Oops, Durova's Mea culpa Options

Oops.

That is by far Durova's worst nightmare and as far as I am concerned, the vexatious nature by which Durova has operated will come to a swift end...now.

The nail was just tapped, then pounded into the Durova credibility coffin. It is long gone.

The vitriolic condemnation of Durova may appear shortly, but I suggest remaining calm and simply nod your heads. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

Oops.

What a nutjob.

And of course Crum comes in, and under false pretenses (again, SlimVirgin II, Electric Boogaloo) rv's the evidence that can and will be used against Durova in the near future.

There was no privacy concern in those edits, just the concern that it makes durova look bad.

Someone needs to call Crum375 on his ongoing bullshit in that regard.

It's just unbelievable that such an indisputably good contributor could be blocked without even a shred of evidence being presented. I hope this isn't the wave of the future, out of the blue blocks of good contributors based on secret investigative techniques with no opportunity for community review.

It's just unbelievable that such an indisputably good contributor could be blocked without even a shred of evidence being presented. I hope this isn't the wave of the future, out of the blue blocks of good contributors based on secret investigative techniques with no opportunity for community review.

Durova is trying to cover her Walter Mitty Delusional Ass now.

Claiming that for 2 weeks this "proof" was passed around the WP Noblesse Oblige, and only enforced when it was certain.

Of course, no one on the ANI page knows WTF she is talking about. They weren't in the wagon circle I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_User:.21.21


It is finished.

Will Jimmy come to the rescue? Not!!!!!

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

Someone's gonna get banned. Interesting that the thread is being archived for [[User:!!]]'s privacy, when no information about him was revealed. Privacy or merely hiding Durova's embarassment? Lol, not hard to figure out which.

I don't get it. Someone was blocked because of secret magical evidence that nobody knows about, the evidence turns out to be faulty... and nobody cares? I mean, that's happened before, certainly, but never quite so blatantly...

They can't ban the guy that wrote TWINKLE (though, on recent evidence, Guy might try). He's as untouchable as one can be. In anyone else, undoing that deletion would be a deathwish.

Someone's gonna get banned.

This post has been edited by msharma:

What's astonishing here is that an Admin not only admitted a mistake, but undid the damage.

That's virtually unprecedented in the annals of a dysfunctional bureaucracy.

I don't get it. Someone was blocked because of secret magical evidence that nobody knows about, the evidence turns out to be faulty... and nobody cares? I mean, that's happened before, certainly, but never quite so blatantly...

The only reason he was even unblocked is 'cause he has 100+ DYKs. Imagine how false positives that haven't been around for a while get treated. I bet their blocks don't even get questioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...idents#Followup


It sure looks like there is an election soon!

Politics as usual.

I don't get it. Someone was blocked because of secret magical evidence that nobody knows about, the evidence turns out to be faulty... and nobody cares? I mean, that's happened before, certainly, but never quite so blatantly...

The only reason he was even unblocked is 'cause he has 100+ DYKs. Imagine how false positives that haven't been around for a while get treated. I bet their blocks don't even get questioned.

Of course they don't. Why would Wikipedia want to be fair to newbies?

I don't get it. Someone was blocked because of secret magical evidence that nobody knows about, the evidence turns out to be faulty … and nobody cares? I mean, that's happened before, certainly, but never quite so blatantly …

I guess you never heard that story about Wiki-Pinocchio …

His Wiki-Proboscis Just Kept Getting —

longer
& longer
& longer
& longer
& longer
& longer
& longer

What people don't get until they have seen this trick a couple of dozen times — well, some of us get it after being fooled a couple of dozen times — it that this is precisely the way that the Big Lie is supposed to work, since people tend to get de-sensitized (what psychologists call "habituated") to each inexcrement in the size of the Big Lie, until pretty soon they are thinking that Pro-Bushkies that size are Normal.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

"::This has been a tough call, but in my opinion a necessary one. I am very confident my research will stand up to scrutiny. I am equally confident that anything I say here will be parsed rather closely by some disruptive banned sockpuppeteers. If I open the door a little bit it'll become a wedge issue as people ask for more information, and then some rather deep research techniques would be in jeopardy. As I've said this before, take me to arbitration if you want to challenge this. I think I've said that enough times clearly - I opened this thread for exactly that purpose. More than half a dozen administrators have already seen this research. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"

And of course, dissent is dissed because it will be from "banned users".

This stuff is right out of the East German Tribunal handbook.

Q. What's the difference between CyberSleuthing and CyberStalking?

A. Well, there used to be a Wall between them, but they tore it down.

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

Q. What's the difference between CyberSleuthing and CyberStalking?

A. Well, there used to be a Wall between them, but they tore it down.

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

Well, if Wordbomb does it, its the latter. If Durova does it, it's the former.

Q. What's the difference between CyberSleuthing and CyberStalking?

A. Well, there used to be a Wall between them, but they tore it down.

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

Well, if Wordbomb does it, its the latter. If Durova does it, it's the former.

It's a well-known φact, and I have the evidentiary secretions to prove it, that Durova made a mint selling chunks of the Berlin Wall as Wiki-Pet Rocks.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...idents#Followup


It sure looks like there is an election soon!

Politics as usual.

SWATJester's really piling in: "...what I've heard plenty of people saying on IRC....an editor so heavily involved in the SEO field, would use some "proprietary" investigative techniques on Wikipedia, ruin people's Wikipedia experience, and then refuse to provide any evidence to support the allegations out of a fear that those uber-valuable methods will become public...... Why are you sleuthing in the first place? Why, as it appears, is it your mission to hunt down other editors using private evidence?"

That's rough. Durova responds by complaining about IRC. And why not.

Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%21%21

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

Q. What's the difference between CyberSleuthing and CyberStalking?

A. Well, there used to be a Wall between them, but they tore it down.

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

Well, if Wordbomb does it, its the latter. If Durova does it, it's the former.

It's a well-known φact, and I have the evidentiary secretions to prove it, that Durova made a mint selling chunks of the Berlin Wall as Wiki-Pet Rocks.

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

any truth to the rumour that she took roids while swimming for the DDR (I think that vaz East Hermany) in the 80's?

unt now, Eve-ning Var....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWAKtYGJZSM

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

It's just unbelievable that such an indisputably good contributor could be blocked without even a shred of evidence being presented. I hope this isn't the wave of the future, out of the blue blocks of good contributors based on secret investigative techniques with no opportunity for community review.

Oh come on Everyking! She's done this dozens of times. Only this time she did it to a 100+ contributor, and she's earned her self such a reputation that: 1) She's been awarded her very own newspaper article, as the Poster Child of corrupt Wikipedia Administrators. 2) She's harassed and stalked the otherwise mild-mannered Kohs, attempting to defame him to newsmen. 3) Her body count is getting beyong plausible deniability. At this point, he's even starting to embarass the average WP administrator (not an easy task). A more lucid power-mad admin would lay low, but not our heroine. She's stomping right onto the thin ice that befits a lass so sure of her own 'good guesses' that she's willing to stake YOUR reputation on it. (and the reputation of your business).

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%21%21

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

She/he (whatever) admits to blocking because of a false positive reading.
Is that like...we executed the wrong man after DNA testing showed that someone else raped and murdered the girl?

Or is it that there was no evidence and she is simply making it up as would be the case with any common addict? Maybe she/he should be forced to show the evidence, false or not?

Me thinks so! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172342019

Apparently, she "didn't anticipate" that people might want someone else to back up her evidence-less block. Sadly, that was actually somewhat reasonable of her. I don't remember the last time someone's challenged that Durova's sleuthing was right.

Or is it that there was no evidence and she is simply making it up as would be the case with any common addict? Maybe she should be forced to show her evidence, false or not?

No, like some "retired" SEC employees wouldn't force a hedge fund to divulge its illegal trading stategies, corrupt WP Noblesse Oblige won't force Durova to reveal her illegal blocking strategy.

It serves the greater good of the conflicted.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

I'll go ahead and say what I've heard plenty of people saying on IRC: It's disturbing that an editor so heavily involved in the SEO field, would use some "proprietary" investigative techniques on Wikipedia, ruin people's Wikipedia experience, and then refuse to provide any evidence to support the allegations out of a fear that those uber-valuable methods will become public. I don't find that acceptable in the slightest. I'd like to hear what Durova has to say about this, and what her plans are for future sleuthing. Forget about "pledging to reduce false positives". Why are you sleuthing in the first place? Why, as it appears, is it your mission to hunt down other editors using private evidence? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%21%21

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

A Type I error. "A test claims something to be positive, when that is not the case."

About who the account's owner was, I understand that it's someone who regularly changes accounts. I'd dearly like to know what he was accused of in Durova's secret indictment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172342019

Apparently, she "didn't anticipate" that people might want someone else to back up her evidence-less block. Sadly, that was actually somewhat reasonable of her. I don't remember the last time someone's challenged that Durova's sleuthing was right.

Now the world knows the truth about Durova. Now the world should know the truth about the
fake profiles and sockpuppets Durova et al use, all the time. JzG and all the rest of the kings men will not have the power and might that they have had to this date. Poor "humpty dumpty."

It's only castles burning...

melts into the sea eventually.

(edit conflicted)Something in Nishkid's statement requires correction: I did not send the report to ArbCom as a body. I did circulate it in ways that some arbcom members saw it. Nor do I say I got specific approval from ArbCom members to block: I circulated a report that roughly two dozen trusted people saw and no one objected. ... DurovaCharge! 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

They didn't answer? Or object? That's because you (Durova) routinely email large complicated attachments of prosecutory 'evidence' round to people who haven't the slightest interest in reading it.

I agree with many of the critical points raised above, and in addition the attempt partially shift the blame to nameless senior people is pretty poor form. RxS (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty poor form to characterize things that way. At any rate, if there are serious concerns about my conduct and discretion I have no objection to having my actions scrutinized by people who have full access to the facts. Either ArbCom or the Foundation would be appropriate. DurovaCharge! 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! To disagree with her majesty is poor form indeed. I just love how she tells others to whom they can question her motives (actions, methods), which is sublime in its arrogance. The fact that Arbcom and the Foundation couldn't care less about admonishing her for bad behavior (however obvious) escapes no one's notice here.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I'll go ahead and say what I've heard plenty of people saying on IRC: It's disturbing that an editor so heavily involved in the SEO field, would use some "proprietary" investigative techniques on Wikipedia, ruin people's Wikipedia experience, and then refuse to provide any evidence to support the allegations out of a fear that those uber-valuable methods will become public. I don't find that acceptable in the slightest. I'd like to hear what Durova has to say about this, and what her plans are for future sleuthing. Forget about "pledging to reduce false positives". Why are you sleuthing in the first place? Why, as it appears, is it your mission to hunt down other editors using private evidence? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome.

IRC use must be a banned.

Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%21%21

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

A Type I error. "A test claims something to be positive, when that is not the case."

About who the account's owner was, I understand that it's someone who regularly changes accounts. I'd dearly like to know what he was accused of in Durova's secret indictment.

By the way, the wizards of WP are "courtesy blanking" the discussions as they go, me thinks.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:%21%21

This block was lifted after less than 2 hours had past from it's initiation. How could Durova have found a false positive that quickly. NOT!
I think Durova made something up and got caught up in a deadly web.



This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

How's this for a resolution? In the future I'll send such reports to the Committee formally and let them act. And if I happen to be on the Committee I'll let another member act. I don't want to create drama and I respect consensus. DurovaCharge! 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you truly don't want to cause drama, why can't we hear one of these people you discussed the block with corroborate what you've said? That would pretty much kill the drama. -Amarkov moo! 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if I'd been a better dramatist I certainly would have lined up some people to me-too this thread. Hadn't anticipated the necessity. That's not my style. DurovaCharge! 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The "I certainly would have lined up some people to me-too this thread." is code for "where the hell are you, JeHochman???!!!"

That's not my style.

Oh please, Miss Thing. It is *so* your style that your suit even matches.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

How's this for a resolution? In the future I'll send such reports to the Committee formally and let them act. And if I happen to be on the Committee I'll let another member act. I don't want to create drama and I respect consensus. DurovaCharge! 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you truly don't want to cause drama, why can't we hear one of these people you discussed the block with corroborate what you've said? That would pretty much kill the drama. -Amarkov moo! 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if I'd been a better dramatist I certainly would have lined up some people to me-too this thread. Hadn't anticipated the necessity. That's not my style. DurovaCharge! 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The "I certainly would have lined up some people to me-too this thread." is code for "where the hell are you, JeHochman???!!!"

That's not my style.

Oh please, Miss Thing. It is *so* your style that your suit even matches.

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

18:00, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) unblocked !! (Talk | contribs) ‎ (false positive)
16:45, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) blocked "!! (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing sock puppet accounts: See note on talk.)
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log"


Look at that! 75 minutes later, she found the false positive? OMG! LOLS!

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

18:00, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) unblocked !! (Talk | contribs) ‎ (false positive)
16:45, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) blocked "!! (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing sock puppet accounts: See note on talk.)
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log"


Look at that! 75 minutes later, she found the false positive? OMG! LOLS!

If it only took 75 minutes for her to figure out that she'd got it wrong, why couldn't she have, you know, done that first ... ? Shoot first, ask questions later eh Durova? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) I guess she's used to it usually working for her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172342019

Apparently, she "didn't anticipate" that people might want someone else to back up her evidence-less block. Sadly, that was actually somewhat reasonable of her. I don't remember the last time someone's challenged that Durova's sleuthing was right.

Well, she's getting kind of famous for this, between the body count, the SEO articles, the YouTube videos. You think she'd be more careful, but (as I said) not our heroine.

And “by the way” what 'research methods' could possibly be so secret? All there is to go on is IP addresses, or various proxy-jumping traces, that anyone with technical skills and a dollop of creativity could think to use. She acts as if she is guarding the secret of the Sphinx. Of course, she's only trying to evade scrutiny.

It doesn't work anymore.

Brandt's prediction of a dramatic Durova swan-song may yet come to pass.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

JE NE REGRETTE RIEN

Take a break

Seriously, it looks like your judgment is getting skewy. Blocking an editor like User:!!, who has contributed far more to the encyclopedia than you realise, on evidence that you refuse to discuss speaks very poorly of you. I am afraid you are seeing things that are not there. Try something else for a while before you get burned out, this isn't a game of whack-a-mole. Catchpole (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My report on the matter had numerous diffs and came to about two printed pages. And it was correct to the point of this not being the editor's first account. I'll be blanking or archiving this query soon as a courtesy to the editor. But without having seen the report, I don't think you can really attempt to rate it. DurovaCharge! 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like her apology was about as sincere as her research.

I'll be blanking or archiving this query soon as a courtesy to the editor.

As a courtesy to the editor? Which one? Herself?
This woman has not a humble bone in her body

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

At least we know of one candidate who's definitely not getting on ArbCom now (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Durova seems to be quite keen to give the ArbCom more power by demanding that either people ask them to review her actions or they go away. Of course she knows that they'd never get around to actually checking her evidence. I'm pretty sure most of them just see a big pile of diffs and assume that they must be evidence of something, and never bother actually checking the links out.

At least we know of one candidate who's definitely not getting on ArbCom now (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Durova seems to be quite keen to give the ArbCom more power by demanding that either people ask them to review her actions or they go away. Of course she knows that they'd never get around to actually checking her evidence. I'm pretty sure most of them just see a big pile of diffs and assume that they must be evidence of something, and never bother actually checking the links out.

I am definitely voting for Durova.

Putting this loose cannon on ArbCom could be the one step that destroys Wikipedia from the inside.

Quoting Joseph Welch, to Durova's clear inspiration, Sen. Joseph McCarthy (with one word changed for gender reasons, natch):

You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

I am definitely voting for Durova.

Putting this loose cannon on ArbCom could be the one step that destroys Wikipedia from the inside.

I agree. Baudy's void will be filled nicely.

Comic relief will be maintained as one clown replaces another.

Ethical standards might take a step up, though, as there is no prima facie habeous sockus evidence that Madame has ever been disbarred for soliciting prostitution.

Score one for Jimbo!

I think this was a somewhat elaborate plot (that failed miserably (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif))

SHE IS THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

Her antics as of 4 day prior, on the Wikimedia listserver:

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Click to flag this post

People should get banned, if they are either harassing people,
violate 3RR or deliberately try to harm Wikipedia.
--
Raphael
******
Thank you for that noble sentiment. I was harassed last night. There's a
thread at ANI that's proposed banning the editor who did it. You may
exercise your principles there.

-Durova

Seriously, has anyone kept a bodycount tally of Durovas attacks?

I wonder what the harassment was. Someone emailing her asking a block be lifted?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Duova's big mistake: not using the Wordbomb card.

You can ban ANYONE, and I mean anyone, with no evidence whatsoever. Just for DONTLIKE reasons. ban them as Wordbomb. It's the magic charm of getting rid of people on the other side of an argument making you look bad.

Next time Durova, just ban who you want as Wordbomb. It works wonderfully in the environment of today's wikipedia.

Duova's big mistake: not using the Wordbomb card.

You can ban ANYONE, and I mean anyone, with no evidence whatsoever. Just for DONTLIKE reasons. ban them as Wordbomb. It's the magic charm of getting rid of people on the other side of an argument making you look bad.

Next time Durova, just ban who you want as Wordbomb. It works wonderfully in the environment of today's wikipedia.

She already does this. It is called the Wikipedia Review card, aka Kohs Stalking.

It's Wikipedia Review: either the banned editor himself or someone who's proxying for him. Either way, a clear WP:SOCK policy violation. DurovaCharge! 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What BLP reason? And what reason do you have to believe it is Greg Kohs? ViridaeTalk 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly (for Durova) even this is losing street credibility.

It worked for a full year and a half, but she overdid it.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

A scapegoat can only work so long, eventually you have to find a new scapegoat.

A scapegoat can only work so long, eventually you have to find a new scapegoat.

This is the part that utterly astonishes me.

By now, one would have thought that the practice of scapegoating would have gone the way of sacrificing virgins.

But for reasons unbeknownst to me, Homo Schleppians continues to reprise the hoary practice of blaming some hapless scapegoat for every erratic feature of a pathetically dysfunctional system.

I dunno whether Durova is a virgin, but even if they do sacrifice her, it still won't solve the inherent problem.

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

A scapegoat can only work so long, eventually you have to find a new scapegoat.

This is the part that utterly astonishes me.

By now, one would have thought that the practice of scapegoating would have gone the way of sacrificing virgins.

But for reasons unbeknownst to me, Homo Schleppians continues to reprise the hoary practice of blaming some hapless scapegoat for every erratic feature of a pathetically dysfunctional system.

I dunno whether Durova is a virgin, but even if they do sacrifice her, it still won't solve the inherent problem.

Seeing as how the above flame erupts from a source who writes under the rubric of «Moulton Lava», I think I spy, if you'll excuse the expression, a Conflict Of Interest here.

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

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

Yes, she brought Poetlister and Runcorn up as an example.

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

Yes, she brought Poetlister and Runcorn up as an example.

:::It strikes me that this was a similar situation as what happened with Melsaran, Evidence was uncovered as part of an investigation and it was reported to ArbCom. However, given the potentially confidential nature of the evidence and the fact that there was no ongoing disruption, would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block, specifically stating that they were doing so for the ArbCom, based on confidential evidence, as that is part of the reason ArbCom exists (to deal with such evidence)? Mr.Z-man

::::You're right, and I realize that now. Will do. That was how we handled
Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance. Durova Charge!

Ah. Yes.

The lesson learned here (by our heroine) is procedural, not moral.

Next time, Durova is to politic better before blocking irrationally, so Arbcom does the banning, based on her false evidence. In this manner, there is no drama (also known as: no embarassing, annoying questions of judgement ) when the hapless innocent person is banned indefinitely on false evidence.

I rest my case. Durova for Arbcom! She'll be far better placed to get their unanimous approval if she is she's on the Committee. Less drama, more productive banning. Bravo!

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Well, at least her victim isn't taking it lying down. I have to say that this whole thing is incredibly amusing.

Oh, and her latest fanboy is there to support her:

It appears User:!! has been ennulled unblocked[123] with an explaination. I doubt there is any one here who hasn't made well intentioned errors. Lets close this and focus efforts on more productive channels--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and with a note to Krimpet: please do not restore posts that originate from TOR nodes.[124] I think it's a fair assumption that the person would use a legitimate account if he or she had any. As my previous post explains, the blanking was not accidental. DurovaCharge! 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's funny...

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika:

MORE JUSTIFICATIONS (yawn)

Basically I've been working on tracking some long term sockpuppets that originate from a certain cluster of former editors. The Burntsauce and Dannycali accounts are recent and public examples of that: both had borrowed disruptive tactics from JB196 , who is one of the site's most prolific and destructive sockpuppeteers (well over 500 socks) who had actually degraded a fair portion of the site's database in professional wrestling and pop culture areas.Not the most highbrow stuff, but his method of attack is theoretically applicable to any subject

A Kohs, by any other name, is still a Kohs. (Isnt this one of Greg's?) She is so simple that she has to link any ban or block back to some other completely unrelated person.

Basically I've been working on tracking some long term sockpuppets that originate from a certain cluster of former editors.

Basically, this is why you make so many mistakes, D. You assume every person you dislike, or what-have-you is from the pool of longtime former editors. Fallacy.

Ryan, I respect your thoughtful response. However I disgree quite strongly with the supposition that there's no need for secrecy here. Nearly everyone who's seen my sock investigations agrees that some of the methodologies are sensitive and should be kept confidential,

Yes, I was most concerned that the wool sock not get outted as a false cashmere.

This site does have a problem with banned editors who engage in long term sockpuppetry. These people operate as a team and share strategies.

My God. Her abusive false accusations are more problematic and damaging to the project than any sockpuppetry. In fact, she raises the importance of sockpuppetry by running around chasing it like some kind of insane, maniacal Nancy Drew Wannabe.

My principal aim when I wrote them was to correct the problem and clear the air as swiftly as possible, once I confirmed the new evidence that had come to my attention. My goal was to minimize the harm I had inadvertently caused and to restore people's confidence. I was fielding quite a few queries at once and didn't want to keep anyone waiting.

No it wasn't. Your principal goal was to extricate yourself from the negative scrutiny of a group of people who could see that you were obviously abusing procedure, and probably attacking an(other) innocent person the process.

So the first apologies were sincere and simple.

They were smug and self-justifying. Recall how you clung to the factoid that the guy had a previous account. Because that made what you did right, including revealing his real identity to a group of people, and basically stalking him to get it in your own hands.

In comparison to other mistaken blocks that have occurred at this site, few administrators have been as swift in correcting their own error, as forthcoming with apologies, or as heavily criticized for the effort.

You weren't swift. You responded because you got attacked and realized you weren't going to get away with it. Your apologies were snide and limp, and you are anything but sorry. You deserve more, not less, criticism.

If there's something more I can do to set things right I'll readily do so, but full disclosure of my investigative techniques would cause far more harm than good. DurovaCharge! 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your techniques cannot possibly be top secret military secrets. Are you accesing government databanks (which would be illegal?). Are you waterboarding rendered sock suspects in Afghanistan? Please, don't keep us in suspense.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

When I was exchanging E-Mail with Durova, the one remark that she most appreciated was my observation that WP was exhibiting characteristics of an MMPORG.

But having acknowledged that observation, Durova doesn't seem to have any idea how to escape from that hellish dynamic.

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

I thought that was W.Marsh (the "spewing venom" and "living in England in a similar way" comments).

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

I thought that was W.Marsh (the "spewing venom" and "living in England in a similar way" comments).

Sure that wasn't "living in the same state as a banned user" (which Cla68 was not, unless you consider Japan and Utah the same place).

I think Durova must have learned her foolproof sleuthing techniques from SlimVirgin, the most grateful Wikipedian that Durova stepped up to the plate to "bat 0.1000". Durova, baby, that's not very good in even baseball. I think you meant "bat 1.000". Use that next time you're trying to impress the boys again with how big your balls are.

Jehochman and Durova are complaining that Krimpet keeps restoring posts to the ANI discussion from a banned user using TOR.

The reappearing post-

Durova did the same thing to me the other day when she indefinitely blocked me for being a sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review on the basis of "secret evidence." This excuse about not publically revealing her propriatary techniques, lest the trolls catch on, all sounds quite clever and responsible until one realizes that she doesn't have the faintest clue of what she's doing. Expect much more of the same if Durova makes her way onto the Arbitration Committee, when puzzled observers can assure themselves that, as an arbitrator,Durova must know something that they don't. She doesn't. Based as they are upon an appeal to her track record, rather than to any evidence, her acccusations have proven too unrelilable to be of any value..[[User:24.19.33.82|24.19.33.82]] 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon asks "One, which banned user is this alleged to be? Two, since when is Wikipedia:Deny recognition policy?"

One problem I see, though, the ip's not actually a TOR node.

One problem I see, though, the ip's not actually a TOR node.

Maybe not a NP:TOR, but it's a WP:TOR anytime the Cabloids say it is.

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

One problem I see, though, the ip's not actually a TOR node.

Maybe not a NP:TOR, but it's a WP:TOR anytime the Cabloids say it is.

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

It's Wikivocabulary, remember. "TOR node", under the special Wikipedia definition, means "shared IP that someone we think is a banned user has acess to".

It would appear that "!!" really is the sockpuppet of someone. Evidently there was some previous arrangement that Durova was not privy to. I wonder who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172393052

Ultimately, this (apparently) good user will have his cover blown due to Durova's incompetence.

Durova deserves all of the harm that comes to her credibility that comes from this. The same to anyone who puts attention-whoring/glory-seeking above good judgment.

She's one of the worst of a brand of Wikipedians desperately trying to take the first and most extreme action in any controversy. Jimbo, of course, will egg this on forever, all caught up in his "shoot on sight" mentality.

Wikipedia crumbles! I like Wikipedia, really, but I think it would be funny to see Durova get appointed for arbcom. Especially now that the thought makes me think of Disillusioned Lackey's lullarious avatar.

Jehochman and Durova are complaining that Krimpet keeps restoring posts to the ANI discussion from a banned user using TOR.

Those two crazy kids. They remind me of a line from a John Irving novel where he talks about people who were "suspiciously on guard for purse snatchers and snatch snatchers".

Picaroon asks "One, which banned user is this alleged to be? Two, since when is Wikipedia:Deny recognition policy?"

Uh oh. That first question smacks of (heaven forfend!) disrespect for her reasoning skills.

The banned user appears to be Wikipedia Review or a meat puppet, but there's absolutely no way to ever know for sure because they are posting through a Tor node. We sort of have to make a best guess by the message that they are sending. Are we now going to say that banned users can do whatever they like as long as they use Tor nodes? That seems rather unwise. Additionally, I have received email correspondence that strongly suggests involvement of Wikipedia Review. - Jehochman Talk 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

JESUS They just wont give Greg a rest! It is getting embarassing to watch. *Remember, everyone that Greg already called JeHochman and told him that this wasnt himself, and asked him to stop making the accusation, at which point JeHochman backed down - re: "Bizarre Behavior of JeHochman". Of course, this is NOT Greg, or he would not have called JeHochman to protest being blamed for this login IP. What is it going to take for Durova and JeHochman to stop involving Greg's name, and his business name, in every accusation? It is as if these two are begging to be sued. Seriously. They are provoking him to a lawsuit. "WE can unfairly defame you and your business as much as WE want. nyah, nyah, nyah. WE DARE YOU to make a legal threat, nyah, nyah, nyah"

One problem I see, though, the ip's not actually a TOR node.

Well, yeah. She needs someone to kick in the face after this humiliating group browbeating, and her target of last week, a lowly IP, is an easy target. She's even employing the same lame excuses, or she's added onto the sock accusation the TOR accusation. Few people know what a TOR is, or how to check for it, so it is almost as good as a self-justifying fib as calling someone a sock.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

It would appear that "!!" really is the sockpuppet of someone. Evidently there was some previous arrangement that Durova was not privy to. I wonder who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172393052

Ultimately, this (apparently) good user will have his cover blown due to Durova's incompetence.

Hmmm. I disagree. I think it was someone who changed his name for personal reasons (maybe he got outted before) and she went and announced his old login to the world, pronouncing it as another sockpuppet scalp.

I repeat my assertion that sockpuppetry is not as big of a problem as she's making it. (Don't even get me started on WP Admin sockpuppetry, which is a real phenomenon). The problem is really vandalism, and trollism. If someone is a troll, then treat them as a troll. Same for vandals. She's too hung up on the "I'm smarter than you Mr. Troll/Vandal" which is totally not the point. The point is to improve the encyclopedia and protect it from harm. Throwing big fits about recidivist socks is really not terribly helpful to anything. In "competing" with the "sockpuppet army" she claims to exist, she raises their importance.

Some banned users use socks a lot, and just contribute normally. Some banned users vandalize. But I don't think that many "share information with each other". It is not a sockpuppet conspiracy, as she hopes.

When I was exchanging E-Mail with Durova, the one remark that she most appreciated was my observation that WP was exhibiting characteristics of an MMPORG.

But having acknowledged that observation, Durova doesn't seem to have any idea how to escape from that hellish dynamic.

Two thoughts. Both she and Jimmy were MUDD fans, and MUDD was the ultimate MMPORG. Many MUDD fans, including them, moved on to WP. Wonder why.

Second thought. Her classic MO is to be able to analyze something, but to have no ability to change her behavior in regard to it. She constantly writes SEO articles to businesses about how not to ruin their reputation, while continuing to work to ruin reputations.

would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block ...

That was how we handled Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance.

Sorry to be a pedant, Durova, but Runcorn, Poetlister etc. were blocked by Dmcdevit, not a current member of ArbCom - the same Dmcdevit who shortly after that blocked someone else as a sockpuppet of Runcorn and had to back down. We only have Dmcdevit's word that the ArbCom even saw the evidence, let alone endorsed the ban. Maybe they just haven't had time to consider it yet.

Well done Ms Durova, another productive user gone .

IP 24.19.33.82 has two mutually inconsistent reverse lookups...

c-24-19-33-82.hsd1.mn.comcast.net
c-24-19-33-82.hsd1.wa.comcast.net

However, a traceroute puts the IP in the vicinity of the north side of Seattle WA.

Well done Ms Durova, another productive user gone .

Is there any significance to the observation that the sayonara sunset was placed there by User:Bishonen?

would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block ...

That was how we handled Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance.

Sorry to be a pedant, Durova, but Runcorn, Poetlister etc. were blocked by Dmcdevit, not a current member of ArbCom - the same Dmcdevit who shortly after that blocked someone else as a sockpuppet of Runcorn and had to back down. We only have Dmcdevit's word that the ArbCom even saw the evidence, let alone endorsed the ban. Maybe they just haven't had time to consider it yet.

Sigh. There are so many levels to the inappropriateness here. Leaving aside the fairness (or not) of the Runcorn case.... On a purely semantic level, as you've pointed out, Arbcom didn't do the block in a formal manner, though this is the verbiage put forth, mostly by Durova, the apparent motor behind the block.

This reminds me of her Google-chat-interview with the editor of Siteproland, where she repeated, over and over again, that 'I (Durova) banned these users, and that's why they say bad things about me' (paraphrased) , which was completely fallacious. As an administrator, she can't ban people. There are three ways to ban: Jimbo, Arbcom and community. Period. Indef block is what she can do, and though indef-blocks have the same result as a ban, even then her 'powers' are limited. Her use of the words 'I banned this person' or that person, makes it clear that she sees herself as possessing that power.

Of course, Durova is misrepresenting the procedure with Runcorn (apparently, though Guy et al. know better than I) such that it appears to be a formal Arbcom procedure. Maybe it was, but to the best of my knowledge, it was never published as such. As I understood it, the blocks were announced (presumably to the blocked persons), and they were told that Arbcom approved it. Arbcom never published any such decision, as they should have formally done. Thus the allegation that it was Arbcom-seal-of-approval-give is an unsubstantiated allegation of Durova et al.

Durova's vast over-exaggeration of her own power (to ban, for example, when she can't really, per the rules) demonstrates just how scary the idea of her being on Arbcom could be (or great, if you want to see Wikipedia become a complete circus that self-implodes ). Arbcom is a sleeping giant, that frequently doesn't move or react. With her involved as a sort of punitive moter and auto-prosecution-machine, Arbcom would just become a giant Durova-bot.

If you are Durova , you think that's great, because she knows what's best for everyone, and what is best is to focus on finding negativity and crushing it (creating even more negativity in the process, usually by accident and error). If you are Wikipedia (proper) it will lead to eventual scandals and embarassment, because she is singularly focused on finding guilt, and not terribly concerned about making mistakes. She's a not even a loose cannon, she's a random cannon. She's what you want to let loose in your enemy camp. Which if you hate Wikipedia, and want to see it embarassed, or weakened it good. What is scary is the bodycount increase , of well-intentioned users, newbies (who she'll accuse of being Greg K, or other random scapegoat, or supposed TOR criminal), and newer "EOD", enemies of Durova, such as people who questioned her sainted judgement in the "!!" debacle. Also !!, who if he comes back, is a marked man, or woman).

There is not a really serious sockpuppet problem, except for the socks she's stuffed up her nose (should have tried BEANS). The 'sock problem' is really her obsessive need to prosecute things, which has blossomed into some full blown vendettas, such as with Greg. That's some personal problem she has. Socks aren't problems as such, unless they are vandals, or used to game procedure, and even then, that's probably less than 20% of the sock population (a dirty guesstimate).

Wikipedia's main problems are: 1) substantive inaccuracies, 2) overzealousness-of-the-empowered, and 3) rule-and-procedure-implementation inconsistencies. (Durova is a huge part of no. 2 and no. 3, of course) Vandalism is just a daily, minor, run of the mill issue, that any newbie vandal patrol fighter can cope with, as long as he/she isn't overzealous to the point of damaging volunteer relationships, or even humiliating people (or even defaming them) unnecessarily. And which sadly happens too often.

There never needs to be a situation where people are humiliated or damaged on Wikipedia , and it unfortunately happens very often. Durova sees this as the fault of the victims of such Wiki-mistakes and that's what would be incredibly sad about her being elected - for Wikipedia, as well as for volunteers. She's not focused on improvements. She's completely COI, and it isn't about money. Her ego and naked power seeking is the COI.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

It would appear that "!!" really is the sockpuppet of someone. Evidently there was some previous arrangement that Durova was not privy to. I wonder who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172393052

Ultimately, this (apparently) good user will have his cover blown due to Durova's incompetence.

It would also appear that someone who dreams about big boobs and rides with his helmet didn't want us to see that particular diff.

What did it say, basically?

Greg

She blocked this poor guy by mistake recently as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...stAvailableNewt

She used that same line on him: "False positives occasionally happen in blood tests and sockpuppet investigations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171015049

If blood tests were as accurate as her "sockpuppet investigations" we'd all be dead.

Wonder if NearestAvailableNewt's recent bad block has been brought up at ANI yet?

Disgusting. !!'s talk page is blanked. Before I could barely watch myself scroll through it without the pastel tan "good job on the Did You Know" boxes whizzing by my eyes.

DL's analysis is spot on - a mad woman caught up in her own use of privileges is how I see it. Conversing with her must be excruciating, you can tell by how she writes that she LOVES to hear her own voice:

"Arbitration tips" for those not blessed with Durova's radiant brilliance

Although since !! has admitted to being an alternate account, I predict s/he will indeed be indef blocked for good in the next month or so. Now that the crowd Durova is part of has gotten wind of it, it doesn't matter how many oppose such a block, if they just keep wheel warring over it it'll stick eventually. Look what happened to Privatemusings after all...

This post has been edited by Miltopia:

See, that's the problem with Pogroms and Ethnic Cleansing.

The Secret Police occasionally round up and deport an unusual suspect.

What did it say, basically?

He complained that as a result of his block, his private information had been shared with too many people.

I'm wondering if it's <bad guess removed>, who was formerly known as <bad guess removed>. This is just idle speculation on my part, though. I'm no Wikipedia Complex Investigations Specialist.

This post has been edited by Aloft:

Giano says:

"Some people may feel it is a great pity Durova was ever allowed to have access to such tools in the first place. Giano (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see the message was left here because !! has gone on a long wikibreak with his history deleted - typical. Yet another valuable editor driven off by sheer incompetence of an ill trained Admin. Many people know that !! was formerly one of Wikipedia's most valuable and respected editors who for his own private reasons wanted a change of account name - and why not? I do hope there will be a de-sysoping at the end of this. Giano (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) "

OK, I think !! is [redacted]. [redacted] stopped making major edits on 25th June, !! started on July 1st, both are interested in [redacted] subjects.

I think you've got it. Filter their contribs using Template Talk and compare them side by side. Looks like a pretty good match.

I think you've got it. Filter their contribs using Template Talk and compare them side by side. Looks like a pretty good match.

So does anyone know why [redacted] wanted to change accounts? Did he fall out with the "cabal"?

So does anyone know why [redacted] wanted to change accounts? Did he fall out with the "cabal"?

If he was part of that whole [redacted]/[redacted]/[redacted] "Morality + Quality + Typical Wikipedians = Chaos" crowd, then it's no wonder they wanted to get rid of him...

As for the name change... [joke redacted]!

Yet more Durova block mistakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Dieseltruckdude
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...er%3AWikiGnosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Yanxfan421324
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=user%3ATankred
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...er%3ALionheartX

...and these are just the ones she caught herself. Imagine how many were caught by other admins, or worse, are still blocked? It looks like Ms. Wikipedia Brown is in over her head with these complex sockpuppet investigations.

This post has been edited by Aloft:

Aloft & Jorge

Hey, can you please delete the "guessed name" of said maybe-other-account of the poor, beleagured "!!" ?

He wanted to change his name for some good reason, and did. The Our Heroine saw fit to flay him publicly, having tried him (in her pointy head) by her own judge-jury-prosecutor-executioner self.

He's had a crappy week, despite having had at least some people defend him, and Durova proven for the fool and bad investigator that she is.

What he doesn't need is for us to write his former login/name online, just to prove we are smart enough to suss out former logins. That's the hobby-world-work of the Devine Miss D.

Deal?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Aloft,

Hey, can you please delete the "guessed name" of said maybe-other-account of the poor, beleagured "!!" ?

Sure, no problem. But it appears that jorge has proven my guess wrong anyway, so I'm not sure what difference it will make.

If he was part of that whole [redacted]/[redacted]/[redacted] "Morality + Quality + Typical Wikipedians = Chaos" crowd, then it's no wonder they wanted to get rid of him...

Do you really think that it was so well thought out? Maybe so, but I don't see the cabal as a cohesive unit at present, but as more of a fractious entity. Even in a minor gossip level, it seems not really organized. Otherwise, there would have been a gang of six, bullying down any nay-sayers, and even if obviously wrong, she would not have backed down, would not have erased and deleted, and would not have given what she thinks passes for an apology. Instead, we saw 6-12 nay-sayers were challenging her conclusions[b]. (ok, one of them is running against her for Arbcom, but nonetheless, there's more than one seat open)

This seems like a group by the gang of one (plus one always-overly-enthusiastic JeH, riding shotgun).

Of course, maybe she didn't like his gang anyways. But she didn't seem aware he was so active of a contributor, i.e. surprised to be told that (by his many much-annoyed defenders).

I think she is so busy chasing evil imaginary sockpuppet ghosts that she isn't much into the "mix" of late.

This post has been edited by Somey:

Giano says:

"Some people may feel it is a great pity Durova was ever allowed to have access to such tools in the first place. Giano (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. She doesn't HAVE access to checkuser tools, or at least she's not supposed to.

I'm fairly certain she got them, in a bid to use them with the Wikiscanner tool, which was her big push when it was launched a few months ago. Which gave her free access to the revealing tool that she should not be able to use at all.

Someone with her tendencies needs a strong hand and a close watch, and on Wikipedia, that simply isn't there. Her age makes her esp. unwieldly. How is a 15 year old kid supposed to combat a 50 year old ego-mad woman with brains, education, professional experience and an attitude that could level a tall building?

For all the dissing I do of kids managing Wikipedia, there are some cases where they are at a completely unfair disadvantage, and have my total sympathies, and arguing with Durova is one of them.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Ahem. She doesn't HAVE access to checkuser tools, or at least she's not supposed to.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the admin tools..

What he doesn't need is for us to write his former login/name online, just to prove we are smart enough to suss out former logins. That's the hobby-world-work of the Devine Miss D.

Deal?

It's a bit too late now given the amount of thread views, and Giano seems to imply that it's quite well known anyway. I actually thought that this whole thing might have been a scheme hatched up by Durova to draw Giano (her opponent for Arbcom) into a protracted argument in a hope to portray him as unreasonable and argumentative. If that it is the case it has pretty much failed as Giano has been relatively calm in his responses.

You do realise that now that you've caught these nobody will ever be able to use them on-wiki as evidence against her, right....?

Yet more Durova block mistakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Dieseltruckdude
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...er%3AWikiGnosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Yanxfan421324
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=user%3ATankred
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...er%3ALionheartX

...and these are just the ones she caught herself. Imagine how many were caught by other admins, or worse, are still blocked? It looks like Ms. Wikipedia Brown is in over her head with these complex sockpuppet investigations.

It's a bit too late now given the amount of thread views,

It is never too late to do the right thing, Jorge. I'm sure this kid would appreciate it. And the thread views are from last night, in the heat of the discussion. Probably 7% of them saw your post.

And why not delete it, other than to show that you can deduce skillfully. We all know that, but why not show you are considerate too, if you please.

and Giano seems to imply that it's quite well known anyway.

Maybe among his friends, sure. But it isnt published online. His angst at having had his private information bandied about *is* published online (Durovas talk page), so why not be a decent guy and delete it?

I actually thought that this whole thing might have been a scheme hatched up by Durova to draw Giano (her opponent for Arbcom) into a protracted argument in a hope to portray him as unreasonable and argumentative.

Maybe. You are giving her more credit than I do. Because I see her doing this to everyone, often. The subgoal is always to portray the victim (or anyone who disputes her) as argumentative and unreasonable. If she can pin a sock accusation on any person (weaker than her), she'll do it. This poor kid didn't even do anything wrong, and maybe didnt even disagree with her, just was a name change she sussed out and attacked.

If she were a clever strategist, she's have lain low until elections, not shot for a big drama. Her love of sleuthing and fighting are already well known. But I dont think she *can* keep a low profile. Which will make her possible Arbcom tenure a multi-show ticket selling event.

You do realise that now that you've caught these nobody will ever be able to use them on-wiki as evidence against her, right....?

Not so. Most things discovered on WR get corrected or used on WP. Never credited, of course, but used.

They love free work.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

And why not delete it

deleted as requested.

Thx much.

This just in:

Jehochman "doesnt like blocks without evidence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172560019

Unless it's by his SEO bonzai buddi Durova, of course.

Swatjester's community patience has been exhausted by durova's assertiveness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172570575

Are you OUT of your MIND? Semi-protecting the AN/I because an IP editor YOU are in a dispute with is posting things that you disagree with? Are you so blinded in your quest to sleuth everyone on this project and to CYA in this admitted mistake you've made that you would disrupt one of the single most active pages on the project, screwing over EVERY SINGLE IP EDITOR who wants to make a post here for....over 7 hours? [[User:Swatjester|

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

It angers me to no end that someone like Durova can go around doing these things and the ones that speak out against her are shouted down.

They have every right to be angry with Durova's actions. Why is she allowed to do this when other respected administrators question her tactics?

I wish I could run for ArbCom. A desyop and banning seems to be in order here.

WP has to understand that the project comes before the Community. If members of the Community are getting in the way of the project, begone with them no matter how long they've been around.

Swatjester's community patience has been exhausted by durova's assertiveness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172570575

Are you OUT of your MIND? Semi-protecting the AN/I because an IP editor YOU are in a dispute with is posting things that you disagree with? Are you so blinded in your quest to sleuth everyone on this project and to CYA in this admitted mistake you've made that you would disrupt one of the single most active pages on the project, screwing over EVERY SINGLE IP EDITOR who wants to make a post here for....over 7 hours? [[User:Swatjester|

Semi-protecting ANI...priceless. And Swatjester seems to have fallen ill to several bouts of "outspokenness" recently.

A desyop and banning seems to be in order here.

WP has to understand that the project comes before the Community. If members of the Community are getting in the way of the project, begone with them no matter how long they've been around.

The project cannot succeed if the community is disorganized.

The question is how best to organize a community.

The problem with trying to organize a community by sequentially castigating and ostracizing the bad actor du jour is that over time, it's a corrosive and dispiriting process that gradually alienates more and more people.

A desyop and banning seems to be in order here.

WP has to understand that the project comes before the Community. If members of the Community are getting in the way of the project, begone with them no matter how long they've been around.

The project cannot succeed if the community is disorganized.

The question is how best to organize a community.

The problem with trying to organize a community by sequentially castigating and ostracizing the bad actor du jour is that over time, it's a corrosive and dispiriting process that gradually alienates more and more people.

So, it would be better for her to change herself or leave voluntarily?

I don't think WP has ever had any clear goals. Build an encyclopedia is a good broad goal, but then there's the details and sub-goals that have to be made.

WP needs to figure out what it is creating, how to create it, and what kind of community and leadership is needed to create it.

Its like they're playing an American football game but they haven't a clue how to make the goal and keep fumbling the ball. You need strategy, cohesion, teamwork, and leadership. WP doesn't have those things.

So, it would be better for her to change herself or leave voluntarily?

I don't think WP has ever had any clear goals. Build an encyclopedia is a good broad goal, but then there's the details and sub-goals that have to be made.

WP needs to figure out what it is creating, how to create it, and what kind of community and leadership is needed to create it.

WP lacks a charter, mission statement, and social contract. As a result, participants lack a shared vision and a shared philosophy.

The default practice appears to be something akin to Survivor, wherein cliques and alliances evolve into cabals and outcasts, pretty much along the lines of Girard's Model of Competitive Rivalry.

Durova, to refuse to answer some of the editor's questions here and say that if anyone has a problem with your methods to "take it to the ArbCom" isn't very helpful. The overworked ArbCom doesn't have to get involved if you'll answer to the concerned editors on this page. Would you please answer the following questions?

* How do you decide who will be a target of your sleuthing?
* What methods do you use to sleuth editors?
* What is your rate of false positives and how do you know when you get a false positive?
* Who are the ArbCom members that you mail your evidence to, or is it to the entire ArbCom?
* Why do you feel that you should act "behind the scenes" with the ArbCom over these matters, when you could just as well post your observations and proposed actions here or at AN, which I've seen other admins do?
* Do you share your evidence with the accused editor and ask for an explanation before taking action on their account? Cla68 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of these previous questions there's some room for doubt about whether that list is assembled in good faith. If it was in good faith, could you clarify? Why do you repeat a series of questions, most or all of which I've provided reasonable justification for declining to answer onsite, without any new reason for answering them? DurovaCharge! 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh she's SUCH a wuss. This was a perfectly legitimate question. And how RICH she accuses this person (and their legitimate questions) of bad faith after she's been exposed for what she is: the self-appointed WBI (Wikipedia Bureau of Investigations) credit to Physchim62.

[indent]

Your "justification" may seem reasonable to yourself: not to many others. You appear to have appointed yourself as the Wikipedia Bureau of Investigation, and treat the criticisms of little admins with disdain. As I have mentioned to you on several occasions, if you methods are so secret, for @@@@'s sake don't shout about them! Otherwise we might just conclude that your spouting self-agrandiziung rubbish which is detrimental to the project. Given your repeted blanking of contributions to this page (four since 10:00 UTC today), I have warned you to stop. If you continue to user your editing privileges in such a controversial manner, you will only have yourself to blamew if they are suspended. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DL gets out popcorn.

* edit by Nathan: fixed indenting, I hope

This post has been edited by Nathan:

Per this check, I average about one apology a month for all purposes, whether block related or not. That's roughly one every 1000 edits. And with regard to the first question, I'm stunned to see a pop quiz in basic statistics here that wasn't intended analogously. DurovaCharge! 12:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this was the origin of her .1000 batting average (which I thought was amazingly humble, until I realized she thought she meant another batting average score. Perfect).

I average about one apology per month for all purposes?

Does she have a bot disseminate it? At a specific time and date of each month? Is there a distribution list?

If you notice what she wrote, she said she "apologized to Arbcom". I don't think she did a very good apology to the guy she slimed. Oh, and she's multitasking too. While defending her actions on ANI, she's backand blocking some account that responded to the ANI. Apparently the theory that anyone who challenges her being up for examination and auto-block is spot on.

I'm stunned to see a pop quiz in basic statistics here that wasn't intended analogously.

And I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see gambling in this establishment! (Claude Rains as Louis, Casablanca)(IMG:http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/pics/movies/casablanca-louis-clauderains.jpg)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Are you OUT of your MIND? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? Any sane person would have apologized humbly and got off the computer for at least 24 hours (if not one week). This one just keeps on justifying herself (quite rudely) into a hole all the way to Antarctica.

Durova:

Perhaps you missed part of the discussions. I had assembled a seven point report with 28 diffs and had circulated it for two weeks before acting. Obviously the methodology needs improvement, but the fact that it ultimately proved to be mistaken doesn't mean the approach was either hasty or superficial. I've pledged specific improvements so this doesn't happen again.

Sen. McCarthy:

I have in my hands fifty-seven cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy....

Durova for ArbCom! Turn her loose on the leadership! They'll get the arbitrator they've always deserved! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Durova:

Perhaps you missed part of the discussions. I had assembled a seven point report with 28 diffs and had circulated it for two weeks before acting. Obviously the methodology needs improvement, but the fact that it ultimately proved to be mistaken doesn't mean the approach was either hasty or superficial. I've pledged specific improvements so this doesn't happen again.

Durova expressed an interest in batting averages and how good hers is in hitting sockpuppets.

Let's oblige and keep sadistics, er, statistics. It's Bill James time, ladies and gentlemen. For the brits in the house, pretend its cricket, for Canadiens - shots on goal. When in St. Pete, do as the Tampa Bay Durova Rays do.

Earlier it was posted that Durova swung and missed on about 8 victims with links for each.

Anyone have a talley on how many hits, and how many misses she has? It can be compiled in a thread on WR.

For those who don't have Jonny's extensive mathematics background,

Avg = Hits/Attempts

Perhaps she can do better than "0.1000"

Durova for ArbCom! Turn her loose on the leadership! They'll get the arbitrator they've always deserved! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

She's done enough. At long last, Sir, (people are noticing that) she has no decency. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

You know things are going south for her, when her biggest champion is Guy.

You appear to be asking that Durova be perfect. Why? One mistake is now known, and it was swiftly rectified. 99 blocks which were not mistakes, stand.

Now there is an interesting statistic, for a woman like Durova who brags about being involved "investigatively" in 30% of all Arbcom disputes. That's an amazing statisitic in and of itself. Are we to being led to understand that this is the first and only error on her part? She only admitted it (or examined it) once challeged publicly.

What do you want to bet that Arbcom members cringed when getting one of her 'investigative' emails?

YOther blocks in which Durova's investigation played a part, also stand.....what else is Durova supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UT)

Hmmm. She could apologize for, and revert all the unfair other blocks, she didn't get nailed for. Then quit the project.

For reasons I also can't fathom, but which may not be entirely unrelated, we seem to be engaging in a witch-hunt here. what else is Durova supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. Stop being a witch? But if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Apart from apologising and swiftly reversing the block, what else is Durova supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Rubs chin thoughtfully. Hmmmmmm. Apologize, clean up and quit are still my faves.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Aw, snap !! Check out the part where he mentions the ever so convenient whitewashing:


Maybe I have something wrong, I don't know any of the players. Here's how I see it: Durova banned a user for opaque reasons, a user so uncommonly righteous that people of consequence were moved to question it. Durova demured, insisting that her secret evidence was a lock, and invoking AGF by saying: "I will be more than happy to explain my research to the arbitration committee. Please take this there if that is your opinion. WP:AGF, please: I don't do something this bold without very good reasons." Ten minutes later she preemptively AGFs her expected detractors, saying: "This has been a tough call, but in my opinion a necessary one. I am very confident my research will stand up to scrutiny. I am equally confident that anything I say here will be parsed rather closely by some disruptive banned sockpuppeteers. If I open the door a little bit it'll become a wedge issue as people ask for more information, and then some rather deep research techniques would be in jeopardy. As I've said this before, take me to arbitration if you want to challenge this." That part has been blanked in one heckuva courtesy, so I don't blame you if you missed it.

Exactly 1hr10m later Durova concedes it's all been a mistake, which is a remarkably short time to disprove all that evidence. In a blaze of non-accountability, she "apologizes" by using the word (only) in the title, claims she likes to be the first to fix her own mistakes, then appears to blame her faulty research on unnamed colleagues for not fixing her mistake sooner (I thought she liked to do that?), and requests early closure and archiving to protect the OTHER person's privacy! On the page we can still see, she claims that even though this one was an error, the accuracy of her secret methods is not in question. She's asked to explain how she determines this, and responds by saying that the question doesn't make any sense to her. Whatever it is she's doing, and she says it's a secret, she seems to intend to keep doing it.

Remember, this only got picked up because the user in question was apparently a saint. A lot of people are troubled by the realization that, if this had been a regular human, it probably would have passed without comment, as Durova was urging. If it can (almost) happen to him, it could happen to a lot of less exemplary users, like me. Please note that I have made no assumptions regarding the sincerity of Durova's initial judgement, because it isn't relevant. But I do find this episode very disturbing, and her interpretation of other people's reasonable criticism of her behaviour as flattering proof that she's "good at this" is completely stunning.

If I have something wrong, please explain; if I've been unclear, please ask. But I don't think it all happened the way it's now being described above, and I don't think this is about public lynchings, but private ones. sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion about Durova getting it right with her sockpuppet investigations or getting it wrong. I think people are looking at it the wrong way: if a user as good as User:!! is a sock of a banned user, we should be 100% OK with that. Furthermore, we shouldn't just overlook it, we should revoke the ban, apologize, and thank the heavens that he or she is willing (or was willing) to invest the time, on a volunteer basis, to produce such quality work. Has it become so rare to place the highest priority on a user's contributions and impact on the encyclopedia?

There's a lot of discussion about Durova getting it right with her sockpuppet investigations or getting it wrong. I think people are looking at it the wrong way: if a user as good as User:!! is a sock of a banned user, we should be 100% OK with that. Furthermore, we shouldn't just overlook it, we should revoke the ban, apologize, and thank the heavens that he or she is willing (or was willing) to invest the time, on a volunteer basis, to produce such quality work. Has it become so rare to place the highest priority on a user's contributions and impact on the encyclopedia?

Weren't you paying attention? Any banned user is by definition disruptive! If they start to act well, they're just trying to get into the "in" crowd so that they can be disruptive later.

It seems everyone is a sock nowadays. Which means everyone is banned nowadays.

JzG's banning people left and right. Durova's got secret dirt on everybody.

Is there any doubt now as to why long-time contributors are leaving WP now?

Oh my. This is from her answer to question 73 on her Questions for the Candidate page:

If you Google my username it won't take long to find a page with a mostly fictitious biography of me. One of the few genuine things on that page is a photograph of my seventy-four-year-old uncle who was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive, along with a not very subtle threat to harass him in real life if I don't stop volunteering for Wikipedia. That's the kind of people they are. What they fail to appreciate is that I joined the armed forces and went to war because of 9/11. I ran to the standards of a twenty-four-year-old male, exceeded the push-up requirement for a seventeen to nineteen-year-old male, earned marksmanship ribbons in both pistol and rifle, and volunteered to stand double my normal rotation of armed watches when we got to the most dangerous part of deployment. That's the kind of person I am. I never needed to fire that weapon on an enemy; instead my command saved 113 civilian lives.

... 56 of whom she later blocked as being sockpuppets because they lived in the same village.

Does she seriously expect people to fall for this shit?

This post has been edited by Aloft:

I would have had a lot to say about this if I got in on it earlier. This will probably rank right up there in my list of favorite wikipedia scandals.

We need Durova for arbcom bumper stickers.

This has helped me learn a little bit more about Durova or reinforce what I thought I knew... I knew that Durova took Wikipedia very seriously and was self-aggrandizing, but I did not realize that she was so stupid. Of course, this may be due to extreme Wiki intoxication, which is usually followed by burnout and a heart felt 3 page long retiring note. However, she seems to be hanging right in there trying to make a name for herself in Jimbo's dysfunctional community and craving to show the world that she is good at something. Unknown to her, she is becoming a joke to a wider audience than before.

Although I fear that she does not have the cadre of ass kissers that some other editors have; therefore, she probably has no shot at an Arbcom seat. Highly unfortunate! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) Her presence on such a body would be great "business" for WR and other critics.

I've come to the conclusion: the silver bullet that would eject Durova from the project is a famous Jimbo's one-liner, something along the lines of "find a new hobby" or "what the fuck is wrong with you?" In her mind, Jimbo is appreciative and sympathetic to her contributions...but what she fails to realize is Jimbo is not capable of appreciating the altruistic fools editing his enyclopedia. I think she'll probably find that out.

Durova thwarting the attempt by umpteen Admins to get the Poetlister block reviewed.

With respect for Sarah and everyone here, no good can come of prolonging this. Request closure of this thread. If you're an editor in good standing and you're that curious, then e-mail me. DurovaCharge!

Has anyone here who is in good standing tried e-mailing her? I must confess I haven't.

Has anyone here who is in good standing tried e-mailing her? I must confess I haven't.

She's accused quite a few naiive trusting (normal persons) who tried emailing her of harassment. Talk about a honey pot. Between telling COI editors to contact her for direction, or anyone to contact her at all, she is just finding new meat to flagellate. "Contact me directly" means "if I can get away with it, or if I feel like it, I'll use your emails to kick you off the project."

The IP address she banned (claiming wrongly it was Greg), who emailed her four days ago was accussed of harassment for having sent four emails. For this, she suggested banning the IP (I suppose this was if it wasn't really Greg, it should get banned anyways). JeHochman called this "email evidence" to prove that IP was Greg. Why do they think this was G? Because he called her Lisa? Everyone knows her name is Lise. (spelled with an e, not an a, as the IP did). Her full name has been published on Youtube, and 20 SEO sites, and is very, very googleable. Hello?

Read the pipermail exchange (hilarious, but scarily revealing of her) which shows why your not having contacted her was wise.

Proof that to Durova, any Email which she doesn't like is Harassment (like any person she doesn't like is a sock)

Harassing e-mails, part 1

by Durova Nov 14, 2007; 03:14pm :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
Hi Lisa,

I know for a fact that User:24.19.33.82 has nothing to do with Greg Kohs.
You've really blown it here, and comments such as…

"I'll call this a WP:DUCK block: I've been blocking Wikipedia Review socks for a
year and am pretty good at spotting them."

"With experience one gets quite good at this."

…will make you look awfully stupid if the true identity of
User:24.19.33.82comes out.

How do I know this? Because that's my current IP (for now.) My aim was only
to edit anonymously like any other IP. So please let me do so. Otherwise,
I'm forced to prove how badly you and Jonathan have messed this up in order
to get unblocked. Unblocking the IP's yourself (which belong to public
commercial establishments, you shouldn't be blocking them for 3 months
anyway) with some summary like "benefit of the doubt" would be a face-saving
way for you to avoid this.

-M.O.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


Re: Harassing e-mails, part 1

by joshua.zelinsky Nov 14, 2007; 03:34pm :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
I'm missing something. Who is "M.O."?

Quoting Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>:

> Hi Lisa,
>
> I know for a fact that User:24.19.33.82 has nothing to do with Greg Kohs.
> You've really blown it here, and comments such as…
>
> "I'll call this a WP:DUCK block: I've been blocking Wikipedia Review socks for a
> year and am pretty good at spotting them."
>
> "With experience one gets quite good at this."
>
> …will make you look awfully stupid if the true identity of
> User:24.19.33.82comes out.
>
> How do I know this? Because that's my current IP (for now.) My aim was only
> to edit anonymously like any other IP. So please let me do so. Otherwise,
> I'm forced to prove how badly you and Jonathan have messed this up in order
> to get unblocked. Unblocking the IP's yourself (which belong to public
> commercial establishments, you shouldn't be blocking them for 3 months
> anyway) with some summary like "benefit of the doubt" would be a face-saving
> way for you to avoid this.
>
> -M.O.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


Re: Harassing e-mails, part 1

by Kamryn Matika Nov 14, 2007; 06:42pm :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
On Nov 14, 2007 3:14 PM, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> Hi Lisa,
>
> I know for a fact that User:24.19.33.82 has nothing to do with Greg Kohs.
> You've really blown it here, and comments such as…
>
> "I'll call this a WP:DUCK block: I've been blocking Wikipedia Review socks for a
> year and am pretty good at spotting them."
>
> "With experience one gets quite good at this."
>
> …will make you look awfully stupid if the true identity of
> User:24.19.33.82comes out.
>
> How do I know this? Because that's my current IP (for now.) My aim was only
> to edit anonymously like any other IP. So please let me do so. Otherwise,
> I'm forced to prove how badly you and Jonathan have messed this up in order
> to get unblocked. Unblocking the IP's yourself (which belong to public
> commercial establishments, you shouldn't be blocking them for 3 months
> anyway) with some summary like "benefit of the doubt" would be a face-saving
> way for you to avoid this.
>
> -M.O.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

That doesn't qualify as harassment I'm afraid.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


Re: Harassing e-mails, part 1

by Durova Nov 15, 2007; 01:56am :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
That doesn't qualify as harassment I'm afraid.
****
No it doesn't, but by the fourth message the exchange did qualify as
harassment. After the second I requested no further contact.

Perhaps you inhabit a universe where it's socially acceptable for a stranger
to address a woman by her name without identifying himself, and to continue
sending her messages late into the night after she's insisted that he stop.
Perhaps you also live in a universe that does not recognize the elementary
courtesy of asking her permission before reposting part of an unwanted
conversation to a public list, devoid of context, and attempting to pass
judgement on it.

You owe me an apology. A big one.

-Durova
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


Re: Harassing e-mails, part 1

by Durova Nov 15, 2007; 02:15am :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
Allow me to retract that. I missent the original to the wrong address. My
apologies for the response.

-Durova
You owe me an apology. A big one.

>
> -Durova
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

No one can email her with her real name unless given permission? What century is she living in? She's not Nancy Drew. She's not Mata Hari. She's Hester Prynne.

After that rant, I say she's not only a bad research, not only paranoid, but she's very close to certifiable.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

That's the kind of people they are. What they fail to appreciate is that I joined the armed forces and went to war because of 9/11. I ran to the standards of a twenty-four-year-old male, exceeded the push-up requirement for a seventeen to nineteen-year-old male, earned marksmanship ribbons in both pistol and rifle, and volunteered to stand double my normal rotation of armed watches when we got to the most dangerous part of deployment. That's the kind of person I am. I never needed to fire that weapon on an enemy; instead my command saved 113 civilian lives..

.. 56 of whom she later blocked as being sockpuppets because they lived in the same village. Does she seriously expect people to fall for this shit?

Oh it gets better than that. The 113 people her command saved were persons picked up on a stranded ship, by the naval carrier where she was working as official navy photographer. The people were dropped off by the navy on the tropical island of Palau, where Durova had a short enjoyable vacation.(God, why do I know this? Maybe from ED, or wikipedia-watch, or maybe Brandt wrote it on WR). Talk about distorting the facts (Durova for Arbcom). She's actually delusional at this point.

I wonder if she was holding rattlesnakes and juggling a burning harley which she carried out of a building, while her ship was picking up the people who's boat motor died.

If you Google my username it won't take long to find a page with a mostly fictitious biography of me. One of the few genuine things on that page is a photograph of my seventy-four-year-old uncle who was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive, along with a not very subtle threat to harass him in real life if I don't stop volunteering for Wikipedia.

She really is ill. Or just a big fat liar. Here is what she calls harassment, from her ED page. The so-called threat to her uncle to force her to quit editing WP. Um, yeah.

Looks Like a Nice Guy (We hope he doesn't know what a monster his niece is) Lise's uncle, William Broer who survived the 911 attack on the World Trade Center. His survival caused her to join the U.S. Navy. Couldn't she have gone to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or something? Lise, your nation needs you. PLEASE!! SAVE US!!!

KamrynMatika, maybe you need to give her another explanation of the word, "harassment" A JImbo "what the fuck is wrong with you" is very called for, at this juncture.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I'm waffling between filing this one under Delusions of Grandeur vs Delusions of Slander.

While I ponder the case, I'll temporarily (e.g. indefinitely) file it under Delusions of Remander.

A "wtf" from the Sole Founder is not likely in my opinion. Jimbo thrives on these types of editors. He's so busy being famous that he doesn't have time to look at these situations and see who's actually in the right. What he'll see in this situation is Durova, a mover and a shaker, taking action. HELL YEAH. He might see as far that she was in the wrong, and will probably commend her for admitting it, because on Wikipedia apparently it's some big accomplishment to admit when you're wrong, even when everyone already knows it.

Well, I say that he's too busy to see more than just the surface, but it could be that Wikipedia's "higher-ups" are generally the ones who are the hastiest and rashest (or most hasty and most rash if you will), and he has no choice but to support them, otherwise Wikipedia's social power heirarchy falls apart. There are times when I'd love to know what such an inconsistent man as Jimbo is thinking...

I'm waffling between filing this one under Delusions of Grandeur vs Delusions of Slander.

While I ponder the case, I'll temporarily (e.g. indefinitely) file it under Delusions of Remander.

I suggest that the woman is really quite unstable. Aside from the obvious delusions about her own importance everywhere, she is really over the edge with her mission on the internet.
I suggest she might be an addict of some sort, besides being addicted to WP; her own fumes.

Does she think she is going to get a spot with the big "O.W." show?

Durova now represents exactly what WP does not want as a spokeperson...a person with a rant that sounds totally insane, because it is. She has destroyed herself as a meaningful mentor and a guide to how the encyclopedia should operate. She is a paranoid egomaniac. That is not a good thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

The downside is that this case supplies more motivation for other erratic admins to quietly bury their mistakes in judgment rather than admit and correct them. Durova's case demonstrates that it's virtual Wikicide to admit a mistake, issue an apology, and reverse oneself.

The downside is that this case supplies more motivation for other erratic admins to quietly bury their mistakes in judgment rather than admit and correct them. Durova's case demonstrates that it's virtual Wikicide to admit a mistake, issue an apology, and reverse oneself.

Of course, this link keeps the issue in the public eye for a long time, unless someone deletes it.
I think the idea that she has done this over and over may have some teeth and traction.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

I'm waffling between filing this one under Delusions of Grandeur vs Delusions of Slander.

While I ponder the case, I'll temporarily (e.g. indefinitely) file it under Delusions of Remander.

It's probably just last night's margaritas still talking, but I was thinking more along the lines of Retried Beans.

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

KamrynMatika, maybe you need to give her another explanation of the word, "harassment" A JImbo "what the fuck is wrong with you" is very called for, at this juncture.

Perhaps, but - D'OH! Ms. Matika has now been kicked off the WikiEN-L list by Dave "Mister Querulous" Gerard for daring to suggest that she didn't owe Ms. Durova an apology after all, for in turn daring to suggest that her e-mails from someone she mistook for Greg (after another uncalled-for blocking) didn't quite qualify as "harassment."

Oh well, someone had to give it a shot, I suppose... not that there was any chance of the WP'ers actually acting in their own best interests. (Why, that would be querulous!)

The downside is that this case supplies more motivation for other erratic admins to quietly bury their mistakes in judgment rather than admit and correct them. Durova's case demonstrates that it's virtual Wikicide to admit a mistake, issue an apology, and reverse oneself.

That's what I used to believe too, when things like this have happened in the past, but the fact is that it's always been that way and probably always will be. This incident isn't really going to change that aspect of their problem-set... Proving one's legitimacy and competence for the task of administering a website of WP's size and scope by doing quality work is such a daunting/thankless task, and the alternative of pointing out the incompetence of others so much easier (and attention-grabbing) in comparison, it simply stands to reason that the amount of finger-pointing and backstabbing would increase to unmanageable levels over time. And for the truly incompetent, if the only way to avoid being criticized is to lie, blame others, and refuse to apologize even when proven totally wrong, then that's just what you do. Human nature, I'm afraid.

All of them are in over their heads - Durova is just unusually aggressive about advertising the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172715016

WP:BLOCK has been amended to state the following:

If a user needs to be blocked based on information that cannot be made public, that information is sent to the [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee]] or a [[Wikipedia:Checkuser|Checkuser]] for action. Those entities are qualified to handle secret evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on secret evidence.

As if every single Checkuser is trustworthy, uncorrupted and inviolate and would never abuse their position.

Addendum-
Check out this recent barnstar:

Awarded to Durova for her recognition of transparency and oversight. Rather than being a hothead admin and banning people based on whim, she opened herself to ridicule and attack by discussing a block on ANI on or around 17 November 2007. This selfless action improves the integrity and ethics of wikipedia as well as being a good reflection on her character. -User:Chergles

That's rich.

the [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee]] or a [[Wikipedia:Checkuser|Checkuser]] for action. Those entities are qualified to handle secret evidence, and they operate under strict controls.

Interesting use of words, calling a CheckUser an entity. What strict controls are there for ArbCom?

the [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee]] or a [[Wikipedia:Checkuser|Checkuser]] for action. Those entities are qualified to handle secret evidence, and they operate under strict controls.

Interesting use of words, calling a CheckUser an entity. What strict controls are there for ArbCom?

None, other than the privacy policy rules that checkusers have to abide by [supposedly]. But other than that, they can do whatever they like.

The downside is that this case supplies more motivation for other erratic admins to quietly bury their mistakes in judgment rather than admit and correct them. Durova's case demonstrates that it's virtual Wikicide to admit a mistake, issue an apology, and reverse oneself.

I disagree. It was the way she did it, and the fact that it is obvious that if she hadn't been pressed to the wall, she'd be gloating about the vandal she smashed that bothers people. Also that she's more than likely to do it again.

And for the truly incompetent, if the only way to avoid being criticized is to lie, blame others, and refuse to apologize even when proven totally wrong, then that's just what you do. Human nature, I'm afraid.

Sure it is. Just that without some checks and balances, we'd all be back in the jungle. And I'm sorry to say that that place is a jungle. Currently.

All of them are in over their heads - Durova is just unusually aggressive about advertising the fact.

That's where a little word called STRATEGY comes into play. That place is a ship without a rudder, without a captain, without much more than a spokesperson (Jimbo). Managerially, strategically, even operationally it is bereft. "Operationally" does not comprise operating servers (alone). It comprises operating towards stated objectives, and basically not self-destructing as an entity.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

That's where a little word called STRATEGY comes into play. That place is a ship without a rudder, without a captain, without much more than a spokesperson (Jimbo). Managerially, strategically, even operationally it is bereft. "Operationally" does not comprise operating servers (alone). It comprises operating towards stated objectives, and basically not self-destructing as an entity.

This, of course, is Wikipedia's real problem.

Forget the out-of-control admins for a moment, the problem is why they're out of control. There's no adult supervision at Wikipedia.

A real encyclopedia has an editor-in-chief, several senior editors, and an editorial board -- all to shape editorial policy.

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Who Hasn't Pissed Off A Few Key Editors Can Edit, has... Durova... JzG... SlimVirgin... David Gerard (not that there's anything wrong with that)... Ruylong... Baudy Fred... and an occasional cameo by the Sole Flounder.

That's not encyclopedia management, that's a group therapy session.

Until WMF gets serious and imposes real editorial guidelines on Wikipedia, well... they are who thought they were -- an almanac with pretentions -- and we can't afford to let them off the hook.

That's where a little word called STRATEGY comes into play. That place is a ship without a rudder, without a captain, without much more than a spokesperson (Jimbo). Managerially, strategically, even operationally it is bereft. "Operationally" does not comprise operating servers (alone). It comprises operating towards stated objectives, and basically not self-destructing as an entity.

This, of course, is Wikipedia's real problem.

Forget the out-of-control admins for a moment, the problem is why they're out of control. There's no adult supervision at Wikipedia.

A real encyclopedia has an editor-in-chief, several senior editors, and an editorial board -- all to shape editorial policy.

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Who Hasn't Pissed Off A Few Key Editors Can Edit, has... Durova... JzG... SlimVirgin... David Gerard (not that there's anything wrong with that)... Ruylong... Baudy Fred... and an occasional cameo by the Sole Flounder.

That's not encyclopedia management, that's a group therapy session.

Until WMF gets serious and imposes real editorial guidelines on Wikipedia, well... they are who thought they were -- an almanac with pretentions -- and we can't afford to let them off the hook.

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Wikipedia is about as far removed from "communities of perfectly normal people" as can be imagined.

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Wikipedia is about as far removed from "communities of perfectly normal people" as can be imagined.

I doubt that's true, actually. Usenet is a testament to what happens here: if you take a perfectly normal person, give him power (real or imagined), and make everyone anonymous, generally he will start to act like a raving lunatic. If you met one of these admins walking down the street tomorrow, you probably wouldn't notice anything different about them.

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Wikipedia is about as far removed from "communities of perfectly normal people" as can be imagined.

I doubt that's true, actually. Usenet is a testament to what happens here: if you take a perfectly normal person, give him power (real or imagined), and make everyone anonymous, generally he will start to act like a raving lunatic. If you met one of these admins walking down the street tomorrow, you probably wouldn't notice anything different about them.

Well I believe that Wikipedia does attract people that ordinarily wouldn't be given responsibilities to control such vital information and the power that Wikipedia has.

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Wikipedia is about as far removed from "communities of perfectly normal people" as can be imagined.

I doubt that's true, actually. Usenet is a testament to what happens here: if you take a perfectly normal person, give him power (real or imagined), and make everyone anonymous, generally he will start to act like a raving lunatic. If you met one of these admins walking down the street tomorrow, you probably wouldn't notice anything different about them.

We would notice a high school student bossing around a scholar such as Awbrey. We would notice someone like Durova treating business people like preschooler who need a time out. We would notice Essjay in his ill fitting clerical robes. They are only partially created. They are also self-selected. We would notice.

Usenet is also highly self selected.

We would notice a high school student bossing around a scholar such as Awbrey. We would notice someone like Durova treating business people like preschooler who need a time out. We would notice Essjay in his ill fitting clerical robes. They are only partially created. They are also self-selected. We would notice.

Usenet is also highly self selected.

That's my point. Most people on Wikipedia are pretty average high school students, lying college kids, or whatever. The issue is that the system is designed such that those people get power, despite the fact that they really shouldn't. The community would be just fine, if it were arranged sanely.

We would notice a high school student bossing around a scholar such as Awbrey. We would notice someone like Durova treating business people like preschooler who need a time out. We would notice Essjay in his ill fitting clerical robes. They are only partially created. They are also self-selected. We would notice.

Usenet is also highly self selected.

That's my point. Most people on Wikipedia are pretty average high school students, lying college kids, or whatever. The issue is that the system is designed such that those people get power, despite the fact that they really shouldn't. The community would be just fine, if it were arranged sanely.

That community is appropriate for MySpace or FaceBook not an encyclopedia. Even on those social sites some influential Wikipedians would be a threat to the more innocent members of those sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Recall

I do not know what this means, but it does not look good for Durova at a time when she is running for office.

Maybe now she will be running for the hills?

It appears some very smart people on WP do not like her very much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Recall

I do not know what this means, but it does not look good for Durova at a time when she is running for office.

Maybe now she will be running for the hills?

It appears some very smart people on WP do not like her very much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

...and the list is growing! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Anyone who is interested in the problem of Durova, please read this edit on Wikipedia.

Specifically:

Durova has done good work for the Arbitration Committee, and if it stops just one more JB196 or Wikipedia Review sockpuppet from trying to come back to Wikipedia, then she must be doing something right.

WRONG! And I hope every mother f***ing Wikipediot who espouses this line of thought is paying the f**k attention to what I have to say right now.

Jimmy Wales unblocked me, you morons.

I began to edit Wikipedia again on topics such as the Czech Air Force, a highway in Michigan, and an Arizona performance artist. I was going along nicely for nearly a week, with not a single dust-up or conflict. No harm in my returning to Wikipedia, right?

Then, Durova had to open that giant, ugly yapper of hers and claim that I "gave misleading information to journalists", and she refused to present her evidence of that to anyone in public. THAT is what pissed me off, you morons. THAT is what rekindled my hatred of Wikipedia -- because you morons SUPPORTED her apparent "right" to defame me with absolutely no shred of evidence.

Do you think I would be here today, sockpuppeting my way through Wikipedia like holes through Swiss cheese, if Durova had just minded her f***ing business and worked on building an encyclopedia?

You Wikipediot morons have it exactly upside-down. It is Durova's witch hunting that FUELS the sockpuppetry and vandalism and off-site criticisms of your so-called "encyclopedia". You are so stupid, though, you can't even see this obvious cause-and-effect pattern.

You know what? I've had enough. Off come the boxing gloves.

Come visit my store.

DUROVA FOR ARBCOM ! !

You know what? I've had enough. Off come the boxing gloves.

Come visit my store.

You were selling boxing gloves, too? I was thinking about getting a dozen or so of those cute little thongs, but if boxing gloves were available... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Anyway, the timing of this recall request was fairly clever - it was made right about when Durova would have been going to sleep, and right now she'll just be waking up, and no doubt logging onto WP before she even goes through her usual morning routine of gulping down a nice cup of vitriol and then kicking the dog a few times. And suddenly seeing this big debate on her talk page, well... nice!

Like I say, though, I'd have mixed feelings about Durova losing her adminship. Without her and JzG, who's left for us WR folks to use as prime examples of how WP is descending into a hellish morass of pettiness, narcissism, infighting, and general chaos? Ryulong? Dave Gerard? Not good enough, IMO - we'd be out of business completely within 6 months.

Anyone who is interested in the problem of Durova, please read this edit on Wikipedia.

Specifically:

Durova has done good work for the Arbitration Committee, and if it stops just one more JB196 or Wikipedia Review sockpuppet from trying to come back to Wikipedia, then she must be doing something right.

WRONG! And I hope every mother f***ing Wikipediot who espouses this line of thought is paying the f**k attention to what I have to say right now.

Jimmy Wales unblocked me, you morons.

I began to edit Wikipedia again on topics such as the Czech Air Force, a highway in Michigan, and an Arizona performance artist. I was going along nicely for nearly a week, with not a single dust-up or conflict. No harm in my returning to Wikipedia, right?

Then, Durova had to open that giant, ugly yapper of hers and claim that I "gave misleading information to journalists", and she refused to present her evidence of that to anyone in public. THAT is what pissed me off, you morons. THAT is what rekindled my hatred of Wikipedia -- because you morons SUPPORTED her apparent "right" to defame me with absolutely no shred of evidence.

Do you think I would be here today, sockpuppeting my way through Wikipedia like holes through Swiss cheese, if Durova had just minded her f***ing business and worked on building an encyclopedia?

You Wikipediot morons have it exactly upside-down. It is Durova's witch hunting that FUELS the sockpuppetry and vandalism and off-site criticisms of your so-called "encyclopedia". You are so stupid, though, you can't even see this obvious cause-and-effect pattern.

You know what? I've had enough. Off come the boxing gloves.

Come visit my store.

DUROVA FOR ARBCOM ! !

The Whorehead specified in the above-cited Weepons Prospectus has been tested at The Wikipetard Revue Arfoolery Range and certified to have a Durovakill Rating of 110%.

Suggestions of the raters for increasing the yield —

• Augment the Visible Dramsparency Lines of the T-shirts with a suitable accelerant, like H2O.
• Bigger boobs in the T-shirts. No, you ediot, not those kinda boobs. We mean T-T-shirts.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

And lest anyone think that this merchandising effort is bad, wait until you see what 28 different websites say about Durova's progeny.

Oh my gosh.

Remind me never to get on your bad side, Greg (and Somey)! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Remind me never to get on your bad side, Greg (and Somey)! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Just proving a point. It can all come down the moment Durova retracts and apologizes for her libelous statement that she dreamed up about my dialogue (of which she was not a party) with AP reporter Brian Bergstein. I'll even help her contact the various Wikipedia scraper sites that seem to believe that her heroine's descendants are intimate with animals.

They don't care when it's Seigenthaler or Zoeller or Wikipedia Review on the receiving end of defamation. I presume they'll care when it's Nadezhda Durova.

Greg

Like I say, though, I'd have mixed feelings about Durova losing her adminship. Without her and JzG, who's left for us WR folks to use as prime examples of how WP is descending into a hellish morass of pettiness, narcissism, infighting, and general chaos? Ryulong? Dave Gerard? Not good enough, IMO - we'd be out of business completely within 6 months.

No need to worry, Somey. In the void left by the departure of those particular abusive, petty, belligerent Wikipedia admins, there would arise a new set of jackbooted thugs, buffoons, incompetents, and morons. Your job is secure!

Like I say, though, I'd have mixed feelings about Durova losing her adminship. Without her and JzG, who's left for us WR folks to use as prime examples of how WP is descending into a hellish morass of pettiness, narcissism, infighting, and general chaos? Ryulong? Dave Gerard? Not good enough, IMO - we'd be out of business completely within 6 months.

No need to worry, Somey. In the void left by the departure of those particular abusive, petty, belligerent Wikipedia admins, there would arise a new set of jackbooted thugs, buffoons, incompetents, and morons. Your job is secure!

Never Φear, Jayjg Is Bak —

Consider It Job Securité …
Turkey Time !!!

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

1. Think up a clever vandalism — something like the T-shirt pic is good.
2. Stick it on Durova's user page or Talk page.
3. Grab a screen shot before it's reverted (like within two or three seconds).
4. Send me the screen shot and I'll link to it from my vandals page, with an intro sentence to the effect that Lise, aka Durova, is one of the least-liked administrators on Wikipedia.

Here is an example that got Jimbo upset (he seemed to think that I was endangering his daughter, blah, blah) so I don't link to it anymore. I may go back to linking to it now that I'm rebanned anyway. It's an excellent piece of work, as you can plainly see.

If your vandalism is off-color I might not like it, so you may want to check with me first. It should be clever or funny, not dirty or overly insulting.

So that's what Kira Wales looks like. I've wondered ever since I saw Jimbo remove the picture of his daughter from the Meetup/Lonon1 page and delete it.

re: The Durova for Arbcom Shop

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

complaint1: Her head is too small on the t-shirts. Not realistic. Should be bigger. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

complaint2: Head should be over right side of heart (ok, I'm welling up right now, sniff)

suggestion1: What about a DfA hijab? Why gyp the Middle East from their right to stump for our heroine.

More suggestions:

1. DfA briefs
2. DfA umbrella (repels both rain and vandals. Spike tipped for people you dislike)
3. DfA car shades
4. DfA bumpersticker (don't know how you forgot that one - so basic)
5. DfA Ringtones
6. DfA rap song (picture burned on CD)
7. DfA dance mix (picture burned on CD)

Hey, is this for real, as in, can they really be purchased? I have some married couple-friends who are expecting, and the maternity t-shirts and baby bibs could be a nice conversation piece, and useful too.

Personal favorites:
(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614214v0_150x150_Front.jpg)(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614201v0_150x150_Front.jpg)(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614220v0_150x150_Front.jpg)(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614211v0_150x150_Front.jpg)(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614202v0_150x150_Front.jpg)

Note: If these really are for sale, I'd check with a lawyer about what to do to protect yourself from legal liability. Perhaps if all the profits go to her (or charity, i.e. Wikipedia Save the Children) you would be safe from the eventual lawsuit for IP infringement. I mean, you'd hate to get another 'you are infringing our trademarks' email from Jimbo.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Durova's evidence

I agree. Apparently her methods and evidence are secret, so for the benefit of all here is a sample. In fact its is a huge chunk of it:

"Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162747326

Now the moves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062162
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062161
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ve_6_%282007%29 &diff=prev&oldid=163062164
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062163
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062167
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062166
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062248
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062247
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062253
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062252
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062257
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062256
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062262
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062263

Unfortunately the "sock" was not a stranger to me, I knew who he was all the time. Does Durova truly think that an editor like me wold allow a complete stranger to go shunting my archives arownd - all she had to do was ask. Giano (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA

oh wow what a 'complex investigation' durova. LOL.

Durova's evidence

I agree. Apparently her methods and evidence are secret, so for the benefit of all here is a sample. In fact its is a huge chunk of it:

"Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162747326

Now the moves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062162
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062161
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ve_6_%282007%29 &diff=prev&oldid=163062164
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062163
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062167
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062166
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062248
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062247
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062253
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062252
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062257
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062256
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062262
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062263

Unfortunately the "sock" was not a stranger to me, I knew who he was all the time. Does Durova truly think that an editor like me wold allow a complete stranger to go shunting my archives arownd - all she had to do was ask. Giano (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA

oh wow what a 'complex investigation' durova. LOL.

The mountain of evidence is simply overwhelming, they have no choice but to block Giano as well.

And I found this rather funny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II#ANI_thread
You gotta give Giano credit, he doesn't back down, even when the big guns enter the picture.

And I found this rather funny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II#ANI_thread
You gotta give Giano credit, he doesn't back down, even when the big guns enter the picture.

Well, he seems to be Italian (or at least a European of Italian descent), per a brief breeze of his edit history. Which would mean he would know corruption when he sees it. And Italians have a passionate love of fighting, and blood on the wall drama. Unline our heroine, who is a mere pretender to the world of drama. Besides, if he really is Italian, this is one case where he can do something about obvious corruption. Compared to the Berlasconi debacle, Wikimedia/Wikipedia bureaucracy, gerrymandering, coverups and gaming are mere child's play.

Berlasconi actually had the audacity to try to write into law a statute that would have made him impossible to prosecute for the corruption that he practiced while in office. Parliament knocked it down, but you have to give him kudos for ballsiness.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I love the idea that finally, Jimmy Wales will have to look at all of this corruption and do something about it, or go down in history as having presided over another “Watergate” while on his watch at WP. The press should be tuned in to the players there soon.

Keep defending the crime and you too will do the time, JzG. It is not worth the shame and humiliation that each one of the defenders will face when the whole thing boils over, as it will eventually.

Durova is acting out like a person addicted to a drug/alcohol. High on the power, she burned out. Making the same bad mistakes over and over, expecting a different result?
Sounds like insanity to me.

Certainly, Durova is finished as in “toast” so maybe her website will go to the back burner and the media hype she had hoped for is not now going to happen. Maybe she will try to write an article about herself and …whoops, JzG would be forced to delete it because it would be self published and her Google hits would be down to near zero. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

One thing is pretty clear - Durova's ArbCom candidacy is now as dead as Julius Caesar. It's actually kind of pathetic watching her try to answer the questions on her candidacy page.

Who were these people who approved the block of !!? You can name them, they can hold their own hands up or I will do it for them. I think it is better comming from you or them. Giano (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See question 83. DurovaCharge! 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not number me, I am not in some army camp! Please do not refer me to some other number either. This is your opportunity to become a member of the Arbcom not design a government form to assess my suitability for state welfare. Oh and having fully read your evidence no I am not part of some plot co-ordinated on "Wikipedia Review" to overthrow Jimbo and take over the world or as your evidence states:- "Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking": [16] Giano (talk 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'd rather see other candidates on the Committee, by all means vote for them. DurovaCharge! 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. Giano is priceless. I'm loving the quotes from Durova's evidence; it shows just how vindictive she is. And can anyone deny the existence of the cabal? User:!! dares to agree with someone and Durova characterises it as 'troublemaking' in a secret document she passes only to a select few... oh sure, there is no cabal. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Too funny.

One thing is pretty clear - Durova's ArbCom candidacy is now as dead as Julius Caesar. It's actually kind of pathetic watching her try to answer the questions on her candidacy page.

Welcome, new member Bob Boy!

One thing is pretty clear - Durova's ArbCom candidacy is now as dead as Julius Caesar. It's actually kind of pathetic watching her try to answer the questions on her candidacy page.

If I go there, it is to read the posts of some of the behind the scenes agents of good works and wisdom.........e.g., Geogre. He would make a good judge.

I still chuckle when I read about Jimmy's "perfect day." "Spend 10 hours online."
Poor souls that spend a lifetime addicted to an internet site. That would give me no time to walk the beach or play the guitar.

I wonder if someone from the WMF will e-mail Durova with a hint that she is not going to be a spokeperson for the club anymore. Oh the humanity!

Lessons learned are sometimes best not repeated.

So I'm guessing that Giano was the alleged other account that was connected with "!!"? Why he wasn't blocked as well? Anyway, Durova picked a bad one to screw with. Giano is a scrapper and has no qualms about dispensing with the political bullshit. I can't wait for him to post the evidence in its entirety so we can see just what Durova considers to be ironclad when it comes to her "complex investigations."

This post has been edited by Aloft:

One thing is pretty clear - Durova's ArbCom candidacy is now as dead as Julius Caesar. It's actually kind of pathetic watching her try to answer the questions on her candidacy page.

Nothing worse than a prosecutor who gets her ass kick in a judical election. There will be hell to pay in Durova's fantasy world.

It's so entertaining for so many arbcom candidates to lash out against one another. This makes the upcoming elections even more exciting.

After all the dust has settled, Durova can carry out a complex investigation to discover what went haywire (and why there is no functional way to fix it).

So I'm guessing that Giano was the alleged other account that was connected with "!!"? Why he wasn't blocked as well? Anyway, Durova picked a bad one to screw with. Giano is a scrapper and has no qualms about dispensing with the political bullshit. I can't wait for him to post the evidence in its entirety so we can see just what Durova considers to be ironclad when it comes to her "complex investigations."

It was not Giano. It was one of his friends, but since that person is well liked here (note: he has no account here, we just like him), we've opted not to divulge his previous account.

He exercised his right to vanish under his previous account and never used it again. He started over with !!, but got caught up in Durova's sock hunt and publicly humiliated. He followed policy but instead got whacked.

Poor person. I liked him!

Still, I don't think justice will be served. Durova will likely keep her buttons, but her standing in the Community is great diminished. Even when she might actually be right, she will always gain incredible scrutiny. No one's going to let her forget this incident. It will keep cropping up no matter what she does now.

Here is an [example redacted] that got Jimbo upset (he seemed to think that I was endangering his daughter, blah, blah) so I don't link to it anymore. I may go back to linking to it now that I'm rebanned anyway. It's an excellent piece of work, as you can plainly see.

I followed the link. I think you're trying to be funny, but the effect is rather sad, creepy, and vaguely threatening. I agree with Jimbo on this. Tactics like that have nothing to do with legitimate criticism and cast us in a really poor light.

I'm surprised no one else here has objected yet.

I don't think justice will be served.

Wikipedia is not a Just Site.

It's just a site.

He exercised his right to vanish under his previous account and never used it again. He started over with !!, but got caught up in Durova's sock hunt and publicly humiliated. He followed policy but instead got whacked.

Yeah, I caught the name that jorge revealed upthread. I was just trying to figure out where the alleged WP:SOCK violation came from. Surely she isn't claiming that leaving and then later coming back under a different account is somehow a bannable offense?

This post has been edited by Aloft:

Certainly, Durova is finished as in “toast” so maybe her website will go to the back burner and the media hype she had hoped for is not now going to happen. Maybe she will try to write an article about herself and …whoops, JzG would be forced to delete it because it would be self published and her Google hits would be down to near zero. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Not necessarily. Essjay was appointed at Wikia, by Jimbo, after being caught lying to a Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times reporter that he was a university professor of theology. One big bad. Then he retracted by trying to explain that she had offered him money for the interview, which he honorably refused. He didnt realize that this lie of his was implying that the journalist broke huge ethical rules, if what he said was true. It wasn't, and it was actually a worse lie than the false credentials. The lie implying that the journalist offered him money set all journalists aflutter, and aghast online, and having already condoned Essjay's original lie, Jimbo asked him to resign, claiming he'd been offline in the jungle (actually, he's been in India's largest technology park, which has wireless broadband, holding a Wikicamp conference, but Jimbo got let off the hook for that little whopper).

The story of Wikipedia justice is a bigger picture of the case in question, the Durova !! ban.

Nothing will be done correctly unless they are dragged kicking and screaming to the action.

And for that to happen many things would have to fall into place. I dont see it as evident at all. She might even be elected to the Arbcom, which isn't really a pure election anyways. Until now, Jimbo had final appointment powers, and he probably still does, so he could trump the entire vote and put her in. It would not at all be surprising if he did this.

Of course, if he does, the joke will be on him, because she's a runaway train on crack. Get out the popcorn. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

He exercised his right to vanish under his previous account and never used it again. He started over with !!, but got caught up in Durova's sock hunt and publicly humiliated. He followed policy but instead got whacked.

Yeah, I caught the name that jorge revealed upthread. I was just trying to figure out where the alleged WP:SOCK violation came from. Surely she isn't claiming that leaving and then later coming back under a different account is somehow a bannable offense?

The question is this: If !! is a reincarnation of a long-time, never-been-banned contributor and excellent writer and there is no evidence !! did anything inappropriate, why did she block him? You can have alternate accounts as long as the accounts do not work together to cheat the system. He abandoned his one account, so she can't claim he was violating sock policy. There was no reason for her to ban him under any policy.

Quite frankly, if a banned user is reincarnated and doesn't cause any problems, why ban his new account? It's ridiculous for admins to be running around trying to ban socks of those wanting to reform or engage in civil, intelligent discussion. It's like Valjean being continuously chased by Inspector Javert (Les Miserables), it's pointless and wastes time and energy that could be dedicated elsewhere. Forget "you must appeal to ArbCom" and use common sense in dealing with people. The world will not end if User:Uglypurples is the sock of banned user User:LeapingLandFrogs and Uglypurples is allowed to keep editing having proved he will do no harm as he did under his previous account.

Hard security doesn't work. In this case with Durova and !!, it has caused more harm than good.

It's like Valjean being continuously chased by Inspector Javert (Les Miserables)...

A most excellent and apt literary reference.

Banning is totally useless with dynamic IP addresses; ability to change names, information, and preferences.

Is everyone on the honor system to not use a different account? No, they all have different user accounts which, of course, is legal.

It is no different than MySpace. That is the thrust of my original thesis pertaining to the deletion of my real name at WP. The fact that anyone could come along and claim they are me as they do on MySpace is really kind of scary. Then I couldn't even get into the account to alter it. Then it was protected. I wrote to Jimmy Wales on at least 3 occasions about the potential liability involved with real people. My counsel takes care of these things.

a.) I do not want an article. b.) I do not want to use my real name where people can and do change things about my life that may or may not be accurate. That includes things about my family. Until they have a means of detecting vandalism right away, it will always present as a problem for any biography of real people.

Durova can start over with a whole new name. I can go there anytime from anywhere in the world and have fun. I could be 50 different people...right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

If WP ever freezes articles and develops a real hierarchy of management like a corporation, the place will be bought. Yep.

Banning is totally useless with dynamic IP addresses; ability to change names, information, and preferences.

Not necessarily. People 'do' have a 'voice' and especially when someone has a certain topic they like to edit, (esp if they were kicked off for being NPOV), they can be sussed out. Durova tries to do this, but she is especially ham handed at it, mostly because she's in a huge hurry to be 'right', so she cuts out a few crucial steps which might have determined that the person was not who she guessed. That's her idea of a complex investigation, in a nutshell. I don't know why she wants it to be a 'secret recipe'. It is obviously not using anything technically special.

Wikipedia could also use mac address identification (your hard drive or network card(s) id number) but that is a bit hardcore. Usually the FBI or authorities use this, to find pedophiles or fraudsters or other criminals (like hackers or writers of bigscale viruses - they used this to find the Melissa virus author). If Wikipedia did use this, and became known for it, it could cause them problems (though it would be hard to prove as most things are). Mac addresses can be spoofed, but is not widely done, takes some special tools, etc. Mac addresses can be changed, but that takes some expertise. Having said that, many vandals on Wikipedia are sysadmins, and could do such things quite easily (track mac addresses, spoof mac addresses, and change mac addresses). Then there is the whole ipv6 area, which I am not entirely clear on, which might be used for tracking.

Even if they id'd people, like Ebay does, that can be got around. I've switched ebay accounts, mostly due to getting three strikes from three sellers in outer Mongolia deciding that I didnt send them 5 dollars for a t-shirt, and making an unpaid bidder complaint, and not reading my emails, so after 500 honest buys, I am blocked. Last time that happened, I had a work crisis, and when I had time, it was months later, and I didnt feel like devoting 6 hours to clearing my name, so I created a new email, added a new credit card for verification, and basta, I was shopping again. I've done that twice in 8 years. And if I can do that when ebay requires bank and credit card information, Wikipedia has a long row to hoe if they want to correctly id all users.

Is everyone on the honor system to not use a different account? No, they all have different user accounts which, of course, is legal.

Well, yes and no. Yes, if you have a powerful place in Wikipedia. If not, some wacko like Durova might accuse you of socking, and prove you have two logins, and then make a case for bad socking, based on nothing. Which makes no sense, since lots of admins have socks. But that's how it works.

It is no different than MySpace. That is the thrust of my original thesis pertaining to the deletion of my real name at WP. The fact that anyone could come along and claim they are me as they do on MySpace is really kind of scary. Then I couldn't even get into the account to alter it. Then it was protected. I wrote to Jimmy Wales on at least 3 occasions about the potential liability involved with real people. My counsel takes care of these things.

See my last comment on kicked and screaming and then behaving correctly and pretending that they always were good. The law isn't very well applied in this area. Yet.

a.) I do not want an article. b.) I do not want to use my real name where people can and do change things about my life that may or may not be accurate. That includes things about my family. Until they have a means of detecting vandalism right away, it will always present as a problem for any biography of real people.

Even afterwards, articles are problematic. A People Magazine article is a static thing. A Wikipedia article is a realtime element, which must be monitored constantly. Also, the Wikipedia thing is 'live' forever, whereas a newspaper or print article comes and goes. Even website libel isn't as grave, since it doesn't have the google standing that Wikipedia does.

Durova can start over with a whole new name. I can go there anytime from anywhere in the world and have fun. I could be 50 different people...right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Or you could go anwhere in the world with Durova, under a whole new name, and 50 other people would have more fun than you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

If WP ever freezes articles and develops a real hierarchy of management like a corporation, the place will be bought. Yep.

Lots of corporate behavior is pretty dysfunctional too. The difference is that most corporations have limits and are very well aware of legal liabilities. Successful corporations also are customer focused, as a means of profit maximization. Wikipedia could be so, but their definition of 'what is a customer' is never made clear (or communicated to users), therefore the concept of pleasing customers is non-existant (and is 'why' they keep pissing off important corporations, persons, etc), and customer relations is such a complete mess. Given that so many kids work there, who really need to be instructed and 'trained' as such, the lack of corporate message, (and I dont mean the few existing Jimbo platitudes,like 'we make the internet not suck' or 'sum of all human knowledge') causes a vaccuum which is filled by self-seeking selfish human behavior.

Wikipedia has been a huge success to date not because of the corporate structure or organization, but because so many people want to be part of something important. It is a software-driven success, and a concept-driven success. Unfortunately, the focus on being important (over substance and form) has outweighed other, very important, things (like substance and form), resulting in many problems, that will only get worse.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Here is an [example redacted] that got Jimbo upset (he seemed to think that I was endangering his daughter, blah, blah) so I don't link to it anymore. I may go back to linking to it now that I'm rebanned anyway. It's an excellent piece of work, as you can plainly see.

I followed the link. I think you're trying to be funny, but the effect is rather sad, creepy, and vaguely threatening. I agree with Jimbo on this. Tactics like that have nothing to do with legitimate criticism and cast us in a really poor light.

I'm surprised no one else here has objected yet.

I agree. As awful as Jimbo is, I don't agree with putting his kids face online. They are already kidnapping risks, due to his fame (he should hire bodyguards) so pictures like this are quite dangerous. The CEO of Adobe was kidnapped in the last 1990s, and most hi-tech moguls have bodyguards, after that happened. Jimbo has the fame, but not the big bucks, so he's probably high risk without bodyguards.

She's just a little girl. Wikipedia's problems aren't her fault.

The idea of a kid being an admin is funny, but I'd use a fair use picture for that.

As awful as Jimbo is, I don't agree with putting his kids face online. They are already kidnapping risks, due to his fame (he should hire bodyguards) so pictures like this are quite dangerous...

Perhaps we can convince Daniel to delete the screenshot altogether, but as I recall, it wasn't something he personally set up - I think he got it from someone/somewhere else, though I can't remember exactly who it was. (I want to say it came to him by way of WikiTruth, but I suspect they didn't set it up either.)

And given her age at the time, she probably looks different enough after 3-4 years of growth that the average kidnapper wouldn't easily recognize her from the special flash-cards they carry with them at all times.

Hard security doesn't work. In this case with Durova and !!, it has caused more harm than good.

The thing about Durova, to me, is that I don't think it's inevitable that someone in such an environment would eventually pop up and attempt to set him/herself up as a self-contained "investigatory" entity. A lot of other things are probably inevitable - hard-liners, drama queens, people who threaten suicide if they don't get their way, etc. - but not that.

This is a unique pathology that seems specific to this one person. This angle that she pushes, that she's a "super-sleuth" and that she "trains other admins" in doing "complex investigations," is just a classic narcissist tactic of devising a means of proving non-expendability by claiming special knowledge or ability that is, in fact, completely bogus. But the genius of it - the sheer deviousness - is that she's taking advantage of the fact that Wikipedia does have real, non-imaginary critics, people like us, some of whom could legitimately be considered enemies, and anyone who points out her total lame-assed incompetence can thus be simply dismissed as one of the "enemy." And as we've seen, she/they only need one or two examples that can be applied to all of their critics/enemies as a class in order for this to work, at least as far as the acolytes are concerned.

But I'm just stating the obvious here, I suppose.

...
[*]DfA bumpersticker (don't know how you forgot that one - so basic)
...
[/list]Hey, is this for real, as in, can they really be purchased? I have some married couple-friends who are expecting, and the maternity t-shirts and baby bibs could be a nice conversation piece, and useful too.

Personal favorites:
(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614214v0_150x150_Front.jpg)(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614201v0_150x150_Front.jpg)(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614220v0_150x150_Front.jpg)(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614211v0_150x150_Front.jpg)(IMG:http://images.cafepress.com/product/191614202v0_150x150_Front.jpg)

Note: If these really are for sale, I'd check with a lawyer about what to do to protect yourself from legal liability. Perhaps if all the profits go to her (or charity, i.e. Wikipedia Save the Children) you would be safe from the eventual lawsuit for IP infringement. I mean, you'd hate to get another 'you are infringing our trademarks' email from Jimbo.

I had to nix the bumper sticker, because for some reason, my image upload would only render maximum 3 inches in the middle of a big, white bumper sticker. It looked ugly, so I removed it. That seemed to be a problem with a lot of these items -- I opted for the largest possible image, but it was still quite small in relation to the item.

These really are for sale -- get buying!

15% of the retail price is coming back to me. I had intended that any profits I made would be donated to the "Selina's Fund" for hosting free discussion sites about free encyclopedias.

These items won't last! Get yours today. If this ends up as a lawsuit, imagine how much you could re-sell your collector's item for on eBay next year?! However, why would there ever be a lawsuit? This is a grassroots campaign to get Durova elected to ArbCom. She is my candidate, friends. I back her all the way. She is a public figure, to be running for one of the most prestigious positions in the "Community" of the world's eighth-most popular website. How could there be a lawsuit? She should be honored. It is a feather in one's cap to have my heartfelt support.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser:

But I'm just stating the obvious here, I suppose.

That is one of those lessons that this slow-learner learned rather late —

«It necessary to state the obvious in the places where it can be stated.»

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

Still, I don't think justice will be served. Durova will likely keep her buttons, but her standing in the Community is great diminished. Even when she might actually be right, she will always gain incredible scrutiny. No one's going to let her forget this incident. It will keep cropping up no matter what she does now.

Durova : !! :: Jimbo : Essjay

Durova's evidence

...

oh wow what a 'complex investigation' durova. LOL.

If Durova's "evidence" that I gave misleading information to journalists is anything like this, I now fully realize why she never disclosed it to me, and why Brian Bergstein found it to be irrelevant to his story about me.

This is really, really entertaining stuff.

As awful as Jimbo is, I don't agree with putting his kids face online. They are already kidnapping risks, due to his fame (he should hire bodyguards) so pictures like this are quite dangerous...

Perhaps we can convince Daniel to delete the screenshot altogether, but as I recall, it wasn't something he personally set up - I think he got it from someone/somewhere else, though I can't remember exactly who it was. (I want to say it came to him by way of WikiTruth, but I suspect they didn't set it up either.)

And given her age at the time, she probably looks different enough after 3-4 years of growth that the average kidnapper wouldn't easily recognize her from the special flash-cards they carry with them at all times.

You guys have to be kidding. It's not Kira's picture that Jimbo objects to — it's that I have the picture! Has he complained to the French Wikipedia? No, because they're good guys. Did he complain to the New York Times when the photographer snapped his house? No, he eats up the publicity. Does he keep his home telephone number (maybe an old one) secret? Not at all.

You guys should lay off of the "harassment of poor Wikipedian editors" Kool-aid.

If Durova's "evidence" that I gave misleading information to journalists is anything like this, I now fully realize why she never disclosed it to me, and why Brian Bergstein found it to be irrelevant to his story about me.

Particularly when you consider that she's the one giving misleading information to journalists these days. If not outright misinformation. This was talked about a month or so ago when it was initially published, but it bears repeating:

http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/articles/2007/0817d.html

durova: Here's one fact that I don't think got reported anywhere in the press in late February - early March when the Essjay scandal made news...remember our 24-year-old administrator who faked his credentials?

me: yea

durova: At the time when that story broke, Jimbo Wales was in India working toward improving the Indian language Wikipedias. Part of that time he was in locations where access to the Internet was almost nonexistent. That delayed his response as well as his ability to keep abreast of developments.

me: yes, I remember that too

durova: I was among the first (if not the very first) to call for Essjay's resignation. I also think, in the big picture, what Jimbo was doing at that time was more important.

me: once outed, his resignation was pretty much given wasn't it?

durova: I thought so. I hadn't been aware of any problems until then. He wasn't someone I interacted with very much.

me: apparently he had a good cover

durova: I just hadn't seen any reason to check things out.

He had 20,000 edits and was well respected.

I didn't notice any red flags.

me: if I remember correctly, he was dealing with catholic liturgy and 17th century art

durova: Well, once the request for comment was opened and other editors pointed out what those red flags were, I agreed immediately.

Wikipedia's too big for one person to track everything. My attention had been elsewhere.

me: And Wales was away setting up another Wikipedia. How long did it take the collective/community to deal with the matter? It seemed over as quickly as it made the news

durova: Would you like me to show you the request for comment?

me: but of course

durova: This might be a moment. Things moved so quickly it was fractal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/RFC

The earliest part of that discussion is at another location. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Com...nity_discussion

me: wow. so this was dealt with within 36 - 48 hours of exposure

durova: There's also some history here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

And here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

me: how long do you think it would take a corporation to do the same?

durova: Well, it was my view at the time that immediate resignation was necessary. The problem was legitimate and it had happened in a venue that the journalism community was certain to appreciate fully. I doubt the young guy understood what a big deal it is to lie to a Pulitzer-winning reporter from The New Yorker.

me: heh

durova: Regardless of who he'd told, my basic reaction would have been the same.

There's just so much about this that's misleading, if not simply wrong, I don't even know where to begin. But why even bring it up at all? Why go out of her way, months after the fact, to point out how she was supposedly instrumental in getting Essjay to resign - which could hardly be considered true in any respect whatsoever - and needlessly reopen a bunch of old wounds?

I mean, other than sheer egotism?

You guys have to be kidding. It's not Kira's picture that Jimbo objects to — it's that I have the picture!

Well... to be fair, I don't think Jimbo was objecting, but rather Emperor and DL were objecting. Personally, I think they're probably overreacting, but people are just sensitive about things like that, I guess. Besides, they were under the mistaken impression that you'd set up the screenshot, and I'm fairly certain you didn't, correct?

Anyway, maybe Jimbo has little or no respect for the privacy and safety of his own children, but that doesn't mean others have to follow suit. And let's face it: Kira will be an administrater one of these days, and it would be really funny if the first thing she did was to block Jimbo for running an "attack site."

Essjay started bragging about his deception on February 2, 2007 (see the highlighted portions on this page). The New Yorker's correction was appended to the online article on February 28. Durova's first comment was on March 2, and it is rather mild in tone. I don't think she deserves any credit for this. Essjay was a good guy for her until such time that everyone had to abandon this particular ship.

Where was her famous Internet sleuthing when it was most needed?

Where was her famous Internet sleuthing when it was most needed?

Well, on Feb. 2, she posted the first version of her proposal on Community enforceable mediation:

As of this writing, Wikipedia lacks an alternative to arbitration for content disputes with a user conduct component. The challenge of distinguishing policy enforcement from content discussion discourages administrative intervention in all but the most obvious calls, such as deletion of properly cited material without prior discussion. This effort strives to create a forum where responsible editors could select remedies for themselves, thus resolving more conflicts without arbitration involvement and reducing the amount of burnout among the site's productive contributors.

Of course, an even better way to avoid burnout might be to not turn the website into some sort of police state, but I suppose that's a bit beyond them at this point.

Two days later, she was apparently all excited about using her position as a WP admin to get onto the set of Don Murphy's next film, which at the time would probably have been Shoot 'Em Up. Oh well - seems he didn't go for the idea, even after she tried again.

HOLY SHIT

This has hit the online press. I was wrong. This is going mainstream.

Wikipedia administrator alleges user is a 'sockpuppet', refuses to provide evidence, takes heat.

This is MSNBC/Newsvine, folks.

We're not in St. Petersburg Kansas anymore

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Interesting conversation on Giano's page where Durova begs for mercy.

but... Giano sharpens the axe:

"The reason I am keen to see this through to the bitter end, no matter how bitter that end may be, is that we are told that is that a very similar procedure that which you describe was indeed followed. I have the evidence, I think all those who have seen it are astounded, that it is nothing but a collection of diffs of very innocent almost comical edits that have been given a malicious interpretation that is so staggering in its mistakes that it is impossible to assume good faith. People are emailing me asking not to post certain information, they fail to realise that if Durova does not resign it would be wrong of me to do anything which would allow such a situation as this to occur again. Wikipedia is not a secret society, it should not have a secret police. Wikipedia is a colection of volunteers attempting to build an encyclopedia in good faith. [[User: !!]] was one of those people, he and others like him need to be protected too. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 11:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)"

Two days later, she was apparently all excited about using her position as a WP admin to get onto the set of Don Murphy's next film, which at the time would probably have been Shoot 'Em Up. Oh well - seems he didn't go for the idea, even after she tried again.

No freaking way. This makes sense. Wasnt she in film school at USC? (per her ED article).

The whole media chasing thing is very much indicative of someone who wants to be involved in media in any way shape or form. This was not a joke she was making, you are spot on Somey. She's have killed to be in his movie.

Interesting conversation on Giano's page where Durova begs for mercy.

but... Giano sharpens the axe:

Well, he is Italian. They 'invented' blood on the wall dramatics.

And Italians hold intricate political complexity as a high art form.

Durova's games are boring child's play in the Italian context.

Worse, he is Sicilian. A real one. You don't mess with people from Sicily. You just don't.

Durova should be quaking in her two-faced, hypocritical boots. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Well, he is Italian. They 'invented' blood on the wall dramatics.

And Italians hold intricate political complexity as a high art form.

Durova's games are boring child's play in the Italian context.

Worse, he is Sicilian. A real one. You don't mess with people from Sicily. You just don't.

Durova should be quaking in her two-faced, hypocritical boots. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Yeah, read this quote, with this idea in mind:

Remember it was you who wanted to talk. One of the reasons I an successful in RL, and would be an asset to the Arbcom is that I always know the answers to questions before I ask them. I don't forget and I never give up.

Gianno just ain't gonna let this slide....Either she is toast...or he gets banned from above. NOW, since he knows the answers to questions before he asks them, how about this for interesting?

so lets move on to another question, who knew you were planning the block before you made it.?

That looks like a smoking gun to me...

Hey, who needs to watch soap operas with stuff like this??

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

Remember it was you who wanted to talk. One of the reasons I an successful in RL, and would be an asset to the Arbcom is that I always know the answers to questions before I ask them. I don't forget and I never give up.

As I said. Sicilians are not to be trifled with. My ex had a grandma from Sicily. That lady (god rest her soul) could cut bricks with an angry glance alone. And that was the gentler gender of the region.

Gianno just ain't gonna let this slide....Either she is toast...or he gets banned from above.

Hey, who needs to watch soap operas with stuff like this??

My popcorn is ready. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Something else to throw in the hopper :

IP address asks Gianno to contact him regarding Durova and the ban that her "lapdog" made to him because of edits on her talkpage...

Hi Giano. Im the person who JeHochman tried to ban for making an edit to the Durova page. I have a story to tell, and I'd like very much to please be contacted by you at my safe email of <address redacted>, from which point I can properly identify myself. Thanks in advance.85.5.180.48 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting exchange on the IP addresses' talkpage too...Probably the best "welcoming message" ever: Welcome to Wikipedia! You're banned!

However, this seems to be the real dirt:

JeHochman: Not only did you autoblock me without any notice, for no reason, but you blocked an entire range of IPs, not only mine. And you made it impossible for me to respond. So don't lecture me about 'good faith', after that stunt, because it insults your own intelligence, in addition being patently, obviously hypocritical. Just a bit of friendly advice. About the 'blanking comments': you gave as an excuse to Binguen, but never informed me directly, which robs this assertion of credibility. Such antics insult the intelligence of others. Whereas you might feel intellectually superior to others, it's never a good idea to make that obvious, partly as it may not be true, partly because it is not a socially attractive personal characteristic. 85.5.180.48 (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

I had to nix the bumper sticker, because for some reason, my image upload would only render maximum 3 inches in the middle of a big, white bumper sticker. It looked ugly, so I removed it. That seemed to be a problem with a lot of these items -- I opted for the largest possible image, but it was still quite small in relation to the item.

No matter. The whole thing is brilliant. The doggie t-shirt is amazing, as is the bib.

These items won't last! Get yours today. If this ends up as a lawsuit, imagine how much you could re-sell your collector's item for on eBay next year?! However, why would there ever be a lawsuit? This is a grassroots campaign to get Durova elected to ArbCom. She is my candidate, friends. I back her all the way. She is a public figure, to be running for one of the most prestigious positions in the "Community" of the world's eighth-most popular website. How could there be a lawsuit? She should be honored. It is a feather in one's cap to have my heartfelt support.

Stop. I can't breathe. (cleans coffee off screen with kleenex)

These really are for sale -- get buying!

15% of the retail price is coming back to me. I had intended that any profits I made would be donated to the "Selina's Fund" for hosting free discussion sites about free encyclopedias.

No. You simply must donate to a real charity. A real charity. WR costs little, and is not a charity, though it is a nice thought. But you must show them what a real charity is, by donating all of it to something poignant and meaningful. Starving kids in poor countries. Abused children. Even aid to people with psychological issues, or who need anger management help, would be meaningful, the latter two suggestions being very pointedly relevant.

No. You simply must donate to a real charity. A real charity. WR costs little, and is not a charity, though it is a nice thought. But you must show them what a real charity is, by donating all of it to something poignant and meaningful. Starving kids in poor countries. Abused children. Even aid to people with psychological issues, or who need anger management help, would be meaningful, the latter two suggestions being very pointedly relevant.

What about an association that offers help to women who really get stalked on the internet, not those who merely whine about being stalked?

Perhaps we can convince Daniel to delete the screenshot altogether, but as I recall, it wasn't something he personally set up - I think he got it from someone/somewhere else, though I can't remember exactly who it was. ....And given her age at the time, she probably looks different enough after 3-4 years of growth that the average kidnapper wouldn't easily recognize her from the special flash-cards they carry with them at all times.

Point taken. But anything to do with kids gets everyone's backs up, including mine. She probably does look much older. It seems this came from a London meetup.

You guys have to be kidding. It's not Kira's picture that Jimbo objects to — it's that I have the picture! Has he complained to the French Wikipedia? No, because they're good guys. Did he complain to the New York Times when the photographer snapped his house? No, he eats up the publicity. Does he keep his home telephone number (maybe an old one) secret? Not at all. You guys should lay off of the "harassment of poor Wikipedian editors" Kool-aid.

(hands up) ok, ok, ok Daniel. Your points are good. But to be fair, even if you are 100% in the right, the fact that you have to make those points at all puts you at a disadvantage, and makes you look like the bad guy. Which is unfair to you, completely. Politics are like that . Facts aren't really at issue. Opinions are. This is grist for the mill at Wikipedia, and why they get away with so much rightfully labelled bullshit. Because they focus on opinions, not facts.

And I did note on the other thread that Jimbo was a fool for putting a picture in his house in the NYTimes. Such a fool. His wife should clobber him for putting her and the kids in danger while he globetrots. This only shows him as an amateur among hi-tech bigwigs. You wouldn't see Mitchell Kapor or Larry Ellison putting their home front door online. And they do have bodyguards,and respectful fear of danger. One of the main reasons famous persons stay in 5-star hotels, is that in poor countries, they usually are the safest place in the city, save for diplomatic mission properties. Jimbo stays in fleabags, to save money, and is probably oblivious to the danger he puts himself in - especially in developing countries, where even non-famous Americans are at risk for kidnap, de facto. Jimbo probably didn't worry about Wikipedia France, because he foolishly thinks that it won't affect him in Florida, which is completely stupid, as you rightfully point out.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I have the evidence, I think all those who have seen it are astounded, that it is nothing but a collection of diffs of very innocent almost comical edits that have been given a malicious interpretation that is so staggering in its mistakes that it is impossible to assume good faith.

If the evidence which Durova provided was really as hopelessly weak as Giano makes out then there can only be two conclusions, either

(i) she was just playing some kind of game and knew !! hadn't done anything wrong at all, or
(ii) she is hysterical and needs a good slap arounda da face (and a desysopping).

If the evidence which Durova was provided was really as hopelessly weak as Giano makes out then there can only be two conclusions, either

(i) she was just playing some kind of game and knew !! hadn't done anything wrong at all, or
(ii) she is hysterical.

My vote is with hysterical. She's smart enough to make what she's doing seem rational. Unfortunately, it isn't her intellect causing her to create problems.

Durova needs attention badly, and 'she ain't gettin' it' (colloquial slang).

In other words, some deep wish to have attention she never had is eating her alive. She constantly talks about really horrible things, that aren't happening to her at all, maybe never did, or will. She actively pursues the problems, and then conflates them into more than they are. The mere fact that she spends so much time online indicates an impoverished personal life, not to mention the biting edge on her shoulder chip. Even Slimvirgin is probably married, and if not, gives the vibe of having some outside personal contacts and a quite real dramatic history. Durova tries her level best to present dramatic details of herself, even besides her dramatic attack ventures. It all seems rather sad, until you realize that she is causing a lot of real problems for people. What a pity she can't just admin, and grandstand, and hold the mustard, AND the weekly attacks on innocents.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Two days later, she was apparently all excited about using her position as a WP admin to get onto the set of Don Murphy's next film, which at the time would probably have been Shoot 'Em Up. Oh well - seems he didn't go for the idea, even after she tried again.

Did anyone else laugh when Durova alluded that her ethics would prevent her from submitting to Murphy's "casting couch"?

I've seen Durova. I know Durova.

The words "Durova", "ethics", and "casting couch" do not belong in the same sentence.

On a more serious note, though -- they're talking about Murphy trying to buy an admin's account. Then the Wikipediots wring their hands about how "dishonest" and "wrong" that would be. I'm sensing deja vu here from the Wikipedia Review launch days -- where on Wikipedia does it say that it is against policy to sell your account to someone else?

Greg

She'sd have killed to be in his movie.

Even if it's a snuff film?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

It appears that Durova will not be available for recall?

She seems to have changed her mind and does not want to respond to anything about it.

Doesn't she state somewhere that she believes in the process of recall?

She has moved her pages around and "archived" quite a few things.

It really is quite amazing how some people think they can keep getting away with pure slime. She appears to be the type that justifies her actions based on her delusion that HER ends justify HER means. Narcissism ?

Histrionic too perhaps?

She'sd have killed to be in his movie.

Even if it's a snuff film?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

e-snuff would be
e-nuff snuff 4 me

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172802842

What is this? Who is Paul August?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173105117

Jimbo weighs in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172802842

What is this? Who is Paul August?

He's one of the Arb-com members. He's saying that, even if some of them saw this information, not all of them (and read "especially him") saw it and that it's not an Arb-com approved blocked.

This doesn't like good for the Divine Miss D....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173105117

Jimbo weighs in.

Jimbo keeps on repeating the party line:

Let's please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for.--

GAWD, I cannot believe that he's still spouting that rot. Somebody pass me a barfbag.

And on Thanksgiving too!

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

She'sd have killed to be in his movie.

Even if it's a snuff film?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Well, at least she'd go out with a Bang.

(bad-ump-bump) I know, I know, terrible. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Durova: Block that punk! Block that punk!

Jimbo: Punt that block! Punt that block!

On a more serious note, though -- they're talking about Murphy trying to buy an admin's account. Then the Wikipediots wring their hands about how "dishonest" and "wrong" that would be. I'm sensing deja vu here from the Wikipedia Review launch days -- where on Wikipedia does it say that it is against policy to sell your account to someone else?

Greg

According to a SEOMOZ article on Wikipedia of two days ago, it happens all the time, sotto voce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173105117

Jimbo weighs in.

And says absolutely nothing.

What he does say indicates that the Sole Flounder is out of touch with his project.

And says absolutely nothing.

What he does say indicates that the Sole Flounder is out of touch with his project.

That just don't get it. It wasn't just a little block. Durova permanently blocked a person who had put a lot of time and effort into improving Wikipedia and now they probably won't come back because of it. If she wasn't sure she should have said so. But no, she proclaimed that there was absolutely no doubt that this person !! had intentions to damage wikipedia. She is incompetent and cannot be trusted with admin tools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ablished_editor

It will never go away JIMMY; sorry that we do not have the same paradigm of infinite tolerance in the real world. Run an organization like a hive and and there will be killer bees as well as workers.

Durova runs a sting operation within his WP. I think he (Jimmy) is making a very grave error by not looking into the facts.

This will come back to bite him where it really hurts...wherever that may be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173120937

Giano posts the e-mail! OMG, it's even better than I thought.

Giano has now posted Durova's "top secret" evidence:

'''OK Jimbo. You want a loving encyclopedia''' - So do I but I don't find the paste below from Durova which constitutes her "evidence" as particularly loving - do you? I would advise everyone to be very careful of making even the most innocent edit. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 16:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So here it is the diffs are pathetic the narrative describing one of our respected editors, who I know well, repulsive. Happy with that are you Jimbo, you think an Admin like Durova will foster your happy loving encyclopedia?"

Durova's Evidence

Nobody's put their finger on this yet in a systematic way. Maybe it's for lack of time; maybe people's brains are wired differently. I need to show you not just what Wikipedia Review is doing to us, but how they're doing it.

And I'm setting this forth as a brief seminar so you can do more than recognize when it's presented to you; you can find these signs yourselves.

The one thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped about this.

First, the good news:

1. They're working from the same playbook.
2. They don't know this list exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=167325471

Now, the case study:

Here's a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters. !!

It's what I would call "ripened sock" - a padded history of redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work. Some of the folks at WR do this to game the community's good faith. I can tell immediately that it's not the user's first account. Soon you'll see the telltale signs as quickly as I do.

A. In their efforts to deceive us, they forget that new users haven't learned edit summaries and wikimarkup.

Edit summary on the first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141874955

Correct use of page links on the second edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141877151

Knows how to create line references on the third edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=142914869

Creates an appropriately formatted stub on the fourth edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=142927003

B. They do wikignome work far too early in the account history to be genuine wikignomes. The purpose is to pad the account history with a track record of positive contributions that will insulate them against the banhammer later on.

Redirects a page on the seventh edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=144015208

This user favors redirects and stub creations. Others do RC patrol or copyediting. They continue for days, weeks, or perhaps a few months playing "useful editor."

C. Many of them tip their hands occasionally during the preparation phase.

Obscene trolling; knows German:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=156788817

This user slips for the joy of trolling. Others let down their guard momentarily for WR-related incidents. Look for behavior that seems out of character such as a sudden cluster of talk page posts or odd edit summaries.

D. They are team players.

Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162747326

Now the moves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062162
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062161
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ve_6_%282007%29 &diff=prev&oldid=163062164
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062163
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062167
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062166
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062248
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062247
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062253
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062252
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062257
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062256
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062262
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062263

E. They grow bold when they believe the account has ripened into the appearance of a legitimate editor.

I doubt Bishonen knew what this account really was. By now it looks legit to most editors. The nasty side shows itself, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162335262

F. When the sock is fully ripened it heads over to disputes and takes extremist positions for no apparent reason.

This rocket-to-the-sky pattern among ripened socks contrasts against sincere but troubled editors, who follow an arc with some visible cause and effect.

For contrast:

A regular problem editor will decide Wikipedia has problems after breaking 3RR and getting turned down for an unblock request.

A ripened sock heads doesn't need to be coaxed to the dark side; it just heads over to a discussion and screams foul while its own reputation is clean as a whistle.

So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians don't get more than a sense of vague unease about this account's behavior. The sock is fully ripened, the account well established, and the troll has teammates to create or obstruct consensus if anyone intervenes. I have a hunch the skilled trolls wait for events that they know will cause a lot of flurried attention onsite so the sudden launching of full implementation is less likely to be noticed in the crowd.

Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168176874
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168213973
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168209114
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168487235
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168631084

G Many trolls can't resist the temptation to gloat.

Still doubt me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168171012

Looking ahead:

Foremost, please keep mum! Many of these mistakes can be corrected and these people are very patient. They will change tactics and get even more careful if they realize how we spot them.

Oh man, that's classic.

I hope someone takes that as a cue to review every block Durova has ever placed.

Incredible.

This post has been edited by Aloft:

Okay, Dudes and Dudesses, we can close up shop now.

Madame Durovary's rabid WikiParanoia is doing a far better job of amplifying our effects to viral proportions than the whole sad lot of us could ever have dreamed up on our own.

Our legacy is secure, even if it's 99.44%â„¢ Pure WikiPhantasy.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Oh man, that's classic.

Knows German! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Oh man, that's classic.

Knows German! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Knows German, Mein Arzt.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Knows German! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Schadenfreude?

Knows German! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Schadenfreude?

Ja, Schaden Freud, Mein Arzt.

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

What list exactly is it that "they" (the enemy) don't know exists? Sounds like whatever it is, it might just be a major locus of the alleged Clique / Cabal.

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

Heh. Guy rides to the rescue by deleting the page! Good thing we already have a copy here.

She has an email list of perceived fellow sleuths, no doubt. The WBI.

Heh. Guy rides to the rescue by deleting the page! Good thing we already have a copy here.

Typical JzG: "I have to do something, even if it's totally ineffective and stupid! Look, I did something!"

Are you really that stupid, JzG? Where do you think curious Wikipedians will go now to read the secret email you just deleted?

This post has been edited by Aloft:

Too bad, Guy was a bit too slow on the draw.

So come one, come all to those who didn't see the truth!

Knows German! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Schadenfreude?

Ja, Schaden Freud, Mein Arzt.

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

So is it all German speakers that Durova considers a threat, or just ones that like Mozart?

Giano just re-added it. Prediction: JzG goes batshit, blocks Giano. Let's watch!

Mercury has protected the page.

Schadenfreude Theatre Presents: Fear and Loathing in Lost Vagueness

This case exemplifies how Identify Friend or Foe morphs into Identify Fiend or Foof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r_talk:Giano_II

Go, Guy! Get that genie back in the bottle! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

And now JzG is deleting revisions from Giano's talk page. Keep it up JzG; You're just piquing everyone's interest.

Someone go post it on ANI. I wanna see the database lock up when JzG tries to delete it.

Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, the egg on your face cannot be airbrushed out of your navel lint trap.

You've made your point, the people at Wikipedia Review now have the full details of how to evade detection in future, for which I am sure they are most grateful, but posting the contents of private emails without the sender's permission is a pretty low blow and has resulted in ArbCom sanctions before now, not that I guess you give a damn.

I know you are upset and I know !! is upset, but seriously this has escalated out of all proportion from a 75 minute block for which the blocking admin has apologised. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because we really needed Durova's SUPER-SLEUTHING-SKILLZ to not be found out, right?

What a fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173105117

Jimbo weighs in.

And says absolutely nothing.

What he does say indicates that the Sole Flounder is out of touch with his project.

If anyone else frequently wandered into disputes with vacuous "Peace, Love, Groovy" drivel they would be labeled as trolls. Go ahead try it and see.

The fun has moved to Giano's talkpage. This is way better then watching TV.

If anyone else frequently wandered into disputes with vacuous "Peace, Love, Groovy" drivel they would be labeled as trolls. Go ahead try it and see.

Heh. Ferguson Foont booted me out of his forum for posting "Peace be with you."

That phrase drove him nutz. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

You guys have to be kidding. It's not Kira's picture that Jimbo objects to — it's that I have the picture! Has he complained to the French Wikipedia? No, because they're good guys. Did he complain to the New York Times when the photographer snapped his house? No, he eats up the publicity. Does he keep his home telephone number (maybe an old one) secret? Not at all.

You guys should lay off of the "harassment of poor Wikipedian editors" Kool-aid.

Proving that you're right or that Jimbo is an ass won't help you in this situation. You're breaking an obvious unwritten rule, and you're going to win no sympathy by doing it.

If anyone else frequently wandered into disputes with vacuous "Peace, Love, Groovy" drivel they would be labeled as trolls. Go ahead try it and see.

Heh. Ferguson Foont booted me out of his forum for posting "Peace be with you."

That phrase drove him nutz. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

...and also with you.

I see that Mercury, who protected the ANI subpage, has a "Durova for Arbcom" banner on his userpage (heck, I think he designed the banner). Who nominated him for adminship? I tried searching for his RfA but couldn't find it, did he have a former username?

I wonder what our friends at German wikipedia will think of someone who thinks that "knowing German" is some kind of taint on their character? Perhaps Jimbo better hurry up and brush up on his language skills so he can apologize for this idiot.

I see that Mercury, who protected the ANI subpage, has a "Durova for Arbcom" banner on his userpage (heck, I think he designed the banner). Who nominated him for adminship? I tried searching for his RfA but couldn't find it, did he have a former username?

Wait a minute--Durova for ArbCom? Could he be another insidious Kohs sock?!

Yeah, he had another username and changed it recently. I've forgotten what it was.

This post has been edited by everyking:

The fun has moved to Giano's talkpage. This is way better then watching TV.

Just like those dirty rotten Tories and Redcoats to launch a major Fireworks Entertainment when Every Good Continental Irregular has to be on KP duty.

Go ahead, Miltown®, always glad to make your day …

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

The artificial intelligence!

What a riot!

I just keep saying..."It's only a movie, it's only a movie."

I see that Mercury, who protected the ANI subpage, has a "Durova for Arbcom" banner on his userpage (heck, I think he designed the banner). Who nominated him for adminship? I tried searching for his RfA but couldn't find it, did he have a former username?

Took about 15 minutes of searching:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=55741

And I guess I should come clean: I'm of German heritage, even I might be a sock of !!

"Wikipedia Review now have the full details of how to evade detection in future"

ROFL nooooooooo you've let the big secrets out the bag OMG (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

Yeah, he had another username and changed it recently. I've forgotten what it was.

NavouWiki

I see that Mercury, who protected the ANI subpage, has a "Durova for Arbcom" banner on his userpage (heck, I think he designed the banner). Who nominated him for adminship? I tried searching for his RfA but couldn't find it, did he have a former username?

Wait a minute — Durova for ArbCom? Could he be another insidious Kohs sock?!

Yeah, he had another username and changed it recently. I've forgotten what it was.

There's a typo on that banner — it should be Cabalry, not Cavalry.

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

"Wikipedia Review now have the full details of how to evade detection in future"

ROFL nooooooooo you've let the big secrets out the bag OMG (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

And what bluddy fun would it be if they didn't cache you at it !?

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

Yeah, he had another username and changed it recently. I've forgotten what it was.

NavouWiki

Ah, yes - here is the RfA. Nominated, of course, by Durova. Looks like a meatpuppet to me.

Looks like a meatpuppet to me.

They're pretty tight.

Back when I was corresponding with Mercury about reversing my block, he composed a back-channel message to Durova but sent it to me by mistake. In the salutation, he used her real name (which I was already aware of, as I had previously read her SEO blog). The point, however, was that he was seeking her advice and consent before taking up my case. She advised him against it, and that was that.

Durova's Evidence

Speaking as one who’s spent far too many hours assembling the details necessary to draw reliable equivalencies between usernames, I’m astonished that this document was even produced and appalled that it was accorded any credit by the supposedly intelligent participants in this high-powered mailing list, which includes the arbitrators and probably some friends of mine who really should have known better. Ludicrous in its assumptions, schizophrenic in its disconnected associations and hallucinatory in its paranoia, this malformed mockery of a proper sockpuppet report thoroughly discredits its creator and the system which entrusted her with such responsibilities, for which she is so plainly and starkly unqualified.

One startling aspect of this document is the revelation that Giano, one of the most prolific and respected contributors to those portions of Wikipedia which might reasonably be characterized as an encyclopedia, is considered a dangerous subversive by Wikipedia’s leadership and presumed to be in league with the dark forces of Wikipedia Review. Following this vein of reasoning to its logical conclusion, User:!!’s track record of useful edits is actually held against him as proof of a long-term intent to sabotage the project.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Hahahaha oh my god hahahahah. This entire thing is A+++. And JzGs only concern is that we're going to have a good laugh at them? Because, you know, the fact that one of Wikipedia's most 'respected' admins bans people for speaking German and not being clueless newbies isn't an issue at all...

Hahahaha oh my god hahahahah. This entire thing is A+++. And JzGs only concern is that we're going to have a good laugh at them? Because, you know, the fact that one of Wikipedia's most 'respected' admins bans people for speaking German and not being clueless newbies isn't an issue at all...

Speaking German in a similar way, ja? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Hahahaha oh my god hahahahah. This entire thing is A+++. And JzGs only concern is that we're going to have a good laugh at them? Because, you know, the fact that one of Wikipedia's most 'respected' admins bans people for speaking German and not being clueless newbies isn't an issue at all...

Speaking German in a similar way, ja? :D

jawohl

Hahahaha oh my god hahahahah.

That's hilarious. I love the "Double ROT-13 encrytion." I wonder if Durova will be able to decrypt it so she can share in the laugh. It would be a shame for her to miss it.

Since I fully expect this to go down the memory hole... here's what KamrynMatika was laughing at... there's no way to attribute it, it was posted by an IP (and deleted at least twice since being posted)...

Begin "Top Sekrit" double ROT13 encrypted transmission

Using some deep, proprietary, patented and trademarked investigative techniques I have deduced that User:Giano_II is not this troll's first account. I am such a brilliant investigator, so I will present a short lecture on "how to spot a troll". You will, of course, never be as good as me, but in the end you should be able to appreciate just how good I am.

The one thing I must ask you, however, is not to share this confidential document with anyone else. I have classified this as "Top Sekrit" and were it to fall into the hands of the forces of darkness it would mean nothing less than the end of the world as we know it.

Now, the case study:

Here's a troublemaker who's username is "Giano_II". Note the "II" at the end, as it is quite significant.

It's what I would call a "ripened troll" - a padded history of Featured Article writing, minor edits, and some other work. Nothing of real value to the encyclopedia like "sleuthing" and investigative work, of course. Nothing to aid Team Lightâ„¢ against the forces of Darkness. Some of the forces of darkness do this to game the community's good faith.

I can tell immediately that it's not the user's first account. You may be able to get as good as me, but I doubt it.

A. In their efforts to deceive us, they forget that new users are morons and haven't learned edit summaries and wikimarkup.

Edit summary on the first edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76651409

Also telling is that this troll knows how to redirect a page, which is something that only experienced people know how to do since it is not documented anywhere.

B. They find their way to our super sekrit notice boards far too early in the account history to be genuine. The purpose is to pad the account history with a track record of positive contributions that will insulate them against the BANHAMMERâ„¢ later on.

Shows up on ANI on the fourth edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76653466

This user favors featured article creation. Others do RC patrol or copyediting. They continue for days, weeks, or perhaps a few months playing "useful editor."

C. Many of them tip their hands occasionally during the preparation phase.

Obscene trolling against one of our most beloved editors: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76656643

This user slips for the joy of trolling. Others let down their guard momentarily for WR-related incidents. Look for behavior that seems out of character such as a sudden cluster of talk page posts or odd edit summaries.

D. They are team players.

Here's the sock doing some housekeeping on Giano's subpages. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

E. They grow bold when they believe the account has ripened into the appearance of a legitimate editor.

I doubt Giano knew what this "Giano_II" account really was. By now it looks legit to most editors. The nasty side shows itself, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76667703

F. When the sock is fully ripened it heads over to disputes and takes positions that we at Team Lightâ„¢ disagree with.

This rocket-to-the-sky pattern among ripened trolls contrasts against sincere but troubled editors, who follow an arc with some visible cause and effect.

For contrast:

A regular problem editor will eventually accept the Way of Team Light and worship at the alter of the God King.

A ripened troll sticks to its convictions and questions our superiority and authority. It's gone over to the dark side; it just heads over to a discussion and screams foul.

So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians are indoctrinated to accept our superior leadership, except for this troll and his teammates. The troll is fully ripened, the account well established, and the troll has teammates to create or obstruct consensus if anyone intervenes. I have a hunch the skilled trolls wait for events that they know will cause a lot of flurried attention onsite so the sudden launching of full implementation is less likely to be noticed in the crowd.

Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76673264 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76673740 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76741477

Looking ahead: Foremost, please keep mum! This is classified "Top Sekrit" and uses state of the art double ROT13 encryption. Many of these mistakes can be corrected and these people are very patient. They will change tactics and get even more careful if they realize how we spot them.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II"

The plot thickens...

The revisions that JzG deleted from the ANI subpage have now been oversighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173207706

The Secret Evidence is still on Giano's talk page, though. Wonder for how long?

Our Favorite English Cyclist totally misses the point, yet again, in his comments/accusations on Giano II's talk page. Giano did not expose any "sooper sekrit" detection methods to us here at WR, or to anyone else. All he managed to bring to light was some details as to the true extent of Durova's paranoia, narcissism, incompetence and stupidity; all of which was further devastatingly satirized on Giano's talk page (and helpfully reproduced by Robster above). Really now, Guy. Did you truly think it previously unknown to us here at WR that Durova is a serious head case (or as you might phrase it, "a complete and utter nutter")? Or are you just lying your ass off again in an attempt to justify a planned banning/blocking/smear campaign? Given that we know you are a regular WR reader, can we not safely assume the latter?

On a related note, how utterly predictable that Jimbo should weigh in on the latest Durova insanity with his lovey-dovey talk. And how utterly hypocritical, too; coming so soon after his "ban on sight" and "we have suffered these trolls [i.e., critics] long enough" thunderations. Ugh! It is times like this when I wonder at how I even briefly took a ride on this Ship of Fools.

It's fun watching all of the Durova supporters hiding behind [[WP:AGF]], which - as we all know - means that I have to assume your good faith while you get to assume my bad faith.

In other words, it all comes down to assuming the position unless you're a Cabalista.

Insincerity, thy name is Wikipedia.

Doesn't ArbCom voting open soon? Can't wait to vote for Durova... the entertainment potential grows by the day... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

It would be interesting if her "investigations" ironically "outed" socks of prominent Cabalists.

That would make Durova... our ally? I suppose the occasional windmill might actually be a giant!

It would be interesting if her "investigations" ironically "outed" socks of prominent Cabalists.

That would make Durova... our ally? I suppose the occasional windmill might actually be a giant!

Durova herself has basically admitted to using socks.

It would be interesting if her "investigations" ironically "outed" socks of prominent Cabalists.

That would make Durova... our ally? I suppose the occasional windmill might actually be a giant!

Durova herself has basically admitted to using socks.

An RFC is opened to finally put a rest this mess, and what do you know, the predictable MFD soon follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._comment/Durova

Also I'd just like to comment on this whole comedy (or tragedy depending upon your view). You have people simultaneously saying we are a grave threat and dismissing us as a gossip rag. Hilarious.

An RFC is opened to finally put a rest this mess, and what do you know, the predictable MFD soon follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._comment/Durova

Anyone want to lay odds that, once the RfC is written, someone tries to nuke it as "not properly certified"?

Now the RFC redirects to the AN subpage.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Or... it... did? Am I going crazy? What is going on over there?

Wait... I think I know what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173230983

An RFC is opened to finally put a rest this mess, and what do you know, the predictable MFD soon follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._comment/Durova

Anyone want to lay odds that, once the RfC is written, someone tries to nuke it as "not properly certified"?

Ned Scott has come around (miraculously) to admit that trying to MFD this steaming locomotive was not a wise move. Durova is going to get her day in court, just as she's always "offering" her victims. Damn, I hope this doesn't derail her bid for ArbCom. My CafePress store is going to have a bunch of crappy items in my warehouse worth no more than a Mondale/Ferraro pin. Oh, fudge.

Greg

An RFC is opened to finally put a rest this mess, and what do you know, the predictable MFD soon follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._comment/Durova

Anyone want to lay odds that, once the RfC is written, someone tries to nuke it as "not properly certified"?

Ned Scott has come around (miraculously) to admit that trying to MFD this steaming locomotive was not a wise move. Durova is going to get her day in court, just as she's always "offering" her victims. Damn, I hope this doesn't derail her bid for ArbCom. My CafePress store is going to have a bunch of crappy items in my warehouse worth no more than a Mondale/Ferraro pin. Oh, fudge.

Greg

I am concerned that the Durova doggy shirt may be in violation of animal rights laws, Greg. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

You need a shirt with a picture of her and Jehochman dressed in armor with Durova charging at at windmill and Jehochman has Sancho. With this picture, a banner with "Durova: Leading the Charge!" below it.

How did I miss out on like 8 pages of this topic?

Well, I can't say this wasn't predictable. People throwing themselves into limelight, being as hasty as possible in order to be remembered, and look at the result. JzG's usual determination to miss the point and Durova's conceited narcissism are being exhibited in finest form.

This is nothing new though, just me musing. However, I do have a question. Maybe I missed this in the 8 pages I had to catch up on, but how did Giano get ahold of this evidence? Durova would never include him herself, since her criteria for inclusion seems to be willingness to collaborate secretly in blocks rather than willingness and ability to improve the encyclopedia.

You need a shirt with a picture of her and Jehochman dressed in armor with Durova charging at at windmill and Jehochman as Sancho. With this picture, a banner with "Durova: Leading the Charge!" below it.

Once again I must protest.

The constant vilification of the the Knight Of The Woeful Countenance must end here!

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

The constant vilification of the the Knight Of The Woeful Countenance must end here!

That's another one of those "Let's condemn anything we don't like as a fringe theory" moments on Wikipedia, where the idea that Cervantes might be Jewish was condemned despite being supported by the most respectable possible source.

http://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics04/mcgaha.pdf

This post has been edited by Yehudi:

I am torn.

Do we entitle this forthcoming comic opera "Inherit the Windmills" or do we entitle it "No One Expects the Spammish Inquisition!" ???

And what happened to "Lawn Ordure" and "Fear and Loathing in Lost Vagueness" ???

Any way you slice this baloney, it promises to be a blockbuster encore presentation of Shadenfreude Theatre.

How did I miss out on like 8 pages of this topic?

Well, I can't say this wasn't predictable. People throwing themselves into limelight, being as hasty as possible in order to be remembered, and look at the result. JzG's usual determination to miss the point and Durova's conceited narcissism are being exhibited in finest form.

This is nothing new though, just me musing. However, I do have a question. Maybe I missed this in the 8 pages I had to catch up on, but how did Giano get ahold of this evidence? Durova would never include him herself, since her criteria for inclusion seems to be willingness to collaborate secretly in blocks rather than willingness and ability to improve the encyclopedia.

Good point...and question.

I suspect that most users and each of the main characters at Wikipedia have their own little nest filled with puppets. The web is an amazing thing when I consider that not a soul truly knows who is present unless it is in the first person.

After all, I have people that work for me and with me that I have never met in person.

Strange is it not?

Sekrit Cabals leak like sieves.

There are spies everywhere.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

(Cue Woo-Woo music.)

Any way you slice this baloney, it promises to be a blockbuster encore presentation of Shadenfreude Theatre.

Regardless of what happens, I predict an imminent reduction in the number of administrators open to recall. Someone should take a shot of the category in its current state.

Even Ryulong was smart enough to remove himself from that category once it had served its purpose, and people actually began asking for his recall. I don't think Durova can do that as she's publicized her membership in that category too widely.

It's ominous that Pervez Musharaf has gamed his own system to evade the termination of his term of office.

There is something about the addiction to power that blinds a Machiavellian Control Phreak to the subtleties of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

It's ominous that Pervez Musharaf has gamed his own system to evade the termination of his term of office.

There is something about the addiction to power that blinds a Machiavellian Control Phreak to the subtleties of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Yeah, I can predict a couple of ways this can be gamed. Right now Durova appears to be attempting to hold to the legalistic approach that the people asking for her recall need to do so on an RfC page. Should that line of defense collapse, expect her supporters to argue that the recall vote should be 'net' - i.e. that "oppose recall" votes should nullify "support recall" votes. Failing that, they'll likely argue that Durova be allowed to retain the tools during a reconfirmation RfA, that way one of her pet 'crats can close the debate as "no consensus", putting the situation back to the status quo. Should be interesting theatre.

How did I miss out on like 8 pages of this topic?

Well, I can't say this wasn't predictable. People throwing themselves into limelight, being as hasty as possible in order to be remembered, and look at the result. JzG's usual determination to miss the point and Durova's conceited narcissism are being exhibited in finest form.

This is nothing new though, just me musing. However, I do have a question. Maybe I missed this in the 8 pages I had to catch up on, but how did Giano get ahold of this evidence? Durova would never include him herself, since her criteria for inclusion seems to be willingness to collaborate secretly in blocks rather than willingness and ability to improve the encyclopedia.

I suspect that like most Sicilians, Giano knows people that know people.

[Note to self: Don't piss Giano off. Ever.]

It's ominous that Pervez Musharaf has gamed his own system to evade the termination of his term of office.

There is something about the addiction to power that blinds a Machiavellian Control Phreak to the subtleties of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Yeah, I can predict a couple of ways this can be gamed. Right now Durova appears to be attempting to hold to the legalistic approach that the people asking for her recall need to do so on an RfC page. Should that line of defense collapse, expect her supporters to argue that the recall vote should be 'net' - i.e. that "oppose recall" votes should nullify "support recall" votes. Failing that, they'll likely argue that Durova be allowed to retain the tools during a reconfirmation RfA, that way one of her pet 'crats can close the debate as "no consensus", putting the situation back to the status quo. Should be interesting theatre.

If the purpose of recall is to establish that an admin still has the requisite support that was needed for gaining the tools in the first place I would think a new consensus for "support" would be needed for continuing admin status. Are there policies concerning recall? What was Durova thinking to ever subjecting herself to recall when see intended play policeman (gender specific form intended) and use admin powers so aggressively?

If she loses recall they should additionally require her replace "charge" with "retreat" in her signature.

It's ominous that Pervez Musharaf has gamed his own system to evade the termination of his term of office.

There is something about the addiction to power that blinds a Machiavellian Control Phreak to the subtleties of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Yeah, I can predict a couple of ways this can be gamed. Right now Durova appears to be attempting to hold to the legalistic approach that the people asking for her recall need to do so on an RfC page. Should that line of defense collapse, expect her supporters to argue that the recall vote should be 'net' - i.e. that "oppose recall" votes should nullify "support recall" votes. Failing that, they'll likely argue that Durova be allowed to retain the tools during a reconfirmation RfA, that way one of her pet 'crats can close the debate as "no consensus", putting the situation back to the status quo. Should be interesting theatre.

If the purpose of recall is to establish that an admin still has the requisite support that was needed for gaining the tools in the first place I would think a new consensus for "support" would be needed for continuing admin status. Are there policies concerning recall? What was Durova thinking to ever subjecting herself to recall when see intended play policeman (gender specific form intended) and use admin powers so aggressively?

If she loses recall they should additionally require her replace "charge" with "retreat" in her signature.

It's entirely voluntary and can be revoked at any time. It is therefore a completely empty gesture to list yourself as 'open to recall', as if people try to recall you you can just say no.

I suspect that like most Sicilians, Giano knows people that know people.

[Note to self: Don't piss Giano off. Ever.]

Yes, but it takes an awful lot for them to be pushed to use those connections. I think that Gianno is...almost there with Durova. If I were her, I'd be trying make peace with him in a big way.....

It's more thrilling when they go to the mattresses.

Meantime, it occurs to me that Durova might be feeling a bit like Clarence Thomas -- at the center of a spy-tech lynching.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Looks like Mercury/Navou has removed his support for Durova's ArbCom candidacy. Cary Bass is saying that she should withdraw her candidacy.

Knives are out - Cary Bass removes the e-mail from Giano's talk page and threatens a block. Giano stands his ground.

This post has been edited by Bob Boy:

Knives are out - Cary Bass removes the e-mail from Giano's talk page and threatens a block. Giano stands his ground.

I agree, I hereby name Giano, the Iron Man of Wikipedia.

Also Giano's comment to Doc:

Sorry Doc you are quite wrong, Rock you are quite right. The fact is that many were telling her she had made a huge mistake within minutes of her blocking. Or does she think NYB is machiavating on Wikipedia Review too. This whole obsession with the "Wikipedia Review" too in the evidence is worrying, from what I've seen of it, it is just a forum of attempts at wit and cynicism there does not seem to be an awful lot of substance to it. Giano (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I, and many of us, would take point with what Giano says about our "lack of substance" he's right that there seem to be a lot of people afraid of us, as if we will one day inspire a coup and take over Wikipedia (well I suppose it's not that far-out).

Addendum: Giano has been blocked for 24 hours.

Cary Bass has blocked Giano and protected his talk page as a representative of the foundation, a WP:OFFICE action.

Now the media will have something to talk about.

Addendum: Giano has been blocked for 24 hours.

By Cary Bass, an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation also known as User:Bastique.

Funny how people so high up are so protective of Durova.

Cary Bass has blocked Giano and protected his talk page as a representative of the foundation, a WP:OFFICE action.

Now the media will have something to talk about.

Yes I think this will make rather large waves. We can only hope.

Cary Bass has blocked Giano and protected his talk page as a representative of the foundation, a WP:OFFICE action.

Now the media will have something to talk about.

The Office must be freaking out...the fact is that Durova has put herself out in the off-wiki media as a de facto expert on, and spokesman for, Wikipedia, and Jimbo and the Foundation have stood by and allowed her to do this. Now it's revealed that her sleuthing techniques are about as sophisticated as "It was Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick!". Maybe it wasn't Durova who contacted the author of the off-wiki article about the incident, but the Foundation itself.

Funny how people so high up are so protective of Durova.

Something tells me that he was on that private mailing list.

Giano, you are the man. Make them answer for their hypocritical bullshit. You and !! are the people that are writing that encyclopedia, not glorified paper pushers like Bass or "Wikipedia Brown" Durova.

This post has been edited by Aloft:

So a few things to say here...

1) Durova is still dragging my name through the mud, claiming that her secret evidence on me is proof of her accuracy... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

2) It appears Wikitruth has now posted the Durova email. So even if they keep oversighting it on WP its up public now. http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...Sekret_Evidence

3) Boy is it some of the shittiest sleuthing I've ever seen. If this is the caliber of her evidence, no wonder she didnt want to come public with her evidence against me... she might have to zOMG retract it as bullshit.

4) I had intended to vote against Durova for arbcom, but jesus, this is too good of an opportunity. She's got my vote!

Votre Dieu est mort. Vive le Reine!

Now he's unblocked again, apparently after a private promise not to repost the letter.

Never mind the fact that the letter is still in the page history, on here, and on Wikitruth. What are these people thinking?

This post has been edited by Aloft:

Prepared for the cost of litigation, Wikipedia is not.

Prepared for the publicity that is coming their way? I think no is the definitive answer.

Asking for it, they have been? Yes indeed.

People like me have been finished playing their privacy games for many moons.

I love the legal profession; because of what it stands for. Law and order is necessary.

It will not take much to change the system at WP so it becomes transparent and part of the real

world.

I am thankful for this day.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Now he's unblocked again, apparently after a private promise not to repost the letter.

He's blanked his talk page. That must have been a nasty e-mail exchange.

Never mind the fact that the letter is still in the page history, on here, and on Wikitruth. What are these people thinking?

Surprisingly, MONGO's favorite site hasn't picked it up yet.

So a few things to say here...

...

3) Boy is it some of the shittiest sleuthing I've ever seen. If this is the caliber of her evidence, no wonder she didnt want to come public with her evidence against me... she might have to zOMG retract it as bullshit.

Alkivar, I believe the exact same thing could be said about her evidence against me, that I "gave misleading information to journalists".

I've contacted Brian Bergstein at the AP about this. He is loving it. Maybe a story will be forthcoming from him. One can only hope.

Greg

Here's some blog coverage of the story.

Casey Abell's Wikipedia Funnies

Durova bulldoza II
Maybe the most interesting question is how Durova's goofball "evidence" leaked in the first place. Somebody sent the high-larious document to her adversaries on Wikipedia. The mystery might remain WP's equivalent of Watergate's Deep Throat silliness.

private musings

The Star Chamber?
Right now, I can legitimately claim that there is a small, secret group of admin.s who work together to issue indefinite blocks. And that's wrong.

Looks like Mercury/Navou has removed his support for Durova's ArbCom candidacy.

You forgot the edit summary: "per my precedent on userboxes. Nothing can be inferred from this edit."

And as long as some people like to pretend that our carrying out of policies against posting private emails on the wiki is an attempt "to suppress discussion" then we will continue to allow drama mongers to control the discussion of things on the site. I have said this many times in the past and will say it many times in the future I am sure: some people need to find a different hobby, because whatever they are here for, it is not to help build an encyclopedia. No one is attempting to suppress discussion, look at the ridiculous length of this page. Giano was trolling (i.e. doing something he knew to be disruptive), he knew he was trolling, and I doubt if he will last much longer at Wikipedia because of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, oh the irony. Durova, who does virtually nothing for the 'encyclopedia' gets off scot free, and Giano, who spends most of his time writing FAs and producing valuable content in an otherwise neglected area, is threatened with an upcoming ban. Hahahahahahahahaha. I love Jimbo. This is classic. Who needs TV when you have quality like this?

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika:

some people need to find a different hobby because whatever they are here for, it is not to help build an encyclopedia.

Right, and you create an article on some insignificant restaurant.

Just goes to show where their priorities are. Fighting imaginary trolls is more important than their stated purpose of writing an encyclopedia.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is blocked for trolling. That's what we're doing."

Just goes to show where their priorities are. Fighting imaginary trolls is more important than their stated purpose of writing an encyclopedia.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is blocked for trolling. That's what we're doing."

Well I wonder if Giano would like to come here, it seems his stay at Wikipedia will soon be at a close. It still amazes me that truly great editors like Cla68 and Giano are treated with such contempt when they are the reasons for some the great content on there. Oh I guess Jimbo's line of thinking is: "There'll always be more people to replace them." How utterly pathetic.

Ryan Postlethwaite desparately trying to throw water on the flames

However, this was one mistake, and as a community, we should accept that move on.

One mistake? I don't think so.

EDIT: In case anyone doesn't know "This is a secret" is Jaranda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._comment/Durova

Ah, I think I see how the recall game is going to be played out. By my count, Durova's conditions for recall have already been met. But Lar, as the "clerk", will not allow the actual recall process to begin (on yet another page) unless there is "consensus".

Strangely Isarig miraculously appeared on Durova's special page asking about the super seekrit list despite having been away for three days. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Mr Sarig's shock at this "seekrit" list seems somewhat bizarre as I am sure he knew such things existed him being buddies with Mr G. Also Yoav, I doubt you are expert on aesthetics eh (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif).

What's Acalamari playing at? First he supports a review of Poetlister's block (don't we all) that was based mainly on Durova's research, now he defends Durova. Surely the best way to unblock Poetlister is to discredit Durova.

On second thoughts, that won't work, will it? Kelly Martin's actual retraction of her evidence and apologies for a miscarriage of justice didn't help.

What's Acalamari playing at? First he supports a review of Poetlister's block (don't we all) that was based mainly on Durova's research, now he defends Durova. Surely the best way to unblock Poetlister is to discredit Durova.

On second thoughts, that won't work, will it? Kelly Martin's actual retraction of her evidence and apologies for a miscarriage of justice didn't help.

But discrediting Durova would make blocks based on invisible evidence much harder. What if he, at some point, needs to get rid of someone for no apparent reason?

They're kinda internally self-destructing now. Everyone on Durova's side has a different story, most of which are mutually exclusive. At this point, the assumption of least wrongdoing is that Durova lied about ever circulating the evidence, since many are denying that her super secret mailing list is real, and nobody to my knowledge has yet come forward saying they have seen it. Unfortunately for them, that's clearly not the case.

They're kinda internally self-destructing now. Everyone on Durova's side has a different story, most of which are mutually exclusive. At this point, the assumption of least wrongdoing is that Durova lied about ever circulating the evidence, since many are denying that her super secret mailing list is real, and nobody to my knowledge has yet come forward saying they have seen it. Unfortunately for them, that's clearly not the case.

Lar has admitted to it, at least.

The worst kind of Boojum is an imaginary monster that's been seen by everyone except those who imagine the Boojum is only an imaginary monster that doesn't really exist.

At this point, the assumption of least wrongdoing is that Durova lied about ever circulating the evidence, since many are denying that her super secret mailing list is real, and nobody to my knowledge has yet come forward saying they have seen it. Unfortunately for them, that's clearly not the case.

Amarkov, can you forward diffs where people are denying that this list exists?

At this point, the assumption of least wrongdoing is that Durova lied about ever circulating the evidence, since many are denying that her super secret mailing list is real, and nobody to my knowledge has yet come forward saying they have seen it. Unfortunately for them, that's clearly not the case.

Amarkov, can you forward diffs where people are denying that this list exists?

At the risk of being ridiculed... it turns out that it's only one person. Most people seem to be avoiding making any overt statement either way.

When people waffle and evade, you can generally infer that there is some threat of negative consequence (expressed, implied, or otherwise implicitly understood) for telling the truth.

Remember that Truth is not an objective of Wikipedia. Only verifiability. And then note what happens to those who dare to verify the Truth That Dares Not Speak Its Claim.

At the risk of being ridiculed... it turns out that it's only one person. Most people seem to be avoiding making any overt statement either way.

No ridicule, but who's that one person, and where's the diff? It might (or might not) be possible to prove him or her a liar.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

No ridicule, but who's that one person, and where's the diff? I

Bob Boy posted this link above.

The worst kind of Boojum is an imaginary monster that's been seen by everyone except those who imagine the Boojum is only an imaginary monster that doesn't really exist.

Will you please stop creating new sorts of Boojums.

The discussion of Giano's block continued on Cary Bass' talk page, with Bishonen and El_C questioning his actions. Seth Finkelstein*, in his role as a columnist, requested that Carey contact him. Carey decides that archiving the discussion is the right thing to do.

Seth also indicates he reads WR:
"By "The Other Side", I meant a certain site of Unmentionable Reference, which I shall not profane the sanctity of Wikipedia by speaking the unholy name."

This is only just beginning.


*When Seth Talks, People Listen©

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...shop#Disclosure


Ok...time to bring JzG and Durova together with Arb. comittee and settle the PrivateMusings case;
throw Durova and JzG out.

This is looking more like the Nixon whitehouse every minute.

Show the list and the members of Arb. Com. that are in the cabal.

(i.e., The group of administrators that are buddies on and off the field.)

It is over people. Tender your shields because, from now on, everyone is running for election on the "clean the slate" ticket.

If you are tainted and smeared with with the Durova/JzG brush, you are probably better off going to another project.

Please do not suggest that they come here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

Add this to the case: In re: Block and Ban of PM

Comment by parties:
I believe evidence has come to light which renders it relevant to consider whether or not this proposal has been brought in good faith. I think it's quite revealing of the character of the proposer of this sanction that she engaged in fairly substantial conversation on my talk page, over a number of threads, having previously written, and distributed this pernicious material, which uses a post of mine as the first example in an ugly tirade against imaginary monsters and 'troublemakers'. I'm actually very proud (and undeserving) to have been considered in the company of User:!!.
She is an editor who has discussed my case, supported my block, and right now is proposing a year long ban (with a gracious provision for early review). It transpires that despite her claims of attempting good faith discussion, she was in fact basing her interactions on a bizarre, misguided, horribly shallow prejudice.
I would like this, and the following proposal to be immediately struck. Privatemusings (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Basically formalizes the community sanction with a specific one year end point to the ban if he doesn't take up the offer to shorten with early review. DurovaCharge! 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. He was already contributing productively here; this implies that was not the case. -- Kendrick7talk 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hell no!! Why the heck would we want that! He's an okay editor it's just that he's been a bit disruptive with the use of multiple accounts--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

Add this to the case: In re: Block and Ban of PM

Comment by parties:
I think it's quite revealing of the character of the proposer of this sanction that she engaged in fairly substantial conversation on my talk page, over a number of threads, having previously written, and distributed this pernicious material, which uses a post of mine as the first example in an ugly tirade against imaginary monsters and 'troublemakers'…It transpires that despite her claims of attempting good faith discussion, she was in fact basing her interactions on a bizarre, misguided, horribly shallow prejudice…Privatemusings (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Basically formalizes the community sanction with a specific one year end point to the ban if he doesn't take up the offer to shorten with early review. DurovaCharge! 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Private Musings is completely correct.

Yes.

It is Durover, Durova.

PM, you are free to go.

Durova and Jzg, please step into my office? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...of_Mailing_list

Yes indeed!

The list and the errors by Durova and JzG, et al.

Case closed. Now on to "it's Ova, Durova."

!! has spoken.

!! has spoken.

Bamm-Bamm can't be very smart if he spent that much time in confidential communications with Durova. As a tactic that dishonest people use to manipulate honest people into a corner of principled but fatal silence a la Thomas More, it has got to be one of the oldest tricks on the Internet.

Sure, maybe you get canonized in the end, but in the mean time you just get dead.

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

!! has spoken.

Bamm-Bamm can't be very smart if he spent that much time in confidential communications with Durova. As a tactic that dishonest people use to manipulate honest people into a corner of principled but fatal silence a la Thomas More, it has got to be one of the oldest tricks on the Internet.

Sure, maybe you get canonized in the end, but in the mean time you just get dead.

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

Better to take a page from User:Escabedo and User:Miranda.

I would like to remind everyone that, now that Durova is a clearly notable Internet meme, you can...

SAFELY PURCHASE our products

...associated with her ArbCom campaign. Buy now and insure that you are in on the ground floor of the next "Leeroy Jenkins" or "Vote for Pedro" buzzword of nerds.

Don't delay. Buy today!

Greg

DMCdevit has linked to an Arbitration case on !!'s page.

DMCdevit has linked to an Arbitration case on !!'s page.

Yes, I started a thread about that. Private Musings is really upset about the not-so-secret "secret mailing list"....

get your popcorn ready! This could be a good show!

DMCdevit has linked to an Arbitration case on !!'s page.

Yes, I started a thread about that. Private Musings is really upset about the not-so-secret "secret mailing list"....

get your popcorn ready! This could be a good show!

Statement by uninvolved party Alecmconroy
I concur-- insofar as this Arbcom applies to Durova, it's entirely unnecessary. She's an "Administrators open to recall" whose set her limit at 5 users. The count that have requested recall/desysop now stands at I believe 20+, so a new RFA is a certainty.

To file an Arbcom case now, demanding a forcible desysop, is to Assume Bad Faith, in essence "expecting her to reneg on her recall promise". There is no reason whatsoever to suspect this-- she'll agree to a new RFA, and in all likelyhood she'll pass it too. I'd suggest withdrawing the RFAr, or at least withdrawing her from it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Someone was blocked because of secret magical evidence that nobody knows about, the evidence turns out to be faulty... and nobody cares? I mean, that's happened before, certainly, but never quite so blatantly...

Well, the one person who made a big issue of it in the New York Times got his wife outted as a spy, and...

OH. OOPS. You mean Durova and !!

I thought you were talking about the war in Iraq, and Yellowcake in Niger, and WMD.

Because if our country can ignore that, ignoring Durova's false accusations is fairly minor (however similar).

I would like to remind everyone that, now that Durova is a clearly notable Internet meme, you can...

SAFELY PURCHASE our products

...associated with her ArbCom campaign. Buy now and insure that you are in on the ground floor of the next "Leeroy Jenkins" or "Vote for Pedro" buzzword of nerds. Don't delay. Buy today!

Greg

Oh Christ Kohs. I cant breathe again. (stops, breathes) Ok.

Now, In the words of our heroine....YOU (Sir) are AGAIN (as always) trying to make a buck off Wikipedia.

And I see you took her advice and you've redirected (your) Wikipedia-related energies.

Which resulted in that you are NOW trying to make a buck off Durova.

Man is she sorry she told you how to live your life...

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Well, JzG says that it's all because the Kohser wants to put her out of business in his Arb-com statement :

One thing is abundantly clear: User:Wikipedia Review (Grgory Kohs) wants Durova and Jehochman out of the market. He is a competitor in the field of talking about Wikipedia, SEO and conflict of interest. His perspective is not quite the same as that of the average Wikipedia - which is why he's banned, I guess - and he has pursued a concerted campaign, with the able assistance of several Wikipedians who should know better, to damage Jehochman and Durova. Attempts to promote Kohs' theory caused significant escalation of the dispute.

So it's all Greg's fault! There ya have it!

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

One thing is abundantly clear: User:Wikipedia Review (Grgory Kohs) wants Durova and Jehochman out of the market. He is a competitor in the field of talking about Wikipedia, SEO and conflict of interest. His perspective is not quite the same as that of the average Wikipedia - which is why he's banned, I guess - and he has pursued a concerted campaign, with the able assistance of several Wikipedians who should know better, to damage Jehochman and Durova. Attempts to promote Kohs' theory caused significant escalation of the dispute.

Ha! Did anyone else notice the slipup above where he notes that Durova is competing with Greg for Conflict of Interest? (Which means that Durova is also acting under conflict of interest? True) HILAROUS.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

With all of the rant by many, including JzG, about not taking the case, it is 4 to "zip" that they will take it.

That is not a good thing for Durova, is it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

The idea (the concept and fact) that anyone can secretly band together is wrong and the fact that she has bragged about it to the world, must be stopped. (Nixon whitehouse.)

Step aside Guy Chapman, this is about running an encyclopedia, not your self published
web-site.

I think Durova will lose face, her bit, and be placed on probation for a period of time.

Doc made a brilliant statement about Durova.

She will be forced to do an RFA at a later date.

My take... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

Well, JzG says that it's all because the Kohser wants to put her out of business in his Arb-com statement :

One thing is abundantly clear: User:Wikipedia Review (Grgory Kohs) wants Durova and Jehochman out of the market. He is a competitor in the field of talking about Wikipedia, SEO and conflict of interest. His perspective is not quite the same as that of the average Wikipedia - which is why he's banned, I guess - and he has pursued a concerted campaign, with the able assistance of several Wikipedians who should know better, to damage Jehochman and Durova. Attempts to promote Kohs' theory caused significant escalation of the dispute.

So it's all Greg's fault! There ya have it!

This is too funny. Folks -- in the past 18 months, I have grossed about $1800 in all Wikipedia-related income and paid travel and lodging. Even if you value my offsetting unpaid leisure time at only $8 an hour, I would estimate that I've cleared about NEGATIVE $865 on the whole Wikipedia mess. Durova has cleared, according to her, squadouche on the Wikipedia thing, and I can't even begin to imagine her losses in terms of unpaid leisure time.

I have a REAL JOB, people. It's been generous enough to pay me at least 60x more than Wikipedia-related clients did over the past year-and-a-half.

I don't want Durova and Jehochman "out of the market". I want them IN the market. We could do a ton of great stuff together, if we acted jointly to present our knowledge to the marketplace.

What I want (and what all these nimrod Wikipediots seem incredibly adept at ignoring) is to see Durova's evidence that I "gave misleading information to journalists". Assuming that it's as credible as her evidence against User:!!, then I would also want an apology from her. And then that's it. No more battle with Durova.

As for getting to "no more battle with Guy Chapman", that's simple, too. Since he only seems to misrepresent me and Wikipedia Review, he needs to stop mentioning me or my side-business in any way, shape, or form, and then I stop pointing out his fascination with big-busted models and his virtual abandonment of his wife and children.

It is so easy for them to make peace with me, but they refuse (repeatedly), don't they?

Greg

Looks like a meatpuppet to me.

They're pretty tight.

Back when I was corresponding with Mercury about reversing my block, he composed a back-channel message to Durova but sent it to me by mistake. In the salutation, he used her real name (which I was already aware of, as I had previously read her SEO blog). The point, however, was that he was seeking her advice and consent before taking up my case. She advised him against it, and that was that.

Mercury contacted me to say that he took exception to my characterization of him and the back-channel activities, above.

I invited him here to set the record straight.

Looks like a meatpuppet to me.

They're pretty tight.

Back when I was corresponding with Mercury about reversing my block, he composed a back-channel message to Durova but sent it to me by mistake. In the salutation, he used her real name (which I was already aware of, as I had previously read her SEO blog). The point, however, was that he was seeking her advice and consent before taking up my case. She advised him against it, and that was that.

Mercury contacted me to say that he took exception to my characterization of him and the back-channel activities, above.

I invited him here to set the record straight.

Clearly, the right thing to do is to give all of the evidence you have about these people, to the Arbcom. board. Your statement is extremely important. Their sleuth behavior must be stopped.

I don't want Durova and Jehochman "out of the market". I want them IN the market. We could do a ton of great stuff together, if we acted jointly to present our knowledge to the marketplace.

Well, yeah, sure.

With them IN the market, you can make a killing on buttons and mugs.

Not to mention thongs and doggie t-shirts.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Clearly, the right thing to do is to give all of the evidence you have about these people, to the Arbcom. board. Your statement is extremely important. Their sleuth behavior must be stopped.

ArbCom hasn't even responded to my previous request (Petition for Redress of Grievance) in my own case. Why would they pay any more attention to further correspondence from me?

I compltely disagree with the title of this board, DUROVA's MEA CULPA.

She didn't mea culpa. She tua culpa'd.

I prefer JE NE REGRETTE RIEN.
(IMG:http://carmenvera.podomatic.com/2006-05-17T04_18_56-07_00.jpg)

(that's Piaf, for anyone who cares)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

JzG's insistence on missing the point will know no discouragement. He still thinks this whole thing is WR's and SPECIFICALLY Kohser's fault. Up until just now I thought all along he was just selling those outbursts as a means of support. To think he actually, actually believes that...

I have no words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173353211

I doubt the existence of such a list.

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...Sekret_Evidence

2. They don't know this list exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=167325471

Unbelievable. I wish I could have realized earlier what one can accomplish on Wikipedia with blatant denial.

Looks like a meatpuppet to me.

They're pretty tight.

Back when I was corresponding with Mercury about reversing my block, he composed a back-channel message to Durova but sent it to me by mistake. In the salutation, he used her real name (which I was already aware of, as I had previously read her SEO blog). The point, however, was that he was seeking her advice and consent before taking up my case. She advised him against it, and that was that.

Mercury contacted me to say that he took exception to my characterization of him and the back-channel activities, above.

I invited him here to set the record straight.

--Begin my reply --



I am come to clear my good name.

When Moulton had contacted my about reversing the block, I knew Durova had some experience with Moulton. I wanted information so I could better make an informed independent decision.
I had asked her if it was ok to handle, as I did not want to duplicate her efforts. I sought advice, but not consent. I had, after reviewing everything, decided not to correspond with Moulton. This was my independent decision. I am no parrot.

I hope this helps.

Mercury.


postscript; I don't think I used the quote feature correctly, but this is in response to moulton's confirmation that I may be a meatpuppet.

Mod Note: I think I fixed the quote. GBG

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame:

I am come to clear my good name.

When Moulton had contacted my about reversing the block, I knew Durova had some experience with Moulton. I wanted information so I could better make an informed independent decision.
I had asked her if it was ok to handle, as I did not want to duplicate her efforts. I sought advice, but not consent. I had, after reviewing everything, decided not to correspond with Moulton. This was my independent decision. I am no parrot.

I hope this helps.

Mercury.

Hey Mercury, want to know the difference between Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review? Here, you more than welcome to clear your name. We, on the other hand, are specifically forbidden from doing the same over there.

Thoughts?

So Mercury, out of curiosity, do you still "doubt the existence of such a list?"

Oooh, snap. Intimidate that nasty troll Giano, Jimbo.

Oooh, snap. Intimidate that nasty troll Giano, Jimbo.

Basically: "You misinterpreted my comments, but they really do apply to you, so shape up or you're banned."

I sought advice, but not consent. I had, after reviewing everything, decided not to correspond with Moulton. This was my independent decision.

In view of recent disclosures about the reliability of information circulated in back-channel e-mails, it occurs to me that there may be good reason for an independent-minded and ethically responsible WP admin to discount any such information that has not been surfaced and subjected to a fair hearing, public review, and opportunity for rebuttal.

Just as I invited Mercury here to respond to my impressions about him, I hope that others on both sides of the WP/WR chasm will see fit to afford a fair opportunity to resolve misconceptions about the character of those on adversarial sides of these conflicts and disputes.

I sought advice, but not consent. I had, after reviewing everything, decided not to correspond with Moulton. This was my independent decision.

In view of recent disclosures about the reliability of information circulated in back-channel e-mails, it occurs to me that there may be good reason for an independent-minded and ethically responsible WP admin to discount any such information that has not been surfaced and subjected to a fair hearing, public review, and opportunity for rebuttal.

Just as I invited Mercury here to respond to my impressions about him, I hope that others on both sides of the WP/WR chasm will see fit to afford a fair opportunity to resolve misconceptions about the character of those on adversarial sides of these conflicts and disputes.

That goes without saying in most civil nations, and I suggest that we are pretty civil here...

but I am grateful you said it.

Agreed.

Oooh, snap. Intimidate that nasty troll Giano, Jimbo.

Jimbo's statement is nearly an admission that the first goal of the project is not to build an encyclopedia, for were it so, Giano would be fitter than most to lead it. Instead, the paramount consideration is keeping arguments on the noticeboards to a minumum, even as the chaos of mainspace and talk space continues unabated and mostly unaddressed, like a junta rounding up dissident intellectuals while street crime is rampant and the garbage goes uncollected.

Against this backdrop, the predictable refrain "let's get back to editing" translates as a command for proles to leave the palatial grounds of the noticeboards and get back to work while administrators call the shots. This might be tolerable if administrators weren't doing such a horrible job of keeping order and maintaining quality in the encyclopedia portion of the project. As jealously as they guard their authority and reject any measures of accountability for its misuse, they're just as adamant in denying responsibility for the state of the encyclopedia.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Can someone from the mainstream press get the heck over here??

your behavior in terms of trolling and carrying on the way you do is unacceptable. You know this. And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a threat if there ever was a threat.

For posterity, I think we need to show pictures, not links. This will be whitewashed shortly and possibly Giano will be ejeced from Wikipedia, for daring to suggest that he can't be told to shut up when people are being slimed online. Oh, and if Jimbo thinks its ok, then its ok. Where is the mainstream press when you need them?

Welcome to a Slideshow of "How Jimbo Treats Legitimate Whistleblowing Wikipedians" (Threatens Them) (click on image)
(IMG:http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/DisillusionedLackey/th_Gianoshootsback.jpg)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Say, Mercury, you and Thekohser seem to go way back. Your 57th edit as Navou was to Greg's talk page, leaving the rather cryptic statement
"Not really, I might get anxious by wed. :P Navou talk 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)".

Do you remember what that was all about?

edit:sp

This post has been edited by tarantino:

That kind of Parent-Child Intimidation is unworthy of a project leader who relies on volunteer work and public donations to sustain his operation.

But even in a situation where a strong dominance hierarchy is appropriate, the vagueness of terms like "trolling" and "carrying on the way you do" and "this kind of behavior" is simply crazy-making in its imprecision and ultimate meaninglessness.

That kind of Parent-Child Intimidation is unworthy of a project leader who relies on volunteer work and public donations to sustain his operation.

But even in a situation where a strong dominance hierarchy is appropriate, the vagueness of terms like "trolling" and "carrying on the way you do" and "this kind of behavior" is simply crazy-making in its imprecision and ultimate meaninglessness.

Wikipediots have constantly stretched the semantic spheres of the termsofart, WP:Attack, WP:Harrassment, WP:Trolling, WP:Vandalism, and so on, until they have at this writing all become more or less indifferent synonyms for «Messages That Wikipediots Would Prefer Not To Receive».

Ah Bartleby! Ah Humanity!

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

Say, Mercury, you and Thekohser seem to go way back. Your 57th edit as Navou was to Greg's talk page, leaving the rather cryptic statement
"Not really, I might get anxious by wed. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Navou talk 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)".

Do you remember what that was all about?

edit:sp

It was a response to a question that Thekohser has asked me, this is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...81040&diff=prev
you should have one of your sysop friends verify that. Anything else?

Mercury.

Well, Durova is on a Wikibreak-break to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic for her ArbCom candidacy.

Well, Durova is on a Wikibreak-break to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic for her ArbCom candidacy.

She plays forest fire like Guiliani plays 911.

Say, Mercury, you and Thekohser seem to go way back. Your 57th edit as Navou was to Greg's talk page, leaving the rather cryptic statement
"Not really, I might get anxious by wed. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Navou talk 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)".

Do you remember what that was all about?

edit:sp

It was a response to a question that Thekohser has asked me, this is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...81040&diff=prev
you should have one of your sysop friends verify that. Anything else?

Mercury.

If I recall, it was just that we had both signed up for access to the Auto Wiki Browser tool, but I hadn't received the instruction set or bit, and I think I just asked him if he had gotten his or not. I really don't remember this being a big deal sort of thing.

Mercury, your response seems really snippy.

Well, Durova is on a Wikibreak-break to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic for her ArbCom candidacy.

She plays forest fire like Guiliani plays 911.

If my memory serves, we should recall that it was Durova who wrote to her local newspaper to say that people who lost their expensive homes to mudslides shouldn't be compensated by the government, since their greedy stupidity led them to buy expensive houses on tenuous hillsides.

I wonder how she feels about her home almost being lost to wildfires?

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser:

Say, Mercury, you and Thekohser seem to go way back. Your 57th edit as Navou was to Greg's talk page, leaving the rather cryptic statement
"Not really, I might get anxious by wed. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Navou talk 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)".

Do you remember what that was all about?

edit:sp

It was a response to a question that Thekohser has asked me, this is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...81040&diff=prev
you should have one of your sysop friends verify that. Anything else?

Mercury.

If I recall, it was just that we had both signed up for access to the Auto Wiki Browser tool, but I hadn't received the instruction set or bit, and I think I just asked him if he had gotten his or not. I really don't remember this being a big deal sort of thing.

Mercury, your response seems really snippy.

It was snippy. I actually had to research and trawl some deleted contributions to answer that.


...the poster emphasized my "57'th" edit. If you are counting edits like that, it is not just because you enjoy it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)



Mercury.