Gerard blocks Giano for sockpuppetry, invokes good/bad hand accounts policy - wrongly Options

hee hee

impressively dumb!

(sorry DG, you're a pussycat, I know... but that was spectacularly useless!)

hee hee

impressively dumb!

(sorry DG, you're a pussycat, I know... but that was spectacularly useless!)

No, it was first class. Intended to cause drama and drama it will cause.

Wikipedia's two biggest trolls will now feed off each other.

Sit back, break out the popcorn, and enjoy the show.

David Gerard has blocked Giano for operating the Catherine de Burgh account in a run for ArbCom, citing good/bad hand account policy. Nice quiet block with no possibility of drama, if it wasn't for the fact that that section doesn't cover what is happening, and neither does any part of WP:Sock (there is no collusion between the accounts, no false creation of consensus). Mind you, this is the person who got the tenets of WP:IRC wrong, didn't comment publicly at the relevant ArbCom, when it was supposedly his area of expertise...

So, no incipient drama there, then...

This thread is a duplicate. Should be merged.

Moderator's note: the two threads on the same topic have now been merged into this one. HK

Friday's opinion:

This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while. Not sure if you were in on the joke, David, but either way, well done. All talk of ousting David should be disregarded- he is the best parody of himself we could ask for. Friday (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday's opinion:

This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while.

It's getting better and better.

Wikipedia is rapidly evolving into a reality show.

Giano's handling this with uncharacteristic good humour.

Now a request for arbitration is opened. Phil Sandifer is trying to turn it into something against Giano.

Who wants to bet that this will be accepted? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Phil Sandifer demonstrating that he hasn't lost the ability to win friends and influence people at election time (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

====Statement by [[User:Phil Sandifer]]====

I encourage the arbcom to accept this case. I cannot see any fault in David's actions here - to my knowledge "commonly known" is not a criterion in [[WP:SOCK]]. However, this adds to the laundry list of instances in which it is obvious that no sanctions can ever be made to stick on Giano regardless of their relationship to policy - even a block that is well-founded in existing sockpuppet policy is, apparently, grounds for swift reversal.

Given that the community has consistently failed to show any capability for regulating the conduct of this user, it falls to the arbcom to do so. I am prepared, should the case be accepted, to document the lengthy history of disruption and incivility on the part of Giano.

But I encourage the arbcom to accept this and deal with this situation for once and for all - either to put an unambiguous sanction on Giano that cannot be overturned by the circle of protection he has managed to gather, or to pass a finding noting that despite his incivility, the arbcom washes their hands of it and accepts that the community has consented to put him above the law such that his special status can be enshrined in policy and we can be done with this idiotic drama surrounding good faith efforts to deal with an uncivil user who serially violates policy.

Friday's opinion:

This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while.

It's getting better and better.

Wikipedia is rapidly evolving into a reality show.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) It's been exactly that for some time, man. Where you BEEN?

====Statement by [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]] ([[User talk:Alex Bakharev|talk]])====
*Everybody can make a strange block once in a while but those bad block on Giano, one of our best contributors, have to be stopped. They are very disruptive. Maybe a temporal desysopping is a way to handle this drama



Wikipedia's domain knows no bounds now. Not just satisfied with space, they've apparently conquered time...

I might as well export a post I made to another thread yesterday, as it is equally applicable here - even more so in fact, because it anticipates this latest Giano "climax" before it even happens.

What matters is the CONTENT and how Wikipedia, and "Wikipedians", are dealing with that CONTENT.

The interpersonal stuff - all the bannings and blocks and scraps and hypocrisy - can be an interesting sideshow and can act as a Soap Opera worth watching on occasion, but it is the product of the "dysfunctional social network" and has little to do with the stuff kids bring up on their google searches.

That's why some of Lar's questions were interesting to me. Because they addressed BLP issues, Flagged revisions, and hinted of WPs inevitable failure of "reaching a consensus" to move forward with these serious problems. Another crucial question asked whether people supported editor unaccountability / anonymity, and why? Lar's questions can be used as a survey to ascertain whether long term Wikipedos had learned anything over the past 3 years or so, and whether they are prepared to change, move forward, or at least set an example?

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens, and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.

What is the best process for dealing with cravings, withdrawal, or other side effects of addiction? Will the drama-addicts of WP ever find an inner peace, or are they doomed to lives of endless subservience to this nonsense?

I think it if this is accepted, it'll just be slap on the wrist for all involved. Giano will be reminded to use only one account and Gerard will be admonished for handling the situation poorly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

However, Matthew Brown's statement will likely fan the flames further and some explanation will have to be given for why Giano/Catherine was CheckUsered. Catherine nor Giano has done anything to warrant being CheckUsered. If this issue is to be addressed at ArbCom, things are going to get much more interesting. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

I have a sneaky suspicion that all folks who run for ArbCom are checkusered (it makes sense, if you think about it) and that may be what's going on here.

I have a sneaky suspicion that all folks who run for ArbCom are checkusered (it makes sense, if you think about it) and that may be what's going on here.

Oh no, they'll find out I'm Poetlister, SlimVirgin and Wordbomb (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Interesting thought, but I'm pretty sure Jimbo himself said verification would not be required until after the election (I would search for diffs, but about to head for bed).

That verification is REAL LIFE information (your name/address etecetera)

Fair point. Though I wouldn't have any problem with checkusering every candidate, if that was made clear.

Then again, I'd have no problem with checking every RFA candidate - including retroactively - if that was made clear.

(IMG:http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6817/facepalmmu0.jpg)


Anonymous editor reacts to Gerard's block

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens, and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.

I wonder how many articles are being quietly vandalized, whilst these numbnuts squabble.

None of these joke account sockpuppets should be allowed, and they certainly should not be allowed to run for ArbCom. Just before I found about about this incident, I was thinking about asking some tough questions on "Catherine's" questions page about the disruptive nature of the candidacy. On the other hand, this idea that it was a "good hand/bad hand" situation or that it was deceptive sockpuppetry is simply ludicrous, as there was clearly no malice or deception involved in it. Gerard just saw it as an opportunity to take Giano down a notch, to pursue the grudge, and his conduct (in this as well as many, many other instances) certainly warrants desysopping.

I can't be bothered to comment. It's all here, after Gerard blocked Giano for the De Burgh sock. Giano claims it was an open secret, Gerard and Thatcher claim not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on#David_Gerard

I think Wikipedia should seriously consider if David Gerard's continuing use of the administrator tools is something we really want. SirFozzie (talk)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

Already a thread about it, just for your information

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21205&hl=

A bit hidden though.

Already a thread about it, just for your information

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21205&hl=

A bit hidden though.

Thanks. Of course, the David Gerard forum.

Moderator's note: each new thread about this topic is being merged into that thread. HK

None of these joke account sockpuppets should be allowed, and they certainly should not be allowed to run for ArbCom. Just before I found about about this incident, I was thinking about asking some tough questions on "Catherine's" questions page about the disruptive nature of the candidacy. On the other hand, this idea that it was a "good hand/bad hand" situation or that it was deceptive sockpuppetry is simply ludicrous, as there was clearly no malice or deception involved in it. Gerard just saw it as an opportunity to take Giano down a notch, to pursue the grudge, and his conduct (in this as well as many, many other instances) certainly warrants desysopping.

I'm jolly glad you didn't ask any questions, Everyking - I've always quite respected you. The very funny thing is no-one seems to have noticed that she threw most of the questions out of the window, there was no way in hell she could posible have got onto the Arbcom or was serious candidate. I really thought everyone knew who she was, after the questions she asked on MBisanz's page even he must have known, it is inconceivable. As for the candidate statement.....Never mind the poor old thing is dead now - we shall not see her like again because parodying and satyring the Arbcom and state of Wikipedia is no longer allowed. Perhaps it never was. I doubt Gerard was allowed to do this without some form of permission from somewhere, but it will always be a secret who gave the go ahead.

Giano

David Gerard was obviously trolling, but he's also in the clear in terms of abuse.


Q1:Did he abuse checkuser?

A: He CU'd a publicly undisclosed sock that was running for arbcom. Whilst his motives are strongly smelly here, there's no way he'd be sectioned sanctioned for that. He had "probably cause". The socking was obvious, and technically there's no way to dispute the contention Giano was either gaming or being disruptive. (I don't actually think he doing either - but Gerard's contention here is easily defensible enough to get him off the hook).

Q2: Did he breach the privacy policy?

A: No. No IP or personal information was disclosed. Linking to pseudonym accounts breaches nothing.

Q3: Did he misuse his admin blocking powers?

A:Probably the easiest charge to sustain, but also the least serious. Blocking was unnecessary, he could have removed the arbcom candidature with "checkuser confirms undeclared sock of established user". He could have e-mailed Giano and asked him to declare the sock (however, Giano had already blown off Thatcher's communique - so that was maybe pointless). Indef blocking a disruptive sock is standard policy, and although I don't see too much disruption the case can be made. So we are left with the 24 hour block of Giano - pointless really, and obviously for dramatic effect - but we've been here before.

Verdict: no sanctionable abuse, but he does get a "troll of the year" nomination. However the competition for the actual award will be tough.

David Gerard was obviously trolling, but he's also in the clear in terms of abuse.


Q1:Did he abuse checkuser?

A: He CU'd a publicly undisclosed sock that was running for arbcom. Whilst his motives are strongly smelly here, there's no way he'd be sectioned sanctioned for that. He had "probably cause". The socking was obvious, and technically there's no way to dispute the contention Giano was either gaming or being disruptive. (I don't actually think he doing either - but Gerard's contention here is easily defensible enough to get him off the hook).

Q2: Did he breach the privacy policy?

A: No. No IP or personal information was disclosed. Linking to pseudonym accounts breaches nothing.

Q3: Did he misuse his admin blocking powers?

A:Probably the easiest charge to sustain, but also the least serious. Blocking was unnecessary, he could have removed the arbcom candidature with "checkuser confirms undeclared sock of established user". He could have e-mailed Giano and asked him to declare the sock (however, Giano had already blown off Thatcher's communique - so that was maybe pointless). Indef blocking a disruptive sock is standard policy, and although I don't see too much disruption the case can be made. So we are left with the 24 hour block of Giano - pointless really, and obviously for dramatic effect - but we've been here before.

Verdict: no sanctionable abuse, but he does get a "troll of the year" nomination. However the competition for the actual award will be tough.

I just don't like the thought of David Gerard knowing my name and address - he might want an invitation to tea or something. What would my wife think, if DG turned up on the doorstep? Saying: "Hello, I'm David a friend of Giano's?" All very worrying.

Giano

I just don't like the thought of David Gerard knowing my name and address - he might want an invitation to tea or something. What would my wife think, if DG turned up on the doorstep? Saying: "Hello, I'm David a friend of Giano's?" All very worrying.

Giano

Not knowing your wife, I'd best not guess. Mine would indicate that he should come back near the end of October when we have a better stock of nuts and tangerines.

Actually, he'll only have your IP address, which an old friend also has publicly logged here.

I just don't like the thought of David Gerard knowing my name and address - he might want an invitation to tea or something. What would my wife think, if DG turned up on the doorstep? Saying: "Hello, I'm David a friend of Giano's?" All very worrying.

Giano

Don't worry, as Doc says, IPs aren't normally going to give anything identifying away. (Example, mine only says I edit from the UK.) If you edit from work, that might be another situation, but I doubt David cares in the slightest about your real life personal details.

None of these joke account sockpuppets should be allowed, and they certainly should not be allowed to run for ArbCom. Just before I found about about this incident, I was thinking about asking some tough questions on "Catherine's" questions page about the disruptive nature of the candidacy. On the other hand, this idea that it was a "good hand/bad hand" situation or that it was deceptive sockpuppetry is simply ludicrous, as there was clearly no malice or deception involved in it. Gerard just saw it as an opportunity to take Giano down a notch, to pursue the grudge, and his conduct (in this as well as many, many other instances) certainly warrants desysopping.

I'm jolly glad you didn't ask any questions, Everyking - I've always quite respected you. The very funny thing is no-one seems to have noticed that she threw most of the questions out of the window, there was no way in hell she could posible have got onto the Arbcom or was serious candidate. I really thought everyone knew who she was, after the questions she asked on MBisanz's page even he must have known, it is inconceivable. As for the candidate statement.....Never mind the poor old thing is dead now - we shall not see her like again because parodying and satyring the Arbcom and state of Wikipedia is no longer allowed. Perhaps it never was. I doubt Gerard was allowed to do this without some form of permission from somewhere, but it will always be a secret who gave the go ahead.

Giano

There are different ways to protest the mismanagement of Wikipedia. I usually just go to Jimbo's talk page and ask him straight up why he doesn't help fix the darn thing, but that obviously hasn't worked very well. Another way is to humourously mock one of the administrator election processes, like Giano was doing in this situation.

Thus, what Gerard was really doing in response, although perhaps unintentionally, was trying to discredit and suppress someone who was trying to call attention to what Giano appears to believe is a broken institution in Wikipedia. If intentional, it was goon work.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

There's just something wrong with any organisation that values David Gerard above Charles Ainsworth.

I usually just go to Jimbo's talk page and ask him straight up why he doesn't help fix the darn thing, but that obviously hasn't worked very well.

...and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page! Will Beback is at his sphincter-clenching, humorless best as he attempts to present a defense of Gerard -- only to run afoul of his erstwhile Siamese twin SlimVirgin, who has a new axe to grind, namely that checkusers are bad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

..and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page!

Annnd we have a block. 55 hours for calling Gerard a disgrace.

I usually just go to Jimbo's talk page and ask him straight up why he doesn't help fix the darn thing, but that obviously hasn't worked very well.

...and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page! Will Beback is at his sphincter-clenching, humorless best as he attempts to present a defense of Gerard -- only to run afoul of his erstwhile Siamese twin SlimVirgin, who has a new axe to grind, namely that checkusers are bad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

By which she means of course that Lar and Thather are bad, but saying THAT would be uncivil. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

Probably Giano should have said that all the goth male foul-mouthed short-tempered English en-checkusers who are NOT stewards, are a disgrace. Then, he'd have been okay.

Now, your moment of zen:

Can you say how often and when you've checkusered CdB?

According to various posts of yours, you did indeed e-mail lots of people about it, or consult them in some other way. My point about this giant fuss that it's incredibly self-important, and it's this taking of yourself so seriously that triggers the authoritarian, bureaucratic, humourless, irony-free, heavy-handed reaction. I'm reminded of the characters in Solzhenitsyn's novels.

Also, Thatcher, please don't refer to me again in your posts, no matter how obliquely. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably Giano should have said that all the goth male foul-mouthed short-tempered English en-checkusers who are NOT stewards, are a disgrace. Then, he'd have been okay.

DG is Australian.

..and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page!

Annnd we have a block. 55 hours for calling Gerard a disgrace.

I have this deep, dark feeling that an indefinite block/ban will be coming for Giano. This isn't like the IRC disputes of the past. Either Gerard stays or Giano stays. Both cannot co-exist on the project.

Honestly, I'm filled with seething rage with how Giano and those like him have been treated. If he is banned/blocked indefinitely for standing up to the likes of Gerard, then what remains of Wikipedia's community will be over. You Wikipedians will have civil war without end until Jimbo and his loyal stewards step in and squash the insurrection.

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Edit: And just to remind everyone of Jimbo's threat to Giano:

You are misrepresenting that conversation. I was directly referring to DTobias's remark, just above, and someone mistook that part of my remarks as referring to you. It did not. I referred to people who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your content contributions are voluminous, high quality, and much appreciated.

That doesn't change the fact that your behavior in terms of trolling and carrying on the way you do is unacceptable. You know this. And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173588881

On an unrelated note, I generally loathe historical accounts of individual members of the British aristocracy, and find the experience of pouring over such people demeaning, but Giano's article on Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery (T-H-L-K-D) that he's been tinkering with lately is actually a rather good read.

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Seen it before. Didn't like it then. Doubt I'd like it now... So I hope you're wrong.

..and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page!

Annnd we have a block. 55 hours for calling Gerard a disgrace.

This brings back memories for me. Back in 2005, Fennec announced in IRC that I was a "disgrace to Wikipedia". He was a channel op then, and later on he got to be an arbitrator (mercifully, he is now an inactive user). In light of that, it seems to me that the appropriate penalty for Giano, based on clear precedent, is to appoint him to the ArbCom and designate him as an IRC channel op.

Soon-to-be-former arbitrator James F. seems unaware that "cool down blocks" have fallen completely out of favor. His comment on WP:AE saying that "the intent [of the block] is to force a cooling-off, reflective period for Giano" was not well-received; FT2 had to step in and correct him.

This post has been edited by everyking:

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Seen it before. Didn't like it then. Doubt I'd like it now... So I hope you're wrong.

I predict more of an exodus. I did belong to a wiki community that I was really getting into when its god-king announced he had sold the wiki to Wikia without even consulting the community. Wikia even changed the license as the old license allowed some control from the people. My account is technically there, but during the move, the history was deleted so my contributions are there and not referenced (a big no-no legally). I wasn't the only one with problems and most of the core members of the project left the project with some preparing to sue the old god-king. It was very acrimonious, but the major blow was the core community voting with their feet and leaving. So I left as well. It could have been a great project until Wikia and the old god-king interfered and killed it.

I think people who really support Giano will leave if they really feel he got a bad deal. Others may leave because they know the drama machine that is Wikipedia will never end. The wiki I was on is still there with some people and a "community" but its not the same and its a pretty lame place. It may take a long time for the exodus to affect Wikipedia; however, it eventually will.

I'm not trying to gloat, Lar, and I can tell you and others sincerely believe that Wikipedia can make a difference as a free, online encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia started out with the best of intentions and idealism, but there were missed opportunities at the start and things fell apart. The wounds and problems are just too deep. You can't do anything with others without trust and cooperation... and there's really no trust left in the Wikipedia community. Too many hurt feelings and too much grief. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I'm not trying to gloat, Lar, and I can tell you and others sincerely believe that Wikipedia can make a difference as a free, online encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia started out with the best of intentions and idealism, but there were missed opportunities at the start and things fell apart. The wounds and problems are just too deep. You can't do anything with others without trust and cooperation... and there's really no trust left in the Wikipedia community. Too many hurt feelings and too much grief. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Well said. I did believe WP could make a difference (perhaps I still do, I don't know), but the "quality" of much of the community there has really taken its toll.

This recent block, done in the middle of a GMT night, is very sad.

Lovely comment on Giano talk page:

I am shocked that the committee show no willingness to accept this case. This is a unique chance to make it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.

Some of these overusers of article space resources even go to great lengths to motivate themselves (and others of similar inclinations) by employing humour. This may be acceptable in some open source or open content projects, but not in Wikipedia. (A common misconception, resulting from the fact that not all infractions can be persecuted, is that humour is allowed within reason.) We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system. Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.

Checkusering as a means of intimidation is already a standard response to POV pushing and random article defacements. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a much more dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. It needs to be treated in the same way. I am concerned that Arbcom, unlike our checkusers, are not seeing the big picture. I urge the committee to accept the case and set an example. If the committee is afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it.
--Hans Adler (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes and Adler knows his stuff. Many good contributions to articles on mathematical logic, which were in a poor state before he joined, and he is well known in the profession

http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~adler/

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

and SlimVirgin has unblocked.

(Block log); 04:12 . . SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (all this block achieves is an increase in drama; blocks should be prevent, not punish)

You know, all of a sudden, this cold doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Sure I've been in bed most of the day, and I can barely think straight, but it must be better then dealing with this?

and SlimVirgin has unblocked.

(Block log); 04:12 . . SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (all this block achieves is an increase in drama; blocks should be prevent, not punish)

You know, all of a sudden, this cold doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Sure I've been in bed most of the day, and I can barely think straight, but it must be better then dealing with this?

That's a power play if I've ever seen one. But, who cares really? I suggest that everyone start saving their favorite articles to their hard drives, so when en.Wikipedia finally implodes, or when someone starts a new wiki-project with acceptable governance processes, we can copy our saved articles over to it and move onward without looking back.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

and SlimVirgin has unblocked.

Was wondering who would do it and how long it'd take. Just out of curiosity, would you have done it yourself if you'd got there fast enough?

This post has been edited by Deacon:

.. No. I don't agree with the block, but I wouldn't have done something that's going to blow up like this without discussing it first. This sucks. This absolutely sucks.

.. No. I don't agree with the block, but I wouldn't have done something that's going to blow up like this without discussing it first. This sucks. This absolutely sucks.

I think we need [[WP:ASSUME JAMAIS VU]] to allow, when more powerful editors need it for themselves, more fanciful stretches of reasonability than [[WP:AGF]] does. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

This post has been edited by Deacon:

That's a power play if I've ever seen one. But, who cares really? I suggest that everyone start saving their favorite articles to their hard drives, so when en.Wikipedia finally implodes, or when someone starts a new wiki-project with acceptable governance processes, we can copy our saved articles over to it and move onward without looking back.

Meh. This is just another vengeful block in a long, long line of vengeful blocks. I do not think The Great Wiki-Ragnarok™ is at hand. Yet it also seems to me that it cannot be that very far off, so I think that Cla's advice here is good. I will not be saddened by the end of Wikipedia. It is time for a more worthy project to take its place.

and SlimVirgin has unblocked.
(Block log); 04:12 . . SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (all this block achieves is an increase in drama; blocks should be prevent, not punish)

"I've unblocked in part because this is more of the humourless self-importance that caused the previous block, and in part because these IRC blocks of Giano have to stop."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253560725

David Gerard + FT2 = IRC.

They're also acquaintances in real life - see Wikimedia UK - and have improperly colluded in the past.

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Seen it before. Didn't like it then. Doubt I'd like it now... So I hope you're wrong.

I predict more of an exodus. ... It may take a long time for the exodus to affect Wikipedia; however, it eventually will.

I'm not trying to gloat, Lar, and I can tell you and others sincerely believe that Wikipedia can make a difference as a free, online encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia started out with the best of intentions and idealism, but there were missed opportunities at the start and things fell apart. The wounds and problems are just too deep. You can't do anything with others without trust and cooperation... and there's really no trust left in the Wikipedia community. Too many hurt feelings and too much grief. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

It's a shame that Wikipedia organized itself around an anachronistic, dysfunctional, and unsustainable governance model that was already going out of style some 3768 years ago, when humans first began to think about fair systems of governanance.

Notwithstanding the cumulative wisdom of four thousand years of political history, it's unlikely that entrenched Wikipedians will save their project by evolving to a modern and functional governance model. And so I agree that Jimbo's pre-neolithic tribal culture will crumble rather than right itself by fast-forwarding through four millenia of liminal political drama. The process of collapse will nonetheless provide an interesting lens into the dynamics of arrested development and learning disabled communities.

Lovely comment on Giano talk page:

I am shocked that the committee show no willingness to accept this case. This is a unique chance to make it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgment or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.

Some of these overusers of article space resources even go to great lengths to motivate themselves (and others of similar inclinations) by employing humour. This may be acceptable in some open source or open content projects, but not in Wikipedia. (A common misconception, resulting from the fact that not all infractions can be persecuted, is that humour is allowed within reason.) We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system. Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.

Checkusering as a means of intimidation is already a standard response to POV pushing and random article defacements. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a much more dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. It needs to be treated in the same way. I am concerned that Arbcom, unlike our checkusers, are not seeing the big picture. I urge the committee to accept the case and set an example. If the committee is afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it.

--Hans Adler (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes and Adler knows his stuff. Many good contributions to articles on mathematical logic, which were in a poor state before he joined, and he is well known in the profession.

The emerging mathematics of storybook logic will very likely be manifest in the epic failure of Wikipedia. Be prepared to witness the spectacular dynamics of a drama driven by the sum of all fears.

Oh yes and Adler knows his stuff.

Mr. Adler, if you are reading this, please join the Review.

I am shocked that the committee show no willingness to accept this case. This is a unique chance to make it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.

Some of these overusers of article space resources even go to great lengths to motivate themselves (and others of similar inclinations) by employing humour. This may be acceptable in some open source or open content projects, but not in Wikipedia. (A common misconception, resulting from the fact that not all infractions can be persecuted, is that humour is allowed within reason.) We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system. Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.

Checkusering as a means of intimidation is already a standard response to POV pushing and random article defacements. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a much more dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. It needs to be treated in the same way. I am concerned that Arbcom, unlike our checkusers, are not seeing the big picture. I urge the committee to accept the case and set an example. If the committee is afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it.
--Hans Adler (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I expect I will be accused of harrassing FT2 again, but the comments justifying the block were outrageous, and deserve comment.

1. FT2 claims Giano "Implied to a female user that she should be "ashamed of her sex" and told her "men don't like a woman with an opinion" which makes it sound terrible. But this is what Giano [as CDB] actually said in reply to Elonka:

Just out of curiosity, how much of the information in this article is actually true? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What a silly question, are you ashamed of your sex? Well I am ashamed of you, for thinking such a thing. What a charming study Mr Hochman has just uploaded of Miss Reighly, it reminds me of myself, just after my cosmetic dental surgery. - As for you Ms Elonka, I would change that attitude if I were you, men don't like a woman with an opinion you don't want to stay on the shelf for ever do you? [[User:Catherine de Burgh|Catherine de Burgh (Lady)]] ([[User talk:Catherine de Burgh|talk]]) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

His first point implies she shouldn't be ashamed of her sex (the article in question was about an early American feminist). The second remark was clearly ironical.

2. FT2 claims that the remark at the top of Giano's talk page "Just in case any of you were stupid enough..." is uncivil. But what Giano says is

Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy

which is followed by a link to a remark by SlimVirgin that there is a fundamental conflict of interest in the Ombudsman committee. How on earth is this uncivil.

3. FT2 links to further supposedly uncivil comments, as followsl

You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. '''You are a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace a checkuser.'

::No you didn't, you did nothing at all, just created a situation where Gerard will do it again. With luck, next time, the victim will be weaker than me and no-one will notice. So you can keep him blocked and all go off for a congratulatory backslapping drink with Gerard. You must all be very proud of yourselves. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never read such stupid claptrap in all my life, you must be the most uninformed Arb in history, and that is saying something - "''I also now have evidence (that I didn't have before, due to people the many people making a fuss''" Fozzie told you that in his statement, or do the Arbs nt bother to read them - don't bother replying we can work the answer out for ourselves! People making a fuss, if people were not making a fuss you lot would have swept it under the carpet. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Giano blanked his talk page after being told 'to drop it' by two administrators. That is uncivil?

These are one of the most outrageous block reasons I have ever seen. The only remotely uncivil remark he made was this:

You are nothing but a troll. I know this and so does everyone reading the tripe you are trolling here. Go away, and I will say no more about you. Shoo..... [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

but that was two days ago.

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Seen it before. Didn't like it then. Doubt I'd like it now... So I hope you're wrong.

Could you write more about this experience? I have never actually had a front row seat in the collapse of a social networking community, other than maybe Wikiabuse and Wikback. I would be interested in your perspective.

I may be missing something, but can anyone explain to me what Giano actually does to deserve this Cult Status?

Sure, he writes a few nice articles, but so did fellow sock-puppeteers Poetguy and SlimVirgin. And writing a decent article for WP isn't particularly taxing.

I just take a look at Giano's endless drama-fueled stunts and wonder why he hasn't been given the boot long ago? His relentless, hyperactive, jack-in-the-box rabble-rousing lacks any credibility to me.

This kind of thing is clearly bad for Wikipedia -- which is good for everyone else, of course. If Giano was doing this stuff as some kind of anti-Wikipedia activist, I'd be applauding him at every turn, but he and a whole load of followers seem to think these antics represent some kind of credible anti-corruption drive to improve the place.

When the red mist clears, Team Giano are generally found to be as indoctrinated, and as blind to the genuine problems of WP as the most hardline Wikipedo. Meaning that these interpersonal dramas actually obstruct reform by sapping time and energy.

I may be missing something, but can anyone explain to me what Giano actually does to deserve this Cult Status?

Sure, he writes a few nice articles, but so did fellow sock-puppeteers Poetguy and SlimVirgin. And writing a decent article for WP isn't particularly taxing.

I just take a look at Giano's endless drama-fueled stunts and wonder why he hasn't been given the boot long ago? His relentless, hyperactive, jack-in-the-box rabble-rousing lacks any credibility to me.

This kind of thing is clearly bad for Wikipedia -- which is good for everyone else, of course. If Giano was doing this stuff as some kind of anti-Wikipedia activist, I'd be applauding him at every turn, but he and a whole load of followers seem to think these antics represent some kind of credible anti-corruption drive to improve the place.

When the red mist clears, Team Giano are generally found to be as indoctrinated, and as blind to the genuine problems of WP as the most hardline Wikipedo. Meaning that these interpersonal dramas actually obstruct reform by sapping time and energy.

That remark makes me think seriously of leaving WR. Perhaps I wouldn't be missed. Giano may not lack drama but he stands for all the maligned and abused and despised content contributors that are still there. And he sticks up for them too.

That was an appalling remark Kato. I had a very high opinion of you until I saw this.

I may be missing something, but can anyone explain to me what Giano actually does to deserve this Cult Status?

Me too.

Sure, he writes a few nice articles, but so did fellow sock-puppeteers Poetguy and SlimVirgin. And writing a decent article for WP isn't particularly taxing.

I just take a look at Giano's endless drama-fueled stunts and wonder why he hasn't been given the boot long ago?

Mee too. He writes a few in his user space over several months, just to justify the hundreds of other edits dedicated to aggro and so on.

Giano is seen as, and to a large extent is, the leading defender of content-contributors against the parasitical mandarin class and their leadership. To what extent he contributes articles is almost irrelevant, but that he is a great writer is beyond the doubt of anyone that reads his articles. This is more than one can say for most of the puffed-up nobodies who support his blocks, who do absolutely nothing except chatter to each other, endow each other with glorifying positions and tell others what they should do.

That he's being constantly blocked though probably doesn't anger many of his supporters these days, as each one is a demonstration in impotence and stupidity that doesn't do anyone but the issuer harm. It's this latter thing that amazes me. The newbie admin blocking him for attention and patronage is one thing, but guys like DG and FT2 doing it astonishes me. I mean, there was no chance either of these blocks were going to stick.

This post has been edited by Deacon:

Giano is seen as, and to a large extent is, the leading defender of content-contributors.

Where is his focus on content contribution in the last year? This is claimed about him but the admins who are maligned for questioning him usually actually often do far more in main space over the whole last 12 months than him. Maybe he once was primarily a content contributor, but he hasn't been for more than months.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

Like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Palace

which he has been working on throughout the last three months. How can people on Wikipedia Review possibly be saying things like this? How many of you lot actually contribute to the project, instead of whining on like parasitic scroungers?

Most "uncivil".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253502537

::::Very well. Get stuffed. --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] <small>[[User talk:Deskana|(talk)]]</small> 01:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

it's the kinder, gentler, made, Wikimafioso. Just months ago it would have been "fuck off, you cunt".

We've yet to have a substantial complaint brought before us about David Gerard's behaviour. So far all we've got is drama mongering. If someone brought one before us, I'd consider it. Until that day... --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] <small>[[User talk:Deskana|(talk)]]</small> 22:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because they all get erased and/or pretended to have never occurred.

What "good" blocks has Gerard ever made?

That one of Utah made WP the laughingstock of the web 2.0 press for a month.

from Deskana's WP CV. Which isn't going to do squat for him when he enters the real world next year after school and kiddie playtime on WP is over.

I hold many official roles:

LOL! "Official"

* Most uninformed Arbitrator in history[citation needed]
* Mediator Emeritus
* OTRS Respondent
* Administrator
* Bureaucrat
* CheckUser
* Oversight

i'm practically Jimbo. KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

I honestly believe I am fair and impartial.

They always do.

I frequently attend to matters behind the scenes. If you need me for something, your best bet is to try to catch me on IRC.

Because that's the way Wikifacists stay in "official" power. By hiding things from WP that directly affect WP editors.

I also have over 9000 edits.

Because unlike WP's "rule" against democracy-style voting, couting how many edits you have is supposed to mean something. So I cross t's and dot i's as often and separately as possible. Someday I'm climb to the toppermost of the Slimmy TOP 40 edits list, to #1!

I also have a severe need to boost my wiki-ego, and let you know that on WP, I'm better than you. I'm a WP official. Lol.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

Like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Palace

which he has been working on throughout the last three months.

Precisely, he's only worked on a few articles over the last many months.

That remark makes me think seriously of leaving WR. Perhaps I wouldn't be missed. Giano may not lack drama but he stands for all the maligned and abused and despised content contributors that are still there. And he sticks up for them too.

That was an appalling remark Kato. I had a very high opinion of you until I saw this.

Please, Peter. This is vintage Kato. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to old-school-WR's well-worn hard line approach--namely, that WP is a complete failure that needs to be wholly demolished--is part of the problem, or, at best, a distraction from those "real issues". You're either with WR, or you're with the terrorists. Choose a side.

Wikipediots like myself celebrate Giano's talent for casting sharply worded tomatoes on the faces of the feeble, misguided, self-important, scheming schoolmarms who currently run the assylum.

Giano can be smug, shrill and, at his worst, an attention glutton and bully (which is especially ironic, given his underdog pretensions), but we forgive--and perhaps even encourage--these foibles because his efforts to expose the incompetence/impotence of the Arbitration Committee and other key figures are so often right on the money.

Not all of his antics are effective or well reasoned, but he remains a worthy martyr for highly skilled content editors who been made to feel unwelcome by WP's absurd police system.

We also enjoy his writing style; his best articles are a joy to read, and his essays are hilarious.

That remark makes me think seriously of leaving WR. Perhaps I wouldn't be missed. Giano may not lack drama but he stands for all the maligned and abused and despised content contributors that are still there. And he sticks up for them too.

That was an appalling remark Kato. I had a very high opinion of you until I saw this.

Please, Peter. This is vintage Kato. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to old-school-WR's well-worn hard line approach--namely, that WP is a complete failure that needs to be wholly demolished--is part of the problem, or, at best, a distraction from those "real issues". You're either with WR, or you're with the terrorists. Choose a side.

Wikipediots like myself celebrate Giano's talent for casting sharply worded tomatoes on the faces of the feeble, misguided, self-important, scheming schoolmarms who currently run the assylum.

Giano can be smug, shrill and, at his worst, an attention glutton and bully (which is especially ironic, given his underdog pretensions), but we forgive--and perhaps even encourage--these foibles because his efforts to expose the incompetence/impotence of the Arbitration Committee and other key figures are so often right on the money.

Not all of his antics are effective or well reasoned, but he remains a worthy martyr for highly skilled content editors who been made to feel unwelcome by WP's absurd police system.

We also enjoy his writing style; his best articles are a joy to read, and his essays are hilarious.

Precisely - his Wodehousian sense of humour is very funny to Brits like myself.

Wikiwhistle I can't believe you are saying such things. The Winter Palace is a massive piece and required much research, some of it outside G's area of expertise. I am not sure I can forgive you for any of those remarks above, and I considered you a sort of friend here [storms out of the room in a huff].

I am not sure I can forgive you for any of those remarks above, and I considered you a sort of friend here [storms out of the room in a huff].

We went from Peter Damian to Michael Damian. Love it. Where's Cricket to despair when we need her?

Please, Peter. This is vintage Kato. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to old-school-WR's well-worn hard line approach--namely, that WP is a complete failure that needs to be wholly demolished--is part of the problem, or, at best, a distraction from those "real issues". You're either with WR, or you're with the terrorists. Choose a side.

Can't speak for Kato, but I can speak for myself. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia *is* a complete failure, it just hasn't realised it yet. Despite some shining lights who do appear to be trying to actually make an encyclopaedia, of whom Giano is one, it simply cannot succeed in being anything more than a drama generator, an MMORPG, a playground for school bullies of the worst kind. It has much good content, but, unless there is a very major change in governance, that will inevitably be watered down, sanitised and vandalised out of existence as time goes on. It is futile to edit wikipedia when a ten-year-old admin can, and will, decide that it's in violation of either WP:NOR or WP:NPOV or - well - you get the WP:POINT.

Until something radical happens, Wikipedia can WP:FUCKOFFYOUCUNT as far as I'm concerned, and so can anyone still trying to edit there in any sort of non-subversive manner. The time for Giano-esque wordplay has been and gone. It's time for pitchforks and torches.

f.

This post has been edited by groody:

Please, Peter. This is vintage Kato. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to old-school-WR's well-worn hard line approach--namely, that WP is a complete failure that needs to be wholly demolished--is part of the problem, or, at best, a distraction from those "real issues". You're either with WR, or you're with the terrorists. Choose a side.

Yes, I've noticed that kind of rational, real world perspective thing I do has just become so old round these parts, thanks to folks like yourself.

I don't recall writing anything of the sort you describe, and I find it interesting that you've taken to lobbing pot shots at myself lately on various threads - having seen off threats like Kohs Awbrey and Brandt.

I've seen this kind of thing before in cults - the attempts to discredit and wantonly mischaracterize any criticism, even if it is as reasonable and rational as mine, all to protect the hive by any means necessary.

Go Giano!!!!!!!!!!!! WOooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

I may be missing something, but can anyone explain to me what Giano actually does to deserve this Cult Status?

Sure, he writes a few nice articles, but so did fellow sock-puppeteers Poetguy and SlimVirgin. And writing a decent article for WP isn't particularly taxing.

I just take a look at Giano's endless drama-fueled stunts and wonder why he hasn't been given the boot long ago? His relentless, hyperactive, jack-in-the-box rabble-rousing lacks any credibility to me.

This kind of thing is clearly bad for Wikipedia -- which is good for everyone else, of course. If Giano was doing this stuff as some kind of anti-Wikipedia activist, I'd be applauding him at every turn, but he and a whole load of followers seem to think these antics represent some kind of credible anti-corruption drive to improve the place.

When the red mist clears, Team Giano are generally found to be as indoctrinated, and as blind to the genuine problems of WP as the most hardline Wikipedo. Meaning that these interpersonal dramas actually obstruct reform by sapping time and energy.

Long ago, Giano came under Kelly Martin's thumb, back when she was one of the project's jack-booted thugs. What happened instead was that Giano, Geogre and Bishonen took Kelly down, giving hope to the idealistic masses that perhaps there was a glimmer of hope for the project; that people of encyclopedic merit could triumph over social climbing IRC whores and bullies, and that the English Wikipedia might start to actually value quality editing and editors.

There's been a chain of similar events ever since.

And then there's Giano's unbelievable spirit and sense of humor. (Hey Cedric, you could learn a thing or two from Giano).

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

The only remotely uncivil remark he made was this:

You are nothing but a troll. I know this and so does everyone reading the tripe you are trolling here. Go away, and I will say no more about you. Shoo..... [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

but that was two days ago.

Bear in mind that he was addressing Will Beback. Here's the context. Under the circumstances, I regard it as a simple statement of fact.

That remark makes me think seriously of leaving WR. Perhaps I wouldn't be missed. Giano may not lack drama but he stands for all the maligned and abused and despised content contributors that are still there. And he sticks up for them too.

That was an appalling remark Kato. I had a very high opinion of you until I saw this.

I read and absorb a lot of things you write PD, and have respect for that stuff. I also respect the insights of people like NYBrad, and Cla68 when they write things.

I just don't think Giano has anything very interesting to say about Wikipedia's governance, and find his antics to be a distracting circus. Unlike the contributions of the above.

For instance, in the questions to the candidates, there was some interesting stuff about WP's future. But this is utterly lost in the midst of this typically-tedious-lunatic non-drama about a guy faking another account, prancing around as Lady Whatever, and then performing some kind of foppish Performance Art piece surrounding his block. You might see that as dissent, where all I heard was "look at me, me, me".

Giano is seen as, and to a large extent is, the leading defender of content-contributors against the parasitical mandarin class and their leadership.

Well said.

Giano is seen as, and to a large extent is, the leading defender of content-contributors against the parasitical mandarin class and their leadership.

Well said.

Yes. And as I said above, he also defends and shows great kindness to those content contributors who do not have his high profile.

I just don't think Giano has anything very interesting to say about Wikipedia's governance, and find his antics to be a distracting circus. Unlike the contributions of the above.

I don't know what planet you are living on. But then you hold Awbrey in high regard.

Even our own Wikiwhistle joins the anti-Giano horde on-wiki.

If the short blocks don't work, then what is to be done? This arbcom ruling isn't being enforced- quite the opposite. Individual admins just keep being banned from blocking Giano. How many will be stopped from blocking him, so effectively no-one can, and when will it be admitted that numerous people think he's acting wrong, that's why he keeps being blocked, not through individual prejudice? This is why FT2 blocked this time- but even he is now being accused of persecution. Even members of arbcom now can't enforce the rulings. I can only think it would need Jimbo to act, not that he would as it would make him unpopular with some people- we need to wait until consensus comes, but perhaps gradually each person will see the line and think Giano has overstepped it far enough. Sticky Parkin 16:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

But why did FT2 block? As I suggested above, he seems to have entirely misunderstood the point and the content of Giano's remarks. He saw the word 'stupid' (in fact Giano was referring to no one in particular) and thought 'incivility'.

Precisely, he's only worked on a few articles over the last many months.

Have you even looked at how long that article is? In addition to all the articles about specific rooms he made.

I don't recall writing anything of the sort you describe, and I find it interesting that you've taken to lobbing pot shots at myself lately on various threads - having seen off threats like Kohs Awbrey and Brandt.

The suggestion that an obscure poster like myself has the influence to "see off threats like Kohs, Awbrey and Brandt" is flattering, but I'm not sure "threats" is the best choice of words here, since the only thing Awbrey threatened was the reasonable forum-reader's patience and did so with distressing regularity. I actually had very little interaction with any of them (though I may have teased Awbrey a few times for his unreadable threads).

By contrast, I always enjoyed reading what Kohs and Brandt had to say and found them to be engaging and intelligent, though Brandt's accusations can be outlandish at times.

Perhaps what you're saying is that my very insufferable presence (coupled with the swelling influx of my "romper room" colleagues) drove them off, but I very much doubt that's what made Kohs and Brandt leave.

Also, I should probably apologize for not clearly delineating your views from the shrinking down-with-WP mob that at one time seemed fashionable around here. Sometimes you all start to sound the same.

Many of us wikipediots agree with your positions on the "big" issues (BLP problems/flagged revisions/clueless, unqualified leadership) you regularly complain about, and agree that WP would be a better place were those concerns addressed. I certainly spend a lot more time thinking about them after discovering this forum and am more careful in my editing as a result.

I do, however, think you would win more converts with slightly more engaging, less contemptuous approach than that which you and Jon Awbrey seem to favor. Your distaste for the "personality" aspect of WP is noted (and noted and noted and noted and noted and noted), but a healthy(?) interest in wiki-personalities/drama (which drew most of us here in the first place) does not preclude a desire to improve the aspects of the encyclopedia we both wish to improve. So perhaps you should stop abusing your guests for expressing such an interest. Or don't. I think your repetition is kind of entertaining.

If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry, but your preaching continually to a very tiny choir becomes tiresome. That's not how you win hearts and minds, and that should really be your goal.

This post has been edited by Obesity:

True or not, Giano is also widely seen as the victim of persecution by the iron-fisted oligarchy. Giano is actually a very nice guy if you do not open with being a dick to him. Nobody believes he started his long-running conflict with the IRC backslappers, and every time they come after him it looks like opportunistic dickery.

If Giano is somehow a problem, it is lost in the sea of the problem that is those who hold a grudge against him. If they behaved, and Giano misbehaved - he would get in trouble. Until then - people love the underdog, and since those after him are being asses about it, he gets a pass when he returns the level of civility he gets.

he gets a pass when he returns the level of civility he gets.

As well he should. Arbitrary enforcement of vague and irrational policies is unfair and destructive.

Giano gets different consideration because of his contributions, but really it's more a case of Giano getting slightly less unfair treatment than others, who have simply been summarily banned without any hope of reprieve.

If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry, but your preaching continually to a very tiny choir becomes tiresome.

Not at all. I just recognized your drip-drip-drip efforts to further marginalize criticism of the actual model at this site, and downgrade independent voices in favor of what Giano himself calls:

"little more these days than a slightly risque, but far more interesting, version of ANI."

Here's some news. The Real World is tiresome. Far more tiresome than the WP:FANTASYFOOTBALLLEAGUE of a slightly risque WP:ANI. But that's the real world we live in, and no matter how deeply entrenched in this Second-Life garbage you are, it is the real world that matters in the end.

he gets a pass when he returns the level of civility he gets.

As well he should. Arbitrary enforcement of vague and irrational policies is unfair and destructive.

The thing is that this Arbitrary enforcement exists throughout the site and stems from ideas at the heart of WPs philosophy, so it makes no difference whether you, NewYorkBrad, King Solomon, Huey, Louis or Dewey are on the Arbitration committee.

Which is why targeting individuals on Arbcom in 2006, and different bunch in 2007, and then a different bunch again in 2008, etc etc, is so pointless and wasteful. This is merely a result of drama ascending to The Top as it does in all these things. Individual Arbitrators become scapegoats for a far deeper malaise.

Probably Giano should have said that all the goth male foul-mouthed short-tempered English en-checkusers who are NOT stewards, are a disgrace. Then, he'd have been okay.

DG is Australian.

It's not where you were born that counts, it's where you live, work, and have an influence. I suppose that view is the American in me.

Can't speak for Kato, but I can speak for myself. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia *is* a complete failure, it just hasn't realised it yet. Despite some shining lights who do appear to be trying to actually make an encyclopaedia, of whom Giano is one, it simply cannot succeed in being anything more than a drama generator, an MMORPG, a playground for school bullies of the worst kind. It has much good content, but, unless there is a very major change in governance, that will inevitably be watered down, sanitised and vandalised out of existence as time goes on. It is futile to edit wikipedia when a ten-year-old admin can, and will, decide that it's in violation of either WP:NOR or WP:NPOV or - well - you get the WP:POINT.

Until something radical happens, Wikipedia can WP:FUCKOFFYOUCUNT as far as I'm concerned, and so can anyone still trying to edit there in any sort of non-subversive manner. The time for Giano-esque wordplay has been and gone. It's time for pitchforks and torches.

f.

If you'll allow me a side riff on this, I once thought the same, but have changed my mind. You see, it's not true that

It has much good content, but, unless there is a very major change in governance, that will inevitably be watered down, sanitised and vandalised out of existence as time goes on.

For the simple reason that vandalized stuff does NOT go "out of existence." It merely retires to the museum basement, until it can be used for restoration (or if you prefer, it never left the museum basement-- the vandalized Mona Lisa up there on the wall, is a copy). WP doesn't oversight those old best "stable" versions (whether they've been marked "stable" or not), and in any case, even if WP tried to kill them, most have been scraped by mirror sites that do NOT allow "anybody to edit" and thus vandalize. So WP, despite all the 3-steps-forward-2-back nonsense, is a rachett which creeps slowly forward. Most of us are pissed off at the slow RATE it improves, and the damage it does to BLP on the side, but we don't disagree that the content gets getting and more inclusive. A few people, like Kato of the "WP-delenda-est" repetitions. But the rest of us here on WR I think disagree.

Meanwhile, it's frustrating. WP with its present (non)governance is a Michelangelo Pietà with the head knocked off (thanks, Lazlo Toth-- you're no Don Novello). It's a gold inlaid Kuwaiti palace with Iraqi shit on the floor. As Mr. Spock once said about logic, it's a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.

So what to do? I've already taken an oath not to help WP with any of its fundamental problems until it does something about its "culture" of Goths. And I mean that in all senses of the word. And though I also work on individual science and history articles I'm interested in (I contribute more lasting content than just about anybody dramatizing on Jimbo's TALK page), I only revert vandalism on articles where it is interfering with my personal work. The rest of it I leave alone to the Huggle users who only have work because Jimbo and the community cannot allow Huggies for the un-potty-trained. The non-housetrained. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

And I'm going to suggest something else, which I heard the other day and am happy to spread as a meme. I suggest that editors of content on WP, as a protest until sprotection (or its equivalent) arrives, refrain from reverting ANY IP-vandalism on their favorite weekend day. Simply pick your religious day of rest, and do no IP-vandal reversion on that day, letting it pile up like the garbage in a city sanitation engineer's strike. But not all the time. Just one day a weekend. I do not urge anybody to vandalize wikipedia; I suggest you merely refrain from cleaning up gratuitous IP-vandalism on the weekly day of IP-vandal-protest, and thus send a message to the others of the "community" at WP, that if they insist on letting "anybody" edit, then for this day, THEY get to clean up the shit from it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif)

Enjoy, you lackies!

(I think I'm going to re-post some of the above in its own thread)

Milton

Here is the content contribution in giano's last 300 edits-

he wrote a paragraph
he piped a link
he removed a date.

It is not surprising that people disenchanted with one cult leader will seek out another cult leader.

In other news, FT2 has launched an Arbitration case against SlimVirgin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...:_re_SlimVirgin

Is this what he had in mind from the beginning? He didn't know who would overrule him, but was FT2 just testing things when he blocked Giano? I mean, did FT2 figure he'd get overruled, but knowing this, thought to create an opportunity to overcome Arbcom's impotency vis-a-vis Giano?

Or is this all just blow-to-blow reaction? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

OK, this thread has gone on long enough without this being said:

There is more than one content contributor on Wikipedia who opposes IRC cliquishness and secrecy in general. Giano might be one, but SlimVirgin is another. Once again she has acted to increase the transparency and orderly governance of Wikipedia, and once again the silence here is deafening. Yeah, she's made mistakes in the past (betting on Mantanmoreland, for example), but I don't question her commitment to actually improving Wikipedia. On a lot of issues we would see eye-to-eye, and on this issue we do.

So I will be the first here to say: props to SlimVirgin for the unblock. Go, Slim, Go.


Privatemusings makes the response to the RFAR I would make:

FT, you're considering whether or not to recuse? That's pretty weak, my friend. Please recuse. Privatemusings (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by One:

...vandalized stuff does NOT go "out of existence." It merely retires to the museum basement, until it can be used for restoration (or if you prefer, it never left the museum basement-- the vandalized Mona Lisa up there on the wall, is a copy). WP doesn't oversight those old best "stable" versions (whether they've been marked "stable" or not), and in any case, even if WP tried to kill them, most have been scraped by mirror sites that do NOT allow "anybody to edit" and thus vandalize. So WP, despite all the 3-steps-forward-2-back nonsense, is a rachett which creeps slowly forward.

Disagree, sorry Milton. Sure, the "good" versions sit in the basement, but they slowly, surely, get covered with layer and layer of guano. As one thing gets vandalised, and another gets fixed, there's not even any one "good" version any more, just a few slightly polished gems set in turds. To produce the hypothetical "good wikipedia" then means not simply pulling the "good" versions, but investigating every revision, every bit of relevant talk page discussion that was WP:DISMISSEDOUTOFHAND for every article - it means rewriting every damn thing in the project.

If there's no "good" article, no "good" version, then how can external sites automatically scrape those "good" versions? Even if there were "good" versions, how can an automated scrape ensure that only "good" versions get mirrored, and not the (subtly or not) vandalised versions?

Even without the appalling governance, the layers of playground infighting, Wikipedia is doomed to failure by its very methods of working. "The free encyclopaedia anyone can edit, but nobody can trust". 3 steps back, 2 steps forward.

f.

OK, this thread has gone on long enough without this being said:

There is more than one content contributor on Wikipedia who opposes IRC cliquishness and secrecy in general. Giano might be one, but SlimVirgin is another. Once again she has acted to increase the transparency and orderly governance of Wikipedia, and once again the silence here is deafening. Yeah, she's made mistakes in the past (betting on Mantanmoreland, for example), but I don't question her commitment to actually improving Wikipedia. On a lot of issues we would see eye-to-eye, and on this issue we do.

So I will be the first here to say: props to SlimVirgin for the unblock. Go, Slim, Go.

Sigh, yes. She said she liked Giano's sense of humor in doing the crone-puppet (anybody remember Drama Queen Wayland Flowers' Madame?). Who would even have guessed Slim had a sense of humor? She must now be on medical marijuana, up there in Kanuckistan. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Oh, well, whatever makes you a better person I'm all for. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Here is the content contribution in giano's last 300 edits-

he wrote a paragraph
he piped a link
he removed a date.

300 edits takes us back to 16 November, when all this nonsense started. He hasn't worked on anything in the last week.

Go before that, and you see all the work he has done. Note also, that when he got Winter Palace into a reasonable state, he asked a number of other people to copyedit it.

I CANNOT BELIEVE you are saying these horrible things. Really.

OK, this thread has gone on long enough without this being said:

There is more than one content contributor on Wikipedia who opposes IRC cliquishness and secrecy in general. Giano might be one, but SlimVirgin is another. Once again she has acted to increase the transparency and orderly governance of Wikipedia, and once again the silence here is deafening. Yeah, she's made mistakes in the past (betting on Mantanmoreland, for example), but I don't question her commitment to actually improving Wikipedia. On a lot of issues we would see eye-to-eye, and on this issue we do.

So I will be the first here to say: props to SlimVirgin for the unblock. Go, Slim, Go.


Privatemusings makes the response to the RFAR I would make:

FT, you're considering whether or not to recuse? That's pretty weak, my friend. Please recuse. Privatemusings (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always supported SV 100%, as everyone here knows. She has many faults, but she is fundamentally on the side of content contributors.

And on the other subject, the incredible attack made by 'Wikiwhistle' on one of the great content contributors to the project. As I pointed out, the past 300 edits were non-productive, because of the block and the drama. But the 300 edits before that

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...target=Giano+II

are very productive. That was a bit of selective diff'ing worthy of FT2 himself.

And in the 'last three months' he has also created this fine article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Now I'm off to see what 'Sticky Parkin' has created in article space in that time.

[edit] Just as I thought: f--- all

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...t=Sticky+Parkin

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

I may be missing something, but can anyone explain to me what Giano actually does to deserve this Cult Status?

Sure, he writes a few nice articles, but so did fellow sock-puppeteers Poetguy and SlimVirgin. And writing a decent article for WP isn't particularly taxing.

I just take a look at Giano's endless drama-fueled stunts and wonder why he hasn't been given the boot long ago? His relentless, hyperactive, jack-in-the-box rabble-rousing lacks any credibility to me.

This kind of thing is clearly bad for Wikipedia -- which is good for everyone else, of course. If Giano was doing this stuff as some kind of anti-Wikipedia activist, I'd be applauding him at every turn, but he and a whole load of followers seem to think these antics represent some kind of credible anti-corruption drive to improve the place.

When the red mist clears, Team Giano are generally found to be as indoctrinated, and as blind to the genuine problems of WP as the most hardline Wikipedo. Meaning that these interpersonal dramas actually obstruct reform by sapping time and energy.

Long ago, Giano came under Kelly Martin's thumb, back when she was one of the project's jack-booted thugs. What happened instead was that Giano, Geogre and Bishonen took Kelly down, giving hope to the idealistic masses that perhaps there was a glimmer of hope for the project; that people of encyclopedic merit could triumph over social climbing IRC whores and bullies, and that the English Wikipedia might start to actually value quality editing and editors.

Kato is right, and Pumpkin Muffins is talking crap as usual.

I like Giano, he's witty, literate and bright - which is a fairly unusual combination. His content contributions are, it goes without saying, impressive. However, I've simply never understood his campaign, it's not so much I disagree with the presuppositions (although I guess I do) it's rather that his issues always seemed to me rather small and pathetic for someone with such evident talent.

His "content contributors vs ruling admins" war is quite bogus. Especially when one realises that almost all the arbitration committee have fairly impressive content resumes themselves. Certainly the arbs have contributed far more than many of the Giano groupies (with some honourable exceptions).

And what are his issues? Outrage that he gets blocked for incivility? Shrug. Petty powergames with arbcom? Obsession about whether a bunch of people are talking about him in IRC? Who cares? It's all just wikipower politics with a load of cabal paranoia and a practice of assuming that your opponent is motivated by a strong desire to eat babies. Giano trolls an election with a sock, Gerard trolls Giano with a block, Giano takes a hissy fit, Giano calls Beback a troll, Giano gets blocked again, Slim virgin settles a score. Tune in next week for the next exciting episode of Wiki-soap. It's all myopic sound and fury signifying precisely nothing.

The real issues: the potential (and reality) of harm being done to people's real lives, libels, character assassinations, and lack of responsibility for actions that can adversely affect the health, life, occupation and well-being of innocent third parties seem to pass Giano and co right by.

Newsflash: what "{{admin:Bob209}}" did, or did not do, to [[User:!!]], and whether he did it via IRC or e-mailed some abusive pall, is just not up there with global warming, world poverty, and some poor person who finds that themselves blocked whilst trying to remove libels from their biography that was created by a disgruntled and slanderous ex-employee. Let's get a sense of proportion.

Kato and I would, of course, differ on whether wikipedia needs killing or curing - but I think we would agree on what the real issues are, and what is a bunch of crap of interest only to those hooked on wikidrama.

OK, this thread has gone on long enough without this being said:

There is more than one content contributor on Wikipedia who opposes IRC cliquishness and secrecy in general. Giano might be one, but SlimVirgin is another. Once again she has acted to increase the transparency and orderly governance of Wikipedia, and once again the silence here is deafening. Yeah, she's made mistakes in the past (betting on Mantanmoreland, for example), but I don't question her commitment to actually improving Wikipedia. On a lot of issues we would see eye-to-eye, and on this issue we do.

So I will be the first here to say: props to SlimVirgin for the unblock. Go, Slim, Go.

And nobody who plays football and tennis at age three should be attacked for anything!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/SV_age_3.jpg

Seriously, though, I do agree here. It's a woods for the trees situation - Slim, ironically, does share similar values in relation to Wikipedia as many here.

His "content contributors vs ruling admins" war is quite bogus. Especially when one realises that almost all the arbitration committee have fairly impressive content resumes themselves. Certainly the arbs have contributed far more than many of the Giano groupies (with some honourable exceptions).

Well the first two names that come to mind are FT2 and NYB. FT2 has contributed nothing but drivel in mainspace since he arrived, most of which requires deletion. NYB I just checked and his 500 mainspace edits takes us back to 2007, most of which are minor corrections.

Next, Doc Glasgow.

His "content contributors vs ruling admins" war is quite bogus. Especially when one realises that almost all the arbitration committee have fairly impressive content resumes themselves. Certainly the arbs have contributed far more than many of the Giano groupies (with some honourable exceptions).

Well the first two names that come to mind are FT2 and NYB. FT2 has contributed nothing but drivel in mainspace since he arrived, most of which requires deletion. NYB I just checked and his 500 mainspace edits takes us back to 2007, most of which are minor corrections.

Next, Doc Glasgow.

Not that it really matters, but I've looked into this before, check their userpages.

As Mr. Spock once said about logic, it's a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.

Wasn't he high at the time? (I, Mudd)

Interesting

His "content contributors vs ruling admins" war is quite bogus. Especially when one realises that almost all the arbitration committee have fairly impressive content resumes themselves. Certainly the arbs have contributed far more than many of the Giano groupies (with some honourable exceptions).

Well the first two names that come to mind are FT2 and NYB. FT2 has contributed nothing but drivel in mainspace since he arrived, most of which requires deletion. NYB I just checked and his 500 mainspace edits takes us back to 2007, most of which are minor corrections.

Next, Doc Glasgow.

Not that it really matters, but I've looked into this before, check their userpages.

See my comment today in the "What percentage of Wikipedia is drama?" thread? For the record, I've created about 75 pages, albeit not recently. (Note also that creating a page can be one edit and voting on an arbitration case like Piotrus 2 can be 50 edits, so merely looking at a user's edit history can be misleading.)

As Mr. Spock once said about logic, it's a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.

Wasn't he high at the time? (I, Mudd)

As an actor, or as the character? As the character, no. That shit-eating grin you remember was probably from This Side of Paradise. Though it seemed that about every other episode they had to devise a new way for Spock (and everybody else) to become emotional.

I think David Carradine was on LSD in every single episode of Kung Fu, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) He's since claimed, that, anyway.

As Mr. Spock once said about logic, it's a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.

Wasn't he high at the time? (I, Mudd)

As an actor, or as the character? As the character, no. That shit-eating grin you remember was probably from This Side of Paradise. Though it seemed that about every other episode they had to devise a new way for Spock (and everybody else) to become emotional.

OK, maybe he was just acting goofy to confuse the 'bots... kinda like some vandals WP gets.

I think David Carradine was on LSD in every single episode of Kung Fu, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) He's since claimed, that, anyway.

Would not surprise me, that show was trippy even if played straight.

His "content contributors vs ruling admins" war is quite bogus. Especially when one realises that almost all the arbitration committee have fairly impressive content resumes themselves. Certainly the arbs have contributed far more than many of the Giano groupies (with some honourable exceptions).

Well the first two names that come to mind are FT2 and NYB. FT2 has contributed nothing but drivel in mainspace since he arrived, most of which requires deletion. NYB I just checked and his 500 mainspace edits takes us back to 2007, most of which are minor corrections.

Next, Doc Glasgow.

Not that it really matters, but I've looked into this before, check their userpages.

You do not know what you are talking about. I repeat: FT2 has contributed nothing but piffle and nonsense in mainspace, most of which badly needs deleting (as you know, I was once blocked for nominating one of his articles in AfD - it was deleted, for all that).

NYB as far back as I can see has a contribution profile that is very distinctive of minor changes. You can tell a content contributor always by a series of contributions to the same article.

OK?

Kato is right, and Pumpkin Muffins is talking crap as usual.

What exactly did I say that was crap? I was there Doc. I remember when Jimbo started promoting incompetent nincompoops (Kelly Martin, Essjay and his one article that he wrote) to the very highest positions of power in the English Wikipedia. I was there when Danny created the secrete #admins star chamber unannounced, with only 'certain' admins invited. Looking back, I can say much of the content I created five years ago is still there and still the very best on the web. I still create content to this day, meanwhile, Doc, you seem to have washed out.

So go ahead and call my opinions crap without justifying the charge with thought or reason or facts, and I'll judge you by that.

... His "content contributors vs ruling admins" war is quite bogus. Especially when one realises that almost all the arbitration committee have fairly impressive content resumes themselves. Certainly the arbs have contributed far more than many of the Giano groupies (with some honourable exceptions).

You're a fucking moron, doc. Some of the arbitrators Giano had the most trouble with never created any significant content, or have long since given up doing so; Fred B., Jdforrester (goes months at a time without creating anything), FT2, UC, Kelly Martin, JPgorden

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

His "content contributors vs ruling admins" war is quite bogus. Especially when one realises that almost all the arbitration committee have fairly impressive content resumes themselves. Certainly the arbs have contributed far more than many of the Giano groupies (with some honourable exceptions).

Well the first two names that come to mind are FT2 and NYB. FT2 has contributed nothing but drivel in mainspace since he arrived, most of which requires deletion. NYB I just checked and his 500 mainspace edits takes us back to 2007, most of which are minor corrections.

Next, Doc Glasgow.

Not that it really matters, but I've looked into this before, check their userpages.

You do not know what you are talking about. I repeat: FT2 has contributed nothing but piffle and nonsense in mainspace, most of which badly needs deleting (as you know, I was once blocked for nominating one of his articles in AfD - it was deleted, for all that).

NYB as far back as I can see has a contribution profile that is very distinctive of minor changes. You can tell a content contributor always by a series of contributions to the same article.

OK?

Responded to above: I've created about 75 pages, albeit not recently (and I need to start again).

His "content contributors vs ruling admins" war is quite bogus. Especially when one realises that almost all the arbitration committee have fairly impressive content resumes themselves. Certainly the arbs have contributed far more than many of the Giano groupies (with some honourable exceptions).

Well the first two names that come to mind are FT2 and NYB. FT2 has contributed nothing but drivel in mainspace since he arrived, most of which requires deletion. NYB I just checked and his 500 mainspace edits takes us back to 2007, most of which are minor corrections.

Next, Doc Glasgow.

Not that it really matters, but I've looked into this before, check their userpages.

You do not know what you are talking about. I repeat: FT2 has contributed nothing but piffle and nonsense in mainspace, most of which badly needs deleting (as you know, I was once blocked for nominating one of his articles in AfD - it was deleted, for all that).

NYB as far back as I can see has a contribution profile that is very distinctive of minor changes. You can tell a content contributor always by a series of contributions to the same article.

OK?

Responded to above: I've created about 75 pages, albeit not recently (and I need to start again).

Examples?

His "content contributors vs ruling admins" war is quite bogus. Especially when one realises that almost all the arbitration committee have fairly impressive content resumes themselves. Certainly the arbs have contributed far more than many of the Giano groupies (with some honourable exceptions).

Well the first two names that come to mind are FT2 and NYB. FT2 has contributed nothing but drivel in mainspace since he arrived, most of which requires deletion. NYB I just checked and his 500 mainspace edits takes us back to 2007, most of which are minor corrections.

Next, Doc Glasgow.

Not that it really matters, but I've looked into this before, check their userpages.

You do not know what you are talking about. I repeat: FT2 has contributed nothing but piffle and nonsense in mainspace, most of which badly needs deleting (as you know, I was once blocked for nominating one of his articles in AfD - it was deleted, for all that).

NYB as far back as I can see has a contribution profile that is very distinctive of minor changes. You can tell a content contributor always by a series of contributions to the same article.

OK?

Look at the other arbs userpages, and you'll see differently. NYB is an exception, and FT2's contributions? - Well, methinks you are grinding an axe - but even so. Why don't you look at the others with an open mind.