replacing the entries with the word "redacted."

I'll admit, this is better than nothing - but as the word implies, it's a redaction, not a retraction, and of course no apology was involved. (Just by way of example, I might state that I think Joe Schmoe is a "jerk," but unless I later say that I was wrong to think that Joe Schmoe was a jerk, and that he in fact is not a jerk, then I haven't actually retracted the original statement, regardless of whether or not I delete it from whatever website I originally posted it to. People therefore remain free to believe that I still think Joe Schmoe is a jerk, because, let's face it, I probably do.)

Now, it may be that Durova has a legitimate reason to feel that a retraction would have been inappropriate - perhaps something of a position-reinforcing nature was told to her in confidence that she feels she can't, or shouldn't, repeat in public. I don't believe that's a viable excuse, though, but it's just one theory out of many possibles.

So, you take what you can get from the Wikipedia folks... And Greg seems to have at least been mollified somewhat by the redaction edit, so that's something, I guess.

That is not a "redaction". That is a slap in Kohs' face. Yet another charming little item to engrave onto Wikipedia's tombstone.

A pity it's so damn easy to demonstrate WP's status as a massively dysfunctional "family". Do all the WMF people and top admins deserve straitjackets? They stand up for each other, no matter how insane one of them acts.

I suppose I can't complain about forum trolling, after reading this Orwellian crap.

It's so blatant and crude, it seems like a Monty Python satire of Newspeak.
Clearly, she's not as smart as she thinks she is....or else she's putting everyone on.

Sorry dear, it's not funny. Go back to crochet. You're better at it.

Sounds like a familiar US political party.