Shoemaker's Holiday flames out Options

[carbuncle]

There seems to have been some kind of feud going on between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova over image restorations and something called "the WikiCup". If I understand the gist of the discussions on Talk:Featured picture candidates,

• Shoemaker's Holiday felt that Durova was cheating,
• Durova told him to fuck off during a conversation which had been recorded by Shoemaker's Holiday,
• Shoemaker's Holiday uploaded the recording,
• it was oversighted as copyvio,
• Shoemaker's Holiday started throwing around accusations that "Durova has a corrupt oversighter in her pocket",
• Durova referenced SH's Adam Cuerden account on commons which SH took as outing,
• SH's head explodes all over WP:AN

Here's the short-lived AN discussion in full

What the fuck is going on here?

I was outed by Durova on WT:FPC. I've asked for it to be oversighted SIX FUCKING DAYS ago.

WHY hasn't anything been done? Has Wikipedia decided to throw out all its policies?

FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF POLICY IN THE LAST WEEK

* Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming is ful of votes that go directly against the Deletion guidelines.

* [5] as oversighted oin defiance of WP:OVBRSIGHT. Thje oversighters say that it is accepted, but couldn't damn well be bothered to change their stated rules, then complained about how horrible I was to ppoint out that it was against the stated rules after waiting three days for an explanation from the oversighter in question.

* As discussed on WT:FPC, Duroa attacked me off-site in an attempt to suppress dissent on her Featured picture nominations. When I brought it up, they said they didn't even want to see the evidence.


WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE? CAN'T WIKIPEDIA FOLLOW IT'S OWN DAMN POLICIES ANYMORE?! Shoemaker's Holiday talk 17:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

* Please calm down, thanks. Majorly talk 17:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

* And to answer your question: It never did. And not everyone's interpretation of THE RULES is the same as yours. WP:TRUTH might be useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

STOP FUCKING AROUND AND OVERSIGHT THE FUCKING OUTING Shoemaker's Holiday talk 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[indent]This sounds like something more suited for email to arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org, arbcom-audit-en-at-lists.wikimedia.org, or cu-ombuds-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org, since discussion at this noticeboard is likely to lead to further details being disclosed in the course of discussion that may prejudice future claims of anonymity. MBisanz talk 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman wisely removed the thread soon after. SH hasn't been active since early November.

[Jon Awbrey]

Is that a corrupt oversighter in your pocket … or …

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

• Durova told him to fuck off during a conversation which had been recorded by Shoemaker's Holiday,

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Whoa, awesome.

[GlassBeadGame]

The idea of someone cheating for something called a "Wikicup" is just hilarious.

[Somey]

I'm guessing the "corrupt oversighter" is supposed to be Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=322599373

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...alk_page_is_for

So he's actually correct in that respect, but it's understandable that nobody will listen to him. Shoemaker's Holiday (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been showing a penchant for histrionics ever since "health problems" meant he was "unable to go to university this year," which seems to have resulted in "a complete breakdown" that Durova was "fully aware of." There was also that incident over the audio file of the WikiVoices Roundtable session that never got uploaded, for reasons still never publicly explained (though presumably it was because Greg Kohs was involved).

[dogbiscuit]

Oddly enough, that conversation leads to a complete tangent where Durova does some OR in discovering her source is wrong.

She seems to prefer Truth, not Verifiability. She won't last long like that. Someone tell Slim quick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=322559840

The Library of Congress is a reliable source, and once in a blue moon reliable sources are wrong.

[thekohser]

• Shoemaker's Holiday uploaded the recording,

Oh, the irony.

I wonder how Risker and all the others who were "disappointed" in my having to be re-banned, thanks to my dust-up with this Adam "Shoemaker's Holiday" Cuerden critter, are feeling about backing him as their horse?

[Milton Roe]

Oddly enough, that conversation leads to a complete tangent where Durova does some OR in discovering her source is wrong.

She seems to prefer Truth, not Verifiability. She won't last long like that. Someone tell Slim quick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=322559840

The Library of Congress is a reliable source, and once in a blue moon reliable sources are wrong.

Gadzooks, it's actually the Dred Earl Roberts! Our Cluedo guess had formerly been Lord Kitchener, in the library, with a pen. Or at least General Gordon, at Khartoum, with a sword. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

The idea of someone cheating for something called a "Wikicup" is just hilarious.

I had to go and G◉◉gle It … and here I didn't even know that Sh♀♀maker's H♀liday was a girl.

Just chalk it up to my education …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Somey]

I wonder how Risker and all the others who were "disappointed" in my having to be re-banned, thanks to my dust-up with this Adam "Shoemaker's Holiday" Cuerden critter, are feeling about backing him as their horse?

I have to say, this user's behavior is so genuinely weird, with such over-the-top histrionics, I have to wonder if his recent WP activities aren't all some sort of big joke, or what the WP'ers would call "performance art."

The article where he's been having the most trouble (up until this incident, anyway) is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (T-H-L-K-D). SH claims to believe in the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, but believes that this article is being used as a "coat-rack" for WP fringe theorists who are taking quotes from various scientists "out of context" and thus creating an article that's essentially a sneaky anti-GW backdoor into WP, not to mention full of BLP violations. At least that's the impression I got. He might actually be right, but he's in the minority as far as the other WP'ers are concerned, including William M. Connelley (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Polargeo (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who SH accused of "trolling" in an edit summary after he tried to get SH to reconsider this DRV on the article after it had been kept by a less-than-overwhelming majority.

This article even garnered an appearance from SlimVirgin, who after not having done much with it previously, swooped in to remove a whole bunch of POV and other tags from it because she felt there was "no need" for all of them. (To be fair, she was probably right.)

What it looks like to me is that SH has failed to get his way too many times on WP, and he's really, really pissed off about it - but rather than just leave, he seems hell-bent on making sure everyone knows why he's pissed off, and also making sure everyone feels as guilty about opposing him as possible, by his inclusion of multiple references to his recent (unexplained?) medical problems.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

I'm guessing the "corrupt oversighter" is supposed to be Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=322599373

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...alk_page_is_for

So he's actually correct in that respect, but it's understandable that nobody will listen to him. Shoemaker's Holiday (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been showing a penchant for histrionics ever since "health problems" meant he was "unable to go to university this year," which seems to have resulted in "a complete breakdown" that Durova was "fully aware of." There was also that incident over the audio file of the WikiVoices Roundtable session that never got uploaded, for reasons still never publicly explained (though presumably it was because Greg Kohs was involved).

Dead wrong, Somey. When he made that accusation onsite he already had an invitation to talk it over with any Oversighter. I had emailed the request to the Oversight list. Perfectly standard and above board.

Sorry, the princess is in another castle. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Oddly enough, that conversation leads to a complete tangent where Durova does some OR in discovering her source is wrong.

She seems to prefer Truth, not Verifiability. She won't last long like that. Someone tell Slim quick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=322559840

The Library of Congress is a reliable source, and once in a blue moon reliable sources are wrong.

Gadzooks, it's actually the Dred Earl Roberts! Our Cluedo guess had formerly been Lord Kitchener, in the library, with a pen. Or at least General Gordon, at Khartoum, with a sword. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Milton, the Signpost reported on this in the November 11 issue. That correction came courtesy of Roger Davies, who supplied two separate reliable sources. LoC confirmed Roger's research and is updating their bibliographic records.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Somey]

Dead wrong, Somey. When he made that accusation onsite he already had an invitation to talk it over with any Oversighter.

Dead wrong about which part? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

If you're referring to the bit about Rlevse being "corrupt," I didn't necessarily mean that this particular incident (or the specific accusation) proved he was "corrupt." Also, it depends on how you define "corrupt," I suppose. I'm sure he doesn't accept bribes, or anything like that.

Unless you meant that the invitation to talk things over with any Oversighter meant that my suggestion that "nobody would listen to him" is incorrect? You may be right I suppose, but of course an invitation to talk doesn't equal an actual attempt to listen, much less actually address his "concerns" - which are mostly specious regardless, right? It's a no-win situation.

In general there's probably no way you can "win" with someone like Shoemaker's Holiday (T-H-L-K-D), based on what I'm seeing. He's simply going to be a source of interpersonal problems, a "drama-magnet," or both at the same time.

And what did happen to that recording, anyway?

[trenton]

In general there's probably no way you can "win" with someone like Shoemaker's Holiday (T-H-L-K-D), based on what I'm seeing. He's simply going to be a source of interpersonal problems, a "drama-magnet," or both at the same time.

Out of two people, one of whom is Durova, I would never have imagined the other person being labeled the drama-magnet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Somey]

Out of two people, one of whom is Durova, I would never have imagined the other person being labeled the drama-magnet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Just to be clear, I would say Durova is more like a large piece of drama-iron who is irresistibly attracted to drama-magnets, and is such a heavy presence once she arrives on the scene that it's difficult to distinguish between her and the drama-magnet - and indeed, there may be no practical difference at that point.

Still, I don't think she deliberately starts or initiates problems, only deliberately gets involved in them and draws more unnecessary attention to them, often not for the general betterment of all. In some ways she might also compound problems, which some would say is the same thing.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Dead wrong, Somey. When he made that accusation onsite he already had an invitation to talk it over with any Oversighter.

Dead wrong about which part? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

If you're referring to the bit about Rlevse being "corrupt," I didn't necessarily mean that this particular incident (or the specific accusation) proved he was "corrupt." Also, it depends on how you define "corrupt," I suppose. I'm sure he doesn't accept bribes, or anything like that.

Unless you meant that the invitation to talk things over with any Oversighter meant that my suggestion that "nobody would listen to him" is incorrect? You may be right I suppose, but of course an invitation to talk doesn't equal an actual attempt to listen, much less actually address his "concerns" - which are mostly specious regardless, right? It's a no-win situation.

In general there's probably no way you can "win" with someone like Shoemaker's Holiday (T-H-L-K-D), based on what I'm seeing. He's simply going to be a source of interpersonal problems, a "drama-magnet," or both at the same time.

And what did happen to that recording, anyway?

Well, it also depends on how you define the acting oversighter. To the best of my knowledge it wasn't Rlevse. So let Rlevse wriggle off that hook, okay?

As for the latter part of your post, good points there. Shoemaker does fantastic content work and some of his best strengths are in encyclopedic media content where WMF has very few volunteers. It's a shame to see that much talent in someone who--well--can't dispute the negatives. If you'll excuse it, though, after having torn a hole into him that badly in private would rather not pour salt on it here.

[EricBarbour]

Just to be clear, I would say Durova is more like a large piece of drama-iron who is irresistibly attracted to drama-magnets, and is such a heavy presence once she arrives on the scene that it's difficult to distinguish between her and the drama-magnet - and indeed, there may be no practical difference at that point.

Yup. Should be obvious by now.

[thekohser]

Durova, now might be a good time to finally disclose -- why exactly was Episode 45 of Wikivoices suppressed by Adam Cuerden?

[anthony]

Durova, now might be a good time to finally disclose -- why exactly was Episode 45 of Wikivoices suppressed by Adam Cuerden?

Just another "great success story" for unorganized crowdsourcing. Things like this happen when you work on the belief that "volunteers can't be told what to do".

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Durova, now might be a good time to finally disclose -- why exactly was Episode 45 of Wikivoices suppressed by Adam Cuerden?

You'd be better off getting that from the horse's mouth, Greg. What I had done my best to ensure was to match up the episode to one dedicated editor. WikiVoices had two audio editors who were really on the ball: Privatemusings and Filll. When either of them made a commitment the episode got done, pronto. But Filll moved on to other things and Privatemusings isn't around very much anymore. We've got several other people who have the skills but don't always prioritize, and they got into the habit of "sharing" editing work. Which tends to slow things down even more. X says "Y has it" or "Y's doing that part". A day and a half later Y comes on and responds "I said I'd take a look at it but I didn't make any promises." Then wait for X to log on again...

I've often thought about learning the software and picking up audio editing too. Haven't done so because of the worry that extra recordings would happen without a commitment from me, and the editing would end up in my lap.

We really do need another good dependable editor.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Durova, now might be a good time to finally disclose -- why exactly was Episode 45 of Wikivoices suppressed by Adam Cuerden?

Just another "great success story" for unorganized crowdsourcing. Things like this happen when you work on the belief that "volunteers can't be told what to do".

Anthony, sometimes within a pool of volunteer labor you get what you pay for. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Durova, now might be a good time to finally disclose -- why exactly was Episode 45 of Wikivoices suppressed by Adam Cuerden?

Just another "great success story" for unorganized crowdsourcing. Things like this happen when you work on the belief that "volunteers can't be told what to do".

Anthony, sometimes within a pool of volunteer labor you get what you pay for. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

No need to denigrate volunteers. Volunteer do wonderful things. They build houses for the homeless and feed the hungry. They are held accountable for their actions. They are vetted and supervised. What we are taking about here is something else...and less. Mere content providers like you and your other Wikipedians are every bit as irresponsible as you indicate here. Not just sometimes either. But there is no reason to soil volunteers with your faults.

[anthony]

Durova, now might be a good time to finally disclose -- why exactly was Episode 45 of Wikivoices suppressed by Adam Cuerden?

Just another "great success story" for unorganized crowdsourcing. Things like this happen when you work on the belief that "volunteers can't be told what to do".

Anthony, sometimes within a pool of volunteer labor you get what you pay for. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

And sometimes you get more than you paid for. Volunteers can be productive, and volunteers can be counter-productive. Just because you're a volunteer project doesn't mean you can't weed out the counter-productive individuals.

Productive volunteers *want* to be told what to do. Like any other worker they don't want to be micromanaged - most want a high degree of creative freedom. But you don't tell a bunch of Habitat for Humanity volunteers "there are a bunch of pieces of wood, some nails, and some hammers; go do something cool with it".

I suspect that sooner or later people are going to stop participating in Wikivoices if y'all don't get your act together. These copyright issues should be resolved before the session starts.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[gomi]

Shoemaker's Holiday (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been showing a penchant for histrionics ever since "health problems" meant he was "unable to go to university this year," which seems to have resulted in "a complete breakdown" that Durova was "fully aware of." ...

Out of two people, one of whom is Durova, I would never have imagined the other person being labeled the drama-magnet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

... I would say Durova is more like a large piece of drama-iron who is irresistibly attracted to drama-magnets, ... she ... only deliberately gets involved in them and draws more unnecessary attention to them, often not for the general betterment of all.

I suppose the answer to this is so obvious as to make it a non-question, but why is it that the Wikipedia drama-mongers, drama-whores, etc are all, to some significant degree, bent, damaged, or broken people? I mean, they can't go to college because of some unspecified health problem, or they edit in bizarre 36-hour stretches, they've been disbarred, they're philanderers or they fondle animals, or they're nationalist or religious zealots. It goes on and on.

I'll answer my own question: I suppose the bizarre, broken, damaged people drive the normal ones out, and any normal people who persist can be expected to keep a low profile, out of natural reticence and also self-preservation. But still. It's so much worse than one would expect.

[GlassBeadGame]

Shoemaker's Holiday (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been showing a penchant for histrionics ever since "health problems" meant he was "unable to go to university this year," which seems to have resulted in "a complete breakdown" that Durova was "fully aware of." ...

Out of two people, one of whom is Durova, I would never have imagined the other person being labeled the drama-magnet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

... I would say Durova is more like a large piece of drama-iron who is irresistibly attracted to drama-magnets, ... she ... only deliberately gets involved in them and draws more unnecessary attention to them, often not for the general betterment of all.

I suppose the answer to this is so obvious as to make it a non-question, but why is it that the Wikipedia drama-mongers, drama-whores, etc are all, to some significant degree, bent, damaged, or broken people? I mean, they can't go to college because of some unspecified health problem, or they edit in bizarre 36-hour stretches, they've been disbarred, they're philanderers or they fondle animals, or they're nationalist or religious zealots. It goes on and on.

I'll answer my own question: I suppose the bizarre, broken, damaged people drive the normal ones out, and any normal people who persist can be expected to keep a low profile, out of natural reticence and also self-preservation. But still. It's so much worse than one would expect.

This why I like the word "monster" to describe Ms. Durova and other like her. The word has two important aspects. First the idea of deformity and distortion. Second, most related to the words origin, the making a show or display. Almost a perfect word to describe them.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Shoemaker's Holiday (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been showing a penchant for histrionics ever since "health problems" meant he was "unable to go to university this year," which seems to have resulted in "a complete breakdown" that Durova was "fully aware of." ...

Out of two people, one of whom is Durova, I would never have imagined the other person being labeled the drama-magnet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

... I would say Durova is more like a large piece of drama-iron who is irresistibly attracted to drama-magnets, ... she ... only deliberately gets involved in them and draws more unnecessary attention to them, often not for the general betterment of all.

I suppose the answer to this is so obvious as to make it a non-question, but why is it that the Wikipedia drama-mongers, drama-whores, etc are all, to some significant degree, bent, damaged, or broken people? I mean, they can't go to college because of some unspecified health problem, or they edit in bizarre 36-hour stretches, they've been disbarred, they're philanderers or they fondle animals, or they're nationalist or religious zealots. It goes on and on.

I'll answer my own question: I suppose the bizarre, broken, damaged people drive the normal ones out, and any normal people who persist can be expected to keep a low profile, out of natural reticence and also self-preservation. But still. It's so much worse than one would expect.

This why I like the word "monster" to describe Ms. Durova and other like her. The word has two important aspects. First the idea of deformity and distortion. Second, most related to the words origin, the making a show or display. Almost a perfect word to describe them.

Dehumanizing people isn't a very effective way to develop insight. The reason I stood up for Shoemaker's Holiday, at first, was simple: his arbitration was a nonemergency case that began voting twelve hours after it opened while he was requesting time to study for university exams. Not to get into all the ins and outs of why it was a bad case, it's one of only two in site history that ArbCom has vacated (the other was Orangemarlin).

Before that arbitration case he had never been in formal dispute resolution and had been basically uncontroversial. The only area where he had locked horns with other editors had been homeopathy--and pretty much anybody gets into conflict there (homeopaths and allopaths playing tug o' war with the NPOV rope).

So during arbitration I got to know the fellow, discovered some of our editing interests overlapped, and was truly impressed with his work. He writes featured articles about Gilbert and Sullivan; he restores eighteenth century engravings. What's not to respect about that? The arbitration case had obviously taken a lot out of him. I was angry about how his case had gone and worried about what WMF had nearly lost, especially in terms of audio restoration: due to copyright laws, public domain audio often means restoring wax cylinders. This dude restored Enrico Caruso's singing. There was no other volunteer who who had those skills until Shoemaker trained more people.

I hoped the outbursts would subside, especially after the arbitration got vacated. Didn't happen. Am not sure whether he was always that way but it just hadn't surfaced or whether the arbitration changed him. That prospect might seem silly from a distance, but Wikipedia's arbitration process really is tough on the people who sit in the hot seat. One of the ways arbitration works is by putting people through so much stress that some of them become erratic and demonstrate that sanctions are necessary. That's not an intentional feature of the system, but no Wikipedia arbitrator has ever been on the short end of a case. They haven't walked a mile in the moccasins.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[GlassBeadGame]

This why I like the word "monster" to describe Ms. Durova and other like her. The word has two important aspects. First the idea of deformity and distortion. Second, most related to the words origin, the making a show or display. Almost a perfect word to describe them.

Dehumanizing people isn't a very effective way to develop insight.

Your humanness is part of what makes you a monster. But not to worry. I will not be taking you out with a predator drone, cruise missile or massive B52 bomb drop. Only criticizing you.

[EricBarbour]

I suppose the answer to this is so obvious as to make it a non-question, but why is it that the Wikipedia drama-mongers, drama-whores, etc are all, to some significant degree, bent, damaged, or broken people? I mean, they can't go to college because of some unspecified health problem, or they edit in bizarre 36-hour stretches, they've been disbarred, they're philanderers or they fondle animals, or they're nationalist or religious zealots. It goes on and on.

Because Wikipedia is the only "hobby site" that will have them?

If you ran a forum about some obscure subject, would you let someone like Lise Broer have the run of the place, or give her sysop powers? I might let her in, but wouldn't ever in hell give her the keys to the place. The way Jimbo's Magical Flea Circus did.

(And to be complete and equable, I'd treat Shoemaker's Holiday in a similar fashion. Don't trust either of them.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Sarcasticidealist]

If you ran a forum about some obscure subject, would you let someone like Lise Broer have the run of the place, or give her sysop powers? I might let her in, but wouldn't ever in hell give her the keys to the place. The way Jimbo's Magical Flea Circus did.

I don't think I can concede that Wikipedia's poor/non-existent governance is unique or even unusual among online communities. When you combine it with the stated goal, financial backing, and general prominence, it probably becomes somewhat more so, but online communities as a whole tend to be extremely poorly governed. They also tend to attract people who don't function so well in offline communities, so Wikipedia's not unique there either.

[MZMcBride]

Shoemaker's Holiday (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been showing a penchant for histrionics ever since "health problems" meant he was "unable to go to university this year," which seems to have resulted in "a complete breakdown" that Durova was "fully aware of." ...

Out of two people, one of whom is Durova, I would never have imagined the other person being labeled the drama-magnet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

... I would say Durova is more like a large piece of drama-iron who is irresistibly attracted to drama-magnets, ... she ... only deliberately gets involved in them and draws more unnecessary attention to them, often not for the general betterment of all.

I suppose the answer to this is so obvious as to make it a non-question, but why is it that the Wikipedia drama-mongers, drama-whores, etc are all, to some significant degree, bent, damaged, or broken people? I mean, they can't go to college because of some unspecified health problem, or they edit in bizarre 36-hour stretches, they've been disbarred, they're philanderers or they fondle animals, or they're nationalist or religious zealots. It goes on and on.

I'll answer my own question: I suppose the bizarre, broken, damaged people drive the normal ones out, and any normal people who persist can be expected to keep a low profile, out of natural reticence and also self-preservation. But still. It's so much worse than one would expect.

What? You're looking at a few high-profile examples out of maybe 50,000[*] accounts? How is this a valid conclusion to draw? Wouldn't the people who come to your attention on this site almost necessarily be the atypical and crazier of the bunch? I would certainly think so.

[*] Special:Statistics says 150,000-ish active users, but I'm willing to knock off 100,000.

[thekohser]

Durova, now might be a good time to finally disclose -- why exactly was Episode 45 of Wikivoices suppressed by Adam Cuerden?

You'd be better off getting that from the horse's mouth, Greg. What I had done my best to ensure was to match up the episode to one dedicated editor. WikiVoices had two audio editors who were really on the ball: Privatemusings and Filll. When either of them made a commitment the episode got done, pronto. But Filll moved on to other things and Privatemusings isn't around very much anymore. We've got several other people who have the skills but don't always prioritize, and they got into the habit of "sharing" editing work. Which tends to slow things down even more. X says "Y has it" or "Y's doing that part". A day and a half later Y comes on and responds "I said I'd take a look at it but I didn't make any promises." Then wait for X to log on again...

I've often thought about learning the software and picking up audio editing too. Haven't done so because of the worry that extra recordings would happen without a commitment from me, and the editing would end up in my lap.

We really do need another good dependable editor.

Once again, you minimize and you deflect. We had two people perfectly willing and able to edit the audio file, if only it had been released. Instead, it was deliberately withheld. And you continued to welcome that sniveling critter within your ranks, enamored with his Gilbert & Sullivan bullcrap that nobody cares about in this century.

To continue the Habitat for Humanity comparison, imagine a crew of 15 unskilled and skilled volunteer builders arrives at a construction site. Adam Cuerden pulls up in the pick-up truck with all the tools, locked in the tool bin in the back. As he gets out of the truck, he feels like he has a severe headache and he just knows that today he will not be able to do any productive building. So, he drives home, telling the 15 other workers that he'll try to come back another day, but it might be a few days. A week later, someone politely asks if he feels ready to come to the site again. He says, "No, my headaches are too awful", but then people notice he's painting his house, and he's finishing his neighbor's basement, so they point this out. He becomes offended. Then someone says, "Look, if you can't bring yourself to drive the truck to the site, I'll be happy to do it, or Ross over here would also be willing to give it a shot." Cuerden cries back, "No, no, no! One or two of the workers asked me that I not bring the truck -- ever -- to this construction site, because they're afraid that they'll hammer the nails backwards and look silly. So, this house is never going to get built."

Then you invite this critter to drive the truck to another home site.

It's downright sinister how you've reframed the whole story, Durova. And you know it. And it tickles your little witchy feet in your wicked witchy shoes to click them together and cackle, knowing full well that you're minimizing and deflecting, once again.

[GlassBeadGame]

It's downright sinister how you've reframed the whole story, Durova.

One might even say monstrous.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Once again, you minimize and you deflect. We had two people perfectly willing and able to edit the audio file, if only it had been released. Instead, it was deliberately withheld. And you continued to welcome that sniveling critter within your ranks, enamored with his Gilbert & Sullivan bullcrap that nobody cares about in this century.

To continue the Habitat for Humanity comparison, imagine a crew of 15 unskilled and skilled volunteer builders arrives at a construction site. Adam Cuerden pulls up in the pick-up truck with all the tools, locked in the tool bin in the back. As he gets out of the truck, he feels like he has a severe headache and he just knows that today he will not be able to do any productive building. So, he drives home, telling the 15 other workers that he'll try to come back another day, but it might be a few days. A week later, someone politely asks if he feels ready to come to the site again. He says, "No, my headaches are too awful", but then people notice he's painting his house, and he's finishing his neighbor's basement, so they point this out. He becomes offended. Then someone says, "Look, if you can't bring yourself to drive the truck to the site, I'll be happy to do it, or Ross over here would also be willing to give it a shot." Cuerden cries back, "No, no, no! One or two of the workers asked me that I not bring the truck -- ever -- to this construction site, because they're afraid that they'll hammer the nails backwards and look silly. So, this house is never going to get built."

Then you invite this critter to drive the truck to another home site.

It's downright sinister how you've reframed the whole story, Durova. And you know it. And it tickles your little witchy feet in your wicked witchy shoes to click them together and cackle, knowing full well that you're minimizing and deflecting, once again.

The structure of WikiVoices is less top-down than that analogy implies. He wasn't the original audio editor. I had very strongly advised the original editor against attempting to share the responsibility with anybody else. To the point of saying if that were going to happen then I wouldn't host. But of course after the recording was made I couldn't prevent people from trying it anyway. Believe me, a couple of people got reamed out in private over that.

The horse has had a nice horse funeral and doesn't need another beating.

During the aftermath of this some people have wondered why you pushed the issue so hard and so long, Greg. Yes, you did make a positive impression during the recording. I could understand why you'd want that published. But the manner in which you've followed up has more than undone that good impression. Somebody (not from WikiVoices) linked me to this thread a moment ago and said your post is the kind of thing that makes them lose interest in helping you get unblocked.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[thekohser]

...your post is the kind of thing that makes them lose interest in helping you get unblocked.

Ah, yes. It's all my fault, once again. I suppose I've got nothing left to live for now, except maybe to give misleading information to journalists that will be published in the mainstream press.

[Jon Awbrey]

…your post is the kind of thing that makes them lose interest in helping you get unblocked.

Ah, yes. It's all my fault, once again. I suppose I've got nothing left to live for now, except maybe to give misleading information to journalists that will be published in the mainstream press.

Good grief, Man, you just got through lecturing PD about wasting his time.

Put her on your ignore list and get on with your life.

Wikipediots ain't good for nuttin if they aint good for comedy, and this one has become too big a bore to even be funny anymore.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Good grief, Man, you just got through lecturing PD about wasting his time.

Greg lectures me about being terrible sock-finder, too.

BTW, I don't see ol' Happy Drinker around much these days... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[thekohser]

Jon's right. I really have to finish my e-book!

But, this is just so darn funny, too.

P.S. Oh dear.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Jon Awbrey]

Jon's right. I really have to finish my e-book!

But, this is just so darn funny, too.

P.S. Oh dear.

Sometimes a typo is just a typo …

Cuerden creates the sock puppet Vainished User

Not this time …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Good grief, Man, you just got through lecturing PD about wasting his time.

Put her on your ignore list and get on with your life.

Wikipediots ain't good for nuttin if they aint good for comedy, and this one has become too big a bore to even be funny anymore.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Great advice, Jon. Let's see if either of you take it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Buzzin' back to Ye Olde Hive to work on content.


And y'know, throughout this thread I grit my teeth in anticipation of Now she's talking about me on Wikipedia Review!

Can't please everyone.

[Somey]

Can't please everyone.

Yeah, but how many times can you cheat, dissemble, cover-up, smear, or grossly exaggerate, followed by consistently saying the problem really lies with the people who point these things out and the "manner" in which they do so, before they won't let you do it again?

On Wikipedia I assume they'll let you keep it up indefinitely, but here we have so-called "standards"...

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Can't please everyone.

Yeah, but how many times can you cheat, dissemble, cover-up, smear, or grossly exaggerate, followed by consistently saying the problem really lies with the people who point these things out and the "manner" in which they do so, before they won't let you do it again?

On Wikipedia I assume they'll let you keep it up indefinitely, but here we have so-called "standards"...

You'd be the expert on that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

More seriously, I made a public apology to Greg at the Foundation list months ago. If he doesn't want to accept it that's up to him. We goofed up that episode at WikiVoices, no doubt about it. I won't don a hairshirt forever about it, and that doesn't mean his conduct is perfect.

Really, one of the things I was telling the audio editors when I was trying to get this episode done was that I really didn't want to antagonize Greg especially. He's intelligent and charming, but we all have our strengths and our weaknesses. He tends to be less charming when he isn't getting what he wants.

[Milton Roe]

Really, one of the things I was telling the audio editors when I was trying to get this episode done was that I really didn't want to antagonize Greg especially. He's intelligent and charming, but we all have our strengths and our weaknesses. He tends to be less charming when he isn't getting what he wants.

Well, that's a quality uniquely Greg's. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Look at Jimbo. They don't let him siphon money off WP in any way, and he's still never grumpy. They even took away his editing privileges, and yet, he still smiles.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I think Jimbo takes happy pills. Greg is just a old sourpuss for nothing. Suck it up, Greg.

[EricBarbour]

More seriously, I made a public apology to Greg at the Foundation list months ago. If he doesn't want to accept it that's up to him. We goofed up that episode at WikiVoices, no doubt about it. I won't don a hairshirt forever about it, and that doesn't mean his conduct is perfect.

That's nice.

PUBLISH THE DAMN FILE.

[Alison]

We goofed up that episode at WikiVoices, no doubt about it. I won't don a hairshirt forever about it, and that doesn't mean his conduct is perfect.

Really, one of the things I was telling the audio editors when I was trying to get this episode done was that I really didn't want to antagonize Greg especially. He's intelligent and charming, but we all have our strengths and our weaknesses. He tends to be less charming when he isn't getting what he wants.

Silly question: if the file is gone-trashed-deleted, would both yourself and Greg be amenable to re-running the interview (PITA, I know, to do it again, but it's important to Greg), with a different recording engineer?

Or if it is available still, could someone else get it ready to put live?

I'm coming in late into this and don't have the full facts, most likely. I'm just thinking of a solution, is all ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[thekohser]

We goofed up that episode at WikiVoices, no doubt about it. I won't don a hairshirt forever about it, and that doesn't mean his conduct is perfect.

Really, one of the things I was telling the audio editors when I was trying to get this episode done was that I really didn't want to antagonize Greg especially. He's intelligent and charming, but we all have our strengths and our weaknesses. He tends to be less charming when he isn't getting what he wants.

Silly question: if the file is gone-trashed-deleted, would both yourself and Greg be amenable to re-running the interview (PITA, I know, to do it again, but it's important to Greg), with a different recording engineer?

Or if it is available still, could someone else get it ready to put live?

I'm coming in late into this and don't have the full facts, most likely. I'm just thinking of a solution, is all ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

I believe that Adam still holds the file. He refuses to turn it over to anyone (yet he is still welcomed on the Wikivoices project). (Durova describes his treachery as a "goof up".) The other guy who originally was assigned the file editing job (or treacherous friend Promethean) says that he deleted it from his hard drive, but I strongly suspect that is a lie. People don't delete highly controversial property when there's even a chance that it could bear fruit for them in the future either via blackmail or adulation.

I think re-running the interview is a splendid idea, but I give it a 50-50 chance of being suppressed again, somehow. The Wikivoices team is exactly that treacherous.

[anthony]

We goofed up that episode at WikiVoices, no doubt about it. I won't don a hairshirt forever about it, and that doesn't mean his conduct is perfect.

Really, one of the things I was telling the audio editors when I was trying to get this episode done was that I really didn't want to antagonize Greg especially. He's intelligent and charming, but we all have our strengths and our weaknesses. He tends to be less charming when he isn't getting what he wants.

Silly question: if the file is gone-trashed-deleted, would both yourself and Greg be amenable to re-running the interview (PITA, I know, to do it again, but it's important to Greg), with a different recording engineer?

Or if it is available still, could someone else get it ready to put live?

I'm coming in late into this and don't have the full facts, most likely. I'm just thinking of a solution, is all ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

I've offered to host the "roundtable interview" if no one else is brave enough to do it. I'll make the same offer with regard to the Broer/Cuerden battle (though in the latter case I'd want permission of either Broer or Cuerden).

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Somey]

So during arbitration I got to know the fellow, discovered some of our editing interests overlapped, and was truly impressed with his work. He writes featured articles about Gilbert and Sullivan; he restores eighteenth century engravings. What's not to respect about that? The arbitration case had obviously taken a lot out of him. I was angry about how his case had gone and worried about what WMF had nearly lost, especially in terms of audio restoration: due to copyright laws, public domain audio often means restoring wax cylinders. This dude restored Enrico Caruso's singing. There was no other volunteer who who had those skills until Shoemaker trained more people.

I realize this is a tangent, and maybe deserves its own thread or even a blog posting, but the whole issue of restored audio content on Wikipedia is a fairly interesting one from an outside perspective. It does take considerable skill to do it properly, but the software is getting easier and easier to use, and IMO more people have these skills (and these programs) than some might think.

These days it's very common for people to have programs with "scratch removal" filters to clean up vinyl conversions, though it's far less common for people to actually use them or even know how, of course. More serious home audio restorers can buy something like Diamond Cut Millenium, which is only about $60. Diamond Cut also sells CD's of restored public-domain Edison wax cylinder recordings, which were mostly done in 2005, just around the time when WP began embedding audio files. (You could always up/download them, IIRC, just not embed them.)

But audio restoration doesn't attract the sort of person Wikipedia would normally be expected to attract. Audio doesn't take up a lot of space on a page, and at the moment I don't see Featured Audio on the Main Page (though that might be an aberration - I don't look at the Main Page very often). It can be very time-consuming if you do it right, and it's not a good way to increase your edit-count (given that you're not going to upload 80 versions of the same file, each with one less pop or click in it). And whereas clicking on an image takes you to a page on which credit for the image is spelled out in excruciating detail, clicking on an audio link simply plays the audio; you have to click "About this file" to see any credits. Moreover, when you hear an old recording that's been restored, you don't think "hey, what an awesome restoration job," because you probably haven't heard the unrestored version. In fact, the cleaner it is, the less you think about how much effort it took to restore it.

So it's something of a thankless job, isn't it? I can easily see why people don't want to do it, and why they'd feel underappreciated after a while - possibly even to the point of developing a complex about it.

If WP had the manpower, I'd suggest that they try to avoid situations where people who do audio restoration work are made responsible for things like "WikiVoices." But of course, they don't have the manpower, because nobody wants to do thankless tasks for free. It may be that Shoemaker's Holiday (T-C-L-K-R-D) is the sort of person who likes to take on thankless tasks for the purpose of complaining about how little thanks he's getting, and if so, that might explain a few things. But I'd be completely irresponsible to draw that kind of conclusion in any sort of formal way, obviously... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

As to whether or not someone like Durova should be involved in it, that's another issue - she might well be too ego-driven to work effectively with people who do thankless tasks. That is to say, she'll probably thank them (which is good), and maybe even be the only one thanking them (which is bad). At the same time she might be unable to avoid the appearance of taking credit in some cases, even if she isn't actually doing so, simply because of the way she interacts with people in general (i.e., she tends to "take over"). The worst thing you can do with (or to) someone like Shoemaker's Holiday, I suspect, is be perceived as taking credit for whatever specialized work he does, particularly if it's voluntary.

Ultimately I don't want to appear (myself) to be too critical of Wikipedia's efforts to provide audio content, or the people who provide it - there's a lot of material there, they're reasonably good about copyrights, and some of the restoration work is quite well-done. (Also, dissemination is a major aid to preservation, as they say.) But if they're going to really make a go of it, they should come up with a way to make it less thankless - assuming there even is a way.

[MBisanz]

So during arbitration I got to know the fellow, discovered some of our editing interests overlapped, and was truly impressed with his work. He writes featured articles about Gilbert and Sullivan; he restores eighteenth century engravings. What's not to respect about that? The arbitration case had obviously taken a lot out of him. I was angry about how his case had gone and worried about what WMF had nearly lost, especially in terms of audio restoration: due to copyright laws, public domain audio often means restoring wax cylinders. This dude restored Enrico Caruso's singing. There was no other volunteer who who had those skills until Shoemaker trained more people.

I realize this is a tangent, and maybe deserves its own thread or even a blog posting, but the whole issue of restored audio content on Wikipedia is a fairly interesting one from an outside perspective. It does take considerable skill to do it properly, but the software is getting easier and easier to use, and IMO more people have these skills (and these programs) than some might think.

These days it's very common for people to have programs with "scratch removal" filters to clean up vinyl conversions, though it's far less common for people to actually use them or even know how, of course. More serious home audio restorers can buy something like Diamond Cut Millenium, which is only about $60. Diamond Cut also sells CD's of restored public-domain Edison wax cylinder recordings, which were mostly done in 2005, just around the time when WP began embedding audio files. (You could always up/download them, IIRC, just not embed them.)

But audio restoration doesn't attract the sort of person Wikipedia would normally be expected to attract. Audio doesn't take up a lot of space on a page, and at the moment I don't see Featured Audio on the Main Page (though that might be an aberration - I don't look at the Main Page very often). It can be very time-consuming if you do it right, and it's not a good way to increase your edit-count (given that you're not going to upload 80 versions of the same file, each with one less pop or click in it). And whereas clicking on an image takes you to a page on which credit for the image is spelled out in excruciating detail, clicking on an audio link simply plays the audio; you have to click "About this file" to see any credits. Moreover, when you hear an old recording that's been restored, you don't think "hey, what an awesome restoration job," because you probably haven't heard the unrestored version. In fact, the cleaner it is, the less you think about how much effort it took to restore it.

So it's something of a thankless job, isn't it? I can easily see why people don't want to do it, and why they'd feel underappreciated after a while - possibly even to the point of developing a complex about it.

If WP had the manpower, I'd suggest that they try to avoid situations where people who do audio restoration work are made responsible for things like "WikiVoices." But of course, they don't have the manpower, because nobody wants to do thankless tasks for free. It may be that Shoemaker's Holiday (T-C-L-K-R-D) is the sort of person who likes to take on thankless tasks for the purpose of complaining about how little thanks he's getting, and if so, that might explain a few things. But I'd be completely irresponsible to draw that kind of conclusion in any sort of formal way, obviously... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

As to whether or not someone like Durova should be involved in it, that's another issue - she might well be too ego-driven to work effectively with people who do thankless tasks. That is to say, she'll probably thank them (which is good), and maybe even be the only one thanking them (which is bad). At the same time she might be unable to avoid the appearance of taking credit in some cases, even if she isn't actually doing so, simply because of the way she interacts with people in general (i.e., she tends to "take over"). The worst thing you can do with (or to) someone like Shoemaker's Holiday, I suspect, is be perceived as taking credit for whatever specialized work he does, particularly if it's voluntary.

Ultimately I don't want to appear (myself) to be too critical of Wikipedia's efforts to provide audio content, or the people who provide it - there's a lot of material there, they're reasonably good about copyrights, and some of the restoration work is quite well-done. (Also, dissemination is a major aid to preservation, as they say.) But if they're going to really make a go of it, they should come up with a way to make it less thankless - assuming there even is a way.

Actually, Durova has made they exact same arguments about the place images are given in WP (low edit count, time to restore, etc) dozens of times before. Frankly I'd encourage most audio or image buffs to head over to commons, where at least the primary focus is on low-edit count media work.

[Random832]

So you have time for this crap between your all-important photo restorations, but not to even spend fifteen minutes to properly read the explanation you asked me to make?


May I have permission to release your PMs to me?

The structure of WikiVoices is less top-down than that analogy implies. He wasn't the original audio editor. I had very strongly advised the original editor against attempting to share the responsibility with anybody else. To the point of saying if that were going to happen then I wouldn't host. But of course after the recording was made I couldn't prevent people from trying it anyway. Believe me, a couple of people got reamed out in private over that.

The horse has had a nice horse funeral and doesn't need another beating.

During the aftermath of this some people have wondered why you pushed the issue so hard and so long, Greg. Yes, you did make a positive impression during the recording. I could understand why you'd want that published. But the manner in which you've followed up has more than undone that good impression. Somebody (not from WikiVoices) linked me to this thread a moment ago and said your post is the kind of thing that makes them lose interest in helping you get unblocked.

This is the sort of argument that would be a whole lot more legitimate if the file were published now and Thekohser was still complaining about it. My understanding is that this is not the case.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[A Horse With No Name]

You'd be better off getting that from the horse's mouth, Greg.

Find another cliche, toots -- this one is getting long in the tooth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[dtobias]

You'd be better off getting that from the horse's mouth, Greg.

Find another cliche, toots -- this one is getting long in the tooth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

How about getting it from the horse's ass?

[A Horse With No Name]

You'd be better off getting that from the horse's mouth, Greg.

Find another cliche, toots -- this one is getting long in the tooth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

How about getting it from the horse's ass?

Okay, how about avoiding equine body parts all together, hmmm? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

You'd be better off getting that from the horse's mouth, Greg.

Find another cliche, toots -- this one is getting long in the tooth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

How about getting it from the horse's ass?

Okay, how about avoiding equine body parts all together, hmmm? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Please, before we get to FT2's favorite bits.

[EricBarbour]

You'd be better off getting that from the horse's mouth, Greg.

Find another cliche, toots -- this one is getting long in the tooth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

How about getting it from the horse's ass?

(IMG:http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n267/jkaplan631/horse_butt_final.jpg)

[Jon Awbrey]

May I have permission to release your PMs to me?

Definition. A private message is a message never sent.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

We goofed up that episode at WikiVoices, no doubt about it. I won't don a hairshirt forever about it, and that doesn't mean his conduct is perfect.

Really, one of the things I was telling the audio editors when I was trying to get this episode done was that I really didn't want to antagonize Greg especially. He's intelligent and charming, but we all have our strengths and our weaknesses. He tends to be less charming when he isn't getting what he wants.

Silly question: if the file is gone-trashed-deleted, would both yourself and Greg be amenable to re-running the interview (PITA, I know, to do it again, but it's important to Greg), with a different recording engineer?

Or if it is available still, could someone else get it ready to put live?

I'm coming in late into this and don't have the full facts, most likely. I'm just thinking of a solution, is all ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

It was a roundtable candidate discussion, so not really practical. Although very good suggestion; thanks for the thought. Regarding the rest, tried that.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

So during arbitration I got to know the fellow, discovered some of our editing interests overlapped, and was truly impressed with his work. He writes featured articles about Gilbert and Sullivan; he restores eighteenth century engravings. What's not to respect about that? The arbitration case had obviously taken a lot out of him. I was angry about how his case had gone and worried about what WMF had nearly lost, especially in terms of audio restoration: due to copyright laws, public domain audio often means restoring wax cylinders. This dude restored Enrico Caruso's singing. There was no other volunteer who who had those skills until Shoemaker trained more people.

I realize this is a tangent, and maybe deserves its own thread or even a blog posting, but the whole issue of restored audio content on Wikipedia is a fairly interesting one from an outside perspective. It does take considerable skill to do it properly, but the software is getting easier and easier to use, and IMO more people have these skills (and these programs) than some might think.

These days it's very common for people to have programs with "scratch removal" filters to clean up vinyl conversions, though it's far less common for people to actually use them or even know how, of course. More serious home audio restorers can buy something like Diamond Cut Millenium, which is only about $60. Diamond Cut also sells CD's of restored public-domain Edison wax cylinder recordings, which were mostly done in 2005, just around the time when WP began embedding audio files. (You could always up/download them, IIRC, just not embed them.)

But audio restoration doesn't attract the sort of person Wikipedia would normally be expected to attract. Audio doesn't take up a lot of space on a page, and at the moment I don't see Featured Audio on the Main Page (though that might be an aberration - I don't look at the Main Page very often). It can be very time-consuming if you do it right, and it's not a good way to increase your edit-count (given that you're not going to upload 80 versions of the same file, each with one less pop or click in it). And whereas clicking on an image takes you to a page on which credit for the image is spelled out in excruciating detail, clicking on an audio link simply plays the audio; you have to click "About this file" to see any credits. Moreover, when you hear an old recording that's been restored, you don't think "hey, what an awesome restoration job," because you probably haven't heard the unrestored version. In fact, the cleaner it is, the less you think about how much effort it took to restore it.

So it's something of a thankless job, isn't it? I can easily see why people don't want to do it, and why they'd feel underappreciated after a while - possibly even to the point of developing a complex about it.

If WP had the manpower, I'd suggest that they try to avoid situations where people who do audio restoration work are made responsible for things like "WikiVoices." But of course, they don't have the manpower, because nobody wants to do thankless tasks for free. It may be that Shoemaker's Holiday (T-C-L-K-R-D) is the sort of person who likes to take on thankless tasks for the purpose of complaining about how little thanks he's getting, and if so, that might explain a few things. But I'd be completely irresponsible to draw that kind of conclusion in any sort of formal way, obviously... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

As to whether or not someone like Durova should be involved in it, that's another issue - she might well be too ego-driven to work effectively with people who do thankless tasks. That is to say, she'll probably thank them (which is good), and maybe even be the only one thanking them (which is bad). At the same time she might be unable to avoid the appearance of taking credit in some cases, even if she isn't actually doing so, simply because of the way she interacts with people in general (i.e., she tends to "take over"). The worst thing you can do with (or to) someone like Shoemaker's Holiday, I suspect, is be perceived as taking credit for whatever specialized work he does, particularly if it's voluntary.

Ultimately I don't want to appear (myself) to be too critical of Wikipedia's efforts to provide audio content, or the people who provide it - there's a lot of material there, they're reasonably good about copyrights, and some of the restoration work is quite well-done. (Also, dissemination is a major aid to preservation, as they say.) But if they're going to really make a go of it, they should come up with a way to make it less thankless - assuming there even is a way.

Actually, Durova has made they exact same arguments about the place images are given in WP (low edit count, time to restore, etc) dozens of times before. Frankly I'd encourage most audio or image buffs to head over to commons, where at least the primary focus is on low-edit count media work.

Some good points, Somey. Bear in mind that although it's easier to restore audio these days, no one was doing it at WMF until Shoemaker. The featured sound program was lifeless; he revived it. And he really drummed up interest and trained other people to make the FS program sustainable.

And Matt except for rare situations in copyright law, Commons is exactly where this material does go. Shoemaker had been attempting to get Commons to feature sounds. The Commons featured picture program there had been mostly about digital photography until he and I and a few others brought in historic restorations.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[dogbiscuit]

Here's some advice how to become a better Machavellian: accept the offer first, get the dude unblocked, wait an interval, and then lay into me.

You haven't got it yet, have you?

Essentially this is about process and how Wikipedians use and abuse processes rather than an individual. I hadn't really conceived that people here are at all interested in achieving an unblock of an individual to work on a website held in considerable disdain by a sizeable proportion of those who post here.

The principle is: understand the flaws in the process, understand why people abuse the processes then you can understand whether the processes are wrong or simply the operators of the process.

At WR there is a fairly strong consensus ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) sorry!) that BOTH the processes and the operators are wrong. However, Wikipedians are blind to all this, they see a perfect process gifted from Jimbo and refined down the ages, and presume that Wikipedians themselves are able to perfectly apply such processes - any mistakes are a temporary aberration. So the question is: are you capable of seeing the flaws in Wikipedian processes and then work to resolve this, or do you simply take the typical route of throwing your hands in the air and cry out "What do you expect? It's only a game you know, it's not real life."

You are not so well skilled in deflection as SlimVirgin, but the irritation in hearing you spout runs about at the same level.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Here's some advice how to become a better Machavellian: accept the offer first, get the dude unblocked, wait an interval, and then lay into me.

You haven't got it yet, have you?

*snip*

At WR there is a fairly strong consensus ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) sorry!) that BOTH the processes and the operators are wrong. However, Wikipedians are blind to all this, they see a perfect process gifted from Jimbo and refined down the ages, and presume that Wikipedians themselves are able to perfectly apply such processes - any mistakes are a temporary aberration. So the question is: are you capable of seeing the flaws in Wikipedian processes and then work to resolve this, or do you simply take the typical route of throwing your hands in the air and cry out "What do you expect? It's only a game you know, it's not real life."

Yeah, but the weakness of WR criticism has always been quality control. Notice how the spurious claim that I was doing original research went completely unchallenged here, even though the correction was actually done by Roger Davies and the Signpost had run a report on the Library of Congress's confirmation.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[GlassBeadGame]

Here's some advice how to become a better Machavellian: accept the offer first, get the dude unblocked, wait an interval, and then lay into me.

You haven't got it yet, have you?

*snip*

At WR there is a fairly strong consensus ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) sorry!) that BOTH the processes and the operators are wrong. However, Wikipedians are blind to all this, they see a perfect process gifted from Jimbo and refined down the ages, and presume that Wikipedians themselves are able to perfectly apply such processes - any mistakes are a temporary aberration. So the question is: are you capable of seeing the flaws in Wikipedian processes and then work to resolve this, or do you simply take the typical route of throwing your hands in the air and cry out "What do you expect? It's only a game you know, it's not real life."

Yeah, but the weakness of WR criticism has always been quality control. Notice how the spurious claim that I was doing original research went completely unchallenged here, even though the correction was actually done by Roger Davies and the Signpost had run a report on the Library of Congress's confirmation.

This post indicates just how clueless you are about what constitutes a significant critique. The result is that you have found yet another venue to embarrass yourself

[Somey]

Yeah, but the weakness of WR criticism has always been quality control. Notice how the spurious claim that I was doing original research went completely unchallenged here, even though the correction was actually done by Roger Davies and the Signpost had run a report on the Library of Congress's confirmation.

I think you misread that post somewhat, actually...?

Your effort to determine that the Library of Congress was wrong actually was "original research," but in this case (as in many others) "original research" is actually a good thing. Mr. Dogbiscuit's point was that what you were doing went against standard WP operating procedure, which suggested that maybe you were starting to think outside the WP box. Again, a good thing, from the perspective of those of us who prefer truth and facts (gained through research and inquiry) to inflexible reliance on published "sources," many of which, as you indicate, are sometimes wrong despite being deemed "reliable."

[A Horse With No Name]

Here's some advice how to become a better Machavellian: accept the offer first, get the dude unblocked, wait an interval, and then lay into me.

You want to get laid? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

Yeah, but the weakness of WR criticism has always been quality control. Notice how the spurious claim that I was doing original research went completely unchallenged here, even though the correction was actually done by Roger Davies and the Signpost had run a report on the Library of Congress's confirmation.

And the weakness of Wikipedians is that they never answer the question, but go off into the deep blue yonder.

Or was that, "Yeah",

You are entirely correct, I have no answer, Wikipedian processes and those who operate them are particularly pants and there is nothing to be done about it so there is no need to discuss it further.

I'll go with that unless you care to refute it in any detail.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

This post indicates just how clueless you are about what constitutes a significant critique. The result is that you have found yet another venue to embarrass yourself

Actually it's more of a segue into my opinion that part of the social glue which holds WR together has to do with the anthropological concept of the social construction of the Other.

You've spent quite a few posts calling me monstrous, either directly or indirectly. Why not just put me on ignore?

In order to play Saint George it's necessary to cast someone as The Dragon. You pop up to provide reminders of The Dragon role whenever I start to seem less worthy of skewering.

So sometimes I play along with the role in jest, and you accuse me of trolling.

[Somey]

Actually it's more of a segue into my opinion that part of the social glue which holds WR together has to do with the anthropological concept of the social construction of the Other.

I thought that was a sociological construction of an existential concept?

German existentialism, to boot.* That's supposed to be the really serious kind...

So sometimes I play along with the role in jest, and you accuse me of trolling.

Perhaps this is unfair, but you're not really here to provide critique, right? And defenses of Wikipedia can always be posted on Wikipedia itself. Besides, Mr. BeadGame believes (with some justification) that as a defender of WP's social-libertarian "allow anything" ethos, you contribute in some way to the corruption of the world's youth, which he's less likely to forgive than, for example, I am - I believe that the world's youth are already hopelessly corrupted, so I'm less likely to make an issue of it.


* Though I guess Jean Paul Sartre is the one who really popularized the whole thing.

[Jon Awbrey]

Actually it's more of a segue into my opinion that part of the social glue which holds WR together has to do with the anthropological concept of the social construction of the Other.

I thought that was a sociological construction of an existential concept?

German existentialism, to boot. That's supposed to be the really serious kind …

So sometimes I play along with the role in jest, and you accuse me of trolling.

Perhaps this is unfair, but you're not really here to provide critique, right? And defenses of Wikipedia can always be posted on Wikipedia itself. Besides, Mr. BeadGame believes (with some justification) that as a defender of WP's social-libertarian "allow anything" ethos, you contribute in some way to the corruption of the world's youth, which he's less likely to forgive than, for example, I am — I believe that the world's youth are already hopelessly corrupted, so I'm less likely to make an issue of it.

Good Grief — you put some Wiki-Twit on your Ignore List, and you still have to read their Ignoramities when someybuddy else quotes 'em.

Well, what the hell, just from my sampling of that involuntary samplitude, it looks like it's time to create a sooper-dooper Wiki-Pulp-It Subforum where Wiki-Preachers can get on their Soapboxes and their High Hobby Horses, as the case may be, and lecture us Unwashed Revuers on The Fine Art of Dehumanizing Da Udder — so's maybe we can finally start measuring up to the Wikipedia Standud of Civility.

There's that Orange again …

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Actually it's more of a segue into my opinion that part of the social glue which holds WR together has to do with the anthropological concept of the social construction of the Other.

I thought that was a sociological construction of an existential concept?

German existentialism, to boot. That's supposed to be the really serious kind...

Perhaps originally. What I have in mind is the practical application of it in social sciences. To quote a few lines:

It has been used in social science to understand the processes by which societies and groups exclude 'Others' whom they want to subordinate or who do not fit into their society... Othering helps distinguish between home and away, the uncertain or certain. It often involves the demonization and dehumanization of groups, which further justifies attempts to civilize and exploit these 'inferior' others.

So sometimes I play along with the role in jest, and you accuse me of trolling.

Perhaps this is unfair, but you're not really here to provide critique, right? And defenses of Wikipedia can always be posted on Wikipedia itself. Besides, Mr. BeadGame believes (with some justification) that as a defender of WP's social-libertarian "allow anything" ethos, you contribute in some way to the corruption of the world's youth, which he's less likely to forgive than, for example, I am - I believe that the world's youth are already hopelessly corrupted, so I'm less likely to make an issue of it.

Perhaps you've been stalking the wrong posts, Somey. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) I'm one of Wikipedia's most vocal critics of the Arbitration Committee--at least the 2008 and 2009 editions of it. Remember that part of the reason I joined WR was because I thought Lara was getting scapegoated.

Of course I'm not as down on the place as you are. But part of the reason I'm not more popular around there is because I do call out problems in the place, in its mechanism, and particularly in some but not all of the people who run it. Remember the evidence I gave against Jossi? Remember how, once I saw good reason to believe that Mantanmoreland was devious I did a 180 on his issue?

A couple of months after I became an administrator I nearly joined WR. Had the form out, half filled, and then wondered whether enough of the people here would really hold a dialog that was worth the time.

[Random832]

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

I don't actually hate you. Never thought about you much until JB's thread. You made a terrible impression.

[A Horse With No Name]

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

She didn't acknowledge my smutty comment, either. Don't feel so bad, Random -- I like you. In fact, you get a big Horsey kiss! Mwah! Mwah! Mwah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

She didn't acknowledge my smutty comment, either. Don't feel so bad, Random -- I like you. In fact, you get a big Horsey kiss! Mwah! Mwah! Mwah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

Ooh, which smutty comment? Must've missed it.

[Random832]

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

I don't actually hate you. Never thought about you much until JB's thread. You made a terrible impression.

You didn't even READ my explanation last week. I'll post it here again. If you have forgotten what you said, you can refer to your own PM box, or I can forward you a copy, or you can give me permission to release the whole exchange.

----

(This in response to your suggestion that I should have emailed you, and that my supposedly waiting until you offered to unban someone was evidence of bad faith.)

I don't generally do personal email - it honestly hadn't occured to me. I'm just more comfortable on forums and such. To make one thing clear - I wasn't "waiting" for anything - my questions were pretty much off the cuff. As for the circumstances that led to me thinking about it and putting together some questions at that time as opposed to any other particular time... well it comes down to A) you were around B) the topic had already been brought up by someone else, and you seemed to be accepting questions [compare your response to TFA on the FBI stuff].

(and this in response to your claim that i was willing to "push aside" his chances at being unbanned to "take a dig at" you)

Nothing was being pushed aside - the forum has room for lots of different topics to be discussed at the same time, and if a tangential discussion grows too large the moderators can split it to a separate topic afterwards. Maybe that's something I take for granted that isn't quite as obvious to someone who doesn't spend as much time on this forum.

And anyway, as I see it, the only way it could possibly have impacted his chances would be if it (unforeseeably) caused you, personally, to become so offended as to break off all communication. And that's in your hands, not mine.

----

The above was written, in general, in response to you asking for an explanation. You responded by saying you didn't even bother to read it.

----

I tried to help you by putting together a coherent list of questions for you to answer to clear things up about something that had been brought up by several people who were not me (and none of whom you reacted nearly as badly as to me), and which clearly isn't going to just fade away without clearing things up, and you responded by attacking me.

To think I even apologized [not that you read it] for repeating Somey's characterization of you as egotistical.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Okay Random, we got off on the wrong foot. Publish my comments if you want to become enemies. If you do I'll be kinda sorry I didn't use any juicy expletives like I did with Shoemaker.

Bottom line from this perspective is that I've always really thought JB was sincere. First got to know Sir Fozzie during the JB thing, tried to reach out to JB. Apparently JB's been silent on WR for a really long time until he started the recent thread. Maybe you didn't realize it, but I'd actually like to bring both him and Eyrian back if they want to return to WP. Discovered after Eyrian's siteban that s/he had been doing good work in an area that needs more good editors (textile arts). Big misunderstanding there. Genuine olive branch.

Sometimes in life, it's all a matter of timing.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[gomi]

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

I don't actually hate you. Never thought about you much until JB's thread. You made a terrible impression.

You didn't even READ my explanation last week. I'll post it here again. .... I tried to help you by putting together a coherent list of questions for you to answer ... and you responded by attacking me.

I know you know this Random, but the modus operandi of Durova, Slim, and the worst of the Wikipidiots is exactly this: they select carefully what they respond to, what they acknowledge, and how the debate -- such as it is -- is framed. On-wiki, if you call them on this, it's a "personal attack" or some such.

Here, at least, we can say what they are: manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit.

Seriously, it is ironic that the better approach than rational argument is to put them on the defensive, if you can, and over-the-top invective sometimes works, but other approaches are probably better, being less transparent.

[Random832]

(I apologize for the formatting problems, I accidentally deleted the content while editing)

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 6:35pm) *

QUOTE(Random832 @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 6:31pm) *

QUOTE(Random832 @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 8:59pm) *


Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

I don't actually hate you. Never thought about you much until JB's thread. You made a terrible impression.


You didn't even READ my explanation last week. I'll post it here again. If you have forgotten what you said, you can refer to your own PM box, or I can forward you a copy, or you can give me permission to release the whole exchange.

----

(This in response to your suggestion that I should have emailed you, and that my supposedly waiting until you offered to unban someone was evidence of bad faith.)
QUOTE
I don't generally do personal email - it honestly hadn't occured to me. I'm just more comfortable on forums and such. To make one thing clear - I wasn't "waiting" for anything - my questions were pretty much off the cuff. As for the circumstances that led to me thinking about it and putting together some questions at that time as opposed to any other particular time... well it comes down to A) you were around B) the topic had already been brought up by someone else, and you seemed to be accepting questions [compare your response to TFA on the FBI stuff].


(and this in response to your claim that i was willing to "push aside" his chances at being unbanned to "take a dig at" you)
QUOTE
Nothing was being pushed aside - the forum has room for lots of different topics to be discussed at the same time, and if a tangential discussion grows too large the moderators can split it to a separate topic afterwards. Maybe that's something I take for granted that isn't quite as obvious to someone who doesn't spend as much time on this forum.

And anyway, as I see it, the only way it could possibly have impacted his chances would be if it (unforeseeably) caused you, personally, to become so offended as to break off all communication. And that's in your hands, not mine.


----

The above was written, in general, in response to you asking for an explanation. You responded by saying you didn't even bother to read it.

----

I tried to help you by putting together a coherent list of questions for you to answer to clear things up about something that had been brought up by several people who were not me (and none of whom you reacted nearly as badly as to me), and which clearly isn't going to just fade away without clearing things up, and you responded by attacking me.

To think I even apologized [not that you read it] for repeating Somey's characterization of you as egotistical.

Bottom line from this perspective is that I've always really thought JB was sincere.

JB's sincerity is not being questioned by anyone.

I still don't understand how you thought my posting what I did in that thread [much less posting a different thread about a different topic in a forum where dozens of different topics are discussed simultaneously every day] could have caused any problem for him.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Jon Awbrey]

Choose One:

• EITHER
  Post the other half of the blasted conversation —
• OR
  Get A Room !!!

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

I have not and will not without your permission, but I do have to ask which of your words you are so ashamed of as to consider allowing others to see what you wrote to be an attack on you.

Speaking as her proxy, I give you permission. Go ahead and publish -- and I want rights to the Spanish-language market. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Choose One:

• EITHER
• Post the other half of the blasted conversation —
• OR
• Get A Room !!!

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Sorry Jon, but check the comment underneath my avatar. I really don't want to see your fly or Random's. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

She didn't acknowledge my smutty comment, either. Don't feel so bad, Random -- I like you. In fact, you get a big Horsey kiss! Mwah! Mwah! Mwah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

She has given tacit agreement to my analysis of her position* though.






*Given your frame of mind, I hope such a double entendre of the weakest kind hasn't sent you into horsey reveries of her and Jimbo. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

I don't actually hate you. Never thought about you much until JB's thread. You made a terrible impression.

You didn't even READ my explanation last week. I'll post it here again. .... I tried to help you by putting together a coherent list of questions for you to answer ... and you responded by attacking me.

I know you know this Random, but the modus operandi of Durova, Slim, and the worst of the Wikipidiots is exactly this: they select carefully what they respond to, what they acknowledge, and how the debate -- such as it is -- is framed. On-wiki, if you call them on this, it's a "personal attack" or some such.

Here, at least, we can say what they are: manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit.

Seriously, it is ironic that the better approach than rational argument is to put them on the defensive, if you can, and over-the-top invective sometimes works, but other approaches are probably better, being less transparent.

Gomi, what's with this meme that links me to SlimVirgin at every available opportunity? She and I agree with each other about once every solar eclipse.

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

She didn't acknowledge my smutty comment, either. Don't feel so bad, Random -- I like you. In fact, you get a big Horsey kiss! Mwah! Mwah! Mwah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

She has given tacit agreement to my analysis of her position* though.

*Given your frame of mind, I hope such a double entendre of the weakest kind hasn't sent you into horsey reveries of her and Jimbo. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

Dogbuiscuit, that earns you a pat on the head and this visual.

[gomi]

Gomi, what's with this meme that links me to SlimVirgin at every available opportunity? She and I agree with each other about once every solar eclipse.

Simple. You argue the same way, using the same reprehensible techniques. That you disagree on the effluvium of Wikipedia content is, to me, utterly immaterial. You two are cut from the same cloth.

[CharlotteWebb]

Bottom line from this perspective is that I've always really thought JB was sincere. First got to know Sir Fozzie during the JB thing, tried to reach out to JB. Apparently JB's been silent on WR for a really long time until he started the recent thread. Maybe you didn't realize it, but I'd actually like to bring both him and Eyrian back if they want to return to WP. Discovered after Eyrian's siteban that s/he had been doing good work in an area that needs more good editors (textile arts). Big misunderstanding there. Genuine olive branch.

There's one person you forgot to mention, but whom I'm sure would appreciate a similar gesture of good faith. ☢

[Random832]

My bad habit of editing my posts to add additional points has caught up to me. I'm sorry if anything anyone responded to was lost. (does anyone know if prior versions of posts are recoverable?)

[A Horse With No Name]

*Given your frame of mind, I hope such a double entendre of the weakest kind hasn't sent you into horsey reveries of her and Jimbo. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

Horsey may be horny, but Horsey ain't a slut. Horsey is very particularly about where Horsey plants his pole - Horsey is looking for the gates of heaven, not any open door. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(Why is Horsey using the third person to describe himself? Horsey's "I" key is still working on Horsey's keyboard. Hmmm. Horsey is confused. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) )

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Gomi, what's with this meme that links me to SlimVirgin at every available opportunity? She and I agree with each other about once every solar eclipse.

Simple. You argue the same way, using the same reprehensible techniques. That you disagree on the effluvium of Wikipedia content is, to me, utterly immaterial. You two are cut from the same cloth.

Weird. Gonna fix a rare steak tonight and chew on that. What do you actually see as similar?

"Reprehensible techniques"? Please explain. Seriously.

She and I happened to be right about Poetlister more than a year apart (hi there dude, I know you're back but ain't gettin' mah panties in a wad about it this time). And after locking horns with SV in a serious way over the disruptive editing guideline (which I still think she gutted and ignored evidence, then walked away from the aftermath) I stood up for her at Slashdot when the absurd meme about her being an MI5 agent surfaced. More a matter of being a decent human being than anything else then, because there was a clothespin on my nose while I did that. Was really wishing she had taken COFS to arbitration as followup to the guideline change she had insisted upon.

(In case you're not up on the background, COFS was the third of four WP Scientology arbitrations. I believe it could have been avoided if the guideline hadn't been changed per her insistence, and my ED biography got started and expanded in a major way hours after two of my evidence posts to that case. Can't prove whether that's cause and effect or coincidence, but to this day rather resentful about the matter).

So what, stylistically, is similar? SV and I happen to wear a matching set of X chromosomes. What else? If there's a genuine misunderstanding here, let's clear it up.

Bottom line from this perspective is that I've always really thought JB was sincere. First got to know Sir Fozzie during the JB thing, tried to reach out to JB. Apparently JB's been silent on WR for a really long time until he started the recent thread. Maybe you didn't realize it, but I'd actually like to bring both him and Eyrian back if they want to return to WP. Discovered after Eyrian's siteban that s/he had been doing good work in an area that needs more good editors (textile arts). Big misunderstanding there. Genuine olive branch.

There's one person you forgot to mention, but whom I'm sure would appreciate a similar gesture of good faith. ☢

Burntsauce? Would check with Alison about that. Standard Offer also applies.

Here's some advice how to become a better Machavellian: accept the offer first, get the dude unblocked, wait an interval, and then lay into me.

You want to get laid? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I'm a female with blue eyes and long honey blonde hair who's size four, and looks 28 at age 41. Do you really imagine I need your assistance getting laid? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm a female with blue eyes and long honey blonde hair who's size four, and looks 28 at age 41. Do you really imagine I need your assistance getting laid? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Looks 28? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

You've spent quite a few posts calling me monstrous, either directly or indirectly. Why not just put me on ignore?

Because examining you through the lens of your monster-ness is productive to understanding Wikipedians. Monster = Distortion + Display. Defines you, and many Wikipedian's, nicely. Certainly makes you like Shankbone, Gerard, JzG, Wales.

But it does not make you like SlimVirgin, who has a element of concealment in her character, which you lack. She is much more complex than you.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

I'm a female with blue eyes and long honey blonde hair who's size four, and looks 28 at age 41. Do you really imagine I need your assistance getting laid? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Looks 28? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Taken last year on my fortieth birthday. Shrug, runs in the family. Most of us get carded well into our thirties.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm a female with blue eyes and long honey blonde hair who's size four, and looks 28 at age 41. Do you really imagine I need your assistance getting laid? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Looks 28? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Taken last year on my fortieth birthday. Shrug, runs in the family. Most of us get carded well into our thirties.

That's interesting. I don't make comments about negative aspects of people's appearance, but your image of yourself is profoundly distorted.

Put that on the white board, too.

[A Horse With No Name]

Taken last year on my fortieth birthday. Shrug, runs in the family. Most of us get carded well into our thirties.

Carded for what, delusional behavior? That doesn't look 28 to me.. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This is Horsey's idea of 28! Grrrrrrrrrrr! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Wiki Witch of the West]

You've spent quite a few posts calling me monstrous, either directly or indirectly. Why not just put me on ignore?

Because examining you through the lens of your monster-ness is productive to understanding Wikipedians. Monster = Distortion + Display. Defines you, and many Wikipedian's, nicely. Certainly makes you like Shankbone, Gerard, JzG, Wales.

But it does not make you like SlimVirgin, who has a element of concealment in her character, which you lack. She is much more complex than you.

David Shankbone: I don't agree with everything he does, but I do happen to believe he became the target of an honest-to-goodness stalker. That trumps everything else in my book. Expressing this with due respect especially toward Firey Angel, with whom I sympathize and wish there were a good solution for. Really wishing I knew a solution for the latter dilemma.

David Gerard: someone who's usually impressed me as better in the concrete than in the abstract. David and I have polite differences of opinion about the long term effectiveness of "liberating" media content from museums. It surprised me that he still came quite close to defending Mantanmoreland very late in the game after the abusive socking was obvious to nearly everyone. Nonetheless, the guy's heart seems to be in the right place. He was the only one on the arbitration list who took my evidence about Jossi seriously (or even appeared to read it) before--in the third relevant arbitration case--I finally walked the tightrope of publishing a major part of the evidence onsite. Major security concerns there regarding the editor(s) Jossi had been targeting. If the current and active arbs had paid attention to David the Jossi issue might have resolved months sooner.

Jimbo? A much nicer person than I am. I mean that sincerely and take it any way you like.

Taken last year on my fortieth birthday. Shrug, runs in the family. Most of us get carded well into our thirties.

Carded for what, delusional behavior? That doesn't look 28 to me.. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This is Horsey's idea of 28! Grrrrrrrrrrr! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Sweet, dude. And you pretended to be a pastor?

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[dogbiscuit]

Taken last year on my fortieth birthday. Shrug, runs in the family. Most of us get carded well into our thirties.

Carded for what, delusional behavior? That doesn't look 28 to me.. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This is Horsey's idea of 28! Grrrrrrrrrrr! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

...and time for frivolity and delusion, but not to answer any serious criticism... Slim doesn't do frivolity, but otherwise the same diversionary techniques. Myself, I'll stick with lusting after Rachel Stevens. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

David Shankbone: I don't agree with everything he does, but I do happen to believe he became the target of an honest-to-goodness stalker. That trumps everything else in my book. Expressing this with due respect especially toward Firey Angel, with whom I sympathize and wish there were a good solution for. Really wishing I knew a solution for the latter dilemma.

David Gerard: someone who's usually impressed me as better in the concrete than in the abstract. David and I have polite differences of opinion about the long term effectiveness of "liberating" media content from museums. It surprised me that he still came quite close to defending Mantanmoreland very late in the game after the abusive socking was obvious to nearly everyone. Nonetheless, the guy's heart seems to be in the right place. He was the only one on the arbitration list who took my evidence about Jossi seriously (or even appeared to read it) before--in the third relevant arbitration case--I finally walked the tightrope of publishing a major part of the evidence onsite. Major security concerns there regarding the editor(s) Jossi had been targeting. If the current and active arbs had paid attention to David the Jossi issue might have resolved that issue months sooner.

Jimbo? A much nicer person than I am. I mean that sincerely and take it any way you like.

It's like reading a Basque World Map.

[A Horse With No Name]

Sweet, dude. And you pretended to be a pastor?

Quite successfully, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

But if I could be a clergyman, I want to be like this reverend:

[Somey]

Of course I'm not as down on the place as you are. But part of the reason I'm not more popular around there is because I do call out problems in the place, in its mechanism, and particularly in some but not all of the people who run it. Remember the evidence I gave against Jossi? Remember how, once I saw good reason to believe that Mantanmoreland was devious I did a 180 on his issue?

Well... those things might be thought of as "piling on," but what I really meant was that you haven't gone out of your way here to point out systemic (or endemic) flaws in the WP models of governance or even content development, the latter of which I would consider you something of an expert on. So the assumption tends to be that you don't see anything wrong with those things, and that the current troubles (if they can be called that) are simply due to "having the wrong people on board." The further implication being that the "right people" are just waiting in the wings to take over, right?

I guess it might be nicer if some of us would cut down on the nastier comments about you, but alas, most of them have had WP accounts at some point in the past.

[One]

Lotta high-scoring snark going on here. Not interested in that, but could someone point me in the direction of this supposedly important "JB" thing?

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Taken last year on my fortieth birthday. Shrug, runs in the family. Most of us get carded well into our thirties.

Carded for what, delusional behavior? That doesn't look 28 to me.. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This is Horsey's idea of 28! Grrrrrrrrrrr! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

...and time for frivolity and delusion, but not to answer any serious criticism... Slim doesn't do frivolity, but otherwise the same diversionary techniques. Myself, I'll stick with lusting after Rachel Stevens. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Doing photography on a serious level develops a serious respect for models. Modeling is a talent and an underrated one. People who see my albums usually ask "Where are you?" and get the answer "The one behind the camera." I've got some talent for still photography, much less for videography, and negligible for being in front of a camera. Usually I make myself scarce when someone else wields a camera. But that doesn't negate the plain fact about a quirk of genetics. Shortly before my father went to work for NASA he had a university faculty position and took some of his students out for drinks after class. They all thought it was a hoot that he was the only one the bartender carded.

Sweet, dude. And you pretended to be a pastor?

Quite successfully, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

But if I could be a clergyman, I want to be like this reverend:

rofl, I loved that sketch. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Lotta high-scoring snark going on here. Not interested in that, but could someone point me in the direction of this supposedly important "JB" thing?

JB196 = Looch.

Of course I'm not as down on the place as you are. But part of the reason I'm not more popular around there is because I do call out problems in the place, in its mechanism, and particularly in some but not all of the people who run it. Remember the evidence I gave against Jossi? Remember how, once I saw good reason to believe that Mantanmoreland was devious I did a 180 on his issue?

Well... those things might be thought of as "piling on," but what I really meant was that you haven't gone out of your way here to point out systemic (or endemic) flaws in the WP models of governance or even content development, the latter of which I would consider you something of an expert on. So the assumption tends to be that you don't see anything wrong with those things, and that the current troubles (if they can be called that) are simply due to "having the wrong people on board." The further implication being that the "right people" are just waiting in the wings to take over, right?

I guess it might be nicer if some of us would cut down on the nastier comments about you, but alas, most of them have had WP accounts at some point in the past.

Consider what's come this direction: if I answer every snark I'm egotistical, if I don't I'm blowing people off. Kinda throws the focus off from the reviewing that normally takes place here (and yes in principle am down with that).

First there was the ritual hazing thread, now the get to know you thread. Some of the WR regulars will decide I'm worth talking to, and others will still behave as if I'm the thing they used to have nightmares about when they were six years old.

"Mom! There's a Durova under my bed!"

This is shakedown time. No worries. The people who want to get to know the human being, will. Then we can get back to WR'ing.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[A Horse With No Name]

Usually I make myself scarce when someone else wields a camera.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Shortly before my father went to work for NASA he had a university faculty position and took some of his students out for drinks after class. They all thought it was a hoot that he was the only one the bartender carded.

A professor who gets his students drunk? Where did your dad teach, Faber College? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Somey]

David Gerard: someone who's usually impressed me as better in the concrete than in the abstract... (snip) He was the only one on the arbitration list who took my evidence about Jossi seriously (or even appeared to read it) before--in the third relevant arbitration case--I finally walked the tightrope of publishing a major part of the evidence onsite. Major security concerns there regarding the editor(s) Jossi had been targeting. If the current and active arbs had paid attention to David the Jossi issue might have resolved months sooner.

That's not inconsistent with Dave's original purpose in becoming a WP high mucky-muck, though, which was to "keep the Scientologists from taking over." As such he could be expected to oppose most forms of abusive religious-cult activity on WP - something I also respect him for, up to a point. That point being the one at which he begins to accuse innocents of being involved so that he can railroad them into bans and other kinds of nastiness...

The reason he supported Mantanmoreland/Weiss, in case you hadn't yet made the connection, is because Gary Weiss was opposing Patrick Byrne and Judd Bagley, who are both Mormons. The LDS church has grown to the point where it can hardly be called a "cult" anymore, but there are still many cult-like aspects to its belief system, and they do have quite an active presence on WP, which I suspect Dave finds rather objectionable. However, he probably feels compelled to hold his tongue because of Michael Snow and other prominent Mormons in the WP hierarchy.

[A Horse With No Name]

Some of the WR regulars will decide I'm worth talking to, and others will still behave as if I'm the thing they used to have nightmares about when they were six years old.

"Mom! There's a Durova under my bed!"

To which Mom says: "Junior, do something productive -- go on Wikipedia and categorize some of those photographs that nice Mr. Shankbone uploaded to the site." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Somey]

Consider what's come this direction: if I answer every snark I'm egotistical, if I don't I'm blowing people off.

Well... as someone who has most definitely accused you of being egotistical in the past, I still believe that's somewhat justifiable regardless of whether or not you answer snarky comments, or defend yourself in general. It's due more to your history of imposing yourself into leadership roles and overstating the importance of your contributions (including negative contributions) to various initiatives, as you did in the Alkivar ArbCom case, IMO.

To some extent, I'd say your best approach would be to actually embrace your own egotism, admit that it exists, and essentially just go with it. The ability to laugh at oneself takes the edge off of characteristics that others generally consider unpleasant - in my case, for example, I admit that I behave like a know-it-all, and since I can't actually control it, I manage to get along with people by making fun of myself. (I am, in fact, a complete idiot.)

As for the "blowing people off" part, often that's two sides of the same coin. Egotism implies the existence of an ego facade, which I suspect is quite strong in your case. People don't defend their own egotism in itself, but they must defend the facade, or risk loss of self-esteem. The stronger the facade is, the more likely you are to ignore attempts to break it down; in that respect I actually envy you. Unfortunately, the more you expose your ego in public, the more people will try to destroy the facade - "the harder they come, the harder they fall," as they say. In some respects this is tantamount to my suggesting that you reduce your public visibility, but to be fair, I generally suggest that to almost everyone.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Usually I make myself scarce when someone else wields a camera.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Shortly before my father went to work for NASA he had a university faculty position and took some of his students out for drinks after class. They all thought it was a hoot that he was the only one the bartender carded.

A professor who gets his students drunk? Where did your dad teach, Faber College? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Haven't checked it, but the drinking age was eighteen or nineteen back then. At any rate the dude's two dreams in life were to become a pitcher for the Brooklyn Dodgers or to send rockets into outer space. One of those dreams came true. How many of the rest of us can say as much? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Milton Roe]

David Gerard: someone who's usually impressed me as better in the concrete than in the abstract... (snip) He was the only one on the arbitration list who took my evidence about Jossi seriously (or even appeared to read it) before--in the third relevant arbitration case--I finally walked the tightrope of publishing a major part of the evidence onsite. Major security concerns there regarding the editor(s) Jossi had been targeting. If the current and active arbs had paid attention to David the Jossi issue might have resolved months sooner.

That's not inconsistent with Dave's original purpose in becoming a WP high mucky-muck, though, which was to "keep the Scientologists from taking over." As such he could be expected to oppose most forms of abusive religious-cult activity on WP - something I also respect him for, up to a point. That point being the one at which he begins to accuse innocents of being involved so that he can railroad them into bans and other kinds of nastiness...

The reason he supported Mantanmoreland/Weiss, in case you hadn't yet made the connection, is because Gary Weiss was opposing Patrick Byrne and Judd Bagley, who are both Mormons. The LDS church has grown to the point where it can hardly be called a "cult" anymore, but there are still many cult-like aspects to its belief system, and they do have quite an active presence on WP, which I suspect Dave finds rather objectionable. However, he probably feels compelled to hold his tongue because of Michael Snow and other prominent Mormons in the WP hierarchy.

Minor correction: Bagley is openly Mormon but says Byrne is not (I have no idea what Byrne's relious or philosophical views are). I think Gerard assumed they BOTH were Mormon, simply because Overstock is based in Utah and is probably staffed by lots of Mormons (hey, that's their hiring pool; they make up about half of Salt Lake City and even more in other parts of the state).

I'm sure this gives Gerard the creeps. Which is very funny, considering Gerard. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) But some of the most intolerant people I know think of themselves as "liberals."

[Wiki Witch of the West]

David Gerard: someone who's usually impressed me as better in the concrete than in the abstract... (snip) He was the only one on the arbitration list who took my evidence about Jossi seriously (or even appeared to read it) before--in the third relevant arbitration case--I finally walked the tightrope of publishing a major part of the evidence onsite. Major security concerns there regarding the editor(s) Jossi had been targeting. If the current and active arbs had paid attention to David the Jossi issue might have resolved months sooner.

That's not inconsistent with Dave's original purpose in becoming a WP high mucky-muck, though, which was to "keep the Scientologists from taking over." As such he could be expected to oppose most forms of abusive religious-cult activity on WP - something I also respect him for, up to a point. That point being the one at which he begins to accuse innocents of being involved so that he can railroad them into bans and other kinds of nastiness...

The reason he supported Mantanmoreland/Weiss, in case you hadn't yet made the connection, is because Gary Weiss was opposing Patrick Byrne and Judd Bagley, who are both Mormons. The LDS church has grown to the point where it can hardly be called a "cult" anymore, but there are still many cult-like aspects to its belief system, and they do have quite an active presence on WP, which I suspect Dave finds rather objectionable. However, he probably feels compelled to hold his tongue because of Michael Snow and other prominent Mormons in the WP hierarchy.

This is the first I'd ever heard about Bagley's or Weiss's religion. Although in retrospect being from Utah is something of a pointer. Really could hardly care less. What I've stated from the moment the MM socking became obvious is that if WR had only imposed better quality control (work from the public edit history, and why on earth didn't you publicize Fred Bauder's checkuser result?) then the whole matter could've been cleared up much sooner. Word is MM's socking again, although I haven't pursued it.

----
Heavens this thread has heated up. Y'all so interested in lil' ol' me? Will take maybe two more hours to follow up, then heading off to other stuff. Just so it's said in advance.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Somey]

Minor correction: Bagley is openly Mormon but says Byrne is not (I have no idea what Byrne's relious or philosophical views are).

Hmm... I actually didn't know that, but it's probably an easy mistake to make - someone who operates a large company in that part of the US probably wouldn't exactly go out of his way to deny being a Mormon, if people were to assume that he was.

Anyway, apologies to Mr. Byrne for any misunderstanding - but if I could assume that, I could easily see how Dave Gerard, who doesn't really look into much of anything very deeply, could make the same assumption.

[Milton Roe]

Looks 28? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
Taken last year on my fortieth birthday. Shrug, runs in the family. Most of us get carded well into our thirties.

Maybe early 30's. Obviously you don't smoke.

Shading out your forehead and glabellar lines with a baseball cap is cheating, though.

Just so that's clear. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Minor correction: Bagley is openly Mormon but says Byrne is not (I have no idea what Byrne's relious or philosophical views are).

Hmm... I actually didn't know that, but it's probably an easy mistake to make - someone who operates a large company in that part of the US probably wouldn't exactly go out of his way to deny being a Mormon, if people were to assume that he was.

Anyway, apologies to Mr. Byrne for any misunderstanding - but if I could assume that, I could easily see how Dave Gerard, who doesn't really look into much of anything very deeply, could make the same assumption.

Not that I've ever asked David about the matter, but had pretty much written it off on similar terms to a portion of the criticism of myself that's sprouted from this site. Many years ago I read a quote from a LaRouche follower in answer to the question why he had stayed with that. And he answered that once he'd invested enough of himself in that cause it was very hard to pull back from it.

[One]

I believe Patrick Byrne has a New England Irish Roman Catholic background. I believe that it was reported during his support of a school choice bill in Utah (which was thought by opponents to favor parochial schools).

Not everyone who lives in or uploads photos of Utah is a churchgoing Mormon.

This post has been edited by One:

[A Horse With No Name]

Word is MM's socking again, although I haven't pursued it.

An Arbcom member told me that weeks ago - it's obviously no secret if someone tells me, of all horses! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Looks 28? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
Taken last year on my fortieth birthday. Shrug, runs in the family. Most of us get carded well into our thirties.

Maybe early 30's. Obviously you don't smoke.

Shading out your forehead and glabellar lines with a baseball cap is cheating, though.

Just so that's clear. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Correct: nonsmoker. Didn't wear the cap for effect. More that SoCal gets really bright sunlight in September.

Anticipating the next post: no Botox or plastic surgery. There actually are a handful of Californians who don't do that stuff.

Mainly it's a thing about having slightly rounded features, which looks youthful, and not getting early gray hair. Now you wanna review my contributions or my face? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Maybe early 30's. Obviously you don't smoke.

Amen, bro! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

This is the first I'd ever heard about Bagley's or Weiss's religion. Although in retrospect being from Utah is something of a pointer. Really could hardly care less.

Your views on that subject aren't really what I was concerned with - I was simply pointing out the underlying reason for Dave's support of Mantanmoreland, i.e., his immediate assumption that SlimVirgin must have been acting in "good faith" with respect to Weiss's WP activities, and that Wordbomb was some sort of "stalker."

What I've stated from the moment the MM socking became obvious is that if WR had only imposed better quality control (work from the public edit history, and why on earth didn't you publicize Fred Bauder's checkuser result?) then the whole matter could've been cleared up much sooner.

As far as we were concerned, there was nothing to "clear up." In the Fall of 2006, SlimVirgin was in almost complete control of the situation, whereas it was absolutely obvious to us that MM=Weiss from the get-go. (To some extent I myself tried to seem unbiased by inserting words like "maybe" and "probably" into the related discussions, but that was only to facilitate debate, I swear!) Also remember that in my own case (and that of many others here), the original issue was the insertion of Nazi references into the Martin Luther biography, not "naked short selling."

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Word is MM's socking again, although I haven't pursued it.

An Arbcom member told me that weeks ago - it's obviously no secret if someone tells me, of all horses! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Yeah, but who's doing anything about it? Not me, it's a time sink and a thankless task.

[One]

Yeah, but who's doing anything about it? Not me, it's a time sink and a thankless task.

Not to mention pointless. He'll be back.

And who really wants to earn his litigious ire anyway? Not this young professional.

[A Horse With No Name]

Word is MM's socking again, although I haven't pursued it.

An Arbcom member told me that weeks ago - it's obviously no secret if someone tells me, of all horses! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Yeah, but who's doing anything about it? Not me, it's a time sink and a thankless task.

Who f**king cares? It's only a silly game, after all, and not a serious academic endeavor. Really, you are talking about an environment where minors edit sexually explicit material and no one in charge thinks there is a problem? MM contributing under another name is the very, very least of Wikipedia's concerns! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Really, the only serious person on Wikipedia is RHMED with his "pantomime" comments on the Arbcom election board - he called it like it is, a big ol' panto production. All that's missing is Newyorkbrad dressed as Puss in Boots! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[Somey]

Yeah, but who's doing anything about it? Not me, it's a time sink and a thankless task.

Again, that's because when it comes to Weiss, WP has a history of ignoring the obvious.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

This is the first I'd ever heard about Bagley's or Weiss's religion. Although in retrospect being from Utah is something of a pointer. Really could hardly care less.

Your views on that subject aren't really what I was concerned with - I was simply pointing out the underlying reason for Dave's support of Mantanmoreland, i.e., his immediate assumption that SlimVirgin must have been acting in "good faith" with respect to Weiss's WP activities, and that Wordbomb was some sort of "stalker."

Considering how very far off the mark your own surmises about my motives have sometimes been, will take that with a grain of salt. Not impossible, but no overt reason to resort to that explanation. I encountered that situation late in the game, but simple distaste for Bagley's approach and the uncritical reception it had received here at WR is the reason I didn't seriously look into the MM socking matter in September '07. Bagley may have been right in the end, but both Bagley and Shoemaker have a (widely differing) talent for being right in the wrong ways. Maybe our choices depend on which person we got to know first. No need to invoke religious theorizing to explain that.

What I've stated from the moment the MM socking became obvious is that if WR had only imposed better quality control (work from the public edit history, and why on earth didn't you publicize Fred Bauder's checkuser result?) then the whole matter could've been cleared up much sooner.

As far as we were concerned, there was nothing to "clear up." In the Fall of 2006, SlimVirgin was in almost complete control of the situation, whereas it was absolutely obvious to us that MM=Weiss from the get-go. (To some extent I myself tried to seem unbiased by inserting words like "maybe" and "probably" into the related discussions, but that was only to facilitate debate, I swear!) Also remember that in my own case (and that of many others here), the original issue was the insertion of Nazi references into the Martin Luther biography, not "naked short selling."

Just for the record, you were way ahead of me on that matter. When a matter already has a lot of eyes on it I tend to leave it alone unless there's something different to bring to the table. So I hardly paid any attention to MM until he and his sock joined the list that SV started after the Slashdot nonsense.

----
Bah, formatting scrambled...you get the idea.

Yeah, but who's doing anything about it? Not me, it's a time sink and a thankless task.

Not to mention pointless. He'll be back.

And who really wants to earn his litigious ire anyway? Not this young professional.

Well, from the little I've paid attention and the word of a few people I trust and respect, it appears he already has been for a while. There was an AE thread a long globbin' time ago where the antenna went up. The trouble is making it conclusive enough to act upon.

[SarekOfVulcan]

Sorry, the princess is in another castle. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

http://seananmcguire.com/songbook.php?id=146
But after he's gone through all the trouble and hassle,
He finds out his princess is in another castle.
Mario's never gonna, never gonna, never gonna
Never never gonna get laid.

Just to be clear, I would say Durova is more like a large piece of drama-iron who is irresistibly attracted to drama-magnets, and is such a heavy presence once she arrives on the scene that it's difficult to distinguish between her and the drama-magnet - and indeed, there may be no practical difference at that point.

*finally understands some of his own editing patterns*

This post has been edited by SarekOfVulcan:

[Somey]

...no overt reason to resort to that explanation. I encountered that situation late in the game, but simple distaste for Bagley's approach and the uncritical reception it had received here at WR is the reason I didn't seriously look into the MM socking matter in September '07.

It wasn't completely uncritical, actually - in fact, I later learned that Mr. Bagley even thought I myself was Gary Weiss for a few days. The real difference, again, was that we didn't have SlimVirgin here to threaten our wiki-careers if we didn't accept MM's story at face value, along with her assertion that Wordbomb was a "stalker."

Also, remember that nobody actually knew who Wordbomb was at that point. Some of us thought he might actually be Patrick Byrne himself, IIRC...

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Word is MM's socking again, although I haven't pursued it.

An Arbcom member told me that weeks ago - it's obviously no secret if someone tells me, of all horses! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Yeah, but who's doing anything about it? Not me, it's a time sink and a thankless task.

Who f**king cares? It's only a silly game, after all, and not a serious academic endeavor. Really, you are talking about an environment where minors edit sexually explicit material and no one in charge thinks there is a problem? MM contributing under another name is the very, very least of Wikipedia's concerns! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Really, the only serious person on Wikipedia is RHMED with his "pantomime" comments on the Arbcom election board - he called it like it is, a big ol' panto production. All that's missing is Newyorkbrad dressed as Puss in Boots! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Naked Short Selling was viewed 12,248 times in October 2009, if you leave out the three days when the Grok site wasn't collecting stats.

The reason people care is because Wikipedia is the 800 pound gorilla that sits on top of the Google returns. It's the world's most frequently accessed reference source. And yes, its open edit structure is both its greatest weakness and also how it got there.

[A Horse With No Name]

It wasn't completely uncritical, actually - in fact, I later learned that Mr. Bagley even thought I myself was Gary Weiss for a few days. The real difference, again, was that we didn't have SlimVirgin here to threaten our wiki-careers if we didn't accept MM's story at face value, along with her assertion that Wordbomb was a "stalker."

Also, remember that nobody actually knew who Wordbomb was at that point. Some of us thought he might actually be Patrick Byrne himself, IIRC...

Damn, I have to read up on all of this - I know very little about this entire case. But if it is what I think it is, this will be super material for the WP book! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[One]

Well, from the little I've paid attention and the word of a few people I trust and respect, it appears he already has been for a while.

Way ahead of you, and also beyond hoping to do anything meaningful about it. It took an act of Congress to get him banned. It took 15 seconds for him to get a new account. This asymmetry is why the sock masters will always win--unless and until Wikipedia gets some meaningful account management system (and I'm not holding my breath).

At this point, I am convinced that it was all a waste of time, and I'm not eager to waste more in an identical fashion. Similar fashion, maybe, but not identical.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

...no overt reason to resort to that explanation. I encountered that situation late in the game, but simple distaste for Bagley's approach and the uncritical reception it had received here at WR is the reason I didn't seriously look into the MM socking matter in September '07.

It wasn't completely uncritical, actually - in fact, I later learned that Mr. Bagley even thought I myself was Gary Weiss for a few days. The real difference, again, was that we didn't have SlimVirgin here to threaten our wiki-careers if we didn't accept MM's story at face value, along with her assertion that Wordbomb was a "stalker."

Also, remember that nobody actually knew who Wordbomb was at that point. Some of us thought he might actually be Patrick Byrne himself, IIRC...

SV impresses me as someone who likes to go on crusades on behalf of good causes. She isn't always careful enough which cause she decides is good, and once she's made up her mind it's nearly impossible to sway her opinion. That can be wonderful when one happens to agree with her, terrible otherwise. The grating thing is that she tends to tiptoe away from the aftermath if the crusade wasn't well chosen.

Apologies if I didn't follow all the ins and outs of the MM/WordBomb dispute as it played on WR. The impression had been that his reception here had been almost wholly uncritical.

[Milton Roe]

This is the first I'd ever heard about Bagley's or Weiss's religion. Although in retrospect being from Utah is something of a pointer. Really could hardly care less. What I've stated from the moment the MM socking became obvious is that if WR had only imposed better quality control (work from the public edit history, and why on earth didn't you publicize Fred Bauder's checkuser result?) then the whole matter could've been cleared up much sooner.

But the point wasn't MM's socking. The point was Weiss's COI in editing both his own BLP AND (as MM) editing topics near and dear to the real life Weiss' heart, with substantial POV problems.

Bagley as user:Wordbomb showed up as a newbie on WP to complain about the above, which is an item that should (then) have been taken straight to ArbCom, or at least RfC, to straighten out (as it eventually was-- becoming a huge ArbCom case, only PART of which was MM socking, and the REST being Weiss COI editing).

And meantime how WP works should have been explained to Bagley. Since Bagley was a newbie, somebody should have taken him under their wing to inform him that is was a very tricky situation, as two basic WP policies were being put into head on-collision with this case.

On one hand: a RL person using a username to edit his own RL BLP, AND also to push a known RL POV which had a major impact on another real company and another real person (since all this spilled over into a RL political and business conflict). The other hand was that how do you stop this without violating WP's prohibition on WP from outing RL identities of nameusers. "But what about if the nameuser is using his anon position to pump up his own RL credentials, bio, and cause?" That's a question that ArbCom had to ask in public, eventually revealing Weiss, in order to do it.

However, meanwhile, SlimVirgin had acted precipitously to protect Weiss, indef-blocking Bagley less than 24 hours after his first edit (long before any sock), and just as he was promising to wait to see what ArbCom and the wonks would do. So not only did she BITE a newbie, but failed to appreciate the larger aspects of his accusations, and the case. Nor did she attempt to put the case before ArbCom itself, after stifling Bagley (which included blocking his TALK page, also).

This gagging of Bagley without any attempt at due process about his beef, had the effect of making Bagley go crazy with the injustice of it. Not only did he THEN sock on WP many times in an attempt to get his case heard (this was ultimately successful, but it also got Bagley community banned), but he also blogged about it on his website and started the investigation which ultimately outed SlimVirgin's RL name and history. All that was entirely avoidable, and it all results from SlimVirgin banhammering a newbie rather reflexively, to protect another user she'd edited other articles with previously. She didn't even bother to find out if Wordbomb had a legitimate beef.

All this got sorted out finally, but not before Gerard, with the blessing of Jimbo, rangeblocked a suburb in Salt Lake City which turned out to be the entire IP range of Broadweave, a small Utah ISP. Ridiculous. Here is Gerard and Jimbo both acting pretty much like SlimVirgin: hammer the problem without looking into it.

ArbCom finally had to clean up. They set the filters which finally caught MM socking and booted him off. They should have desysopped both SlimVirgin and Gerard for being too quick on the block button, also. But rampant authoritarianism in defense of the status quo is pretty common in societies, and it certainly was on WP. Bagley's attempts to get the word out about Weiss reminded me a more than one point of an innocent man's attempt to escape from prison. That's illegal, you know. Even if they shoot you while doing it, and it's later found out you were innocent, nobody has to apologize, because you have no right to escape even unjust imprisonment.

But make a long story short, this whole mess is almost entirely SlimVirgin's fault, and she ended up being the one who paid most dearly for it. So it worked out. But it sure wasted the time of a lot good people who had better things to do than get all involved in Wikipedia's own version of the Dreyfus case. J'accuse (letter)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Well, from the little I've paid attention and the word of a few people I trust and respect, it appears he already has been for a while.

Way ahead of you, and also beyond hoping to do anything meaningful about it. It took an act of Congress to get him banned. It took 15 seconds for him to get a new account. This asymmetry is why the sock masters will always win--unless and until Wikipedia gets some meaningful account management system (and I'm not holding my breath).

At this point, I am convinced that it was all a waste of time, and I'm not eager to waste more in an identical fashion. Similar fashion, maybe, but not identical.

To be candid about it, One, the thing I've always hoped for was that the mainstream media would blow the whistle from time to time and keep that kind of situation from getting out of hand. Yes, in 2007 Byrne tried to beat that drum and didn't get very far. But a lot has happened in the financial world since then. Minus the conspiracy theories, would the straight-on story interest the press? Do they have enough Clue to care?

This is the first I'd ever heard about Bagley's or Weiss's religion. Although in retrospect being from Utah is something of a pointer. Really could hardly care less. What I've stated from the moment the MM socking became obvious is that if WR had only imposed better quality control (work from the public edit history, and why on earth didn't you publicize Fred Bauder's checkuser result?) then the whole matter could've been cleared up much sooner.

But the point wasn't MM's socking. The point was Weiss's COI in editing both his own BLP AND (as MM) editing topics near and dear to the real life Weiss' heart, with substantial POV problems.

Bagley as user:Wordbomb showed up as a newbie on WP to complain about the above, which is an item that should (then) have been taken straight to ArbCom, or at least RfC, to straighten out (as it eventually was-- becoming a huge ArbCom case, only PART of which was MM socking, and the REST being Weiss COI editing).

And meantime how WP works should have been explained to Bagley. Since Bagley was a newbie, somebody should have taken him under their wing to inform him that is was a very tricky situation, as two basic WP policies were being put into head on-collision with this case.

On one hand: a RL person using a username to edit his own RL BLP, AND also to push a known RL BLP which had a major impact on another real company and another real person (since all this spilled over into a RL political and business conflict). The other hand was that how do you stop this without violating WP's prohibition on WP from outing RL identities of nameusers. "But what about if the nameuser is using his anon position to pump up his own RL credentials, bio, and cause?" That's a question that ArbCom had to ask in public, eventually revealing Weiss, in order to do it.

However, meanwhile, SlimVirgin had acted precipitously to protect Weiss, indef-blocking Bagley less than 24 hours after his first edit (long before any sock), and just as he was promising to wait to see what ArbCom and the wonks would do. So not only did she BITE a newbie, but failed to appreciate the larger aspects of his accusations, and the case. Nor did she attempt to put the case before ArbCom itself, after stifling Bagley (which included blocking his TALK page, also).

This gagging of Bagley without any attempt at due process about his beef, had the effect of making Bagley go crazy with the injustice of it. Not only did he THEN sock on WP many times in an attempt to get his case heard (this was ultimately successful, but it also got Bagley community banned), but he also blogged about it on his website and started the investigation which ultimately outed SlimVirgin's RL name and history. All that was entirely avoidable, and it all results from SlimVirgin banhammering a newbie rather reflexively, to protect another user she'd edited other articles with previously. She didn't even bother to find out if Wordbomb had a legitimate beef.

All this got sorted out finally, but not before Gerard, with the blessing of Jimbo, rangeblocked a suburb in Salt Lake City which turned out to be the entire IP range of Broadweave, a small Utah ISP. Ridiculous. Here is Gerard and Jimbo both acting pretty much like SlimVirgin: hammer the problem without looking into it.

ArbCom finally had to clean up. They set the filters which finally caught MM socking and booted him off. They should have desysoped both SlimVirgin and Gerard for being too quick on the block button, also. But rampant authoritarianism in defense of the status quo is pretty common in societies, and it certainly was on WP. Bagley's attempts to get the word out about Weiss reminded me a more than one point of an innocent man's attempt to escape from prison. That's illegal, you know. Even if they shoot you while doing it, and it's later found out you were innocent, nobody has to aplogize, because you have no right to escape even unjust imprisonment.

But make a long story short, this whole mess is almost entirely SlimVirgin's fault, and she ended up being the one who paid most dearly for it. So it worked out. But it sure wasted the time of a lot good people who had better things to do than get all involved in Wikipedia's own version of the Dreyfus case. J'accuse (letter)

I'd call it almost entirely MM's fault. He's a smart one: figured out who had influence that could be played and tuned that fiddle with an ear for perfect pitch. SV was his dupe, so was David. So was I for a while.

It was not easy to step back and say Whoa? Was I wrong for several months? Imagine if that had been years instead of months. He played us. And in the end what really disgusted me was that he went to a venue where people had gathered to protect our safety and our families, and he played a bunch of charity volunteers there in order to gain the upper hand in his business dispute.

You may think Wikipedia is the most misguided charity since Answers in Genesis, but both are largely operated by sincere people.

[Somey]

Minus the conspiracy theories, would the straight-on story interest the press? Do they have enough Clue to care?

Probably not - in fact, by most people's definition of the word "Clue," they'd probably want to stay as far away from the whole issue as possible.

[thekohser]

You may think Wikipedia is the most misguided charity since Answers in Genesis, but both are largely operated by sincere people.

(snicker) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Apologies if I didn't follow all the ins and outs of the MM/WordBomb dispute as it played on WR. The impression had been that his reception here had been almost wholly uncritical.

What's to criticize? WP struck Wordbomb first without giving him a chance to learn the rules. Then for a long, long time they did NOTHING about his initial complaint, while all the while keeping him bound and gagged. He finally had to drag them into it, kicking and screaming, by attacking them off-wiki until they couldn't take it any more.

So far as I'm concerned, everything Bagley did from that time foward counts as "self-defense." Moreover, he's been vindicated since, both in his narrow view of Weiss and his broader view of naked short selling. He remains blocked mainly on charges of fighting the police and escaping from prison (see bucking the system). Nevermind what started it.

[One]

Well, from the little I've paid attention and the word of a few people I trust and respect, it appears he already has been for a while.

Way ahead of you, and also beyond hoping to do anything meaningful about it. It took an act of Congress to get him banned. It took 15 seconds for him to get a new account. This asymmetry is why the sock masters will always win--unless and until Wikipedia gets some meaningful account management system (and I'm not holding my breath).

At this point, I am convinced that it was all a waste of time, and I'm not eager to waste more in an identical fashion. Similar fashion, maybe, but not identical.

To be candid about it, One, the thing I've always hoped for was that the mainstream media would blow the whistle from time to time and keep that kind of situation from getting out of hand. Yes, in 2007 Byrne tried to beat that drum and didn't get very far. But a lot has happened in the financial world since then. Minus the conspiracy theories, would the straight-on story interest the press? Do they have enough Clue to care?

Cade Metz wrote a story October 2008 about the identity of Mantanmoreland and the tie-in with NSS, and the whole history of that affair (this was in the immediate aftermath of a lot of blow-ups, when daily newspapers and Hillary Clinton, among others were talking about naked short selling). Nobody else picked up that story, and I didn't read about it myself for months, when Wordbomb happened to link it. In fact, Metz has a small series of Mantanmoreland articles, and none of them have ever caught on.

Now you're probably saying to yourself, "yeah, but that was the Register, who takes them seriously?" Well, consider this:

Several months later, Cade Metz wrote a story about the Scientology ArbCom case, which was unexpectedly picked up by news sources around the world. I got unsolicited emails about it. My friends and family asked me about 'banning Scientology.'

My conclusion: Wikipedia financial editing=boring, crazy cults=cool.

This post has been edited by One:

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Minus the conspiracy theories, would the straight-on story interest the press? Do they have enough Clue to care?

Probably not - in fact, by most people's definition of the word "Clue," they'd probably want to stay as far away from the whole issue as possible.

Here's the thing, though. When Virgil Griffith came out with his tool in 2007 it made worldwide headlines for weeks.

The press cares, if they could find an angle. But two things have happened: investigative reporting isn't what it used to be and reporters' editors haven't caught up with how the Internet really behaves. Still in the mode of wanting someone on the inside to go on record, even if it only parrots facts which are wholly confirmable independently.

[Milton Roe]

You may think Wikipedia is the most misguided charity since Answers in Genesis, but both are largely operated by sincere people.

I'm not sure who "operates" Wikipedia. I'm not even sure the people who operate it know how much control they do, or don't, have.

All I know is who makes money off it.

And yes, I should have included Weiss as a Blackhat.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Well, from the little I've paid attention and the word of a few people I trust and respect, it appears he already has been for a while.

Way ahead of you, and also beyond hoping to do anything meaningful about it. It took an act of Congress to get him banned. It took 15 seconds for him to get a new account. This asymmetry is why the sock masters will always win--unless and until Wikipedia gets some meaningful account management system (and I'm not holding my breath).

At this point, I am convinced that it was all a waste of time, and I'm not eager to waste more in an identical fashion. Similar fashion, maybe, but not identical.

To be candid about it, One, the thing I've always hoped for was that the mainstream media would blow the whistle from time to time and keep that kind of situation from getting out of hand. Yes, in 2007 Byrne tried to beat that drum and didn't get very far. But a lot has happened in the financial world since then. Minus the conspiracy theories, would the straight-on story interest the press? Do they have enough Clue to care?

Cade Metz wrote a story October 2008 about the identity of Mantanmoreland and the tie-in with NSS, and the whole history of that affair (this was in the immediate aftermath of a lot of blow-ups, when daily newspapers and Hillary Clinton, among others were talking about naked short selling). Nobody else picked up that story, and I didn't read about it myself for months, when Wordbomb happened to link it. In fact, Metz has a small series of Mantanmoreland articles, and none of them have ever caught on.

Now you're probably saying to yourself, "yeah, but that was the Register, who takes them seriously?" Well, consider this:

Several months later, Cade Metz wrote a story about the Scientology ArbCom case, which was unexpectedly picked up by news sources around the world. I got unsolicited emails about it. My friends and family asked me about 'banning Scientology.'

My conclusion: Wikipedia financial editing=boring, crazy cults=cool.

Fwiw, it was Cade's report on Jossi in February 2008 that first got me digging through several dozen old emails and comparing them against Jossi's onsite edits. Wasn't easy to do roll up the sleeves about that, considering what Cade had published about me just a few months earlier.

A lot of it comes down to what makes a good headline or sound bite. Journalism is in the business of selling eyeballs to advertisers.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Milton Roe]

A lot of it comes down to what makes a good headline or sound bite. Journalism is in the business of selling eyeballs to advertisers.

With that attitude, Durova, I recommend you go right over and propose changing the WP:RS policy as regards journalistic sources.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

A lot of it comes down to what makes a good headline or sound bite. Journalism is in the business of selling eyeballs to advertisers.

With that attitude, Durova, I recommend you go right over and propose changing the WP:RS policy as regards journalistic sources.

You realize, Milton, that it's the journalistic sources which have been most critical toward the organizations which are alternately called new religious movements or cults?

Check out the edit history of Wikipedia's journalism portal and Jossi's edits to it.

My observation has been that, with the better news outlets, eyeball-friendliness is part of what motivates the higher ups to green light a reporter's proposal. From there it's straight shooting, usually.

----
Things seem to be quieting down here, so logging off and returning to other stuff. Giving WR the scoop on a story, although this probably isn't your regular beat.

Everyone here probably already knows that the German language Wikipedia is the second largest in terms of total articles. But they don't have the second largest featured picture program. If you discount Commons (because it's not a Wikipedia), the second largest is Turkish.

Will be looking up surrounding stats and posting to the blog later today.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[CharlotteWebb]

Anticipating the next post: no Botox or plastic surgery. There actually are a handful of Californians who don't do that stuff.

I must say you think further ahead than Deep Blue.

There's one person you forgot to mention, but whom I'm sure would appreciate a similar gesture of good faith. ☢

Burntsauce? Would check with Alison about that. Standard Offer also applies.

Umm, no.

In fact that's not a very good guess either.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[dtobias]

What's to criticize? WP struck Wordbomb first without giving him a chance to learn the rules. Then for a long, long time they did NOTHING about his initial complaint, while all the while keeping him bound and gagged. He finally had to drag them into it, kicking and screaming, by attacking them off-wiki until they couldn't take it any more.

And in the process of keeping him bound and gagged, some of them (Mantanmoreland and Slim, especially, but with a number of others forming a clique to rally around them) heavily pushed the idiotic BADSITES initiative to ban linking to sites such as Wordbomb's, or WR, which discussed these issues. The heavyhanded censorship rankled me so much that it switched me from my previous uncritical Wikipedianism to a more cynical position. Though, to David Gerard's credit, he never went for BADSITES himself. (Just for blocking much of Utah.)

[A Horse With No Name]

The press cares, if they could find an angle. But two things have happened: investigative reporting isn't what it used to be and reporters' editors haven't caught up with how the Internet really behaves. Still in the mode of wanting someone on the inside to go on record, even if it only parrots facts which are wholly confirmable independently.

The angle is clear to anyone who sees. This MM story, by itself, is just a silly bit of fabric -- a loose thread. Sew it to other threads, though...

The problem is that no journalist has bothered to wade deep into the WP waters -- and the very few journalists who are active on WP are busy playing games without realizing what they have around them. Mantanmoreland, Sam Blacketer, Essjay...just isolated stories without a common foundation. Or so it seems.

That situation, however, will be changing in the near future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[EricBarbour]

The angle is clear to anyone who sees. This MM story, by itself, is just a silly bit of fabric -- a loose thread. Sew it to other threads, though...
The problem is that no journalist has bothered to wade deep into the WP waters -- and the very few journalists who are active on WP are busy playing games without realizing what they have around them. Mantanmoreland, Sam Blacketer, Essjay...just isolated stories without a common foundation. Or so it seems.
That situation, however, will be changing in the near future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

That's good, it's all the hint she deserves.

Dear Ms. Broer: have you seen this Wall Street Journal article yet?

[dogbiscuit]

So we have trodden old ground again, yet I still get no sense that Durova has grasped the fundamental issue: that the governance of Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed so that it cannot cope with these obvious problems. Rather than being interested in moving towards a better system, the inertia of "teh community" with its unerring ability to find a minor fly in the ointment of any improvement, is now determined to stay with the maggot-ridden current system. Durova, with her enthusiastic pronouncements simply comes across as someone content and blind to how broken the system is, beavering away* at some great work or other for the greater good.

How does one of the major labourers on the project look back at their time on the project, the missed opportunities of real life that it represents and justify that to themselves. I can understand David Gerard - he has made his little world of self-importance even though ultimately it has gained him nothing but 5 minutes of conceit on the BBC - but I think Durova, in common with SlimVirgin, is going to wake up one day and think "Fuck me sideways, where did my life go? I'm sure I was only 28 a minute ago."

PS what is this carding of which you speak?


*No horsey, no.

[Random832]

And in the end what really disgusted me was that he went to a venue where people had gathered to protect our safety and our families

I believe that you believe that this was the true/only purpose of the list you are talking about. I even believe that it's why you joined it.

But, I'm left wondering, what if you hadn't been invited? What if you' been less well-connected, and thereby left to deal with your problems on your own, without access to (or even knowledge of the existence of) it? How many such people are there?

How would you have felt if you found out later that it existed and had excluded you?

Maybe it's for the best that it was largely perceived as some sort of secret cabal. Better that anyone who got left out think that than to know the harsh truth that such a support group was there, just not there for them.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Somey]

PS what is this carding of which you speak?

They don't have that in the UK? It means that someone (usually a bartender or liquor-store clerk) asked you for your ID because he/she thought you looked younger than the legal drinking age.

I was once carded when I tried to buy a thermonuclear missile, which I intended to fire in the general direction of Connecticut. But that was a long time ago, and of couse the legal age for buying thermonuclear weapons was much lower then.

[Cla68]

Well, from the little I've paid attention and the word of a few people I trust and respect, it appears he already has been for a while.

Way ahead of you, and also beyond hoping to do anything meaningful about it. It took an act of Congress to get him banned. It took 15 seconds for him to get a new account. This asymmetry is why the sock masters will always win--unless and until Wikipedia gets some meaningful account management system (and I'm not holding my breath).

At this point, I am convinced that it was all a waste of time, and I'm not eager to waste more in an identical fashion. Similar fashion, maybe, but not identical.

Please don't give up. Although it's impossible to keep the person behind Mantanmoreland from establishing new socks, when they appear and start their monkey business in the same articles, as shown in the diff by Somey earlier in this tread, I hope an admin will topic ban them, at least.

[dogbiscuit]

PS what is this carding of which you speak?

They don't have that in the UK? It means that someone (usually a bartender or liquor-store clerk) asked you for your ID because he/she thought you looked younger than the legal drinking age.

Oh, that. Not sex then. Phew. Never had the ID thing when I was an under-age drinker. These days they have carding, though I think the term over here is "fake id".

[Hell Freezes Over]

However, meanwhile, SlimVirgin had acted precipitously to protect Weiss, indef-blocking Bagley less than 24 hours after his first edit (long before any sock), and just as he was promising to wait to see what ArbCom and the wonks would do. So not only did she BITE a newbie, but failed to appreciate the larger aspects of his accusations, and the case. Nor did she attempt to put the case before ArbCom itself, after stifling Bagley (which included blocking his TALK page, also).

I wonder how often this needs to be said before it will sink in. I handed the WordBomb situation over to FloNight almost immediately, within a couple of days of WB trying to out MM, and so far as I recall, she was on the ArbCom by then. Fred Bauder got involved in it too and warned MM for sockpuppetry, and he was certainly on the ArbCom. That was more or less the last I had to do with it as an admin, apart from maybe s-protecting the Weiss page. I don't know why you lot keep posting otherwise, or indeed keep posting about it at all.

[dtobias]

However, meanwhile, SlimVirgin had acted precipitously to protect Weiss, indef-blocking Bagley less than 24 hours after his first edit (long before any sock), and just as he was promising to wait to see what ArbCom and the wonks would do. So not only did she BITE a newbie, but failed to appreciate the larger aspects of his accusations, and the case. Nor did she attempt to put the case before ArbCom itself, after stifling Bagley (which included blocking his TALK page, also).

I wonder how often this needs to be said before it will sink in. I handed the WordBomb situation over to FloNight almost immediately, within a couple of days of WB trying to out MM, and so far as I recall, she was on the ArbCom by then. Fred Bauder got involved in it too and warned MM for sockpuppetry, and he was certainly on the ArbCom. That was more or less the last I had to do with it as an admin, apart from maybe s-protecting the Weiss page. I don't know why you lot keep posting otherwise, or indeed keep posting about it at all.

All of those people were prominent members of the BADSITES Clique.

[A Horse With No Name]

They don't have that in the UK? It means that someone (usually a bartender or liquor-store clerk) asked you for your ID because he/she thought you looked younger than the legal drinking age.

I was once carded when I tried to buy a thermonuclear missile, which I intended to fire in the general direction of Connecticut. But that was a long time ago, and of couse the legal age for buying thermonuclear weapons was much lower then.

Pity -- if you were successful, we would never have Jehochman and Joshua Z. to deal with. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

You may think Wikipedia is the most misguided charity since Answers in Genesis, but both are largely operated by sincere people.

(snicker) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Gawdwin's Law obliges me to mention that the Nazis were very sincere people.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

[Random832]

within a couple of days of WB trying to out MM

Why this phrasing? You're making it sound like his thought process was "I don't like this MM person - I'll find out who he is and reveal his identity in order to get to him" instead of "I think this guy may be this specific real person who would have a conflict of interest editing in this way, I'll check to see if it's true."


This post has been edited by Random832:

[thekohser]

PS what is this carding of which you speak?

They don't have that in the UK? It means that someone (usually a bartender or liquor-store clerk) asked you for your idea because he/she thought you looked younger than the legal drinking age.

I was once carded when I tried to buy a thermonuclear missile, which I intended to fire in the general direction of Connecticut. But that was a long time ago, and of couse the legal age for buying thermonuclear weapons was much lower then.

When I'm asked for my photo "idea", I point them to this one.

[Lar]

Well, from the little I've paid attention and the word of a few people I trust and respect, it appears he already has been for a while.

Way ahead of you, and also beyond hoping to do anything meaningful about it. It took an act of Congress to get him banned. It took 15 seconds for him to get a new account. This asymmetry is why the sock masters will always win--unless and until Wikipedia gets some meaningful account management system (and I'm not holding my breath).

At this point, I am convinced that it was all a waste of time, and I'm not eager to waste more in an identical fashion. Similar fashion, maybe, but not identical.

" Some meaningful account management system "

Real names. Backed by Amazon quality level verification. That'll work. Nothing short of that will. But no one really wants to stop the socking problem enough to change a basic tenet of Wikipedia.

So we get what we have here...

[Cla68]

However, meanwhile, SlimVirgin had acted precipitously to protect Weiss, indef-blocking Bagley less than 24 hours after his first edit (long before any sock), and just as he was promising to wait to see what ArbCom and the wonks would do. So not only did she BITE a newbie, but failed to appreciate the larger aspects of his accusations, and the case. Nor did she attempt to put the case before ArbCom itself, after stifling Bagley (which included blocking his TALK page, also).

I wonder how often this needs to be said before it will sink in. I handed the WordBomb situation over to FloNight almost immediately, within a couple of days of WB trying to out MM, and so far as I recall, she was on the ArbCom by then. Fred Bauder got involved in it too and warned MM for sockpuppetry, and he was certainly on the ArbCom. That was more or less the last I had to do with it as an admin, apart from maybe s-protecting the Weiss page. I don't know why you lot keep posting otherwise, or indeed keep posting about it at all.

Don't forget that WordBomb then emailed you evidence of Mantanmoreland's identity, which was subsequently forwarded to Gary Weiss. We only know of three names that were involved, you, FloNight, and Fred Bauder. Which of you three, in your opinion, forwarded WordBomb's email to Weiss?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Milton Roe]

However, meanwhile, SlimVirgin had acted precipitously to protect Weiss, indef-blocking Bagley less than 24 hours after his first edit (long before any sock), and just as he was promising to wait to see what ArbCom and the wonks would do. So not only did she BITE a newbie, but failed to appreciate the larger aspects of his accusations, and the case. Nor did she attempt to put the case before ArbCom itself, after stifling Bagley (which included blocking his TALK page, also).

I wonder how often this needs to be said before it will sink in. I handed the WordBomb situation over to FloNight almost immediately, within a couple of days of WB trying to out MM, and so far as I recall, she was on the ArbCom by then. Fred Bauder got involved in it too and warned MM for sockpuppetry, and he was certainly on the ArbCom. That was more or less the last I had to do with it as an admin, apart from maybe s-protecting the Weiss page. I don't know why you lot keep posting otherwise, or indeed keep posting about it at all.

But you're the person who indef-blocked newbie Wordbomb, less than 24 hours after his first post on WP, July 7, 2006. "Handing him over" to FloNight (who in any case did nothing) would mean you'd unblock him first. That's a handover. Leaving him indef-blocked with your note that he was trying to "out" somebody does not make for a handover-- rather it simply invites anybody else who disagrees to overturn your one-admin action, which of course is not going to happen. And in any case, you don't put it before ArbCom. Nobody does. JzG comes along and disables Wordbomb's email, in fact. Meanwhile, Weiss sniggers through his socks the whole time.

Here's the detailed story once again (April 11, 2009, in the thread "Who is this?") of Mayfly user Bagley's literally ephemeral time on WP, 19 hours, and what happened to him there. He's pounced on by Weiss and Weiss's socks, and then SlimVirgin indef blocks him and refuses to unblock. That's about it, except for the stink on ArbCom much later. I've managed to boil it down to two consecutive messages.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=167526

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=167527

[Random832]

Don't forget that WordBomb then emailed you evidence of Mantanmoreland's identity, which was subsequently forwarded to Gary Weiss. We only know of three names that were involved, you, FloNight, and Fred Bauder. Which of you three, in your opinion, forwarded WordBomb's email to Weiss?

I was re-reading my saved copy of the WikBack thread, and...

Just to make sure everyone's on the same page (i.e. closed-captioned for those STILL in denial about this), it is in fact the holder of the Mantanmoreland account, whoever that may be*, whom the email is known to have been forwarded to and opened by.

* (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Cla68]

Don't forget that WordBomb then emailed you evidence of Mantanmoreland's identity, which was subsequently forwarded to Gary Weiss. We only know of three names that were involved, you, FloNight, and Fred Bauder. Which of you three, in your opinion, forwarded WordBomb's email to Weiss?

I was re-reading my saved copy of the WikBack thread, and...

Just to make sure everyone's on the same page (i.e. closed-captioned for those STILL in denial about this), it is in fact the holder of the Mantanmoreland account, whoever that may be*, whom the email is known to have been forwarded to and opened by.

* (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I thought that Bagley had shown fairly conclusively that the IP for Mantanmoreland's computer matched an IP that was linked fairly conclusively to Mr. Weiss.

[Random832]

I thought that Bagley had shown fairly conclusively that the IP...

Yeah, yeah... I was just spelling it out in case certain people think that because they haven't accepted the evidence, they can say "I did not forward this to GW" and be telling the truth despite having forwarded it (or being aware of who forwarded it) to MM.

[EricBarbour]

Once again, you gents are attempting to reason with one of WP's most intensely unreasonable people.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cla68]

I thought that Bagley had shown fairly conclusively that the IP...

Yeah, yeah... I was just spelling it out in case certain people think that because they haven't accepted the evidence, they can say "I did not forward this to GW" and be telling the truth despite having forwarded it (or being aware of who forwarded it) to MM.

I guess it might be illuminating if someone posted on the Wikipedia user talk pages of all three- Fred, Flo, and SV, questions along the lines of, "When WordBomb emailed his evidence of Mantanmoreland's COI to you all, did you forward the evidence to Mantanmoreland? If not, do you know, or have an opinion on, who did?"

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Jon Awbrey]

<something about a "hand over">

To make a long story short:

â—„ SlimVirgin = Caiaphas â–º â—„ FloNight = Pontius Pilate â–º

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

Once again, you gents are attempting to reason with one of WP's most intensely unreasonable people …

No, they are trying to reason with 2 of WP's most intensely unreasonable people …

[Somey]

That was more or less the last I had to do with it as an admin, apart from maybe s-protecting the Weiss page. I don't know why you lot keep posting otherwise, or indeed keep posting about it at all.

Because like it or not, the essential issue that got most of us here into this brouhaha in the first place remains unresolved. The Nazi propaganda/apologia that you and Weiss added to the intro of the WP Martin Luther article remains in place, and until it's removed, this isn't going to be over.

[Lar]

However, meanwhile, SlimVirgin had acted precipitously to protect Weiss, indef-blocking Bagley less than 24 hours after his first edit (long before any sock), and just as he was promising to wait to see what ArbCom and the wonks would do. So not only did she BITE a newbie, but failed to appreciate the larger aspects of his accusations, and the case. Nor did she attempt to put the case before ArbCom itself, after stifling Bagley (which included blocking his TALK page, also).

I wonder how often this needs to be said before it will sink in. I handed the WordBomb situation over to FloNight almost immediately, within a couple of days of WB trying to out MM, and so far as I recall, she was on the ArbCom by then. Fred Bauder got involved in it too and warned MM for sockpuppetry, and he was certainly on the ArbCom. That was more or less the last I had to do with it as an admin, apart from maybe s-protecting the Weiss page. I don't know why you lot keep posting otherwise, or indeed keep posting about it at all.

I guess that (how often?) depends on whether it's true or not, and if it's not true, how skilled you are at getting people to believe you anyway.

For the record, at this time, I don't believe your version of these events is at all accurate. So for me anyway, no amount of mere denial will suffice. You are going to have to do better than deny, you are going to have to demonstrate why your version of events is accurate.

Because I suspect I am not the only person who won't take your assertions on faith any more. You've burned that particular bridge with far too many people.

[One]

I was re-reading my saved copy of the WikBack thread, and...

Can you send me a copy of that? I believe I had over 100 posts on the ol' Wikback at one point, and I linked to it from WP a few times.

[dtobias]

I got a one-week ban from Wikback for some stupid petty thing like making a smartass remark in one of the message threads there. I've also had a couple of occasions of being temporarily put on restriction here on WR because others didn't like what I had to say. However, on Wikipedia itself, I have a totally clean block log. Go figure.

[Moulton]

Why is it that the Wikipedia drama-mongers, drama-whores, etc are all, to some significant degree, bent, damaged, or broken people? ... I suppose the bizarre, broken, damaged people drive the normal ones out, and any normal people who persist can be expected to keep a low profile, out of natural reticence and also self-preservation. But still. It's so much worse than one would expect.

In thirty years of participating in online forums and communities, Wikipedia stands out as harboring an astonishingly large number of emotionally disturbed participants. The level of exasperation arising from interacting with so many emotionally disturbed individuals is inherently an emotionally disturbing experience in itself. In other words, Wikipedia is a crazy-making place, an ungrounded cloud-cuckooland that I fear is beyond salvation or redemption.

[Jon Awbrey]

Why is it that the Wikipedia drama-mongers, drama-whores, etc are all, to some significant degree, bent, damaged, or broken people? … I suppose the bizarre, broken, damaged people drive the normal ones out, and any normal people who persist can be expected to keep a low profile, out of natural reticence and also self-preservation. But still. It's so much worse than one would expect.

In thirty years of participating in online forums and communities, Wikipedia stands out as harboring an astonishingly large number of emotionally disturbed participants. The level of exasperation arising from interacting with so many emotionally disturbed individuals is inherently an emotionally disturbing experience in itself. In other words, Wikipedia is a crazy-making place, an ungrounded cloud-cuckooland that I fear is beyond salvation or redemption.

It ain't just Wikago, Guys (& Dolls). Wikiputia is the paragon of perversity bar none, of course, but the virus has already gone pandemic — I've been spending more and more time outside the Bentway and I can tell you that things are getting more and more bent all over the Web.

Well, this is fodder for another feedbag — I've tried several times in the Meta*Discussion Forum to start a more systematic thread on my observations and speculations, but the spectacle of the World Wide Wasteland (Dubya³) is just too spirit-sucking for me to keep looking at it for very long.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Floydsvoid]

The Nazi propaganda/apologia that you and Weiss added to the intro of the WP Martin Luther article remains in place, and until it's removed, this isn't going to be over.

Hey Somey, just for you I uploaded the entire Martin Luther article from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. There's not one mention of Nazis (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) nor even one of Jews.

here, here, here, here and here.

It's a wall of text that FT2 and maybe even ABD could be proud of. However, I found the article flowed almost like a short story so it's not quite that bad of a read.

My opinion is that Martin Luther was no more and no less anti-Semitic than any other religiously important person of his time and place.

[victim of censorship]

Five messages since then and no response. Why are you willing to respond to everyone except me? Why do you hate me so much, Durova?

I don't actually hate you. Never thought about you much until JB's thread. You made a terrible impression.

You didn't even READ my explanation last week. I'll post it here again. .... I tried to help you by putting together a coherent list of questions for you to answer ... and you responded by attacking me.

I know you know this Random, but the modus operandi of Durova, Slim, and the worst of the Wikipidiots is exactly this: they select carefully what they respond to, what they acknowledge, and how the debate -- such as it is -- is framed. On-wiki, if you call them on this, it's a "personal attack" or some such.

Here, at least, we can say what they are: manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit.

Seriously, it is ironic that the better approach than rational argument is to put them on the defensive, if you can, and over-the-top invective sometimes works, but other approaches are probably better, being less transparent.

"...Durova, Slim, and the worst of the Wikipidiots is exactly this: they select carefully what they respond to, what they acknowledge, and how the debate -- such as it is -- is framed. On-wiki, if you call them on this, it's a "personal attack" or some such....

This is the about concise as I have ever read, an explination on the nature of the interactions/debates/augments between a "real person from the out side the wiki juice bar and a Wikpediot juice addict.

.. we can say what they are: manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit.... "

AMEN... sing out the truth - The truth of Wikipedia.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

.. we can say what they are: manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit.... "

But give them their due ... at least they are amongst the intelligent "manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit".

Of course, I would never ever say something like that myself (... even if I could copy and paste it ...) but I do think that most of the rest of the Wikipudenda are just a little bit thick and, fatally, lacking in a sense of humour.

No offense intended to any genuine pudendum.

But, yes, there are a lot of habitually manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit on the Wikipedia and it never fails to amaze me how much skill and application they are willing to invest into their grind.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[victim of censorship]

But give them their due ... at least they are amongst the intelligent "manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit".

No... I don't give them their due.... When you can control the discussions with bannhammer... to use the ability to change history, to rewrite to my your look good and the other guy look like an idiot, it does not take any intellectual skill and in fact reinforces what they (wikipeidiot leet) are... THUGS.

These guys (slim and company) are the worst of the worst... Immoral, cruel and just plain evil.

[wjhonson]

But give them their due ... at least they are amongst the intelligent "manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit".

No... I don't give them their due.... When you can control the discussions with bannhammer... to use the ability to change history, to rewrite to my your look good and the other guy look like an idiot, it does not take any intellectual skill and in fact reinforces what they (wikipeidiot leet) are... THUGS.

These guys (slim and company) are the worst of the worst... Immoral, cruel and just plain evil.

I have been beating the drum that "the casual Wikipedian has no protection from arbitrary admin actions" for some time now. In fact I just again brought it up, once more, on Foundation-L. Of course the typical establishment answer is that "we have arbcom and oversighters and checkusers...." which isn't an answer at all.

When a policeman cites you, it doesn't include a "I'm going to keep you in my car until you starve or apologize to me personally" pronouncement. We need, as I've been saying, an alternate track where people advance by "being nice and friendly". Sue doesn't seem to quite understand the problem. "Just be more friendly!" doesn't work.

[Milton Roe]

But give them their due ... at least they are amongst the intelligent "manipulative, lying, damaged, unstable, deceitful, intellectually-dishonest sacks of shit".

No... I don't give them their due.... When you can control the discussions with bannhammer... to use the ability to change history, to rewrite to my your look good and the other guy look like an idiot, it does not take any intellectual skill and in fact reinforces what they (wikipeidiot leet) are... THUGS.

These guys (slim and company) are the worst of the worst... Immoral, cruel and just plain evil.

I have been beating the drum that "the casual Wikipedian has no protection from arbitrary admin actions" for some time now. In fact I just again brought it up, once more, on Foundation-L. Of course the typical establishment answer is that "we have arbcom and oversighters and checkusers...." which isn't an answer at all.

When a policeman cites you, it doesn't include a "I'm going to keep you in my car until you starve or apologize to me personally" pronouncement. We need, as I've been saying, an alternate track where people advance by "being nice and friendly". Sue doesn't seem to quite understand the problem. "Just be more friendly!" doesn't work.

It is a remarkable thing that WP editorial policy and standards continue to be disconnected with anybody who holds a job at WMF. It's not just relatively disconnected from anybody who gets paid, it's COMPLETLEY disconnected from anybody who gets paid.

I used to think this was for legal reasons. But there's that sec 230, and I don't think it is.

I've since come to the conclusion that Sue and friends would actually be insulted to pay anybody to have anything to do with WP editing or editing policy. Since they figure it's volunteer crap-work which is beneath them, personally.

So there you are.

[Jon Awbrey]

When a policeman cites you, it doesn't include a "I'm going to keep you in my car until you starve or apologize to me personally" pronouncement. We need, as I've been saying, an alternate track where people advance by "being nice and friendly". Sue doesn't seem to quite understand the problem. "Just be more friendly!" doesn't work.

Here's a clue —

It's Hotel Wikipornia …

You can check out any time you like …

You can also leave …

And join the Aboveground Resustance.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[dtobias]

It's a Roach Motel... they check in but never check out!

[wjhonson]

The Nazi propaganda/apologia that you and Weiss added to the intro of the WP Martin Luther article remains in place, and until it's removed, this isn't going to be over.

Hey Somey, just for you I uploaded the entire Martin Luther article from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. There's not one mention of Nazis (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) nor even one of Jews.

here, here, here, here and here.

It's a wall of text that FT2 and maybe even ABD could be proud of. However, I found the article flowed almost like a short story so it's not quite that bad of a read.

My opinion is that Martin Luther was no more and no less anti-Semitic than any other religiously important person of his time and place.

There's a pretty good reason why the 1911 EB would not mention Nazis.
Or should I assume you were trying to make a joke here?

[Milton Roe]

The Nazi propaganda/apologia that you and Weiss added to the intro of the WP Martin Luther article remains in place, and until it's removed, this isn't going to be over.

Hey Somey, just for you I uploaded the entire Martin Luther article from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. There's not one mention of Nazis (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) nor even one of Jews.

here, here, here, here and here.

It's a wall of text that FT2 and maybe even ABD could be proud of. However, I found the article flowed almost like a short story so it's not quite that bad of a read.

My opinion is that Martin Luther was no more and no less anti-Semitic than any other religiously important person of his time and place.

There's a pretty good reason why the 1911 EB would not mention Nazis.
Or should I assume you were trying to make a joke here?

Did you miss the (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) ?

But the point about it not mentioning Jews is valid. In 1911, not every issue had a pro-Jewish and an anti-semitic side. In fact, hardly any did.

Today, of course, largely courtesy of the Nazis --who bizarrely actually introduced the idea of "Jewish science theories," see Einstein-- most issues have a pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish position, or subtext. Including the very issue of whether most issues have a pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish subtext. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) This is one of the drivers of Godwin's Law.

And so we come to Wikipedia... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) And Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and the whole Kabal, determined to add all that stuff. List of British Jews, baby.

I'm thinking that instead of having an X in popular culture section for most Wikis, we should save time, and consider for most articles, a template for a X in relation to the Jews section. With InfoBox!

You want the Jewish connection to Animal rights or Yoghurt? No problem; Wikipedia is your resource. There's a whole article on LGBT topics and Judaism in case you were interested (Jayjg and SlimVirgin have both edited it).

But the dark side gets rather different coverage. Interestingly, while WP has Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse and Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, there is nothing corresponding to Jews, either in their roles as rabbis or criminal gangs. One would think that no rabbi or any group of Jewish gangsters had ever been implicated in pedophilia or child rape at all. At least, not from looking at Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) (though if you google it, you'll be rapidly ill). No, I am not suggesting that Jews are more likely to be pedophiles than anybody else, but on the other hand, what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, no? How does the Jehovah's witness and Catholic stuff make it into Wikipedia, but all Jewish related pedophilia stuff is filtered out? Hmmm? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Floydsvoid]

Hey Somey, just for you I uploaded the entire Martin Luther article from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. There's not one mention of Nazis (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) nor even one of Jews.

There's a pretty good reason why the 1911 EB would not mention Nazis.
Or should I assume you were trying to make a joke here?

Did you miss the (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) ?

This got me to thinking. How many smiley faces do you have to have before a Wikipediot will realize you are being facetious?

[wjhonson]

Did you miss the (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) ?

This got me to thinking. How many smiley faces do you have to have before a Wikipediot will realize you are being facetious?

Sixteen.

[thekohser]

Back on topic... Could someone update us on Adam Cuerden's status? You know, most recent edit, most recent pronouncement by him, most recent pronouncement about him, etc.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Back on topic... Could someone update us on Adam Cuerden's status? You know, most recent edit, most recent pronouncement by him...

I'd almost think you already knew the answer to that question by the fact that you're asking it.

[Jon Awbrey]

Back on topic … Could someone update us on Adam Cuerden's status? You know, most recent edit, most recent pronouncement by him, most recent pronouncement about him, etc.

Last I heard he was on holiday …

(IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[Mathsci]

More of the same

[thekohser]

More of the same

This all could have been avoided if Shoemaker's Cuerden has just listened to me and released Wikivoices Episode # 45, and then taken my advice that Durova is not to be trusted.

[Cedric]

More of the same

This all could have been avoided if Shoemaker's Cuerden has just listened to me and released Wikivoices Episode # 45, and then taken my advice that Durova is not to be trusted.

Yeah, but it is so hard to convince another guy of that until she finally plunges the shiv deep into his back. She's quite the femme fatale, that Durova.

Oooooorrrrrrrrrrr maybe NOT. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

More of the same

Because things on ANI tend to get redacted fasted.

Yeah, but it is so hard to convince another guy of that until she finally plunges the shiv deep into his back. She's quite the femme fatale, that Durova.

Oooooorrrrrrrrrrr maybe NOT. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

Aye, she's like unto a beautiful, fragrant white orchid, duct-tapped to a Brillo™ pad.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[Somey]

Well, I think he's just being a little sensitive, isn't he? Sending a stream of endlessly-repeating "F*ck you, troll" messages during a Skype conversation is just Durova's way of saying "thanks."

I wonder if she threatened him with a lawsuit? That usually means she's "interested."

[pietkuip]

The Skype log is now shown here: http://wikidwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/why...-wikipedia.html

Cuerden placed a link on his user page at commons, but it was removed on the pretext that the link was a copyright violation...

So this log is from November?

This post has been edited by pietkuip:

[CharlotteWebb]

[3:20:11 PM] Durova: you are the most brilliant fucking troll I've ever known
[3:20:14 PM] Durova: better than Moulton

Wonder what she means by that, exactly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[thekohser]

[2:44:03 PM] Durova: You have exactly twelve hours to explain why I shouldn't eject you permanently from WikiVoices as a troll.

Durova, sweetie... I could have told you two weeks after we recorded Wikivoices Episode # 45 that Shoemaker's should be ejected permanently from every Wikimedia project. But, you didn't listen to me, did you? Maybe you just wanted to save it for a later moment, when you could throw your weight around as Empress of Wikivoices. Love the "exactly twelve hours" bit. Didn't you ever consider that Cuerden could be suffering from a severe headache that might take more than 12 hours to dissipate?

[dtobias]

I got copied on that Skype exchange a long time ago; my opinion is that neither party (Durova or Shoemaker) comes off very well; it's a long sequence of overreactions, petulance, drama-queening, and taking things way too personally. Chill-pills should be prescribed all around.

[Zoloft]

I got copied on that Skype exchange a long time ago; my opinion is that neither party (Durova or Shoemaker) comes off very well; it's a long sequence of overreactions, petulance, drama-queening, and taking things way too personally. Chill-pills should be prescribed all around.

It's a shame to see two people get their claws stuck in each others eyes.

[Random832]

Cuerden placed a link on his user page at commons, but it was removed on the pretext that the link was a copyright violation...

Hardly surprising - it's not like Durova doesn't have a history of using false* claims of copyright violation as a blunt instrument against people who reproduce things she has said which are embarassing to her. Just ask Giano.

*I clicked through, and it seems to clearly fall under the fair use provision for commentary and criticism. I am not a lawyer, though

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Derktar]

[3:09:56 PM] Durova: fuck you
[3:10:05 PM] Durova: troll
[3:10:05 PM] Durova: fuck you

Bwahaha, classy.

I also love how Durova has proclaimed herself arbiter of Wikivoices, too funny.

[Somey]

Does Durova have a habit of demanding that people write articles to accompany archival photos that she's "cleaned up"? It looks like she got on Mr. Cuerden's case about writing an article on Mignon Nevada (T-H-L-K-D) a month or two after uploading this image, which she'd taken from the Library of Congress (here's the original), presumably in the public domain. This then became a "featured picture" and was incorporated into this FPC nominator barnstar image. It doesn't look like it would have been all that hard to clean up, though? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Mr. Cuerden makes it sound like Durova insisted that he write the article for her:

Durova wanted me to write an article for her, but I didn't have the resources to do it well. I intended to try and find some at the library eventually.

I could see how Durova might be upset if he'd insisted on writing the article himself after she had originally wanted to do it, but this makes it sound like she's quite literally ordering people around. But the person on Wikipedia who does that most egregiously is... oops, wait a minute...

Never mind! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Mike H]

Wow, and here I thought Durova had pretty much redeemed herself from the sleuthing from two years ago. That log is just petulant and nasty and flies against everything I thought of her.

[CharlotteWebb]

Wow, and here I thought Durova had pretty much redeemed herself from the sleuthing from two years ago. That log is just petulant and nasty and flies against everything I thought of her.

Maybe so but it couldn't have happened to a nicer person.

[Somey]

That log is just petulant and nasty and flies against everything I thought of her.

Same here - all this time I thought her insult-of-choice was "go straight to Hell and do not pass 'Go,' you unmitigated piece of shit," and now to find out it was something as mundane as "fuck you troll" this whole time... I don't know if I'll ever recover! If only I could find a doctor capable of properly treating my terrible condition... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Anyhoo, I know this isn't common (or at least I hope not), but this might be something that should be more widely publicized. Civility violations are common enough to be sure, but half the attraction of Wikipedia, at least for the uninitiated, is the idea that you can discuss or argue about things that interest you with people who share the same interest(s) without necessarily having people try to boss you around in a vitriolic fashion. If people see clear evidence that vitriolic bossing-around actually does take place... well, there goes half the attraction. (And in fact, I'm not even sure what the other half was either, at this point.)

Btw, there's an Uncyclopedia article called Wiki Dominatrix, which I had nothing to do with, but it does seem to suggest that this sort of behavior isn't completely unheard of.

[Killiondude]

Same here - all this time I thought her insult-of-choice was "go straight to Hell and do not pass 'Go,' you unmitigated piece of shit," and now to find out it was something as mundane as "fuck you troll" this whole time...

Not even a "this is beyond the pale" in that log. Shocks the conscience, to say the least.

This post has been edited by Killiondude:

[Mike H]

The bossing around part was what did it for me. Whether he has an illness or not is not for me to decide, I am not him...but the fact that she harped on him for not doing his assigned tasks and then used his self-referenced sickness against him before pouncing...first off, unless she's fucking paying him money for this, he can do the work whenever the hell he wants, which means he could easily CHOOSE NOT TO.

I mean, clearly he was only doing these things for her because he felt an obligation to an online friend, you know, whatever...but she pulled the boss and the mommy cards and it made me think, "Who the hell are you to talk to ANYONE that way?"

This all just ruined the reputation she tried so hard to rebuild after her sleuthing escapades went wrong. Out of all the things I thought Durova may have up her sleeve, playing "The Bitch" better than Joan Collins wasn't one of them. Damn.

Adam Cuerden vs. Durova: Who will win?

This post has been edited by Mike H:

[SB_Johnny]

This all just ruined the reputation she tried so hard to rebuild after her sleuthing escapades went wrong. Out of all the things I thought Durova may have up her sleeve, playing "The Bitch" better than Joan Collins wasn't one of them. Damn.

If she doesn't want a reputation for things like that, she shouldn't say things like that.

But hey, at least she's charming. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[thekohser]

Durova was really bitchy here, no doubt. But, you also have to keep in mind that Adam "Shoemaker's Holiday" Cuerden has a repeated habit of taking on work, then simultaneously refusing to do it and materially obstructing anyone else from doing the work instead.

He'll also use his "sickness" as a convenient excuse not to do the thing he volunteered to do but doesn't feel like doing, but that same sickness appears to be no barrier whatsoever against him doing other things that he does feel like doing.

It's a mind-bogglingly irritating technique.

[SB_Johnny]

Durova was really bitchy here, no doubt. But, you also have to keep in mind that Adam "Shoemaker's Holiday" Cuerden has a repeated habit of taking on work, then simultaneously refusing to do it and materially obstructing anyone else from doing the work instead.

He'll also use his "sickness" as a convenient excuse not to do the thing he volunteered to do but doesn't feel like doing, but that same sickness appears to be no barrier whatsoever against him doing other things that he does feel like doing.

It's a mind-bogglingly irritating technique.

Or maybe just a different flavor of sickness...

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Reposted from ANI:

This has long since ceased to be a matter for ANI, but since respectable Wikipedians are asking direct questions here's a reply. Only two Wikipedia arbitration cases have ever been vacated; Shoemaker's Holiday was the subject of one of them. For more than I year I campaigned on Shoemaker's Holiday's behalf to get its findings vacated. Throughout that time I was his strongest advocate, friend, and supporter--frequently putting his needs ahead of my own. This was not easy because his conduct was erratic: for a number of months he initiated more arbitration motions than any other editor. Often he would agree in private that his actions were poor choices and attribute them to his health. I made many difficult choices to support him--or at least excuse him--because he often seemed to be doing the right thing in all the wrong ways. There were people who believed his outbursts were staged; I trusted him. I prioritized his arbitration appeal ahead of my own and made no appeal of my own case until after his had been vacated. After his case was vacated, though, he acted in ways that undermined my appeal. Other incidents occurred with other editors where he failed to share credit where credit was due or undermined other editors where their priorities differed from his own.

A few days before the chat log you have read, a different chat occurred where he boasted that his onsite outbursts had indeed been staged throughout his arbitration appeals: he would email a request to the Committee and if he didn't get the response he wanted he would raise a fuss at the boards, and his strategy was to resume the outbursts and tie up arbitrator time until they vacated his case to get rid of him. He thought it was clever to do that. So the skeptics were right: he had been lying to me all those months. He had exploited my goodwill. Until he made that boast I was unable to correlate those events because he usually hadn't informed his friends when he was emailing ArbCom. At first I was speechless. Then I asked a former Committee member whether this chain of events had really taken place; in light of the self-disclosure that person was able to affirm in very general terms that it had. My real reaction came out a few days later when Shoemaker's Holiday violated WP:NOR to undermine one of my featured content candidacies. I am a former sailor: on rare occasions when it's really deserved I speak like one. Strictly offsite, of course.

If anyone needs substantiation please email me. These events occurred many months ago and I'd rather put it in the past. I remain willing to work with Shoemaker's Holiday onsite but have no desire to communicate with him in any other context. For the last five months nearly all of his contributions at two WMF sites have been focused upon me. I have had no contact with him, onsite or offsite, since last October other than at this thread. Let's resume our shared mission and build an encyclopedia. Durova412 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've only skimmed the version of the conversation that Shoemaker's Holiday published. It's five months in the past and I'd really rather not compare it line by line. I suspect it's incomplete and possibly altered. The context is completely misrepresented.

Last fall when this thread arose at WR I deflected criticism from him. Anyone who reads our respective edits Commons and en:wiki contributions since mid-October can see who is or isn't pursuing a grudge.

Mike Halterman, as you know I never use IRC. The log of your statements there has circulated. In future please seek both sides of a story before opining in such a way in a venue where a person is unable to defend him- or herself.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Somey]

There should be a special word for that sort of thing. I thought of "malingerer," but we don't know if Mr. Cuerden's illness is real or not, and "malingering" implies that it's not... Also, that word doesn't suggest that the person has taken on the task(s) in question voluntarily, though I suppose we don't know that either. What's more, "malingerer" has too many syllables to displace a nice monosyllabic term like "troll."

I thought of "schlug," or maybe "slacklump," and if you like Biblical references you could make a case for "woefour," but I don't think there's much hope for any of those.

"Narcisslacker"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Somey]

A few days before the chat log you have read, a different chat occurred where he boasted that his onsite outbursts had indeed been staged throughout his arbitration appeals...

Yikes! So maybe there really is some reason to believe he's faking the illness, either completely or almost completely... There goes my newly-coined term, then. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

That still leaves one question, though (if you don't mind my asking): How did the "Mignon Nevada" article initially come about? Did you ask him to write it, or did he volunteer and/or insist, with or without your suggesting that it should be written? Or maybe it was more complicated than that...?

[thekohser]

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.

[Mike H]

Mike Halterman, as you know I never use IRC. The log of your statements there has circulated. In future please seek both sides of a story before opining in such a way in a venue where a person is unable to defend him- or herself.

I figured they would. If you received that log you know that I said that I'd say the same thing directly to you. I'm pretty damn real and your image just completely blew away, and that's what I find upsetting.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

A few days before the chat log you have read, a different chat occurred where he boasted that his onsite outbursts had indeed been staged throughout his arbitration appeals...

Yikes! So maybe there really is some reason to believe he's faking the illness, either completely or almost completely... There goes my newly-coined term, then. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

That still leaves one question, though (if you don't mind my asking): How did the "Mignon Nevada" article initially come about? Did you ask him to write it, or did he volunteer and/or insist, with or without your suggesting that it should be written? Or maybe it was more complicated than that...?

Shoemaker's Holiday and I often collaborated on content. You'll see quite a few conominations among our featured pictures and featured sounds and DYK articles. He has a real gift for restoring engravings and etchings; I tend to work better with color. We also work in different software and there are certain things which Photoshop can do more readily than GIMP.

So for the better part of two years it was very casual "Hey, could you help out with this?" or "Here's something that seems right up your alley." If the shared portion of the work was substantial enough we would conominate. Occasionally we would tug each other's sleeve to balance out the flow, with stuff each of us could do ourselves but didn't really feel fired up for.

Mignon Nevada was a restoration I did mainly to illustrate the Ophelia article. Note to self: do not restore images before checking thoroughly on how to use it. The Ophelia article had a lot of other images. Mignon Nevada was a notable opera singer who was in enough sources to justify an article, but I kind of burned out on her while doing the restoration. So it was along the lines of Dude, I've helped you with a lot of your projects lately. Shoemaker's Holiday had done a lot of other work with opera and with Shakespeare; this wasn't a detour much outside his interests. And handing someone sources and asking them to start an article isn't normally deemed improper.

[Mike H]

I left you a note via facebook, can you respond to it or perhaps get on facebook chat?

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Mike Halterman, as you know I never use IRC. The log of your statements there has circulated. In future please seek both sides of a story before opining in such a way in a venue where a person is unable to defend him- or herself.

I figured they would. If you received that log you know that I said that I'd say the same thing directly to you. I'm pretty damn real and your image just completely blew away, and that's what I find upsetting.

Dude, if you actually had said that straight to me it would have made all the difference. It really is a good idea--not just with me but in general--to check both sides before forming an opinion and sharing it that way.

I left you a note via facebook, can you respond to it or perhaps get on facebook chat?

Stepped away from the desk for ten minutes. Will head over to Facebook now.

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).

[Zoloft]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[BelovedFox]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

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...

[thekohser]

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...

Moderators, I expect that BelovedFox will be banned within the next 24 hours for suggesting violent action against a standing member of this WR community.

I mean, really, this is beyond the pail pale.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Somey]

Moderators, I expect that BelovedFox will be banned within the next 24 hours for suggesting violent action against a standing member of this WR community.

Yeah, what IS it with these Wikipedia people and their insistence on violent solutions to problems? Especially when simply sending you the file would avoid all that unpleasantness?

I've taken to wearing one of those big steel combat helmets whenever I'm in places where Wikipedians might show up, like GameStop.

Actually, just GameStop - I don't really wear it anywhere else...

[Zoloft]

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...

Moderators, I expect that BelovedFox will be banned within the next 24 hours for suggesting violent action against a standing member of this WR community.

I mean, really, this is beyond the pail pale.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Hey, in a year when Everyking can get his tools back, it's possible The Lady of the Lake may stretch out her arm and bestow upon thee the sound file, making you the rightful King of all the Writtens.

[Somey]

Hey, in a year when Everyking can get his tools back, it's possible The Lady of the Lake may stretch out her arm and bestow upon thee the sound file, making you the rightful King of all the Writtens.

They'll never give up the sound file. It's their only leverage, so they're going to hold it back until the big day when it really counts, like if they ever need those last few points on Yahoo!Answers to get promoted to Level 2.

[Random832]

Cuerden placed a link on his user page at commons, but it was removed on the pretext that the link was a copyright violation...

Hardly surprising - it's not like Durova doesn't have a history of using false* claims of copyright violation as a blunt instrument against people who reproduce things she has said which are embarassing to her. Just ask Giano.

*I clicked through, and it seems to clearly fall under the fair use provision for commentary and criticism. I am not a lawyer, though

I want to apologize for my tone here.

However, I stand by the point itself - you can't close the barn door after the horses have left, and for as much as the person who posted it might be petty or might have distorted the context - trying to suppress things instead of simply having an open discussion makes you look just as bad and makes it look like the accusations have more substance than maybe they do.

(And if you're going to pretend the request to take down the link didn't come from you... don't. Only you can say you didn't give permission, which means it could only have come from you.)

[One]

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.

Wow, you've already said that like 8 times. Upon reading this ninth time, I suddenly realized that this is actually all about you. Thanks for your persistence.

[Web Fred]

He has a real gift for restoring engravings and etchings; I tend to work better with color. We also work in different software and there are certain things which Photoshop can do more readily than GIMP.

Yet strangely you don't bother with a calibrated monitor. Your edits have frequently introduced colour casts that you haven't spotted. I remember pointing out a couple yet was strangely ignored.

I'm presuming that it was caused by those rose-tinted glasses of yours.

[thekohser]

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.

Wow, you've already said that like 8 times. Upon reading this ninth time, I suddenly realized that this is actually all about you. Thanks for your persistence.

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.

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

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[One]

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.

Wow, you've already said that like 8 times. Upon reading this ninth time, I suddenly realized that this is actually all about you. Thanks for your persistence.

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.

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. Incidentally, I unfortunately slightly overstated your persistence in shining light on the Great Wikivoices Conspiracy in this thread:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=205769
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=205848
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=205902
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=224554
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=225045
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=225252
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=225304

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!

This post has been edited by One:

[thekohser]

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!

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

- 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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

- 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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

- 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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

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):

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[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.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

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!
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[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:

[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:

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

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.

[chrisoff]

Posted this somewhere else, but meant to post it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=349006975

"My main issue is Durova's tendency to weasel herself into discussions. There have been at least a dozen incidents where I've posted something which had no connection with her; a few days later, she showed up, complained about not being told, acted in utter ignorance of the situation, stated a few platitudes, and told people to close the conversation. Then I had to go back to dealing with an article/series of personal attacks/sockpuppetry issue, which she had effectively stopped discussion of. I do not trust her. I expect that, even if I worked in completely unrelated fields, she'd still find a way to make my life on Wikipedia hell, unless I have recognition that she has acted to bully me."~~Shoemaker's Holiday

[Somey]

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?

SandyGeorgia wants to know, too...

If I understand this correctly, Durova actually was heavily involved in the partnered exhibition on Maroon culture at the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam, but that page doesn't say anything about money. Still, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they'd offered to buy Mr. Cuerden a nice new scanner in order to help facilitate something like that, though of course he might not be the ideal person to count on to meet their deadline. My best guess is that Durova may have pointed this out to them, and that this is what Mr. Cuerden was upset about.

I expect that, even if I worked in completely unrelated fields, she'd still find a way to make my life on Wikipedia hell, unless I have recognition that she has acted to bully me."~~Shoemaker's Holiday

That's a bit naive, isn't it? For him to have this idea that mere recognition of Durova's bullying is going to prevent her from making his life on Wikipedia hell...?

At best, he's seriously underestimating her determination to get the job done!

[chrisoff]

I expect that, even if I worked in completely unrelated fields, she'd still find a way to make my life on Wikipedia hell, unless I have recognition that she has acted to bully me."~~Shoemaker's Holiday

That's a bit naive, isn't it? For him to have this idea that mere recognition of Durova's bullying is going to prevent her from making his life on Wikipedia hell...?

At best, he's seriously underestimating her determination to get the job done!

Well, yeah. Durova's whole point is to bully. Why else is she pontificating at ArbCom about situations she know nothing about?

A little pathetic that she has to get her rocks off on looking "28" (laugh) for the Wikipedia teeny boppers.

[Jon Awbrey]

If I understand this correctly, Durova actually was heavily involved in the partnered exhibition on Maroon culture at the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam …

You misspelled "moron" …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[chrisoff]

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
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Yup!

[BelovedFox]

Just another case of people caring a bit too much about a website... all that street cred doesn't turn into much in the real world. In my case, a bunch of random trivia and an opportunity to learn and improve my writing... but for the people so involved in the dramaboards, I'm not so sure you get much of worth out of it.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

What you're getting away from, guys, is that I also prioritized Shoemaker's ArbCom appeals ahead of my own and stood up for him for a year and a half until he got his case vacated. These past few days have been something like the end with David Shankbone.

The thing that drew me to both of them was seeing someone who did a lot of good work and had a lot of potential who looked like they needed a hand. They both got my trust; once they had that trust I was slow to pick up on the signals that maybe that trust wasn't deserved. Until it was really obvious.

Mantanmoreland was similar but he fooled more people. And looking back on how it transpired, he surrounded himself with idealistic people who didn't always choose the right crusade.

[thekohser]

I've been thinking about this more, and I'm rooting for Durova.

[Somey]

I've been thinking about this more, and I'm rooting for Durova.

Well, I think that's understandable, but neither of them are looking so good at the moment... what fun! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

As for the scanner, here's what Mr. Cuerden says (repeated here):

To SandyGeorgia: The scanner was offered because I've spent thousands of pounds on material to scan over the years, but was - and am - unable to work with it due to having now lost my main source of income, and thus was unable to get a replacement scanner. Unlike Durova, I actively seek out historical material, instead of using scans prepared by others.

I'm not sure of the details, and, frankly, with the number of things Durova has said she was going to do - the scanner, the Tropenmuseum exhibition, various other projects she claimed were in the air, and then used to get people to do what she wanted, none of which ever materialized, I doubt there was ever any practical chance of me getting one. But she milked it for months in order to manipulate me.

So if I'm reading this correctly, Mr. Cuerden says that Ms. Durova promised to arrange the "grant" to buy him a new scanner herself, and then didn't. It still sounds slightly fishy, or should I say "banna-phaffish," in that he doesn't say that his old scanner broke, or that he had to sell it - rather he seems to be saying that he can no longer work with his old scanner because he lost his main income source. Losing your income is bad, but does it really mean you can no longer scan things? Hopefully he just wasn't being clear for some reason.

Also, he spent thousands of pounds on "material to scan"? What was he scanning, gold bullion? Original paintings from the Post-Impressionist era? Original Shakespeare quartos? Unless he's referring to the scanning hardware itself, I suppose... but even the highest-priced consumer-level scanners are well under 500 quid. Unless he's going through one or two Epson Perfection-Series scanners per year, I'm not quite down with this part of the story.

[dtobias]

What you're getting away from, guys, is that I also prioritized Shoemaker's ArbCom appeals ahead of my own and stood up for him for a year and a half until he got his case vacated. These past few days have been something like the end with David Shankbone.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you did everything for him, and then he turned around and bit you anyway... though in the interaction that set the whole thing off, it seems like you were the first to excessively overreact (though he soon was upping the overreaction ante himself). You seem to be the sort who keeps an elaborate mental score so that you can come back with a "he owes me one" when necessary.

[Jon Awbrey]

What you're getting away from, guys, is that I also prioritized Shoemaker's ArbCom appeals ahead of my own and stood up for him for a year and a half until he got his case vacated. These past few days have been something like the end with David Shankbone.

Yeah, yeah, I get it … you did everything for him, and then he turned around and bit you anyway … though in the interaction that set the whole thing off, it seems like you were the first to excessively overreact (though he soon was upping the overreaction ante himself). You seem to be the sort who keeps an elaborate mental score so that you can come back with a "he owes me one" when necessary.

Got a problem, need help, odds against you? — Call The Equalizer.

I guess it's a step up from Ms. T, at least … or is it?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

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.

Now there is a classic Durova-ism. The point was not about pride in that work, you have plenty of that generally without investing it in a particular work; the point was you have made an alteration to the photograph where it is now not possible for people to ponder whether it is a mark or a representation.

You assert that the upswing defies gravity without understanding what might be out of frame on a ship in harbour, on a blurred photograph with all sorts of effects occurring because of intense fire. I'm actually quite happy that it might be a scratch, but I remain to be convinced as there are a number of plausible explanations.

One solution to the problem, rather than guessing, rather than original research, would be to find prints from other sources of the same photograph and see what artefacts are in them or indeed, places for that cable to join... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

It could be that the scratches were made in the original, and that, around the fallout from battle, the scratched picture is how it was originally produced and the damage was not that of ageing. Is it then appropriate to "restore" a picture to a state that it had never been in?

Perhaps you just need to call what you do something other than restoration.

[Zoloft]

<snip>
It could be that the scratches were made in the original, and that, around the fallout from battle, the scratched picture is how it was originally produced and the damage was not that of ageing. Is it then appropriate to "restore" a picture to a state that it had never been in?

Perhaps you just need to call what you do something other than restoration.

'Cleanup' or 'Retouching' would be more accurate. As you Cedric said earlier, it is appropriate to display a cleaned-up photo if marked as such and a link to the original scan is included.

This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[Cedric]

<snip>
It could be that the scratches were made in the original, and that, around the fallout from battle, the scratched picture is how it was originally produced and the damage was not that of ageing. Is it then appropriate to "restore" a picture to a state that it had never been in?

Perhaps you just need to call what you do something other than restoration.

'Cleanup' or 'Retouching' would be more accurate. As you Cedric said earlier, it is appropriate to display a cleaned-up photo if marked as such and a link to the original scan is included.

No, I didn't say that. Check my post again.

[Zoloft]

<snip>
It could be that the scratches were made in the original, and that, around the fallout from battle, the scratched picture is how it was originally produced and the damage was not that of ageing. Is it then appropriate to "restore" a picture to a state that it had never been in?

Perhaps you just need to call what you do something other than restoration.

'Cleanup' or 'Retouching' would be more accurate. As you Cedric said earlier, it is appropriate to display a cleaned-up photo if marked as such and a link to the original scan is included.

No, I didn't say that. Check my post again.

Sorry. My paraphrase was incorrect.

...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.

Allow me to rephrase:
'Cleanup' or 'Retouching' would be more accurate. I believe it is appropriate to display a cleaned-up photo if marked as such and a link to the original scan is included.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

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 thought about making that comparison earlier...but now I'm glad I refrained, because you did a far better job!
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

From me it would have come off sounding simply mean or, at best, funny. Especially since I lack a personal anecdote to drive home the point.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif)

[Web Fred]

To paraphrase the well-known phrase or saying "don't put down to deviousness that which is actually stupidity", Durova isn't deliberately altering history, she's just fucking lousy at doing what she does.

This post has been edited by Cunningly Linguistic:

[SB_Johnny]

What you're getting away from, guys, is that I also prioritized Shoemaker's ArbCom appeals ahead of my own and stood up for him for a year and a half until he got his case vacated. These past few days have been something like the end with David Shankbone.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you did everything for him, and then he turned around and bit you anyway... though in the interaction that set the whole thing off, it seems like you were the first to excessively overreact (though he soon was upping the overreaction ante himself). You seem to be the sort who keeps an elaborate mental score so that you can come back with a "he owes me one" when necessary.

I'm guessing she has a big database of ready "diffs" for strategic use, which boggles the mind.

[Eva Destruction]

To paraphrase the well-known phrase or saying "don't put down to deviousness that which is actually stupidity", Durova isn't deliberately altering history, she's just fucking lousy at doing what she does.

In fairness, I have to say that, although I find Durova's "without me you're nothing" posturing intensely irritating, when I was active on WP on the occasions I had any dealings with her in the image-retouching context I always found her perfectly helpful, willing to listen to criticism and suggestions, and pretty good at what she did.

[Web Fred]

To paraphrase the well-known phrase or saying "don't put down to deviousness that which is actually stupidity", Durova isn't deliberately altering history, she's just fucking lousy at doing what she does.

In fairness, I have to say that, although I find Durova's "without me you're nothing" posturing intensely irritating, when I was active on WP on the occasions I had any dealings with her in the image-retouching context I always found her perfectly helpful, willing to listen to criticism and suggestions, and pretty good at what she did.

As a professional image restorer I can attest that she's bobbins at it.