User talk:GiacomoReturned

The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

—Lore Sjöberg, from "The Wikipedia FAQK"

This, the funniest thing I have seen on wikipedia, was stolen from DreamGuy

Userboxes

PC-0This user is politically incorrect.

File:Animalibrí.gif

Please note there is now a designated area for complaining about me here (I do check it from time to time). This talk page is now only for important and interesting matters. Giano (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Old messages are at:

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (2009)

Essays:

• A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles
• A few thoughts on Wikipedia (unfinished)

So!

So what has happened in my absence? It seems Bishonen has been banned by some fool on the rampage, with no idea about what is good for the encyclopedia, and has now quite rightly and understandably absented herself. What is being done to rectify this regrettable state of affairs? Don't post here saying nice to se you back Giano! I want to know why this has not been addressed. Which Arbs are dealing with his matter? Giano (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's been any action by any Arbitrators regarding the three-hour block of Bishonen. I am curious what you think should be done in a perfect world right now. Bish has taken a step back from Wikipedia and the overall situation has calmed down. If you had the ability to do whatever you wanted, would you step in here and if so, what would you do? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would ensure that Wales was never able to mis-use his self given tools again. Tha man is a liability to the project and serves no beneficial use. He once had a good idea he is now a handicap to that idea's growth and development. Giano (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point regarding Jimmy blocking people. It never seems to help matters and often is seen as a "Jimbo block" instead of a block by a regular administrator, esp. given his Founder status. I think having a non-involved party raise this on his talk page would be good. An agreement between Jimmy and the community to not block users seems to be the best outcome here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, the only solution, that he will inderstand, is to remove the tools. We are grateful that he founded the encyclopedia, it was a good idea, but now like all Gods he needs to elevated elsewhere and like all Kings who abuse their powers - deposed. Giano (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the record, and not to take any outrage away, I'm not mortified that no arbs came to express outrage at Jimbo's block of Bishonen on Bishonen's page, because there was no arbitration in the works. I.e. without arbitration, arbs aren't any more involved than anyone else. That said, I think that a major consideration of who and what these people are would be in order, but I've thought that for ages.

The idea of a "CEO" is ridiculous in fact, and it is worse than ridiculous in image. Wikipedia is valuable real estate. I'll self-censor here and not say much, but the project looks to people at the project like a game, to people who began the project like a mission, and to everyone outside the project like a commodity to seize. When they hear "CEO," they don't think of anything other than John Thain-like individuals. The title does not fit any function here, and it does not fit any action here.

Jimbo Jones Wales cannot parachute into situations, having been appraised of what's going on by 10 lines of chat, and then say obnoxious things and retain the imagery that he has cultivated around himself. While a King Log is necessary, or a "Number One" (a la The Prisoner), it can't be a Baby Huey, and it especially can't be one who believes his own hype or who believes in the imagery of the CEO, the mythology of the Deciderer. In short, all of that Ayn Randian foolishness about the ubermenschen Willie Galt is laughable when transposed here, even if Willie Galt weren't very publicly showing all sorts of private vices as well. Geogre (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this "person" can call an editor, following one less than civil comment) of good character and long standing (God knows how many years) a "toxic personality" (yeah, I saw the half-hearted and grudgingly made clarification - which no one believed) I also saw the referral to his own "high standards" - I wish I could say words failed me at that - they did not. What cause word failure was the complete lack of anyone calling him out on the matter in public - I have heard whispers that things were delicately and politely said to him in private - well frankly, that is not good enough. Where were all those wonderful Admins normally so full of opinions on civility and behaviour? No where in sight! We have elected admins and Arbs supposedly overseeing the smooth running of the project - I don't see them - all I see is load of cowering wimps happy to block me at the drop of a hat for rocking the boat - well I have news for them, left with the current captain the boat is sinking into mediocrity. With Wales at the bridge surrounded by sycophantic social editors it will continue to sink. The time has come to throw him and the passengers overboard, raise standards and concentrate on high quality content - nothing else. Giano (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The gameplan, for want of a better word, is to ignore him as much as possible; if he says something sensible, like he did regarding flagged revisions for BLP's (but did not push hard enough on), then comment as you would any reasonable editor. When he goes of the deep end, as he did recently at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing in attempting to implement policy without consensus, then just carry on and discuss with those who will respect another's point of view (I sense you will be opposing my viewpoint in this matter, for instance, but that is fine because you will bring reasons into your discussion). It really does seem, as much as by the reasonable actions of the maligned ArbCom, that the community is beginning to mature and take responsibility - it is going to be both painful and likely neverending, but the opportunities appear to be there. You just have to stick around and contribute in the manner you feel is best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nope and double nope. He should not have the tools any longer. He has mis-used them once too often. The only way he is able to show his importance to the project is to repeatedly make bad blocks; this has made him a handicap to the project. He is now controlling Wikipedia only because he is able to block, and no one dares to stand up to him. There is a name for such people, and that sort of person should not be running the show, even in their imagination. Giano (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

George beat me to the punchline here. Jimbo does not speak for the arbitrators, and unless Jimbo is taken to RFAR, it is not our special duty to interfere with how he chooses to conduct himself on English Wikipedia. Until/Unless WP:JIMBO falls, he is allowed to do what he wishes, but if he constantly does things that annoy the community-at-large, he will provoke a tearing down of WP:JIMBO. The whole "god-king" concept make me want to puke. The comparisons to a constitutional monarch are also a bit silly; in other "open" communities, the benevolent dictator is the leader of the pack. That said, unless there is some flagrant abuse, the Arbitration Committee is likely to recommend that standard dispute resolution be attempted, which starts with direct discourse with Jimbo.

Arbitrator Cas Liber did mentioned to Jimbo on this talk page that his phraseology was not helpful/appropriate and Jimbo did clarify. Not surprisingly, Bishonen didnt feel the love. I am surprised she cares. A good many people want her back. I also hope she comes back, when she is ready to move on from this, or ready to talk to Jimbo about it.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk to Jimbo? Why the hell should she want to talk to Jimbo. He has labelled her a "toxic personality" and barely anyone gives a damm and you are surprised she cares. Perhaps she will return one day, perhaps even I might return to editing too one day, but it will be after Jimbo has had his tools removed. Giano (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Giano, it's not that no one cares, I for one am surprised that Bishonen gives a shit about what Jimbo thinks. I think it was a bad block and I'm sorry I didn't say that sooner. - Josette (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say she has to talk to Jimbo, but if anyone believes this is a bad block, and cares about it sufficiently that they want some corrective action, dispute resolution is required. I am not a big believer in the meatball theory of meatball:DefendEachOther, at least not in the extremes people take it to here. One of the often forgotten aspects of this is that unnecessary drama is generated when people defend each other when really no defense is necessary, such as when the attacker has hurt their own reputation and credibility.

But if Bishonen does feel that this block crossed an invisible line, making her no longer feel comfortable within the community she helped to build, she needs to have a chat with Jimbo without heckling from either side. I have asked her if she will engage in this at User talk:Bishonen#an audience with the king.

If she doesn't want to chat with Jimbo, perhaps others can think of a better way forward. Protests that nobody has done anything are just another way of doing nothing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! and welcome back. And please talk Bish into returning. Ya can't effect change while on the bench. Do let me know if you would like any work done on Palazzo Splendido. All da right people are getting my trade. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If Bishonen wants to return, she will (I hope she chooses to). GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work!

I love all of your featured articles on palaces and architects! If it was anything but an encyclopedia, Wikipedia would surely be in your debt. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but don't forget the bare knuckle fighters - they are far more telling Giano (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Yeah, I already saw your article on Simon Byrne, but not the others. Once again, great work.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A way forward?

Thank you Josette, Jack et al - I think a lot of people often wish they had said more, so I hope by me saying exactly what I think, it will encourage others to now speak out - we have passed the stage now, where criticising the self appointed God-King is going to get us banned for life - we now all know he is no better or worse than the rest of us. I was asked yesterday, on G mail, by an Arb what I wanted - a good question - I want a Wikipedia that is feasible and of a supreme standard - a Wikipedia where content counts above all else - a wikipedia where 100+ plus people cannot troop out of IRC to vote, as recently happened, for a prospective admin, who violates copyright in everything she writes - and then ban me for objecting. I want a Wikipedia where Arbs don't say privately that were not commenting on such things as (for example) Bishonen's block because they thought it was bound to come to arbitration, but do nothing to ensure it does because they live in fear of what? - Jimbo or their own position? Jimbo's a spent force, and editors need to see that. The time has come for editors to run the site without fear of being banned for a controversial view - Of course, there are those whose talents are not in editing, but have a useful role to play with a mop and bucket - but in RL the people with the mops and buckets are not running the show - However, here at Wikipedia at they are running the site, chatting on IRC and banning those that do write - the place has gone upside down. A new system needs devising, and it's a system that is truly democratic and a system with a constitution, a system that does not include a ridiculous self appointed God-king, his court and their private police - that system, a new system, is what we should be discussing now - that would be Wikipedia's peacable revolution - now if someone wants to realistically start that debate, I will listen and contribute because that is what I want! Giano (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Far too sensible an idea to get any, as they say, traction on here; those who wield the mop must be obeyed. As for Jimbo ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I’ve worked as “professional staff” as I expect many others on this site have. Typically there is also a custodial staff. Now I’m not dissing the folks that wield real mops — I was more apt to dis some of my colleagues; I got along fine with the clean-up crews. I once found a lost tee shirt from a custodial contracting firm in the men’s room and wore it to work a few times; a blue shirt with a yellow image of a guy w/mop and bucket and the firm name on the front. Those were interesting days.

Admins are servants of the project. They clean up messes, have keys to some of the locked rooms, and do work. They’re not the fucking cops and they don’t have any real authority. It’s about responsibility and clue. Anyone gonna listen to the janitor on a matters such as virtual functions (Dilbert’s garbageman is, of course, an exception;) or the design of the Winter Palace (which surely has locked rooms;)?

Adminship is a bunch of rights bundled together as a package. “The Button” is offered-up all over the interface for admins and too many seek adminship because of the block button — they see it as a badge in the whack-a-vandal game. These are the wrong people for adminship; sure, the obvious ones don’t make it through RfA but many did in the past and many are seduced by the precious.

Note that this is red and was never more than lulz or a goof. The notion of admin reconfirmation needs to be taken aboard this project — with an eye towards the issue of the rabble seeking to take down good admins for petty reasons. Maybe for every hundred new admins, we need to cut fifty pieces of deadwood/inappropriate mops. And any admin seeking to defend all current admins would likely be a good candidate for review.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Where has the reconfirmation of administrators been discussed? Surely such an excellent and obvious idea has surfaced before. Every two years might be a modest limit. Naturally, such a reform can't be presented to the admins themselves, for a self-reforming vote; it needs to be presented to all logged-in accounts as a referendum. --Wetman (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an idea that comes up from time to time, obviously a good idea, but one that's been rejected each time it's been suggested. In fact it's listed as one of the perennial proposals, a list the purpose of which is to stifle all debate. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I will say again, arbcom has been the traditional venue for review of admin tools and I figure we've been doing more of it this year - if more people ping arbcom, and then more people are more lenient at RfA, then we get greater fluidity. Not up to 20 RfA reconformations every week thanks very much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why your knee-jerk response that every administrator whose two-year term is over, for instance, would choose to stand again? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why an arbitrary two year term then? And even with (let's say) 10% of admins reconforming, that's still a wonderful timesink at RfA. Let's say someone is problematic with the tools, then two years is a long time to wait to address this. Then again, if there is a culture change of fluidity between admin and non admin aided by arbcom reviews and more leniency of RfAs, then the two year parameter is redundant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it's more important to you that an unreformed RfA process should not be cluttered up by administrators who, after having proven their worth or not over whatever period of time is considered reasonable, ask for the trust of the community to be reconfirmed. I live on a different planet, where my elected representatives are not elected for life. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No my planet isn't stuffed up to the armpits with bureaucracy - these are folks with a few extra tools and powers, not elected representatives. I'd rather a WP where alot of people had the tools and shared the usage, rather than only a few. Having now been privy to things like checkuser and oversight, one is grateful that alot of mischief gets dealt with quickly. I am happy if there are an extra 2-300 admins who only use the tools once in a blue moon (as long as they are not abusing them). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'll permit me to interject into this conversation: arbitrators refrain from getting involved with things that might come before arbitration so that they don't have to recuse from any case that does come. It's possible for one of us to bring a request for arbitration, and recuse from considering it, but that makes people nervous, and they question whether the rest of the Committee can be impartial in a case initiated by one of their own. Look at the response to the MatthewHoffman case for example.

It may be that, given we have more personnel this year, we can afford to have a few arbitrators recused every now and then. But ultimately people have to bring the cases to us. --bainer (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hoffman case isn't necessarily a good example, since it came to the Committee with zero attempts at prior dispute resolution. That made it a very unusual case on its surface, and a proposed decision going up twelve hours after the case opening made it even odder. If it had been a wheel war or some other emergency situation that would have been understandable, but the matter was non-urgent. Those of us who observed the case were alarmed by the way it unfolded. It did add additional layers of concern that the case was also filed by an arbitrator who shortly thereafter made personal attacks against various named parties on the case pages itself, then vanished on an unannounced wikibreak for a month: if he wasn't planning on remaining available then why had he pursued the matter with such alacrity in the first place? And why did he never retract the insults even months after returning? It did not go unnoticed that the Committee failed to even propose the mildest of findings against one of its own--under circumstances that would almost certainly have entered the decision if anyone else (admins included) had conducted themselves that way. Durova^Charge! 04:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It definitely did not go unnoticed. Thank you Durova, I still find myself not daring to save page on anything I type related to the Hoffman case. R. Baley (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, in order to discuss the issue of arbitrator recusal, then the thing to look at would be an otherwise regular case whose primary irregularity was an arbitrator's activity outside of the usual arbitrator role. The Hoffman case was irregular in many respects, and I thank the Committee for finally vacating it. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Giacomo, old friend, I came to most of the same conclusions as you over a year ago. After giving the matter much reading and thought (perhaps too much) I've come to the conclusion that getting rid of his royal Jimness is unfeasible. Yes, he is basically a poltroon, but even poltroons have been known to suddenly grow spines when cornered. He will not give up his gravy-train, and pretty much only thing in his life he has succeeded at, without a fight. He may not directly control the WMF board anymore, but he still does indirectly via his girl Sue. True, he is not the god king he once was, but he still has a large and influential following both inside and off WP. Which leads to yet another problem of who or what would replace him (no jokes please about a pound of processed cheese:). As you have pointed out to me so many times in the past, his replacement could be even worse. In the recent past I have suggested maybe James Burke. Though I have yet to contact Mr. Burke on such a possibility, nor do I see any reason to until it becomes possible. But a ghost can still dream, can't he?

No, a much more viable solution than getting Wales to step down, is getting him to step aside; To give up some of his special powers, such as appointing members of the arbcom, and special buttons so that he would be just another admin and therefore no big deal anymore. That is the arrangement we seem to be moving towards...albeit slowly. Greater power is devolving towards the community and Mr. Wales is becoming a mere figure-god-head, although he is not one yet, contrary to what the Jimbo don't matter crowd thinks. Of course this leads to the question of which part of the community will lead. You and I both strongly believe that for reasons both practical and moral, the writers and editors should be running the show. The trouble with that is twofold-A) Serious, talented contributors are far too few in number. B) We are, as a species, a cantankerous, temperamental lot, who cannot even agree amongst ourselves on all but the most basic of principles. We are cats...I've discovered this the hard way on many occasions when I've tried to herd my fellow felines. Our social and janitorial colleagues, on the other hand, are pack animals. They are more numerous and better organized. When one of their alpha dogs goes down, another simply rises up in their place. Whenever one of us cats, such as you, transforms into a tiger, they gang up and though some of them may get badly mauled, the pack wins eventually...usually. Sad but you know it is true. We do have something going for us, however- We are stubborn. Sometimes sheer, persistent stubbornness is all that is needed. To this let us add the ancient stratagem of divide and conquer. Set the packs against each other...let them play their petty power games, think that they matter, while we slowly, surely create new policies and institutions, encourage and win over talented new contributors, maybe even teach some of the pack members that writing and improving articles can actually be (gasp) fun. This may not be the counter-revolution that you are now looking for and I have been seeking since 2006. But it would be an improvement over the current sad state of affairs. Everyone has something to contribute...the trick is figuring out which roles they are best suited for, then convincing them to play them accordion accordingly. Cheers and caio and dare I say, welcome back:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said RDH. I was hoping the current ArbCom was going to have staged a palace coup by now and thrown the current, disfunctional Wikipedia governance system out on its ear. I thought that the ArbCom would be the only ones who could do it, because they're unbannable and undesysoppable by anyone except Jimbo. Obviously, however, it hasn't happened. Is there anyone else who can get things moving? Cla68 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Only me it seems! The problem is mostly that wikipedia has an erroneous idea of what constitutes a constitutional monarchy - this is mostly the fault of Wikipedia's king (in truth an autocrat) convincing himself and his subjects that he is a constitutional monarch. The Arbcom is no more than a chosen and appointed council of ministers who are hired and fired by the autocrat. However, our autocrat is week, indecisive and easily lead by whoever is playing court Rasputin on any particular day - it's an intolerable position that needs to be halted. There are two options. A: Create a constitution placing the real power in an elected body rperesenting all editors; or B: Put up and shut up. Naturally, I favour the former and believe it is high time we had a proper debate on how to reform the project's administration and set up a democratic and representative council to run the show.

I am quite prepared to start the ball rolling myself either in my use space or elsewhere - autocrats and absolute monarchs are now confined to history in all civilized corners of the world - Wikipedia should be no exception. I thank Jimbo for his ideas and contributions but now he needs to let go and allow the project to develop. Giano (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent words, but: who is to decide who counts as an editor, and who votes? How do you stop 100+ plus people trooping out of IRC to vote, as recently happened? And if you put conditions upon it such as quality of content, time served in the community, how do you stop the inevitable complaints that this is elitist, contrary to all Wikipedia founding principles, exclusivist, ganging up &c? Peter Damian (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, your question proves the need for a proper debate on the matter; I merely throw some loose balls into the court. The "100+ plus people trooping out of IRC to vote" is one of those problems urgently in need of honest debate. Giano (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm ready, let's go. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to raise this to a RFC discussion as it involves a matter that concerns Wikipedia as a whole. Not only will this allow for more people to give their opinion thus increasing the quality, but if a consensus needs to be formed it will be stronger if this is done public ally, rather then in a limited, non centralized scope :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You stand here, arguably one of the most intelligent editors of the place, with lance at the ready charging at the windmills while the millers look on unconcerned. You have all the rights ideas, but tend to go at them in all the wrong ways: adversarial and combative. If you would but try to work with the people around you, you'd find that change in governance is dear to many and you'd find allies and colleagues where today you find strife and adversaries.

You need to change tack. You need to understand that disagreeing with some (or even all) of what you see as Evident Truth does not make one a fool, nor make them fair game for attacks. You need to understand that what is seen or perceived as an attack depends on the beholder, and that disagreement on the matter needs to be taken into account when you choose how to behave.

But most of all, you need to understand that you may need to alter your objectives or opinions as discussion progresses. Right now, you are saddled with the unfortunate image of someone who unfailingly believes he is always right and that anyone daring to disagree with your pronouncements, however slightly, are idiots at best and part of a vast conspiracy to suppress you at worst. You've taken upon yourself the image of the Knight Templar who can do no wrong because God is on his side— and people will oppose you because of that.

Should you take the time to look around yourself, you'd find many who would support pushes for reform. Work with those of us who feel that Wikipedia needs to mature. I won't help destructive "revolution" for the sake of revolution. Help build a good governance system that can phase out the artifacts of Wikipedia's creation (and by that I don't mean Jimbo alone), and you'll get the support of many. Decry without aim, call for heads for the sake of (face it) a vendetta, and you've lost before you started. I work my ass off doing everything I can to help Wikipedia the best I can, and I know that this is your ultimate objective as well. Despite the amusing, if ridiculously self-important, WR claims most people aren't in it for power trips, or working under a delusion that this is a "game" to be won. I work from within, you feel the work needs to come from without. Chances are, both are needed. Will you at least try to work with us instead of opposing because we're part of the system?

Will you have read this message through the end despite my being one of the reviled members of the arbitrary committee, or reject it out of hand without consideration? Will you have listened to what I have to say, even if disagreed? I hope so. I've lost a bit of confidence in your desire to realize that someone can bring something positive without being a blind follower agreeing with everything you say— but not in your intelligence or capacity to do so if you choose to. — Coren ^(talk) 12:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• You say "I won't help destructive "revolution" for the sake of revolution." You are either misleading or misreading. A peaceful change of Government is not a revolution; it is something perfectly normal and often unexciting that happens in all democracies every few years. I neither ask, expect or desire any support or help or co-operation from the Arbitration Committee. That already members, such as yourself, are trying to dramatise the issues and aims in order to maintain the status quo is disappointing, if not totally unexpected. I know some members agree with what I say in private but are reluctant to commit themselves in public; that must be a matter for their own consciences. However, please don't cloud the issues with hysterical nonsense and drama. Giano (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• "members, such as yourself, are trying to dramatise the issues and aims in order to maintain the status quo is disappointing" This time it is you who misreads or misleads. I have no interest or desire for the status quo. I've stated so repeatedly, publicly. If your objective is peaceful change, then I expect we have a number of common objectives (though I also expect we disagree on the "perfect" form Wikipedia should ultimately aim for). I'm trying to defuse drama, by offering you a hand. This obviously doesn't mean I agree with everything you say or do — there are things I believe you are completely misguided about or just plain get wrong — but it means that you can get rational discourse and support from me.

  Certainly, you are free to ignore or refuse my help, even when our objectives align perfectly. But have you noticed how you simply presumed that my objective was to maintain status quo without so much as asking me where I stood? — Coren ^(talk) 13:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I have misunderstood you. Over the years, I have been given little reason to trust members of Wikipedia's higher echelons. My aims are perfectly peaceful, I have no desire to see Jimbo guillotined, shot or even exiled. My aim is for a transformation of power from one man to a larger elected body. I beleive it totally wrong that Jimbo feels able to descend onto a page and exact the wroth of a God-King. It should stop, it has to stop and it will stop. Now if you have ideas to further those aims this is the place to express them. Giano (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Priorities. I agree with you that Jimbo's role is, basically, obsolescent and that discussion on phasing that role out is legitimate, but I see more pressing governance problems at this time. The important point, at this juncture, is that you have my support that the discussion itself is legitimate and most certainly not verboten in any way. I'm not entirely certainly why you expressed doubt that you'd be "allowed" to do so, or why you thought that discussion would be suppressed — I may simply be missing some context — but I can assure you that there is no cabal intent on muzzling you.

If you don't intend to dedicate yourself entirely to that single issue for the time being, there may be other points of reform you might want to give input to in the medium term where your input would be appreciated. Inquire if so inclined, I shan't press the matter against your desires. — Coren ^(talk) 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I may be misconstruing Giano's intent, but I thought the idea was to see which issues of change the community thought were most pressing. If you have others (and others have been presented) please add them to the page. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am glad Coren feels that the debate so far is legitimate. My intent is clearly spelt out at the top of the page "The object of this page is to assess if there is sufficient feeling amongst editors, one way or another, to have a proper, honest and frank discussion as to Wikipedia's future management and administration." The arbitration committe, Jimbo and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all have had the last few years to address these issues (which I feel concern many) - they have not. I'm always told that someone is secretly working on them behind the scenes, but I never see any evidence or result of it. This is just an oppottunity to assess how others feel, and if it is worth going forward to implement some changes and reforms. It may be that the result is to raise Jimbo to the rank of Supreme-Emperor and Guardian of the Wikis - who knows? Giano (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd totally agree with that. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee is a welcome development. The trouble is getting anything changed is usually only after scandals of quite breathtaking embarrassment. A culture with a more pro-active approach aimed at improving the integrity of our institutions would be more welcome, rather than the pervasive "ain't broke, don't fix it - trust us" attitude that prevails at the moment. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The greatest obstacle to any change on Wikipedia is the amazing amount of inertia; scandals, regrettable as they are, have the property of (sometimes) giving enough force to push things over. "Trust me" when I say that this [beep] [beep] [beep]ing inertia is the source of infinite frustration to anyone hoping to improve things. — Coren ^(talk) 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely - so hop on and puuussssshhhhh :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this excellent statement Coren wrote. You stand here, arguably one of the most intelligent editors of the place, with lance at the ready charging at the windmills while the millers look on unconcerned. You have all the rights ideas, but tend to go at them in all the wrong ways: adversarial and combative

I do not believe this entire debate was created in bad faith, not do i disagree with the core reasoning of your statement. However, a vital flaw is that your statement is indeed rather vindicative, as opposed to being constructive. A statement is much more compelling if you write it as an argument. Ergo, wording such as "Structure outdated... Example of this can be found in the incorrect block located... Normal consensus works fine, is there a real need for a one person overrule?" would make a better statement as you are both reasoning and giving examples that support your claims. Currently the text almost reads as a pure complaint towards "The management" and this could stack voting against you for the way it was worded - which is actually a waste since the core message you are trying to convey is quite valid as an item of discussion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" has been peremptorily invoked consistently enough at Wikipedia that it has developed undesirable overtones to many content editors. If "normal consensus works fine", why, there is no pressing need to discuss a fundamental reshuffling of Wikopedia structure and procedure along democratic lines that favor the content of the reader's service it provides, rather than the process, and the unattractive maneuvering even the most sublimely unconscious editor is aware of.--Wetman (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

3 accounts?

You seem to have 3 (or more) accounts. Every time you get blocked you start a new account. Could you please stick with one account. It makes checking edits, block history etc. easier. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just who the hell do you think you are? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a rollbacker here and at SimpleWP (those are facts). Griffinofwales (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you do surprise us all - have been an expert detective for long? Giano (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aah, do you have to click three whole buttons to check his history? Poor thing. 92.12.205.147 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more than 3 buttons. I check edits through other websites. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was every time Giano made a new account every time he was rightfully blocked, then he would have only one account. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess 3 accounts is somehow worse than co-ordinated tag-team reverting, huh? – iridescent 21:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why yes it is, especially when the owner of the talk page told people to keep the letter of his talk page, and no, I'm not a detective, but I already knew you had the Giano II account when I joined, and I guessed that you had a Giano account before that, and so some quick research proved me correct. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, clicking clicking "What Links Here" is so difficult… ("Owner of the talkpage", eh? Remind me how that works, exactly?) – iridescent 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am allowed to remove anything I want from my talk page, and Jimbo can do the same. The 'What links here' page has too many entries, so I used my brain instead. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But the question is "can you remove what you like from Jimbo's page?" Unless you are the fabled destructive testing sock account of J.Wales, I doubt it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo said that he did not want the letter on his talk page, and that he did not want to be involved in the discussion. User:DavidShankbone and I were just following his wishes, but that had nothing to do with him being Jimbo. I would do the same for any other editor. Analogy: User vandalizes my user page. Somebody from Huggle will revert it. Why? Because they know I don't want it there (almost the same thing). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry one moment here? what on earth are you all talking about - I seem to have lost the plot; what letter on Jimbo's page? Finally, try clicking "User Page" at the top of this page - it is hardly a secret. Giano (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The diff that Iridescent provided was about a letter on Jimbo's talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanger's open letter to Wales, I believe. –xeno^talk 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear GoW, you seem to have missed something obvious in your little comment - neither time that Giano finished with an old account was he blocked. That does not inspire confidence in your detective skills. Giano has, in the past, attempted to remove himself from the project by scrambling his password; and then decided to return. For Giano, it was considered more appropriate to do it under a new username rather than request a new password (Giano is not the most computer savvy of editors - he rather concentrates on the content than the means of placing it upon the page). Furthermore, very likely the vast majority of established editors are fully aware of who Giano is - and his previous accounts. WP:Alternative accounts does allow people to have different accounts, and even allows them to be used at the same time (but not in the same places, usually) - it is the undisclosed use of multiple accounts, designed to circumvent Wikipedia policy, that is not permitted. I suggest that, when you start digging for information, you make yourself familiar with all aspects of a matter, otherwise you may find that the result of your excavating is that you are simply in a deep and dark hole. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Giano may own other accounts that I don't know about. There is no "disclaimer" on his user page listing his "alternative" accounts. 2. I clicked on your link and none of the reasons listed there apply in this case. 3. Giano should decide whether he is going to stay or leave or stop scrambling his passwords. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, get this through your head once and for all; you're starting to get disruptive. These are not sock accounts; none of them have edited concurrently. Check the histories. Even if they had, there's no policy against operating multiple accounts as long as it's not done disruptively. Enough. – iridescent 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I shouldn't be the least surprised - there is a vastness to your lack of knowledge that likely makes a dent in relativity. 2. Clean start under a new name seems to cover this situation, noting that the need to link accounts is only advisory and - anyhow - the vast majority of people interacting with this account are fully conversant with the history of this editor. 3. The person who sold you Wikipedia was very likely not Jimbo Wales, and you have even less authority than them, and it might be wise for you not to be telling long standing contributors what they may or may not do. Now, do you have something worthwhile to add to this discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Iridescent, I didn't say they were sock accounts, I was just saying that new people (like me and probably anybody else who created an account in the past 6 months) do not know that Giano has multiple accounts, and that Giano should stick to one account. @LHvU about #1, I agree with you. I do have a rather large lack of knowledge, but I'm not an admin, so it doesn't really matter. About #2, You are right but it is my 'opinion' that he should stick with one account. In my original comment, I was requested that he use one account, nothing more. About #3, I didn't get what you were trying to say in that one, but I understood the last 2 sentences. One, I started this discussion, so I should always have something worthwhile to say, maybe you should rephrase that to 'Do you have something worthwhile enough to waste my time on'. and Two, It was a request which I thought was legitimate, I wasn't demanding anything (if you notice I said please). Griffinofwales (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Computer help required

while performing my famous touch typing I have done something to my page, all I have now is a full screen with no browser on the top, or little tabs at the bottom listing the other sites I am looking at. anyone know what I have done - i think I touched the space bar and another key at the same time, but can't work out which - any advice appreciated. Giano (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Full screen mode? Try pressing F11. –xeno^talk 21:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! that worked!!!! You are clever. thanks. Giano (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem =) –xeno^talk 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously inderstand these things, I don't suppose you happen to know what it is I sometimes do, that suddenly makes the one letter I type suddenly start to swallow the letter in from of it - again its when I hit a wrong key when typing in the middle of a sentance. The only thing that cures it is logging out and starting again. Giano (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ah! I know this one (having been so plagued myself) - it's the button labelled 'insert' which is somewhere on or above the keypad on the right hand side of the keyboard - tap it once again and you'll be all fixed up! Privatemusings (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Most clever PM - thank you. Giano (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

thankee you :-)

for setting up the whole 'future' thing in userspace, and taking slings and arrows in good humour - as long as you're not finding the whole thing overly sisyphean, then I reckon it's in great hands :-) Don't be shy of asking for any direct support / assistance / something or other from idiots like me who are looking on and crossing fingers this momentum might translate into something good.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I think I might need some help, keeping the page too a realistic length, I see the comments on the talk page concerning this. It is very pleasing to see so many ordinary editors clearly have views if a little dissapounting that the Arbs, themselves (with one exception) seem to have no views at all. Obviously, they are happy with the status quo - or perhaps they think this is likely to lead to me being sent to Arbitration - that's the usual excuse for their silences. Whatever, I think this is proving a great step forward for those many who do want to se some changes. Giano (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A special award

This is a Civility Patrol Corps. administrator upon encountering a message from Giano revividux. He's not dead. He's just having a myoclonic jerk.

Giano, I hereby award you the Civility Poltroon Award. As the favorite meeting place of all administrators interested in politeness, decorum, and telling each other, "I told you so," your user talk page is the most valuable at Wikipedia. It is a one stop watering hole and notice board for all of the new members of the SPCK who wish to ensure that piano legs are safely covered by skirts and that male chickens are referred to as "roosters," and never that other word. By cleaning up words, they will surely clean up thoughts and hearts and make for a purity of expression. For those long hairs and beatniks and revolutionaries who mean no good and insist on foul talk and "free speech," your page allows for a convenient place to come and gather up the static bodies of the petrified patrols.

In deepest admiration, Sir. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)