Oops.

That is by far Durova's worst nightmare and as far as I am concerned, the vexatious nature by which Durova has operated will come to a swift end...now.

The nail was just tapped, then pounded into the Durova credibility coffin. It is long gone.

The vitriolic condemnation of Durova may appear shortly, but I suggest remaining calm and simply nod your heads.

What a nutjob.

And of course Crum comes in, and under false pretenses (again, SlimVirgin II, Electric Boogaloo) rv's the evidence that can and will be used against Durova in the near future.

There was no privacy concern in those edits, just the concern that it makes durova look bad.

Someone needs to call Crum375 on his ongoing bullshit in that regard.

It's just unbelievable that such an indisputably good contributor could be blocked without even a shred of evidence being presented. I hope this isn't the wave of the future, out of the blue blocks of good contributors based on secret investigative techniques with no opportunity for community review.

Durova is trying to cover her Walter Mitty Delusional Ass now.

Claiming that for 2 weeks this "proof" was passed around the WP Noblesse Oblige, and only enforced when it was certain.

Of course, no one on the ANI page knows WTF she is talking about. They weren't in the wagon circle I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_User:.21.21


It is finished.

Will Jimmy come to the rescue? Not!!!!!

Someone's gonna get banned. Interesting that the thread is being archived for [[User:!!]]'s privacy, when no information about him was revealed. Privacy or merely hiding Durova's embarassment? Lol, not hard to figure out which.

I don't get it. Someone was blocked because of secret magical evidence that nobody knows about, the evidence turns out to be faulty... and nobody cares? I mean, that's happened before, certainly, but never quite so blatantly...

They can't ban the guy that wrote TWINKLE (though, on recent evidence, Guy might try). He's as untouchable as one can be. In anyone else, undoing that deletion would be a deathwish.

What's astonishing here is that an Admin not only admitted a mistake, but undid the damage.

That's virtually unprecedented in the annals of a dysfunctional bureaucracy.

The only reason he was even unblocked is 'cause he has 100+ DYKs. Imagine how false positives that haven't been around for a while get treated. I bet their blocks don't even get questioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...idents#Followup


It sure looks like there is an election soon!

Politics as usual.

Of course they don't. Why would Wikipedia want to be fair to newbies?

I guess you never heard that story about Wiki-Pinocchio …

His Wiki-Proboscis Just Kept Getting —

longer
& longer
& longer
& longer
& longer
& longer
& longer

What people don't get until they have seen this trick a couple of dozen times — well, some of us get it after being fooled a couple of dozen times — it that this is precisely the way that the Big Lie is supposed to work, since people tend to get de-sensitized (what psychologists call "habituated") to each inexcrement in the size of the Big Lie, until pretty soon they are thinking that Pro-Bushkies that size are Normal.

Jon Awbrey

"::This has been a tough call, but in my opinion a necessary one. I am very confident my research will stand up to scrutiny. I am equally confident that anything I say here will be parsed rather closely by some disruptive banned sockpuppeteers. If I open the door a little bit it'll become a wedge issue as people ask for more information, and then some rather deep research techniques would be in jeopardy. As I've said this before, take me to arbitration if you want to challenge this. I think I've said that enough times clearly - I opened this thread for exactly that purpose. More than half a dozen administrators have already seen this research. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''} 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"

And of course, dissent is dissed because it will be from "banned users".

This stuff is right out of the East German Tribunal handbook.

Q. What's the difference between CyberSleuthing and CyberStalking?

A. Well, there used to be a Wall between them, but they tore it down.

Jonny

Well, if Wordbomb does it, its the latter. If Durova does it, it's the former.

It's a well-known φact, and I have the evidentiary secretions to prove it, that Durova made a mint selling chunks of the Berlin Wall as Wiki-Pet Rocks.

Jonny

SWATJester's really piling in: "...what I've heard plenty of people saying on IRC....an editor so heavily involved in the SEO field, would use some "proprietary" investigative techniques on Wikipedia, ruin people's Wikipedia experience, and then refuse to provide any evidence to support the allegations out of a fear that those uber-valuable methods will become public...... Why are you sleuthing in the first place? Why, as it appears, is it your mission to hunt down other editors using private evidence?"

That's rough. Durova responds by complaining about IRC. And why not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%21%21

Can you figure out who this is?

What is a false positive?

any truth to the rumour that she took roids while swimming for the DDR (I think that vaz East Hermany) in the 80's?

unt now, Eve-ning Var....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWAKtYGJZSM

Oh come on Everyking! She's done this dozens of times. Only this time she did it to a 100+ contributor, and she's earned her self such a reputation that: 1) She's been awarded her very own newspaper article, as the Poster Child of corrupt Wikipedia Administrators. 2) She's harassed and stalked the otherwise mild-mannered Kohs, attempting to defame him to newsmen. 3) Her body count is getting beyong plausible deniability. At this point, he's even starting to embarass the average WP administrator (not an easy task). A more lucid power-mad admin would lay low, but not our heroine. She's stomping right onto the thin ice that befits a lass so sure of her own 'good guesses' that she's willing to stake YOUR reputation on it. (and the reputation of your business).

She/he (whatever) admits to blocking because of a false positive reading.
Is that like...we executed the wrong man after DNA testing showed that someone else raped and murdered the girl?

Or is it that there was no evidence and she is simply making it up as would be the case with any common addict? Maybe she/he should be forced to show the evidence, false or not?

Me thinks so!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172342019

Apparently, she "didn't anticipate" that people might want someone else to back up her evidence-less block. Sadly, that was actually somewhat reasonable of her. I don't remember the last time someone's challenged that Durova's sleuthing was right.

No, like some "retired" SEC employees wouldn't force a hedge fund to divulge its illegal trading stategies, corrupt WP Noblesse Oblige won't force Durova to reveal her illegal blocking strategy.

It serves the greater good of the conflicted.

QUOTE

I'll go ahead and say what I've heard plenty of people saying on IRC: It's disturbing that an editor so heavily involved in the SEO field, would use some "proprietary" investigative techniques on Wikipedia, ruin people's Wikipedia experience, and then refuse to provide any evidence to support the allegations out of a fear that those uber-valuable methods will become public. I don't find that acceptable in the slightest. I'd like to hear what Durova has to say about this, and what her plans are for future sleuthing. Forget about "pledging to reduce false positives". Why are you sleuthing in the first place? Why, as it appears, is it your mission to hunt down other editors using private evidence? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome.

A Type I error. "A test claims something to be positive, when that is not the case."

About who the account's owner was, I understand that it's someone who regularly changes accounts. I'd dearly like to know what he was accused of in Durova's secret indictment.

Now the world knows the truth about Durova. Now the world should know the truth about the
fake profiles and sockpuppets Durova et al use, all the time. JzG and all the rest of the kings men will not have the power and might that they have had to this date. Poor "humpty dumpty."

It's only castles burning...

melts into the sea eventually.

They didn't answer? Or object? That's because you (Durova) routinely email large complicated attachments of prosecutory 'evidence' round to people who haven't the slightest interest in reading it.



Ah! To disagree with her majesty is poor form indeed. I just love how she tells others to whom they can question her motives (actions, methods), which is sublime in its arrogance. The fact that Arbcom and the Foundation couldn't care less about admonishing her for bad behavior (however obvious) escapes no one's notice here.

IRC use must be a banned.

By the way, the wizards of WP are "courtesy blanking" the discussions as they go, me thinks.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:%21%21

This block was lifted after less than 2 hours had past from it's initiation. How could Durova have found a false positive that quickly. NOT!
I think Durova made something up and got caught up in a deadly web.

QUOTE

How's this for a resolution? In the future I'll send such reports to the Committee formally and let them act. And if I happen to be on the Committee I'll let another member act. I don't want to create drama and I respect consensus. DurovaCharge! 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you truly don't want to cause drama, why can't we hear one of these people you discussed the block with corroborate what you've said? That would pretty much kill the drama. -Amarkov moo! 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if I'd been a better dramatist I certainly would have lined up some people to me-too this thread. Hadn't anticipated the necessity. That's not my style. DurovaCharge! 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The "I certainly would have lined up some people to me-too this thread." is code for "where the hell are you, JeHochman???!!!"

QUOTE

That's not my style.

Oh please, Miss Thing. It is *so* your style that your suit even matches.

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

18:00, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) unblocked !! (Talk | contribs) ‎ (false positive)
16:45, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) blocked "!! (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing sock puppet accounts: See note on talk.)
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log"


Look at that! 75 minutes later, she found the false positive? OMG! LOLS!

If it only took 75 minutes for her to figure out that she'd got it wrong, why couldn't she have, you know, done that first ... ? Shoot first, ask questions later eh Durova? I guess she's used to it usually working for her.

Well, she's getting kind of famous for this, between the body count, the SEO articles, the YouTube videos. You think she'd be more careful, but (as I said) not our heroine.

And “by the way” what 'research methods' could possibly be so secret? All there is to go on is IP addresses, or various proxy-jumping traces, that anyone with technical skills and a dollop of creativity could think to use. She acts as if she is guarding the secret of the Sphinx. Of course, she's only trying to evade scrutiny.

It doesn't work anymore.

Brandt's prediction of a dramatic Durova swan-song may yet come to pass.

JE NE REGRETTE RIEN


Looks like her apology was about as sincere as her research.


As a courtesy to the editor? Which one? Herself?
This woman has not a humble bone in her body

At least we know of one candidate who's definitely not getting on ArbCom now

Durova seems to be quite keen to give the ArbCom more power by demanding that either people ask them to review her actions or they go away. Of course she knows that they'd never get around to actually checking her evidence. I'm pretty sure most of them just see a big pile of diffs and assume that they must be evidence of something, and never bother actually checking the links out.

I am definitely voting for Durova.

Putting this loose cannon on ArbCom could be the one step that destroys Wikipedia from the inside.

Quoting Joseph Welch, to Durova's clear inspiration, Sen. Joseph McCarthy (with one word changed for gender reasons, natch):

I agree. Baudy's void will be filled nicely.

Comic relief will be maintained as one clown replaces another.

Ethical standards might take a step up, though, as there is no prima facie habeous sockus evidence that Madame has ever been disbarred for soliciting prostitution.

Score one for Jimbo!

I think this was a somewhat elaborate plot (that failed miserably )

SHE IS THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

Her antics as of 4 day prior, on the Wikimedia listserver:

QUOTE

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Click to flag this post

People should get banned, if they are either harassing people,
violate 3RR or deliberately try to harm Wikipedia.
--
Raphael
******
Thank you for that noble sentiment. I was harassed last night. There's a
thread at ANI that's proposed banning the editor who did it. You may
exercise your principles there.

-Durova

Seriously, has anyone kept a bodycount tally of Durovas attacks?

I wonder what the harassment was. Someone emailing her asking a block be lifted?

Duova's big mistake: not using the Wordbomb card.

You can ban ANYONE, and I mean anyone, with no evidence whatsoever. Just for DONTLIKE reasons. ban them as Wordbomb. It's the magic charm of getting rid of people on the other side of an argument making you look bad.

Next time Durova, just ban who you want as Wordbomb. It works wonderfully in the environment of today's wikipedia.

She already does this. It is called the Wikipedia Review card, aka Kohs Stalking.

QUOTE

It's Wikipedia Review: either the banned editor himself or someone who's proxying for him. Either way, a clear WP:SOCK policy violation. DurovaCharge! 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What BLP reason? And what reason do you have to believe it is Greg Kohs? ViridaeTalk 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly (for Durova) even this is losing street credibility.

It worked for a full year and a half, but she overdid it.

A scapegoat can only work so long, eventually you have to find a new scapegoat.

This is the part that utterly astonishes me.

By now, one would have thought that the practice of scapegoating would have gone the way of sacrificing virgins.

But for reasons unbeknownst to me, Homo Schleppians continues to reprise the hoary practice of blaming some hapless scapegoat for every erratic feature of a pathetically dysfunctional system.

I dunno whether Durova is a virgin, but even if they do sacrifice her, it still won't solve the inherent problem.

Isn't Durova the admin most vociferous in asserting Poetlister's guilt?

Seeing as how the above flame erupts from a source who writes under the rubric of «Moulton Lava», I think I spy, if you'll excuse the expression, a Conflict Of Interest here.

Jonny

Yes, she brought Poetlister and Runcorn up as an example.

QUOTE

:::It strikes me that this was a similar situation as what happened with Melsaran, Evidence was uncovered as part of an investigation and it was reported to ArbCom. However, given the potentially confidential nature of the evidence and the fact that there was no ongoing disruption, would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block, specifically stating that they were doing so for the ArbCom, based on confidential evidence, as that is part of the reason ArbCom exists (to deal with such evidence)? Mr.Z-man

::::You're right, and I realize that now. Will do. That was how we handled
Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance. Durova Charge!

Ah. Yes.

The lesson learned here (by our heroine) is procedural, not moral.

Next time, Durova is to politic better before blocking irrationally, so Arbcom does the banning, based on her false evidence. In this manner, there is no drama (also known as: no embarassing, annoying questions of judgement ) when the hapless innocent person is banned indefinitely on false evidence.

I rest my case. Durova for Arbcom! She'll be far better placed to get their unanimous approval if she is she's on the Committee. Less drama, more productive banning. Bravo!

Well, at least her victim isn't taking it lying down. I have to say that this whole thing is incredibly amusing.

Oh, and her latest fanboy is there to support her:




Hmm, that's funny...