Outrageous, ArbCom puts field hand Giano in his place Options

My earlier comment,

“Against this backdrop, the predictable refrain "let's get back to editing" translates as a command for proles to leave the palatial grounds of the noticeboards and get back to work while administrators call the shots.”

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=62131

proves uncannily prescient, as the Arbitration Committee considers this finding:

“For a period of one year, Giano may not participate in any of the pages of the "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk" namespaces, except for civil discussion related to featured articles.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174409847

My earlier comment,

“Against this backdrop, the predictable refrain "let's get back to editing" translates as a command for proles to leave the palatial grounds of the noticeboards and get back to work while administrators call the shots.”

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=62131

proves uncannily prescient, as the Arbitration Committee considers this finding:

“For a period of one year, Giano may not participate in any of the pages of the "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk" namespaces, except for civil discussion related to featured articles.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174409847

I guess that would preclude his serving on ArbCom.

Apparently Giano has been engaged in wimpy disruption. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I still think this whole thing might have been a scam to rule Giano out of the Arbcom.

Apparently Giano has been engaged in wimpy disruption. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I still think this whole thing might have been a scam to rule Giano out of the Arbcom.

Since Jimbo has final say, he was already out, no?

This is just a slap in the face, to put him in his place for insulting said God-king.

Apparently Giano has been engaged in wimpy disruption. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I still think this whole thing might have been a scam to rule Giano out of the Arbcom.

So far it is only a proposed remedy and no ArbCom member has adopted it. But I think Fred will support it. I don't know who else might.

They have a good excuse:

“We are not capable of dispensing truth or justice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174494695

Other Wikipedians have proven fully capable of dispensing both truth and justice - the one they're condemning here comes to mind - so why not get out of the way and let them give it a shot? This disclaimer is pathetic.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

They have a good excuse:

“We are not capable of dispensing truth or justice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174494695

Other Wikipedians have proven fully capable of dispensing both truth and justice - the one they're condemning here comes to mind - so why not get out of the way and let them give it a shot? This disclaimer is pathetic.

Isn't "protecting the encyclopedia" without respect to "truth or justice" exactly what Durova did?

THEN WHAT ARE YOU CAPABLE OF, SIR?[/b]
Regardless, this action delayed and complicated any action the committee might have taken by taking a straight-forward case of administrator misconduct and transforming it into some of a power-struggle; the comments made by many over the last few days leave no doubt that many editors see the matter in those terms. This did not have to happen; this is not the first time this has happened. This committee is empowered to resolve disputes according to the policies by which this project is governed. We are not a political institution. We are not capable of dispensing truth or justice. We exist to protect the encyclopedia and maintain the conditions necessary for collaborative editing. If it is necessary to flout our core policies to keep this committee "honest" then all is lost and I cannot endorse such a position.

Well, in a nutshell, since Durova got the big whopper, and since !! is a saint, then Giano had to pay. It an't all run against favor of the ruling party.

let's parse here.

taking a straight-forward case of administrator misconduct and transforming it into some of a power-struggle;

No, sorry. The problem was that the behavior, and its having been condoned, is part of a systematic problem, and your consistent refusal to deal with that is what you now call a power struggle. It is you sir, with the power, who are making the struggle. And that struggle is with reality, and truth (which you admit you can't deal well with, nor honesty - wow, WHAT a Freudian slip, God almighty)

This committee is empowered to resolve disputes according to the policies by which this project is governed.

Look Mackensen-Hancock-Jefferson-speechmaker. No one asked you to rewrite the Magna Carta. You simply have to reference the rules (not even follow them according to Ignore all rules), and try to be fair. That is part and parcel of protecting the encyclopedic environment, but you go on to say...

We are not a political institution. We are not capable of dispensing truth or justice. We exist to protect the encyclopedia and maintain the conditions necessary for collaborative editing.

Are only political institutions required to be fair, transparent, and not lie? To not exact cruelty? Because when I was in a scout troop, it wasn't a political institution, and there were rules, but no one performed gross acts of injustice and then whined that they weren't a political institution, as if this would have excused gross unfairness, which it does not. Neither did it excuse the Catholic Church from condoning gross acts of injustice, and the Catholic Church is also not a political institution. And by the way WHAT have you been smoking, Sir Platitudes??

We are not capable of dispensing truth or justice. We exist to protect the encyclopedia and maintain the conditions necessary for collaborative editing.

Dear Mr. Fallacious Logic: Do you contend that these two sentences are mutually exclusive? Because that is how this reads. Explain pls thx.

If it is necessary to flout our core policies to keep this committee "honest" then all is lost and I cannot endorse such a position.

You are making NO sense, Mr. Mackensen. What core policies have you flouted to keep your committee honest? I though that the issue here was that in being DISHONEST, you had flouted the committee (and the community's) policies. That's the point isn't it? And you are on that list, Mr. Mackensen, the secret list which made all those backdoor decisions, aren't you Mr. Mackensen. So is this why Mr. Mackensen, you are spouting out sentences which back to back make no logical sense whatsoever?

What core policy allows you to perform judgements without due process? I know you are arguing against transparency, Mr. Mackensen, but what you are really doing is claiming that the core policy of the committee is secrecy, collusion, backhandedness, cronyism and corruption.[/b] And since you are being asked to stop performing these, you feel that "all is lost"

MR MACKENSEN. ALL THAT IS LOST IS YOUR FACE. RESIGN ARBCOM, and GIVE IT BACK SOME DIGNITY.

Other people can manage truth and honesty just fine, if you feel overly challenged and not up to the task.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Proposed sanction now stands at 3/1/1 with Fred, jpgordon and Mackensen supporting. Paul August opposes. UnivitedCompany abstains. Who else is going to vote for political repression?

Proposed sanction now stands at 3/1/1 with Fred, jpgordon and Mackensen supporting. Paul August opposes. UnivitedCompany abstains. Who else is going to vote for political repression?

Jpgordon just did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174499520

Unsurprising, as Jpgordon is himself a participant in the mailing list, to whom Durova's secret evidence aggainst User:!! was circulated.

Proposed sanction now stands at 3/1/1 with Fred, jpgordon and Mackensen supporting. Paul August opposes. UnivitedCompany abstains. Who else is going to vote for political repression?

Well, duh. Jpgordon and Mackensen are on the CORRUPT list. (oops i meant the sekrit list)

And Fred? Well, let's not go there.

Of course Mackensen+jpgordon want to punish Giano. Someone on the other side has to go down, if Durova did.

So says the corrupt Arbcom Committee that Durova so steadfastly trusted to protect her in any situation..

.. but could not under strong public scrutiny.

Ergo Giano must PAY.

3/2/1 with Kirill now opposing.

3/3/1
FloNight Opposes.

Sadly, Giano is likely to receive some penalty. The ArbCom is split on the degree of the penalty, but all of them seem to agree that he needs a penalty of some kind, except for Paul August, who, bless his soul, appears firmly opposed to all of it.

Surely just remaining on Wikipedia is penalty enough? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Surely just remaining on Wikipedia is penalty enough? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

No, it's a privilege to contribute featured articles for Wikipedia. That's why Uninvited Company linked to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174534752

Being an administrator is more like a burden. Serving on Arbitration Committee is noblesse oblige. Not a privilege at all. No "vested contributors" here. These are the slaves to virtue who make the joys of mainspace possible.

Apparently Giano has been engaged in wimpy disruption. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I still think this whole thing might have been a scam to rule Giano out of the Arbcom.

at least Fred didn't suggest redirecting User:Giano_II to wimp. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

not yet anyway..

?Ç£We are not capable of dispensing truth or justice."

PL - can you knock up an article on Mackensen on Wikiquote?

Well, duh. Jpgordon and Mackensen are on the CORRUPT list. (oops i meant the sekrit list)

We shouldn't insult Mackensen; he is an editor here in good standing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

This will be controversial, but I actually like Mackensen. He is one of the more accessible arbs, and he always has some solid reasoning behind his arbitrator actions even if I disagree with the conclusions drawn.

Has anyone seen this "remedy"???

Remedy suspended

2.1) Any remedy which restricts Giano from the Wikipedia namespace shall be suspended until the conclusion of the ArbCom elections, and will be lifted should Giano be appointed to the Committee.

For the moment, this is 4/0/0/0, but....I'm just speechless. If he wins the election, then he gets off? If he doesn't, then he's punished?

Do they think at all? How can they not see the implications in this? This is just too much.

Okay, that's it! I'm changing my vote!

GIANO for ARBCOM!!!

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

Apparently Giano has been engaged in wimpy disruption. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I still think this whole thing might have been a scam to rule Giano out of the Arbcom.

Since Jimbo has final say, he was already out, no?

This is just a slap in the face, to put him in his place for insulting said God-king.

Well, if all this Durovadrama hadn't happened Giano wouldn't have been seen as a person involved in a current dispute so it would be harder for Jimbo Wimbo to reject him.

Giano has declared that he will refuse any sanction from ArbCom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174577972

Who will blink first? NOT GIANO. I guarantee it. Will ArbCom ban Wikipedia's crown jewel in order to win the point?

This post has been edited by Miltopia:

Mackensen is one of the nicest arbitrators, most of the time.
Sure, we've had our share of disagreements, and this is one,
but I would interpret that more has him feeling unqualified to
deal with the situation than being anti truth/justice.

(Then again, I actually am anti-justice, but that is becuase to
me, justice means revenge.)

I have a sad feeling that Giano getting forced into this as a party was an attempt to discredit him to keep him off of the ArbCom itself.

I have a sad feeling that Giano getting forced into this as a party was an attempt to discredit him to keep him off of the ArbCom itself.

Of course it is, they are the establishment that hate Giano for "truth telling".

It's interesting that Giano seems to be good friends with MONGO... so this fighting involving him is splitting the "clique".

Has anyone seen this "remedy"???

Remedy suspended

2.1) Any remedy which restricts Giano from the Wikipedia namespace shall be suspended until the conclusion of the ArbCom elections, and will be lifted should Giano be appointed to the Committee.

For the moment, this is 4/0/0/0, but....I'm just speechless. If he wins the election, then he gets off? If he doesn't, then he's punished?

Do they think at all? How can they not see the implications in this? This is just too much.

Okay, that's it! I'm changing my vote!

GIANO for ARBCOM!!!

This is interesting. It would permit Users to use the ArbCom election as a means of overriding an unfair punishment by ArbCom, even if they don't care a rat's ass if Giano is on ArbCom or not. Of course if it is to have any chance of success the voter must characterize their support as Giano being "A wise and prudent arbitrator" and not indicate their real motives for the vote. Then Mr. Wales will have to decide how he wants to play his hand. This does seem to have great potential to strike a serious blow to ArbCom, WP's dysfunctional social networking community and it's failing God-King.

I Vote Giano: I don't give a rat's ass about ArbCom (Shhh...no telling now.)

Surely just remaining on Wikipedia is penalty enough? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

No, it's a privilege to contribute featured articles for Wikipedia. That's why Uninvited Company linked to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174534752

Being an administrator is more like a burden. Serving on Arbitration Committee is noblesse oblige. Not a privilege at all. No "vested contributors" here. These are the slaves to virtue who make the joys of mainspace possible.

Wow, I'm glad I got that benefit of the doubt when I was getting raked over the coals.

It's interesting that Giano seems to be good friends with MONGO... so this fighting involving him is splitting the "clique".

MONGO actually wrote some fairly decent articles about US national parks and such, back in the day, or maybe he helped Giano out in some sort of dispute once in the distant past.... That would have been before he (MONGO) became obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy nuts and the Faceless Hordes of Invading Trolls From Hell™, or however he tends to view those who disagree with him on WP...

Anyway, Dan, I think it's high time you dropped this silly pretense and started using the word "cabal" like everybody else. You know you want to! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This is interesting. It would permit Users to use the ArbCom election as a means of overriding an unfair punishment by ArbCom, even if they don't care a rat's ass if Giano is on ArbCom or not. Of course if it is to have any chance of success the voter must characterize their support as Giano being "A wise and prudent arbitrator" and not indicate their real motives for the vote. Then Mr. Wales will have to decide how he wants to play his hand. This does seem to have great potential to strike a serious blow to ArbCom, WP's dysfunctional social networking community and it's failing God-King.

I don't think it'd strike any serious blow to ArbCom that hasn't already been struck. If the ArbCom makes a decision which the community overwhelmingly disagrees with, that's what's going to hurt the ArbCom. Anything else is unimportant in comparison.

In any case, I don't see Wikipedia being sufficiently reformed from within. ArbCom is not just corrupt, the whole concept of it is fundamentally unsound. The most beneficial place for Giano at this point would be working on another project.

Am I wrong in reading this comment that basically what Jimbo Wales, the ArbCom, and clerks like Thatcher131 are really upset about is the fact that Giano has successfully demonstrated that a lone user can render their entire power structure irrelevant by disclosing information that drives the community?

Giano believes he did the right thing for the right reasons in publishing a private email and then republishing it after Cary removed it. He has also posted logs from the admins IRC channel when he believes they contained discussion that was inappropriate and brought discredit on the people involved in the discussion. Why is it an assumption of bad faith to wonder what Giano will do if he finds something similar in the Arbcom-L archives? [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 15:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is sadly apparent that certain people are now doing everything in their power to discredit Giano to keep him off of ArbCom. Did you notice that on the same note a motion to sanction Mercury was removed from the workshop as trolling? Protect the cabal indeed.

This post has been edited by Fox:

More trolling from Thatcher131.

This is interesting. It would permit Users to use the ArbCom election as a means of overriding an unfair punishment by ArbCom, even if they don't care a rat's ass if Giano is on ArbCom or not. Of course if it is to have any chance of success the voter must characterize their support as Giano being "A wise and prudent arbitrator" and not indicate their real motives for the vote. Then Mr. Wales will have to decide how he wants to play his hand. This does seem to have great potential to strike a serious blow to ArbCom, WP's dysfunctional social networking community and it's failing God-King.

I don't think it'd strike any serious blow to ArbCom that hasn't already been struck. If the ArbCom makes a decision which the community overwhelmingly disagrees with, that's what's going to hurt the ArbCom. Anything else is unimportant in comparison.

In any case, I don't see Wikipedia being sufficiently reformed from within. ArbCom is not just corrupt, the whole concept of it is fundamentally unsound. The most beneficial place for Giano at this point would be working on another project.

The reason that this would amount to a serious blow to AbCom, the cabal and the God-King is that it undermines their confidence that their own processes are in their own control or are even about the matters they intend for them to be about at all.

This isn't about Giano. Let them chase shadows. This is asymmetrical conflict on a meta level.

Let's remember that Jimbo ultimately determines who is elevated to the ArbCom. Even if Giano gets a clear majority, he will not become an arbitrator. Not if Jimbo has anything to say about it!

As of now, it looks like they aren't going to put any restrictions on Giano (Mackeson changed his vote).

The only measure regarding him that's passing at this point is a reminder.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

As of now, it looks like they aren't going to put any restrictions on Giano (Mackeson changed his vote).

The only measure regarding him that's passing at this point is a reminder.

If that happens it would be what is called in baseball "a forced walk."

I have a sad feeling that Giano getting forced into this as a party was an attempt to discredit him to keep him off of the ArbCom itself.

That's actually not necessary. Even were he voted in, votes dont decide.

Who put him up for this? I thought it was "the guy with the funny name, starts with O", but I think it was Fred Bauder.

Fred Bauder is being very old ladyish about this case. He's more of the mood to see Giano caned.

It is sadly apparent that certain people are now doing everything in their power to discredit Giano to keep him off of ArbCom. Did you notice that on the same note a motion to sanction Mercury was removed from the workshop as trolling? Protect the cabal indeed.

Well, that was a given when he started being so outspoken about !! (and probably before, as he seems to have raised hackles). And if he has that strong of a personality, he probably cares more about the issue/moment, more than making nice with the powers that be. Which means in the current framework, he'd not fit in. Logical.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I have a sad feeling that Giano getting forced into this as a party was an attempt to discredit him to keep him off of the ArbCom itself.

That's actually not necessary. Even were he voted in, votes dont decide.

If Mr. Wales uses fiat , not popular vote, to select any ArbCom members he will suffer a significant loss of credibility. If we can help to maneuver him into this position, we should.

If Mr. Wales uses fiat , not popular vote, to select any ArbCom members he will suffer a significant loss of credibility. If we can help to maneuver him into this position, we should.

... because that's stopped him before...

If Mr. Wales uses fiat , not popular vote, to select any ArbCom members he will suffer a significant loss of credibility. If we can help to maneuver him into this position, we should.

... because that's stopped him before...

He is weaker now.