User talk:Giano

	Campaign for less bull more writing
	This user believes all admins should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article before being considered for adminship, and should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article per year or stand for re-election to retain their status.
	We are here to write an encyclopedia

---

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano.

Wikimedia Foundation

---

Please add your comments below, preferably at the bottom.

Old messages are at

• User talk:Giano archive 1(2004)
• User talk:Giano archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano archive 5 (2006)

And now, for something completely different

Hi Giano. Does the bull have a name? I'm just curious and nosy. Also wanted to lighten up a very heavy talk page. I have suggestions if it doesn't. Take care -- Samir धर्म 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hercule pronounced as in Hercule Poirot Giano | talk 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That fits... he sort of looks like a Hercule. -- Samir धर्म 08:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Happenings of last night

Now everyone is a little more calm in the best Agatha Christie style I shall now explain the events of last night to you all, first for the benefit of all the new editors we have to have a little history, months ago I made two comments (follow it all from here [1]) regarding the wisdom of allowing known paedophiles to edit. For this I was immediately banned for "hate speech" by Carnildo, of course that was ridiculous and Carnildo was immediately de-sysoped. We then fast forward to Carnildo application for re-sysoping [2], I was one of the chief opponents because Carnildo had never apologised or expressed understanding of how bad for wikipedia his actions had been.

Then we had the Eternal Equinox arbitration fiasco, and it was indeed a fiasco, Arbitrators felt in spite of her atrocious behaviour they could not ban her, but would ban me for one month for annoying her, not three hours, a week, but a month! [3] Everyone was incredulous, I don't think anyone could really believe it was a serious proposition, yet strangely two Arbitrators supported it, one with the famous words, "pour encourager les autres". One thought is that it was to encourage Carnildo to re-apply for adminship, or was it already known he was going to apply on a certain date - how convenient it would have been if I were safely out of the way for a month.

Well I wasn't banned I was there and very vocal. The RfA went against all tradition and set a new precedent of promoting without consensus, this could not have happened if all members had not been fully consulted. The inevitable fall out would have been assessed and a mode of dealing with it decided in advance. (If they truly thought there would be no fall-out, then they are so out of touch they should all resign en masse). Hence I posted [4]. Which is exactly what the arbcom is doing, they have been repeatedly asked by the editorship to come forward and explain, but they do not, we are treated with silent disdain - there are many of them - where are they? All we have is Kelly Martin (arbitrator emeritus as she terms herself) informing us we are a "fickle and ill-informed populace." [5]. Still a resounding silence so I posted this [6]. Of course that was far to close for comfort, so I was immediately blocked by Tony Sidaway the arbitrator's clerk.

Tony Sidaway is permitted by the Arbitrators to be their unofficial mouthpiece, for ages I thought he was an arbitrator so confident are his pronouncements. He is allowed a latitude permitted to no other editor. Through him they judge the mood of the encyclopedia. The problem is for the Arbcom now, is that they have permitted the guard dog to reply to the mail and answer the telephone for far too long - never a good idea.

I still have ""hate speech"" on my block log, Carnildo has never once contacted me or apologised so I feel slapped in the face in by the Arbcom. However, more importantly by riding rough shod over the views of the ""fickle and ill-informed populace"" they have insulted us all. They have bought this on themselves.

The Arbcom have altered without consultation the whole ethical ethos of the encyclopedia - they should at least explain as a united body - why? Does the view of the editorship count or has consensus gone out of the window. The Arbcom needs to come down from on high (all of them) re-assure editors they are valued, and get the place back to writing an encyclopedia, unhindered by minor buzzing admins who contribute nothing. Then they need to examine themselves and decide where they want the encyclopedia to go and how.

I thank all those who have been friendly to me, also the ones who doubt the validity of what I am saying; and I ask those who think I am paranoid to just have a hard think for five minutes. For anyone who may be wondering/hoping: No, I have no wish for personal power here, not even to be an admin and I have no intention of leaving at all, not of my own free will anyway. I just want to write an encyclopedia and express a legitimate view when necessary. Giano | talk 08:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

HI Giano...I sent you an email.--MONGO 09:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, yesterday I opined that Tony Sidaway's blocking you was not right. Today I'll risk incurring your wrath by opining that your theories are ill-founded. There have been mistakes made in recent weeks, but you take matters way too far with your theorizings and it really is time to reduce the level of venom.

The idea of banning you for a month -- a genuinely stupid idea, and your and my paths first crossed when I posted to the arb page and said so -- was proposed by Fred Bauder. It received one other vote, Charles Matthews', in support. Four arbitrators specifically voted against it, while the other five never registered views one way or the other as the case sat on the shelf well after its sell-by date had expired. I find it simple enough to explain the proposal on the basis that Fred and Charles Matthews misjudged the nature of your comment to EE and reacted badly -- and lost the vote. They accomplished nothing except to get you angry. There is no connection readily inferred between this and Carnildo's situation, and I doubt very much that Charles Matthews was a key decision-maker there. How the ArbCom's voting down a ban furthered some master plan is not clear to me.

There are other objections to your suggestions of yesterday, but I'll stop there, for I suspect my words thus far will already be ill-received. I am reminded though of the old saying that we should not impute to malice what can be readily understood as error, or even disagreement. Newyorkbrad 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're sanitizing the old saying, Brad. Bishonen | talk 10:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

Well, there is always the chance that it was a horrendous cock-up (oops - personal attack and profanity there). Forgive me for asking, but is there any evidence for this wide-ranging conspiracy? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, you're expecting a level of generosity and courtesy that is simply inappropriate in this context-- more to the point, have you any tweaks to offer Jockey-Club de Paris? --Wetman 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As per your suggestion I've thought about it for 5 minutes. My God Giano, I think ALoan, Bishonen etc. need to sit you down with some more Port and soothing words before you completely lose the plot. Without any evidence to the contrary I'm definitely in the 'cock-up over conspiracy' camp. Accusations of incompetence we could probably sustain, but this? Really? Doddery old User:Fred Dibnah made a mistake I think, Charles Mathews was positioning for his candidacy at the board and you were unfortunate collateral damage, but a wide ranging conspiracy that it was all engineered to keep you out of the way of Carnildo's RfA? Why just you and not EL_C too if that were the case? Come on man, sit, take the weight off, pour yourself a glass and we'll go and shout our lungs out at the footie referee from the safety of the terrace, but not this. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My dear foolish friend Giano, the footsie thing has gone to your head. While the conspiracy theory you propose hangs together just enough for a nice plot for a made for TV movie, I suggest using Occam's razor to cut your grand conspiracy into a little pile of unconnected cock-ups. I do like the "guard dog" bit though. And as for Angela please read this. Paul August ☎ 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• While you are all speculating the possibilities of my grand (possibly hypothetical) conspiracy theory, I note no-one is so keen to address what is in fact hard fact. The arbcom refusing to answer why they ignored consensus, and why Sidaway is allowed to get away with so much. Efforts by many others to ask these questions are currently being very rapidly archived and deleted her [7]. I should hurry before you miss the show, just look at those diffs and edit summaries they go on over two pages. Fascinating stuff. Just look how busy Mr Sidaway is archiving and deleting away. Giano | talk 11:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with ALoan and others that we don't have enough evidence of a wide-scale conspiracy and nothing good will come of unfounded accusations on talk pages. I was also misled by Tony Sidaway's habit of regular posting ArbCom's decision on "behalf of the Arbitration Committee" and his confident pronouncements into assuming that he is a former arbitrator or that his actions are somehow sanctioned by the ArbCom. When I was blocked by him, I even applied to one of the administrators for explanations, erroneously believing they work in tandem. We have since been told that this may not be the case. If so, I don't think a community block is a solution. If the community feels that Tony's behaviour is beyond the pale[8], the issue should be settled using the proper dispute resolution procedures. Sulking and pouting is unlikely to sanitize the climate here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• He had been editing almost continuously (largest gap about 3 hours) since 17:24, 13 September 2006. I think has gone for some sleep - he has been gone for 4 hours now. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, spoke too soon - the usual polite conversation with User:Friday. Perhaps I should remove his talk page from my watchlist - the amount of traffic makes me feel a bit like a wikistalker. Anyway, I thought his favourite article was interesting. But it is a pity that he does not want to write Janet and Jane, don't you think. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Giano - I withhold judgement on the conspiracy theories (ok, I don't really believe them to any extent but do acknowledge that behind-the-scenes politicking has a bigger impact on goings-on than anyone could wish for) but I must say something to you that has needed to be said for a long time now. Ready? Bureaucrats and Arbitrators are two different groups of people, with some overlap. You keep lumping them together willy-nilly, and it's a little hard to follow. Now, some of the 'crats apparently did consult with the at least some of the Arbs prior to the Carnildo promotion, so it's understandable that you do so, but I have become worried that you don't realize there is a difference at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A triffle

Could someone help me - I'm looking for a diff regarding the Tour de France (I think) illustrating some jaw droppingly amusing parochial ignorance about France that had me giggling the other day - I thought I'd seen it posted here but I can't find it - any ideas?--Mcginnly | Natter 12:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I have left. I shall not be returning. Giacomo.