Jump to content

User talk:Giano II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nicespace (talk | contribs) at 15:04, 30 November 2007 (→‎Good work). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old messages are at

File:LimassolCarnival.JPG
The 2007 Spumoni Arbcom campaign road-show will be visiting you shortly
Please note.

This is not a threat to the Arbcom, just the way things are. I shall not be accepting any sanctions imposed in the current Arbcom case - (dependent on the election result or otherwise). To me any sanction will mean a complete ban. So please do not waste your energies discussing "what ifs" there will be no "ifs". The facts of the case are very clear indeed and we all know exactly what is going on so let's not deceive ourselves. By their recent actions Jimbo and his Arbcom have made it transparently obvious they will not allow me onto that committee or indeed want any of you to vote for me. I feel it is up to the general editors to decide how they feel about that. My arbcom candidacy will continue to run as I know many people wish to use it to signal their displeasure with the current state of affairs on Wikipedia.

Thank you all for the massive support I have received, so much of it from unexpected people I did not know knew me. It has been much appreciated. Giano (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting that conversation

'T'was a funny old day on the Wiki
  • 20.52: Jimbo on Giano's contributions [1]
  • 22.14: Giano on his contributions [2]
  • 15.25: Jimbo says I was not aiming at Giano [3]
  • 19.21: Giano says, oh yes you bloody was [4]
and then there was nothing

You are misrepresenting that conversation. I was directly referring to DTobias's remark, just above, and someone mistook that part of my remarks as referring to you. It did not. I referred to people who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your content contributions are voluminous, high quality, and much appreciated.

That doesn't change the fact that your behavior in terms of trolling and carrying on the way you do is unacceptable. You know this. And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: In a debate about blocking Giano for posting "private" email where Dan was defending him, you responded under Dan's comment but named only Giano.
Conclusion: since they were both in agreement, your comment ambiguously applied to both. In any event, the distinction seems trivial.
On an unrelated topic, may I ask your position on the merits of whistleblowing? sNkrSnee | t.p. 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more accurate to say that your statement was confusing than that other people are misrepresenting it. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


And it would be a lot more accurate to say that Durova has caused harm than that Giano has. Harm? It's not the whistleblower that does the harm. [Picks up the fluttery Italian lovebird and stuffs it gently in pocket, for conveyance to the safety of Bishonen's page. Well, the hoped-for safety. If users are up for the banhammer this randomly, there will be no safety at Wikipedia. ] bishzilla ROARR!! 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps my new article Favourite is more Wiki-topical than I realized? Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"One who stands unduly high in the favour of a prince." Check. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, we all know what happens to favourites in the end, according to the history books. Favourite should be compulsory reading here, remembering that the equivalents here are virtual. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm the one who's "not here to build an encyclopedia"? That gives me a warm feeling... *Dan T.* (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as though my Thanksgiving break was a total bore compared to things around here. From an outsider, I found the quote by Jimbo above to be unbelieveable: "You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)" - Wow. Just wow. How many featured articles do you have again, Giano? --SGT Tex 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly one too many. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a very interesting discussion by Kelly Martin of the status of the material that Giano was blocked for posting. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For being the gadfly that WP badly needs,

The Socratic Barnstar
For telling it like it is. -- Mr Which??? 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your immeasurable Wiki-xperience required

Centro Ybor complex with a TECO Line car passing in front <c'mon this is a wind up, no one photographs architecture obscured by a bus and then boasts of it> Giano (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I require your assistance on Ybor City, Tampa, Florida, an article I ran into a while back and noted that the tone was, while interesting to read, probably inappropriate for a Wikipedia article and I took it up with the author on the talk page. He initially took into consideration my concerns, but then he reverted himself, returning it to its original form. I didn't want to cause a confrontation so I left it alone, but kept it on my watchlist.

Recently though, another editor made note of the fact on the talk page and replaced the tone banner I originally put on the article those months ago. The author reacted violently to this and promptly reverted him, citing consensus, though to be fair the consensus consisted of his views and another editor affiliated with the Tampa WikiProject. I replaced the banner and aired my concerns again when it flashed on my watchlist, and then I was promptly accused of sockpuppetry and the banner was reverted again by this same author.

Since you are an author yourself, having written many articles, I was looking for your input. I am not actually sure whether I am in the right, and I do not have enough encyclopedic writing experience to press the point any further. Could you go to that article for me, read it, and give your evaluation on the talk page? The editor who is involved is clearly a good writer but I don't know how to talk to him. If you cannot assist, could you refer this to someone who can?

I immediately thought of you though, as you're probably one of the most experienced and talented Wikipedia editors I know. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not been a good few days. Tomorrow may be. Giano (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just clicked, it's a spoof, it is isn't it.......Giano (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no. It's an actual article written by an actual person. I really don't want to get into this any further without some expert advice on how to talk to him, or even you talking to him yourself.. I know these last week has been a bit of a rollercoaster ride for you and you're very busy, so there's no rush at all. But if I attempt to deal with this editor, I just know I'm going to explode and say something stupid. DEVS EX MACINA pray 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think why, it is quite a nice bus, a little yellow perhaps, but as buses go....Giano (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article have tone problems or is it just my imagination? I'm still learning.. hehe DEVS EX MACINA pray 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at it tomorrow, but as a rule of thumb one generally does not begin an encyclopedic article with the words "Mr. Ybor Comes to Town". It sounds more like Noddy and Big Ears than Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I have requested you be added to the list of parties at this arbitration. Mercury 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not come here asking me to perform in a circus which should not be taking place. The only thing that can possibly emerge from that arena is proof of a catalogue of incompetence by high ranking Wikipedians (note:I have not named them.) These people should have:
A: Read the post to their mailing list and advised against, or if necessary (they have the power) and bearing in mind previous blocks prohibited Durova blocking !!.
B: Over a week later when she did block, they should have looked at the evidence and though "Fuck! - this can't come out, it's ridiculous." and then promptly and quietly advised Durova to hand over the tools, retire from "sleuthing" and become quiet for a few weeks. They did not.
C:This entire escalated mess is entirely the fault of Durova and those Wikipedians who wanted to save her at any price. Now they are finding the price is too expensive for them - they are looking to others to pay the bill. Well, go and look elsewhere this Wikipedian is notoriously mean. Giano (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano...there have been some remedies proposed on that arbcom case workshop page that you should examine (scroll down)...don't blow your stack man! Nothing is going to happen to you so long as I have any say in it...but be cool!--MONGO (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well...all I can say is that I definitely understand why you would be pissed off...you have every right to be. But, (and this applies to me as well, BTW), we cannot allow our passions about an issue or event control what we type. I am finding that a margarita helps me look at things from a less serious perspective.--MONGO (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to stay out of it but as they clearly want me there - lets' go! Giano (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Giano to the case is sorta like making the guy who calls the cops to report that two people are fighting in the road a defendant in their trial. The Arbitration is about Durova's conduct. Giano is just the guy who stood up and said "Hey! Something bad going on!" Kelly Martin 13:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, shifting the focus away from the issue is a standard defensive modus operandi. When confronted with damning evidence that cannot be easily explained,
  • Shift the focus to others.
  • Point out anything resembling misconduct on their part.
  • Attack their credibility.
  • Cast doubt on their motives.
  • Smear their character.
  • Misinterpret their actions.
  • And, at all costs, avoid addressing the issue directly.
Attacking the character, reputation and motives of her detractors is typical and Durova has done this to me as well. At one point, she found an ascii SMILE :) that, as a newbie, I had posted on another newbie's page and concluded this was APPEARANCE of impropriety [6]
And here, when I objected to her methods on WP:CSN, she tried to discredit me by taking innocent edits and claimed they were evidence of collusion, [7] and suggested that I be investigated.
I'm no longer surprised by anything she does... though she will undoubtedly find a way. Lsi john (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: I did not mean to imply that she is the one trying to drag Giano into this arbitration. Lsi john (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think there are plenty of others to do that. My views on all this unseemly shouting are here [8]. Giano (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano has no place in the arbitration. If people are really so sure of the issues of passing a passed-around e-mail to Wikipedia that they know in their hearts, minds, and balls that it is a massive violation of something or other, then they can bring that up in a case solely about that. Otherwise, naming Giano is nothing but an attempt at spraying mud. I hear that cuttle fish, when cornered, shoot out clouds of ink. (Yes, this is parataxis.) Utgard Loki (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Than you Utgard, can I just make it quite clear once and for all it was not an email it was a post. There is avery subtle difference which I am not going into right now. Giano (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside- is the list under the GNU Free Documentation License as it seems to be, because there is a pic of the moose at the bottom of it? So all posts to it are licenced under the GNU- not a very subtle difference at all- unless you call the giant head of a moose subtle.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just leave all the legal issues for a while and see what happens. Giano (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Stallion

File:104925638 6b97f47892 o.jpg

Giano, you rock. Did you see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noromasiobmij (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not and I don't want to. Now go away before you get us all banned. I would never wear a pink bath robe anyway. Giano (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your kind words of encouragement. I simply hope that the effort to reduce "drama" does not result in a railroaded solution for anyone. I am stunned at how quickly this case has gone from acceptance to proposed decisions.

Incidentally...I spotted you in the above picture. No, not the one with the bus, the campaign photo. You're the one with the red boots, right? Risker (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can move very fast when it needs to. No, it seems I doomed for ever to wear a pink bath robe! Giano (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's that phase of the film where one shouts, "Yo, Adrian!" Geogre (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong page

I think you accidentally posted to the wrong page. [9] - Jehochman Talk 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you? Giano (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me thinks not. Lsi john (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the arbitrators! you judged Durova in five minutes flat and then left the case open to Tony Sidaway's comments (what is he doing on every arb page anyway) and prattle about me in the hope something more definitive could be resolved. Presumably a nice long block. While Jimbo and his threats hover on my page, an aggrieved creature called Agne berates !! on his page and ANI for feeling uncharitable. What are you all so frightened of? I want to know who are the famous 5 [10] . Just look at the scramble taking place as we speak to close the case - we are seeing Wikipedia history in double time. Giano (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

You have been added at as a party to the above Arbitration case per this passed motion. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FrankenGiano

An interesting side note, I think, is the ire directed at Giano for having the temerity to be righteously indignant at Durova's flatly bizarre logic for concluding that !! was a malicious editor. Giano is only a problem when other Wikipedians are being stupid. When people aren't behaving stupid enough to set him off, he's a perfectly productive (and in fact quite good) article editor. But when he detects stupidity in progress, he turns into some sort of FrankenGiano and goes off on a rampage, tearing through the pretty paper walls the wikicommunity has set up to protect its sensibilities while trying, in his unimitable and somewhat lovable way, to protect the project he quite clearly cares about deeply. I used to strongly dislike Giano, mainly because I and others I identified with had been the target of his rage. Having watched him go off on someone who, at least this time, I agree deserved it, gives me a new respect for him, and I'm much more inclined to forgive him for the arrows he slung at me back in the day. Giano isn't perfect, and I think sometimes his indignance is misplaced, but I can't question his commitment to the project. Jimbo's threat to ban him was stupid, and reflects how badly Jimbo has lost his way on this project. - Kelly Martin's blog

On a more serious note, Giano, we (the arbcom) have probably spent more time discussing you over the last two years than any other person on Wikipedia. We like you as a article writer/editor, but (as KM implies above) your participation in any dispute tends to make this much more inflamed and ugly - even when you're right (which, I happen to think, is most or all of the time). Your methods are simply too destructive. So, I'm going to put the question to you directly -- what do we do? Raul654 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Raul. Sometimes someone has to ask the hard questions, and push for an answer and it tends to be me. It is a pity the Arbcom choose waste so much time discussing me rather then the points I raise. I wish I could forward you some of the emails I have from disillusioned editors who have been made unwelcome at Wikipedia. Editors who still have a lot to contribute. Until the leadership of Wikipedia realise anyone who criticises the project is not a troll, an employee of Daniel Brandt or a writer of WR nothing will change. So long as only those who say "certainly Jimbo, may I stand on my head Jimbo" are allowed any real power, or say, nothing will change. If I was not able to prove my worth in the content department here I would have been sent packing ages ago - we both know that. It is only when cases are brought to my attention that I realise how much is wrong. If the great "Troll Hunter Extraordinaire" had not had the great personal misfortune to block one of my best friends, this latest scandal would have been neatly brushed under the carpet and she would still be running lose magnifying glass in hand. The postings at the very top of this page and elsewhere before the "trial" even started show that. It should have been handled quietly, justly and efficently see my views here [11]. At present. the only way to prove anything contrary to the official line is to make a huge noise. Now it seems in the best traditions of a tin pot government the whistle-blower and defending counsel are going to be silenced. You tell me what is to be done Raul because I don't truly know, but I am going no-where voluntarily nor will I stop what I am doing until things change for the better. You won't find me damning the project anywhere but the pages of Wikipedia itself so you are going to have to shoot the messenger. Which would not be a good move. Giano (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't mean to top-post the quick fingered folks below, but since I'm already always listed as frequently involved in the points of view, if not the popularity of discussion, and as one of Giano's longer term friends on Wikipedia, I have a couple of observations.
  1. The misbegotten ideal of politeness
    1. Some of the discussion you refer to, Raul, is not discussion of the issues Giano raises, but the manner.
    2. Many of the cases, Bishonen or I will have raised the same issues, and yet we are not such popular subjects of talk.
    3. Therefore, it seems to me that much of this is a question of how irritated Giano may make people by his willingness to do what others merely wish to do, his willingness to say what others think, and his decision to allow outrage to have a place when outrageous things are going on, rather than what's going on and who is acting against our policies.
If the members of the ArbCom list were to abandon, truly abandon, the idea that Miss Manners is one of our silent partners and our most venerated paragon, then the discussion would not be taking place "of Giano," but the discussion of the issues Giano raises would be more on point and progress more quickly.
  1. The engaging with "Giano" rather than user:Giano. What I see, over and over again, is that people, including arbitrators, invoke, engage with, and dismiss this figurehead, this linguistic token, of "Giano" -- Giano-the-gadfly, Giano-the-Giant-Killer, Giano-the-rude, Giano-the-temperamental, etc. These habits are a disservice to Giano -- a user, an editor, an highly educated individual, a member of real society. These habits are also a disservice, if not a disability, of the arbs mailing list. That this list is still dominated by some people with prejudice or grudges against Giano doesn't help, but it also does not matter. People discuss this token, not the man.
    1. Talk to the person, not the image. What I see, repeatedly, is that people either do not talk to Giano at all or that they come to his talk page to "Warn" him or "Instruct" him. These are insulting to all users, but they're galling to long time users.
    2. Take Giano as seriously as you do JDForester, David Gerard, or Jimbo. If Giano is raising an issue, you know as well as I do that it's going to be based on long experience and something legitimate.
    3. Respond quickly, politely, and with listening to the issues he's raising. If you think that he's wrong, don't tell him about how you have power, how more clever people know more secret things, that the Projects Says. Those things are flatly stupid. They are also as calculated to make things worse as Johnny Fever shouting "booger" on the air.
    4. Ignore all discussions of "he was mean to me." We go about sticking in pictures of some guy's boyfriend's penis because "Wikipedia is not censored," and yet someone having a witty comment like "(On your trip to Japan) be sure to try to Fugu" is a matter of dire consequences, ban talks, official censure (oh, is that word like "censor?"). I mean really ignore them. Look to the consequences, not the Victorian language code or the country club's rules.
I've never seen Giano mount a Quixotic campaign, never seen him be frivolous, never seen him start with rude comments, never seen him call new users bad names (and that's quite different from some arbs). I've never seen him bring up an issue that didn't need to be engaged with seriously and respectfully. Geogre (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything above me, and below me, and don't know where to turn. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 11:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Geogre. I am neither as well read as either yourself nor Giano. I have not made even an inkdrop on the page of mainspace contributions here, when compared to either of you. Yet, I believe I am quite capable of contributing quality writings.
The questions arbcom (and others) might ask themselves is "Why haven't I?", "Why did I end up stuck here in the back pages?"
The quick and easy answer is simply that I'm an asshole. or that I just like to fight. Yet those who know me, know differently. Those who take the time to look past my colorful barbs feel this way:

"anyway, this is a very thoughtful email, which is the kind of person you seem to be"

So, what happened? Why did I get mired down? And, MUCH more importantly, how many other people simply close their browsers and don't return? Because, this isn't about me. It's about wikipedia.
I speak about the things that happened to me, not because I'm a victim to them as some suggest, but because they are the only things I can speak to directly from experience. I can't speak about what happened to !!, because I don't know !!. But what happened to !! has happened to others, and how many of them simply go away? How much harm is done to the project when that happens?
The bottom line, for me, is that I came here to contribute and help correct some glaring problems that I saw in mainspace. I was met by an environment that seemed to not want those changes made. I was turned off by the bullshit politics here, where edit counts, barnstars and longevity (irrespective of real contribution) count more than a well-intentioned but ignorant newbie.
I was disillusioned by an atmosphere where it is okay to accuse someone of murderously burning someone at the stake (witch hunting), yet it is considered uncivil to respond to those accusations with established facts.
I was very happy to see arbcom mention 'chilling' in their findings, and I encourage them to go MUCH further. My indignation, as I believe is Giano's, is at the double standards and the good-ole-boy network that makes it extremely difficult for new editors (who run into a contentious situation) to survive unscathed.
Some choose to ignore it and continue editing. I suspect even more simply choose to leave. I chose to turn and fight. Whether or not some find my methods unorthodox is something with which they will have to struggle. Hopefully they care enough to see past my mistakes and my colorful outbursts and find the true meaning and motivation and concerns behind them. I am one of the chilled editors who came here naively thinking that fixing patently wrong mainspace wording could be easily corrected. When arbcom addresses those questions, wikipedia will be much improved and will attract many more quality contributors. Lsi john (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited outside opinions from people who just can't help themselves...

Appoint him to ArbCom. That place needs a bit more fire and brimstone. Harness his destructive wisdom instead of leaving yourselves vulnerable to it. DEVS EX MACINA pray 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix what's broken with wikipedia and take away his reason for getting involved. Lsi john (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano's not obnoxious- unlike many. He doesn't let injustice pass, as many do due to their sychophancy or favouritism. I for one am voting Giano for ArbCom. And he certainly shouldn't be punished for whistleblowing.Merkinsmum 04:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano's only offense is to fail to kowtow to the party line. Shall we rename ArbCom to the Wikipedia Unwikipedian Activities Committee? Kelly Martin 05:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...too destructive - more like chemotherapy.
...what do we do? - appoint him to the arbcom, duh. --Duk 06:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that all present can forgive me some distaste for being compared to the Gestapo, and not considering that within the bounds of honest criticism and acceptable discourse. Civility is still policy, and I think it's important, especially coming from a respected figure in the community. It may well be necessary for Giano to speak as he does, but can all the people assembled here say that if I or other members of the committee spoke as he did, acted as he did, and treated other users as he did, that you would let it pass with equanimity? Consider this an arbcom election question. Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?? Could you provide some diffs? I've never particualarly seen anything objectional in how Gianno speaks, and definitely not in how he treats other users. I won't name names but I can think of several admins who have behaved far more obnoxiously than he over this issue, they were mostly on the other side of the debate. I can only think you're not actually looking at his words in isolation, or I missed some diffs?Merkinsmum 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This question is meant for Giano; he knows what I'm talking about. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I have no idea what you are talking about. No one here has yet mentioned you or the Gestapo on this page. I certainly have not referred to you as a member of the Gestapo. In fact, you don't appear to be mentioned at all on this page. You seem to be falling into the same category as many others as seeing all criticism as destructive. It is not please try to see the more positive elements of others points and suggestions. Then things may become better - who knows? If you wish to ask a question concerned with my candidacy please do so in the appropriate place - I prefer a wide forum with its attendant transparency. Giano (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're right, Gestapo was in the edit-summary. I'm merely a member of HUAC in this instance. I'm sorry that you don't know what I'm talking about; it says that you don't realize the effect your comments have on other people. Criticism I don't mind, I get that every day. What I cannot abide are baseless accusations of cabalism, corruption, and sycophantic behavior. Maybe you don't mean to include everyone when you make those statements; I don't know. However, it's hard to read "So long as only those who say "certainly Jimbo, may I stand on my head Jimbo" are allowed any real power" and not feel offended. Do you really believe it works that way? Mackensen (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen, I think you're mistaking someone else's edit summary as coming from Giano. It wasn't him that wrote that Gestapo one. Please take another look. It may be his talk page but he can't do anything about other people's edit summaries.Merkinsmum 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • <conflict>I've just looked in the history of this page. I have been accused of some pretty odd things in my time, but blaming me for one of Kelly Martin's edit summaries, as the British say, rather takes the biscuit [12]. I have marginally less control over her than you do! However, she does not mention you either. While talking of British expressions they have another "If the cap fits wear it". I have no idea if you are sycophantic in your Arbcom deliberations - that is something you have to decide for yourself. I also have no idea what motivates you or indeed anything about you. Wikipedia has its problems and you won't solve them by attacking me for self imagined slights. Giano (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen, I know you are addressing Giano and I trust you will accept this interruption... I do believe it works this way. While, I don't think that every single admin, or every single member of arbcom fits the description, I do think it is the general mentality of the bureaucracy here. I find the system to be incredibly cliquish, and "in the name of Jimbo" is far too common [13] . Lsi john (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I alone in finding Kelly rather like Kate Adie? - British troops used to only know the situation had got serious if she appeared. Giano on the other hand is much more John Simpson - shot at but survives, and with the capacity to singlehandedly liberate Cabal Kabul. :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-indent. I will clarify matters. I never attributed the things Kelly Martin said to Giano; I offer Giano the opportunity to denounce those remarks. The cap does not fit, but if I let that remark go it is strongly implied that I don't challenge it. Perhaps I'm over-sensitive. Perhaps I'd like to see people be more careful in their utterances. Giano above complains about critics being tarred with a wide brush--a not unfair criticism--and then does the same to the bureaucracy. Let's stop this now. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Mackensen, leave whenever you want to but before you go, Bishonen addressed this point to you earlier [14] You have yet to respond to that, I an interested in your reply. I have the page watched. Thanks Giano (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll step back here. Maybe I am over-sensitive. Maybe because I'd never consider expressing myself this way I can't deal with it from others. I'll put my cards on the table. I don't give a damn about power games, cabalism, or criticism. Criticize away. What I do care about is politeness, civility, respect, and transparency in conduct. All these things are lacking today, from all sides. I'm leaving arbcom at the end of December; someone else will have to fix it. I don't think your conduct, Giano, is geared toward fixing those first two points. I take the position that good things flow from them. Maybe this is naive or wrong-headed, but I value the form in addition to the content. Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not you who was accusing someone of something they personally didn't do? If your behaviour is so impeccable, you will now apologise, IMHO.Merkinsmum 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on here: If there is any punch ups on this page they will be mine. Please take this to Mackensen's page or drop it. Thanks. Giano (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O ho ho, somebody needs to review policy. Some arbitrator you'll make, denying us our sport... sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are unanswered questions, but this discussion can definitely do without reference to the Gestapo or HUAC, reference which I strongly denounce. El_C 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but again with the denouncing, El C! I don't think it's appropriate to offer people a choice, the way Mackensen does, between either "denouncing" others, or else taking on the responsibility for what those others said. Do I become part-perpetrator of Durova's block, or her "sock report", or her various comments, if I fail to denounce them? Do I become part of Guy's or Mercury's attempts to archive, delete, and get people they disagree with to shut up, if I don't protest against those attempts every time I see them? I don't think so. I think people are if anything relieved that I don't obtrude my opinion about everything the whole time. I consider that I have the right to pick what I will denounce—and even what I will form an opinion about. There is enough denouncing, Mackensen. You should just do your own. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that Mackensen cannot have it both ways, but I am extremely uncomfortable with the Gestapo being invoked in this debate, so I will continue to denounce that no matter what. El_C 15:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Gestapo have not been involved in this debate, they were mentioned only in one of Kelly's edit summaries - nothing more. We all denounce without reservationthe Gestapo, Nazis and any other fascisti or any such organization. Giano (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Martin recently wrote in her blog:

Some links:

And the references to the Gestapo and the HUAC are... ? -- !! ?? 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not often I say this !!, but you have lost me here, the possibility of Durova going atrolling is not today's problem. Anyhow this thread has now progresed too far from Raul's concern for my wellbeing at the top of the thread. So we are stoping this thread here. I'm thinking of bringing Spumoni home but he is too frightened of the scary man at the top of the page. So I shall be archiving shortly just as soon as the case is closed, and you can all get back to normal, and me to whatever passes here as normal.
Mackensen. I know this is a bit late to reply to your comment, but I assume that "civility is still the law of the land" was directed at my advice to Raul, and it deserves an answer. First, you know full well that it is not the law of the land, nor a law at all. It is a policy that we should be civil. Indeed, such wisdom we all agree with. It is not "be civil or else," though. Because it is impossible to define uncivil behavior, because it is utterly impossible to classify comments on a scale of civility, to have a chart of venal sins and mortal sins, there is no way to turn "civility" into a law. Furthermore, it is foolish, if not dishonest, to try it. All that it does is give power to the offended to block. Once we do that, we uncover a whole nest of vermin shouting that they have been offended by the light shone upon them. So far, every single time I have seen someone complain about "civility," the issue has been a rhetorical dodge or a bit of argumentative mugging. Kelly's edit summary was insulting. It was provocative. It was designed to anger. If you get angry, sputter, and find yourself unable to comport yourself, then it has even been uncivil, because it has disrupted the editing atmosphere, but then you have to get the opinions of a wide community to determine if it was the comment, the intent, or your emotional state that was to blame. I have a goodly history of saying acerbic things in witty language. Without resorting to profanity or wicked words, I can accomplish the same effect (causing anger). As seedy as it is, this remains part of the realm of human discourse, and one that is needed. It is impossible to legislate against it or codify exactly when, how much, and how often "causing the correspondent emotional upset" is against our practices. I would agree with you in deprecating Kelly's edit summary, though for probably a different reason from you. I do because I think it's lazy, imprecise, and foolish hyperbole. I don't know how it can harm, because it's altogether too weak. YMMV. Geogre (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form ?UNIQ4c49a9df5a32a8ab-nowiki-00000001-QINU? if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or ?UNIQ4c49a9df5a32a8ab-nowiki-00000002-QINU? otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, no I don't touch tables and charts etc they always fall to bits, someone will have to that for me. Far be it for me to highlight my skills, plenty of others happy to do that. Giano (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thx! — Sebastian 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]

Question

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Swalwell.2C_Alberta Fred Bauder (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fred, perhaps not a nice place for a holiday destination after all. Too many famliar faces. Giano (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that was the link I couldn't find. My memory is better than my skill of sorting through archives.--Isotope23 talk 19:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you're not watching it closely

Uninvited has crafted two "proposals" regarding you. In one, you would be banned for 90 days. In the other, you would be restricted for one year to only working in discussions about Featured Articles. You may want to weigh in, if you think it might help. Mr Which??? 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) he's asleep.. B) he'll surely see it when he logs on.. C) it is questionable if they pass..  ;) D) (Good morning Mr Pink Bathrobe Sir.) Lsi john (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvited is already on record as being virulently anti-us and fanatically pro-Carnildo (remember Carnildo's RfA? He didn't even bother to attempt any sort of reconciliation on the part of both of us who were blocked by Carnildo; it was such a hostile and unfriendly and divisive act on his part). And now he is at it again. I find it discreditable that, of all members of the Committee, he's the one to be behind such blatantly unjust and one-sided remedies that have no chance of passing. What, just to further enhance his image as hostile to us? Whole lotta proposed drama. El_C 06:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I have not looked yet, I will do so. Doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. This is though why they disposed of Durove in the first five minutes and then left the empty case hanging about. Sounds as though someone is very worried. Giano (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that, El C. But I have responded to Uninvited.[16] Bishonen | talk 08:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
His "heartfelt" partisanship is downright laughable in its obviousness (no subtlety there). Don't hold your breath for an answer. El_C 10:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you say so. Just as well, my face was going a funny color anyway. I was hoping others would be interested, since there were questions about the much-touted apology, but I guess right in the middle like that isn't a good place to post. Anyway, it's what we do: waste our time. Little we see on Wikipedia that is ours! For this, for everything, we are out of tune. It moves us not. :-( Bishonen | talk 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]



Since MONGO isn't here to give you this... Risker (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have looked, it is just one of those silly things, in the hope I will lose my temper big time before the elections open. Giano (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I will lose my temper big time" :) So you're saying we have never seen you truly lose it yet? ... I need to start working on my "why I'm voting for Giano" statement, as do a few other people who will raise some eyebrows come the start of the election, I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Is that absinthe? Drink it, Giano! No. No, don't. It's probably a banned substance, or poisoned. Give it to me, and I'll taste it for you. I'll make sure it hasn't got any poison in it all the way to the bottom. Geogre (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Don't. Given the recent barnstar and the martyr complex, I suspect hemlock.--Docg 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
at least it aint koolaid. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 12:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a margarita. Notice the lime wedge and coarse salt. - Jehochman Talk 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The green made me think of the Incredible Hulk. Is Giano in fact FrankenGiano, or mild-mannered Featured Article scientist Giano, until angered by injustice, when he becomes the Incredible Gianulk? "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." • Lawrence Cohen 14:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Incredible Gianulk? I never thought something more catchy than Bishzilla would be possible. Quick, someone do a cartoon drawing. Just don't read about what happened to the Incredible Hulk. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being a whistleblower

I wish I had your nerve. Too often I worry about what retaliation comes next. --健次(derumi)talk 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that... Giano (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's Note

I think people will be lining up to thank you. My thoughts on this are already here [[17]]. I for one never knew you before, but I think I know you now. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ArbCom questions

(cf. User talk:Giano II/archive 7#ArbCom questions)

Sorry I missed this comment, and apologies that the questions aren't better. I'd truly love to find a set of questions that would be useful in preparing a better guide for voters (if you have any ideas, I'd be happy to consider them for next year's guide). That having been said, do you want me to refer voters to your comment about the questions, or just indicate that you've chosen not to answer the questions? Ral315 » 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have rather gone beyond that point, don't you? Giano (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have a question for you. It stems from your actions related to the current arbcom case you are involved in and your run for arbcom.

The arbitration committee has a very high traffic mailing list (around 15 people generating upwards of 70 emails per day) used to discuss matters of interest to the arbitration committee. These matters include not just pending cases, but stuff related to past cases (requests for clarification, change in situation, etc), checkuser findings, personal opinions and musings, etc. Everything said there is by necessity considered very confidential - not just the content of what is said, but (generally) the topic of conversations as well. (In fact, we prefer not even to advertise its existance) And certainly no quoting from that list is allowed, without explicit prior consent from others. Why do we have a non-transparent communications channel like that? Because privacy concerns aside, having people - (and I mean no disrespect by this) people like you - screaming in our ears while we brainstorm ideas is not conducive to the best decision making. (Think ANI on steroids)

If you were given access to this mailing list, how would you treat what is discussed there? Could we trust you to continue to treat the list as confidential, or would you repost material to Wikipedia if you judged it to be relevant? Raul654 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Giano.

Allow me to say that the ArbCom case about Durova's actions against !! hit close to home. In a previous incarnation, you and I got crossways about something (that I was wrong about, I'm certain) and as such, going into this issue (first at AN/I, and then at ArbCom--I avoided the RfC) I was prepared to oppose you. It gradually became clear to me that not only were your inentions (protection of !!'s reputation, and utter repudiation of both a bad block and a nefarious "sleuthing" list) just, but so were your methods. It quickly became clear to me that there was a concerted effort to have this incident be as minimalized as possible, from the highest levels of the project. As such, dire problems often require dire solutions. Would I have had the courage to challenge the god-king himself? I can say categorically, no. Though this isn't my first rodeo at WP, I'm not nearly so experienced as you, nor do I have the same courage you displayed in facing Jimbo as you did. Risker's post regarding the "little people" of WP said it all. If you haven't read it yet, revisit the RfC (or take a look at GRBerry's response at the ArbCom, which links it). He said everything I'm trying to say to you now, but much more eloquently.

In short, what I'm trying to say is, "Thanks." Without experienced non-admins like yourself to stand up to the sleuths and bullies of the project, there are many of us who would simply fade away into WP oblivion, either blocked, or discouraged by the project's lack of transparency in matters such as this. Keep fighting the good fight, Giano. Regards, Mr Which??? 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Agree. Lsi john (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Private correspondence

Thanks. Wikipedia:Private correspondence. • Lawrence Cohen 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try never to advise on legal matters on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
far too "wimpy" me, they will say I'm gay next. Obviously know idea of how to formulate an insult. Someone go and explain the term is offensive, I really can't be bothered. Giano (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder routinely uses the term "wimpy" in commenting on remedy proposals that he believes (rightly or wrongly) are excessively lenient. Often, he writes "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy"; this is a reference to an old series of television commercials for plastic garbage bags, in which sturdy "Hefty, Hefty, Hefty" bags were contrasted with easily ripped "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy" ones. Fred (and Jpgordon, who followed Fred's wording in this instance) have both explained that that "wimpy" was a reference to the alleged insufficiency of the remedy proposal and not a personal comment about any editor, and given that I have seen Fred use the wording many times before on proposed decision pages I readily credit them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many times before? Routinely? That's all right then, nobody worry about the bloodthirsty demands for less wimpy, more forceful, more manly, remedies. E. g., Fred about the proposal for a 90-day ban: "Wimpy wimpy, disruption at the level Giano has engaged in is utterly unacceptable." There are no links or other examples of the unacceptable disruption, anywhere on the page. I bet linking to examples is for wimps. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please note well that I wasn't commenting on the substance of the remedy proposal, which I am glad to see no longer enjoys majority support; simply on the use of a particular adjective to describe it, which is a distraction from the more serious concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Words are swords. Incidentally, Brad, following your workshop proposal, nine arbitrators have found that Durova ("in addition to contributing content," yet!) has been "active with respect to dispute resolution issues, including active participation at the former community sanctions noticeboard, proposing and overseeing the community enforceable mediation process, and providing useful input in arbitration cases." If that fellow Giano has contributed anything to the project, or been active at anything remotely useful, the reader had better be aware of it independently, for there is no mention of any such thing on the Proposed decision page. Please note that I'm not blaming you personally for such egregious imbalance. I think it came about because Giano hadn't yet been added to the case when you crafted your praise of Durova. (Well... that is to say, if creating the community sanctions noticeboard is to be reckoned matter for praise; most people think not. There's after all a reason why CSN has been deleted now.) But, well, it's stupid, isn't it? If I may be allowed an analogy, it's a bit like calling for thanks to Tony Sidaway for his constructive input on the workshop, while omitting to mention Zocky. Don't you think? Bishonen | talk 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I put up a proposal to thank Giano and !! here yesterday, but I guess it was overlooked with everyone screaming about everything else. :( • Lawrence Cohen 21:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lawrence. Yeah, some things are doomed to bomb. I put up an analysis of Uninvited's claim that Durova had made a "genuine and heartfelt effort to patch things up with !!"[18] but it seemed to be immediately invisible, just like your proposal to thank Giano. Nobody replied, and people have gone right on saying how nicely Durova has apologized, and what more could she do. There's a tide in the affairs of men, and we didn't catch it, you or I. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
And here I thought words were words, and swords were swords. But I guess that explains why I'm less reluctant to eat my words than some people. And what a cutting remark really is. And a verbal jab. And repartee... :-) Anyway, those thanks are really an epitaph in a way; the Arbcom has ruled (or rather, clearly will rule) that Durova has lost her admin powers, and can't get them back automatically the way it will to any usual admin who steps down of her own accord. That's not nothing. Brad's praise of Durova is meant to balm some of that sting. She really is a good person despite one incident of being free with the banhammer - note how quickly she reversed herself. The proposed Arbcom decision hasn't done anything to Giano yet, and it looks reasonably likely that it won't do much, so there isn't much to need to take the sting out of. Just adding praise would seem to be unwarranted, it seems clear that Giano's actions did not meet with unanimous approval. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please go away?
Mouse? Would you please go away? I know this isn't my page, but Giano has asked me to mind the store for a few hours, and I'd really appreciate it. I mean no offense. I understand that you have good intentions in telling me your perception of stings and balms and who are good people (and who not), people's intentions (oh yeah?), and what I need to "note" (as if I know nothing about it) but I so don't want to discuss it. I've had enough. If you care about what I've seen of the events, which I hardly suppose, I posted an analysis of them here some time back. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To Bishonen: When I drafted my workshop proposals, as you observe, Giano was not yet a party to the case and I did not believe he would become one. I tend to draft a paragraph of background about each of the major participants about whom I am going to propose substantive findings; here, that included Durova as well as User:!! Mackensen and Kirill, in putting the first draft of the final decision together, did not use either of these paragraphs, but they were incorporated later by Paul August; and the "User:!! urged" remedy was added to the proposed decision at my instance in specific response to the astonishing conduct of administrator Hu12 on !!'s talkpage. I see that someone else has already drafted "Giano thanked"; I would be glad to draft something more, but I fear that we are beyond the stage of the case where arbitrators are reading the workshop any more. Whether any portion of the proposed decision is, as you posit, "stupid" is left as an exercise for the reader. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not worry of the possibility that Arbitrators won't read what is said if this is said by NYBrad (or Bishonen, or Geogre, or Giano for that matter but especially NYBrad). And they sure thing read the proposed decision's talk, at least some of the do. --Irpen (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jimbo and his Arbcom"

Er... the sentiment is understandable given you were blocked. But note that it's not Jimbo's Arbcom any more, or any less, than it's Jimbo's Wikipedia. He did found the thing, and does still run it whenever he feels like. He doesn't feel like often, which is a good thing, but it is still a bit of a contradiction in terms to be completely opposed to Jimbo and supportive of the Wikipedia. No? This may eventually change, but for now the Wikipedia is still 90% what Jimbo intended, so it's rather hard to differentiate between them. Steven Wright had a line about something like that. "I support the war," he said, "but I don't support the troops." --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me most about Jimbo is his apparent vindictiveness in some cases. In RL, for instance, Larry Sanger comes to mind. In WP life, I think of the temporary (and against all consensus) desysop of Zscout, as well as his angry threat to ban Giano. There are multiple other examples. The project would be well-served if Jimbo relinquished his god-king powers once and for all, perhaps kept the simple sysop bit, and legitimately subjected himself to the DR process that many of us have come to ... well ... despise. Jimbo gives lip service to accountability, but in actuality, there is little, if any, real accountability for him. The fact that he hand selects the ArbCom--even going against community wishes when it suits his fancy--is one of the most egregious examples. How can their be real accountability, when the whole committee knows that they owe their spots to Jimbo? Mr Which??? 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do other Wikipedias elect their Arbcom? • Lawrence Cohen 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MrWhich,
  1. Jimbo is an ordinary editor. We know this, because he has said so.
  2. On a more serious note: The last bit is actually the fascinating part of your observation. We have a system of open-contribution, based on the concept that eventually people get it right.... yet a different world-view is applied at the top levels. We trust people get it right, but we'll keep control, just to make sure they do. Lsi john (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long but (I thought!) interesting thread on this very point here. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 23:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Civility

Giano, I know that you and Tony have a heated history. But please, sometimes you can be your own worst enemy. Please try to achieve at least a modicum of self-censorship. You need to consider style issues as well as substance; I think he wants you to cross over an edge that it would be better for Wikipedia if you don't cross, and you are walking very close to the edge. GRBerry 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do appolagise to Tony, I had no idea he was involved in the case. Giano (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took that post as a casual and offhand friendly retort and actually smiled that he was so calm and jocular with it. I guess that shows the different ways people can read things. Lsi john (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it was not meant unkindly, ir was actually a play on the word sock - Oh forget it - warped humour and all that. Giano (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that you meant it unkindly. But it could be spun as if you had. If you are to be the new, more catholic than the priest ArbiGiano then getting some practice in avoiding the risk of spin in now would be a good idea. I don't suggest assuming that what you say will be taken out of context and used against you. But you know there are risks: in the case, in the election, and the post election private polticking. Why take those risks? GRBerry 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I am feeling strangely liberated, like a child with the summer holidays on the the horizon. Giano (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re ArbCom Durova et al

Before I go to bed, I should let you know that I have only just now - because I had only just thought of it - raised the issue of who sent you the copy of Durova's report. I don't know if you know who it was, but I am raising the point that whoever did was also violating some pretty big principles and that the people effected by you posting it do not include that individual. You may wish to consider that point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very valid point. Giano (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One that I have also made to Durova - even at this late stage it may be something for ArbCom to consider. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I have raised with Giano twice, both times he sidestepped answering it, so I'm going to try again more frankly this time. Isn't it hypocritical that you demand others be named and held to account for something they may or may not have said in a private conversation with Durova, yet you refuse to divulge who provided you with the email? It follows that, if the community needs to know which "senior editors" showed poor judgment in approving that block, the community should also like to know which "senior editor" showed such poor judgment to share a private communication with you against the express wishes of the person who wrote it.
Here is my problem with that editor: If they knew that !! was not a banned sock, then they could simply have told Durova that and avoided any of this. If they didn't know that, but just considered the evidence weak, then they could have told Durova that, and this may have been avoided. If they felt this was evidence of misconduct and wanted to whistleblow, they could have sent the email to ArbCom in confidence. But no, instead that person decided to share the email to the one person they knew would create an almighty and public fuss about it. Either way, and as the resulting brouhaha shows, the "senior editor" who shared this with you showed very poor judgment.
I personally, don't care who this person is, but I'm not the one calling for the blood of Durova's confidantes. You, and others on this page, are. So shouldn't you do as you are asking of others and reveal who sent you that email, or else accept that everyones private communications should remain private? Rockpocket 04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no recall of you directly asking me Rockpocket, but I'm sure the yser concerned will identify himself later today when he logs on, then the Arbcom can diect their bile towards him. It is certianly no great secret. His head should on a pole also should truly satisfy you. Giano (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
errrm.... the difference is that Giano never used his "private" source for any public justification. If Durova never wanted to invoke anybody else's name then why talk about "senior editors", "checkusers", and "arbitrators"? If you're going to invoke other people as justification, you need to be prepared to name them. Similarly, the "investigation" was supposedly "deep" and involved "32 diffs across 2 pages", and we all know how laughable that was. If you want the "report" to be private, don't brag about it in public. All this talk of "false positives", "one key fact missing", "deep investigation", paints one very misleading picture in public, and a starkly different picture to those who were in possession of the facts. It would be very wrong to allow someone to continue to mislead (whether deliberate or not). 98.134.168.183 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all Durova's words you quote, not the words of the individuals who are being vilified. She has come under criticism for her comments, possibly rightly so, but does that justify attempts to forceably reveal the private comments of others? I respect that Giano wishes to no longer discuss this, so this will be my last comment on the subject. Rockpocket 07:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave it all now,I'm tired of it, once they officially inform me of their decision I shall not be returning. So lets finish it . Thanks for all the messages and support. Giano (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah

Giano, you're a good writer, a good editor, and a good scholar. I hope you choose to continue with the project in general, and to let go of all this needless internecine drama. In my opinion, you are far too prone to perceive malice where none is intended. Please consider Hanlon's Razor.

Wikipedia will continue with or without you, but it would be a better project with you. DS (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Good work

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For defending the project from erroneous blocks by publishing evidence to exonerate User:!!


  1. Good work. You did the right thing. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support also. Cla68 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per the Socratic Barntar Iawarded above. Mr Which??? 02:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods, — They kill us for their sport". sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good work! Ripberger (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. • Lawrence Cohen 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Absolutely. Everyking (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thank you for being a whistleblower. JavaTenor (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. What else can I say but grazzi--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think you did the right thing, and I think the person who sent you the email should be as courageous as you. LessHeard vanU 13:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Well you know what I think, and anyway the ArbCom's not over yet.:)Merkinsmum 14:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Thank God for people like you, Giano. Be bold and do the next right thing; without actions like yours, the secret societies of the world would certainly continue on with corruption and deceit. What you did was right and it was... Nice 15:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platonic plea?=

"Just drink it and walk around until your legs begin to feel heavy, then lie down. It will soon act"--Docg 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, imbibing isn't your only option here. Please reconsider, it isn't too late to recognise the gods.--Docg 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, as Socrates... Mr Which??? 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom election

[19] -- KTC (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano Box

{{User:Lawrence Cohen/Gianobox}}/User:Lawrence_Cohen/Gianobox - based on KTC's above link. I've added it to my user and talk page. • Lawrence Cohen 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is on my userpage, I changed it because I'm not voting as a protest vote (though of course I agree with the sentiments.)Merkinsmum 14:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&oldid=174838734"