Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: RMHED

Poor old Giano is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An/i#GiacomoReturned_NPA_Restriction, and this time it looks like he'll be sanctioned. The civility enforcers are marshalling their forces.

Posted by: Text

It would be better for him to keep insulting as he wants, so his account gets bashed and banned permanently, so they have another person to chase day and night. Much entertainment.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Yawn. Giano and co. are just part of the amusement. There's nothing of substance here.

Posted by: Text

Giano needs to banned for either being a persistent troll or because he will lose his sanity if he continues.

But the community likes the trolling and likes driving people insane, so not going to happen...

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

Seems like he's long since realized that his supporters have given him a certain amount of power, and it's gone straight to his head. He's as arrogant as any of the most abusive admins these days, and he's long since lost a coherent cause for his drama.

Posted by: Text

He has zero power, but he has people who cover his shoulders because they like the drama.

Posted by: InkBlot

He has friends who provide moral support, and sometimes run interference...but it's his "enemies" who provide him power. More fuss gets raised around him, than he ever causes directly, that the best outcome of any encounter simply becomes "don't get involved in the first place."

Earlier today, I was talking with some friends about a online video where some tech news blog managed to get a skype session going with someone from Westboro Baptist Church and someone from Anonymous in a joint interview. One of my friends said, "good interviewer...very polite to both sides." To which another friend responded, "well, yeah. I wouldn't want to talk to someone from WBC or Anonymous...either one of them could make your life miserable."

Threads on ANI about Giano should, in reasonable people, provoke similar responses.

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

True. The fact that the major participants of any ANI "discussion" regarding Giano are likely to be obviously in one camp or the other makes it impossible for anything to really be done about his increasingly ridiculous behavior. He would have to really go off the deep end for any major action to be taken at this point.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

That's largely true, but not entirely. There are people who think that Giano is, or will be, their savior, and who support him on that basis. However, they're not a large enough coalition to have a measurable, long-term impact on Wikipedia's political culture.

Most of his "support" is just people who cheer him on because he puts on a good show.

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

No, most of the people who support him recall the attempts by "the powers that be" to remove him for pointing out their mistakes and embarrassing them - and every time some innocent brings up (sometimes valid) issues with his behaviour and it is jumped upon by the usual suspects as another attempt to have him banned, then some of the other usual suspects will again man the barricades.

This presupposes that there are those who believe that there are others who are still petty enough to still try and punish Giano for "indiscretions" in the past. Well, there are and there are. The result that WP:CIVIL is largely deprecated is the fault of those who attempted to use it as a gag, and not Giano's.

Posted by: chrisoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiacomoReturned&curid=22958167&diff=416968083&oldid=416892157

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Georgewilliamherbert uses Wikipedia as a social diversion. Just look at his "contributions"

Posted by: Tarc

Well, I meant what I said; keeping him unsanctioned provides cover for the rest of us. I may have to deploy the Giano Defense soon, as I am now being dragged before An/I for poking fun that the lolicon-supporting Wikipe-tan fan club.

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

+5 post!
IMO G has two main problems:
1) He's not changed his act nor his tactics in several Wiki generations.
2) Although he's still a hero to an increasingly diminished number of old tymers, who remember back when he was the No. 6 of the Wiki-village (IE the only high profile contributor openly and effectively standing up to the cabalistas on site and getting away with it), The WP classes of 08 and after see him more as a privileged pain.

He jumped the shark when he openly defended Jimbeau over Marsden instead of going in for the kill. I have no idea what his game plan was then or is now. I'm not sure he even has one...if he does, it could be described in architectural terms as Baroque-Opaque.
His last triumph of any significance, was in helping to being down that bestiality loving gas bag FT2, which is now ancient history. His poor showing in the most recent Arb elections are indicative of this.

Face it, Giacomo, unless you can do a better job of rousing the rabble and appealing to the newcomers, you will become a relic...like me.

Posted by: Giano

I'm not bothered about becoming a relic - I've been that for years and I have never had a grand game plan. I shall continue to do what I've always done, when I see something that does not seem right - hold my nose and jump in and worry about the consequences afterwards - I might have to tread water sometimes, but swimming against the tide is something I am well used to. some of my "crusades" have been understood (eventually) and some never at all, but there are none that I regret - including the Jimbeau "affair" (pardon the pun) - some (not all) of the things he was accused of were unfair, so I pointed it out. It was as simple as that

Anyhow, there are far more like me now, so I don't have to work so hard - in fact I am very happy to leave things to the "new generation" - things don't seem to be as clear cut as they used to be and I have lost the impetus. I can't fathom this Rod&Emu business at all. Why was he ever permitted to be admin - and remain so, for so long? Then we have an Arb who I find extremely concerning - another disaster for Wikipedia waiting to drop there, I bet. At one time, I would have gone out and highlighted it; I can't be bothered any more because nothing changes. I'll leave the reasons for that for you to fathom.

I don't think there has been an Arbcom case against me for ages, so I must be on the way out. There was a silly kerfuffle on ANI the other day, but that was swiftly dealt with - did you see GWH on my page (oh LOL). So it looks like I'm just another old Wikiedia has been. I'm quite happy with that. But I am so glad to see others that are now not frightened of questioning and being blocked by the spurious, juvenile Admins that the project's management delights in encouraging because it keeps them where they are at the expense of the project.

Giacomo.

Posted by: chrisoff

yeah, I think you seem rather silly now. Not taken seriously.

Posted by: Malleus

You do realise that you're replying to a posting made six weeks ago?

Posted by: chrisoff

Yup!

I hadn't noticed. There is a time limit on posts?

Are you the police? What do you care?

Posted by: Malleus

No, I'm not the police and I don't care. Knock yourself out.

Posted by: Zoloft

Note to forum posters:

In order to appear less of a douche, replies like the following are advised.

Posted by: chrisoff

So Giano does have his followers! Posting minutes after I note the obvious.

Why so much defensiveness? And mentioning manners after a notoriously rude douche like Malleus!

Part of the Giano ''old tymers"?

Posted by: Zoloft

Nah. Just some things pique me more than others. I shan't offer any more advice to you. Didn't mean to 'chris' you off.

Posted by: chrisoff

Why defend obvious sockpuppet friends of Giano liike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ka_of_Catherine_de_Burgh

Lady Ka of Catherine de Burgh is an obvious sockpuppet of the "beloved" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishzilla

Bishizlla "awarded" Lady Katherine with an "Awesome Wikipedian" award! To a person who apparently never actually added content to wikipedia but served as a sockpuppet to further the end of of certain users.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ka_of_Catherine_de_Burgh&diff=387153319&oldid=361721085

Posted by: Zoloft

They need another word for those. 'Fluffpuppet' would work on several levels. They are annoying and should be removed. One account, and a doppelganger for admins to edit without accidentally handing the mop to a Wi-fi hacker in a coffee shop should be about it.

Of course, I would prefer that IP editors be disallowed in the software, and anyone who wanted to edit Wikipedia had to use their proper name. But that's not going to happen the way the culture evolved.

Posted by: chrisoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=426257018

This just makes a joke out of wikipedia, not that it isn't a joke anyway.

It's sort of a Facebook for those who don't have any "friends".

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: Theanima

Um, Katherine is Giano... I thought everyone knew that.

Posted by: chrisoff

No. What is "obvious" to the cabal is not "obvious" to innocent editors who are just trying to contribute to the encyclopedia.

Your response shows how deep the corruption is, and why editors are dropping off.

Ugly atmosphere and in group controlling and protecting those who destroy.

But I see what pleasure you get out of pointing out what is obvious to you! (Makes you feel good, eh?)

Posted by: Zoloft

Chris, some people have a more flamboyant manner of expressing their camaraderie. I have friends who play touch football on weekends, and others who write sonnets while drinking tea. To each their own way, as long as it harms not others.

Posted by: Somey

The corruption is definitely deep, but I don't think his response necessarily sheds any additional light on why... As for why editors are dropping off, I suspect you're assigning a bit more importance to Mr. Giano's circle of Wikifriends than may be warranted, at least in comparison to all the other reasons why editors are dropping off.

So, Mr. Chrisoff, do you say these things merely because you feel Mr. Giano and his circle are an annoyance, or is there more to it than that? Personally, I'd say the fact that WP is more of a social network than anything else (for its users, at least) is one of the less-pressing problems it has, unless the social-networking aspect is also preventing the more pressing problems from getting solved. (Do you think it is?)

Posted by: chrisoff

If Giano =GianoII= Giano Returned = Lady Ka of Catherine de Burgh = Bishzilla (and all her various other sockpuppets) including Bishonen, then
we have an ArbCom member Ellen of the Roads posting to Bishonen

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&curid=14915080&diff=426359559&oldid=426289591

So Ellen of the Roads feeds into this sockpuppet mess?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Ellen ain't the only one on Arbcom who harvests a sockpuppet farm.

Posted by: Theanima

No, let me make it clearer - Bishonen is not the same person as Giano. Bishonen has a sockpuppet, Bishzilla. Giano has had several accounts: Giano, Giano II, GiacomoReturned and others, as well as sockpuppets Catherine de Burgh and Ka of Catherine de Burgh.

Posted by: chrisoff

Bishonen has Bishzilla

Little Stupid

Bishapod

Bish and chips

Darwinbish

Baby Stupid

At least.

That's off the top of my head. Probably has a half a million more.

So Ellen of the Roads feeds into all this? And other Arbs also?

Wonderful.

Posted by: RMHED

Scandalous aint it.

Anyone would think Wikipedia was a social networking website, when of course in reality it's a valuable educational resource that exists solely to promote knowledge.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Ironically, if you want to scream at the social networkers on Wikipedia, you are screaming at the wrong people.

Giano and Bishonen are strong content contributors. Their sock-puppets have more in common with with in-house office humour than with social networking. There are plenty people who are about Wikipedia for social networking - but that's the crowd who create only little articles, maybe a DYK and then spend their time inventing new barnstars or signing up for 400 useless wikiprojects - or those who hang out on ANI looking for drama. Sure, Bishonen and Giano do a bit of useless (and sometimes childish) pissing about (who doesn't?), but they also put in many long lonely hours on FAs. You can criticise that, but it isn't done for cheap and quick attention.

Posted by: chrisoff

Baby Stupid

is

Bishonen


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Baby_Stupid&diff=prev&oldid=398443670

Posted by: RMHED

It's all a form of egoism. You don't seriously believe it's altruistic do you?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

How do you know they are lonely hours? For all we know, they could be banging out these articles while having an orgy. Besides, Giano clearly has a lot of help with his article writing -- his articles (which are better than adequate) and his messaging (which is not) are clearly not written by the same person.

Posted by: chrisoff

Creating 40 articles in six years?

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Bishonen&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects

Really, that's considered prolific? Check out those "articles" on the list. They're pathetic. Does she have ''any'' FACs? Even GAs?

And when has she done anything in the last, oh, four or five years, except spout baby talk?

And here are her contributions to the Commons

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bishapod

Is this altruistic article writing and contributions? This is narcissism that Arbcom feeds into and approves.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Creating 40 articles is not necessarily anything at all. Many users create hundreds of useless stubs in a month.

Completing 9 FAs is another story. Have you ever tried to write a FA? I have, and it takes hundreds of hours.

Altruistic?

Who knows? But it isn't social-networking.

Actually, how many people who produce books, or do academic research, do it out of "altruism". Most are paid. Altruism is a somewhat overrated motive for anything useful.

Posted by: chrisoff

What are the nine FAs? Any in the last three or four years?

Anything important in the last three or four years, content wise? Or otherwise?

The old tymers rule and it will be the ruin of wikipedia. Defending the past at the expense of the future.

Mostly Bishonen defends the status quo of the few articles she has an investment in from the "olden days". Remember when she refused to add citations to her articles and others did it for her? Poor baby. Waaaaaaaa

Posted by: RMHED

Between "of" and "hours" you seem to have missed out the word 'wasted'. Giano and Bishonen are both pillocks helping to indirectly line Jimmy's pockets with cash.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Do your research - or you end up looking really silly. Try this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Bosse, there may be more, but I am not your personal researcher.

Posted by: Malleus

I do, but obviously YMVM.

Posted by: chrisoff

Bullshit.

Part of the FAC cabal, if Tony1 copy edits it, the article will pass.

Part of the the privileges accorded the the few.

Jimbo has encouraged this protected culture, where some get the royal treatment and others get destroyed.

Is this a real article review?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Harriet_Bosse

I would say tender handling because the editor is part of the club. Would any FAC be handled this way today?

Posted by: Malleus

That is indeed bullshit. I can't remember the last time that Tony1 copyedited any article. His current focus is on The Signpost.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Chrisoff is no longer worth replying to. He's just spinning derogatory stories, not offering any commentary on real facts. Everything he's said so far has simply been based on stuff he's made up.

Posted by: chrisoff

Can't remember the last time Bishonen aka Bishzilla, Bishapod, Maxypode, Ka of Catherine de Burgh, Darwishbish, Darwinfish, Little Stupid, Baby Stupid etc. etc. had an FA either. Same thing. Reproducing you college papers and writing articles for today's FA criteria are two different things.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

What you can or can't remember is hardly here or there, since every assertion you've made so far has been false and inaccurate or downright untruthful.

Posted by: chrisoff

The sockpuppets of Bishonen are true. She has admitted to them one place or another.

Just never in one place. But check them out! Look them up!

Posted by: Doc glasgow

That's the only true bit, and it isn't news. Everyone knows it. So what?

Posted by: chrisoff

When you say "everyone knows it", you are showing the divide between the "old tymies" and newer editors.

This is why wikipedia will rot. Newer editors aren't part of the in group who all protect each other and drive away new editors.

Look at what Giano, GianoII, Giano Returned et al routinely get away with.

Wikipedia is becoming a social space for you guys and will never grow and attract new blood.

It's hopeless.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Rubbish.

Wikipedia may well crumble (and may deserve to). But your analysis is just made up to attack Giano.

That Giano has a ridiculous sockpuppet and that some of our content contributors engage in light-hearted buffoonery may be immature but it is not new, and is certainly not the reason that contributors are falling off. There's no connection. One might as well assert that it is humourless conformity that drives people away and that Giano's silliness is the only reason anyone stays. That assertion would be no less absurd.

Any group will have insiders - indeed a level of increasing relationships is one of the things that retains people who might otherwise have bored with the project itself a lot earlier.

If there's an insider mentality that discourages new users, it isn't the humour and joking about, it is the opposite. It is the tendency for the ingroup to demand more conformity to ever expanding and complex norms - and the expectation that new users will master rules and jargon before they can operate. (What Wikipedian in theory resist as "WP:CREEP|instruction creep". People will get a silly joke about a dinosaur a lot quicker than they will master the intricacies of the manual of style or the template bloat of the deletion process.

Posted by: chrisoff

Have you read the thread? I am complaining about the numerous sockpuppets "old tymers" have the "everybody already knows about" according to Theanima.

A sockpupped I had accredited to Bishonen Theanima said above "Um, Katherine is Giano... I thought everyone knew that."

So I complained the Arbs, like Elen of the Roads feed into this stupidity regularly, by responding the the Lady Ka of Catherine de Burgh crap on Bishonen's talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&curid=14915080&diff=426694344&oldid=426623491 (Read the whole stupid page, and Elen of Road's stupid posts.)

My complaint the Arbcom encourages this, fosters it, while pretending to be a rule-enforcing body.

Two-faced buggers on Arbcon and the "old tymers" are why wikipedia will rot.

Elen of the Roads is among the worst, dear friend of sockpuppets.

Posted by: mauve

It's contained to a few ("chosen") user talk pages, isn't it? When there are so many valid complaints to be made about Wikipedia, this comes off as inane. I can certainly think of users whose actions are far more detrimental to whatever community is left.

Posted by: chrisoff

Elen of the Roads is an Arb.

Do you think she will recuse/disqualify herself if any of Giano related stuff (personal attacks, incivility, sockpuppets) including his relationship with Bishonen (and sockpuppets that may be hers or may be his) comes up?

Actually, the backs of Giano and Bishonen were broken when Geogre's massive sock operation was discovered, and he was eventually desyoped by Arbcom (before Elen of the Roads' time as she surely would have prevented it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre

The evidence was so massive that although Arbcom tried to ignore it, in the end they couldn't and slapped his hand by saying he could no longer use socks.

He hasn't edited since (under that name), as he felt entitled to his sock operation and didn't see that he had violated policy. Geogre was not blocked for socking. Just his socks were blocked. That probably wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been the massive and blatant use of socks to harm others, to protect his friends (Giano, Bishonen et al.) and get his way.

He was treated with kid gloves although his humongous sock activities were used to vote stack and other good hand/ bad hand activities.

One of his socks provided massive evidence to Arbcom and got a known admin desyopped.

Considering the high esteem in which he was held, this is a very telling blind spot in the vision of the "old tymers" - that he was not blocked for socking. It's only the new editors who should be blocked.

Posted by: chrisoff

Gee, it's getting close to the two year anniversary of Geogre's "leaving".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre

Ahhhh!

Addendum: I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Utgard_Loki was one of the sock puppets.

Look at their contributions! How intertwined they are with Giano et al. And with Bishonen!

So Bishonen clearly knew Geogre was using sock puppets.

And Elen of the Roads (and Risker) thought that was ok.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

Yes, Geogre was desysopped for also editing as Utgard Loki. (I strongly opposed the desysopping, which I thought was a huge overreaction under the circumstances, but the majority ruled.) Perhaps in response to that decision, Geogre stopped editing completely, which is regrettable. Your bringing up his name and grave-dancing two years later is disgusting.

Posted by: tarantino

He's better off now.

Did you ever ask Ann why she condoned Geogre's deception?

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

In the immortal words of Nero Wolfe, "I don't answer questions containing two or more unsupported assumptions."

Posted by: tarantino

Of course, as a wikipedian, you must assume good faith.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

No, that's exactly why it's done. Both Giano and Bishonen write the occasional article (Giano more than Bishonen, who has not authored any significant content in years) on obscure topics that could well be utter fabrications because nobody cares enough about them to check, for the sole purpose of getting that little kiddy thrill of knowing that someone out there might possibly someday read something they wrote. (Although the odds of that are actually pretty low because they're writing on topics that very few people care to read about.) As to "long, lonely hours": poppycock. It's fairly obvious that both are compulsive writers, and for them writing itself is fun and pleasurable. Those hours are neither long nor lonely, not for them.

In any case, both of them are entirely about cheap, quick attention. They just get it in a slightly different way than the other people on Wikipedia who are also in it for cheap, quick attention, but the difference is only superficial.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

On the contrary. Geogre was a highly toxic individual and should have been ejected years ago. Yes, he had some mediocre talent as a writer (as do both Giano and Bishonen), but in his case, even more so than in Giano's or Bishonen's, he was completely unwilling to "play well" with anyone he deemed to be his intellectual inferior, which was basically everyone at Wikipedia. Geogre was fine as long as you protected his fragile ego; fail to do that and he turned into a raging maniac. That's entirely not the personality that belongs in a collaborative environment. Wikipedia's failure to recognize people like Geogre and manage them appropriately is a huge part of its organizational failure, and its failure to materialize as a serious encyclopedia.

Is Wikipedia really an encyclopedia, with editors working toward a common goal, or merely a publishing platform, with customers that provide content in exchange for receiving recognition for having provided content? The Wikipedia Geogre (and Giano and Bishonen) have consistently striven to create is the latter. The thing is, if any of them were really any good, they'd be publishing in more traditional media. You know, the ones where you write something, and get paid for it in real money.

Posted by: Sololol

I believe we know the answer to that question =)
That's the strangest thing about this project; everyone of talent or virtue is banned or ham-strung (Exhibit A: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21357&st=0&p=143860&#entry143860 is topic banned, the target of his poetic barbs,http://www.youtube.com/user/jaakobou http://jaakobou.deviantart.com/gallery/#/dynp6w, yes it's the editor of the same name, is not) If you want to edit, remember middle school and employ those tricks well.

Posted by: bi-winning

What were the other socks?

Posted by: chrisoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Utgard_Loki

The Utgard Loki account of Geogre wasn't even blocked. Geogre merely had to list it as an "alternate account", for those (unlike Risker) who didn't already know.

Utgard Loki posted to Risker's page regularly, but she claimed she didn't notice.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Which articles did you create, Kelly?

Oh I remember you went in for stuff like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060718115004&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Kelly+Martin&namespace=0 . Great writing there.

So you were more the 'create a common goal' type. So, mediocre writers, mediocre proof readers, mediocre petty functionaries. Sounds about right.

Posted by: chrisoff

I believe that Geogre/Utgard Loki were responsible for the Durova arbcom, along with Giano and sockpuppets Disinfoboxman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Disinfoboxman

and User:!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:!!

probably many, many more. Geogre, Bishonen, Giano and their various accounts were/are responsible for much trouble.

And Malley boy has always defended them.

Posted by: Malleus

Really? You seem to see much that isn't there.

Posted by: chrisoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Disinfoboxman

Look at their contributions. Show the box on Disinfobxman's page and there is a link to User:!!

Obviously socks of Giano.

Geogre used his socks to defend Bishonen's and Giano's articles and to get Durova in Arbcom (through Utgard Loki).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=174916052

But this darn hummingbird is a give away: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Animalibr%C3%AD.gif

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I'm not even going to bother responding to Christoff's rant - it isn't worth it.

Yes, as willing as I am to defend Giano's contributions (and I may be in a minority in enjoying his articles) I will not defend Geogre. Kelly is right, he was a humourless dick who's departure was welcome.

I've had my run-ins with Giano and Bishonen, but they both have a sense of humour, and both know that their combativeness is at least partly a role-play. That means you can actually relate to them without having to kiss the ego all the time (although a little certainly helps). Not so with Geogre, I tried but it was all spite and nastiness - no soft centre.

Brad, I know "assume good faith", and "don't speak ill of the dead", but really? Yes, Christoff is certainly grave digging, and trolling, and two years on who cares. But there is little need to walk past this particular grave with deference and respect. Good riddance.

Posted by: Ceoil

Geogre set the foundation for many of the pillars of wikipedia, and was an extreamly bright and talented writer. He was one of the main proponents against the people who follow the letter rather than the spirtit of the law, that ruin the place, that dominate the notice boards with their semi austic auto responces. And he was very witty in his turn of phrase, but in the end got ground down by idioticay, Mattisse, Ideogram, Ottava, and a cast of about a thousand others. No wonder he needed a sock to contribute, given he was such a magnate for the damaged.

Oh and Disinfoboxman is probably Wetman, who is probably one of the finest, best people we have. Appeasment of people like Mattise by dissing people like Geogre is just, well. Kelly, what did you ever do, except contribute spite and contempt."A thousnad people look to me". Look at the articles on Geogre's userpage.

Posted by: chrisoff

Explains the rot, then. It has been going on a long time. Geogre set the standards, you're saying?

So sock puppets are common for everyone, you seem to agree. And that is ok.

Explains why arbcom condones sock puppets for their friends. Geogre must have gotten on the wrong side of someone to be caught and told he had to disclose his sock puppet.

I guess the pillars that he set up condoned good hand/bad hand sock puppets?

Posted by: radek

Uh, I don't know about Bishonen, but I HAVE actually checked one or two or three of Giano's articles and by that I mean read them through quite carefully and looked up the sources that were being used. You wouldn't know it though because I didn't comment on them because ... there really was nothing to comment about. They were not fabrications. They might have had a very minor inaccuracy or two (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Destruction_of_country_houses_in_20th-century_Britain#Question) but this is something you'd always expect even in academic writing. Absence of criticism, in this case may very well indicate absence of good reasons for criticism rather than absence of attention - and given this is Giano we're talking about I'm pretty sure it's not the latter. Even if you find him irritating at times, you know there's a legion of people out there who would love nothing else but to show up Giano and point out his errors to him. The fact they don't, means that they can't, rather than that they don't want to.

Anyway, as a person who tends to edit in "obscure topics" that "nobody cares about" I think this kind of accusations is pretty damn foolish (and inconsistent, I believe with some of your past comments). What's a "non-obscure topic that everyone cares about"?

I tell you what:
Justin Bieber's fucking Hair.
What's her face's newest boyfriend.
That guy from that tv show's drug problem.
That funny looking cartoon character and his ambiguous sexuality.
"Intimate" terms that if you type into Google search, you'll be scared by what comes up
Various forms of Nekkidness and what you can do with them
Nutzoid billionaires who wanna be Presidents with even more nutzoid hair

Or in other words, things which I try very very very hard to avoid as much as possible in my everyday life but which nonetheless always find a way of imposing themselves on me. Wikipedia's got a lot of faults and only a few advantages. But "people writing about obscure topics that nobody cares about" is probably in the plus column. There should be more people like that.




Not gonna dispute that they're about attention. But it's not the "cheap, quick" kind. If I were going to be cynical about it (not me!) I'd say that Giano (and people like him) put in a lot of hours of work with a conscious predetermined a priori purpose of having that (real) work justify them mouthing off to various big shot people and causing all sorts of fun trouble.

In a way the whole phenomenon was inevitable. Someone like Giano was never suited to become an administrator on a site like Wikipedia. So he wasn't gonna get to be a big dog there via the (cheap, quick, actually - as Doc says) route that a lot of others take. But given that a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is pretty much a natural venue for someone like him, he obviously was ambitious to be a player on the site. So he spend a lot of time and did a whole lot of work to create a bunch of real content - to upstage the "official" big dogs, and shove in their face when needed - created the Giano-persona we've all come to know and love, and embarked on a multi year drama fest to put himself in the position that he is now. Sure, in a way it is self-serving. But it's also earned.

If Giano didn't exist, somebody would just invent him (in the same way that Giano invented Giano). The nature of "the project" dictates it.

Ok, part of the above came out wrong Nothing wrong with Nekkidness and should not be avoided. Obsessions with other people's Nekkidness probably should.

Posted by: Ceoil

Mattisse, I quite liked you on wikipedia, sought your openion a fair few times, and you helped me a few other times, but this kind of shit from you is not worth bothering with. Let the old grudges go, what in the name of god is to be achieved in bitching about the socks of an editor gone since about two years ago. Your better than this. I understand your angry because you invested so much, and are unlikely to ever be let back, but look inwards rather than project outwards. Lack of insight is mostly why you lost out. Pity.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

A more appropriate Nero Wolfe quote, given the circumstances, would be this:

"As between the intolerable and the merely distasteful, I must choose the latter."

Wikipedia, in general, and Anne Clin, in particular, are merely distasteful. They are not intolerable, however, because we tolerate their idiocy -- perhaps out of boredom or mere snarkiness.

Besides, is there any truth to the story that Anne Clin had an affair with Teddy Roosevelt during the Battle of San Juan Hill?

Posted by: Ceoil

''their idiocy''. Am, excuse me, were you not an admin at a few stages (we know of one, there were likely others), and blocked for amongst other things, multiples accounts. Point that distastefulness at yourself. The hypocrisy here is just appaling. Such self righteous crap aimed at sins ye all are guilty of yerselves. Jesus christ.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I have no problem with people writing about obscure topics that nobody really cares about. To some degree, that's what encyclopedias are for. My point, which most people seem not to care to get, is that people like Giano write because they enjoy writing, and they publish on Wikipedia because it's a vehicle to publish writing that they'd otherwise probably not be able to get published, or at least they can get more potential readers via Wikipedia than they'd get any other way.

Fundamentally there's nothing wrong with this; Wikipedia ought to be able to find an accommodation between the Gianos of the world and its own mission. But Wikipedia is not able to do so, because it lacks leaders who both care about Wikipedia's supposed purpose while also understanding how to manage volunteers successfully. Wikipedia's community culture assumes that the motivation of every editor at Wikipedia is some sort of weird selfless devotion to the creation of a universal encyclopedia. That's not what motivates the Gianos of the world, and the conflict between the expectation of Wikipedia's community and this actuality is what generates the friction.

I don't know how long Giano spends writing his articles. My point is that, however long it is, he clearly enjoys doing it (or at least does so for some nonmaterial gain beyond stature within Wikipedia), and so those hours, no matter how long or short, are not "long and lonely", as others have tried to suggest. It's not as if he spent those hours digging ditches.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

So? I know of at least one current arbitrator who operates multiple accounts and has even blogged about doing it. (It is not difficult to guess which one it is.)

The whole thing is an idiotic game. The difference is that I had a laugh at the expense of those who took it very, very seriously.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I get your point absolutely. What I don't get is what you are insinuating, as though people who could earn decent money from writing would ever bother writing for Wikipedia. Of course they would not. No one but a fool ever wrote, except for money. The people who built Wikipedia are nearly all gifted amateurs who were never able to rise above the mediocre, but found themselves a place in the world of online encyclopedias. I'll include myself - a fourth-rate academic - in that category.

It's apparatchiks like you who shat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_archive_5_(2006)#Remove_the_promise_to_be_uncivil.2C_please on these people.



You are absolutely right. I pointed out this a while ago here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html .

Posted by: chrisoff

Who is it?

Posted by: Malleus

An interesting enough read, but it contains several glaring errors, of which I'll mention just one. You say that "No sane or normal or reasonable person contributes to Wikipedia, and so all contributors fall into the following broad classes: deviant, aficionado, quack, activist, cultist, crank." But your categorisation excludes the insane, abnormal, or unreasonable, or at best attempts to shoehorn them into ill-fitting categories.

For myself I'm quite happy to be considered abnormal, in exactly the same way that those working on open-source projects like Apache or MySql are abnormal; why would would any competent computer programmer donate their work for free?

Posted by: radek

Well, I do agree with that (I'm an economist. Hell, "people do everything for self interested reasons" is my worldview). The part that bothered me was the deprecation of the articles and "obscure topic editing" itself in your original comment. But I'll just chalk that up to the standard discussion thread irritation that inevitably arises in these things. Thanks for clarifying.



Also, what's wrong with 'aficionado'? (Though you can make it sound scary if you say it in the voice of Edgar-Allan-Poe-on-tape reader)

Posted by: Malleus

Nothing wrong with it, except that Peter apparently restricts it to the "mostly harmless devotees of obscure subjects".

Posted by: chrisoff

well, that certainly fits you, Malley!

Posted by: Malleus

Does it really? Open your eyes Mattisse.

Posted by: RMHED

"Don't Panic" Malley.

I certainly don't think you're "mostly harmless", "mostly toxic" I'd say.

Posted by: Malleus

I'd say that I don't give a flying fuck what you'd say, as you're clearly a moron.

Posted by: RMHED

Aw shucks!

I love you too, ya great big hunk of a curmudgeonly Mancunian.

Posted by: The Joy

Posted by: chrisoff

Malleus, instead of your usual tactic of name-calling, you could use

the Wikipedia:Bradspeak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bradspeak

kindly provided by Bishonen.

Posted by: Malleus

And exactly why would I want to do that?

Posted by: The Joy

I guess because "Chris" thinks that you, Giano, Bishonen, Aloan/!!, Geogre, Nev1, the late WebHamster, Parrot of Doom, Wetman, JoopersCoopers, Iridescent, Risker, Elen of the Roads, Floquenbeam, Sandy Georgia, Dana Boomer, John, and such are part of a "Content Writer's Cabal" more obsessed with massaging your egos, defending your badly written, paltry works in clear violation of Wikipedia's WP:OWN policies, and your tendency to engage in anti-social behavior that is not conducive to a collaborative environment that is supposedly Wikipedia whilst administrators ignore this sad development and continue to defend said cabal despite said cabal being contrary to the Five Pillars tenets brought down by the Great Founder Jimbo Wales in 2001?

I mean, I'm just guessing.

And you'll say that I'm full of bollocks for the above and you would be right. Jimbo has never been a great anything.

Posted by: chrisoff

Malleus, because then you could stop your trolling.

Posted by: Ceoil

This descending fast, but for the record eh, I always liked and respected both Mattisse and Jeff, they both did huge amounts for the 'cause'. Both are exceptionaly bright, acute and detailed in their reviews, and produce exceptional content, but are difficult people and blinkered. Such a pity. If there was some self awarness, ye'd both be back in a shot, but I cant see that happening. Mattisse taking shots at MF is biting the hand that feeds. Jeff walking away shows strenght of character, but then I always liked him for some odd reason. Thats my 10c anyway. The rest of this shit about Geogre is a stale, useless bloodbath with no right of reply. Go Kelly! Last word, eh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umKEj_fFNBw There is no culture it's my brag. hey there Kelly.

Posted by: chrisoff

BISHONEN REFUSES TO CATEGORISE HER SOCKPUPPETS!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&action=historysubmit&diff=428077150&oldid=428069274

Why don't admins have to follow the rules? Why aren't all her sockpuppets rounded up?

And a special commons category for her "joke" images?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bishapod

Come on! Is this even pretending to be an encyclopaedia?

Posted by: Theanima

We all know Bishonen is a toxic personality, but this is getting boring now.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

If it was so boring, it wouldn't amuse people here enough to have them comment on it.

Posted by: Zoloft

Well, I got the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=291531110

Posted by: The Joy

Indeed. It's like Herman Melville's Moby Dick. Though I am having trouble identifying which Wikipedian is the whale.*


Bishapod rises from the deep as Chrisoff readies his harpoon!



*Yes, Greg, I am making this all too easy for you!

Posted by: Cla68

I think I understand Giano's motivation for writing articles, because, if it's the same as mine, it's that writing on Wikipedia allows us to explore the minutia of subjects that we find fascinating. Wikipedia allows us the thrill of seeing our exploration in that minutia attractively presented in a widely read forum on the internet. It's like building a miniature model airplane, ship, or car, knowing that the model will be displayed in a place where hundreds or thousands of people will be passing by each day.

I totally agree with you that Wikipedia lacks leaders. It doesn't have any visionary leaders, or, at least, any visionary leaders who haven't allowed themselves to get bogged-down in maintaining the status quo of the current system.

Posted by: Detective

To be fair, Commons doesn't claim to be an encyclopaedia. It's more like a large cardboard box in which you keep any interesting bits and pieces of rubbish you might want to use for model-making.

Posted by: chrisoff

So it this Giano writing for the pure joy of writing and contributing to the encyclopaedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annuario_della_Nobilt%C3%A0_Italiana&oldid=428580283

And he has to ask Risker to quell the opposition when he doesn't get his way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Risker&curid=21604049&diff=428742540&oldid=428377222

Posted by: radek

What is supposed to be the problem with these?

Posted by: The Joy

It's several Italians screaming at each other over whether a person is a noble or not. At least, that's what I can gather from all the bad grammar. Giano seems to be trying to conduct a ceasefire, but no one's relenting.

Posted by: radek

So.... what is supposed to be the problem with these?

(but I do like the word "adhominations". However, I don't think it means what they think it means. But wait, that's actually one of the native English speakers. I think)