User talk:Giano II

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at:

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

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."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Suggested Reading

If you become tired of reading architecture books, I suggest "The Oxford Book of Humorous Prose". You may want to pick up a hard copy - it is ~1000 pages and my soft cover edition is starting to fall apart. It has excerpts from well-known authors and from a large number of unknown (to me) authors that I subsequently acquired books by. I would probably otherwise never heard of the "Diary of a Nobody" and "The Life and Death of Rochester Sneath." And, I find it hard to believe that Amanda Ros was neither playing a joke nor the pen-name of some other writer.

Here is a description from Amazon:

Focusing primarily on the 19th and 20th century, but with material dating back to Columbus, this volume is packed with an amazing range of comic material is--from the gentle, charming comedy of manners, to biting satire, to outrageous parody. There are excerpts from the novels of Jane Austen, P.G. Wodehouse and Mark Twain, complete short stories by O. Henry and Frank O'Connor, classic tall tales from Australia, passages from Groucho Marx's correspondence with Warner Brothers, a selection of Samuel Johnson's comic definitions, plus a sprinkling of egregious puns and witty sayings. Muir has gathered work from over two hundred writers and from every English-speaking country. Virtually all of your favorites are here: Jonathan Swift, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Laurence Sterne, Anita Loos, Dorothy Parker, S.J. Perelman, Damon Runyon, Fran Lebowitz, Joseph Heller, Evelyn Waugh, Garrison Keilor, Erma Bombeck, Tom Wolfe, and countless others. In addition, there are comic pieces from writers you wouldn't expect to find--such as Thomas Hardy or Lawrence Durrell--and many writers you may not have discovered yet.

Uncle uncle uncle 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)