Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Emboldening the trollorists
> Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > Durova
Amarkov
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177549613

QUOTE
I think I get what you're trying to say. Bear in mind that some of this site's most dedicated volunteers eventually got harassed into leaving the project because they took on the difficult disputes. I'm changing my focus, and maybe you have a point and I ought to change more. There would be a different problem if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


She doesn't recognize that what she did might be actually bad, instead blaming it on people who harassed her. But that's expected. What's more interesting is that she appears to be stealing Bush's logic of "Shut up and accept what I'm doing, or you'll embolden the terrorists!" I would expect her to at least avoid the word "embolden".
Proabivouac
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 13th December 2007, 12:52am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177549613

QUOTE
I think I get what you're trying to say. Bear in mind that some of this site's most dedicated volunteers eventually got harassed into leaving the project because they took on the difficult disputes. I'm changing my focus, and maybe you have a point and I ought to change more. There would be a different problem if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


She doesn't recognize that what she did might be actually bad, instead blaming it on people who harassed her. But that's expected. What's more interesting is that she appears to be stealing Bush's logic of "Shut up and accept what I'm doing, or you'll embolden the terrorists!" I would expect her to at least avoid the word "embolden".

Wait, people are *harassing* her now? What did I miss?


dtobias
Is "embolden" anything like embiggen?
Amarkov
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 12th December 2007, 5:43pm) *

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 13th December 2007, 12:52am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177549613

QUOTE
I think I get what you're trying to say. Bear in mind that some of this site's most dedicated volunteers eventually got harassed into leaving the project because they took on the difficult disputes. I'm changing my focus, and maybe you have a point and I ought to change more. There would be a different problem if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


She doesn't recognize that what she did might be actually bad, instead blaming it on people who harassed her. But that's expected. What's more interesting is that she appears to be stealing Bush's logic of "Shut up and accept what I'm doing, or you'll embolden the terrorists!" I would expect her to at least avoid the word "embolden".

Wait, people are *harassing* her now? What did I miss?


I think that just refers to the people who said she did something wrong and called for her to be sanctioned.
Somey
Look, we've seen this what, a zillion times? It's pure narcissism. We're never going to convince people like this that they're even partially responsible for the results of their own actions, or that the bad things that happen to them aren't entirely the fault of others, or that they're having a negative effect on the people around them. It's completely pointless.

What Irpen is trying to do over there is laudable, but it won't work. What's more, in this case I don't know what will work - Durova is one of the most extreme cases I've seen. Neither reverse-psychology nor peer-group shaming is going to work on her - in fact, we may have already seen proof of that.

To make matters worse, I don't believe the pharmaceutical industry has gotten very far on developing an anti-smugness drug. So we're not likely to get much help from them, either...
Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 12th December 2007, 6:52pm) *

I think I get what you're trying to say.
The minute you write "trying to say", you didn't get it, Durova.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 12th December 2007, 6:52pm) *
Bear in mind that some of this site's most dedicated volunteers eventually got harassed into leaving the project

No joke. Many of them left because of you, you clueless brazen wench.


QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 12th December 2007, 6:52pm) *

I'm changing my focus, and maybe you have a point and I ought to change more.
He sees your hand, and he's been talking to it (as in "talk to the hand").
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 12th December 2007, 6:52pm) *

if I followed your advice to the letter, though, because that would embolden the people who harassed me to repeat the same tactics on other volunteers. I respect my fellow volunteers too much to turn my back on them.


Ah! Enter the career of St. Durova. Tortured and martyred on the alter of the harassors. While she was fighting the good fight using sophisticated tools of sockhunting and sleuthing. And was only misunderstood, after making JUST ONE little mistake that ONLY took 75 minutes. (sigh)

Never mind the other XXX victims, and how much she enjoyed twisting the knife and watching them suffer. And making it as public as possible. Accusing them of things they could not prove wrong because (surprise!) the evidence was in her pointy little head.

She's really too old to change, you know. If she'd got some therapy about 10 or 20 years ago, she'd not be so completely impossible to break through to.

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 12th December 2007, 6:52pm) *

She doesn't recognize that what she did might be actually bad, instead blaming it on people who harassed her.
Yes.

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 12th December 2007, 6:52pm) *
But that's expected. What's more interesting is that she appears to be stealing Bush's logic of "Shut up and accept what I'm doing, or you'll embolden the terrorists!" I would expect her to at least avoid the word "embolden".


I am sure that most of those people involved in that little debacle have similar personal problems related to denial and inability to look at the painful truth. Many people left the current administration, quietly, of their own accord. Because it didn't suit their values. Just as many people are leaving Wikipedia.

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 12th December 2007, 8:32pm) *

What Irpen is trying to do over there is laudable, but it won't work.

She's not only a not receptive person in and of herself, but there are people over there who are reinforcing her opinion. They will fall away, as she's become far too embarassing to support anymore, and is probably tiring to talk to in private. Then (maybe) she'll be forced to look at herself, once on her own. And it is a big maybe.
Moulton
Durova may be the poster child here, but there is way too much haphazard and erratic research on the character and intentions of participants leading to unjustified administrative sanctions by those doing the haphazard and erratic research.

It's a fatal practice that corrodes good management.

We saw it in the Bush Administration and we see it in Wikipedia.

GlassBeadGame
If we accept responsibility for our own actions the terrorists win.
Proabivouac
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 13th December 2007, 2:21am) *

I think that just refers to the people who said she did something wrong and called for her to be sanctioned.


Wait until Elonka is (or isn't) an administrator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...inship/Elonka_3

Forget sanctions, if you challenge her original research, she'll accuse you of "harassing" her and get you blocked (or worse.)
Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 12th December 2007, 9:07pm) *

Forget sanctions, if you challenge her original research, she'll accuse you of "harassing" her and get you blocked (or worse.)

Isn't this the woman who wrote her own bio article and one for her husband and mother?

Sigh.

She could have at least used a sock. Most of them that get away with it when they do that. Mind you, I have no problem with people writing their own bio, and bios for family members, if they are notable. Just that Wikipedia culture currently does, and this derision should be applied evenly, not lumped on the unsuspecting and forgotten for the ubiquitous.
Proabivouac
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Thu 13th December 2007, 3:18am) *

Isn't this the woman who wrote her own bio article and one for her husband and mother?

Sigh.

She could have at least used a sock. Most of them that get away with it when they do that. Mind you, I have no problem with people writing their own bio, and bios for family members, if they are notable.

The trouble is exactly that some of them aren't all that notable, except after she exaggerated or embellished their accomplishments. Which would still be vaguely acceptable by Wikipedia standards - people bullshit about sources all the time - as long as others were allowed to vet it without being falsely accused of things and blocked, as was done to Matt57 three times (!) in a row (with Durova's encouragement.)

I tried to oppose Jehochman's RfA on the ground that he was too tight with Elonka and hung out on IRC, where people like Matt57 are framed, only to be threatened off his RfA page by WJBscribe.

Sort of figure that if I oppose Elonka, I'll be blocked. That's the way they do it nowadays, very different from when I started.
Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 12th December 2007, 9:40pm) *

Sort of figure that if I oppose Elonka, I'll be blocked. That's the way they do it nowadays, very different from when I started.

I'm thinking you're already on the hit list, for being over here in your real name. Not to mention having unpalatable opinions. Sorry pal. :/
Derktar
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 12th December 2007, 8:12pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 12th December 2007, 9:40pm) *

Sort of figure that if I oppose Elonka, I'll be blocked. That's the way they do it nowadays, very different from when I started.

I'm thinking you're already on the hit list, for being over here in your real name. Not to mention having unpalatable opinions. Sorry pal. :/


Ah Elonka, way back when DreamGuy really tried to get her taken down a notch. I think DreamGuy has gone up to his second Arbcom case now too, I wonder what he's been up to lately (the duke outs with Gabrielsimon were really funny too back in the day).
Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 12th December 2007, 9:40pm) *

falsely accused of things and blocked, as was done to Matt57 three times (!) in a row (with Durova's encouragement.)

No! It can't be true! She's only ever made one mistake! And for 45 minutes!
Disillusioned Lackey
Well, she told Irpen that she was addicted to coffee. So here's some coffee for you, Durova:

You are no 1 on complaints for disruptive editing, no. 2 for all community sanction contributions, and other than your Joan of Arc edits, most of your time is spent barking at people. making false accusations, claiming someone made NPA (personal attack) and setting up that they should get banned? Gooooooooooooooooooooal!

FORUM Image

FORUM Image

FORUM Image

FORUM Image

FORUM Image
Moulton
Hip-Hop Hell

Those images look like Rap Sheet Music.
Disillusioned Lackey
Telling, aren't they?
Moulton
I wanna hear MC Banhammer tell it.
SenseMaker
Making concessions to terrorists actually works. This is very important to read as it does partly apply to dynamics around Wikipedia Review:

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2007/11/conci...errorism_1.html

QUOTE
The model developed in this study yields three key results. First, it suggests an explanation of the observation that government concessions often lead to an increase in the militancy of terrorist organizations. Namely, concessions draw moderate terrorists away from the terrorist movement, leaving the organization in the control of extremists. Second, it provides an answer to the question of why governments make concessions in light of the increased militancy they engender. The government’s probability of succeeding in counterterrorism improves following concessions because of the help of former terrorists that directly improves counterterror and leads the government to invest more resources in its counterterror efforts. Thus terrorist conflicts in which concessions have been made are more violent but shorter. Third, it demonstrates how the ability of former terrorists to provide counterterror aid to the government can solve the credible commitment problem that governments face when offering concessions.
Somey
No doubt she'll try to have us believe that all those edits to the Personal Attack noticeboard and the "Disruptive Editing" page were part of her "sleuth training" effort.

Nasty, nasty person.
Moulton
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 13th December 2007, 12:51am) *
Nasty, nasty person.

Whudderya talking about?

Verily and forsooth, she's the Shari Lewis of Wikipedia.
Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 12th December 2007, 11:51pm) *

No doubt she'll try to have us believe that all those edits to the Personal Attack noticeboard and the "Disruptive Editing" page were part of her "sleuth training" effort. Nasty, nasty person.


Because she was SO good at it. mad.gif





The Personal Attacks (She was no. 4) and "Disruptive Editing" (no. 1) ones are the worst evidence of bad management.

Out of HOW many million editors? Sheesh.

Personal Attack accusations indicate an incredibly thin skin. Over-THE-TOP-oversensitivity. Attempt to attack by claiming having been attacked.
Disillusioned Lackey


RICH: Durova on the Elonkia RFA
"Do as I say, not as I do"

QUOTE

:<s>On the contrary, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of whoever alleges misconduct. Insufficient evidence doesn't deserve consideration, and insufficient evidence presented anonymously is cowardice.</s> <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

::"Insufficient evidence doesn't deserve consideration, and insufficient evidence presented anonymously is cowardice." Oh brother. That's some high horse you've got there. Weren't you just hoist on a very similar petard? Mooney [[Special:Contributions/12.146.184.9|12.146.184.9]] ([[User talk:12.146.184.9|talk]]) 15:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


That's right, and the price I paid for it should be an example to the community to assume good faith in absence of solid evidence to the contrary. I had the courage to step forward and accept responsibility for my mistake. Do you?</s> <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


NOW she's the poster child for how to assume good faith? God. By virtue of her "one mistake?" God.

Oh, and she "never accepted responsibility for that mistake" which is why no one lets her off the hook. As late as yesterday she refused to answer Giano, and sent a team of goons to go NPA,CIVIL, him until he STFU.

At least she struck out those comments? Can't she just shut up?

A helpful oversight came and deleted the nasty bad IPs comments to Durova. And as usual, she took inventory of their edits.. (she does this to anyone she disagrees with, including old timer Giano).

QUOTE
This IP has three total posts.[1] DurovaCharge! 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Moulton
She's trying to therapize herself by wearing her pain on her sox.
Disillusioned Lackey
on her sox?

You can't give advice about something you never fully acknowledged that you did.

It pisses people off worse than if you did nothing.
Kyaa the Catlord
Wait. Durova claims she's accepted responsibility? I thought it was the harassers and trolls that were to blame, at least that's pretty much what she keeps saying. "OMG CONSPIRACY AGAINST ME!" should be her new signature.
Disillusioned Lackey
That's her new schtick. "I accepted blame" when she never did. She resigned so she didn't have to explain herself, and admitted nothing - that's why people are so angry. So when she runs around giving "lessons on life" (what else is new?), you can understand the annoyance.

Also, if she admits anything "the attacks win". That's actully her theme song:

"The Attackers Made Me Do It"
(and I do everything now to avoid the attackers from winning)


Humroo?

To be clear, she did what she did because of the attackers. She tried to hide evidence of the truth to prevent the attackers from knowing secrets. Anyone who wanted the truth was collaborating with the attackers. And once the information (that joke of an email) came out, it was a pity that the attackers would know the "big secrets" (ahem). Now if she admits fault (which she claims she did but didn't) the attackers would win. People are begging her to go on a long break, and she says she can't because then the attacker would win.

How can we convince her that the attackers win if shes stays? smile.gif

Because that is the truth. She keeps making an ass of herself, and she's really easy to attack laugh at.
Moulton
WikiDrama

Worrying About Wheel-Warring in Our WikiWoe

Wheel-Warring in WikiDrama, like political give and take everywhere, follows an oft-observed model. The model presented here applies in general to all WikiDrama at any level of intensity, from a simple reversion to clamorous kerfuffle and brouhaha. It has 5 stages.

1. Mimetic Desire for One's Point of View
One editorial clique establishes their Point of View as an editorial objective and other editors react with a countervailing drive for their complementary Point of View.

2. Mimetic Rivalry for More Prominence
Now the editorial cliques begin competing for prominence. Whatever winning strategies emerge, the less experienced editors copy them. To survive in Wikipedia, an editor must become deft at gaming the labyrinthine rules of the system.

3. Skandalon
Skandalon is a Greek word that means "taking the bait." It's the root of "slander" and "scandal." In the rivalry for editorial dominance, if one side can goad the other into committing a foul, the opposing editor can be neutralized or even eliminated from the game. Thus begins a Wiki-War, fought on the editorial battlefield, in which the goal is to demolish and disempower the other side. Skandalon is what makes it so hard not to take the bait, so hard just to walk away. It's so easy to bicker and goad. The give and take escalates.

4. Scapegoating and Alienation
Eventually one editor crosses some arbitrary threshold of civility where another Admin feels compelled to intervene. It's essentially random which side crosses first, but often it's the more disgruntled minority, which uses harsher language to maintain parity. Whichever side goes over the arbitrary line becomes singled out, and the others who kept their trolling below threshold are sorely offended. They rudely chastise the miscreant, sending him or her to the Oblivion of Time Out.

5. Consensual, Irrevocable, and Sanctioned Banishment
To appease the rabble, the ArbCom determines the standards of civility and visits banishment and page-blanking on the outcast. Then everyone issues a sigh of relief. This escalates the polarization to the next higher level of examination in online culture.

The 5-stage pattern repeats at all levels of Wikidrama and for all rivalries and editorial competitions. The most vicious attacks are reserved for people highest up in the power structure. Jimbo Wales, ArbCom, and Wikipedia Review all follow this model. Well, actually, almost everyone follows it.

At every point in a battle of WikiWits, the dynamic is somewhere in the 5-stage model, which repeats endlessly.

The only way to arrest the Wikidrama is to adopt the conscious goal of de-escalation and run the model backwards toward constructive dialogue. Giving up the desire to be dominant, avoiding the temptation of skandalon, avoiding Requests for Comments, avoiding authorized and sanctioned banishment.

A common type of outcast is a person who bears witness and speaks the truth to power.

Wikidrama, left to itself tends to escalate over time.

We need to think our way out of verbal vendettas by mindfully running the model backward, de-escalating editorial power struggles and moving toward open dialogue.

At every stage of the model, we need to be mindful of the dynamic we are caught up in, and consciously elect to run the model in reverse.

With this Systems Theoretic Model of the dynamic structure of argument, debate and dialogue, we can discover the optimal strategy to drive the system in reverse toward better practices and more accurate articles.

It's pure science, pure reason, and pure common sense. These methods of thought all reach the same insightful solution to getting along.

It's time we learned it so that we can discontinue the mindless practice of Wiki-flogging ourselves to death. It's time we learned, reviewed, reflected, and meditated on the Mimetic Reconciliation Model.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.