User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:23, 11 March 2008

The State of Play

This resolution passed [2]. Designed no doubt to prevent their errors and stupidity being publicly pointed out in future. It will fail, and rebound on them. No doubt the little, non-writing, Admins on IRC will have some kind of competition to see who can be the first to achieve fame by blocking me. Let's face it, fame won't come to them any other way. The Arbs were very ill-advised ever accepting this case. They now want to risk even more mass disruption rather than accept they made a very silly mistake by accepting the case. However, when an entire case has been based on pure spite and revenge, I suppose one cannot really be surprised at the outcome. The Arbcom are well aware that I won't be ruled, or intimidated, by a chatroom which is exactly what such a resolution means. Neither will be playing silly buggers with a chatroom. The page on which I "edit warred" is now gone, it seems it never was a Wikipedia page - which has left the Arbs looking rather silly. One of their few talents. A link to their decision for those sent to ban me is here

The good thing to emerge from this is Jimbo's ruling that the chatroom is now under the Arbcom's jurisdiction [3], something they had always denied before I raised this matter. Had I not raised these issues so forcefully, they would never have been addressed. None of you must ever, ever let them forget what Jimbo has decreed. Giano (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at

Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

Wales Talk Page

You will probably despise me for making the comparison, but in my opinion, yourself and JzG are among the elite Wikipedia editors for a simple reason: when you're not going off the deep end over something that tickles your bonnet, you both have the ability to take a dispassionate view, distill the essence into a very few words, and cover all the points in a readable discourse.

Congratulations on your excellent analysis. I would only have been able to muster "Yawwn" as a comment, you have done much better. Here's hoping you'll be back in force soon - but a calm force. A much wiser 'pedian pointed out to me that if you are getting emotional about something, it's probably better to let someone else deal with it. Again, my great respect for your contributions to Wikipedia, and looking forward to more of the same... :) Franamax (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first instance you are quite correct. If you check my history you will see I am completely consistent, always. It is transparently obvious to anyone with half a brain that Wales is innocent as charged, someone just needed to point it out.The charity world can be a very uncharitable place. Nice to see, the loyal Arbonauts, our leading Wikipediams, as usual when required seemed to be conspicuous by their absence, no doubt pre-occupied chatting elsewhere. Giano (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the "first instance" - does that mean that you do in fact despise me? :)

I have checked some of your extensive history, as I do for all those editors I've found respect for. You are certainly consistent. I think my point about emotionalism still stands.

As regards the "loyal Arbonauts" (and certainly any establishment eventually has "members of the establishment"), their lack of response could be down to another aphorism - "keep your powder dry". Alternatively, they are feeling emotional about the issue, and are heeding that wise advice to let someone else deal with it. In any case, you have taken the lead and pretty much said it all. What more could anyone add other than "what he said!"? Franamax (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sadly, that is not the loyal Arbonauts usual response to one of my pronouncements, never mind, I'm sure thay have their agendas. No, I don't despise you, I'll forgive anybody a monumental faux pas - once! Giano (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the first step was an intentional pas-en-merde, I'll accept your forgiveness and run off now with head and neck still connected. :) Franamax (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your post on Jimbo's talk page and it certainly is a exeptional analisis, I wish half of the admins could present such honesty when posting their opinions. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bang on the money. Seriously, if this was an employee in my company it would not make the HR department's radar. Very small beer, and not at all uncommon as growing pains for a tiny organisation whose profile has escalated beyond all imagining in such a short time. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second'd. An excellent analysis, well said. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was an attempt to prove publicly how as an body we are capable of sorting, knowing and undertsanding our own problems, without cover up. When this is permitted one often sees the problem is not quite as bad as painted.This is certainly the case here. Then just as I think we are one step forward, we go two steps backwards [4]. Giano (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you've got this one right. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this ex-arbonaut (are there suits?) felt like keeping his head down because he's had enough drama to last a lifetime. Thank you for what you said. Mackensen (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think time will prove you lucky to be "ex" Mackensen. I suspect now the crisis is passing, and Wales has rightly survived, people will begin to wonder, why the Arbs, normally so rapid and keen to investigate every wrong doing, and tampering with a page, were so silent. The experienced and vindictive ones named at the top of this page were particularly silent. I think when we look at the last few days with the benefit of hindsight, and we will, it won't be to their credit. For the first time ever, the Godking (I think we can stop calling him that now) needed some serious help, his highest body of advisors either failed to give good advice or were chattering elsewhere. Perhaps even, they did not wish to be seen on Wales's side. This whole thing has been nothing but a board room battle, not even a particulary dirty one, compared to some I have seen. Over and end of story - for some. Giano (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insult to all aussies....

Now I am really unhappy...what is wrong with Australian Chardonnay??? XD [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No no no, please don't be insulted, I love Australians all of them, every single one, but it's the wine, like the Germans you keep the best, and send what you don't want over here. Now the Kiwis on the other hand, their whites can't be bettered, and they are very near Australia aren't they? Giano (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of, where is Cape Mentelle? That's very nice. Giano (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'tis in a very lovely part of Australia called Margaret River, a nice place with a temperate climate and often nice and cool when the rest of the country is sweltering over summer hols (Dec/Jan/Feb). My other half likes it very much...so we go there quite a bit..it is where I hunted taking lots of photos of little blue blurs until I got a good snap of this little critter, which I was then so proud of I polished it up to FAC...[[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that wine is very nice, I like that one, and another called Moss Wood. Its just the chardonnay you see. Giano (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moss Wood is from the same area. Just about every state produces wine here and they are all competitive with each other. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

well they are both OK, in fact very nice. I was jusy looking at you page, I see you are a naturist, I think if I was there I'd rather sample the wine than lok for birds. Giano (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...erm, naturalism not naturism....:) [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Feed the birds, tuppence a bag...Yomangani ^talk 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's that got to do with it? I think it is very brave with all those snakes and spiders and things, that they have there. Giano (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering whether Cas might be providing the early bird with its meal. And now I'm wishing I could get this image out of my head. Thanks a lot, Giano. Yomangani ^talk 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

As you know being a key part of that crowd, the discussion was started, restored and is being continued by long running ax-grinders with Jimbo. Don't think others don't see through this. Transparently using 'concern' as a reason to air Jimbo's dirty laundry and create drama is by definition disruptive editing. For that reason alone it can and should be ended and archived. You want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios? This isn't the place for it; do it offsite. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a vicious assumption of bad faith, have you actually read Giano's contributions there? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No assumption needed on my part, Giano's history of having an ax to grind on the topic is a matter of record both on and offsite, easily enough found. And having read his comments is why I archived the discussion and why I'm here. Ever hear the term 'oblique attack' or 'damning with faint praise'? Wikipedia is not the place to air anyone's dirty laundry. Period. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people disagree with you FM (see two threads above) but apparently that does not matter. I would note that so far you seem to be the only person reading Giano's statement as "damning with faint praise" and you might want to consider whether you are merely misinterpreting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of strong Jimbo supporters are also involved in the thread, and indeed I thought that 2 known Jimbo critics, Giano and Cla, were being very supportive and constructive in the thread, sure Bram was being less so but that is not sufficient reason to throw out the whole thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any reasonable person could consider Giano's airing of Jimbo's dirty laundry and the thinnly-veiled gloating of those two can be seen as being 'supportive and constructive' much less "very supportive and constructive." FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read yesterday on one of the mailing lists a very well known and prominent lady editor bewailing the fact that Wikipedia no longer has a community spirit, she is correct the community spirit that it had when I cam here 4 years ago is all but gone, or at best vastly reduced. The reason for this 100% is that too much is now said off wiki which could, and should be said, on wiki. The last time, I looked the much overdue debate concerning J Wales was amounting to a vote of confidence. He needed to know how we all felt, and we needed to now how we all felt - so what is wrong with that? You Felonius Monk would rather everyone was bitching in some secretive corner - well then you are a fool. Giano (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised you'd be arguing for more drama on the project, not less. And looking at the historical pattern of the players there that "secretive corner" is WR. That discussion should remain there. This isn't the place. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd spare your breath Giano, FM clearly believes in a New World Order - and you're clearly a member of the executive council - bless you FM, shall I get a glass of water? --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like Dr. Strangelove. Anyone doubting there aren't peopl involved there who are gunning for Jimbo need only read the last 24 hrs of posts there. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you despise drama so much, please ask Wales not to encourage drama from the administrators. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my point for me. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure showed me. How are you not deliberately generating drama, again? You seem to be the only one in these discussions that has thrown AGF out the window. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger off my page, all of you, or we shall have the loyal Arbonauts summonsing the newly refreshed Squeakies from IRC to ban me for incivility. Now, I'm sure none of you want that. Giano (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to rest. You've done your best, but Wikipedia cannot be saved. Please save yourself from further stress and let this site die. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a very depressing attitude! I have returned completely invigorated and ready to take on the world, but in deference to those who made their feelings felt in the recent unfortunate Arbcase, I shall not be editing at all in main/article space, only in Wikipedia space - that way everyone is happy. Giano (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! To be banned for incivility - a badge of distinction to be worn with pride. Someone should make an appropriate Barnstar. Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-da! Complete with the Sicillian haircut. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JC.......I shall..er ..treasure it! Giano (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Giano, we all missed you! :-) Best regards, Húsönd 15:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks Husond, returning was the right thing to do. Giano (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Welcome back hun! 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I echo all the other shreiks of excitement at your return, but I wanted to ask you a favor: could you make sure that the words 'Jimbo, fiddled, and girlfriend don't ever appear in the same sentence again? I may need therapy from reading those words so close together. :-) --SSBohio 21:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No risk at all, I never write on romatic Gypsy violin music. Giano (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So good to see you back, Giano. Wikipedia needs you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hermm...

This is what I meant by emotionalism not serving you well. Or us well. Maybe rhetoric or histrionics is the better term. Anyway, if you're getting pissed off, maybe best to ignore the wankers. You've got a great vocabulary. Bet you could improve an article :) Come on, try a small one! We tried Montreal for GA and got beat down, help us out! Franamax (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, it needed saying. Few people have had more run ins with Wales than I have, but if one is going to destroy someone's reputation, then it should be done with firm evidence, not a pack of exagerations, half truths and misrepresentations. Seves you right with Montreal, for mucking about with GA, complete waste of time, go for a FA instead. Giano (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved....

		The WP:SPADE Barnstar
		For all your work around here in telling like it is, and making the Wiki a better place. You really are doing it, and we need more people like you. Not to mention your article work, of which I am eternally jealous. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I've written 5 FAs...time to say I want to be like Giano? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well be careful, It will probably be my tatty T shirt and reputation on ebay next. Giano (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I too am full of it

Though I too am full of dihydrogen monoxide, I haven't written any FAs at all (or, come to think of it, even got a PhD). Ah, how depressing. Though that's outweighed by my delight to see you back, Giano, and in fine form. Your reappearance might encourage me to nudge something FAwards, were it not for the fact that I'm about to head off to some sceptred isle off the far west of Eurasia. While I'm over there enjoying the novelty of computer-free, smokefree pubs, could you possibly pop this in an envelope and send it to Bishonen? Thank you and toodle-pip, Hoary 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"So how do you become one of Wikipedia's upper crust—one of the several thousand whose words will live on for a little while, before later verbal fumarolings erode what you wrote? It's not easy. You have to have a cool head, so that you don't get drawn into soul-destroying disputes, and you need some practical writing ability, and a quick eye, and a knack for synthesis. And you need lots of free time." Not very accurate is it Hoary? Giano (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, Hoary, are you calling me full of myself? Or full of water...? Gah, so confusing. :( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you are yourself, and most excellently so, whereas I am merely full of it (particularly after a pint of Young's), or of something that rhymes with "it", or whatever. ¶ As for Giano's question, hmm, if the "upper crust" is taken to mean the phrase that follows it, then I think that NB is probably on the ball. Of course I can't be sure: although what he says seems to be true for a number of usernames (some of whom do get into those disputes from time to time, but chug along most productively when away from them), I know little or nothing about any but [pause while I consider] one of these editors, and thus for example merely presume that (unlike me) they have lots of free time; however, I realize that I may later learn that the simple explanation is they're geniuses who in their little free time read up and rewrite not twice but ten times faster than I do. ¶ Of course what's bloody annoying is that if one doesn't get into the occasional soul-destroying dispute (and perhaps even if one does) with, say, the denizens of some "WikiProject", then one will find that one's own articles have got buggered up courtesy of the Project's concern with "standardization" (i.e. conformance with their own well-intentioned but [insert string of pungent adjectives here] standards). -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back

Hello Giano II. I had asked ('bout a week ago) as to who you were & what all the fuss was about. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and a very good question it was too. I hope someone answered it for you. Giano (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Giano. I'm pleased to see you chose to return, and in some style too. I was interested to read your take on Jimbogate, not for the first time I think you are on the money there. Anyway, I mainly wanted to apologise for not replying to your email last month. I was, and still am, musing on its contents. The main reason I didn't reply was because I was having a bout of, shall we say, paranoia over I could trust with off-wiki communications and your email arrived at a rather unfortunate time. Rockpocket 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rockpocket. Yes, I am on the money there rest assured, it will all be proved to be something blown up out of all proportion. In my experience most things are on Wikipdia, but if ever there is a choice between an easy solution and a difficult one, Wikipedia always choses the difficult one. Sorry to hear about your concerns if you have a problem - email me. Regards Giano (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get to the bottom of a few things, but once I know more I'll explain in an email. Rockpocket 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VK's sockpuppets

If you want Administrator Newyorkbrad, to gives his views? by all means contact him. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad is actually an Arb!, and you are the one so interested and bothered by VK's doings. Giano (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the Administrators handle it for now. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Giano. If you're trying to 'get under my skin'? it won't work (as I've no grudge against you). If you're just pulling my leg? no problem. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I just wonder what your interest and connection is with these problems, I don't think I've encountered you before, and the fact you need to ask this question [5] suggests you were not au fait with the Troubles Arbcase - so why the keen interest now? Giano (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just nosey. However, if less opinons will help? I'll stay out of it. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, no the more the merrier, I just notice now one of the posse is vandalising the socks edits to the detriment of the encyclopedia now, I wonder what that is supposed to acheive? Do two wrongs now suddenly make a right? Giano (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sockpuppetry is inexcusable & disruptive. It can't be tolerated on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a little slow tonight, let me get this quite clear, are you saying all sock puppets should have all their edits removed, regardless of whether they are good or bad? Giano (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, somebody better tell Tony Sidaway...erm, I mean Anticipation of Lover's lost...er whatever his new sockpuppet's name is. Risker (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is he calling himself that for? Giano (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darned if I know. But UC has started a poll over at Wikback as to whether he should be encouraged to change the name. Right now it is standing at 57% in favour. Risker (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clariying- res to Giano. Blocked editor's sock-puppets shouldn't be permitted. Puppet masters who identify themselves & their puppets are permitted. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits is the relevant policy. As I said before, its not entirely clear to me that Vk has been banned, but since its a social construct, I guess one could interpret it pretty much any way one chooses. Rockpocket 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, very simply put - thousands of excellent edits a day are made by "blocked" or "banned" editors. It is distinctly to the disadvantage of the encyclopedia to remove those edits. Nobody should care about the person behind good, constructive edits. Deleting good content because it may have been added by a "banned" or "blocked" editor defeats the purpose of the encyclopedia. Our content must always be our primary focus, and the social management of editors should only be done with an eye to their effect on content. Risker (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well Rockpocket, I have reverted the posse here [6] because I fail to see how re-inserting poor grammar helps the project. Perhaps you would all now lke to come up with an idea for correcting the other errors that your friend has re-inserted. Giano (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to correct error then do so, as the policy says "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." Counter-revolutionary got into a bit of hot water by acting as a proxy for DL, even though the edits themselves were not particularly problematic, so its not something I would recommend you do too often. But one should always do what ones thinks is best. Personally, I think any cost/benefit analysis should encompass the bigger picture, rather than focus on some typos (Hell, Vk certainly introduces more typos than he fixes anyway). Rockpocket 19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again, blocked or banned editors' edits? shouldn't be permitted; editing Wikipedia isn't a 'right' it's a 'privillage'. Example- Hitting somebody on the head from behind with a real hammer or a soft rubber hammer is still an assault. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So for how long do we have to stare at these mistakes before anyone is allowed to remove them? Giano (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify, what mistakes do you speak of? GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are an extremely dense person, it is quite obvious that Giano (such a talented young man) is referring to the diffs, he highlights above - you need to study your grammar! Any more of this rubbish from you, and I shall personally have a word with Mr Wales - a very close and dear friend, it's well know that he has a twinkle where I'm concerned, why he became entangled with that dreadful journalist creature God alone knows, when he could have had me. Now be off with you and write a page. It's a well known fact that half of Wikipedia is written by socks and the like. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After just being both insulted and threatened by Catherine? I depart this discussion. PS- Mr Wales created Wikipedia, but he doesn't run it. If he tried to? he'd violate Wikipedia's spirit of community & collaboration. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano. You are a bad, bad man (and a dreadful hussy too). Go and pick on someone your own size! Rockpocket 20:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! How about me, for instance?--Little Stupid (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Meow! Kitty 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a conversation about sockpuppets and then Little Stupid turns up. That warrants ~~no action whatsoever~~...err...~~further investigation~~...err...checkuser, blocks, and random accusations of bad behaviour. ~~The Shadow~~ Yomangani ^talk 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye! Comment on contributor, not on content! Stupid little bishapod splash! 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Poddie, ents can be ributors, but not all ributors are ents. Not clear? Come visit me at my place and I'll explain some more... (there are plushies, too!) Swedophile (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blather, frankly

OK. We need some clarity here.

Sockpuppetry can only be considered good or evil (by a moderate mind) based on what the sock does.
Socks editing in areas away from those that got the author into trouble should be judged on their merits.
Knee-jerk reversion of all edits by Socks (however excellent an edit may be) is a form of power-abuse (probably not psychologically different from the pleasure certain school-masters got from sadistically torturing their pupils).
There is a line between discipline for the sake of reasonable order and the enjoyment of the power of punishment for its own sake; a pleasure that mixes elements of sadism and the joys of dominance. (I'm being very cautious here...nod, wink).
I'm not sure all our Admins understand this.
While I think the current charges against Jimbo are a joke there is a certain poetic justice in it - he empowered the anally-retentive control-freaks in the first place.
These comments DO NOT apply to Rockpocket - least there be an doubt caused by juxtapositional considerations.
Those to whom they do apply will, no doubt, recognize themselves and thus may get upset at these remarks.
If the hat fits........

Sarah777 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, printing all of this here, is speaking to the converted, you need to take it elsewhere. You are correct, as I never tire of saying, we have too many little admins running around without a clue how to handle a situation, we now have one playing with petrol on top of a bonfire with a "rules are rules" attitude. I'm not interested in the psychology that causes this condition, only in the cure. This petty damaging of the encyclopedia by reverting good and valuable edits, and in at least one instance re-inserting a mistake seems a curious way of solving a problem. People think I'm soft where VK is concerned, far from it, I have insisted from the outset, he is in need of placing under very exacting sanctions and control now it seems it is some of the admins who have all too recently involved themselves with this case that need controlling. I've told various admins the obvious solution, which will work, but they don't want to here it. So that. I'm afraid, is that. Let stupidity reign. Giano (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 175: / Line 175: @@
 *If the hat fits........
 :[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
+:::*Sarah, printing all of this here, is speaking to the converted, you need to take it elsewhere. You are correct, as I never tire of saying, we have too many little admins running around without a clue how to handle a situation, we now have one playing with petrol on top of a bonfire with a "rules are rules" attitude. I'm not interested in the psychology that causes this condition, only in the cure. This petty damaging of the encyclopedia by reverting good and valuable edits, and in at least one instance re-inserting a mistake seems a curious way of solving a problem. People think I'm soft where VK is concerned, far from it, I have insisted from the outset, he is in need of placing under very exacting sanctions and control now it seems it is some of the admins who have all too recently involved themselves with this case that need controlling. I've told various admins the obvious solution, which will work, but they don't want to here it. So that. I'm afraid, is that. Let stupidity reign. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)