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

Entries on Wikipedia edited by Davis aide
Knoxville News Sentinel (subscription), TN - Aug 10, 2007
A Wikipedia spokesman confirmed the article had been written by one of its volunteer administrator/editors, who uses the pen name Durova. ... (urp, vomit reflux just happening)

A Wikipedia spokesman confirmed the article had been written by one of its volunteer administrator/editors, who uses the pen name Durova. In a telephone interview, she identified herself as Lise Broer of San Diego. Broer said Wikipedia has paid particular attention to submissions from congressional office computers since a “scandal” in 2006 over revisions to biographies of several members of Congress. In general, the revisions would delete negative information, such as broken campaign promises, and replace it with more favorable information.

Interesting. I wonder if the Foundation gave her name out, and phone number. I was thinking that she called them herself, but this time, it looks like she got a call independantly.

If she was just a normal admin, it would be a big deal for her to get interviewed once or twice (Swatjester comes to mind). But she doesn't just get interviewed. She actively calls journalists on her own initiative. She's a recidivist. Her focus on the removal of defamation, which is her own personal speciality to do to users, is pathological. Reminds me of the recent news about an outspoken anti-gay pundit Minister, who got caught offering a cop a blowjob. Same logic. Durova giving advice on how to avoid defamation is much like all those bible-beating preachers who wind up caught in bed with five hookers.

So how do you get her? Most news persons don't pay attention to who they are interviewing, and she comes off as sane if you don't follow her daily routine.

Durova apparently leaked Illena Rosenthal's name online, in an Wikipedia arbitration session, when it was previously obscured by Rosenthal's login. I got that off a random Google just now. Didn't she also have something to do with the latest Brandt undeletions of his AFDs? And she has the nerve to write articles inviting businesses (and now Congressional offices) to edit Wikipedia - albeit with pre-declared conflict of interest, so they have to lick her boots? (Thats what she wants - them to come ask her for help, yech. Maybe they should all go read her ED article before going there).

Today she has a Tennessee Congressman's office APOLOGIZING FOR NOT FOLLOWING WIKI-RULES. The roils bile in the belly. Also, this is a missed golden opportunity for a lawmaker to see the damage that Wikipedia could do - but instead of realizing how they damage normal people, he apologizes for being a government official who didn't follow policy. Was the policy ever made clear NOPE. But of course, in the Congressman's office, the policy is to apologize for any potential misdeed. This is appalling, of course. What to do? Suggestions, anyone? Task force team leader? Kohs? Aren't you the designated WR press officer (j/k, but isn't she sort of your anti-favorite person?).

Is anyone on WR good at writing articles? Could they follow-on to some of this nonsense with a reality check, of a better article, with the full monty?

As a side point, Durova is now 'outing' her own name (in the Knoxville article). Guess she's over the pseudonomomomous thing already.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 15th August 2007, 11:48am

Okay let me edit my original statement. I had edited it already, and I'll go back to what I originally said, and expand on what I meant by "despicable", which was probably a bad word to use.

Let's take some examples of some laws that are in my opinion seriously stupid, that we should protest:

1) Laws prohibiting people from harming their own body, including taking of certain types of drugs
2) Laws prohibiting consensual sex between two people, because one of them is younger than the other (statutory rape)
3) Laws prohibiting certain kinds of consensual sex between two (or more) people - including any laws about BDSM, homosexuality, or anything else
4) Laws that do not protect people adequately from false accusations, especially with regards to rape, and more with regards to child rape claims.

Now, I consider these laws to be horrific, and awful. So let's see how we could tackle them.

On the first point, sure, I could go and buy a heap of marijuana, which I personally think smells nice, and if it was legal I would probably smoke. So I buy some, smoke it, and go to jail for a really long time. It messes up my career, my life, and puts me down a downward spiral. Alternatively, I could protest it, without taking any myself, and hopefully get the laws changed, so that I can legally do it, and so can everyone else, we get rid of the organised crime element of it, its safer, appropriate warning labels are introduced and we achieve really change.

Second point, sure, I could have when I was 20 had sex with someone who was 15 (I am 32 now so younger kids aren't attractive to me anymore). I could have easily done it, and protested that it was a stupid law. And be regarded as a paedophile. So instead I simply protest that such laws are wrong, and any case that comes up where someone is convicted of it, especially when they are officially labelled as a paedophile, I protest. If it is consensual sex, its not rape.

Third point, now I'm as it turns out not gay, and not really interested in any of the things that are illegal. But I do currently live somewhere where you can go to jail for being a homosexual. It is also perfectly legal to discriminate against people for being gay. So I could protest this by having homosexual sex in public in front of parliament house, and go to jail for it, and its extra stupid because I'm not even gay. Or I could try to petition parliament to change this archaic law.

Fourth point, about the only way to protest this is to myself make a false accusation of rape against someone, or else to get a friend to make a false accusation of rape, just to prove a point. Except that woops that's really seriously messing up the justice system and we'd both go to jail. And it would further make people suggest that these laws need to exist.

And that's the point. In cases where your life depends on it, obviously you need to do things to save your own lives. That is more important than trying to protest a bad law. And that's like DUH as if I meant that. But you don't achieve anything in your protest if you do it from outside of the law. You achieve much more by working within the law.

Even look at this board. We don't break any of Wikipedia's rules, and we protest things simply here. Imagine if we went forth and ambushed Wikipedia. Would we achieve anything? I think not.

Okay, let's look at that stupid example from Daniel Brandt.

That woman saw bad laws, and decided to protest them by breaking those laws. Because of this, she got executed, and anyone who might consider protesting those laws shut up. She achieved absolutely nothing, and reinforced the laws even further. The one and only reason why she is currently considered so highly is because Germany lost the war. If Germany had won the law, she wouldn't be regarded highly at all.

Now, alternatively, say she fled and protested from abroad. Much bigger impact. People on an international level would have taken it seriously. Much better.

I completely disagree with anyone breaking laws in protest.

You disagree with drug laws, well, you protest it, but don't go and smoke a big joint and then go to prison for it just because you think its dumb. That just reinforces the law even further. Sure, some people will regard you as a hero, but you don't achieve anything.

I was thinking more of the people that go on to Wikipedia and troll it, but hey the point works for anything.

The difference between non-violent protests and terrorism is that terrorists agree to break the law, while protestors don't. I like to make that distinction clear.

Sorry Bliss, but this is just nonsense. It might be worth you using your admin powers to retract your statements and save yourself the inevitable onslaught of rebukes to your points.

Sorry Bliss, but this is just nonsense. It might be worth you using your admin powers to retract your statements and save yourself the inevitable onslaught of rebukes to your points.

What admin powers? I am not, and never have been, an administrator here. I don't know why you think that I am.

I did write a really hugely long thing, and then I changed my mind about it and summarised something, and then Daniel Brandt decided to nitpick with some idiotic argument when I was talking about something completely different.

And as for terrorists, well, they are protestors who protest violently. But I decided to edit that because of course we are going way off topic.

This is just bullshit stupidity anyway.

I very much believe that non-violent law-abiding protesting is the way to go. I would never, and have never, broken any law in protest. No rule, nowhere, anywhere, ever. And if you think I am a prick because I got banned while staying within the laws, then so be it. And if you want to believe Wikipedia that I did break the laws, when I didn't, then that's your business.

And if people want to go around equating my refusal to ever do anything that is against any laws, no matter where I go, as my supporting nazism, just because of an idiotic and ridiculous comparison made by Daniel Brandt, then go ahead. It seems like everyone likes to throw nazi claims around just like they are going out of fashion, so why not?

What admin powers? I am not, and never have been, an administrator here. I don't know why you think that I am.

Sorry Bliss. I momentarily thought you were an admin here. Perhaps due to your work on the blog. Remembered that you weren't after the post.

What admin powers? I am not, and never have been, an administrator here. I don't know why you think that I am.

Sorry Bliss. I momentarily thought you were an admin here. Perhaps due to your work on the blog. Remembered that you weren't after the post.

I'll see if I can find you the right thread there somewhere.

I donated money to start up this forum, initially $10, then it ended up costing me quite a lot more than that as extra costs came in. That officially and legally makes me the owner. I never intended it to be for a second year, and Somey should be the owner now, but there was some kind of a mixup and I am still officially the owner, much to the disappointment of my bank balance. Hopefully we can sort it out properly and Somey will be the official owner next year.

Selina and myself were not supposed to be admins when this forum started here. Selina was meant to be root admin only. Selina promoted herself to regular admin as well in order to ban Igor, so that nobody would ever again think that this forum supported nazis. In doing so, Selina also promoted me to admin. I had already asked her not to, and I made a thread to ask her to demote me. I guess I could have done it myself, or deleted my own account, but I wanted to do it in a nice way.

I make a horrible manager. Can you imagine me as a manager? I seriously suck at it. Personality tests have demonstrated that I make an excellent advisor. A great second-in-command. A good person to have as your permanent vice president, as your assistant, all roles like that. Every job I've ever had (except for one) has been along those lines. One job I was a manager, and guess what? I sucked at it.

This is what I am like as a manager:

First off, I have an instinct to push my views ahead of everyone else's. Now, because I know that I am a sucky manager, I compensate for that by instead getting everyone else to all have my power, and I just sit back and watch. Except that that then creates a situation where people create hidden power, and they sneak around and form secret groups that secretly have power, and ultimately they usurp me.

In other words, I'm a Jimbo. That's right. Put me in as manager, or in control of this forum, and you'd have yourself a Jimbo.

So don't anyone go around suggesting that I should be an admin. It's a bad idea. Many of my philosophies agree with Jimbo. You've no doubt seen me agreeing with his fundamental principles. Except that unlike Jimbo I know that I am a sucky manager. Jimbo needs to be warned that he is just as sucky as me.

First off, I have an instinct to push my views ahead of everyone else's. Now, because I know that I am a sucky manager, I compensate for that by instead getting everyone else to all have my power, and I just sit back and watch. Except that that then creates a situation where people create hidden power, and they sneak around and form secret groups that secretly have power, and ultimately they usurp me.

So basically you are saying that you are a Karl Rove.

If so, which one is Valerie Plame? Durova or Slimv?

(answer: neither)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 15th August 2007, 9:02pm

So basically you are saying that you are a Karl Rove.

I don't know who that is. I keep thinking Rove McManus, but I know that Karl Rove must be some American celebrity that has nothing like that.

Nah, I'm just not pushy enough to be a manager. I am so prone to power trips that it's scary. I am always having to stop myself. All that it would take would be for me to feel for some reason that I was justified in a massive power trip and all hell would break loose.

Disagree with me? You get a few goes, but after a while tough luck mate you're banned. Try to annoy me? Banned. Just say something that I take the wrong way? Banned. Any time I tell someone to fuck off, that's basically a threat that next time, you're banned.

Unless of course I'm trying hard not to power trip, which is actually what happens because I know I'm a sucky manager. Which then means that you've got me constantly second guessing myself, and incapable of making any firm decisions.

Don't anyone ever consider nominating me for adminship anywhere. I'll only accept it if everyone is an admin.

Even if someone sold me a Wikipedia admin thing, well, I'd probably use it to fiddle around with some things, but I wouldn't honestly be able to keep it for long. Once I've checked out some things, I'd sell it to someone else. I just don't trust myself with such things.

Nominate me for adminship, and I'll go through the whole thing giving you reasons why you should not vote for me. If I even got one support vote, I'd criticise that person and say well why do you think I'd be any good? Do you just vote support in the hope that I'll support you?

I probably should have accepted that nomination for adminship on Wikipedia, come to think of it. Would have been funny.