Posted by: msharma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents?diff=next&oldid=172317153

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

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.

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 18th November 2007, 6:47pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents?diff=next&oldid=172317153

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.

Posted by: everyking

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.

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:07pm)

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.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_block_of_User:.21.21

It is finished.

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

Posted by: KamrynMatika

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=172323794. 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.

Posted by: Amarkov

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...

Posted by: msharma

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.

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:12pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=172323794.

Posted by: Moulton

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.

Posted by: KamrynMatika

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:20pm)

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.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Followup

It sure looks like there is an election soon!

Politics as usual.

Posted by: Amarkov

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Sun 18th November 2007, 11:23am)

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:20pm)

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?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 18th November 2007, 3:20pm)

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

I guess you never heard that story about Wiki-Pinocchio â€¦

His Wiki-Proboscis Just Kept Getting â€”

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

What people don't get until they have seen this trick a couple of dozen times â€” well, some of us get it after being fooled a couple of dozen times â€” 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

Posted by: Piperdown

"::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. [[User:Durova|Durova]]''[[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.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

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

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:42pm)

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

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

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 18th November 2007, 3:43pm)

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:42pm)

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

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

It's a well-known Ï†act, 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

Posted by: msharma

QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:28pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#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.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 18th November 2007, 12:47pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=172317153

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

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:49pm)

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 18th November 2007, 3:43pm)

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:42pm)

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

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

It's a well-known Ï†act, 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

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

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 18th November 2007, 1:07pm)

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 http://ttp://www.sitepronews.com/archives/articles/2007/0809.html. 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).

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:18pm)

QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 18th November 2007, 12:47pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=172317153

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!

Posted by: Amarkov

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=172342555&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.

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sun 18th November 2007, 8:33pm)

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.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE
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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Followup

Awesome.

Posted by: msharma

QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sun 18th November 2007, 8:18pm)

QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 18th November 2007, 12:47pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=172317153

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

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors. "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.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:36pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=172342555&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.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE

(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.

QUOTE

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.

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 18th November 2007, 8:38pm)

QUOTE
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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Followup

Awesome.

IRC use must be a banned.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:39pm)

QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sun 18th November 2007, 8:18pm)

QUOTE(msharma @ Sun 18th November 2007, 12:47pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=172317153

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

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors. "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=Special:Log&type=block&page=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.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE
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???!!!"

QUOTE
That's not my style.

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

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:55pm)

QUOTE
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???!!!"

QUOTE
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) â€Ž (false positive)
16:45, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) blocked "!! (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite â€Ž (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!

Posted by: KamrynMatika

QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sun 18th November 2007, 9:00pm)

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

18:00, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) unblocked !! (Talk | contribs) â€Ž (false positive)
16:45, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) blocked "!! (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite â€Ž (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?

I guess she's used to it usually working for her.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:36pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=172342555&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) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Woman

And â€œby the wayâ€ what 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Drew' 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_particularism.

It doesn't work anymore.

Brandt's prediction of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madama_Butterfly may yet come to pass.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

JE NE REGRETTE RIEN

QUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#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.

QUOTE

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

Posted by: KamrynMatika

At least we know of one candidate who's definitely not getting on ArbCom now

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.

Posted by: Robster

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Sun 18th November 2007, 4:43pm)

At least we know of one candidate who's definitely not getting on ArbCom now

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):

QUOTE

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

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Robster @ Sun 18th November 2007, 9:59pm)

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!

Posted by: jorge

I think this was a somewhat elaborate plot (that failed miserably )

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

SHE IS THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

Her antics as of 4 day prior, on the Wikimedia listserver:

QUOTE
http://www.nabble.com/wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org-tf4795255.html

People should get banned, if they are either harassing people,
violate 3RR or deliberately try to harm Wikipedia.
--
Raphael
******
Thank you for that noble sentiment. I was harassed last night. There's a
thread at ANI that's proposed banning the editor who did it. You may
exercise your principles there.

-Durova

Seriously, has anyone kept a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge?

I wonder what the harassment was. Someone emailing her asking a block be lifted?

Posted by: Piperdown

Duova's big mistake: not using the Wordbomb card.

You can ban ANYONE, and I mean anyone, with no evidence whatsoever. Just for DONTLIKE reasons. ban them as Wordbomb. It's the magic charm of getting rid of people on the other side of an argument making you look bad.

Next time Durova, just ban who you want as Wordbomb. It works wonderfully in the environment of today's wikipedia.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 18th November 2007, 5:04pm)

Duova's big mistake: not using the Wordbomb card.

You can ban ANYONE, and I mean anyone, with no evidence whatsoever. Just for DONTLIKE reasons. ban them as Wordbomb. It's the magic charm of getting rid of people on the other side of an argument making you look bad.

Next time Durova, just ban who you want as Wordbomb. It works wonderfully in the environment of today's wikipedia.

She already does this. It is called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive324#Bizarre_behavior_from_Jehochman, aka Kohs Stalking.

QUOTE
It's Wikipedia Review: either the banned editor himself or someone who's proxying for him. Either way, a clear WP:SOCK policy violation. DurovaCharge! 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What BLP reason? And what reason do you have to believe it is Greg Kohs? ViridaeTalk 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly (for Durova) even this is losing street credibility.

It worked for a full year and a half, but she overdid it.

Posted by: Derktar

A scapegoat can only work so long, eventually you have to find a new scapegoat.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Derktar @ Sun 18th November 2007, 6:13pm)

A scapegoat can only work so long, eventually you have to find a new scapegoat.

This is the part that utterly astonishes me.

By now, one would have thought that the practice of scapegoating would have gone the way of sacrificing virgins.

But for reasons unbeknownst to me, Homo Schleppians continues to reprise the hoary practice of blaming some hapless scapegoat for every erratic feature of a pathetically dysfunctional system.

I dunno whether Durova is a virgin, but even if they do sacrifice her, it still won't solve the inherent problem.

Posted by: guy

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 18th November 2007, 7:33pm)

QUOTE(Derktar @ Sun 18th November 2007, 6:13pm)

A scapegoat can only work so long, eventually you have to find a new scapegoat.

This is the part that utterly astonishes me.

By now, one would have thought that the practice of scapegoating would have gone the way of sacrificing virgins.

But for reasons unbeknownst to me, Homo Schleppians continues to reprise the hoary practice of blaming some hapless scapegoat for every erratic feature of a pathetically dysfunctional system.

I dunno whether Durova is a virgin, but even if they do sacrifice her, it still won't solve the inherent problem.

Seeing as how the above flame erupts from a source who writes under the rubric of Â«Moulton LavaÂ», I think I spy, if you'll excuse the expression, a Conflict Of Interest here.

Jonny

Posted by: jorge

QUOTE(guy @ Mon 19th November 2007, 12:09am)

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=172347692&oldid=172347563.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(jorge @ Sun 18th November 2007, 6:41pm)

QUOTE(guy @ Mon 19th November 2007, 12:09am)

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=172347692&oldid=172347563.

QUOTE
:::It strikes me that this was a similar situation as what happened with Melsaran, Evidence was uncovered as part of an investigation and it was reported to ArbCom. However, given the potentially confidential nature of the evidence and the fact that there was no ongoing disruption, would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block, specifically stating that they were doing so for the ArbCom, based on confidential evidence, as that is part of the reason ArbCom exists (to deal with such evidence)? Mr.Z-man

::::You're right, and I realize that now. Will do. That was how we handled
Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance. Durova Charge!

Ah. Yes.

The lesson learned here (by our heroine) is procedural, not moral.

Next time, Durova is to politic better before blocking irrationally, so Arbcom does the banning, based on her false evidence. In this manner, there is no drama (also known as: no embarassing, annoying questions of judgement ) when the hapless innocent person is banned indefinitely on false evidence.

I rest my case. Durova for Arbcom! She'll be far better placed to get their unanimous approval if she is she's on the Committee. Less drama, more productive banning. Bravo!

Posted by: KamrynMatika

Well, at least her victim isn't taking it lying down. I have to say that this whole thing is incredibly amusing.

Oh, and her latest fanboy is there to support her:

QUOTE

It appears User:!! has been ennulled unblocked[123] with an explaination. I doubt there is any one here who hasn't made well intentioned errors. Lets close this and focus efforts on more productive channels--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE

Agreed, and with a note to Krimpet: please do not restore posts that originate from TOR nodes.[124] I think it's a fair assumption that the person would use a legitimate account if he or she had any. As my previous post explains, the blanking was not accidental. DurovaCharge! 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's funny...

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

MORE JUSTIFICATIONS (yawn)

QUOTE
Basically I've been working on tracking some long term sockpuppets that originate from a certain cluster of former editors. The Burntsauce and Dannycali accounts are recent and public examples of that: both had borrowed disruptive tactics from JB196 , who is one of the site's most prolific and destructive sockpuppeteers (well over 500 socks) who had actually degraded a fair portion of the site's database in professional wrestling and pop culture areas.Not the most highbrow stuff, but his method of attack is theoretically applicable to any subject

A Kohs, by any other name, is still a Kohs. (Isnt this one of Greg's?) She is so simple that she has to link any ban or block back to some other completely unrelated person.

QUOTE

Basically I've been working on tracking some long term sockpuppets that originate from a certain cluster of former editors.

Basically, this is why you make so many mistakes, D. You assume every person you dislike, or what-have-you is from the pool of longtime former editors. Fallacy.

QUOTE
Ryan, I respect your thoughtful response. However I disgree quite strongly with the supposition that there's no need for secrecy here. Nearly everyone who's seen my sock investigations agrees that some of the methodologies are sensitive and should be kept confidential,

Yes, I was most concerned that the wool sock not get outted as a false cashmere.

QUOTE
This site does have a problem with banned editors who engage in long term sockpuppetry. These people operate as a team and share strategies.

My God. Her abusive false accusations are more problematic and damaging to the project than any sockpuppetry. In fact, she raises the importance of sockpuppetry by running around chasing it like some kind of insane, maniacal Nancy Drew Wannabe.

QUOTE
My principal aim when I wrote them was to correct the problem and clear the air as swiftly as possible, once I confirmed the new evidence that had come to my attention. My goal was to minimize the harm I had inadvertently caused and to restore people's confidence. I was fielding quite a few queries at once and didn't want to keep anyone waiting.

No it wasn't. Your principal goal was to extricate yourself from the negative scrutiny of a group of people who could see that you were obviously abusing procedure, and probably attacking an(other) innocent person the process.

QUOTE
So the first apologies were sincere and simple.

They were smug and self-justifying. Recall how you clung to the factoid that the guy had a previous account. Because that made what you did right, including revealing his real identity to a group of people, and basically stalking him to get it in your own hands.

QUOTE
In comparison to other mistaken blocks that have occurred at this site, few administrators have been as swift in correcting their own error, as forthcoming with apologies, or as heavily criticized for the effort.

You weren't swift. You responded because you got attacked and realized you weren't going to get away with it. Your apologies were snide and limp, and you are anything but sorry. You deserve more, not less, criticism.

QUOTE
If there's something more I can do to set things right I'll readily do so, but full disclosure of my investigative techniques would cause far more harm than good. DurovaCharge! 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your techniques cannot possibly be top secret military secrets. Are you accesing government databanks (which would be illegal?). Are you waterboarding rendered sock suspects in Afghanistan? Please, don't keep us in suspense.

Posted by: Moulton

When I was exchanging E-Mail with Durova, the one remark that she most appreciated was my http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/blogs-and-multi-player-online-role.html that WP was exhibiting characteristics of an MMPORG.

But having acknowledged that observation, Durova doesn't seem to have any idea how to escape from that hellish dynamic.

Posted by: Firsfron of Ronchester

QUOTE(guy @ Sun 18th November 2007, 5:09pm)

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

I thought that was W.Marsh (the "spewing venom" and "living in England in a similar way" comments).

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Mon 19th November 2007, 2:46am)

QUOTE(guy @ Sun 18th November 2007, 5:09pm)

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

I thought that was W.Marsh (the "spewing venom" and "living in England in a similar way" comments).

Sure that wasn't "living in the same state as a banned user" (which Cla68 was not, unless you consider Japan and Utah the same place).

I think Durova must have learned her foolproof sleuthing techniques from SlimVirgin, the most grateful Wikipedian that Durova stepped up to the plate to "bat 0.1000". Durova, baby, that's not very good in even baseball. I think you meant "bat 1.000". Use that next time you're trying to impress the boys again with how big your balls are.

Posted by: tarantino

Jehochman and Durova are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=172423563#Proxy_posting_for_banned_and_blocked_users_operating_through_Tor_nodes that Krimpet keeps http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=172397944 posts to the ANI discussion from a banned user using TOR.

The reappearing post-

QUOTE

Durova did the same thing to me the other day when she indefinitely blocked me for being a sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review on the basis of "secret evidence." This excuse about not publically revealing her propriatary techniques, lest the trolls catch on, all sounds quite clever and responsible until one realizes that she doesn't have the faintest clue of what she's doing. Expect much more of the same if Durova makes her way onto the Arbitration Committee, when puzzled observers can assure themselves that, as an arbitrator,Durova must know something that they don't. She doesn't. Based as they are upon an appeal to her track record, rather than to any evidence, her acccusations have proven too unrelilable to be of any value..[[User:24.19.33.82|24.19.33.82]] 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon asks "One, which banned user is this alleged to be? Two, since when is Wikipedia:Deny recognition policy?"

One problem I see, though, the http://www.as3344.net/is-tor/?args=24.19.33.82 not actually a TOR node.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 19th November 2007, 1:12am)

One problem I see, though, the http://www.as3344.net/is-tor/?args=24.19.33.82 not actually a TOR node.

Maybe not a NP:TOR, but it's a WP:TOR anytime the Cabloids say it is.

Jonny

Posted by: Amarkov

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 9:15pm)

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 19th November 2007, 1:12am)

One problem I see, though, the http://www.as3344.net/is-tor/?args=24.19.33.82 not actually a TOR node.

Maybe not a NP:TOR, but it's a WP:TOR anytime the Cabloids say it is.

Jonny

It's Wikivocabulary, remember. "TOR node", under the special Wikipedia definition, means "shared IP that someone we think is a banned user has acess to".

Posted by: Aloft

It would appear that "!!" really is the sockpuppet of someone. Evidently there was some previous arrangement that Durova was not privy to. I wonder who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%21%21&diff=172397677&oldid=172393052

Ultimately, this (apparently) good user will have his cover blown due to Durova's incompetence.

Posted by: Miltopia

Durova deserves all of the harm that comes to her credibility that comes from this. The same to anyone who puts attention-whoring/glory-seeking above good judgment.

She's one of the worst of a brand of Wikipedians desperately trying to take the first and most extreme action in any controversy. Jimbo, of course, will egg this on forever, all caught up in his "shoot on sight" mentality.

Wikipedia crumbles! I like Wikipedia, really, but I think it would be funny to see Durova get appointed for arbcom. Especially now that the thought makes me think of Disillusioned Lackey's lullarious avatar.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 18th November 2007, 11:12pm)

Jehochman and Durova are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=172423563#Proxy_posting_for_banned_and_blocked_users_operating_through_Tor_nodes that Krimpet keeps http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=172397944 posts to the ANI discussion from a banned user using TOR.

Those two crazy kids. They remind me of a line from a John Irving novel where he talks about people who were "suspiciously on guard for purse snatchers and snatch snatchers".

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 18th November 2007, 11:12pm)

Picaroon asks "One, which banned user is this alleged to be? Two, since when is Wikipedia:Deny recognition policy?"

Uh oh. That first question smacks of (heaven forfend!) disrespect for her reasoning skills.

QUOTE
The banned user appears to be Wikipedia Review or a meat puppet, but there's absolutely no way to ever know for sure because they are posting through a Tor node. We sort of have to make a best guess by the message that they are sending. Are we now going to say that banned users can do whatever they like as long as they use Tor nodes? That seems rather unwise. Additionally, I have received email correspondence that strongly suggests involvement of Wikipedia Review. - Jehochman Talk 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

JESUS They just wont give Greg a rest! It is getting embarassing to watch. *Remember, everyone that Greg already called JeHochman and told him that this wasnt himself, and asked him to stop making the accusation, at which point JeHochman backed down - re: "Bizarre Behavior of JeHochman". Of course, this is NOT Greg, or he would not have called JeHochman to protest being blamed for this login IP. What is it going to take for Durova and JeHochman to stop involving Greg's name, and his business name, in every accusation? It is as if these two are begging to be sued. Seriously. They are provoking him to a lawsuit. "WE can unfairly defame you and your business as much as WE want. nyah, nyah, nyah. WE DARE YOU to make a legal threat, nyah, nyah, nyah"

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 18th November 2007, 11:12pm)

One problem I see, though, the http://www.as3344.net/is-tor/?args=24.19.33.82 not actually a TOR node.

Well, yeah. She needs someone to kick in the face after this humiliating group browbeating, and her target of last week, a lowly IP, is an easy target. She's even employing the same lame excuses, or she's added onto the sock accusation the TOR accusation. Few people know what a TOR is, or how to check for it, so it is almost as good as a self-justifying fib as calling someone a sock.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Aloft @ Mon 19th November 2007, 12:06am)

It would appear that "!!" really is the sockpuppet of someone. Evidently there was some previous arrangement that Durova was not privy to. I wonder who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%21%21&diff=172397677&oldid=172393052

Ultimately, this (apparently) good user will have his cover blown due to Durova's incompetence.

Hmmm. I disagree. I think it was someone who changed his name for personal reasons (maybe he got outted before) and she went and announced his old login to the world, pronouncing it as another sockpuppet scalp.

I repeat my assertion that sockpuppetry is not as big of a problem as she's making it. (Don't even get me started on WP Admin sockpuppetry, which is a real phenomenon). The problem is really vandalism, and trollism. If someone is a troll, then treat them as a troll. Same for vandals. She's too hung up on the "I'm smarter than you Mr. Troll/Vandal" which is totally not the point. The point is to improve the encyclopedia and protect it from harm. Throwing big fits about recidivist socks is really not terribly helpful to anything. In "competing" with the "sockpuppet army" she claims to exist, she raises their importance.

Some banned users use socks a lot, and just contribute normally. Some banned users vandalize. But I don't think that many "share information with each other". It is not a sockpuppet conspiracy, as she hopes.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 18th November 2007, 8:33pm)

When I was exchanging E-Mail with Durova, the one remark that she most appreciated was my http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/blogs-and-multi-player-online-role.html that WP was exhibiting characteristics of an MMPORG.

But having acknowledged that observation, Durova doesn't seem to have any idea how to escape from that hellish dynamic.

Two thoughts. Both she and Jimmy were MUDD fans, and MUDD was the ultimate MMPORG. Many MUDD fans, including them, moved on to WP. Wonder why.

Second thought. Her classic MO is to be able to analyze something, but to have no ability to change her behavior in regard to it. She constantly writes SEO articles to businesses about how not to ruin their reputation, while continuing to work to ruin reputations.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE

would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block ...

That was how we handled Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance.

Sorry to be a pedant, Durova, but Runcorn, Poetlister etc. were blocked by Dmcdevit, not a current member of ArbCom - the same Dmcdevit who shortly after that blocked someone else as a sockpuppet of Runcorn and had to back down. We only have Dmcdevit's word that the ArbCom even saw the evidence, let alone endorsed the ban. Maybe they just haven't had time to consider it yet.

Posted by: jorge

Well done Ms Durova, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%21%21.

Posted by: Moulton

IP 24.19.33.82 has two mutually inconsistent reverse lookups...

c-24-19-33-82.hsd1.mn.comcast.net
c-24-19-33-82.hsd1.wa.comcast.net

However, a traceroute puts the IP in the vicinity of the north side of Seattle WA.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(jorge @ Mon 19th November 2007, 7:20am)

Well done Ms Durova, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%21%21.

Is there any significance to the observation that the sayonara sunset http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%21%21&action=history by User:Bishonen?

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(guy @ Mon 19th November 2007, 4:39am)

QUOTE

would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block ...

That was how we handled Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance.

Sorry to be a pedant, Durova, but Runcorn, Poetlister etc. were blocked by Dmcdevit, not a current member of ArbCom - the same Dmcdevit who shortly after that blocked someone else as a sockpuppet of Runcorn and had to back down. We only have Dmcdevit's word that the ArbCom even saw the evidence, let alone endorsed the ban. Maybe they just haven't had time to consider it yet.

Sigh. There are so many levels to the inappropriateness here. Leaving aside the fairness (or not) of the Runcorn case.... On a purely semantic level, as you've pointed out, Arbcom didn't do the block in a formal manner, though this is the verbiage put forth, mostly by Durova, the apparent motor behind the block.

This reminds me of her http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/articles/2007/0817d.html, where she repeated, over and over again, that 'I (Durova) banned these users, and that's why they say bad things about me' (paraphrased) , which was completely fallacious. As an administrator, she can't ban people. There are three ways to ban: Jimbo, Arbcom and community. Period. Indef block is what she can do, and though indef-blocks have the same result as a ban, even then her 'powers' are limited. Her use of the words 'I banned this person' or that person, makes it clear that she sees herself as possessing that power.

Of course, Durova is misrepresenting the procedure with Runcorn (apparently, though Guy et al. know better than I) such that it appears to be a formal Arbcom procedure. Maybe it was, but to the best of my knowledge, it was never published as such. As I understood it, the blocks were announced (presumably to the blocked persons), and they were told that Arbcom approved it. Arbcom never published any such decision, as they should have formally done. Thus the allegation that it was Arbcom-seal-of-approval-give is an unsubstantiated allegation of Durova et al.

Durova's vast over-exaggeration of her own power (to ban, for example, when she can't really, per the rules) demonstrates just how scary the idea of her being on Arbcom could be (or great, if you want to see Wikipedia become a complete circus that self-implodes ). Arbcom is a sleeping giant, that frequently doesn't move or react. With her involved as a sort of punitive moter and auto-prosecution-machine, Arbcom would just become a giant Durova-bot.

If you are Durova , you think that's great, because she knows what's best for everyone, and what is best is to focus on finding negativity and crushing it (creating even more negativity in the process, usually by accident and error). If you are Wikipedia (proper) it will lead to eventual scandals and embarassment, because she is singularly focused on finding guilt, and not terribly concerned about making mistakes. She's a not even a loose cannon, she's a random cannon. She's what you want to let loose in your enemy camp. Which if you hate Wikipedia, and want to see it embarassed, or weakened it good. What is scary is the bodycount increase , of well-intentioned users, newbies (who she'll accuse of being Greg K, or other random scapegoat, or supposed TOR criminal), and newer "EOD", enemies of Durova, such as people who questioned her sainted judgement in the "!!" debacle. Also !!, who if he comes back, is a marked man, or woman).

There is not a really serious sockpuppet problem, except for the socks she's stuffed up her nose (should have tried BEANS). The 'sock problem' is really her obsessive need to prosecute things, which has blossomed into some full blown vendettas, such as with Greg. That's some personal problem she has. Socks aren't problems as such, unless they are vandals, or used to game procedure, and even then, that's probably less than 20% of the sock population (a dirty guesstimate).

Wikipedia's main problems are: 1) substantive inaccuracies, 2) overzealousness-of-the-empowered, and 3) rule-and-procedure-implementation inconsistencies. (Durova is a huge part of no. 2 and no. 3, of course) Vandalism is just a daily, minor, run of the mill issue, that any newbie vandal patrol fighter can cope with, as long as he/she isn't overzealous to the point of damaging volunteer relationships, or even humiliating people (or even defaming them) unnecessarily. And which sadly happens too often.

There never needs to be a situation where people are humiliated or damaged on Wikipedia , and it unfortunately happens very often. Durova sees this as the fault of the victims of such Wiki-mistakes and that's what would be incredibly sad about her being elected - for Wikipedia, as well as for volunteers. She's not focused on improvements. She's completely COI, and it isn't about money. Her ego and naked power seeking is the COI.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Aloft @ Mon 19th November 2007, 1:06am)

It would appear that "!!" really is the sockpuppet of someone. Evidently there was some previous arrangement that Durova was not privy to. I wonder who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%21%21&diff=172397677&oldid=172393052

Ultimately, this (apparently) good user will have his cover blown due to Durova's incompetence.

It would also appear that someone who dreams about big boobs and rides with his helmet http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User_talk:%21%21 that particular diff.

What did it say, basically?

Greg

Posted by: Aloft

She blocked this poor guy by mistake recently as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Durova&page=User%3ANearestAvailableNewt

She used that same line on him: "False positives occasionally happen in blood tests and sockpuppet investigations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NearestAvailableNewt&oldid=171015049

If blood tests were as accurate as her "sockpuppet investigations" we'd all be dead.

Wonder if NearestAvailableNewt's recent bad block has been brought up at ANI yet?

Posted by: Miltopia

Disgusting. !!'s talk page is blanked. Before I could barely watch myself scroll through it without the pastel tan "good job on the Did You Know" boxes whizzing by my eyes.

DL's analysis is spot on - a mad woman caught up in her own use of privileges is how I see it. Conversing with her must be excruciating, you can tell by how she writes that she LOVES to hear her own voice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durova/Durova%27s_arbitration_tips

Although since !! has admitted to being an alternate account, I predict s/he will indeed be indef blocked for good in the next month or so. Now that the crowd Durova is part of has gotten wind of it, it doesn't matter how many oppose such a block, if they just keep wheel warring over it it'll stick eventually. Look what happened to Privatemusings after all...

Posted by: Moulton

See, that's the problem with Pogroms and Ethnic Cleansing.

The Secret Police occasionally round up and deport an unusual suspect.

Posted by: Aloft

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 19th November 2007, 3:23pm)

What did it say, basically?

He complained that as a result of his block, his private information had been shared with too many people.

I'm wondering if it's <bad guess removed>, who was formerly known as <bad guess removed>. This is just idle speculation on my part, though. I'm no Wikipedia Complex Investigations Specialist.

Posted by: jorge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II#Re:_the_autoblock_User_talk:.21.21:

QUOTE

"Some people may feel it is a great pity Durova was ever allowed to have access to such tools in the first place. Giano (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see the message was left here because !! has gone on a long wikibreak with his history deleted - typical. Yet another valuable editor driven off by sheer incompetence of an ill trained Admin. Many people know that !! was formerly one of Wikipedia's most valuable and respected editors who for his own private reasons wanted a change of account name - and why not? I do hope there will be a de-sysoping at the end of this. Giano (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) "

Posted by: jorge

OK, I think http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=500&target=%21%21 is [redacted]. [redacted] stopped making major edits on 25th June, !! started on July 1st, both are interested in [redacted] subjects.

Posted by: Aloft

I think you've got it. Filter their contribs using Template Talk and compare them side by side. Looks like a pretty good match.

Posted by: jorge

QUOTE(Aloft @ Mon 19th November 2007, 4:37pm)

I think you've got it. Filter their contribs using Template Talk and compare them side by side. Looks like a pretty good match.

So does anyone know why [redacted] wanted to change accounts? Did he fall out with the "cabal"?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(jorge @ Mon 19th November 2007, 10:51am)

So does anyone know why [redacted] wanted to change accounts? Did he fall out with the "cabal"?

If he was part of that whole [redacted]/[redacted]/[redacted] "Morality + Quality + Typical Wikipedians = Chaos" crowd, then it's no wonder they wanted to get rid of him...

As for the name change... [joke redacted]!

Posted by: Aloft

Yet more Durova block mistakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Dieseltruckdude
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Durova&page=user%3AWikiGnosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Yanxfan421324
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Durova&page=user%3ATankred
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Durova&page=User%3ALionheartX

...and these are just the ones she caught herself. Imagine how many were caught by other admins, or worse, are still blocked? It looks like Ms. Wikipedia Brown is in over her head with these complex sockpuppet investigations.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Aloft & Jorge

Hey, can you please delete the "guessed name" of said maybe-other-account of the poor, beleagured "!!" ?

He wanted to change his name for some good reason, and did. The http://www.alligatorpapiere.de/images/rehak-Girl-Sleuth-Nancy-Drew.jpgsaw fit to flay him publicly, having tried him (in her pointy head) by her own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_reports, despite having had at least some people defend him, and http://www.jibjab.com/view/179922

What he doesn't need is for us to write his former login/name online, just to prove we are smart enough to suss out former logins. Thttp://www.thealmightyguru.com/Reviews/Clue/Images/Clue-Game.jpg

Deal?

Posted by: Aloft

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Mon 19th November 2007, 5:42pm)

Aloft,

Hey, can you please delete the "guessed name" of said maybe-other-account of the poor, beleagured "!!" ?

Sure, no problem. But it appears that jorge has proven my guess wrong anyway, so I'm not sure what difference it will make.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 19th November 2007, 11:05am)

If he was part of that whole [redacted]/[redacted]/[redacted] "Morality + Quality + Typical Wikipedians = Chaos" crowd, then it's no wonder they wanted to get rid of him...

Do you really think that it was so well thought out? Maybe so, but I don't see the cabal as a cohesive unit at present, but as more of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy Even in a minor gossip level, it seems not really organized. Otherwise, there would have been a gang of six, bullying down any nay-sayers, and even if obviously wrong, she would not have backed down, would not have erased and deleted, and would not have given what she thinks passes for an apology. Instead, we saw 6-12 nay-sayers were challenging her conclusions[b]. (ok, one of them is running against her for Arbcom, but nonetheless, there's more than one seat open)

This seems like a group by the gang of one (plus one always-overly-enthusiastic JeH, riding shotgun).

Of course, maybe she didn't like his gang anyways. But she didn't seem aware he was so active of a contributor, i.e. surprised to be told that (by his many much-annoyed defenders).

I think she is so busy chasing http://www.filmsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/Ghostbusters2.jpg that she isn't much into the "mix" of late.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II#Re:_the_autoblock_User_talk:.21.21:

"Some people may feel it is a great pity Durova was ever allowed to have access to such tools in the first place. Giano (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. She doesn't HAVE access to checkuser tools, or at least she's not supposed to.

I'm fairly certain she got them, in a bid to use them with the Wikiscanner tool, which was her big push when it was launched a few months ago. Which gave her free access to the revealing tool that she should not be able to use at all.

Someone with her tendencies needs a strong hand and a close watch, and on Wikipedia, that simply isn't there. Her age makes her esp. unwieldly. How is a 15 year old kid supposed to combat a 50 year old ego-mad woman with brains, education, professional experience and an attitude that could level a tall building?

For all the dissing I do of kids managing Wikipedia, there are some cases where they are at a completely unfair disadvantage, and have my total sympathies, and arguing with Durova is one of them.

Posted by: Aloft

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Mon 19th November 2007, 6:11pm)

Ahem. She doesn't HAVE access to checkuser tools, or at least she's not supposed to.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the admin tools..

Posted by: jorge

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Mon 19th November 2007, 5:42pm)

What he doesn't need is for us to write his former login/name online, just to prove we are smart enough to suss out former logins. Thttp://www.thealmightyguru.com/Reviews/Clue/Images/Clue-Game.jpg

Deal?

It's a bit too late now given the amount of thread views, and Giano seems to imply that it's quite well known anyway. I actually thought that this whole thing might have been a scheme hatched up by Durova to draw Giano (her opponent for Arbcom) into a protracted argument in a hope to portray him as unreasonable and argumentative. If that it is the case it has pretty much failed as Giano has been relatively calm in his responses.

Posted by: msharma

You do realise that now that you've caught these nobody will ever be able to use them on-wiki as evidence against her, right....?

QUOTE(Aloft @ Mon 19th November 2007, 5:23pm)

Yet more Durova block mistakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Dieseltruckdude
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Durova&page=user%3AWikiGnosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Yanxfan421324
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Durova&page=user%3ATankred
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Durova&page=User%3ALionheartX

...and these are just the ones she caught herself. Imagine how many were caught by other admins, or worse, are still blocked? It looks like Ms. Wikipedia Brown is in over her head with these complex sockpuppet investigations.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(jorge @ Mon 19th November 2007, 12:41pm)

It's a bit too late now given the amount of thread views,

It is never too late to do the right thing, Jorge. I'm sure this kid would appreciate it. And the thread views are from last night, in the heat of the discussion. Probably 7% of them saw your post.

And why not delete it, other than to show that you can deduce skillfully. We all know that, but why not show you are considerate too, if you please.

QUOTE(jorge @ Mon 19th November 2007, 12:41pm)

and Giano seems to imply that it's quite well known anyway.

Maybe among his friends, sure. But it isnt published online. His angst at having had his private information bandied about *is* published online (Durovas talk page), so why not be a decent guy and delete it?

QUOTE(jorge @ Mon 19th November 2007, 12:41pm)

I actually thought that this whole thing might have been a scheme hatched up by Durova to draw Giano (her opponent for Arbcom) into a protracted argument in a hope to portray him as unreasonable and argumentative.

Maybe. You are giving her more credit than I do. Because I see her doing this to everyone, often. The subgoal is always to portray the victim (or anyone who disputes her) as argumentative and unreasonable. If she can pin a sock accusation on any person (weaker than her), she'll do it. This poor kid didn't even do anything wrong, and maybe didnt even disagree with her, just was a name change she sussed out and attacked.

If she were a clever strategist, she's have lain low until elections, not shot for a big drama. Her love of sleuthing and fighting are already well known. But I dont think she *can* keep a low profile. Which will make her possible Arbcom tenure a multi-show ticket selling event.

QUOTE(msharma @ Mon 19th November 2007, 1:04pm)

You do realise that now that you've caught these nobody will ever be able to use them on-wiki as evidence against her, right....?

Not so. Most things discovered on WR get corrected or used on WP. Never credited, of course, but used.

They love free work.

Posted by: jorge

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Mon 19th November 2007, 7:40pm)

And why not delete it

deleted as requested.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Thx much.

Posted by: Piperdown

This just in:

Jehochman "doesnt like blocks without evidence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=prev&oldid=172560019

Unless it's by his SEO bonzai buddi Durova, of course.

Posted by: Piperdown

Swatjester's community patience has been exhausted by durova's assertiveness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=172570637&oldid=172570575

Are you OUT of your MIND? Semi-protecting the AN/I because an IP editor YOU are in a dispute with is posting things that you disagree with? Are you so blinded in your quest to sleuth everyone on this project and to CYA in this admitted mistake you've made that you would disrupt one of the single most active pages on the project, screwing over EVERY SINGLE IP EDITOR who wants to make a post here for....over 7 hours? [[User:Swatjester|

Posted by: The Joy

It angers me to no end that someone like Durova can go around doing these things and the ones that speak out against her are shouted down.

They have every right to be angry with Durova's actions. Why is she allowed to do this when other respected administrators question her tactics?

I wish I could run for ArbCom. A desyop and banning seems to be in order here.

WP has to understand that the project comes before the Community. If members of the Community are getting in the way of the project, begone with them no matter how long they've been around.

Posted by: Derktar

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Mon 19th November 2007, 2:16pm)

Swatjester's community patience has been exhausted by durova's assertiveness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=172570637&oldid=172570575

Are you OUT of your MIND? Semi-protecting the AN/I because an IP editor YOU are in a dispute with is posting things that you disagree with? Are you so blinded in your quest to sleuth everyone on this project and to CYA in this admitted mistake you've made that you would disrupt one of the single most active pages on the project, screwing over EVERY SINGLE IP EDITOR who wants to make a post here for....over 7 hours? [[User:Swatjester|

Semi-protecting ANI...priceless. And Swatjester seems to have fallen ill to several bouts of "outspokenness" recently.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 19th November 2007, 6:01pm)

A desyop and banning seems to be in order here.

WP has to understand that the project comes before the Community. If members of the Community are getting in the way of the project, begone with them no matter how long they've been around.

The project cannot succeed if the community is disorganized.

The question is how best to organize a community.

The problem with trying to organize a community by sequentially castigating and ostracizing the bad actor du jour is that over time, it's a corrosive and dispiriting process that gradually alienates more and more people.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 19th November 2007, 6:12pm)

QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 19th November 2007, 6:01pm)

A desyop and banning seems to be in order here.

WP has to understand that the project comes before the Community. If members of the Community are getting in the way of the project, begone with them no matter how long they've been around.

The project cannot succeed if the community is disorganized.

The question is how best to organize a community.

The problem with trying to organize a community by sequentially castigating and ostracizing the bad actor du jour is that over time, it's a corrosive and dispiriting process that gradually alienates more and more people.

So, it would be better for her to change herself or leave voluntarily?

I don't think WP has ever had any clear goals. Build an encyclopedia is a good broad goal, but then there's the details and sub-goals that have to be made.

WP needs to figure out what it is creating, how to create it, and what kind of community and leadership is needed to create it.

Its like they're playing an American football game but they haven't a clue how to make the goal and keep fumbling the ball. You need strategy, cohesion, teamwork, and leadership. WP doesn't have those things.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 19th November 2007, 6:18pm)

So, it would be better for her to change herself or leave voluntarily?

I don't think WP has ever had any clear goals. Build an encyclopedia is a good broad goal, but then there's the details and sub-goals that have to be made.

WP needs to figure out what it is creating, how to create it, and what kind of community and leadership is needed to create it.

WP lacks a charter, mission statement, and social contract. As a result, participants lack a shared vision and a shared philosophy.

The default practice appears to be something akin to Survivor, wherein cliques and alliances evolve into cabals and outcasts, pretty much along the lines of Girard's Model of Competitive Rivalry.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE
Durova, to refuse to answer some of the editor's questions here and say that if anyone has a problem with your methods to "take it to the ArbCom" isn't very helpful. The overworked ArbCom doesn't have to get involved if you'll answer to the concerned editors on this page. Would you please answer the following questions?

* How do you decide who will be a target of your sleuthing?
* What methods do you use to sleuth editors?
* What is your rate of false positives and how do you know when you get a false positive?
* Who are the ArbCom members that you mail your evidence to, or is it to the entire ArbCom?
* Why do you feel that you should act "behind the scenes" with the ArbCom over these matters, when you could just as well post your observations and proposed actions here or at AN, which I've seen other admins do?
* Do you share your evidence with the accused editor and ask for an explanation before taking action on their account? Cla68 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of these previous questions there's some room for doubt about whether that list is assembled in good faith. If it was in good faith, could you clarify? Why do you repeat a series of questions, most or all of which I've provided reasonable justification for declining to answer onsite, without any new reason for answering them? DurovaCharge! 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh she's SUCH a wuss. This was a perfectly legitimate question. And how RICH she accuses this person (and their legitimate questions) of bad faith after she's been exposed for what she is: the self-appointed WBI (Wikipedia Bureau of Investigations) credit to Physchim62.

[indent]
QUOTE
Your "justification" may seem reasonable to yourself: not to many others. You appear to have appointed yourself as the Wikipedia Bureau of Investigation, and treat the criticisms of little admins with disdain. As I have mentioned to you on several occasions, if you methods are so secret, for @@@@'s sake don't shout about them! Otherwise we might just conclude that your spouting self-agrandiziung rubbish which is detrimental to the project. Given your repeted blanking of contributions to this page (four since 10:00 UTC today), I have warned you to stop. If you continue to user your editing privileges in such a controversial manner, you will only have yourself to blamew if they are suspended. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DL gets out popcorn.

* edit by Nathan: fixed indenting, I hope

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE

Per this check, I average about one apology a month for all purposes, whether block related or not. That's roughly one every 1000 edits. And with regard to the first question, I'm stunned to see a pop quiz in basic statistics here that wasn't intended analogously. DurovaCharge! 12:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this was the origin of her .1000 batting average (which I thought was amazingly humble, until I realized she thought she meant another batting average score. Perfect).

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Mon 19th November 2007, 9:20pm)

I average about one apology per month for all purposes?

Does she have a bot disseminate it? At a specific time and date of each month? Is there a distribution list?

If you notice what she wrote, she said she "apologized to Arbcom". I don't think she did a very good apology to the guy she slimed. Oh, and she's multitasking too. While defending her actions on ANI, she's backand blocking some account that responded to the ANI. Apparently the theory that anyone who challenges her being up for examination and auto-block is spot on.

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Mon 19th November 2007, 9:20pm)

I'm stunned to see a pop quiz in basic statistics here that wasn't intended analogously.

And I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see gambling in this establishment! (Claude Rains as Louis, Casablanca) FORUM Image

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE

Are you OUT of your MIND? â‡’SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? Any sane person would have apologized humbly and got off the computer for at least 24 hours (if not one week). This one just keeps on justifying herself (quite rudely) into a hole all the way to Antarctica.

Posted by: Robster

Durova:

QUOTE

Perhaps you missed part of the discussions. I had assembled a seven point report with 28 diffs and had circulated it for two weeks before acting. Obviously the methodology needs improvement, but the fact that it ultimately proved to be mistaken doesn't mean the approach was either hasty or superficial. I've pledged specific improvements so this doesn't happen again.

Sen. McCarthy:

QUOTE

I have in my hands fifty-seven cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy....

Durova for ArbCom! Turn her loose on the leadership! They'll get the arbitrator they've always deserved!

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Robster @ Tue 20th November 2007, 4:25am)

Durova:

QUOTE

Perhaps you missed part of the discussions. I had assembled a seven point report with 28 diffs and had circulated it for two weeks before acting. Obviously the methodology needs improvement, but the fact that it ultimately proved to be mistaken doesn't mean the approach was either hasty or superficial. I've pledged specific improvements so this doesn't happen again.

Durova expressed an interest in batting averages and how good hers is in hitting sockpuppets.

Let's oblige and keep sadistics, er, statistics. It's Bill James time, ladies and gentlemen. For the brits in the house, pretend its cricket, for Canadiens - shots on goal. When in St. Pete, do as the Tampa Bay Durova Rays do.

Earlier it was posted that Durova swung and missed on about 8 victims with links for each.

Anyone have a talley on how many hits, and how many misses she has? It can be compiled in a thread on WR.

For those who don't have Jonny's extensive mathematics background,

Avg = Hits/Attempts

Perhaps she can do better than "0.1000"

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Robster @ Mon 19th November 2007, 10:25pm)

Durova for ArbCom! Turn her loose on the leadership! They'll get the arbitrator they've always deserved!

She's done enough. At long last, Sir, (people are noticing that) she has no decency.

You know things are going south for her, when her biggest champion is Guy.

QUOTE
You appear to be asking that Durova be perfect. Why? One mistake is now known, and it was swiftly rectified. 99 blocks which were not mistakes, stand.

Now there is an interesting statistic, for a woman like Durova who brags about being involved "investigatively" in 30% of all Arbcom disputes. That's an amazing statisitic in and of itself. Are we to being led to understand that this is the first and only error on her part? She only admitted it (or examined it) once challeged publicly.

What do you want to bet that Arbcom members cringed when getting one of her 'investigative' emails?

QUOTE
YOther blocks in which Durova's investigation played a part, also stand.....what else is Durova supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UT)

Hmmm. She could apologize for, and revert all the unfair other blocks, she didn't get nailed for. Then quit the project.

QUOTE
For reasons I also can't fathom, but which may not be entirely unrelated, we seem to be engaging in a witch-hunt here. what else is Durova supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. Stop being a witch? But if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

QUOTE
Apart from apologising and swiftly reversing the block, what else is Durova supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Rubs chin thoughtfully. Hmmmmmm. Apologize, clean up and quit are still my faves.

Posted by: Piperdown

Aw, snap !! Check out the part where he mentions the ever so convenient whitewashing:

Maybe I have something wrong, I don't know any of the players. Here's how I see it: Durova banned a user for opaque reasons, a user so uncommonly righteous that people of consequence were moved to question it. Durova demured, insisting that her secret evidence was a lock, and invoking AGF by saying: "I will be more than happy to explain my research to the arbitration committee. Please take this there if that is your opinion. WP:AGF, please: I don't do something this bold without very good reasons." Ten minutes later she preemptively AGFs her expected detractors, saying: "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." That part has been blanked in one heckuva courtesy, so I don't blame you if you missed it.

Exactly 1hr10m later Durova concedes it's all been a mistake, which is a remarkably short time to disprove all that evidence. In a blaze of non-accountability, she "apologizes" by using the word (only) in the title, claims she likes to be the first to fix her own mistakes, then appears to blame her faulty research on unnamed colleagues for not fixing her mistake sooner (I thought she liked to do that?), and requests early closure and archiving to protect the OTHER person's privacy! On the page we can still see, she claims that even though this one was an error, the accuracy of her secret methods is not in question. She's asked to explain how she determines this, and responds by saying that the question doesn't make any sense to her. Whatever it is she's doing, and she says it's a secret, she seems to intend to keep doing it.

Remember, this only got picked up because the user in question was apparently a saint. A lot of people are troubled by the realization that, if this had been a regular human, it probably would have passed without comment, as Durova was urging. If it can (almost) happen to him, it could happen to a lot of less exemplary users, like me. Please note that I have made no assumptions regarding the sincerity of Durova's initial judgement, because it isn't relevant. But I do find this episode very disturbing, and her interpretation of other people's reasonable criticism of her behaviour as flattering proof that she's "good at this" is completely stunning.

If I have something wrong, please explain; if I've been unclear, please ask. But I don't think it all happened the way it's now being described above, and I don't think this is about public lynchings, but private ones. sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted by: everyking

There's a lot of discussion about Durova getting it right with her sockpuppet investigations or getting it wrong. I think people are looking at it the wrong way: if a user as good as User:!! is a sock of a banned user, we should be 100% OK with that. Furthermore, we shouldn't just overlook it, we should revoke the ban, apologize, and thank the heavens that he or she is willing (or was willing) to invest the time, on a volunteer basis, to produce such quality work. Has it become so rare to place the highest priority on a user's contributions and impact on the encyclopedia?

Posted by: Amarkov

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 19th November 2007, 9:55pm)

There's a lot of discussion about Durova getting it right with her sockpuppet investigations or getting it wrong. I think people are looking at it the wrong way: if a user as good as User:!! is a sock of a banned user, we should be 100% OK with that. Furthermore, we shouldn't just overlook it, we should revoke the ban, apologize, and thank the heavens that he or she is willing (or was willing) to invest the time, on a volunteer basis, to produce such quality work. Has it become so rare to place the highest priority on a user's contributions and impact on the encyclopedia?

Weren't you paying attention? Any banned user is by definition disruptive! If they start to act well, they're just trying to get into the "in" crowd so that they can be disruptive later.

Posted by: The Joy

It seems everyone is a sock nowadays. Which means everyone is banned nowadays.

JzG's banning people left and right. Durova's got secret dirt on everybody.

Is there any doubt now as to why long-time contributors are leaving WP now?

Posted by: Aloft

Oh my. This is from her answer to question 73 on her Questions for the Candidate page:

QUOTE

If you Google my username it won't take long to find a page with a mostly fictitious biography of me. One of the few genuine things on that page is a photograph of my seventy-four-year-old uncle who was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive, along with a not very subtle threat to harass him in real life if I don't stop volunteering for Wikipedia. That's the kind of people they are. What they fail to appreciate is that I joined the armed forces and went to war because of 9/11. I ran to the standards of a twenty-four-year-old male, exceeded the push-up requirement for a seventeen to nineteen-year-old male, earned marksmanship ribbons in both pistol and rifle, and volunteered to stand double my normal rotation of armed watches when we got to the most dangerous part of deployment. That's the kind of person I am. I never needed to fire that weapon on an enemy; instead my command saved 113 civilian lives.

... 56 of whom she later blocked as being sockpuppets because they lived in the same village.

Does she seriously expect people to fall for this shit?

Posted by: BobbyBombastic

I would have had a lot to say about this if I got in on it earlier. This will probably rank right up there in my list of favorite wikipedia scandals.

We need Durova for arbcom bumper stickers.

This has helped me learn a little bit more about Durova or reinforce what I thought I knew... I knew that Durova took Wikipedia very seriously and was self-aggrandizing, but I did not realize that she was so stupid. Of course, this may be due to extreme Wiki intoxication, which is usually followed by burnout and a heart felt 3 page long retiring note. However, she seems to be hanging right in there trying to make a name for herself in Jimbo's dysfunctional community and craving to show the world that she is good at something. Unknown to her, she is becoming a joke to a wider audience than before.

Although I fear that she does not have the cadre of ass kissers that some other editors have; therefore, she probably has no shot at an Arbcom seat. Highly unfortunate! Her presence on such a body would be great "business" for WR and other critics.

I've come to the conclusion: the silver bullet that would eject Durova from the project is a famous Jimbo's one-liner, something along the lines of "find a new hobby" or "what the fuck is wrong with you?" In her mind, Jimbo is appreciative and sympathetic to her contributions...but what she fails to realize is Jimbo is not capable of appreciating the altruistic fools editing his enyclopedia. I think she'll probably find that out.

Posted by: guy

Durova thwarting the attempt by umpteen Admins to get the Poetlister block reviewed.

QUOTE

With respect for Sarah and everyone here, no good can come of prolonging this. Request closure of this thread. If you're an editor in good standing and you're that curious, then e-mail me. DurovaCharge!

Has anyone here who is in good standing tried e-mailing her? I must confess I haven't.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(guy @ Tue 20th November 2007, 4:52am)

Has anyone here who is in good standing tried e-mailing her? I must confess I haven't.

She's accused quite a few naiive trusting (normal persons) who tried emailing her of harassment. Talk about a honey pot. Between telling COI editors to contact her for direction, or anyone to contact her at all, she is just finding new meat to flagellate. "Contact me directly" means "if I can get away with it, or if I feel like it, I'll use your emails to kick you off the project."

The IP address she banned (claiming wrongly it was Greg), who emailed her four days ago was accussed of harassment for having sent four emails. For this, she suggested banning the IP (I suppose this was if it wasn't really Greg, it should get banned anyways). JeHochman called this "email evidence" to prove that IP was Greg. Why do they think this was G? Because he called her Lisa? Everyone knows her name is Lise. (spelled with an e, not an a, as the IP did). Her full name has been published on Youtube, and 20 SEO sites, and is very, very googleable. Hello?

Read the pipermail exchange (hilarious, but scarily revealing of her) which shows why your not having contacted her was wise.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:EddBJmnP-9cJ:www.nabble.com/Harassing-e-mails,-part-1-t4806018.html+durova+harassment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

QUOTE

Harassing e-mails, part 1

by Durova Nov 14, 2007; 03:14pm :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
Hi Lisa,

I know for a fact that User:24.19.33.82 has nothing to do with Greg Kohs.
You've really blown it here, and comments such asâ€¦

"I'll call this a WP:DUCK block: I've been blocking Wikipedia Review socks for a
year and am pretty good at spotting them."

"With experience one gets quite good at this."

â€¦will make you look awfully stupid if the true identity of
User:24.19.33.82comes out.

How do I know this? Because that's my current IP (for now.) My aim was only
to edit anonymously like any other IP. So please let me do so. Otherwise,
I'm forced to prove how badly you and Jonathan have messed this up in order
to get unblocked. Unblocking the IP's yourself (which belong to public
commercial establishments, you shouldn't be blocking them for 3 months
anyway) with some summary like "benefit of the doubt" would be a face-saving
way for you to avoid this.

-M.O.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Harassing e-mails, part 1

by joshua.zelinsky Nov 14, 2007; 03:34pm :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
I'm missing something. Who is "M.O."?

Quoting Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>:

> Hi Lisa,
>
> I know for a fact that User:24.19.33.82 has nothing to do with Greg Kohs.
> You've really blown it here, and comments such asâ€¦
>
> "I'll call this a WP:DUCK block: I've been blocking Wikipedia Review socks for a
> year and am pretty good at spotting them."
>
> "With experience one gets quite good at this."
>
> â€¦will make you look awfully stupid if the true identity of
> User:24.19.33.82comes out.
>
> How do I know this? Because that's my current IP (for now.) My aim was only
> to edit anonymously like any other IP. So please let me do so. Otherwise,
> I'm forced to prove how badly you and Jonathan have messed this up in order
> to get unblocked. Unblocking the IP's yourself (which belong to public
> commercial establishments, you shouldn't be blocking them for 3 months
> anyway) with some summary like "benefit of the doubt" would be a face-saving
> way for you to avoid this.
>
> -M.O.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Harassing e-mails, part 1

by Kamryn Matika Nov 14, 2007; 06:42pm :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
On Nov 14, 2007 3:14 PM, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> Hi Lisa,
>
> I know for a fact that User:24.19.33.82 has nothing to do with Greg Kohs.
> You've really blown it here, and comments such asâ€¦
>
> "I'll call this a WP:DUCK block: I've been blocking Wikipedia Review socks for a
> year and am pretty good at spotting them."
>
> "With experience one gets quite good at this."
>
> â€¦will make you look awfully stupid if the true identity of
> User:24.19.33.82comes out.
>
> How do I know this? Because that's my current IP (for now.) My aim was only
> to edit anonymously like any other IP. So please let me do so. Otherwise,
> I'm forced to prove how badly you and Jonathan have messed this up in order
> to get unblocked. Unblocking the IP's yourself (which belong to public
> commercial establishments, you shouldn't be blocking them for 3 months
> anyway) with some summary like "benefit of the doubt" would be a face-saving
> way for you to avoid this.
>
> -M.O.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

That doesn't qualify as harassment I'm afraid.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Harassing e-mails, part 1

by Durova Nov 15, 2007; 01:56am :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
That doesn't qualify as harassment I'm afraid.
****
No it doesn't, but by the fourth message the exchange did qualify as
harassment. After the second I requested no further contact.

Perhaps you inhabit a universe where it's socially acceptable for a stranger
to address a woman by her name without identifying himself, and to continue
sending her messages late into the night after she's insisted that he stop.
Perhaps you also live in a universe that does not recognize the elementary
courtesy of asking her permission before reposting part of an unwanted
conversation to a public list, devoid of context, and attempting to pass
judgement on it.

You owe me an apology. A big one.

-Durova
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: Harassing e-mails, part 1

by Durova Nov 15, 2007; 02:15am :: Rate this Message:

Reply | Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
Allow me to retract that. I missent the original to the wrong address. My
apologies for the response.

-Durova
You owe me an apology. A big one.

>
> -Durova
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

No one can email her with her real name unless given permission? What century is she living in? She's not Nancy Drew. She's not Mata Hari. She's Hester Prynne.

After that rant, I say she's not only a bad research, not only paranoid, but she's very close to certifiable.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Aloft @ Tue 20th November 2007, 2:31am)

QUOTE

That's the kind of people they are. What they fail to appreciate is that I joined the armed forces and went to war because of 9/11. I ran to the standards of a twenty-four-year-old male, exceeded the push-up requirement for a seventeen to nineteen-year-old male, earned marksmanship ribbons in both pistol and rifle, and volunteered to stand double my normal rotation of armed watches when we got to the most dangerous part of deployment. That's the kind of person I am. I never needed to fire that weapon on an enemy; instead my command saved 113 civilian lives..

.. 56 of whom she later blocked as being sockpuppets because they lived in the same village. Does she seriously expect people to fall for this shit?

Oh it gets better than that. The 113 people her command saved were persons picked up on a stranded ship, by the naval carrier where she was working as official navy photographer. The people were dropped off by the navy on the tropical island of Palau, where Durova had a short enjoyable vacation.(God, why do I know this? Maybe from ED, or wikipedia-watch, or maybe Brandt wrote it on WR). Talk about distorting the facts (Durova for Arbcom). She's actually delusional at this point.

I wonder if she was holding rattlesnakes and juggling a burning harley which she carried out of a building, while her ship was picking up the people who's boat motor died.

QUOTE
If you Google my username it won't take long to find a page with a mostly fictitious biography of me. One of the few genuine things on that page is a photograph of my seventy-four-year-old uncle who was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive, along with a not very subtle threat to harass him in real life if I don't stop volunteering for Wikipedia.

She really is ill. Or just a big fat liar. Here is what she calls harassment, from her ED page. The so-called threat to her uncle to force her to quit editing WP. Um, yeah.

QUOTE
Looks Like a Nice Guy (We hope he doesn't know what a monster his niece is) Lise's uncle, William Broer who survived the 911 attack on the World Trade Center. His survival caused her to join the U.S. Navy. Couldn't she have gone to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or something? Lise, your nation needs you. PLEASE!! SAVE US!!!

KamrynMatika, maybe you need to give her another explanation of the word, "harassment" A JImbo "what the fuck is wrong with you" is very called for, at this juncture.

Posted by: Moulton

I'm waffling between filing this one under Delusions of Grandeur vs Delusions of Slander.

While I ponder the case, I'll temporarily (e.g. indefinitely) file it under Delusions of Remander.

Posted by: Miltopia

A "wtf" from the Sole Founder is not likely in my opinion. Jimbo thrives on these types of editors. He's so busy being famous that he doesn't have time to look at these situations and see who's actually in the right. What he'll see in this situation is Durova, a mover and a shaker, taking action. HELL YEAH. He might see as far that she was in the wrong, and will probably commend her for admitting it, because on Wikipedia apparently it's some big accomplishment to admit when you're wrong, even when everyone already knows it.

Well, I say that he's too busy to see more than just the surface, but it could be that Wikipedia's "higher-ups" are generally the ones who are the hastiest and rashest (or most hasty and most rash if you will), and he has no choice but to support them, otherwise Wikipedia's social power heirarchy falls apart. There are times when I'd love to know what such an inconsistent man as Jimbo is thinking...

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 20th November 2007, 7:04am)

I'm waffling between filing this one under Delusions of Grandeur vs Delusions of Slander.

While I ponder the case, I'll temporarily (e.g. indefinitely) file it under Delusions of Remander.

I suggest that the woman is really quite unstable. Aside from the obvious delusions about her own importance everywhere, she is really over the edge with her mission on the internet.
I suggest she might be an addict of some sort, besides being addicted to WP; her own fumes.

Does she think she is going to get a spot with the big "O.W." show?

Durova now represents exactly what WP does not want as a spokeperson...a person with a rant that sounds totally insane, because it is. She has destroyed herself as a meaningful mentor and a guide to how the encyclopedia should operate. She is a paranoid egomaniac. That is not a good thing.

Posted by: Moulton

The downside is that this case supplies more motivation for other erratic admins to quietly bury their mistakes in judgment rather than admit and correct them. Durova's case demonstrates that it's virtual Wikicide to admit a mistake, issue an apology, and reverse oneself.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 20th November 2007, 9:35am)

The downside is that this case supplies more motivation for other erratic admins to quietly bury their mistakes in judgment rather than admit and correct them. Durova's case demonstrates that it's virtual Wikicide to admit a mistake, issue an apology, and reverse oneself.

Of course, this link keeps the issue in the public eye for a long time, unless someone deletes it.
I think the idea that she has done this over and over may have some teeth and traction.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 20th November 2007, 9:04am)

I'm waffling between filing this one under Delusions of Grandeur vs Delusions of Slander.

While I ponder the case, I'll temporarily (e.g. indefinitely) file it under Delusions of Remander.

It's probably just last night's margaritas still talking, but I was thinking more along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Privatemusings&oldid=172637530 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose.

Jonny

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 20th November 2007, 5:59am)

KamrynMatika, maybe you need to give her another explanation of the word, "harassment" A JImbo "what the fuck is wrong with you" is very called for, at this juncture.

Perhaps, but - D'OH! Ms. Matika has now been http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/085637.html by Dave "Mister Querulous" Gerard for daring to suggest that she didn't owe Ms. Durova an apology after all, for in turn daring to suggest that her e-mails from someone she mistook for Greg (after another uncalled-for blocking) didn't quite qualify as "harassment."

Oh well, someone had to give it a shot, I suppose... not that there was any chance of the WP'ers actually acting in their own best interests. (Why, that would be querulous!)

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 20th November 2007, 9:35am)

The downside is that this case supplies more motivation for other erratic admins to quietly bury their mistakes in judgment rather than admit and correct them. Durova's case demonstrates that it's virtual Wikicide to admit a mistake, issue an apology, and reverse oneself.

That's what I used to believe too, when things like this have happened in the past, but the fact is that it's always been that way and probably always will be. This incident isn't really going to change that aspect of their problem-set... Proving one's legitimacy and competence for the task of administering a website of WP's size and scope by doing quality work is such a daunting/thankless task, and the alternative of pointing out the incompetence of others so much easier (and attention-grabbing) in comparison, it simply stands to reason that the amount of finger-pointing and backstabbing would increase to unmanageable levels over time. And for the truly incompetent, if the only way to avoid being criticized is to lie, blame others, and refuse to apologize even when proven totally wrong, then that's just what you do. Human nature, I'm afraid.

All of them are in over their heads - Durova is just unusually aggressive about advertising the fact.

Posted by: Derktar

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&curid=242275&diff=172728413&oldid=172715016

WP:BLOCK has been amended to state the following:

QUOTE

If a user needs to be blocked based on information that cannot be made public, that information is sent to the [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee]] or a [[Wikipedia:Checkuser|Checkuser]] for action. Those entities are qualified to handle secret evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on secret evidence.

As if every single Checkuser is trustworthy, uncorrupted and inviolate and would never abuse their position.

Addendum-
Check out this recent barnstar:

QUOTE

Awarded to Durova for her recognition of transparency and oversight. Rather than being a hothead admin and banning people based on whim, she opened herself to ridicule and attack by discussing a block on ANI on or around 17 November 2007. This selfless action improves the integrity and ethics of wikipedia as well as being a good reflection on her character. -User:Chergles

That's rich.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE

the [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee]] or a [[Wikipedia:Checkuser|Checkuser]] for action. Those entities are qualified to handle secret evidence, and they operate under strict controls.

Interesting use of words, calling a CheckUser an entity. What strict controls are there for ArbCom?

Posted by: KamrynMatika

QUOTE(guy @ Tue 20th November 2007, 11:48pm)

QUOTE

the [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee]] or a [[Wikipedia:Checkuser|Checkuser]] for action. Those entities are qualified to handle secret evidence, and they operate under strict controls.

Interesting use of words, calling a CheckUser an entity. What strict controls are there for ArbCom?

None, other than the privacy policy rules that checkusers have to abide by [supposedly]. But other than that, they can do whatever they like.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 20th November 2007, 9:35am)

The downside is that this case supplies more motivation for other erratic admins to quietly bury their mistakes in judgment rather than admit and correct them. Durova's case demonstrates that it's virtual Wikicide to admit a mistake, issue an apology, and reverse oneself.

I disagree. It was the way she did it, and the fact that it is obvious that if she hadn't been pressed to the wall, she'd be gloating about the vandal she smashed that bothers people. Also that she's more than likely to do it again.

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 20th November 2007, 10:32am)

And for the truly incompetent, if the only way to avoid being criticized is to lie, blame others, and refuse to apologize even when proven totally wrong, then that's just what you do. Human nature, I'm afraid.

Sure it is. Just that without some checks and balances, we'd all be back in the jungle. And I'm sorry to say that that place is a jungle. Currently.

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 20th November 2007, 10:32am)

All of them are in over their heads - Durova is just unusually aggressive about advertising the fact.

That's where a little word called STRATEGY comes into play. That place is a ship without a rudder, without a captain, without much more than a spokesperson (Jimbo). Managerially, strategically, even operationally it is bereft. "Operationally" does not comprise operating servers (alone). It comprises operating towards stated objectives, and basically not self-destructing as an entity.

Posted by: Robster

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 20th November 2007, 8:01pm)

That's where a little word called STRATEGY comes into play. That place is a ship without a rudder, without a captain, without much more than a spokesperson (Jimbo). Managerially, strategically, even operationally it is bereft. "Operationally" does not comprise operating servers (alone). It comprises operating towards stated objectives, and basically not self-destructing as an entity.

This, of course, is Wikipedia's real problem.

Forget the out-of-control admins for a moment, the problem is why they're out of control. There's no adult supervision at Wikipedia.

A real encyclopedia has an editor-in-chief, several senior editors, and an editorial board -- all to shape editorial policy.

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Who Hasn't Pissed Off A Few Key Editors Can Edit, has... Durova... JzG... SlimVirgin... David Gerard (not that there's anything wrong with that)... Ruylong... Baudy Fred... and an occasional cameo by the Sole Flounder.

That's not encyclopedia management, that's a group therapy session.

Until WMF gets serious and imposes real editorial guidelines on Wikipedia, well... they are who thought they were -- an almanac with pretentions -- and we can't afford to let them off the hook.

Posted by: Amarkov

QUOTE(Robster @ Tue 20th November 2007, 6:49pm)

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 20th November 2007, 8:01pm)

That's where a little word called STRATEGY comes into play. That place is a ship without a rudder, without a captain, without much more than a spokesperson (Jimbo). Managerially, strategically, even operationally it is bereft. "Operationally" does not comprise operating servers (alone). It comprises operating towards stated objectives, and basically not self-destructing as an entity.

This, of course, is Wikipedia's real problem.

Forget the out-of-control admins for a moment, the problem is why they're out of control. There's no adult supervision at Wikipedia.

A real encyclopedia has an editor-in-chief, several senior editors, and an editorial board -- all to shape editorial policy.

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Who Hasn't Pissed Off A Few Key Editors Can Edit, has... Durova... JzG... SlimVirgin... David Gerard (not that there's anything wrong with that)... Ruylong... Baudy Fred... and an occasional cameo by the Sole Flounder.

That's not encyclopedia management, that's a group therapy session.

Until WMF gets serious and imposes real editorial guidelines on Wikipedia, well... they are who thought they were -- an almanac with pretentions -- and we can't afford to let them off the hook.

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 20th November 2007, 10:16pm)

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Wikipedia is about as far removed from "communities of perfectly normal people" as can be imagined.

Posted by: Amarkov

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th November 2007, 7:23pm)

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 20th November 2007, 10:16pm)

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Wikipedia is about as far removed from "communities of perfectly normal people" as can be imagined.

I doubt that's true, actually. Usenet is a testament to what happens here: if you take a perfectly normal person, give him power (real or imagined), and make everyone anonymous, generally he will start to act like a raving lunatic. If you met one of these admins walking down the street tomorrow, you probably wouldn't notice anything different about them.

Posted by: Derktar

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 20th November 2007, 7:35pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th November 2007, 7:23pm)

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 20th November 2007, 10:16pm)

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Wikipedia is about as far removed from "communities of perfectly normal people" as can be imagined.

I doubt that's true, actually. Usenet is a testament to what happens here: if you take a perfectly normal person, give him power (real or imagined), and make everyone anonymous, generally he will start to act like a raving lunatic. If you met one of these admins walking down the street tomorrow, you probably wouldn't notice anything different about them.

Well I believe that Wikipedia does attract people that ordinarily wouldn't be given responsibilities to control such vital information and the power that Wikipedia has.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 20th November 2007, 10:35pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th November 2007, 7:23pm)

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 20th November 2007, 10:16pm)

Well that's the theory behind Wikipedia, isn't it? Academics aren't uniquely qualified to decide what is right; communities of perfectly normal people can do it just as well! It might have made sense to change direction closer to the beginning of the project, but at this point, even if such a move wouldn't just result in everyone quitting (which it would), Wikipedia would then become a clone of the many other sites that have improved on its ideas.

Wikipedia is about as far removed from "communities of perfectly normal people" as can be imagined.

I doubt that's true, actually. Usenet is a testament to what happens here: if you take a perfectly normal person, give him power (real or imagined), and make everyone anonymous, generally he will start to act like a raving lunatic. If you met one of these admins walking down the street tomorrow, you probably wouldn't notice anything different about them.

We would notice a high school student bossing around a scholar such as Awbrey. We would notice someone like Durova treating business people like preschooler who need a time out. We would notice Essjay in his ill fitting clerical robes. They are only partially created. They are also self-selected. We would notice.

Usenet is also highly self selected.

Posted by: Amarkov

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th November 2007, 7:43pm)

We would notice a high school student bossing around a scholar such as Awbrey. We would notice someone like Durova treating business people like preschooler who need a time out. We would notice Essjay in his ill fitting clerical robes. They are only partially created. They are also self-selected. We would notice.

Usenet is also highly self selected.

That's my point. Most people on Wikipedia are pretty average high school students, lying college kids, or whatever. The issue is that the system is designed such that those people get power, despite the fact that they really shouldn't. The community would be just fine, if it were arranged sanely.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 20th November 2007, 10:54pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th November 2007, 7:43pm)

We would notice a high school student bossing around a scholar such as Awbrey. We would notice someone like Durova treating business people like preschooler who need a time out. We would notice Essjay in his ill fitting clerical robes. They are only partially created. They are also self-selected. We would notice.

Usenet is also highly self selected.

That's my point. Most people on Wikipedia are pretty average high school students, lying college kids, or whatever. The issue is that the system is designed such that those people get power, despite the fact that they really shouldn't. The community would be just fine, if it were arranged sanely.

That community is appropriate for MySpace or FaceBook not an encyclopedia. Even on those social sites some influential Wikipedians would be a threat to the more innocent members of those sites.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Recall

I do not know what this means, but it does not look good for Durova at a time when she is running for office.

Maybe now she will be running for the hills?

It appears some very smart people on WP do not like her very much.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Wed 21st November 2007, 8:12am)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Recall

I do not know what this means, but it does not look good for Durova at a time when she is running for office.

Maybe now she will be running for the hills?

It appears some very smart people on WP do not like her very much.

...and the list is growing!

Posted by: thekohser

Anyone who is interested in the problem of Durova, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite_block_of_an_established_editor&diff=prev&oldid=172793708.

Specifically:

QUOTE

Durova has done good work for the Arbitration Committee, and if it stops just one more JB196 or Wikipedia Review sockpuppet from trying to come back to Wikipedia, then she must be doing something right.

WRONG! And I hope every mother f***ing Wikipediot who espouses this line of thought is paying the f**k attention to what I have to say right now.

Jimmy Wales unblocked me, you morons.

I began to edit Wikipedia again on topics such as the Czech Air Force, a highway in Michigan, and an Arizona performance artist. I was going along nicely for nearly a week, with not a single dust-up or conflict. No harm in my returning to Wikipedia, right?

Then, Durova had to open that giant, ugly yapper of hers and claim that I "gave misleading information to journalists", and she refused to present her evidence of that to anyone in public. THAT is what pissed me off, you morons. THAT is what rekindled my hatred of Wikipedia -- because you morons SUPPORTED her apparent "right" to defame me with absolutely no shred of evidence.

Do you think I would be here today, sockpuppeting my way through Wikipedia like holes through Swiss cheese, if Durova had just minded her f***ing business and worked on building an encyclopedia?

You Wikipediot morons have it exactly upside-down. It is Durova's witch hunting that FUELS the sockpuppetry and vandalism and off-site criticisms of your so-called "encyclopedia". You are so stupid, though, you can't even see this obvious cause-and-effect pattern.

You know what? I've had enough. Off come the boxing gloves.

http://www.cafepress.com/durovaforarbcom.

DUROVA FOR ARBCOM ! !

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 21st November 2007, 9:39am)

You know what? I've had enough. Off come the boxing gloves.

http://www.cafepress.com/durovaforarbcom.

You were selling boxing gloves, too? I was thinking about getting a dozen or so of those cute little thongs, but if boxing gloves were available...

Anyway, the timing of this recall request was fairly clever - it was made right about when Durova would have been going to sleep, and right now she'll just be waking up, and no doubt logging onto WP before she even goes through her usual morning routine of gulping down a nice cup of vitriol and then kicking the dog a few times. And suddenly seeing this big debate on her talk page, well... nice!

Like I say, though, I'd have mixed feelings about Durova losing her adminship. Without her and JzG, who's left for us WR folks to use as prime examples of how WP is descending into a hellish morass of pettiness, narcissism, infighting, and general chaos? Ryulong? Dave Gerard? Not good enough, IMO - we'd be out of business completely within 6 months.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 21st November 2007, 11:39am)

Anyone who is interested in the problem of Durova, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite_block_of_an_established_editor&diff=prev&oldid=172793708.

Specifically:

QUOTE

Durova has done good work for the Arbitration Committee, and if it stops just one more JB196 or Wikipedia Review sockpuppet from trying to come back to Wikipedia, then she must be doing something right.

WRONG! And I hope every mother f***ing Wikipediot who espouses this line of thought is paying the f**k attention to what I have to say right now.

Jimmy Wales unblocked me, you morons.

I began to edit Wikipedia again on topics such as the Czech Air Force, a highway in Michigan, and an Arizona performance artist. I was going along nicely for nearly a week, with not a single dust-up or conflict. No harm in my returning to Wikipedia, right?

Then, Durova had to open that giant, ugly yapper of hers and claim that I "gave misleading information to journalists", and she refused to present her evidence of that to anyone in public. THAT is what pissed me off, you morons. THAT is what rekindled my hatred of Wikipedia -- because you morons SUPPORTED her apparent "right" to defame me with absolutely no shred of evidence.

Do you think I would be here today, sockpuppeting my way through Wikipedia like holes through Swiss cheese, if Durova had just minded her f***ing business and worked on building an encyclopedia?

You Wikipediot morons have it exactly upside-down. It is Durova's witch hunting that FUELS the sockpuppetry and vandalism and off-site criticisms of your so-called "encyclopedia". You are so stupid, though, you can't even see this obvious cause-and-effect pattern.

You know what? I've had enough. Off come the boxing gloves.

http://www.cafepress.com/durovaforarbcom.

DUROVA FOR ARBCOM ! !

The Whorehead specified in the above-cited Weepons Prospectus has been tested at The Wikipetard Revue Arfoolery Range and certified to have a Durovakill Rating of 110%.

Suggestions of the raters for increasing the yield â€”

Augment the Visible Dramsparency Lines of the T-shirts with a suitable accelerant, like H2O.
Bigger boobs in the T-shirts. No, you ediot, not those kinda boobs. We mean T-T-shirts.

Jonny

Posted by: thekohser

And lest anyone think that this merchandising effort is bad, wait until you see what 28 different websites say about Durova's progeny.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Durova%27s+descendants+seem+to+have+inherited+her+talent+for+consorting+with+animals+&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS231US231&filter=0.

Posted by: Nathan

Remind me never to get on your bad side, Greg (and Somey)!

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Nathan @ Wed 21st November 2007, 12:12pm)

Remind me never to get on your bad side, Greg (and Somey)!

Just proving a point. It can all come down the moment Durova retracts and apologizes for her libelous statement that she dreamed up about my dialogue (of which she was not a party) with AP reporter Brian Bergstein. I'll even help her contact the various Wikipedia scraper sites that seem to believe that her heroine's descendants are intimate with animals.

They don't care when it's Seigenthaler or Zoeller or Wikipedia Review on the receiving end of defamation. I presume they'll care when it's Nadezhda Durova.

Greg

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 21st November 2007, 7:51am)

Like I say, though, I'd have mixed feelings about Durova losing her adminship. Without her and JzG, who's left for us WR folks to use as prime examples of how WP is descending into a hellish morass of pettiness, narcissism, infighting, and general chaos? Ryulong? Dave Gerard? Not good enough, IMO - we'd be out of business completely within 6 months.

No need to worry, Somey. In the void left by the departure of those particular abusive, petty, belligerent Wikipedia admins, there would arise a new set of jackbooted thugs, buffoons, incompetents, and morons. Your job is secure!

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 21st November 2007, 2:23pm)

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 21st November 2007, 7:51am)

Like I say, though, I'd have mixed feelings about Durova losing her adminship. Without her and JzG, who's left for us WR folks to use as prime examples of how WP is descending into a hellish morass of pettiness, narcissism, infighting, and general chaos? Ryulong? Dave Gerard? Not good enough, IMO - we'd be out of business completely within 6 months.

No need to worry, Somey. In the void left by the departure of those particular abusive, petty, belligerent Wikipedia admins, there would arise a new set of jackbooted thugs, buffoons, incompetents, and morons. Your job is secure!

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/085691.html â€”

Consider It Job SecuritÃ© â€¦
Turkey Time !!!

Jonny

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

1. Think up a clever vandalism â€” something like the T-shirt pic is good.
2. Stick it on Durova's user page or Talk page.
3. Grab a screen shot before it's reverted (like within two or three seconds).
4. Send me the screen shot and I'll link to it from my http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/vandals.html, with an intro sentence to the effect that Lise, aka Durova, is one of the least-liked administrators on Wikipedia.

Here is an http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/kscreen.html that got Jimbo upset (he seemed to think that I was endangering his daughter, blah, blah) so I don't link to it anymore. I may go back to linking to it now that I'm rebanned anyway. It's an excellent piece of work, as you can plainly see.

If your vandalism is off-color I might not like it, so you may want to check with me first. It should be clever or funny, not dirty or overly insulting.

Posted by: michael

So that's what Kira Wales looks like. I've wondered ever since I saw Jimbo remove the picture of his daughter from the Meetup/Lonon1 page and delete it.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

re: The Durova for Arbcom Shop

complaint1: Her head is too small on the t-shirts. Not realistic. Should be bigger.

complaint2: Head should be over right side of heart (ok, I'm welling up right now, sniff)

suggestion1: What about a DfA hijab? Why gyp the Middle East from their right to stump for our heroine.

More suggestions:

DfA briefs
DfA umbrella (repels both rain and vandals. Spike tipped for people you dislike)
DfA car shades
DfA bumpersticker (don't know how you forgot that one - so basic)
DfA Ringtones
DfA rap song (picture burned on CD)
DfA dance mix (picture burned on CD)

Hey, is this for real, as in, can they really be purchased? I have some married couple-friends who are expecting, and the maternity t-shirts and baby bibs could be a nice conversation piece, and useful too.

Personal favorites:
FORUM Image

Note: If these really are for sale, I'd check with a lawyer about what to do to protect yourself from legal liability. Perhaps if all the profits go to her (or charity, i.e. ~~Wikipedia~~ Save the Children) you would be safe from the eventual lawsuit for IP infringement. I mean, you'd hate to get another 'you are infringing our trademarks' email from Jimbo.

Posted by: KamrynMatika

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite_block_of_an_established_editor#Why_the_hurry.3F

QUOTE(Giano)

I agree. Apparently her methods and evidence are secret, so for the benefit of all here is a sample. In fact its is a huge chunk of it:

"Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=162747326

Now the moves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_5_%282006%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062162
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=163062161
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_6_%282007%29 &diff=prev&oldid=163062164
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_6&diff=prev&oldid=163062163
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_7_%282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062167
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_7&diff=prev&oldid=163062166
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062248
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062247
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062253
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062252
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062257
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062256
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062262
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062263

Unfortunately the "sock" was not a stranger to me, I knew who he was all the time. Does Durova truly think that an editor like me wold allow a complete stranger to go shunting my archives arownd - all she had to do was ask. Giano (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA

oh wow what a 'complex investigation' durova. LOL.

Posted by: Derktar

QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Wed 21st November 2007, 1:55pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite_block_of_an_established_editor#Why_the_hurry.3F

QUOTE(Giano)

I agree. Apparently her methods and evidence are secret, so for the benefit of all here is a sample. In fact its is a huge chunk of it:

"Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=162747326

Now the moves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_5_%282006%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062162
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=163062161
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_6_%282007%29 &diff=prev&oldid=163062164
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_6&diff=prev&oldid=163062163
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_7_%282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062167
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_7&diff=prev&oldid=163062166
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062248
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062247
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062253
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062252
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062257
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062256
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062262
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062263

Unfortunately the "sock" was not a stranger to me, I knew who he was all the time. Does Durova truly think that an editor like me wold allow a complete stranger to go shunting my archives arownd - all she had to do was ask. Giano (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA

oh wow what a 'complex investigation' durova. LOL.

The mountain of evidence is simply overwhelming, they have no choice but to block Giano as well.

And I found this rather funny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II#ANI_thread
You gotta give Giano credit, he doesn't back down, even when the big guns enter the picture.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 21st November 2007, 3:57pm)

And I found this rather funny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II#ANI_thread
You gotta give Giano credit, he doesn't back down, even when the big guns enter the picture.

Well, he seems to be Italian (or at least a European of Italian descent), per a brief breeze of his edit history. Which would mean he would know corruption when he sees it. And Italians have a passionate love of fighting, and blood on the wall drama. Unline our heroine, who is a mere pretender to the world of drama. Besides, if he really is Italian, this is one case where he can do something about obvious corruption. Compared to the Berlasconi debacle, Wikimedia/Wikipedia bureaucracy, gerrymandering, coverups and gaming are mere child's play.

Berlasconi actually had the audacity to try to write into law a statute that would have made him impossible to prosecute for ~~the~~ corruption ~~that he~~ practiced while in office. Parliament knocked it down, but you have to give him kudos for ballsiness.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

I love the idea that finally, Jimmy Wales will have to look at all of this corruption and do something about it, or go down in history as having presided over another â€œWatergateâ€ while on his watch at WP. The press should be tuned in to the players there soon.

Keep defending the crime and you too will do the time, JzG. It is not worth the shame and humiliation that each one of the defenders will face when the whole thing boils over, as it will eventually.

Durova is acting out like a person addicted to a drug/alcohol. High on the power, she burned out. Making the same bad mistakes over and over, expecting a different result?
Sounds like insanity to me.

Certainly, Durova is finished as in â€œtoastâ€ so maybe her website will go to the back burner and the media hype she had hoped for is not now going to happen. Maybe she will try to write an article about herself and â€¦whoops, JzG would be forced to delete it because it would be self published and her Google hits would be down to near zero.

Posted by: Bob Boy

One thing is pretty clear - Durova's ArbCom candidacy is now as dead as Julius Caesar. It's actually kind of pathetic watching her try to answer the questions on her candidacy page.

Posted by: KamrynMatika

QUOTE

Who were these people who approved the block of !!? You can name them, they can hold their own hands up or I will do it for them. I think it is better comming from you or them. Giano (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See question 83. DurovaCharge! 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not number me, I am not in some army camp! Please do not refer me to some other number either. This is your opportunity to become a member of the Arbcom not design a government form to assess my suitability for state welfare. Oh and having fully read your evidence no I am not part of some plot co-ordinated on "Wikipedia Review" to overthrow Jimbo and take over the world or as your evidence states:- "Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=168176874 Giano (talk 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'd rather see other candidates on the Committee, by all means vote for them. DurovaCharge! 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/Durova/Questions_for_the_candidate#Question_from_Giano. Giano is priceless. I'm loving the quotes from Durova's evidence; it shows just how vindictive she is. And can anyone deny the existence of the cabal? User:!! dares to agree with someone and Durova characterises it as 'troublemaking' in a secret document she passes only to a select few... oh sure, there is no cabal.

Too funny.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 21st November 2007, 4:48pm)

One thing is pretty clear - Durova's ArbCom candidacy is now as dead as Julius Caesar. It's actually kind of pathetic watching her try to answer the questions on her candidacy page.

Welcome, new member Bob Boy!

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 21st November 2007, 4:48pm)

One thing is pretty clear - Durova's ArbCom candidacy is now as dead as Julius Caesar. It's actually kind of pathetic watching her try to answer the questions on her candidacy page.

If I go there, it is to read the posts of some of the behind the scenes agents of good works and wisdom.........e.g., Geogre. He would make a good judge.

I still chuckle when I read about Jimmy's "perfect day." "Spend 10 hours online."
Poor souls that spend a lifetime addicted to an internet site. That would give me no time to walk the beach or play the guitar.

I wonder if someone from the WMF will e-mail Durova with a hint that she is not going to be a spokeperson for the club anymore. Oh the humanity!

Lessons learned are sometimes best not repeated.

Posted by: Aloft

So I'm guessing that Giano was the alleged other account that was connected with "!!"? Why he wasn't blocked as well? Anyway, Durova picked a bad one to screw with. Giano is a scrapper and has no qualms about dispensing with the political bullshit. I can't wait for him to post the evidence in its entirety so we can see just what Durova considers to be ironclad when it comes to her "complex investigations."

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 21st November 2007, 5:48pm)

One thing is pretty clear - Durova's ArbCom candidacy is now as dead as Julius Caesar. It's actually kind of pathetic watching her try to answer the questions on her candidacy page.

Nothing worse than a prosecutor who gets her ass kick in a judical election. There will be hell to pay in Durova's fantasy world.

Posted by: Derktar

It's so entertaining for so many arbcom candidates to lash out against one another. This makes the upcoming elections even more exciting.

Posted by: Moulton

After all the dust has settled, Durova can carry out a complex investigation to discover what went haywire (and why there is no functional way to fix it).

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Aloft @ Wed 21st November 2007, 6:27pm)

So I'm guessing that Giano was the alleged other account that was connected with "!!"? Why he wasn't blocked as well? Anyway, Durova picked a bad one to screw with. Giano is a scrapper and has no qualms about dispensing with the political bullshit. I can't wait for him to post the evidence in its entirety so we can see just what Durova considers to be ironclad when it comes to her "complex investigations."

It was not Giano. It was one of his friends, but since that person is well liked here (note: he has no account here, we just like him), we've opted not to divulge his previous account.

He exercised his right to vanish under his previous account and never used it again. He started over with !!, but got caught up in Durova's sock hunt and publicly humiliated. He followed policy but instead got whacked.

Poor person. I liked him!

Still, I don't think justice will be served. Durova will likely keep her buttons, but her standing in the Community is great diminished. Even when she might actually be right, she will always gain incredible scrutiny. No one's going to let her forget this incident. It will keep cropping up no matter what she does now.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 21st November 2007, 2:07pm)

Here is an [example redacted] that got Jimbo upset (he seemed to think that I was endangering his daughter, blah, blah) so I don't link to it anymore. I may go back to linking to it now that I'm rebanned anyway. It's an excellent piece of work, as you can plainly see.

I followed the link. I think you're trying to be funny, but the effect is rather sad, creepy, and vaguely threatening. I agree with Jimbo on this. Tactics like that have nothing to do with legitimate criticism and cast us in a really poor light.

I'm surprised no one else here has objected yet.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 21st November 2007, 6:45pm)

I don't think justice will be served.

Wikipedia is not a Just Site.

It's just a site.

Posted by: Aloft

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 21st November 2007, 11:45pm)

He exercised his right to vanish under his previous account and never used it again. He started over with !!, but got caught up in Durova's sock hunt and publicly humiliated. He followed policy but instead got whacked.

Yeah, I caught the name that jorge revealed upthread. I was just trying to figure out where the alleged WP:SOCK violation came from. Surely she isn't claiming that leaving and then later coming back under a different account is somehow a bannable offense?

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Wed 21st November 2007, 4:35pm)

Certainly, Durova is finished as in â€œtoastâ€ so maybe her website will go to the back burner and the media hype she had hoped for is not now going to happen. Maybe she will try to write an article about herself and â€¦whoops, JzG would be forced to delete it because it would be self published and her Google hits would be down to near zero.

Not necessarily. Essjay was appointed at Wikia, by Jimbo, after being caught lying to a Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times reporter that he was a university professor of theology. One big bad. Then he retracted by trying to explain that she had offered him money for the interview, which he honorably refused. He didnt realize that this lie of his was implying that the journalist broke huge ethical rules, if what he said was true. It wasn't, and it was actually a worse lie than the false credentials. The lie implying that the journalist offered him money set all journalists aflutter, and aghast online, and having already condoned Essjay's original lie, Jimbo asked him to resign, claiming he'd been offline in the jungle (actually, he's been in India's largest technology park, which has wireless broadband, holding a Wikicamp conference, but Jimbo got let off the hook for that little whopper).

The story of Wikipedia justice is a bigger picture of the case in question, the Durova !! ban.

Nothing will be done correctly unless they are dragged kicking and screaming to the action.

And for that to happen many things would have to fall into place. I dont see it as evident at all. She might even be elected to the Arbcom, which isn't really a pure election anyways. Until now, Jimbo had final appointment powers, and he probably still does, so he could trump the entire vote and put her in. It would not at all be surprising if he did this.

Of course, if he does, the joke will be on him, because she's a runaway train on crack. Get out the popcorn.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Aloft @ Wed 21st November 2007, 6:58pm)

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 21st November 2007, 11:45pm)

He exercised his right to vanish under his previous account and never used it again. He started over with !!, but got caught up in Durova's sock hunt and publicly humiliated. He followed policy but instead got whacked.

Yeah, I caught the name that jorge revealed upthread. I was just trying to figure out where the alleged WP:SOCK violation came from. Surely she isn't claiming that leaving and then later coming back under a different account is somehow a bannable offense?

The question is this: If !! is a reincarnation of a long-time, never-been-banned contributor and excellent writer and there is no evidence !! did anything inappropriate, why did she block him? You can have alternate accounts as long as the accounts do not work together to cheat the system. He abandoned his one account, so she can't claim he was violating sock policy. There was no reason for her to ban him under any policy.

Quite frankly, if a banned user is reincarnated and doesn't cause any problems, why ban his new account? It's ridiculous for admins to be running around trying to ban socks of those wanting to reform or engage in civil, intelligent discussion. It's like Valjean being continuously chased by Inspector Javert (Les Miserables), it's pointless and wastes time and energy that could be dedicated elsewhere. Forget "you must appeal to ArbCom" and use common sense in dealing with people. The world will not end if User:Uglypurples is the sock of banned user User:LeapingLandFrogs and Uglypurples is allowed to keep editing having proved he will do no harm as he did under his previous account.

Hard security doesn't work. In this case with Durova and !!, it has caused more harm than good.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 21st November 2007, 7:13pm)

It's like Valjean being continuously chased by Inspector Javert (Les Miserables)...

A most excellent and apt literary reference.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

Banning is totally useless with dynamic IP addresses; ability to change names, information, and preferences.

Is everyone on the honor system to not use a different account? No, they all have different user accounts which, of course, is legal.

It is no different than MySpace. That is the thrust of my original thesis pertaining to the deletion of my real name at WP. The fact that anyone could come along and claim they are me as they do on MySpace is really kind of scary. Then I couldn't even get into the account to alter it. Then it was protected. I wrote to Jimmy Wales on at least 3 occasions about the potential liability involved with real people. My counsel takes care of these things.

a.) I do not want an article. b.) I do not want to use my real name where people can and do change things about my life that may or may not be accurate. That includes things about my family. Until they have a means of detecting vandalism right away, it will always present as a problem for any biography of real people.

Durova can start over with a whole new name. I can go there anytime from anywhere in the world and have fun. I could be 50 different people...right?

If WP ever freezes articles and develops a real hierarchy of management like a corporation, the place will be bought. Yep.