Oops, Durova's Mea culpa Options

Oops.

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

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

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

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

Oops.

What a nutjob.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


It is finished.

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

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

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

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

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

Someone's gonna get banned.

This post has been edited by msharma:

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

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

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

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

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


It sure looks like there is an election soon!

Politics as usual.

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

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

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

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

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

His Wiki-Proboscis Just Kept Getting —

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

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

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


It sure looks like there is an election soon!

Politics as usual.

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

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

Oops.

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

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unt now, Eve-ning Var....

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

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

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

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Oops.

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

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

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

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

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

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

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

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

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

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

It serves the greater good of the conflicted.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

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

Awesome.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Oops.

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

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

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

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

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

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

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

It's only castles burning...

melts into the sea eventually.

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

Awesome.

IRC use must be a banned.

Oops.

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

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

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

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

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


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

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



This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

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

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

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

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

That's not my style.

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


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

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

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

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

That's not my style.

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

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

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

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


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

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't work anymore.

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

JE NE REGRETTE RIEN

Take a break

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

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

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

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

I am definitely voting for Durova.

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

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

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

I am definitely voting for Durova.

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

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

Comic relief will be maintained as one clown replaces another.

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

Score one for Jimbo!

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