User talk:Giano II

He has a dream

This editor believes it is wrong that Wikipedia is policed from an external Admin's channel over which it has no control.

Police Wikipedia from Wikipedia

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at:

Essays:

A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

A few thoughts on Wikipedia (unfinished)

Interesting diffs

Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy "I'm reminded of the characters in Solzhenitsyn's novels."

Please leave new messages below

One month block

Based on this analysis I have determined that a one month block is appropriate enforcement of the civility parole you are under. It will be imposed after the arbitration committee election.~~suspended if you run for arbitrator and be commuted if you are appointed~~. Fred Talk 18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has not edited since his original block, I think extending the block to one month is quite draconian. Giano had no part in overturning the block, that was solely the action of SlimVirgin. As well, engaging in political chicken by pressuring him to run for ArbCom as a way to avoid a sanction is not wise. I ask you to rethink using this approach to solve your issue with SlimVirgin's controversial use of her tools. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has expressed some interest in running. He should not be blocked during the election if he runs. Fred Talk 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Deal with Slim, and send out a strong message that parole blocks will generally stick from now on. Then let Giano reflect on the fact that he has not got immunity, and if he does push the envelope again there will be blocks. That fact will hopefully cause him to argue his points in a different tone. Frankly this looks a bit like forcing someone to run for office to avoid jail. We don't want Giano blocked - but we do want there to be an understanding across the community that there are real consequences going forward when arbom paroles are ignored.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, I will consider it. No block has been intituted at this time. I have discussed the matter with SlimVirgin, but not the duration and terms of this block. Fred Talk 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From this consultation on Giano's culpability and background I cannot help but perceive that we seem to be acting here as more of a court and less as a group of Administrators taking action to protect the project from disruption. (Fred in particular strikes me as functioning here as a magistrate rather than as an Administrator.) This in turn suggests to me that we are taking measures that are predominately penal rather than primarily preventative. Would such a reading be mistaken? AGK 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is preventive. For one month Giano will be prevented from engaging in destructive incivility. That is the point. Fred Talk 19:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block performed in this manner, from these quarters, would escalate both tension and drama. There is no point in such a block, other than to punish, which blocks are not intended to do. The only thing such a block would be preventing is the creation of excellent content. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, it should surely be obvious by now that this lot are the disruption. Unless some people are talking to each other behind the scenes and they got some pretty good plan to crush Giano and his followers once and for all, this is just another crazy piece of self-righteous counter-productive drama inducing chest-puffing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me. (1)What authority does Fred have to impose this one month block? (2)Who afforded him this authority? He's certainly not an arb anymore. (3)What is keeping any sane admin from exerting his/her authority to undo this ill-conceived month long block? Seriously, Fred, you don't get to make this call on your own. You are not working on the behalf of the arbcom, so your word does not mean anything more than the thousand other admins. You have a history with Giano, so you shouldn't be the one to do this. This place is getting more and more ridiculous. Tex (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of any adminitrator who is aware of Giano's behavior to enforce the civility parole Giano is subject to. Civility is not a guideline. It is policy, indeed "Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles", see Wikipedia:Civility. Fred Talk 03:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the accusations towards FT2 and David Gerard are relevant to Giano's block. There's no grand conspiracy here. I support the block, and I'm uninvolved in this matter. I'm rarely on IRC, and I'm not involved in the ongoing "Giano drama". However, I do participate regularly as an administrator handling arbitration enforcement, and as such, the situation here is pretty clear: An editor, Giano II, who is subject to an ArbCom civility restriction, violated that restriction multiple times, and ignored multiple warnings. Administrator Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) reviewed the diffs and determined that an ArbCom enforcement block is appropriate. I agree with this course of action, especially as some of the comments which Giano made were clear violations of WP:CIVIL. I apply a simple test: If the comments were made by a brand new editor, would they plausibly result in a civility block? To some of the comments, the answer is a clear, "Yes, someone would have been blocked for that kind of language." Or in other words: If it's uncivil from a new editor, it's uncivil from an established editor, too.

One way that Giano II could really help his case here though, would be to simply acknowledge the ArbCom restrictions that have been placed on him, and promise to abide by them in the future. If he were to promise that he was going to treat other editors with civility, and that he was going to try to get back to content creation and improvement, rather than spending the majority of his time on these other peripheral activities, I would support waiving the block altogether. Giano, if this is acceptable to you, would you please put your agreement in your own words? Thanks, --El on ka 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be a start, although I would not forgo the block altogether. I am not that comfortable with a one month block, but that is what is called for by the offenses committed. We could just restore the original 55 hour block. However, I'm not sure that would make the required impression. The massive incivility and gaming must stop. If Giano wants to work with us on the problem, that would be a different matter. Fred Talk 00:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few words from Giano

Thank you Fred, a huge surprise to no one, you are in fact symbolic of all I consider odious about Wikipedia. Anyway enough of Fred, if it were not for him, and his "solutions" I would never have become a political Wikipedia animal.

I have always been reluctant to publicise quite how badly run the project is, as I have hesitated to damage it. However, over the last week or so my enemies have taken their gloves off as it became apparent I was a threat to them. I now no longer see a reason to protect a project that continually seeks to harm those that build it. In fact, what I am about to say will hopefully reform it. I have told no-one the true reason I despise the Arbcom with such venom, but now is the time to tell.

A mighty cover up has occurred over the last year, shortly after the last elections - I discovered that on December 7 2007 David Gerard had oversighted damaging and distasteful edits made by FT2, had he not done so it is impossible that FT2 would have been elected to Arbcom. Those of you who have been here a while will know of their joint involvement in IRC and the Wikimedia UK project, and also of course Gerards's prior attempts to get checkuser access for FT2 (before FT2 was elected to arbcom), it seems they work hand in glove, and last years Arbcom elections were to be no exception.

Over the last year I have known this, but been unable to prove it, I have been stonewalled wherever I turned and found myself unable to trust anybody. FT2 and Gerard were untouchable and had me blocked at every opportunity. Sometimes as you all know the fury inside me bubbled over a little, now you all know why. Especially when Gerard tried to find out my private real life details, so I hope Thatcher now understands why I was quite so angry.

A week or so ago I obtained positive proof that Gerard had indeed tampered with FT2's edits during the election with an invalid oversight reason outside of policy, especially as they pertained to a subject about which FT2 was being questioned during his campaign for Arbcom. So basically Gerard and FT2 are disgraced and and FT2 is an Arb by fraud. I have known that for a year, now all of you know it. I don't know how many of the other Arbs, checkusers etc knew of it, but I find it hard to believe they were only two in on the secret. So that is why I distrust Gerard and FT2 and view the rest of them with mistrust.

With regard to the run for Arbcom or be blocked threat, I would not run for Arbcom now if Bauder paid me $10 million. Some of us like to chose the company we keep. Oh and just in case anyone is doubting what I have said here, the oversighted diffs are 4559833 and 4557792. If this post here is oversighted I shall post it on Wikipedia Review.

I wish all the new Arbcom candidates a huge amount of luck we now know how much they will need, I have no reason to believe it will be a clean fight. I have no way of knowing what my future is here, or if I have one. It rather depends on how good Wikipedia is at introspection and honesty. Neither qualities at which it excels. Giano (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block performed in this manner, from these quarters, would escalate both tension and drama. There is no point in such a block, other than to punish, which blocks are not intended to do. The only thing such a block would be preventing is the creation of excellent content. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the one who might get blocked (noting is sure with wiki-politics), how about you answer the many questions about your own behaviour instead of more conspiracy theories? What you just said could be interesting and since some people will believe anything you say it will have to be investigated. But if it turns out to be a lie, or a huge exaggeration of something insignificant, what will you do then? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave. What you're doing now is nothing more than baiting him. You're certainly contributing nothing useful. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is more than enough of that. Let him/her speak his piece, (s)he is doing it peaceably.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to my request that Apoc stop baiting Giano, I'd refer you to the diffs in the history of this page where Apoc has done little more than stir the pot. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This stinks. I wanted Giano to run for Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, this is old news and thoroughly boring except to the chattering classes at wikipedia review. Really, using this insane conspiracy theory paranoia as a smokescreen to distract from the quite reasonable request for a little more civility ill becomes you. So, FT2 has some strange interests which might disturb more conservative wikipedians? Guess what? I don't care. I'd probably not want to socialise with him, but that's my attitude to most wikipedians. I stopped caring about the wikisoap opera a long time ago. And as I've said elsewhere, you are bright, literate and amusing - why, oh, why, do you insist on the paranoid wacky act, and focusing on triviality that doesn't matter. You are capable of so much better.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"this is old news..." That seems to imply what Giano says is true. If so, that's pretty disturbing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It checks out and I never heard of it. and I'm not sure what to make of it. However, the issue with Giano is repeated destructive incivility. That is what the block is about. To prevent continuance of his behavior. Fred Talk 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block is one issue, certainly. This is another. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, you have a COI w/Gianno, having previously ~~threatened~~ attempted to ban him from the arbcom pages and a long history of personal conflict. You shouldn't sit as judge, jury and executioner on this one. And this shouldn't have to be explained to you. --Duk 20:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. My efforts as an arbitrator with respect to Giano do not create a conflict of interest. That I have always thought a lengthy, even indefinite ban, was appropriate is neither here nor there. I am simply carrying out an arbitration committee decision as an administrator. We have seldom encountered on another while editing, and when we have there has been little conflict. Fred Talk 20:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but yes. A few easy clicks brought me to all I needed to know about the late, great IRC case. That you could think you could evaluate (or "analyze", if you will) this situation without the color of bias, after what I observed in the diffs of that case is very strange to me. You're clearly not an unbiased admin in this instance, which is what is necessary. And the very fact that you felt that a 1-month ban would do anything other than escalate drama and punitively deal with the situation further illustrates this point. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hamster! I'd heard of case of the disappearing diffs, but never knew it was Gerard who did it. Makes sense though, Gerard has a fondness for censorship when it serves his petty political goals. By the way, where is Gerard? I haven't seen him explain or defend his recent block. --Duk 19:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the is this? What strange interests? Oversight is not to be used for political purposes, nor to sanitize contribution histories for public relations purposes. What's going on here? Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its the same stuff Peter Damian went on about, its probably related to some edits to an article about a particularly... unusual sexual proclivity. Not sure that it really is all that important to arbitration matters, to FT2, David Gerard, or Giano if that is what its about. A strange time to bring it up, to my mind. Avruch^T 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual proclivities? Well, to each his or her own, but my question is quite singular. Has oversight been used to remove edits that could potentially have been embarrassing? Yes, or no? Jehochman ^Talk 21:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I thought everyone knew this. A document was circulated to the arbcom some time ago, admitting this happened. Sadly, nothing was done. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am behind. Do you have a link to this document? Who was the one performing the improper Oversighting? What, if anything was Giano's involvement at that time? Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My email is the.buckners AT btinternet.com. I will email you a copy. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have known for some time that some edits were oversighted. I did not know by whom; Giano claims it was Gerard and I have no reason to doubt him. Giano had no involvement in the oversight matter at the time, his standing appears to be that FT2 and Gerard are close friends and cover for each other, and therefore FT2's block of Giano for incivility, which was provoked by Gerard's block of Giano, is inappropriate. Thatcher 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first airing of this particular issue, Jehochman, just FYI. "The Land Surveyer" above has been blocked more than once for harassment because of this issue and his pursuit of FT2. Avruch^T 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why was I blocked I wonder. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, your ban (enacted by Jimbo Wales) is still in force. You were advised to keep your head down and stay out of the drama and perhaps no one would block you again if you resumed editing. I assume from your participation here that you have declined that advice? Avruch^T 21:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK I will say no more. Please don't block me again. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)~~ (Strike out silly and ironic comment) The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If somebody has been harassing FT2, I am more than happy to block them, and my blocks generally stand up to scrutiny better than most. Jehochman ^Talk 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I don't care about anyone's preferences. I do care if material was oversighted to make users more likely to support FT2. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From reading this incredibly fragmented narrative (here and on WR, and WR public archives) that appears to be what Fred is confirming. I think. who cares what someone does or is "into" or whatever? It has no relevance on anything, outside morality doesn't have any business here on that kind of crap. But hiding edits to affect the elections? That's not good. rootology (C)(T) 21:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[to Harrisson] And I say exactly the same. It's nothing to do with anything except improper oversight. And if you look at my contributions to Wikipedia Review, they concern mostly that issue (that and my problem with Neurolinguistic programming but that is an entirely unrelated matter. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If oversight was used to remove contributions, simply because they were inexpedient politically, action should be taken quickly. It really is as simple as that. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, that is the main issue. And I wish people would STOP accusing me of harrassment. I just want the truth about this issue to come out. That is all. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This over-sighting business is open secret. Everyone knew about it. (oh, the irony) Rockpocket 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A decent suggestion

If there has been improper oversighting, could we please get an Oversighter to check that out, and if true, simply un-oversight the edits and let everyone look at them? Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A developer would have to do that, oversight has no un-oversight tool. Fred Talk 03:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do people not realize that coverups attract attention? The best way to resolve such a situation is with bright sunshine. Just let people look at the stuff, and they will see it is probably not as bad as they imagine, and then the drama will die down. Jehochman ^Talk 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid point for cover jobs generally, but I don't think you can assume that is what happened in this case. We don't have input from oversighters or the folks involved at this point, nor are we really likely to in the immediate future, so making judgments in the absence of facts is probably a bad idea. If oversighting was done for the purposes of "cleaning up" an edit history, I think that is a problem and something that should be reviewed against the oversight policy, but lets not get ahead of ourselves or let this new allegation overshadow the work to be done on all the other recent drama. Avruch^T 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important for these facts to come out sooner, rather than later. First, if anyone involved in the current election has been involved in a cover up, then those facts need to be known now. Second, if there has been retaliation against Giano II a part of a coverup, that needs to be known before any further sanctions on Giano are considered. If Giano has been making false accusations, that would be particularly relevant to current discussions about his sanctions. I am not assuming anything at this point. I'd just like to get hold of the facts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely concur in all respects. If Giano has been targeted in some way because of this, that needs dealt with quickly. If he's making unfounded accusations (which, based upon the "open secret" comment, seems highly unlikely) that needs dealt with as well. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding the the oversight log expires on the same timeframe as the checkuser log, so data from a year ago would probably be unavailable. MBisanz ^talk 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't actually particularly bad, and I have often maintained this and I get irritated when I get this 'harassment' tag. The point was they were oversighted during the election, moreover they were oversighted after I was requested to provide diffs to them. That's the part that really rankles. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighted edits can not be restored except by a developer, and it is a lot of work. Oversighted edits can not even be seen by other editors with oversight, the log only tells that something was removed and the reason (if one was given) but not the removed content itself. (If I recall correctly.) Thatcher 21:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How then do Oversighters check each other for abuse? Jehochman ^Talk 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes but we know the content. The question (and this is the real news) is Gerard's alleged involvment. He should comment. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And how does one prevent such things as what happened during FT2's run from happening? Open secret or no, I find such use of a sensitive tool very disconcerting. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs sunshine, real quick now. I'd like to belive this is all a misunderstanding. Get the material out there, and a full explanation of the circumstances. Then if it's nothing, it's nothing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. If people have behaved properly, they have nothing to hide. They should welcome outside scrutiny. Jehochman ^Talk 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit. From what I gather, FT2 posted some stuff to wikipedia, which he later regretted as it gave away a little to much about his interests. He asked Gerard to remove it. Gerard did. So bloody what? This has sod all to do with Giano, unless one uses the same nonsensical barking paranoid conspiracy-theory mindset that is frankly poisoning wikipedia. Grow up. Say "Encyclopedia" and work back from there. Giano has been told to be civil or face a block, he is repeatedly uncivil, and he gets blocked. Now he can suggest the blocks have to do with some vast arbcom led conspiracy - and perhaps he can deceive the gullible and rabble rouse the blatantly drama-addicted - but the reality is that he's blocked for flaunting basic stuff like WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. As I've said before, there is a monumental, destructive and (I suspect) deliberate failure to assume good faith here, and the sooner people stop getting off on it and snap out of it the better.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an improper use of oversight, then. Case admitted. The Land Surveyor (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that excuses Giano exactly how?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@Scott Brilliant! You fail to Assume good faith of Jehochman, resort to personal attack, fail to comply with civility and then lecture on Giano's repeated incivility. You sound a little wound up - there's a reason, but there is for Giano too. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming nothing. Jehochman is obviously not acting in good faith. Oh, and I'm very calm thanks for asking.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] And it is amusing that you say "FT2 posted some stuff to wikipedia, which he later regretted as it gave away a little to much about his interests. He asked Gerard to remove it. Gerard did." and then talk about 'absurd' conspiracy theories. What you say is precisely the conspiracy we are talking about. Plus the conspiracy to cover the oversight up, which implicates nearly every member of the current Arbcom (I too have nice collection of emails stored away). The Land Surveyor (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that excuses Giano exactly how?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple Scott. Assuming that what Giano says is true, and that he's perceiving things correctly, then the whole chain of provocations, sanctions and blocks against Giano over the last year take on a very different meaning that what we conventionally understand. If there is a group of users trying to silence or discredit Giano, that is very relevant information to know. Of course, if Giano is making this up, that is also very relevant information because the sanctions might need to be that much stronger to prevent further disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano is quite entitled to say what he chooses. He is sanctioned for the manner in which he repeatedly says it. He continually twists this into a "silencing", but that's crap. No one could silence Giano, and no one is trying. Where is the evidence that anyone is trying to "silence Giano"? There is none, whilst there is plenty evidence of continued incivility and attacks. Really, it is simply not possible to get Giano off the hook by blaming a conspiracy, even if everything he says here is true (which I rather suspect it may be). This is a typical Giano smokescreen - and if it has any merit and any grounds to be investigated - it does not detract from the "Giano problem" which is quite seperate.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that Giano's story is true? If so, then we need to know if the person Checkusering Giano or the person blocking Giano have been involved in any sort of Oversight abuse surrounding WP:ACE2007. I think that all the facts need to be known to resolve this matter finally. None of this excuses Giano from observing the rules himself, of course, but we do normally give people leeway when they have been subjected to intense provocation. Jehochman ^Talk 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not agree that the entire Committee is to blame. I think that Newyorkbrad, to name one, is somebody I'd trust to investigate and resolve this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having urged many times that Giano be blocked for his persistent incivility, I am not now conspiring with my longtime buddies Jehochman and Rootology to keep Giano from being blocked. To the extent that I care at all about Giano, on any given day I'm more inclined to block him than not. But I care a lot if oversight was used to make it easier for people to support FT2 for arbcom. That concern remains, with or without Giano. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given our nominal history from days gone by (considering my unloading on you in epic fashion with a very nasty zinger on ANI two years ago led in part to my long vacation), I think it would be preposterous for anyone to suggest some weird pro-Giano insurgency between us. rootology (C)(T) 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The facts

The oversights took place. That can be proved without any sophisticated tools
That they concerned edits by fT2 - that has been confirmed privately by a number of senior Wikipedians.
That Jimbo, Cary Bass and WJBScribe knew about this at the time (i.e. second week of December 2007). That too has been confirmed. I have all the details if anyone asks.
What we DON'T know is who oversighted them. That is the only news here.

On JH's last point, I think not. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if something happened, how is it relevant to Giano's current conflicts with ArbCom members and associated parties? Can somebody explain that? Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps read in full the comment by Giano that started this. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's full of rhetoric. Could somebody like Thatcher distill it down to the essential, verifiable facts? Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does "positive proof that Gerard had indeed tampered with FT2's edits during the election with an invalid oversight reason outside of policy" come to be in Giano's possession anyway? Presumably that information can only come from oversight logs. So on one hand we have allegations of one oversighter doing a favor for a friend. On the other we have another oversighter leaking logs to, presumably, a friend. Love it. Rockpocket 21:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Thatcher then. What is key, now that the matter is 'completely' open, is who performed the oversight. You surely see how the Gerard/FT2 connection matters. If FT2, who did not have oversight permission at the time, persuaded Gerard to do it, that matters a lot. Or does someone need to explain that one? The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(doing my own research) What I gather is that Giano was investigating what he viewed as a corrupt use of Oversight to sway the WP:ACE2007 election. In order to discourage and discredit him, the parties involved in that cover up have been arranging for him to be blocked and sanctioned. That's a serious accusation, and very troubling if it is true. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Thatcher said, there are few "verifiable facts" to be found when the logs are limited to begin with and expired in any case. There is a wide range of edits that oversighters consider within their remit to delete, and not much consensus between them or even knowledge of what other oversighters remove (I take this understanding from a series of threads on foundation-l and wikien-l awhile back between oversighters). The uncertainty makes it impossible to prove or disprove the allegations without relying on someones word. Avruch^T 21:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now someone needs to confirm whether Gerard was involved. It is established beyond doubt that Jimbo and Bass know that some edits were oversighted. Someone must be able to confirm whether or not Gerard was involved. The Land Surveyor (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch, what are you talking about? It is established beyond doubt that the oversights took place. Email me for the documents if you want. The question is WHO????? The Land Surveyor (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Oversights took place" is far different than describing what the removed edits actually said, or why they were removed. In any case, I suspect that since you have been blocked indefinitely by thebainer you won't be returning to this conversation. I tried to warn you before that happened... Avruch^T 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would be stupid enough to think that blocking Giano would silence him. Come on, this is the internet! As far as we know, Giano may have made a wild guess that Gerard made the oversight. We need to check if it's true. I have asked Gerard on his talk page to comment. He just replied that he cannot come here since he has promised ArbCom to stay away from Giano. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it checksout. Never dispute my facts, and as I have often said I never ask a question unless I know the answer. You have elected a fraudulent Arb and appear to have an Arbcom governed by David Gerard. Ar you happy with that? It's a rhetorical question as I'm going to bed now - Have a nice evening all of you. Giano (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't silence somebody, then you can discredit them. You'll notice that I used the conjunction "or" meaning one or the other: "silence or discredit". If you can't make somebody shut up you can try to convince the world that they are not to be believed. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about, so please demonstrate somewhere I was involved or leave me out of it. Thank you. Bastique ^demandez 22:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you're involved. Jehochman ^Talk 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

props to Bishonen for pointing it out /me is Cary Bass. Bastique ^demandez 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be extremely surprised that a low-traffic, high-sensitivity log such as the oversight log would be allowed to expire, considering the legal ramifications oversight actions carry. The checkuser logs are purged because they are traffic logs, so they get extremely large very quickly. Oversights are less rare than deletions, yet we log all deletions anyways, so unless there is a different reason the oversight log is pruned, I don't see why it would be. Somebody needs to contact a developer to confirm that, as I don't see anything on Extension:Oversight mentioning anything about log expiry. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the logs expire doesn't imply that the information is lost – it's just no longer available online. After a year it's unlikely to be needed, so it's not normally a problem, and not having sensitive information online has obvious advantages. (This opinion is not based on any inside knowledge.) --Hans Adler (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The oversights are in the log. Fred Talk 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little sanity

Since I was mentioned above...

On oversight

The Land Surveyor, under a previous name, objected to FT2's candidacy because he felt FT2 had mishandled a content dispute he was involved in. About a day later, he posted to FT2's question page, Many of the articles you have contributed have some unusual themes, to say the least. Sex between animals and humans, safe sex between animals and humans, sadism, serial killers, torture, pornography...This makes me uncomfortable about having you in to babysit our children (and our labrador), but that's a personal matter. Now the question. For the record, can you give us your assurance that none of your activities would attract the attention of the authorities, and thus lead to your incarceration at Her Majesty's Pleasure, thus preventing your duties at Arbcom? Eventually he was blocked, unblocked, banned, allowed to reincarnate as Peter Damian, and was re-banned. (That's a complicated subject for another discussion.)
At some point, an edit FT2 made to Zoophilia was oversighted. This caused it to appear that substantial changes made to the article by FT2 had been made by an IP editor. I can vouch for this as I saw the diffs before and after they were oversighted.
Much later (summer?) I inquired of an Arbitrator (not FT2) as to who did the oversight. At the time the question was not answerable, as the oversight log was broken. I believe the log is now fixed.
Fred Bauder has confirmed that Gerard oversighted the edits.
It is my understanding that the oversight log shows that a revision was deleted and if a reason was given, but that once removed, the content can only be viewed by a developer. Therefore someone investigating alleged misuse of oversight can verify the fact that something was oversighted, but can not independently determine what it was. As Avruch says, this makes it difficult to have meaningful review of the oversight function.

On Giano

Giano had no involvement that I am aware of in the dispute between FT2 and The Land Surveyor, although Giano and The Land Surveyor appear to be on good terms with each other.
David Gerard blocked Giano for entering his sockpuppet Lady Catherine deBurgh in the arbcom elections.
FT2 blocked Giano for incivility, largely for comments Giano made in reaction to the Gerard block.

Everything else is speculation and conspiracy theories. Obviously a significant number of the upper echelon (present and former arbitrators, mostly) have tried to coerce Giano into changing his behavior. I do not believe this is due to his support for The Land Surveyor or his knowledge of the oversighted edits. I also do not think Surveyor's opposition to FT2's candidacy would have swayed the election if the edits had not been oversighted. The whole "wikipedia is not censored" thing carries a lot of weight with most people, and just because Surveyor objects to much of FT2's content editing does not mean his objections would have carried weight with the voters. But those are just my opinions. Thatcher 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Thatcher, for helping Wikipedia get back to work. I am satisfied with that explanation. Others can make of it what they will. I have no further questions. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What explanation? Was the oversight per policy, or were embarrassing edits 'disappeared' by Gerard to aid his buddy's arbcom candidacy? It's starting to look like the latter. --Duk 00:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a matter of opinion, I was sticking to facts (as I believe them to be true) to clarify some of the misunderstandings above. I don't pretend to have all the answers. And the opinion that matters is Arbcom, since they hand out and can remove oversight access. You might want to address your concerns to the candidates, and to Arbcom itself (although I doubt they will address the broader issue of who oversights oversight until January). Thatcher 00:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question. Giano says "A week or so ago I obtained positive proof that Gerard had indeed tampered with FT2's edits during the election with an invalid oversight reason outside of policy" (my italics). Assuming he means that literally, and it is not bombast, that would appear only to be possible if one had direct access to the oversight log. Since the issue is alleged misuse of oversight privileges, it concerns me that Giano has access to them. The question is: if Giano is telling the truth, which person with oversight capability is providing him with logs? Rockpocket 00:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

Thanks for the details, but I still have a couple of unanswered questions about the facts:

1) Did the oversight follow the [wp:over] policy?

This feature is approved for use in three cases:

Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.

Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.

Removal of copyright infringement, on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

2) Did the reason given for the oversight match with the oversight itself?

3) If the oversight did not follow policy, what rationale was given for it?

4) On what date was the oversight made?

5) Was there only a single oversight?

Uncle uncle uncle 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is this: with the facts what they are, separated neatly by Thatcher from conjecture, how are these series of accusations not libelous? Look at the entirely predictable public hoopla. This kind of behavior is against relevant norm and policy we hold dear. Irresponsibly attacking other editors' reputations, as Giano has done here is not, and can not be tolerated. --Tznkai (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think different observers could come to different conclusions about that set of facts. For people to get along, they need to tolerate ambiguity. Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith means withholding one's opinion on such matters, especially while an editor sleeps. It may be that Giano believes all that he has asserted. Let's see how well he supports that and whether the evidence relates to his blocks. Last year the most pernicious part of the drama was a series of blocked and banned users who popped up to spread FUD. It should have been obvious enough then. It's obvious enough now: when an account only two weeks old makes accusations of this nature, either massive corruption and conspiracy have occurred or else this is a troll with a grudge. Fellow editors may browse the following and decide for themselves which way Occam's razor slices.[1][2][3] A year ago I was wrong. I was perfectly willing to admit the full extent of my errors and atone for them; I could have been persuaded to relicense the e-mail I had written in the interests of full disclosure. The one thing I would not do is bow to coercion. FUD got in the way before. It's time to learn from that and do better. Today Jehochman tossed potato chips down the bridge in the hope that a better glimpse of the green rubbery creature beneath might reveal a chip-eating bunny rabbit. Not a good idea; it's usually the other species. Giano will wake up soon enough and bring forth whatever evidence he has. He's a very articulate person; let his presentation stand or fall on its own merits. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Giano could have and I assume did, act in good faith to reveal what he felt was important corruption. He did it in a way that marred reputations or threatened to, fueled by a rumor mill, based all on conjecture. Even with good faith, this was negligent behavior. Malice is not required to cause damage.--Tznkai (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a brute force method of obtaining the material in Oversighted edits. It requires a lot of foresight and patience. Very few people bother to do it and it's an open question how trustworthy they are. If I were a betting woman, I'd estimate Giano has obtained information from some such person, and may challenge its comparison against the stated Oversight policy. That's pure conjecture, though. It remains to be seen what he actually has or what will transpire. Durova^Charge! 04:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could simply obtain an archive from before the oversite was done, convert it to an SQL file, import it into mysql and then note any differences in the archive history of the zoophilia article from July 2004 with the current history of the zoophilia article from early July 2004. But that work would not be necessary as Fred Bauder has confirmed that David Gerard did in fact oversight the edits, and user Thatcher recalled seeing the diffs before and after they were oversighted. The movie Phantasm scared the hell out of me when I was younger, but I have no reason to doubt the word of Fred Bauder in this matter. Uncle uncle uncle 05:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer not to give away the show by spelling out the details. But it's not too hard to guess how these things can be done. Fred Bauder confirmed that an Oversight occurred; that's one fact. The oversight happened at a hot button topic. And let's be frank: FUD spreads more readily at any hot button topic. Now how much evidence has come forward to substantiate anything else that's been alleged? Durova^Charge! 05:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]