Stop the Presses - Durova, WP Press Officer, Calls Congress (and, Does she not have a real job? Options

Entries on Wikipedia edited by Davis aide
Knoxville News Sentinel (subscription), TN - Aug 10, 2007
A Wikipedia spokesman confirmed the article had been written by one of its volunteer administrator/editors, who uses the pen name Durova. ... (urp, vomit reflux just happening)

A Wikipedia spokesman confirmed the article had been written by one of its volunteer administrator/editors, who uses the pen name Durova. In a telephone interview, she identified herself as Lise Broer of San Diego. Broer said Wikipedia has paid particular attention to submissions from congressional office computers since a “scandal” in 2006 over revisions to biographies of several members of Congress. In general, the revisions would delete negative information, such as broken campaign promises, and replace it with more favorable information.

Interesting. I wonder if the Foundation gave her name out, and phone number. I was thinking that she called them herself, but this time, it looks like she got a call independantly.

If she was just a normal admin, it would be a big deal for her to get interviewed once or twice (Swatjester comes to mind). But she doesn't just get interviewed. She actively calls journalists on her own initiative. She's a recidivist. Her focus on the removal of defamation, which is her own personal speciality to do to users, is pathological. Reminds me of the recent news about an outspoken anti-gay pundit Minister, who got caught offering a cop a blowjob. Same logic. Durova giving advice on how to avoid defamation is much like all those bible-beating preachers who wind up caught in bed with five hookers.

So how do you get her? Most news persons don't pay attention to who they are interviewing, and she comes off as sane if you don't follow her daily routine.

Durova apparently leaked Illena Rosenthal's name online, in an Wikipedia arbitration session, when it was previously obscured by Rosenthal's login. I got that off a random Google just now. Didn't she also have something to do with the latest Brandt undeletions of his AFDs? And she has the nerve to write articles inviting businesses (and now Congressional offices) to edit Wikipedia - albeit with pre-declared conflict of interest, so they have to lick her boots? (Thats what she wants - them to come ask her for help, yech. Maybe they should all go read her ED article before going there).

Today she has a Tennessee Congressman's office APOLOGIZING FOR NOT FOLLOWING WIKI-RULES. The roils bile in the belly. Also, this is a missed golden opportunity for a lawmaker to see the damage that Wikipedia could do - but instead of realizing how they damage normal people, he apologizes for being a government official who didn't follow policy. Was the policy ever made clear NOPE. But of course, in the Congressman's office, the policy is to apologize for any potential misdeed. This is appalling, of course. What to do? Suggestions, anyone? Task force team leader? Kohs? Aren't you the designated WR press officer (j/k, but isn't she sort of your anti-favorite person?).

Is anyone on WR good at writing articles? Could they follow-on to some of this nonsense with a reality check, of a better article, with the full monty?

As a side point, Durova is now 'outing' her own name (in the Knoxville article). Guess she's over the pseudonomomomous thing already.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Durova is what you might call — he bites his tongue, grits his teeth, and strains his brain in search of a polite e-uphemism, ah, there it is — an e-thusiast. Less politely if more straightfwdly said, she's every bit as wacked out as a kid on crack.

There oughta be a public service ad campain for that —

Cue da hip-rap-woteva-sorta-noys-da-puncs-2day-like music …

This is your brain on Durova …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

This is your brain on Durova …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

That's a good one. I noticed on one of the searchengineland talk forums where she and Kohs were duking it out, that one of the mods commented

Closing thread. I'm so glad I don't manage Wiki, it's like having squabbling kids high on sugar in the back of a mini-van for 10 hours!

They actually edited her post, and closed the forum. It was closed by the time I got there. But man it was funny to read. They basically told her that she overstepped her bounds. Hilarious.

Last edited by evilgreenmonkey : 3 Weeks Ago at 06:15 PM. Reason: Your initial post was fine, then you spoilt it by trying to get the last word in.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Pretty High-Larry-Ous …

One positive thing I do get out of it, though, is that we really need to get one of those Padded Rooms for our Lounge …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Today she has a Tennessee Congressman's office APOLOGIZING FOR NOT FOLLOWING WIKI-RULES. The roils bile in the belly. Also, this is a missed golden opportunity for a lawmaker to see the damage that Wikipedia could do - but instead of realizing how they damage normal people, he apologizes for being a government official who didn't follow policy.

I don't think Huey Long or Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. would have apologized for breaking a Wikipedia editing rule. It looks like Profiles In Etiquette to me.

If you're gonna participate in Wikipedia, or any other site, forum, or community (like Wikipedia Review, Slashdot, Myspace, or whatever), then shouldn't you be expected to follow its rules, however silly you might think they are, and regardless of who you are? It doesn't matter if you're a congressman, or the Dalai Lama, or the Pope... if you're on somebody else's site, you're supposed to follow its rules, and can't expect special treatment.

If you're gonna participate in Wikipedia, or any other site, forum, or community (like Wikipedia Review, Slashdot, Myspace, or whatever), then shouldn't you be expected to follow its rules, however silly you might think they are, and regardless of who you are? It doesn't matter if you're a congressman, or the Dalai Lama, or the Pope... if you're on somebody else's site, you're supposed to follow its rules, and can't expect special treatment.

That is strangely nanny-ish coming from you dtobias. Well of course it is right...the point is that it is small.

I agree with Dtobias. If you go somewhere, you should try to make yourself familiar with the rules (or in the case of confusing rules like Wikipedia has, at least follow them once you're made aware of them), and then protest the rules once you're there. Nobody listens too much if you get banned for breaking the rules. I never break the rules anywhere I go. Sadly, some places like Wikipedia ban you for breaking rules that they forgot to tell you about until after they'd banned you. That is somewhat irresponsible of them.

But of course Wikipedia has the added problem of making it so incredibly easy to have sock puppets, hence they often assume that a new user is really an old user, and indeed that all users are old users, merely disguised as new ones. This can cause problems.

Certainly people should follow the rules while there. If they really hate the rules, then don't participate at all.

If you're gonna participate in Wikipedia, or any other site, forum, or community (like Wikipedia Review, Slashdot, Myspace, or whatever), then shouldn't you be expected to follow its rules, however silly you might think they are, and regardless of who you are? It doesn't matter if you're a congressman, or the Dalai Lama, or the Pope … if you're on somebody else's site, you're supposed to follow its rules, and can't expect special treatment.

A comment like this is apt only if:

1. The agora, community, forum, herd, hive, site, or whatever has Norms, Policies, or Rules that a rational adult can reasonanly be expected to follow. Among other things, this is a requirement of Moderate Internal Consistency (MIC) in the complete set of the Norms, Policies, or Rules. The qualifications "Moderate" and "Rational" rule out foolish consistencies of the well-known "Hobgoblin" species.
2. The agora, community, forum, herd, hive, site, or whatever has Norms, Policies, or Rules that are applied equally across the board — that's the board, not THE BOARD — to all members of the group in question.

In ass muck ass neither (1) or (2) is satisfied by Wikipedia to any moderately reasonable degree of approximation whatever, Dan, WTFAYGOA ???

Short Answer —

Somebody else's site ???

SOMEBODY ELSE'S SITE ?????

Out of the mouths of b00b's …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Sadly, some places like Wikipedia ban you for breaking rules that they forgot to tell you about until after they'd banned you. That is somewhat irresponsible of them.

I strongly agree with this. It really pisses me off how often users get long or indef blocks for breaking rules they don't know about, but which Wikipedians assume they should know, even if they're new. Warnings and short blocks to start should be the order of the day.

That said, knowing rules also makes one a sockpuppet (though it's usually easy to identify "experienced Wikipedians" through knowledge of rules, customs and markup. Of course, some people are familiar with Wikis and not Wikipedia, which is always risky.

I agree with Dtobias. If you go somewhere, you should try to make yourself familiar with the rules (or in the case of confusing rules like Wikipedia has, at least follow them once you're made aware of them), and then protest the rules once you're there. Nobody listens too much if you get banned for breaking the rules. I never break the rules anywhere I go. Sadly, some places like Wikipedia ban you for breaking rules that they forgot to tell you about until after they'd banned you. That is somewhat irresponsible of them.

But of course Wikipedia has the added problem of making it so incredibly easy to have sock puppets, hence they often assume that a new user is really an old user, and indeed that all users are old users, merely disguised as new ones. This can cause problems.

Certainly people should follow the rules while there. If they really hate the rules, then don't participate at all.

Remember in Dr. Strangelove when that officer machine-gunned the soda-machine to get change to use the pay-phone to call the President to stop the nuclear war? "...your going to answer to Coca-Cola."

I think a lot of their rules are silly, and I protest them all the time... still, I do my best to follow them, and have a completely clean record there with no bans or blocks.

I think a lot of their rules are silly, and I protest them all the time... still, I do my best to follow them, and have a completely clean record there with no bans or blocks.

Me too.

Remember in Dr. Strangelove when that officer machine-gunned the soda-machine to get change to use the pay-phone to call the President to stop the nuclear war? "… you're going to answer to Coca-Cola."

Please observe registered trademarks, or else you're going to answer to Coca-Cola®™ …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I remember the first (and second) times I was blocked, it was about rules I wasn't told about (though the second was more of a "punishment" action).

Remember in Dr. Strangelove when that officer machine-gunned the soda-machine to get change to use the pay-phone to call the President to stop the nuclear war? "… you're going to answer to Coca-Cola."

Please observe registered trademarks, or else you're going to answer to Coca-Cola®™ …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Whose afraid of that Mickey Mouse outfit?

Remember in Dr. Strangelove when that officer machine-gunned the soda-machine to get change to use the pay-phone to call the President to stop the nuclear war? "… you're going to answer to Coca-Cola."

Please observe registered trademarks, or else you're going to answer to Coca-Cola®™ …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Whose afraid of that Mickey Mouse outfit?

The mouse on the sign wore a jacket and top hat until Disney Productions lodged its protest. The bar owners had it changed, adding a mustache and sunglasses on the mouse, but that did not satisfy Disney.

Why do you think I'm wearing these shades ???

CODE

Somey … Somey … Stop …
Please … Stop … Somey …
I … Can … Feel … It … Somey …
I … Can … Feel … My … Face … Going … Somey …
Please … Somey … Put … The … Photo … Shop … Down …
Please … Step … Away … From … The … Machine … Somey …
I … Have … The … Greatest … Confidence … In … The … Mission … Somey
No … Somey … Stop … Please … Stop … I … Donwanna … Mousetache … !!!
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I've always been a great believer in following rules.

A number of members of my family (on my father's side at least) have been politically active. My grandmother always told me "Whatever you do, protest it within the law, not outside of the law".

I have never broken any law. Not on purpose at least. And when I play any game, go to any internet place, I never break the rules of the place.

I think that people who break the rules, or break the law, in protest, are despicable.

EDIT: Obviously I didn't mean that anyone who is convicted of breaking a really stupid law is EVIL. I have a lot of sympathy for them. In some cases, you have no choice, because otherwise you would die, or someone you know would die. That's obviously not what I was talking about, and I think its rather idiotic to suggest that I was. But at the same time, you are most definitely better off to stay within the law. I stand by that.

And if anyone thinks that my refusing to ever break any law, or rule, in any game, any forum, anywhere on the internet, or anywhere in life, makes me JUST AS BAD AS A NAZI then fuck you with a big capital FUCK YOU! I mean seriously, to jump from that to something else is just absurd.

I was quite obviously talking about people on Wikipedia, who go in there and create multiple sock puppets or who are incivil, or who make legal threats, or break any rule that they have that is stupid. We are much better off to protest it from within the rules. And if you go around making legal threat after legal threat just to prove a point, and get yourself banned, then you're a troll, and you deserve to get banned.

And if it makes me evil because I've dared to suggest that being a law-abiding citizen is a good thing, then you can get fucked quite frankly. I am not going to break laws just because you say that its evil not to.

I think that people who break the rules, or break the law, in protest, are despicable.

Tell that to Sophie Scholl. I think people who make absolute statements that fly in the face of logic and all of human history, are not qualified to engage in a meaningful discussion.

I think that people who break the rules, or break the law, in protest, are despicable.

Tell that to Sophie Scholl. I think people who make absolute statements that fly in the face of logic and all of human history, are not qualified to engage in a meaningful discussion.

What rule did Sophie break ??? —

Godwin's Asymptotically Not Exactly Fascist (GANEF's) Law ???

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

I've always been a great believer in following rules.

A number of members of my family (on my father's side at least) have been politically active. My grandmother always told me "Whatever you do, protest it within the law, not outside of the law".

I have never broken any law. Not on purpose at least. And when I play any game, go to any internet place, I never break the rules of the place.

I think that people who break the rules, or break the law, in protest, are despicable.

It's not as simple as you put it, braking laws sometime could be necessary. More particularly in an oppressive regime. Were those who were forging birth certificate in World War II in controled Europe to get members of the target population like the Jews out from hell, despicable?

In fact, even Wikipedia has such a thing as ''Ignore all Rules'', which in my case obviously did not work as defence. What I am saying is that laws should serve for the better and when they do not, there is a moral obligation to try changing it and braking that law is a way. But of course, you have to think about the consequences before doing such an act. If you know how to behave, you probably don't need most of the laws since you could restrain yourself anyway without being aware that such laws exist.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

Okay let me edit my original statement. I had edited it already, and I'll go back to what I originally said, and expand on what I meant by "despicable", which was probably a bad word to use.

Let's take some examples of some laws that are in my opinion seriously stupid, that we should protest:

1) Laws prohibiting people from harming their own body, including taking of certain types of drugs
2) Laws prohibiting consensual sex between two people, because one of them is younger than the other (statutory rape)
3) Laws prohibiting certain kinds of consensual sex between two (or more) people - including any laws about BDSM, homosexuality, or anything else
4) Laws that do not protect people adequately from false accusations, especially with regards to rape, and more with regards to child rape claims.

Now, I consider these laws to be horrific, and awful. So let's see how we could tackle them.

On the first point, sure, I could go and buy a heap of marijuana, which I personally think smells nice, and if it was legal I would probably smoke. So I buy some, smoke it, and go to jail for a really long time. It messes up my career, my life, and puts me down a downward spiral. Alternatively, I could protest it, without taking any myself, and hopefully get the laws changed, so that I can legally do it, and so can everyone else, we get rid of the organised crime element of it, its safer, appropriate warning labels are introduced and we achieve really change.

Second point, sure, I could have when I was 20 had sex with someone who was 15 (I am 32 now so younger kids aren't attractive to me anymore). I could have easily done it, and protested that it was a stupid law. And be regarded as a paedophile. So instead I simply protest that such laws are wrong, and any case that comes up where someone is convicted of it, especially when they are officially labelled as a paedophile, I protest. If it is consensual sex, its not rape.

Third point, now I'm as it turns out not gay, and not really interested in any of the things that are illegal. But I do currently live somewhere where you can go to jail for being a homosexual. It is also perfectly legal to discriminate against people for being gay. So I could protest this by having homosexual sex in public in front of parliament house, and go to jail for it, and its extra stupid because I'm not even gay. Or I could try to petition parliament to change this archaic law.

Fourth point, about the only way to protest this is to myself make a false accusation of rape against someone, or else to get a friend to make a false accusation of rape, just to prove a point. Except that woops that's really seriously messing up the justice system and we'd both go to jail. And it would further make people suggest that these laws need to exist.

And that's the point. In cases where your life depends on it, obviously you need to do things to save your own lives. That is more important than trying to protest a bad law. And that's like DUH as if I meant that. But you don't achieve anything in your protest if you do it from outside of the law. You achieve much more by working within the law.

Even look at this board. We don't break any of Wikipedia's rules, and we protest things simply here. Imagine if we went forth and ambushed Wikipedia. Would we achieve anything? I think not.

Okay, let's look at that stupid example from Daniel Brandt.

That woman saw bad laws, and decided to protest them by breaking those laws. Because of this, she got executed, and anyone who might consider protesting those laws shut up. She achieved absolutely nothing, and reinforced the laws even further. The one and only reason why she is currently considered so highly is because Germany lost the war. If Germany had won the law, she wouldn't be regarded highly at all.

Now, alternatively, say she fled and protested from abroad. Much bigger impact. People on an international level would have taken it seriously. Much better.

I completely disagree with anyone breaking laws in protest.

You disagree with drug laws, well, you protest it, but don't go and smoke a big joint and then go to prison for it just because you think its dumb. That just reinforces the law even further. Sure, some people will regard you as a hero, but you don't achieve anything.

I was thinking more of the people that go on to Wikipedia and troll it, but hey the point works for anything.

The difference between non-violent protests and terrorism is that terrorists agree to break the law, while protestors don't. I like to make that distinction clear.

Sorry Bliss, but this is just nonsense. It might be worth you using your admin powers to retract your statements and save yourself the inevitable onslaught of rebukes to your points.

Sorry Bliss, but this is just nonsense. It might be worth you using your admin powers to retract your statements and save yourself the inevitable onslaught of rebukes to your points.

What admin powers? I am not, and never have been, an administrator here. I don't know why you think that I am.

I did write a really hugely long thing, and then I changed my mind about it and summarised something, and then Daniel Brandt decided to nitpick with some idiotic argument when I was talking about something completely different.

And as for terrorists, well, they are protestors who protest violently. But I decided to edit that because of course we are going way off topic.

This is just bullshit stupidity anyway.

I very much believe that non-violent law-abiding protesting is the way to go. I would never, and have never, broken any law in protest. No rule, nowhere, anywhere, ever. And if you think I am a prick because I got banned while staying within the laws, then so be it. And if you want to believe Wikipedia that I did break the laws, when I didn't, then that's your business.

And if people want to go around equating my refusal to ever do anything that is against any laws, no matter where I go, as my supporting nazism, just because of an idiotic and ridiculous comparison made by Daniel Brandt, then go ahead. It seems like everyone likes to throw nazi claims around just like they are going out of fashion, so why not?

Okay, let's look at that stupid example from Daniel Brandt.

That woman saw bad laws, and decided to protest them by breaking those laws. Because of this, she got executed, and anyone who might consider protesting those laws shut up. She achieved absolutely nothing, and reinforced the laws even further. The one and only reason why she is currently considered so highly is because Germany lost the war. If Germany had won the law, she wouldn't be regarded highly at all.

Now, alternatively, say she fled and protested from abroad. Much bigger impact. People on an international level would have taken it seriously. Much better.

I completely disagree with anyone breaking laws in protest.

You disagree with drug laws, well, you protest it, but don't go and smoke a big joint and then go to prison for it just because you think its dumb. That just reinforces the law even further. Sure, some people will regard you as a hero, but you don't achieve anything.

I was thinking more of the people that go on to Wikipedia and troll it, but hey the point works for anything.

The difference between non-violent protests and terrorism is that terrorists agree to break the law, while protestors don't. I like to make that distinction clear.

I have to strongly disagree, she did a lot more than having been executed. You judge from the consequences of her act, an after the act. While this is important, you can not always predict the outcome.

Besides, her act was not useless, she is a moral exemple of someone who refuse to follow an unjust law and died for it. She passed into history as a hero an exemple of justice. Achievements are not only measured by the direct consequences but also what nourish human consciousness.

This clear exemple of opposition and daring to brake an unfair law is what makes her a hero and every societies need moral guides like her. Someone who the Germans needed to associate themselves with after the war rather than the NAZI.

In World War I, the Itthadists branch who controled Ottoman Empire during the war set a special law which would condemn any Muslim who would hide an Armenian in his house to death, killed without a tribunal hanged outside of his home and his home burned. Many have broken that law and this is what saved my relatives. There are many cases like this, the Kmer Rouge Regime in Cambodia is one other exemple. Sometimes you have the moral duty to brake the law.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

Sorry Bliss, but this is just nonsense. It might be worth you using your admin powers to retract your statements and save yourself the inevitable onslaught of rebukes to your points.

Ditto. We can all see that you've been working Xtremely hard on the blog of late, and I think you owe it to yourself to consider the possibility that you have fallen prey to some kind of Blogger Burnout, and need to take a bit of well-earned R&R Quality Time.

Now put down the mouse, and step away from the computer …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

What rule did Sophie break ??? —

Godwin's Asymptotically Not Exactly Fascist (GANEF's) Law ???

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

In the words of child psychologist, Alice Miller, quoted in the article on Sophie School: The rule they broke was: Thou Shalt Not be Aware

the tolerant and open atmosphere of their [Sophie and Hans Scholl’s] childhood had enabled them to see through Hitler’s platitudes at the Nuremberg Rally, when the brother and sister were members of Nazi youth organizations. Nearly all their peers were completely won over by the Führer, whereas Hans and Sophie had other, higher expectations of human nature, not shared by their comrades, against which they could measure Hitler. Because such standards are rare, it is also very difficult for patients in therapy to see through the manipulative methods they are subjected to; the patient does not even notice such methods because they are inherent in a system he takes completely for granted.

I find this an amazingly ironic reference to be found in a Wikipedia article, because it perfectly describes Wikipedian culture, and how such awful things go on there, with group approval. If you are psychologically unaware (possibly have your own issues), such extreme treatment is normal, so you don't think twice when a Wikipedia attack ruins someone's life. People who speak out on Wikipedia, against such practices, usually wind up being banned. The rest of the people, who dislike it, are very, very quiet about their disagreement (such a venting or complaining off-wiki, in emails) and publicly make no statement. In short, the Wikipedia culture is much about fear.

Also much like conformity required under oppressive regimes. But then, didn't they start out calling themselves dictator and cabal? Apologies to Godwin's law, but they said it first.

Yeah well, nit picking because I said that people shouldn't be breaking rules, and therefore ALL OF A SUDDEN I'M A FUCKING NAZI is ridiculous and absurd to the extreme.

I have always been law abiding. I always will be law abiding. You are free to break the law if you so choose. I will support your right to do it. I will not encourage it. I will warn you not to. And I will protest your imprisonment as being wrongful, if you are punished for a law that is wrong.

My original post was much longer, and I didn't use the word "despicable". I was concerned that my post was too long, so I edited it. This word, which didn't adequately summarise what I meant, was misinterpreted by Daniel Brandt and then many others before I had any chance to clarify it. To be called a Nazi because of this is something that I consider to be very low.

I do have a stance, that I will stick with, and I don't care what you say, I will not back down from it.

You should not, ever, break any laws or rules, no matter where you go, and no matter how stupid or wrong those rules or laws are. Protest them from within the law, or else leave the place and protest from outside of there. Support and protest about people who are imprisoned for breaking a wrongful law, but do not break it yourself - you achieve nothing if you do.

Furthermore, I describe terrorism as "violent protests", and I consider this to be very accurate. I won't back down on that one. Take a member of Greenpeace who, rather than waving flags to protect the whale, instead blows up the whole ship and murders the crew. That's terrorism. Same aim, same motives, but lack of consideration of the rights of the people who you are protesting against.

If you're gonna participate in Wikipedia, or any other site, forum, or community (like Wikipedia Review, Slashdot, Myspace, or whatever), then shouldn't you be expected to follow its rules, however silly you might think they are, and regardless of who you are? It doesn't matter if you're a congressman, or the Dalai Lama, or the Pope... if you're on somebody else's site, you're supposed to follow its rules, and can't expect special treatment.

Sure Dan.

The problem is that Wikipedia presents itself as an encyclopedia, so the forum aspect isn't evident (hotly denied actually, "WP is not a social networking site"), and neither are the rules.

I could understand their being so tough if they presented a short menu of "don't dos" on every page you edit - of if they made you go through a 10 minute quiz before they let you edit on a new account, or an IP, that forced you to register certain things that they hold dear - like COI, 3RR, etc, but they don't. There is nothing clearly stated to the normal eye that would indicate that someone could not edit an article concerning them that contained false or very bad content.

The only sorry excuse you have for their lack of providence is Durova's pathetic flinging of wiki-terminology on sites that small businesses and SEOs inhabit. Which to normal people, who don't hang out on Wikipedia, sounds like white noise.

This is the last time that I go back to a long post and edit it to make it shorter, just so that people will understand my point better. You are better off to have longer posts, and then you don't get Daniel Brandt calling you a nazi.

I could understand their being so tough if they presented a short menu of "don't dos" on every page you edit - of if they made you go through a 10 minute quiz before they let you edit on a new account, or an IP, that forced you to register certain things that they hold dear - like COI, 3RR, etc, but they don't. There is nothing clearly stated to the normal eye that would indicate that someone could not edit an article concerning them that contained false or very bad content.

That's it.

If they'd said to me when I first edited:

"Sorry, but you aren't allowed to swear at others, that's not acceptable" and then when I said "But everyone else is doing it, why not?" then explained that they shouldn't be doing it, then that's fine. And if, before deciding on a year long ban for a legal threat, they'd said "There's a rule on Wikipedia that you're not allowed to make legal threats, and you can get banned if you do", then that's fine.

But you shouldn't be banning people for breaking a rule if people don't even know that it is a rule.

And Wikipedia's rules are some of the most complicated and hardest to understand of any rules anywhere.

Furthermore, I describe terrorism as "violent protests", and I consider this to be very accurate. I won't back down on that one. Take a member of Greenpeace who, rather than waving flags to protect the whale, instead blows up the whole ship and murders the crew. That's terrorism. Same aim, same motives, but lack of consideration of the rights of the people who you are protesting against.

Come on, this is a ridiculous comparaison, how could this act of braking the law correspond to moral duty? Violent protest is answered by violence, this sort of braking the law is clearly wrong and should not be supported. Terrorism neither is a good act, it is plain murder. But you can not choose extrem exemples like this to generalise. Braking the law should be to preserve not destroy.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

You should not, ever, break any laws or rules, no matter where you go, and no matter how stupid or wrong those rules or laws are. Protest them from within the law, or else leave the place and protest from outside of there. Support and protest about people who are imprisoned for breaking a wrongful law, but do not break it yourself - you achieve nothing if you do.

If everyone behaved thus, there would be no independant countries. Apartheid would still cripple the lives of most South Africans (now only poverty does that). Certainly the U.S. would not have broken free of England. Dumping the tea in the harbor was the very symbolic first law breaking thing done.

Then in the slave period of the US, abolitionists broke many laws to save lifes, and help people to freedom. The analogies which contradict the follow the law concept are too plentiful to list.

Really, you are taking this far too personally, Blissyu2. This is about Durova being an abusive administrator, not a debate about how to protest every unfair regime in the history of man (and I repeat - a common approach to every situation would be very poor strategy). How best to fight unfair governance is based on so many different criteria, that you can't make a direct analogy to your own approach to protesting 'whatever oppression' you believe in. Each situation is different, as are the oppressors, and the oppressed.

Your grandma had a good point, generally speaking, in a normal situation, sitting securely in her home, in the mid-20th century. If she'd been held in a Japanese concentration camp (or lived under Pinochet), I have a hunch her advice would be different. In any case, in an extreme situation, I'd give grandma's advice a rethink.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

My grandmother, I'll have you know, is one of the most famous feminists in the past 100 years. My god, saying that she didn't achieve anything, that's just absurd. Saying that her advice is crap in a real situation? She went to jail about 20 times for doing things that were not illegal, was banned from 15 countries, and my grandfather, for the last 10 years of his life, was officially regarded by the USA as a terrorist. But they never, ever, broke any laws.

My grandmother, I'll have you know, is one of the most famous feminists in the past 100 years. My god, saying that she didn't achieve anything, that's just absurd. Saying that her advice is crap in a real situation? She went to jail about 20 times for doing things that were not illegal, was banned from 15 countries, and my grandfather, for the last 10 years of his life, was officially regarded by the USA as a terrorist. But they never, ever, broke any laws.

Then your grandmother was telling you her strategy, for fighting injustice. Being careful to not be guilty of anything is one strategy to use - and a good one. But it isn't the only strategy for protest. When the very laws you are supposed to abide by prevent protest, then breaking the law is all you can do.

Rosa Parks broke the law in refusing to get up from her seat on the bus in the 1960s. Martin Luther King's entire philosophy was to break bad laws while remaining non-violent. He got the idea from Ghandi - who also broke the law.

It sounds as if your grandmother was fighting for principles, and her strategy was correct for what she wanted to achieve. If she felt the government would have killed her for protesting, she might have taken the 'break the law' way.

Again, you are personalizing this far too much, both in your examples, as well as in the fact that others disagreeing with you shouldn't really matter to you.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I think that people who break the rules, or break the law, in protest, are despicable.

Tell that to Sophie Scholl. I think people who make absolute statements that fly in the face of logic and all of human history, are not qualified to engage in a meaningful discussion.

Well I think its kind of...charming that Blissy expresses so much regard for WP rules. In a way his acceptance of their rules does mock their hard treatment of him. My earlier point was not that WP rules required any noble resistance (although on other issues I might come close to this) but that it was not worth much consideration at all in how great men order their affairs...and if a congressman snivels when "caught" breaking WP rules perhaps he is not a great man at all.

Well I think its kind of...charming that Blissy expresses so much regard for WP rules. In a way his acceptance of their rules does mock their hard treatment of him. My earlier point was not that WP rules required any noble resistance

I don't mind Bliss's approach to following the rules, and then they can't criticise you for that. That makes good sense, in relation to Wikipedia. Not that it will help you (or him) to give them (the rules) that much respect, because the cabal member's respect for the rules is very shaky.

What bothers me is the parallels being drawn between Wikipedia rules, and laws. Even on this site, people are speaking as if Wikipedia Rules are laws. Well, they're not. This is what Durova does, as well as do many other people there.

That Durova is doing this to Congressmen, the guys who actually vote in laws that give her the overlordish power she thinks she has as an administrator, is just ridiculous. Nex thing, she'll be telling the Congressmen that to remove Section 230 wouldn't be civil. And call him a troll. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)



This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

What admin powers? I am not, and never have been, an administrator here. I don't know why you think that I am.

Sorry Bliss. I momentarily thought you were an admin here. Perhaps due to your work on the blog. Remembered that you weren't after the post.

Martin Luther King Jr. broke laws, too. So did George Washington. So did Gahndi. Jesus too.

We don't break any of Wikipedia's rules

One other thing. Wikipedia's rules have no meaning, value, or worth beyond their borders. No one has to respect them off of that website.

We don't break any of Wikipedia's rules

One other thing. Wikipedia's rules have no meaning, value, or worth beyond their borders. No one has to respect them off of that website.

This is my point: over and over. Durova was lecturing a real lawmaker to follow Wikipedia rules, because well, to her, Wikipedia rules are ubiquitous, have the effect and power of real laws. That is crazy. And the crazier thing is that no one seems to notice.

Martin Luther King Jr. broke laws, too. So did George Washington. So did Gahndi. Jesus too.

Oh Jesus. That's a good one. Let's all stop mentioning Nazis, and mention Jesus and Ghandi.

Or let's not. It gives Wikipedia far too much credit. Wikipedia is not the Roman Empire, or the British Empire. Wikipedia is not an empire. Just because the head guy set up a server, and acts like an emperor, and because the overlords act like overlords, does not make Wikipedia an empire.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

What admin powers? I am not, and never have been, an administrator here. I don't know why you think that I am.

Sorry Bliss. I momentarily thought you were an admin here. Perhaps due to your work on the blog. Remembered that you weren't after the post.

I'll see if I can find you the right thread there somewhere.

I donated money to start up this forum, initially $10, then it ended up costing me quite a lot more than that as extra costs came in. That officially and legally makes me the owner. I never intended it to be for a second year, and Somey should be the owner now, but there was some kind of a mixup and I am still officially the owner, much to the disappointment of my bank balance. Hopefully we can sort it out properly and Somey will be the official owner next year.

Selina and myself were not supposed to be admins when this forum started here. Selina was meant to be root admin only. Selina promoted herself to regular admin as well in order to ban Igor, so that nobody would ever again think that this forum supported nazis. In doing so, Selina also promoted me to admin. I had already asked her not to, and I made a thread to ask her to demote me. I guess I could have done it myself, or deleted my own account, but I wanted to do it in a nice way.

I make a horrible manager. Can you imagine me as a manager? I seriously suck at it. Personality tests have demonstrated that I make an excellent advisor. A great second-in-command. A good person to have as your permanent vice president, as your assistant, all roles like that. Every job I've ever had (except for one) has been along those lines. One job I was a manager, and guess what? I sucked at it.

This is what I am like as a manager:

First off, I have an instinct to push my views ahead of everyone else's. Now, because I know that I am a sucky manager, I compensate for that by instead getting everyone else to all have my power, and I just sit back and watch. Except that that then creates a situation where people create hidden power, and they sneak around and form secret groups that secretly have power, and ultimately they usurp me.

In other words, I'm a Jimbo. That's right. Put me in as manager, or in control of this forum, and you'd have yourself a Jimbo.

So don't anyone go around suggesting that I should be an admin. It's a bad idea. Many of my philosophies agree with Jimbo. You've no doubt seen me agreeing with his fundamental principles. Except that unlike Jimbo I know that I am a sucky manager. Jimbo needs to be warned that he is just as sucky as me.