Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Editors _ Giano takes it to the limit
Posted by: Peter Damian
This was absolutely predictable. The other side know that there will be people needling Giano, so are taking a flexible attitude. But Giano knows this too, and is determined to push things to the very limit.
QUOTE
You have begun to interest me, stalking is a game that two can play...I'm wondering why the Arbcom accepted a case from you with such speedy, almost suspicious, alacrity - if I were one of those Arbs I would now be very worried, because your edits have started to interest me too, first one on Masturbation - now there's a sunject and a half. As I said I am now very interested indeed.You see John I am still far from happy about the IRC case, and I will get to the bottom of it, if not here then elsewhere. Giano (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John254"
I understand why you could be upset at john, but this is a little disapointing. I saw it as some kind of threat - you should know that taking things elsewhere isn't what we do here. I personally have a lot of respect for you and I honestly thought you were way above this - just take a step back and think about things for a minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You have absolutely no respect for me at all so don't be so bloody hypocritical. By elsewhere I mean of course IRC, isn't that where you and all your buddies and the Arbs hang out, and where if we want to discover the truth concerning Wikipedia we are all forced to go these days? You see Ryan, I will get to the bottom of this, the very bottom, and if one way draws a blank, I shall go in another direction. I know the truth, all I have to do is prove it. Giano (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John254"
I understand why you could be upset at john, but this is a little disapointing. I saw it as some kind of threat - you should know that taking things elsewhere isn't what we do here. I personally have a lot of respect for you and I honestly thought you were way above this - just take a step back and think about things for a minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You have absolutely no respect for me at all so don't be so bloody hypocritical. By elsewhere I mean of course IRC, isn't that where you and all your buddies and the Arbs hang out, and where if we want to discover the truth concerning Wikipedia we are all forced to go these days? You see Ryan, I will get to the bottom of this, the very bottom, and if one way draws a blank, I shall go in another direction. I know the truth, all I have to do is prove it. Giano (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Posted by: Moulton
Stalking the elusive evidence that establishes the ground truth.
What a game!
And a game that many can play.
Doubleplus, it sometimes calls for original investigative research.
Posted by: ThurstonHowell3rd
Giano has been blocked for "incivility":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement
One and one-half hours after he engaged in this conversation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FloNight#IRC_Admins
His last edit:
"Now I am also in possession of many logs which don't quite bear out your earlier statemnts concerning reform, but for now I'm going to bed. Hopefully we can continue this fascinating conversation in the morning,"
Posted by: Aloft
The fact that Giano is blocked while Mantanmoreland roams free is a perfect example of how screwed up Wikipedia is.
This is how Arbcom helps the encyclopedia, folks.
Posted by: badlydrawnjeff
I'm glad Thatcher decided to make a cheap shot at Giano in his comment.
That's really disgusting to me.
Posted by: taiwopanfob
QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Wed 26th March 2008, 3:01am) 
I'm glad Thatcher decided to make a cheap shot at Giano in his comment.
That's really disgusting to me.
That's really disgusting to me.
Even worse is that FloNight doesn't seem to be a shrinking-violet type: she can clearly take care of herself. Based only on that exchange, it is easy to conclude that Thatcher has problems with women, not Giano. As the Wikipediots say, "Creepy."
Posted by: wikiwhistle
Not so- I have to say, Giano did keep pestering Flonight there.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the case, but he should think of his blood pressure or something, I know what it's like to get worked up about something people did/do (he admits he's bitter now) but it's not the most healthy and happy of things.
If a group of chums/admins want to have an IRC room there's no real stopping them. If they aren't allowed to plan the (perhaps nefarious) actions they want in the 'official' admins' room, they'll simply go to messenger chat or email like everyone else, and as they do already. 
Posted by: taiwopanfob
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Wed 26th March 2008, 3:37am)
Not so- I have to say, Giano did keep pestering Flonight there.
Hm. The exchange opens with Giano saying directly to FloNight:
QUOTE
Following assurances made by yourself at the close of the famed IRC case, could you now please confirm to me, how many non-admins and ex-admins still have access to the Admins channel.
I have no idea if FloNight gave such assurances, but if she did, who else should Giano "pester"? And if FloNight refuses live up to her word by "assuring", then why not make a point of her disingenuity? She is a sitting ArbCom member: if you can't trust her to keep her word, who the hell can you trust? Are not these individuals to be held to a higher standard than a lowly administrator?
Why Thatcher took this opportunity to (unnecessarily, and without any supporting facts) play the gender card is a mystery though.
QUOTE
I don't know all the ins and outs of the case, but he should think of his blood pressure or something, I know what it's like to get worked up about something people did/do (he admits he's bitter now) but it's not the most healthy and happy of things.
I dunno. If someone says to me "I'll do X", and I then come back and ask for "X", and get an answer like "Leave me alone: go see that guy over there.", I'd be upset too, depending on what X is and its contextual significance.
This raises an interesting question: why do simple aspects of human nature have to be explained to Wikipediots? Repeatedly?
QUOTE
If a group of chums/admins want to have an IRC room there's no real stopping them. If they aren't allowed to plan the (perhaps nefarious) actions they want in the 'official' admins' room, they'll simply go to messenger chat or email like everyone else, and as they do already.
There you go: FloNight could have defused this situation by simply asking FT2 the question privately and, living up to her end of an agreement, answering Giano with the knowledge so obtained. But instead we have drama construction, more goading, and an opportunity for another public whipping of Giano.
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Tue 25th March 2008, 7:24pm)
Giano has been blocked for "incivility":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement
One and one-half hours after he engaged in this conversion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FloNight#IRC_Admins
His last edit:
"Now I am also in possession of many logs which don't quite bear out your earlier statemnts concerning reform, but for now I'm going to bed. Hopefully we can continue this fascinating conversation in the morning,"
This is really remarkable. In blocking Giano, it's like the cancer cutting out the healthy parts of the body.
Does anyone know how old FT2 is?
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:32am)
QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Tue 25th March 2008, 7:24pm)
Giano has been blocked for "incivility":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement
One and one-half hours after he engaged in this conversion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FloNight#IRC_Admins
His last edit:
"Now I am also in possession of many logs which don't quite bear out your earlier statemnts concerning reform, but for now I'm going to bed. Hopefully we can continue this fascinating conversation in the morning,"
This is really remarkable. In blocking Giano, it's like the cancer cutting out the healthy parts of the body.
Does anyone know how old FT2 is?
Here's the link to the whole last conversation, which is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFloNight&diff=200930473&oldid=200929185 Giano got 31 hours in the Klink. If this sort of pointed questioning is what passes as blockable incivility on WP where days, then the JzG case really tickles the funnybone. I note that Giano's 1 year probation was not voted violated at Arbcom recently. Only a matter of time before they revoke his parole, though.
Posted by: Giano
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 26th March 2008, 5:07am)
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:32am)
QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Tue 25th March 2008, 7:24pm)
Giano has been blocked for "incivility":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement
One and one-half hours after he engaged in this conversion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FloNight#IRC_Admins
His last edit:
"Now I am also in possession of many logs which don't quite bear out your earlier statemnts concerning reform, but for now I'm going to bed. Hopefully we can continue this fascinating conversation in the morning,"
This is really remarkable. In blocking Giano, it's like the cancer cutting out the healthy parts of the body.
Does anyone know how old FT2 is?
Here's the link to the whole last conversation, which is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFloNight&diff=200930473&oldid=200929185 Giano got 31 hours in the Klink. If this sort of pointed questioning is what passes as blockable incivility on WP where days, then the JzG case really tickles the funnybone. I note that Giano's 1 year probation was not voted violated at Arbcom recently. Only a matter of time before they revoke his parole, though.
It's all rather sad isn't it - with Wikipedia, they are terrified to death of discussing their problems. One is now not even allowed to press an important Arb member for promised information. It appears they are reluctant to have me continue the fascinating discussion this morning - presumably they want to see it here rather than there. Now that is some strange logic by anyone's standards. I don't disapprove of Wikipedia Review, as I regard all criticism as healthy, but I do think all problems and anxieties are best discussed in the right place, so the last few weeks I have tried to keep all my comments there and not here. But, I must be stupid, I just don't seem to get it, proper debate is just not allowed there, it's either "trolling" or its"incivility" and it has to be suppressed - they just don't get the damage they are doing to themselves - they are forcing people off the site to air their problems - I don't think I even insulted the wretched woman - just pressed her for an answer - that lot would not survive running a fairground in the real world. I must be the most stupid person alive for keeping on trying to solve the problem there. That was a rhetorical statement - it does not require agreement.
Giacomo
Posted by: Proabivouac
Giano, I saw nothing particularly uncivil about your comments. Sharp, but comfortably within the realm of civilized discussion and debate, and wholly on-topic. Every British MP and most professional writers would be tossed from WP by the standards they're applying to Giano, and Giano alone.
Posted by: Giano
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 26th March 2008, 8:19am)
Giano, I saw nothing particularly uncivil about your comments. Sharp, but comfortably within the realm of civilized discussion and debate, and wholly on-topic. Every British MP and most professional writers would be tossed from WP by the standards they're applying to Giano, and Giano alone.
No I was not incivil, I was careful of that, it was to shut me up. I edited properly for the first time since the case yesterday, I think they had rather hoped I was on the way out, to be honest I too thought I was. Then I got the old entheusiasm back for writing, so that was not quite according to plan either. There is quite a lot going on behind the scenes at the moment - so they are shouting Giano is paranoid again (Doc on my page now) well I have been there and lived through that one before and been proved right - that was how I had my block log wiped clean of "hate speech" after I was less than welcoming to pedophiles. Wikipedians seem by nature not to be a very introspective lot. It is interesting that I had a chat just before the block about a prospective Admin candidacy that will shortly be coming up - I announced I would oppose it strongly, they probably want me blocked for a long time when that one rears its ugly head - as a German speaker I would feel forced to oppose! Then there are some other matters too - so you see there is a lot going on. yesterday was not a good day for the Arbitration committee.
Giacomo
Posted by: Peter Damian
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:32am)
Does anyone know how old FT2 is?
Early 40's. However, whereas Postlethwaite for all his man-child posturing and illiteracy is still fundamentally in good faith (I believe), there is something altogether more sinister about FT2. He has clearly been through the world, and is perhaps the worse for it.
It took people here some time to understand this.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 26th March 2008, 8:19am)
Giano, I saw nothing particularly uncivil about your comments. Sharp, but comfortably within the realm of civilized discussion and debate, and wholly on-topic. Every British MP and most professional writers would be tossed from WP by the standards they're applying to Giano, and Giano alone.
I agree. But it was almost certainly this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FloNight&diff=prev&oldid=200879619
that prompted the block. FT2 comes on with his usual pompous longwinded flannel. Giano comes straight back with a magnificient shot across the bows. It wasn't uncivil or rude, just a home truth, briefly put, and FT2 hates that.
Posted by: Peter Damian
In fact, FT2's comments on the noticeboard here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Giano_II
make it very clear it was that remark that prompted the block. You don't have to be incivil any more. Just anything that is perceived as 'snarky' or pointed, or just witty, and the perceived slight must be corrected by a block.
Risker comments that there is a clear COI on the block. Does anyone understand FT2's reply here? Risker wittily counters that those with a COI rarely believe that they have one.
Posted by: Peter Damian
The following interchange on FT2's page reflect the key points nicely. Bakharev makes the point some people are making huge contributions to the project in good faith. We should not be treating these people the same as some thug or POV-pushing newbie.
This is the key issue, but is of course heresy in the new world. FT2 replies: civility, civility, civility.
QUOTE
FT2, as I said before, you have all the rights to block Giano. I guess our opinions on the helpfulness of this block are differ. Lets hope the future will show you are right and I was wrong. My opinion is based on my experience in my corner of the wikiuniverse, but IMHO the main problem of this project is that we do not retain the best and brightest contributors particular those without the admin bit. They are not driven away by the incivility but by the all sizes fit approach there the opinions of an editor who basically created (by himself and by inspiration to other editors) huge sections of the project and who has an invaluable insight on the real-life inner work of the project is set to be equal in validity to any troll or POV-pushing newbie and infinitely less important than an opinion of anybody with higher level of editorial privileges. Some people literally give the project half of their live and talents and could not receive in exchange from people who are the official faces of the project even minimal patience and tolerance. Giano has a huge experience and insight with the ills of the project as well as the energy and desire to fix them. His methods are incovenient but I am not sure he would get the results using normal methods. It would really help to give him an ear and a hand rather than try to shut him up or teach him manners. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Users have tried, for a long time. It is hard to know what to do with someone whom you tell emphatically and repeatedly that "nobody has asked you to change views" and that "having strong views" and "having questions if asked appropriately" are all absolutely okay, and whose response is "do I pretend these things don't happen... or do I say I must... say nothing". It's dramatics. He knows what needs doing. He just doesn't seem to want to. He's had support from me, encouragement from others, to learn this. The views and concerns are fine, the manner of expression via gratuitious backhanded and borderlined incivility has to end. I know he doesn't want it to. But he needs to put himself in others shoes. As he says he despise double standards, so do others. The double standard he wants to invoke is "the community can reach agreement on civil speech regardless of viewpoint"... and he wants the right to opt out and make snarky asides and attacks to people, and assume the worst then attack them for it. I don't know what for. Its so unnecessary. But it's not okay. That's not our agreement here. I don't know how to say it plainer. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2"
Users have tried, for a long time. It is hard to know what to do with someone whom you tell emphatically and repeatedly that "nobody has asked you to change views" and that "having strong views" and "having questions if asked appropriately" are all absolutely okay, and whose response is "do I pretend these things don't happen... or do I say I must... say nothing". It's dramatics. He knows what needs doing. He just doesn't seem to want to. He's had support from me, encouragement from others, to learn this. The views and concerns are fine, the manner of expression via gratuitious backhanded and borderlined incivility has to end. I know he doesn't want it to. But he needs to put himself in others shoes. As he says he despise double standards, so do others. The double standard he wants to invoke is "the community can reach agreement on civil speech regardless of viewpoint"... and he wants the right to opt out and make snarky asides and attacks to people, and assume the worst then attack them for it. I don't know what for. Its so unnecessary. But it's not okay. That's not our agreement here. I don't know how to say it plainer. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2"
Posted by: Peter Damian
Now Geogre weighs in:
QUOTE
FT2: What' was "incivil" in Giano's comments. Please be specific. Giano has many comments on FloNight's page. There is a satire of her continued silence. Was that "incivil?" Was there a characterization of her motivations, mentality, words, etc. that was scandalous? I see repeated questions... well, one, actually... and continued "no one is going to answer because the answer is already somewhere else." Again, there is no basis of this block. Furthermore, 31 hours is a non-standard time. How did you arrive at that? Isn't the usual to begin with, perhaps, 12 or 24? I see no justification for this at all. If "any admin may block on any perception of incivility" is in force, may "any admin unblock?" Is there some magical force where any single administrator gets to determine for all others what is not allowed in speech on Wikipedia? Can we say, again and again, that pictures of David Shankbone's penis are perfect, because we're not censored, but this piece of speech (a question) must not be allowed? When that speech is interrogative and does not involve charges of real life illegality, etc. (no "you're a Nazi/Communist"), it cannot be instantly blockable. If you want to see someone merely trying to get anger, look at the bottom of my user talk page. Giano was trying to get a user to answer about why that user thought something was a good idea one day and a bad idea the next, and why the "resolution" of a case by ArbCom was abandoned without a word to the community. Those are legitimate, and it is poor service (what ArbCom is supposed to be about -- service, not power) to keep running away and blocking the questioner. Geogre (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I see pointedness and humour in Giano's questions. Where is the incivility?
Posted by: Moulton
What I see is yet another instance of Bill of Attainder.
Bill of Attainder is a manifest breach of Civil Rights.
If anything could be called incivil, it would be a gross breach of Civil Rights.
But then, as Lar reminds us, Wikipedia doesn't do Due Process.
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 26th March 2008, 3:47am)
This is the key issue, but is of course heresy in the new world. FT2 replies: civility, civility, civility.
Civility is the new censorship - selectively applied, of course.
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:40am)
Now Geogre weighs in:
QUOTE
FT2: What' was "incivil" in Giano's comments. Please be specific. Giano has many comments on FloNight's page. There is a satire of her continued silence. Was that "incivil?" Was there a characterization of her motivations, mentality, words, etc. that was scandalous? I see repeated questions... well, one, actually... and continued "no one is going to answer because the answer is already somewhere else." Again, there is no basis of this block. Furthermore, 31 hours is a non-standard time. How did you arrive at that? Isn't the usual to begin with, perhaps, 12 or 24? I see no justification for this at all. If "any admin may block on any perception of incivility" is in force, may "any admin unblock?" Is there some magical force where any single administrator gets to determine for all others what is not allowed in speech on Wikipedia? Can we say, again and again, that pictures of David Shankbone's penis are perfect, because we're not censored, but this piece of speech (a question) must not be allowed? When that speech is interrogative and does not involve charges of real life illegality, etc. (no "you're a Nazi/Communist"), it cannot be instantly blockable. If you want to see someone merely trying to get anger, look at the bottom of my user talk page. Giano was trying to get a user to answer about why that user thought something was a good idea one day and a bad idea the next, and why the "resolution" of a case by ArbCom was abandoned without a word to the community. Those are legitimate, and it is poor service (what ArbCom is supposed to be about -- service, not power) to keep running away and blocking the questioner. Geogre (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I see pointedness and humour in Giano's questions. Where is the incivility?
A little off topic here, but I just have to mention that Geogre's use of language and ability to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic is extraordinary, I've never seen anything like it. That guy should write an article for the New Yorker about Wikipedia. Go read some of his articles, even if you have no interest in the topic. They are just stunning. Wikipedia is unbelievability fortunate to have editors like him - even though his value is probably lost on most admins; yet another manifestation of failed leadership.
Posted by: Giano
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:09pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:40am)
Now Geogre weighs in:
QUOTE
FT2: What' was "incivil" in Giano's comments. Please be specific. Giano has many comments on FloNight's page. There is a satire of her continued silence. Was that "incivil?" Was there a characterization of her motivations, mentality, words, etc. that was scandalous? I see repeated questions... well, one, actually... and continued "no one is going to answer because the answer is already somewhere else." Again, there is no basis of this block. Furthermore, 31 hours is a non-standard time. How did you arrive at that? Isn't the usual to begin with, perhaps, 12 or 24? I see no justification for this at all. If "any admin may block on any perception of incivility" is in force, may "any admin unblock?" Is there some magical force where any single administrator gets to determine for all others what is not allowed in speech on Wikipedia? Can we say, again and again, that pictures of David Shankbone's penis are perfect, because we're not censored, but this piece of speech (a question) must not be allowed? When that speech is interrogative and does not involve charges of real life illegality, etc. (no "you're a Nazi/Communist"), it cannot be instantly blockable. If you want to see someone merely trying to get anger, look at the bottom of my user talk page. Giano was trying to get a user to answer about why that user thought something was a good idea one day and a bad idea the next, and why the "resolution" of a case by ArbCom was abandoned without a word to the community. Those are legitimate, and it is poor service (what ArbCom is supposed to be about -- service, not power) to keep running away and blocking the questioner. Geogre (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I see pointedness and humour in Giano's questions. Where is the incivility?
A little off topic here, but I just have to mention that Geogre's use of language and ability to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic is extraordinary, I've never seen anything like it. That guy should write an article for the New Yorker about Wikipedia. Go read some of his articles, even if you have no interest in the topic. They are just stunning. Wikipedia is unbelievability fortunate to have editors like him - even though his value is probably lost on most admins; yet another manifestation of failed leadership.
Geogre is totally amazing, he has more common sense than most of the other admins put together. He ran for Arbcom last year but his cutting common sense was too much for some to swallow. Unlike me can usually keep his cool. There is a game called "dream team" (or something like that), I can think of a committee of ten Wikipedians who would make an Arbcom dream team, not all FA writers and the like just people with some basic common sense, all over 14, and with a desire to see Wikipedia succeed. The problem with the present Arbcom - probably the worst there has ever been is that collectively they have no experience of either handling business or people, it wouldn't be so bad if one could say they are all intellectuals with their heads in the clouds, but that does not seem to be the case either - I dunno - sometimes even I think is it all worth it.
Giano
Posted by: Moulton
Given that so many of the more problematic Wikipedians are young, unseasoned, and amateurishly unprofessional in their self-appointed roles, one might regard the site as an interesting experiment in experiential learning.
But disappointment sinks in when one observes how very little learning actually takes place, in a sorry venue reminiscent of The Lord of the Flies.
Nor does there appear to be any effective means for remedying that unfortunate lack of professional growth and development.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 26th March 2008, 1:14pm)
Given that so many of the more problematic Wikipedians are young, unseasoned, and amateurishly unprofessional in their self-appointed roles, one might regard the site as an interesting experiment in experiential learning.
But disappointment sinks in when one observes how very little learning actually takes place, in a sorry venue reminiscent of The Lord of the Flies.
Nor does there appear to be any effective means for remedying that unfortunate lack of professional growth and development.
Yet another recurrent observation, correct as far as it goes.
But why do you think that sorry state of affairs persists?
Cui Bono, Anyone?
Jonny
Posted by: Moulton
I reckon it persists because of a systemic lack of ethics in our culture.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 26th March 2008, 1:26pm)
I reckon it persists because of a systemic lack of ethics in our culture.
That would imply that what goes on in Wikipedia is completely homogeneous with what goes on in the whole of "our culture".
As epidemiology goes, an explanation like that is not a very effective form of differential diagnosis.
Jonny
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Wed 26th March 2008, 12:19am)
This raises an interesting question: why do simple aspects of human nature have to be explained to Wikipediots? Repeatedly?
That is an interesting question! I think a lot of it has to do with game like (MMORPG) aspects that participants immerse themselves in, wittingly or unwittingly. Another possibility is that a certain type of personality is more suited to stick around, move up the ranks, and therefore have their voices heard, and that personality type is dominant. "The community"--which for this example includes the process wonks, AN/I vultures, RfA politicos, etc.--does not have a majority of people with life experience. They're not even elitist intellectuals! They are mediocre people editing a mediocre encyclopedia, with less than average life experience.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 26th March 2008, 5:41am)
However, whereas Postlethwaite for all his man-child posturing and illiteracy is still fundamentally in good faith (I believe), there is something altogether more sinister about FT2. He has clearly been through the world, and is perhaps the worse for it.
It took people here some time to understand this.
[...]
FT2 comes on with his usual pompous longwinded flannel. Giano comes straight back with a magnificient shot across the bows. It wasn't uncivil or rude, just a home truth, briefly put, and FT2 hates that.
Why was FT2's arbcom candidacy so highly supported? He is possibly the least remarkable of all the Arbcom members, but does most of the talking for them anyway! I've never even heard of this guy before he ran for Arbcom, but it is clear that we need to give him more attention here. Moreover, does he expect people to read his 10 mb worth of text? He must be quite infatuated with himself if he believes people read it! The "Worst communicator award" could go to a lot of people on Wikipedia, but all considered, he is probably the worst. He should not be allowed within arms length of anything remotely controversial.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 26th March 2008, 5:36pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 26th March 2008, 1:26pm)
I reckon it persists because of a systemic lack of ethics in our culture.
That would imply that what goes on in Wikipedia is completely homogeneous with what goes on in the whole of "our culture".
As epidemiology goes, an explanation like that is not a very effective form of differential diagnosis.
Jonny
Not "our culture", internet culture, which is something close to anarchy.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 26th March 2008, 2:27pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 26th March 2008, 5:36pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 26th March 2008, 1:26pm)
I reckon it persists because of a systemic lack of ethics in our culture.
That would imply that what goes on in Wikipedia is completely homogeneous with what goes on in the whole of "our culture".
As epidemiology goes, an explanation like that is not a very effective form of differential diagnosis.
Jonny
Not "our culture", internet culture, which is something close to anarchy.
Yes, it's clear that this particular virus crawled up out of the swamps of the Usenet Blecchhh Lagoon and that it quite naturally preserves the lyin's share of the craposomes that derive from its initial devolution — but are you really saying that you spy no distinguishing marks on Wikipedia that cryout for species-specific explanation?
Jonny
Posted by: Peter Damian
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 26th March 2008, 6:25pm)
Why was FT2's arbcom candidacy so highly supported? He is possibly the least remarkable of all the Arbcom members, but does most of the talking for them anyway! I've never even heard of this guy before he ran for Arbcom, but it is clear that we need to give him more attention here. Moreover, does he expect people to read his 10 mb worth of text? He must be quite infatuated with himself if he believes people read it! The "Worst communicator award" could go to a lot of people on Wikipedia, but all considered, he is probably the worst. He should not be allowed within arms length of anything remotely controversial.
The reason was partly that he has a reputation for dispute resolution, and no one had (yet) seen his unpleasant side.
Yes, what a windbag. If you go into the meaning of it carefully you soon find there isn't any.
Other reasons for his support is that he has helped many 'minority' interests get a hearing on Wikipedia, and many are grateful to him for that.
Posted by: Giano
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 26th March 2008, 6:55pm)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 26th March 2008, 6:25pm)
Why was FT2's arbcom candidacy so highly supported? He is possibly the least remarkable of all the Arbcom members, but does most of the talking for them anyway! I've never even heard of this guy before he ran for Arbcom, but it is clear that we need to give him more attention here. Moreover, does he expect people to read his 10 mb worth of text? He must be quite infatuated with himself if he believes people read it! The "Worst communicator award" could go to a lot of people on Wikipedia, but all considered, he is probably the worst. He should not be allowed within arms length of anything remotely controversial.
The reason was partly that he has a reputation for dispute resolution, and no one had (yet) seen his unpleasant side.
Yes, what a windbag. If you go into the meaning of it carefully you soon find there isn't any.
Other reasons for his support is that he has helped many 'minority' interests get a hearing on Wikipedia, and many are grateful to him for that.
I'm afraid I don't admire him at all, he reminds me of Girolamo Savonarola, and metaphorically, at least, he will ultimately meet the same end. People always become tired of pompous, long winded bourgeois opinionates at the end of the day. He sends me incredibly long emails seeking my advice, and I freely give it, he has clearly not followed a word of my advice, and now he appears damned. I suppose Zealot is the word - does that sound write in English?
Giacomo
Posted by: Moulton
The lack of ethics pervades our culture, both on and off the Internet.
Posted by: ThurstonHowell3rd
The claim is this is all about incivility towards FloNight, but I have not been able to find any complaint from FloNight that she was somehow offended. Surely, Giano's comments could not be uncivil if FloNight did not find them offensive.
Posted by: Bob Boy
QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Tue 25th March 2008, 9:24pm)
Giano has been blocked for "incivility":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement
How fascinating....blocked for incivility for asking questions. Meanwhile Guy's RfC languishes..."telling people to "fuck off", calling them "twats", gay-bashing with the term "Turd Burglar", and responding to criticism with "shut the fuck up", is apparently not even offensive enough for removal of the admin bit, much less a civility block.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2
Posted by: Moulton
You may have heard it stated that Wikipedia doesn't do Due Process.
Posted by: bluevictim
I'm sure everybody knows, but this is a huge problem in Wikipedia. Giano was blocked for asking a question. No profanity, no rude replies ordering people to shut up (the exact opposite), and no homophobia, but asking a question, and pointing out an attempt to avoid it and telling them to answer the question. The person who did use profanity, homophobia, and telling people to shut up, Guy Chapman, is not blocked and is being exalted and lied about to be this hero. This is a problem: admins don't get blocked for inappropriate, harmful, POV-pushing, and bad things they do but things that are much less severe done by other users, reformists and critics get a block for "incivility", when this and much worse things are done by admins without a block.
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:16pm)
QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Tue 25th March 2008, 9:24pm)
Giano has been blocked for "incivility":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement
How fascinating....blocked for incivility for asking questions. Meanwhile Guy's RfC languishes..."telling people to "fuck off", calling them "twats", gay-bashing with the term "Turd Burglar", and responding to criticism with "shut the fuck up", is apparently not even offensive enough for removal of the admin bit, much less a civility block.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2
Yah, you can bring this up over and over again, noting the hypocrisy, the double standards, pointing out that it's evidence the block has nothing to do with 'civility' but rather is to silence someone and 'discourage' questions, noting their inability to answer for themselves, or even to answer a simple question, pointing out they haven't live up to the responsibilities they asked for, accepted and were granted by the community, and so on and so forth...
And it still doesn't get through those thick skulls. They just trundle on, tank brains, fueled by delusions of self-righteousness, thumping their chests about how wonderful and right and pure they all are. I think FT2 or one of them actually said yesterday that he was trying to 'help' Giano - fucking morons. And the long winded and idiotic blithering by FT2 that says less and less the longer it gets - a criminal waste of the community's time.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(bluevictim @ Wed 26th March 2008, 11:39pm)
This is a problem: admins don't get blocked for inappropriate, harmful, POV-pushing, and bad things they do but things that are much less severe done by other users, reformists and critics get a block for "incivility", when this and much worse things are done by admins without a block.
Bingo.
The way to solve this problem would be to state very specifically what isn't allowed: for example, using foul language or racial slurs, denouncing ethnic groups, making gratuitous personal attacks. I have rarely seen an example which falls outside of these categories which merited a block based on civility.
It might be said, as it is with "edit-warring" well, we don't want to make the rules too clear, otherwise people will "game the system." (note the massive assumption of bad faith attributed non-administrators generally) Having observed that "gaming the system" is, in these instances, merely a pejorative synonym for the more straighforward term, "following the rules," we also observe that the lack of clarity in the rules serves to allow administrators and arbitrators to game the system - and that's exactly the right term for it - by adopting mutually-contradictory interpretations of these ill-defined rules depending on the outcome they seek in any given situation.
As a class, administrators are reluctant to define these rules any further exactly because it deprives them of this arbitrary power which might only very charitably be called discretion. But the evident hypocrisy of contributors being lectured about the rules by people who can't possibly mean it undermines faith in the leadership of the project.
Posted by: Giano
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 26th March 2008, 11:57pm)
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:16pm)
QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Tue 25th March 2008, 9:24pm)
Giano has been blocked for "incivility":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement
How fascinating....blocked for incivility for asking questions. Meanwhile Guy's RfC languishes..."telling people to "fuck off", calling them "twats", gay-bashing with the term "Turd Burglar", and responding to criticism with "shut the fuck up", is apparently not even offensive enough for removal of the admin bit, much less a civility block.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2
Yah, you can bring this up over and over again, noting the hypocrisy, the double standards, pointing out that it's evidence the block has nothing to do with 'civility' but rather is to silence someone and 'discourage' questions, noting their inability to answer for themselves, or even to answer a simple question, pointing out they haven't live up to the responsibilities they asked for, accepted and were granted by the community, and so on and so forth...
And it still doesn't get through those thick skulls. They just trundle on, tank brains, fueled by delusions of self-righteousness, thumping their chests about how wonderful and right and pure they all are. I think FT2 or one of them actually said yesterday that he was trying to 'help' Giano - fucking morons. And the long winded and idiotic blithering by FT2 that says less and less the longer it gets - a criminal waste of the community's time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=201124437&oldid=201113622. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that depite the disruption and smokescreen caused yesterday by FT2 - we still don't have an answer to my question - The arbcom voted to address the issue - they did not vote to delegate it to one slightly sinister Arb and Ryan Whateverhisnameis. I wonder for how much longer my fellow Wikipedians want to be treated like this before it dawns on them the Arbcom can be replaced - votes of no confidence can be held against the lot or individuals. Jimbo himself could easily act to remove or replace one or all. Sadly, but understandably, no one wants to be the first to point it out - the Arbs are now ruling only by fear and threat. Respect has long gone.
Giano
Posted by: Kato
Why don't a group of you set up another competing Arbcom? With admins willing to act based on the decisions of this group?
Posted by: Giano
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 27th March 2008, 7:31am)
Why don't a group of you set up another competing Arbcom? With admins willing to act based on the decisions of this group?
That had occurred to me - seriously. However, odd as it may seem I am a fairly law-abiding type by nature, and I would prefer to see either the Arbs put their own house in order by ejecting FT2 and one or two others, or allowing Jimbo to do that for them. I still think there is a chance that will happen - if it does not then one will have to think again. A palace coupe is always better than a full out revolution. The question is there a man on the Arbcom to take the bull by the horns and do it - and I'm coming to the conclusion there is not. An Arbcom ruling by fear and intimidation is the worst possible scenario for Wikipedia. If Jimbo has his wits about him three people like Geogre (no, not me) will find themselves on the Arbcom later today, and a couple of others will be out of work. The fact that I am forced to express such views here rather than on Wikipedia should be ringing such alarm bells to all the Wikipedia hierarchy, yet I suspect they will only counter it with more intimidation and threats. It's very hard to comment further on this without using all the dreadful and cliched analogies, but I hope someone somewhere on Wikipedia will see that what I'm suggesting is for the best and act on it - fast.
Giano
Posted by: Peter Damian
QUOTE(Giano @ Wed 26th March 2008, 7:23pm)
I'm afraid I don't admire him [FT2] at all, he reminds me of Girolamo Savonarola, and metaphorically, at least, he will ultimately meet the same end.
A better comparison would be to the early Christian heretic Pelagius. Pelagius believed that we did not need the power of God's grace, but could attain salvation by our own efforts, unaided, so long as we behaved in the right way.
Thus the original sin of bad grammar, uneven prose, lack of thread, can all be cured by civility.
Pelagius should be the patron saint of the mediocre. Except of course he is not a saint, but a heretic.
QUOTE(Giano @ Thu 27th March 2008, 8:24am)
The question is there a man on the Arbcom to take the bull by the horns and do it - and I'm coming to the conclusion there is not. [...] I hope someone somewhere on Wikipedia will see that what I'm suggesting is for the best and act on it - fast.
Not a chance. FT2 has risen very fast, and for a simple reason. The 'civility over content' party has effectively won the battle. Raul might help, but I see even he is reluctant in this case.
Posted by: Peter Damian
Now this I admire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano/The_Winter_Palace&diff=prev&oldid=201306656
Giano has just moved the article (Winter Palace) and is working on it in his user space. Good.
Presumably someone not-blocked could copy this back to mainspace?
Posted by: Moulton
Rather than a competing ArbCom, I propose an independent Truth and Reconciliation Panel to hear cases. The remedy would be nothing more than hearing and airing the case and getting to the ground truth.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th March 2008, 12:37pm)
Rather than a competing ArbCom, I propose an independent Truth and Reconciliation Panel to hear cases. The remedy would be nothing more than hearing and airing the case and getting to the ground truth.
This really is an interesting idea.
As I remember the history, in the model Truth and Reconciliation process, the former oppressors had a pretty good incentive to testify honestly - the possibility of being granted amnesty as a result of coming forward. Even with that major carrot, some opted for the "or else".
So, in your envisioned process, what's the equivalent incentive for those currently battling on wikia/wikipedia to be truthful and conciliatory?
Posted by: Giano
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Thu 27th March 2008, 1:29pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th March 2008, 12:37pm)
Rather than a competing ArbCom, I propose an independent Truth and Reconciliation Panel to hear cases. The remedy would be nothing more than hearing and airing the case and getting to the ground truth.
This really is an interesting idea.
As I remember the history, in the model Truth and Reconciliation process, the former oppressors has a pretty good incentive to testify honestly - the possibility of being granted amnesty as a result of coming forward. Even with that major carrot, some opted for the "or else".
So, in your envisioned process, what's the equivalent incentive for those currently battling on wikia/wikipedia to be truthful and conciliatory?
Talking of the truth, i ought to post this in full in case it is deleted later, but I don't know how to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Further_plea_and_misplaced_clarification_by_Bishonen_.28but_if_not_here.2C_then_where.3F.29
It's an IRC log that rather proves all I have been saying for the last few weeks.
Giano
Posted by: Kato
Here's the extract
QUOTE
Further plea and misplaced clarification by Bishonen (but if not here, then where?)
I'm replying here to FT2's response to Carcharoth's basic question why the final principle "The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case" (passed 7-1) and its associated remedy "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" (passed 9-0), have both come to naught. My post goes to clarifying the committee's final principles and remedies as they relate to en-admins IRC case—it's not about FT2's block of Giano—therefore I post it here, in preference to drowning it at the now extremely copious discussion of that block on WP:AE (most of it posted by FT2). Yes, I know I'm not supposed to post in this section, which is for arbs, but it seems my only chance of being heard. (I won't post again, whether or not you remove me from this spot, Thatcher. This has taken me much too much time as it is.)
Like probably most people, I feel at an awful disadvantage when attempting to discuss or debate with FT2, since he seems impressively able to write about 100 lines in the space of time that it takes your average wikipedian to write 20, and me to write 5. (And NYBrad to write 70 or so.) My efforts in the direction of debate with FT2 have always literally drowned. But I will try just once to do my own clarification. I made an effort to come to grips with the background to FT2's new guidelines for IRC (at this moment not available in CBrown's space, but mirrored at [23])—these guidelines being the only mouse that has so far been born from the laboring mountains of the IRC case, and it's final principles and remedies. The background to the guidelines, as offered by FT2 in channel to anybody interested, turned out to be an edited log of a discussion between FT2 and some 6 or 10 channel users (by FT2's own estimate) from February 25-26. I have it here. It's been edited by FT2 to remove irrelevancies, and consists–well, I don't have any counting tool that will work for this— but at my rough estimate, the discussion consists to at least 80% of FT2 himself talking, mainly describing how well the channel works now:
(Exact quote of log)
* <FT2> irc runs well now (here)
* <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
* <FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise"
* <FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code"
* <FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down...
* <FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise
* <FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here
* <FT2> its nice
* <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
* <FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not.
I discussed these matters with FT2 in PM on IRC several times, before he actually sent me the above log to look at, and I was rather shocked by his descriptions of that log. Here's a snippet of our discussion from March 5, posted with permission.
(Exact quote except that an e-mail address and a couple of typos have been removed.)
* <bishonen> may I have a copy of the full discussion of the channel? there was something about that in the header before.
* <FT2-away> sure
* its enacted now but there wasnt any controversy on it -- most folks reaction was "yeah, commonsense"
* <bishonen> thanks
* <FT2-away> I was just very careful to consult hugely to be sure that nobody could accidentally feel unasked or whatever. You know how it can go.
* <bishonen> i thought there was going to be a workgroup, or the arbcom would be involved.
* <FT2-away> I was thinking of the dispute over roillback.
* nah
* <bishonen> hugely?....
* <FT2-away> the channel basically sorted it out, about 6 or 10 people, everyone was pretty much "yeah, commonsense" by the time it was done
* <bishonen> so more people than the users of this channel were invoived?
* <FT2-away> no...
* <bishonen> i see
* <FT2-away> but there are a lot of users here... and of course those include a load of people who arent often here
* <bishonen> that's not hugely in my book, i'm afraid. but whatever.
* <FT2-away> the concern was to clean up and ensure that issues of the past were not going to be perrennial
* <bishonen> let me get this straight. only admins have been consulted? and only the minority of admins that use the admin channel?
* <FT2-away> and that's much more about people here accepting norms and considering what norms they feel apply, than about asking others... most people here or elsewhere who care about irc stuff, know what the issues are or were anyway
* <bishonen> do they?
I'm replying here to FT2's response to Carcharoth's basic question why the final principle "The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case" (passed 7-1) and its associated remedy "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" (passed 9-0), have both come to naught. My post goes to clarifying the committee's final principles and remedies as they relate to en-admins IRC case—it's not about FT2's block of Giano—therefore I post it here, in preference to drowning it at the now extremely copious discussion of that block on WP:AE (most of it posted by FT2). Yes, I know I'm not supposed to post in this section, which is for arbs, but it seems my only chance of being heard. (I won't post again, whether or not you remove me from this spot, Thatcher. This has taken me much too much time as it is.)
Like probably most people, I feel at an awful disadvantage when attempting to discuss or debate with FT2, since he seems impressively able to write about 100 lines in the space of time that it takes your average wikipedian to write 20, and me to write 5. (And NYBrad to write 70 or so.) My efforts in the direction of debate with FT2 have always literally drowned. But I will try just once to do my own clarification. I made an effort to come to grips with the background to FT2's new guidelines for IRC (at this moment not available in CBrown's space, but mirrored at [23])—these guidelines being the only mouse that has so far been born from the laboring mountains of the IRC case, and it's final principles and remedies. The background to the guidelines, as offered by FT2 in channel to anybody interested, turned out to be an edited log of a discussion between FT2 and some 6 or 10 channel users (by FT2's own estimate) from February 25-26. I have it here. It's been edited by FT2 to remove irrelevancies, and consists–well, I don't have any counting tool that will work for this— but at my rough estimate, the discussion consists to at least 80% of FT2 himself talking, mainly describing how well the channel works now:
(Exact quote of log)
* <FT2> irc runs well now (here)
* <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
* <FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise"
* <FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code"
* <FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down...
* <FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise
* <FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here
* <FT2> its nice
* <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
* <FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not.
I discussed these matters with FT2 in PM on IRC several times, before he actually sent me the above log to look at, and I was rather shocked by his descriptions of that log. Here's a snippet of our discussion from March 5, posted with permission.
(Exact quote except that an e-mail address and a couple of typos have been removed.)
* <bishonen> may I have a copy of the full discussion of the channel? there was something about that in the header before.
* <FT2-away> sure
* its enacted now but there wasnt any controversy on it -- most folks reaction was "yeah, commonsense"
* <bishonen> thanks
* <FT2-away> I was just very careful to consult hugely to be sure that nobody could accidentally feel unasked or whatever. You know how it can go.
* <bishonen> i thought there was going to be a workgroup, or the arbcom would be involved.
* <FT2-away> I was thinking of the dispute over roillback.
* nah
* <bishonen> hugely?....
* <FT2-away> the channel basically sorted it out, about 6 or 10 people, everyone was pretty much "yeah, commonsense" by the time it was done
* <bishonen> so more people than the users of this channel were invoived?
* <FT2-away> no...
* <bishonen> i see
* <FT2-away> but there are a lot of users here... and of course those include a load of people who arent often here
* <bishonen> that's not hugely in my book, i'm afraid. but whatever.
* <FT2-away> the concern was to clean up and ensure that issues of the past were not going to be perrennial
* <bishonen> let me get this straight. only admins have been consulted? and only the minority of admins that use the admin channel?
* <FT2-away> and that's much more about people here accepting norms and considering what norms they feel apply, than about asking others... most people here or elsewhere who care about irc stuff, know what the issues are or were anyway
* <bishonen> do they?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Truth And Reconciliation?
Sure …
But First — The Revolution!
Jonny
Posted by: Peter Damian
A very strange blog post here, with some real gems.
http://wikidefender.blogspot.com/2008/03/malignant-malcontent-giano-still-on.html
(Note, if Ryan or Will are reading it, I had nothing to do with this).
QUOTE
Thank goodness that FT2 (a very concise and clear communicator) blocked Giano for all of his treachery, just as we would any schoolchild vandal. The brainless and obtuse made arguments like, “but he is one of the best writers we have, surely there is another way to deal with this!†and “his commitment to the project cannot be questioned, wah, wah, wah, I’m a crybaby!†These are the imbecilic comments of ignorant people. If the imbeciles’ statements are true, then why does he set his sights on the Cathedral of Wikipedia, where our most respected leaders congregate? He is clearly a heretic and an inciter of Wiki-violence, attempting to induce fear, uncertainty, and doubt at every opportunity. The way to deal with this revolting insurrectionist is to shoot on site.
QUOTE
What is more important, all that boring European poop that Giano types about day and night, or socializing on IRC? The answer is clear, trolls. However, just in case it isn’t, here’s a hint: this stupid place is surely not important. Why don't you work on something important, like the article about Labrador Receivers and the legality of having sex with them?
Giano's talk page history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&action=history
is also hugely entertaining. FT2 is persisting in writing long and boring monologues and Giano just deleting them. Well done sir.
About time I published my 'FT2 emails' I think. Maybe not.
[edit] has anyone noticed how FT2 encloses every other expression in quotation marks for some reason known only to himself? My mother Mrs Damian does that but she is 82 at least and can be forgiven,
[edit] Another gem from FT2.
QUOTE
What is not okay is having the intelligence and wit to make snarky comments [...]
FT2 (Talk | email) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II"
FT2 (Talk | email) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II"
Posted by: The Joy
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 27th March 2008, 2:14pm)
Truth And Reconciliation?
Sure …
But First — The Revolution!
Jonny
What's the guarantee that the Revolutionaries will be better than the Old Guard?
There's the problem...
Posted by: Giano
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 27th March 2008, 8:09pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 27th March 2008, 2:14pm)
Truth And Reconciliation?
Sure …
But First — The Revolution!
Jonny
What's the guarantee that the Revolutionaries will be better than the Old Guard?
There's the problem...
That blog is very very funny indeed. Just so long as no one thinks I wrote it. As one who enjoys game shooting, I would like to make it very clear, I have never yet employed a "Labrador Receiver" - in any capacity!
Giano (the II)
Posted by: Peter Damian
QUOTE(Giano @ Thu 27th March 2008, 9:26pm)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 27th March 2008, 8:09pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 27th March 2008, 2:14pm)
Truth And Reconciliation?
Sure …
But First — The Revolution!
Jonny
What's the guarantee that the Revolutionaries will be better than the Old Guard?
There's the problem...
That blog is very very funny indeed. Just so long as no one thinks I wrote it. As one who enjoys game shooting, I would like to make it very clear, I have never yet employed a "Labrador Receiver" - in any capacity!
Giano (the II)
Poo you told me you did have a Labrador, dreaming of feasy wasants or something (or did I miss the joke?)
Posted by: wikiwhistle
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:19am)
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Wed 26th March 2008, 3:37am)
Not so- I have to say, Giano did keep pestering Flonight there.
Hm. The exchange opens with Giano saying directly to FloNight:
QUOTE
Following assurances made by yourself at the close of the famed IRC case, could you now please confirm to me, how many non-admins and ex-admins still have access to the Admins channel.
I have no idea if FloNight gave such assurances, but if she did, who else should Giano "pester"?
I didn't mean approaching her, but the fact that he kept on and on, and he said 'flonight seems to have lost the power of speech', be dumb, be in a coma or something like that, all in several repeated posts to her page.
He could just have asked FT2 as she suggested (at least she did reply, unlike some people), he'dve got the answer quicker, and not been antagonising them. But I read a post on wiki by Giano which said he's so bitter he'll never contribute anything valuable again!
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 26th March 2008, 4:32am)
This is really remarkable. In blocking Giano, it's like the cancer cutting out the healthy parts of the body.
Does anyone know how old FT2 is?
He's about in his mid twenties I would posset.
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 27th March 2008, 7:31am)
Why don't a group of you set up another competing Arbcom? With admins willing to act based on the decisions of this group?
That would be called wheel-warring, by the other team.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Thu 27th March 2008, 9:29am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th March 2008, 12:37pm)
Rather than a competing ArbCom, I propose an independent Truth and Reconciliation Panel to hear cases. The remedy would be nothing more than hearing and airing the case and getting to the ground truth.
This really is an interesting idea.As I remember the history, in the model Truth and Reconciliation process, the former oppressors had a pretty good incentive to testify honestly - the possibility of being granted amnesty as a result of coming forward. Even with that major carrot, some opted for the "or else".
So, in your envisioned process, what's the equivalent incentive for those currently battling on wikia/wikipedia to be truthful and conciliatory?
Relief from the weariness of a never-ending battle in which everyone loses.
Posted by: Giano
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 27th March 2008, 9:40pm)
QUOTE(Giano @ Thu 27th March 2008, 9:26pm)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 27th March 2008, 8:09pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 27th March 2008, 2:14pm)
Truth And Reconciliation?
Sure …
But First — The Revolution!
Jonny
What's the guarantee that the Revolutionaries will be better than the Old Guard?
There's the problem...
That blog is very very funny indeed. Just so long as no one thinks I wrote it. As one who enjoys game shooting, I would like to make it very clear, I have never yet employed a "Labrador Receiver" - in any capacity!
Giano (the II)
Poo you told me you did have a Labrador, dreaming of feasy wasants or something (or did I miss the joke?)
You missed it!
Giano
Posted by: Robster
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th March 2008, 7:30pm)
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Thu 27th March 2008, 9:29am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th March 2008, 12:37pm)
Rather than a competing ArbCom, I propose an independent Truth and Reconciliation Panel to hear cases. The remedy would be nothing more than hearing and airing the case and getting to the ground truth.
This really is an interesting idea.As I remember the history, in the model Truth and Reconciliation process, the former oppressors had a pretty good incentive to testify honestly - the possibility of being granted amnesty as a result of coming forward. Even with that major carrot, some opted for the "or else".
So, in your envisioned process, what's the equivalent incentive for those currently battling on wikia/wikipedia to be truthful and conciliatory?
Relief from the weariness of a never-ending battle in which everyone loses.
But they're hardly weary. They *enjoy* the battle. So given that, what's the incentive?
Posted by: Moulton
If you notice, eventually everyone takes a turn in the bucket, at which time they suddenly become less sanguine about the game.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th March 2008, 11:30pm)
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Thu 27th March 2008, 9:29am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th March 2008, 12:37pm)
Rather than a competing ArbCom, I propose an independent Truth and Reconciliation Panel to hear cases. The remedy would be nothing more than hearing and airing the case and getting to the ground truth.
This really is an interesting idea.As I remember the history, in the model Truth and Reconciliation process, the former oppressors had a pretty good incentive to testify honestly - the possibility of being granted amnesty as a result of coming forward. Even with that major carrot, some opted for the "or else".
So, in your envisioned process, what's the equivalent incentive for those currently battling on wikia/wikipedia to be truthful and conciliatory?
Relief from the weariness of a never-ending battle in which everyone loses.
I guess the trick would be getting everyone to recognise that they're losing and weary.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Fri 28th March 2008, 6:58pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th March 2008, 11:30pm)
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Thu 27th March 2008, 9:29am)
So, in your envisioned process, what's the equivalent incentive for those currently battling on wikia/wikipedia to be truthful and conciliatory?
Relief from the weariness of a never-ending battle in which everyone loses.Well, the thing about affective emotional states is that they arise naturally, in the due course of a learning thread (or other life experience otherwise devoid of productive learning). Indefinite repetition of a futile task, in the manner of Sisyphus, ultimately leads to frustration, boredom and weariness. As more and more people recognize the banality of it all, the laggards will eventually come into emotional synch with those who tumbled to insightful awareness first.
One merely has to be patient while the slower learners catch on and catch up.
Posted by: Peter Damian
How does he get away with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=201933103
QUOTE
The arbcom voted to address the issues, Jimbo told you that you have the "Jimbo given" authority, now cut the crap all of you get in there and do as you told us you were going to do. 9 Arbs voted to address the issues. So far we have seen FT2 and someone called Ryan Postlethwaite talk about how there is no problem. We all know too many bad blocks have been orchestrated there, and too much discussed with non-admins and toadies, so time to clean it up. If you are too frightened to solve the problems, then dissolve the channel. Incidentally where are these 9 brave Arbs who voted to address the problem in return for placing me on civility patrol? Has there been some form of unreported massacre? I don't believe I have read any reports of it? Now come on, cut the crap and address the problem. You Arbs enjoy banning me, now you keep to your side of the bargain - or does James Forrester rule you? Giano (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 30th March 2008, 9:58am)
How does he get away with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=201933103
QUOTE
The arbcom voted to address the issues, Jimbo told you that you have the "Jimbo given" authority, now cut the crap all of you get in there and do as you told us you were going to do. 9 Arbs voted to address the issues. So far we have seen FT2 and someone called Ryan Postlethwaite talk about how there is no problem. We all know too many bad blocks have been orchestrated there, and too much discussed with non-admins and toadies, so time to clean it up. If you are too frightened to solve the problems, then dissolve the channel. Incidentally where are these 9 brave Arbs who voted to address the problem in return for placing me on civility patrol? Has there been some form of unreported massacre? I don't believe I have read any reports of it? Now come on, cut the crap and address the problem. You Arbs enjoy banning me, now you keep to your side of the bargain - or does James Forrester rule you? Giano (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
How does he get away with it?
* how does the arbcom get away with it?
* how does James Forrester get away with it?
Notes to arbcom (I'm trying to help you resolve your little #admin problem, believe it or not):
- You people asked for, accepted and were vested with authority by the community. Now you are shamelessly neglecting your duties. Nobody said it was easy. Did I mention that you asked for this job? If you aren't willing to pull your collective heads out of your asses and do your job, then step down.
- Have some public discussions that illustrate past problems (eg., misrepresentation, backstabbing, collusion, making some admins unwelcome in the channel for petty reasons, inappropriate people invited into the channel...). Have public discussions about solving these problems.
- Note in the new guidelines that #admins is not a social club for disgraced former admins and arbitrators to grind axes under the veil of secrecy.
- Demand that Forrester (Freenode contact for the Foundation) publicly face his community and take a leadership role in solving these problems, or step down as Freenode contact.
- Have a process to resolve problems. Despite numerous declarations of victory and bliss, no 'process' yet concocted has worked. (hint: when there is a valid complaint about behavior there, and someone says "we'll take care of it" and then not a single word is ever heard except "we took care of it", and then the same thing happens over and over, well, you fucking morons, the problem was never solved.)
- Note that disputes regarding this channel will be resolved on-wiki. Isn't it wonderful how people's behavior improves when they know others are/will be watching?
- Require all members of the channel to acknowledge that logs may be kept, and that these logs may be used on-wiki for resolution of disputes (after truly sensitive material is removed). Other foundation channels have public logging, so don't pull any bullshit copyright arguments.
- Require all members of the channel to acknowledge that logs of inappropriate remarks made about an editor behind their back in #admins may be passed on to that editor.
- Acknowledge that excessive and paranoid levels of secrecy regarding this channel have been counterproductive, and a more open policy, especially regarding dispute resolution, is required. (As an aside, David Gerard was named in a recent arbcom case and presented his entire defense in secret, enjoying two way communication in the arbcom seceret mailing list while none of the other named parties had that chance. This is a disgrace and should never, ever happen again.)
(edit)
OK, arbcom. A case study and questions for you...
When something simple and straightforward like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi/My_Archive_8#Your_conduct_at_.23admins happens, oh illustrious arbcommers, what do you think about the parties taking a relaxing break from #admins until the abominable behavior is accounted for and suitable consequences applied? Is that so much to ask? By the way, does anybody know what consequences were meted out here?
Posted by: wikiwhistle
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 30th March 2008, 5:58pm)
How does he get away with it?
He won't. Soon enough, he'll be blocked again for his various comments
But I don't think he necessarily minds about his own longevity (or lack thereof) on wiki, at this point.Posted by: Moulton
Giano may well be depleting his cache of social capital, but given the systemic problems that need to be addressed, it's probably a good investment. If Giano succeeds (which is unlikely), then he would have midwifed the salvation of a project worthy of his ongoing contributions.
And if he fails (which is likely), then there would be little point for him to continue supplying his expertise in support of a project that disvalues his contributions.