Stop the Presses - Durova, WP Press Officer, Calls Congress (and, Does she not have a real job? Options

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

No where, no how, is it stated that you have to read the NPOV policy. This is a rule that people throw at you when they criticize you, or (worse) are attacking your edits. I never had a problem with NPOV, personally, but many people do.

I know, what I mean is that those who are really on Wikipedia to write an encyclopedia in truly good faith only need NPOV as a guide, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

I disagree with this. First off, I've stated that I disagree with NPOV, and I think that it should be replaced with Expert editors, and perhaps a mediator to handle all of the expert points of view, with people's biases being made clear, rather than hidden.

But beyond this, many of Wikipedia's rules are far from "common sense". Their rule on legal threats flies in the face of the rules on practically everywhere else in the planet. I did say before that "nowhere else" has it, but apparently 1 or 2 places do now. So I will say that 99% or perhaps 98% of places allow legal threats, and indeed encourage them in the right place. On the internet, in real life, legal threats are important. Ask any lawyer. For someone to automatically realise that by suggesting that something that someone else has done is illegal is grounds for a ban is preposterous. Who would know that? And it would be absurd too. If someone has libelled you, do you think it is normal practise for you to be banned for being libelled? Hell no. You'd expect that in most places it is normal practise for the libeller to be banned and their libellous information to be forever purged from the system. That's the normal way that things work. But Wikipedia is quite different in this regards.

A number of Wikipedia's rules are so unusual that if anyone describes them as "common sense" I'd have to ask them if they are used to living on Venus or Mars, or perhaps Jupiter, because they sure as hell aren't normal rules for anyone living here on Earth!

NPOV policy was the only reason I stayed on Wikipedia because I loved the concept. That policy is the closest to perfect that one could come up with. The problem is malicious editors not that policy.

He is expected to only read the NPOV policy, the rest could be replaced by common sense.

I disagree with this. First off, I've stated that I disagree with NPOV, and I think that it should be replaced with Expert editors, and perhaps a mediator to handle all of the expert points of view, with people's biases being made clear, rather than hidden.

But beyond this, many of Wikipedia's rules are far from "common sense". Their rule on legal threats flies in the face of the rules on practically everywhere else in the planet. I did say before that "nowhere else" has it, but apparently 1 or 2 places do now. So I will say that 99% or perhaps 98% of places allow legal threats, and indeed encourage them in the right place. On the internet, in real life, legal threats are important. Ask any lawyer. For someone to automatically realise that by suggesting that something that someone else has done is illegal is grounds for a ban is preposterous. Who would know that? And it would be absurd too. If someone has libelled you, do you think it is normal practise for you to be banned for being libelled? Hell no. You'd expect that in most places it is normal practise for the libeller to be banned and their libellous information to be forever purged from the system. That's the normal way that things work. But Wikipedia is quite different in this regards.

A number of Wikipedia's rules are so unusual that if anyone describes them as "common sense" I'd have to ask them if they are used to living on Venus or Mars, or perhaps Jupiter, because they sure as hell aren't normal rules for anyone living here on Earth!

This post has been edited by Xidaf: Thu 16th August 2007, 1:17am

This makes too much sense though, and you know they wouldn't go for that based on that basis.

Okay how about this idea:

As a new user, when you sign up for your account, it gives you a list of "Do you agree to these terms?" and you have to click "Yes" and then you immediately have a message in your talk page to state what the 10 main rules are:

*snip*

Do you know what the 3 major election issues are right now?

1) "Child abuse in Aboriginal communities"
2) Australia having thoroughly inadequate internet and falling far behind the rest of the world
3) Unions and work reform

I can bet that none of that is remotely interesting to anyone outside of Australia.

Just saying that that's why I don't know much about US internal policies. I am only interested in US foreign policy, because that's when it affects me.

Karl Rove did affect you. He had more bearing on US foreign policy than did Condoleeza Rice. She was just the messenger. Rove and Cheney were by far the most powerful in there. For a time, also Rumsfeld, and Feith.

But anyways. This was out of a joke, from you saying you liked to promote the other guy to be the more powerful. That was my point in bringing it up.

Australia falling behind the rest iof the world in interent. lol that is the most ridiculous assertion I have heard here since....well since the latest Slim conspiracy theory.

Wow, what a thread! Philosophy of ethics, history, and Australian politics all in one place. Now, on to the obvious Durova commentary:

Durova is interesting because of the high profile that she has acquired for herself. I have no idea who she is, but anyone that utters the phrase "complex investigation" in relation to Wikipedia, or anything for that matter, raises all kinds of flags for me. Reading her articles, I cannot help but feel bad for her, because she evidently thinks she is doing something hugely important. I have no idea who she is, but it does appear that this is a job to Durova.

I remember Durova commenting on the latest SlimVirgin "scandal", saying that it was entirely different because she had called for Essjay's resignation as soon as it happened. What she doesn't realize is others filled that role. She is very full of herself.

She reminds me very much of User:Zoe, who ended her "career" in a very entertaining way, to me at least. I predict a similar scenario for Durova. What she doesn't know is when she is finally driven off, some other asshole (a term of endearment) will be there that is very happy to fill her role.

Durova is what you might call — he bites his tongue, grits his teeth, and strains his brain in search of a polite e-uphemism, ah, there it is — an e-thusiast. Less politely if more straightfwdly said, she's every bit as wacked out as a kid on crack.

There oughta be a public service ad campain for that —

Cue da hip-rap-woteva-sorta-noys-da-puncs-2day-like music …

This is your brain on Durova …

Jonny

That's so correct, and cute humor .

Australia falling behind the rest iof the world in interent. lol that is the most ridiculous assertion I have heard here since....well since the latest Slim conspiracy theory.

Squeakbox, do you deny that SlimVirgin is Linda Mack of King's College Cambridge who worked for Pierre Salinger? Do you deny that two people have named her as an intelligence agent? A conspiracy theory is something that cannot be backed by evidence and both those things can be.

Australia falling behind the rest iof the world in interent. lol that is the most ridiculous assertion I have heard here since....well since the latest Slim conspiracy theory.

I'll be more specific.

From 1992-1995, Australia was ranked around 3rd or 4th in the world in terms of fastest internet speeds, number of people on the internet, internet commerce and so forth.

John Howard's liberal party took over government in 1995.

Today, in 2007, Australia is ranked worse than 100th in the world, in all of those terms.

Australia has a far lower than normal level of people who have an internet connection, and most people have dialup, rather than broadband. Of those that do have broadband, it is significantly more expensive, and slower than other places in the world.

Many economists have suggested that this will lead to Australia becoming very poor in the future.

Of course, some people suggest that just because Australia is so backward in terms of internet doesn't necessarily mean anything bad at all. It certainly has gotten significantly worse in the time that John Howard's liberal party has been in power.

My Fave Duh-Rov-Ism

Jonny

Reading [Durova's] articles, I cannot help but feel bad for her, because she evidently thinks she is doing something hugely important. I have no idea who she is, but it does appear that this is a job to Durova.

I think the answer can be found your own words below: "She is very full of herself". Part of why she's attaching so much time to Wikipedia is that she thinks that it is important, and also because she is an attention-lover (remember, she originally wanted to be in the film industry) but also probably because she takes herself Far.Too.Seriously. If she's have made it into the film industry (also known as "the business" to insiders") she'd have driven people (even in there) nuts with her self-aggrandizement.

This isn't what bugs me about her. What bugs me about her is how destructive she is, and how unaware of how destructive she is (perhaps she thinks the ends justify the means).

Evidence here her self-perception:

Whenever I look into a case I examine both sides. If things look muddy there are three basic possibilities:

• Everyone's covered themselves in mud.
• A primary aggressor is all muddy and goaded some otherwise reasonable person into wading knee deep in the mud.
• Some really dirty person is slinging mud at a saint.

I come along and try to clean things up. I'll follow the mud tracks and read the mud splatters to see how things got dirty. I'll also offer people a hose so they can wash off the mud. What I like to see most is people sharing the hose with each other. That doesn't happen in a whole lot of dirty situations so the next best thing is to see someone clean up himself or herself. The primary aggressors usually wade right back into the mud and the worst ones start slinging again. One thing that interests me at this stage is how willing each participant is to accept feedback, adjust, and proceed cooperatively. . Durova Charge! 10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've watched Durova walk up to a mud-fight. Many, many times. Know what she does? Durova observes the mud fest, then with quiet malevolence, pulls out a carving knife, gores out the intestines of the one she is SURE was responsible (based on a knee-jerk 'complex analysis') and then walk away in abject self-satisfaction. No hose required.

Durova intellectualizes her behavior to the extent that her truly violent actions are justified as calm, rational maneuvers. I find this disturbing.

I remember Durova commenting on the latest SlimVirgin "scandal", saying that it was entirely different because she had called for Essjay's resignation as soon as it happened. What she doesn't realize is others filled that role. She is very full of herself.

Yes, and she's also full of other things. I don't remember her asking for his resignation, but I remember her writing on his talk page that he should rejoin wikipedia, and she's happily sponsor his RFA. What a pompous ass she is, huh? This really is a pattern with her: come join Wikipedia, and flourish under my wing, my child. She's become so deluded as to now suppose that Congressional staffers will buy into this offer. She isn't even aware that they don't have the time for meddling with Wikipedia. Shes so self-centered she guesses that she has the time, so everyone else must also.

[Durova] reminds me very much of User:Zoe, who ended her "career" in a very entertaining way, to me at least. I predict a similar scenario for Durova. What she doesn't know is when she is finally driven off, some other asshole (a term of endearment) will be there that is very happy to fill her role.

Ah Zoe. The departing words on the talk page:

Jimbo accused me of having a vendetta against Mr. Pierce. Such an attack is too much for me to endure. I have loved my time at Wikipedia, but I do not feel that I can continue here. Goodbye. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly Jimbo accused Zoe of attacking Mr. Pierce in the study with a carving knife. (Clue?)

No, unfortunately, I don't see our tragic heroine as departing in a huff. Not Durova style really. She's already licked J-man's boots and sucked up enough to the Foundation so that they feel comfortable enough to refer interviews to her. She's a menace, but unfortunately, one who's not going to stomp off anytime soon.

What could cause her to bow out is the final sad realization that Jimbo won't hire her. She's far too polemical and combative to ever be hired at Wikia or the Foundation. She's trying so hard to be VERY PUBLIC ABOUT HOW PROFESSIONAL SHE IS, but it is coupled with an aggressiveness and inner anger (rage?) that sort of wrecks it all. Gets in her own way like that.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 16th August 2007, 12:34pm

My Fave Duh-Rov-Ism

Mental illness and other cognitive handicaps are usually irrelevant for administrative purposes.

— Durova

Jonny

Jesus. You've just given me my new by-line. Thanks!

She keeps getting scarier and scarier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...dminship/Durova 2006-10-12

I've answered all questions now. And although I'd love to see Australia I've never had the chance. When I was on deployment in the Navy we almost went to Darwin, but plans changed and we visited Palau instead. Regards, Durova 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova/Archive11 2006-11-24

I joined the United States Navy because my uncle survived the World Trade Center from a high floor. Don't give me too much credit: I count as a veteran of the Global War on Terrorism but didn't see actual combat. During one of my deployments, though, my ship saved 113 civilian lives. DurovaCharge! 02:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ust/078575.html 2007-08-02

I'm a war veteran. I've owned a Harley-Davidson and I've handled live rattlesnakes and I've saved an apartment building from burning down. I've even survived being struck by lightning.

What will be her next quote? Can she top the last one?

I'm a war veteran. I've owned a Harley-Davidson and I've handled live rattlesnakes and I've saved an apartment building from burning down. I've even survived being struck by lightning .

What will be her next quote? Can she top the last one?

God in heaven.

Forget the jokes about Durova being on crack. What about crystal meth?

(on another note: it seems a shame the woman didn't follow through on her film career. She's have been an amazing resource for planning an action movie. Her creative skills are going to waste on Wikipedia, clearly).

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 16th August 2007, 1:52pm

I wrote Durova an e-mail. If she replies, I'll post it here. I am quite frankly sick to death of people misrepresenting Wikipedia Review.

I wrote Durova an e-mail. If she replies, I'll post it here. I am quite frankly sick to death of people misrepresenting Wikipedia Review.

Oh now there's an idea. Ask the crazy lady who offers everyone help for help. She'll offer you a deal, ask you to redact everything about her from Wikipedia Review, and then backstab you at the first available juncture. Better to send an email to Brandt and ask him what he thinks about asking Durova for help.

If you think she'll be happy about how people are lampooning her 'serious professional efforts to clean up the Wikipedia environment', I rather think not. At this point, her terms will be harsh, if she even offers to negotiate with you. And she's unreliable (see:Brandt). In short, a complete win-lose proposition, for you, her favor.

Are you just looking for trouble, Blissy? Because communicating or cooperating with that woman will give you that - in truckloads. Or maybe you are bored and want some drama. She'll supply that too. Free of charge.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 16th August 2007, 1:59pm

Ok, I've watched Durova walk up to a mud-fight. Many, many times. Know what she does? Durova observes the mud fest, then with quiet malevolence, pulls out a carving knife, gores out the intestines of the one she is SURE was responsible (based on a knee-jerk 'complex analysis') and then walk away in abject self-satisfaction. No hose required.

Absolutely brilliant assessment, Lackey. That paragraph was perfection.

Greg

I wrote Durova an e-mail. If she replies, I'll post it here. I am quite frankly sick to death of people misrepresenting Wikipedia Review.

Durova Is People ???

No, Soylent Green Is People !!!

Jonny

Ok, I've watched Durova walk up to a mud-fight. Many, many times. Know what she does? Durova observes the mud fest, then with quiet malevolence, pulls out a carving knife, gores out the intestines of the one she is SURE was responsible (based on a knee-jerk 'complex analysis') and then walk away in abject self-satisfaction. No hose required.

Absolutely brilliant assessment, Lackey. That paragraph was perfection.

Greg

I actually had you in mind as one of the "gutless victims" (pardon the pun), but I didn't want to "muddy the water" with details of specific cases.

What's your take on Durova's scintillatingly-un-self-aware self-analysis, Kohser?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 16th August 2007, 2:02pm

Prediction: Durova will end up leaving Wikipedia within six months, after offering up her version of an "Essjay swan song."

What, you don't remember Essjay's swan song? Let me remind you:

That may be influenced, however, by the large number of such email I receive: surprisingly enough, nearly every checkusered user emails to inform me of his or her innocence and/or offer a brilliantly graphic explanation of how they would like to exact thier revenge on me and/or my family. (I could share highlights if you're interested; I get five or six each week that are quite inventive in thier ideas on torture.) Perhaps my skepticism with the 150 emails I get each day comes from two years and 10,000 checkuser's worth of death threats (~10 a week), torture monologues (~5 a week), and legal threats (~40-50 week), added on top of the remainder that are only generally belligerent and filled with personal attacks. With the myriad of venues available to blocked users, including contacting the blocking admin, unblock-en-l, editing thier talk page, emailing the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo (who unsurprisingly gets several thousand emails each day; I don't think I saw him ever stop going through emails today), I feel I'm justified in answering clearly on my talk page and archiving the emails. Essjay (Talk) 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, 10 death threats a week, 5 torture monologues a week, 40-50 legal threats a week. And I thought I was an Internet activist! I've been on the Internet since 1995 and my score is zero, zero, zero. (And those zeros are not per week, but my cumulative 12-year total.)

(Or could it be that Essjay was making this stuff up? I've heard a rumor that he was inclined to misrepresent himself.)

If I got even one a week of any description, I'd start some self-criticism and evaluate whether I'm doing something wrong.