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

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.

It's Wikitherapy. Frustrated by people who stubbornly insist on disagreeing with you? Take it out on those who aren't allowed to respond!

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".

I'll take a "refactored" door #3.

She hears complete silence, as the recipients of her deranged emails shake their heads in disbelief, and takes that as assent.

This post has been edited by Robster: Fri 7th December 2007, 2:56am

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

No, it's just that Jimbo hasn't yet gotten around to finding Angela unnecessary for his personal benefit, so he hasn't revised history to make her an un-co-founder yet.

No, it's just that Jimbo hasn't yet gotten around to finding Angela unnecessary for his personal benefit, so he hasn't revised history to make her an un-co-founder yet.

There was a young man named Jimbo
Who famously posed with Bimbo
From his fortune in Porn
Wikipedia was born
Then Sanger got chucked out the window.

User:RuffRuff

There was a young man named Jimbo
Who famously posed with Bimbo
From his fortune in Porn
Wikipedia was born
Then Sanger got chucked out the window.

User:RuffRuff

is that really jimbo between those two women, and if so, are those 2 Slimmy and Durallova back in the roaring '90s?

i see Bomis has 10 employees. Is JzG one of them, and if so, why not? He's much more suited to that business than playing bouncer on an encyclopedia.

Dear Old Mum Piper always said "Do you what you're interested in", and I know he must really be more interested in the things on Bomis than the articles on Encyclopedia. Unless WP has articles on Letha Weapons II: Bustin' All Over.

Just who are these people running the website that shows up at the top of nearly every Google search.

Your comments are unnecessarily personal and do not help the encyclopedia. Please refactor.

is that really jimbo between those two women, and if so, are those 2 Slimmy and Durallova back in the roaring '90s?

Ms. SV and Ms. D are not here (on the internet) for anyone's sexual pleasure.

Neither am I, for the record.

If there is a common thread between Bomis and Wikipedia, it would be in the exploitation of the talents of others by reframing the payoff.

The most famous literary example of this is the scene in Tom Sawyer where he reframes the unpleasant task of whitewashing the fence into something desirable.

If there is a common thread between Bomis and Wikipedia, it would be in the exploitation of the talents of others by reframing the payoff.

The most famous literary example of this is the scene in Tom Sawyer where he reframes the unpleasant task of whitewashing the fence into something desirable.

The common theme is Pandering, as in Generation Of Vipers (GOV).

Jimbo = WikiPandarus

Jonny

Has anyone coined or defined Wikiopathy yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...thy&action=edit

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title...thy&action=edit

Those are the places to do it ;-)

This post has been edited by Miltopia: Fri 7th December 2007, 7:39pm

Erases unhappy comment from her talk pages

Durova has been getting a lot of messages, so we'd like to ask everyone to please check the village pump first, and maybe discuss and ask questions there, otherwise Durova's talk page would fill up in no time, and she wouldn't be able to do much anymore. --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] ([[User talk:Kim Bruning|talk]]) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand she erases it.

:How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Let the bastards eat th'er own dog food.

Has anyone coined or defined Wikiopathy yet?

Not that I know of. You thought of it; you do it.

Has anyone coined or defined Wikiopathy yet?

Not that I know of. You thought of it; you do it.

Wikiopathy. n. Pathological disturbance arising from or relating to excessive engagement with Wikipedia's entrenched dominance hierarchies.

NEWSFLASH: "HARVARD THESIS" INSPIRED DUROVA's ANGELA AFD

Uncomplimentary comments on Durova Talk Page by Cluduc (who quit shortly thereafter) This is actually about the Angela AFD, but somehow seems appropriate here. Durova told him to "refactor his edit" which opposed the AFD.

My comments

... are rather strong, but so is the strong whiff of "courteous" relationships going on in this community. My communications with all other members are aboveboard, for all to see. Any other arrangement is, by my definition, corruption of the principles of openness which Wikipedia once stood for. So no thank you, I do not care to "refactor" my comments, nor do I wish to hide them on a secret mailing list. Cleduc (talk)

Well, I apologize for having offended you. I confirmed this biography subject's wishes by the same means as I confirmed every other BLP article I nominated for deletion. Although I respect the impulse to see these requests posted directly onsite, confirming their authenticity would be problematic that way. Do you have a better suggestion for how to go about it, if this isn't sufficiently above board? DurovaCharge! 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not offended me, so no apology is necessary on that account. Your recent actions damaged this project, for which you have already apologized. This AFD draws disturbing parallels with the ongoing controversy, particularly as it involves the now-ominous word "courtesy" and a Foundation insider. The timing of this action could not have been worse: you presently have poor credibility with the community at large. In the best case, this AFD demonstrates very poor judgment on your part. Cleduc (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous history of nominating two of Wikipedia's most prominent critics' biographies on the same basis ought to dispel that supposition. Our policy is WP:AGF. I hope everyone weighs the nomination on its own merits, and in light of the precedents cited, without reference to unrelated events. WP:AFD is supposed to be a referendum on the article, not the nominator. DurovaCharge! 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand AGF quite well, thank you, along with the line in red – so if I were you, I wouldn't be dropping that particular card right about now. In any case, thanks for the memories. Cleduc (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, and I apologize for any impropriety. DurovaCharge! 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If it makes any difference to clarify, this nomination was an outgrowth of a discussion I've been having with a Harvard student who's writing a thesis on Wikipedia. For about six weeks we've been in periodic contact. This site's deletion dynamics play a role in her study and she recently mentioned the different outcomes of some similar biography nominations. I had nominated some of the other pages, but never this one. The timing was awkward, I agree, but the previous nominations set such a clear precedent for objectivity that I doubted anyone would contstrue mischief. I haven't nominated anything on that student's behalf, really, (this was my idea) and it's doubtful the result of this would even happen in time for the thesis deadline.(babble babble babble babble droooool) I won't deny we were curious. Another nomination seemed justifiable after half a year and the other precedents. Angela Beesley agreed to try it. DurovaCharge!

(oh! HARVARD you said! BECAUSE THAT MEANS EVERYTHING YOU DO IS OK - (remember Harvard was the reason Durova gave for Brandt's bio being undeleted)

We didn't know that this was related to the HARVARD thesis request. It all ties together! The nutjob Harvard thesis Durova request to undelete Brandt, the Angela AFD, and the chocolate cookies she backed yesterday)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 9th December 2007, 2:46pm

Unless I'm mistaken, the focus of the Harvard research is the dynamics of dominance hierarchies, of which Wikipedia is a premier example.

The irony is that Durova's bumbled intervention here is a more salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy in action than the one the student was originally documenting.

Durova's bumbled intervention here is a more salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy in action than the one the student was originally documenting.

Not really. Durova's intervention is the grappling of a desperate despot who's been kicked off her throne and is frantically grasping onto the last shards of her old identity. Which is already long gone.

She WAS the most salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy. And the fact that Durova's been intervening with the student is one of those Wikipedia "not sure whether to laugh or cry" moments.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 9th December 2007, 5:37pm

Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".

This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.

Greg

P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 9th December 2007, 11:05pm

Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".

This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.

Greg

P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?

Is this getting no feedback from the WR faithful because it represents a big win-win for the Review, but we don't want the Wikipediots to figure that out?

That's what I'm going to tell myself.

Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".

This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.

Greg

P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?

Is this getting no feedback from the WR faithful because it represents a big win-win for the Review, but we don't want the Wikipediots to figure that out?

That's what I'm going to tell myself.

A blog entry probably would be quite good here to demonstrate how much trust in Wikipedia has declined. Perhaps add in the quote where she says something to the effect of "I doubt anyone will know what a wiki is in 50 years."