SHE STILL DOESNT GET IT - Durova keeps making "joke" ANI edits, First Kelly, now "Doc" suggests that Durova is a troll... Options

Kind of sad.....

But didn't all her attacks always come down to a strong need to be noticed? Now it is transparent.

• Kelly Martin, who called Durova's post desysopping behavior "trolling"
• Durova proved Kelly right by commenting, "moo").
• Durova posted yet another (2nd) pathetically un-funny ANI sockpuppet hunting "joke"
• Durova posted an "unfunny sock-sleuthing joke" on Jimbo's talk page (which he's ignored)
• Doc to comment that "maybe Kelly Martin is right".

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 12th December 2007, 10:26pm

You know how when you're at a party and one of your friends gets really drunk and starts making a fool of himself, and you feel really uncomfortable and embarassed for them? That is how I am beginning to feel about Durova...at first, I won't lie that I did take some joy in her bad experiences, but now I am sure she has several mental problems and I feel guilty about being amused by her illogical actions. For example, this recent diff made me laugh out loud, but now...

I feel like laughing at Durova is the equivalent of laughing at a mentally challenged person.

I feel like laughing at Durova is the equivalent of laughing at a mentally challenged person.

No, it is the equivalent of laughing at a person with serious psychological problems. I have struggled with this myself, to be honest.

At first I made great effort to highlight her otherwise unnoticed antics and nasty behavior. Then when it came to the fore with the "!!" story, it became such a huge thing that I began to feel sorry for her. But the cabal's reaction (and Jimbo Wales') - not to mention her own serious denials - was so solid that I lost that guilt.

She's been so destructive and overtly cruel. Actively working to publicly humiliate people in their professional lives, and even writing articles bragging about how people who edit wikipedia are serving to "place the editor at risk for adverse news coverage” taken from one of her SEO articles).

She was enthusiastically active in making the tripped-up editors be "caught" and "punished" publicly for editing and so-called-rule-breaking of rules which aren't prominently published, and the project is promoted as being open to everyone. Most people who get "caught" are newbies who edit under an IP. Once "caught" they don't know the rules, are (naturally) shocked and indignant. Whereupon they are immediately subjected to public abuse (and further accusations) by a small army of people accusing them of "conflict of interest".

This makes her feel like a good soldier of Wikipedia.

That's twisted.

So no - I don't think that it is wrong to point it out. I think that it is quite important, actually, as a prophelactic, given that Jimbo doesn't have the personal skills to deal with serious things like this - and this lack is evident in Foundation practice. Bottom line is thay behave as if preventing damage is not important. Durova's not alone, although she is one of most loud and obvious offenders. But her case has changed nothing with the Foundation/Wales. They are claiming this was a one-off Durova error. Which is scary.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 12th December 2007, 7:28pm

JeHochman, her former mentoree, was noted for bragging that companies that Wikispam "catches" will be blacklisted from Google. That's actually a fallacy - i.e. Wikipedia spam lists aren't re-copied direct to Google blacklists. That's not the point. His nastiness, his glee at hoping to punish companies who don't know better? That's the point.

The laughable thing is that no one seems to catch that JeHochman is using his real name to post with. His doing so blasts his name all over Wikipedia, giving a HUGE boost to his private company website in Google ranking. At the same time, he systematically attempting to "punish companies" for "using Wikipedia for self-promotion". These companies innocently trying to do the same thing he's doing quite purposefully. The companies aren't warned clearly. Again, this is completely twisted.

It didn't start with Durova. It doesn't stop with Durova.

Durova hasn't stopped. Being desysopped hasn't stopped Tony Sidaway from being a top player in the Administrator Board, and it won't stop Durova either.

And there are no less than 50 Durova-like admins and heavy-hitters, yet un-named, happily abusing at will, unadmonished, even "encouraged".

That's why Wikipedia Review is so important.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 12th December 2007, 7:33pm