Durova and her lackey catching heat, hitched your wagon to the wrong star, Jehochman Options

There is a glorious discussion taking place on the Administrators Noticeboard.

Seems to be that everybody is a sock/meat/proxy/disciple-puppet of Wikipedia Review now. Awbrey, you may turn over the King of the MeatySocks crown to me this weekend. I'll be in the Detroit area, in fact!

Sure, the Wikipediots have correctly fingered a couple of my socks -- User:COI analyst was a really tough one for them to crack -- Hochman e-mailed me and I told him so right off the bat! These mysterious IP editors, though -- so not me, Wikipediots.

You know what I think? I think this is all coming back to bite Jehochman, because he had the nerve to suggest that I was affiliated with Orbitz, thanks to his "secret" evidence, which after I phoned him went "poof" and was retracted. That's a really cheap thing to do -- claim you have evidence proving something, then when the subject of your attack calls you on it, you fold like a little chicken.

Greg

"I hold in my hand a list of Wikipedians who are actually Wikipedia Review!"
"Can we see the evidence?"
"NO! How dare you question my secret evidence! That is NPA! INCIVIL! UNWIKIPEDIAN! Shame! Shame! Have you or have anyone you know ever edited as a Wikipedia Review sock!?!"

There is a glorious discussion taking place on the Administrators Noticeboard.

Seems to be that everybody is a sock/meat/proxy/disciple-puppet of Wikipedia Review now. Awbrey, you may turn over the King of the MeatySocks crown to me this weekend. I'll be in the Detroit area, in fact!

Sure, the Wikipediots have correctly fingered a couple of my socks -- User:COI analyst was a really tough one for them to crack -- Hochman e-mailed me and I told him so right off the bat! These mysterious IP editors, though -- so not me, Wikipediots.

You know what I think? I think this is all coming back to bite Jehochman, because he had the nerve to suggest that I was affiliated with Orbitz, thanks to his "secret" evidence, which after I phoned him went "poof" and was retracted. That's a really cheap thing to do -- claim you have evidence proving something, then when the subject of your attack calls you on it, you fold like a little chicken.

Greg

Yeah I read that thread earlier today and all I have to say is...they call us conspiracy theorists?

Also I love how the thread started out about Jehochman and turned into a Wikipedia Review sockhunt.

This post has been edited by Derktar: Mon 12th November 2007, 10:03pm

It's a Comedy of Terrors.

There is a glorious discussion taking place on the Administrators Noticeboard.

Seems to be that everybody is a sock/meat/proxy/disciple-puppet of Wikipedia Review now. Awbrey, you may turn over the King of the MeatySocks crown to me this weekend. I'll be in the Detroit area, in fact!

Bitte entschuldigen Sie mich, ich bin ein Nürnberger!

Johann von Cache

PS. Next time you're in Nürnberg, give us a Hallo and we take thee and thine out for Nürnbergers und Beer.

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 12th November 2007, 10:34pm

I dunno, Dude, going by WP:UCIASW (Using Comcast In A Similar Way), I'm pretty much convinced that

• It's U, Baby, It's U !!!
• You work for the CIA.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 12th November 2007, 11:12pm

Watch out...for the final solution

Watch out...for the final solution

The whole thing is hilarious. Note that Viridae will be on the chopping block soon, too.

Those IPs are not Wikipedia Review. Believe it or not Wikipedia Review has always been very upfront about his intentions, and the same goes for his socks - as Jehochman actually knows. COIAnalyst was Wikipedia Review (well duh) but the IPs are not. ViridaeTalk 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether the IPs are MyWikBiz or not MyWikiBuz, I've seen enough of these constant attacks from this Greg Koh character, and I'm going to do something about it. Hopefully that will be a relief to all of the people who are trying to build an encyclopedia from teh greound up. If I'm successful he won't be bothering us any more! - Onlytooth 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted; to Viridae) That's essentially the same argument Alkivar used to prop up Burntsauce: The IPs don't match...never mind the rest of the evidence. I should have taken a harder line on that last April: it would have saved the community a lot of trouble. This IP editor is an even more straightforward case: harassment. Maybe he's proxying for Wikipedia Review is not remotely a defense for harassment. DurovaCharge! 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again: Until he was blocked I don't think I saw any harassment. About his behavior since then, especially this last rant, I have nothing good to say; but I think the original block still remains dubious. Also, I don't think he's proxying for the COI chap in the Burntsauce/Alkivar manner, he seemed to have other concerns originally. Relata refero 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

* Viridae, what does, "as Jehochman actually knows," refer to? You and I have never discussed what I know about Wikipedia Review. Where did you get that information from? - Jehochman Talk 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

* Before Viridae answers, I believe Jehochman should explain why he accused Wikipedia Review of recently working with Orbitz in this area, but then backpedaled on the matter shortly after. The community looks forward to your explanation. Stoodwiped 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

* Finally a bit of respect! I am so tired of chintzy, throw-away IP socks. Now we have real sockpuppets with actual user IDs. See [87] and [88]. Charming. - Jehochman Talk 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
* Stoodwiped, please explain why you feel that Wikipedia owes trolls and banned editors any respect whatsoever? Corvus cornix 23:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stoodwiped can't reply here because someone already indeffed the account for being both. I'm interested in seeing Viridae's answer to Jehochman's question. DurovaCharge! 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm bumping up my life insurance thanks to "Onlytooth". He sounds like a real attackkkkkkk/harassment/assassin account. Scary!

If they try to wham-block-ban Viridae for (apparently) having communicated with Wikipedia Review in an off-Wikipedia way, then we truly have witnessed the second coming of Joe McCarthy. I'm so happy for the people who are donating cash money to this obvious mess.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 13th November 2007, 12:13am

Frankly all I can say is "meh". Whoever that is, they have some very valid points about COI and Jonathan Hochman. Once again certain members of the admin ranks are totally unable to comprehend that a valid point might come from a source external to wikipedia.

Frankly all I can say is "meh". Whoever that is, they have some very valid points about COI and Jonathan Hochman. Once again certain members of the admin ranks are totally unable to comprehend that a valid point might come from a source external to wikipedia.

Or that the constant sock accusations and block-before-warnings are getting old...

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Uh-Oh … ¤ Gulp ¤

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 13th November 2007, 1:26am

The Bizarre, Bizarre Behavior of Sock-a-thon Hochman

Seems to be that everybody is a sock/meat/proxy/disciple-puppet of Wikipedia Review now. Awbrey, you may turn over the King of the MeatySocks crown to me this weekend. I'll be in the Detroit area, in fact!

And you'll be there, making a quick buck no doubt! See what her highness says about you...

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)

He was pulling the same thing a week and a half ago, and pretty much admitted his identity.[94] All standard Kohs MO: he's always been in it for the buck, so he attributes an unethical profit motive to anyone who upholds site policies and tells him no. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of respect for Jehochman's privacy I'm refraining from posting the diffs: this sock insists on referring to that editor by his surname rather than his username, and repeats Kohs's insinuation that Jehochman participtes at this website to make money (elsewhere Kohs makes that claim about me also). He repeatedly restored that disclosure and the claim despite repeated blanking of the IP's user talk, and quite obviously this is a sock rather than a new user. The question of whether this actually is Kohs or not is beside the point. Either is a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLP and WP:POINT - the only distinction is which clause of the sockpuppet policy is being violated. He didn't stop until the IP's talk page was protected and as soon as a 3 hour block expired he went right back to disruption. So I implemented a routine reblock. DurovaCharge! 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All courtesy of the Bizarre Behavior from JeHochman Thread

Using the "She Doth Protest Too Crazily Much" principle: Two points:

1. Who is acting the proxy (sock, meatpuppet) for whom? I'm thinking JeHochman might have Durova's marionette-wielding handprints up his backside, that's what I think.
2. The Prime of Miss Durova. Notice the fact that the ranting was eventually disregarded. Miss D's losing her touch. Her street credibility dropping, and it is not the first time. The maniacal hand that wielded the sword is no longer seen as infallible. This is a *good* thing. Leading to the next point
3. Arbcom Coming Up. This is a shout out for votes. A badly planned and disastrously executed one, but a vote-shout-out, no less.
4. Meltdown City. This woman is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. And I reference the logic meltdown in this part of her quote. Looney tune logic.

The question of whether this actually is Kohs or not is beside the point. Either is a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLP and WP:POINT - the only distinction is which clause of the sockpuppet policy is being violated

CLAUSE of the sockpuppet policy? Jimini Crickets. Clearly, she's frantic in her efforts to attack Kohs, and/or anyone she delusionally suspects to be Kohs. That's fullstop bizarre. Why should she care so much about Kohs? Other than that she lied about him and printed it online to make herself famous by-proxy (which worked for a spell). At this point the Kohs-flaggelation-schtick is getting a bit old, and her behavior a bit too transparent.

Another Question: When in the history of the United States has "making a buck" been a bad thing? Just wondering.

And: This is how she acts when up for election for a position of representation? No wonder she's a Walter Mitty nobody in real life.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 13th November 2007, 11:34am

There is a glorious discussion taking place on the Administrators Noticeboard.

Wait a minute. I click the link, and now it's gone? They have even made this one disappear?

Unbelievable audacity. And they wonder why I keep coming back to haunt them? THEY are the ones who drum up these preposterous witch hunts that involve my or my business' name, and then they wonder why I enter their discussions!

There are some sick wackos over there in WikiWackyLand.

Greg

The Bizarre, Bizarre Behavior of Sock-a-thon Hochman

Seems to be that everybody is a sock/meat/proxy/disciple-puppet of Wikipedia Review now. Awbrey, you may turn over the King of the MeatySocks crown to me this weekend. I'll be in the Detroit area, in fact!

And you'll be there, making a quick buck no doubt! See what her highness says about you …

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)

He was pulling the same thing a week and a half ago, and pretty much admitted his identity.[94] All standard Kohs MO: he's always been in it for the buck, so he attributes an unethical profit motive to anyone who upholds site policies and tells him no. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of respect for Jehochman's privacy I'm refraining from posting the diffs: this sock insists on referring to that editor by his surname rather than his username, and repeats Kohs's insinuation that Jehochman participtes at this website to make money (elsewhere Kohs makes that claim about me also). He repeatedly restored that disclosure and the claim despite repeated blanking of the IP's user talk, and quite obviously this is a sock rather than a new user. The question of whether this actually is Kohs or not is beside the point. Either is a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLP and WP:POINT - the only distinction is which clause of the sockpuppet policy is being violated. He didn't stop until the IP's talk page was protected and as soon as a 3 hour block expired he went right back to disruption. So I implemented a routine reblock. DurovaCharge! 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All courtesy of the Bizarre Behavior from JeHochman Thread

Using the "She Doth Protest Too Crazily Much" principle: Three points:

1. Who is acting the proxy (sock, meatpuppet) for whom? I'm thinking JeHochman might have Durova's marionette-wielding handprints up his backside, that's what I think.
2. Notice the fact that the ranting was eventually disregarded. Miss D's losing her touch. i.e. Credibility. This is a *good* thing.
3. This woman is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. And I reference the logic meltdown in this part of her quote. Looney tune logic.

The question of whether this actually is Kohs or not is beside the point. Either is a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLP and WP:POINT — the only distinction is which clause of the sockpuppet policy is being violated

Clearly, she's frantic in her efforts to attack Kohs, and/or anyone she delusionally suspects to be Kohs. That's fullstop bizarre. Why should she care so much about Kohs? Other than that she lied about him and printed it online to make herself famous by-proxy (which worked for a spell). At this point it is getting a bit old, and her behavior a bit transparent.

Another Question: When in the history of the United States has "making a buck" been a bad thing? Just wondering.

I am schocked! Schocked! at Greg's outgrabeously frumious conduct in slandering the good name of Lackeys the world over!

I am ready to 2nd the e-motion of Disillusioned Lackey — the second DL seize fit to e-mote it — that Greg be Badly Drawn and ¼ed, then banned in ¼'s from this Φorum ¼with and 4ever!

The Burbling And Whiffling Must End Here!

Uffishly Yours,

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 13th November 2007, 11:48am

So he doesn't admit to anything; he just sidesteps the accusation. That's enough to satisfy you and you have no objection to his other actions, or to the offsite harassment this IP editor perpetrated? That's a strange set of priorities. As you might have noticed, I did engage him in dialog and went so far as to unblock one of his accounts last summer so he could pursue arbitration against me. Instead of attempting to open a case, he stalled onsite after he was unblocked and claimed he had no time for that while he had plenty of time to continue making accusations against me at another website. He's rather good at conveying a reasonable and open impression when he wants someone to do something for him. Whether his version of events stands up to scrutiny, or whether he makes good on his assurances, is another matter entirely. I suggest you be less trusting of someone who has been sitebanned for so long, and extend a fair share of good faith toward people whose actions have withstood scrutiny so many times. DurovaCharge! 02:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I make my own choices. Its rather a rock and a hard place being stuck between a self proclaimed "wikipedia investigator" who has shown herself to be rather vindictive at times and a banned user. ViridaeTalk

Oh no. I think that quite soon Viridae can expect some weird, offbeat block for having eroded Miss Diva-rova's ego fest.

And again, she's waddling straightforth into ranting-wacky-lost-my-cookies-land. Any grown-up 3rd party can see this.

You don't see Angela Beesley or Mike Godwin or the new ED of WP behaving like such a cookie. Durova shoots herself in the ass foot over and over.

Durova. If you want a grownup job in an online-related company, you have to make sure to be clear that you won't embarass them before you get hired. Or you won't get hired.

Separation of online-hobby-sadism and work-objectives is highly recommended for the big Ms. D.

Wait a minute. I click the link, and now it's gone? They have even made this one disappear?

Greg

Greg. I linked to the history of the discussion. They archived it, and those archives B hard to find.

pss: Does anyone else notice that Durova has a habit of claiming harassment (or another crime) and mailing the evidence around to prove it?

Earlier, I said Durova was good at propaganda and such, but she really isn't. Sticking to the facts (such as she assumed them to be facts) is not the way to win a case. Prove a theorum, mebbie (but not even there is the full information appreciated). She's TMI woman. All this extra fluff doesn't serve her purposes.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 13th November 2007, 12:13pm

No, I am not selling my services as a Wikipedia administrator. The insinuation is offensive. Physchim, if you ever posed that question to me before I must not have noticed, because I certainly would have clarified it promptly. Please withdraw it. DurovaCharge! 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Selling my Services as a Wikipedia Administrator". Geez. You would think she'd been accused of prostitution.

Does it ever occur to this woman that working for pay is a good thing?

On that note, Hochman has financial ties to SEO, hence his Wikipedia articles are remuneratively linked. Not that it matters much, but for all the wailing about money, he's earning it.

But: why does she continue to act as if serving Jimbo God was just an honor, and to call it paid employment would sully it?

Waiter! (Reality) Check!

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 13th November 2007, 12:28pm

The archive should be the last black number in the appropriate archive box, though sometimes material is mysteriously lost in transit.

Jonny

The archive should be the last black number in the appropriate archive box, though sometimes material is mysteriously lost in transit.

Jonny

Okay, I see that now. But, isn't it a bit unusual to archive a specific discussion from the MIDDLE of the live board, rather than a first-in-first-out process, by date?

I'm really impressed with how SirFozzie came to Durova's and Jehochman's rescue -- striking out the question that asked them to explain their historic lies, then archiving the whole mess. SirFozzie, another WikiSycophant, it would seem.

Greg

No, Just a low tolerance for trolling, Greg.

And no, there's no groundswell of support for your position, Interesting that all of the IP's that you, or whoever was doing your dirty work seem to have been blocked as Tor Proxies huh?

This post has been edited by SirFozzie: Tue 13th November 2007, 2:13pm

The original IP wasn't a TOR proxy. The original IP said things that didn't sound anything like Wikipedia Review. There still hasn't been an explanation why the original IP was blocked, especially as it posted a note claiming to have nothing to do with Wikipedia Review or WR. That all got lost in the madness. It was a plain terrible block and re-block.

Interesting that all of the IP's that you, or whoever was doing your dirty work seem to have been blocked as Tor Proxies huh?