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

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?

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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 8:27pm

...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.

Oh, well, whatever makes you a better person I'm all for.

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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 8:52pm

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. 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. 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: Sun 23rd November 2008, 9:51pm

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.