HOLY SHIT

This has hit the online press. I was wrong. This is going mainstream.

Wikipedia administrator alleges user is a 'sockpuppet', refuses to provide evidence, takes heat.

This is MSNBC/Newsvine, folks.

We're not in St. Petersburg Kansas anymore

Durova: Leading the Charge... Against the Windmills.

Yes, I know, Moulton, inherit the windmills!

I think that she's banned the wrong person. However, it's just one article. Let's see how this develops...

True. She was already outted for corruption, and she's still a featured guest at SEO conferences, along with her poodle sidekick JeHochman.

Still, this will make the rounds, and this is an MSNBC site nonetheless. The other article was an SEO periodical, which had less readership than Newsvine.

Only the beginning...

A great Chicago (the band) song.

As I said the other day, people like Durova will not stay.

Melts into the sea...eventually.

We have ways of getting things done do we not?

If you want this to truly go mainstream, get it slashdotted.

Whoever submits it to Slashdot, make sure you mention Wikipedia Review.

link doesnt work for me... newsvine says the article cannot be found...

can someone do a screenshot/cut and paste?

Odd I was able to access it earlier, hmm.

Me, too. But now all I get is a "login or register" page. Fishy.

I registered. Its file not found.

This seems to be a really crappy system.

Tried registering 3 or 4 times, still don't get confirmation email.

Tried leaving this comment at http://mcphee.newsvine.com —

"What happened to the article on Durova?"

It says that it's posting, but does nothing.

Jonny

I can't get it either. Fishy ...

When I tried to post a comment, the site said I would have to register, which I did. I got the e-mail confirmation and clicked on the validation link, but my post didn't appear. But now I apparently have my own personal blog on Newsvine too. As if I need yet another outlet for my silly drivel.

Google's Blogger is better, anyway.

They probably check posts by newly-registered users before they publish them. It's to protect against spambots. My guess is that E. McPhee changed his/her mind about the article and deleted it. Whether he/she was pressured to do it is anyone's guess.

It's possible that McPhee deleted the item for much the same reason Kato deleted his blog.

A lot of people get caught in the crossfire, yielding a lot of collateral damage. Perhaps McPhee had some concerns about being a lightning rod for that.

My guess is that Durova probably contacted the author directly.

The article's back up. No changes except adding "people are currently being interviewed about this".

I e-mailed and asked what's up, and got a response,

I received a similar correspondence as Nathan. The author is an amateur journalist -- not professional. And, he felt that the main reason for this work to exist was to provide a notice that someone was being accused without release of evidence. Once the evidence was released, he didn't see the need for his article to be posted any more (strange conclusion, no?). But, then, once they suppressed the evidence again, he re-posted an even more detailed version of his story.

We really need Brian Bergstein of the AP, not amateur newshounds, on this one. If someone besides me would e-mail Bergstein, I honestly think he might write something about this important flare-up on Wikipedia. (Not to pressure you, Brian -- but I want to underscore the importance of this Essjay-level story!)

Greg

What's his e-mail?

Has anyone noticed that this guy is a normal person, not a journalist? And he just joined last week.

(edited) Oh - I didn't see Greg's post. With which I absolutely agree.

AP journalist Brian Bergstein's e-mail address is:

first initial last name at ap dot org.

Good luck.

Note, I had the "dot com" wrong. It is "dot org". Sorry!

Yep.

I wouldn't even hope for her to leave. The best it gets is she calms herself down and stops attacking people, mostly newbies. She thrives on the perception of being persecuted, and she's organizing a structure to help her "survive" the "harassment" which she has so long claimed was happening.

It still isn't happening. Its just that people are annotating her nonsense. Which to her is perceived as harassment. Really, she's got some nervosity problem, that is the basis for this. I wish she'd go get it fixed.

She's not the real problem anyways. In any organization or group there is often some weirdo making problems and/or running power games. The problem is that Wikipedia has the structure of jello, which allows her to run ripshop over it. And presently, it looks like she's developing security policy, if not some bizarro counter intelligence maneuver. What a waste of energy.