More tedious drivel:

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/06/expres...-in-cyber-space

Reply from Durova on the matter:

http://durova.blogspot.com/2008/06/david-s...oklyn-rail.html

David's article:

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/06/expres...-in-cyber-space

Judging by the photos that accompany the article Shankbone appears to be more of a fanboy tourist than a photojournalist. Isn't the idea to get photos of the prominent people, not get photos of yourself with the prominent person. What purpose do they serve in the article other than gratuitous vanity. Oh gosh this so cool. Um oh, could you please take my camera and get my picture with the celebrity.

I also note that two paragraph after discussing not successfully completing law school he is second guessing prosecutors in how to handle Megan Meier's case.

My reply to Durova's blog, which may or may not get posted:

Durova, I have closed the Cafepress store that featured virtual merchandise. None was ever sold.

I have one child, not three. Your amazing sleuthing skills at work once again?

If I quit my Wikimedia pursuits cold turkey, the current benefit to my daughter might be a 5% gain in my time with her. If I manage to halt the corruption of the Foundation and end Wikipedia's use as a defamation platform, that will be a 2% gain for my daughter, along with every one of the millions of other children across the land.

It's actually fortunate that you've decided to frame your advice to me in terms of being a better father. People reading this will realize that your doing so is one of the most sinister, treacherous, shallow things a person can try to do to a parent. And, you know what? It backfires on the one giving that sort of empty advice.

She does have a few good points, though, about how your creation of merchandise with silly images of her (even if it never actually sold) was kind of tacky, and that your long-running harping on the point of her defaming you on an obscure message thread is kind of obsessive (and I know all about obsessiveness myself, being highly prone to it).

Shame on you for harrassing FBI agents. You could get into trouble that way, don't you know? I can't imagine what kind, since the feebies are so fair and all, but hey, it could happen.

No merchandise was created, except for the one election button that I bought for myself. Do any of you besides Seth Finkelstein (who e-mailed me) understand how Cafepress.com works? It's just a lazy upload of a digital image, a few clicks on blank templates of merchandise pictures, and voila -- you have a virtual storefront. It took me about 9 minutes, but Durova would have us believe I was up late at night in the basement with a silk-screen press, tapping out finished thong underwears from a giant box from Shaoxing.

So, my "harping" on how she libeled me (out of the blue, because Jimbo had unblocked me, suddenly it was HER business) and how the Wikipediot community supported her right to do that, with NO evidence provided to the public to support her claim... that is "kind of obsessive", since it took place on an obscure message thread?

Guess what? My being unblocked by the co-founder of Wikipedia, when I've had articles about my relationship with Wikipedia published in the Washington Post and the USA Today, then challenged on an obscure message thread is -- to me -- not "obscure".

Side with Lise Broer if you want. You go figure her out. I can't figure her out. Her sleuthing skills have determined I have three children. Now I have to go spend the rest of the night figuring out how two of them have gone missing for all these years. Also, I have to remind myself not to miss the next "PTA meeting", since I've only had the opportunity to attend PRESCHOOL graduations and "computer dad" days, and I haven't missed one yet. She has boundless nerve, that Durova.

Greg

Greg,

First, I agree with the interview advice. One should exercise extreme caution in agreeing to be interviewed by a professional journalist. Any representation or promise made by a reporter can be, and often is, overruled by their editor. Certainly, interview offers from fake journalists should be refused as a matter of course.

I cannot agree, however, that Slim Shanky was actually accusing you of harrassment in his piece. What he wrote was that Lise considered your writings and actions to be "serial harassment". Maybe he agrees with that, but he doesn't say.

I also cannot agree that Shanky's piece is that off-kilter, especially when compared his recent rantings here at WR, on WP, and on other websites. His all so reasonable sounding article on internet harassment does him little credit, however; in fact it exposes him further as a blatant and unapologetic hypocrite. We here at WR know all too well of the abusive personal invective that flows from Shanky whenever it pleases him, and yet he sees fit to decry the same behavior (and less worse) in others. Congratulations, Slim Shanky! You have managed to lower my already rather low opinion of you. Jackass.

As for Lise, she deserves some credit for being pissed at Shanky for mischaracterizing her criticism of you. But then Lise being Lise, she takes it all away (and then some) with her silly, arrogant and gratitious parenting advice. Among her many self-congratulatory epithets (Rassler of Rattlesnakes, Fighter of Apartment Fires, Warrior Against Terrorists, etc.), I don't recall her ever using the word "Mother". Curious that.

Professional Journalist?

Yeah, like Rita Skeeter is a professional journalist …

As the Dark Satanic Gossip Mills of WikiP.U. begin to spew more and more of their graduates into the mainstreams of journalism, more and more publishers who have to live by Real World rules will begin to learn just how seriously they put their reputations at risk by buying their brand of toxic waste. I doubt if the graduates of Wikiputia's bubble world enclave will learn much from the hard knocks that come, but I'm pretty sure that Real World publishers will prove quicker studies.

Jon

(quoting out of context is fun)

On a serious note, Durova shouldn't have to ask Wikimedia legal counsel about whether or not she should retract a statement. Durova, you said something untrue that upset another person very badly. I do not know if you (Durova) lied or misspoke--that really doesn't matter at this point. The ball was in your court long ago to end this feud and as far as I'm concerned it remains in your court. Everything that followed was a result of your stubbornness.

I just wonder if Durova has fully deluded herself into thinking that what she said was true. That has to be it, as I don't believe that she is a stupid person; however, I do think there is plenty of evidence that shows she is a stubborn person that is prone to delusions. For that reason, I do not expect her to admit to her mistake, but I do hope she will prove me wrong and snap out of it.

It's a show. Durova is trying to convey the false impression that she never accuses people of harassment (Read: Durova is a recidivist false-accuser of many thing and many people, inter alia "harassment"). It also seems that someone, possibly the friendly wiki-reported primed to accuse person no. 2 of "harassment" and she was trying to play the "I come to the rescue" card. Because she's such a good person, and she strongly opposes false accusations of harassment.

Possibly because a report is being filed with her employer, where she did something that involved accusing someone of harassment, and she's trying to refute it, indirectly.

That's my armchair psychoanalysis. One word: Transparent.

But don't mind me. And my far-fetched improbable conspiracy theories.

But she shouldn't bother. None of the persons involved read Wikipedia Review. And if they get that into an investigation, they'll find information that contradicts her assertions. Because it's been screenshotted, filed, and referenced. And any attempt to destroy the original part of it is illegal.

If the thong aspect of matters is called harassment, and documented as part of the woman's long-suffering torment as a female Wikipedia administrator, it will be contextualized, in light of the fact that she libelled said underwear-selling-Kohs without provocation (typical MO) and propagated his re-banning, on false pretenses, and this was his non-juridical means of retribution (i.e. gentle mocking). I seem to recall her nasty words about him, and him saying "the gloves come off, Durova for Arbcom" hence the undies and doggie t-shirts.

Sorry, the attempt at victimization won't work. In fact, it is counterproductive, and beside the point. It's not about her. What she did will be at issue, but no one will care if she is picked on. But that's her basic life approach. She can't take being held to account for anything. The normal response is to stay quiet. These antics only make it worse, and it reminds me of the post !! affair. For advice, ask ... oh never mind.

Um. Tobias. You don't know how it feels to be attacked by the woman without provocation, and have no means of recourse save for a lawsuit that's only going to make the libel worse. I think Kohs has been pretty ok about it with her. The undies was his response to her many provocations, and it was light-hearted. Obsessive? When she repeatedly accuses people falsely of things, that's not obsessive?

Mr. Shankbone is not a very good journalist, let alone a professional one. He lets his emotions affect his writing (well at least he admits to it), he gets facts wrong...a lot, and his research skills are horrible. He compares himself to the Megan Meier case, and attributes words to Lori Drew, that were not Drew's at all, but Ashley Grills, the 19-year old employee. Here's a link proving it, and I found it in one minute. I'm no journalist, but seem to have better research skills. lol

That is from a reputable source, and has a video of the woman, Grills, saying she's the one who wrote that line, and more.

Also what do those images have to do with his article titled, Nobody's Safe in Cyberspace?

I do feel sorry for him, but he needs to stay off the internet. He's old enough to know better that his article's title has been true for a long time. The Interent is not a safe place, because the more information you put out there about yourself the more it can and will be used against you. Especially if you're some crackpot. Same with SlimVirgin. Those two people have some serious emotional issues.

[edit] I see GlassBeadGame made some of the same points. Sorry

Were they metallic armored men's undies? Well, hell, Kohs, no wonder they didn't sell. Too expensive and uncomfortable. Have you seen the giant metal codpiece of Henry VIII's last suit of armor? Durova might enjoy it, but most women would not. Some of that stuff must feel like impailing yourself on a barnstar to put on. Which might be the point for a very few, but it's a select audience.

Just in case you thought Milton was making that up :

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/imag...C_frontview.jpg

Yes, I believe she quit Wikipedia Review.


She need cease the 'doth too much protest'-ations.

Better than saying sorry is not doing it anymore.

She merely points fingers wildly, brings things up "out of the blue" (ahem) and then expects it to be credible.

She still hasn't tried the Twinkie defense. It's still open. It got a guy out of worse charge.

Slowly re-read what Cedric wrote:

One should exercise extreme caution in agreeing to be interviewed by a professional journalist. Any representation or promise made by a reporter can be, and often is, overruled by their editor. Certainly, interview offers from fake journalists should be refused as a matter of course.

Mother of all battles? (No.... that's Saddam's moniker).

Or it may well be that the journalist made any promise they liked, with no intension of keeping any of them. Editors are easy to blame (especially if you're a freelance journalist and can pick one at random). Most people interviewed by a journalist will never see that journalist again, and the journalist knows this. That tends to make for very dishonest relationships.

The idea of "fake journalists" is almost as funny as the idea of "fake preachers" or "fake pastors." How are you going to tell the "real" ones? They have a press pass or press credentials? So do lots of bloggers. Went to an accredited journalism school, took state journalism exams, and got a business license from the State, allowing them to practice journalism? I don't think so. There's no such set of standards. The first ammendment would choke.

In any case, I'd sooner trust a trucker who can at least pull out a Class A driver license.

A real journalist not only subscribes to the SPJ Code of Ethics, a real journalist understands the SPJ Code of Ethics and strives to abide by it.

See also Everyday Ethics: Ethical decision-making in newsrooms.

Wasn't it sort of funny? If it was me, I would feel the same as her though. Unless it was a really gorgeous, heavily photoshopped pic that made me look like Shakira or something.

You know those popular "makeover" segments they occasionally do on daytime television? ...

...um...

Nevermind.

Somey, get to work...

David's article is on Digg:

http://digg.com/security/Stalkers_Haunt_Wi...ia_s_Volunteers

And on Foundation-l, now:

http://www.nabble.com/Stalking-Article-td17725961.html

Whats this about a stalker being made a bureaucrat on another project?

SlimVirgin implies that the WMF fights back with their own expert stalker?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_de_Becker

He's not a stalker, he's a security expert. But thats the first I've heard of this.

Does this have anything to do with the email that I received from the "FBI New York Branch" this morning? Apparently they want me to help them catch a Nigerian Bank Fraud Ring. All I have to do is send them a list of my bank account numbers and sockpuppet names. I told them I had no $ocks at all.

But now I'm getting a little worried …

Jon

By far, without question, the worst "stalker" Wikipedia has ever produced is David "Shankbone" himself. It's classic Shankers to accuse others of that which he is easily the biggest offender.

The fact that Shankers' account is still not banned on any Wikimedia project is the most shameful and disgraceful thing I've seen from them in a long, long, looonnnng time, and that's saying a LOT. For them to even use the terms "stalkers" and "harassers" against others while this situation continues just shows their complete moral bankruptcy in all its full glory, and also shows that anything they say on the subject can be safely, and properly, ignored.

Given that this is from Slimvirgin, it's safe to assume that she's referring to PL as the bureaucrat and this very forum as the harassment, though I have no idea who the admin is (unless it's Giggy's unsuccessful RfA). For better or worse, the Foundation of course has no say in RfBs.

Wow, I wonder who started the Digg alert for this story?

Hint: she doesn't look like Shakira.

Stalkers, on my Wikipedia?

It's more likely than you think....

I can't figure out anyone's definition of "stalker", "harasser", or "troll," from one opinion to the next. They all seem to overlap, and have different meanings depending on who or what is being said. Are these words meant as neologisms for "cyber-bully" or "cyber-bullying"?

If so, they need to stop using those words. Those should be left to real and serious issues of stalking and harassing. Like Alison's creepy stalker. Her case is clear, judging from what she posted here she has experienced stalking and harassment. But g-d-dammit, why does she have an image of herself with her boobs practical exposed and the main focus in the image on her user page, all the while knowing there is some psycho out there stalking/harassing her?

I know she said this is blaming the victim...well no it is NOT. I am a firm believer that blaming the victim after being raped, stalked or harassed is wrong, wrong, wrong! I believe a woman should be able to walk around naked and no one should touch her unless she says it's okay to do so. I'm talking about after an incident, in Alison's case -- a stalker is very near her physical location, knows her place of work, has known issues with woman, has a history of stalking and harassment, and knows what she looks like!! So she then after knowing all that, posts a provocative image on her user space! That is bad, bad judgment, under these known circumstances.

There is an interesting finding/observation of woman who've been raped and/or stalked. They have a type of psychological shift. Part of that shift involves a subconscious change in the way they dress after the trauma of being a victim! It's subconscious - without even realising it, they dress differently, by wearing less revealing clothing. Alison doesn't get it.

And David Shankbones posts a bunch of photos of himself, unrelated to the subject - stalking and harassment! Oy vey! Duh!!!!!!!!! He doesn't get it.

This perplexes me and leaves me with the impression that many of these administrators have very poor judgment and should not be in the position they are. If you poke your hand into a hornets nest you must expect to be stung -- because you WILL get stung! That's asking for it. It's provoking - a very dangerous mindset, and one that is already aware of! *sigh*


I know - tl;dr

I'm just flabbergasted.