Oops, Durova's Mea culpa Options

Oops.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

This post has been edited by Nathan:

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).

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.

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)(IMG:http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/pics/movies/casablanca-louis-clauderains.jpg)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Are you OUT of your MIND? ⇒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.