Durova's press nastiness, post made by an IP Options

[wikiwhistle]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post- maybe you've discussed this particular case before, but someone just posted this on ANI and it was removed by Crum:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175150156

about durova having an impact on someone's real life through her comments to the press.

[Fox]

It was censored and removed by Crum375, who threatened to block if it was readded.

[Proabivouac]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post- maybe you've discussed this particular case before, but someone just posted this on ANI and it was removed by Crum:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175150156

about durova having an impact on someone's real life through her comments to the press.

What breathtaking hypocrisy:

"Unreferenced personal attack on a Wikipedian removed per BLP. If you have a case, prepare the evidence as diffs, and take it to ArbCom. Any violators of BLP will be blocked. Thank you."

So let's get this straight - [redacted] (a.k.a. Durova), in her capacity as a Wikipedia administrator, can run around denouncing this congressional staffer, harming his career and life, and that's okay. For that, she earns barnstars. But when her victim or his colleague complains about it (using her WP psuedonym!) it becomes a "BLP violation."

Note also how "Wikipedian" no longer just mean "person who edits Wikipedia," else Mr. Hill and the anonymous IP who posted there would also be "Wikipedians."

Yes, [redacted] (a.k.a. Durova) was humiliatingly demoted for blocking User:!!, but then User:!! is a "Wikipedian;" she just didn't know it.

This kind of thing merits not just desysoping, but a *ban.* And, a lawsuit.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 2nd December 2007, 1:48am

[wikiwhistle]

I don't see how it's BLP to complain about her actions, either. Like with some things the clique have said about PrivateMusings' edits, they call it BLP even if there are multiple sources (when it suits them.)

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't see how it's BLP to complain about her actions, either. Like with some things the clique have said about PrivateMusings' edits, they call it BLP even if there are multiple sources (when it suits them.)

Yet another example of how BLP reform can be twisted iby a dysfunctional community and why real reform cannot be achieve while any aspect of implementation remains in community hands.

[Castle Rock]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post- maybe you've discussed this particular case before, but someone just posted this on ANI and it was removed by Crum:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175150156

about durova having an impact on someone's real life through her comments to the press.

That's really messed up. I thought that people who went after others in real life because of Wikipedia-related stuff got booted, like Amorrow and Gold Heart.

This post has been edited by Castle Rock: Sun 2nd December 2007, 1:37am

[Proabivouac]

That's really messed up. I thought that people who went after others in real life because of Wikipedia-related stuff got booted, like Amorrow and Gold Heart.

This is only true if the victim is a Wikipedia editor, especially an administrator. When the victim is a private citizen, and the perpetrator is an administrator, the perp gets barnstars.

[Somey]

User:JzG deleted the article about the guy, at least:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=Timothy_Hill

16:12, 1 December 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Timothy Hill" ‎ (This is an article on someone 2notable" only for one event (WP:BLP1E) and appears to have no purpose other than to enshrine his humiliation.)

16:12 UTC would have been before this thread was started, right? So presumably he didn't read about it here first...

Now if only JzG would apply this concept of not wanting to "enshrine people's humiliation" consistently, and not hypocritically, and maybe also not claim that Hill was "humiliated" but rather "targeted" or "persecuted," which would have the nice benefit of actually being true, then... well, he might actually start making some progress towards being something other than Wikipedia's worst administrator.

[Piperdown]

That's really messed up. I thought that people who went after others in real life because of Wikipedia-related stuff got booted, like Amorrow and Gold Heart.

This is only true if the victim is a Wikipedia editor, especially an administrator. When the victim is a private citizen, and the perpetrator is an administrator, the perp gets barnstars.

i think it's now quite clear what a "wikipedian" is in the context as such things as "attacks" and "badsites".

A wikipedian is someone in the social network of the people who are on slimmy and jzg's mailing lists.

everyone else can just go screw themselves, whether they edit wikipedia or not.

For almost 2 years now, WP has been diverted off its rails by the SlimVirgin affair. It has cascaded down to an entire network of WP admins, innocent bystanders, and people who have no idea how this whole mess started.

It is a tangled web they weave.

SlimVirgin edited her old boss's BLP with some very nasty WP:OR. She edited another article that she personally investigated over 15 years ago. Her edits were chock full of WP:OR.

She needed those edits oversight removed when people began to figure out what this PETA POV-warrior, this ex-French Fry Snub classmate of Patrick Byrne, this Middle East/Lockerbie Self Styled Sleuth was up to on WP.

Jayjg stepped up to the plate to do that for her. His WP reputation is now forever toast.

Many other admins have stepped up to do very un-WP like things, like the ol' delete & restore workaround to edit out Slimmy's black-mood moments on WP. One Crum375 comes to mind. When actual vandalism does happen on SV's page, Crum is sure to take advantage of that and pile on out some other edits by Ms Virgin herself. Ingenious way to clean a slate up under false pretenses.

Crum's WP career is now relegated to doing whatever it takes to help Slimmy's WP career hang on by the thread that it is now.

While Slimmy was going around having her PETA/Berlet/Lockerbie/etc way, others who each have very COI-specialized interests in the same articles she commandeers have latched on to the S.S. Virgin.

It's a Cult of Wikipersonality.

Those WP editors are one by one going silent as the game is being revealed by the likes of Giano, Wordbomb, Alec MacConroy, Cla68, etc.

Already many WP editors, like the above, have been stepping up to fill the void left by the removal of corruption.

It's happening.

let's see if the new bosses become the same as the old bosses. I think they've been showing ethical courage and a willingness to take back WP to what it might once have been, and should be now.

An opensource wiki that, while I don't think it has a chance in hell of succeeding without intervals of revolution, has all of its administrative affairs (banning, etc) out in the open for all "Wikipedians" to see.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 2nd December 2007, 2:00am

[Proabivouac]

let's see if the new bosses become the same as the old bosses. I think they've been showing ethical courage and a willingness to take back WP to what it might once have been, and should be now.

I can offer no insight on the longstanding SV-related disputes to which you refer. However, I regretfully state that I think you're mistaken on this point. The editors who support free linking to "attack sites" do so in the name of free speech, not responsible publishing. The solution to bad speech is said to be more speech. That's not the right direction for what was supposed to be a serious and responsible encyclopedia. The tragedy here is that Wikipedia's JzG's (etc.), who talk the right talk, have discredited their position by applying in such a blatantly biased manner that "We are opposed to attacks on innocent people" winds up sounding like "We disallow criticism of the cabal, who is beyond reproach."

What they need to do to regain their credibility, in my opinion, is to start cracking down on editors *no matter what their status* (e.g. administrator, arbitrator) who out and/or attack private citizens from Wikipedia. Immediate desysoping, immediate ban. That would include JzG, Durova, Morven and many others. Until that's done, their complaints are (collectively, as there are editors who are consistent in opposing this) nothing but distaste for their own medicine.

[tarantino]

It was censored and removed by Crum375, who threatened to block if it was readded.

It then was restored 3 times by Irpen, and removed once by JzG and twice by MONGO. the anon is now in email contact with Giano, apparently because he doesn't trust JzG.