Shoemaker's Holiday flames out Options

[Abd]

And you persist in day-after-day participation on an ineffective, inept ArbCom (for free!) that daily seems more about throwing weight around than actually arbitrating intellectual disputes that might arise in the construction of an English encyclopedia.

Lots of editors here persist, One is unusual in being both active here and sorta active on ArbComm. I was persisting, again, for a while. I'm amused that being blocked, I can't withdraw my current RfAr/Clarification there, but simply requested it on my Talk page. At that point only Newyorkbrad had commented, but it had become obvious to me that I wasn't going to get the clarification needed, unless it was clarification on the lines of "Don't bother with what the restriction passed by the last ArbComm actually said, it's the intention that counts, and the arbs who intended to allow you some editing freedom lost. Go away! You may edit still, as long as you keep quiet when you see someone being mugged by one of us or someone we support." Which is fine, at least it is clear. Just so the arbs realize what they are effectively asserting; perhaps they don't. That's why I have one more step, and if that step results in a site ban, so be it. They won't have any excuse but a simple, clear, focused RfAr alleging blatant recusal failure, and if they reject it, I'm then completely clear of any responsibility to pursue it. It's not about the admin in question, he seems to be not a bad sort. It's about policy. I won't be asking for anything but a confirmation -- or rejection or clarification -- of policy.

And if ArbComm can't do that, what, precisely, is it for? [Cue standard WR responses]

I also note the lack of self-awareness between your comment and your signature -- "no comment on Wikipedia personalities". It is to laugh.

You got me there. Poor self-control and self-awareness, I guess.

Thanks again for persevering. Now that your message has reached even me (through my inch-think ArbCom skull), I think you can take a break. Thanks!

As I retreat from on-wiki activity, it will become clearer to those who are interested what my "agenda" has been. There have been plenty of editors like One who have done their best to improve the project and have turned out to be ineffective, in the end. It is an extraordinarily difficult problem, in fact. Just stating it is difficult, I doubt I could do it in 25 words or less, though we might have a contest....

Here is just a hint: The project depends upon the volunteer labor of hordes of editors, and even many administrators. Any sane person, unless given good working conditions, would stay away. Therefore, as noted in a recent amusing video mentioned on enwiki-l, anyone who does this, more than a little, is a bit crazy or obsessive or has some agenda. To become an administrator means getting the approval of this community, which means you can't merely be a generally trustworthy person, who might understand, for example, what recusal policy would require.

Sane people with some time on their hands occasionally make it into the select group, but they are outnumbered. Maybe even outnumbered greatly. Classic (Sufi) method of handling insanity: put the insane person together with ten sane people. Keep them in contact for an extended period. Human beings are social animals, we are designed to usually become sane under those conditions. But ... if the insane people outnumber the sane, it doesn't work. One sane person cannot overcome a larger number of crazies. Indeed, it's perfectly reasonable under those conditions to consider the sane person "crazy." For even trying! Instead, leaving the asylum is the normal sane response, if it's possible. And it is, indeed, possible for me to pull that Watchlist link off my browser favorites.

Because there is such a gap between the ideals of Wikipedia and the realization, it may be possible to rescue the project, but not by immersing oneself in it. It has to be done outside. And you will be seeing more of me on this, I hope.

It's only about one day out of a week that I even think it's possible.

Ah! The problem. Wikipedia depends on those crazies. Confront them, they may leave. That's why if there are two dozen editors screaming that Abd should be banned, as they have ever since I began directly confronting admin abuse, given some clear cases, the decision does not depend on whether Abd was right or not. It's simple math. If we offend the two dozen, we will, it's easy to think, get much less editing labor going into the project. Greatest good for the greatest number.

It's an old argument. It's defective, but to see through it takes what few Wikipedia editors, administrators, and apparently arbitrators have: perspective and depth. It took over two thousand years for modern society to build structures that even made it possible to move beyond the mob, and even there it's quite shaky. It's known how to do it. But not in the community that built Wikipedia, largely; there are traces of the knowledge in the policies and guidelines, but it did not get built in in a way that could protect what's necessary to protect. And the core became hostile to any solutions that would do this, for classic reasons.

[Abd]

Thanks again for persevering. Now that your message has reached even me (through my inch-think ArbCom skull), I think you can take a break. Thanks!

Great, I'm glad you agree with me about this travesty. Now, can you see about maybe getting it through Risker's thicker skull? She essentially re-banned me thanks to her inability to realize that what Cuerden was doing was unethical and sinister. Appreciate your assistance!

Existing defacto process more or less assumes that any problems are due to disruptive persons and can be addressed by getting rid of them. Since you continually raise inconvenient questions, Kohs, you are the problem, to someone like Risker. Not the issues you raise questions about. And without process to address difficult questions, in detail, neutrally, so that any decisions are based in full information and complete argument, it's impossible for an ad-hoc body like ArbComm to make deeper decisions. The individual arbitrators don't have the time. Hence they must fall back on simple solutions, like banning. It's a system, interwoven and intertwined, and very limited in social intelligence, when it comes to dealing with conflict.

It's fascinating: Wikipedia has continual conflict where there are real-world disputes, but, there, much of the conflict revolves around what sources are reliable. One would think that creating reports on Wikipedia situations would be trivial, in that History is a reliable primary source; that is, the basic facts are generally very clear and definitely easily accessible. From there, though, for a report to be effective, what is notable about the history must be extracted, and that's the problem. Nevertheless, it's known, quite well, how to do this in such as way as to be rigorously neutral. The sign of neutrality is that all participants will agree that the report is, overall, neutral and accurate, or they will be exposing themselves as so biased that they cannot accept plain facts -- or that they are totally isolated, with no support at all from anyone. Any neutral report would include minority report(s) that are set off and available.

The same skills that would make for good editing (as to NPOV) would make for good reporting on Wikipedia behavior and the basis for decisions, but ... it's commonly considered a waste of time and boring. Yet ArbComm did, in my case, see the need for Talk page refactoring, which would create, effectively, such reports, explaining the basis for decisions made at the article. Some do understand the problem, to a degree, but are completely helpless as to how to make it happen. And, in fact, they made it impossible, by completely topic-banning the only editor with the knowledge and skill on the topic, and the interest in such backstory, to do it. I was far more interested in neutrality than in any POV. Thus ArbComm is shooting itself and the wiki in the foot. And, I'm pretty sure, it's done this over and over. It's not about me. And it's not about Kohs. "Principles before personalities."

[Somey]

Well, now that we've got that dissertation out of the way, I'd just like to mention that I found an obscure term in the Urban Dictionary today to potentially describe Ms. Durova's and Mr. Kohs' estimation of Mr. Cuerden's annoying habit:

Banna-phaffing!

So now, instead of the unpleasant, primitive-sounding "fuck you, troll" to express her feelings towards Mr. Cuerden, she can use the rather charming "ESAD, banna-phaffer!" instead.

And to think I don't even get paid for this.

[trenton]

Boy, that's the funniest thing I've read in a while.

- Threatening to "eject" somebody from Wikivoices is about the least amount of power I've seen go to somebody's head

- This is the about the most worked up I've seen somebody get over something so meaningless. Torpedoing the FPC nomination WHILE I'M SLEEPING. OH MY GOD. HOW DARE HE!!!!!!!!!! I suspect there's some sort of inverse relationship between the importance of something and how much certain people get worked up about it.

- Durova is a parasite. After her little sleuthing business blew up in her face, she seems to have been searching for something to do when she glommed onto Mr. Cuerden and the featured picture process. She destroys him, and takes over his little niche. Be very wary when she comes calling

on a side note, how does Durover know that the little smudges and scratches that she's covering up and not part of artistic intent? OH NOES WP:NOR!!!!! VIOLATION!!!!!!!!!

[victim of censorship]

Boy, that's the funniest thing I've read in a while.

- Threatening to "eject" somebody from Wikivoices is about the least amount of power I've seen go to somebody's head

- This is the about the most worked up I've seen somebody get over something so meaningless. Torpedoing the FPC nomination WHILE I'M SLEEPING. OH MY GOD. HOW DARE HE!!!!!!!!!! I suspect there's some sort of inverse relationship between the importance of something and how much certain people get worked up about it.

- Durova is a parasite. After her little sleuthing business blew up in her face, she seems to have been searching for something to do when she glommed onto Mr. Cuerden and the featured picture process. She destroys him, and takes over his little niche. Be very wary when she comes calling

on a side note, how does Durover know that the little smudges and scratches that she's covering up and not part of artistic intent? OH NOES WP:NOR!!!!! VIOLATION!!!!!!!!!

Wiki... The land of the mis-fit midgets.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Boy, that's the funniest thing I've read in a while.

- Threatening to "eject" somebody from Wikivoices is about the least amount of power I've seen go to somebody's head

- This is the about the most worked up I've seen somebody get over something so meaningless. Torpedoing the FPC nomination WHILE I'M SLEEPING. OH MY GOD. HOW DARE HE!!!!!!!!!! I suspect there's some sort of inverse relationship between the importance of something and how much certain people get worked up about it.

- Durova is a parasite. After her little sleuthing business blew up in her face, she seems to have been searching for something to do when she glommed onto Mr. Cuerden and the featured picture process. She destroys him, and takes over his little niche. Be very wary when she comes calling

on a side note, how does Durover know that the little smudges and scratches that she's covering up and not part of artistic intent? OH NOES WP:NOR!!!!! VIOLATION!!!!!!!!!

Let's not forget her hijacking of Not The Wikipedia Weekly from Privatemusings, and turning it into a platform for her work, her views and her minions.


I like to believe there exists a karmic wheel o' justice.

One day Cirt, or one of the other little vipers she suckles, will turn on Mommy dearest and bite her very hard on the most sensitive of parts.

And that shall be a hap hap happy day indeed.


This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine): Wed 10th March 2010, 2:22am

[chrisoff]

- Durova is a parasite. After her little sleuthing business blew up in her face, she seems to have been searching for something to do when she glommed onto Mr. Cuerden and the featured picture process. She destroys him, and takes over his little niche. Be very wary when she comes calling

on a side note, how does Durover know that the little smudges and scratches that she's covering up and not part of artistic intent? OH NOES WP:NOR!!!!! VIOLATION!!!!!!!!!

Wiki... The land of the mis-fit midgets.

Got to agree with the Durova is a parasite bit. She appears to be seriously lacking in a real life. She spends most of her time maneuvering her comments about arbitrations that have nothing to do with her. Why does she think her opining is so important?

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Got to agree with the Durova is a parasite bit. She appears to be seriously lacking in a real life. She spends most of her time maneuvering her comments about arbitrations that have nothing to do with her. Why does she think her opining is so important?

Ego, man EGO

[dtobias]

Let's not forget her hijacking of Not The Wikipedia Weekly from Privatemusings, and turning it into a platform for her work, her views and her minions.

It seems to have died out, though; the page on it hasn't been updated since I made a minor update myself on January 1. There are several "missing episodes" that seem like they'll never be filled in, not just the one Greg is griping about. (I, for one, when I did interviews related to the ArbCom election, got my interviews up very quickly, while the election was still in progress.)

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Let's not forget her hijacking of Not The Wikipedia Weekly from Privatemusings, and turning it into a platform for her work, her views and her minions.

It seems to have died out, though; the page on it hasn't been updated since I made a minor update myself on January 1. There are several "missing episodes" that seem like they'll never be filled in, not just the one Greg is griping about. (I, for one, when I did interviews related to the ArbCom election, got my interviews up very quickly, while the election was still in progress.)

I'm surprised it has lasted this long under the her regime.
One of the Durovah Steamrollah's ™s is a trail of destruction and FAIL.


Besides, she's too busy playing her reindeer games at Unca Jimmy's big arcade o trivia.
Typing of which, the wounded Shoemaker has filed an AC request.

Stay tuned, boppers, this could get interesting!

[dogbiscuit]

on a side note, how does Durover know that the little smudges and scratches that she's covering up and not part of artistic intent? OH NOES WP:NOR!!!!! VIOLATION!!!!!!!!!

Well, on the one picture of Pearl Harbour that she was so proud of, she had blotted out cables assuming they were scratches, and arguably if historic photos have blemishes, they should be retained as otherwise you are creating an image of a past where the technology was more advanced than it was. I'm surprised WikiMedia hasn't moved into colorizing the pictures (it probably has, thinking about it).

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

on a side note, how does Durover know that the little smudges and scratches that she's covering up and not part of artistic intent? OH NOES WP:NOR!!!!! VIOLATION!!!!!!!!!

Well, on the one picture of Pearl Harbour that she was so proud of, she had blotted out cables assuming they were scratches, and arguably if historic photos have blemishes, they should be retained as otherwise you are creating an image of a past where the technology was more advanced than it was. I'm surprised WikiMedia hasn't moved into colorizing the pictures (it probably has, thinking about it).

I noted some questionable assertions she made in the caption on the image of the Lexington Class Battlecruiser when it appeared on the mainpage.

Of course she didn't respond.

Maybe that's one reason why she concentrates on images rather than texts.
But as I said-it is only a matter of time before some fellow wikipediot realizes that her restorations are often really alterations and technically constitute original research.

[Doc glasgow]

I've not been following this at all.

My only questions is: any chance of Durova getting banned?

Ah no, she's too "important", as she repeatedly says

[Killiondude]

I've not been following this at all.

My only questions is: any chance of Durova getting banned?

Ah no, she's too "important", as she repeatedly says

I think Sole Soul's statement had the right idea about this situation.

This post has been edited by Killiondude: Wed 10th March 2010, 6:25pm

[Cedric]

on a side note, how does Durover know that the little smudges and scratches that she's covering up and not part of artistic intent? OH NOES WP:NOR!!!!! VIOLATION!!!!!!!!!

Well, on the one picture of Pearl Harbour that she was so proud of, she had blotted out cables assuming they were scratches, and arguably if historic photos have blemishes, they should be retained as otherwise you are creating an image of a past where the technology was more advanced than it was. I'm surprised WikiMedia hasn't moved into colorizing the pictures (it probably has, thinking about it).

I noted some questionable assertions she made in the caption on the image of the Lexington Class Battlecruiser when it appeared on the mainpage.

Of course she didn't respond.

Maybe that's one reason why she concentrates on images rather than texts.
But as I said-it is only a matter of time before some fellow wikipediot realizes that her restorations are often really alterations and technically constitute original research.

Regardless of whether her "restorations" are "original research" or not, they hardly qualify as photographic restorations, as I have noted a number of times before. I may not know that much about photography, but even I realize that the emphasis in true restoration work, whether it be photographs or artworks, is upon preservation and avoiding alteration. Professional restorers can and do get into arguments concerning when the use of a particular technique crosses the line from preservation to alteration. However, Durova, as she merrily photoshoops away, does not recognize that the line even exists.

Another thing that goes unacknowledged by Durova is that in the publishing industry, standard practice favors reproduction as true as reasonably possible to an original print. While cropping is considered acceptable as long as not done deceptively, alteration to "enhance" an image, as Durova does, is generally not acceptable. When it is done, it is usually done to a small detail appearing in the photo (such as a ring or a lapel pin), and the unaltered blow-up and the enhanced blow-up will appear together so that the reader can judge the interpretation for themself. Durova, by contrast, does her alterations for the express purpose of having her "enhanced" images appearing in articles in place of digitized images more faithful to the original positive image.

What Durova does with images is not that much different from what the Soviet government did in publications during the Cold War: they alter images willy-nilly according to their own tastes and as a matter of course. After Stalin, photo alteration was such an ingrained practice it simply continued on long after him. It wasn't just photos of communist leaders that were altered, but everything. I remember during my college days seeing a book published in the Soviet Union on the US Civil War. The book was thoroughly illustrated and every photo reproduced in it was heavily air brushed in the traditional Soviet style. After seeing so many faithful reproductions of photos of grizzled men like Lincoln, Sherman and Grant, it was rather weird and a bit creepy to see their spruced-up Soviet counterparts. Whether it be due to simple ignorance or pure narcissism, Comrade Durova simply doesn't get it.

I've not been following this at all.

My only questions is: any chance of Durova getting banned?

Ah no, she's too "important", as she repeatedly says

Indeed. She is a legend in her own mind.

[EricBarbour]

The Arbcom opinions posted to date deserve to be reposted here for "posterity",
because this is Arbcom at its most pathetic:

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/2/3/0)

* Recuse SirFozzie (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
* Recuse But may participate in a non arb role with evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Decline Shoemaker's Holiday, you are stating here and above that "the worst of the harassment happened over Skype. All such evidence is censored." I am deeply concerned that such a thing could be censored. But then, why have it on-wiki if it happened on skype?! Censorship or —whatever one would call it— doesn't change anything. A friendly note to all parties involved: You used to be very good friends and worked together to enhance the encyclopedia. That was your objective back then (I was invited once to Not the Wikipedia Weekly which was hosted by Durova and yourself on Skype itself). What changed? Focus on that objective and forget about your personal ones. We appreciate both your works but I believe the best approach is to handle it wisely between you two. This cannot be arranged by an ArbCom decision at the time being. Try formal or informal mediation first. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@JulianColton:
Proposal A) User:Durova/Shoemaker's Holiday or User:Shoemaker's Holiday/Durova for mediation purposes. For better results I'd suggest that mediation discussions remain limited to Durova and SH (nobody else).
Proposal B) both users know how to contact each other off-wiki and settle their dispute.
Proposal C) file a request for mediation.
I'd personally prefer A or B if the users decide to keep it private. C is too formal for this case. But it is up to the parties.
Let me be blunt here, Julian. Do you believe that ArbCom should spend its time on a simple (yes, this is simple as most other similar cases get rejected and directed towards mediation to say the least) user/user dispute which most of it happened off-wiki? Yes, such disputes surely harm the project somehow but only and mainly because the parties insist on pushing them forward and I believe that accepting these kind of cases would be much more harmful. In theory, very experienced users —who used to be friends for a couple of years; cooperating, collaborating on articles and pictures together, presenting ArbCom cases together, proposing mediation for others, etc...— are able to fix their disputes. If these experienced and old friends users can't make an effort to mediate then who would do it?!
Now, I got a simple solution D. If I were Durova I'd just apologize to SH. And then, SH would just say "fine, let's go work on a picture or article". So who is not wanting any of the above 4 proposals?! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

* Recuse - But may comment in my role as the oversighter who completed the majority of the suppressions to which this matter refers, to provide a description of the relevant actions and discussions without revealing the contents of the suppressed edits. Risker (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Decline. No on-site dispute resolution needed. I agree with FayssalF in full. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Accept This is clearly spilling over in multiple areas and since its ongoing, that seems to be an indication that perhaps the community doesn't see a way out of this. There have been comments from others that both editors involved may have been problematic elsewhere; diffs would be appropriate. Shell babelfish 08:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Accept: broadly per Shell. Roger Davies talk 09:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Decline - I see nothing sanctionable here; unpleasant interactions over Skype are regrettable, but as I understand it they can be blocked easily enough. While I appreciate the parties' desire for sunlight here, I don't see how a case will accomplish anything but increase the unpleasantness. Finally, I note that allegations of abuse of oversight should be brought to WP:AUSC. Steve Smith (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Admit it, you Arb-wankers:
you haven't got the balls to deal with this squabble.
Cowards!!

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 10th March 2010, 8:56pm

[UserB]

Sorry if this should be obvious, consider me "out of the loop", but what is the thing about a Wikipedia grant in reference to? What position does Durova hold where she controls Wikimedia funds?

[Doc glasgow]

Sorry if this should be obvious, consider me "out of the loop", but what is the thing about a Wikipedia grant in reference to? What position does Durova hold where she controls Wikimedia funds?

Oh dear. You really don't get it. She's important - she works on the most important things.

That should be enough for you.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

I'd also like to know if you think that Cuerden is just making up out of whole cloth a notion that "someone" asked him not to release the recording of Episode # 45 of Wikivoices. That all sounded rather contrived to me.

This goes back the better part of a year. The best I can recall is that we reached a consensus not to release it before it was edited. I did urge the audio editors to complete the editing and release that. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding about what had been agreed. After the election had ended it became a sore point (and no longer very important one way or the other).

I beg you, Durova, if you can influence anyone to send Greg the damned audio file, please do so. He's looping uncontrollably.

Agreed. Or if someone knows him in person, hit him upside the head once or twice so he forgets about it? 'Cause I think that latter option is more likely at this point...

Well, the two people who had the unedited file are no longer active at WikiVoices. If it makes Greg feel any better, we did a very fun Cinco de Mayo recording in 2008 that will probably never go up either.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Well, on the one picture of Pearl Harbour that she was so proud of, she had blotted out cables assuming they were scratches, and arguably if historic photos have blemishes, they should be retained as otherwise you are creating an image of a past where the technology was more advanced than it was. I'm surprised WikiMedia hasn't moved into colorizing the pictures (it probably has, thinking about it).

You've asserted that before a while back. Don't know where you got the notion I was especially proud of the USS West Virginia restoration. Your previous post seemed to be referring to one prominent scratch that passes from the left superstructure to a point slightly above the right superstructure and then swings upward past a dark cloud past the second superstructure. That upward swing at far right defies gravity and the scratch is several shades lighter than any of the actual cables.