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

[Deacon]

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

[Peter Damian]

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afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn.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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 9:04am

[SirFozzie]

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?

[Cla68]

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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 9:30am

[Deacon]

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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 9:30am

[SirFozzie]

.. 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.

[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.

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.

This post has been edited by Deacon: Sun 23rd November 2008, 9:48am

[Cedric]

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.

[Proabivouac]

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.

[Moulton]

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon.

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.

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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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)

[Peter Damian]

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon.

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.

[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.

[wikiwhistle]

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.

[Deacon]

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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 4:42pm

[wikiwhistle]

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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 4:41pm

[Peter Damian]

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?

[Piperdown]

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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 5:10pm