Tue 13th November 2007, 5:43pm
Let me dismantle that little lecture from Guy Chapman...
* Update: Here's a great example of what I mean: Durova's talk page. Banned editor Gregory Kohs has outed anonymous contributions to a newsletter,
Surely, he's talking about how Durova wrote her nifty SEO white papers, to which I responded. Then some other person came along (going by the name "Durovawatcher") and "outted" her real-name identity (which was already widely attainable elsewhere on the Internet). But, Guy is lazy, so he falsely pins that "outting" on me
and then tried to insinuate that simply writing to SEO people on how not to be spammers is a conflict of interest. It's a bizarre notion.
Guy. I insinuated that after Durova embedded herself with the SEO community, specifically on the issue of what constitutes a conflict of interest, it was a conflict of interest for her to continue to shape and police the evolution of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest (WP:COI) policy. I don't think that's bizarre at all. Why would it be so astounding to expect that the WP:COI policy can continue to be shaped by people who are not bounding about the Internet and the globe, lecturing on that policy?
Durova is not paid for this,
That's her mistake, not mine.
it's done in order to try to prevent a problem instead of having to spend a lot of time fixing it.
How's that workin' for y'all? Seems that when Orbitz came onto "your" encyclopedia and near-perfectly announced how it intended to abide by "your" crazy rules, the Durova-dog Jehochman jumped on banning their account anyway.
And maybe it's levelling the playing field, preventing a few smart SEOs from getting away with something their competitors can't.
And maybe that sentence is very difficult to even comprehend.
Peple have fallen for Kohs' line.
Yes, the truth can be awfully persuasive, can't it?
Kohs is a charming fellow, and very plausible.
That is for certain.
So people fall for something that's not only not true, it's specifically designed to undermine an admin and at the same time excuse what Kohs did that was wrong, which was blatantly conflicted editing - "if Duriva can do it then why not me?".
What I did, at the time I was doing it, was not "wrong". That's painful for Guy to realize, but it's absolutely true. See my signature for the logic. Besides, what is to prevent someone from using the Reward Board to get paid editing executed within Wikipedia? Heck, someone even used the Reward Board to coax a new article about Jimbo's failed Openserving.com project! Guy won't talk about the Reward Board, though. Since Wikipediots dreamed it up, it must be a good thing. Since I dreamed up Wikipedia Review, it must be a bad thing.
But Durova has never, to my knowledge, edited for pay.
Reflects on her narrow range of vision, I'd say.
She is, however, one of the most effective rooters-out of abuse on the entire project,O RLY?
You would think that she could find the outrageous vandalistic abuse that has been nestled for half a year in one of her favorite articles on Wikipedia, then, wouldn't you? I guess zoophilia
doesn't register on her "complex investigation" regimen.
and having Durova weakened would be of incalculable benefit to a small group of banned users whose MO she knows well and identifies rapidly and repeatably. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I emphatically disagree with this.
Were Durova to disappear, I think we banned users would be thoroughly disappointed. Her M.O. is what is rapidly and repeatably destroying Wikipedia from within. I strongly endorse Durova for ArbCom, and I very much look forward to her continued co-mingling with the SEO and YouTube communities.