Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: thekohser

I had to add a Strong Oppose, as a trusted Meta Wikimedian. There truly is no end to Durova's desire to worm her way into everyone else's business, is there?

Greg

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

It fits the profile.

Posted by: guy

Hotting up. JoshuaZ is saying that Greg should be ignored because he's banned on WP, but Cato from WQ is defending him.

Meanwhile, Moulton has also applied. However, he says he can only reply in "American academic English", so that won't be very useful. Even British academics won't be able to understand him.

Posted by: Iamlost

Oh my. If she's elected, then it proves - to me at least - that the lunatics are truly running the wiki-asylum.

Posted by: Giggy

This line made me giggle.


Always asking the hard hitting questions;

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Come to think of it, this is the best way for Wikipedia to generate bad press... (hmmmm)

Posted by: thekohser

I have modified my "Strong oppose" to just "Oppose". If there is some way to restrict her only to the copyright and copyleft disputes on OTRS, I think that would be nice busy-work for her -- keeping her out of our hair. But that's the only way I'd support her even having access to OTRS tickets, is if only those related to licensing and fair use are directed her way.

Meanwhile, I am really jazzing up my http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg. Not bad, eh?

Greg

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

I think her recent speech to that kid about how he was a sock (when he cheerfully told her he wasn't) is evidence that this is a bad area for her.

Put her in the image copyright section. She doesn't understand that the Bern Treaty addresses well over 100 country government signatories, so she will be stuck translating treaties for ages.

This is part of my Durova position of: Give her a special project in a nice office with no phone.

Posted by: Moulton

You only lobbed me a softball, Giggy.

Read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/volunteering#Moulton and pitch me a more challenging one.

Posted by: Giggy

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering&diff=1052142&oldid=1052137.

Update: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering&curid=63918&diff=1052175&oldid=1052142

Posted by: Moulton

Why would it not matter?

Don't readers and participants deserve answers to their questions submitted to OTRS?

Posted by: One

I don't think it's an election; those comments are just that. Users are given access or not based on an off-wiki process of some sort. She's been removed, but it's still unclear whether or not she made it. They don't make announcements either way.

You have to dig through the page history to figure out who has been rejected (by comparing the public OTRS list--which may not be up-to-date), but the rejectees fall into two categories (1) mind-numbingly incompetent, and (2) outside the ruling cliques. Durova falls into neither category. I bet even money that she makes it, and talking about it here only increases her odds.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

It's one of those situations where you know she shouldn't win, but if she does, the playout will be a self-punishing measure. She's just going to garner more bad press for them, and now acress the Wikisphere.

Posted by: cyofee

Good job WR for sabotaging Durova's bid for OTRS.

Posted by: Proabivouac

I don't agree with this endless stream of derision against Durova. I suppose I'd be obliged to change my mind if recently-aired suspicions prove accurate; however they are at this point only suspicions.

What leaps out at me is that Durova gets herself into trouble when she deals with real-name contributors, speaks to the press and/or continues the conflict off-wiki. Many of the people dogging her, such as Mr. Kohs, were operating under their real names, and many of the incidents we recount involved statements to the press.

Hence, I strongly advise Durova to decline responsibilities to either discipline or mentor real-name contributors, and to think three times before speaking negatively about a real-name contributor, whatever their wiki-status, to the press. OTRS access is probably antithetical to these goals, insofar as it will inevitably tend to draw her into real-world disputes.

Posted by: Lar

Your http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=TheKohser shows some VERY pretty pictures... you definitely should contribute more if you can take more that are as good as those... I am much more of a hack, as can be seen in my http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-img_timestamp&img_user_text=Lar&ofs=0&max=250 but I try to make up for that with quantity

By the way, OTRS is not an election, per se... it's more of a request for comment. The final decisions are, I think, made by Cary in his capacity as volunteer coordinator.


I don't agree with "this endless stream of derision" either... we are none of us perfect, but this does seem a bit spiteful to me. I think you give some good advice to Durova about where her strengths and weaknesses lie.

Posted by: Viridae

Neat tool that gallery thingo.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

We aim to please.

Kohs didn't start 'dogging' her. She did her usual "one-two-jump in an argument-three-four" and conflate it out of all human proportion. Kohs and Wales were finally making nice. Durova had jumped in previously, and alleged (as she will do) that he did something awful in an email (in this case she claimed he made false allegations via email to an AP reporter - she does this kind of thing all the time). Wales reinstated Kohs. Kohs asked her to apologize, as any normal person would do, if they were her, and she asked one of her cronies (JzG) to re-ban Kohs for impudence.

Considering JzG hates Kohs, for no other reason that he tried to make a small profit from contributing, this was pro forma.

Simple stuff.
NOT going to happen. She's sure she's fabulous and the world just doesn't see her for what she is. Therefore there's no need to apologize, nor self-examine. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Posted by: Dzonatas

I skim through a lot of sites for my morning read, and I had a bit of a giggling coffee-spill http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering&diff=next&oldid=1052726. I took another http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering&diff=next&oldid=1053159.

I have for some time wanted to set up a site like http://digg.com but for focused on http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering&diff=next&oldid=1053161 on the wikis. It wouldn't be hard to do with http://wiki.greasespot.net/FAQ.

Hmm, gotta think of a good name for it...

Posted by: Milton Roe

A spit biteful? In this endless dream of precision, I think he merely gives ads to Durova about where her lies have strengths and weaknesses, as good vice.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

DUROVAWORLD

I'm sorry Lar, but.....

...If you call it a weakness to call a suicidal boys school and paint him as a danger so he winds up getting kicked out...
... If you call it a weakness to tell an AP Reporter that a small business owner is a liar, and repeat this lie online....
... If you call it a weakness to have him re-banned right after reinstatement when he asks you to apologize....
... if you call it weakness to making up a baldfaced whopper when somenoe's getting attacked by a group, so a bunch of libel gets published..
... if you call it weakness to write an SEO Journal Article alleging "unethical edits" about a Congressional Press Officer - using the power of your "position" as a Wikipedia Admnistrator - when he did no wrong and likening his innocent removal of cruft by a radical detractor from boss's bio and liken it a real Congressional scandal the year prior.
... if you call it weakness to give interviews about the Press Officer's innocent edit to the politically-slanted press who use the false allegation you enshrined online causing the Tennessee Democratic party leader to make stinging commentary to the press, and invoking a US House Ethics Investigation (which of course found no wrongdoing).
... if you call it weakness to not retract your false allegation when informed of the nuances you missed and have your friends ban the IP that provided this information, and TO THIS DAY that Press Officer story remains on Wikinews, and in the Congressional Scandal articles and you still do nothing.
... if you call jumping in EVERY debate and issue only to make a wild slamming ham fest out of it, to the person in questions detriment (Kohs falls in this category)
... If you call it a weakness to circulate false information about a trusted user (!!) and then cut off his efforts to not-be-banned (by her) by chanting "take it to Arbcom" which you know will validate your false accusation...


... if you call it a weakness to do all of the above, and more, and still not admit you were EVER wrong, but claim that you had to resign as Wikipedia Administrator because you were "stalked and harassed" (in the podcast in which foolish Jim Hedger allowed her to speak her special world view and unique "take" on reality) by obsessed Wikipedia Review persons, and conveniently mention Kohs and Brandt's names in the next paragraph (on her blog). When you REALLY were forced to resign because hundreds of Wikipedians protested that Jimbo defended you when you'd made one too many accusations, and this time of a favored friend of many (the !! scandal, and press firestorm in November 2007) leading to the launch of 1000 blogs and mainstream press interest in the biggest Wikipedia scandale since Essjay (usurped only by Jimbo's Ebay-sale breakup with Marsden).

Then I'd call your weakness "apologism".

With a heavy side dish of denial.

Lar. BE serious.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

See, in Durova's world, being held to account and having your destructive and damaging activities commented upon by a growing crowd of people who are furious that you've libeled and defamed them online is
"stalking and harassment" or obsessive.

People get obsessive in their anger towards her, sure. It's normal. The many pieces of libel she's caused to be enshrined on a world-class Google-ranked Website is a real memory jogger, for the libel-victims, "everyday" if not several times a day, that she did something REALLY nasty to them, - usually gratuitously. As everyone knows, and not all agree - I fear she may have ideological motivations augmenting the gratuitous nasty (sic).

Posted by: LaraLove

ROFL. Nice find. In that you said "a bit of a giggling coffee-spill", I probably should not have been sipping from my son's juice box when I clicked the second link, but at least I did not get any juice on my laptop.

I'm not even going to attempt to understand what the hell was involved in that thought process.

Posted by: guy

What would be Durova's funniest act (if it weren't so serious) was using statistical evidence to claim that Poetlister of all people was a sockpuppet.

Posted by: Moulton

Possibly something other than thought.

Although, to be fair, Marvin Minsky does classify emotions as a variety of thought.