Angela afd: Giano 2, Durova 0, ...and that's nil, not love Options

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175982258

* Keep See no reason not to, enough notability and citations, plus it survived six previous votes. This will set a bad precedent for those that want their article deleted.Heavytundra (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: this account has only 22 edits. DurovaCharge! 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter how many edits I have? I've been around for a bit, and could easily have over a 100 or more edits if I setup a bot to do nothing but revert recent changes. But I have better things to do with my time. Heavytundra (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand the reasoning for pointing out the number of edits the user had either. Maybe Durova could explain what that meant for both of us? Thanks. Rray (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the closing admin discounts input from participants with very low edit counts. That's entirely at the that person's discretion. DurovaCharge! 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It matters not one jot how mant edits s/he has. We all have to start somewhere. This is the encyclopedia all are welcome to edit. No matter what Durova suspects or feels. Giano (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep "Beesley founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. She sits on the advisory board of the media archive Ourmedia and is a co-author of the book Wikis: Tools for Information Work and Collaboration" this alone makes her notable. Deleting this page would be setting an unwise precedent. The project cannot be seen to favour its own in these matters, otherwise who next will want to be deleted? We already have articles on women who have achieved far less in their lives. Notability has its advantages, if some people feel one of the disadvantages is having a page here then so be it. The page though does need to be expanded. Giano (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Giano is involved in a high profile dispute with me and this is his only AFD vote in his last 500 edits. DurovaCharge! 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Durova. This just goes to show then how important I regard this matter. I was rather under the impression the dispute was over. Never the less, I am surprised you are still mentioning your obviously private connections with the Wikipedia hierachy [13]. I hope they bear you in good stead. Giano (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I would imagine most of my last 500 edits have been in dealing with your lamentable behaviour. Giano (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

...and thanks for the unsolicited formatting help, W-R, you guys/gals are good! I never could get WP editing formatting right either. Please don't Gerard me too! ;-)

I think Giano is a troll after all. He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough.

I think Giano is a troll after all. He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough.

Don't forget that Giano really believes in Wikipedia. He actually thinks it's a good project.

I think Giano is a troll after all. He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough.

I think that's a good point, but I dont think Giano's trolling, I think like BadlyDrawnJeff, he's just taking the WP notability criteria and applying it equally.

I wouldn't like a piper BLP splashed across vandalpedia either, so I can certainly see the Brandt/Beesly (nice ta-ta's Angie! Don't let guy see your wikis) angle.

I created the following BLP's from what I can remember, and did so with "good faith" as I was editing articles that cited them, and they all turned out to have extensive googlng-reliable sources on them, but could fully understand if these people wnat it deleted. some of them probably dont as any publicity they'd consider good publicity i would guess:

Georgiane Walken
David Rocker
Thom Calandra
Anthony Elgindy
Herb Greenberg

I like to think I "cleaned up" and improved several more existing BLP's that were in sorry shape:

Steve Kilbey (the man deserves better! lol)
Stephen Fry (fanboy city, and I mean that in a very oscar wilde way)
Liz Clayman (i think her mom or sister was pumping up that one, but nice ta-ta's)
Becky Quick (geez, delete it)
Jim Cramer (holy cow, what a clusterf*ck of a blp it was)
Foster Winans (a real-time out of the closet auto BLP! eat your heart out mantan!)
Mark Cuban
Patrick Byrne (I quickly learned to leave that snake pit BLP alone after getting samimorelanded. hell hath no fury like a journalist/hedge fund cabal scorned!)
Twiggy
and many many more BLP's that were in very sorry shape. I wouldn't have alowed a child to submit them as book reports for school they were/are so bad.

I think the BLP situation on WP is particularly problematic, partly because there are so many of them (some quarter million), and because many of them seem so bad as to cross the line into hatchet jobs, if not actionable libel.

Could the bios on wikipedia really be worse than the bios on ED lol?

Well I suppose wikipedia may be more dangerous because some people take it more seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I think the BLP situation on WP is particularly problematic, partly because there are so many of them (some quarter million), and because many of them seem so bad as to cross the line into hatchet jobs, if not actionable libel.

IIt's at least as much of a problem that biased biographies are purported to be neutral. I mean, hatchet jobs are bad enough, but it can have just as bad of an effect when a biased version of some events is called NPOV.

This post has been edited by Amarkov:

Could the bios on wikipedia really be worse than the bios on ED lol?

Well I suppose wikipedia may be more dangerous because some people take it more seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif)

WP's impact on the internet is orders of magnitude greater than ED's... And yes, some people take it more seriously. (Not me, of course...)

It's counter-intuitive, particularly if you're not pre-disposed to believe it, but a personally damaging lie or distortion in a Wikipedia BLP article is vastly worse than any ED parody, no matter how ridiculous or offensive the ED parody is. If anything, an ED article is more damaging to the person if it's actually funny than if it's merely insulting... An article that's merely insulting is just as likely to gain the subject more sympathy than anything else. And you could just as easily say the same thing about Uncyclopedia - people generally don't realize how nasty they can get over there, when they really want to be.

Also bear in mind that ED is still bound by libel laws, even if it often seems like they don't know they exist... but if someone who's operating under a psuedonym is made the subject of an attack piece, that person generally has no case regardless - even if they're accurately identified elsewhere on the internet. The author doesn't have a burden of due diligence as long as the piece is about the pseudonym.

On the other hand, many of these legal concepts haven't been adequately tested, and they only await someone with very deep pockets and a vindictive streak to turn the whole mess upside down.

I just looked at the ED article on Mr.Brandt. It's perhaps suspiciously nice. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Or maybe they genuinely do consider themselves on the same team completely.

I disagree that ED is not factual- the painful thing is when it is factual. And even in Durova's case and a lot of the other WP admins- they had Durova weighed up long before these latest debacles and actually said something along the lines of 'she bans people using seekrit evidence. Since she doesn't have checkuser access, this means she just makes things up.'

As to 'libel' on Wikipedia- surely you could usually get it taken down if it's actual libel? But I must admit I didn't see the Brandt article and what they did there.

As to Angela- it goes without saying that it just seems ironic, doesn't it, lol. She helped make the wiki what it is, seems a bit like she can dish it out but not take it. Also, has her article really had that much vandalism? Or does she just not like the thought that it could?

It's a shame the public perhaps don't see wikipedia as it is. To an extent Angela's a victim of wikipedia's own hype. As the public become more aware of Wikipedia's inaccuracies, then when an article says someone 'is a gay' or whatever, people will perhaps see such edits as they are- the random pranks of kids.

Or is the problem that the wikis become too accurate, so people become afraid? I certainly wouldn't like my life there for all to see lol (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

As to 'libel' on Wikipedia- surely you could usually get it taken down if it's actual libel? But I must admit I didn't see the Brandt article and what they did there.

The problem is that the harm of libel doesn't disappear when it's taken down. The WMF, from what I've seen, is pretty nice about actual libel, but it shouldn't be up for long enough to be complained about in the first place.

Yeah, Giano's not trolling here. Like the Brandt article (like it or not), Beesley more than easily meets any reasonable threshold for inclusion in a project like Wikipedia.

I suspect the moral thing to advocate would be for the Beesley article to be taken down. However, I believe there is a sort of moral obligation among those who serve the project (and its for-profit offspring) to show faith in the system and consent to the most liberal interpretation of any "inclusion" policy.

It's like a guy on the board of directors for a flak-jacket company being sent to Iraq to land a major contract for the company, deliberating on which brand of flak-jacket to wear, and specifically NOT choosing his own firm's jacket.

Thus, until we can be sure that EACH and EVERY semi-notable person who wants to be "off Wikipedia" has indeed been taken off, any Wikimedia or Wikia key personnel should stay on Wikipedia. Sorry, them's the breaks.

Greg

As to 'libel' on Wikipedia- surely you could usually get it taken down if it's actual libel?

Considering that if [redacted], the ArbCom won't do anything about
it, I seriously doubt it, unless you are willing to hire a good
expensive lawyer.

This post has been edited by AB:

Could the bios on wikipedia really be worse than the bios on ED lol?

Well I suppose wikipedia may be more dangerous because some people take it more seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif)

Well, if anyone actually takes ED seriously......(I won't go there)

Somey said it a lot better. Those exact reasons are why ED can't be taken down (not without real names being named, and not without expensive lawyers), and why subjects of "articles" (it depends how you define "article") can't take much (if any) action against them.

Although I don't want to shift the conversation to ED but now that you mention it... (if the topic continues, I'll start forking to another thread)

I disagree that ED is not factual- the painful thing is when it is factual.

I never said ED isn't factual, did I? I'm not saying it is, either... It's a mixed bag. But it's certainly possible to be offensive and factual at the same time, no question about that. People don't read it for factuality though, or even to be offended - they read it for laughs, mostly. At some point, they sort of lost their way, and got bogged down in their weird need to put porn images and words like "butt-rape" in sooooo many articles. Maybe that's funny for some people, though. Me, I'm in my mid-40's...

As to 'libel' on Wikipedia- surely you could usually get it taken down if it's actual libel?

Of course you can - that's not the issue. The issue is how long does it take for them to notice it, and why you should have to keep monitoring it yourself constantly in case they don't. It's an public annoyance, or more accurately, an attractive nuisance... though I'll admit, it's noticeably better than it was 2 years ago.

Even Jimbo realizes (or pays lip sevice to the idea?) that they don't have to finish writing the "encyclopedia" tomorrow. Still, sometimes they act like every word is sacred in these things, and heaven forbid that someone might come along and try to "censor" their uncompromising brilliance...

Pshaw, I say!

He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough.

I agree.

Additionally, for those who think she is notable, the only Encyclopaedia
Britannica article in which she is even mentioned is the Wales, Jimmy
article. See search.

Still, I fear Giano's vote may be discounted for the wrong reason.

This post has been edited by AB:

It seems to be running neck and neck at present.

Yawn. <sarcasm>I believe this article has been nominated for deletion before.</sarcasm> I wonder what has changed? If this is a delete-by-attrition, it's way too early for that, we need at least wait until the 15th nomination, or whatever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete if she would like to have it deleted. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

She's really losing it.

She never was such a ninny during Brand'ts deletion or Seth's. This is a desperation move designed to keep her in the cabal. Kind of sad. Leading to the..

"Giano and Durova Show(TM)"

*'''Keep''' "''Beesley founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. She sits on the advisory board of the media archive Ourmedia and is a co-author of the book Wikis: Tools for Information Work and Collaboration''" this alone makes her notable. Deleting this page would be setting an unwise precedent. The project canot be seen to favour its own. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

**Note to closing admin: Giano is involved in a high profile dispute with me and this is his only AFD vote in his last 500 edits. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Um **IS INVOLVED***??? (was, was, was, was). And WHAT person on the planet (or Wikipedia) doesn't know that? And why make his ONE vote into a personal issue. SHE IS LOSING IT. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

:::Thank you Durova. This just goes to show then how important I regard this matter. I was rather under the impression the dispute was over. Never the less, I am surprised you are still mentioning your obviously private connections with the Wikipedia hierachy . I hope they bear you in good stead. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

::::: PS: I would imagine most of my last 500 edits have been in dealing with your lamentable behaviour. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UT

::*I don't see why this is disconcerting, we are talking about a woman who feels she is sufficiently notable and of interest to the public to put up her own biographical details, complete with photographs on the internet. [http://wikiangela.com/blog/] [http://wikiangela.com/] So we are not talking about someone wanting privacy or being fearful of others knowing what she looks like. Which I could understand. However, the difference between the biography here and the biographical details that Angela herself publishes is, in theory at least, she has less control over the content of the bio here. If a deletion here is permitted where will this precedent take us? [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano Zingers

::Trust me on this one, I would prefer not to direct any comment ever to the nominator but one does have to answer her, as she seems everpresent in Wikipedia. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano. Don't taunt the mentally ill.

After this, she went over to the ANI, told people how to behave, voted in a ban, and put herself on a list of admins with a high number of edits :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: Then she edited about 50 Commons articles (or pictures, I can't be bothered. to look)


[indent]

::I suppose the wink-smiley is meant to suggest that's humor, but I don't think the joke is particularly funny. Please refactor. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, the Afd, her erratic behavior, and desperate commons editing is a desperate attempt to get someone to talk to her. I'm sure now the Arbcom is over, she's not getting a lot of communications. She probably is on the outs, and is freaking out.

This post has been edited by Nathan:

Erases unhappy comment from her talk pages

Durova has been getting a lot of messages, so we'd like to ask everyone to please check the village pump first, and maybe discuss and ask questions there, otherwise Durova's talk page would fill up in no time, and she wouldn't be able to do much anymore. --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] ([[User talk:Kim Bruning|talk]]) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand she erases it.

:How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Slimvirgin supporting Durova isn't exactly a surprise, they are one and the same (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

How long till Durova loses it and starts getting warning templates? Stick a fork in her.

Slimvirgin supporting Durova isn't exactly a surprise, they are one and the same (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Same person? No. Slim isn't irrational as Durova (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif) (waits for the screaming to start) well Durova's style is more overtly malicious. Slim is more a behind-the-scenes kind of malicious. Durova is a I will accuse you in person in a manner so as that you can't do anything about it.

Slim usually sends a team in to do her bidding. Done so for ages. Durova started doing that recently, but in a different way.

Slim would support this because Angela wants it. I don't know that this is a "pro-Durova" vote. I maintain that this is a Durova-desperation move.

I also agree with Giano that Angela has the same information up on another page, which makes her wish hard to justify. She might well take down her picture and info while requesting the AfD..

I think Giano is a troll after all. He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough.

I sympathized with your Wikipedia struggle for a number of reasons (not the least of which being that your first name is my middle), but I don't think your and Angela's situations are the same. Angela is highly involved in the wiki process, was on the WMF board, has done a good deal of press work... she should be willing to stand by the whole "wiki process" for biographies, but she isn't. No one came around and asked you if you wanted a biography, or if you're willing to put stock in the Wikipedia standards for biographies, so it's not really fair to force you to have a bio on WP. No one asked her either I understand, but regardless her advocacy for Wikipedia should imply that she is willing to put trust into the system.

Angela getting her bio deleted won't mean much, but the fact that she even wants it deleted should do much to shake a person's faith in Wikipedia.

I think Giano is a troll after all. He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough.

So, the definition of "troll" according to Brandt is "somebody whose opinion disagrees with his".

I've long felt that Brandt and the WikiCliquers were two sides of the same coin, and here's some more evidence of it.

Besides the fact that she has the same information online about herself.

I at first agreed with Daniel. But when you see the same information on her user page. Wellllllll....

Then the issue becomes not about her privacy, but about control.

And she's still powerful in Wikipedia.

She can have her page locked, permanently, for her own updating pleasure. In principle.

And she was behind that others could not be deleted.

So why does she get to delete, when she is more than a borderline case of noteriety? Daniel Brandt hasn't gone on TV to talk about the worlds 8th most popular website. Seth Finkelstein hasn't written a book (oops, maybe he has) but if he did, he didn't go on CNET.

She's famous. And she can control the page. Let the discussions go elsewhere.

Angela Beesley resigned from the Wikimedia Foundation board.

Perhaps she's had a change of heart.

All that means is that she's free from liability from WMF. She's still got Wikia.

Angela Beesley resigned from the Wikimedia Foundation board.

Perhaps she's had a change of heart.

She remains at the chair of the Advisory Board (comprised of external professionals) that serves at the request of the Wikimedia Foundation board.

Still pretty entrenched with Wikipedia, I say.

Greg

I have a sooper-sekrit idea. It would be easy to implement, it would cost the Wikimedia Foundation nothing, and it would guarantee that the life expectancy of Wikipedia is extended by at least five years.

All the Foundation has to do is decree that they will accept requests from BLP subjects, with no questions asked and no qualifications required, to get their bio deleted and salted. This would be a WP:OFFICE action. The Office can set up its own procedure to verify the identity of someone claiming to be the subject of a bio.

I hesitate to reveal this idea, but only because I'm not sure that Wikipedia deserves to exist an extra five years.

Her resignation was almost a year and a half ago.

Just clarifying because the posts make it seem recent.


EDIT:

LOL, DUROVA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175763669

"I didn't know it was there, and it's incorrect for that page to claim the nom was 'per my request'."

So Durova just pulled this out of absolutely nowhere. It takes a very special type of lunacy to just openly lie like that when there is such a possibility of it being exposed as such. Durova's madness manifests itself evermore.

This post has been edited by Miltopia:

Durova:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175761109

Nominating for courtesy deletion or redirect per a request from Angela Beesley.

The request is credible. I am in direct contact with her.

Angela:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175763669

Thanks for pointing it out. I didn't know it was there, and it's incorrect for that page to claim the nom was "per my request".

First she claimed to have considerable support for !!'s block, which turned out to be false. Now she states that she is in direct contact with Angela concerning her bio, yet Angela knows nothing about it. What the hell is going on with Durova?

And now Angela has removed her talk page comment about not knowing about the AFD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175849512

Watch it get oversighted...

There are two issues here:
1. Does Angela want her bio deleted? Clearly, the answer is "yes." She's been consistent on this for a long time.
2. Did Durova screw up again? Probably the answer is "yes." She should have checked with Angela once again before putting up this AfD and implying that it was at Angela's request. Maybe Durova thinks she did, but Angela doesn't remember getting the memo.

Please, I would advise everyone who is monitoring Durova's downward spiral to relax a notch or two, and let us all practice in the environment of love, and trust, and good faith.

I am sure Angela is mistaken that she was in "direct communication" with Durova and asked for the removal of her biography. I regard it as a fluke-or-whim, and I don't really have a problem with it.

Signed,

The Sole Flounder

There are two issues here:

1. Does Angela want her bio deleted? Clearly, the answer is "yes." She's been consistent on this for a long time.
2. Did Durova screw up again? Probably the answer is "yes." She should have checked with Angela once again before putting up this AfD and implying that it was at Angela's request. Maybe Durova thinks she did, but Angela doesn't remember getting the memo.

The good Peircean in me naturally spies a 3rd issue —

When they have finally finished Jimbomandering the rules whichever way they choose, will the same standard of Not-A-Lie-Ability then be applied to everyone else?

Jon Awbrey

Did Durova screw up again? Probably the answer is "yes." She should have checked with Angela once again before putting up this AfD and implying that it was at Angela's request. Maybe Durova thinks she did, but Angela doesn't remember getting the memo.

Uh. Daniel. I think that it is worse than not remembering. Durova consistently claims to have approval of things for which she has no approval. She gives out names and references, etc. And when you check with the people, you find that it is either not true, or the person maybe said 'yeah-huh' and didn't realize that Durova would (slay a lion/kill a grandmother/throw babies off buildings) to get it done. So they they deny having given a head nod.

Making there be three options:
1. Durova lies her buns off.
2. Durova got the permission, but people are too humiliated to admit it when they are asked why.
3. Durova's bat-feet crazy. as in:

• She hears Arbitration Committee Members people's voices in her head that she talks to, and she hears them say, "yes Durova, you should ban that persion" or "yes, Durova, that is a vandalizing sockpuppet", or "yes Durova, you should give that interview and claim that Mr. X committed a crime on Wikipedia".

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Lol.

DL's post here is the defining characterization of Durova. Lol.

From Durova's talkpage:

For enduring a press firestorm, like Joan at her stake. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because being held accountable for your actions on a secret list and making a truly horrendous block highlighting once more the failings of the wiki-elite is equivalent to being burned at the stake (resulting in real death, not wikideath).

Besides doing Angela's bio AFD, she's running over to the ANI and frantically (viciously) voting to ban the crap out of anyone up for a ban.

Man!

That's one frustrated woman.

There are two issues here:
1. Does Angela want her bio deleted? Clearly, the answer is "yes." She's been consistent on this for a long time.
2. Did Durova screw up again? Probably the answer is "yes." She should have checked with Angela once again before putting up this AfD and implying that it was at Angela's request. Maybe Durova thinks she did, but Angela doesn't remember getting the memo.

Angela is uncommonly trustworthy in my eyes. I remember her dressing down Jimbo in one of the former board elections, where Jimbo tried to derail Eloquence's candidacy after getting leaked information mid-voting (Eloquence was her former boyfriend by that time). The next elections had to be held on outside computers because of this.

And I've always wondered about this edit. "... project that Jimmy Wales and I founded in 2004" -> "In 2004, I founded Wikia". This was around the time Jimbo started getting bitchy over the Sole Founder thing. She seemed to be making a point (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

Besides doing Angela's bio AFD, she's running over to the ANI and frantically (viciously) voting to ban the crap out of anyone up for a ban.

Man!

That's one frustrated woman.

It's Wikitherapy. Frustrated by people who stubbornly insist on disagreeing with you? Take it out on those who aren't allowed to respond!

Making there be three options:
1. Durova lies her buns off.
2. Durova got the permission, but people are too humiliated to admit it when they are asked why.
3. Durova's bat-feet crazy. as in:

• She hears Arbitration Committee Members people's voices in her head that she talks to, and she hears them say, "yes Durova, you should ban that persion" or "yes, Durova, that is a vandalizing sockpuppet", or "yes Durova, you should give that interview and claim that Mr. X committed a crime on Wikipedia".

I'll take a "refactored" door #3.

She hears complete silence, as the recipients of her deranged emails shake their heads in disbelief, and takes that as assent.

This post has been edited by Robster:

And I've always wondered about this edit. "... project that Jimmy Wales and I founded in 2004" -> "In 2004, I founded Wikia". This was around the time Jimbo started getting bitchy over the Sole Founder thing. She seemed to be making a point (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

No, it's just that Jimbo hasn't yet gotten around to finding Angela unnecessary for his personal benefit, so he hasn't revised history to make her an un-co-founder yet.

No, it's just that Jimbo hasn't yet gotten around to finding Angela unnecessary for his personal benefit, so he hasn't revised history to make her an un-co-founder yet.

There was a young man named Jimbo
Who famously posed with Bimbo
From his fortune in Porn
Wikipedia was born
Then Sanger got chucked out the window.

User:RuffRuff

There was a young man named Jimbo
Who famously posed with Bimbo
From his fortune in Porn
Wikipedia was born
Then Sanger got chucked out the window.

User:RuffRuff

is that really jimbo between those two women, and if so, are those 2 Slimmy and Durallova back in the roaring '90s?

i see Bomis has 10 employees. Is JzG one of them, and if so, why not? He's much more suited to that business than playing bouncer on an encyclopedia.

Dear Old Mum Piper always said "Do you what you're interested in", and I know he must really be more interested in the things on Bomis than the articles on Encyclopedia. Unless WP has articles on Letha Weapons II: Bustin' All Over.

Just who are these people running the website that shows up at the top of nearly every Google search.

Your comments are unnecessarily personal and do not help the encyclopedia. Please refactor.

is that really jimbo between those two women, and if so, are those 2 Slimmy and Durallova back in the roaring '90s?

Ms. SV and Ms. D are not here (on the internet) for anyone's sexual pleasure.

Neither am I, for the record.

If there is a common thread between Bomis and Wikipedia, it would be in the exploitation of the talents of others by reframing the payoff.

The most famous literary example of this is the scene in Tom Sawyer where he reframes the unpleasant task of whitewashing the fence into something desirable.

If there is a common thread between Bomis and Wikipedia, it would be in the exploitation of the talents of others by reframing the payoff.

The most famous literary example of this is the scene in Tom Sawyer where he reframes the unpleasant task of whitewashing the fence into something desirable.

The common theme is Pandering, as in Generation Of Vipers (GOV).

Jimbo = WikiPandarus

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

Has anyone coined or defined Wikiopathy yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...thy&action=edit

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title...thy&action=edit

Those are the places to do it ;-)

This post has been edited by Miltopia:

Erases unhappy comment from her talk pages

Durova has been getting a lot of messages, so we'd like to ask everyone to please check the village pump first, and maybe discuss and ask questions there, otherwise Durova's talk page would fill up in no time, and she wouldn't be able to do much anymore. --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] ([[User talk:Kim Bruning|talk]]) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand she erases it.

:How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Let the bastards eat th'er own dog food.

Has anyone coined or defined Wikiopathy yet?

Not that I know of. You thought of it; you do it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Has anyone coined or defined Wikiopathy yet?

Not that I know of. You thought of it; you do it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Wikiopathy. n. Pathological disturbance arising from or relating to excessive engagement with Wikipedia's entrenched dominance hierarchies.

NEWSFLASH: "HARVARD THESIS" INSPIRED DUROVA's ANGELA AFD

Uncomplimentary comments on Durova Talk Page by Cluduc (who quit shortly thereafter) This is actually about the Angela AFD, but somehow seems appropriate here. Durova told him to "refactor his edit" which opposed the AFD.

My comments

... are rather strong, but so is the strong whiff of "courteous" relationships going on in this community. My communications with all other members are aboveboard, for all to see. Any other arrangement is, by my definition, corruption of the principles of openness which Wikipedia once stood for. So no thank you, I do not care to "refactor" my comments, nor do I wish to hide them on a secret mailing list. Cleduc (talk)

Well, I apologize for having offended you. I confirmed this biography subject's wishes by the same means as I confirmed every other BLP article I nominated for deletion. Although I respect the impulse to see these requests posted directly onsite, confirming their authenticity would be problematic that way. Do you have a better suggestion for how to go about it, if this isn't sufficiently above board? DurovaCharge! 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not offended me, so no apology is necessary on that account. Your recent actions damaged this project, for which you have already apologized. This AFD draws disturbing parallels with the ongoing controversy, particularly as it involves the now-ominous word "courtesy" and a Foundation insider. The timing of this action could not have been worse: you presently have poor credibility with the community at large. In the best case, this AFD demonstrates very poor judgment on your part. Cleduc (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous history of nominating two of Wikipedia's most prominent critics' biographies on the same basis ought to dispel that supposition. Our policy is WP:AGF. I hope everyone weighs the nomination on its own merits, and in light of the precedents cited, without reference to unrelated events. WP:AFD is supposed to be a referendum on the article, not the nominator. DurovaCharge! 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand AGF quite well, thank you, along with the line in red – so if I were you, I wouldn't be dropping that particular card right about now. In any case, thanks for the memories. Cleduc (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, and I apologize for any impropriety. DurovaCharge! 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If it makes any difference to clarify, this nomination was an outgrowth of a discussion I've been having with a Harvard student who's writing a thesis on Wikipedia. For about six weeks we've been in periodic contact. This site's deletion dynamics play a role in her study and she recently mentioned the different outcomes of some similar biography nominations. I had nominated some of the other pages, but never this one. The timing was awkward, I agree, but the previous nominations set such a clear precedent for objectivity that I doubted anyone would contstrue mischief. I haven't nominated anything on that student's behalf, really, (this was my idea) and it's doubtful the result of this would even happen in time for the thesis deadline.(babble babble babble babble droooool) I won't deny we were curious. Another nomination seemed justifiable after half a year and the other precedents. Angela Beesley agreed to try it. DurovaCharge!

(oh! HARVARD you said! BECAUSE THAT MEANS EVERYTHING YOU DO IS OK - (remember Harvard was the reason Durova gave for Brandt's bio being undeleted)

We didn't know that this was related to the HARVARD thesis request. It all ties together! The nutjob Harvard thesis Durova request to undelete Brandt, the Angela AFD, and the chocolate cookies she backed yesterday)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Unless I'm mistaken, the focus of the Harvard research is the dynamics of dominance hierarchies, of which Wikipedia is a premier example.

The irony is that Durova's bumbled intervention here is a more salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy in action than the one the student was originally documenting.

Durova's bumbled intervention here is a more salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy in action than the one the student was originally documenting.

Not really. Durova's intervention is the grappling of a desperate despot who's been kicked off her throne and is frantically grasping onto the last shards of her old identity. Which is already long gone.

She WAS the most salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy. And the fact that Durova's been intervening with the student is one of those Wikipedia "not sure whether to laugh or cry" moments.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".

This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.

Greg

P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".

This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.

Greg

P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?

Is this getting no feedback from the WR faithful because it represents a big win-win for the Review, but we don't want the Wikipediots to figure that out?

That's what I'm going to tell myself.

Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".

This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.

Greg

P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?

Is this getting no feedback from the WR faithful because it represents a big win-win for the Review, but we don't want the Wikipediots to figure that out?

That's what I'm going to tell myself.

A blog entry probably would be quite good here to demonstrate how much trust in Wikipedia has declined. Perhaps add in the quote where she says something to the effect of "I doubt anyone will know what a wiki is in 50 years."

I don't even know what an Angela Beesley is, and now there's no unreliable way to find out.

I don't even know what an Angela Beesley is, and now there's no unreliable way to find out.

Except this.

I expect there'll be an article on Wikinfo or somewhere if there isn't already. And of course her user page is still a good source of info!

Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".

Some fairly respected folks are asking for Mercury's recall on his talk page. His response? First come up with some ridiculous recall conditions, then threaten to pull a Ryulong and simply remove himself from the recall category.

The sins of the project have an annoying habit of visiting themselves upon Mercury. Now he finds himself battling systemic unfairness and the short-circuiting of due process.

I can empathize (even if ArbCom cannot).

Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".

Some fairly respected folks are asking for Mercury's recall on his talk page. His response? First come up with some ridiculous recall conditions, then threaten to pull a Ryulong and simply remove himself from the recall category.

What's the point of listing yourself for recall if you remove yourself from recall as soon as someone requests it? Only took three hours after the first request. Only minutes, after the requests started piling up.

Mercury is clearly afraid of losing the tools, and I feel bad for him because he clearly knows he's lost the faith of a good portion of the community. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".

Some fairly respected folks are asking for Mercury's recall on his talk page. His response? First come up with some ridiculous recall conditions, then threaten to pull a Ryulong and simply remove himself from the recall category.

What's the point of listing yourself for recall if you remove yourself from recall as soon as someone requests it? Only took three hours after the first request. Only minutes, after the requests started piling up.

Mercury is clearly afraid of losing the tools, and I feel bad for him because he clearly knows he's lost the faith of a good portion of the community. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Ah, looks like he didn't just threaten to remove himself from recall eligibility, he actually did it. Nothing like courage in the strength of your convictions. Did he promise to be available for recall in his RFA? Yes, he did - right in his opening statement. Now that's character for you.

I don't even know what an Angela Beesley is, and now there's no unreliable way to find out.

Except this.

Angela grew up in a slough?

She cleaned up well.

Ah, looks like he didn't just threaten to remove himself from recall eligibility, he actually did it. Nothing like courage in the strength of your convictions. Did he promise to be available for recall in his RFA? Yes, he did - right in his opening statement. Now that's character for you.

I don't see that the initial situation warranted recall, but withdrawing himself from the category probably does.

I hadn't heard of the WP:TROUT policy before. It's amazing how many policies there are.

Ah, looks like he didn't just threaten to remove himself from recall eligibility, he actually did it. Nothing like courage in the strength of your convictions. Did he promise to be available for recall in his RFA? Yes, he did - right in his opening statement. Now that's character for you.

I don't see that the initial situation warranted recall, but withdrawing himself from the category probably does.

Of course it does. In some cases it's questionable, but he likely recieved adminship only because he promised to be open to recall. And it's clear that in any situation where someone actually requested it, he would say "no, you're using this to gain an advantage against me!" Too bad that nobody seems to think blatant lies about recall are actionable.

Too bad that nobody seems to think blatant lies about recall are actionable.

Even framing it that way misses the point.

Recalling Gore's "no controlling legal authority", an administrative class that's quick to accuse regular editors of "wikilawyering" should they point out that they broke no rules to deserve a block here finds deep meaning in the fact that there's currently no mechanism for holding them to their word: therefore their word doesn't count.

Stepping back from the procedural debate, the fact is that he's making a liar of himself. Should Wikipedia be administered by liars?

I can't find any actionable rule that prohibits it.

Ah, looks like he didn't just threaten to remove himself from recall eligibility, he actually did it. Nothing like courage in the strength of your convictions. Did he promise to be available for recall in his RFA? Yes, he did - right in his opening statement. Now that's character for you.

I don't see that the initial situation warranted recall, but withdrawing himself from the category probably does.

Of course it does. In some cases it's questionable, but he likely recieved adminship only because he promised to be open to recall. And it's clear that in any situation where someone actually requested it, he would say "no, you're using this to gain an advantage against me!" Too bad that nobody seems to think blatant lies about recall are actionable.

Actionable?

Stepping back from the procedural debate, the fact is that he's making a liar of himself. Should Wikipedia be administered by liars?

Now that's a trick question!

Actionable?

Hopefully they just mean "enforceable," i.e., within the context of the site's internal policies. I would certainly concur that the word "actionable" should be avoided when discussing how to apply Wikipedia rules to Wikipedia disputes.

Observable suffices.

Hopefully they just mean "enforceable," i.e., within the context of the site's internal policies. I would certainly concur that the word "actionable" should be avoided when discussing how to apply Wikipedia rules to Wikipedia disputes.

Correct. Actionable on wikipedia means "it can go to Arbcom", which usually means "not enforceable".

Too bad that nobody seems to think blatant lies about recall are actionable.

Even framing it that way misses the point.

Recalling Gore's "no controlling legal authority", an administrative class that's quick to accuse regular editors of "wikilawyering" should they point out that they broke no rules to deserve a block here finds deep meaning in the fact that there's currently no mechanism for holding them to their word: therefore their word doesn't count.

Stepping back from the procedural debate, the fact is that he's making a liar of himself. Should Wikipedia be administered by liars?

I can't find any actionable rule that prohibits it.

The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.

...So I abandoned it.

O

...So I abandoned it.

...lest you be recalled?

Whether you meant it that way or not, this gives the appearance of refusing to allow a recall vote that you think you'd lose.

The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.

Uhh, what Robster said...

But assuming we accept that statement at face value, I still don't see how the context has changed all that much... The whole point of being "open to recall" was that non-admins could get an admin desysopped if he/she "abused the tools," right? So has the definition of "abused the tools" changed?

I'll admit that you're being tarred with the Durova Brush™ here, and that may not be totally fair, but by defending her you've caused the non-admins to lose faith in your sense of fair play and good judgement. In that context, I'd say it's a perfectly appropriate use of the "recall" mechanism, such as it is.

The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.

Uhh, what Robster said...

But assuming we accept that statement at face value, I still don't see how the context has changed all that much... The whole point of being "open to recall" was that non-admins could get an admin desysopped if he/she "abused the tools," right? So has the definition of "abused the tools" changed?

I'll admit that you're being tarred with the Durova Brush™ here, and that may not be totally fair, but by defending her you've caused the non-admins to lose faith in your sense of fair play and good judgement. In that context, I'd say it's a perfectly appropriate use of the "recall" mechanism, such as it is.

I do not recall supporting Durova. I recall abhorring the release of emails. There are processes where we send emails, OTRS, and the local ArbComs. Now whether or not people support those processes, they are there. I challenge anyone to find a diff where I supported the block.

[[User:Mercury/OpenLetter]] explains things better.

O