The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

architecture
Thank you for quality articles on architecture, such as Palladian architecture, for enlightening discussions, for the spectacular architecture of your user page, for fulfilling wishes, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 345th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda, amid all the recent excitement, I has somehow missed this prize and kind words. Thank you. Giano 15:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bzzt, it was a Christmas 2012 prize, repeated a year later, now with the proper link (moved to a long name, not my idea). You did an excellent job with arbcom only I told you that they are not even able to look at facts. You know - it was in the Signpost more than once - that I am admonished and restricted and breached my restriction, - I was never warned before or given a hint of evidence, - and who cares? It was Eric who told me "chin up" then, - I wish so much he would do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Giano. You have new messages at Fma12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you Fma12; I was only commenting only on Moxy's overbearing, patronising tone and his erroneous assumptions per Wikipedia's style and referencing. Unlike you and him, I am not at all familiar with Justin Bieber, talented though I'm sure he is; so I won't comment further. However, if you feel that you are being bullied or hectored in future, please don't hesitate to let me know. Giano 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Brymptonboat.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brymptonboat.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Great Brickhill Manor.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Great Brickhill Manor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Bowood House 3.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bowood House 3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Nuthalltemple1906.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Nuthalltemple1906.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Belvoir house1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Belvoir house1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Belvoir house1.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Belvoir house1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Nuthalltemple1906.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nuthalltemple1906.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give up with all these images and writing Wikipedia. It's a total waste of time because of mindless morons that cannot see that a building which has been demolished decades ago cannot be recreated in order to take a new photograph to illustrate page. It is quite clear that all these photographs are either well out of copyright or eligible because no other can be created to illustrate. I really am beginning to think that at Wikipedia the imbeciles have taken over the mad house. Giano 22:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That happened ages ago Giano, well before even my time here. Eric Corbett 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well what can one do when some mindless moron wants to delete all the images from a page - including one my Great Great Grandmother took in 1900. One despairs, one really does. We seem to have resurgence of the old Wiki motto: "If you can't write it, destroy it." Giano 22:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you knew that history began on 15 January 2001, and all images taken previous to then are unusable? Besides, how does anyone really know that the thousand-odd images I've shot and uploaded to Commons, for instance, are really mine? After all, there's no affidavit. Acroterion (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to all of us who've ever uploaded images. Eric Corbett 23:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And our assertions are taken at face value, yet one must somehow prove that the photographer in a historical image is unknown. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, but I have neither the time or inclination to play games with people who are so ridiculous that they assume, I have dozens of people dress up in period costume File:Brymptonboat.gif climb into an ancient rowing boat in front of somebody else's private house then take a phonograph and give it a fake sepia tinge, all just so that I can spend weeks writing a page dedicated to the greater glory of Wikipedia. Well I have news for such people - it's not a fake, it's real and if I'm required to swear an affidavit Wikipedia can pay the legal fees for doing so - it will be money better spent than some of the other ways they's found. Giano 08:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Great Brickhill Manor.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Great Brickhill Manor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You,Stefan2 are becoming extremely tiresome in your rather mindless pursuit if images to delete. It has been explained to you that if a building has been demolished and only one known photograph of said building exists, then it is able to be used to illustrate an article. That any half-wit can see that the image is clearly late 19th century/early 20th century adds to to the case for its retention here further. It is not possible to credit an anonymous photographer who has in all probability been dead for a century. It's most unlikely that he is going to be resurrected just to satisfy the whims of Wikipedia. Giano 08:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giano, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Non-free files that might interest you given the above exchange. I think sometimes editors should take a long hard look at this non free image. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGES

I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Dr K can you point to me to what I said before because I don't really understand what is meant by 'deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings.' I think I do, but would like to be sure. As you know, I always put images exactly where I think they look best and then fight to keep them there. I've always felt that the MOS is meant only for those with limited imagination, taste and sense of style; it rather stops them making a hash of things. Giano 11:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The current guideline advises against placing left-aligned images directly below a third-level sub-heading. So, for example, it advises that the left-aligned images at Montacute House#Interior should be moved from the left to the right or to elsewhere. Like you, I see no problem in keeping the images where they are. DrKiernan (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph! I have commented. Poor Moxy, I expect he spent his previous lives in some totalitarian state before his rebirths as a Wikipedian. Seriously though, I really do wonder what sort or people spend their lives devising blanket rules for others. Giano 13:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thieving =

I totally understand, much the same situation here. I just got back online editing in over a month being gone, and saw the text you added... looking good! Does the "Towers of Krim" book have a lot more information on other palaces/buildings in and around Crimea? If so, I'd eventually need to pick it up for myself as well .. DDima 17:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DDima, not really on many other palaces; it just deals with Vorontsov Palace in great detail and [Bakhchisaray Palace]], but it is very detailed and in depth. If you can pick up a second hand copy cheaply, it is quite interesting. plus there's a lot of old prints and drawings which are out of copyright and can probably uploaded. Giano 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure I'll still find some use for it anyways!

DDima 23:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to All

I strongly advise everyone to stop uploading images to Wikipedia because they are taken to Commons where if you find that you've made an honest mistake and attempt to rectify it - this is what happens to you: [2] [3]. Easier to nip the problem in the bud and don't upload anything. Giano 08:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone understand templates?

Woulds somebody be kind enough to make me up a template that looks something like this, but with hings more centred up and tidy - perhaps a nice big hand logo or a sledgehammer? Thanks in advance. Giano 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Perhaps it could have Spumoni (my bird) looking menacing on it? Giano 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know I appreciate your sentiment on this matter, Giano; I put "keep local" on just about everything I upload, and I upload very few images. Having said that, the template doesn't meet the terms of use, which requires that all additions be able to be used elsewhere. And yes, that includes being able to upload to Commons. I'm fairly certain that the majority of people who upload to Wikipedia or allow their visage to appear in such images expect that their image will be used only on the project where it was originally uploaded (I ran across some that had originally been uploaded to another project many years ago, and am fairly certain some of the individuals in those photos didn't realise that their image would be all over the web). I'm pretty certain that most people whose visage appears in such an image expect that "modification" is probably restricted to a bit of cropping or light adjustment, and don't realise that it could be used by anyone on the web for any reason in any kind of compilation (with the possible restriction of attribution), including making them look like fools or worse. The theory of Commons is great. The reality is perhaps not so much. Risker (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I personally have had generally good experiences with Commons, but I must admit that your description of the way you were treated there ("At present, uploading to Wikipedia, is rather like giving a much loved friend a Christmas present only to find it's been given away to the neighbours who have trashed it and given you the finger at the same time.") was both hilarious and sadly accurate. I am glad that PumpkinSky was around to put a stop to that Kafkaesque nonsense. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Risker and 28bytes dialogue is always useful, but from your comments Risker I can see that it's time for a change. The Utopian ideal of Wikipedia and Commons is laudable - very laudable, but where Commons is concerned, it could well now be hampering Wikipedia and its mission. Think how many more brilliant images we could have if people knew they were solely for use on Wikipedia - ie: they knew there was less chance of their visage ending up on a disreputable site in a slimy corner of the internet. Personally, I have hundreds of old photographs of the upper echelons (Royalty and politicians) of Roman, London and New York society in the late 19th and early 20th century, but I'm damned if I want them plastered all over the internet, but I'd be happy to have them in articles here. That's just me - there must be thousands of others out there like me (God help the world). In the past, I have emailed the owners of private sights asking to use images on Wikipedia, and often been denied because they don't want to sign alway all rights - so you see the current policy is currently hindering the project, not helping it. It's time for a change; it can't be retrospective, but Wikipedia does not have to be stuck in the past - does it? Giano 18:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've encountered the same thing. People are often happy to have their image in a WP article, but they don't want to give away all rights to it. One I feel particularly bitter about is an image of Worsley Man I was given by the Manchester Museum. It got deleted because the covering email didn't obviously release all rights. Eric Corbett 18:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; I'm sure it's a very common problem. Wikipedia's laws were not handed down from above on Mount Sinai; they can change as the project changes - things that don't evolve become extinct. Giano 18:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, though, perhaps Wikipedia does need to be stuck in the past. The Share-Alike clause that Wikipedia is currently released under forbids any derivative works of it from being released under a more restrictive license than its parent. So, for something like an article, we can't just switch licenses midway; the original articles were share-alike before, so the current versions (which are derivatives of the originals) can't be released under something that's more restrictive. I am very much not a lawyer, so this is purely uneducated speculation, but I wonder whether that applies to Wikipedia in total: that is, because the project as a whole is a derivative of its earlier, share-alike states, we can't change the default license of the project, since that would violate the earlier states' share-alike clause. I mean, what you're saying makes a lot of sense, but I don't know whether it's actually legally doable (even if one managed to get community-wide consensus for it and the WMF to sign off on it, and good luck with either of those things, let alone both). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What's been done obviously can't be changed, but we need to look forwards, not backwards. Why can't I upload an image today allowing its use only on WP? Eric Corbett 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is legally do-able, if one sets about it correctly. We already have copyright images that are used because none other are available, or they are a book cover - it's just a matter of choosing the correct licence. The Foundation spends a fortune each year in 'various' ways, a few dollars on legal advice would soon find the correct way forward. Giano 18:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: Well, the thing is that it really isn't about choosing the correct license. Where Wikipedia is concerned, it's either a free license (i.e. one that is as or less restrictive than Wikipedia's own CC-BY-SA) or it's not. If it's free (again, in terms of at or better than CC-BY-SA), then it's free, and there's no issues. If it's not, it might still be able to be used under the fair-use provision of the law regardless of what its license actually is, but it has to follow the policy on non-free material as outlined by WP:NFCC. There's no nuance to it; it's binary, black or white, on or off. That's why there's no room for "only on enwiki" please, at least as far as licensing goes.

@Eric Corbett: Well, to answer your question in the literal way that you didn't intend: you can, it would just have to be a non-free upload, subject to all the encumbrances of non-free uploads. To answer your question in the slightly less literal way that you probably did intend: I'd imagine it traces from the desire for a right to fork. That is, Wikipedia was designed with the ability to freely redistribute itself in mind, and designed with the idea that anyone should be able to make their own copy of Wikipedia. The idea comes from the open-source software movement, where the right to fork presumably prevents the complete domination of a software product by its small group of core developers, since anyone can come in, copy the source to their own thing, and start their own branch. Moreover, the ability to freely redistribute probably sounds like a good feature to those who want to distribute Wikipedia in underdeveloped countries, behind state censorship, and the like. Thus, it's important for as much content as possible to be released under a license that explicitly allows all of these things. Because of the reality of the world, there had to be compromises made, which take the form of the WP:NFCC restrictions; they're so heavily restricted because their use and proliferation creates pieces of content that cannot be freely exported along with the rest of Wikipedia. To allow a more restrictive licensing scheme to be used freely in Wikipedia would increase the difficulty of such exports exponentially, as one would have to figure out exactly what one is allowed to reuse and where, separately for each bit of information and each image in Wikipedia. Not a workable solution if one wants to allow the right to fork. Now, of course, some valid questions are "why do we need to allow for commercial or non-educational reuse in our license, as we do?" or "why do we care whether someone can easily fork or not?"; valid questions. But that's what I understand of the history, at least (and take it with a large grain of salt, because I wasn't around when it happened; that's just what I've gleaned from exploring the history). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These 'laws' are not engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. Without us, there is no Foundation - never forget that. Giano 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, of course they're not, but at this point, they might as well be. It's not mainly the Foundation I'm talking about (though they would need to be convinced regardless, lest they pull some office-action voodoo to prevent things from changing); one would first need to convince the editing community to come to a consensus that the license needs to change. I doubt that'll ever actually happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  In the specific case I mentioned, Worsley Man, the very restrictive NFCC wouldn't have helped, as the article was about the peat bog he was found in, not about him. The museum was quite happy to have his image included in the article, but not to release all rights to their image. But I agree with you that very little ever changes here, so we're just pissing in the wind. Eric Corbett 19:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Eric you are wrong shudduppa-your-face and listen! We are not pissing in the wind; this is something that can quite easily be changed; it just needs a few people to point out the net benefits to the project - and those few people have to be the few people writing the project, that's where you enter the equation because others have no experience of the problem. Giano 19:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, nobody listens to me, least of all the "grown-ups" in California. Eric Corbett 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's always seemed strange to me that we ban both "Wikipedia only" and CC-BY-NC image contributions while allowing thousands of "all rights reserved" images to be used under fair use. 28bytes (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look! if it's your image, you can license it however you want. Wikipedia has the choice of accepting your gift or declining it. It's really quite simple. Giano 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

........and to anyone who doesn't believe me, images can be easily and harmlessly uploaded to Wikipedia; eg: File:WBDiseased leaf.jpg, and put straight and usefully into articles. Giano 21:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks the reason for the elimination of "middle-ground-licensing" is partly based on avoiding license-proliferation (e.g. the custom en.wikipedia.org-only-license), and thereby increasing simplicity (for the uploader who has fewer legalese-options *and* for the verifiers who don't need to read an essay). But there is also a more subtle reason, and I think it's the big one: insisting that imagefiles either be GPL-style (CCBYSA/GFDL) or BSD/MIT-style (pubdom) or fully proprietary (NFCC) gives an incentive to strongly minimize the number of proprietary images. Allowing enWiki-only, or CC-NC, or zlib-license, or dual-licensing, would not merely boost complexity, it would also make the choices less stark. See moral suasion and bailouts in banking, for similar concepts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the many years that I have been here, I have learnt just one thing - if there's a problem coming, Wikipedians will stand idly and watch it, and I will be there to say: "I told you so." Giano 08:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:WBDiseased leaf.jpg

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:WBDiseased leaf.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[4][5]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. Note, if you did create this file, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow the image to be accessed by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (which include the various localized versions of Wikipedia)

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, and I understand and sympathize with your position, but if you don't allow re-use by anyone anywhere it isn't free, and if you are the copyright owner Wikipedia won't accept a non-free license. Its just that simple. DES ^(talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then Wikipedia is gong to have to change. This is just Round 1, and the setting out of positions. If WMF would rather see Wikipedia suffer a reluctance to upoad images than alter its stance, then WMF is not fit to oversee Wikipedia. Giano 00:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea what the politics of this is, but I'm fairly certain you know what the problem with saying the image can only be used on WP is, so I'm going to delete it. SmartSE (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know the politics of this SmartSE, then you have no business being an admin. Whatever, who am I to deny you your 30 seconds of fame - enjoy, it probably won't happen to you again. Giano 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smok

Bishzilla has collected your page guardian Smok the dragon for some rest and relaxation in her pocket. She was concerned he'd feel abandoned. Best put him in the Victorian lounge, I suppose. Wouldn't want him melting the ice hotel. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Poor Smok, alas he's had to be sent away for a while, as my poor, little withered tree (above) seem to have lost all its branches and leaves, something I can't blame Smok for. Giano 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I was unleashing a horde of wiki kittens on a number of editors today, and I am on the roll. I thought: did I forget about anyone important? Sure I did. Here's your kitten. It's a Wawel Dragon in disguise, perhaps... Anyway, keep up the good job in 2014. Cheers,

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Careful Piotrus! I frequently eat kittens for breakfast, and Smok is not the only dragon lurking around this page. I have noted you 'reaching' out to me' with something less than instant recall; besides which, only Christ 'reached out' and you certainly aren't Him. I really wouldn't push it. I don't want to be vindictive, so I'm currently ignoring your latest RFA, but don't make me a tool or a fool in it. Giano 22:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why else has he not been desysopped

Because, even if we could come to an agreement about his actions (we can't, and that means there are some that do and some that don't condone it), his peers are not able to desysop him. Only Arbcom can. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it woudl be a good idea if his peers recommended to Arbcom that they get straight on with it, before he does any more damage. Giano 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi Giano,

You feel so strongly about Eric's situation, so I thought maybe you should start a thread about it on Jimbo's talk just as you did about your block on Commons. It could make an interesting discussion about "a totalitarian, secretive climate" and hopefully it will bring Eric back.

Regards. 69.181.40.211 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo has heard quite enough from me lately. I think Eric's situation is appalling; Admins can't wrongly insult and accuse people of dreadful crimes and then refuse to apologise because that person may have committed a crime in the past of may do so in the future - that's the road to something very unpleasant. I've said all I can say on the subject; it's now up to the community to decide if they are happy with Admins treading that road. Giano 15:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jimbo's talk page is a good place for the discussions that attract the wider community. I am sure he doesn't mind. Maybe I would start this discussion myself.69.181.40.211 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a free country - at least it is here on this side of the pond, but I would give our young friend another chance to unreservedly apologise to Eric before you do so. Giano 17:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you got me lost. What Eric Gorman has to do with all of that?69.181.40.211 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a daily aspirin crumbled into a gin and tonic? My great aunt is convinced that it's saved her senility and dementia. I'm going try it now, I become so confused. I think I meant Kevin Gorman, then perhaps I didn't - who knows who I meant. Giano 19:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Vernon

Hi Giano, recently inserted an Infobox as well as some other changes for Mount Vernon, which I see you undid, stating that it was not necessary and to not add without a Tall Page discussion. I'm a rather new contributor and not familiar with a Tall Page discussion. Any guidance you can provide would be very much appreciated. Landry76 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me congratulate on your skills as a new user; I doubt I could assemble such an accomplished info box, even after years of editing [6], let alone on my first ever edit [7]. Secondly, contrary to some Wikipedians belief, info boxes are not mandatory, as was established in an Arbcom case last year. This is especially true on pages connected with the arts (eg: architecture) If you strongly believe the page needs one, the the etiquette is to raise the matter on the talk page of Mount Vernon where the matter will be debated by the primary editors of that page (of whom I am one) - these are the editors who have written and maintain the page. Giano 16:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Giano. Personally, I like the info boxes as it gives a quick snapshot of the building in question. However, in looking through the history I can see that this page had an info box in the past, which has been subsequently removed. So I won't press the issue. Thank you for your insight.

Landry76 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Landry76; I note that you've e-instated your other edits. Please be aware that these contain copy violation. This is against Wikipedia's policy; you cannot copy paste or slightly alter text from other site. I suggest you revert these changes or rewrite them. Giano 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A car crash caused by an incompetent, lying Admin and cowardly, hypocritical Abcom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your RFAR

Why is everybody recusing at your RFAR? Have you forgotten to wine and dine the jury? Bishonen | talk 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

(watching) what I see is the following: I know the victim, so I am not able to be neutral, so I can't help him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect my dearest, little Bishoflower that the answers to your recusal questions are all in my statements there, and I'm sure that the Arbcom are completely incorruptible. Giano 17:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda, if you feel he's a victim, you need to stand up there and tell people so. He needs the support of his friends. I can hardly go knocking on doors asking people to support him. Giano 17:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "feel", I know he is and said so. He told me/us what to expect from arbcom, and was he right (as most of the time). What do you expect? More precisely: do you expect my name to be helpful? I'm afraid the opposite might be true, again as Eric expressed well (as most of the time), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric says a lot of things, but at the end of the day the Arbcom is the only thing that can save him from being a complete outcast and outlaw here. If I didn't think that the current slurs on his name were totally offensive, uncalled for and based on an assumption that he is fair game for any new admin trying to make his name, I would not have made my first ever request for Arbitration - I am not the Arbitration Committee's greatest fan either. I wouldn't worry about your name not helping him; I'm told Wikipediocracy are saying the case will be declined because it's me requesting it. So there's not a lot to loose - is there? Giano 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. You must also remember Gerda, that our Mr Gorman is a university Wikipedian in residence, he lectures in Wikipedia and is a former employee/intern of the WMF, so one would expect him to have a basic knowledge of our rules and policies. If this case is declined, it will be a return to the Wikipedia of the early 2000s when editors were bullied and trounced without redress by an unelected chosen few. Giano 18:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started talking to Kevin, as you know, and am sure he will not repeat. I don't agree that "Arbcom is the only thing that can save Eric from being a complete outcast". We ARE outcasts, it's on record (my talk archive 2013, look for the word, was 9-11), arbcom will not change that, I live with it and wish some proud men would also grow up to be indepedent of what others think (simply because Wikipedia is better with them than without, and - my mantra - every good one gone makes it harder for us who try to stay) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you were in dialogue with Kevin, but I'm sure he appreciates it. Never mind, now Eric is an outlaw, you can be his Maid Marion; unless there's a queue for the position. Giano 18:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Kevin said he had no interest in apologizing but that might go a long way as far as Eric is concerned. Eric seems to be usually one that accepts apologies.--MONGO 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's pretty upset, MONGO, love him or hate him, Eric Corbett's has been very wronged here; those insults were beyond foul. I will always defend the wronged. Eric will hate me calling him the wronged, but in this instance, that's what he most certainly is. Nobody but a former WMF employee/intern would have escaped insulting another editor so viciously and wrongly, unless possibly that editor was Eric Corbett - so we have a double whammy here. I'm sure that you're correct, an apology would be helpful, whether Eric can forgive if not forget edit sumaries such as this, [8] is a matter for him. My advice would be to accept it and move on. I wonder if we shall ever live to see such an event - bearing in mind that apologies do not contain the conjunction "if." Giano 20:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Giano, I'm pretty sure that you're overselling the WMF angle. I don't think that really had anything to do with it; given the amount of distrust (and one would almost say disdain) that many people in the community hold for the WMF, that would be a black mark against Kevin, if anything. This has more to do with the fact that it was Eric he was against than the fact that Kevin had some internships with the WMF. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was making the point that some are trying to excuse his behaviour on account of him being a new admin. I would expect those lecturing on Wikipedia and teaching others how to be Wikipedians, WMF employees and WMF interns to be a little more familiar with what is expected of an admin - wouldn't you? Giano 20:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really--it's more that I would expect people who are admins to be a little more familiar with what is expected of an admin. But them's the breaks. To clarify: I might've expected the WMF and its employees to be more familiar with what admins do when I first arrived here, but since then, I've seen that the WMF is out of tune with the enwiki community to a surprising extent. That's actually not necessarily a bad thing; the WMF caters to more communities than just enwiki, and it isn't supposed to govern anything anyway. But it's true: the WMF doesn't administrate enwiki, so there's no particular reason (or need) that it would know how to do so. Similarly, people who teach people how to edit Wikipedia don't necessarily have to know what it's like to be an admin, because being an admin is actually vastly different from being an editor, which incidentally is part of the reason why good editors, like Eric, don't always fare well at RfA (though there are of course other reasons). Being good at being an editor, and even being good at teaching others to be editors, does not imply the skillset required to be a good admin. I would've expected more from a new admin, at least from my perspective; I know that I personally tread lightly in a new position like that, and jumping into an Eric mess is the exact diametric opposite of treading lightly, but I'm not Kevin, so I dunno. I do know that Kevin sought other opinions before acting, which is good, but what really worries me here is that those other admins couldn't have thought of anything better to do than what they told Kevin to do (or, for that matter, that they had Kevin do it, rather than stepping up and doing it themselves). Certainly a small, self-selected group of people can act as an echo chamber all too easily, and that might have been what happened here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I never saw the thread where Kevin was seeking guidance from other Admins; perhaps it was elsewhere? Giano 21:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the diff of Kevin saying so. I don't know whether it was on IRC or not; I do know that it wasn't in the admin channel, though. Notice that that request was placed a day after the events on Jimbo's talk page.
  If I may digress for a moment: I've found that people place far more importance to the -en-admins IRC channel than it merits. Most notably, very little of import actually happens there; it's more for simple socializing than anything else. (For example, probably at least half of my contributions to the channel are me complaining about how hungry I am.) We do discuss Wikipedia issues, but not nearly as often as one might think, and virtually never from the perspective of "what are we, as a group, going to do about this?" Really, it's more just us arguing about our personal opinions. I know it seems cabalistic, but it's actually very tame and boring. To be honest, its appeal for me is basically that it's a place where one can talk without the chance that any old troll will join the channel and start being annoying to everyone. The fact that it's restricted to admins in particular really has very little to do with it; it's more just the fact that it's restricted at all. Also, the assortment of people and opinions make it very far from unanimous on most subjects (perhaps surprisingly, admins are not nearly as identical as we might appear), so there's hardly any opportunity for hiveminded cabaling to take place. That's not to say that there aren't problems with it, and I very much would like for it to be at least partially logged publicly (and have said so), but partial logs can be easily forged, and full logs might cause privacy concerns, so I guess it's not quite as easy as simply flipping a switch. I've been told by people who have been around longer than I that the admin channel was indeed quite cabalistic in the past, but that it has changed in recent years, and I've seen little, if any, evidence that it is still so. IRC might still be cabalistic as a whole, through things like PMs and private, user-created channels, but -en-admins appears to no longer be an example. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of past behaviour of the IRC Admins chanel - I was the one who exposed it. Nowadays - has it changed? Who knows? Perhaps it was Snowolf who gave the poor advice; he was the one who let him in [9]; then again perhas it wasn't [10]. This is the trouble with all this "cloak" and dagger stupidity and claims of secret evidence, it does rather encourage one to think the worst. Giano 22:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; that's why I think the Wikipedia channels should be logged, but I guess I'm in the minority about that. As far as whether the admins channel has changed--well, it sure seems that it has to me, but you're of course under no obligation to take my word for it. :) I know that, for my part, I'd never perform an admin action that is, either explicitly or implicitly, "per IRC"; justification onwiki is mandatory in my eyes, as is really any major discussion that led to action. The only exception for me are things like revision deletion of private information: such things should be discussed offwiki, to avoid spreading the very information one needs hidden. (And by the way, I have no idea who it was that Kevin consulted, but I very much doubt it was Snowolf.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what advice I am supposed to have given, regarding what and to who. I'm about to step away from the PC for a bit, but I will reply to any questions or comments you may have for me, Giano. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Giano doesn't mind me commenting here, but, from my reading of the page - I think Giano suspects you (who strongly disagreed with the course of action I took, and said so, in public, on my talk page...) were one of the people who suggested that course of action in the first place. I imagine you will probably find this as confusing as I do, but to be clear to everyone else: no, Snowolf didn't suggest the course of action I took to me, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can hardly be surprised that people speculate about you. You say you took your advice in secret (I doubt that anyone gave you such woefully bad advice) so we shall just have to speculate on who, if anyone, gave it. Your evidence is secret so we must again speculate if it even exists. The only thing we know for sure is that which can be safely assumed assumed from your refusal to give Eric the long overdue apology he deserves - You are unfit to be an Admin; now, please go go back to your secret IRC channel and garner some sympathy there because you won't find it on this page. Giano 08:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs from people who do see this correctly

I wish I had written this diff, and I wish the Arbcom had the wisdom if its writer. Giano 10:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another, one of many, correct posts [11]. I expect the declining (in every sense of the word) Arbitrators are hoping for barnstars after this too. Just to think this could have been sorted in a couple of days, and now it will run for months. These Arbs have a lot to answer for - they are despicable, there really is no other word for them. Giano 17:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[12] This despicable Arbcom made no effort to examine the evidence; indeed , has anyone even seen it? Giano 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case name

After discussion with arbs and clerks, I made what I felt was a change to a neutral case name.

If you would like to discuss it, feel free to. I am a brand-new clerk, so perhaps you didn't realize the edit was not by a random editor.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please keep in mind that rollback is only for obvious vandalism and certainly not to perpetuate an edit war. The edits on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case do not qualify as vandalism, nor are your reverts minor edits. Kind regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following Ed's point: I would just like to say that my use of rollback here was actually a misclick—I had no intention of getting involved with this at all. That said, I would ask that you please not revert it. NW (Talk) 19:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, please note the parenthetical comment by arbitrator Newyorkbrad.

(Also, as a reminder, casenames should be neutral and non-argumentative.)

As a new clerk, I checked to see if this was something I could address, and was informed I could. I am happy to discuss the phrase with you, in case there is something objectionable I missed, but as others have noted, edit-warring is not the way to go.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfAR edit warring

Please don't continue to edit war over such a silly issue. You'll just end up blocked. -- John Reaves 18:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

You seem to be in an edit war regarding the Arbitration request title. I'd like to suggest that you self revert prior to having an "Edit War" block imposed upon you. Arbitration Clerks (Sphilbrick and Rockfang), Arbitrators (Floquenbeam), and other editors at large. Failure to desist from revert warring could entirely torpedo your entire action before the Arbitration committee. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Kevin Gorman attacking Eric Corbett" to "Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett"

The Arbcom will shortly be dismissing the case - sweeping it under the carpet is more accurate description. I don't see why the case name makes a great deal of difference, it's accurate after all. Unless that is the archives have to portray Mr Gorman in a good light too. Until an apology is issued the attack is clearly ongoing.You really are all quite despicable. Giano 19:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point was, Giano, that case request titles *must* be neutral, and words like "attacking" aren't definitely neutral even if they reflect what might actually happened. And you should know this. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 02:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hahc21, this isn't particularly neutral either. The request is all about Kevin Gorman. Why is the case name not "Kevin Gorman" then? Eric Corbett is almost incidental to the behaviour being discussed. Risker (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Giano could have named it "Keving Gorman" from the beginning and save us all the hassle. The issue, as I perceive it, was the word "attacking." After all, it primarily involves Kevin and Eric, and since the dispute would not have existed without any of them two, it is understandable why both names might appear on the title. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to you that the one of the key issues being put forward is that there is no reason to believe that Kevin would have acted any differently if it had been another user whom he did not hold in high regard. Indeed, I'd suggest that remains a key point: while he claims he might do things differently in the future (by emailing the WMF and/or Arbcom, although I have no idea why he would think either would act in any way, since it is well outside the scope of either), he steadfastly believes that his actions were correct. Risker (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risker: Kevin acted the way he did because it was Eric Corbett the one involved. To me, that fact has been extremely clear from the beginning. Actually, all this situation has reached the level it has because it was Eric who was on the other side of the stick. That's why it's important to note his involvement. Has it been any other user, would we be having this conversation now? I doubt it, because nobody would have mattered to take the issue to ArbCom in the first place. Of course, I am in no way trying to diminish Kevin's mistakes, but he already apologized for it, and I see no reason to beat a dead horse. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 13:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hahc21, very astute of you, we have worked out that Gorman was on a mission to get Corbett. Now that apology to Eric, I'm sure we are all dying to see that; especially Eric; could you point us towards it? Giano 14:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to, but I am, too, still waiting for Gorman to publish it on wiki. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I came to ask the same question. See also sorrow on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Hahc21, I am totally confused - you categorically stated above that Kevin Gorman had apologised - yet when you are challenged about it, you admit you haven't seen it? Something seems rather odd to me (and I accept I am just one of the little minions so realise my opinions don't count). Does "blind faith" come into play with anything stated by Admins or indeed even hopeful/prospective Admins? And yet the Admin in question is still allowed to compound his "error" - without any admonishing murmurs of any kind from other Admins - when he uses terminology like: "... my belief that that thread needed killed ..."? As this was the wording used by Kevin Gorman when making his "final statement" about a thread concerning suicide, is that really considered acceptable, mature or well thought out behaviour from an Admin? My apologies for intruding, Giano but I feel strongly that Kevin Gorman should be brought to task over his wholly unacceptable actions. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep going Sap Phil don't mind me. I find the whole thing deeply mystifying too. I've had to take to reading Wikipediocracy to gain any understanding of the subject. Giano 15:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagaciousphil: Confusion arises when matters aren't clear. Giano and I, we are talking about the apology Kevin has refused to give Eric after he wrote a personal attack against him. That's the only thing Kevin has yet to issue any apology for. When I said that he already apologized, I was talking about his actions, which, as the IP clearly shows, he has done. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 17:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahc21, so he is not expected to apologise/explain his wholly inappropriate use of the word "killed"? His shiny new admin badge seems to offer him protection from everything, absolving him of meeting basic standards of common decency as well as allowing him to issue personal attacks against Eric without any retribution? No wonder so many people seem to be putting themselves forward to gain such a wonderful toy. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he's expected to apogolize for how he used the word "killed." Depends on the context. For me, he meant to get rid of the thread (archive it, in other words), nothing else. If you feel he needs to apologize, the best way forward is to go and ask him for an apology. Being an administrator doesn't absolve you from anything, although it means that you are a trusted editor that has been granted some extra buttons. Regarding Eric, nobody is expected to walk away after having slashed personal attacks against somebody else, and usually, administrators are sanctioned severely than non-admins. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 19:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying you feel it's okay for him to use the word "killed" rather than "removed" or even your own choice here of "get rid" when he is making a statement about a thread on suicide? Also if I'm reading things correctly, Kevin Gorman has just been given a nice little pat on the back by his friends at ArbCom as they are refusing to even admonish him for his actions. I hope you are all proud of yourselves in this disgraceful series of events - it has just been proven that shiny new Admins can in fact dish out personal insults without being "sanctioned severely". SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the substance of the thread, I'd like to point out that once again Risker makes false accusations. Please read "To put it more explicitly than I previously have, I fucked up how I handled this situation. If I'm put in a similar situation in the future, I will not handle it in the way I did. " I believe one could hardly state that Kevin "steadfastly believes that his actions were correct." 69.181.193.108 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Yes, I've read that statement. And I'm still at a complete loss as to why it's still Eric's fault that Kevin behaved the way he did, and why Kevin is still insisting on calling Eric's participation in the Jimbo thread as "uncivil". It is clear that it never occurred to Kevin that his personal interpretation of that thread was...well, his personal interpretation. Frankly, I looked at it and thought it was someone trying to coatrack bullying on Wikipedia to editor suicides. Given that I can personally think of half a dozen editor suicides (many of which Kevin probably doesn't know about), I found the initial post ridiculous. Kevin was far, far too close to the situation to act dispassionately. I have no reason to believe that he will be able to recognize situations where he is similarly too close to act in the future. He has failed to recognize this at all in all of his posts. Risker (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, you write: "I have no reason to believe that he will be able to recognize situations where he is similarly too close to act in the future. He has failed to recognize this at all in all of his posts." It is a false accusation once again: "A fuller explanation of why I described his conduct as 'gravedancing' will be included in my fuller post tonight; I erred in using the term, and regret doing so. This was not a situation I handled with finesse; I made significant errors. "69.181.193.108 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risker. I'm curious to know what you'd have written, and how you'd have voted, had you still been on the committee. 188.29.35.249 (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a great deal more wisdom than the current second rate crew of toadies I expect. So thank you Risker for your informed opnion; I wonder who our anonymous friend is - tres unusual that Jimbo and I have a mutual antagonist; probably an Arb in disguise. This mess here is all looking horribly familiar, isn't it? - a lying admin, 'super secret evidence', the arbcom refusing to act fairly, and of course, me blocked. Perhap that super secret evidence needs posting; assuming it even exists, even if it does, it won't prove anything conclusively - despite young Master Gorman's silly, exaggerated claims to the contrary. Even the arbcom have not been stupid enough to comment upon it. Now I wonder why that is? They are going to shortly find out that dirty carpets can be lifted up and given a vigorous clean and shake, and one does not need an Admin's mop and bucket to do it. Giano 11:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which anon, specifically, do you want unmasking? (If that's what "I wonder" implies... it's a bit like wondering who will rid one of a troublesome priest - open to misinterpretation. Though not with fatal consequences in this case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants the anons unmasking? It's hardly rocket science knowing who they are; I was merely idely speculating. Giano 20:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000 likes unmasking and not only anons. Here for example he's "unmasking" Eric Corbett 69.181.193.108 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now do stop it. or I will tell everyone who you are, and don't think I won't. All former rules and laws no longer apply now - remember that. Giano 20:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am Mbz1, and here are only a very few of my pictures that I uploaded to Wikipedia under my real name. Of course after I was lied about by Wikipedia bullies I have changed my real name to a pseudonym on all of them. I lost my real name to Wikipedia bullies, Giano. I thought everybody knew who I am because I have not tried to hide it. I have done nothing wrong (just the opposite), and I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of, and, Giano, it's great you are fighting for fairness for Eric, but every editor should be treated fairly. Until it happens Wikipedia will remain... well, I guess you know what I mean...69.181.193.108 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember admiring your pictures, but I am one man; I cannot get myself blocked every day for defending everyone. You could make your life easier if you made it up with Risker and asked for some help and advice. She's one of the very few sensible people here. Giano 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do like those diffs though. Certainly surpising how that one turned out. I hope no-one would be so bold to suggest that there might now be another editor "sharing IPs" with long-term plans as that one had. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's no coincidence that the most productive and insightful discussion into this episode is taking place at Wikipediocracy (I have not posted in that discussion). One reason for that site's success and why it will continue to exist and be necessary lies in the fundamental problems in Wikipedia which prevent productive, honest discussions of this sort from taking place here. Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Due to your participation in an edit war [changing the accurate title 'Gorman attacking Corbett' to the ambiguous 'Gorman-Corbett added by Giano 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)] to at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, I have blocked your account. Clerks and arbitrators are the only ones who are to refactor case names, and edit warring over this is not acceptable whatsoever. I will be happy to unblock you at any time if either the case is accepted or declined, or if you will agree to stop the edit war over the case name. Absent this, your block may not be reversed without the consent of the Committee. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, don't worry. 72 hours should give the Arbs ample time to sweep things under the carpet, and stop me criticising them and their minions elsewhere. Giano 19:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If anyone is missing my commentary on the Arbcom's intention to absolve and exonerate Gorman, for the duration of my absence, I suggest they read this thread [13], which I've recently been shown. It's from something known as Wikipediocracy and seems very insightful and perceptive. You must read right to the end (it's easy to miss that there's a second page); there's a particularly good post concerning this edit [14], which I think was rather disappointing even by the standards of an Arbcom, which is hell bent on taking us right back to the Wikipedia of the early 2000s. Giano 14:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"back to the Wikipedia of the early 2000s"? And I should think so too! I grow tired listening to people whining about how everything's gone wrong these days and it was all so much more wonderful when Sanger was the other co-founder. The self-same people also constantly rail against some of the basic rules that Sanger originally laid down, so that doesn't say much for their coherency. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the Wikipedia that was ruled by a few young American Admins, a few old American pensioners and two rather odd men from London, all with the collective worldly experience of a dead ferret. Giano 20:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering when someone was going to mention ferrets in this context. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that severely overestimates the worldly experience of ferrets. --RexxS (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock Giano. The case was declined, there's no reason to keep him blocked any longer.69.181.193.108 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that too much; it'not part of their plan. One thing though, it's nice to see that Brad is a little more conversational and explanatory on Wikipedioctacy than he is here - saving his reputation I suppose; what remains of it. Giano 20:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joke of the day!

a little light relief - answers on a postcard to the Arbcom please - not here; anywhere, but here. Giano 20:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn

Oh god, I had to go and read that wikipediocracy thread you linked to! That's 15 minutes of my time I'll never get back, and it felt like 15 hours.

Anyway, darling, how nostalgic to see you blocked. Good times. Have some popcorn. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Notification of case being declined

Hello. Your recent Arbitration Case Request has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so here.--Rockfang (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giano should be unblocked now, according to the blocking arbitrator's words: "I will be happy to unblock you at any time if either the case is accepted or declined". ---Sluzzelin talk 05:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can you believe this?

"After two ANI's without action taken, and an RFAR as well, I think it's reasonable that I request you be productive and truthful here or elsewise go elsewhere. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)" He further attacked my character by accusing a post I made was "disingenuous".

Has Arbcom created a monster now?! (Whoever would think, right out of the box, he'd continue with more pure arrogance?! Hard to believe anybody is so clueless. Several times now I've seen he has difficulty taking in what was written -- he adds stuff in his head what he imagines is there -- perhaps the same explains why he presupposed all the shit about Eric's posts on Jimbo's Talk [and why he didn't understand the thread; and why he wouldn't back off obviously bogus and transparent justifications of his actions and accuses until 100 people told him he's wrong; and ditto not apologizing to Eric until 100 people ..]. I saw this early on when I posted on his user Talk WP:Competence is required, and suggested he learn to read. I do now think it is a real issue. (Competency.) [How did this guy get thru RfA, and with nearly no Opposes?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the Arbcom; he's their buddy, or even those who voted in his RfA. I'm sure Newyorkbrad will be happy to explain the logic of it all to you because I'm afraid I really can't see it. Giano 14:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely think at this point there's a competency issue here, and that it explains ... everything. (How he got thru RfA I don't get; but, all bets are off for expecting either that he learned anything, or "conduct at a higher standard". Not possible.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idiots and hypocrites commonly known as the Arbcom yesterday gave him a licence to do as he wishes. However, in doing so they have also ended any form of civility control and policy. So if you think he's a fool go and tell him so; you can even say he has no moral decency - these insults don't even have to be true, one can now just thrown them around like confetti and quote the 'Kevin Gorman attacking Eric Corbett' case as the precedent and use it as a get out of jail free card. Wikipedia is a different place today. Giano 14:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Logically. But that's not the way it will play, of course. (Kevin is being "exempted". Others won't be.)
Question for you: As far as I know the "secret informations" to be revealed to "people [he] trusts" was never revealed publicly. If that is true, do you have any thoughts on what that was? (I think I might be beginning to put it together. But I've been ... slow!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the latest. MarcusBritish was blocked by a member of ArbCom based on secret info, and as far as I know he's still blocked and there's been no meaningful discussion of it. They're waffling on Toddst1's actions, when if fact if adminship "isn't a big deal" (that great mantra that's so often repeated here) they would simply pull the tools. All they're doing is proving that adminship IS a big deal (which we already knew) and that they are a privileged caste who must be respected and upheld at all costs...especially when they're wrong. Can't have the proles questioning things, can we? And Giano, please pardon the imposition. I wandered over from Eric's page. Intothat darkness 14:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know all about the secret evidence; it did not prove anything one way or the other; it was just Kevin being stupid. That's why Newyorkbrad and his cronies did not refer to it once - they knew the community would laugh it out of court. Giano 15:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. And Kevin trumpeted & bragged it up so. Repeatedly. (That follows then, and is consistent w/ my theory: "What we have here, is failure ... to ~~communicate~~ be competent.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after Eric's posts and the stupidity started; people began, as a result of Gorman's actions, to mention one paricular youth, but the thread was allowed to continue, compelling me to post what I thought needed saying: [15] which I would be happy for anyone to read, which made the intention of the thread and its subject very clear. Unsurprisingly, I didn't hear a whimper from Kevin or any of those other Admins he claimed were so supportive and shocked by such references. Giano 16:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, am taking liberty to post to your archive because went to sleep before your above and was unable to follow up. Yes, IMO the message you put on Jimbo's Talk is extremely insightful, especially re angle of danger (because sentiment for those suffering health issues can really be a trap, obscuring it):
WMF has a moral obligation to advise any editor 'crying for help' to cease editing and see a doctor. Wikipedia is not therapy and attempting to provide it would be very wrong and possibly dangerous and we should not be encouraging it in any form.
I think this s/b made policy -- more important than any essay. (Can it be forwarded to WMF for their evaluation? I don't know channel for new policy. Perhaps would be straightforwardly implementable by admins.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI new business

[16] Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have said all I have to say regarding this case. A lot of belated self-pitying excuses and unsound justification from the Arbcom cannot make up for the wrong done to Eric Corbett and the project. Hundreds of editors like him now know for certain that the civility and editing policies (even if now enforceable) are one sided weapons. It was a catastrophic decision and those five Arbs, who voted to decline, should resign in disgrace. Please, no more posts here about this matter - it's nauseating. Giano 08:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold

Well aren't you the golden boy? You unarchive a case and nobody reverts you, you don't even get a chance to edit war and be blocked, nobody even complains, and the arbs quite meekly start a motion to strongly admonish! Nobody but you could have gotten away with it! I shall henceforth address you as "Mr Be Bold". :-) (P.S., Ihardlythinkso and others, this is merely a compliment on Giano's sense of timing, please don't take it as an invitation to further commentary on anybody involved in the case.) Bishonen | talk 20:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Nobody complained about the revert because it was about to be done by one of us. The case should never have been archived, as its acceptance was not mathematically impossible. Now that the main business is out of the way (the motion is passing), I'll complain: you must not revert a clerk like that. If you do it again, I shall have to propose a rather lengthy sanction of your account, which I'd rather not do.

It also occurs to me that, by reinstating the RFAR, you removed the only condition under which Seraphimblade's block could be undone—that the request is accepted or declined. As we are all gentlemen and gentle-ladies here (well, most of us are), I won't reinstate that block, but I hope this point further reminds you why your revert was terribly short-sighted. Please note I don't necessarily speak for the other arbitrators, though everything I've said here is fairly indisputable. AGK [•] 23:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY? As you're all scared of Bishzilla and Lady Catherine de Burgh, you mean. Bishonen | here be dragons, 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@AGK I have read some silly comments in my time here, but your current behavior and posts are currently winning prizes for the adjective (see below). Giano 08:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing about your posts, though those are winning the prizes for entirely different adjectives. I'll assume I've gotten across my point that you must not do this again. AGK [•] 10:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK. No, you have not "gotten" across your point (you know what's said about those who assume); when I see gross errors and incompetence, I shall always correct them. Now, I suggest you pull yourself together and admit your mistakes, stop trolling here and find a manual on how to function as an Arb. Please don't return her unless you have something sensible and pertinent to say. Giano 10:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Anthony, there is a very good reason why nobody in their right mind would have considered re-blocking Giano when the case was un-archived: it's all neatly summarised in Meta:Don't be a dick. If you honestly think that you're being "gentle" by not re-imposing a block that had run its course long ago, then you're further out of touch with how ordinary editors see things than even I had thought. All of which is pretty ironic when you remember that the problem started with an admin thinking it was a good idea to treat a grown man like a naughty schoolboy. This isn't public school and you're not fucking prefects. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Lutyens

Giano, I realise it may not be the best time, but Channel 4 last night had a Time Team Special on Edwin Lutyens. I think this link will work. I'm not sure what your views are on his architecture (the last couple of times I talked to you about architecture were probably the Albert Memorial and Marble Hill House), but I thought I'd mention it to you in case you were interested (I've read several books by Gavin Stamp, so seeing him talking on screen was good to put a face to the name). Currently, watching TV programmes like these is more enjoyable than arbitration (the pressures get to everyone after a while), but I suppose that has nearly always been the case (the prematurely archived case request was my responsibility entirely, which I've since retracted and apologised for - please direct your ire about that at me and not anyone else). Ironically, the Horizon documentary tonight was titled 'How we make decisions' and was on cognitive biases. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carcharoth, I have mixed views on Lutyens, I like his domestic work very much, but the big imperial stuff always seems badly proportioned, boringly repetitious in its rhythm and irritatingly grandiose. However, in English domestic architecture he was a clever, almost whimsical architect; I love the way he often leads the eye to expect symmetricality and then gives one a gentle jolt when its not there. I've dozens of books about him, I will get around to editing his page some time. Now to recent events (which is why you're really here: I had intended to say no more on the subject, but events seem to have altered that. I have no ire just complete amazement. We will dispense with AGK above as being posturingly ridiculous. How anyone can be so stupid as to make such comments when so many are disappointed with the Arbcom's conduct is baffling; he should be apologising to the community not worrying about saving the Arbcom's face with me. Whatever the reasons for so hurriedly and foolishly trying to sweep the case under the carpet, it was clearly an error. That Gorman is likely to receive an official admonishment is a step forward; however, his continued whining and moaning indicate that he should have been de-sysopped; he clearly has not a clue of the gravity of his mistakes or any understanding of Adim responsibility. In its obvious display of cronyism and favoritism to Admins over ordinary editors, the Arbcom has behaved appallingly. I don't buy the sensitivity to the dead excuse; for all the sentiment expressed, the thread was not about an individual, and even if it had been, Corbett made no reference to any individual. The extremely unpalatable truth is that the Arbcom was prepared to deny Corbett justice because a favoured Admin felt Corbett had erred before. For that monumental ignorance of fundamental justice and basic rights alone, there should be resignations. It was unacceptable behaviour on a grand scale. Giano 08:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, thanks for giving your views on Lutyens. I visited some of the WWI cemeteries and memorials in Flanders and France a few years ago. One of the memorials I visited was the Thiepval Memorial (and it was Gavin Stamp's book on this that I read - The Memorial to the Missing of the Somme). That and the Whitehall Cenotaph are the two works by Lutyens that I'm most familiar with. His imperial work in New Delhi, I'm less familiar with, though that was covered in the C4 programme. I'm not quite sure what to make of Tony Robinson's assertion that if the Lutyens architecture in New Delhi was lifted up en masse and placed in London, that Lutyens would attain a stature equivalent to that of Wren, but the programme was still very enjoyable (it also covered Castle Drogo, and his other country house work). The other architects I've become more familiar with through reading about the WWI memorials erected by the Imperial War Graves Commission are Reginald Blomfield, Charles Holden and Herbert Baker. I won't say more here on the recently concluded arbitration request, as it may be best to move on (and trying to respond to all that has been said would take quite some time). I also have the four-hour Paxman WWI documentary saved on disc to watch, and shouldn't really put that off any longer. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please

Hey, Giano, please back off on the rhetoric. I know you're trying to make things right; I hope you know that I'm on your side here (at least more on your side than not). But this degree of invective is just not helping your case, and it's not going to help you set things right; in fact, it's only going to sabotage your own efforts, as people will just write you off as another crazy. And really, it's just not okay to keep attacking people, even when you disagree with them so strongly. Your stance on this situation is pretty clear by now, and I know you're a smart person, probably smarter than I am; surely you can find a better way to express it, yeah? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct, I am a little heated in this matter. However, we have all just seen Eric exonerated as a "gravedancer with no moral decency", and now we see yet another WMF employee and Admin accuse him of belittling a suicide victim [17]. While we all now realise that the Arbcom is useless, quite how much more is Eric Corbett (a man who has told us of suicide in his own family) expected to take? Moral decency has been spoken of, I would like to see some. Giano 20:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too wish you'd let up about AGK, sweetheart. ArbCom is individuals, not an amorphous mass. You don't seem to reckon much with the fact that AGK wasn't around to vote on the original RFAR, nor with this. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

When up against Wikipedia's Arbcom protecting its Admins brawling in the street is the only thing that works. Anyway, we finally have a small result here [18] so I shall leave you paragons all to sort it. When I awake, I expect to the motions to be passed, the case to be archived and pretty coloured butterflies flying all over this page. I have done my share, I shall leave the rest of you to tidy up. Good Night. Giano 21:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I've removed your access to this tool per WP:Rollback#When to use rollback and my earlier warning to you. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I took this action before seeing GorillaWarfare's block, and she should feel free to revert me should she deem necessary. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you indefinitely for your inability to be civil and decorous, as evidenced by your personal attack, which you then reinstated after I removed it. This block is not to be reversed without the consent of the Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The follow up squad

The only reason I am not removing talk page access right now is that this is an arb block. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the access while the personal attacks were ongoing. Any administrator who feels that I took an inappropriate action should feel free to revert me. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So is this similar to the indef laid on MarcusBritish? It was always my impression that Arb blocks should only be used in the most serious circumstances. Of course, I could be wrong. Intothat darkness 23:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the block is an indef is blatant bollocks, and you know that full well. Removing talk page access is just an attempt to rub salt in the wound. Good job! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As always, indefinite does not equal infinite. I'm sure Giano will be back once he commits to cease is incessant edit warring on the arb page. Reso lute 23:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something like that, I expect.
As a reminder to all, this remains an ArbCom block so Giano cannot be unblocked without ArbCom consent, Roger Davies ^talk 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely. This is an ArbCom block where Giano has no talk page access, and I can almost guarantee that email access would be struck off trivially if any unblock request from Giano is not totally grovelling. An indefinite block here is way out of order (if you want the disruption to stop during this case, then make the block length about the same length as the case/motion should take to conclude, ie, at most a month). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event Giano abuses email, it'll be turned off. Otherwise, it'll stay. In any case, he has our email address, Roger Davies ^talk 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies, since you're here, why is that case not closed? The motion has passed and all arbitrators have voted. In fact, I understand that a member of the committee assured Giano that it would close as soon as voting was complete, which was almost 24 hours ago. What's the hold-up? I find it disturbing that the committee kept the matter open for comment after voting was complete, given that the comments on all sides were becoming increasingly disruptive. Risker (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be closing real soon now, though clerks seen somewhat thin on the ground. Roger Davies ^talk 01:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies, any arbitrator can at least hat/hab it in the interim, with a notice that no further comments are to be made. People are still poking around there. Arbcom is responsible for the page, whether or not clerks are available. This should have been done 24 hours ago. Risker (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: GW applied this block in the name of the committee and it cannot be overturned without consent from (presumably) a majority of arbitrators. She applied it indefinitely which is inconsistent with preventing disruption to the case request (which as Risker notes should already be resolved) and justified it ~~under the civility policy~~ on civility grounds. So, does a single arbitrator have the power to unilaterally indef block under ~~policy outside~~ the ArbCom policy and require a majority of the Committee to overturn? A block for the length of the case request might have been justifiable, though as Salvio notes Kaldari's comments were much more uncivil. Also, GW's vote and comments in support of Kevin makes this action look biased, and the choice of indef looks punitive. Did ArbCom collectively approve this unwise over-reaction? EdChem (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC) PS: I have corrected myself, I read GW's block notice as a reference to CIV but now see the link was to arbitration policy, apologies for my error. EdChem (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdChem. You're right that Giano is not alone in behaving sub-optimally. That said though, this is Giano's second block in this case and relates to the umpteenth occasion in this case when he has acted inappropriately. While I'm personally open to lifting the block in the very near future, I'd really like some assurances that he will rein in his obviously strong feelings as I would hate to see more of the same on the WT:ACN pages. Roger Davies ^talk 01:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“

When up against Wikipedia's Arbcom protecting its Admins brawling in the street is the only thing that works. -- Giano 21:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

”

You know, I was hoping that you'd have collectively shown enough restraint at this point to prove Giano wrong in that assertion. Instead you have to drive home the lesson to "respect mah authoritah". Well done, you've proven him right after all. Now have you really got the outcomes you were looking for, because we seem to have Eric quit, Giano indeffed and Kevin still unapologetic. Nice work. Can you figure out what you need to do next? --RexxS (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rex, but until I tell them what to do, they haven't got a clue. Giano 07:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This from Ed's nomination statement at Kevin Gorman's RFA:

Kevin clearly has experience; when combined with his attitude and temperament, I firmly believe Kevin is ideally suited to be an administrator on this project. I have no qualms about giving him my full and unqualified endorsement. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Then less than a month later Kevin initiates the lewd and aggressive attack on Eric Corbett. (I'm shocked—shocked!—to see Ed exploit every available opportunity to push back in small ways on those who pushed back on Kevin.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just stop talking about Kevin? he's been dealt with - end of story. That other, older and more senior Admins and Arbs continue in their threatening, bullying and frankly stupid behaviour is far more concerning than one newly appointed admin over flexing his muscles. It's well known that if you give children bats, they'll batter somebody. People like Ed17, Gorilla and Kaldari are a far more serious problem, and a problem to which I shall now be turnig my attention. Giano 10:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request motion passed

Hello. A motion that was proposed for the Arbitration Request you initiated on February 17, 2014 has passed. The motion can be found here. The following is the text of the motion:

The committee notes that it is not in dispute that User:Kevin Gorman has acted out of process and in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held.
The committee notes and accepts Kevin Gorman's assurances that he has learned by his mistakes and will not repeat them.
Kevin Gorman is strongly admonished.
The request shall be filed as "Kevin Gorman".
The request for a full case is declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

As the case has been closed, I have removed your block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare, it's rather sad that it took you over half an hour to find the courage to come here to notify me of the block in the first place, then that you had the audacity to conflict me posting on my own page, and then had to resort to using the Arbcom's acolyte (I assume that's what he is) to continue reverting me here until he finally had the pathetic excuse to remove talk page access. This Arbcom is worse than useless; it's devious and incompetent. it's reluctance to support ordinary editors over admins is now clear for all to see. Getting justice for Eric Corbett has been like pulling teeth without anaesthetic, but we got there in the end, and if the Arbcom ever try such tricks again I will perform exactly the same dental work. Giano 08:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom's acolyte? That's a pretty tame insult backed up with no facts, but alright. Anyway, I have the rational capability to act independently when I see blockable edits popping up on my watchlist, and it's not my fault you decided to denigrate another user multiple times. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Ed, what an earth is insulting about being an acolyte? As a youth, I was one for a few years myself - the bonuses were tremendous, but I'm digressing. I don't believe your watchlist story for a moment, you really must stop fibbing, we all hold candles at one time or another, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Giano 22:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth did you mean by it if you didn't intend it as an insult? I took it as you insinuating that I'm an arbcom sycophant, which is entirely false. Believe what you want, but your page has been on my watchlist since this edit. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, anything you say Ed. Giano 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that it took me a half hour to notify you of the block; I should have been quicker about it. I don't apologize for edit-conflicting with you; you know as well as I do that there's no way I could have done that intentionally to antagonize you.

@Bishonen: I don't agree that my "block notice when it came was couched in general terms, with a large gesture at a long policy"; I linked directly to the six-sentence-long "Participation" section of WP:Arbitration/Policy. "inability to be civil and decorous" is taken more or less verbatim from "All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so." But in case it was unclear, yes, the reason for the block was because he reverted my removal of the personal attack he had made. I agree with you that I should have been clear that the indefinite block was intended to last only for the length of the case.

@Intothatdarkness: I'm a little confused as to why you keep bringing up MarcusBritish's block here. Yes, it was an indefinite block. Yes, I made the block as an arbitrator. That's about as far as the similarities go. It was a block on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, and a normal administrator block would not have sufficed. If you're upset about the two minutes between when I placed the block and when I notified MarcusBritish, I suggest you reconsider your opinion on how much elapsed time is reasonable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases I suspect a normal admin block would have been sufficient, especially if both blocks were intended to halt disruptive behavior. There was also a similar lack of clarity regarding the exact purpose of the blocks. Snarking at me will not change that perception, I'm sorry to say. From the outside, lacking the insider knowledge you would obviously (or hopefully) have, they do look very similar. Intothat darkness 14:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: I understand you must feel that the pages owned by ArbCom are more important than any other pages on Wikipedia, but in truth, they are not. Edit-warring on Today's Featured Article would still only merit a normal preventative block of fixed duration. So what on earth made you think that edit-warring on a remote backwater page (check the viewing stats if you don't believe me) needed to be met with an untouchable indefinite block? Are you so insecure in your blocking rationale that you need to hide behind "an ArbCom block"? - a device that isn't even mentioned in the WP:Arbitration/Policy that you seem to rely on. Or is it simply that your target was Giano? --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you upset that I blocked him, or that the block was indefinite? If it's the former, then we're simply going to have to disagree: I think it was reasonable to block him for continuing to edit war on that arbitration page after previously being blocked for the same. If it's the latter, I have already agreed in my response above that I should have made it clear that the block was intended to last only until the case closed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am still rather mystified as to why GorillaWarfare permitted her "friend" to remove my talk page access. I was merely reinstating what she had removed by conflicting; in fact, I am puzzled as to why her friend was there at all, does he always walk two paces behind her? Is she some poor, feeble little woman incapable of acting alone? But then of course she needed a third man to help her place the block, so perhaps she is. Then again, was it a longed for arbcom revenge and they were all fighting amongst themselves to place it? Possibly even, Gorilla's not very good at placing blocks on her own and needs a cluster supporters to assist her in difficult tasks. Whatever, I'm reminded of a beloved aunt, who when arranging flowers, had a butler to hold the vase, a gardener to select and pass her the flowers, a maid to cut the stems, and three friends to admire her handiwork and artistry. Giano 10:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Neither. You could possibly justify a block for edit-warring, even though you were the other party in the war. You might even make a feeble case for not specifying a time (i.e. indefinite), but that's just shoddy adminning. But you have no justification at all for not using normal procedures. You abused the device of the ArbCom 'irreversible' block. Let me know if there's any bit of the previous sentence that you still don't understand. There's nothing special about your pages that requires stronger sanctions than any other page on Wikipedia. Or are you going to start claiming that your deliberations are more important than those everywhere else? --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare, I think it's manipulative and disrespectful to reply to criticism in terms of the critic being "upset", rather than engaging with the specifics of the criticism. I might call it a male domination strategy if the genders were reversed. I know little of you, except that I have a predisposition to think well of you because Floquenbeam said on my page that he generally respects your judgement; but I don't like to see these wordgames. It'll be a cold day in hell before RexxS (who I have by contrast known for a long time) is upset by some disagreement on some website. Also, yes you have "agreed that you should have been clear that the indefinite block was intended to last only for the length of the case" — but agreed so coolly! The reason you're having to repeat your agreement may be that it was so low-key the first time — not properly audible — anything but full-throated. No hint of regret in it, you know? Not the right tone. Did you see what I wrote about how I actually read your log summary?[19] Why mislead and provoke people? Now, I'm not Giano, I'm not thinking you did so deliberately for some dark purpose. But it wasn't careful or well done. If you admitted that properly, people would probably stop going on about it. Anyway, for my part, I'll stop in any case, I'm done. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Let's see. I have been called an "extremely stupid woman." I have been compared to a "beloved aunt" incapable of arranging flowers. It's been implied that The_Ed17 and I are romantically involved solely because of the actions he took here, or that he's "walking two paces behind me." I have been described as a "poor, feeble little woman incapable of acting alone" who "of course needed a third man to help her place the block" and who needed a "cluster [of] supporters to assist her in difficult tasks." But sure, my use of the word "upset" was clearly the "male domination strategy" here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake for which you failed to offer an adequate apology or explanation. But look on the bright side. At least you weren't accused of taking pleasure in the death of a Wikipedian, for which no apology has been offered. Which do you think is the more offensive charge? Or is it that you believe that commentary critical of arbitrators is in some way more heinous than that against regular editors? Eric Corbett 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: But I didn't call you an "extremely stupid woman." I didn't compare you to a "beloved aunt", nor impugned your flower-arranging. I didn't imply anything about your alleged romantic entanglements or your walking habits. I didn't describe you as a "poor, feeble little woman incapable of acting alone", nor did I speculate on how many people you needed to place a block, nor on any reliance you may have on a "cluster [of] supporters". So why was I the target of your 'upset' remark? Never mind, I understand deflection.

What I did ask - and now for the third time - is what you thought gives you the right to apply an irreversible ArbCom block to as simple case of edit-warring. Are the ArbCom pages so much more important than anywhere else that your decision must not be challenged? --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment to Bishonen was to question her accusation of sexism from me, not to justify a sexist remark. ArbCom blocks on ArbCom pages are intended to keep the dispute local to the ArbCom pages, instead of booting it over to yet another page such as ANI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was wrong. I thought that you apply an ArbCom block to avoid challenge from other admins, but it seems you simply want to ensure that you retain the powers of police, prosecutor, judge and jury within ArbCom? It's worse than I thought. What makes AbCom pages more special than say, a Featured Article, that they need immunity from community surveillance? --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Gorilla, I'm not sure debating here is going to change any minds. I still haven't been forgiven after an unfortunate incident with Bishonen two years ago, despite many apologies and a very gracious conversation via email.

Rexx, if that's a battle you really want to fight, you'll should ask the community in an RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I had no delusions that blocking Giano would be immune from community surveillance, and this discussion has proven that prediction quite right. That said, I think Ed has a fair point—I'm not sure we're going to be able to come to any agreement here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I slept through all that?? Belated commentary on the block and other admin actions

For god's sake, Giano, I slept through all that? How unfortunate. Everything happens when America's awake and I'm not, and then you remove the whole thing! :-( Well, I'm sorry, but now is when I'm awake, so I'll comment. Anyway, I've no intention of mentioning the admin's name that you don't want here.[20]

@GorillaWarfare. I disagree with your block (and raise an eyebrow at your slowness to notify Giano on this page). Your block notice when it came was couched in general terms, with a large gesture at a long policy, so I'll specify what I assume your block reason was, with links for the curious. You removed a phrase of his from inside a longer post, like this, from the case page, some three hours after he made the comment[21]. Silly fussing and micro-management are the best words I have for that removal — "you are a disgrace as an admin" — what what? Haven't stronger expressions been used over and over in this case? I hope I don't have to think of it as deliberate provocation, but it was obviously (come on, now!) going to provoke. Liking his words and disliking being treated like a child, Giano restored the comment, and then you blocked. Making it an "indefinite" block I do consider baiting. Or maybe unintentional baiting — I voted for you for ArbCom and I like to assume good faith altogether — but did you not work out how that would be perceived? Yes yes, "indefinite" formally means "could be any time, I'm not saying", but we all know what it's perceived to mean when the blocking admins doesn't let on what it'll take to be unblocked. It means "to be unblocked if and only if you apologise, admit your mistakes, agree to learn to avoid previous pitfalls, work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, face the music, show that you understand why exactly you were blocked and how right it was that you should be, and show remorse". (Borrowed from the Optimist's Guide.) It merely meant "to be unblocked when the case is closed, i. e. in a few hours?" Why couldn't you have said that? Because it wasn't by any means the impression you created.

Re The ed17's actions. (Please make sure you don't mix him up with EdChem.) Remove talkpage access?? I sure wish I'd been awake for that one, I would have reinstated tpa like a shot. (This is where at least three people will complain that I would have "wheel warred", because they're unfamiliar with WP:WHEEL. Don't bother.) It was heinous and ridiculous. It's normal that blocked users vent, a sensible admin will turn a blind eye, always excepting "extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user" Removing tpa is supposed to be rare. Giano's comment about the blocking admin[22] was heated, yes, but well within what's to be expected, and what's normally accepted, in the case of a blocked user. In no way an "extreme case of abuse". I was surprised at the removal of tpa at first, then unsurprised when I saw who the admin was, but I won't sidetrack myself by going into my preexisting opinion of The ed17. The same admin's removal of rollback wasn't so much heinous as merely ridiculous, a beating of the air in order to make a point, thereby again unsurprising. "Oh no, I haven't got rollback any more, I'm gonna have to use Twinkle! [Weeps.]." Twinkle is just as convenient as "rollback", Giano, and has many additional neat features. Just go to your Preferences, the tab "Gadgets", and tick Twinkle. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Bishonen, I have no intention of Twinkling anything for fear as appearing as stupid and posturing as the pair above. Gorilla, her partner in crime, and arbcom friends are extremely misguided indeed if they think they can intimidate me with "indefinite blocks" and talk page removals just because I point out that an admin repeating a similar insult for which they are currently admonishing another admin for is a disgrace. Perhaps Gorilla was voting on a case which she didn't understand or hadn't properly read; that can be the only explanation. Quite where the organ grinder's monkey was sent from is another matter, but I shall find out. People coming to this page and beating their chests in threatening gorilla fashion will be similarly treated. Giano 11:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is also the second time Gorilla has placed an arb indefinite block with minimal or delayed notice and discussion. MarcusBritish got similar treatment, and is still blocked. Intothat darkness 14:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are very close to having a vote of no confidence in the Arbcom. People like Gorilla and her sidekick strutting around and throwing their weight about are really doing the project no good at all. Giano 14:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say this, I do want to point out that GW's block was presumably a temp indef because you had reverted an arb for the second set of times in the same case, and I don't find it unreasonable. That said, a lot of arbcom's behavior over the last week involving both of us has completely flummoxed me, and somehow remarkably we seem to be in agreement that arbcom's handling of this case has been poor enough to raise incredibly serious questions. Feel free to delete this if you want, I just wanted to point out the odd fact that we've come out of this concurring on a major issue. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think one would have to be a fool not to have noticed some extraordinary and extremely unprofessional behaviour. Giano 15:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned her earlier block simply because it was also formatted as an "arb - do not remove" block with no good explanation. My (admittedly imperfect) understanding is that it was based on information that had been forwarded to ArbCom and not openly discussed. It also seemed to have been triggered by posts MarcusBritish was making on his own talk page. The similarities were, again, a lack of notification, delayed explanation, and the use of an arb block when a normal admin block with explanation would likely have sufficed. Some of the floundering around in Toddst1's case is also instructive with regard to the points you both have made, IMO. Intothat darkness 15:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t know enough about MarcusBritish to comment, but it does appear that the Gorilla does need some form of extra training in her duties. If you don't know how to do a job, don't put yourself up for it. Giano 15:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, if you have a problem with my actions, it's not difficult to open a new section at ANI. Otherwise this is just political posturing. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assholish and oblivious answer to my concerns. Why answer at all if you have nothing to say? And why am I yet again not surprised? Bishonen | talk 21:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, and I forgot: "Thanks." Bishonen | talk 21:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I'm sure poor little Ed] was just leaping on the bandwagon; I expect he has aspirations to be an arb (God knows why) or perhaps he has connections to Arb - who knows? One thing I do know, having dealt with you for 8?/9? years is that you are totally unpolitical, or should that be apolitical (that's where Eic was so useful) so he's wrong on that score, so he's probably wrong elsewhere too. Dismiss him from your mind, that's how I cope with such tiresome people. Giano 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, you think I want to be an arb? I may be many things, but I'm not insane. :-) Bishonen, assholish? Not really. Oblivious? Sure, but that's because I'm not engaging you in a substantive debate on what I'm confident was the correct action. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.......and you're American too, I believe? That must make things a lot more convenient. Giano 22:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave nationality out of this, arrogance and self-righteousness is far from an American-only type (regardless of the stereotype) Giano. Look at all the EE-related battles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@[[[User:Lukeno94|Lukeno94]], no, nothing to do with nationality, I have more than a little American blood myself; I was merely referring to the geographical convenience of Ed being in America - that must remain rather a cryptic analogy I'm afraid, but unconnected to his arrogance I promise you. Giano 10:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Apparent anti-female bigotry. Thank you. Northern Antarctica (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Northern Antarctica; I've seen your thread, but won't be commenting further on it, if people wish to labour under a misapprehension, it's not for me to stop them. When writing satire I always assume that people are intelligent enough to understand it. If you think that was criticising GW for her sex, then you really do need to read it again - slowly, carefully and thoughtfully. Finally, I do hope your friend has not outed her and her Twitter account, now that really would be very silly. Giano (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GW posted the twitter links herself and her real name is on her userpage. Northern Antarctica (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How very useful for her. Giano (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Court

I've been doing some work on Ashton Court and realised that amongst all the history and description of the grounds there is little or nothing on the architecture of the house. I've looked at the NHLE description but wondered if you had anything better, or any interest in describing the architecture as it would be so much better than my attempts.— Rod ^talk 13:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod. Goodness me! You've got to know you're onions to understand what's going on there architecturally. Even poor old Pevsner sounds as though he's struggling. He does quite a bit if speculation with which I don't agree, so I've left it out - he got a bit fanciful in his old age, and I think began to see things which weren't really there. Comes to us all eventually I expect. Sadly, the house is such a hybrid it doesn't seem to be much written up architectural experts - they tend not to like repro on top of repro. I've added a little Pevsner and a lot of waffle based on observation (which should be OK without a reference as it's all visible and blatantly obvious - to me anyway). I've added an image with a very long caption because I think without it, the layman won't have a clue what's going on - even with my 'sparkling' prose next to it. Good luck with the page. Giano (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant.— Rod ^talk 17:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far from brilliant I'm afraid, but without reliable sources and entering the realms of fanciful speculation, it's the best I can do. Giano (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did you do that?

How did you do that, with neither rollback nor Twinkle and in competition with all the admins watching that board? I'm sure I couldn't have. I'd block the IP, but Acroterion got there first and it's as dynamic as an electric eel. (I think I know who it is — the geolocation is rather suggestive.) Anyway, taking the long view, you're obviously somebody who should have rollback, even though you managed so well without it. We don't want the dear departed Mrs Rollbacker to be the only member of your family to have a convenient vandal-fighting tool, do we? I've restored yours. Just remember it's only for reverting obvious vandalism, OK? Don't get heated and misclick the rollback button when you're having some argument. The ed17, I've restored Giano's rollback, in case you want to make an issue of it. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the overblown sarcasm, Bishonen. Why you feel the need to needle me (like a child harassing their parents) is beyond me, but enjoy your reindeer games! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC) I've reverted Giano's rather odd vandalism of my signature per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't odd vandalism of your signature Ed17 it was an inadvertent click of the mouse (I suspect); I had Pandora's Box on copy paste from an earlier edit yesterday [23] and obviously something odd happened. You really should try and assume good faith a little more often, otherwise you'll find life très difficult. Giano (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Giano (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth I don't think I see sarcasm in Bishonen's message, and I also don't much see the need to liken her message to "a child harassing their parents". AGK [•] 21:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask myself if you'd speak to a male editor like that. I'm not a child and you're not even remotely in a parent role wrt me, in fact I'm probably older than you are. No sarcasm was intended. I pinged you reluctantly, from my personal point of view I'd have preferred not to, but it seemed only basic courtesy since I had reversed your admin action.[24] I would have expected it to offend you if I hadn't notified you. I regret it offended you that I did. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I'm not sexist; I would have replied in just the same manner. However, I may have misinterpreted your (what I read as) sarcastic post as being principally directed at me, and I apologize if that's the case. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...the non-apology apology always has the qualifier IF embedded somewhere in the comment. To avoid becoming dinner (or just a snack) it might be best to try that again...--MONGO 10:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bishonen, that was most kind. I am indeed very quick with my fingers on my magic buttons today. Don't worry Ed17 none of us will treat you like a parent - that would be very hard as you so thoughtfully have your age included in your user name. Giano (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ed", "Ed7", "The ed", and "The ed7" were already taken when I was registering a new email account. I reused the name when I later created an account at Wikipedia. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to explain to me; we are all be allowed to be coy about our age. if you are 7 or 17, it makes no difference to me. Giano (94) (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...like a child harassing their parents" ?!? LOL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Court

I'm not sure what the messages above are all about, but I came to thank you for the work you did on Ashton Court which is currently having a GA review. I've dealt with most of the queries but the reviewer is asking for inline refs at the end of each paragraph. Within the stuff you did on the (complex) architecture there are several inline refs, but not always at the end of the para. I was wondering how you would feel about a bit of rearrangement of the text so that the referenced sentences come at the end of the paragraph?— Rod ^talk 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the above is about either, some admin seems to think I attended a masqued fete at Brymptom and persuaded hundred of people to wear accurate period costume and jump in a boat. After which I dishonestly sepiarised and distress their image. Now to Ashton Court - please put the cites/text where you like. I only used Pevsner so its as long as its tall. Giano (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I've moved a couple of sentences & reused the refs. The only bit I can't see in my copy of Pevsner is: "Elsewhere, the castellations seemingly sprinkled at whim over various wings and juxtapositions are purely ornamental, and date from the various 19th-century remodelings of the house." Any ideas?— Rod ^talk 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...c'est moi - making a clearly visible observation based on Pevsner's history of the building. If the reviewer does't like it, remove it, but I think it's OK to leave, they are clearly not the sort of things from which one could pour boiling oil onto inept administrators - no matter how tempted. There's lots of factors making them clearly ornamental 19th century romanticisms (is that a word in English?). I'll leave it to you to decide whether they stay or go. Giano (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the reviewer, mentioning this discussion, to get another opinion.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. The article is now GA.— Rod ^talk 07:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's brilliant. Giano (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuthalltemple1906.jpg

I've closed the PUF discussion as keep. There's no doubt the image is PD in the UK but I couldn't make out grounds for it being PD in the US. Sadly US copyright law requires anonymous, unpublished images to be 120 years old before they are PD. Therefore I've removed the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag and add a Fair use rationale instead for use in the article on the temple itself and removed it from the article on Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain. I know how frustrating this all is and I've read the frankly appalling way things were handled on Commons so I can easily see how pissed off you might be about the whole issue so I hope what I have done is at least something postive if not as much as we would both have liked it to be. Nthep (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this rate, there won't be many pictures left at Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain. Presumably, in America, it's easy to pop out and take new photographs of long demolished buildings. One can only admire such talent and invention. I've long been thinking (seriously) about an article on the Lost palaces of 5th Avenue, perhaps one of our New York residents can pop out in their lunch break and take the photographs for me, an up to date, recent picture of the Vanderbilt Triple Palace would be a coupe for Wikipedia indeed. Giano (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:National Bank Oamaru.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:National Bank Oamaru.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another perfectly good image needlessly deleted by some ignorant vandal. Giano (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:-(

What a long wikibreak. :-( Bishonen | talk 20:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It's not a wikibreak. Thanks for all the emails - for the record and to answer a few of the questions: I am not ill (that I know of); I have not been sent to prison, nor am I in an asylum for the insane (pity; I could have organised a wiki-meet). I'm just sick to death of this self-destructing project (eg: just today, and all the morons who never write a word, but want to enforce the letters of the law and make pointless rule, and then become daft little Admins on the back of their negative 'work.' I have not retired or stormed off in a huff (No, if it quacks like a duck, it's not necessarily a fucking duck); I am just taking time to enjoy the summer and assess where I want to be with this project, which at the moment is a long way from it. Giano (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boleskine House

Hey Giano, if you're still up for doing some good old fashioned article work, this 18th century Scottish residence needs to be rewritten from scratch. I've made a start on it, but I've got to nip out now, so if you're up for expanding it, that would be great. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:VillaMedicicafaggiolo.gif

Don't template the regulars.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for uploading File:VillaMedicicafaggiolo.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sfan00 IMG it would appear that the image I uploaded has long ago been inexplicably moved to Commons with no attribution to me (File:Cafaggiolo utens.jpg), and you have stumbled across what remains of it here. It would also appear that your education is so lacking that you are unable to recognise what is clearly an ancient work of art, in this case a work by Giusto Utens. It is because of people like you, that I no longer feel able to edit here. How long before the Mona Lisa is deleted because Leonardo da Vinci was not on the syllabus of some kid's provincial high school? An encyclopedia run by the uneducated is not a viable possibility. Giano (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm CharlieTheCabbie. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CharlieTheCabbie (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon CharlieTheCabbie? You have noticed that I made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed? Are you on some noxious substance of just incredibly pompous? "Wikipedia needs people like you and me" Well at least you have one statement that's half correct; and what is that ridiculous diagram supposed to be suggesting; it looks like something waved about at a gay pride rally. Giano (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Apology

Firstly, I owe you an apology. As has subsequently been pointed out, I have failed to correctly identify that the above image was in fact clearly sourced. What's more, given the sheer volume of images I deal with, I should have known better than to tag it in the first place, rather than seeking a clarification with other contributors, including you as the uploader.

Secondly I also owe you an apology, about what happened next. I failed to take your helpful comment in the professional manner normally expected of a Wikipedian contributor, and feeling upset, sought advice from contributors. This seemingly led to you getting an unjustfied (on reflection) templating. This is not in keeping with the standards expected on Wikipedia.

I did not handle this in the manner expected of a Wikipedia contributor, and thusly given the sheer volume of edits I make reflects badly on myself, I am considering disscussing this with the administrators shortly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry Sfan00 IMG; not to worry - worse things happen at sea; there's no need to fall on your sword. Giano (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Also Do you know of any Wikipedia contributors that would be interested in an otherwise rather dull research and catloging project in respect of old paintings?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valleyfield

http://www.avocadosweet.com/floating-bob-and-the-forgotten-mansion-the-story-of-valleyfield-woods/ Kittybrewster ☎ 09:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing me that Kittybrewster; I hadn't heard of it before. Hopefully it will be restored. I've heard it said (especially in Italy) that there's beauty in decay - I've never quite been able to see it myself. Giano (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something when time allows.

Hi Giano: Enclosed is a report found about Wikipedia sent in case you might glance at them when time allows: I find in a recent book on Architecture (2014) dealing with the well-known architect Vincenzo Scamozzi written by an architectural historian Giovanni Gleria; "WIKIPEDIA also provides much information and pictures on Scamozzi and his works, some also under specific titles. But the information and notes shown, although summary, are often imprecise and at time even incorrect so should always be checked. The general evaluations of Scammozzi and his work are rather of no importance whatsoever." [Published in Italy by Dove Osano Le Parole, Vicenza, Italy, ISBN 978-88-95685-07-6]. Upon seeing this, it was surprising to see it in a new 2014 book which is being purchased by college libraries around the country at this time. Is there anyway to get one of the Wikiprojects, maybe in Art and Architecture, to look at this page with a serious eye. I did some repair edits to at least deal with some major issues, but more seems needed. Can you think of anyway to get help to this question. FelixRosch (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I think indeed the Wikiproject is one way, and approaching users personally could be another way, though I do not know anybody writing about Italian architecture.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: User:Giano is our resident expert on Italian architecture, you might ask him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC) FelixRosch (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on Vincenzo Scamozzi and if you might think that there is anything to do about it from the note I had left above. Regarding your Talk page comment earlier, you appear to have some unlikely history with other users and if you can share anything here on your Talk page certainly let me know. FelixRosch (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently far from home and all my books, and travelling, so I'm not really editing at all - just looking in from time to time to see what, if anything, is happening. Curiously I see that I started the Baldassarre Longhena page (still a stub I see), but lamentably don't seem to have said too much about Vincenzo Scamozzi; I'll have to rectify that on my return. Regarding the other matter: I used to be rather excitable on Wikipedia, but now I find if one gives people enough rope they general save one the bother and hang themselves. I can positively assure you that that's what will happen there - there's no such thing as a secure secret on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All sounds good, and if you have a chance to see the Giovanni Giacomo drawings in the new Scamozzi book cited above it might give you more ideas. Let me know if or when your travels are completed and if you have any ideas about the Scamozzi page enhancements. FelixRosch (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing when time allows: look at (and possibly expand) Schloss Weimar‎, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giano: Summer is passing by and I was wondering if you have given any further thought to the Scamozzi situtation I had mentioned above. Is there a beneficial approach which can be taken to enhance the page. Recently, I have been reading about Palladio, Scamozzi, and Baldassarre, and possibly the interaction of their influence would make an interesting addition. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I've had no time to think about Scamozzi or Palladio - my summer has been entirely preoccupied with family matters. I don't see myself having much time here before early November/late October. Please be bold and edit the page as you see fit, I will be looking in from time to time. Good luck with it. Giano (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palazzo_Pitti&oldid=612341439&diff=prev

Hi, User:Giano, I noticed your edit, why, if I may ask so? Lotje (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask. It's because I don't care for you reducing the images to the size of postage stamps. Giano (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be you do not care, but using small screens (tablets, iphones etc.) makes it difficult.

Lotje (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Lotje, articles that are intimately concerned with visual arts such as architecture have a good argument for larger images as the detail may be important to understanding the subject. I accept your concern about some images being too large for the screen on a mobile phone, but having reviewed the article on my phone, I couldn't see what problem the 300px wide images would cause. If you could be a little more specific about the problems you encounter, perhaps solutions can be found for you. --RexxS (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely trying to take into consideration the not-logged-in users with small devices. Lotje (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. That's very commendable of you. I do a little work on the accessibility project and I share your concerns. I think, though, that you'll find 300 px wide images are viewable on almost all internet-enabled phones these days, so I wouldn't expect any problems with that article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

..and it looks fine on my phone, iPad and desktop, so that's all well and good. Giano (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentmoreish.

Giano, my friend, I'm reverting your removal of the infobox from Mentmore Towers. Every GA/FA article on buildings of architectural merit feature them, and that's good enough for me. P.S. I love your work :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What rubbish you talk Gareth E Kegg. You obviously have not read any of the architectural FAs etc written by me - try this one for just a mere start Buckingham Palace; then we can go on to this one, and then this one - do we need to go on, they are just three FAs written by me. Have I made my point or do we need to visit the Prince's Palace of Monaco? Giano (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible articles, but those are all at least five years old, and I haven't seen any recent GA/FA articles that fall under the pervue of WP:Architecture without an infobox. I too have written many articles on houses (and admired many more!) and haven't encountered this attitude until now. I'd love to go to the Prince's Palace. We could get an ice cream and walk in Jardin St. Martin. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five years or five minutes, I fail to see the difference; I look at a few (not all) of the pages passing FA today and wonder where the decent writes have gone? The pages that I wrote to FA standard are all fully maintained and referenced. I don't FAC my work any more because to do so is pinning a target to one's work. However, I maintain those page I have heavily edited, and if someone thinks they need delisting because they don't have something akin to a Pokemon card attached to their lead, then there's not much I can do about that and they are welcome to delist them. However, I can think of very few architectural pages where an info box is anything more than a grossly misleading summary of important facts. If writing about boron, I think there's a strong case for an info-box, but if writing about a structure built over 800 years by the assorted members of six families using fourteen different architects in numerous architectural styles and their even more numerous hybrids, then I fail to see the use of an info-box. Unusually, Mentmore Towers was built all in one go, but it's architecture is still too complex to dismiss as simply "Jacobethan"; furthermore, its architect was not Joseph Paxton (he only designed the heating system and the glass roof of the hall), but I suppose the remaining information, in that silly box, might be useful if one is planning to bomb it. Giano (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love the 'Pokemon card' comparison. I have never submitted anything I've written to review, but one that was, The Tower House, had a relatively simple history, but even so the nakedgeographicalityFACTS stand out so prominently. Perhaps it is readers that we really lack when such an oversimplification can be garnered from the infobox. Thank you for such a brilliant reply. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actively undergoing a major edit

Hi, honey, I like your ongoing improvements to the look of Buckingham Palace. But I noticed the "multiple image" template now at the top of the "Home of the monarch" section. I wouldn't dare interfere with it even if you hadn't posted the "keep out" banner, because I don't understand how it works. It's got scary words in it such as #expr:. But it looks like the two images have been coordinated for width, not height. Would the template allow for making them the same height instead? Because I think it would look better. Any opinion, Dino? Bishonen | talk 20:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have no idea! I merely copypasted it from lower down the page. I don't really like it much, but it does show what was going on. The page has got stale and tired - not to mention over edited by enthusiastic amateurs. I'll have another go tomorrow and attack the text as well. Giano (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellency, I've tried to equalise the picture heights while retaining sufficient size to show what was going on. They seem more aesthetically pleasing now. If you'd prefer a different size or layout, please just say. I remain, etc. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]