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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

There oughta be a public service ad campain for that —

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

This is your brain on Durova …

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

This is your brain on Durova …

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Pretty High-Larry-Ous …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A comment like this is apt only if:

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

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

Short Answer —

Somebody else's site ???

SOMEBODY ELSE'S SITE ?????

Out of the mouths of b00b's …

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me too.

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

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

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

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

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

Whose afraid of that Mickey Mouse outfit?

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

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

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

Whose afraid of that Mickey Mouse outfit?

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

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

CODE

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What rule did Sophie break ??? —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I completely disagree with anyone breaking laws in protest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is just bullshit stupidity anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

I completely disagree with anyone breaking laws in protest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

What rule did Sophie break ??? —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure Dan.

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

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

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

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

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

That's it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

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

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

We don't break any of Wikipedia's rules

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

We don't break any of Wikipedia's rules

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I am like as a manager:

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

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

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

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

So basically you are saying that you are a Karl Rove. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

If so, which one is Valerie Plame? Durova or Slimv?

(answer: neither)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

So basically you are saying that you are a Karl Rove. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I don't know who that is. I keep thinking Rove McManus, but I know that Karl Rove must be some American celebrity that has nothing like that.

Nah, I'm just not pushy enough to be a manager. I am so prone to power trips that it's scary. I am always having to stop myself. All that it would take would be for me to feel for some reason that I was justified in a massive power trip and all hell would break loose.

Disagree with me? You get a few goes, but after a while tough luck mate you're banned. Try to annoy me? Banned. Just say something that I take the wrong way? Banned. Any time I tell someone to fuck off, that's basically a threat that next time, you're banned.

Unless of course I'm trying hard not to power trip, which is actually what happens because I know I'm a sucky manager. Which then means that you've got me constantly second guessing myself, and incapable of making any firm decisions.

Don't anyone ever consider nominating me for adminship anywhere. I'll only accept it if everyone is an admin.

Even if someone sold me a Wikipedia admin thing, well, I'd probably use it to fiddle around with some things, but I wouldn't honestly be able to keep it for long. Once I've checked out some things, I'd sell it to someone else. I just don't trust myself with such things.

Nominate me for adminship, and I'll go through the whole thing giving you reasons why you should not vote for me. If I even got one support vote, I'd criticise that person and say well why do you think I'd be any good? Do you just vote support in the hope that I'll support you?

I probably should have accepted that nomination for adminship on Wikipedia, come to think of it. Would have been funny.

Duh-Rove-A?

Read that with a Bob-&-Doug (Mac ! Kenzie) accent …

Coincidence ? I don't think so !

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

PS. My 2^11 th post !!!

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

So basically you are saying that you are a Karl Rove. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I don't know who that is. I keep thinking Rove McManus, but I know that Karl Rove must be some American celebrity that has nothing like that.

Karl Rove was arguably one of the most powerful men in the U.S. until last week, certainly one of the most powerful people in the White House, other than Dick Cheney and the big guy. He organized Bush's rise to power in Texas, and was his chief political strategist, and is largely credited with Bush winning his 2nd term, in the face of not great popularity.

Karl Rove is huge in US politics. He was often called "Bush's Brain". And he fits right into your analogy of liking to be no. 2, and placing the power in everyone else's hands and manipulating it. That's what he did. Unfortunately, he did it a bit too much, and he's left quite a muddle. Just this week.

About my joke about outing spies (Durova or Slim). Rove 'out'ed Valerie Plame, the U.S. spy as payback to her husband for rebutted the Bush's (16 words speech) to Congress justifying the Iraq invasion in 2003. Wilson said that Bush was wrong, in an op-ed to the New York Times, called "What I Didn't Find in Africa", Plame's husband, Joe Wilson (a former Ambassador and diplomat) had been sent to investigate the Niger yellowcake Iraq rumor, and found it to be false. So he wrote the article and his spy-wife was outed to the press by Rove.

Hence my joke about 'outing' spies (which you didn't catch).


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Hey hey hey I didn't say I liked to manipulate people. I like to help people. There's a difference. Isn't there? Now I'm all offended. But its better than being called a nazi.

Oh and sorry but stuff like that, about US internal politics, doesn't generally make the news over here, in a whole other country. Do you want me to tell you about Australian internal politics? I'm sure it'd bore you just as much.

I actually might surprise you with what I know about Australian politics. But no matter.

Many people outside the US know about Karl Rove. He was a regular name in the FT and the IHT. He's on the cover of both today. If he's not on the cover of next week's Economist, there will be a huge article about him there.

The comment about manipulating people was a joke. You aren't anything like Karl Rove, other than that you said you like to promote other people than yourself. Which is very Rove like.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Duh-Rove-A?

Read that with a Bob-&-Doug (Mac ! Kenzie) accent …

Coincidence ? I don't think so !

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

LOL.

Do you know what the 3 major election issues are right now?

1) "Child abuse in Aboriginal communities"
2) Australia having thoroughly inadequate internet and falling far behind the rest of the world
3) Unions and work reform

I can bet that none of that is remotely interesting to anyone outside of Australia.

Just saying that that's why I don't know much about US internal policies. I am only interested in US foreign policy, because that's when it affects me.

Do you know what the 3 major election issues are right now?

1) "Child abuse in Aboriginal communities"
2) Australia having thoroughly inadequate internet and falling far behind the rest of the world
3) Unions and work reform

I can bet that none of that is remotely interesting to anyone outside of Australia.

Just saying that that's why I don't know much about US internal policies. I am only interested in US foreign policy, because that's when it affects me.

Karl Rove did affect you. He had more bearing on US foreign policy than did Condoleeza Rice. She was just the messenger. Rove and Cheney were by far the most powerful in there. For a time, also Rumsfeld, and Feith.

But anyways. This was out of a joke, from you saying you liked to promote the other guy to be the more powerful. That was my point in bringing it up.

Anyway I hijacked this thread because I don't really understand it lol.

Anyway I hijacked this thread because I don't really understand it lol.

Don't feel bad. Durova is the queen of the complex investigation. Hence complicated. This vibe probably emanated from the thread, and confused you.

It happens.

(IMG:http://www.sitepronews.com/images/cover-0809.gif)

She has that effect on people.

The woman in that image looks suspiciously like Lucille Ball.
(Probably is)

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

The thing is, Wikipedia's tagline is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". What about that tagline suggests that someone with a vested interest in a subject cannot edit on it?

Another thing is, Wikipedia has perhaps 100,000 words dedicated to rules and guidelines. Is the typical newbie expected to read all of those before he starts exercising his right to edit, as mandated by the tagline?

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser:

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

Because it bears repeating, Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. All the sites you mention above are social networking sites, or news sites with reader commentary. Wikipedia doesn't give an honest impression of itself, in addition to hiding the rules from users, and hiding the rules from new users is a strategy per Jimbo's listserver message October 2001.

The thing is, Wikipedia's tagline is "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit". What about that tagline suggests that someone with a vested interest in a subject cannot edit on it?

There's nothing clear on that point - which was my point exactly. You can't possibly find out about COI, unless you are a total daily hanger-on-wanna-be-social-networking-site person (oops, I mean a daily editor), or unless you violate it.

But to be fair (and I'm always fair to Wikipedia), I think that "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a better tagline than,

"The FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA that lets you edit anything you don't CARE about, KNOW about or WORK with, AND ONLY IF you don't revert an edit three times, remain civil, and don't make personal attacks or legal threats.

Not very catchy. They'd have to spin it a bit for flavor...

Otherwise the naked honesty of that byline would drive away most of the free labor. If you know what I mean...

Another thing is, Wikipedia has perhaps 100,000 words dedicated to rules and guidelines. Is the typical newbie expected to read all of those before he starts exercising his right to edit, as mandated by the tagline?

Greg

I don't think it is out of the question to have a top 10 list of don't do items, and to ask all editors to read a page, and click "do you understand this yes/no" to enter the site for the first time. It would solve a lot of problems, which stem from newbie attacks by jaded admins who think that anyone who steps out of line is an evildoer.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

The woman in that image looks suspiciously like Lucille Ball.
(Probably is)

Lucille AND her ball.

Actually taken from the Sitepro version of the article "Is Wikipedia Corrupt?" starring Durova as the main corrupt admin.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Another thing is, Wikipedia has perhaps 100,000 words dedicated to rules and guidelines. Is the typical newbie expected to read all of those before he starts exercising his right to edit, as mandated by the tagline?

Greg

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

The woman in that image looks suspiciously like Lucille Ball.
(Probably is)

I thought for a second that it was the McDonald's clown. What was his name again?

I thought for a second that it was the McDonald's clown. What was his name again?

That would be Durova.

Or Jimbo Macdonald.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Ronald McDonald? Not quite though.

It's Lucy..everyone loves Lucy..

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

No where, no how, is it stated that you have to read the NPOV policy. This is a rule that people throw at you when they criticize you, or (worse) are attacking your edits. I never had a problem with NPOV, personally, but many people do.

Okay how about this idea:

As a new user, when you sign up for your account, it gives you a list of "Do you agree to these terms?" and you have to click "Yes" and then you immediately have a message in your talk page to state what the 10 main rules are:

Creating articles:

1) Notability - all articles must be on subjects that are suitably notable, and worth having in an encyclopedia
2) Not libelous for living persons - when writing about living persons, be extra sure that there is nothing negative without very clear proof that it is accepted as fact

Editing:

3) NPOV - you must only edit about things that you can write neutrally about, displaying no bias whatsoever.
4) Verifiability - whatever you say must be provable by a link to a respected online site

Don't dos with editing:

5) Vandalism - don't blank a page, make deliberately false claims in a page (e.g. saying that someone has died when they haven't), or significantly alter a page with nonsense
6) Sock puppets - don't have more than one account, unless there is a clear reason to, and in these cases clearly identify that they are both you
7) Don't revert 3 times in a row - Try to establish a middle ground with the user. If you revert their edits 3 times in a row, you can be blocked for 24 hours.

Behaviour with other editors:

8) Assume Good Faith - if in doubt, always assume that everyone is acting responsibly
9) Civility and respect - don't swear, put other editors down, or otherwise be mean to anyone for any reason
10) No legal threats - don't suggest, hint or say anything related to an accusation that anyone might have broken any law, regardless of whether they have. Make all claims outside of Wikipedia's main area
11) Don't harass - as with anywhere else, don't bother other editors who for whatever reason don't want to talk to you. Don't follow them around, don't edit the same articles as them, and if they ask you not to send you messages, then don't.

And a special one:

12) Don't link to attack sites - Any site which may mention a Wikipedia editor by their real name, or otherwise be used to criticise or suggest that anyone on Wikipedia is anything other than perfect is described as an attack site. Consistently linking to attack sites is grounds for being blocked.

And lucky number 13

13) Always sign your comments! Use ~~~~ after everything you've written.

That seems to be basically it, from my understanding of how Wikipedia works.

"The 13 main rules of Wikipedia" doesn't seem very catchy though.

And really, for all anonymous edits, this should come up for every time that they try to edit, as a little warning, with links to every step.

Or perhaps even just a link that says "Remember the 13 rules of Wikipedia editing - click here if you've forgotten". That'd do. Enough people would click that if they were unsure.

Wikipedia could relatively easily embed that in each and every page. Link to a general rules page, which in turn links to each of the individual rules, which in turn links to more obscure rules.

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

No where, no how, is it stated that you have to read the NPOV policy. This is a rule that people throw at you when they criticize you, or (worse) are attacking your edits. I never had a problem with NPOV, personally, but many people do.

I know, what I mean is that those who are really on Wikipedia to write an encyclopedia in truly good faith only need NPOV as a guide, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

I disagree with this. First off, I've stated that I disagree with NPOV, and I think that it should be replaced with Expert editors, and perhaps a mediator to handle all of the expert points of view, with people's biases being made clear, rather than hidden.

But beyond this, many of Wikipedia's rules are far from "common sense". Their rule on legal threats flies in the face of the rules on practically everywhere else in the planet. I did say before that "nowhere else" has it, but apparently 1 or 2 places do now. So I will say that 99% or perhaps 98% of places allow legal threats, and indeed encourage them in the right place. On the internet, in real life, legal threats are important. Ask any lawyer. For someone to automatically realise that by suggesting that something that someone else has done is illegal is grounds for a ban is preposterous. Who would know that? And it would be absurd too. If someone has libelled you, do you think it is normal practise for you to be banned for being libelled? Hell no. You'd expect that in most places it is normal practise for the libeller to be banned and their libellous information to be forever purged from the system. That's the normal way that things work. But Wikipedia is quite different in this regards.

A number of Wikipedia's rules are so unusual that if anyone describes them as "common sense" I'd have to ask them if they are used to living on Venus or Mars, or perhaps Jupiter, because they sure as hell aren't normal rules for anyone living here on Earth!

NPOV policy was the only reason I stayed on Wikipedia because I loved the concept. That policy is the closest to perfect that one could come up with. The problem is malicious editors not that policy.

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

I disagree with this. First off, I've stated that I disagree with NPOV, and I think that it should be replaced with Expert editors, and perhaps a mediator to handle all of the expert points of view, with people's biases being made clear, rather than hidden.

But beyond this, many of Wikipedia's rules are far from "common sense". Their rule on legal threats flies in the face of the rules on practically everywhere else in the planet. I did say before that "nowhere else" has it, but apparently 1 or 2 places do now. So I will say that 99% or perhaps 98% of places allow legal threats, and indeed encourage them in the right place. On the internet, in real life, legal threats are important. Ask any lawyer. For someone to automatically realise that by suggesting that something that someone else has done is illegal is grounds for a ban is preposterous. Who would know that? And it would be absurd too. If someone has libelled you, do you think it is normal practise for you to be banned for being libelled? Hell no. You'd expect that in most places it is normal practise for the libeller to be banned and their libellous information to be forever purged from the system. That's the normal way that things work. But Wikipedia is quite different in this regards.

A number of Wikipedia's rules are so unusual that if anyone describes them as "common sense" I'd have to ask them if they are used to living on Venus or Mars, or perhaps Jupiter, because they sure as hell aren't normal rules for anyone living here on Earth!

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

This makes too much sense though, and you know they wouldn't go for that based on that basis. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Okay how about this idea:

As a new user, when you sign up for your account, it gives you a list of "Do you agree to these terms?" and you have to click "Yes" and then you immediately have a message in your talk page to state what the 10 main rules are:

*snip*

Do you know what the 3 major election issues are right now?

1) "Child abuse in Aboriginal communities"
2) Australia having thoroughly inadequate internet and falling far behind the rest of the world
3) Unions and work reform

I can bet that none of that is remotely interesting to anyone outside of Australia.

Just saying that that's why I don't know much about US internal policies. I am only interested in US foreign policy, because that's when it affects me.

Karl Rove did affect you. He had more bearing on US foreign policy than did Condoleeza Rice. She was just the messenger. Rove and Cheney were by far the most powerful in there. For a time, also Rumsfeld, and Feith.

But anyways. This was out of a joke, from you saying you liked to promote the other guy to be the more powerful. That was my point in bringing it up.

Australia falling behind the rest iof the world in interent. lol that is the most ridiculous assertion I have heard here since....well since the latest Slim conspiracy theory. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Wow, what a thread! Philosophy of ethics, history, and Australian politics all in one place. Now, on to the obvious Durova commentary:

Durova is interesting because of the high profile that she has acquired for herself. I have no idea who she is, but anyone that utters the phrase "complex investigation" in relation to Wikipedia, or anything for that matter, raises all kinds of flags for me. Reading her articles, I cannot help but feel bad for her, because she evidently thinks she is doing something hugely important. I have no idea who she is, but it does appear that this is a job to Durova.

I remember Durova commenting on the latest SlimVirgin "scandal", saying that it was entirely different because she had called for Essjay's resignation as soon as it happened. What she doesn't realize is others filled that role. She is very full of herself.

She reminds me very much of User:Zoe, who ended her "career" in a very entertaining way, to me at least. I predict a similar scenario for Durova. What she doesn't know is when she is finally driven off, some other asshole (a term of endearment) will be there that is very happy to fill her role.

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

There oughta be a public service ad campain for that —

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

This is your brain on Durova …

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

That's so correct, and cute humor (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif).

Australia falling behind the rest iof the world in interent. lol that is the most ridiculous assertion I have heard here since....well since the latest Slim conspiracy theory. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Squeakbox, do you deny that SlimVirgin is Linda Mack of King's College Cambridge who worked for Pierre Salinger? Do you deny that two people have named her as an intelligence agent? A conspiracy theory is something that cannot be backed by evidence and both those things can be.

Australia falling behind the rest iof the world in interent. lol that is the most ridiculous assertion I have heard here since....well since the latest Slim conspiracy theory. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

I'll be more specific.

From 1992-1995, Australia was ranked around 3rd or 4th in the world in terms of fastest internet speeds, number of people on the internet, internet commerce and so forth.

John Howard's liberal party took over government in 1995.

Today, in 2007, Australia is ranked worse than 100th in the world, in all of those terms.

Australia has a far lower than normal level of people who have an internet connection, and most people have dialup, rather than broadband. Of those that do have broadband, it is significantly more expensive, and slower than other places in the world.

Many economists have suggested that this will lead to Australia becoming very poor in the future.

Of course, some people suggest that just because Australia is so backward in terms of internet doesn't necessarily mean anything bad at all. It certainly has gotten significantly worse in the time that John Howard's liberal party has been in power.

My Fave Duh-Rov-Ism

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

Reading [Durova's] articles, I cannot help but feel bad for her, because she evidently thinks she is doing something hugely important. I have no idea who she is, but it does appear that this is a job to Durova.

I think the answer can be found your own words below: "She is very full of herself". Part of why she's attaching so much time to Wikipedia is that she thinks that it is important, and also because she is an attention-lover (remember, she originally wanted to be in the film industry) but also probably because she takes herself Far.Too.Seriously. If she's have made it into the film industry (also known as "the business" to insiders") she'd have driven people (even in there) nuts with her self-aggrandizement.

This isn't what bugs me about her. What bugs me about her is how destructive she is, and how unaware of how destructive she is (perhaps she thinks the ends justify the means).

Evidence here her self-perception:

Whenever I look into a case I examine both sides. If things look muddy there are three basic possibilities:

• Everyone's covered themselves in mud.
• A primary aggressor is all muddy and goaded some otherwise reasonable person into wading knee deep in the mud.
• Some really dirty person is slinging mud at a saint.

I come along and try to clean things up. I'll follow the mud tracks and read the mud splatters to see how things got dirty. I'll also offer people a hose so they can wash off the mud. What I like to see most is people sharing the hose with each other. That doesn't happen in a whole lot of dirty situations so the next best thing is to see someone clean up himself or herself. The primary aggressors usually wade right back into the mud and the worst ones start slinging again. One thing that interests me at this stage is how willing each participant is to accept feedback, adjust, and proceed cooperatively. . Durova Charge! 10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've watched Durova walk up to a mud-fight. Many, many times. Know what she does? Durova observes the mud fest, then with quiet malevolence, pulls out a carving knife, gores out the intestines of the one she is SURE was responsible (based on a knee-jerk 'complex analysis') and then walk away in abject self-satisfaction. No hose required.

Durova intellectualizes her behavior to the extent that her truly violent actions are justified as calm, rational maneuvers. I find this disturbing.

I remember Durova commenting on the latest SlimVirgin "scandal", saying that it was entirely different because she had called for Essjay's resignation as soon as it happened. What she doesn't realize is others filled that role. She is very full of herself.

Yes, and she's also full of other things. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I don't remember her asking for his resignation, but I remember her writing on his talk page that he should rejoin wikipedia, and she's happily sponsor his RFA. What a pompous ass she is, huh? This really is a pattern with her: come join Wikipedia, and flourish under my wing, my child. She's become so deluded as to now suppose that Congressional staffers will buy into this offer. She isn't even aware that they don't have the time for meddling with Wikipedia. Shes so self-centered she guesses that she has the time, so everyone else must also.

[Durova] reminds me very much of User:Zoe, who ended her "career" in a very entertaining way, to me at least. I predict a similar scenario for Durova. What she doesn't know is when she is finally driven off, some other asshole (a term of endearment) will be there that is very happy to fill her role.

Ah Zoe. The departing words on the talk page:

Jimbo accused me of having a vendetta against Mr. Pierce. Such an attack is too much for me to endure. I have loved my time at Wikipedia, but I do not feel that I can continue here. Goodbye. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly Jimbo accused Zoe of attacking Mr. Pierce in the study with a carving knife. (Clue?)

No, unfortunately, I don't see our tragic heroine as departing in a huff. Not Durova style really. She's already licked J-man's boots and sucked up enough to the Foundation so that they feel comfortable enough to refer interviews to her. She's a menace, but unfortunately, one who's not going to stomp off anytime soon.

What could cause her to bow out is the final sad realization that Jimbo won't hire her. She's far too polemical and combative to ever be hired at Wikia or the Foundation. She's trying so hard to be VERY PUBLIC ABOUT HOW PROFESSIONAL SHE IS, but it is coupled with an aggressiveness and inner anger (rage?) that sort of wrecks it all. Gets in her own way like that.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

My Fave Duh-Rov-Ism

Mental illness and other cognitive handicaps are usually irrelevant for administrative purposes.

— Durova

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

Jesus. You've just given me my new by-line. Thanks!

She keeps getting scarier and scarier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...dminship/Durova 2006-10-12

I've answered all questions now. And although I'd love to see Australia I've never had the chance. When I was on deployment in the Navy we almost went to Darwin, but plans changed and we visited Palau instead. Regards, Durova 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova/Archive11 2006-11-24

I joined the United States Navy because my uncle survived the World Trade Center from a high floor. Don't give me too much credit: I count as a veteran of the Global War on Terrorism but didn't see actual combat. During one of my deployments, though, my ship saved 113 civilian lives. DurovaCharge! 02:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ust/078575.html 2007-08-02

I'm a war veteran. I've owned a Harley-Davidson and I've handled live rattlesnakes and I've saved an apartment building from burning down. I've even survived being struck by lightning.

What will be her next quote? Can she top the last one?

I'm a war veteran. I've owned a Harley-Davidson and I've handled live rattlesnakes and I've saved an apartment building from burning down. I've even survived being struck by lightning .

What will be her next quote? Can she top the last one?

God in heaven.

Forget the jokes about Durova being on crack. What about crystal meth?

(on another note: it seems a shame the woman didn't follow through on her film career. She's have been an amazing resource for planning an action movie. Her creative skills are going to waste on Wikipedia, clearly).

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I wrote Durova an e-mail. If she replies, I'll post it here. I am quite frankly sick to death of people misrepresenting Wikipedia Review.

I wrote Durova an e-mail. If she replies, I'll post it here. I am quite frankly sick to death of people misrepresenting Wikipedia Review.

Oh now there's an idea. Ask the crazy lady who offers everyone help for help. She'll offer you a deal, ask you to redact everything about her from Wikipedia Review, and then backstab you at the first available juncture. Better to send an email to Brandt and ask him what he thinks about asking Durova for help.

If you think she'll be happy about how people are lampooning her 'serious professional efforts to clean up the Wikipedia environment', I rather think not. At this point, her terms will be harsh, if she even offers to negotiate with you. And she's unreliable (see:Brandt). In short, a complete win-lose proposition, for you, her favor.

Are you just looking for trouble, Blissy? Because communicating or cooperating with that woman will give you that - in truckloads. Or maybe you are bored and want some drama. She'll supply that too. Free of charge.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Ok, I've watched Durova walk up to a mud-fight. Many, many times. Know what she does? Durova observes the mud fest, then with quiet malevolence, pulls out a carving knife, gores out the intestines of the one she is SURE was responsible (based on a knee-jerk 'complex analysis') and then walk away in abject self-satisfaction. No hose required.

Absolutely brilliant assessment, Lackey. That paragraph was perfection.

Greg

I wrote Durova an e-mail. If she replies, I'll post it here. I am quite frankly sick to death of people misrepresenting Wikipedia Review.

Durova Is People ???

No, Soylent Green Is People !!!

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

Ok, I've watched Durova walk up to a mud-fight. Many, many times. Know what she does? Durova observes the mud fest, then with quiet malevolence, pulls out a carving knife, gores out the intestines of the one she is SURE was responsible (based on a knee-jerk 'complex analysis') and then walk away in abject self-satisfaction. No hose required.

Absolutely brilliant assessment, Lackey. That paragraph was perfection.

Greg

I actually had you in mind as one of the "gutless victims" (pardon the pun), but I didn't want to "muddy the water" with details of specific cases.

What's your take on Durova's scintillatingly-un-self-aware self-analysis, Kohser?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Prediction: Durova will end up leaving Wikipedia within six months, after offering up her version of an "Essjay swan song."

What, you don't remember Essjay's swan song? Let me remind you:

That may be influenced, however, by the large number of such email I receive: surprisingly enough, nearly every checkusered user emails to inform me of his or her innocence and/or offer a brilliantly graphic explanation of how they would like to exact thier revenge on me and/or my family. (I could share highlights if you're interested; I get five or six each week that are quite inventive in thier ideas on torture.) Perhaps my skepticism with the 150 emails I get each day comes from two years and 10,000 checkuser's worth of death threats (~10 a week), torture monologues (~5 a week), and legal threats (~40-50 week), added on top of the remainder that are only generally belligerent and filled with personal attacks. With the myriad of venues available to blocked users, including contacting the blocking admin, unblock-en-l, editing thier talk page, emailing the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo (who unsurprisingly gets several thousand emails each day; I don't think I saw him ever stop going through emails today), I feel I'm justified in answering clearly on my talk page and archiving the emails. Essjay (Talk) 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, 10 death threats a week, 5 torture monologues a week, 40-50 legal threats a week. And I thought I was an Internet activist! I've been on the Internet since 1995 and my score is zero, zero, zero. (And those zeros are not per week, but my cumulative 12-year total.)

(Or could it be that Essjay was making this stuff up? I've heard a rumor that he was inclined to misrepresent himself.)

If I got even one a week of any description, I'd start some self-criticism and evaluate whether I'm doing something wrong.

Wow, 10 death threats a week, 5 torture monologues a week, 40-50 legal threats a week. And I thought I was an Internet activist! I've been on the Internet since 1995 and my score is zero, zero, zero. (And those zeros are not per week, but my cumulative 12-year total.)

If I got even one a week of any description, I'd start some self-criticism and evaluate whether I'm doing something wrong.

I think you weren't pissing enough people off, Daniel. Since that wasn't your goal, then good on you.

Wikipedia admins often get death threats. It isn't fiction, though I'm sure it is overdramatized. To be honest, I think that lots of them provoke it (threats) with their behavior, but being completely un-self-aware, don't understand how, causing them to become more paranoid and distrustful and mean - leading to further death threats. Durova (and probably Essjay) are definitely such cases.

Remember, Essjay didn't quit because of death threats. He quit because Jimbo fired him and he was shamed in print worldwide in his real name.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

You've done well never to get any e-mail death threats. I think I'm up to about 30 or 40 all up. I did get about 20 in a week at one stage, when one particular web site (that which I name so much its boring) decided to "suggest" to their readers to send me death threats.

I have, however, only ever had 2 that actually led to them doing anything in person about it. Both cases ended up at the police station.

I wouldn't say that Essjay is necessarily lying, no. It might be an exaggeration, but he probably did get death threats. However you managed to avoid them, you've done well. Perhaps you should write a book on how you managed to avoid them.

What's your take on Durova's scintillatingly-un-self-aware self-analysis, Kohser?

I prefer not to add anything more on this subject, as I've said plenty all over the Internet. Now that Durova's real identity has been "outed" by the mainstream media, I have to watch what I say about her as a person, rather than the "Wikipedia character" that she used to be. I really don't want to end up in court -- too busy enjoying my career and life in general. I simply wish she would either redact or more fully provide evidence for her statement that I have "given misleading information to journalists".

I will say this -- for all her trumpeting about how great she is at "complex investigations", there is an outlandish editorial vandalism on one of her absolute favorite Wikipedia articles that has gone unnoticed for several months. I guess businesses should take a lesson from that -- "don't edit Wikipedia yourselves, one of our expert editors or administrators will be along in 3 to 6 months to manage your article in a more professional manner than you could ever hope to."

Greg

What's your take on Durova's scintillatingly-un-self-aware self-analysis, Kohser?

I prefer not to add anything more on this subject, as I've said plenty all over the Internet. Now that Durova's real identity has been "outed" by the mainstream media, I have to watch what I say about her as a person, rather than the "Wikipedia character" that she used to be. I really don't want to end up in court -- too busy enjoying my career and life in general. I simply wish she would either redact or more fully provide evidence for her statement that I have "given misleading information to journalists".

I will say this -- for all her trumpeting about how great she is at "complex investigations", there is an outlandish editorial vandalism on one of her absolute favorite Wikipedia articles that has gone unnoticed for several months. I guess businesses should take a lesson from that -- "don't edit Wikipedia yourselves, one of our expert editors or administrators will be along in 3 to 6 months to manage your article in a more professional manner than you could ever hope to."

Greg

That's weak revenge Kohser, weak revenge.

Still, the thought of her scurrying to check all her favorite articles is pleasant. Better yet if there is no vandalism, and you make her nuts looking for it. Ok, good enough. Durova isn't a good investigator. She should take Goodfaith's advice, and go get a life and stop being an obsessive busybody. Isn't making her happy (us neither).

I think we all need to breathe a sigh of relief that Durova didn't go into politics or government. She has the personality for it. Its the same personality that is attracted to film work (which is why you get such a crossover between the two). Now Durova in the movies isn't such a bad thing. She'd be great for unbelievable dramatic stuff. But if she'd gone into government, she'd be doing complex investigating, writing nice reports, and coming out with conclusions that were completely wrong, and pushing the powerful guys until the made war with her bad conclusions. Of course, that's how Doug Feith got the United States into the Iraq War 2003, but Durova could have done far worse damage. Better she sit fallow as a film production assistant or computer tech support back in LA. Far less dangerous.

She also would have been a good candidate for spy. She's all the right contacts - Navy experience could have shot her into the intelligence arm of the DoD. The reason I think she's not intelligence is that she's been calling the press so completely obviously. It is too Slimvirgin-ish. Too amateur, and attention-seeking to be a pro.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I actually like what we know about Durova. She is strong-willed, has a righteous purpose, is trying to be noble and true and fighting the good fight.

The problem that I see with all of this is that she is completely and utterly blind. For one thing, protecting SlimVirgin from being outed when it is already in the mass media is somewhat blind, to say the least. Secondly, going after Wikipedia Review and accusing them of being stalkers and harassers, because we stopped someone who Wikipedia had allowed in, who was a stalker and harasser, is just simply wrong.

We could use having someone like Durova on our side. She just needs to be educated a bit.

With the right arguments, I think that she could be convinced. And from what we know about her she would be willing to listen.

Worst comes to worst, well, at least it'll put that idea in to her head, and perhaps that idea will sprout a seed, and so forth.

I know, I know, I'm all naive and idealistic, but you know, I've been through heaps of stuff that makes me laugh at her "boasting" on there. And if she's really been through that much stuff, she should relate.

I'll post any replies I get here.

Bliss.

What I like about you is your optimism. And what frightens me about you is your optimism.

People like Durova don't deal with you in a straightforward manner. They are, shall we say "complex".

An well-intended direct approach, with someone like Durova is all wrong. First of all, you are "the enemy" and part of a site that has attacked her. So for starters, she'll never trust you, and always seek to kick you down.

Most importantly, someone with her personality thinks that anyone who talks straight (even innocently) has an ulterior motive. When she/they find out that your approach was truly innocent and well-meaning, they will take you for a fool and exploit you for all they can get.

She did that with Daniel's temporal good faith, though he had her on a short string, and didn't give her much to play with. You don't have Daniel's moxie in this area - you are too trusting, and for that, she'll take you to the cleaners. I would guess that she'd demand changes to WR, as well as for you to leak WR info; please remember I said that when she asks you. And that's only IF she bothers to respond.

Abusers don't like to be informed that they are abusing. To them, they see your valid points as abusive - to them. They've built a complicated self-system for removing awareness, and you really expect them to thank you for seeking to open their eyes to that they have done bad things? No way. You say your Dad is a clinical psychotherapist, then why not go have a talk with him about how easy it is to change such people. My guess is that he'll say "Changing abusive people who are perfectly happy with themselves is impossible". Even if Durova arrived wet, cold, shaking and sobbing on your doorstep, begging for you to help her, she probably still wouldn't be able change. And I don't see her knocking...

Bliss, I hope that you can get over that these people will never, ever like you. The most you can expect from them is respect. And begging them to like you, by 'showing them the truth' of who you are, of what WR is, will only garner their derision, not their respect.

This is painful for you, but good for you too. You'll someday realize that you shouldn't care if certain people don't like you. You are taking non-judgementality to the extreme of refusing to see people for who they are. It is good sense to distance yourself from people whos behavior you don't agree with, or respect, or approve of. You're not there yet, but then you are young.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Actually my dad is a child psychologist, but I think he's got a bunch of other qualifications on top of that, so he might be a clinical psychologist too. I'm not quite sure. It's not really all that important to me. And he doesn't like to talk about such things as you suggested, so I wouldn't get an answer out of him. That's work stuff, he'd say, and say that if I want to know I'd have to pay him $100/hr like everyone else. LOL.

Anyway I have never talked to Durova before, and I always give people a fresh start, and I try to be positive with them. If she is like me, then she'll give me a fresh start. Perhaps she won't be too happy that I've e-mailed her without invitation, but she might talk to me.

And furthermore, it doesn't matter what demands she makes of me because I have no power over WR, so it doesn't really matter. She can ask me to redact everything, but its not my choice to make. If she presents a good argument, I may well copy that argument. And we may well agree to do certain redactions based on the quality of that argument. Current policy here seems to be a bit uncertain about that kind of thing. We are currently according to polls 50/50 in terms of whether or not we should "out" people using this forum. I think right now we are saying that we shouldn't, unless they are already outed elsewhere or are a public figure, or its relevant to do so. Randomly saying "Durova is Lisa Smith who works at Viacom" would be redacted or moved to a private forum.

'Thu 16th August 2007, 9:24am' post='43326']
Actually my dad is a child psychologist, but I think he's got a bunch of other qualifications on top of that, so he might be a clinical psychologist too. I'm not quite sure. It's not really all that important to me. And he doesn't like to talk about such things as you suggested, so I wouldn't get an answer out of him. That's work stuff, he'd say, and say that if I want to know I'd have to pay him $100/hr like everyone else. LOL.

I beg to differ. Give him a shot. Tell him you have a problem or that you don't understand how some people are acting, and you need his advice as a Dad. Being a child psychologist on top of being a clinical psychologist, on top of being a caring father, probably makes him the best source of advice on people's motives in the world.

'Thu 16th August 2007, 9:24am' post='43326']
Anyway I have never talked to Durova before, and I always give people a fresh start, and I try to be positive with them. If she is like me, then she'll give me a fresh start. Perhaps she won't be too happy that I've e-mailed her without invitation, but she might talk to me.

You can do what you want to, but I do wish you'd expend your energy with new friends, and ones who don't have a history of hurting people, and backdealing.

'Thu 16th August 2007, 9:24am' post='43326']
And furthermore, it doesn't matter what demands she makes of me because I have no power over WR, so it doesn't really matter.

This is what is disturbing. There are myriad ways to manipulate people and cause damage. If she doesn't take you up on your outrageously generous offer to run ripshod through your mind and whatever else, the next person you make this offer to will. Just remember what I said, Bliss. Offering goodness with an open heart to people who have a poor history probably won't heal them. You aren't Jesus Christ who can heal them with your goodness (I'm not mocking you here, Bliss, because that is what you are offering them). Doing this can eat up your goodness and make you bitter. That's just one way they can hurt you, without a tangible effect on WR, or anything else.

On top of it all, you are devalue yourself in this exercise, as well as in your writing here, to me/us. "She can't hurt me, because I don't matter". That's just an observation. I hope you'll get to the point where you see that you do matter, and you deserve protection. Self-protection.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I'm a bit confused. Durova was instrumental in removing the biographies of Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein. Nominating them both and arguing the high moral ground most eloquently with some success. Yeah she's talked some crap off wiki, I hardly think it warrants her being called a b**tch in the title of a thread.

That said, this is just daft:

Durova: I'm a war veteran. I've owned a Harley-Davidson and I've handled live rattlesnakes and I've saved an apartment building from burning down. I've even survived being struck by lightning.

Sorry Durova but do any of these things help you write an encyclopedia? Do any of these engender any respect at all for that matter? Not from me, but that could just be a personal preference. I tend to respect people who deal with real issues on a daily basis, for the benefit of their real communities.

Yeah she's talked some crap off wiki, I hardly think it warrants her being called a b**tch in the title of a thread.

I don't know what's in your mind, but I'm still trying to think of a 6-letter word that begins with a "b" and ends with "tch".

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

Yeah she's talked some crap off wiki, I hardly think it warrants her being called a b**tch in the title of a thread.

I don't know what's in your mind, but I'm still trying to think of a 6-letter word that begins with a "b" and ends with "tch".

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

Oops. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Yeah she's talked some crap off wiki, I hardly think it warrants her being called a b**tch in the title of a thread.

I don't know what's in your mind, but I'm still trying to think of a 6-letter word that begins with a "b" and ends with "tch".

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

Oops. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

A 6 letter word that begins with "b" and ends in "tch"

BIATCH!

It's got an article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biatch&redirect=no

An urban dictionary mention:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=biatch

Its own clothing line:
http://www.biatchclothing.com.au/

And even a user on Wikipedia so good that he got barnstars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Biatch

Clearly its a real word, and that must be what Kato was thinking.

I'm a bit confused. Durova was instrumental in removing the biographies of Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein. Nominating them both and arguing the high moral ground most eloquently with some success.

Brandt never told anyone the full deal, and he shouldn't, so here is what I gather:

[1] Brandt had her name on wwatch.org
[2] Durova contacted him (probably) and offered that if he cuts her name, she'd promote and push the AFD.
[3] Durova put Slimvirgin's name into the deal (more karma points for Durova - saving Slim too!)
[4] Durova pushed the AFD, Slim supported it. (Two blue-chip admins meant a done deal)
[5] AFD completed, with a few hiccups (complex merge). Minor hassles (JoshuaZ). MIB saved the day.
[6] All was peachy. Pax Wikiana.
[7] All quiet on the wiki-front, but for only a while before....
[8] JoshuaZ republished the Brandt history files
[9] Some-other-idiot republished the Brandt AFD collection
[10] Durova/Slim did nothing (normal behavior on WP, but not acceptable to Brandt)
[11] Brandt threatend on his talk page to republish Durovas and Slims real names again, on wwatch.org
[12] Durova, pissed at having been out'ed for negotiating with Brandt, claims he approached her (for what Durova, to sell girl scout cookies, oops, you just admitted you negotiated with him)
[13] Durova accuses Brandt of blackmail, and runs off to edit banning policy
[14] Brandt is rebanned (Seth Finkelstein points out that this is redundant, but no one listens)
[15] Durova and Slim's names go back on wwatch.org
[16] And the rest is history.... Slim's name in the press, etc...

But that's not why she's a bitka. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Durova's that in her own right, for her own abuse of editors, most notably Gregory Kohs, who she's libeled both on and off wiki. He's just one of about 20 or more.

That said, this is just daft:

Durova: I'm a war veteran. I've owned a Harley-Davidson and I've handled live rattlesnakes and I've saved an apartment building from burning down. I've even survived being struck by lightning.

I actually enjoy these quotes, because they show Durova for who and what she is. (a big wannabe on a non-reality-based ego trip). Durova sees Wikipedia as her ticket to fame-ville. That in itself isn't a crime, but rolling over human beings she's tied to the tracks on the way to Fameville sure is. If she wasn't really clear and clever, she'd omit the attacks, and be far more likely to be hired by Jimbo.

Jimbo can't hire her now, as her bad behavior is a liability. Durova is the star of an article on Searchengineland, this week: Is Wikipedia Corrupt?. Does Wikia need that? No way. She gets in her own way.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Okay so let's think of the deal.

Wikipedia creates an article on Wikipedia Review, and removes it from the attack sites register, and unbans everyone who was banned purely for posting to Wikipedia Review. In return we agree to redacts the real names of everyone who asks, or else move them to private forums.

Sounds fair to me.

Or of course, we could just talk, no deals, but just discuss things and talk about stuff. I don't like deals. I'd rather we all just stick to our principles, and then see if there is a middle ground somewhere.

Okay so let's think of the deal.

Wikipedia creates an article on Wikipedia Review, and removes it from the attack sites register, and unbans everyone who was banned purely for posting to Wikipedia Review. In return we agree to redacts the real names of everyone who asks, or else move them to private forums.

Sounds fair to me.

We could also all cut off our private parts and make a giant wind chime.

I'm sorry to be so sarcastic, but does this also mean that we can't talk about things that go on there? Is that not the point of WR? You are actually asking us to quit Wikipedia Review, and hide any criticism of Wikipedia.

Or of course, we could just talk, no deals, but just discuss things and talk about stuff. I don't like deals. I'd rather we all just stick to our principles, and then see if there is a middle ground somewhere.

Bliss, no matter what you do, no matter what of WR you offer them (and I, for one, don't approve), nothing will be good enough, they will never like you. Never. And when you beg them to do that, and offer them things as an effort to be liked, they are going to laugh at you.

It isn't that you aren't likeable, you are very likeable. It is that things have gone too far with this group and you. Also, this is a very difficult group of people, and possibly not people that you would want to have like you. If you want people to like you, I suggest that you start somewhere fresh. And with a nicer group of persons.

Also: You can't expect people who have no principles to abide by principles.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

The essential characteristic of Durova is that she is inappropriately controlling of other people. This "complex investigation" nonsense, along with the wiki-curriculum and wiki-business-advising is all a part of this need to control. Her support of the current version of BLP "reform" was an exercise of control over other sectors of editors and admins. She is ultimately a part of the problem, not the solution. The unacceptable flaw of BLP reform is its continued reliance on WP "community processes." It might shift the argument from what is a reliable verifiable source to whether the subject is semi-notable and eligible for "opt out." At the end of the day it relies on people like Durvoa to make (and manipulate) these decisions. This is why it so important that we learn from the recent high profile examples of "consensus coups." We need to learn from them no matter if we liked the particular outcome or not. The dysfunctional social networking community of WP engages in process that on first inspection might appear to be discussions governed by the principals of open participation and consensus. The reality is that the processes are flawed, phony and rigged. The public, including BLP subjects, should not trust these processes with any matters of importance.

The essential characteristic of Durova is that she is inappropriately controlling of other people. This "complex investigation" nonsense, along with the wiki-curriculum and wiki-business-advising is all a part of this need to control. Her support of the current version of BLP "reform" was an exercise of control over other sectors of editors and admins. She is ultimately a part of the problem, not the solution. The unacceptable flaw of BLP reform is its continued reliance on WP "community processes". It might shift the argument from what is a reliable verifiable source to whether the subject is semi-notable and eligible for "opt out". At the end of the day it relies on people like Durvoa to make (and manipulate) these decisions. This is why it so important that we learn from the recent high profile examples of "consensus coups". We need to learn from them no matter if we liked the particular outcome or not. The dysfunctional social networking community of WP engages in process that on first inspection might appear to be discussions governed by the principals of open participation and consensus. The reality is that the processes are flawed, phony and rigged. The public, including BLP subjects, should not trust these processes with any matters of importance.

Sounds like the start of a good editorial for the blog. Just tack a lead paragraph up front — feature quality image purely optional.

P.S. Punctuations are to be used, not mentioned.

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

The essential characteristic of Durova is that she is inappropriately controlling of other people. ....She is ultimately a part of the problem, not the solution. The unacceptable flaw of BLP reform is its continued reliance on WP "community processes." ... At the end of the day it relies on people like Durova to make (and manipulate) these decisions. This is why it so important that we learn from the recent high profile examples of "consensus coups."....The reality is that the processes are flawed, phony and rigged. The public, including BLP subjects, should not trust these processes with any matters of importance.

Precisely the point, Glassbeadgame. I harp on Durova for the very reason you've highlighted. She's pretending to be a problem solver, when she's using the flawed situation to try to up her power-ante. The case of the Brandt AFD is a perfect example. His bio had been up there for two years, and once he got her name on wwatch.org, Durova seized the opportunity to throw her weight around and take his article down, so he'd take her name wikipedia-watch.org. Which it did, while making her look like a saint, and making her look like a hero to the powerful Slimvirgin. Of course, it was all about blackmail. When he went public, he exposed her as having cut a deal with him, so she was forced (in her thinking) to attack him, to prove herself innocent, of that which she'd actually done (backdoor dealing / mutual blackmail). It is all very, very dysfunctional.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

The essential characteristic of Durova is that she is inappropriately controlling of other people. This "complex investigation" nonsense, along with the wiki-curriculum and wiki-business-advising is all a part of this need to control. Her support of the current version of BLP "reform" was an exercise of control over other sectors of editors and admins. She is ultimately a part of the problem, not the solution. The unacceptable flaw of BLP reform is its continued reliance on WP "community processes". It might shift the argument from what is a reliable verifiable source to whether the subject is semi-notable and eligible for "opt out". At the end of the day it relies on people like Durvoa to make (and manipulate) these decisions. This is why it so important that we learn from the recent high profile examples of "consensus coups". We need to learn from them no matter if we liked the particular outcome or not. The dysfunctional social networking community of WP engages in process that on first inspection might appear to be discussions governed by the principals of open participation and consensus. The reality is that the processes are flawed, phony and rigged. The public, including BLP subjects, should not trust these processes with any matters of importance.

Sounds like the start of a good editorial for the blog. Just tack a lead paragraph up front — feature quality image purely optional.

P.S. Punctuations are to be used, not mentioned.

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

Well I've been meaning to get to the blog on a couple of topics. In some ways the quick give and take of the forum suits me better.

You've done well never to get any e-mail death threats. I think I'm up to about 30 or 40 all up. I did get about 20 in a week at one stage, when one particular web site (that which I name so much its boring) decided to "suggest" to their readers to send me death threats.

I have, however, only ever had 2 that actually led to them doing anything in person about it. Both cases ended up at the police station.

I wouldn't say that Essjay is necessarily lying, no. It might be an exaggeration, but he probably did get death threats. However you managed to avoid them, you've done well. Perhaps you should write a book on how you managed to avoid them.

I've gotten legal threats too (not many & nobody from Wikipedialand), but in all cases, I could've won in a court battle easily.

Here is where Durova admits to mutually agreed blackmail removals with Brandt

I'm very disappointed to read your recent offline post. Mr. Brandt, you wield no power over me; you cannot leverage an unblock depending on what you do or don't post to your website. Last month I nominated your article for deletion because I had already offered to do so of my own free will, not because of any pressure you thought you were exerting. I believed you had a legitimate point about the WP:BLP policy. I nearly changed my mind and withdrew that offer because, when you finally accepted it, I thought your tactics were abhorrent. My usual offer to banned users is that I'll support a reinstatement of editing privileges after six months if the editor does three things: (blah blah blah blah) DurovaCharge! 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

She just admitted here to colluding with Brandt in the mutual agreement to remove article/names from each other's site. No one ever suspected this until she wrote it here. She was so angry at Brandt for writing the threat online (on Wikipedia Review) that she foolishly confessed to the deal on his talk page. Brilliant.

This individual [Daniel Brandt] specifically threatened to publish what he thinks is information about me and another editor unless one of us unbanned him and blocked another editor. On a previous occasion he attempted to leverage my onsite actions in a similar manner. I didn't make an issue of it then because his editing status wasn't in question and he was asking me to do something I'd already offered to do anyway. My good faith assumption was that he had been frustrated to wit's end and under the circumstances I could understand that. Now I see a pattern. Whether and what he publishes at his own website is, of course, entirely his own business. Yet when any sitebanned user attempts to coerce the use of administrative tools through that means it becomes a legitimate issue for Wikipedia. By all means initiate a thread at WP:AN if you disagree. DurovaCharge! 19:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Durova was furious that he was threatening to republish her name, and that he made this threat on Wikipedia Review, rather than privately.

So done. If Mr. Brandt has a response he is welcome to e-mail me. Within reason, I'll stretch WP:IAR regarding proxy editing to forward his response to the AN thread. Since I'm raising this issue there it's only fair that I extend an opportunity for rebuttal. This applies only to e-mails from Mr. Brandt himself, not forwarded via third parties. DurovaCharge! 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

All evidence that she was negotiating with him for exactly what she claims she didn't negotiate for. Mutually agreed blackmail.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Now that Lise Diane Broer, as Wikipedia editor Durova, is the subject of actual media scrutiny ala Essjay, why is everyone tiptoeing around her name and this no-outing silliness?

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

For Lise Broer (aka Durova) this was a first. Admission of her name to the reporter was probably a resignation that her name is already over the internet, so why not give it to a reporter.

Now that Lise Diane Broer, as Wikipedia editor Durova, is the subject of actual media scrutiny ala Essjay, why is everyone tiptoeing around her name and this no-outing silliness?

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

Her timing really sucked, because the same week, she was put as the starring character in an article called "Is Wikipedia Corrupt", which is on searchengineland, and sitepro.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Wikipedia creates an article on Wikipedia Review, and removes it from the attack sites register, and unbans everyone who was banned purely for posting to Wikipedia Review. In return we agree to redacts the real names of everyone who asks, or else move them to private forums.

Been there, done that, didn't work, never will.

I'm afraid I have to agree (and rather strongly, I might add) with Mr. Disillusioned. These people are heavily indoctrinated into a cult-like, hierarchical quasi-social structure that requires starkly-painted enemies to survive. Durova & Co. have absolutely no intention of changing their ways WRT this website or any other entity that criticizes them...

With SlimVirgin, it was quite clear that she was at least as clever as any of us (so that we knew she'd always act in her own interests), and that she valued her own agenda at least as highly as Wikipedia's. With Durova, all bets are off - at this point, she's almost like MONGO... She identifies herself as a Wikipedian first and everything else a distant, I dunno, second, third, whatever. None of us are going to get anywhere trying to deal with her on substantive issues.

And the absolute last thing you want to be doing is to offer to redact names. Most of their names are already redacted anyway, and maybe it was a good thing they never posted anything about it publicly - if they had, we'd now have no credibility on that issue whatsoever, because of SlimVirgin. It's not something we should be negotiating over in any case.

Here's the article about Durova


IS WIKIPEDIA CORRUPT?

(IMG:http://www.sitepronews.com/images/cover-0809.gif)picture from the Sitepro version of the article
Original article

My previous article about using Wikipedia ethically was based on an excellent article published at Search Engine Land called "SEO Tips & Tactics from a Wikipedia Insider" written by a Wikipedia Administrator with the pseudonym Durova. Since my posting I received a few comments on the posting that were obviously from people who felt very strongly that Wikipedia, and in particular Durova, had serious issues with ethics. (link to "Is Wikipedia Corrupt?" by Ross Dunn)

• Searchengineguide link: Is Wikipedia Corrupt?
• DIGG version "Is Wikipedia Corrupt?" (OH WOW - IT IS IN DIGG)
• Sitepronews version "Is Wikipedia Corrupt?"
• Small Business Ideas Forum Discussion - IS WIKIPEDIA CORRUPT?
• Many others have it now. Just google. Its going blog wide.

Ross Dunn, Author of the Is Wikipedia Corrupt article, joined Wikipedia Review about 5 days ago.

Is Wikipedia Corrupt? | Xombaconnection-to site-reference article about corruptible sneakiness involving Wikipedia's anonymity,corrupt hal dll,corrupt file system,fix corrupt files ...
www.xomba.com/is_wikipedia_corrupt - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

Is Wikipedia Corrupt? - Web 2.0 - Canada
Are we now to the point in our Web 2.0 society where anonymous persons holding authority positions within Top 10 website communities can say ...
www.boxxet.com/Web_2.0/Is_Wikipedia_Corrupt.68179121.details - 47k -

This could get bigger than the Slim story. Because it affects people's lives very directly: their businesses.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I've gotten legal threats too (not many & nobody from Wikipedialand), but in all cases, I could've won in a court battle easily.

Legal threats are laughable.

If you get a legal threat, regardless of how they word it (i.e. "Warning", "threat", or just plain nastiness), you look at the issue, and in 99% of cases its pretty obvious whether their threat has any merit or not. If it does, then you say "Oops sorry" and make whatever change. I've done that on many occasions, and indeed that's the whole point of a legal threat - to try to get someone to change something (otherwise you'd just sue them - and suing them without first having a legal threat is seriously nasty). If their threat has no merit, you laugh at them, poke fun of them, whatever, it doesn't matter.

On rare occasions, its not that simple. On rare occasions, you have to sit down and think about it, discuss it with them, go over the different minute issues, consult your law books, and then see whether you want to challenge them or not. This is pretty rare. Of course, make a legal threat to a lawyer and they ALWAYS make you do all of this. And then, well, I am a law-abiding citizen, so I personally have a rule that if in doubt, I co-operate. So if I'm not quite sure if their legal threat has merit, I'll do what they ask.

Legal threats are a normal part of society. You don't do them every day. You might not even do them once per year. If someone slanders you, of course you make a legal threat, that's what you're supposed to do. Not everyone can afford lawyers, and if you live outside of USA suing people is ridiculously expensive, so legal threats work wonders. It helps people to live happily in peace and prosperity and stops the legal system from being clogged up.

Of course, every so often you run in to someone who knows that they are breaking the law, but hides. This almost always happens when they are anonymous over the internet, won't tell you their name, and won't even say which country they are in (which means you don't know which laws are applicable). People like this make you want to go after them all the more, and eventually they all go down. And when they go down, nobody at all offers any sympathy. They don't say "Geez Julie, I really feel sorry for you over this, what with using a false name, false country, and all of that, and lying your butt off to slander all those people and try to ruin their careers. I'm so sorry that you got caught". At best a troll might say "Well, it was fun while it lasted", and that's about it.

Anyone who is scared of legal threats is stupid. Legal threats don't hurt anyone. If its true, act, if its not, then ignore it. Trying to stop legal threats is absurd and is demonstrative of a place that has no intention of following any laws.

Current legal issues I have going on:

1) I'm suing my last landlord who is trying to charge me $2,000 to clean my place, after I'd already hired a professional cleaner. It doesn't go through a normal court, and is apparently free, and apparently its fairly obvious that I'll win but I wait and see. I gave them a legal threat first, they didn't back down, so its going to court.
2) I'm "negotiating" with my phone company because they sent me a bill for $200 when they forgot to cut off my phone after I moved 2 months ago. In this case I'd simply contact the Ombudsman and they'd get a bad rating and be forced to take the unfair bill off. It looks like the phone company is going to concede, given I've been a loyal customer for the past 14 years.
3) I am considering suing one of my past employers for the $3,000 that they owe me in wages. At present I'm actually not going to do it, as it might mean that I get black banned from a lot of places, and the current Industrial Relations laws make it virtually impossible to sue. Go back 2 years ago before "Work Choices" came in and it'd be a snap, but nowadays you just have to trust your employer, tough luck.
4) I am waiting for Fred Bauder to get back, but otherwise I will be trying really hard to find Grace Note's real name to sue him for slander about his holocaust denial stuff. I've given him the legal threats, and his response was that he never hides - yet won't give me his real name, and that he insists that it is true - even after its been proven false, and he isn't suggesting that there's any other post either. My biggest concern with this is that I want to get the other issues out of the way first.

So tell me "No legal threats" and force me to deal with all of that bullshit, and just sit back and put up with it? Yeah right.

Mr. Lackey has an accurate feeling about what happened, but here is a better description. I got a PM from a WR member who said that Durova had asked him to relay this message to me. I had never heard from Durova before this, nor had I ever tried to contact her. This was shortly after I had restored hive2 and added her name. I quote the relevant portion, dated April 29, 2007:

Some of the people at WR would like to see Wikipedia run better. Although I haven't agreed with all of Mr. Brandt's requests, I understand his most important wish is to have his Wikipedia biography deleted. My opinion often carries weight with other editors at Wikipedia consensus discussions. Until now I've offered to support a courtesy deletion of that page on his behalf. Would you communicate to him that it works against his own best interests to alienate my support? Naturally enough, he can hardl y expect me to respect his desire for privacy while he attempts to violate mine.

His decision to publish what he thinks is my name reinforces an us-versus-them mentality. That works against the interests of the most reasonable editors at WR since it discourages me from devoting my volunteer efforts and lending my onsite reputation on behalf of these people in legitimate grievances. It also discourages my admin coaching students from following my example in this area.

If Mr. Brandt takes down my entry from his website within three days I'll restore my offer to support a courtesy deletion of his Wikipedia bio.

Thanks for your attention, Durova

I never communicated with Durova directly, but I responded through this third party on May 1:

I deleted her entry on hive2. I welcome help from anyone who can help me get my bio deleted and salted, but I don't think it would be useful for me to contact Durova. -- Daniel

In the meantime, stuff was happening with my bio. Slim had forced the installation of new language in BLP to the effect that a subject's wishes to have a bio deleted can be considered by the closing admin on an AfD.

There was never any "linkage" between what Slim was doing and what Durova was doing, as far as I know. Jimbo was sitting on the fence with regard to my case, as usual. Fred Bauder seemed helpful at times, and at other times seemed completely befuddled.

A few weeks later, I asked Durova, through this third party, to put my bio up for deletion, on the grounds that the new language in the BLP meant that the situation was better than it had ever been, and I sensed new support for taking down my bio. She responded that this was earlier than she had intended to help me, but asked me for the names of others who might be in my position also. I gave her Seth's name, Angela's name, and Seigenthaler's name, and contact info for these three. She emailed Seigenthaler's office, but as far as I know only reached the secretary (his secretary checked with me about Durova). I told the secretary that I told Durova that I knew Seigenthaler was upset with the history pages and felt that those should all be completely invisible, but I was unsure whether he wanted his main article deleted. I suspect that Durova never heard back from Seigenthaler's office. She did, however, put up my bio and Seth's bio for AfD. Angela's article was put up by Ta bu shi da yu around the same time. I don't know if Durova contacted Angela, but I believe she checked with Seth.

Slim supported the AfD, but that wasn't Durova's doing. Slim had been consistently in favor of a deletion of my bio the entire time, although it seemed to happen in spurts and there were long periods when she ignored the situation. After the AfD was more or less successful by getting redirected to a little stub on Public Information Research, Slim did a courtesy delete of the associated Talk pages behind my bio. Then Jimbo unblocked me when I complained that someone was trying to make me look bad by using weasel language on the PIR article, and that I had to watch it every day.

The next thing I know, JoshuaZ discovered that hivemind had been up for weeks already, after it had been down previously for a number of weeks. He overturned Jimbo's unblock of me, even though I had not abused my non-block status. I don't even think I had edited but maybe once or twice during those weeks, and that was clearly within Jimbo's understanding of my stated intention to edit only to protect the PIR article.

The hivemind I put back up was the old hive2 renamed to hivemind. The original hivemind was centered on my bio, while hive2 was about admins only. I dumped the first hivemind since my bio was history, and renamed hive2 to hivemind. At this point, it was missing two admins: Slim and Durova. I felt that JoshuaZ had acted improperly, and stated on WR that if Slim and Durova want to stay off of hivemind, they should unblock me and block JoshuaZ instead. That got Durova pissed off when she read it, and she sided with JoshuaZ, even though my comment was made on WR, not on Wikipedia. There was some support for my position, on the grounds that off-Wiki behavior should not be grounds for blocking on Wikipedia. But there was not enough support. Even Jimbo chimed in on Durova's side, supporting JoshuaZ's indefinite block of me. Typical Jimbo — he takes his finger out just long enough to see which way the wind is blowing.

Anyway, 24 hours later I put Slim and Durova back on hivemind. Admittedly, I was particularly keen to get Slim back up on hivemind, because the Ohmynews piece had just hit the blogs. Slim needed to be on hivemind at that point, if only to back up Ohmynews.

That's the story. My bio is basically gone, and Slim and Durova are back on hivemind where they should have been all along. The reason either or both were off of hivemind for any period of time was because I sensed that it would be helpful for getting my bio down. After it was down, it was no longer helpful. Remember, all I have on hivemind is name, age or birthdate, city of residence, a photo if I can find one, and perhaps occupation or affiliation. That's not even close to having a a bio with 30-odd footnotes that shows up as number one on all the search engines. I don't feel that I owe anything to Slim or Durova.

News Flash: Daniel Brandt says conspiracy theory not true!

Also if that is true, then perhaps Durova would listen. I still haven't got a reply back.

And note that, in spite of speculation that it might end in a "deal", I have no intention of trying to broker a deal. I was merely telling her off for the content of her edits. I thought that I made that clear.

Okay I just got the e-mail then. I'll quote it here, as promised, before I read it.

Adrian, could you please show me a link to the specific accusation that offended you? I don't think I've mentioned Wikipedia Review directly in quite some time. Someone has been spoofing me lately - perhaps that's what you saw. If not, and if I've genuinely overstepped, I'll give you a prompt apology. What's this about Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer? I had to look up the username and I've barely interacted with the person. I've never read his blog.

I've always observed a mix of personalities at Wikipedia Review. Sometimes a thread inspires my respect. I'm one of the administrators who's been most open to the fair concerns your forum raises. I've offered to contact Jimbo and request an unban for one of your contributors. I was the administrator who gave JzG a civility block warning in January. I was also the person who finally - and successfully - started the AFD discussion that got Daniel Brandt's biography off Wikipedia. I founded Category:Eguor admins as a recourse for editors who've gotten the short end of the stick at Wikipedia and to help counteract any tendencies toward cabalism.

Lately, though, I've been very disappointed. I don't recall making the kind of accusation you refer to, yet to my eyes the threads have deteriorated a lot. After Daniel Brandt repaid my courtesy by using your site to try to twist my arm into unblocking him I pretty much gave up on WR. That's a net loss to your group because there are very few Wikipedia sysops who are willing to give the time of day to the banned editors who post there. So far as I know, I'm the only sysop who makes a standing offer to award a barnstar to editors who return after an arbitration sanction or a siteban. I'm the only sysop who publishes a standard (and pretty easy) offer to support an editor's return from a community ban.

Maybe we can iron things out; I hope so.

There. She sounds quite reasonable, no?

Actually, I'm a dolt. I got her mixed up with ElinorD. Anyway, I wrote her a nice reply back, and apologised.

News Flash: Daniel Brandt says conspiracy theory not true!

No, he said that the idea was correct, and the specifics were different. He detailed them.

He also said she isn't to be trusted.

There. She sounds quite reasonable, no?

No.

Bliss. There is no Santa Claus. Contact Daniel Brandt and ask him for his opinion.

Bliss. There is no Santa Claus. Contact Daniel Brandt and ask him for his opinion.

There is too a Santa Claus! I saw him! And anyway I am still a bit annoyed with Daniel, and I am sure its vice versa. I'd rather talk to Durova so there (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif).

Actually, I'm a dolt. I got her mixed up with ElinorD. Anyway, I wrote her a nice reply back, and apologised.

You shouldn't have - these comments by Durova were clearly about us, and just in the last two weeks:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ust/078528.html

It's just nonsense: a bunch of haters and one very odd Ph.D. trying to stir up trouble. They're not particularly good at it either... Those people won't admit they're wrong no matter how compelling the evidence is.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ust/078707.html

It really doesn't matter whether an attempted outing is accurate or not, nor how well known the information may be elsewhere on the Internet. Some of the trolls tried to use this example as a wedge issue...

Durova has a real knack for changing her story to better fit the prevailing circumstances, eh?

Okay, I wrote her a new e-mail. Its always good to apologise when you're wrong, even if in some other way you're right. I couldn't find a link when I looked, all I was finding was ElinorD links.

From the WikiEN-l sleepy-dust list:

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:41:51 -0700
From: Durova <nadezhda.durova@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Scanner
To: WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Mike, trust me: this is a very big deal and a very good thing.

Two problems arise at this point.

*First, almost nobody who's using this tool knows how to analyze its data
dumps. They're pointing to single edits and missing the big stories.
*Second, a lot of the people who've been perpetrating this IP abuse will now
switch to Plan B.

I know what Plan B is. There are a limited number of Plan Bs out there and
I've foiled them (along with Plan C, Plan D, etc.) many times. The further
they stroll down the alphabet the worse it looks for them because the
excuses wear out: they can't claim ignorance anymore.

-Durova


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:10:41 +0100
From: "David Gerard" <dgerard@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Scanner
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

On 16/08/07, Durova <nadezhda.durova@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike, trust me: this is a very big deal and a very good thing.


It is particularly pleasing that the press reaction is universally outrage.


> *Second, a lot of the people who've been perpetrating this IP abuse will now
> switch to Plan B.
> I know what Plan B is. There are a limited number of Plan Bs out there and
> I've foiled them (along with Plan C, Plan D, etc.) many times. The further
> they stroll down the alphabet the worse it looks for them because the
> excuses wear out: they can't claim ignorance anymore.


Yeah. That's the thing about WikiScanner - it catches only the
*stupid* miscreant.


- d.

Does everyone catch the adversarial tone? People editing from corporate or organization IP addresses are the enemies of Wikipedia, that is, if any one of them made an edit that makes their organization look better (temporarily) in the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Remember, folks, the word "miscreant" means "a depraved villain".

From what I've seen of these corporate IP edits, the vast majority of them (I'm estimating 80%) are people editing articles about pop culture nonsense that has nothing to do with their organization. The few remaining edits are split fairly evenly between (10%) good, useful content that helps clarify something about the company's products or services, and (10%) sneaky attempts to paint a rosy picture for the organization.

Anybody notice how David Gerard is particularly pleased that the press reaction is almost exclusively outrage? Kind of like the same reaction the press had over the Essjay fiasco, and when Jimbo was caught editing his own article. What did Gerard think about the press then?

Durova's assuring her team that no matter how hard corporate entities try to participate in Wikipedia article space, she's going to catch them, out them publicly, and leave them humiliated.

Imagine if they were instead asking, "How can we better co-opt and piggyback on all of this corporate interest in our web encyclopedia?" They just don't think that way, though.

Greg

I quote the relevant portion, dated April 29, 2007:

Some of the people at WR would like to see Wikipedia run better. Although I haven't agreed with all of Mr. Brandt's requests, I understand his most important wish is to have his Wikipedia biography deleted. My opinion often carries weight with other editors at Wikipedia consensus discussions. Until now I've offered to support a courtesy deletion of that page on his behalf. Would you communicate to him that it works against his own best interests to alienate my support? Naturally enough, he can hardl y expect me to respect his desire for privacy while he attempts to violate mine.

His decision to publish what he thinks is my name reinforces an us-versus-them mentality. That works against the interests of the most reasonable editors at WR since it discourages me from devoting my volunteer efforts and lending my onsite reputation on behalf of these people in legitimate grievances. It also discourages my admin coaching students from following my example in this area.

If Mr. Brandt takes down my entry from his website within three days I'll restore my offer to support a courtesy deletion of his Wikipedia bio.

Thanks for your attention, Durova

What an incredible disregard for ethics. Let's summarize: Durova is volunteer official with editorial influence with an on-line publication. DB is carrying on off-site activities that annoy Durova. Durova indirectly contacts DB indicating that she will influence an editorial decision of the publication in a manner that DB desires if he ceases his annoying conduct but will influence the editorial decision in manner he won't like if he does not do what she asks. DB appears to do what she wants. Durova seems to support DB. DB asks for further favors. Durvoa colludes with other admins to ban DB. DB undoes the "favor" he extended Durvoa.

Durova, like a prostitute who discovers the check didn't clear, screams (cover your ears AB) "rape."

The Sitepro Editor in Chief wrote a glowing article about the-one-and-only this week. Apparently as some sort of retraction. Interview with Wikipedia Administrator Durova. It never showed up on the WR news radar, and it hasnt got any traction online. I'm linking to the Google caches of the two articles, so that I don't give it any food for such traction. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Here's a link to the transcript of the interview.

So, she can talk to a guy for two hours, and that makes her an honest administrator? Right.

Highlights

SiteProNews.com readers will recall Durova’s name from Ross Dunn’s article, “Is Wikipedia Corrupt?” which ran on Thursday August 9. In the piece, Durova’s name came up several times in relation to a dispute between herself and Gregory Kohs, an SEW Forums member who goes by the name of “thekohser”. It was this dispute that caught the eye of several writers in the search marketing sector. Durova contacted me hoping that more open communication would help clear the air between the Administrators at Wikipedia and the search community.


The Chat-interview (transcript here) lasted far longer than either of us expected but, after speaking with Durova for such a long period of time, the conversation left me with a deeper respect for the work of the Wikipedians along with a deepened cynicism when reading the rantings of some of its detractors.

me: Does Wikipedia have a relationship with Google?

durova: Yes, we run away for intimate weekends in the mountains and cuddle up on the bearskin rug by the fire.

me: do you think they respect you in the morning?

durova: We'll see how Wikia does in the marketplace.

I have no connection whatsoever to Wikia, by the way.

durova: Among Wikipedia regulars, no. Among occasional visitors and newcomers, very much so.

So to the extent that the hardcores like me deal with it, we're taking out links and explaining policies to those people.

I know this isn't the ivory tower. Wikipedia content and links have real world impact.

That's a reality and I deal with it.

Occasionally I siteban people because of it.

Ah, the police officer laments that she must punish criminals. A necessary evil. rofl.

Hedger: That sitebanning is what gets folks so angry with Durova. There is little she can do about that except try to do her job with consistency and relative compassion. More on the argument between Durova and certain members of the search marketing community next week.

Kohs? Hey. Thats why you are so angry at Durova. She sitebanned you. Wait....

Is Durova really Jimbo Wales?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Kohs? Hey. Thats why you are so angry at Durova. She sitebanned you. Wait....

Is Durova really Jimbo Wales?

As you know, the reason I'm angry at Durova is that she libeled me, failed to produce evidence to support her claim, and refused to redact the libelous statement.

This SEO interviewer is pathetic -- the fact that he's been captivated by Durova's "good witch" spell; and the fact that he mentions me by name as Durova's counterpart (but he's made no effort to contact me for any input from my angle). Great blog journalism, huh?

Here's the scariest part of the transcript, though:

durova: Well, I do my best to persuade the editors to follow policy.

If they don't, I try to treat them the same as any other editor.

Informal consensus is that we don't want to scare people away from making legitimate contributions.

But the stuff is all there in the public archives.

May I mention something strictly off the record?


me: yes, will delete from saved file

< -- section deleted -- >


durova: (Going back on record).


me: Does Wikipedia have a relationship with Google?

What kind of sick, revolting things do we suppose Durova shared while the transcript went dark?

I've contacted the Editor of the site to see if he actually cares to interview me, and to see where he goes with the fact that Durova libeled me.

Greg

As you know, the reason I'm angry at Durova is that she libeled me, failed to produce evidence to support her claim, and refused to redact the libelous statement.

Yes of course. I was joking.

This SEO interviewer is pathetic -- the fact that he's been captivated by Durova's "good witch" spell; and the fact that he mentions me by name as Durova's counterpart (but he's made no effort to contact me for any input from my angle). Great blog journalism, huh?

What I noticed the most was that there was going to be "more on this next week" and that she's agreed to write an article for him. So I would expect, if I were you, more of her non-NPOV on the matter, and no, you wont be contacted.

Since youve suggested an interview with him, why dont you ask for a 3-way chat? She'd never do it, of course, because she couldn't take being required to answer direct questions for her bad behavior.

me: yes, will delete from saved file

< -- section deleted -- >

durova: (Going back on record).

me: Does Wikipedia have a relationship with Google?

What kind of sick, revolting things do we suppose Durova shared while the transcript went dark?

Oh, we all know that she gave him some "secret information" that made him even more respectful of her so-called prowess. Possibly some information to completely discredit you (personally), any anyone who utters a bad word about her. If you notice, the end of his story gives her lots of sympathy for how much people hate her for banning them (as does the first para). That's so ridiculously naiive of the man, that words cant begin to explain it. I guess it goes to show that he's a SEO or tech writer, and not a real journalist. Brian Bergstein didn't buy her ridiculousness. Not for a minute. Or as he put it, it wasn't interesting. A story about he-said, she-said between two Wikipedians wasn't as fascinating as she imagined, which is completely normal.

By the way, Durova can't ban people. She told him over and over again, that she banned people for breaking rules, etc. She even used that phrase in her chat with him, "people I have to ban" or something like that. That set off all kinds of alarm bells for me, because as a longtime Wikipedian, everyone knows that one person cant ban anyone. Not even an administrator can do that.

Did anyone else notice that she used the word "I have to siteban them"? It was near the end of the interview, as I recall. This is really old tricks - anyone who criticizes Wikipedia was a vandal and we've banned them. Sorry, t'aint so.

Obviously, he was impressed. She's perfectly capable of behaving like a nice person, and very smart and professional, if she wants to, so no surprise there. Of course it is sickening that she was able to plow him so completely with an online conversation.

Maybe if she'd shown up on her Harley, it would be another story. That really cracks me up, Durova being a Harley mama. She used to own one, you know.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

As you know, the reason I'm angry at Durova is that she libeled me, failed to produce evidence to support her claim, and refused to redact the libelous statement.

Yes of course. I was joking.

This SEO interviewer is pathetic -- the fact that he's been captivated by Durova's "good witch" spell; and the fact that he mentions me by name as Durova's counterpart (but he's made no effort to contact me for any input from my angle). Great blog journalism, huh?

What I noticed the most was that there was going to be "more on this next week" and that she's agreed to write an article for him. So I would expect, if I were you, more of her non-NPOV on the matter, and no, you wont be contacted.

Since youve suggested an interview with him, why dont you ask for a 3-way chat? She'd never do it, of course, because she couldn't take being required to answer direct questions for her bad behavior.

The plot thickens?

I spoke with Jim Hedger earlier this week. We talked on the phone for about 30 minutes. I believe that he was interested in my story of Wikipedia Review and the Durova libel, but I got the sense that maybe it was making his head spin -- for which I don't fault him. It really isn't that important a sub-plot, considering the massive problems that are present in Wikipedia and its administrative culture. It would be like doing a story on someone's persistent allergy symptoms after a nuclear bomb went off in the area. "Why, that explosion over in Omaha must have stirred up a lot of dust and mold spores -- I've just been sneezing non-stop these past couple of weeks."

Anyway, imagine my surprise when I read this announcement from Jim Hedger:

It has been twelve months since I was offered a one year editor's contract with SiteProNews publisher Jayde-Online. Two days ago, I was informed Jayde-Online was not going to renew that contract. The Friday August 31 edition of SiteProNews.com is (or was) the last edition I edit.

I guess once you talk with Durova, your job is only safe for a couple more weeks.

(I'm dramatizing, of course... but the facts remain.)

Greg

Anyway, imagine my surprise when I read this announcement from Jim Hedger:

It has been twelve months since I was offered a one year editor's contract with SiteProNews publisher Jayde-Online. Two days ago, I was informed Jayde-Online was not going to renew that contract. The Friday August 31 edition of SiteProNews.com is (or was) the last edition I edit.

I guess once you talk with Durova, your job is only safe for a couple more weeks.

(I'm dramatizing, of course... but the facts remain.)

Greg

Well well. While I'm sorry to see anyone lose their job (and sorrier still to see them openly admit it, and not claim to go on to 'better opportunities', which is much better for future job options)..... I have to say that he wasn't a very impartial, unbiased reporter in l'affaire Durova.

I'm sure she's disappointed, as she was seemly expecting to work a spate of image-enhancing propaganda through this poor duped soul. Less disappointed would be the other reporters who he doubtlessly browbeat, indirectly, by granting the admin the inappropriate post of battered woman.

On the other hand, if he was really interested in reporting the story, it might have been interesting to see a Kohs rebuttal storyline. Who knows?