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.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Sun 18th November 2007, 7:07pm

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!!!!!

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Sun 18th November 2007, 7:12pm

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.




This post has been edited by msharma: Sun 18th November 2007, 7:25pm

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 post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 18th November 2007, 7:38pm

"::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.