Oops, Durova's Mea culpa Options

Say, Mercury, you and Thekohser seem to go way back. Your 57th edit as Navou was to Greg's talk page, leaving the rather cryptic statement
"Not really, I might get anxious by wed. Navou talk 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)".

Do you remember what that was all about?

edit:sp

It was a response to a question that Thekohser has asked me, this is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...81040&diff=prev
you should have one of your sysop friends verify that. Anything else?

Mercury.

If I recall, it was just that we had both signed up for access to the Auto Wiki Browser tool, but I hadn't received the instruction set or bit, and I think I just asked him if he had gotten his or not. I really don't remember this being a big deal sort of thing.

Mercury, your response seems really snippy.

It was snippy. I actually had to research and trawl some deleted contributions to answer that.


...the poster emphasized my "57'th" edit. If you are counting edits like that, it is not just because you enjoy it.



Mercury.

They really are nuts over there on Wikipedia, and especially the WikiEN-l list, to not realize that there is some really high-class sniping going on here at the Review. It's their loss they don't read us more thoroughly.

Good one, Oracle.

Folks, it is "not helpful" to suggest that Jimmy Wales is the biggest troll of all. These types of comments should and will be removed. Back to writing the encyclopedia, everyone.

Greg

Folks, it is "not helpful" to suggest that Jimmy Wales is the biggest troll of all. These types of comments should and will be removed. Back to writing the encyclopedia, everyone.

Greg

Yep, just get back to writing everyone...oops, you say your account is indefinitely blocked because someone thought you were a "subversive" due to flimsy evidence, well just let it go and back to work...NOW!

Folks, it is "not helpful" to suggest that Jimmy Wales is the biggest troll of all. These types of comments should and will be removed. Back to writing the encyclopedia, everyone.

Greg

Yep, just get back to writing everyone...oops, you say your account is indefinitely blocked because someone thought you were a "subversive" due to flimsy evidence, well just let it go and back to work...NOW!

[[WP:DUCK]]? Threatening to ban one of Wikipedia's finest content creators is, at least, a very trollish thing to do. If trolling is defined as stirring up controversy for controversy's sake, I'd guess it to be unintentional, but it sure looks asinine; see Jimbo's by-now-infamously lame defense of Essjay. What it probably indicates is that Jimbo is relying wholly upon the participants in this secret mailing list for his (mis)information.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 25th November 2007, 8:26am

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 25th November 2007, 5:43pm

Brilliant.

Threatening to ban one of Wikipedia's finest content creators is, at least, a very trollish thing to do. If trolling is defined as stirring up controversy for controversy's sake, I'd guess it to be unintentional, but it sure looks asinine;

Calling it "trollish" may not be inaccurate, but neither does it elevate the analysis much beyond "Nuh uh."

Jimbo's threat operates somewhere around Level One to Level Three of the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder. Giano's stance operates somewhere around Level Six. When authoritarian power is held by those at the lower rungs of the Kolhberg-Gilligan Ladder, you have the classic conflict that has plagued western civilization since the days of Hammurabi.

Lawrence Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral Reasoning
Plus Carol Gilligan's Seventh Stage of Ethical Care

Stage 1: Punishment-avoidance and obedience — Individuals make moral decisions on the basis of what is best for themselves, without regard for the needs or feeling of others. They obey rules only if established by more powerful individuals; they disobey when they can do so without getting caught.

Stage 2: Exchange of favors — Individuals begin to recognize that others also have needs. They may attempt to satisfy the needs of others if their own needs are also met in the process. They continue to define right and wrong primarily in terms of consequences to themselves.

Stage 3: Good boy/good girl — Individuals make moral decisions on the basis of what actions will please others, especially authority figures. They are concerned about maintaining interpersonal relationships through sharing, trust, and loyalty. They now consider someone's intentions in determining innocence or guilt.

Stage 4: Law and order — Individuals look to society as a whole for guidelines concerning what is right or wrong. They perceive rules to be inflexible and believe that it is their "duty" to obey them.

Stage 5: Social Contract — Individuals recognize that rules represent an agreement among many people about appropriate behavior. They recognize that rules are flexible and can be changed if they no longer meet society's needs.

Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle — Individuals adhere to a small number of abstract, universal principles that transcend specific, concrete rules. They answer to an inner conscience and may break rules that violate their own ethical principles.

Stage 7: Ethics of Care — An obligation of care rests on the understanding of relationships as a response to another in terms of their special needs. Focuses on the moral value of being empathetic toward those dearly beloved persons with whom we have special and valuable relationships, and the moral importance of responding to such persons as unique individuals with characteristics that require custom-crafted responses to them that we do not normally extend to others.

Ahem. After one week, this thread has almost 9000 views.

Ahem.

Here is a post from Giano's page, where he got blocked, (and for what) first by Guy then Cary Bass

[b]User:Giano_II needs to be blocked immediately.[/b]

Begin "Top Sekrit" double ROT13 encrypted transmission

Using some deep, proprietary, patented and trademarked investigative techniques I have deduced that User:Giano_II is not this troll's first account. I am such a brilliant investigator, so I will present a short lecture on "how to spot a troll". You will, of course, never be as good as me, but in the end you should be able to appreciate just how good I am.

The one thing I must ask you, however, is not to share this confidential document with anyone else. I have classified this as "Top Sekrit" and were it to fall into the hands of the forces of darkness it would mean nothing less than the end of the world as we know it.

Now, the case study:

Here's a troublemaker who's username is "Giano_II". Note the "II" at the end, as it is quite significant.

It's what I would call a "ripened troll" - a padded history of Featured Article writing, minor edits, and some other work. Nothing of real value to the encyclopedia like "sleuthing" and investigative work, of course. Nothing to aid Team Light™ against the forces of Darkness. Some of the forces of darkness do this to game the community's good faith.

I can tell immediately that it's not the user's first account. You may be able to get as good as me, but I doubt it.

A. In their efforts to deceive us, they forget that new users are morons and haven't learned edit summaries and wikimarkup.

Edit summary on the first edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76651409

Also telling is that this troll knows how to redirect a page, which is something that only experienced people know how to do since it is not documented anywhere.

B. They find their way to our super sekrit notice boards far too early in the account history to be genuine. The purpose is to pad the account history with a track record of positive contributions that will insulate them against the BANHAMMER™ later on.

Shows up on ANI on the fourth edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76653466

This user favors featured article creation. Others do RC patrol or copyediting. They continue for days, weeks, or perhaps a few months playing "useful editor."

C. Many of them tip their hands occasionally during the preparation phase.

Obscene trolling against one of our most beloved editors: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76656643

This user slips for the joy of trolling. Others let down their guard momentarily for WR-related incidents. Look for behavior that seems out of character such as a sudden cluster of talk page posts or odd edit summaries.

D. They are team players.

Here's the sock doing some housekeeping on Giano's subpages. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

E. They grow bold when they believe the account has ripened into the appearance of a legitimate editor.

I doubt Giano knew what this "Giano_II" account really was. By now it looks legit to most editors. The nasty side shows itself, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76667703

F. When the sock is fully ripened it heads over to disputes and takes positions that we at Team Light™ disagree with.

This rocket-to-the-sky pattern among ripened trolls contrasts against sincere but troubled editors, who follow an arc with some visible cause and effect.

For contrast:

A regular problem editor will eventually accept the Way of Team Light and worship at the alter of the God King.

A ripened troll sticks to its convictions and questions our superiority and authority. It's gone over to the dark side; it just heads over to a discussion and screams foul.

So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians are indoctrinated to accept our superior leadership, except for this troll and his teammates. The troll is fully ripened, the account well established, and the troll has teammates to create or obstruct consensus if anyone intervenes. I have a hunch the skilled trolls wait for events that they know will cause a lot of flurried attention onsite so the sudden launching of full implementation is less likely to be noticed in the crowd.

Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76673264 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76673740 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76741477

Looking ahead: Foremost, please keep mum! This is classified "Top Sekrit" and uses state of the art double ROT13 encryption. Many of these mistakes can be corrected and these people are very patient. They will change tactics and get even more careful if they realize how we spot them.

I wonder whether you could find something better to do with your time than writing this kind of mindless drivel? --Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or someone else? Giano (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly are you talking to above? --Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I see only you - is there a ghost there also? Giano (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A talk page is a talk page, it's not a blog. And "above" of course referred to your attempted spoof, which still seems inappropriate on this encyclopedia (except perhaps as personal therapy for yourself). --Mathsci (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I happen to be reading it and lol! Which may be a bit mean I know:)Merkinsmum (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I second the LOLs. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I get it too. It's good Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh splendid! --Wetman (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot claimn the credit for the spoof above, while it is indeed very funny, it appears to be from an anon IP based in Holland. Giano (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They misspelled "altar", though. "Alter" means to change something (like we do when we edit a wiki), while "altar" is what objects of worship are on. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A diversion from the truth (above); not comic relief, albeit it is intended to be that type of illusion. Please take it seriously. You are on the right path Giano. Good works. 122.197.36.13 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

* I find the above evidence compelling and have now indefinitely blocked Giano, Giano II and the 384,188 sockpuppets which also post from the same /16 subnet, as well as rangeblocking the /16 and protecting all articles and talk pages edited by Giano in the last six months. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Improved Version

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 25th November 2007, 5:42pm

Durova's secret mailing list has been identified!

http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking

and surprise surprise... it was founded by SlimVirgin.

Durova's secret mailing list has been identified!

http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking

and surprise surprise... it was founded by SlimVirgin.

WpCyberstalking list run by slimvirgin at gmail.com

HAHAHA! Well done! Many thanks to Moreschi, Krimpet, and Alkivar for the enlightenment.

Durova's secret mailing list has been identified!

http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking

and surprise surprise... it was founded by SlimVirgin.

Sorry if this seems dense. But are they fighting cyberstakling, or performing it?

It actually is a reasonable question. I can perfectly see Durova performing cyberstalking under the possibly wrong assumption that she is cyberstalked.

oh, and Kelly Martin is on the list. Its on her site. http://del.icio.us/kmartin69/online-community

(edit)RETRACTION: I have it on reliable sources (sekrit missive containing the sooper sekrit informationz) that

Kelly Martin has not now, nor never has been, a member of the Sooper Sekrit List Auto-judgement squad.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 27th November 2007, 10:50am

Durova resigns. 11-26-07

Durova resigns. 11-26-07

Correction. Durova was desysopped at about 0.03 UMT. 26th November. Just after midnight Greenwich Mean Time

That's about 3pm on 25th November. Being 12 hours or so before she "resigned".

Don't know how we all missed that.

I don't know why they call it resigning, if they desysopped her.

They really are nuts over there on Wikipedia, and especially the WikiEN-l list, to not realize that there is some really high-class sniping going on here at the Review. It's their loss they don't read us more thoroughly.

Good one, Oracle.

Oh but they do. Our recent spate of 60+ visitors has raised to +80, in the past few hours.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Mon 26th November 2007, 10:49pm

Durova's secret mailing list has been identified!

http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking

and surprise surprise... it was founded by SlimVirgin.

Sorry if this seems dense. But are they fighting cyberstakling, or performing it?

It actually is a reasonable question. I can perfectly see Durova performing cyberstalking under the possibly wrong assumption that she is cyberstalked.

oh, and Kelly Martin is on the list. Its on her site. http://del.icio.us/kmartin69/online-community

no all that shows is Kelly Martin links to the list... i've linked to it as well does that mean i'm on it?

PS check your PM.

Durova resigns. 11-26-07

Correction. Durova was desysopped at about 0.03 UMT. 26th November. Just after midnight Greenwich Mean Time

That's about 3pm on 25th November. Being 12 hours or so before she "resigned".

Don't know how we all missed that.

I don't know why they call it resigning, if they desysopped her.

They really are nuts over there on Wikipedia, and especially the WikiEN-l list, to not realize that there is some really high-class sniping going on here at the Review. It's their loss they don't read us more thoroughly.

Good one, Oracle.

Oh but they do. Our recent spate of 60+ visitors has raised to +80, in the past few hours.

again your misreading information... what you linked to merely states they CALLED for her desysop as part of the potential remedies to the case. She still has the sysop bit, no steward has removed it yet.

Durova resigns. 11-26-07

The important thing to understand in all of this, from my perspective, is that it is not about Durova.

Durova is really small relative to the underlying problem that is, in fact, "The Lord Of The Flies."

It is all about transparency and the judgment calls that some people make that imparts a sense of
secrecy and an imbalance of power. Nearly every revolution results from what Durova was doing and because there is no true authority at Wikipedia, the cabals came to life and began the underground that is often only the beginning. "Gestapo" tactics lose wars every time.

The fact that the corruption is being exposed is truly a good thing. Jimmy would be wise to grasp the tiller and / or turn it over to someone that will turn Wikipedia into a corporation, finally.
Refine the process by which articles and policies can be protected and the tweaked by professionals and experts.

There are bright spots in the debate, albeit, only a few.

We said on the 18th that Durova was going down for the count and many people ended up really sucking up and they are still hanging around crying and wimpering.

My favorite testimony came from Kelly Martin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...om_Kelly_Martin


"Durova's "wikisleuthing" is inherently contradictory to Wikipedia's core principles (especially the assumption of good faith) and the necessity to have a collegial environment in order to foster collaboration, and must cease immediately and permanently. This business of seeking "Wikipedia Review spies" behind every edit is contrary to the open environment that Wikipedia is supposedly founded upon, is toxic, and will slowly poison the project (if it has not already). If someone from Wikipedia Review wants to edit the encyclopedia productively, let them. If Greg Kohser wants to edit Wikipedia productively, let him, too -- even if he does get paid for it. These petty vendettas are dumb, and Durova has made a career of pursing them far beyond the point where they benefit Wikipedia in any recognizable manner. The solution to bad speech is more speech; the solution to a bad edit is to improve it into a good edit, not to ban, expose, and humiliate the editor. Kelly Martin 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)"

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Tue 27th November 2007, 4:19am

again your misreading information... what you linked to merely states they CALLED for her desysop as part of the potential remedies to the case. She still has the sysop bit, no steward has removed it yet.

Correct. I noted my error elsewhere, not here.

Having said that, the three proposals were for her to be restrained greatly, for her to be desysopped and the third was a support recommendation for !!

So she was pretty much a dead duck from the get-go.

She was also being asked highly embarassing questions, about the mailing list, which she has resolutely refused to answer.

DL

Nearly every revolution results from what Durova was doing and because there is no true authority at Wikipedia, the cabals came to life and began the underground that is often only the beginning. "Gestapo" tactics lose wars every time.

King Jimbo and his Inner Cabal reminds me of King John and the Favored Barons. That one led to a revolt among the Barons culminating in the Magna Carta and a civil war in which King John lost his life. Many historians mark the Magna Carta as the advent of the concept of Civil Rights.

Will history repeat itself?

Nearly every revolution results from what Durova was doing and because there is no true authority at Wikipedia,

This has always been my thesis on Wikipedia problems

"Gestapo" tactics lose wars every time.

I disagree. They can win wars, but lose the peace. The nazis were of course an egregious case.

. King Jimbo and his Inner Cabal reminds me of King John and the Favored Barons.

It reminds me more of feudal Germanic baronies.

. Many historians mark the Magna Carta as the advent of the concept of Civil Rights. Will history repeat itself?

Well, the Viking Tings had basic "everyman's rights" long before the magna carta, and i'm sure there were a few other examples I haven't read of. But in relation to the US legal system, and UK legal system, and even the continental European systems, the Magna Carta was the start of several principles of civil rights reflected in law today.


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 27th November 2007, 2:00pm