QUOTE

We've had an IRC-organized "complete reviews" of editor's contributions to find out whether there is any reason to "ban this guy"! (BTW, "that guy" has not done anything disruptive). We've had the IRC-organized series of pokings of Giano because "we need a clean kill" until joyous "now we have something". Why should "that guy", Giano, myself, !! be investigated in the first place at some secret list, IRC or the hidden file where selected excerpts of my contributions are held? This has nothing to do with protecting women from harassment, privacy issues or any other legitimately secrecy! Using private correspondence for such activity should be addressed in the policy called "private correspondence" if you want to regulate its usage and nowhere else. --Irpen 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

* Look spare us the histrionics and the crap, Which one is lying - Durova, Slim or Alex? Giano (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

* Giano, you're such a charmer. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

* Very possibly, I'm delightful Slim. Now to the matter in hand. "she [Durova] had reasons to believe that there was an active wikipedian involved into sick email harassment of female wikipedians (obviously it was not User:!! but she had thought he was). " Is this true or not? Just answer the question! Giano (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

* What's the relevance in this context? That suspicion was not, as far as I recall, shared with me, as a founder member of that list. I don't think anyone's disputing that Durova was more paranoid than was justified, but this seems to be going beyond that into the realms of speculation. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry?...Guy? was someone addressing you? Or can you just not bear missing out. The question is to Slim, Alex or Durova. Do you happen to be called by either of those names? Giano (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh.

As a woman I think it's sick that the real problem women have of harrassment etc is being used for them to justify any stuff they are doing. It denigrates the seriousness of any harrassment women face and jeopardises the chance that it is taken seriously by the world.

It's very manipulative.

I'm on a list for women on wikipedia but it's run by Angela, Slim etc and Slim is propounding the same story (even denyed that it wasn't the main cyberstalking list that was being used, but another one) on there. Otherwise I would start a thread there about the dubious morality of using potential 'harassment' etc to justify anything you want to do.

I've no doubt women do get harrassed, maybe even on wikipedia, but it doesn't mean people can have a field day and do anything they want in the name of it. And it makes a mockery of real crimes such as rape, harrassment etc women are suffering. Enough people think that if women report sexual crimes, they are lying. How can it help women if these lot are yes, using these words to justify their own actions, mendaciously?

I don't deny Slim has perhaps been harrassed on wiki, but when Durova uses 'harrassment'' as a justifaction for her actions, and Slim claims the list was only about 'victims of cyberstalking' etc, it's called lying, it's also non-feminist as nowadays women don't tend to try and see themselves as victims, but as survivors.

PART 2:



[index]

At this point, everyone is supposed to feel REAAAAALY BAD for going after her shitty little list.
We don't.

Sure it does - never to you though.


Non-sequitor. Glimpses of what? People being pissed off at your for being such a heinous bitch who bans people for nothing? That's not stalking or harassment Durova, that's rightous rage that you inspired and deserve most heartily.

Durova, you don't know what stalking is - you don't even know what being pursued or wanted is. If you did, you'd not be running about shreiking "harassment". You crave someone to come after you
so bad you can't see straight. Soooo Freudian, my Dearest Durova. And you're getting your first therapy from Dr. Giano. Online.
Yes, lots of people hate you Durova. But they aren't stalkers and some of them are probably very sane. You do awful things to people, Durova. That tends to piss them off
ALL OF US, you mean?
What affected your judgement. People being pissed off at your for attacking them online? What a shocker.
Yes, we remember here, when you were complaining about the Foundation, Durova. That was another pity party, but since then, you got the on board, and in your pocket. Now you are trying to do that to the entire community, and they ain't biting (especially not now).
Who only ever met you via Google chat for an hour. What an excellent judge of character....


Before you made an even more public loud, humilating display of how stupid you are.


Seriously Durova, if you put as much energy into being happy as you do into causing other people unhappiness and then whining that they hate you, you might have a really nice life. As it stands, you are completely pathetic.

Yes, and hysterically so. (You see, gentle reader, Durova had just been recently featured as a "star" of the article, "Is Wikipedia Corrupt" - hence her frantic call to the editor (and boss of the author, Ross Dunn), asking for "her side of the story". Which, clearly, she fed him, and he ate it hook, line and sinker.

Gosh, I wonder if he's followed the news and now feels used. A fool. I am sure Ross Dunn feels proud of having scooped the world on the story.
Excellent point
No, you called him up whining that his paper had been unfair to you.

After that interview the "Editor who thought you were fab" lost his job. Greg Kohs has a theory about Durova contact and job attrition. You have to ask him about it.. Something about a hex.....


LIARS and tigers and bears, oh my"

The main harassment I endured at wikipedia was from Slimvirgin and JayJG. When they are gone, I might go back.

for fans of the "Duke Lacrosse Scandal", or whatever WP is calling it these days, they might enjoy the analogy here.

One can only conclude that the Prosecuting Attorney would make a fine WP Bouncer.

- disbarred lawyer (check!!)
- prosecuted several innocent people under the pretense of a damsel in distress for political gain (check!!)
- community rabble-rabbled around the prosecuter's rallying around the damsel's cunning plan (check!!)
- evidence was suppressed (check!!)
- honest journalists outed the prevaricators after much drama, while earlier journalists had jumped the mother superior gun (check!!)

Interesting analogy.

But she wasn't outed by journalists. No.

She was outed on WIKIPEDIA. No kidding here.

Then the pro-lacrosse players "put her on trial" online by BLP.

Actually, to stay on topic, Durova is a lot like the woman in the lacrosse case who screamed rape, and turns out to have had ulterior motives for having done so.

i am most definitely not comparing durova to the duke lacrosse dancer.

i am pointing out the Damsel in Distress Under False Pretenses And Resulting Community Reaction that any Wikpedian should be wary of.

I am also extremely suspicious of any internet player to attempts to use a female victim or female persuasion tact to attempt to sway the community opinion mostly composed of hormonal teenage boys.

There is power in projecting yourself as a sexy gal, or as a poor damsel in distress, whether either is true or not. And the people who try to play that power card are probably not up to anything good.

Wikpedia is not the proper way to seek justice for any actual real world crime against a person, nor it is ethical to attempt to use wikipolitics using the ugliest cards - racism, victmisation, bigotry, philosophical alignment with godkings, etc.

If I went on WP and called myself SexyHardBodyFemaleCoed and put up animated pictures of SilverNakedLadies on my talk pages, I'm not trying to be neutral on a political game. I'm trying to be an Italian Porn Starlet using the Old Cosa Nostra Hard On Network to get my way into the House of Retards.

Don't judge me by my edits, judge me by the pretty ta-ta's !! ;-)

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 11th December 2007, 8:15am)

i am most definitely not comparing durova to the duke lacrosse dancer.

Oh, then we disagree. I think Durova's very MUCH like the duke lacrosse dancer. Screaming "fire" (or rape, or harassment) when there is none happened, and then making havoc of people's lives. The only difference between Durova and the lacrosse dancer is that the lacrosse dancer had the sense of mind to NOT try to whine and excuse and beg her way out of it. I'm surprised that Durova is surprised at the outrage at her actions.

Durova makes it much worse for any woman (or guy) who has a real harassment problem. And if I or someone I knew had problems, she's the last person I'd want "on the case". Sheesh.

QUOTE

i am pointing out the Damsel in Distress Under False Pretenses And Resulting Community Reaction that any Wikpedian should be wary of.

oh, THAT. Well "duh"

QUOTE

I am also extremely suspicious of any internet player to attempts to use a female victim or female persuasion tact to attempt to sway the community opinion mostly composed of hormonal teenage boys.

waittaminute buster. That's tossing the pretty baby in a dirty baby's bathwater. Hold off on that.

QUOTE

There is power in projecting yourself as a sexy gal, or as a poor damsel in distress, whether either is true or not. And the people who try to play that power card are probably not up to anything good.

Being a sexy woman is suspect? Gosh. I have obviously spent too much time in Europe, because I don't think that at all. As for the damsel in distress routine. Fine, fine, fine. But the 1000th time, if it continues to work, then you have to wonder about the median intelligence quotient of the local market.

QUOTE

Wikpedia is not the proper way to seek justice for any actual real world crime against a person, nor it is ethical to attempt to use wikipolitics using the ugliest cards - racism, victmisation, bigotry, philosophical alignment with godkings, etc.

Sigh, no. But what you get is a lot of phoney card carrying egalitarians. On Durova's talk page is some quote about how the driver in "Driving miss daisy" noted that racism was still present (she made a point with the movie).... and her pointing out that "movie moment" was all about "see - lookie lookie.... I'm not racist", which besides not being 100% honest with oneself (because everyone is chauvenistic about something: financial level, looks, race, hair color, pheramones - that's how we discriminate between who we choose as friends and partners, for one example) as well as being totally bullshit facetious.

QUOTE

If I went on WP and called myself SexyHardBodyFemaleCoed and put up animated pictures of SilverNakedLadies on my talk pages, I'm not trying to be neutral on a political game. I'm trying to be an Italian Porn Starlet using the Old Cosa Nostra Hard On Network to get my way into the House of Retards.

OH, you mean like THIS?

QUOTE

Don't judge me by my edits, judge me by the pretty ta-ta's !! ;-)

I say: "Dont judge the tatas, just the histrionic lying crappy woman who owns them".

I hope that you aren't being serious here, because a woman's sexuality or sexiness has ZERO to do with anything inherently unpleasant or sneaky. I recommend one month in France for you, old boy. You need to revive your faith in the gentler sex (by finding some of them who are actually "gentle", lol)

Back to the point: Has their ever been a funnier dialogue than this? You CANT write dialogue this good!

QUOTE

Look spare us the histrionics and the crap, Which one is lying - Durova, Slim or Alex? Giano (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

* Giano, you're such a charmer. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

* Very possibly, I'm delightful Slim. Now to the matter in hand. "she [Durova] had reasons to believe that there was an active wikipedian involved into sick email harassment of female wikipedians (obviously it was not User:!! but she had thought he was). " Is this true or not? Just answer the question! Giano (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No one knows how to cut though a bunch of lying bullshit better than an Italian man.

Anybody else notice that "The Dark Side" still states that Durova is an administrator, and brags up her "wikisleuthing" abilities?

The speed at which this is pointed out and/or changed should be a good indicator of who's reading WR.

Ha - They ALL read Wikipedia Review™. I'm sure Jimbo looks at it at least once a week, if not more often. Its good information (and funny - though he probably doesn't agree with the humor all the time, being at his expense and all....)

Durova? She's miss Head-in-the-Sand these days. Someone will tell her.

That is, unless she wants to keep it intentionally inaccurate, which is possible.

Gee, she must be bummed out about not being invited on Hochman's junkets anymore, huh? Sorry thing, that stigma of corruption.......

That must be frustrating to be a part of (that group) and have to watch such things without making a fuss that will inspire an eventual shove-out.

Durova has not been stalked, in the real sense. At least to start with, she wasn't. At this point, especially after how famous she's become (in the press, let alone Wikipedia) for being a really, really nasty person - it is very possible that she could become stalked. Sadly, she's created a population of people who really, really don't like her. And even among Wikipedians, she doesn't get nearly the amount of sympathy she imagines she does.

I think that her initial hysteria over the "maybe I'll be stalked" stuff put her in such a panic state (which is why she shouldn't be an admin, let alone online so much) that she attacked unfairly scads and scads of people, so many in fact that she has no idea who might be hassling her talk page (or writing about her in articles, or whatever it is that caused people to realize she was a wide-population-abuser), and to really speak up against her.

I was reading the ED story on Durova the other night, and I read where she said on wiki that one guy was a "mental patient". I looked up the case, and you could see the guy's name on his user page. "Smooth move ex-lax"! Think someone is a bit wacky? Why not provoke them! Write it online! Wise move! Apparently someone in that discussion told her to pipe down, because "if he has a mental condition, that has nothing to do with banning him" (duh!). Then you read a bit further, and see that the guy had been writing about a comic book mental institution in a Superman comic book. And this was why she made that statement on wiki. God. The mind boggles.

So next time Durova claims this was her "first mistake" someone go get a big bell and ring it in her ears. Until she's deaf.

So she really created the situation.

Someone said to her on her talk page (today, or yesterday) - I think it was "V" that "this would have happened to anyone over time - something like: "this was bound to happen to someone, Durova, but it was just you who happened to get it". Uh uh. Nope. This is Durova-specific.

SV is another case. Similar, but different. Slim tended to get in fights (wars, you could say) over substantive issues, and fight dirty, and she acquired a large crowd of disaffected persons based on substantive disagreements that she won, hands down. But at least SV was fighting (dirty) over points she believed in (some would say more conspiratorial things, but I dont want to go there just this minute - I don't have a dog in that fight).

You might hate Slim, but she's not stupid and unprofessional enough to falsely claim someone is a mental patient. No way. She'd kill someone, but not like that.

Durova? She was more of the caveman-level attack (sort of like the picture she had on her talk page for a while), and while she did her best to couch it in intellectualism - it was nothing more than random McCarthy-like attacks (and that's sort of insulting McCarthy, because I think he used more hard information to draw bad conclusions than Durova did. Durova just pulls "facts" out of her backside, whereas McCarthy woudl presume that if you had ever had a relationship to the ACLU, you were a communist. Bad logic, but at least he knew you worked at the ACLU. That a few steps ahead of our heroine).

She banned people on a whim, that's why she made enemies and someone wrote an ED article about her in the first place. The ED article lists about half a dozen cases where she's done the same thing, and used made-up evidence, as you said later in your post.



No I don't hate Slim, I don't know her and I've really admired some of her edits. But I think it's a bit sad that she implied that 'harassment' was why she used for instance the 'clear blue water' or whatever it was called, sockpuppet. Well I assume that was what she would've said, as she said she would only tell people why she used it privately. She probably has had hastle from Blu_Aadvark over the years, but she shouldn't use it to justify things.

Well, people who abuse things usually claim to be (or are) victims. Problem is that they provoke new victimhood with the abuse they have pre-justified to themselves. Enless loop of victim-abuse-revenge-abuse-payback.

An endless cycle of victimization and abuse. Recursive victimology. Blech. And it only works if you get a bunch of stooges to enable it. (Cough, Jimbo, cough JzG, cough Carybass, cough)
I think that SV feels legitimately upset by how she's been outed, as part of the fallout of the Brandt article, partly by her substance wars with a stacked deck. If she'd have worked to get rid of that article, I think that Daniel wouldnt've have had such anger for her, though the attacks on people she makes might have motored her where she is anyways.

Funny how these people don't look at the other side of the coin. Because what they are doing is only "digging a deeper hole" and "making more heat than light" (rofl).

Seriously, if Slim turned in her bully badge (including her sock-bully-badge), the anti-SV-gang might cool off. She upped the ante with whatever that little group was doing.

Durova is another case. She's thinks that bullying is a public service.