Emboldening the trollorists, more Durova stupidity Options

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177549613

I think I get what you're trying to say. Bear in mind that some of this site's most dedicated volunteers eventually got harassed into leaving the project because they took on the difficult disputes. I'm changing my focus, and maybe you have a point and I ought to change more. There would be a different problem if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't recognize that what she did might be actually bad, instead blaming it on people who harassed her. But that's expected. What's more interesting is that she appears to be stealing Bush's logic of "Shut up and accept what I'm doing, or you'll embolden the terrorists!" I would expect her to at least avoid the word "embolden".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177549613

I think I get what you're trying to say. Bear in mind that some of this site's most dedicated volunteers eventually got harassed into leaving the project because they took on the difficult disputes. I'm changing my focus, and maybe you have a point and I ought to change more. There would be a different problem if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't recognize that what she did might be actually bad, instead blaming it on people who harassed her. But that's expected. What's more interesting is that she appears to be stealing Bush's logic of "Shut up and accept what I'm doing, or you'll embolden the terrorists!" I would expect her to at least avoid the word "embolden".

Wait, people are *harassing* her now? What did I miss?

Is "embolden" anything like embiggen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177549613

I think I get what you're trying to say. Bear in mind that some of this site's most dedicated volunteers eventually got harassed into leaving the project because they took on the difficult disputes. I'm changing my focus, and maybe you have a point and I ought to change more. There would be a different problem if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't recognize that what she did might be actually bad, instead blaming it on people who harassed her. But that's expected. What's more interesting is that she appears to be stealing Bush's logic of "Shut up and accept what I'm doing, or you'll embolden the terrorists!" I would expect her to at least avoid the word "embolden".

Wait, people are *harassing* her now? What did I miss?

I think that just refers to the people who said she did something wrong and called for her to be sanctioned.

Look, we've seen this what, a zillion times? It's pure narcissism. We're never going to convince people like this that they're even partially responsible for the results of their own actions, or that the bad things that happen to them aren't entirely the fault of others, or that they're having a negative effect on the people around them. It's completely pointless.

What Irpen is trying to do over there is laudable, but it won't work. What's more, in this case I don't know what will work - Durova is one of the most extreme cases I've seen. Neither reverse-psychology nor peer-group shaming is going to work on her - in fact, we may have already seen proof of that.

To make matters worse, I don't believe the pharmaceutical industry has gotten very far on developing an anti-smugness drug. So we're not likely to get much help from them, either...

I think I get what you're trying to say.

The minute you write "trying to say", you didn't get it, Durova.

Bear in mind that some of this site's most dedicated volunteers eventually got harassed into leaving the project

No joke. Many of them left because of you, you clueless brazen wench.

I'm changing my focus, and maybe you have a point and I ought to change more.

He sees your hand, and he's been talking to it (as in "talk to the hand").

if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them.

Ah! Enter the career of St. Durova. Tortured and martyred on the alter of the harassors. While she was fighting the good fight using sophisticated tools of sockhunting and sleuthing. And was only misunderstood, after making JUST ONE little mistake that ONLY took 75 minutes. (sigh)

Never mind the other XXX victims, and how much she enjoyed twisting the knife and watching them suffer. And making it as public as possible. Accusing them of things they could not prove wrong because (surprise!) the evidence was in her pointy little head.

She's really too old to change, you know. If she'd got some therapy about 10 or 20 years ago, she'd not be so completely impossible to break through to.

She doesn't recognize that what she did might be actually bad, instead blaming it on people who harassed her.

Yes.

But that's expected. What's more interesting is that she appears to be stealing Bush's logic of "Shut up and accept what I'm doing, or you'll embolden the terrorists!" I would expect her to at least avoid the word "embolden".

I am sure that most of those people involved in that little debacle have similar personal problems related to denial and inability to look at the painful truth. Many people left the current administration, quietly, of their own accord. Because it didn't suit their values. Just as many people are leaving Wikipedia.

What Irpen is trying to do over there is laudable, but it won't work.

She's not only a not receptive person in and of herself, but there are people over there who are reinforcing her opinion. They will fall away, as she's become far too embarassing to support anymore, and is probably tiring to talk to in private. Then (maybe) she'll be forced to look at herself, once on her own. And it is a big maybe.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Durova may be the poster child here, but there is way too much haphazard and erratic research on the character and intentions of participants leading to unjustified administrative sanctions by those doing the haphazard and erratic research.

It's a fatal practice that corrodes good management.

We saw it in the Bush Administration and we see it in Wikipedia.

If we accept responsibility for our own actions the terrorists win.

I think that just refers to the people who said she did something wrong and called for her to be sanctioned.

Wait until Elonka is (or isn't) an administrator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...inship/Elonka_3

Forget sanctions, if you challenge her original research, she'll accuse you of "harassing" her and get you blocked (or worse.)

Forget sanctions, if you challenge her original research, she'll accuse you of "harassing" her and get you blocked (or worse.)

Isn't this the woman who wrote her own bio article and one for her husband and mother?

Sigh.

She could have at least used a sock. Most of them that get away with it when they do that. Mind you, I have no problem with people writing their own bio, and bios for family members, if they are notable. Just that Wikipedia culture currently does, and this derision should be applied evenly, not lumped on the unsuspecting and forgotten for the ubiquitous.

Isn't this the woman who wrote her own bio article and one for her husband and mother?

Sigh.

She could have at least used a sock. Most of them that get away with it when they do that. Mind you, I have no problem with people writing their own bio, and bios for family members, if they are notable.

The trouble is exactly that some of them aren't all that notable, except after she exaggerated or embellished their accomplishments. Which would still be vaguely acceptable by Wikipedia standards - people bullshit about sources all the time - as long as others were allowed to vet it without being falsely accused of things and blocked, as was done to Matt57 three times (!) in a row (with Durova's encouragement.)

I tried to oppose Jehochman's RfA on the ground that he was too tight with Elonka and hung out on IRC, where people like Matt57 are framed, only to be threatened off his RfA page by WJBscribe.

Sort of figure that if I oppose Elonka, I'll be blocked. That's the way they do it nowadays, very different from when I started.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Sort of figure that if I oppose Elonka, I'll be blocked. That's the way they do it nowadays, very different from when I started.

I'm thinking you're already on the hit list, for being over here in your real name. Not to mention having unpalatable opinions. Sorry pal. :/

Sort of figure that if I oppose Elonka, I'll be blocked. That's the way they do it nowadays, very different from when I started.

I'm thinking you're already on the hit list, for being over here in your real name. Not to mention having unpalatable opinions. Sorry pal. :/

Ah Elonka, way back when DreamGuy really tried to get her taken down a notch. I think DreamGuy has gone up to his second Arbcom case now too, I wonder what he's been up to lately (the duke outs with Gabrielsimon were really funny too back in the day).

falsely accused of things and blocked, as was done to Matt57 three times (!) in a row (with Durova's encouragement.)

No! It can't be true! She's only ever made one mistake! And for 45 minutes!

Well, she told Irpen that she was addicted to coffee. So here's some coffee for you, Durova:

You are no 1 on complaints for disruptive editing, no. 2 for all community sanction contributions, and other than your Joan of Arc edits, most of your time is spent barking at people. making false accusations, claiming someone made NPA (personal attack) and setting up that they should get banned? Gooooooooooooooooooooal!

(IMG:http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/DisillusionedLackey/Durovawork-2.jpg)

(IMG:http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/DisillusionedLackey/D2sanction-1.jpg)

(IMG:http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/DisillusionedLackey/D2disrupt.jpg)

(IMG:http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/DisillusionedLackey/d2pattack.jpg)

(IMG:http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/DisillusionedLackey/D2adnot.jpg)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Hip-Hop Hell

Those images look like Rap Sheet Music.

Telling, aren't they?

I wanna hear MC Banhammer tell it.

Making concessions to terrorists actually works. This is very important to read as it does partly apply to dynamics around Wikipedia Review:

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2007/11/conci...errorism_1.html

The model developed in this study yields three key results. First, it suggests an explanation of the observation that government concessions often lead to an increase in the militancy of terrorist organizations. Namely, concessions draw moderate terrorists away from the terrorist movement, leaving the organization in the control of extremists. Second, it provides an answer to the question of why governments make concessions in light of the increased militancy they engender. The government’s probability of succeeding in counterterrorism improves following concessions because of the help of former terrorists that directly improves counterterror and leads the government to invest more resources in its counterterror efforts. Thus terrorist conflicts in which concessions have been made are more violent but shorter. Third, it demonstrates how the ability of former terrorists to provide counterterror aid to the government can solve the credible commitment problem that governments face when offering concessions.

No doubt she'll try to have us believe that all those edits to the Personal Attack noticeboard and the "Disruptive Editing" page were part of her "sleuth training" effort.

Nasty, nasty person.