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

[privatemusings]

hee hee

impressively dumb!

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

[Kato]

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.

[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.

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.

[Obesity]

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.

[Kato]

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!!!!!!!!!!

[Obesity]

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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 6:15pm