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

The essential characteristic of Durova is that she is inappropriately controlling of other people. This "complex investigation" nonsense, along with the wiki-curriculum and wiki-business-advising is all a part of this need to control. Her support of the current version of BLP "reform" was an exercise of control over other sectors of editors and admins. She is ultimately a part of the problem, not the solution. The unacceptable flaw of BLP reform is its continued reliance on WP "community processes." It might shift the argument from what is a reliable verifiable source to whether the subject is semi-notable and eligible for "opt out." At the end of the day it relies on people like Durvoa to make (and manipulate) these decisions. This is why it so important that we learn from the recent high profile examples of "consensus coups." We need to learn from them no matter if we liked the particular outcome or not. The dysfunctional social networking community of WP engages in process that on first inspection might appear to be discussions governed by the principals of open participation and consensus. The reality is that the processes are flawed, phony and rigged. The public, including BLP subjects, should not trust these processes with any matters of importance.

The essential characteristic of Durova is that she is inappropriately controlling of other people. ....She is ultimately a part of the problem, not the solution. The unacceptable flaw of BLP reform is its continued reliance on WP "community processes." ... At the end of the day it relies on people like Durova to make (and manipulate) these decisions. This is why it so important that we learn from the recent high profile examples of "consensus coups."....The reality is that the processes are flawed, phony and rigged. The public, including BLP subjects, should not trust these processes with any matters of importance.

Precisely the point, Glassbeadgame. I harp on Durova for the very reason you've highlighted. She's pretending to be a problem solver, when she's using the flawed situation to try to up her power-ante. The case of the Brandt AFD is a perfect example. His bio had been up there for two years, and once he got her name on wwatch.org, Durova seized the opportunity to throw her weight around and take his article down, so he'd take her name wikipedia-watch.org. Which it did, while making her look like a saint, and making her look like a hero to the powerful Slimvirgin. Of course, it was all about blackmail. When he went public, he exposed her as having cut a deal with him, so she was forced (in her thinking) to attack him, to prove herself innocent, of that which she'd actually done (backdoor dealing / mutual blackmail). It is all very, very dysfunctional.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 16th August 2007, 5:13pm