JzG stirs the Durova pot..., Off of his talk page.... Options

* Update: Here's a great example of what I mean: Durova's talk page. Banned editor Gregory Kohs has outed anonymous contributions to a newsletter, and then tried to insinuate that simply writing to SEO people on how not to be spammers is a conflict of interest. It's a bizarre notion. Durova is not paid for this, it's done in order to try to prevent a problem instead of having to spend a lot of time fixing it. And maybe it's levelling the playing field, preventing a few smart SEOs from getting away with something their competitors can't. Peple have fallen for Kohs' line. Kohs is a charming fellow, and very plausible. So people fall for something that's not only not true, it's specifically designed to undermine an admin and at the same time excuse what Kohs did that was wrong, which was blatantly conflicted editing - "if Duriva can do it then why not me?". But Durova has never, to my knowledge, edited for pay. She is, however, one of the most effective rooters-out of abuse on the entire project, and having Durova weakened would be of incalculable benefit to a small group of banned users whose MO she knows well and identifies rapidly and repeatably. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments?

Peple have fallen...

I rise to take exception to being characterized as a 'peple'.

Peple have fallen...

I rise to take exception to being characterized as a 'peple'.

Well, at least he finds Greg to be "charming".

Has JzG asked you your bust size, Greg?

* Update: Here's a great example of what I mean: Durova's talk page. Banned editor Gregory Kohs has outed anonymous contributions to a newsletter, and then tried to insinuate that simply writing to SEO people on how not to be spammers is a conflict of interest. It's a bizarre notion.
Comments?

Dear Mr. JzG:

The main point of Durova/SEO advice concerns how often she is part of wrongfully ruining real reputations (business or otherwise), so her giving SEOs advice is more scary than silly, which it also is. Her unprovoked attack on Greg Kohs, post-actual-incident, was why he picks on her in kind. Which isn't all that difficult, given how conflict prone and hypocritical she is. JeHochman makes money off Wikipedia-related work, as a SEO consultant, and that's why he uses his real name as a login. He's Durova's buttboy knight in shining armor, so Koh's mentions him from time to time. Pointe finale.

Pe(o)ple have fallen for Kohs' line. Kohs is a charming fellow, and very plausible. So people fall for something that's not only not true, it's specifically designed to undermine an admin and at the same time excuse what Kohs did that was wrong, which was blatantly conflicted editing - "if Duriva can do it then why not me?".

Ok, now this is just full of logical errors. But the main issue Kohs ever had with Durova was how she used him as a whipping boy to up her profile. The fact that she's using Wikipedia as a career booster (and if she's not paid, that just makes her sillier), only emboldens her original hypocrisy.

If she'd not attacked Kohs (on wiki and to some reporter), he probably would not care about her. Lots of Wikipedians (and many admins) use Wikipedia for one kind of personal gain or another, and then turn around and attack others for it. I dont see Kohs on a crusade against them. I see him biting Durova back. As well he should. Didnt she libel him to some reporter?

But Durova has never, to my knowledge, edited for pay.

Who said she did? I believe the charge was hypocrisy, as she's clearly self promoting. If she's not paid yet, then she's not successful. I noted, with amusement, her whinging comment that her costs for the SEO trip weren't all covered. Durova, learn to negotiate, milady.

She is, however, one of the most effective rooters-out of abuse on the entire project,

Durova-rooter? That's her name. And away go vandals down the drain. (cue music)

Seriously, when has she attacked any real vandals in the past year? Usually she's in-fighting with Kohs, or accusing people of being someone they are not. I want examples of what she's constructively done to fight vandalism, because I just dont see it. Making noise about fighting vandals != fighting vandals.

and having Durova weakened would be of incalculable benefit to a small group of banned users whose MO she knows well and identifies rapidly and repeatably.

Dude, the person who hurts Durova most (and best) is Durova.

And for what it is worth, she hurts your project. But you know that already, if you know anything.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 13th November 2007, 5:34pm

Let me dismantle that little lecture from Guy Chapman...

* Update: Here's a great example of what I mean: Durova's talk page. Banned editor Gregory Kohs has outed anonymous contributions to a newsletter,

Surely, he's talking about how Durova wrote her nifty SEO white papers, to which I responded. Then some other person came along (going by the name "Durovawatcher") and "outted" her real-name identity (which was already widely attainable elsewhere on the Internet). But, Guy is lazy, so he falsely pins that "outting" on me.

and then tried to insinuate that simply writing to SEO people on how not to be spammers is a conflict of interest. It's a bizarre notion.

No, Guy. I insinuated that after Durova embedded herself with the SEO community, specifically on the issue of what constitutes a conflict of interest, it was a conflict of interest for her to continue to shape and police the evolution of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest (WP:COI) policy. I don't think that's bizarre at all. Why would it be so astounding to expect that the WP:COI policy can continue to be shaped by people who are not bounding about the Internet and the globe, lecturing on that policy?

Durova is not paid for this,

That's her mistake, not mine.

it's done in order to try to prevent a problem instead of having to spend a lot of time fixing it.

How's that workin' for y'all? Seems that when Orbitz came onto "your" encyclopedia and near-perfectly announced how it intended to abide by "your" crazy rules, the Durova-dog Jehochman jumped on banning their account anyway.

And maybe it's levelling the playing field, preventing a few smart SEOs from getting away with something their competitors can't.

And maybe that sentence is very difficult to even comprehend.

Peple have fallen for Kohs' line.

Yes, the truth can be awfully persuasive, can't it?

Kohs is a charming fellow, and very plausible.

That is for certain.

So people fall for something that's not only not true, it's specifically designed to undermine an admin and at the same time excuse what Kohs did that was wrong, which was blatantly conflicted editing - "if Duriva can do it then why not me?".

What I did, at the time I was doing it, was not "wrong". That's painful for Guy to realize, but it's absolutely true. See my signature for the logic. Besides, what is to prevent someone from using the Reward Board to get paid editing executed within Wikipedia? Heck, someone even used the Reward Board to coax a new article about Jimbo's failed Openserving.com project! Guy won't talk about the Reward Board, though. Since Wikipediots dreamed it up, it must be a good thing. Since I dreamed up Wikipedia Review, it must be a bad thing.

But Durova has never, to my knowledge, edited for pay.

Reflects on her narrow range of vision, I'd say.

She is, however, one of the most effective rooters-out of abuse on the entire project,

O RLY? You would think that she could find the outrageous vandalistic abuse that has been nestled for half a year in one of her favorite articles on Wikipedia, then, wouldn't you? I guess zoophilia doesn't register on her "complex investigation" regimen.

and having Durova weakened would be of incalculable benefit to a small group of banned users whose MO she knows well and identifies rapidly and repeatably. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree with this. Were Durova to disappear, I think we banned users would be thoroughly disappointed. Her M.O. is what is rapidly and repeatably destroying Wikipedia from within. I strongly endorse Durova for ArbCom, and I very much look forward to her continued co-mingling with the SEO and YouTube communities.

Greg

Let me get this straight. Wikipedia has a system that supports anonymous people (who could be working for corporations, governments, etc) giving money to wikipedia editors to add content to subjects the donors request ? (see Koh's Rewards Board link in his signature).

Um, how is that different than what Koh's deal is ?

I'm not advocating Koh's paid editing biz. Or dissing it. I'm questioning, yet again, the sheer lunacy of the WP:TWO FACED IDIOTS.

That goes back to the Jayjg-SlimVirgin backing the Chip Berlet show on Wikipedia. I was stunned when these same people banned Mark Devlin for much less than what they backed Berlet for doing.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Tue 13th November 2007, 6:03pm