Angela afd: Giano 2, Durova 0, ...and that's nil, not love Options

Slimvirgin supporting Durova isn't exactly a surprise, they are one and the same

How long till Durova loses it and starts getting warning templates? Stick a fork in her.

Slimvirgin supporting Durova isn't exactly a surprise, they are one and the same

Same person? No. Slim isn't irrational as Durova (waits for the screaming to start) well Durova's style is more overtly malicious. Slim is more a behind-the-scenes kind of malicious. Durova is a I will accuse you in person in a manner so as that you can't do anything about it.

Slim usually sends a team in to do her bidding. Done so for ages. Durova started doing that recently, but in a different way.

Slim would support this because Angela wants it. I don't know that this is a "pro-Durova" vote. I maintain that this is a Durova-desperation move.

I also agree with Giano that Angela has the same information up on another page, which makes her wish hard to justify. She might well take down her picture and info while requesting the AfD..

I think Giano is a troll after all. He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough.

I sympathized with your Wikipedia struggle for a number of reasons (not the least of which being that your first name is my middle), but I don't think your and Angela's situations are the same. Angela is highly involved in the wiki process, was on the WMF board, has done a good deal of press work... she should be willing to stand by the whole "wiki process" for biographies, but she isn't. No one came around and asked you if you wanted a biography, or if you're willing to put stock in the Wikipedia standards for biographies, so it's not really fair to force you to have a bio on WP. No one asked her either I understand, but regardless her advocacy for Wikipedia should imply that she is willing to put trust into the system.

Angela getting her bio deleted won't mean much, but the fact that she even wants it deleted should do much to shake a person's faith in Wikipedia.

I think Giano is a troll after all. He should have voted to delete Angela's bio — because she wants it deleted. Unless you're Charles Manson or George W. Bush, this alone should be enough.

So, the definition of "troll" according to Brandt is "somebody whose opinion disagrees with his".

I've long felt that Brandt and the WikiCliquers were two sides of the same coin, and here's some more evidence of it.

Besides the fact that she has the same information online about herself.

I at first agreed with Daniel. But when you see the same information on her user page. Wellllllll....

Then the issue becomes not about her privacy, but about control.

And she's still powerful in Wikipedia.

She can have her page locked, permanently, for her own updating pleasure. In principle.

And she was behind that others could not be deleted.

So why does she get to delete, when she is more than a borderline case of noteriety? Daniel Brandt hasn't gone on TV to talk about the worlds 8th most popular website. Seth Finkelstein hasn't written a book (oops, maybe he has) but if he did, he didn't go on CNET.

She's famous. And she can control the page. Let the discussions go elsewhere.

Angela Beesley resigned from the Wikimedia Foundation board.

Perhaps she's had a change of heart.

All that means is that she's free from liability from WMF. She's still got Wikia.

Angela Beesley resigned from the Wikimedia Foundation board.

Perhaps she's had a change of heart.

She remains at the chair of the Advisory Board (comprised of external professionals) that serves at the request of the Wikimedia Foundation board.

Still pretty entrenched with Wikipedia, I say.

Greg

I have a sooper-sekrit idea. It would be easy to implement, it would cost the Wikimedia Foundation nothing, and it would guarantee that the life expectancy of Wikipedia is extended by at least five years.

All the Foundation has to do is decree that they will accept requests from BLP subjects, with no questions asked and no qualifications required, to get their bio deleted and salted. This would be a WP:OFFICE action. The Office can set up its own procedure to verify the identity of someone claiming to be the subject of a bio.

I hesitate to reveal this idea, but only because I'm not sure that Wikipedia deserves to exist an extra five years.

Her resignation was almost a year and a half ago.

Just clarifying because the posts make it seem recent.


EDIT:

LOL, DUROVA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175763669

"I didn't know it was there, and it's incorrect for that page to claim the nom was 'per my request'."

So Durova just pulled this out of absolutely nowhere. It takes a very special type of lunacy to just openly lie like that when there is such a possibility of it being exposed as such. Durova's madness manifests itself evermore.

This post has been edited by Miltopia: Thu 6th December 2007, 7:18pm

Durova:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175761109

Nominating for courtesy deletion or redirect per a request from Angela Beesley.

The request is credible. I am in direct contact with her.

Angela:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175763669

Thanks for pointing it out. I didn't know it was there, and it's incorrect for that page to claim the nom was "per my request".

First she claimed to have considerable support for !!'s block, which turned out to be false. Now she states that she is in direct contact with Angela concerning her bio, yet Angela knows nothing about it. What the hell is going on with Durova?

And now Angela has removed her talk page comment about not knowing about the AFD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175849512

Watch it get oversighted...

There are two issues here:
1. Does Angela want her bio deleted? Clearly, the answer is "yes." She's been consistent on this for a long time.
2. Did Durova screw up again? Probably the answer is "yes." She should have checked with Angela once again before putting up this AfD and implying that it was at Angela's request. Maybe Durova thinks she did, but Angela doesn't remember getting the memo.

Please, I would advise everyone who is monitoring Durova's downward spiral to relax a notch or two, and let us all practice in the environment of love, and trust, and good faith.

I am sure Angela is mistaken that she was in "direct communication" with Durova and asked for the removal of her biography. I regard it as a fluke-or-whim, and I don't really have a problem with it.

Signed,

The Sole Flounder

There are two issues here:

1. Does Angela want her bio deleted? Clearly, the answer is "yes." She's been consistent on this for a long time.
2. Did Durova screw up again? Probably the answer is "yes." She should have checked with Angela once again before putting up this AfD and implying that it was at Angela's request. Maybe Durova thinks she did, but Angela doesn't remember getting the memo.

The good Peircean in me naturally spies a 3rd issue —

When they have finally finished Jimbomandering the rules whichever way they choose, will the same standard of Not-A-Lie-Ability then be applied to everyone else?

Jon Awbrey

Did Durova screw up again? Probably the answer is "yes." She should have checked with Angela once again before putting up this AfD and implying that it was at Angela's request. Maybe Durova thinks she did, but Angela doesn't remember getting the memo.

Uh. Daniel. I think that it is worse than not remembering. Durova consistently claims to have approval of things for which she has no approval. She gives out names and references, etc. And when you check with the people, you find that it is either not true, or the person maybe said 'yeah-huh' and didn't realize that Durova would (slay a lion/kill a grandmother/throw babies off buildings) to get it done. So they they deny having given a head nod.

Making there be three options:
1. Durova lies her buns off.
2. Durova got the permission, but people are too humiliated to admit it when they are asked why.
3. Durova's bat-feet crazy. as in:

• She hears Arbitration Committee Members people's voices in her head that she talks to, and she hears them say, "yes Durova, you should ban that persion" or "yes, Durova, that is a vandalizing sockpuppet", or "yes Durova, you should give that interview and claim that Mr. X committed a crime on Wikipedia".

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 6th December 2007, 8:58pm

Lol.

DL's post here is the defining characterization of Durova. Lol.

From Durova's talkpage:

For enduring a press firestorm, like Joan at her stake. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because being held accountable for your actions on a secret list and making a truly horrendous block highlighting once more the failings of the wiki-elite is equivalent to being burned at the stake (resulting in real death, not wikideath).

Besides doing Angela's bio AFD, she's running over to the ANI and frantically (viciously) voting to ban the crap out of anyone up for a ban.

Man!

That's one frustrated woman.

There are two issues here:
1. Does Angela want her bio deleted? Clearly, the answer is "yes." She's been consistent on this for a long time.
2. Did Durova screw up again? Probably the answer is "yes." She should have checked with Angela once again before putting up this AfD and implying that it was at Angela's request. Maybe Durova thinks she did, but Angela doesn't remember getting the memo.

Angela is uncommonly trustworthy in my eyes. I remember her dressing down Jimbo in one of the former board elections, where Jimbo tried to derail Eloquence's candidacy after getting leaked information mid-voting (Eloquence was her former boyfriend by that time). The next elections had to be held on outside computers because of this.

And I've always wondered about this edit. "... project that Jimmy Wales and I founded in 2004" -> "In 2004, I founded Wikia". This was around the time Jimbo started getting bitchy over the Sole Founder thing. She seemed to be making a point

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Fri 7th December 2007, 1:56am