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.

[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).

[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?

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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)