User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:22, 10 July 2008

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley#Temporary injunction, for the duration of that case no administrator is to block or unblock this user "other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee."

Template:Attempting wikibreak

Old messages are at:

Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

Trials and tribulations

Following the insertion of evidence (containing half-truths, out of context and missing facts which include oversighted edits) into the workshop page [1] (by a judging Arb) of a case which I had been assured was not about me, my existing feelings of contempt for the present Arbcom and its supporters has plummeted to new and unimaginable depths. Such are my feelings at being so proven right, I, at present, do not trust myself to speak fully on the subject. So, I would be grateful if no one would post here concerning the matter. There is plenty of room on the workshop page for you to have debates. While, I have tried to avoid posting on the case pages, I have posted 2 brief comments, both restrained. I hope, I shall not be posting or rising to baits there again.

I am very grateful to those working so hard to expose the facts on my behalf. However, a very worrying incident here last week coupled with the continued and in-depth amateur examining of my personality has made me feel personally vulnerable and threatened. There is only so much one can voluntarily take and I feel I have now taken enough. Thus, I have decided to become very much more low key on Wikipedia for a while. Thank you all for your emails and support. Giano (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a contest to see how many different bird species (or any animal species) we can count in the next 24 hours? I'm already in the lead - grey squirrel, dog, and that damn big gull that nests on the roof just opposite and doesn't squawk - it *screams* and you'd think a human was being attacked. Plus the crows that come through just after dawn to pick the garbage and harass that bloody gull into making extra loud screams. Oh, does motorcycle count as a species, I just counted that one too :) Franamax (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you said:

"The true problem now is that all trust and real communication between me and the Arbcom has irretrievably broken down. When Jimbo made his announcement saying that the Arbs had jurisdiction over IRC, I thought we had progress. Following the IRC case they agreed to address the problems and gave me a civility sanction. I don't accept the civility sanction because they never kept their side of the bargain to address the problems there, because FT2 announced there were no problems - so if no problems exist why pass a motion to address them? Now they are using my (less than flattering) references to them (dispossessed of any context), for not keeping their side of the bargain, as evidence to dispose of me. So more or less there is the problem in a nutshell. Of course there are one or two minor issues now cluttering the clarity up but they are all things that could have been easily sorted. However, now nothing can be sorted because any trust and respect that may have once existed has gone. They feel that any problems that exist will disappear with me, or, more likely, no one will ever dare raise them again. That peace will last just as long as it takes for the next bad block or decision to be orchestrated in IRC or someother secret place, and lets face it we all know that won't be long."

"All I have ever wanted was a transparent system of Admin debate. Admns could discuss easily on pages that ordinary editors can't edit, but can see. I just wanted an open fair system - so bad blocks orchestrated by cliques ect became a thing of the past - and the true reasoning of all blocks was open to scrutiny. Any truly confidential stuff, should not be in the hands of teen-age admins anyway, but dealt with by senior and trusted editors/admins/arbs."

"Sadly, the Arbs will just not address the problems of IRC, one can only hazard guesses as to why - and I am rapidly becoming past caring. Thanks for the support here (as ever) but I don't want to post here on this subject here again either. I see I am subconsciously using the past tense, I am truly very weary of battling a losing battle to get Wikipedia running fairly. Perhaps I will just go back to writing, or perhaps I may just dissapear - who knows."

May I suggest a different way of looking at this? Wikipedia has governance problems. Everyone knows this. You have bravely tried to put a spotlight on parts of this issue. You have succeeded in doing that. There is now an arbcom RFC. Many people are speaking up. Mission Accomplished :) I suggest that you accept this victory and announce that for one year you will watch as the debate and its resolution process proceeds and you will trust all the other people who have taken up the issues of Wikipedia governance to enact some needed improvements in Wikipedia governance. You have done your part. Relax for a year and spend your time on Wikipedia at what you came here to do in the first place - write articles. Bless you and good luck. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily second that, Giano. I've had many stimulating exchanges with you on architecture articles, and I long to get back to that harmonious mode. --Wetman (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always here, and always open to suggestions, talks and negotoations from the Arbcom. They know where to find me. Giano (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hazarding guesses

I was under the impression that the issue had been fully explained back at the beginning of the year; but, as I can't find any real discussion to that effect, other than the statements here, I'm beginning to suspect that my impression may be incorrect. If that's indeed the case, then I apologize.

Anyways: the reason the Committee cannot "address the problems of IRC"—at least in the manner in which you would presumably like to see them addressed—is because the Committee does not actually have any real authority over IRC, and lacks the ability to issue decrees that would be binding on the IRC channels or their participants. That authority rests solely with the IRC Group Contacts and their appointed representatives. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to both Giano and Kirill for interjecting here, I can't help myself. I asked right back then, in a thoroughly ignored section, I believe in Workshop Talk - why can't en:wiki, under the aegis of ArbCom, establish it's own admin channel, with it's own group contact, with it's own consequent rules of operation? With the accompanying deprecation of the existing channel, which of course could keep operating forever, but no longer with official imprimatur. Sorry Giano to mess up your talk page, but that question still bugs me! Franamax (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine. However, there comes a time when we cannot keep arguing in circles which is what is happening now. During the last circus the committee agreed this [2] and more importantly this [3] "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee." Here we all are months later, and nothing has changed. In spite of Jimbo decreeing the Arbs did have jurisdiction [4] and one Arb wanting to address the matter properly with the wider community (she received zero support from her fellow Arbs [5]) In fact, FT2 was delegated to half a half hearted and look and that was the end of the matter, as he found no problems! If as Kyril says, after all these decrees and motions they have passed, the Arbs now claim to have no control over the behaviour of Admins, in a channel which Wikipedia encourages them to join, which is in fact, "owned" by an Arb (he has said this himself- James "You are all idiots" Forrester) then we do indeed have a problem - and if others cannot see these very real problems. which repeatedly occur and eminate from that chanel, then that is that, enough is enough - I do give up - others can sort it if they have the will or the energy. Giano (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re yr link not found: how 'bout this? It's not the one I was thinking of, but it's fairly clear, at least at the start. Franamax (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks, duly inserted. I am going on a wiki-break now for a while, as I am so tired of this head banging debate. My parting thoughts, more of a question really is: Is it right that Wikipedia is policed from a place over which Wikipedia claims it has no control? I know the answer, I hope some of you do too. Giano (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partire è un po' morire --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, and you can remove this if you want to, but it absolutely is strange. Your summary above reflects my understanding of the situation, and Kirill's comment seems to directly contradict the developments in this area in the recent past. Avruch 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should all thank Kirill for having posted this here, as it will be very helpful in explaining some of the edits Kirill has brought up in the current Arbitration Committee case. To review: the committee says on 9 February 2008 that "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" [6], following a statement by Jimbo Wales on 26 December 2007 ["You may consider this a statement of policy. I consider it well within the overall remit of the Arbitration Committee and my own traditional role in the English Wikipedia community to have authority over IRC as necessary. If this is a policy change (I do not think so) then it is a policy change. In any event, this page should reflect the fact that from this day forward, concerns about standards of civility in IRC should be taken up with the channel operators, the Arbitration Committee, and me, in that order."][7] and on 8 July 2008 a member of the committee says "I was under the impression that the issue had been fully explained back at the beginning of the year", and that "the Committee does not actually have any real authority over IRC, and lacks the ability to issue decrees that would be binding on the IRC channels or their participants". Well, Kirill, I think it was explained, but the explanation given doesn't match what you are saying today. Sorry. Risker (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill seems to be full of contradictions lately. The arbs decided a case. Oh, no they didn't. It's not about Giano. Oh,yes it is. The arbs will solve the IRC problem. Oh, no they won't. Strange... Tex (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how hard it is to find that statement by Jimbo. How hard is it to find cases resulting from bad acts on IRC? How hard, on the other hand, is it to find any statement that permits the use of IRC to decide anything? The only conclusion I can come to is that those who use IRC all day find themselves thinking that, you know, IRC is great... why "I" never misuse it, and they then never investigate anything. Any case showing the reverse is just a "bad apple" (like Lynndie England was a "bad apple"), and there is no credence given to anyone, no matter how dispassionate, who shows that the medium itself, by its nature, is ill-suited to use. Geogre (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use IRC everyday, and certainly not all day, but I don't think a chat room is ill-suited for the purposes of conversation. Clearly there are events of poor judgment, and no more proof is needed than this page to demonstrate that there is a vast gulf of misunderstanding about the standards of conduct and who is responsible for enforcing them. Its also obvious that conduct on #wikipedia-en-admins, where the members join the channel and discuss as Wikipedia administrators, must be governable by Wikipedia policies and subject to review by the arbitration committee.

I'm not sure why that is so difficult to establish - perhaps the channel should just be deleted, and conversations directed to the main channel where anyone and everyone can join (and maintain a log). Nowhere else (except, perhaps, unblock-en-l) are administrator discussions privileged and secret. An alternative is just publishing a complete log automatically to a page in Wikipedia-space. Information that must remain private should go to the arbitration committee as it does normally. It seems simple, and I (among others) thought the question of governance was resolved awhile back. Maybe it will take another test case of IRC misconduct to force Jimbo and the arbitration committee to put it to rest. Avruch 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaahh, it seems to come down to "oops, someone else owns the channel", and everytime I ask why a new channel can't be made, the response seems to be the sound of one hand clapping. Looking now at this, I find it hard to understand why WMF couldn't approach Freenode and ask for a primary group name of "enwiki" or maybe "WMF", what with being the sixth-most popular website in the world and all. (Yes, I have backup for sixth-most). This lack of action seems inexplicable - it certainly does give rise to various conspiracy theories. (Although, I myself and some other users & admins who I vastly respect, couldn't care less about IRC channels, never tried them and likely never will). Franamax (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Blytheswood House

A tag has been placed on Blytheswood House requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. RGTraynor 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 ::::Yaahh, it seems to come down to "oops, someone else owns the channel", and everytime I ask why a new channel can't be made, the response seems to be the sound of one hand clapping. Looking now at [http://freenode.net/primary_groups.shtml this], I find it hard to understand why WMF couldn't approach Freenode and ask for a primary group name of "enwiki" or maybe "WMF", what with being the sixth-most popular website in the world and all. (Yes, I have backup for sixth-most). This lack of action seems inexplicable - it certainly does give rise to various conspiracy theories. (Although, I myself and some other users & admins who I vastly respect, couldn't care less about IRC channels, never tried them and likely never will). [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
+==Speedy deletion of [[:Blytheswood House]]==
+[[Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg|48px|left]] A tag has been placed on [[:Blytheswood House]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#A7|section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the [[WP:CSD#Articles|criteria for speedy deletion]], articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please [[Wikipedia:Notability|see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable]], as well as our subject-specific [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|notability guideline for biographies]].
+If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of [[:Blytheswood House|the page that has been nominated for deletion]]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on '''[[ Talk:Blytheswood House|the talk page]]''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|one of these admins]] to request that a copy be emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-bio-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;RGTraynor&nbsp;</span>''']] 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)