User talk:Giano II

You say "It has been suggested I take an interest in RFAs, but I don't want to mould future administrators - it is up to the arbcom to define strict criteria to ensure only the responsible get through." We have no power to do that, and, frankly, are dependent as you are with respect to selection of administrators. There just isn't enough time to attend to it. To vote knowledgeably I would have to spend time investigating the edits and actions of the candidates. I can't do that due to other projects and arbitration duties. I would like to see some changes made, but my opinion in that regard is little more than that of any user. I would simply see more care taken and that arbitrary requirements not be imposed. Fred Bauder 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Not sure if you want discussion to take place here or somewhere else, or if you would prefer this page to be just the open letter for a while, but I agree with what you say about the need to attract and retain writers on expert matters. The trouble is that just having expert writers was tried with Nupedia, and the wikipedia model seems to suggest that content added anonymously, and an army of wikignomes to organise other content and tidy things up is needed to reach the popularity levels we have. Those who are primarily writers also need to be able to work (directly or indirectly) with those who are janitors (admins) and those who write the code (the developers) and those who undo vandalism (anyone) and block troublemakers (admins). Getting the balance right is difficult, but I agree with the central point you are making, that those who are experts and run into troublemakers should have somewhere to complain to, rather than feeling they have to leave. There is also the flip side of the coin, even those who edit their little corner undisturbed for a long time should not become complacent. The open and public nature of the project means there is always the possibility that a troublemaker will come along. If the editors in question don't want to spend the time persuading cranks and nuts that they are wrong, or educating those who weren't aware of the most recent published work in an area, then they need to be aware that this is actually how Wikipedia works. Not ideal, but please suggest how this can be improved to both retain experts and not excessively restrict editing. Carcharoth 11:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your message above

Hi Giano,

Above, you describe me as a "trouble-maker" and insist that I be de-sysopped. User:Rebecca has promised to begin an RFAR against me in response to my block of you, and I hope that you participate. My block was endorsed by Mr. Wales and there was no conspiracy against you, I hope that a formal proceeding will help assuage your concerns. You have, on a number of occasions, referenced logs that you felt were damning. I encourage you to re-read them carefully, you may find some of the things you ascribed to me to be in error. If you feel that I have violated a policy or acted in a manner unbecoming a wikipedian, please let me know so I can address your concerns.

We're all supposed to be working together to improve the project, and some of the vitriol being exchanged is working against those goals. I hope you'll receive this message in the spirit with which it was sent and join me in helping heal the rifts that have formed.

Regards,

CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• For the benefit of anyone who is wondering what on earth this is all about. It seems that the case concerning me re-opened by the arbcom (very foolishly and without any serious thought IMO) has vanished into thin air, now that the arbcom finally realise it concerns more the behaviour of a small cluster of admins on the IRC admin channel than it does me. While I can quite see how embarrassing it must have been for the arbitrators to see one of their number forced to recuse after joyfully voting to ban me and/or parole me (in short get rid of me because I know too much and won't shut up) - I think it would be helpful if not courteous (remember all their talk of incivility) if we were told exactly what is happening. We now know, and indeed the arbitrators now know that Betacommand, Chairboy and Naconkantari were acting under very strange circumstances indeed with their continued blocks of me I still hardly dare edit, for wondering from where the next template will drop. It will be a pity if the arbcom's failure to act now results in further disruptive and damaging RFArb cases. From what I can gather at the moment though that seems to be their wish. I hope this dithering and failure to act, is not a ploy to prevent us ever finding out that one of their leading members has said in IRC that many of us are idiots who need to be got rid of. The arbcom needs to clean up IRC admins and I'm beginning to think their own house too in order that wikipedia can progress in a healthy fashion Giano 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chairboy. Thank you for your very measured, reasonable and concilliatory words above. I find them a refreshing contrast from some of your previous words and actions and a step in the right direction. However, you must forgive Giano for doubting them. So perhaps as a sign of good faith and sincerity on your part, would it be too much to ask that you give up your sysop mop, temporarily until the RFAr case against you is resolved? Consider too that should the RFAr go against you, such a voluntary display of humility and accoutability would be in your favor. Thanks--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the existance of the RFAR, could you provide a link? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The one User:Rebecca has promised to begin against you. I'm sure you'll be provided with the link then.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I asked her on her talk page, and she archived it without response. When I followed up with her on IRC, she said that she had changed her mind, so no RFAR that I know of. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps she thought that since your actions had Jimbo's approval, the RFAr didn't stand a chance. Still, such an act of sincere contrition on your part would be a noble step in the direction of concilliation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrition for what? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters for making a bad situation, which was starting to calm down, much worse. For conspiring off Wiki to drive away a valuable contributor. And generally for conduct unbecoming an admin. Someone has to make amens in the situation, so why not you?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well jeepers. I didn't conspire against anyone, I'm not sure which specific behavior you feel was conduct unbecoming an admin, and regarding your other charge, well, I'd rather not inflame the situation any further, and I think this really isn't the venue for this discussion. If you'd like to discuss this further, let's either move it to my talk page or keep it on yours alone. Continuing this here is just fodder for more conflict, and Giano II doesn't need his talk page spammed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had hoped from your statement at the top of this chain that you were ready to own up to your part in this mess. I guess I misunderstood. Obviously we have not been reading the same IRC logs. The fault here is mine, for hoping that a Chairboy would act as a chairman:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

(Break inserted for clarity, the message below is in response to Giano II above.)

I knew there might be trouble due to your calls for desyopping. I think the consensus is that we would like to see you come back, but we are also reluctant to continue the drama with respect to the issues you raise. The motions regarding you were removed because we were not getting anywhere. However, we are doing what we can to improve the situation on IRC. The disturbing situation there has been discussed at great length. Fred Bauder 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Disturbing situation" well at least that is one up on "Giano is paranoid" now go and tell it to those on IRC and do something about it fast - before they gang up on the next victim! God in heaven, it's like bashing one's head on a brick wall. Giano 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes Fred, neither have I forgotten you wanted me banned for bringing it to your attention! Giano 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am very seldom on IRC, other than the arbcom channel. Fred Bauder 02:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah Fred, I'm so glad to see that IRC has not corrupted you as well.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did get this response from a new Arbcomma [1]. Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a point of fact, no-one was forced to recurse, at least, not in the sense that there was any rule that required it. People make mistakes, and sometimes they have the opportunity to correct them. It's not something we should take undue pleasure from. Being sinned against doesn't give one license to sin. Cheers. Ben Aveling 23:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bolox he was forced after a long debate and many emails and much discussion. Glad you too agree I and many others have been "sinned against". Regarding you edit summary "Time for forgivness on all sides please" please don't be impertinent I shall be the one to decide when it is time for "forgiveness" - and it is a long way off yet - beleive me! all the acusations of paranoia etc are still ringing in my ears - so don't you dare come here preaching about "forgiveness". Those people are all still on IRC admins plotting as we speak against the nest target - Oh and you had better beleive it Giano 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

He was encouraged to by a number of people, including myself, and he agreed to trust our judgement over his own. Had he not, then maybe he might have been forced to. But good sense prevailed and it didn't come to that.

I don't really care what happens on IRC admins, so long as it stays there. Sticks and stones and all that. It's what happens on wikipedia that matters. There may have been some people motivated by malice, and others that made mistakes. It happens. Life is too short to buy into every battle that offers itself. Forgivness isn't a gift to them, it's a gift to yourself. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, are you really master of the "point of fact" you present? I for my part don't know what happens inside what is, to the ordinary community member, the black hole of internal ArbCom discussion. Do you? I only know that such discussions are liable to carry more weight than the community "encouragement" whereof you speak. I know you mean well, but I'd be honestly surprised if your aphorisms helped a lot on this page and at this time. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Am I doing any good? Maybe not. But I'd rather try and fail than not try. This is what James said to me: I disagree with your disagreement. I am not "heavily involved"; in my opinion, I am not involved at all. ... I have now recused, however, in large part because you (and apparently others) for some reason consider me "involved". I have no proof but I believe he was trying to act honourably and just made a couple of mistakes. When I look back at this sorry mess, it seems to me that Giano had no control over what happened. His reaction to the situation he encountered was to lash out, to try to hurt people, and I think he succeeded in that. And perhaps some of them deserved to be hurt. But he also hurt some people who didn't deserve to be hurt, either because they were just innocent bystanders trying to help or because they were dupes who needed help, not abuse. The result was that Giano was played like a fish on a hook. Everything he did reduced his credibility with almost everyone. Had it not been for yourself and Geogre, Giano would IMHO have been permabanned. Were I Giano, I would not be happy with that. Maybe he is, in which case he doesn't need to change anything. But if he'd like a bit more control over his own destiny, then he is going to have do some things a bit differently in the future. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Are you being deliberately tiresome, or is it just something you can't help? I'm not sure what you are, other than less than helpful, so run along sonny - don't bother to come back. Giano 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Bishonen - sorry Ben you seem to be rather out of the loop, I rather think the arbcom have abdicated responsibility and given up. So it is up to the individual editor to act as they see fit. The arbcom no longer exists to protect you or the encyclopedia, they have simply disappeared. I seems likely that IRCadmin is running the joint - so beware. Giano 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree, but I don't have the time to explain why. If you trust me, accept that IRCadmin does not run this community. They have some influence, as do we all. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• "If you trust me" - Thanks, I don't. Giano 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

G, I would be remiss visiting your talkpage without paying some words to our noble host. I hope you may find something here to your liking. Cheers & ciao--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A comment from someone uninvolved

I'm an admin and I spend a lot of time on the -admins channel on IRC, and until this evening I wasn't really clear on exactly how this whole debacle had started (that damn userbox wheelwar, blocks, unblocks, desysoppings, resysoppings, et cetera ad nauseam).

I know it can't take the place of a timely apology from the people involved, but I would like you to know that I genuinely regret that you were blocked. You're a good editor, and your original comment was, albeit perhaps somewhat excessive in light of the revelation that the guy who created the userbox in the first place was a 14-year-old trying to be funny, not unreasonable.

I'm sorry that people are upset with each other. I would like to try to make peace. Okay? DS 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Than you DS for taking the time to come over here to offer your support. Sadly peace comes at a price the arbcom and IRC admins don't want to pay.

I'm glad you're an admin, because you will thus be aware of the problems. However, while you appear to be aware that the paedophile problem was indeed caused by a "14-year-old trying to be funny" [2]. You seem though to be unaware why I was banned for the "hate speech" which has led to all these subsequent frequent bans and problems and me being denounced by certain members (past and present) of the arb com.

My fateful and dreadful words were "We have people of all ages editing, we do not want or need those who have an inclination or even pretension towards paedophilia" [3]

As you quite rightly point out Wikipedia is edited by the very young. The "hate speech" which has led to this entire problem (Brion Viber refused to remove the slur from my log, and Kelly Martin felt even me wishing it made ne a "prima donna") is still causing me so much trouble. However, I stand by every word I said which led to that original block by Carnildo. (For anyone desperate to yet again dig out the details all links from here [4] are helpful) Any wikipedia editor who chooses to give an email address can be contacted by anyone, as a consequence Whatever certain admins and members of the arbcom say and do, my opinion remains 100% unaltered. I would do and say the same again whatever the "scumpit" that is IRCadmins may feels about the subject, and there is the root of this problem. Giano 14:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also edited by the very intolerant and heartless, as I know from personal experience. I was almost put off creating any new material at all, and I deal with Wikipedia far less as a result. Like you I consort with literate, bright and positive folk, have academic and experiential curiosity, and am reasonably well connnected. So, speaking as a kindred spirit, if I may presume, I say rejoice in your gifts and be thankful that you get to take yourself home whereas these people have themselves. Or, as a friend of mine once put it - would you like to be them? - No. Would they like to be you? - Definitely. Mine's a Pernod with lots of iced water. -- FClef (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

I was hoping that you might be able to clear up a small matter concerning Donald Crawford. My source states that he was a relative of Sir Charles Dilke but it does indicate not the degree. Have you run across that in your researches? Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

hihi

Can you help me climb the ladder? No double meanings, I am just being a regular joker. :D — Nearly Headless Nick 12:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

More intersted in the delicious Baroque behind the ladder, than boring old admin antics. Giano 12:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaron teaches dada art. Interested? — Nearly Headless Nick 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Relax

Giano...just relax man...let discredited former admins like me take over from here:)!--MONGO 12:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Question - what do you want?

Hi, Giano. I'm fairly new to enter this dispute, and I do so with some hesitation. I have, however, been following it for months, and even during a recent wiki-break with my own real-life issues, I sometimes took a peep at your talk page and at the ArbCom page to see what was happening. Of course it has nothing to do with me, and if you tell me to run along, I won't take offence. I'll even try to restrain myself from giving you a "cool down" block!

What I see when I look at this case is a brilliant editor who was turning out one featured article after another, and, while doing that, enjoying the social side of Wikipedia with some extremely nice friends. Then there was a completely unjustified and crazy block for "hate speech", and everything went downhill from there. I have no hesitation in saying that every block you have been given since then has in some way had its root cause in that outrageous "hate speech" block from last February.

As an admin who has written no featured articles, I really couldn't understand why two (then) admins were getting so upset at your "campaign for less bull" notice on your user page. I have in the past objected to users using their pages to make fun of other users, particularly in ways that attacked their dignity, but a general "you-may-not-get-the-respect-you-feel-you-deserve" message seemed completely unworthy of the battle it generated — especially from people who were not noted for civility themselves. My own closest wiki-friend has a "Welcome, but be warned: Enter at your own risk" notice at the top of his talk page, but so far has been fortunate enough not to attract the attention of senior Wikipedians who can't concentrate on writing an encyclopaedia while there's such a terrible threat that needs to be removed.

Anyway, the reason I'm here at your talk page now is to ask you what you want from Wikipedia? It's just a question, as I'm not in a position to negotiate. But it's something that I feel should be laid out so that we all know where we stand. In fact, I can't believe that nobody has asked you this so far. I don't have any direct experience with you, but I know you're a brilliant editor, and you seem to be very highly thought of by someone that I think very highly of. I do think you had every right to ask that your block log be cleaned (and in fact I e-mailed Jimbo a few weeks ago to say that Wikipedia owed you that much). Part of the problem was that the overturning of the blocks didn't say that there was no hate speech; they said that the block was outside of policy etc. Personally, I think if it had been cleaned immediately, a lot of the nastiness that occurred later could have been avoided.

Anyway, if you don't want to answer, I'll understand, but I'd like to know:

1. What would you need from Wikipedia in order to be able to go back to editing happily, as you used to?
2. If you don't get everything you want (and I'm sure you won't!), what would you need from Wikipedia in order to be prepared to stay here (as many people want you to), and to going back to behaving (almost) as if the whole thing had never happened? In other words, what's the minimum you could accept?

I'm delighted that your block log has been cleaned, but I'm not sure that you have modified your poor opinion of the ArbCom by even one percent as a result. My own view is that you should also be e-mailed a new password for the old account, that "cooldown" blocks should be stopped, and that admins should be prepared to warn and if necessary to block for harassment any user who keeps on putting warning templates on the talk page of established editors. (I know I'd be prepared to.) That's from the Wikipedia side. From your side, I think you should consider leaving out the remarks about inexperienced admins and corrupt ArbCom members. (I'm not asking you to stop thinking them, but I feel that those who agree already agree, and those who don't are not going to be convinced by you at this stage.) I do think you have been treated very badly on Wikipedia. I don't like what I've seen of the IRC logs, but don't know the full background. I think that Cyde's taunt about maybe knowing something that you don't was very inappropriate. But, more than anything else, I see a need to start discussing what you would require from Wikipedia (no matter how much), and what you'd be prepared to give back (no matter how little) in order for peace to be restored. The whole thing is very painful now.

Musical Linguist 13:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Than you Musical Linguist for what I see as a very fair assessment of the situation.

My wishes, which are no secret are very simple. I have said countless times, I can (and do) stick up for myself, many others do not, or feel unable to do so, and as a result for varying reasons they have suffered as a result of comment on the IRC admin channel. They are the people who need to be able to edit in peace, without fear of templates and blocks for ridiculous reasons.

The disgraceful IRC admin's channel needs to be abolished, and it's even more disgraceful leading members need to be de-sysoped to point out loudly and clearly bullying and harassment will not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

My former unaccessible account has indeed had its block log cleaned but as you say I have been blocked since always as a result of the first disgusting block by Carnildo (who incidentally, has never apologised and since been promoted to glory against consensus - on whose orders I wonder?).

My problem, which is now Wikipedia's problem, is I won't shut up, and I won't shut up until this whole matter has been sorted, I want those who executed bad blocks (we can forget the templates) de-sysoped. I want those who called for bad blocks in IRC de-sysoped (why not just make the block themselves?). Finally, I want that channel abolished, with a thorough condemnation from the arbcom, quite how the arbcom will achieve this as one of their leading members considers himself the "owner" is their problem. The arbcom have allowed Wikipedia to be brought into disrepute - now they must sort it - or resign en mass themselves. Giano 14:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The devil you know versus the devil you don't

Just one comment on one specific thing (I'm not touching the broader dispute with a 10 foot pole). I have my own reservations about IRC. However, the real problem here is editor conduct, is it not? If some people get together and say rude things, or even coordinate on-wiki actions, is burning down the house they meet at going to help? Won't they just find a different place to meet? You won't generally find me on IRC, but it's an unavoidable fact of life, in my opinion. Maybe the best we can hope for is an IRC channel that has reasonable people in it, to help balance out the potential harm of whatever unreasonable people also go there. We can't make IRC go away- the most we could do is "drive it underground", which is a solution worse than the problem. Friday (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly so long as the channel in question is "invitation only" with invitations being given not just to selected admins but also selected favourites who are not admins there seems little hope. That the new police force employed to prevent future bad behaviour is comprised of the usual old names of the channel - indicates little hope for improvement. Better to do away with it completely. Giano 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You both make some very good points! I have, therefore, proposed a compromise here, in which I hope you will find some virtue.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Friday, driving it underground is not worse. Above-ground, the behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins serves to define a culture: people go there because that's where admins are supposed to go on IRC, and then they see how admins behave, and some will pick that up as the way Wikipedia's culture says admins should behave. If the same cliques met in their own private channels, at the very least newbies getting invites would have no illusions that they were entering a neutral area. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I think BoG has it right here. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You could be right. If it were up to me, I'd eliminate the IRC channels and tell people they're on their own. I was assuming this was unrealistic in real life, though. Friday (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well whatever, never fear Giano is here, and when I have my teeth into a page - however long, I always finish it eventually, usually to wide acclaim. Giano 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems extraordinary to me that anyone could think that IRC was "an unavoidable fact of life". --Wetman 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

admin irc

Hi Giano, I was going to comment at wp:an, but the discussion there has been boxed up. My apologies if this is old news to you, but I think it is important and hasn't been discussed much.

Abbreviated history - an admin irc channel or mailing list was first publically proposed (as far as I know) on the WikiEN mailing list [5]. There were immediate requests that archives be made public [6], then harsh words for public archiving [7], as the channel was intended for sensitive issues. Further comments noted that discussing sensitive legal issues with a thousand admins wasn't too bright, and that prohibiting archiving would never stop leaks. The admin-irc channel was then created, not sure by who, and a good guy announced it in the interest of openness. See the Jan 2006 WikiEN archives for more.

This demonstrates (IMO) that the channel was created as wikipedia body, with specific mandates, after discussions in an official wikipedia forum. All actions there, including who the ops are, should be under the jurisdiction of and accountable to the arbcom or the wikipedia community. I know others disagree.

Anyway, as a disclaimer, I've never been in the admin-irc channel and only rarely visited irc in the past, can't remember the last time, although I joke "see ya in irc" to people who know my views of the place. --Duk 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear - ist it boxed up - so soon - I do wonder why, just like the discussion on Beatacommand's tal a couple of weeks ago, the second it starts to become interesting out come the boxes. Such a pity. Giano 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)