SHE STILL DOESNT GET IT - Durova keeps making "joke" ANI edits, First Kelly, now "Doc" suggests that Durova is a troll... Options

Kind of sad.....

But didn't all her attacks always come down to a strong need to be noticed? Now it is transparent.

• Kelly Martin, who called Durova's post desysopping behavior "trolling"
• Durova proved Kelly right by commenting, "moo").
• Durova posted yet another (2nd) pathetically un-funny ANI sockpuppet hunting "joke"
• Durova posted an "unfunny sock-sleuthing joke" on Jimbo's talk page (which he's ignored)
• Doc to comment that "maybe Kelly Martin is right".

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Doc Glasgow is going Scottish on her wikibutt. glaswegians are not to be f*ked with, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177414125

::I suppose "Hiding" is a temporary account that will be replaced with another permanent account once those replacements are all done. Having done a lot of sockpuppet investigations myself, I would be glad to coach this editor in how to return without raising suspicions. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
+
:::What, like "don't edit Mozart"? Not sure your "expertise" has that much credibility at he moment.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g 12:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, she'd already begged the person to contact her two days ago

I support your decision. I also invite you to contact me. DurovaCharge! 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And apparently this didn't get an immediate response. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

She really doesn't understand that she's made a permanent fool of herself (or that people finally noticed that she's always been doing that). It is even on Wikipedia Weekly, discussed on minute 8:15 as "The Durova Issue" you know, discussed by Andrew Lih, and Tawker on online radio. They tried to avoid it for aweek until it was no loner possible.

I wonder how long the message on Jimbo's board will sit there (crickets chirping as he's already ignored it) before she reverts it or it puts in politely in the archives. She's an embarassment now.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

You know how when you're at a party and one of your friends gets really drunk and starts making a fool of himself, and you feel really uncomfortable and embarassed for them? That is how I am beginning to feel about Durova...at first, I won't lie that I did take some joy in her bad experiences, but now I am sure she has several mental problems and I feel guilty about being amused by her illogical actions. For example, this recent diff made me laugh out loud, but now...

I feel like laughing at Durova is the equivalent of laughing at a mentally challenged person.

I feel like laughing at Durova is the equivalent of laughing at a mentally challenged person.

No, it is the equivalent of laughing at a person with serious psychological problems. I have struggled with this myself, to be honest.

At first I made great effort to highlight her otherwise unnoticed antics and nasty behavior. Then when it came to the fore with the "!!" story, it became such a huge thing that I began to feel sorry for her. But the cabal's reaction (and Jimbo Wales') - not to mention her own serious denials - was so solid that I lost that guilt.

She's been so destructive and overtly cruel. Actively working to publicly humiliate people in their professional lives, and even writing articles bragging about how people who edit wikipedia are serving to "place the editor at risk for adverse news coverage” taken from one of her SEO articles).

She was enthusiastically active in making the tripped-up editors be "caught" and "punished" publicly for editing and so-called-rule-breaking of rules which aren't prominently published, and the project is promoted as being open to everyone. Most people who get "caught" are newbies who edit under an IP. Once "caught" they don't know the rules, are (naturally) shocked and indignant. Whereupon they are immediately subjected to public abuse (and further accusations) by a small army of people accusing them of "conflict of interest".

This makes her feel like a good soldier of Wikipedia.

That's twisted.

So no - I don't think that it is wrong to point it out. I think that it is quite important, actually, as a prophelactic, given that Jimbo doesn't have the personal skills to deal with serious things like this - and this lack is evident in Foundation practice. Bottom line is thay behave as if preventing damage is not important. Durova's not alone, although she is one of most loud and obvious offenders. But her case has changed nothing with the Foundation/Wales. They are claiming this was a one-off Durova error. Which is scary.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

JeHochman, her former mentoree, was noted for bragging that companies that Wikispam "catches" will be blacklisted from Google. That's actually a fallacy - i.e. Wikipedia spam lists aren't re-copied direct to Google blacklists. That's not the point. His nastiness, his glee at hoping to punish companies who don't know better? That's the point.

The laughable thing is that no one seems to catch that JeHochman is using his real name to post with. His doing so blasts his name all over Wikipedia, giving a HUGE boost to his private company website in Google ranking. At the same time, he systematically attempting to "punish companies" for "using Wikipedia for self-promotion". These companies innocently trying to do the same thing he's doing quite purposefully. The companies aren't warned clearly. Again, this is completely twisted.

It didn't start with Durova. It doesn't stop with Durova.

Durova hasn't stopped. Being desysopped hasn't stopped Tony Sidaway from being a top player in the Administrator Board, and it won't stop Durova either.

And there are no less than 50 Durova-like admins and heavy-hitters, yet un-named, happily abusing at will, unadmonished, even "encouraged".

That's why Wikipedia Review is so important.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

:::What, like "don't edit Mozart"? Not sure your "expertise" has that much credibility at he moment.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]^g 12:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[[WP:NPA]]!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)
[[WP:AGF]]!!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)
[[WP:CIVIL]]!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

The three favorite Durova-acronyms-of-accusation™.

Jorge - you stole her "playbook". Is that the one that all of WR is operating out of? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

The three favorite Durova-acronyms-of-accusation™.

Jorge - you stole her "playbook". Is that the one that all of WR is operating out of? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

What is really sad is that she probably spent an entire day making those ridiculous puppets. Her actions smack of a desperate need to be relevant and wanted.

Durova may be experiencing feelings of anomie or alienation.

Welcome, Dr. Zhivago.

I'm wondering now if there really *was* a Harvard student doing this thesis (though apparently it checked out via records - was it Nathalie or Durova who did the checking --- hmmm). Ok, there probably was a student..... but the fact that my mind goes to the dark place where Durova would create a fake student and a gmail and make up a story - and that I think it could be true, is about where I am with Durova this week.

I thought she was just mean, but I think it is much more than that. As BobbyB said, there is something quite serious happening here. I hope someone at WP gets in touch with her and stages some kind of intervention or contact. With this kind of behavior, she might be in some kind of serious crisis, really. And it makes sense. Wikipedia was her life, and ... well ... things have changed drastically. Her doing entirely, but nonetheless, ... I'm thinking she might do something extreme or hurtful to herself.

My real sympathies still rest with her victims: Timothy Hill, Ilonya-something (that Durova contacte the press about), and the random others who's lives she's lent grief to. But her Wikipedia friends should befriend her at this moment.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I dunno about this specific case, but there are researchers at Harvard studying dominance hierarchies in online social networking sites.

It occurs to me that Wikipedia would be an excellent venue for such research.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

I think that this is what the thesis was about. But the student clearly doesn't "get it" because first of all, they *asked* to see Brandts deleted pages (duh!) and they refused to deal with Brandt for fear of being put on hivemind, which means the student thinks that Brandt is a mad picture collecting stalker who publishes pictures of random innocent people - including a student with whom he's had an understanding. Clearly this is what Wikipedia told him, and if someone is taking Wikipedias word as gospel (not as "with salt") then that thesis will be a pile of worthless paper.

A sociopath feels no remorse and seldom ever admits to doing anything wrong.

Throw in an addiction or two and you have a habitual liar and a cheat that will, in fact, consume everything around her; never getting enough of anything and thus, everything to the good will be her domain; to her credit while anything bad belongs in the hands of her adversaries.

Can we say delusional?

JzG and Jimbo want to welcome her back as an administrator or a full time employee?

Well, here is her excuse for not being able to take a break, from the ANI:

:Consider what's happened, WAS. The last time I followed someone's advice and took a few days' wikibreak, RFC opened and some Wikipedians accused me of disrespecting process by not responding immediately. There's no way to please everyone. Sometimes I'm wrong - we all make mistakes - and I'm glad to accept correction. But I have to follow my own conscience. I apologize for any lack of clarity if that looks like hubris to you. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So she can never take a break, because if she does, an RFC might be called in her name.

(IMG:http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/a6/300px-The_Scream.jpg)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Machiavelli's World Famous Recipe for Spaghetti and Punishment

Oh noes! Damned if you does, damned if you goes.

She also maintains that she never had an opportunity to present evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177558973

This is rich though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177697271

She's trying to defend her service to the project.

This is pathetic:

Administrator's aren't perfect
(adapted from a post from the proposed decision talk, with segments reposted from my own arbitration case)

As an administrator I didn't do unblock reviews very often, but I did tend to address difficult cases. So I cannot estimate how common these types of mistake are. In both of these cases there were weeks of delay before I was contacted, although I had been a blocking admin or principal investigator. No RFC, let alone arbitration, came under consideration in either instance.

* LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) A tangled situation that had been wrong for two months when I found it and that I set right in two weeks. The editor used multiple accounts legitimately, but both of the others were already indeffed. One of the previous indefs had been done by mistake as a WP:SOCK violation and two unblock requests on that other account had been denied.[106][107][108] Full analysis is here.
o What actually happened: an editor got misidentified as a ban-evading sockpuppet, and blocked indefinitely. Actually the editor had started a new account because he lost the password on his old account, and the indef on that old account was just a procedural courtesy. That got mistaken for a ban so his legitimate new account got indeffed too (this is a summary version of the longer analysis linked above).
o Administrators who were mistaken:
o Mackensen
o Bishonen
o Pgk
o Doc glasgow

* Compare the above examples to how I handled this request from an IP[109][110] who had been blocked by mistake a month earlier by a different administrator[111] and whose two unblock requests had already been denied. I restored editing privileges and extended apologies on behalf of my fellow administrators for the failure of the normal review system.[112] The editor thanked me for helping.[113]
o What actually happened: a productive editor got swept up in the Joan of Arc vandal sock blocks. He didn't even agree with the Joan of Arc vandal's POV, but he sometimes used edit summaries a little bit like that vandal. He claims to be an Australian medical doctor, and based upon the level of expertise that informs his contributions that looks like a credible assertion. Took him a month to find me and request a third review, and by then he had really soured on Wikipedia.
o Administrators who were mistaken:
o JzG
o Redvers
o Steve block

All of the above administrators are experienced sysops in good standing, and a sitting member of the Committee that weighs this case is among them. Good faith mistakes do happen, especially under unusual circumstances. Given enough time and enough log entries, nearly any sysop who actually uses the tools will accumulate some errors. Wikipedia's traditional response to this has been to weigh the administrator's willingness to learn from mistakes, except in extreme instances such as wheel warring or deleting the main page. While the loss of a potentially productive editor is distressing (I was particularly disappointed to see the way Cwiki was handled), please balance that concern with respect for volunteers with proven track records of thousands of edits and long service to the project. DurovaCharge! 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice how 90% of her 'evidence' is basically just bigging herself up and has no relevance to the case.

Did she really say Administrator's?