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.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 5:45pm

[Doc glasgow]

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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

[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.

[Peter Damian]

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?

[Newyorkbrad]

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).

[Peter Damian]

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?