Yes, I think that Rockpocket blocked <He is talking about me Giano (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)> for the right reasons. At the time, he believed that[reply]
the comments he removed represented harrassment of another editor;
he was acting within policy to remove those comments and warn against their replacement;
he didn't think that the harrassment would cease without a block;
a block in that situation was appropriate and well within accepted practice; and
he was acting in the best interests of the project.
Was he correct in all of those beliefs? Nope. The result? Bad block, good reasons.
I assume the irony of yelling at me to "shut my ill-informed mouth" [2] and in the same breath warning me against creating further drama isn't lost on you. If you have something further to say to me, feel free to visit my talk page. There's no need for additional bickering in Rockpocket's userspace. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know? I really could not care less WTF you think. You are ill-informed and rather ignorant. It's a pity, but there is not a lot I can do about that. If you are hoping I am going to enter into debate with you, and thus create more drama you are mistaken. Now run along and find something productive to do outside in the nice fresh air. Giano (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to civility blocks being issues for trivial reasons. They are the root cause of much of the drama and bad feeling and disruption to this project and it really is time to get a grip on the notion of 1,500 Admins out there all making up their own mind on what constitutes civility. Sarah777 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Within reason, I think the blocks generate more passion and incivility than they stop - civility is such a subjective notion and we don't even attempt to define it yet it is one of the commonest tools/weapons used/abused by Admins. Drives us non-Admins (even polite folk like me), into frenzied anger. Sarah777 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I don't believe we've met before: but make sure that you think about what you type before you press "save page". Thinking about the impact and potential consequences of when you materialise your thoughts is intelligent. You clearly are, and we don't need any more discussion here. I hope you understand. Rudget (logs) 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly Rudget, you've lost me! If I wasn't hoping (however forlornly) of having some "impact and potential consequences" there'd hardly be any point in commenting. Sarah777 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anyone could argue that writing I really could not care less WTF you think. You are ill-informed and rather ignorant is anything but uncivil. I ask Giano to please explain the remarks or retract them. If there's no explanation then the remarks appear to violate Giano's probation. ·:· Will Beback·:·19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although, like Wittgenstein wrote about definitions of words "We do not know the boundaries, because none have been drawn", the fact that the boundaries of what is and is not uncivil content remains fuzzy and even undefined, there are central core aspects that can be unambiguously placed into civil and uncivil categories. In this case, I think the words used in the link provided by William M. Connolley are definitely uncivil, as they are a direct attack, calling into question the capabilities of another editor. DDStretch (talk)19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"calling into question the capabilities of another editor" is not uncivil per se. If it was actually thought to be then we would need to build that into an iron-cast rule (like 3RR) and sanction all breaches. But we don't. Why? Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not, I agree. But there is a significant difference between saying "I believe you to be stupid and ignorant" and "You are stupid and ignorant". The first expresses a perfectly legitimate opinion, the second expresses a fact. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how saying that "I really could not care less WTF you think" is doing other than expressing a point of view, and in my book it is very far from uncivil. A block for that kind of nonsense is perhaps the kind of thing that Sarah was referring to, and quite rightly in my view. There are too many heavy-handed and incompetent administrators all too ready to press the block button for the slightest of perceived slights. I do though agree that it's difficult to interpret "You are ill-informed and rather ignorant" as being anything other than uncivil, as DDStretch I think was suggesting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you know that I am your friend but comments like this can't help anything. Saying such things like that is not helping anything even if they were true (upon which I make no comment). It actually hurts because it brings a cycle of posing and grandstanding like here and deflect us from addressing true problems, including with the user upon who you commented. Please take my friendly advise and avoid making such comments. --Irpen19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one's got me baffled. A sarcastic response is often just a way of telling someone they don't understand, i.e. that they're stupid. How is it different than just saying "you're stupid"? Ah, the recipient of the sarcasm must have sufficient intelligence to recognize it, and the observers can chuckle about the brilliance of the sarcasm. Thus sarcasm is civil? Or, it's not civil, but responding in equal kind is - oh, gotcha, civility probation!
Avruch had the option of just letting Durova explain that she has been in contact with FT2, as she has done elsewhere. Instead Avruch chose to inject personal commentary, Giano rises to the bait, another admin steps in to correct the "Giano problem". How predictable. Franamax (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I thought as much, among the edits the silly and sarcastic Avruch wants me banned for (see heading above) is this one [4], what a very silly and stupid, and out of touch person Avruch is. Giano (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please avoid describing people as stupid, Giano? You're welcome to hold that opinion, but it is one of those terms that can be defined variably...kind of like "uncivil"... In any case, the WP:AE thread is closed and there is no discussion of extending this block. Risker (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch tries very poor sarcasm, does not like the response so get some other fool to block. In the meantime Avruch digs up diffs for something on which he clearly has not the least comprehension amd feels this makes him very clever. I beg to differ. Giano (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realise that he does not understand the background behind several of the comments he linked to, their context, or their significance. That would make him unaware, or having failed to have fully informed himself, but "stupid" is such an undefined, nebulous, schoolyard term that it completely lacks the precision of language for which you are known. Risker (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone making an edit such as this to me [5] is either very stupid or knows exactly what they are doing - you may decide. In any case sarcasm (if that is what it is) deserves sarcasm. What a pity stupid Admins cannot see that without causing all this fuss. Giano (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe people in your RFA tried to say that you never took part in fueling drama. My memory was hazy, but thank you for quickly jarring it by reminding me of how many times you've jumped at the opportunity to throw Giano down the well. The name of the game is, "Poke Giano a thousand times until he's mad, then block him for being uncivil." I'd go batshit insane and lose all patience, myself, if I were being harassed and conspired against by so many drama mongers, most of which have power here that they clearly no longer deserve, for so, so long. After his most recent meltdown from all the bullshit around him, it should take no more than a simple chat in an IRC chat room or a conversation shuffled around on a mailing list to start the process of having him banned. This is a stupid game that has no place on what was supposed to be an encyclopedia, but is instead a third-rate soap opera. SashaNein (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand you. You get a light block for incivility, and promptly put up [6] and others. So now you have a longer block. Please see sense - you just can't behave like this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have come across some foolish and daft Admins in my time, but truly you are the most naive, stupid and ridiculous appology for an admin I have yet to come across. Giano (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you are just going to get yourself blocked for months. You've turned from a producer of high-quality content to a high-drama magnet. Perhaps you should drop the tone and just work on articles, and save yourself some trouble? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not give a blind fuck. Avruch thinks he can be sarcastic, and then his friends block me for replying in the same tone. If that is the new Wikipedia then I am better off without it. Giano (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, make it 48h then. People are offering you good advice; take it. My advice is to walk away from you computer for a good while before you post any more William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and it's ignorant biased crew of admins can fuck off! and yes Connolley go for 96 and figure you care for! Giano (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on William. You're sounding like you're talking to a child. "One more word and I'll send you to your room for 48 hours!" Just let Giano blow off some steam and calm down. He's not hurting anyone here on his own talk page. Just leave him alone for a while. Sheesh. Giano, it's OK, don't let them ban you. Nothing is worth letting them push you off this site. Tex (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, Tex. This is pretty apparently someone looking to block. This whole, "Don't answer back, or else" tactic has been used, from the days of the playground to the days of international politics, simply to ensure that someone replies. William's language is graceless and uncivil, because it is rhetorically designed to provoke. People who are civil seek to find ways to make sure that all sides are happy, not that anyone is silent. Trying to shove people through the door is the very definition of uncivil behavior. Block overturned. Geogre (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get fucking lost Avi - if Avruch is such a precious little soul that he is allowed to use poimtless sarcasm but no one is allowed to respond, then take your encyclopedia and put it where it feels least comfortable. Giano (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, your minders know perfectly the old routine. make a provocative comment, cry wolf at your response, raise the stakes, monger drama, wait for more comments from you, recycle. We know them but this is about you. Don't allow yourself to be played by this routine. --Irpen21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Giano? And what I told you? Please break this cycle and laugh them off. We can deal with it all later. --Irpen21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it is now a 49 hour block, from when you first initiated it. I don't suppose the odd hour matters much in this stupid wheel war revisited scenario, but when "re-instating" a block it may be considered bad form (or poor arithmetic) to increase it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the initial 3-hour block started at 18:59; Giano's first edit after that was 19:51. The block was extended *by* 24 hours at 20:20 hours (i.e., it was now 25 hours 20 minutes) and then extended again by a further 24 hours at 20:27 (i.e., it was now 49 hours 27 minutes). After return to what remained of the original 3 hour block, it has now been extended by 48 hours to a total of 50 hours, 22 minutes. Risker (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I understood the 48 hour block to have been imposed for the "continuing incivility" on these pages so I was counting from that timestamp - and I was taking to the nearest hour, rather than count the minutes - but this is semantics, I suggest, at present. :~( LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the first (perhaps debatable) block, is it true that the subsequent block extensions were imposed for incivility to the blocking admin? Weren't there supposed to be thick skins over on the admin side? Franamax (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango was initiated over an admin applying sanction for perceived violation - which was directed at the previously involved same admin - although that was not the sole basis of acceptance. You may need to consider the situation (and amend the block to reflect the initial tariff, if you are going to keep to it.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to perhaps debate the first block as follows: Avruch was engaging in serious debate until Giano made an appearance, then chose to respond with sarcasm, rather than choose not to respond. Giano is perhaps less versed in the sarcastic arts or chooses not to dally in them and responded to the spirit of Avruch's remark, which could be contrued to be a ridicule of Giano's. Giano didn't start the incivility (though he has at times before), he responded to percieved incivility, i.e a rude dismissal of his comments. I wouldn't particularly debate that though - it is the escalation based on Giano's response to that block, made on his own talk page that rankles. You advise Giano above to step away from his computer - that sounds a lot like a cool-down block. If it is such, then the blocking admin should also take the opportunity to cool down. Some other admin could have equally well applied the escalating sanction. Franamax (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if this all gets escalated and goes to ArbCom, WMC would come out worse than anyone from this episode, since obvious wheel warring and blocking in the episode where he is directly involved were dealt by ArbCom in a very harsh way.
I think, the best step now is to go back to trying to find a solution to the set of FT2-related matters that rock this site for the last days. WMC should reverse his own re-block and step away from this for now. --Irpen22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcBride (talk·contribs) has protected your talk page for the remainder of the block due to repeated incivility on the talk page. If you wish to appeal your block, please email unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org or visit #wikipedia-en-unblockconnect. Thank you. MBisanztalk20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. I have a completely painless solution for people who feel that "incivility" has been here: DROP IT FROM YOUR WATCHLIST and ignore it. How hard is it for knuckleheads to get the message that they should be watching articles, not talk pages. Protecting a user's talk page is absolutely, 100% out of bounds, and I'm ashamed for you folks. Geogre (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? "You had better not answer me, Friday, with one more of your smarmy comments, or I'll block you."
.
.
Figure that works? You feel like being nice now? Or do you think that what I've said is, indeed, a way to make you say something unpleasant? I feel like the page should be protected from people coming to try to bully and threaten the user and tell the user what he must and must not say, but there isn't a button for that. Geogre (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. There was bad behavior on more than one account, yes. But there also comes a time when enough is enough.. that's all I'll say. Friday(talk)21:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tex and Geogre: who is Giano hurting by letting off steam on his own page when he's blocked? Do you have to come here to be offended? What is that, some kind of compulsion?
Final message from Giano via Bishonen: Giano doesn't care about his page being protected. If Avruch can attack him and he can't reply—then he's not interested in posting on Wikipedia. Please don't revert this message, I'm un-breaking my wikibreak to post it. Bishonen21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I can now edit my own page without cencorship, albeit for a very short time no doubt. What a pity, but then hardly surprising this whole very nasty incident arose from a comment concerning Durova and FT2 . Well my friends and foes you have the Wikipedia you deserve. Giano (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I hadn't known my name was involved in any way. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding that can be cleared up. Let's talk; maybe this can be worked out. (I don't know what comment took place, so feeling in the dark here). DurovaCharge!21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what this is about? I mentioned basically the same thing on the AN subpage last night and nobody seemed to mind. (Going to look at subsequent and reverted edits to that thread). If there's an amicable way to settle things I'd certainly be glad to. DurovaCharge!21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just be a little darling and show some intersest in content (than none of these busy admins seem to have time for) and revert here [7]. Giano (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Here's what I'd written that conflicted with Giano's comment: Okay, I've read the remainder of that thread now. I've been working on a restoration of a 1905 Arctic expedition and hadn't checked that page after I'd posted. No, I haven't written FT2's statement (it odd that Giano would suppose such a thing; I hope it was an attempt at humor). Things are tense onsite right now and we're not all at our best. I don't take offense, though I can't speak for Avruch.
Now Giano, I actually was working on content. Maybe if I weren't we could have cleared this up sooner. But to be specific: I happen to be of the opinion that calling an adult by pet names without permission is uncivil. Please strikethrough that portion of your latest statement, and leave me out of whatever other conflict you happen to be in right now. DurovaCharge!22:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c w. Giano,Durova - boy, he sure is a ladies man, isn't he? :) There's no amicable way though. You made a reasonable post, Giano chose to react with suspicion, (insert the part here where you could have explained but didn't have the chance), Avruch chose to post some sarcasm, Giano responded in kind (+some escalation). Boom, the stop-Giano-NOW mechanism is triggered and events escalate out of all proportion. Rather than being left alone on his talk page, Giano is pursued here. I rarely agree with Giano's methods, but it really looks here like a replay of "that looks like a vicious dog, better poke it with a stick". Now we're whacking it with a two-by-four to see if that makes it more peaceful. (But he does seem to be in one of his moods...) Franamax (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax, although I appreciate the defense, I'm certainly at liberty to let bygones be bygones regarding the share of this that's been directed at me. If Giano is willing to strikethrough one phrase and let me out of whatever dispute he's in, I'll gladly get back to the Photoshop work this interrupted. DurovaCharge!22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, the case has been accepted with you as a party. If you strikethrough the passage I requested and leave me out of your dispute from this point forward, I will gladly withdraw. Otherwise, unfortunately, I will need to submit evidence. DurovaCharge!00:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want Giano to strike through one phrase or else you're going to present evidence? About just that one phrase? Go ahead. I think you'll come off looking rather foolish. Or about more than just that? I hope that's not what you meant... because that reads a bit like blackmail to me. That's not your style. Giano is european and I doubt very much he meant any big insult by using the phrase "be a little darling"... I call waitresses "hun" all the time and I'm 'murrican. There are bigger fish to fry, Durova. ++Lar: t/c01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Lar said. Trying to forcibly extract an apology is plain silly. Resorting to blackmailing while at it is even worse. --Irpen01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my statement at RFAR, Giano pulled me into a dispute very much against my wishes. I didn't know his blocks, user space protection, etc. had any connection to me until they had already taken place. It was pretty much by accident that I saw this, and immediately I offered an olive branch, hoping to extract myself and calm things down generally. I intended to offer him a graceful out, and persuade Avruch to join in mending fences, and then try to work out a handshake ending to Giano's block and to this business about a wheel war.
While I was extending the olive branch Giano edit conflicted with me, and he compounded the original jab with a more serious one. All I have asked him to do is withdraw part of his second statement; it's quite right and reasonable to make that request. Now I would still like to extract myself from this situation, but his pattern of behavior is worrisome, and it is rather hard to walk away from that in good conscience while he remains unwilling to retract any part of these insults. I remain willing to extend the utmost good faith: if he withdraws one instance of incivility I will interpret the greatest good will from that about his intentions to be polite toward other people. I also remain willing to broker a peaceful solution, to the extent that it is still possible to do so (events have moved very fast).
This whole situation has been like stepping through a looking glass: I do my best to quell a tense situation, then go off to work on content. Hours later I discover it's gotten a lot more tense because I was off working on content while the drama unfolded (and was unavailable to quell things sooner). So I immediately do my best to help turn down the heat, get insulted again, and then I get accused of blackmail for offering yet another olive branch to the same fellow who dragged me into this mess and insulted me repeatedly? Gentlemen, I hope that the heat of the moment has affected your perspective. I hold no grudges and am acting in good conscience. DurovaCharge!02:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your efforts to quell a tense situation, I, and several others (as noted) saw your post as coming across as a clear, "Lick my boots," tone. Perhaps that was not your intention, but I have stopped trusting your good intentions for quite some time. SashaNein (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. I sometimes wonder why I watchlist this page; the ridiculousness of some of the actions on it is somewhat scary. —Giggy07:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, please don't. This is all nonsense escalated by SirFozzie for god knows why. Don't dignify this wild party by attending it. --Irpen00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very much as I always refer to vandalism as "scribbles", because at a certain social level "vandalism" has some obscure cachet, I feel that demonizing the Arbitration Committee is quite likely to inflate them further, as "victims". Those with content contribute content, but there is room at Wikipedia for all kinds, inventing categories and disinfoboxes, chatting in Userpages as if at Facebook, judging the quality and assessing the importance of articles to which they cannot contribute content, or arbitrating the disputes of others. Giano has not learned what New York subway riders know: one never responds to trashtalk. If necessary one gets off at the next station and moves into an adjoining car. I have dropped many articles from my Watchlist in this way. Not every mean-spirited and ignorant quip need be answered.--Wetman (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you on Northern Ireland, I think you both miss the point that the US was founded, and believes strongly in terrorism, freedom fighters, and revolution. Regardless of idiology or right and wrong, we (americans) believe in those things and tend to get involved in them around the world both personally and governmentally. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Charlotte Corday reference on your page was the sort of thing that makes me smile. As you're probably aware, she was also known as the second Joan of Arc. During your last arbitration case I suggested a featured picture candidate; it got promoted during your wikibreak. So I found a
somewhat happier image than Mlle Corday's trial (only somewhat, considering what happened afterward) and restored it. And strange as it may seem under the present circumstances, I'd like to conominate with you.
This new arbitration case is a distracting sideshow. I'm interested in arbitration reform; that's one of the things we share in common. And I'd like to open a proposal to take your name off of it. Not in a one-up/one-down way, more synergistically. So please view this offer in the spirit of this isn't life or death and we don't need to repeat the follies of a century or two ago. Let's talk; you might discover the wiki witch of the west isn't so bad after all. DurovaCharge!10:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are a truly delightful person, However, certain Arbs are salivating in a most carnivorous fashion, as was evident by the undue haste to accept the case and divert attention away form their follies elsewhere. I doubt you will succeed. You see without me there is no show! Yes, it sounds boastful and conceited, but it happens to true, just look at some of those unnecessary comments piling in with the accepts - "ALL" in nice big letters. However, lets look at the true facts: An admin make a sarcastic comment, an editor snaps his head off in retaliation, in short no story - storm in a teacup, best forgotten. Then, along comes another ill-informed admin (apparently he had never heard of the famous Giano and IRC cases - that alone must make him unique in Wikipedia) he makes a block. Blocked editor gets cross, so block is extended. Geogre unblocks to alter length, another admin interferes and interrupts him mid fiddle. End of story, in fact no story. Except of course it involves me! So it's whoopee time, and the Arbcom thinks lets do what we failed to do last time - get the bastard, and at the same time take the pressure and attention off ourselves. It's a cunning plan, except of course everyone see straight through it, even those who don't normally agree with me. Please do whatever you like, but I don't intend involving myself in anything to do with this present and seemingly doomed Arbcom, I have more worthy things to do with my time than play silly games. Giano (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, only 9% of your last 200 edits have been to mainspace articles or your drafts. Long have I accepted that you would be a troublesome user who would say what he thought regardless of circumstances, but I justified it in part because you were a big producer of content. The content part, it seems, has now fallen by the wayside and now we have a self-created drama show. Perhaps you should redirect your energies back to the exploding houses or whatnot and leave the arbs be, or just think about what you've written before you post it. I would hope you don't run around like a cast member of Glengarry Glen Ross out in the real world: why do it here? Yes, there is ill will towards you here: but running around like a wounded bull does not increase your number of friends or sympathizers. ---Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edits are my own affair, as is how and when I make them. I realised long ago every edit I make is subject to scrutiny such as yours. Which is why I doubt you see most of them. Secondly, I am not the least wounded, quite the contrary in fact. Finally the drama merchants are those currently posting "Giano this" and "Giano that." I suggest you go and research their edits. I'm sure ypu will find their contributins fasniating. Giano (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course his mainspace edits have dropped. If I were harrassed this much by the higher ups or saw this project for what it really was, I'd be heavily discouraged from continuing to help this site as well. Very unfair attack. SashaNein (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, David, David. The one thing everyone can agree on is the value of Giano's content contributions. Content creation was the one thing he could do without feeling that everyone was looking over his shoulder. And now, you have made it clear that even when he is adding content, people are watching every keystroke. Did you know that in April, this page got more hits than Jimbo's talk page? That even on quiet months, it averages over 100 hits a day? We need to add another section to WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a zoo where stalking every edit of a contributor and hoping for drama is an acceptable pastime. There's not much motivation for him to develop or improve articles if he's going to have the WP obverse of Arnie's Army following him around. At least Arnie's Army cheers their man on; here, they eagerly await the next episode of As the Block Button Turns. There truly is a solution to what happened the other day. People need to take this page off their watchlists. If admins (and other editors) don't read Giano's words when he is angry and blowing off steam - something that most blocked users do, and their talk pages are rarely watched - then they will not risk being offended. It makes it nearly impossible to try to help him redirect his energies when another admin is standing over one's shoulder, one twitchy finger on the block button. The community needs to get over its obsession with Giano. Really. Go write a page or close some PRODs or something. Risker (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To say that the community has victimized Giano is only a half-truth. One man does not become a target by doing nothing. Giano is equally culpable for bringing such attention to himself. Am I absolving others of overreacting? Heck no. Of hounding him? Of course not. And I am not trashing Giano's contributions, he's still an excellent contributor, I'm simply saying (as Sasha pointed out) that he's not producing as much as he used to, and this is partly due to the above reasons. If Giano toned down his own rhetoric, people would stop taking offense to him at every turn (well, most would) and the encyclopedia would have that much less drama Giano rails against. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I try to make it a rule never to discuss the value of my content writing, as I feel it is unseemly. Each editor contrubutes as much or as little as they can, so long as they do make mainspace contribution before opining on others. Thus, I would be grateful if you would take your comments concerning it elsewhere. I do not set myself a target of so many FAs per year, so many "pages"s per year and so many stubs per year. Nor will I have such targets set by others. As you are so interested, I have two very large pages near to completion, when they are completed, I'll make sure you are the first to know. However, regarding my content writing, I will say that I have more than earned the write through my contribution to be allowed to voice an opinion on how Wikipedia is run - or do you disagree with that too? Giano (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because having begun the last push towards its completion this morning, attention was immediatly dragged to it, and I decided I don't want to work on it, trying out new ideas, in a gold-fish bowl. So i have decide to complete it somewhere a little more private. It wil go into mainspace when I am satisfied with it, and no one else. Giano (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy Mr Fuchs has forced my idle brain into gear, we really should start a survey into content edits versus opinion, and should they be related. Fascinating subject. Giano (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty awesome idea, allowing the contributor to develop an article to a satisfactory standard with any (exposure to) drama. Ideal for those whose concerns are the production of quality content over edit counts, etc. and the plaudits that may be gained from them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you are correct LHvU if I had the foggiest idea what you were talking about. Plaudits are only for those who need them, and in my experience they are are a very dodgy breed or person. Giano (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, one should not work for the garnering of plaudits, but for the sake of the work itself. The plaudits will come, according to the quality of the work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's bloody marvellous, it could have been the southern side, and that would have been bad. Be glad the goat was born on a Wednesday. Giano (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pay no attention to him, Sarah, he's just trying to get your goat. Unless, of course, it was born on a Saturday, in which case you can keep it. Risker (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review this section on the proposed decision. I have made a request to the arbitrators to allow one week for evidence presentations in this case, unless the named parties all agree that they are satisfied with proceeding to voting at this time. If you're ready to see voting proceed, please sign in the designated section or add any comments you may have there. With respect, DurovaCharge!00:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not clicking on any links to see anything. I am not accepting any findings of this case. They erred in the IRC case and they will err again. If the Arbcom wish to divert attention form their behaviour elsewhere then they can find some other vehicle then me. During many Arbcom cases from Eternal Equinox to the The Troubles I have seen the Arbcom at work. I can prophesy the outcome quite easily without needing to wait weeks for them to pretend to deliberate. Giano (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. I have taken the liberty of linking to your post from that thread with the two word introduction Giano's response. That is acceptable, I hope? BTW the conomination offer remains open (along with the offer to propose your removal from the case). In case you have a change of heart I've been thinking of waiting until Bastille Day, or until the case closes. DurovaCharge!08:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do as you wish, but the case was accepted with salivatingly obscene speed, so your wish will not be granted. It's nice to see the same old faces queing up to vote, when they have a backlog of more important things they should be dealing with. It was a pity I was not voted onto the Arbcom, myself. Prioritising, cutting out old wood and judicious pruning are specialities of mine. Giano (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to join the RFC then? Your experience and administrative skills would be valuable to establishing meaningful arbitration reform. DurovaCharge!09:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, the thing about the "same old faces" turning up to vote is that there are only so many arbs, they're elected in tranches and they serve fixed terms. It's not realistic to expect a new face in-between elections ('tho I'm thinking about asking who would be willing to stand for a snap re-confirmation poll).
Looking to the past and considering what might have been, casting things in terms of "if only I was in charge" is really not productive, though it would be most interesting to see how you interacted inside a group whose members you appear to despise yet cannot dismiss, had you been elected. I don't think "if only" is your style, you can easily survive in "what is" and you are also easily able to envision "what could be".
To wit, why not adopt Durova's suggestion and participate at the RFC? It's just an open outcry where everyone is equal in their ideas and aspirations, but why not make the leap and throw your own ideas in there? No, they won't be adopted, but you're no worse off than now, are you? The only difference you can make is a constructive one. Franamax (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Franamax, you rather missed the point I was attempting to make, and obvious time wasting has never been a hobby of mine. Durova, I just clicked on your RFA link, I had not bothered to look at it before assuming it would achieve nothing and be a forgone conclusion. One look at Jimmy Wales's boxed statement was enough for me I'm afraid. "...or gives trolls the opportunity to turn more people against each other," and concluding that there is "zero" chance of the Arbcom behaving as accused. In other words: if it were not for wicked trolls the Arbcom would be proving daily their infallibility. I'm afraid that attitude has been, and is, the cause of many of Wikipedia's problems. Dissenters are wrong, they are trolls, they should be ridiculed, ignored and disposed of; until that attitude changes nothing will change. Giano (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so, but there is another page being finished in word processor, which which has to be finished first, if time, and entheusiasm, permit it should be done in the next couple of weeks, then the full Winter Palace team can be re-motivated, we've all been slacking a little on it, my fault entirely, but as you know it is more of a project than a page. Giano (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, since you have now archived my conomination offer, would it be fair of me to conclude that there is no chance you'll have a change of heart? The FPC is all ready to go and it's generally better with these things to bring them live sooner rather than later. With respect, DurovaCharge!17:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please fell free to do whatever you like. I am watching with complete incredulity, wondering, how many of the ordinary rank and file editors are swallowing all of this. I have decided not to refute or comment publicly on anything posted on that page, what others do is their concern. In any society or community where the judges set themselves as the victim, the prosecutor, and the judge then there is little that can be done. While I've always known that Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is only now that I truly realise what it is. Giano (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following the insertion of evidence (containing half-truths, out of context and missing facts which include oversighted edits) into the workshop page [8] (by a judging Arb) of a case which I had been assured was not about me, my existing feelings of contempt for the present Arbcom and its supporters has plummeted to new and unimaginable depths. Such are my feelings at being so proven right, I, at present, do not trust myself to speak fully on the subject. So, I would be grateful if no one would post here concerning the matter. There is plenty of room on the workshop page for you to have debates. While, I have tried to avoid posting on the case pages, I have posted 2 brief comments, both restrained. I hope, I shall not be posting or rising to baits there again.
I am very grateful to those working so hard to expose the facts on my behalf. However, a very worrying incident here last week coupled with the continued and in-depth amateur examining of my personality has made me feel personally vulnerable and threatened. There is only so much one can voluntarily take and I feel I have now taken enough. Thus, I have decided to become very much more low key on Wikipedia for a while. Thank you all for your emails and support. Giano (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a contest to see how many different bird species (or any animal species) we can count in the next 24 hours? I'm already in the lead - grey squirrel, dog, and that damn big gull that nests on the roof just opposite and doesn't squawk - it *screams* and you'd think a human was being attacked. Plus the crows that come through just after dawn to pick the garbage and harass that bloody gull into making extra loud screams. Oh, does motorcycle count as a species, I just counted that one too :) Franamax (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The true problem now is that all trust and real communication between me and the Arbcom has irretrievably broken down. When Jimbo made his announcement saying that the Arbs had jurisdiction over IRC, I thought we had progress. Following the IRC case they agreed to address the problems and gave me a civility sanction. I don't accept the civility sanction because they never kept their side of the bargain to address the problems there, because FT2 announced there were no problems - so if no problems exist why pass a motion to address them? Now they are using my (less than flattering) references to them (dispossessed of any context), for not keeping their side of the bargain, as evidence to dispose of me. So more or less there is the problem in a nutshell. Of course there are one or two minor issues now cluttering the clarity up but they are all things that could have been easily sorted. However, now nothing can be sorted because any trust and respect that may have once existed has gone. They feel that any problems that exist will disappear with me, or, more likely, no one will ever dare raise them again. That peace will last just as long as it takes for the next bad block or decision to be orchestrated in IRC or someother secret place, and lets face it we all know that won't be long."
"All I have ever wanted was a transparent system of Admin debate. Admns could discuss easily on pages that ordinary editors can't edit, but can see. I just wanted an open fair system - so bad blocks orchestrated by cliques ect became a thing of the past - and the true reasoning of all blocks was open to scrutiny. Any truly confidential stuff, should not be in the hands of teen-age admins anyway, but dealt with by senior and trusted editors/admins/arbs."
"Sadly, the Arbs will just not address the problems of IRC, one can only hazard guesses as to why - and I am rapidly becoming past caring. Thanks for the support here (as ever) but I don't want to post here on this subject here again either. I see I am subconsciously using the past tense, I am truly very weary of battling a losing battle to get Wikipedia running fairly. Perhaps I will just go back to writing, or perhaps I may just dissapear - who knows."
May I suggest a different way of looking at this? Wikipedia has governance problems. Everyone knows this. You have bravely tried to put a spotlight on parts of this issue. You have succeeded in doing that. There is now an arbcom RFC. Many people are speaking up. Mission Accomplished :) I suggest that you accept this victory and announce that for one year you will watch as the debate and its resolution process proceeds and you will trust all the other people who have taken up the issues of Wikipedia governance to enact some needed improvements in Wikipedia governance. You have done your part. Relax for a year and spend your time on Wikipedia at what you came here to do in the first place - write articles. Bless you and good luck. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily second that, Giano. I've had many stimulating exchanges with you on architecture articles, and I long to get back to that harmonious mode. --Wetman (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am always here, and always open to suggestions, talks and negotoations from the Arbcom. They know where to find me. Giano (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the issue had been fully explained back at the beginning of the year; but, as I can't find any real discussion to that effect, other than the statements here, I'm beginning to suspect that my impression may be incorrect. If that's indeed the case, then I apologize.
Anyways: the reason the Committee cannot "address the problems of IRC"—at least in the manner in which you would presumably like to see them addressed—is because the Committee does not actually have any real authority over IRC, and lacks the ability to issue decrees that would be binding on the IRC channels or their participants. That authority rests solely with the IRC Group Contacts and their appointed representatives. Kirill(prof)02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to both Giano and Kirill for interjecting here, I can't help myself. I asked right back then, in a thoroughly ignored section, I believe in Workshop Talk - why can't en:wiki, under the aegis of ArbCom, establish it's own admin channel, with it's own group contact, with it's own consequent rules of operation? With the accompanying deprecation of the existing channel, which of course could keep operating forever, but no longer with official imprimatur. Sorry Giano to mess up your talk page, but that question still bugs me! Franamax (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine. However, there comes a time when we cannot keep arguing in circles which is what is happening now. During the last circus the committee agreed this [9] and more importantly this [10] "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee." Here we all are months later, and nothing has changed. In spite of Jimbo decreeing the Arbs did have jurisdiction [11] and one Arb wanting to address the matter properly with the wider community (she received zero support from her fellow Arbs [12]) In fact, FT2 was delegated to half a half hearted and look and that was the end of the matter, as he found no problems! If as Kyril says, after all these decrees and motions they have passed, the Arbs now claim to have no control over the behaviour of Admins, in a channel which Wikipedia encourages them to join, which is in fact, "owned" by an Arb (he has said this himself- James "You are all idiots" Forrester) then we do indeed have a problem - and if others cannot see these very real problems. which repeatedly occur and eminate from that chanel, then that is that, enough is enough - I do give up - others can sort it if they have the will or the energy. Giano (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks, duly inserted. I am going on a wiki-break now for a while, as I am so tired of this head banging debate. My parting thoughts, more of a question really is: Is it right that Wikipedia is policed from a place over which Wikipedia claims it has no control? I know the answer, I hope some of you do too. Giano (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, and you can remove this if you want to, but it absolutely is strange. Your summary above reflects my understanding of the situation, and Kirill's comment seems to directly contradict the developments in this area in the recent past. Avruch10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should all thank Kirill for having posted this here, as it will be very helpful in explaining some of the edits Kirill has brought up in the current Arbitration Committee case. To review: the committee says on 9 February 2008 that "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee"[13], following a statement by Jimbo Wales on 26 December 2007 ["You may consider this a statement of policy. I consider it well within the overall remit of the Arbitration Committee and my own traditional role in the English Wikipedia community to have authority over IRC as necessary. If this is a policy change (I do not think so) then it is a policy change. In any event, this page should reflect the fact that from this day forward, concerns about standards of civility in IRC should be taken up with the channel operators, the Arbitration Committee, and me, in that order."][14] and on 8 July 2008 a member of the committee says "I was under the impression that the issue had been fully explained back at the beginning of the year", and that "the Committee does not actually have any real authority over IRC, and lacks the ability to issue decrees that would be binding on the IRC channels or their participants". Well, Kirill, I think it was explained, but the explanation given doesn't match what you are saying today. Sorry. Risker (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how hard it is to find that statement by Jimbo. How hard is it to find cases resulting from bad acts on IRC? How hard, on the other hand, is it to find any statement that permits the use of IRC to decide anything? The only conclusion I can come to is that those who use IRC all day find themselves thinking that, you know, IRC is great... why "I" never misuse it, and they then never investigate anything. Any case showing the reverse is just a "bad apple" (like Lynndie England was a "bad apple"), and there is no credence given to anyone, no matter how dispassionate, who shows that the medium itself, by its nature, is ill-suited to use. Geogre (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use IRC everyday, and certainly not all day, but I don't think a chat room is ill-suited for the purposes of conversation. Clearly there are events of poor judgment, and no more proof is needed than this page to demonstrate that there is a vast gulf of misunderstanding about the standards of conduct and who is responsible for enforcing them. Its also obvious that conduct on #wikipedia-en-admins, where the members join the channel and discuss as Wikipedia administrators, must be governable by Wikipedia policies and subject to review by the arbitration committee.
I'm not sure why that is so difficult to establish - perhaps the channel should just be deleted, and conversations directed to the main channel where anyone and everyone can join (and maintain a log). Nowhere else (except, perhaps, unblock-en-l) are administrator discussions privileged and secret. An alternative is just publishing a complete log automatically to a page in Wikipedia-space. Information that must remain private should go to the arbitration committee as it does normally. It seems simple, and I (among others) thought the question of governance was resolved awhile back. Maybe it will take another test case of IRC misconduct to force Jimbo and the arbitration committee to put it to rest. Avruch21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yaahh, it seems to come down to "oops, someone else owns the channel", and everytime I ask why a new channel can't be made, the response seems to be the sound of one hand clapping. Looking now at this, I find it hard to understand why WMF couldn't approach Freenode and ask for a primary group name of "enwiki" or maybe "WMF", what with being the sixth-most popular website in the world and all. (Yes, I have backup for sixth-most). This lack of action seems inexplicable - it certainly does give rise to various conspiracy theories. (Although, I myself and some other users & admins who I vastly respect, couldn't care less about IRC channels, never tried them and likely never will). Franamax (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. RGTraynor 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedians feel a page about a house by James Gillespie Graham is unworthy of this encyclopedia, then I have no comment that does not break the civility parole placed on me by out Arbcom. I suggest the Arbcom sort the matter out. The page was intended to be part of a category I am creating to support one very lage page. Giano (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are inside buildings, right? So that means buildings are all about people. So, is there a claim that this building is notably about people or about notable people? If so, it can't be speedy deleted. Oh, and you're welcome. :-) Utgard Loki (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me that the place was (or anyway is) also written as "Blythswood House" (for example here) and that this was the likelier spelling, in view of the spelling of the family name. So I moved it to Blythswood House. It then occurred to me that perhaps "Blytheswood House" was chosen for good reason. (I blame caffeine deficiency for the lateness of the realization.) Feel very free to move back over the redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have accidentally created this sandbox article in the article namespace. I have moved it to User:Giano II/Blytheswood House so that you may work on it at your leisure. --Allen3talk 13:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, the mainspave version appears to be safe now, so the use space one (created in paniced hurry) can be deleted. Always such a risk these days putting a page in main space, I wonder how the less well know editors manage. Giano (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which of all you dear American people who watch this page, can pop over to Virginia and get me foto of Agecroft Hall asap? The first one to produce a foto has me being nauseatingly sycophantically civil to them for a year and a day. Giano (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not responsible for that article, I want a foto of it for my article, which will bring fame and notability to the USA, if I have a picture to expand upon. Giano (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's one on Flickr here and a photoset of the gardens here. You'll have to ask someone who understands how these things actually work (Giggy is usually quite good with things like this) to explain how to import Flickr images (I know it's possible). – iridescent21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Iridescent, wow, what can one say, it is horrible[15], it can't have looked like that in England, what have they done to it? It is all straight and angular - it's all wrong. Anyway that does not matter (for Wikipedia) can we just upload it - I'll ask Giggy. Giano (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like it's been reconstructed as it would have looked new, not as it looked after 500 years - I wouldn't be surprised if it does look like that in Tudor drawings. The instructions for importing Flickr images are here, and I won't pretend to understand more than one word in three. – iridescent22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you can't use it; the little license thing says it's all rights reserved, and you can't fair use a photo that could reasonably be recreated in a free image (eg somebody could reasonably go out and take a photo now of it and upload it with a free license). It's kind of annoying. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're all rights reserved, so perhaps our friend Giggy can come up with a contact to email the photographer and request permission to change that one photo to CC-by. Often, when people are approached and told the photo will be in Wikipedia, they're more than happy to help out. Will search further. You know, Iridescent, this means Giano will be nauseating to you for the next year. Risker (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think we'll bother. It looks to me as though someone swopped the real house for Lego mid-Atlantic, either that or they lost the instruction book when they came to putting it back together again. Whatever, we need another house, did they ship any others across the pond? Giano (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will have a re-think, it has to be a former British country house. Actually, i quite like the Gerkin. Giano (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was one shipped to my area of Canada, I am trying to dig up some details and will let you know by tomorrow. If I am correct and it is close by, I'll get some shots for you. And the mention of the Gherkin has me pining for the Docklands! I've obviously been over there far too often. Risker (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this some article on English architecture being shipped abroad? I mean, everyone knows about that bridge, London Bridge wasn't it, and several stately homes and cottages have been mentioned above, but castles? Who in their right mind would ship a castle halfway around the world? In fact, who would ship a bridge around the world?
"In 1967 the Common Council of the City of London placed the bridge on the market and began to look for potential buyers. Council member Ivan Luckin had put forward the idea of selling the bridge, and recalls: "They all thought I was completely crazy when I suggested we should sell London Bridge when it needed replacing."" - from London Bridge, see also London Bridge (Lake Havasu City)
Tombomp is correct; that image can't be used. (commons:COM:FLICKR has a big banner at the top with info on exactly what can be used... let me know if that can be made more clear; I tried to make it as obvious as possible when adding it.) Let me know if I can help with anything else from Flickr, though. —Giggy08:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, though few complete houses made the crossing, many English interiors were shipped to the US pre-WWII. Tweaking Edsel and Eleanor Ford House last month, I discovered that John Harris, whose work you know, has written Moving Rooms: The Trade in Architectural Salvages, 2007.--Wetman (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Giggy, we are not doing too well are we?, I paricularly want an "American" house on the page, pretty near the top too, as it makes the page more relevant to those in America, who may not otherwise be interested in what is after all, a pretty British orientated page. Giano (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The first one to produce a foto has me being nauseatingly sycophantically civil to them for a year and a day" - Giano, this was very funny! Do you think that in future if you feel tempted to say something that might be incivil, that you say this instead? Hmm. On reflection, some people might take that as being incivil. Scrub that. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a nice illustration of civility, IMO. Geogre (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]Giano very civilly watches while yet another person misses the forest for the trees.
The day had started quietly and civilly on Wikipedia, but then Giano realised the Arbcom were voting [1].
I agree that, given our history of interaction, my comment could be seen as unhelpful and inflammatory, and withdraw it with apologies to you and to the committee. --Jenny18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK Tony/Jenny apology accepted. It is just a pity that it is me that has to point these things out [17]. It's not your fault entirely the Arbcom does tend to encourage others to its dirty work. My reputation is irreparably sullied as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it would be nice though if we can spare others having to endure the same ordeals. Giano (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading through your FA guide once again and found a broken link to User talk:Giano/Exploding Houses, which had been deleted under CSD G8 about orphaned talk pages which can be deleted. I undeleted it because User:Giano/Exploding Houses exists now. I hope this is OK with you. You might want to add a more stable link for your statement about writing FA's in userspace, or make sure that the talk page is never deleted, if you want to keep the link unbroken. To make it more clear, I'm talking about the part in the FA guide that says "I prefer to write in User space for the reasons I explained here". Graham8712:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit earlier (1808) than the period you are covering, but wondered if you had seen the news about that Turner painting about the destruction of Pope's Villa? See Alexander Pope#The middle years: Homer and Shakespeare for the details of the villa (does it deserve an article? Details are here) and see here for details of the painting. An article about the auction of the painting is here. Apparently, Turner was:
"incredibly distressed at what he saw as an act of vandalism - the destruction of Pope's house which had become a shrine to his fans, who in turn had become a nuisance to the new owner with their constant visits to see it."
The painting turned out to be a bit of a damp squib at auction, and you have probably read about it already, but thought you might like to know about it if not. Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Of course it would deserve an article, but that's Twickenham. Pope enacted his theory of gardening (the grotto), etc. Very important. However, no content should be added without the consent of our employers and bosses, those who govern Wikipedia and whose slaves and fawning subjects we all are. Geogre (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascininating Carch, but too early for my page, but definitely worthy of an article, sounds like a Wetman sort of page to me, I only do architecture, he does cultural, intelectual things as well. Careful Geogre, speak for yourself, I have never fawned in my life, and I can't say I have noticed much of from you either. Perhaps that is where we are both going wrong. Giano (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a Wetman sort of subject. I'm handicapped by knowing too much history of gardening and Wikipedia to be inclined to work at that rather hopeless article, which would entail putting it all in citations and direct quotes (my ventriloquism), thus avoiding tags of "original research". Pope's garden at Twickenham is one of the three great, influential English C18 gardens. It deserves a Giano-type article of its own. Maybe the first step should be a "Pope the gardener" section at Alexander Pope...--Wetman (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no you don't. I've never touched either the Pope or Swift articles -- know too much, tolerate too little -- and Pope the gardener is the subject of more than one book length study. Maynard Mack followed that line, for one. No. The point here is that Twickenham -- the house that was also important -- got torn down by a fatuous wealthy person, and the house is necessary for the garden to exist. We still have the garden, sort of, but the house is gone. (For those who don't know, Pope's house and garden are usually called just "Twickenham," and we have things like the "Twickenham edition" and the like. At the time, the district was undeveloped, and so Pope had moved out to the suburbs and the country, and he was the most important thing there, from an intellectual point of view.) Geogre (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, I'm confused by the indentation. Are you and Wetman politely arguing over how to write about Pope and his house and gardens? I'll sit back and get the popcorn. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're having a Punt, Pass, and Kick contest, trying to defer responsibility. You say it's an historic villa (go Giano). Giano says that it's intellectual history (go, Wetman). Wetman and Giano say that it's Pope (go, Geogre), and now I'm saying that it really is just the house we need (go, Giano or Wetman). Everyone is trying to pass the buck. There is no doubt that Pope's house is important, but should a Pope/1720's person do it (me), should a "cultural epochs" person do it (Wetman and gardening), or should an architecture of England person do it (Giano)? The answer seems to be that none of us want to, because we all see it as being too involved. Geogre (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I can nip in and cheekily create a philistine "tourist destination" stub for the currently-existing object, the grotto? <walks off whistling innocently> Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't Carch and Risker do it as a collaboration, Geogre, Wetman and I will just chip in with "can we have a cite for that?" Giano (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never understood why people think you have no sense of humour, Giano. If not for the fact I once attended a course in Twickenham, I would have had to look it up on a map. There's a grotto there? Geez, and I missed it... Risker (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't quite gone on this break yet. When I do head off, I'll stick a wikibreak notice up. I wouldn't mind trying to start such an article, but I suspect it is better left to those who know the history and culture. Since it is in London, though, I could provide photos of whatever is left. But that will have to wait until I get back. Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Turner's painting shows is that he recognized that Pope's villa was built according to Pope's own ideas of architecture. Inasmuch as Pope was an absolutely undoubted Important Person for the history of gardening (as Wetman and many books have documented) and the development of Aesthetics in general -- more really as the guy who distills what everyone thinks than as a truly original thinker -- his house would have been important. If it were still there, you can bet that people would have studied every angle of the place by line and angle. Just as people go all fruity over Strawberry Hill, this would have been the companion piece: the neoclassical structure against which the Whig sentimentalists reacted. However, the later owner of Pope's house didn't like it, so he had it torn down. The grotto still exists, and people have now tried to recreate the gardens, but as late as the 1960's it was still kind of shabby. I understand that it's a tourist draw now and that it's pretty accurate and good now, but without the house that it served.... In other words, Turner, who is part of the aesthetic that is going to call Pope's age dirty names, is genius enough to recognize that it was monstrously stupid to tear down the house. (Of course, there is another aesthetic developing in early Romanticism -- a hostility toward the nouveau riche and the concept of the "Philistine" (from Matthew Arnold) that Turner would have in his breast in a nascent form, too. Geogre (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh, and as for pictures, we need several photos of Strawberry Hill: it's a weird place and shows up in the Jansens' The History of Art. We also need photos of what's left of Pope's grotto. There are some PD woodcuts of the grotto in disguise, but that's the thing -- they're all impressionistic or emblematic. Now, mind you, I regard Strawberry Hill as... "drama" (yes, yes, I know -- no one can prove that the guy was fabulous, but his house was), so it's nothing I'd want to get near, and the fact that he had so much money because his father was the prototype for Margaret Thatcher is just another reason to dislike it and The Castle of Otranto too. Giant fists of mail falling from the sky, indeed.) Geogre (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know exactly what it is you need; I'll shortly be rewriting Teddington Lock so will need to head down that way with a camera anyway. (I did do a previous photo-run in the area when I was writing Hammerton's Ferry – representative samples here – but was concentrating on the river and the buildings on it). – iridescent20:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now Strawberry Hill is very interesting becasue that is where all the Gothic revival started off, very nice - sort of "Sleeping Beauty in her castle" Oliver Messel rather than "Vampire sleeping in the mausoleum" a la Pugin Gothic revival became. Do I have a ref for that - No! You can just take my word for it. Giano (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A ref? Anyone who has that Jansens (hubbie and wife) History of Art can refer to it to say what you say, Giano, but my opinion -- that it demonstrates absurdity and a man with money and guilt, rather than wealth and sense, that it's a pouring out of blood money -- now that has no reference. This isn't that infantile habit of fighting our favorite authors' battles, either. I really do not like Horace Walpole and that form of ostentatious display. Country houses were always ostentatious display, of course, but the neo-classical ones were not very obviously egoism and an effort at making the personality the object of display, but Horace Walpole's house did. It said, "Aren't I just droll? Bleh. If only Pope's house were still there, we'd have the missing term in the transition from the public display of reason and the public display of the owner's oddities, and it's that middle term no one has. Geogre (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand computers but lots of people who watch this page do. On my private home wireless system (in London - BT Internet) on the Norton network map, there should only be me and my children's computers. There has always been a computer called "Thomson" (is Thomson something to do with the internet or a hacking neighbour) I have no isea about, but googling it, seems that others have this too, but now suddenly a new picture of a computer has jumped up saying "New Generic device" does this mean someone is hacking into my computer? What I'm trying to explain is there should only be three computers on the network mao, but now there seem to be 5. Should I be worried? What is a generic device? Giano (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you have a network password (you would have been advised to give one when you set up)? The wireless transmitter you pick up will likely be picking up yours, so you are only at risk if you have no password or a really simple one - but even so they will likely only be accessing the internet via your connection rather than hacking your computer. I also occasionally find another network when I log on... in a village of less than 200 people I could likely find out who by looking through the curtains of the other houses to see who is on the computer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Set a strong router password, set your wireless network to accept only registered computers and insert the MAC address and add all the MAC address's of the your computer that are using your wireless to the allow list. Assuming you are using windows, the MAC address is called the physical address and can be found by opening the LAN connection settings, clicking on the support tab and clicking on the details button - the MAC address is called the phsyical address and takes the form 00-AA-BB-C3-H9-4G. Some routers use colons as separators (mine does). Suggest you plug your computer in by cable while doing all that - not sure what happens if you set to allow only while not being one of the registered computers. Those instructions are for XP - someone else can give instructions for Vista if needed.
Yes, well we do now seem to have a real problem, I fiddled with the settings "LAN connection settings" as per above, and while I am on the internet (such a releif for you all) judging by th shouting from floors above, I am the only one in the house who is. I am saying nothing, denying all knowledge, and will get a man out tomorrow! Giano (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? The one for the computer? the one for the wireless router? the one for the generic device that you have yet to identify (new printer perhaps?), or maybe your network card? Borrow the one from Thomson, he knows what he's doing. Risker (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"external" Thomson No you ar emissing the pint it says here lots of people have Thomson [18] - well I just hope he bloody realise he is about to be banned for ever from Wikipedia, that will serve him right! Giano (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if you look at ther lnk above: "the USB port, that shows up in my network neighbourhood as Thomson" so WTF is a USB port? and who is my "new generic device" Giano (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
USB port (it is the thing you might have your mouse and keyboard plugged into to connect them to the computer - unless you have wireless mouse and wireless keyboard as well). Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Under this brand name Alcatel and Thomson retail a wide selection of equipment including ADSL and ADSL2+ modems, residential gateways, wireless access equipment, VoIP handsets and SHDSL interconnect equipment. They are a major brand in home and business networking products."
Though personally, I think what we are seeing here is the ghost of Elihu Thomson. In order to exorcise him, you have to find a free picture of him and upload it to his article. Then the world will start spinning again. Carcharoth (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When computers go wrong, I always, always, try the "turn everything off, wait a bit, then turn everything back on" option. It's worked so many times you wouldn't believe it. Though I was told not to turn off the cable modem as things might go horribly wrong, I still do and it always manages to reset and right itself. On the other hand, I know nothing about LAN settings, so don't trust what I've just said. And don't blame me if Giano follows this advice and then can't access the internet for several days!! Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me on wprds of one sylable what is a "generic device" as both the intruders in my system are listed as these. My PC shows up as "desk top", les enfants show up as "laptop" etc. Giano (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless I miss my guess, this should be the online user manual for your hub, Giano. Customer service numbers are near the end. Do your kids have anything plugged in, like an iPod or an XBox? Risker (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not touching it any more, and man is coming out tomorrow who understands these things. I am not phoning customer help either, as I canot afford lengthy phone calls to Calcutta, or whatever they call it these days. Giano (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Risker stated generic device could be anything that is attached to the network that is not a computer, i.e. a games console, a pda/mobile phone, a network drive, an entertainment system or another router. If you want maximum security you should ask the BT person to allow MAC address filtering and only allow the computers that you use to access the hub (that may require though that you have all the things you connect there when the BT person is there). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On networking, I'm no one of an informed opinion, but "generic" means, "I don't know," in Gates-talk. A Windows machine treats everything that isn't an actual other computer as a "generic" device. The point is that it isn't another computer, most likely. If it were, it would display a name. Instead, it's, well, a device (a peripheral). Geogre (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Giano, whatever you do or have others do or not do to your household or what not, please try never to sink so low as to suggest that someone should miss a pint.
At the Arbcom's instigation and engineering this conversation has started here [19], before out noble Arbs have even bothered to vote.I hope all editors will now see the Arbcom for what it actually is! Now all of you go and have your say, in what is going to be Wikipedia's biggest punch up ever! All designed and plotted by the Arbcom. Then when you have all finished I may or may not post some emails which should finish the whole job off. Giano (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see from my archives that I've sent you one email. I don't think you'll want to post it, but you have permission to repost everything in it except the headers, of which please only post the date and time. GRBerry16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you? I must have lost that one - sorry. No, you were not one of those I was thinking of, and I have made my possition quite clear here [20] I expect it will be lost in the screaming and tribal dancing, or whatever the warm up act was in the Roman Arena that the Arbs are so keen to create. Giano (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize; I doubt it was worth keeping. I firmly don't believe that my every word will be of interest to later historians and it didn't contain anything particularly wise or astute. GRBerry16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I'm sure it was a delightful email, but I only tend to keep those from Arbs, Jimbo and people telling me how wonderful I am. Giano (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I wonder if you'd consider withdrawing your references to "wars" and "battles" and "punch-ups". While you may believe that the arbitration committee is treating you badly, and you should of course feel free to press your case with all due vigor, I wonder if depicting them as warriors picking a fight is the best way to put it. --Jenny16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured Jenny (must you call yourself that?) as "Warriors" is the very last way I would choose to depict the Arbcom. Giano (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, would you consider changing your signature to a non-female name? I've had messages from two young female editors who find it quite unsettling. While I have reassured them that your signature line is "just Tony being Tony" and that there was nothing to fear, it might be something to take into consideration. Risker (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find it unsettling too, to call a grown man, Jenny, however in response to your point, I told you here [21] the Arbs would have to give their kickers some reward and the very unprecedented and unwikipedian circus on the Admin's notice board was that reward [22]. So no, as the Arbs not only encouraged it by their coments, but lifted not one finger to stop it, I don't think I will change my language. An interesting precedent though - I wonder what they have started, and if they realise it. Good evening! Giano (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although you seriously get on my tits at times with your absolute refusal to contemplate the possibility of considering moderating your attitude, you are some fucking wonderful in your application of the language. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, I once went to an amateur prioduction of the musical in Reigate, all that hair washing etc - very droll, I fled to the bar in the interval and never returned. Giano (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have nominated it for deletion now at here, and I hope a lot of people will go there, and break a habit of a lifetime and I agree with me, becasue it's a sound genuine reason for deletion, as a page it is terrible, as a subject it is non notable and of no value. We all know that The gains to the project from losing it far outweigh the gains of keeping it. The problem became no one wanted to touch the situation, so it was a hot potato only someone like me that could touch. let's hope this closes another sad chapter in Wiki-history. Giano (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I thought you stayed clear of AfD. (In large doses, it can induce depression about human nature.) But as/while I'm wrong, I offer this for your merriment. -- Hoary (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured assured Hoary, my forays into the world of deletionism are very rare indeed. Every now and again a man has to do what a man has to do, but this evening as I sit here tonight watching the sun setting, laptop on lap, gin in hand, Sturminster Newton in the distance, the swallows tweeting, the village church bell chiming the hour, I think how relaxed I am, how beautiful life is. Funnily enough, I am not thinking who the F is Winifred Whitfield. Giano (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As so often, you have your priorities entirely right, Sir. I'd have left the laptop on the desk, and I'd be drinking ale or wine rather than gin, but let's not quibble over such differences. Dorset, well well. Alas it seems that I shall be stuck at the other extreme of Eurasia until spring at the earliest; I have already turned down an invitation to go to London (exhausting of course but yet curiously invigorating in small doses); and I am dreaming of a foray to yet another east European destination before homogenization (Lviv, Kyiv; and/or of course a return to Vilnius). -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask for some help please? (I took some pics of the Bastards' study a while ago, and you were great then). I've just been here [23] and taken some pics (external only, sadly) and wanted to make a page about it. I gather it's a cottage ornée. The small amount of info I have found about it says Houghton Lodge is similar in architectural style to buildings such as A la Ronde, Queen Charlotte's Cottage at Kew etc. Are ferme ornée and cottage ornée interchangeable terms, or something slightly different? I'm confused! Jasper33 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest with you, I'm foxed. I have never heard the term ferme ornée used in England/English. I think it is more French where the upper classes like to take playing peasants one step further than their counterparts in England. Having said that, I see the names of two very good friends of mine (probably watching this page) who are in the history of that page, so I'm not going to stick my neck out too far. I always say cottage ornée when speaking English, neither would I describe A la Ronde as cottage ornée, although I suppose it is in a round-about sort of way, and Queen Charlotte's cottage to me is some form of early 17th century rustic revival (if it were later one would almost say Arts and Crafts), which is not the same as ferme or cottage ornée at all . To me the cottage ornée is part of the picturesque movement are a sort of Strawberry Hill Gothic meets the local peasant under the verandah, but without the well manicured shepherdess desporting on the front lawn with a shampooed sheep that one would find in France. I have probably confused you completely, I would stick with "cottage ornée" and forget the ferme. But I expect Wetman will pop up now and explain it far better, and I am completely wrong. Let me know, if you want any help when you come to write the page. Giano (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Curl ferm ornee - Farm design for both utility and beauty, the buildings treated decoratively and contributing to an aesthetic effect within a picturesque landscape. See also cottage ...dinner ready brb.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha yes, I had forgotten about the real utility side of things, the Ashridge Estate were very into that int he 19th century, all their labourers' cottages and real working farm buildings were very picturesque etc. Giano (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's essentially it! a ferme ornée is a specific type of gentleman's farm in the earliest, rococo phase of Romantic gardening: the classic example is William Shenstone's garden at The Leasowes. A winding walk surrounds it looking always inwards, like the narrow-gauge railroad that goes round the perimeter of Disneyland, because the permanence of external views can't be counted on in such a circumscribed setting, say twenty acres; this feature at once makes the atmosphere of a ferme ornée quite unlike the expansive, outward views of Capability Brown, coming along just a bit later. The ferme ornée, like the Continental jardin anglais, tends to be frantically crowded with "eye-catchers". A cottage ornée— Franglish— is architecture, in its way, rather than gardening— an intentionally cute cottage meant to please you on the way up the winding drive to Something More Serious. Sensible people don't much discuss English rococo gardening, thus Giano hasn't heard "ferme ornée" popping up in conversation. --Wetman (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So to simplify (while JC is still stuffing his face) for the sake of my new best friend Jasper33 he is to go with cottage? Somehow Wetman I had never pictured you on the choo choo going around Disneyland.Giano (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..yes, aged just-turned-sixteen, Giano. Alfred Hopkins was an American "estate architect" who specialised in picturesque but soundly practical and progressive farms for millionares, c 1890-1929. On a simpler scale, my grandmother had a farmer quite separate from the gardener: I just barely remember gingerly gingerly unpacking the crated eggs that had been sent down to us in New York: seems like a century ago. Yes, from the photos, it's a cottage ornée. Very delightfully ornée.
Risotto over.....curl continues cottaging......During C17 cottages were built for weavers, and some survive, with provision for looms storage etc eg at Sapperton Stroud, Glous. Such once unregarded architecture was celebrated by James Malton (1765-1803) in his essay on british cottage architecture:being an attempt to perpetuate on principle, that peculiar mode of building, which was originally the effect of change (1798, 1804), and collection of designs for rural retreats.....principally in the gothic and castle style of architecture (1802) which established him as a pioneer of the so-called cottage orne, a small late c18 or early c19 dwelling in the country or park, often asymetrical and irregulat, with small leaded windows, roods, hips, gables and dormers, fretted bargeboards, large ornamental chimneys and rough timber verandahs supported by tree trunks, part of the cult of the picturesque.
Good grief. Thank you all. I wasn't expecting all that. I'm very grateful (apart, perhaps, for my gender reassignment! Stupid username, I know). Maybe as you are all so knowledgeable you could give my stub the once over, when I get round to making it? Jasper33 (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started it here [24] but have left the house bit blank as I am all at sea when it comes to architecture (I'm interested but ignorant). I don't have the Pevsner for Hampshire either. The listing for the house mentions two Country Life articles which I haven't been able to find on the web. Anyone got a good library and feel like chipping in? Jasper33 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful JC, thank you. Off you go I've had my turn, I reckon our new best friend could get a very complete article, if not an FA out of this, if she wanted. Great pics, shame to waste them by not habving a big page to show them all off. Giano (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a rosy thank-you for all your help, Giano. -. -. -. Thank you, could not be better, a souvenir of one of my favourite houses, I must give it a page somethime. Giano (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do we know of Isaac de Caus. The Wilton House entry mentions he was Inigo Jones' assistant, but I'm sure I've bumped into him before in connection with some grottos, terraces and landscaping at Greenwich. Clearly he was into both, but the link with Jones and architecture I've not heard before. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - confusing the issue with his brother who did landscaping at Greenwich. Caus made important contributions to some of the most significant landscape projects of his period, including the gardens of Coudenberg Palace in Brussels, Richmond Palace, Hatfield House, Somerset House, Greenwich Palace in London.[25] --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, I'm kinda like that grim, tough exterior, but all nice an gooey on the inside. I worked out "laugh out loud" what's the "Z" stand for? Giano (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, like you I am an unsophisticated old fart. I've wondered about that "Z" - according to this, this and this it's a plural form. From the first, I suppose we can either MKM or KIK about it. Maybe we should ETAOIN the little SHRDLU's instead (12 most-used letters in English - bet you already knew that!).
I never get these things at all, at my first English school, I received a leter with SWALK on the reverse and assumed it was the senders initials. Giano (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw you note on Filiocht talk, I was kind of hoping you would stick around and fight for the article and not throw up your hands. Its fustrating to wade through this stuff, but worth it. ( Ceoilsláinte23:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sometimes it is better to allow an old friend to die with dignity, than see them transformed into something alien, which will eventually be the result. Giano (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see that at all. I appreciate that blue numbers dotted around the text are ugly and invasive, but my openion is that these days they are the price to keep an article high profile and read by as many as possible. I'm well aquainted with Filiocht's work, and any FAR effort would only be equivalent to geting the painters and decerators around....hmm, I'm beginning to see you point. But please trust I wont turn it into a Frankenistenis monster with ten inch "see also" and "In video games" sections. Anyway, look, I'm going to push this none-the-less, on the basis that Ezra Pound FAs are thin on the ground, as are poetry articles in general. I would prefer if Filiocht's friends didn't dissaprove, but eh, at the same time I dont really give a ( Ceoilsláinte23:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I regret posting the above, it was way too harsh. I suppose I'm just asking for a chance to work on the article in peace without being critised on principal. I have a lot of respect for "Filiocht's friends", and for Filiocht in particular (this is my 6th Filiocht FAR), and I suppose thats why I got upset. So sorry. Ceoil 11:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No probs, we don't take offense easily on this page, as in some other places. You're always welcome here, Ceoil. Giano (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Giano. I was a bit worried there I'd made a big tool of my self; the last sentence was ment to be ironic; but you know how it is with irony and teh internets. ( Ceoilsláinte13:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Durova, but sadly that is not the correct Palazzo Barbarigo. There is more than one. You will see that this picture now erroniously deleted (whicj should be the one, taken by myself) is quite different.Giano (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if you could, look here is me starting the page [27] with "my" image, but I named it slightly differently. As I remember it is not a very good shot, taken from a boat, a little on the skew, but better than nothing. I don't understand what is going on. Giano (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that image was deleted before image undeletion was made possible, so there's no record of it. As Bishonen comments on Melesse's talk page, there was no notification given to Habanerosrl before it was deleted. I have emailed him/her asking for its provenance. Hopefully we'll be able to work this out. I shall email you Habanerosrl's image. Sam Korn(smoddy)11:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'm unable to view these deleted files and haven't had the pleasure of seeing the Grand Canal firsthand. Would have thought a university would identify the image correctly. If I had a correct example for comparison I may be able to locate another public domain image. DurovaCharge!17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems you ar enot alone, no can have the pleasure of viewing my deleted Palazzo, there are lots of (well 2 or 3) Palazzi Barbaro in Venice, besides the Villa Barbaro, all once belonged to the Barbaro family - No, don't click, that page is a minefield of vandalism and funny goings on, and I don't wnat to encoutahe any of them here. It seems my page image went sometime ago [Whttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palazzo_Barbarigo&diff=29762121&oldid=26805966] fo no good reason. It seems Wikipedia will just have to live without a picture of the Palazzo Barbariga. This is the one we want [28] all covered in glass mosaic. Thanks for your help anyway Durova, it was a good try. Giano (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be it?
(outdent) This one was archived under a different title, but appears to be the same structure. Could be cropped and color corrected. DurovaCharge!18:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's the one, all covered in Murano glass. Well spotted Durova, 10/10 for observation. I will add it to the poor bereft page now, and let's both hope certain Admins will be able to stop fiddling about with things they don't undertand. You should go to Venezia in February, Durova. It's the best time, as the mists swirl in from the lagoon, I will personally paddle you down the Canal Grande in a flower bedecked gondola, while singing "Non ti scordar di me" as we both seek our spring of violets away from the wicked evils of Wikipedia Giano (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your dilemma reminded me of an old gripe and a reasonable solution. I've posted a proposal here. You might agree, and feel free to drop word when the image rationale dragons darken the skies. Architectural photography is one of the earlier genres of photography to have been done competently. Having reviewed more than half a million archival image files, I can often locate quality material that never appears on Google Images. Best wishes, DurovaCharge!19:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My only point is that secondo's are called Piano Nobili too (at least, in English). By putting secondo, there would be no need to change in any which way, but perhaps there needs to be mention on the Piano Nobile page. I only went off this search. Also, paino nobili is used on quite a few Wikipedia pages. Perhaps they should be corrected to specify? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The piano nobile is always the piano nobile. The secondo piano, can if suitably grand be referred to as the secondo piano nobile, but it is always inferior to the piano nobile. It is never its equal. On the very rare occasions there is a need to mention a "secondo piano nobile", it is obvious that it is secondary to the piano nobile. Only im museums where piano nobile, changing its meaning slightly, can refer to main floors of exhibits etc, rather than a best suite, or enfilade, in a palazzo, is there any need to specify the primo from the secondo. The piano nobile page seems quite clear on this, I wrote it :-) Giano (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting involved in this one. As far as I'm concerned PIR is deleted, and good riddance to bad rubbish. I have done my bit towards removing problem pages. There was an amazing concensus and majority to delete. If there are further problems then the Arbcom, who unanimously chose to show no interest in the deletion of PIR, must attend to any resultant problems. Giano (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could think of it like that, or you could see it as a way to deal with the other articles that were left behind. But hey, if you just want to make assumptions about someone you don't even know, you go and do that. -- Ned Scott06:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to take the whole Brandt further then do so, what I am saying, is that I am no longer interested in what happens to the pages concerning him. Giano (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all nice and fine, but I feel the need to defend myself here. My thinking was that the PIR article would make a logical merge target for some of the remaining articles related to Brandt/PIR, which would actually decrease our coverage of those topics. I'm not even convinced that my proposal would make a good article, which is why I asked if it would be ok to make a user draft first. That's all that DRV was for, giving the community a heads up about a possible draft. I'm bending over backwards to work with the community, while still trying to find a balance with my own personal values/views of NPOV. I don't appreciate the accusations you seem to be making here. -- Ned Scott07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no accusations, I am merely staing theat The Brandt problem will rumble throughout eternity, no matter what anyone does. If you wish to spend your time trying to find a solution, then that is up to you, but please have your debate on the subject elsewhere because I am not interested. PIR is deleted, that was my sole interest in the matter. Giano (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbcom have now foolishly and stupidly allowed James Forrester to pass comment on me [29], presumably now I am allowed to pass comment on him? Not a wise move at all. Giano (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James Forester professes and claims to be "the owner" of the IRC #admins channel, yet is allowed to adjudicate on cases involving IRC, and those who question the wisdom of Wikipedia employing such a channel (I use the word "employing" because Wikipedia (a charitable foundation itself) has made financial donations to IRC). I find it very odd, than one member of the Arbcom can wield such power, to such an extent that he alone controls #admins, yet the Arbcom say they have no power to control and regulate it. (despite Jimbo instructing them otherwise) Some Arbs hint (and it is only frightened, timid hints in email) that they too are unhappy with this situation. So to summarise, one Arb claims to own the place from which Wikipedia is policed, over which the Arbcom has no control. When those such as myself question the regularity of such a situation, that same Arb then sits in judgement upon us. Most sane people would find something smelly in the woodpile there? In spite of the best efforts of some members of #admins to prove otherwise, I am very sane indeed - the question is - are you dear reader? Giano (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the first question to be asking is how much has Wikipedia donated to IRC over the last five years - and why? Giano (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Freenode? Can you show me where its said that WMF donated anything to Freenode? I thought it was a free thing, and since WMF doesn't even pay for it they didn't have the control a customer might. If there are donations as consideration for running the channels, WMF should be able to exercise more control over them. Avruch T 22:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The channel seems under control to me. I really don't see any policing happening from there, and I am there all day long. I have looked over logs when abuse has been alleged and it is just not there. Chillum22:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness to the whole IRC thing, it's not just for admin drama, but non-controversial stuff. I hear the devs use IRC a lot, as well as smaller wikis that don't always have active admins to help them with vandalism. Not to mention our own anti-vandalism tools that use the IRC RC feeds. I can understand the Foundation making a donation to Freenode. The admin channel might very well be a shit hole from what I hear, but it's only a small part of how Wikipedia has used IRC. -- Ned Scott23:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, I understand it's confusing, but I believe that when Giano and Geogre speak of "IRC", they generally mean the term to be short for the wikipedia admin channel. En-admins. Discussion on this page will go much better if you speak to that. Bishonen | talk11:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure why, but I'll go back and describe the wheel again.
It does not matter whether "most of it is routine." It does not matter if even all of it were kosher. IRC cannot be logged and transported and posted on Wikipedia, and therefore any reasoning, whether good or bad, employed before an action on Wikipedia is inadmissible. Therefore, any administrator doing something "per IRC" would have to repeat everything on Wikipedia to have the action be legitimate.
Further, the audience on IRC at any time is a fraction of a fraction of the smallest fraction of Wikipedians at any given moment. It offers immediacy at the cost of perspective. At most you have twelve actively chatting persons. Because they are chatting, the odds are really quite, quite high that they will be in agreement with each other, as people who disagree with or dislike the nexus at the fore will have gone away. Therefore, any opinion received on IRC at any moment is going to be specialized, and it will always, always, always be of a very few people. The "I need attention here" function, which is the only legitimate one of an immediate medium like IRC, is far better served by the two AN noticeboards that already exist, already can be referred to, already have rules of behavior, and already have wide exposure.
Finally, IRC is a group of people interacting socially, and this "sociability" aspect distorts the opinions. It is that which has led to the abusive behaviors that 1==2 cannot see (although he can see "incivility" in places where I've never noticed it). If one person starts bad mouthing another (absent) person, then there is social pressure to agree, to join in, or at least not be the wet blanket who tells people to control themselves.
IRC is inherently corrupt. The bad of it is built into it. When it can be posted freely to Wikipedia, and when there are no differences of access (no "admins only" channel), then it can be an inferior medium to the noticeboards. Until then, it's not only inferior, but it is actually corrosive and bad. Geogre (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you withdrawing, Giacomo, and I can't say I blame you, after the flamefest in your honour yesterday. One can only take so much hypocrisy, and I'm getting a bit nauseated myself. But I still don't want the most high and noble order of Giano-bashers to have the pleasure of seeing your page empty. Therefore I'm posting this explanation of what "trolling" (civilly used many a time yesterday by one of our most notable proponents of "civility") means. Pay attention, for my words are gold:
If you say it, or I say it—no matter what "it" is—then it's "trolling"[32]. But if the identical point is made by a bureaucrat, even if it's merely to agree with us trolls, then out come the humble respects. Knowing who to kick and who to lick, that's the whole art of climbing on Wikipedia.
Not so much withdrawing as licking my wounds - not that I have any! The important thing now is to ensure THAT is never allowed to happen to anyone else again, no matter what the encouragement or the perceived crimes. God the crusades are lining up, so with future crusades in mind I have posed a question here [33]. Thanks for all your support yesterday - all of you. Giano (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems though Kirill's planned slugfest to eradicate me failed, making them look even more ridiculous, the Arbcom are still hell bent on revenge [34], no doubt they think giving a few of their obsequious toadying Admins/henchmen (I expect 1=2 and Ryan Postlethwaite top the list - certainly it would reward them for services rendered) carte blanche to block me and forbidding anyone else the opportunity to unblock me will solve their problems, and help maintain the secrecy of the way Wikipedia is policed and ordered. When one sees that this foolish and miserable Arbcom even allow the "owner" of #Admins to comment [35] - one cannot but help wondering where it is all going to end. The Arbcom now do not even attempt to deceive the ordinary editors, they feel their power is so absolute they can be as transparent as they like and none dare object. I'm not going to invoke Goodwins law, I'm sure others can draw those similarities for themselves. Well, I have news for this sad and failing Arbcom, people are objecting, but not on Wikipedia - too many, of those who care for the project, now realise, this is not a safe open forum - in which to have any views which oppose the prescribed and dictated beliefs of those who control Wikipedia. My sole belief is that Wikipedia should be policed from Wikipedia, yet the organized harassment this has brought me is clear to anyone capable of tracing history files. The Arbcom can appoint as many of their toadying Admins as they like, my message remains the same, but thanks to the Arbcom it is going to be taken more vociferously, with more evidence to further forums - all attempts by me over the last few years to discuss this rationally with the Arbcom have been rejected. I am left with no option. In the meantime keep donating to Wikipedia, so it can pass your money on to IRC [36]. Giano (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano you may find these links interesting from a historical perspective regarding IRC group contacts - and indeed Freenodes desire that they "just want to make sure that (1) your board has control over your presence here, and (2) any users labeled as being officially involved with your project are being labeled so correctly. How we got from Freenode trying to make sure the board has control to "we have no effective jurisdiction" remains a mystery to me.[37][38][39] --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JC, yep, life sure is a mystery isn't it. Why would a poor hard-up charitable foundation like Wikipedia give all those thousands of dollars to a chatroom over which it has no control - no wonder poor Jimbo is confused [40] - so am I. He drinks two very nice bottles of Chateau Yankypee with prospective backers for the good of the project, and is slaughtered for extravagance, but IRC are handed $5000 and are applauded - most odd.
The Arbcom agreed here that IRC#admins was a source of conflict [41] and they agreed to address the issue here [42] - In short the Arbcom has renegaded on it's own decisions, it has done nothing to address the issue, yet wants me to abide by its findings regarding me (actually that was the first case they dragged me into for ulterior motives) Tough luck Arbcom, that is not the way the world works. To cover it's own failings the Arbcom now seeks to penalise me further, and drag me into every possible case in an attempt to shut me up for pointing it's shortcoming out - extraordinary behaviour, I wonder why that is? Well Arbcom, I will tell you this now, I won't shut up, until this is sorted. And if you appoint five Admins/stooges with powers to shut me up, those Admins on appointment will become dead to me (whoever they are) I will not communicate with them in any Wikipedia-space, by email or in any other way, and that will not cease in February 2009, it will be permanent. That's how colluders in deceit have to be treated. When Wikipedia is policed by and from Wikipedia then I will shut up. Giano (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corruption in management is "behaviour that may involve fraud, theft, misuse of position or authority or other acts that are unacceptable to an organisation and which may cause loss to the organisation, its clients or the general community. It may also include such elements as breaches of trust and confidentiality. The behaviour need not necessarily be criminal."[1] Corruption management is an integral part of good governance and management practice. Executive management needs to be committed to the pro-active prevention of corrupt conduct in a systematic way in order to enhance the operation and reputation of the organisation.[1] Corruption is a major drain on the effective use of resources for education and should be drastically curbed by improving transparency and accountability in education. Corruption "increases transaction costs, reduces the efficiency and quality of services, distorts the decision-making process, and undermines social values."[2] - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/OverviewWAS 4.250 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure why 'Image sizes are essential to stop great white spaces and dissaray of page' in the Bastard brothers article. The standard thumbnail images in that section looked fine to me, I think its the extra long captains that mess up the page, could they be shortened? (WP:CAP) BarretBonden (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the captions are explaining important architectural facts relevant to the images. Secondly, it is important that the page looks correct for passing customers rather than logged in editors. Giano (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You be nice to bastard brothers! Is that an incivil remark? My best friends in the world are bastard brothers. (Image sizes would be better if we could specify percentage, but we can't, so we need to put in sizes. This means, unfortunately, that we have to assume that display sizes are getting standard, and they are, but occasionally someone will show up from a computer using a CGA card and wonder. We can't edit for them. We have to stop those rivers of white. I agree with Giano and regard image sizes as another element of authorial input in article construction.) Geogre (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only white I could see is opposite the TOC, which desizing the lead pic reduced. I often see rivers of white where others (IE vs firefox etc) don't, but could see no problem here - where were/are they? Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I go to the trouble of specifying image sizes it is for a very good reason. Architecture is a highly visual art, and that extends to pages about it, the asthetics of a page are just as important as the content, huge images of minor points shold not tower over small images of major points. Secondly, T do not wish to look at great images bordered bu think snakes of text and white. I have reverted you. Giano (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Mountfort has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
I am very sorry that you feel the page "shows" how dreadful it is. Now that you have been clever enough to teach yourself how to nominate pages for FAR, perhaps you would now like to teach yourself how to sign your name. That would be of far more use. More use still would be to cite some references for this [46] page which you state on your page you started. Then you may start to criticise the work of others. Giano (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sima shows how bad it is, alright. One would normally put in σίμος for the Greek, one would make the plural appropriate in English as Simae, etc. In fact, one could look the term up in English to get more usage help, and, of course, there are only a few hundred public domain illustrations that one could use... those ancient Greeks being notoriously lax about protecting their copyrights. Geogre (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But have you seen the conversation over at the FAR? People are <hand to brow> talking about taking books out of the library! I know, unprecedented! Only to be encouraged I think. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it, because I returned all the books to the library years ago, and have no intention of getting them back out, just to satisfy the latest wiki-whim. However, that is Gadfium (a genuinely nice helpful editor, most of the Kiwi ones are) offering to help. Not at all like some editors who frequent that particular wiki-basement. Giano (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well stated, and restrained, response to Chillum's amazing ability to quick change into mitre and robe and opine without being informed. Geogre (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How did he make that many contributions in so little time? Isn't it strange to make that many in only two months? Only vandals chalk up numbers like that. Geogre (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be joking! So, everything is ready to calm down, and you have to quickly try to call a cop and get a riot underway. Jeez. That's pretty darned childish. Geogre (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, what makes chillaxing so hard for you? You're taking this far too seriously. Look for a minute. You're staring into a computer. You're letting a website give you a stroke. Should a website really let that happen to you? Become detached. Stop taking it seriously. Let the words on the screen be words on the screen. --harej21:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question, too, though, of being sought out to be bothered by people. Giano and Bishonen exchange pleasantries often. So, let's go to Giano's page and let's tell him how he's acting! What kind of thinking is that, except the provocateur? Bishonen says to Chillum to go away, and he comes back twice. She says that he should kiss off. He comes back to say that he will. Giano tells him that everyone's sick of his trying to pee on everyone else's page, and Auburnpilot comes to try to get some real anger going by calling the classroom teacher. For Giano to be the one who needs to ... oh... get HighOnBC, then it would be his going to other people's pages to insult them. I really don't see that. I see him being at the pages of his friends and getting nauseated by the same name widdling the same way every few minutes. We used to call that behavior (the widdling) "trolling," but I am informed that it is a long time contribution, instead. Geogre (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No, I had no idea it was there (I thought it had been there years ago - seem's not) I took it off my watch list a while ago, when I rduced it by 200. It sems to have become a little over-Kedlestoned of late - I'll have another look at it sometime. Giano (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is a very interesting story. Interestingly a tiny Baxter print which can be purchased today for £50 was worth £500 in 1930 - which is bad news for anyone who purchased in 1930, but good news for anyone reading this - as my monetary tip, to you all, for the day is buy now for your children, prices will rocket in the next 10 - 20 years. Only problem is that they were very heavily forged between 1920 and 1930, so know what you are doing. For a small fee, I can advise!!! Giano (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On some articles that you're involved in (i.e. Palladian architecture) a comment has been added to the top requesting that an infobox not be added. That's fine, but it creates an ugly space due to the linebreaks after the comment. I tried to fix it on the article mentioned by eliminating the linebreaks, but you reverted, and I can understand why; removing the linebreaks makes the editing screen somewhat confusing. I really, however, don't like the unnecessary space at the top of articles - after all, every reader sees the space, but only editors will find the edit page confusing. Do you have a viable workaround or compromise? Appreciated, Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill the tags. That's one really nice answer. Get rid of the "request" for an infobox. No one has more of a right to deface an article with such "requests" than the composers have to remove them. Do we now need tags to request that a box not be placed? Do we then cover up articles with 8 screens of tags of "please do" "please don't" "please get a picture" "please don't get a picture" "please put in footnotes" "please do not add footnotes after the fact" ad infinitum? Tags don't get to screw up the look of an article, when they represent mere opinions and should be confined to the talk page in the first place. Geogre (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who placed the hidden request for an info box to not to be posted on many of the pages I regularly maintain or of which I have been the principal editor. The day I did it was reverted on some of those pages by people who had never before edited, or had little to do with, those pages [49]. I had forgotten any of my requests remained. As a polite way of solving a problem, it was a failure. It was just an attempt to deter people or at least make them think, before we had yet another long draw out fight/debate on the subject in order to get rid of it. When I glanced a couple of weeks ago, I see, since I announced I had abdicated as principle editor and custodian of Buckingham Palace it now has a ghastly box, which adds nothing, except in the architect section, confusion, and reduces the lead image to postage stamp proportions. Never mind that out of control monster is staying off my watch list, never again will I have to revert Normandy back to Normanby. Giano (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If any one does go to BP's accursed info box, for God sake get rid of "style: Neo-Renaissance" who ever added that does not know their ass from their elbow. Hahahaha the design team!!! - in the info box. I shall have to stop looking, the laughing will keep me awake all night. Giano (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(un-indent; I get confused by all those colons) Ah, I realise no that it was an unintentional reversion on Palladian Architecture - see history. SandyGeorgia just removed the excess white space again. I don't mind the request (I have no particular love for infoboxes myself), but I do object to the line breaks you place after it - it creates a very noticeable blank area before the beginning of the article. Is it fine with you if the line breaks after the comment are removed on the articles which have them? Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the wife has talked me into visiting your home country next summer. Unfortunately, I'm the quintessential American (and a Texan to boot). I know we'll have to go to all the touristy attractions in Rome, but is there any place you can recommend to me that I should go to while in Italy? I know you're very much into architecture, but I'm more into beer and football and baseball. So, is there any place I should visit that doesn't only serve fine wine and pasta (i.e., are there any places a redneck would feel at home in Italia? Tex (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you come all that way, and not want to see the architecture? We are a very sophisticated race, and quite good at football too (snigger) You will find the beer, but everywhere has fine wine and pasta, it is almost impossible to have a bad meal in Italy, apart from in one very nasty restaurant in Florence opposite the Duomo (don't click, the Duomo has been given some stupid wiki-name unknown to the entire world, but a few Wikipedians - who have probably never even been there.) I suggest you base yourself in Anzio in Lazio. Then you can just hop on the bus to see Rome and the Villa d'Este and dozens of other villas ect, and return each evening to a nice (not over-cultured) seaside town. In Rome (which you have to see) you can forget the colosseum and go the Stadio Olimpico and watch S.S. Lazio and A.S. Roma. Actually do go the colosseum, no need to go inside, outside are lots of vendors selling everything from "Prada" to "Gucci" at very attractive prices for those little souvenirs for the folks back home. Seriously, Tex, you have to see the architecture, you can't avoid it in Italy it is all around you - just accept it. You'll enjoy it when you see it - the girls aren't bad, to look at, either! Have a great trip. Giano (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tex, take the train down to the Bay of Naples, a lovely way to travel to see the countryside. Avoid Naples, but get your fix of Pompeii (good for scale) and Herculaneum (good for detail) before spending a few nights in Sorrento maybe? I confess, I was a little disappointed with Rome, but then I was there on honeymoon with my first wife and we both succumbed to a very nasty flu while we were there and spent days in bed for all the wrong reasons. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not aware there's any of Tex's sort of football in Italy, they more sensibly play the game we gave them. I suppose he could go and commiserate with the supporters of SSC Napoli if there's any left. As to the world cup, ahem, rather best left as a unpleasant but receding memory of another missed opportunity denied by our strange inability to take or defend penalties.......and don't even think about Euro 2008 which frankly seemed like the darkest days for the nation since 1940. How does Italy fair in the 5 and a half nations these days? Perhaps more Tex's kind of football (but not played like that)?--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to Anzio, stay at Hotel Succi, ask if Antonio is still there. Please steal the little wine decanter to match my ashtray, I'd really like to complete the set. I recommend Bologna with the tilty towers and arcades throughout the city and the incredible food everywhere and granitas just outside the Hotel Danieli. If you're going to be around Rome, spend a few days at Castel Gandalfo and drive around the Colli Albani and most especially look on the map for Lanuvio, drive to it through the orange and olive groves, your car will almost stall going up the hill and at the top will be an ancient town square with a pizzeria overlooking the countryside.
Giano will scoff but Piazza Navona, the top of the Spanish Steps here and my out-of-the-way favourite Piazza del Popolo are all great places in Rome. My experience is that the best time to go to Italy is May or September, the weather is good (perfect) but it's not the crowded season. Avoid Firenze and Venezia in the high season - and always walk around until you find a restaurant with a patio full of people who are only speaking Italian. Eat there and when the waiter comes over, just say "you pick - something good - pasta". It worked every time for me. Of all the countries and cities I've visited, Italy amd Rome...ahhh. (Sorry Giano to clutter your talk page :) Franamax (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If in Sicily, do not say to the waiter, pick something good, if you look and sound like a tourist, or it will be yesterday's fish at next year's prices. I had not got you marked as an Angels and Demons fan Franamax, but you are right Piazza Navona is a lovely place to eat in spring and summer, but will Tex and Mrs Tex want to see all that Baroque and Borromini? Giano (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never been to the mezzogiorno but note that I said to find a restaurant where they're all speaking Italian. With luck the staff will think you're lost and take pity on you. OTOH maybe all the food in Italy I rave about has been day-old fish! :) And I think I have the answer for the Tex's. Mrs. Tex will love the whole milieu but for Mr. Tex - rent a car!! Drive on the autostrada from the airport! Drive through Rome! Once you're in the city, remember that to make left turns, you wait until enough cars are massed then turn as a group into the oncoming traffic. At a stoplight on a three-lane road, a minimum of five cars will line up. Remember to drive to where you want to go, and stay sharp. You will soon forget all about field sports. Have fun and enjoy. :) Franamax (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Tex is a wikipedian, albeit a very nice one, but as a Wikipedian would he be ready for the more combative elements of driving a car in Italia. Also remember the civility aspect, would a delicate American born wikipedian realise that having one's mothers occupation questioned, the legitimacy of her marriage, and indeed one's own sexual habits and gender, doubted were all just light hearted banter and joshing in a friendly race to see who could be first to cross a red light and squash a nun. Also the famed Italian motoring sport of trying to kill a tourist on pedestrian crossing, can be alarming the first time one plays. All in all better if Tex takes the bus. Giano (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Tex can edit Wikipedia, the petty travails you mention will be child's play. Hell Giano, you do all those things in a single talk page edit! (Except I haven't seen you brought before ArbCom yet on a nun-squashing charge :) Italy was where I learned how to truly drive, tractor and wagon on one side, oncoming car on the other - you just look at the middle and drive through the gap. What could be simpler? Tex is after all looking for something interesting to do. P.S. The bus drivers are just as competitive. :) Franamax (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Topping to keep like with like... has anyone considered coming up with an anti-tourism guide for each nation? Would the Italians like to make recommendations for tourists that are guaranteed to get readers stabbed, poisoned, infected, and scorned? I can certainly think of some tourism tips for visitors to New York that will ensure such a fate, and I even have some good tips for "how to tour the South, where everyone is nice, and disprove that idea." Geogre (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's mentioned it yet, but everyone should see Ravenna at least once in their life – while it's not to everyone's taste, even those who loathe it would generally concede that it's one of the most extraordinary places on the planet. Siena doesn't get the attention it deserves (it's overshadowed by its neighbours Florence and Pisa on tourist itineraries. Anywhere touristy (that is, pretty much everywhere short of Trieste) will have enough McDonalds et al to keep any American homesickness at bay. (While it's not in Italy, the hop over to Dubrovnik is well worthwhile as well). – iridescent12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sienna is beautiful, unspoilt and uncluttered. It does not get the attention it deserved, and we would like to keep it that way! Have you seen the Macdonald's in Venezia - I know it is the only one without the great golden arches, but I cannot beleive a city council so arrogant and obstructive in so many ways allowed that, there will be Burger King on San Michele next. Giano (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally – while Giano will probably declare war on me for saying it – ignore Pisa. After the 30 seconds or so of "Oh look, a leaning tower" novelty has worn off, it has all the charm and elegance of an East German housing estate. Milan is well worth the detour, although it's probably the most "Anglo-Saxonised" and least "traditionally Italian" city in Italy (but be prepared to be disappointed by Santa Maria delle Grazie, which has become a crowded and dirty giant marshalling yard for cranks and conspiracy theorists). – iridescent16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone mention improving the articles about things in Ravenna? Basilica of San Vitale is, our article says, the most famous monument in that city (though how you judge that, I've no idea). Is that *really* a 6th century building still standing there? As for places to go in Italy, I'd recommend Venice - Rome was nice, but Venice was magical. Might have changed in the 10+ years since I was there, though (also, lots of walking and no cars - much safer). Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Carcharoth, Venice has not changed in 600 years, so it is unlikely that the natives have rebuilt it since your last visitation. Such a magical city, I remember having to fight off Ezra Pound in a gondola, when we were both misunderstood and exiled there during the war - such happy days. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the great recommendations. I'm sure I'll enjoy all Italy has to offer (even the architecture!). Is there not a train that will take me all over the country once I get there? I'm not too keen on renting a car, don't they drive on the wrong side of the street over there? I'd probably kill myself trying to remember which way to drive! Tex (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No you wil not kill yourself driving in Italy, Tex, the Italian drivers will kill you. Amazing game, one gets 5 points for a tourist, 4 for a priest, 3 for a nun, 2 for a Governemnt Inspector and 1 for a drunk. Double points if one can score a hit on a pedestrian crossing. yes, there lots of nice safe trains, see: Eurostar Italia, and regarding Iridescent's point about leaning Towers - he is quite right, once one has seen that one has seen Pisa, and no, pizza was not invented there, so the first Renaisance pizza oven is not there either. Giano (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Italy Rail Pass. Cheaper if you buy it from the US, as it's subsidised by the tourist board for non-residents. Mainland Europe drives on the right, allegedly (it's Britain and Africa that drive on the left), although I'd strongly recommend against driving in Italy if you're not used to it. – iridescent17:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just hitting "Random Page," as is my wont, and I noticed that Buckingham Palace is a pitiful thing, not even as long as Chosen (Buffy episode). Now that is a nice, long, detailed article. It has everything a fan could know ... when the show was on the air, and there were fans. (Yes, I am being sarcastic. Yes, I am making fun of fan gush articles that just keep growing tentacles until there is no body left.) Utgard Loki (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now,now Mr Grumpy, lots of people find Buffy fascinating, I just randomed this even more fascination bio, she looks a delightful girl, and very proud of her informative info box too. The things one could add to that. Giano (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! That's a lot of typing (no, I won't make the obvious joke about typing with one hand) for ... a ... autocelebritette. I have no doubt that she experienced natural breast development to "GG" designation by age sixteen. Happens all the time... with pituitary adenomas. She's just making a living. The authors of the article worry me more. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your language please on this page, remember dearest Giano is an almost sainted Catholic, so no blasphemy, and if you are feeling unwell, go and find a lavatory or a bucket or something, we don't want any unplesantnes all over the Giano's Astrakahn. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're all forgetting the importance of Buffy in contemporary thought - see Burr, Vivien. Sept. 2007. “Imagining the Family Representations of Alternative Lifestyles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” and Lorna Jowlett, 2005: “Sex and The Slayer: A Gender Studies Primer for the Buffy Fan.” I rather like it - the utterly propesperousness of the premise is quite sent up in the writing and Vampire killing high kicking cheerleaders are always a hit in my book. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Marinaccio takes dozens of day-to-day situations and shows how we may glean from this 1960s space opera a more intuitive, aggressive, and successful approach to dealing with them. Citing many examples, including relationships, job satisfaction and management, family, peace, war, love, hate, life, death, and the overall nature of humanity, Marinaccio explains how "every situation you will face in life has already been faced by the crew of the Starship Enterprise." While obsessive Star Trek fans might be distracted by minute errors in trivia, the author provides a fast, enjoyable, and inspirational read. Well recommended for all public libraries and a strong addition to self-help collections." The public deserve to be drowned in a large bucket. – iridescent21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you read Private Eye at all? There are echoes of the Nooks & Corners column in what you write. Fascinating stuff. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you did to piss this guy off, Giano, but he's been effing around with Exploding Houses. He moved it to mainspace for a few minutes, and fiddled with the talkpage of your userspace, so it couldn't be moved back whole. I moved it to the same place, but with a "_2" at the end of it, just so you know. An admin needs to do some cleanup to get it back where it was before he messed with it. S.D.Jameson23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of him, bit then I seldom have heard of half of them. Never mind - all's well that ends well, I expect some kind Admin will sort it out. It's so important to remain kind, calm, collected, cheerful and civil - nothing irritates some people more. Giano (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a kind note on his page that any further moves would be considered disruptive. You might request a housekeeping deletion of the original pages, so we can move them back there, if you want. S.D.Jameson23:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, don't upset him, he's just another edotor with an amazing sense of humour [50]. Little devil, it takes more than that to make me cross. Giano (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this looks like something in the middle of Mordor (or some other postapocalyptic world), but dozens of other people think the image is lovely and stunning. Would you mind if I add the image back and ask one of the image cleanup pros (like Durova) to polish it up? Regards, Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)14:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you like. I am leaving Mentmore Towers alone. If people who admit they know nothing about architecture wish to substitute images illustrating a point with other images which do not, [51] and then make crass comments to the effect of: one side of the house looks the same as the other - so any image will do - then I see little point in trying to improve that page. The great plans I had for the page (currently a complete mess) to be a companion page to Hannah de Rothschild can just as easily be directed elsewhere. Giano (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, that particular photograph is already as good as it can be. The low sunlight casts a warm glow on the structure and the colors are good. Can't really crop in closer because the tree branches interact with the facade. It's a relatively low resolution image so there's not a lot of spare data to work with. This site's image hosting practices simply aren't kind to people who have a serious interest in architecture: unless a structure has been destroyed or significantly altered, it's practically impossible to write a non-free image use rationale that sticks. DurovaCharge!17:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, the original image, that so many are keen to delete, has sufficed well for years, it's not as though this is a serious project anyway. I was not expecting you to work miracles, I too frequently edit architectural images and know the limitations. The problem is, I am attempting to sell architecture here in easy understandable terms to the masses, which is why I want proper angular shots from certain directions. When I begin to sell chocolates in boxes then I will require "low sunlight casting a warm glow on the structure" and houses "peeping romantically through trees." Anyhow - it is lovely to see so many, who have never edited the page before now feeling qualified to do so. I look forward to the finished result. Giano (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ill wind that doesn't blow some good. This discussion inspired me to do an architectural restoration today. There's also a more ambitious file I've been planning to work on; I may get around to that soon. DurovaCharge!22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Durova, there is going to be some nice American architectire in my next big bio, but first I have to finish those pages I have started before someone else does. :-) Giano (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another mysterious editor came through and moved these pages into mainspace again this evening my time, so I have returned them to your userspace and admin-move-protected them. Please let me or another administrator know when you are ready to move this article into mainspace, and I or anyone else will no doubt be happy to do so. Sorry if this has caused any inconvenience. I'll just head back and restore them properly now. Risker (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are obviously keen to read it. Thank you. It is a problem though, but I know exactly what is going on at the moment and where it is decided. I expect its image will be found wanting in some way next. Three admins gave emailed me with the details. What a nuisance some people never learn. I shall just have to irrirate then by maintaining my usual sunny dosposition. Giano (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is going to be a recurring problem, so I have asked the Arbcom to deal with these 2 editors, a chance for them to prove some consistency. Giano (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as well, but I think that's something that isn't going to be public, it appears that there were quite a few socks in the drawer, too. Oh, I suspect and suspect and there are suspects, but none of that is worth anything, and there are checkusers and checkusers. Geogre (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is indeed a sock farm, of large proportions, with a goal, and a definite intention to deceive. There is no reason at all, why we cannot know the name of the main account - no matter who they are! Giano (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and what an absolutely superb article, BTW, finished or nay. I'm somehow reminded of Killeen Castle, Dunsany, which was destroyed by arson in the early 1980s (allegedly by the IRA, who mistook it for the nearby Dunsany Castle) and then left to ruin by the State. I grew up nearby, as it happens. Anyways ... - Alison❤06:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alison - I know I can trust you and Lar, so I am looking very forward to all being revealed. Funnily enough the page (I feel it is somewhat sullied by all this negative publicity - so I am ignoring it for a while) was going to have an Nothern Irish section on houses destroyed during the Troubles, but I abandoned it for 2 reasons - a certain person began showing too much interest and I realsised it would be impossible to maintain with a neutral view point, and also (this is where all the Nothern Irish scream "untrue") all the architecturally best ones destroyed were in the south! However, now a certain group are depleted perhaps we could risk it again, if anyone knows of a couple of houses with free images that are really pleasing, then I will be happy to grovel and give profuse appologies. No, I don't want Chateau Stronge there is too much Gothic in the page already, and I think ones destroyed in the 1920s probably carry less baggage. More importantly I look forward to knowing the name of the puppet master and primary account, of these trolling socks. Giano (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An absolutely superb article, maestro, looking forward to seeing it soon in mainspace. I didn't understand the bit about sock farms at all. A sock is a useful item of gentleman's clothing. As far as I know they are made from cotton or wool, and are woven, rather than farmed. Or have I misunderstood something. Peter Damian (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but how can you have a 'sock farm'. This implies they are grown, perhaps picked from trees or dug up from the ground, perhaps in a plantation of some kind? This all makes little sense to me. Peter Damian (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems they do grow, there are now 4 of them, and that number is growing well [53]. We still need , though, the name of the primary account, all of those so far banned mean nothing to me. I have no doubts the name of the primary account will. Giano (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite heterogeneous. I had thought that a trigger would be discernible this way, but none yet. It looks, indeed, like a general purpose hosier's designed simply to provide a dozen hats for a single ungruntled user. Geogre (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano. I've added a couple new pictures to Queluz National Palace, thought I should tell you. :-) By the way, I was reading the article and was wondering if we should replace mentions of "Sala das Mangas" and "Sala das Merendas" with "Corridor of the Sleeves" and "Meals Room", respectively (as those seem to be most accurate English translations for those two rooms). What do you think? Regards, Húsönd01:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice fotos. I think "Meals Room" would always translate as "dining room" or "banqueting hall" (depending on its size) and I suppose (reluctantly) "Corridor of the Sleeves" is correct in much the same was as Gallerie de Glaces is Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, but somehow I prefer the Portuguese with a translation in brackets. I expect there is some rule dictating what we should do, and it will be the ugliest preference. If we do go for "Corridor of Sleeves" (no definite article) there needs to be an explanation of the unusual name. I'll leave it to you to decide. Giano (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the Portuguese names then, might be less ugly than the English translations. Besides, "Sala das Merendas" sounds way too frugal in Portuguese, in deep contrast with "Banqueting Hall". :-) Regards, Húsönd12:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Sala das Mangas" and "Sala das Merendas" sound much nicer and more lyrical than their translations - anyway now it has been mentioned here, some style addict is bound to rectify the situation and there wil be little we can do. I also think "galerie des glaces" sounds much nicer too, I suppose the arguement is that, if used, it has to be right across the board, but would any of us have clue which palace owned the Voyenaya Galyereeya - and with the posible exceptions of my great friends Ghirlandajo and Irpen would anyone suggest we use that term? I'd be interested to know? Giano (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dueling impulses, man. Prior to the 20th c., there would have been no consideration at all: the English translations would be used in every instance. However, an American (yes, American) hypercorrective streak has everyone now believing that it is the minimum of respect to leave all foreign language terms untranslated and unpronouncable. For myself, leaving aside the fetishists of the style world, I would argue for English translations. I would argue for this not because it's easier or trips more lightly upon the tongue, but, rather, because there are established English terms for the functions of some of these places. Thus, a banqueting hall is a normal compound noun in English. We know what one is. The term offers up the function. If, however, there is a special place where the nobles would eat while resting their feet on globes of the world and contemplating riches, and this was a distinct thing that they did, the Portuguese term should be used. I.e. if the name of the place is something found in English places, where the name of it is generic, then use the English. Where the term for it in the native language carries meanings that would be lost by a translation, leave it in the original. If the Portuguese name is "drawing room," then use "drawing room," but if it's "Anna's chamber of gardening and reading," then leave it in the original language. Geogre (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I sit here in my Salone del calcolatore in Palazzo Splendido, Caymen Islands, (email for rental charges all major credit cards accepted) I agree with you, but the problem would be implementation, and common useage, who for instance knows that World treaties have been signed in la galerie des glaces - would they ever search for that. I think it would present a major headache. Giano (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting challenge. I tend to agree with Geogre, but recognise that regardless of which way one goes, there will be reasonable opposition. My recollection is that rooms of importance that have special names in their mother language tend to be translated into the English when described (e.g., "We are here in the Voyenaya Galyereeya, or Military Gallery, to witness...") Out of curiosity, how are you faring with Tropical Storm Fay? Amazing that you still have an internet connection, mine tends to become unreliable at the first hint of a storm and our lines are all subterranean. Risker (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or sockmistress: After all one would never want to accidentally use a pronoun that would cause offense. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (Usually, I worry about nouns more.)[reply]
I have been asked by a highly respected Wikipedian to not comment on this matter, while results of investigations are under consideration by the Arbcom. I agree with this request, and feel it is important, at the moment, that such matters do not become a subject of idle speculation. I ask that you respect my wishes on this, and do not press me to say more. I beleive the Arbcom will make an announcement on this matter shortly. Giano (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Jealously: ] 'Zilla delicate also! Weenie 'shonen useless with delicate matter! Very tactless user! ['Zilla shifts from foot to foot, upset. Tokyo Tower rattles alarmingly, some nuts and bolts shake loose. ] bishzillaROARR!!20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
One think I can't abide is a badly behaved animal (or reptile), I'm most surprised dear little Mrs Bishonen has not taken you to a pet obedience class - all this running around destroying Tokyo etc is not pleasant - just suppose we all behaved like that? Now get down, go back to your basket and wait until you are whistled. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is a limit to for how long, even I am prepared to wait. It's bad enough having this trumped up Arbcom case hanging over one's head (as I said elsewhere all 5 admins selected will become as permanently dead to me, even after February) I require all sanctions vacated. Now it seems we have one known person commanding an army of socks on the war path - I have to check every edit on my watchlist for potential vandalism, even when it is a name I half know - what a situation to be in, and when is the name to be announced? Giano (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I looked (without having access to any of the truly private data) at this, and thought of a link to a really messy situation involving multiple sockpuppeteers that was not successfully sorted out back in October-November 2007. If this latest is related (and I can't prove that it is, it just looks like it to me) then it may never be fully sorted out. Absent smoking guns or truly distinctive idiosyncracies, conclusive determination of all related accounts is neither fast nor easy. Hopefully whomever asked you to wait will also keep you informed. GRBerry16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not going to speculate either way. I know who it is, or at least who the primary account is, what I am only 90% sure of, is who is "inspiring" the primary account. You see the primary account is not capable of this on its own - too immature and naive. I just hope some of those who so love to say "Giano is paranoid" are feeling as sick as parrots, and falling off their perche from the worry of it all! Giano (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the NowCommons tag (which would have deleted the local copy), it already had a {{keepLocal}} template on it, and I have asked the owner of the bot to consider a programming change so that this won't happen again with other images marked as {{keepLocal}}. One must admit that at least this one was friendly enough to advise you of its plan, even if the plan was problematic. Risker (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that my bot's only task is to notify the authors when others are planning to move or copy an image of theirs to Commons. It doesn't upload images itself. Do you think it shouldn't leave a message in this case? --Erwin85 (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very nice of your bot to leave a message. I have no objection to bots with good manners, unlike some bots I could mention. Giano (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On his talk page, Erwin85 has suggested adding a feature to the bot that would remove the NowCommons tag (which would result in deletion of the local image), and also replace the KeepLocal tag with a NoCommons tag when an image is uploaded to Commons. It is an excellent solution on his part, and I have told him I would be very happy to support such a proposal if he takes it before the Bots for Approval panel. Risker (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have introduced a less-aggressive infobox at Cellini Salt Cellar. Check it out! I expect all of your lurkers here to whoop with joy, Giano! Remove any image within the infobox if you wish, and display it as usual. A mouseclick on the discreet strip displays the Disnfobox, in all its Disinformative glory. No need to reason endlessly with the unspeakably rude Box People ever again.--Wetman (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice idea Wetman, but I fear it may present a terrifying solution to the 'which infobox to use' quandry by providing the facility to stack individually hidden boxes in a big row before the article proper <shudders>, but its better than nothing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think actually this might work. Joopercoopers, they could all come under one hide/show tab, with the only difference saying "Infoboxes" for the multiples. Then all the wikiprojects can be happy. Or maybe not, they would fight over which one took precedence. I do like the idea, Wetman, let's see if the projects might catch on. Risker (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Challenged, of course. The Projectors are about publicity, not about... oh, never mind. The Boxers are about pw0ning everyone's work. They want to be visible. After all, imagine the masses of hard work it took to make a box and shove FA's aside so that the boxes could be the first thing seen. Shouldn't all that hard work be rewarded by at least being in first place in all things? (My thoughts on the Projectors are in book III of Gulliver's Travels, and my thoughts on the Boxers are that they've gotten brain slosh.) Geogre (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! I'm a projector. It's a very somnolent project with, at any given time, an average of perhaps two not-quite-defunct participants. (Do come and join!) I admit to having co-started it: at the time, I thought it would be a good idea. Now and again I still think it's a good idea. (I've never thought it was a bad idea, merely a useless idea.) It has never perpetrated an infobox, as far as I can remember. (If it has, this would have been something at the foot of the page, not something at the top.) Because I loathe the way top-right infoboxes are used (and have got into rows over this, e.g. here, within a project that seems particularly alien to me), I suggested having "WP-HOP" declare that a bio-infobox was unnecessary, unwanted and unwelcome for a photographer, but my main co-conspirator (who I think has a similar opinion of the bloody things) said it would only serve as a red flag for the Boxers, so I reluctantly kept mum. Anyway, feel free to tie me up, tie me down as a Projector, but the only boxing I enjoy is the thought of other people hard at work at this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And since "Infobox" itself has been challenged as jargon (oh the irony!) that a "newbie" won't understand, how about "Facts at-a-Glance" (so retro!) as currently at Ponte Vecchio.--Wetman (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Facts on File for the really oldsters (Frost Giants are old). As for projects, I want to join Wikiproject:Sunbeams-from-Cucumbers. I don't want to get near the Wikiproject:Infating-Dogs. They're awful with cleanup. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Infobox" won't be comprehensible? It's from either The USA Today or from Nesweak Magazine. Neither of these is exactly Foreign Affairs or Journal of Cellular Biology. I wouldn't think either is particularly "old" or "elitist," and, if you've had the tragic misfortune of seeing a high school textbook in the USA today, you'll know that they are comprised of nothing but boxes. Narratives of events are hard and boooring. Comprehension of anything that requires an investment of more than 16 characters of a txtmsg is impossible. Geogre (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me, I have 48 hours away, and Wetman decided to cause a revolution. Very good idea Wetman; I have suported it here [54] - I have not read all the arguements, having just stepped off a long flight with the attention span of a gnat - rather like those requiring a disinfobox. If obligatory, I would not object to such a "tab" on the pages to which I have contrubuted heavily and maintain. However, I still think, if all relevant facts are in the lead.....Giano (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia:Wikiproject infobox show/hide display" might be less of a red flag. A good deal of somewhat disingenuous premature skirmishing, even in my own drawing-room! Disheartening. As it's intended to be. The proposal needs to be carefully and simply presented, with caveats as to what the suggestion is not, such as an attack on all infoboxes. Or a review of their content. All in simple sentence-fragments. Geogre has put his finger on what has been so mysterious to me, as I've only been inside a public school to vote. I think that's just it; the public high school texts presenting everything in infoboxes. --Wetman (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Daniel, I shall be writing an essay on this reprehensible subject, and its foreseeable and its now inevitable repercussions very shortly. Yet again the Arbs have shown their true colours, not to mention wasted hours of time, that they would not have been better spending elsewhere. The case was nothing more than a trumped up excuse (remember the person launching the case said I was no part of it) for the Arbcom and their friends to launch a few more attacks on me, exemplified by the results of Loshkin's naive comments here [55]. Fortunately, Geogre is not the only Wikipedian who sees sense around here. As I said an essay will put all of this and Wikipedia civility into perspective. Giano (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. Now that the above mess is done with, here's something pleasant. The following are all high quality scans from the original documents, not book reproductions, for the White House:
Benjamin Henry Latrobe's site plan and principal story plan, 1806. Ink and watercolor: 79MB scan.
Benjamin Henry Latrobe's proposal for the south portico, 1817. Ink and watercolor: a 58MB scan.
Earliest known photograph of the White House, 1846. Daguerrotype: 12MB.
F.D. Owen's site plan for alterations, c. 1890. Ink, watercolor wash, and graphite: sadly, only 4MB in color; 12MB in black and white.
Not quite the ideal world (which would include Hoban's original design, l'Enfant's competing proposal, and the McShain reconstruction), yet compared the trouble you've had obtaining tolerable photography this looks like a gold mine. I've also located high resolution interior photographs from various eras, some by important photographers and all public domain. The Latrobe files are spectacular--obvious featured picture candidates. They've been on my back burner because of the labor it would take to give them the attention they really deserve. Not something I'm likely to do this week (the current project is eighteenth century Islamic calligraphy), but you mentioned you might write about American architecture sometime. DurovaCharge!05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Durova, yes I shall write about is sometime. However, at the moment i want to finish the two very large pages I have already nearing completion. Thank you, I shall bear them in mind. Giano (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard anything from Arbcom yet? I am very interested in finding out which user is a snappier dresser than yours truly! Seriously, how long does it take them to run a checkuser, identify the main account, and ban it. MBisanztalk14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbcom has told me nothing. I did not expect them to - there is no meaningful communication between the Arbcom and myself. Anyhow, at this precise moment, they have far more pressing concerns and personal worries; besides which, as I have said before, I seldom ask a question to which I don't already know the answer. If the Arbcom chose to duck the issue then I will deal with it in my own inimitable way. Giano (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I suspect we each have the exact same suspect's name in mind, and I will be sorely disappointed if Arbcom stops short of a public declaration of his identity. MBisanztalk09:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if you suspect the correct villain or not. Perhaps I will found a huge school of socks to go arownd effing and blinding on talk pages, and generaly trying to incite other editors to blind fury, and see if the Arbcom can be that unsure it is me - I supsect in my case the checkuser would have marvellous powers of 100% detection and the arbs would have me hung drawn and quartered. I remember, ages ago, when David Gerard checkuserd me (for the Arbcom) as a "danger to the project" lame excuse if I ever I heard one, all he found was a lady of impeccable breeding and good manners - huge dissapontment for him - and rather a surprise to me! Giano (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can do one better, at the Simple English Wikipedia, I was accused of being Grawp, the notorious page move vandal, had a long drawn out RFCU where the eventual result was that I and Mr. Grawp were 1000s of miles apart. Given that he photoshopped a particular part of the male anatomy on a portrait of me for his article on me at Encyclopedia Dramatica, I can say the checkuser finding was not surprising. MBisanztalk11:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case has been resolved. The clarification at the bottom of it may be useful in resolving questions. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Frostie_Jack#Frostie_Jack to review it. Idle speculation without information to help investigate matters helps no one. Asking for declarations from ArbCom that may well damage innocents if untrue helps no one either. The outcome arrived at is the correct one in my view. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, MBisanz, you might be surprised at how obtuse the checkuser evidence is at times. This situation is not uncommon, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#user:toppertoy for another similar case from yesterday. User:Toppertoy is one of a number of sockpuppets on a particular range. There is one regular editor there, too, but insufficient evidence to prove that he/she is behind the socks, and Giano's "usual suspects" are not on the range or ISP at all. We do the best we can with what we have. If someone whom Giano has previously been in conflict with has signed up for a new ISP to hide himself, that is not something that can be solved by Checkuser. Thatcher17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and who pray, Thatcher, are "Giano's usual suspects"? As far as I'm aware I have not speculated at all. As a matter of fact, I do know who who is responsible, but have only confided, privately, in a few confidantes - you are not included in that very select group, so I would be grateful if you would cease promoting yourself to it. Giano (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is my day to get slapped down. I was concerned that the language of the checkuser report was creating needless suspicion and uncertainty. Next time I shan't bother. Thatcher20:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating a useful learning resource on ethical management of the English language Wikipedia.
When it is finished, I'll wish to have a copy of it at the ethics project, rather than merely a link to it. Original research is allowed at Wikiversity. Everyone is allowed to OWN pages that express their point of view. It is up to the reader to make up their own mind. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano - in the Ponte Vecchio article, several references are given as "TCI, Firenze eo. loc..". An early reference is given as "Touring Club Italiano, Firenze e dintorni 1964:321", so I'm assuming TCI is "Touring Club Italiano". So what's the "eo. loc."? Is it an Italian abbreviation of "et. al."? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's me. Eo. loc. used to signify the "same place" in an already noted source. But if you aren't aware of it, Jooperscoopers, then I really must lay eo. loc. aside as part of my antique paraphernalia: ibid. should serve well enough. --Wetman (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks chaps - seems to have passed me by. This answer was however, conclusive proof you are both more useful than google. Congratulations! --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went to Google eo. loc to find out what it means, and found this! Dear me. The exposure people get through user talk pages. eodem loco apparently, and some Latin author called Quintilian supposedly promulgated the term and it got picked up by medieval scholars. Or something. Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carch/Bish - the only amusing comfort is "I'm dumb, but not alone" - actually no comfort at all. Thankfully I've always been bright enough to not suffer in quiet ignorance - be proud! --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knows Latin, or knowed it, and I thought they were saying, "EOloc," or "Here is Michael Jackson's magnus opus." Why Wetman wanted to cite Michael Jackson as an expert, I don't know, except that it seems that, these days, all Wikipedia "references" are to websites and sources from the last five years. As such, it would have been far too serious and old a source to keep the fixers away. Geogre (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, where #admins are concerned I will beleive it when I see it, and I won't be holding my breath. If the logs are open and public, the Admins may as well have a page only they can edit on Wikipedia, and they don't want that, and neither does Jimbo, so it won't happen. Giano (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F, who is running for reelection to ArbCom, has made it clear that he "owns" Wikipedia's IRC pages, and nothing happens without his consent. It isn't even ArbCom, because previous and future ones might, indeed, want to make things honest. Geogre (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether I agree with its every assertion, your essay on civility was a very enjoyable read. You write very well - your style is highly readable and entertaining. MastCellTalk22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a surprise - yawn. I'm not going to bother to click on the second link. When I read "As you are well aware, I and others are trying hard to get the message across to Giano, a respected editor, that if he doesn't act up with others, he won't have undue attention taking him away from things he enjoys" from that particular Arb, it merely confirms my views elsewhere. When I need a lecture in behaviour from one such as FT2, that will be a sad day for Wikipedia indeed. Giano (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, to intrude a mainspace note, if the Gamberini own Villa Gamberaia, it is "the Gamberini Place" as we'd say in America— those of us who still reserve "estate" for a piece of land that supports one. Now, in Italian, is the secondary connotation of a gamberaia as a crayfish pond a live one, or is it only my Italian, which sometimes senta di olio: remember condottiere/condottiero?--Wetman (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had never really thought about it before, the name "gamberaia" literally means place where cray fish are found - not quite the same as crayfish pond, I suppose Crayfishery is the correct translation, and used, today, about as frequently. It means just a section of a pond where crayfish lurk (don't they like sewer outlets?) Thinking about this, for the first time, I am surprised it is called Villa Gamberaia - I would have though it should be called Villa Lapi Capponi, but it is always Villa Gamberaia. Odd that, I wonder why? Giano (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for drawing my attention to this. Why is there a 'notability' tag on the article? The Villa has been cited as one of the most perfect examples of garden architecture. Edith Wharton said that it combines 'almost every typical excellence of the old Italian garden'. The name comes from Matteo Gambarelli, for whom it was built at the beginning of the sixteenth century. There are some nice picture on the Italian Wikipedia here. Peter Damian (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was nothing special when the Gambarelli lived there, I don't think it is named for them, but from an area of the nearby lake Gamberaia, the Gambarelli probablt took their name from that - like Smith from blacksmith. I could be completely wrong, I am saying this from the top of my head. Giano (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually planning to "use" the notability tag on the Villa for my own nefarious (is that the right word?) ends, now you have gone and spoilt it. Giano (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry but actually it was Signor Spackmann you have to blame for that. I could immediately see why the tag was of interest to you. Still, you now have a much more splendid example (Augustine and Spinoza not notable) for your interest. Peter Damian (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could have deleted it, as it was inserted while I was putting the article together, but I thought it was amusing and decorative and had a lot to say about Wikipedia, too. Giano, that Lago Gamberaia you remarked is in the comune of Bagno a Ripoli, quite a long walk south over the hills from Settignano and on the oltr'Arno to boot; it's an irrigation pond that's mentioned in a list of "Invasi/Barramenti di Competenza Provinciale" that I found on the Web. Could an artificially impounded irrigation pond be more than a century or two old? The villa's name and the Gamberelli family of mason architects are much older, no? --Wetman (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In short, I don't know, but rejoice, the day after tomorrow I will know, because I am re-united with my books - where I know I have a reference to the villa - As you know, we were building lakes and aquaducts years ago, long before the first Italian to discover the USA found you all living naked in wigwams - circa 1890. Giano (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! The first to come over were Norse, and we shot them full of arrows and made 'em run. Your boy managed it by germ warfare. Geogre (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my opinion, but until he intruded into my space, I don't think I had ever noticed him - should I have done? - I had seen the name, along with millions of others, always with two cents worth on the periphery, but I can't say I had taken that much interest in him. To be frank, I'm not that bothered what happens to him - keep him, block him for a week, ban him for ever - in the great scheme of things it is not that important - let others decide. Giano (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, the numbers before my sig relate to the day, month and year of my birth - I am 48 years old... Don't you understand? It is all about meeeeeeeeeeeee! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes, it's all about mee... Um, wait? Ah yes, Giano's description; that is exactly my point in asking, for I am aware that Giano is both robust and forward in his opinions, as I wondered if he had some particular 48 year old in mind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not feeling a little unwell too, LHVU? In my vast experience 48 is the age when men often become a little odd - so be very careful throughout this period, and rejoice if you become 49 unscathed. Just out of interest for women this age is 41 - after that age beware of any women who wears her hair hanging loose - always a sure sign, especially if she has sunglasses on top of her head in winter. I share these pearls of wisdom for the benefit of humanity. Giano (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed started wearing my hair down in my forties; it wore down so fast it fell out...So I shaved the rest off (apart from the forelock). Wearing my sunglasses on the top of my head makes it appear, when I place them over my eyes, that somebody has previously practiced keyhole lobotomy on me. The fact that I am not female is, perhaps, a rather large exception to your pearl checklist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only 46, and I'm male (very), but I wear my hair down, and I often have my bifocals on the top of my head. Does that mean anything? Oh, and I have a pronounced Skoal ring in my back pocket, and my dress slacks have holes in the pockets from my pocket knife. (Your city folk haven't a typology for we rustics.) Geogre (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shows what you know! My contact ad reads, "Wealthy M, super fit, likes to party late 30's seeks adventurous F 18-25 for good times friendship no fatties please." I figure, "Why stand out" when you're this outstanding? Geogre (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC) (I wonder if the talk page watchers have heard of the Cretan paradox?) Geogre (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just got home after a lunch with friends (I had 3 margaritas and 2 beers) and read Giano's perfect description of me -late 40's, long dark hair with sunglasses on top of my head (especially in the winter!), by the way my sunglasses are always classic Ray-ban Wayfarers. What does that mean? I'm a bad girl? God, I hope so. Please, enlighten me! - Epousesquecido (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Epousey, you will always be perfect. Though, Margaritas and beers at lunchtime sound like a migraine by 6pm to me. Ray-ban Wayfarers say that you can always spot a bargain at the airport duty free shop, or does anyone ever buy them full price elsewhere? Giano (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A shame indeed, Wikipedia certainly does move in mysterious ways these days. Has anyone notified any of our brave Arbs about this travesty - or are thay all off-line? Giano (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hrs for incivility and personal attacks
Your right to comment on and criticize administrators such as Stifle is important. However, this edit to AN was excessive, both the edit content and the edit summary (Stifle is still able to troll and make absurd blocks as he sees fit).
You've been warned more times than I can conveniently count, including an extensive extensive list of cited abusive comments you made listed in the recent Geogre/Wm Connely arbitration case.
It is both unfortunate that you chose to lower the level of civility on the conversation by chosing such wording and counterproductive in that it turns reasonable people away from that particular line of inquiry due to the hostility. I would think that anyone who's been around Wikipedia for years would know that by now, but you repeatedly come back to using hostile language. This is one of the more pointless acts you could possibly do for the encyclopedia, given that it's both counterproductive for the argument and uncivil. And yet you return to this pattern of behavior.
Please take your enforced next 24 hours off and consider how to approach these discussions in a more productive manner. If you believe that Stifle truly abused the situation feel free to (within the bounds of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) file a RFC on the incident on him on Tuesday, or an arbcom case if you feel he's seriously abusive of his powers. But please do so in a polite and constructive manner.
The irony of this block is fairly astounding. Giano's comment - made in the usual forthright terms - points out the disconnect between our reaction to the incivility and the behaviour which provoked it. Repeatedly tagging an article someone is writing for deletion in such a manner that they lose their temper and are blocked for responding intemperately is fairly dubious conduct. Giano should perhaps not have used the word "troll" but I find the idea he cannot describe a block as "absurd" fairly concerning. Now he too is blocked because spotting "incivility" is so much easier than dealing with problem behaviour that provokes it. In the scale of things this seems a fairly trivial incident to me and to slap a 24 hour block on it does rather look like stifling dissent. This block is counterproductive, as I believe any block that will have a chilling effect on legitimate criticism is counterproductive. I would have supported a request for Giano to tone down the rhetoric but I really don't see that comment as warranting a 24 hour block, nor do I see how Wikipedia benefits from being without Giano's contributions for a day. WJBscribe(talk)12:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by everysingle word I wrote here [57] I retract nothing, I regret nothing. Stifle was trying successfully to anger Peter Damian. Stifle is an experienced editor, who knew exactly what he was doing, which was trolling. Regarding the absurdities of Stigfle's Admin actions, I regard this block [58] he performed here to be truly wrong and absurd. If pointing out when an Admin is trolling is now an offence under the new deference and civility laws, imposed by the Arbcom - then so be it. Thank you for confirming what so many of us have suspected and beleived for so long.Giano (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly dull witted block: I have been astonished to see people saying things like "don't be incivil" when I described Elonka (two hot RFC's, three RFA's, two Rfar's concurrently) as "contentious." Stifle was trolling. That is a perfect description for someone attempting to get a reaction. In fact, it is the definition of "trolling," which comes from early Internet confusion of "trawling" and "troll." The early trolls were bombarding message boards with "I hate [EthnicGroup]" messages and the like to get a reaction. Some were even -bots. Thus, when Stifle is poking and poking to try to provoke someone, it is trolling. Giano is right, and this block is one of the most abusive I've seen in a while. Geogre (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - it's an abysmal block which, as usual, applies a bandage on an open fracture. Let's ignore the root cause of the problem... of course it needs to be lifted straightaway, sadly, most admins won't touch it with a bargepole due to the inevitable dramaz it would cause. Minkythecat (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind Viridae, thank you. Care to tackle the auto-blocker before you are hauled infromt of the Arbcom for gross misconduct? Giano (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the autoblock finding tool hasn't worked for a long time - it would be great if someone with the necessary skills found the time to write a new one. In the meantime, I find doing "find on this page" on Special:Ipblocklist the best way to locate them. WJBscribe(talk)14:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this has already been resolved, but I just saw it and my jaw hit the floor. Please, anyone who hasn't already, got read the link that geogrewilliamherbert cites as blockable incivility. The charge is ridiculous. I think geogrewilliamherbert should stay away from Ginao. --Duk15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the following on WR a few minutes ago (obviously, this matter is being discussed there) and then I thought, this is totally ridiculous, we should be having these discussions here, openly and without fear of blocking, banning or any other repurcussions. We are the ones working for the project we have a right to a view, and we have a right to express it so here it is, and if get banned for ever for saying it - then so be it.
There are times when even I am amazed by the total incompetence of some of those appointed to rule/Administrate Wikipedia. I know I seem to spend my whole cyber life saying something has to be changed at Wikipedia so one would think I would expect it - but no, the sheer monumental incompetence hits me each time like a rock out of the sky. Such was the scale of stupidity of this particular block, I don't even feel it proves my point about civility being used as a weapon. However, will Wikipedia do anything about it? - No. They will allow such people to continue harassing those writing the project (who don't show due deference to the Admins) because it is more important to maintain collective Admin dignity than write an encyclopedia.
I still think if I keep going and repeating myself on and on, people may one day realise what I'm saying is correct - but Christ, it's a bloody hard long battle. Giano (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(<--)Sorry that I was not clear. My point is not that it is impossible for someone to both be an admin and to have good judgement, my point is that if you carefully consider the possible motivations and the typical ranges of human characteristics, it is obvious that the vast majority of admins will have one or more problematic characteristics and thus one should not be surprised at typical admins behaving as they do. Start by noting that the typical admin does not do much admin work at all. They just leveled up. Similar remarks can be said about arbcom members. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose they can, I am just left wondering is it all worth it - why not leave it to the Admins and arbs to write the project, they obviously feel more than qualified, and clearly want to drive off all those currently doing so. Giano (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an attempt to drive you away from the project. I would have filed another Arbcom case and openly called for your removal were I interested in doing that.
This is an attempt to get you to abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and numerous arbcom sanctions and warnings already in place against you, which require that you edit in a reasonably civil manner, which you are still not doing.
As I said - every time you post abusive, uncivil comments it both corrodes the community and is counterproductive to the discussions you engage in. This is not good, for you, for the community, or for the points that you are trying to make.
You have to move towards editing in a more constructive manner. 99% of what you do is great. The other 1% is coming close to outweighing the good the rest does. It's not necessary. It's not good. It's bad for you and the project. You have been blocked over this and taken to Arbcom over this more than anyone else in the project, and you are fully aware of that.
If you cannot bring yourself to care about civility, if you cannot help but continue to engage in discussions in a rude and abusive manner from time to time, perhaps you should leave the project. I sincerly hope that this is not the case and that you can reform your behavior, because I don't want to lose the 99%, and I agree with your opinions more than you think I do. But civility is very very important, and you're the poster child for uncivil behavior on a recurring basis.
I don't think conversation with such as you can possibly be productive. Please take your comments to a more suitable forum. Giano (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish this hadn't happened. I've apologised at AN and RFAR, agree that your comments did not deserve blocking, and hope that people will accept that my actions were a mistake and that we can move on. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Stifle. It's a great pity that where I am concerned so many feel the need to jump on the proverbial bandwagon, but for that I blame the Arbcom - not you. I hope Peter Damian ses your apology and feels able to returm. However, this problem is not really about you, or me come to that, but about the way that those on authority are currently using "incivility" as a weapon to stifle (no pun intended) any oposition. Giano (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, I hope that we can move on from this. I think once this most recent drama has calmed down I may be inclined to move to revoke your civility parole as it is completely counterproductive both for you and for everyone else. The matter has polarized the community (and, to an extent, the ArbCom) and it's disappointing. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - Stifle kindly apologised and I apologised in return for my over-reaction the other day. I don't know whether it is worth returning unless it is recognised there is a systematic and in-principle problem here, and not an isolated issue. There have been many good comments made on this page that I need about (also on the rfa page, as well as some very bad ones). All the best. Peter Damian (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to choose the venue and start the discussion. And probably also time to make the really heroic effort to decide, as a parameter of the debate, to excise any personalisation other than occasional necessary examples of A causes B causes C causes D(rama). Honestly, I don't buy the idea that criticising the arbs is the problem, the problem is that you, like me, speak your mind, and others choose to interpret bluntness as malice. Which, in my case, it occasionally is - or perhaps exasperation anyway. I think we should ask some trusted third parties to clerk it and keep the "peanut gallery" from derailing the discussion. I believe that a harmonious editing environment is a goal worth pursuing, and I also feel that a guideline which punishes those who burn out dealing with vexatious users while ignoring the vexatious users themselves, is fatally flawed. The goal is not formal politeness, it's a place where everyone can rub along and where disputants can be gently separated.
My first thought on this is that if someone thinks comment X is offensive, there should be a mechanism for clarifying it or asking for it to be clarified which does not amount to running to teacher asking them to make the nasty man go away. There are groups of people who are capable of taking disproportionate offence, including newbies and very young editors, and it rankles to be told that we must treat as an equal someone who patently is not, in any meaningful respect. Ritual abasement should not be required.
Anyway, that's a bit rambling. I think you know where I'm coming form on this, though. I think we should refocus the guideline to be about the product and ways to ensure that the product is improved, and work form there. The present guideline enshrines soup-spitting as perfectly acceptable behaviour. It isn't. But neither is tipping the soup over the head of the offender :-) Guy (Help!) 11:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to decline your offer. While I have this ridiculous sanction swinging like an empty noose over my head, there will always be drama, as long as it is there some incompetent will always want to yank it. I truly believe this was the intention of those Arbs who voted for the santion - I said this at the time, and before, and today, I am even more convinced of it. There will always be sensitive souls, and those looking for offence where none exists and those full of pomposity demanding undue deference - I can't solve the problems of human nature, I can attempt to solve some of Wikipedia's - and shall continue to do so. However, while the Arbcom insist on pinning a target to my back, progress is impossible - as all healthy discussion and debate would hampered and thwarted by little uninformed admins yanking the noose. Giano (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I wonder about this. As much as it's often pointed out that English is not your first language, I'm sure you do actually know the difference between civil language and incivility. Why then, when you want to make a point forcefully, do you make it with borderline incivility? It isn't as if your point would be ignored without it. On the contrary, if your borderline incivil remark prompts a questionable block and then a long argument about whether the block was right, then the point you were trying to make will be long forgotten. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it was needed. Civility is a policy and is not voluntary. I foresaw the danger that if you did not hold yourself back from making incivil comments, then the community or a future arbitration hearing would end up restricting you much more. If you remember, there were two arbitrators already willing to support a year long ban, and five who supported a project namespace ban. I considered it likely that if there was no sanction, and incivil comments continued, the next case would end up banning; I also considered that would be very bad for the encyclopaedia. I know you may not want to believe this but it's true. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That some Arbs supported a year long ban says far more about those Arbs than it does about me. The long and the short of it was the IRC case should never have been about me - but addressing the IRC problem. It was, in my opinion, pure malicious spite to drag me into it, and as for not sanctioning "Bastard bitch from hell" Sidaway, and passing the motion to address IRC which you had no intention of carrying out - others can draw their own conclusions - they don't need my help there. As for the last William Connolly case you Arbs all tried to drag me into - well, if I gave you my views on that one - trust me, that would be uncivil. That so many now see the Arbs for exactly what they are - is something you will all have to live with. I said sometime ago that all communication and dialogue between the Arbs and myself has irretrievably broken down. That remains the case - I want nothing to do with you, the more I learn the greater my contempt. I strongly suspect by the end of this year the committee's reputation will be in such tatters you will all be resigning. In the meantime, I do not acknowledge your pathetic sanction, but recognize it for what it is - an attempt to stifle any dissent. Well tough - it doesn't work! - That you now have the audacity after all this time to come to this page trying to explain your actions, I shall not comment, beyond saying too little too late. you have made your beds now you must lie on them. You pinned the target to my back, now that the gun is backfiring don't come here belatedly trying to explain your actions. Furthermore, to those reading this hoping for an excuse to gain favour with Sam and his friends by blocking me (yet again) please note there is no bad language - no insults just unpalatable and hard facts. Giano (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In point of fact I opposed your inclusion in the recent William M. Connolley. Also please note that we had a temporary injunction during the case that you were only to be blocked with the consent of an arbitrator, and for the whole time of that you were never blocked despite requests that we should do so. I'm afraid those are two unpalatable and hard facts. Now a point of agreement: You are quite that you point out that your response to me was entirely civil. More like that and there will be no more civility sanction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(PS No administrator should ever think that they will gain my favour by blocking anyone, save where it is necessary to stop disruption and in full accord with blocking policy.)
You had the temporary injunction to save yourselves from the huge embaressment that would occur if I was pointlessly blocked - while so many eyes were on the case. Similarly, the idea of appointing 5 of your crony IRC Admins to have sole responsibility was a similar ploy to take attention away from the monumantaly stupid sanction - just think you would not be having to justify yourself here now, if I had quite rightly not refused to have anything to do with it. My mind is now set regarding the present Arbcom -nothing will change it. So please stop wasting your time here. Giano (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something for you to think about, Sam. If you had posted exactly the same sentence as Giano, people would have thought "Hmm...Sam Blacketer thinks Stifle was trolling, maybe we should think about that." Giano got blocked for writing what most of us could write without concern. He did not say "Stifle is a troll", he described the behaviour he (and many others) observed. That is what one is supposed to do, describe behaviour and its effects rather than personalities. Civility parole means that Giano should be meeting the same standards of civility that the project expects of others, not some sort of exaggerated level of civility beyond what most editors are held to. If everyone on the project was being held to this level of civility, about a third of the people posting to WP:ANI on any given day (including administrators and arbitrators) would be blocked. Given the absurd number of deliberately planned provocations of Giano in the past month (there were at least five that I know of), he has been far more civil than even his greatest detractors could have anticipated. Risker (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you're not going to fix the side effects of the problem by pretending the problem does not exist. The problem is not ArbCom, it did what it thought was right and invoked in the process the law of unintended consequences. You won't get them to vacate the restriction because repeated violation of an instruction to remain civil is a very bad reason to withdraw the instruction. The problem, though, lies in how the community chooses to define what is and is not civil, and how the community chooses to deal with it. I believe that the policy, guideline or whatever needs to be written in a way that inspires grumpy old bastards like me, you, Mikka and others, not in a way that can be used by civil POV-pushers as a stick with which to beat grumpy NPOV-pushers. I don;t think the process of forming that document will work without at least some input from you. If you would rather not fix the problem, and continue the periodic festivals of Stupid, then just say so and I will drop it and walk away I guess. The policy we have now is pretty close to 100% guaranteed to escalate more disputes than it damps down. That needs fixing. As the most prominent example of how badly it works, and an intelligent and eloquent man, I rather look to you to help. I think you like helping Wikipedia. Am I wrong? Guy (Help!) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am far from pretending the problem does not exist. The Arbcom did not do what it thought was right. The Arbcom deliberatly created an environment which it thought would drive me off - it has not and now the Arbcom have to live with the consequences of their actions. I don't want it vacated because every time I am stupidly blocked they appear even more ridiculous. It really is their problem not mine. This latest block has convinced me that I want nothing further to do with them. Giano (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What problem, Guy? Let's be precise for once. What is "uncivil?" The moment anyone brings the c-word up, there is a question: civil as determined by whom, civil as in "polite" or as in "civilized" or as in "civic minded?" Are there people who blow raspberries only? Sure. They're vandals. Are there people who are "good" and then blow raspberries? Sure. They're frustrated. Are there people who are around solely to "win" some argument or other? Sure. They're Vandals. Lumping all of this together in "civility" is a mistake of the first water, because it means polluting thinking. Each problem must be addressed individually, and the worst thing to do is give these "block whenever" tickets. Those are the equivalent of outlawry. Because ArbCom can't consider things cleanly and precisely, they issue vague, poorly worded, unconsidered, blanket statements that show only their own limitations. The "civility parole" on Giano was one of the most stillborn attempts of all, but it shows the viciousness of lump thinking. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any thought given to printing up t-shirts for people who have blocked you? Something like "I blocked Giano and all I got was this lousy wheel war" or "I survived blocking Giano". Could be a hot item. Friday(talk)14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Giano - when did they start making complaining about admin on the AN (where it clearly says to use as a place to complain) blockable? Gesh. I've said far nastier things there than you did, and if they blocked me for that, well, I would have a block log double the current size. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. I'm only around briefly tonight, but I wanted to leave you a quick note to let you know that some IRC stuff is being discussed at WP:RFARB. I think a search for "IRC" on the page will find all the relevant stuff. The thing that really caught my attention was Barneca having a "road to Damascus" moment. Anyway, the thread is not really about IRC (at least not yet), so it's probably best not to wade in there, but I thought you would be interested in knowing about the thread. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap the channel. Build another one with explicit rules for behaviour and disclosure, under control of Wikipedia. (Hmm, who was it said behaviour on #admins was subject to Arbcom decisions? I don't remember anymore...) If admins want to hang out on JamesF's old channel, fine - they can equally well converse on ED too. However there should be a discussion channel for admins, not necessarily transparent to the wiki, but at least under the control of en:wiki. Put those two cents in your coffee, it's harder to spill by accident if there's a little weight in the bottom. Franamax (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I will leave it. I no longer have the will, time or interest to follow the latest time wasting machinations of this present Arbcom and their pages. Whatever is said to them regarding their IRC channel and the behaviour of their friends therein nothing will change, untill we have a completely new Arbcom. The present Arbs voted to address the IRC problem and then welched on their own hollow promise, because one of their number claims to own the channel - which they have always known. Criticise them and point this out and you will get a civility sanction. There is now an unfathomable divide between the present Arbcom and me and I don't see any point to trying to bridge it. I look to the future, chasing what-might-have-been is for the dead. Giano (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the divide between you and ArbCom, it is nothing compared to the divide between IRC and accountability - which concern many have voiced in recent requests to that body. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Not sure what to make of the recent [attempt] at transparency of IRC at meta - looks like it made a promising start, but revealed itself as a pathetic sop when James F turned up and limited the scope to transparency of #wikipedia and #en-wikipedia only - like that's the problem! --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps bearing in mind Forrester and some of his colleagues want to be re-elected in December we may see a temporary softening in atitude there, but come January nothing will have changed. Giano (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the civility restriction you're under is complete BS. You seem spicy, but harmless as far as the project is concerned-- an interesting bit of local flavor, rather than something nasty that should be watched. Every government needs it's gadflies. Jtrainor (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, on the one hand, meaningless, and, on the other, malicious. It says that any administrator may block without warning at any incidence of "incivility." By those same persons' interpretations of the truly deletion-worthy WP:CIVIL, they already do block just about anyone for any incidence of "incivility" without warning. However, it was intended to be a mark of malice, I think, and a way of some arbcom members saying that they dislike Giano and want to make his experience at Wikipedia so uncomfortable that, without finding that he had violated any policies, they can drive him off. This is why the gesture is worth every syllable of invective that anyone can possibly level at it. It was petty, dishonest, ill-conceived, bilious, and stupid, and the same adjectives apply to pretty much everyone involved in writing and passing it. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Utgard, I could not have phrased it better myself, but have no fear I have never acknowledged the sanction, or taken any notice of it. In fact, the only people who seem remotely interested in enforcing it are those that passed it and their friends - funny old world isn't it? Giano (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense, to "post carefully" and change in anyway would be to acknowledge the sanction, and give even a tiny little piece of credence to the opinions of Flo Night; Deskana; The Uninvited Co., Inc; Kirill, Sam Blacketer; Matthew Brown (Morven); jpgordon who were so keen to implement the sanction [60]]. In fact in the recent words of one of my children, when asked to accompany his mother to see The Duchess, "I would rather eat my own lung" than change my editing in any way, shape or form. Giano (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time to get some community involvement to persuade the deadlocked Arbcom about how counterproductively disruptive this sanction is. I think we should petition them and have started one at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/petitions/Giano - I'm not sure petitions have been done before, but I'd rather it didn't turn into a drama - If you disagree, don't sign, simple as. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice thought JC, I appreciate it, but this sanction will stand and stand and stand - and everyday it stands, those Arbs can look at it, and so can all of we. Let's hope in December we have a new Arbcom, a completely new Arbcom, an Arbcom we can respect. Giano (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, we can respect the current Arbcom, regardless of its merits. It is a theoretical possibility, and some editors still do it. I'd much rather aim for the higher standard of an Arbcom that actually deserves our respect. That is a dream or vision to reach for. GRBerry19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may respect whomesoever you like, I shall do the same. Obviously we have different standards. I have never respected anything other than those with the highest intent, and fail to see any point of doing otherwise. To encourage mediocrity is, in my view, odd. Giano (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano, I attempted to start this discussion at the talk page of the policy that, being abused more than any other, obviously needs to be fixed. Maybe even such policy is not needed at all? I am not sure, but I am sure that if this page is to exist and shine the {{policy}} tag on its top, it needs a complete overhaul. You are one of the editors, whose input would be especially valuable to improve this page. Please take a look if, of course, you have time. Thanks, --Irpen05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very nice idea Irpen, but I no longer enter into debates which are likely to be hijacked by members of the Peanut Gallery - life is far too short, Wikipedia is now run, and indeed encouraged to be run, by their cackling chorus, and quite frankly their obsession with civility, and using civility (or rather their misguided view of civility) as a mask to disguise their own real lack of value sickens me. If these debates ever cleared the air and improved things, I would join, but they don't. Thanks for leaving the message. Giano (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Palazzo Pitti has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
But you "have been notified," now, and that's the only objective. Communication isn't one of the goals, and reasoning with people is absolutely unheard of, unsought, and too dangerous. The implicit goal is a world where FA, FAR, and GA are all, like the assessments, to be done by -bots, without any of that scary intelligence or community involved at all. Dumb people don't like it when they have to admit that they're dumb, and so they put up laws and screens and regulations and forms to excuse their appalling lack of brains, consideration, and skill. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Carch, no I don't have it watchlisted for a very good reason. Please see the response to Irpen above - In short, I no longer converse with the Arbcom or their Peanut Gallery. Thanks for trying to help. I appreciate it. Giano (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For all its irritations, sometimes WP really comes up with the goods - have you read the particularly fascinating related page Yingzao Fashi - which I got to from Ancient Chinese wooden architecture? Astonishingly the Yingzao Fashi has never been translated into English, so western academic discourse of Chinese architecture has always suffered from a lack of consideration of key texts - imagine trying to understand Classicism without De architectura. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing indeed, I always feel I have missed out by not understanding Chinese architecture - there is that amazing castle, whose name esacpes me, in the Crocklestone book - I suppose the "name escapes me" says it all. I hate feeling ignorant. Giano (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm more furious, disgusted, dejected, discouraged ... or just plain nuts and out of touch because I still can't understand, "what were they thinking"? Must be time for my garden. Of course, it won't be the end of it, and I'll have to adjust the way I process FACs to allow for off-Wiki canvassing and block voting, and I'll have to spend a whole lot more time answering things like "Well, so-and-so told me on IRC that SamSmithSucksSocks.com was a reliable source". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, when IRC are writing FAs and they are receiving votes of support (as they surely will), that is the time for Wikipedia to pack up and you and I to go home. The only articles that would pass would be on subjects you and I are too innocent to understand - with grammar to match. Giano (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ, Giano: that will be the time when those who currently do FA's and FAC will want to shut down the concept and practice of FA. However, they will find that all their ranks have been replaced, neatly and overnight, by the chat-FA people. They might start off with one powerful, everywhere-at-once zealot of the IRC FA, but they will have swung the "consensus." They will then go to demote all the FA's that this group has ever promoted, although that will be a month or two later. How do I know this? Well, as a person who understands and upholds academic integrity and publication-standard work, I have seen it happen once already, as you have. It will be time for bitter justice, except that it isn't justice. It is no justice when each standard gets overwritten with a more bot-owned, instantly-processed, less deliberative standard; it's just dumbing down. To me, there isn't much difference between "object! no footnotes" and an IRC FA. Both are non-deliberative, non-constructive, unintelligent, and mean spirited. Geogre (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that I had the luxury to only object against a page for lack of footnotes. Its hard to find pages that were well-written enough for that to even become a real consideration. I would definitely trade no footnotes for high quality in everything else. Apparently, every named storm ever will become a featured article, just like every highway ever, and the only people willing to really contribute to pages like Ada Lovelace just want to replace the page with penis. Backwards backwards backwards. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The good writers quit writing them long ago. Modernist Poetry is at FAR? The Cantos were at FAR? Why? Footnotes. I will never, ever, ever seek or allow sought FA on any article I have written again. I prefer, any day, that an article be ignored by all than that fools try to instruct me about things they do not understand. I will not conform to a form in lieu of content. If parenthetical citations to sources for statements that are controversial are not sufficient, then I will never, ever be part of this wretched excuse for a waste of time again. Academic writing requires citing material that is not common knowledge and any quotations. It is not a bed wetting undergraduate's sweaty palmed footnote festival. Geogre (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unscaled plan of the 1st floor of the Winter Palace as it appears today, the fourth palace on the site. The numbers in this key are referred to throughout the article—click on numbers for images, pages and further details.
Giano—good to see you back in action! The image thing is a simple fix--whenever replacing the old image the new image file has to be the exact same size for the clicky map to still work. I don't have access to a photo editor on the computer I'm at right now, so I can't resize, but it will be a quick fix tomorrow. I will crack my books back open and see if I can help a bit push this across the line. --JayHenry (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am always in action - one way or another! - thanks for the help I appreciate it, the page is looking quite big, so will shortly be drastically pruned, but I keep realising more sections have to be written - but it is looking OK. Giano (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the modified version in the clicky template. The only difference is you added rooms 44–48? I'll modify the template to make those rooms clicky too. --JayHenry (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your email which I note you have forwarded to Jimbo and NewYorkBrad. Presumably you also forwarded to them our private converstion. I won't post your email or any details of our conversation as that is strictly against the rules. However, I shall reply here because you obviously chose to email me as a Wikipedia Arb rather then a friend with whom one has occasional conversations.
That you think it is even possible that I (who cannot type three words without a spelling mistake or a grammatical mistake, could successfully sock for four years is very amusing. More amusing still (to me anyway) is that you even consider that a user of #admins could possibly write the content which I churn out month after month year after year. I do have one sock who must be know to half of Wikipedia, but sadly that sock is not an admin, although rumour has it she may run for Arbcom - she would probably be bettre at it than many existing Arbs.
I appreciate that it must ve very distressing for you that #admins leaks like a sieve and is far from secure, but as the Arbcom has decided, so many times, it has no jurisdiction there, so it is not really a Wikipedia matter. Sorry I can not be of any further help. Regards. Giano (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Giano, No, I did not forward them our private discussion. And I approached you discreetly by email to discuss the situation as I do consider you a friend. Regards, FloNight♥♥♥18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ms Night, I too wish it to be widely known that I have never used a secret radio transmitter in my life, not even in the darkest days of the war, when so many cruel and unkind things were being said against me. Regarding socks, I did once knit one for the war effort, but it was returned because it was impossible to find a one legged soldier with a foot of those dimensions. On the subject of the forthcoming Arbcom elections, it is indeed true, that I have been implored to ascend the Wikipedian throne, where I shall no doubt be seated in glory with charming, handsome Giano on my right hand and that nice Mr Jimbo (pity about the dress sense) on the left, and the Arbcom such as it is sitting on the steps - However, I have yet to unveil my diary for December - so you must all bate your breath. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is one small thing bothering me here Flo? What on earth has it to with the Arbcom, Jimbo and NewYorkbrad that the sanctity of #admins is breeched, and possibly cast to the four winds. While I know you agree with me that the issue of #admins is problematic, you and your fellow Arbs don't seem to be doing much to address that situation - do you? You, yes you Flo with some cohorts, sanctioned me for incivility while agreeing to address the situation - and in pure Anglo-Saxon have so far, almost a year later, done "fuck all" towards addressing the situation. In fact the Arbcom is now belatedly on record as saying it has no jurisdiction over IRC. So why am I being threatened for allegedly breeching it's high security - it is surely nothing to do with Wikipedia - your Arbcom has said this. Was the conversation I quoted between a checkuser and an Arb sufficiently worrying for you to take such action? I hardly think so. So what was your problem? You infer I should warn them I am there, but would that not spoil the fun? - and as nothing supposedly wrong ever happens there - what is the point? Most of those on #admins (who contribute nothing of worth to the encyclopedia) regard IRC as a game and toy, well so do I now - a very amusing toy, so long as I think, regard and uphold the project, itself, as the important factor, where is the harm? - but where do NewYorkBrad and Jimbo fit into the picture? - or was their inclusion in this just another threat to shut me up? If so, it has failed miserably. Go chat Flo.........Giano (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At Flo's instigation, it seems a very important Wikipdian indeed is now interested in this matter, so in case I should suddenly "dissapear" or meet "with an accident" I say this to Flo Night, and anyone else that is interested: Both Wikipedia and the IRC channel owners have stood on their heads to say that the two are not directly linked and that activity on the channel is standalone, and that Wikipedia has no control or responsibility for it. Now unless checkuser proves I have abused Wikipedia or its processes (which as I'm sure you know, it does not, and never will) this is not a matter to concern Jimbo, the Arbcom or in fact anyone else conncected with Wikipedia. If the powers on high think this is an excuse to "get me" then they are too keen, and appearing so. Giano (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very important Wikipedian is interested? No, I'm not! (Of course, it's obvious that the admins.irc exists without consensus, that it achieves only functions that are better performed on Wikipedia, and that it encourages a social dynamic that, by its nature, must foreground the social rather than the product. The product of any social intercourse is the societal negotiation, not the end of that negotiation. Therefore, all any "chat group" is ever really doing is chatting, and what they chat "about" is in service to the social organization. The only way that can work is toward increasing demoticism. Making it a center of "power" is to make social goofing more important than writing articles. Some people, of course, fool themselves, and some are just plain fools. Nothing you can do about that but laugh at them.) Utgard Loki (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow you, what I idly commented on to Flo was about an Arb and a checkuser discussing hotel preferences in #Admins (no, they were not planning to book in together - the checkuser is happily married) I just commented to Flo, that I too like a large bathroom and a chocolate on my pillow - and she felt this important fact needed reporting to Jimbo and that terrifying creature NewYorkBrad - not that I would want to share a hotel room with those two either - together or individually. It is all very mystifying - perhaps they are planning a sekret-super-wikipdian meet up in a luxury hotel somewhere, and are frightened there will be a Siculu, hidden behind ray-bans and a cocktail umbrella, as is his want, taking notes, with a pen containing poisonous darts (a la James Bond), as they stuff their faces with foie gras livened up by the attention of a spicy saucy little Sauternes as they plan their next dastardly deeds. Giano (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I note that you've been rather irritated by goings on here and at Buckingham Palace, but there is a somewhat related matter with certain common elements that has been ongoing here for quite some time (so long now that I'm becoming embarassed to be a part of it). You might want to take a gander, and perhaps make a comment if you feel brave enough. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little idea where I am going with this. Perhaps writing is just not my strength. But, I guess "How does one make friends?" is the question I pose to you, if you'll deign to answer it. I've been told it's important, but not the mechanics of actually doing it. Cheers, WilyD16:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody please be nice a friendly to Wily D here - Risker where are you? You are very good at this type of thing. Sound just your type of page too. Giano (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia is not— in spite of a widespread misapprehension among the jejune— an extension of MySpace, Ling.Nut's suggestion that one "start making friends with some of the better-known copy editors" was intended as a suggestion one make collegial requests from experienced editors for the input of some suggestions and some early editing of one's projects. Most are quite ready to offer editorial help. Do make friends in your real life, if any.--Wetman (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Giano. Wetman, I rather gathered that, but as the supply of copyeditors is much lower than the demand, how to round them up is less clear. Even the League of Copyeditors is defunct.
As for real life friends, I find it much easier to let the wife manage that, and not be bothered with it. But it wasn't my intention to ask Giano for advice on making real life friends, which I believe he understood. WilyD17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good day gentlemen, I heard there was mention of my name over here. WilyD, if you leave me a message on my page with links to the article and any reviews, I will be happy to take a look at it. I'll be honest, I'm a bit swamped in RL, but I will see what can be done. Giano, thanks for the compliment. ;-) Risker (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly writing bold essay in bold name space with bold opinion per WP:BOLD
As a matter of clarification concerning your comment on SirFozzie's page: its comments like "dubious and treacherous services." and "never read such bolox in all my life" (bollocks perhaps?) that I feel are over the top. If you want to criticize Fozzie as some sort of crypto-Arbcom cheerleader, there are plenty of ways you can make that case with more restrained language. --Tznkai (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has your opinion been invited? Tznkai? I don't believe I have heard of you before. In a world the size of Wikipedia, that in itself speaks volumes. Giano (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is a former Arbcom clerk (probably did other stuff as well), who recently returned after a long break (well over a year). I hadn't heard of him before either, but he is not someone new. And judging people on whether you've heard of them is a bit risky. You run the risk of restricting yourself to a cabal of "current" people. Oh, and no comment on the dispute that led to this. Carcharoth (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with my memory, it is razor sharp - so long as someone makes an impression on it, I still remember Filiocht as though it were only yesterday, that he made a run for it. Giano (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me, I saw a comment by Filiocht (the real person, not the WP editor) on a news article comment section somewhere. Bit pointless as I can't remember the article. Hmph. Memory, eh? Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very sad article, but not without a ring of truth, what is sad that is that many of our writers would love to write with passion and give more interpretation, but those who dictate how we must write (usually having no knowledge themselves) prohibit any such passion, and forcibly remove it if they spot it or scream for cites. The perfect Wikipedian editor is forced to be a factual rgurgitating robot. Giano (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My involvement is an administrator/wikipedian and the issue is your incivility against SirFozzie. I pointed out two lines in particular that were the trouble. You can stand by every word if you wish, but you will have to do it elsewhere. Civility is a requirement on Wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for a period of 12 hours for incivility on User talk:SirFozzie. Unblock will be granted upon commitment to refactor and or remove offending comments/phrases. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block.
Oh please. I note the additional comment in the block log: "Will unblock upon user's commitement to refactor/remove offending statements". I am sorry but User talk:SirFozzie#Your Arbcom Manifesto contains no comment so terrible that a user must be blocked should they refuse to remove it. It is this use of blocks to stifle criticism that troubles me most about "civility blocks". Giano's comments to SirFozzie are harshly worded but it is content (not the contributor) that is described as "bolox" and Giano makes it clear why he believes the content to be inaccurate. I find it particularly worrying when we are talking about a statement of candidature for approaching ArbCom elections - are we really saying that if someone feels such a statement is misleading, they cannot call it rubbish due to our civility policies? Oh, what an interesting election that would prove to be... WJBscribe(talk)23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you unblocking Moreschi. What Tznkai failed to mention was that he also blocked me from editing this page - obviously I sign of the freedom of speech we shall have to endure if such people are elected. Giano (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you couldn't edit your talkpage? There is a new feature that allows admins to block users editing their talkpages (which seems a little unwise as this is the most common source of appeals) but it doesn't seem that Tznkai used it here. Compare Tsnkai's block to this test one. If there's a bug with this new feature, the devs need to be informed promptly. WJBscribe(talk)23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been here long enoughm and been blocked enough to know if I can or cannot edit my own talk page. I am told Tznkai is experienced. So I draw my own conclusions. Or is wikipedia now to be like my bank and blame all errors on software problems? Giano (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I prefer not to assume malice where it is not necessary. This *is* a new feature and the log does suggest that Tznkai didn't mean to stop you editing your talkpage, so actually I think this is a problem with the software, yes (and I realise this must sound pretty implausible to you). WJBscribe(talk)23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very implausible! and as I said to the bank only yesterday, if people can't work the software they should not be allowed anywhere near it. Giano (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is potentially the case that no admin on this project can work the software at the moment. None of us can now be sure if we block someone whether or not they will be able to edit their talkpage... WJBscribe(talk)23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try to block an account with matching settings as Tznkai appeared to do to Giano (based on the logging), with their talk page on the same protection level, and see what happens? Then try again with the no talk page editing bit set "on", but otherwise the same? It either was set by Tznkai and didn't log, or kicked in by accident and didn't log. You can do me for testing if you want (just note it as a software test :P) rootology (C)(T) 23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the root of the bug - turns out if the autoblock is enabled, it inhibits affected users from editing their talk pages regardless of the original block's settings. (I'm not sure why an admin would turn the autoblock on for an established contributor whose chances of abusive sockpuppetry are nil... but it looks like the block was pretty bad in the first place.) krimpet✽07:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, about Sir Fozzies's arbcom candidacy...Sir Fozzie was one of the main ones to take the initiative and try to get the Mantamoreland/Gary Weiss fiasco settled once and for all, in which he was largely successful. That may not seem like much, but remember what has happened to other editors who tried to do something about that situation. If you elect to run again, Giano, you'll probably also have my vote, for what it's worth. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I wanted to tell you that you always deserve to be blocked and equally never deserve to be blocked. Its one of those strange Wikipedia things. I wish someone would limit themselves to 12 hours when blocking me. :) Email me if you want to chat. Also, the same glitch hit the Wikiversity servers. Its strange. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima, please be sure to report the problem, as it appears to be more widespread than might have met the eye. Your comment is the third I have heard in just these few hours. Risker (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we were the first to report it. That was a few days ago. I can double check. Risker, do you know how to get to the Wikiversity IRC? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, but I have better things to employ my time on Wikipedia than discussing Fozzy's puzzling decision to run for the Arbcom on an "Anti-present-Arbcom" ticket. Nor do I have time to discuss the little Admins who not only have no clue concerning the current state of Wikipedia's politics or even any clue how to use the magic buttons they were so wrongly and inappropriately given by people who should know better. All of this merely confirms what I am always telling you all, but does anyone listen............Giano (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the only person I'm aware of here who's actually knowledgeable about Elizabethan architecture, could I ask for any comments regarding Bruce Castle? I've expanded this one significantly; however, because it seems to be to be a distinctly uninteresting building architecturally (and no sources seem to actually exist for its construction), I've deliberately skimmed over the architectural side to focus on the "notable residents" aspect. Do you think I've taken it too far to the opposite extreme, in leaving out the architectural "history" to this extent? (The large numbers of redlinks aren't an issue; as they're almost all Lords-and-Ladies, they're all valid links which will be created when Kittybrewster or BrownHairedGirl get round to them).
Best I can do off the top of my head [64] not a lot one can say with no supporting references, but there is nothing contraversial there, that can be debated or a cite demanded. Remove what you don't like or want. I suggest you try to get hold of the Pevsner for that area of London. He is bound to have something to say, I don't always agree with him, but he was a nice old boy and at least got himself published a criteria which seems to satisfy the more zelous Wikipedians. Giano (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know Bruce Castle well, was there last week visiting the archives. The recent much expanded editions of Pevsner by Bridget Cherry do have something about Bruce Castle which is worth looking up. I would say that the article might benefit by adding information about the 19th century extension built for Rowland Hill's school, and about the unsympathetic 20th century extension in front of it. From memory it is Grade I listed, the only building in Tottenham with this grade. Also, aren't there some gravestones in that strange yard that has all the old post office letterboxes in it? Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your expansion. I will try to dig out Pevsner.
I have a photo of the grim extension, but I was trying to avoid adding it as it's so damn ugly. As that section is faitly text-heavy (despite my adding that excerpt of godawful doggerel classic literature to break the flood of wordiness), I'll add it in.
The stones in the strange yard with the postboxes aren't gravestones, they're the dedication plaques for assorted hospitals, almshouses etc in the area destroyed by bombing. (I have photos of them – and the postboxes – as well, plus a lot of views of the interior and of architectural detail; I dislike galleries, but I may add one).
Irritatingly, I know that a high quality oil-painting of the house in 1686, prior to reconstruction, exists – it hangs in the main reception hall – but an annoying man shooed me away when I tried to photograph it, and I can't find a reproduction anywhere. – iridescent15:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(to Giano) – I've uploaded a photo of the extension. I'd challenge anyone to give an opinion of it that doesn't include the word "grim" – it looks like a cross between a Dickensian orphanage and a concentration-camp barracks.. – iridescent23:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sometime feel I missed my true voccation as a real estate agent:
The three storey extension is constructed of common brown brick with red brick banding. It is of five bays divided by pilasters at the two upper levels. Constructed during the 19th century in a restrained 18th century collegiate revival style, the principal entrance is approached by a segmented flight of "marble -like" steps with simple iron balustrading. The ornament is chaste and simple, being confined to a belfry with spire, which some may feel is at odds with the classical simplicity of the overall structure. Other ornament takes the form of circular down water pipes which cunningly draw attention to the height of the building. The chasteness of the design is relieved by a modern interpretation of two Victorianesque carriage lamps - in the style of the 20th century lighting specialist Homebase. In many ways the exposed water pipes and electrical wiring show the building as a clear percussor and inspiration to the Lloyd's Building, while the architect Richard Rogers would vehemently deny this, there is a strong school of though that this building may be one of London's most important, but hitherto unnoticed, architectural gems. Giano (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I archived it, for two reasons - one, because it had been agreed that the block was wrong and it had already been reversed; and two, because the thread was wandering off into an argument about a different editor's edits completely. I can completely understand why you are annoyed about it - it was a poor block - but you know as well as I that the next correct venue is RFC, not clogging up the incidents board. Cheers, Black Kite18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caro Giano, we're a long ways from April Fools and I'm not yet convinced this article can make it (in terms of availability of sources for meaninful or interesting content), but several editors have started working on the article. I don't know if you're interested in this silliness, or if you have time, but if so, would you mind opining whether there is enough info in these Italian sources to make it worth a try? I've left a list of English language sources there, with a suggestion that the editors work through those sources before troubling you, but if you find there's not enough to work with ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting page. I don't suppose it is any worse than the ingredients of the average chain store burger. Maggots jumping 15cm - wow, obviously a very energising cheese. No, they do eat such stuff there, but it's ilegal and I suspect not very widespread these days. I'm not doctor so I can't comment in the health isues - I've never heard of anyone dying from it though. Once in France I was served something that looked and tasted like a dog turd, I forget what it was called, but apparently a local delicacy. Odd things are eaten here in Europe - look at the Swedes with their roting tinned fish, no worse, I suppose. Give me heinz beans on toast any day. Giano (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember my Welsh grandmother saying of wormy cheese, "Nonsense! they've eaten nothing but cheese all their lives." Some of these details are quite fanciful, however: there's no jumping of larvae (how would they do it?) --Wetman (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. From Cheese fly: "The larvae accomplish their jumps by bending over, grabbing onto the rears of their own bodies with their mouth hooks, tensing their muscles, and quickly releasing the grip. Spring action propels them into the air." This place has gone to shambles. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the recesses of my mind though, I have a feeling I was once told that they drag bacteria impregnated wires through it, the article says it is just left in the sun - I would have thought in Sardinia if that was the case there would be nothing left after a couple of hours - I don't know though perhaps I am wrong. Giano (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well my humble contribution has been reverted [65] - you just could not make it up could you? Perhaps if someone studied the dynamics of the amazing Sardinian jumping maggot, the world's fuel shortages could be solved at a stroke. I'm going to bed before I fall off my chair. Giano (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, do you think there will ever be a concencus building page, where it is not needed? So long as the Arbcom and our beloved leader condone and encourage the use of #Admins little can change. You must remember that to many, #Admins is more important and sacred than even Wikipedia itself. Of course the channel is owned by an Arbcom member, and even Jimbo is a channel op there, along with Flo Night. Has Jimbo or any of them ever condemned the blocks of me, and others, orchestrated there? Have they even spoken out against the blatent block shopping that frequently happens there? Quite why they permit it to be used and abused as as it is, is a mystery. They certainly have no intention of changing anything. Yet this disgrace of an Arbcom has the presumption to sit in judgement on those opposing #Admins. One must draw one's own conclusions - I certainly do.Giano (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the amzingly spotted edits so far, I have jusy had a horrible thought, though, now you have all edited, the page will have to be eventually merged, rather than quick pasted - who on earth has the patience to do that? Buggeration! I don't want it in mainspace yet, as it is far from comlplete - we shall jusy have to think on it. I wil take this over to my page for further consideration, as Bishiperson probably wants some peace and quiet. So suggest at your leasure there. Giano (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[66] Umm...in case you haven't noticed, a goodly number of folk who are participating in the copy editing are administrators who can do the whole move/merge thing when you are ready. If nobody else is up for it, you can count on me. Risker (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I did some things to the Winter Palace, but there was one sentence I could not unpack at all and no effort of grammar could parse. I'll leave it to you. What is the subject of 'ensured'?
"However, despite the extravagance, the Empress's love of dwarfs, the bizarre and humiliation of courtiers that displeased her, ensured that life at the Winter Palace was very different to that at the courts of Versailles and St. James, which she so wished to outshine. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulatim (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, despite the extravagant efforts at outshining her rivals, the Empress's love of dwarfs and her bizarre humiliation of courtiers who displeased her ensured that life at the Winter Palace was very different from that at Versailles and St. James, her principal rivals." How's that? Geogre (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Giano, I was taking another look and it appears you put an in use tag on the article as I was copyediting a section. I hope I did not cause problems for you. I will leave it alone now. Tex (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just had a quick flick, can't understand a word of it, far too stressful, I don't do all this first choice, second choice malarkey, just judge a page on its individual merits regardless of its length - just point me to the section that says that. Thank you. Giano (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be this version of 1b. It essentially says if an article's short because the sources aren't there to support more info, that doesn't fail 1b. If you think a page can fail on its merits even if it does use every available source, because there's just not enough info for a decent page, that's probably this version. Mike Christie(talk)20:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look in the morning, perhaps I should not vote, as I don't do FAs any more - I seem to have developed my own standards, and what appears to be my own personal peer review team - much better my way, we can all speak "frankly" without having to bother with MOS and all that rubbish. Giano (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been found that banners which have been placed by those who had been informed of the need to review that which had been reviewed previously have been more official, and thus they are used by those who have been imbued with official pronouncements and stentorian voice. Utgard Loki (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi—I tagged the article for cleanup because a) I didn't have time to edit it and was planning to come back to do so shortly, and b) because it reads like a tourist brochure, with rhetorical questions, half sentences and more weasel words than one can shake a stick at; it smacks of copyvio and has few/no references to back up its factual content. Although I think it's a bit rude to describe the tag as 'absurd', I'm very happy for it to have been removed as you obviously disagree that the article needs work and, on reflection, there are plenty of articles out there that need more! All the best, talkGiler15:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COPYVIO? Explain please? Compton Wynyates may not be brilliant prose, I wrote it when comparatively new to Wikipedia, it may be bad, it may be awful - but don't you dare say it is copyvio - OK? Every word I write is my own, if it is not it is cited and in inverted commas! Giano (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm sure you will be about as pleased to see me as I am to be here, I wonder if you would consider having one of your quiet words with Vintagekits. Showing an example of the poor judgment that got him in this position in the first place, he has clearly decided to push the envelope again. Presumably in the hope that he can escape the remainder of his probation. Thank you. Rockpocket18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Rockpocket, if you are not pleased to be here then stay away. Many are delighted to be here, so we can manage very well without you. I am too busy on Wikipedia, at the moment, to play silly buggers with you, your games, your friends and your antics. I sugest you go and find a page to write - you may fine it therapeutic - that is after all why we are all here. Giano (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After your last comment on your page concerning me, I cannot be bothered to spare you the time by finding the diff, it is my view: that you can bugger off, and don't bother coming back here. Is that clear enough for you? Giano (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently stumbled upon your civility essay, which I throughoutly enjoyed. Even through we are similar in some regards (long term contributors, bucket of Featured, No. 1 Enemy to some :), it is interesting to note we've had quite different experiences with regards to some - and similar in others. I'd appreciate your comments on my own essay - User:Piotrus/Morsels of wikiwisdom. I am still working on some sections, but the gist of what I wanted to say should be there by now. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think sometimes one has to assume all people are adult. This Rockpocket VK thing is what needs to be sorted - Rockpocket needs to be kept away from him, and vice versa. Giano (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can some kindly Admin please email the text of this former and very splendid page so that it can be re-created after some twit-admin-in-a-hurry deleted it. It will only need a couple of minor edits, I suspect, to make it undeletable. Sometimes I fear Wikipedia is losing all sense of style and panache. Thank you. Giano (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll email it to you later tonight, Giano. The text does not violate any policies; dear Leone passed on to his greater reward some time ago. Curiously, I had this page on my watchlist but for some reason it never popped up despite the AfD tag apparently being placed. Most peculiar. Risker (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Some of us little admins are more or less alright, I hope! ;-) In any case, I have a feeling it may have been some sort of a computer glitch rather than an admin that was the problem here; since those of us with it in our watchlist didn't respond, there wasn't anyone to speak in favour of keeping it. Although really, given half the stuff we do keep... Risker (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a page just 3 days after the last comment was odd. It's not as though it was a storming concensus to delete either, more a total disinterest, had the page been about some computer anime, or whatever they are called, no doubt half or IRC would have broken off from chatting and the other half from playing computer games to vote save. Giano (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, emailed to you. When you are ready to restore, put it on a user page on-wiki and I will undelete the old one and merge the histories. Needs some refs though, and maybe some beefing up on the notability aspect; there are some suggestions in the AfD, which incidentally started on Oct 11 and was extended to 10 days rather than the usual 5. (Now I am really ticked off that we didn't catch it!) Risker (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, that really is the most idiotic AfD debate I've seen in a long time. The closing admin is only part of the problem, he was following the consensus, but the consensus was pure lunacy. "The person himself is not notable, the story behind his name IS. That surely fails notability rules" - I mean, I can't even begin to follow that logic, it's going places my brain does not get.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content is here [68], I was going to head off to DRV, but I thought I'd look for a reliable source first. More difficult than I thought, although he is mentioned in Bill Bryson's "Mother Tongue" (p191 in my edition).--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lovely story perhaps it must be re-created, I don't see what harm it was doing - I remember first hearing about him as child; he was one of a collection of "interesting facts" about the British in a book I was given. Giano (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the person who nominated the article at AfD if he used any fancy scripts or tools to do the nomination. This whole "not showing up on our watchlists" thing is quite worrisome to me, and makes me wonder if it was a one-off thing or if something else is going on. It's hard to tell, because I don't spend a lot of time at AfD and the articles I watch are almost never AfD'd. I have a feeling that, even if Stifle had been watching this article like a hawk, he wouldn't have known it was nominated any more than we did. There's mention at the DRV of the number of places this article is referred to, and that it's been discussed at the Reference Desk and so on, so I would expect it was on the watchlists of other people as well, but none of them responded either. Stuff happens, the article's been recovered and improved, and I suggest we blame the server kitties for getting tangled up in the yarn on this one. Risker (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your agreement, or lack ot it, Stifle is completely irelevant - any page created by User:!! is worthy of retention, additionaly, it was obviously thought of use when it was DYKd on the font page. The page has been rightly restored and is going to be kept. It is just a pity it was ever deleted with such umseemly haste. Giano (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here you all are. I went back to the DRV and the ugly thing had been filed away in a brown envelope and consigned to a drawer in a dusty basement. Unfortunately, everything is not quite as it should be - the edit history of the talk page has not yet been restored, for example. I trust an appropriate person can be prevailed upon to employ their "tools" shortly. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May the Lord be praised. Poor Leone seems to be having a second coming, which reminds of the seech by the admiral who was knighted for the second time, but let's not go there. Giano (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, I was inspired to read the article on Belton House today, and was (as I always am) drawn to looking over the plan you added to the article. I suspect, however, that there may be a small error in the description below the image, as it appears the house may have two East entrances, one each in the areas labeled "C" and "P". I don't want to mess things up, so will leave it to you. Great article, by the way. Risker (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I have reverted [73]. Whether you like it or not, Proposed decisions pages are not just any ole page. If you have an issue with a comment on there by the arbs, tough :-) More seriously, .. there are other forum for discussing this ... if your concerns about that post were reasonable, surely you could convince another arb to do that action for you. If they are all broken, then your best bet is to vote well this year. John Vandenberg(chat)13:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you were anyone else, I would block you for that. Unfortunately, it would create more drama than I am willing to deal with. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if it were anyone else removing the hectoring, patronizing, and secrecy-endorsing comments that were written by anyone else, you would never care to block for that. Funny how the world works, isn't it? Utgard Loki (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole arbcom case has the same problem; the removed comment is par for the course. If someone had of blanked the page then I might have giggled a little more when I clicked revert. The fact remains that these pages are, by policy, strictly a working area for the committee members, and direct interference by the general community isnt healthy. If it were anyone else, I would have blocked the user before commenting here and Stifle had a chance even consider it. But, if Giano II wants to register his dissent in this manner, fully aware of the likely result, he has earned that right in my books. If he had of coupled this with over-the-top incivility I would have had to think hard about it, but this was mild edit summary, so both he and I are reprieved, this time. There is little more than needs to be said by other parties, except there are millions of red links, and if you cant find them, start here WP:LOMJ. John Vandenberg(chat)14:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Giano, you knew better— proposed decision pages are off-limits in general and this particular case even saw the talk corresponding talk page placed under a strict restriction. Your displeasure with the Arbitration Committee in general, and with this case in particular, is well known but altering the committee decision isn't acceptable and you are quite aware of that.
I make no judgment about your specific intent in this case, but there are better fora for registering your displeasure and further editing of the proposed decision page (or, unusually, its talk page) will result in a block. Go work on mainspace a bit, where your contributions are universally viewed with favor. — Coren(talk)14:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are 1000 more people who trust my views on this subject than those of this disgraced and failed Arbcom. I shall always remove comments that are foolish, trolling, inflamatory and ill conceived wherever they may be. Giano (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The present Arbcom are a complete disgrace, they are unworthy of our respect in every way. Seeing Jimbo's recent comments on his talk page today [74] that they have to approve any candidiate before appointment is going to present a problem for him. No decent person would serve with them. They and you can play at arbs and clerks as much as you like, but without the respect, it is a meaningless farce - they are as chidren drilling tin soldiers in a sand castle. Their latest actions and antics have proven them a joke in bad taste. Giano (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them no doubt do their best, Fred. But some are determined to stick up for their IRC mates ahead of any other consideration, or to do down people they don't like regardless of the facts. And some of them do nothing at all, which means that those who want to work don't have time to do it properly, so they come out with decisions that clearly show they've not read the evidence. It's always been like that to some extent, but it looks worse now than it's ever been. In addition to that, though, we have this new imperialist dictator thing, where some of them genuinely believe they can go around changing policy, and blocking good content contributors who really haven't done much wrong — while not allowing them to file RfArs and telling other admins not to unblock them. If we've had this before to any great degree, I certainly don't remember it. SlimVirgintalk|edits22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just where was your passion for openness, fairness, lack of censorship of evidence in dispute resolution, and no star-chamber railroadings back when it was your clique of friends who were doing the railroadings and evidence suppression? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I may agree with Dan's comment here, I don't think it's tone is helpful in getting folks to move on from their damageing ways to the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What some people are objecting to on this page is FT2 deliberately posting on the evidence page a statement casting aspersions on Slim Virgin while deliberately ignoring confidential evidence which has been submitted to the Arbcom. People are anxious not to see a white-wash and under the carpet sweeping exercise. I personally am furious that the Arbcom have allowed this potentially damaging situation to arise, rather than deal with it in a quick professional and confidential manner. To put all of the evidence in the public domain would serve no one well and hurt the innocent, but to pretend it does not exist is dangerous and damaging to the project - and unjust to many. An Arb not only has to be impartial, s/he has to be seen to be impartial. This is not happening. Giano (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After this, I don't feel bad in asking: just what is this supposed "confidential evidence", anyway? It may turn out that its merits are not all you have been led to believe. --Random832 (contribs) 18:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is based on fact, and fact that I have in my possession. At the moment you will have to take my word for it. It's quite a while since I posted "evidence" on wiki, but I have in the past - as you may know. This time is different, as I have no wish to harm the innocent, but ultimately if one beleives truly in fairness, honesty and justice one has to make tough choices and not flinch, whatever the cost; I would hang my own mother if she was guilty. That's how any society must be governed. Hopefully the Arbcom will find some long lost courage and address the situation in a discrete adult fashion and save us all a great deal of trouble and hurt. Giano (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does Lar have it in his possession (in the real world there's this thing called "right to be presented with the evidence against you"; don't know if that exists on WP or not)? Has he had the opportunity to respond to it? Do you have his response in your possession? Remember, Lar, not SlimVirgin, is the one 'on trial' here. --Random832 (contribs) 19:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly/fortunatly for Wikipedia I am not an Arb. I emailed them offering some advice, they have declined to reply to me. So I cannot really comment on what they have seen fit to offer/deny him. Giano (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a "no" in response to the third question (do you have his response in your possession). Ever consider that maybe when you've only heard one side - particularly when the side you've heard is that of the prosecution - that it may be worthwhile to withhold judgement for the time being? --Random832 (contribs) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what you are talking about, and there is no reason why you should. This is the problem that results from the Arbcom failing to act in a responsible manner for the good of the project. Giano (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I think I agree that there's something strange about the way Arbcom is handling this case, and I don't think it's good for either party. --Random832 (contribs) 22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishzilla, crazed with bloodlust. Hopefully: ] More?
.. has been gutted. From 80,000 to 65,000 bytes. More? Shall I let my flesh-eating pet loose on the rest? Or hang my head in shame at this Bolshevik rampage? Bishonen | talk07:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, probably there are too many pics—I didn't take them into account, I'm no good with layout anyway. As for whether the text pruning is an improvement, don't ask me. I'm just about the last person on wiki to have an eye for it at this point, sorry. Your "proper read" should be the thing! Bishonen | talk12:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I like it, but I am going to smuggle one or two very eeny weeny tiny pieces back in, or you sure you don't like the vommiting guests, I'm not sure what I can do with them elsewhere? Glad the jewel encrusted lavatory has remained, I suppose I shall have to write a page easing stool as the subtlty may be lost on some. Giano (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The charm and wit of the vomit isn't architectural, though. I figgered the guests aren't interior decoration—unlike the bathroom fittings, which are. But I agree it's difficult to structure it, because there's the historical background, and there's the architecture, and you clearly need them both. Maybe those guests usefully illustrate life in Saint Petersburg ("the bog" as Nicholas called it—now that's funny, though maybe only to British people?)? Or illustrate Peter the Great's idea of typical Western civilization—hmm—yeah, I guess the mice pies and the vomit are funny, in that sense. :-) Bishonen | talk16:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I've restored the palace bomb as it's relevant to the reasons why the palace was unsuitably insecure for future Tsars. Otherwise - I think we are done! Thanks a lot you have done a terrifis job. Giano (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know if there's a ruling on mainspace pages linking to user space pages otherwise it's going to be ages before WP goes live? Giano (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any rule either. Perhaps nobody ever bothered to state the seemingly obvious? The implicit assumption is quite certainly that content linked from the main page is in the form of articles. Some of the pertinent regulations also refer to articles, not pages. Kosebamse (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fitted you up with a close stool as requested, Giano. Tonight I have found my long-lost copy of Alan Valentine, The British Establishment 1760-1784: An Eighteenth-Century Biographical Dictionary (1970), but vol. II is still missing. So ask me about any member of the George III Establishment— as long as the name begins A-H... --Wetman (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... You guys will be in a lot of trouble with dear Lady Catherine if you aren't careful. Remember her closely-argued objections to aspects (anatomical aspects) of the old page User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder? What can I say, except that she was quite right? Let us all join hands, dear fellow page guardians, to keep the lovely Toilet Paper Holder page free of the taint of the human (or apish) drift which strives to pull down the most pure-hearted of artistic endeavours to its own level. I blush to propose a study of the History tab at this point, but in fact it's the place where you will catch the more gruesome parts of human anatomy sneaking in if they get half a chance. For example, this recent diff summarizes the problem. Lady Catherine, if you came (understandably) to carp, I can only hope you will stay to help the outnumbered defenders of the poor page's artistic integrity. Bishonen | talk03:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Giano, I don't know if you know this editor but he has been blocked indefinitely for allegedly trying to "out" another (unknown) editor. Nobody is offering any explanation amd D48 states convincingly that he is innocent. What is the procedure here? Can they block someone based on alleged emails that nobody will cite? Surely they could replace the names with "x" and "y" if they don't want to risk "outing" someone? This stinks, frankly. Sarah777 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, Sarah777, yes, people can be blocked for using Wikipedia to publish or distribute private information about people. That includes using the "Email user" feature. Remember that "indefinitely" doesn't necessarily mean "forever". It can also mean "until this is all straightened out", and I believe that is the intention in this case. Risker (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything (much) about this situation. In general, I find the "Troubles Admins" to be very territorial, confrontational and high handed concerning the Troubles and those they see as the "Troubles editors." To such an extent that the Troubles has become a project within a project with its own rules and rulers. I have said before (somewhere) that The Troubles needs a set of three independent, non-Irish connected, highly respected Wikipedians to oversee its pages, its admins and its editors, but I suspect that won't happen so what can't be cured must be endured - which is this seemingly permanent, farcical squabbling.
Regarding outing - I have no idea what Domer has or has not done, but in my book of rules, outing is a cardinal sin, every editor has the right to anonymity and anyone who breaks that is in big trouble as far as I'm concernd. There is no need for Editors, Admins and Arbs (all this talk of highly confidential material and trust is pretentious, and a result of them having ideas abover their station) to be known to anyone. Checkusers (too many of them) are a different matter as is the Board. If someone emails me what Domer is supposed to have done I'll take a look at it, but if he has threatened to out someone - don't bother. Giano (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Not much I can email you as I have no idea what Domer is supposed to have done (or how) but he denies everything and not a shred of evidence has been offered. There are infinite ways around risking exposing an editor while still giving an account of Domers "crime". All I can see is that an established and productive editor who does not share the majority opinion in the whole "troubles" area has been deleted from the debate - just like that. And he isn't the first; no wonder the votes (not mythical !votes) keep going the same way when the NPOV side keep getting disenfranchised, blocked and banned. Sarah777 (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lest there be any doubt, in my book too, outing is a cardinal sin. If for no better reason that I wouldn't fancy it myself and it wouldn't take Sherlock to figure out who I am. Sarah777 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, this has absolutely nothing to do with the way Domer edits - there are a few problems, but nothing really significant to warrent a community ban or an indefinite block. The reason why Domer is currently blocked is because he was offering RL information about other editors via the email function - that's bad, it really is. One of the worst things you can do here is out other editors, especially in a highly contentious political area such as the troubles. As Risker said, indefinite doesn't mean forever, but we do need assurances that this won't happen again. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter09:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the same thing as "outing" at all Ryan. I have now been sent quite a lot of information and it seems to me what happened was that in the interests of a level playing field Domer emailed an Admin who was taking part in an ANI discussion with other Admins (who had more information at their fingertips) and said something to the effect of "You do know account A is account B right?" That is not outing at all, but quite different. I have certainly received and sent such emails myself in the past and expect to continue to do so, some such emails have been sent to me by very important Wikipedians indeed. One example springs immediately to mind when such actions finally brought to an end an entire POV army of socks and clones - Admins and checkusers were quite happy for such speculation to be emailed on that occasion. As usual some Troubles' Admin has jumped the gun again. If something soon isn't done to supervise The Troubles, its admins and editors the pages may as well be deleted - all of them. I for one don't know what to trust and believe in them, I expect others feel the same. I hope some Admin reading this will now have the sense to unblock Domer - and bash some heads together. Giano (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you..would you.. try and provide a hopelessly confused editor with a condensed overview of this issue? Has the foundation ever funded it? If not, why? Is it really gone? Novickas (talk)
Yes; not applicable; only in the dreams of a quarter of the project (those that write - the other three quarters are Admins chatting and block shopping on IRC). I assume you are referring to this proposal [75] I'm afraid the Arbs say these things, but time has proved they have no intention of ever putting their actions where their mouths are. Giano (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "funding" of it, because the organization involved is Freenode. There are some crazy suggestions of money having changed hands, though. The thing is that, as a not-Wikimedia, not-Wikipedia, not-non-profit entity, Freenode is not under the control of anyone associated with Wikipedia. It's just an IRC collection. Somewhere or other there are histories of how this particular albatross got hung about our necks, but the important thing is that the overall community wasn't in favor of creating an administrators-only channel, the channel that developed never was just administrators (but the exceptions seemed to be matters of favoritism, childishness, and cliquishness), and the exclusiveness of the channel was used as a screen for misbehavior. Since the channel also became the only real time pipeline to Jimbo, and since idiots continue to insist that CEO's are wise and that Jimbo is "in charge," and since Jimbo himself picks ArbCom based on whatever criterion he chooses at the moment (or whichever is expedient), being in that channel was the only hope of getting "power" for the people who believed in power. Being popular there was vital, and being popular meant going along with whatever the spirit of the moment was. Hence, increasing social pressure to be social, decreasing interest in the encyclopedia, decreasing accountability to the community, and the ArbCom being composed of persons beholden to the channel itself for their status. Ask them to make a change there? Not likely. Utgard Loki (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right Utgard, except for the fact money has changed hands on at least one documented occasion (there's a link somewhere) No matter what this current collection of Arbs claim to think and want, they have no intention of upseting the people who keep them where they are - they have proved this time after time. My opinion of the Arbcom is well known, I know longer expect anything of worth or value to come from them, that way one is never dissapointed. Giano (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I went ahead and plunged into the history of the thing. (It's no use trying to avoid plumbing metaphors these days if you live in the US. They just keep bobbing up). Learned a lot, but haven't found the reference to money changing hands. Which I think should be made more public if it's true. Sunshine and fresh air. Altho it's fun to watch Drāno in action. Nice chatting with you guys. Novickas (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, here's one. A $5,000 donation to Freenode in 2006. [76]. Long since spent, no doubt. I don't suppose there were any flies on the wall when they discussed further donations. Novickas (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh, you're getting a rough treatment at IRC. Well, like I said; whatever's going on overthere, should be handled here (at Wikipedia). GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. They just love to chat about me, I suppose when you chat all day, it's nice to have an interesting topic - shame they don't read my pages instead and discuss them and educate themselves a little, then they could write pages too. Giano (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I have missed it. I hang out in the offending channel and, sad to say, I don't recall Giano being discussed in many many months. I can ask them to admit you if you want Giano, but you'd be disappointed and bored in a few hours.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, how are you. Yes, you did miss it. It was a couple of hours ago #Admins. Want the names? Giano (talk)
Oh you should you learn so much, and you don't have to say anything. I shall quite miss it when our brave Arbs nuke it. Giano (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have today's logs for #admins for the last few hours (since 15:52 UTC until now). I can categorically confirm that Giano was mentioned. However only once, and by me. Calling a fellow admin a coward, I bragged "<S_MacD> I'm a brave fool, who has gone toe to toe with Giano, Geogre, and SlimVirgin in my time" and no one else responded. That's it. Sorry Giano, it appears you were misinformed. Leaks are not always reliable.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go and do your homework before butting in here and calling me a liar! This is what we have all come to expect from #Admins and its users - now be off with you, go chat elsewhere. Giano (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had no intention to call you a liar. I was just fact checking. I saw your statement about being discussed and I was greatly concerned that there had been some further abuse of the channel. You are generally right with facts, and I was surprised I couldn't see anything in the logs. (It is still quite possible that it is me that is mistaken - I'm bad with time stamps) If I gave the impression I was calling your integrity into account, then I sincerely apologise.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My facts are impeccable in mainspace and Wikipedia space! Now go away and take your lies with you, and are you suposed to be in that sewer chatting anyway? Giano (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. It seems your facts as ever are correct. However, your clock may be out. The conversation was not in the last few hours. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. But neither of us were lying. At that, I'll butt out.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Ironically I have just had a respected Admin email me saying "You do realise A is B" (which I did) - the very thing poor Domer is languishing in jail for. Oh the irony. Giano (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not privy to super secret evidence so I have no idea. All I know is that it is being discussed on IRC by involved Admins admitting that they have no clue what is going on, then one of the pseudo-admins from the sewer pops up and says it is not and I am a liar, then we are told I am not a liar and my facts are correct, then I get an email saying A is B - Frankly, (now there's a word that spells trouble for you Trouble's Admins)a lesser person than myself could be forgiven for being very confused, and not a little suspicious. Giano (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not, and would never, call you a liar. You stated that you had been discussed "a couple of hours ago #Admins" - I merely checked that time period and said you'd been "misinformed", which is correct, since you were not discussed at that time. I was subsequently informed that there had been some discussion some hours before that (a period before my logs). When I discovered that, my heart sunk, and I informed you that you were right about that a discussion took place. Looking above, I see that it was you that used the word "liar", and not me. Now, I did say I'd butt out, but this is the stuff that rumours are made of, so best to nip it in the bud. We've disagreed about many things over the years, and agreed about others. However, I have learned to trust your basic honesty - even while I don't always share your judgements. I would certainly never think you a liar, I'm a little hurt that you don't share that view of me.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion of you at all, other than you are one of the IRC "people" who frequently posts here. No, you did not call me a liar - you inferred I was a fool "That's it. Sorry Giano, it appears you were misinformed. Leaks are not always reliable" At least a liar can be clever, a fool is always a fool. You have been very foolish as are most of those who inhabit IRC#Admins. Please take your views elsewhere in future unless they are accurate. We only deal in fact on this page. Now go! Giano (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tone it down I have barely started to describe the liars that inhabit that cess pool of misbehaviour, condoned by half the Arbcom and checkusers [77]. Giano (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question has never gotten a logical answer. I'm not asking it again because there is no point:
What does en.admins do that cannot be done on Wikipedia?
Of that, what cannot be done by another off-Wikipedia method that has regulation to it?
What does it do that cannot be done better elsewhere?
What would be lost if that one channel were to disappear tomorrow?
Comparing the slim gains of the channel, the minor losses if it were gone, and the massive harms of having it continue, it seems like anyone half way rational would agree that the thing should not exist. In fact, these are the questions that stopped the channel getting a consensus to be created in the first place. That did not stop a "select" group from selecting themselves and going ahead without Wikipedia's interests, blessings, or consent.
In any ordinary situation... if some folks at Wikipedia Review or Encyclopedia Dramatica were to create a Freenode channel and call it WikipediaAdministrators... the answer would be simple: make sure that no Wikipedia pages contain any links to the channel, that no Wikipedia or Wikimedia documents anywhere describe or promote it, and that those who supported/created it were dismissed. However, these are selected elected people, venal and unintelligent, or at least with no interest in encyclopedia editing, all. Geogre (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, you never will get an answer. I used to think that the Arbs and checkusers were responsible for IRC, now I realise they are one and the same thing. Why the rest of us are here trying to write an encyclopedia is ponderous indeed. Giano (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there was a white gap at the top of the article, so I tried to delete it but accidentally got rid of the hidden message. Its alright now though. Thanks. - Victory's Spear (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever - change what you like, go right ahead. I am not supposed to be even loking at my watchlist - spent too much time in St Petersburg this morning, having to do some proper work now. Giano (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have tweaked the cabin a bit and nominated both. I think the 1703 date is right - several sources say May that year; the Lindsey Hughes biography of Peter says 24 to 27 May (which looks like 4 days to me; anyway...)
No I didn't know, and I can only say Cruickshank must be short on treaures. I don't normally do log cabins and the like, and this one only crept in because it was needed as a sub-page for the big page. Peter the Great sounds like a very nasty piece of work to me. Giano (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being a champion of transparency and fairness
I will soon be blocked. But I wanted to thank you. I'm sorry that you aren't an Admin. But perhaps the real problem is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Take care and thanks again. I don't have great hope for the outcome of your struggles, but they are noble. BobDysart (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say here that you spoke to me as a channel op; thought I should clarify that I'm merely the Group Contact, and not really "in charge" of the channel - that's the job of the ops and superops. I'm merely there to represent the overall IRC communities, and discharge functions that cannot be resolved by others, over the several hundred Wikimedia-related IRC channels. Nevertheless, with situations as potentially serious as this, I try to be involved, giving advice to the various parties, so please don't think that I'm asking for you to ask others in future - it's just a suggestion that others will be both quicker to answer and more likely to be up-to-speed. For the matter itself, it appears now to be being resolved by that channel's leadership, but if you have any further concerns, please do tell me so I can help.
On the point that you felt I was "dismissive, patronising and pompous", I apologise. It was not meant in that way, merely the (perhaps too-sharp) response to your comment which made serious allegations without any context or fore-warning for me. Yet again, our conversations suffer from mis-communication, which must to at least some extent be my fault. Sorry.
nosey comment - Unless and until the en.wikipedia structure either is in control of or quits the #admins channel, these things will keep bubbling up. The various pages here that describe the irc system seem to indicate that you are infact the superboss. If that is not the case, you should make that clear. I know several folks who go to the highest person they know of when they have a problem. If that person can't deal with it, than their view is the whole system is a fail. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is no one dares to be in charge, it is a disorganised rabble. The Arbcom won't take control because they need the votes, and with so many admins in there, I doubt anything can be done to stop them permanently electing their own to Arbcom. It's a real wiki-problem. Giano (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano—glad to see you around. Hmmm ... Wagner's not my thing, beyond a professional obligation to know the minimum (when I was a musician). Aren't all Wagner's works loud and based on descending scales <grin>.
As compensation for drawing a nil with this musician, all I can offer is two W jokes:
The thing about Wagner's music is ... it's better than it sounds.
Hmph, well can't please everyone I suppose, I quite like Wagner at full volume on the car radio, especially Ride of the Valkyrie when crossing Piazza Venezia. Giano (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Wagner's music is quite fit. It's a little manipulative and produces a sort of single effect, and that leads some snobs to think he's simple or shallow. Pffft to them. It's not like he's John Phillips Sousa. On the other hand, the fellow's philosophy...shudder. His sister led an expedition to Central America to breed the ubermenschen, and the results are blotchy-skinned crazy people. The tumescent dream of pure blood and ethnicity would be unforgivable even if Hitler never existed. So, can we blame Wagner's music? No. Can we blame him? Probably not: it's the fault of the idiots who listen to musicians for their philosophy (like Britney or Sinead). Utgard Loki (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very philosophical Utgard. I quite like Wagner on the whole, it is just all the boring bits inbetween the bits you can humm, that get in the way of a good evening out. Talking of good nights out, is that horrible thing, like a tart's lipstick, at the top of the page ging to stay there very long? I know America is over exuberated at the moment, but having that eyesore there is not going to encourage them to give what little money that Bush has left them with away. Can someone have a developer remove it? Giano (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, when it is satisfactorily explained to me why the foundation can throw 1000s of dollars into the trash can [79], then I may think about once again donating. Giano (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Loki! I am aware that America is currently inebriated with joy, and imagines itself free from tyranny and good old fashioned decent values, but please control yourself and you language. Just because poor Mrs. Palin, has been returned to her igloo, and is not there to control your vulgar excesses does not mean you can behave so rudely. IRC serves a very important purpose, it is imperative that your betters and rulers can discuss the likes of you, and your disgraceful behaviour, in secret and private. Now I hear poor dear "Jimbo" (what can his parents have been thinking of) wants a "Lady" on the arbcom, well I don't think Wikipedia has an editor more lady-like than myself. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Godking want lady? Bishzilla report for service! [Proudly: ] Have had help stylist; wearing nail polish for election campaign![80] [Flashes bright red talons; glitter in sun. Users flee. ] Watch space for further electioneering improvements along lines of elegant femininitity! Little Lady Catherine highly suitable for ArbCom also! [/me stuffs lady in pocket. ] bishzillaROARR!!13:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think you are quite what darlingest Jimbo had in mind, in fact, I rather think he is looking to find a God-Queen, and of course he needs someone queenly for such a role, a person of high breeding and moral stature, a person such as myself. Of course, poor little Mrs Night does her best, but it can't be easy for her stuck in the wilds of Idaho or West Virginia, or whatever uncharted territory the poor woman inhabits, to have panache, verve and style. No indeed, it is a queen Wikipedia requires to match its king - perhaps you and dear Mrs Risker would like to be my ladies-in-waiting? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Big dino laugh roll between hills, flatten them like steamroller.] Little lady good sense of humor! Bishzilla wait for no one! [Tramps off still chuckling. ]bishzillaROARR!!16:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Honoured as I am to have two such ladies of such august and large stature on my humble page, would you mind taking this to Lady C's or your own page. I become very nervous when I have too many queens on my page. Giano (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once, in the distant 1980s, I had dreams of a trilogy of Wagner's Ring movies, with great singing and magnificently realised action. The cultural methadone of The Lord of the Rings seems completely to have satisfied that craving.--Wetman (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a beautiful story, I can see myself as Tristan, the problem is who would be my Iseult, there is such a dearth of women here, and Lady C and Bishzilla just somehow don't quite fot the bill. Giano (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What has happened to all my beautiful pictures at Belton House, thay have squares all over them, and why can't I edit them? Anyone know? Giano (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did it, and I have absolutely no idea HOW! My sincerest apologies! Can you fix it?
Please read my comments about wide screens. I understand the problem about having text jammed between images if your sceen happens to be narrow, but the problem of orphaning the headings from the text also looks bad!
Re pixels I can't comprehend what went wrong, simply by moving the images left. I haven't had seen this happen elsewhere, and I have rejigged the size and placement of images in numerous articles for two years! I suppose I will have to leave it to you to sort out! It looks like blinking vandalism, but I can assure you it is pure embarrassment!
Amandajm (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that they are gifs rather than jpegs. I wonder if it's some problem to do with that format. I usually upload jpg, but I've got a gif or two somewhere that I might be able to stuff around with and see what happens. I'll get back with my findings. Actually, I'll upload one to experiment with. Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you they looked just fine before I moved a couple of them left, then the whole lot went mad.
My pic of Northbeach isn't behaving nicely. At its full resolution it is fine, but anything smaller, and it is breaking up a bit. Check it out. Amandajm (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to simulate the effect with this one, which having sharp edges, I thought might show the problems clearer. It's still not breaking up into pixels like the other ones. Are you going to contact the Help Desk, or am I? Amandajm (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just downloaded all the gif images, turned them into jpgs and put them back into the article. I has taken hours because this blinking computer lumbers along so slowly. Can I suggest that you do the rounds of the images and tidy up the descriptions, to suit yourself?
In future, you can avoid having this problem again by uploading photos as jpegs. The gif format really only suits small sharp images like logos etc, not anything that has details, and subtle tonal gradation. Amandajm (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, when I edit out all the tourists and anyone else I consider ugly or not an ornament to the landscape my computer turns them into gifs, so it is either beautiful pictures of hordes of grinning people. Giano (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you using to edit? Most image editors will save as jpg,I've not heard of an editor that can only save as gif. I'm wondering if perhaps you have it set to automatically save as gif? If so then maybe we can help you sort that out. Or failing that you could try downloading the free GIMP and using that. Lots of editors are familiar with it and can help you use it. Theresa Knott | token threats14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what I am using to edit - seriously. It's called photo Impresion and came free with the computer! I'll get one of my kids to take a look at it. Giano (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a plan. I'm not familiar with that software and I can't download it from their website because it only runs on Windows, however I cannot believe that software designed for photo editing would not be able to save as a jpeg. For most software you can specify the type of compression in the "filetype" checkbox which is usually found in the "save as" dialogue box. You'd be looking for an option called .jpg, .jpeg, (stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group) or occasionally .jpe, .jfif and .jif. Let me know if I can be of any help. Theresa Knott | token threats19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to have problems, and you can't solve it and your kids can't solve it, you can upload them as jpegs as is, and (if you would trust me to do so) tell me what you want editted out.
I'm pretty good at editting things out of photos. I removed a fly from the face of a Cimabue portrait. I removed a London Bus from in front of the Cenotaph. I removed the toilet rolls from the Neo-Gothic bathroom in the Houses of Parliament. I removed a grotesque pile of rubble from the beautiful Salisbury Plain. I tell you, Giano, a few mere tourists from the exedra at Belton House is no trouble at all! Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I think there are just too many, I only realy track the pages I like or am truly interested in here and its seems at least 50% of those pages have at least one image ruined, then there are the 100s of other pages that I can't remember and are not on my watchlist. It's a real nuisance, perhaps people will think twice about deleting here and moving to commons in future. Giano (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK! I'll check your blanky images and do what I can, but for Heaven's sake stop whinging! It's not other people's fault that they fall to pieces when moved! I'll do the rounds of your favourites, but not tonight, as it's 12.30 in the Land of Oz. Why does my son's stereo system play Heavy Metal at midnight, that's what I want to know? It has a technical glitch that I don't seem to be able to fix! Amandajm (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano, though unfinished, your essay is a pleasure to read. I am sure there is no shortage of drastic depictions to illustrate it, but thought I'd mention Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Dante And Virgil In Hell (1850).jpg, thought you might like it. One might use it to illustrate such things as "two users engaged in civilised dispute" (over the nationality of Nicolaus Copernicus, for example), the persons to the left obviously representing the arbcom gathering evidence. Uncontrovertible evidence that the scene does in fact refer to Wikipedia is given by the depiction of users discussing the relevance of references in featured articles (background, right). The figure in the background (center) remains yet to be identified. A representative of Wikipediareview, perhaps? Kosebamse (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a comment I could make about the Arbcom and that gathering, particularly the fighting figures but I think I in the interests of good taste and decency, I will refrain. Giano (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done a bit of a proof-read at your James the Lion page. Could you take a look at the red-linked guys in the Legacy section, though? If we have articles for them, I don't know the right titles and so on for finding them. Also "Bengamin Styles," in the "Moor Park" section. Is it Bengamin? He doesn't have an article, and if I change to Benjamin, he still doesn't have an article. Bishonen | talk18:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
How on earth am I supposed to know? He has been dead for years - all I do know is that he was a bit "noov". I'll take a another look, I dread treading amongst the British aristos, one meets all sorts of wierd and peciliar people, who knows even Wikipedia's future constitutional queen may ne editing just around the corner in that area. Its kinda scarey. Thanks for the c/e, a few more refs and may FAC it to get my hand back in before the big house goes. Giano (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the major contributor to the ROC-related articles in the Ru WP and daresay do know a couple of things about the subject; but your question is not very easy to answer in a straightforward way. First, the distinction is not strictly delineated. Normally, it would not be a mistake to call any Orthodox place of worship (a building) a "church". But some particular churches are normally referred to as "cathedrals" (Sobor): the major ones in monasteries, in places of special significance such as the Kremlin, etc. But when it comes to St.-Pete, it becomes a bit more complex, one of the reasons being that they have a tendency there to call nearly any big church a sobor there (in fact, this one is not big, by their standards). In-house churches are often called chapels in English, but in the Russian Orthodox sense, they are just churches (tserkov', or khram). The church in question is not any longer a church (it was totally ruined inside in 1920); but as far as i can see, it was usually referred to as Bol'shaya tserkov' Zimnego dvortsa ("The Big Church of the Winter Palace), although the official name apparently was "Придворный собор Спаса Нерукотворного Образа в Зимнем дворце" -- The Palace Cathedral of Not-Made-by-Hand Image of Our Saviour in the Winter Palace. (See # 1763 here)Muscovite99 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right thanks, I'm sure you will undertand those sites are beyond my very basic Rusian, could you just write a few lines at User:Giano/The Grand Church of the Winter Palace, saying what you have just written above and anything else those sites, or you may know, with refs? I am quite able to add something about the archtecture etc, but the ethos is beyond me, as are any refs in any language I can understand; and I really want these pages to be correct. We need an expert for this section, or at least someone who understands Russian Orthodoxy and Rusian - and it appears to be you! Giano (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some translation from the article that i used as a ref. Hope it will help. I cannot vouch for the spelling of all those italian names as those are backward transliteration, surely not quite correct.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you have done is great, thank you so much, I can sort the spelling and now add the architectural bits. I could not have done the religious bits. One small thing: I just wonder if "....consecrated the cathedral in the name of the Not-Made-by-Hand Image of Our Saviour." coould be translated to the "Divinely made" or "Miraculously made" in short do we have a Rusian Orthodox version of "a Domino factum"? Giano (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think no. As the link i put suggests, the name refers to the Image of Edessa, which is the Eastern version of what they would call the Veil of Veronica in the West. It may sound a bit clumsy in English, but this is an accepted way of rendering it. Perhaps, "the Not-Made-by-Hand Image of the Saviour" would be a better word order. Also, i think that F.F. Ukhtomsky refers to Feodot Ukhtomsky (Феодот Ухтомский) -- not exactly the best-known icon-painter.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, how are people going to add an image caption to your Civility essay if it's forever {{inuse}? I sure daren't, after my stupidity yesterday.. (blush). Bishonen | talk16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hi - looks like that particular image (HdeR.gif) was moved over to Commons a while back (3 April 2008, in fact). There's nothing wrong with the image, Giano - it hasn't been damaged or anything - it's just a glitch at Commons which is causing the images to appear incorrectly when they're scaled down on Wikipedia. To fix it, either we have to wait until the problem at Commons goes away, or re-upload them as a different format. To show the difference, I've done this one as Image:HdeR.png and fixed the articles that it's in. Black Kite22:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Than you, I appreciate it, but why move them to commons and then delete them here in the first place. I uploaded to wikipedia not commons, why not consult those who do the bloody hard work of finding the images and uploadimg them in the first place. The whole page and others too are wrecked because of this. Giano (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I completely agree with you, to be honest. By the way, I've fixed Image:RoseberyMillais.gif as well since it was used in the lead of the other article. The image you mention above is safe whilst its got the {{keeplocal}} tag on it - I'd suggest adding it to anything else of yours that hasn't been deleted yet. If you've uploaded anything that hasn't been copied to Commons, put the {{NoCommons}} template on it and it won't get ported over. Black Kite22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late now, they have wrecked half the pages I have written. I cannot edit the images, I no longer have them on my computer they slowed it down. Those images were years of travelling Europe, borrowing, stealing and photographing when no one was looking. I thought, and trusted, Wikipedia to look after these things, not allow them to be openly stolen and deleted by a bunch of fools and vandals incapable of dsplaying a simple image! Giano (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the fuckup on Commons should be sorted soon so they'll look OK, but if you drop me a list of images (especially ones in the lead of articles) on my talk I'll work my way through them and fix them. Black Kite23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I don't even have half of them on my watch list, I never thought it necessary, I have the smallest watch list on wikipedia! Once a page is done I am straight onto the next - "never look back, never regret" is my moto for life, but in this instance..... It seems to be most of the FAs and most of their images, I had better start looking and remembering. Giano (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to look at any more it is too disheartening, these are just the few I have looked at that I have bothered to record. I can't face going through the lot; and there are twice as many pages I have written that I don't remember about not on the list. Why does one bother? Giano (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, hopefully Commons will have pulled its finger out of its arse soon. Don't be too worried, the images still exist at Commons and so are always retrievable. Black Kite23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, but I have just looked at another 15 - 30 pages FAs to stubs all the same. It would need an army. If they don't get their act together, I will personally insert something man-made and a great deal larger than a finger - the word commons is now added to the list of banned subjects on this page. Giano (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair enough. I've done the ones marked above. If you need one that's bollocksed fixing particularly for a TFA or similar give me a shout. Black Kite23:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but why are you converting gifs to pngs here. Both gif and png are for images with large areas of single colour such as logos and clipart. Photographs should be jpg or tiff. Theresa Knott | token threats21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Converting an existing GIF to a palletized 8-bit PNG seems OK to me. It doesn't lose any quality and is as small or smaller than turning it into a (slightly blurred) jpg. --AmaltheaTalk21:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. It's just seems so strange though. With both a gif and a png i can see the pixels because the colour differences between adjacent pixels is too much. It looks like noise. A jpg doesn't do this because although it is lossy it doesn't reduce the number of colours. But i suppose if it's already saved as a gif then converting to png is probably sensible. Please Giano- from now on - photos as jpgs and diagrams as pngs (don't use gifs at all, except for animation) Theresa Knott | token threats22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, and it now appears that the commons editor who moved it [81] has a page full of warnings, so onece the fools have deleted it here, it will probably be deleted there too. Even had the nerve to say it was taken by one of her reletions [82]. One despairs of these people, obviouslt the management of commons is as bad as that here. Pity I don't have the time, to spare from my causes here, to give it my full attention. Giano (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, your uploaded images can be found in your upload log. Most of them are still here. The upload log of your other/old account lists some that were deleted after a move to commons though. And I can only repeat what others have said, the problem is not moving the images to commons, it's that they temporarily turned off image resizing, and browsers are doing a much poorer job at it. All your images are still there, they haven't lost any quality, and moving them to commons is in principle a very good thing, since they can be used on all wikimedia projects now. Just be patient, and I suggest that from now on you use .png where you've used .gif before, in particular for plans that are using few colors like Image:Grandchurchlocation.jpg. Cheers, AmaltheaTalk17:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. check out Image:Segmentedpediment.gif, an image that is kept locally, but still has the same display problems. It's not commons' fault. --AmaltheaTalk 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UT
Giano's advice of the day: "dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres" for the benefit of those non French speakers "in this country, it is good from time to time to kill an admiral to encourage others" In other words do be carful when trying to be intelectual and using quotes of the great, it can backfire horribly [85] if one is less than great.
About your great Winter Palace pages. I was wondering if we needed to disambiguate the St Petersburg part, at least in the lead of all of your pages. Being American, when I see St Petersburg, I think of a place in Florida. Looking at the two pages, St. Petersburg, Florida and Saint Petersburg, it looks as if the "St" is actually spelled out "Saint" for the Russian city. Is the abbreviated "St" used interchangeably in Russia? What are your thoughts? Tex (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm....., to be honest the place in Florida had not sprung into my mind, but I see your point - does anyone actually write Saint Petersburg. I really don't want to write that in full, but nor do I want to say St Petersburg, Russia, as it would be like saying Paris, France, especialy as I know my friend, Wetman, has a story on the subject. I suppose we had better wait and see what others say. Giano (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the Florida place was on my mind because I recently plowed through a lot of the American history pages and ran across that one. Anyway, it wouldn't be that hard to search and replace St Petersburg with Saint Petersburg, but as you say, the folks who read this page will probably have an opinion and I'd like to hear from them. Tex (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Winter Palace (Russian: Зимний дворец) in St Petersburg, Florida, that was, from 1732 to 1917, the official residence of the Russian Tsars? I think it's unlikely to cause confusion otherwise. Yomanganitalk18:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well whatever, but I'll tell you what after this I don't intend to do another St Pete's page for a very long time. I have never come across so many contradictory references trying to write a page ever. It's getting to be a chore now, but only a couple more pages to get into mainspace and I'm there. Giano (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the question. The hall occupies the entire space between the windows, there is no place for a lavatory. Years ago I spent hundreds of hours around there, and I still remember something. Whether we need coordinates in such articles and how they should be sourced is another issue (there is a small difference between different map systems on the web, but not significant enough, and the 0.0001° precision is ok for such a large hall), but as the Jordan Staircase has coordinates (which were wrong until recently, by the way), why not? Colchicum (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a secret lavatory hidden behind the curtains of the throne, for the sole use of the Tsar on state occasions. I was just concerned that you may have mistaken it. Giano (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you were very helpful last time, how can I tell if this image is free [86]. it says all rights reserved, but it is not lit up in green like the thing below it, does that mean it is not copyright? Giano (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giano. I'm afraid it's not free, the key bit is "All Rights Reserved". The bit below is a symbol which shows it can be seen by anyone, as opposed to just the photographer's friends; for some reason Flickr colours in that symbol but not the copyright one.
If a photo's free it'll say "some rights reserved" instead of "All rights reserved", and have either the Creative Commons BY or BY-SA logos, as in these two pictures. [87][88] However, beware the non-commercial or no derivatives symbols as in this one [89] as these make the work non-free by Wikipedia standards. Alas, most of the Creative Commons licensed stuff on Flickr is for non-commercial use only, so truly free photos are a small minority.
You can search for free stuff on Flickr by going to the advanced search page and ticking "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content", and both of the boxes "Find content to use commercially" and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon". Doing that on "Winter Palace" brings up 112 hits, a few of which are of a different one in Mongolia, and "Hermitage museum" brings up 130. Not many good ones of the interior of the palace I'm afraid, but if you find anything which would be useful and would like some help uploading it, just let me know.
As for the picture you asked about, if you like I could send the photographer a message and ask if he'd be willing to change the licence so it can be used on Wikipedia. Obviously there are no guarantees, but I'm told that that people on Flickr are often quite helpful if asked nicely. Were you planning to use it on the main Winter Palace page or a sub page? It might help if I could point him towards a draft page to show him where it would be used.
That would be good, it is this page here. Some recent interior shots of high quality woould make a nice change from all the old watercolours, which though good, are not exactly contemporary. Thanks. Giano (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of my recent works, I want some advice from those of you who are generally in tune with my thoughts, as the end comes into sight of what I think most people will forgive me for thinking of as "my category" (don't worry, I'll get over it) I want something like a banner or a logo to tie what may become {Category: Winter Palace} (a sub-category of Hermitage) together, to make it clear they are in fact more one big page than a small category (there will be 20 pages when I've finished). If something like that could be invented then perhaps I won't create a Winter Palace category and leave them Hermitage - as that is what it is today. Especially as I hope others will start to add to the little room pages with the contents they contain today, that way Wikipedia's abysmal coverage of the State Hermitage Museum can be improved. I don't want a disinfo-box or anything that reduces the lead image to a postage stamp, or encourages idiots to keep adding further silly facts; but something that presents the page as part of a greater page - nor do I want little double headed crowned eagles winking cheekily from the corner of the page either (they'd frighten Spumoni). Any ideas? It's a difficult one isn't it? Giano (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is just the sort of thing I was thinking of, can they be livened up and made to look a little more inviting? Sort of add a logo or something? Giano (talk)
Great, I'll hunt about for a logo, something that is common to all the pages, trouble is i don't want naff things like crowns and eagles - does Russia have a logo type thing now? They did have the hammer and scyckle, but i don't want that either. Lemme go look at their flag. Ah does modern St Petersburg have a crest or a flag Giano (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks just the thing. I'd be happy to pull something together for you this evening if you let me know how you'd like it - title, sub-section headings etc & what pages are to be included in the lists. Nancy talk09:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, thanks; the pages done so far are all listed here [90]. I htink, it need the main Winter palace page to be given prominence and then list the others. Giano (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is really brilliant! I think we will have to leave the poor old cabin out as it's not really a room, but otherwise it is exactly what I wanted I wonder what twit in the MOS banned the definite article, but never mind that can't be helped. Thanks so much that is truly great, do you want to add it to the pages in mainspace? Giano (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am not sure how they should be ordered, but this should be changed, because now the order is random. If the modern Hermitage room numbers are of some use, Arabian Hall – 155, Malachite Room – 189, Field Marshall's Hall - 193, Small Throne Room – 194, Armorial Hall – 195, Military Gallery – 197, St. George's Hall – 198, Apollo Hall – 260, Gold Drawing Room – 304, Grand Church – 271, Alexander Hall – 282, White Hall – 289, Private Rooms – 157-188 + 303, Rotonda – 156, Neva Enfilade - 190-192. Colchicum (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken Peter's Cabin out - I guess it can go in as a "See also". The order is fairly arbitrary at the moment - I just worked down the list - the template is in mainspace now so nothing stopping anyone with more of a clue than I rearranging as they wish. In the meantime I'll add it to the articles. Nancy talk21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note your request here. If it hasn't been done by another passing admin by the time I get home today, I will move it then, archive the talk, etc. I'd do it now, but the computer I'm on is archaic. Risker (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I need it to go, I am getting too attached to it! I'm working fast to finish the last pages before I return to real life and drudgery on Monday - then I can turn my attention to other matters. Giano (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you make a great mid-wife. I expect we will all spot the mistakes now, and all the Winter palace experts will appear too. God it's like waiting for exam results all over again. Giano (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
on an amusing note: I have just seen the pages first edit ever [91] - well it has to be an improvement, but does rather support my arguement for the use of "The." Giano (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, trial and error has just made the Russian lang display, but made the nav template in the wrong place. It's something to do with having a gallery on the page, in my experience if the galler is not last it ruins everything that comes after it. I expect someone will know what we are doing wrong. Giano (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind comments. Sorry I didn't answer earlier, but I have been on a wikibreak, so to speak. Seems I missed a front-page day, thank goodness! qp10qp (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Black Kite and Amadjm did some for me, but I have 100s more to do, sometime when I have time. Apparently, you have to download them and convert to JPEG or something like that, perhaps they'll just switch the bloody thing back on soon and all the problems will be solved. Giano (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giano, I'm still working on your blanky images, and improving the quality as I go. Up to Holkham Hall. There are some that are not worth the effort, or simply won't convert well by the means that I am using. You'll notice that they are getting clean blue skies, rather than square-patterned skies. It's boring, and I wish you would kindly ask one of your children who is good at fiddling with digital images. Or better still, learn to do it yourself. Since one gets small thanks around here.
I have left a request on the Warwickshire project page, in the hope that someone might provide a decent image of Compton Wynyates. Do you know anyone in Warwickshire? If so, get them motivated.
I observe that you have done some writing on William Wardell. I'd like a reference for the spires of St. Pat's being out of proportion with the building. "Some" can "say" anything they like. I don't think anyone in Melbourne complains about them.
I can probably dig up a bit more local information on Wardell, and reference the article a bit better, because it's rather lacking in references. I saw a big church in London with very Wardellish features and I don't know what it was.
Yes, I did do some writing there, i think I wrote it. You obviously failed to notice I removed the fact shorty after you plastered the "cite tag" on the page, this was becasue the references used to write that page were long ago returned to their owners. However, luckily, a quick google soon found a reference for the fact here: [92]
"The three spires of St Patrick's cathedral, added long after Wardell's death, were re-designed, and though beautiful it is doubtful whether their increased height has kept the proportions so well as in the original design"
of course it is quite easy to see that both tapering and heigt are all wrong. The cathedral's own website hints at it too:n[93]
"Its proportions are perfection themselves: when they appear not to be harmonious, it is due to the work of others who added to or altered the building without fully respecting the concept and architectural philosophy of the original designs."
"The heights of all three spires and of the central tower were considerably increased in the 1930s when the time was opportune to complete the building."
"In the alterations of the late 1930s, it was rebuilt in the present form which would almost certainly have not met with Wardell's approval."
I'll leave it you to re-add the fact. Thanks for the link on Australian Italianate architecture, I have no plans at present to explore that avenue of architecture. Giano (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I and several other checkusers have checked your and User:Catherine de Burgh's editing activity, and it's blindingly clear you're running the account as a "good hand" account in your run for arbcom. As such, I've blocked the account indefinitely and you for 24 hours, and notified Arbcom and Jimmy Wales.
I was reminded I'd checked this account in late 2006; chatting to Bishonen in IRC confirmed it was in fact yours. She convinced me not to block you for it then, saying you wouldn't do anything serious with it and were only playing. It appears you're doing a lot more than that. Please don't, it's antisocial behaviour and easily caught once anyone looked - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're a little out of touch. You don't exactly have to be one of Giano's IRC buddies to know that this is an accout of his. That's some mighty fine checkusering there, Lou. HiDrNick! 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should wonder that by inferring Giano is a "bad hand" (the type that creates FA's, GA's, and writes articles admired by the majority) you have not admitted that it is Giano's opinions that you (and those who think like you) have deemed to be "bad". Clarification, even in such a morally bankrupt manner, is welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, I don't think that this is the best thing you've ever done. Calling the Catherine de Burgh account a good hand account stretches credibility. Especially considering the answers that the account gave to questions for ArbCom. Were you going to block Bishzilla for being a good hand account for Bishonen? Considering the two Bishes are even more related then Catherine de Burgh and Giano,and considering the past history between you and Giano, this smacks of payback and absolutely HORRIBLE judgement. Please reverse it. Immediately. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry for the purposes of attempting to appear as multiple users is precisely what WP:SOCK is about. I suggest appeals go to the arbcom. Giano has been busted utterly in this particular case - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that isn't what WP:Sock#Good/Bad hands says, and that is the basis of the block. Also, since you seemed a little vague (it was hard to tell, since you didn't respond in public) on the editing of the IRC page on that ArbCom, which involved this editor again, which is supposedly your area of expertise you will forgive those who question your understanding of policy here as well... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This feels a bit like someone blocking their parents on discovering they aren't really Santa Claus. I was under the impression that the fact Lady Catherine and Giano were alternative accounts of each other is common knowledge. WJBscribe(talk)22:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about it. Which is not to set me up as a particularly vital or important user who should know about things. Quite the contrary, I've followed the entire Giano saga with at best passing interest, though I have definite opinions about it. But I cannot imagine that I am the only person who did not know about this, and whose opinion would change if he did. Commonly known does not equal universally known. The sockpuppet rules are not designed merely for the benefit of those who are up to speed on the latest gossip. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dreadful call. There was no way that sock was ever going to win the election, even if Giano could keep the façade up (Giano's not subtle enough for that). If you were truly worried that the election might be successfully gamed - why not quietly e-mail Giano and ask him to admit the sock openly or withdraw the nomination. That would have been drama-reducing. Now........of well, the reaction is as predictable as it is boring. You did this for drama, and now Giano gets to up the drama by going to arbcom....... you two are too alike.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appalling block. It suggests to me that either not a lot of thought actually went in to it, or ... well, other possibilities would be assuming bad faith if I were to voice them. What possible major disruption to Wikipedia could be caused by a commonly known sock of Giano's running for ArbCom? Not to mention that calling CdB a "good hand" account is a personal attack on Giano. Ludicrous, and that's putting it mildly. Black Kite22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think an insinuation that Giano's edits on his main account are known to be disruptive or provocative is a personal attack, or even terribly controversial. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Horribly one-sided and biased, Phil. Have some of his edits been disruptive or provocative, sure. But have a vast majority of his edits been FA/GA quality? Even More obviously true. Trying to call CdB's accounts Good-hand compared to Giano requires a stretch of the imagination unknown to mankind. SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not controversial, it's just plain wrong. As SirFozzie says, the vast majority of Giano's edits are positive, and trying to spin it any other way to justify this comically ill-advised - and thankfully rapidly community-reversed - block doesn't sit well at all. Black Kite23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of our "accounts that are used for disruption and incivility are excused if they have sufficient good edits" policy. You crazy kids keep passing new policies without telling us old folk, don't you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Catherine's responses at these questions for the candidate are recognizably similar to what one might expect from, say, Dame Edna, possums. Humour concerning the Arbitration Committee and its election is not welcome, it is perfectly clear, especially coming from Giano. I, for one, wouldn't dare snicker at the Arbitration Committee, or whisper a complaint about their rationales for blocking right and left. --Wetman 22:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
On what ground were Giano and Lady Catherine CheckUsered?
I'll say again that Giano was playing, if you need to hear it. In what sense was he doing anything else? Er, did any of you CheckUsers actually read Lady C's election statement, and her answers to questions? They were satirical (and effortlessly taken in that spirit by those posting individual questions to her). Please don't tell me you took them as an actual attempt to get on ArbCom, because that's ridiculous.
What's with the special treatment of Giano? How come you didn't block me for running Bishzilla as a good hand account trying to get on ArbCom? Wasn't that pretty obvious sockpuppetry for a much longer time? Bishonen | talk22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Apparently David Gerard has known these accounts were linked since 2006 (see above, in the block notice) and only acted now, for whatever reason. SirFozzie (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed this nonsense--and it is utter nonsense, I support at least a temporary desysop of Gerard, until he can learn to handle the tools with more alacrity and less acrimony. S.D.D.J.Jameson23:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that it wasn't common knowledge to me, most normal users who don't know the dramatis personae on wiki I imagine, and several others I know too. So I could have decided to vote for Giano/CdB, as may others, and I would have been misled into doing so. Giano made it clear he was not going o run this year due to an Arb/jimbo possible veto if he were to get in. I presumed he was telling the truth when he said thhat and didn't have another account going on. Sorry if this seems gormless, funny or naive to the rest of you in the loop but I doubt I was the only one (not that I mind horribly, but it is a bit deceptive to run for arbcom and not make who you are/your other account clear in your statement etc. Boring I know!:) StickyParkin23:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We now see this disgraced Arbcom and its checkusers for exactly what they are [94]. Lets not invoke Godwins Law, but go quietly away and contemplate the life of the late Lady Catherine. Giano (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I bloody well do! She never voted, she never swayed concencus, she just parodied and that's what the Arbcom could not bear, could not bear at all. They all want kicking out, but you just watch Gerard will escape scot free, his abuse of checkuser, as happens so often with the others completely overlooked. So yes I do bloody object, the account is dead. Giano (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the Arbcom and their Gerard have just proved that no-one who values their privacy must ever trust Wikipedia with their private information, names and addresses. Who know what sort of person may end up with it. Giano (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You refuse to mark the account as yours? If you'd done so in the first place none of this would have happened. If you have any other accounts this would be a good time to acknowledge those as well. ·:· Will Beback·:·01:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin's (this one, and most he knows) do not block alternate accounts/"socks", they block abusive sockpuppets. Having an alternate account run for ArbCom under a "no chance" rationale is not abuse, unless you are so subsumed into the systems and procedures created for the purpose of supporting the creation of the encyclopedia that lack of gravitas toward the mechanisms is deemed "disruption" - in which case you need a break and/or a humour injection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope CdB is not withdrawn from the election, despite her sudden passing. A deceased user with a blocked account might not finish last. Gimmetrow02:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I will still be voting for Lady Catherine, if only on my user subpage I plan to make on which I explain my rationales for supports and opposes. And Bishzilla, too, incidentally. Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but now the investigation starts:Who are the several other checkuser who have ilegally invaded my privacy? WHO? Giano (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why me of course, at least two Arbs have known for three months, and at least two checkusers, (actually 3) there was no secret at all, so no excuse to check user, it was a fishing trip to to try to find private information, nothng more nothing less, and what did this "person" Gerard want it for? Giano (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of it (as I AGF in these matters). I feel dissapointed by this discovery. And It's not just because I found the CATE account annoying. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think that all too real Miss Reighly's wink is Her Late Ladyship's final salute to Wikipedia. Perhaps all her message was: don't take yourselves too seriously. Giano (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, have a laugh at this instead, Her late Ladyship's passing is being marked by a template fest one can only speculate what her comments would have been
Gerard said multiple checkusers - Who? how many? names not prevarications please. What are you doing with the information? Who was the banned user you thought Lady C was? I don't beleive a word of this, the name of the banned user, and there had better be some jolly good similarities, I am not letting this drop. Giano (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as your privacy needs to be protected, so does others. If you believe yourself to be unfairly targeted, I suggest you contact the Ombudsman. You can believe or disbelieve me, that is your prerogative, but I do not think I have ever done anything here on wikipedia to allow anyone to think I would even consider prevaricating. As all checkusers have already spoken on the RfAr page, the ones who ran the CU yesterday were Thatcher, then I, and then David. That is all. I am doing doing nothing with the information, as you are not a banned user so my suspicions were allayed. It would be a gross breach of privacy, and unfair to the banned user, for me to say who it was, but the suspicions had to do with editing style, and not any CU information. As the logs will show to the Ombudsman, yesterday's checks were run AFTER discussion among the CU's as to whether or not the project needed protection, not before. Your name did not come up until it was seen that you were CdB. Also, realize that the block and the CU are two different things, and the fact that a CU was run and discussed does not mean the the "multiple" CU's concur or oppose the block. That is an issue for you, DG, and ArbCom. My point was the the CU was not run in malice, but ignorance as to your relationship with CdB and in good faith trying to protect the project as is the responsibility of a CU. -- Avi (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So finally, we now have one proven lie, it was not multiple, but 3. 2 of whome already knew who she was. Now for you, who on earth has ever had an editing style like that? You insult our intelligence. You don't even have the grace to appolagise. I think you were bunch of schoolboys on a fishing trip, what were you going to do with the info? Threaten to out me? What? There was no justification for this what so ever! You cooked this up with Gerard now get yourself off the hook. Who on the Arbcom was behind this? If they had a grain of decency between them, Gerard would have been fired by this morning. Giano (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, multiple means greater than one, so that is not a lie. Secondly, at least one of the three had no idea, and another may never had had, o may have forgotten. You forget that the information is not kept by the foundation servers for more than a short while, and the old CdB check may not have turned anything up either. Checkuser is not magic, you know. Thirdly, it is irrelevant as to how unique you though CdB to be, a reasonable concern arose, and as you did NOT make it the relationship between you and CdB clear anywhere, the suspicions were valid. Lastly, as I said, I, and NewYorkBrad, have the e-mails necessary to prove the chronology is as I said, so your claim about "cooking" is both false and insulting. I understand you are frustrated, but please take a step back and see that your claims have no merit. Why would I want to target you? Where would the malice be? What is between you and David is between you and David. -- Avi (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shall take a step back when I have got to the bottom of this, if Gerard says go jump in the lake presumably that is what you do. I could not give a stuff who you are emailing now you have been caught. There was no excuse for a cjeckuser at all - we will find out what you wanted the information for, and it certainly was not the good of the project. There was no reasonable concern and you damn well know it. You have all been caught completely red handed. You dare to talk of malice, I don't beleive a word you are saying, and neither do half the others reading this page. It confirms what I have aleays said aboutthe trustworthiness of half of you people. The kindst thinh one can say is that Gerard has made you appear incompetent.Giano (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a minute before I present. I understand your frustration, Giano, but your comments are unbecoming. In my opinion, your antipathy with DG is coloring your equanimity. There was a valid reason to run a checkuser on CdB as per the foundation's requirements (possible disruption to the project). Neither Thatcher nor I knew it was you prior to that. Thatcher having run one in the past does not mean that there was a connection, depending on how stale the IPs were. As NewYorkBrad confirmed, the CU portion of this unfortunate mess was performed in good faith and in accordance with the rule. David Gerrad's block is something completely separate from the CU, myself, and Thatcher. Whether you choose to believe Thatcher, NYB, or I, or not, speaking for myself, I am sorry that you had to undergo this frustration, although, I will say, that all of this could have been avoided had you either had a link between CdB and Giano, or had you answered Thatcher's request with an email. -- Avi (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In defence of the CU fraternity, DG comments he only requested that they confirmed his findings (which facts he was aware of anyway, I understand). The responsibility for the block is all his - you may ask of me whether one can drown in water; my confirmation does not mean that I also conclude that user:() is a potential murderer because he takes swimming lessons... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But which of the acceptable uses of CU does this fall under? I don't see "Suspicion of a joke account" listed on WP:RCU. Either the request should have been rejected or the policy on use of CU needs to be rewritten to reflect its actual application. Yomanganitalk13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not privy on how CU's review each others work, but since the checking CU takes responsibility (well, David seems to be trying to share it around a bit - but generally) for performing the initial check then a reviewing CU need not ask "why", only if the determination of the data appears correct. Per my analogy above, why would I wish to know if someone wants to check if you can drown in water? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Thatcher's statement at ArbCom, he made the check on behalf of "another checkuser". However, if this was to confirm the findings of a checkuser already run by David Gerard then perhaps a note should be added to the Checkuser policy to the effect that fishing trips by those with the Checkuser permission are acceptable and that they should not feel themselves bound by the restrictions placed on its use which govern the requests by users without CU. Yomanganitalk14:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are times when one CU will ask another to look at the results, especially if some of the data is inconclusive. CU's are governed by the foundation's policies, none of which have been violated here. -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to this and your recent post somewhere up there, I refer you to my recent edit here [95] Your reasons for checkusering me are so ridiculously cooked up, that I have half a mind to spill the beans and give everyone a good laugh at your expense. Be grateful I have more honour than you and your fellow checkusers. Giano (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone is glued to the ArbCom or AN(I) threads, so not everyone is aware of your antics. The fact that CdB's account is a parody was obvious, the fact that it belonged to you was not. This is a reply to your comment at AfD [96]. Pcapping11:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and no-one is bothered by your attention seeking antics trying to have a page deleted because you have never heard of the subject, and who are you anyway, never heard of you!Giano (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should be more civil Giano. Your comment here and on the AfD page look like you think it is everyone's duty to keep up with the in-crowd, while the comment by a valuable but less famous contributor like Pcap doesn't count. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the unfortunate passage away of Lady Catherine, have we any hope that you will run for ArbComm this year? I continue to believe that the committee would be better off with you as a member. I believe you have still 5 more days to graciously accept the opportunity to serve should the unwashed masses decide to later grant it to you. GRBerry15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind, but the present Arbcom have made it quite clear they will not accept me, and Jimbo has said he will not apoint without their permission. Fianlly, there is no way in hell I am giving them my name and address (if Mr Gerard does not already have it) I am rather choosy who I want on my doorstep. Giano (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about being a candidate (one time); but I decided there was too much brain work, so dropped the idea (also, I though it was limited to Administrators). GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you? What an extraordinary notion, I have seem no evidence of brainwork in the last 24 hours at all - I don't think that is requisite of the job at all. Has Gerard been fired yet? Giano (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to, and are, making your point to both Jimbo and Arbcom and any number of individual user talk pages. This drama fueled forest fire is not going to to persist on the ACE pages anymore.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S The joke isn't in my opinion funny, but that can go on if, when, and where you like, since the community seems to find acceptable.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at all amusing about the likes of Gerard being able to check up at whim on the private details of any editor he likes. He is a disgrace! If this is what Jimbo thinks is fine, then he is a disgrace too! - Why has the "man" not been fired? Giano (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If by "fired" you mean "stripped of CheckUser and administrator privileges" then the answer is "because no one with the ability to do so is willing or desires to, yet." I'd have to check, but I think pretty much any such removal would be done ad hoc or by investigation by ArbCom or for CheckUser, Ombudsman commission.--Tznkai (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were just a bunch of "God knows what" on a fishing trip! To see what or who they could find - now they are caught - why are they not fired? Giano (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now he has your name an address, maybe he will visit. You'll need to makes sure that you recognise him when he calls, so I thought I'd give you some help. Because he may well look like this, which I suppose is better than that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunatly for me, I have sons. The former they have seen each Sunday, the latter...well you can draw your own conclusions. I'm sure you can appreciate my concern. I joined Wikipedia for (cringingly said) quite high motives. "That" was not one of them. Giano (talk)
Scott, the very fact that you can say that shows you do not understand how checkuser works. See Risker's excellent essay on this. We do not have addresses, children's pictures, or pets . -- Avi (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How sweet, what a shame one is growing into a shark that is going to eat the other two. Anyway, the level of information is imaterial, Gerard, a very odd person indeed, has no right to it - I take it he has not been fired since I last logged in? Giano (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can totally empathize with you. Some conservatives got hold of my identity and spread it on the Internet. I do think Her Ladyship CdB provided me with joy. RIP. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She was completely harmless, a bit of fun, but she has done us all a great service, No one else is ever going to have their privacy invaded by Gerard again [97]. Giano (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is RCU, Gerrard is just a symptom. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge can evade RCU to troll/pov push but for any regular editor it is indeed a massive abuse of privacy. Thanks, SqueakBox01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One day, this project will be edited, administrated and governed by people with as much quality and ability as Giano. Until that day, why should anyone be surprised that Wikipedia has critics, has people prepared to attack it, has proof that it defames senior politicians so many times? As long as we are governed by an individual, whether it be one who is prepared to alter articles for sexual favours or not, we are on to a loser. We've grown up, it's time to change. Any project that attacks someone of Giano's ability is a total farce until the community stands up and says "No, we are not having this, we have grown, we are beyond this stage". Wikipedians grew out of Jimbo Wales's cradle, but babies don't stay in the cradle forever. GTD01:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my hope too. In the meantime we must not allow ourselves to be teated in this way. I have an idea why they wanted my private information, but I'm not going to voice it just yet. Soon one of them will say that my keeping demanding Gerard and cohorts dismissal is disruptive, personaally I find an unjustifiable invasion of privacy far more disruptive, they can be ban me here and I will take it more loudly elsewhere. To say they though Lady catherine was Greg Kose is plainly ridiculous - Lady C only wrote one page Alice Reighly do they image the charming and long dead Ms Reighly paid Lady C for the biography? This is all wrong - we canot keep taking this and leting them get away with it. Giano (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naive. So long as the self-selected are self-elected and there is government by a "CEO" who can be bought, whose venality is public record, and whose intelligence is individual (rather than communal), there is an inevitable and inexorable commitment to dullness. You can reverse a wrong, but that is like putting your hand in the water. Slap at the waves all you like, but the tide is coming in, and all are drown. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I probably am naive, but I am not giving up on this, it has bever been fully explained why I/Lady C was checkusered, the Greg Kohs story is bolox and everyone knows it, just an invention. Why having discovered it was "only" me why email Gerard - no reason to do so at all - what the F had it to do with him? I'm afraid the more the three of them prevaricate the deeper the hole they are digging for themselves, if they has a shred of honnour they would have all resigned before they are fired. So naive maybe I am, tenacious - I have barely started. Giano (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Similar to a comment left at FloNight's talkpage just now) Giano, the block against your account is universally regarded as being wrong. Your objection to the block, and the objections of many others, have been upheld nearly unanimously by commenting administrators and arbitrators. I won't say you've won, because clearly you see this as a long term issue unrelated to having the "right outcome" on a particular block.
On the other hand, your arguments for abusive use of checkuser access by Thatcher and Avraham, and the protection of such abuse by the arbitration committee (including NYB), are not nearly as strong or well regarded. Frustrating as that is, I think if your comments continue to be as heated as they have recently been (taking into account your apology to Thatcher) you risk sparking yet another dramatic convulsion. Maybe a break to calm down a bit and take stock would be worth considering? Avruch T 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I lost the plot this afternoon, such is my anger, but it's an anger that is gaining in momentum - David Gerard is not the sort of person who should be permitted reponsibility, he has proved himself untrustworthy. Editors here are volunteers, they do not, and should not, have to tolerate people who in real life they would avoid. I realise that is an unpleasant fact, but he has no right to the abuse his powers in the way that he does. He struts about the encyclopedia bullying and intimidating, and the Arbcom appear to encourage him in this. One wonders why? It seem that in this at least many agree with me. J Wales need to wake his ideas up, and take note of the views of his editors. Giano (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was not suggesting dropping the entire matter; simply that particular discussion on the Candidate_statements talk page, what with a duplicate of it being held on RfAr this very moment.
You sir are a cad and a bounder of the first order. There I was on the verge of proposing to one I believed to be the finest English gentlelady of our time, capable of behaviour not seen since Mrs Routledge interrupted her watercolouring the tattooed posteriors of elderly lepers to confront the Kaiser's Navy with her trowel; only to learn that what I believed to be a veritable memsahib billowing under full sail was merely electronic trickery. Has any chap been so foully deluded since dear Melchie fell for a show girl?
ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs
You left a message on my talk page saying you presumed that I approved of David Gerard's checkuser of your sock two years ago, and his subsequent discussion of it on IRC. I have no knowledge of what checkusers Gerard did two years ago and I don't use IRC. The ArbCom has rejected the case accusing Gerard of improperly using checkuser. If your privacy was violated that would be a problem, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Please be careful that your own behavior doesn't cross the line into harassment. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just you watch me! I have no idea who you are, but to me you are little more than a troll! - and we all know how to deal with such as those. Giano (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Please also remember that you are on civility probation. Continued personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith are violations of that probation, and may result in your account being blocked. ·:· Will Beback·:·00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are nothing but a troll. I know this and so does everyone reading the tripe you are trolling here. Go away, and I will say no more about you. Shoo..... Giano (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano - WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF all matter. You've been breaking all three with every other edit since you were blocked, not just against David but against numerous uninvolved admins. Being upset about the block is understandable, but you've chosen to act out beyond acceptable behavior norms in response, and this is just not ok.
Please avoid pushing blatantly over the user civility policy lines. You can criticize much more effectively if you don't abuse people and be rude in the process - more people listen to your arguments, and you don't create more enemies in the process.
GWH is very right. You could be so much more effective, but you seem to enjoy shooting yourself in the foot. Gerard has done his share of wacky stuff before. He either does things like making this block strictly to get a rise out of people, which would make him a troll, or he's completely out of touch with reality, which would make him a kook. Either way, he's very obviously not suited to any position of responsibility. I would think this would be easy for people to see.. but, you've distracted people from that issue. It's unfortunate. Friday(talk)02:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, if I were silentthis woould have ebeen swept under the carpet 48 hours ago, and Gerard would have been onto the next victim. Giano (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I'm not usually involved in the maelstrom that surrounds you (for example, I didn't know that you were Catherine de Burgh (talk·contribs) until I actually saw the block message), but even I am noticing this particular incident. I am also getting increasingly uncomfortable with the namecalling. For example, Will Beback may be many things, but I don't believe that "troll" is one of them.[98] So could you please try to ratchet things back a notch? Also, as I look at your contribs, Giano II (talk·contribs), though you're clearly spending a lot of time on Wikipedia, it appears to have been days since the last time you worked on an actual article. So do you think it would be possible to try and re-focus your efforts on the main purpose of the project here? Or, aside from having Gerard's head delivered to you via Fedex (I can envision all the little biohazard symbols already), what exactly do you think is needed to de-escalate things? --Elonka02:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it appears to have been days since the last time you worked on an actual article. And more is the pity that this incident happened. Have you seen all the DYK's above. Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gerard is alowed to run riot around the Encyclopedia, so, so shall I. If he his allowed, encouraged and to chckuser block and bully just as he pleases, then I don't see what options there are, but to protest, and protest I shall for as long as it takes.Giano (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, what you need on your talk page is anti-protection, a new MediaWiki enhancement. Full protection allows no one to edit your talk page except sysops. Anti-protection, by contrast, allows everyone to edit your page except tiresome administrators like Mr. Beback and Mr. Herbert. If you'd like to request anti-protection for this page, just say the word.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it gives the Arbs and admins something to do. I often wonder if I were to run for adminship what the result would be, I expect that would be called disruption too. Would I be any worse than some of Jimbo's favourites or some of the Arbs? Pity in a way, it's one blood-bath none of us wil ever live to see. Next week my life returns to normal, and I will no longer be "an ill wikipedian" but a "gainfully employed Wikipedian" so not have the time to ponder these deep and philosophical facts, and Gerard will be able to run about the site violating privacy and blocking unchecked, while the Arbcom sit back and do nothing. God help those he attacks next. Giano (talk)
My dear boy. Thank you for your moving and tender report of the funeral of Lady C. After reading only the first few sentences I was shuddering with emotion and could barely see the screen through the tears streaming down my face. Nancy talk15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A sad day for us all, and we must still brace ourselves for the final descent, which takes place later this afternoon.Giano (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I... was deeply and quite sincerely surprised that you pulled the nom of Winter Palace. I want to say something, and I hope you'll hear me and believe me. I meant no harm whatsoever by the humorous comment. I believed—and still believe— that the joke about Britney Spears and cowbells conveys not even the vaguest molecule of insult or disdain. I did not have any thoughts that harm would result. I have exactly zero-point-zero beef against you. I intended no animosity, nor lack of respect. I sincerely hope you will accept my apologies, if it made you feel less than comfortable or welcome. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I took no offence at all. I just decided that I would prefer to write to my standards in future rather than other people's. It's as simple as that. If every other sentance now has to be cited, and cited to books that have receied a "scholarly review" published on the internet, then FAC is no longer the game for me.Giano (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. I am very happy and relieved that my remarks did not offend you. I... mmm. I know you are suggesting that you don't wanna participate in FAC, and of course I respect that decision. Good luck in all you do. I... believe... that everyone who has been on Wikipedia for longer than a month or two knows that you are a superlative writer. As for cites, well— you really may not believe this, but I actually do completely see where you are coming from. But that would be a long and potentially boring conversation, so I'll leave it for another day. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Giano. Just letting ya know, I hope Arbcom takes the David vs Giano case. I won't be getting involved there, but I sure will be watching. It might be the Trial of the Wiki decade. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like it's going to happen. Giano, just a public thought. Remember how I said that when I think you're right, I'll back you to the hilt, and when I think you're wrong, I'll say so? I'm at both points right now. I think DG was absolutely wrong (I changed that word several times) to block you in this case, and right now, he doesn't have my confidence to retain his administrative status, never mind checkuser. I was the 2nd one to state that in the arbcom case, minutes after Moreschi filed it.
But what you're doing... it's not helping you. It might allow a release of frustration and anger from the way you've been treated, but you're allowing others to point at you and redefine the situation away from the way you've been mistreated to your behaviour. There are those out there hoping to make you lose your temper so publicly that they can point at it and say "See! It's justified! Look at the trouble he's causing!"
I'm not saying you don't have the right to be angry, because you do. Heck, I'm even angry, and I wasn't the one blocked! But I'm just saying for you to turn down the volume just a bit. Focus it in. Yelling on everyone's talk page is not going to get the change you want, man. SirFozzie (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fozzie. If I don't yell the Arbcom puts this under its already filthy carpet. There can be no closure at all on this while Gerard is still allowed to violate editor privacy by abusing his checkuser rights. I am not alone in thinking this, but I do feel alone in vocally wanting this problem properly sorted. The Arbcom have wanted the matter silenced and swept under the carpet from the first moment they knew. What their motives were for this, one can only speculate; what the hold is that Gerard exerts over Jimbo and the Arbcom one can only speculate too. The ARbcom has done nothing to solve this problem. One or two of them send me "soothing" emails saying they understand, but in public they have the balls to do nothing. It has been suggested to me that I should run for Arbcom, having first announced that while it would be impossible to be accepted and appointed by Jimbo, a vote for me is a vote for those to register their disappointment at the way the project is currently being run. If one ran a business like this, one would be bankrupt. To me at the moment Wikipedia seems morally bankrupt. Perhaps I should run, I don't know. If I don't run - I hope those that agree with me will vote instead for those unafraid to say what changes they will try to implement for the better. A vote for the likes of Matthews and Forrester is to maintain the status quo. Forrester, is even now denying he owns IRC (Remember: "I...er..own the channel" said so smugly) , but refusing to deny that he would accept an appointment against the majority vote[99]. Are we a buch of automatons or fools to put up with this? Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. We do the work - we have a right to a say and to be treated fairly and properly. Giano (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd pay much more attention to you were you not calling administrators trolls, and things like that. We've yet to have a substantial complaint brought before us about David Gerard's behaviour. So far all we've got is drama mongering. If someone brought one before us, I'd consider it. So far nobody has said exactly how Gerard has violated anyone's privacy, other than just saying that he has, over and over and over and over. Yes, I disagree with the block, think it was silly of him, but I've yet to see any evidence of a violation of privacy with regards to checkuser tools. How exactly has he violated your privacy? By revealing the existance of an alternate account of yours, that as I am told, was public knowledge anyway? I certainly didn't know it was your account, nor had I even heard of it before this, but that's neither here nor there. Has anyone ever actually read the checkuser policy? It's very broad and well open to interpretation. So yes, we reject cases that just say "omg MY PRIVACY!!!". If someone tells me what abuse there has been here, I'm more than willing to reconsider. But so far it's just been "ABUSE!" "Evidence please" "But.... ABUSE!". I'm sure you'll use this as an example of my corruption, and whatnot. The fact is, I am sympathetic to what has happened here. But so far all you've been doing is running around different pages saying "My privacy, fire him!!!" without saying anything particularly substantial regarding how your privacy has been violated. Do you know how many admins we'd have if we listened to every person who said that? Very few. If you have made some form of substantial complaint and I've somehow missed it, I'm more than willing to say "I was wrong, I was totally off the mark, and there's an issue here", and I'll even eat my hat for you. Also, feel free to revert my comments as trolling, further cementing in truth what I've said about you refusing to give any form of substantial (or even flippant) evidence regarding an abuse of the checkuser tool, or privacy violation. --Deskana(talk)22:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due respect, but what exactly would you consider "evidence of a violation of privacy with regards to checkuser tools"? I'd think that DG running an unwarranted CU on a respected content contributor, based only upon the existence of a well-known humorous sock is good evidence that he misused that tool. I'd say that blocking based on the results of this inappropriate CU also constitutes good evidence. I'd be interested in what would suffice for you. S.D.D.J.Jameson22:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say "well-known humorous sock". I was unaware of the existance of the account, and as well unaware of who owned it. As I understand it, David Gerard was unaware of who owned it too, and he has stated as such. Were he aware I doubt he would have checked it, but that is just speculation. So I cannot see a privacy violation there. I have already agreed that the block was inappropriate, but I can't see how that's a privacy violation either. If, as you say, the account was well known, blocking it isn't a privacy violation. Yes, it was certainly inappropriate, but it's no more a violation of privacy than protecting a page that you shouldn't have. It's extremely rare for people to call for the removal of any rights on the basis of a single bad block. So why is everyone doing that here? --Deskana(talk)22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I read the situation correctly, Gerard has a long history with Giano. I don't know Gerard. But I do know that this series of events has a funny "smell" to my non-politico Wikinose. Also, I asked what you would consider good evidence. You haven't yet answered that question. Out for the evening, but awaiting your response, S.D.D.J.Jameson23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree the block was inappropriate. I also agree it was inappropriate for Gerard to act in this case. I also now have evidence (that I didn't have before, due to people the many people making a fuss, and few people giving us evidence) that Gerard did know that CdB was an account owned by Giano. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that Gerard had previously known that the account was owned by Giano, and forgotten, then remembered upon checking it again. I'm not sure any action will need to be taken, though. Gerard has agreed to stay away from Giano related matters. I think a statement from ArbCom would help. I think I will talk to my colleagues and try to get us to release one. I'd like to thank Bishzilla for actually giving me some evidence to work with, as opposed to the multitude of other people who just prefer to make a fuss rather than do anything constructive. --Deskana(talk)23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never read such stupid claptrap in all my life, you must be the most uninformed Arb in history, and that is saying something - "I also now have evidence (that I didn't have before, due to people the many people making a fuss" Fozzie told you that in his statement, or do the Arbs nt bother to read them - don't bother replying we can work the answer out for ourselves! People making a fuss, if people were not making a fuss you lot would have swept it under the carpet. Giano (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope you're not attempting to impugn me with that last. I was simply curious as to what would constitute evidence for you, and asked you as much. I was in no way attempting to "make a fuss" about anything. S.D.D.J.Jameson23:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not, and I'm sorry for wording it in such a way that I made you believe I was. I've found this discussion with you very helpful. --Deskana(talk)23:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<copied to Deskana's talkpage. If Giano wishes it back (I can't think why, but it is not for me to impose my consideration) then he can request I undo this or replace it himself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)>[reply]
As Giano knows, I'm continuing to look into the situation. The Arbitration Committee does not have to open a case to look at the action of trusted users with extra access. David Gerard already has agreed to not use his tools again in situations involving Giano. If after review other restrictions are needed we can handled it by motion. FloNight♥♥♥23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As I understand it, David Gerard was unaware of who owned it too, and he has stated as such. - Were he aware I doubt he would have checked it" Thank you Deskana for showing your complete ignorance of this case - probably best if you don't tire yourself further looking at it. Giano (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Unfortunately, this diff was one of a significant number of breaches today, and recently, which continued as recently as about an hour ago. One edit alone might be warned. However it's far from the only one, and some are more heavyweight in terms of breach.
Accordingly we edit conflicted. I was reviewing all these, and I've blocked (see below) rather than just warned -- he had been warned by two admins already so warnings are being ignored. FT2(Talk | email)02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I see that this has now been superseded by FT2's block, below.
I am wary of ex-Arbiters, and especially those who have shown animosity toward Giano previously when in that capacity, addressing Giano on his talkpage. Is there not any "uninvolved" admins who are capable of issuing warnings? LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with either James F or FT2's actions on this talkpage (and am not considering arguing the block), but the appearance of "dear old Fred" - who has had a long and difficult history with Giano - appearing here so soom as David Gerard has made a (redirect to) Clown of himself, and with a similar background of anti-Giano comment, that there is a suspicion that the Wikipedia "Old Guard" has taken it upon themselves to gather what remains of their old boy network status and try and silence Giano... You would think that these old cold war warriors were capable of recognising how their interactions create rather than diminish drama, and perhaps they do but are weighing in anyway. Whatever, it should be noted that they are adding to the problem rather than resolving it - and it has been so noted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it matters very little. What Fred says is either true or not true, heeded or not heeded. His "background" isn't pertinent, not least because were the warning issued by the Archangel Gabriel himself, the paranoid and the partisan would still find a way to assume and ascribe the worst possible motives. Such an assumption of bad faith would be unfortunate in the circumstances, don't you think? Since it would add to the problem rather than diminishing it. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has been repeatedly noted across the wiki over time, the availability of admins who have not been involved in addressing Giano's conduct is a rapidly shrinking pool. So, no, at least not many.--Tznkai (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me cut the Gordian knot here. FT2 has posted his rationale for FT2's block of Giano on WP:AE. If you agree with it, but not agree on the who, undo and then redo the block yourself.--Tznkai (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, I have no problem with FT2's actions - I have problems with Fred Bauder posting on Giano's page for the same reason for David Gerard's earlier block; they are neither well disposed toward Giano or evidently capable of acting neutrally with regard to this editor. I am only questioning their capability in continuing to hold such offices if this is the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are making less sense now. What office? If someone wrongly warns, then the warning can safely be ignored. The warning is a note of what might happen, it is either correct or it is not.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Senior Wikipedian"? Fred Bauder(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) was legal counsel prior to Mike Godwin, and still has some flags (he doesn't register on the Rights option, because his tools were conferred before the record was set up). My exact point is that warnings or actions made incorrectly by certain persons are not ignored because of the gravitas connected to that account - and no matter what past interaction has occurred between the parties. What purpose other than raising the likelihood of further disruption did this warning achieve, since Giano was aware of the possible consequences of his recent comments? FT2 handled it properly, no warnings needed because of the existing parole. Fred was, in my opinion for the reasons given, trolling - and that makes me trolled - and that is not proper conduct for an admin, ex Arb and (ex?) CU. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was warning someone trolling. Now you are adding personal insults to your assumptions of bad faith and ad homium arguments. Enough. The sooner Giano wakes and blanks this the better.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the other edits FT2's block was based on, and have not evaluated them yet, alhough I assume there is a valid basis for it. I posted a warning because of the edit I linked to. I do not monitor Giano's edits on a regular basis and am not engaged in a vendetta against him. I did make the first proposal to ban him for incivility a couple of years ago. The arbitration committee in its wisdom chose other remedies. I am simply following up on a longstanding problem. I can understand his displeasure but am secure in my own knowledge that any action I have taken or advocated taken was done to advance the welfare of Wikipedia, which cannot function well in an atmosphere of incivility. BTW, I was never legal counsel for Mediawiki. FredTalk16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for 55 hours for a range of actions and posts that you know well are completely unacceptable, and in breach of your Arbitration restriction. To save duplication, and to avoid posting to your page more than minimally (as you have requested), I have posted this at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#Giano II.
Greetings. What would be the best way to hold a private conversation with you? I don't want to lecture or scold you; I just want to hear what you have to say about things. --harej03:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Arbcom has finally decided to see the big picture and address the real problem
I thought I was being ignored, but it seems that Arbcom has actually read my statement and is acting accordingly. In case you didn't read it:
I am shocked that the committee show no willingness to accept this case. This is a unique chance to make it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.
Some of these overusers of article space resources even go to great lengths to motivate themselves (and others of similar inclinations) by employing humour. This may be acceptable in some open source or open content projects, but not in Wikipedia. (A common misconception, resulting from the fact that not all infractions can be persecuted, is that humour is allowed within reason.) We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system. Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.
Checkusering as a means of intimidation is already a standard response to POV pushing and random article defacements. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a much more dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. It needs to be treated in the same way. I am concerned that Arbcom, unlike our checkusers, are not seeing the big picture. I urge the committee to accept the case and set an example. If the committee is afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[100]
Calling Will Beback, who had more than in his fair share in the general Giano-baiting a troll is a block reason.
A funny in-character remark by an obvious over-the-top humorous sock puppet is a block reason.
Trying to further fill article space is a block reason, although it can still not be said openly and therefore the fact that you got distracted again must be used as a cover. Protesting against the apparent cluelessness of Arbcom (our first instance for complaints against abusive checkuser use), for rejecting a case and referring you to the Ombudsmen, who don't have the right to pursue the matter of punitive checkusering is a block reason.
Protesting against firm measures against article space overuse is a block reason.
An even funner in-character remark by the same obvious over-the-top humorous sock puppet is of course an even better block reason.
The reason I am blocked is because they knew I was about to put my name forward and run against them for Arbcom. Simple as that. Happy editing to you all. Giano (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can even take over FT2's role as drafter of Arbcom verdicts that are so secret that even some of the arbitrators don't know about them. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You recent comments on various pages have been quite angry and unfriendly. [102][103][104][105][106][107][108] You have the right to be angry, but this kind of comments doesn't help. Random accusations only cause more anger. If you despise some users, please just stay away from them. Yes, even if they did something bad to you. I know you write good articles. Continue with that and try to avoid the fighting. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this kind of baiting is just what's required. Perhaps we'd be better asking ourselves what Gerard was trying to obfuscate in the election by precipitating such an obvious dramafest. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He means that titling such a request to talk, "Your recent hateful comments" is probably counterproductive to the stated aim of initiating civil discourse. S.D.D.J.Jameson17:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You either haven't got a clue of what's going on. The accusations are not random; Giano has very good reasons for making them. The problem is currently that certain users do not stay away from Giano, e.g. block him for absurd reasons. And any attempt to convince Giano to tone down his language that does not show a certain minimum amount of intelligence and awareness of the background is doomed.
I think this dispute is infected because of too much history, so I'm trying to go back to the basics of dispute resolution. Giano was throwing accusations in all kinds of directions. I was trying to talk with him about it as an uninvolved editor that don't have a history with him. Unfortunately this turned into a general debate instead. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joopercoopers makes an excellent point. Just what was Gerard trying to do? He was either incompetent and out of touch, or else he took action under the thinnest of rationales that he knew would explode. And now sits there 'who me?' with all his little arbcom buddies backing him up, just like last time. Either way he shouldn't be an admin. People aren't given admin powers to bait with. --Duk17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to find somewhere else to discuss if his comments are "hateful" or "angry", etc etc, rather than do it on Giano's page. He hasn't edited since he wished us all "happy editing" above, and I strongly doubt he's even aware he is now unblocked. Bishonen | talk19:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Help me understand why Giano is so popular that he has a whole movement of Wikipedians around him. I have just posted several negative comments about Giano so maybe you don't believe me, but I really want to figure it out. I understand I stepped into too deep water. I knew the drama about Giano was big and complicated, but I had no idea how much. I thought I could help as an editor not involved in the top-level drama of Wikipedia. I guess this is far too big for meditation. I see now that over 300 people supported him for ArbCom last year, many of them very respectable editors. All of them cannot be just plain wrong. I am trying to understand this.
Giano writes good articles, but that alone doesn't give you a fanclub. In the real world, even a doctor that saved thousands of peoples lives would still get a fine for shoplifting. People wouldn't call for the the cop who wrote the fine to be fired.
"Giano says it like it is." I see him calling Deskana "the most uninformed arbitrator in history". Is Deskana widely hated and somebody just had to say it? Is Will Beback widely known to be an annoying troll and somebody had to say it to his face? How about this comment to Pcap calling his fully reasonable AfD nomination "attention seeking antics"?
Rather it seems like Giano is the central figure of a fight against abuse by admins, arbcom, checkusers, Jimbo and whoever. Is this kind of abuse a big problem? Why isn't this discussed somewhere on Wikipedia? I know it's discussed on Wikipedia Review, but the good posts there are hidden in a sea of conspiracy theories and people who just hate the whole idea behind Wikipedia.
My theory at the moment is that many people feel that there is a cabal (Jimbo, ArbCom, many old admins) dominating Wikipedia and Giano is the only one who dares to stand up against their abuse. He seems to present himself as the one who fights back of all the innocent victims who were scared to silence. Is this true? Is there such a cabal, or did I misunderstand?
It's been mentioned as a joke, but how about writing a page at WP:GIANO that explains the situation? Currently, he is kind of a hidden minefield to new users and especially to admins who don't keep up with the drama. Just look at the number of admins who blocked him and got bitten for it. I just can't believe that all of them are in conspiracy and out to get him.
Giano is welcome to answer himself if he wants to. If I should just stay out of this, tell me clearly and I probably will. Letting the higher-ups deal with this just hasn't worked very well the past two years. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend you find a different forum. If you need someone to tell you to stay out of this, here it is: stay out of this. S.D.D.J.Jameson21:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have negotiated with SlimVirgin by email and she has agreed to not reverse any block I make of you. In turn, I have agreed to carefully consider the edits the recent block by FT2 was based on in their context before making a decision. The discussion is here. I expect to spend several days looking at the edits and considering the appropriateness of a block. FredTalk21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reblocking for an "offense" days after said offense would be punitive, which blocks should not be, according to policy. S.D.D.J.Jameson12:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure there is a community consensus that this is what policy says, but I agree with you, and so does WP:AE#Enforcement: "ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive." I think the only coercive effect that we can expect from a late block in this case would be that Giano might decide to leave the project. But the proper way to achieve that would be by banning Giano. Mobbing him because there is no consensus for a ban is not acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, wholeheartedly. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Waiting a few days makes it clearly the latter. What exactly are you "considering", Fred? And why have you suddenly come back to open old wombs wounds? Long-time hard feelings are what started this particular mess, we don't need more old hard feelings making things worse. Tex (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would it prevent? Nearly every statement you've made thus far has given me great pause as to whether you are a neutral observer in any way. S.D.D.J.Jameson14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the deepest possible respect to her late ladyship, Lady Catherine's[109] womb must have been rather old, if she did in fact have such a bodily part, and at her age a block for more than a month would not be unprecedented. Multiple wombs would indeed be most unlikely. Thincat (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giacomo? I haven't been able to contact you. Please note that midnight UTC today is the cutoff line for you to enter an ArbCom candidacy! You do know you're unblocked, right? Bishonen | talk23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Based on this analysis I have determined that a one month block is appropriate enforcement of the civility parole you are under. It will be imposed after the arbitration committee election.suspended if you run for arbitrator and be commuted if you are appointed. FredTalk18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since he has not edited since his original block, I think extending the block to one month is quite draconian. Giano had no part in overturning the block, that was solely the action of SlimVirgin. As well, engaging in political chicken by pressuring him to run for ArbCom as a way to avoid a sanction is not wise. I ask you to rethink using this approach to solve your issue with SlimVirgin's controversial use of her tools. FloNight♥♥♥18:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Deal with Slim, and send out a strong message that parole blocks will generally stick from now on. Then let Giano reflect on the fact that he has not got immunity, and if he does push the envelope again there will be blocks. That fact will hopefully cause him to argue his points in a different tone. Frankly this looks a bit like forcing someone to run for office to avoid jail. We don't want Giano blocked - but we do want there to be an understanding across the community that there are real consequences going forward when arbom paroles are ignored.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, I will consider it. No block has been intituted at this time. I have discussed the matter with SlimVirgin, but not the duration and terms of this block. FredTalk19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From this consultation on Giano's culpability and background I cannot help but perceive that we seem to be acting here as more of a court and less as a group of Administrators taking action to protect the project from disruption. (Fred in particular strikes me as functioning here as a magistrate rather than as an Administrator.) This in turn suggests to me that we are taking measures that are predominately penal rather than primarily preventative. Would such a reading be mistaken? AGK19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is preventive. For one month Giano will be prevented from engaging in destructive incivility. That is the point. FredTalk19:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A block performed in this manner, from these quarters, would escalate both tension and drama. There is no point in such a block, other than to punish, which blocks are not intended to do. The only thing such a block would be preventing is the creation of excellent content. S.D.D.J.Jameson19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, it should surely be obvious by now that this lot are the disruption. Unless some people are talking to each other behind the scenes and they got some pretty good plan to crush Giano and his followers once and for all, this is just another crazy piece of self-righteous counter-productive drama inducing chest-puffing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be kidding me. (1)What authority does Fred have to impose this one month block? (2)Who afforded him this authority? He's certainly not an arb anymore. (3)What is keeping any sane admin from exerting his/her authority to undo this ill-conceived month long block? Seriously, Fred, you don't get to make this call on your own. You are not working on the behalf of the arbcom, so your word does not mean anything more than the thousand other admins. You have a history with Giano, so you shouldn't be the one to do this. This place is getting more and more ridiculous. Tex (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the responsibility of any adminitrator who is aware of Giano's behavior to enforce the civility parole Giano is subject to. Civility is not a guideline. It is policy, indeed "Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles", see Wikipedia:Civility. FredTalk03:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the accusations towards FT2 and David Gerard are relevant to Giano's block. There's no grand conspiracy here. I support the block, and I'm uninvolved in this matter. I'm rarely on IRC, and I'm not involved in the ongoing "Giano drama". However, I do participate regularly as an administrator handling arbitration enforcement, and as such, the situation here is pretty clear: An editor, Giano II, who is subject to an ArbCom civility restriction, violated that restriction multiple times, and ignored multiple warnings. Administrator Fred Bauder (talk·contribs) reviewed the diffs and determined that an ArbCom enforcement block is appropriate. I agree with this course of action, especially as some of the comments which Giano made were clear violations of WP:CIVIL. I apply a simple test: If the comments were made by a brand new editor, would they plausibly result in a civility block? To some of the comments, the answer is a clear, "Yes, someone would have been blocked for that kind of language." Or in other words: If it's uncivil from a new editor, it's uncivil from an established editor, too.
One way that Giano II could really help his case here though, would be to simply acknowledge the ArbCom restrictions that have been placed on him, and promise to abide by them in the future. If he were to promise that he was going to treat other editors with civility, and that he was going to try to get back to content creation and improvement, rather than spending the majority of his time on these other peripheral activities, I would support waiving the block altogether. Giano, if this is acceptable to you, would you please put your agreement in your own words? Thanks, --Elonka23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly be a start, although I would not forgo the block altogether. I am not that comfortable with a one month block, but that is what is called for by the offenses committed. We could just restore the original 55 hour block. However, I'm not sure that would make the required impression. The massive incivility and gaming must stop. If Giano wants to work with us on the problem, that would be a different matter. FredTalk00:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you become tired of reading architecture books, I suggest "The Oxford Book of Humorous Prose". You may want to pick up a hard copy - it is ~1000 pages and my soft cover edition is starting to fall apart. It has excerpts from well-known authors and from a large number of unknown (to me) authors that I subsequently acquired books by. I would probably otherwise never heard of the "Diary of a Nobody" and "The Life and Death of Rochester Sneath." And, I find it hard to believe that Amanda Ros was neither playing a joke nor the pen-name of some other writer.
Here is a description from Amazon:
Focusing primarily on the 19th and 20th century, but with material dating back to Columbus, this volume is packed with an amazing range of comic material is--from the gentle, charming comedy of manners, to biting satire, to outrageous parody.
There are excerpts from the novels of Jane Austen, P.G. Wodehouse and Mark Twain, complete short stories by O. Henry and Frank O'Connor, classic tall tales from Australia, passages from Groucho Marx's correspondence with Warner Brothers, a selection of Samuel Johnson's comic definitions, plus a sprinkling of egregious puns and witty sayings. Muir has gathered work from over two hundred writers and from every English-speaking country. Virtually all of your favorites are here: Jonathan Swift, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Laurence Sterne, Anita Loos, Dorothy Parker, S.J. Perelman, Damon Runyon, Fran Lebowitz, Joseph Heller, Evelyn Waugh, Garrison Keilor, Erma Bombeck, Tom Wolfe, and countless others. In addition, there are comic pieces from writers you wouldn't expect to find--such as Thomas Hardy or Lawrence Durrell--and many writers you may not have discovered yet.
Thank you Fred, a huge surprise to no one, you are in fact symbolic of all I consider odious about Wikipedia. Anyway enough of Fred, if it were not for him, and his "solutions" I would never have become a political Wikipedia animal.
I have always been reluctant to publicise quite how badly run the project is, as I have hesitated to damage it. However, over the last week or so my enemies have taken their gloves off as it became apparent I was a threat to them. I now no longer see a reason to protect a project that continually seeks to harm those that build it. In fact, what I am about to say will hopefully reform it. I have told no-one the true reason I despise the Arbcom with such venom, but now is the time to tell.
A mighty cover up has occurred over the last year, shortly after the last elections - I discovered that on December 7 2007 David Gerard had oversighted damaging and distasteful edits made by FT2, had he not done so it is impossible that FT2 would have been elected to Arbcom. Those of you who have been here a while will know of their joint involvement in IRC and the Wikimedia UK project, and also of course Gerards's prior attempts to get checkuser access for FT2 (before FT2 was elected to arbcom), it seems they work hand in glove, and last years Arbcom elections were to be no exception.
Over the last year I have known this, but been unable to prove it, I have been stonewalled wherever I turned and found myself unable to trust anybody. FT2 and Gerard were untouchable and had me blocked at every opportunity. Sometimes as you all know the fury inside me bubbled over a little, now you all know why. Especially when Gerard tried to find out my private real life details, so I hope Thatcher now understands why I was quite so angry.
A week or so ago I obtained positive proof that Gerard had indeed tampered with FT2's edits during the election with an invalid oversight reason outside of policy, especially as they pertained to a subject about which FT2 was being questioned during his campaign for Arbcom. So basically Gerard and FT2 are disgraced and and FT2 is an Arb by fraud. I have known that for a year, now all of you know it. I don't know how many of the other Arbs, checkusers etc knew of it, but I find it hard to believe they were only two in on the secret. So that is why I distrust Gerard and FT2 and view the rest of them with mistrust.
With regard to the run for Arbcom or be blocked threat, I would not run for Arbcom now if Bauder paid me $10 million. Some of us like to chose the company we keep. Oh and just in case anyone is doubting what I have said here, the oversighted diffs are 4559833 and 4557792. If this post here is oversighted I shall post it on Wikipedia Review.
I wish all the new Arbcom candidates a huge amount of luck we now know how much they will need, I have no reason to believe it will be a clean fight. I have no way of knowing what my future is here, or if I have one. It rather depends on how good Wikipedia is at introspection and honesty. Neither qualities at which it excels. Giano (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A block performed in this manner, from these quarters, would escalate both tension and drama. There is no point in such a block, other than to punish, which blocks are not intended to do. The only thing such a block would be preventing is the creation of excellent content. S.D.D.J.Jameson19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the one who might get blocked (noting is sure with wiki-politics), how about you answer the many questions about your own behaviour instead of more conspiracy theories? What you just said could be interesting and since some people will believe anything you say it will have to be investigated. But if it turns out to be a lie, or a huge exaggeration of something insignificant, what will you do then? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave. What you're doing now is nothing more than baiting him. You're certainly contributing nothing useful. S.D.D.J.Jameson19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to my request that Apoc stop baiting Giano, I'd refer you to the diffs in the history of this page where Apoc has done little more than stir the pot. S.D.D.J.Jameson20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, this is old news and thoroughly boring except to the chattering classes at wikipedia review. Really, using this insane conspiracy theory paranoia as a smokescreen to distract from the quite reasonable request for a little more civility ill becomes you. So, FT2 has some strange interests which might disturb more conservative wikipedians? Guess what? I don't care. I'd probably not want to socialise with him, but that's my attitude to most wikipedians. I stopped caring about the wikisoap opera a long time ago. And as I've said elsewhere, you are bright, literate and amusing - why, oh, why, do you insist on the paranoid wacky act, and focusing on triviality that doesn't matter. You are capable of so much better.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It checks out and I never heard of it. and I'm not sure what to make of it. However, the issue with Giano is repeated destructive incivility. That is what the block is about. To prevent continuance of his behavior. FredTalk19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, you have a COI w/Gianno, having previously threatened attempted to ban him from the arbcom pages and a long history of personal conflict. You shouldn't sit as judge, jury and executioner on this one. And this shouldn't have to be explained to you. --Duk20:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. My efforts as an arbitrator with respect to Giano do not create a conflict of interest. That I have always thought a lengthy, even indefinite ban, was appropriate is neither here nor there. I am simply carrying out an arbitration committee decision as an administrator. We have seldom encountered on another while editing, and when we have there has been little conflict. FredTalk20:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but yes. A few easy clicks brought me to all I needed to know about the late, great IRC case. That you could think you could evaluate (or "analyze", if you will) this situation without the color of bias, after what I observed in the diffs of that case is very strange to me. You're clearly not an unbiased admin in this instance, which is what is necessary. And the very fact that you felt that a 1-month ban would do anything other than escalate drama and punitively deal with the situation further illustrates this point. S.D.D.J.Jameson20:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the is this? What strange interests? Oversight is not to be used for political purposes, nor to sanitize contribution histories for public relations purposes. What's going on here? JehochmanTalk20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If its the same stuff Peter Damian went on about, its probably related to some edits to an article about a particularly... unusual sexual proclivity. Not sure that it really is all that important to arbitration matters, to FT2, David Gerard, or Giano if that is what its about. A strange time to bring it up, to my mind. Avruch T 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual proclivities? Well, to each his or her own, but my question is quite singular. Has oversight been used to remove edits that could potentially have been embarrassing? Yes, or no? JehochmanTalk21:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am behind. Do you have a link to this document? Who was the one performing the improper Oversighting? What, if anything was Giano's involvement at that time? JehochmanTalk21:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have known for some time that some edits were oversighted. I did not know by whom; Giano claims it was Gerard and I have no reason to doubt him. Giano had no involvement in the oversight matter at the time, his standing appears to be that FT2 and Gerard are close friends and cover for each other, and therefore FT2's block of Giano for incivility, which was provoked by Gerard's block of Giano, is inappropriate. Thatcher21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first airing of this particular issue, Jehochman, just FYI. "The Land Surveyer" above has been blocked more than once for harassment because of this issue and his pursuit of FT2. Avruch T 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, your ban (enacted by Jimbo Wales) is still in force. You were advised to keep your head down and stay out of the drama and perhaps no one would block you again if you resumed editing. I assume from your participation here that you have declined that advice? Avruch T 21:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If somebody has been harassing FT2, I am more than happy to block them, and my blocks generally stand up to scrutiny better than most. JehochmanTalk21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From reading this incredibly fragmented narrative (here and on WR, and WR public archives) that appears to be what Fred is confirming. I think. who cares what someone does or is "into" or whatever? It has no relevance on anything, outside morality doesn't have any business here on that kind of crap. But hiding edits to affect the elections? That's not good. rootology (C)(T) 21:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[to Harrisson] And I say exactly the same. It's nothing to do with anything except improper oversight. And if you look at my contributions to Wikipedia Review, they concern mostly that issue (that and my problem with Neurolinguistic programming but that is an entirely unrelated matter. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If oversight was used to remove contributions, simply because they were inexpedient politically, action should be taken quickly. It really is as simple as that. S.D.D.J.Jameson21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been improper oversighting, could we please get an Oversighter to check that out, and if true, simply un-oversight the edits and let everyone look at them? JehochmanTalk21:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do people not realize that coverups attract attention? The best way to resolve such a situation is with bright sunshine. Just let people look at the stuff, and they will see it is probably not as bad as they imagine, and then the drama will die down. JehochmanTalk21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valid point for cover jobs generally, but I don't think you can assume that is what happened in this case. We don't have input from oversighters or the folks involved at this point, nor are we really likely to in the immediate future, so making judgments in the absence of facts is probably a bad idea. If oversighting was done for the purposes of "cleaning up" an edit history, I think that is a problem and something that should be reviewed against the oversight policy, but lets not get ahead of ourselves or let this new allegation overshadow the work to be done on all the other recent drama. Avruch T 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important for these facts to come out sooner, rather than later. First, if anyone involved in the current election has been involved in a cover up, then those facts need to be known now. Second, if there has been retaliation against Giano II a part of a coverup, that needs to be known before any further sanctions on Giano are considered. If Giano has been making false accusations, that would be particularly relevant to current discussions about his sanctions. I am not assuming anything at this point. I'd just like to get hold of the facts. JehochmanTalk21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely concur in all respects. If Giano has been targeted in some way because of this, that needs dealt with quickly. If he's making unfounded accusations (which, based upon the "open secret" comment, seems highly unlikely) that needs dealt with as well. S.D.D.J.Jameson21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding the the oversight log expires on the same timeframe as the checkuser log, so data from a year ago would probably be unavailable. MBisanztalk21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't actually particularly bad, and I have often maintained this and I get irritated when I get this 'harassment' tag. The point was they were oversighted during the election, moreover they were oversighted after I was requested to provide diffs to them. That's the part that really rankles. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oversighted edits can not be restored except by a developer, and it is a lot of work. Oversighted edits can not even be seen by other editors with oversight, the log only tells that something was removed and the reason (if one was given) but not the removed content itself. (If I recall correctly.) Thatcher21:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how does one prevent such things as what happened during FT2's run from happening? Open secret or no, I find such use of a sensitive tool very disconcerting. S.D.D.J.Jameson21:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs sunshine, real quick now. I'd like to belive this is all a misunderstanding. Get the material out there, and a full explanation of the circumstances. Then if it's nothing, it's nothing. Tom HarrisonTalk21:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is bullshit. From what I gather, FT2 posted some stuff to wikipedia, which he later regretted as it gave away a little to much about his interests. He asked Gerard to remove it. Gerard did. So bloody what? This has sod all to do with Giano, unless one uses the same nonsensical barking paranoid conspiracy-theory mindset that is frankly poisoning wikipedia. Grow up. Say "Encyclopedia" and work back from there. Giano has been told to be civil or face a block, he is repeatedly uncivil, and he gets blocked. Now he can suggest the blocks have to do with some vast arbcom led conspiracy - and perhaps he can deceive the gullible and rabble rouse the blatantly drama-addicted - but the reality is that he's blocked for flaunting basic stuff like WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. As I've said before, there is a monumental, destructive and (I suspect) deliberate failure to assume good faith here, and the sooner people stop getting off on it and snap out of it the better.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)@Scott Brilliant! You fail to Assume good faith of Jehochman, resort to personal attack, fail to comply with civility and then lecture on Giano's repeated incivility. You sound a little wound up - there's a reason, but there is for Giano too. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] And it is amusing that you say "FT2 posted some stuff to wikipedia, which he later regretted as it gave away a little to much about his interests. He asked Gerard to remove it. Gerard did." and then talk about 'absurd' conspiracy theories. What you say is precisely the conspiracy we are talking about. Plus the conspiracy to cover the oversight up, which implicates nearly every member of the current Arbcom (I too have nice collection of emails stored away). The Land Surveyor (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple Scott. Assuming that what Giano says is true, and that he's perceiving things correctly, then the whole chain of provocations, sanctions and blocks against Giano over the last year take on a very different meaning that what we conventionally understand. If there is a group of users trying to silence or discredit Giano, that is very relevant information to know. Of course, if Giano is making this up, that is also very relevant information because the sanctions might need to be that much stronger to prevent further disruption. JehochmanTalk22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano is quite entitled to say what he chooses. He is sanctioned for the manner in which he repeatedly says it. He continually twists this into a "silencing", but that's crap. No one could silence Giano, and no one is trying. Where is the evidence that anyone is trying to "silence Giano"? There is none, whilst there is plenty evidence of continued incivility and attacks. Really, it is simply not possible to get Giano off the hook by blaming a conspiracy, even if everything he says here is true (which I rather suspect it may be). This is a typical Giano smokescreen - and if it has any merit and any grounds to be investigated - it does not detract from the "Giano problem" which is quite seperate.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You believe that Giano's story is true? If so, then we need to know if the person Checkusering Giano or the person blocking Giano have been involved in any sort of Oversight abuse surrounding WP:ACE2007. I think that all the facts need to be known to resolve this matter finally. None of this excuses Giano from observing the rules himself, of course, but we do normally give people leeway when they have been subjected to intense provocation. JehochmanTalk22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not agree that the entire Committee is to blame. I think that Newyorkbrad, to name one, is somebody I'd trust to investigate and resolve this matter. JehochmanTalk22:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having urged many times that Giano be blocked for his persistent incivility, I am not now conspiring with my longtime buddies Jehochman and Rootology to keep Giano from being blocked. To the extent that I care at all about Giano, on any given day I'm more inclined to block him than not. But I care a lot if oversight was used to make it easier for people to support FT2 for arbcom. That concern remains, with or without Giano. Tom HarrisonTalk22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given our nominal history from days gone by (considering my unloading on you in epic fashion with a very nasty zinger on ANI two years ago led in part to my long vacation), I think it would be preposterous for anyone to suggest some weird pro-Giano insurgency between us. rootology (C)(T) 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The oversights took place. That can be proved without any sophisticated tools
That they concerned edits by fT2 - that has been confirmed privately by a number of senior Wikipedians.
That Jimbo, Cary Bass and WJBScribe knew about this at the time (i.e. second week of December 2007). That too has been confirmed. I have all the details if anyone asks.
What we DON'T know is who oversighted them. That is the only news here.
Okay, if something happened, how is it relevant to Giano's current conflicts with ArbCom members and associated parties? Can somebody explain that? JehochmanTalk21:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does "positive proof that Gerard had indeed tampered with FT2's edits during the election with an invalid oversight reason outside of policy" come to be in Giano's possession anyway? Presumably that information can only come from oversight logs. So on one hand we have allegations of one oversighter doing a favor for a friend. On the other we have another oversighter leaking logs to, presumably, a friend. Love it. Rockpocket21:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get Thatcher then. What is key, now that the matter is 'completely' open, is who performed the oversight. You surely see how the Gerard/FT2 connection matters. If FT2, who did not have oversight permission at the time, persuaded Gerard to do it, that matters a lot. Or does someone need to explain that one? The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(doing my own research) What I gather is that Giano was investigating what he viewed as a corrupt use of Oversight to sway the WP:ACE2007 election. In order to discourage and discredit him, the parties involved in that cover up have been arranging for him to be blocked and sanctioned. That's a serious accusation, and very troubling if it is true. JehochmanTalk21:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Thatcher said, there are few "verifiable facts" to be found when the logs are limited to begin with and expired in any case. There is a wide range of edits that oversighters consider within their remit to delete, and not much consensus between them or even knowledge of what other oversighters remove (I take this understanding from a series of threads on foundation-l and wikien-l awhile back between oversighters). The uncertainty makes it impossible to prove or disprove the allegations without relying on someones word. Avruch T 21:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now someone needs to confirm whether Gerard was involved. It is established beyond doubt that Jimbo and Bass know that some edits were oversighted. Someone must be able to confirm whether or not Gerard was involved. The Land Surveyor (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch, what are you talking about? It is established beyond doubt that the oversights took place. Email me for the documents if you want. The question is WHO????? The Land Surveyor (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Oversights took place" is far different than describing what the removed edits actually said, or why they were removed. In any case, I suspect that since you have been blocked indefinitely by thebainer you won't be returning to this conversation. I tried to warn you before that happened... Avruch T 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody would be stupid enough to think that blocking Giano would silence him. Come on, this is the internet! As far as we know, Giano may have made a wild guess that Gerard made the oversight. We need to check if it's true. I have asked Gerard on his talk page to comment. He just replied that he cannot come here since he has promised ArbCom to stay away from Giano. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it checksout. Never dispute my facts, and as I have often said I never ask a question unless I know the answer. You have elected a fraudulent Arb and appear to have an Arbcom governed by David Gerard. Ar you happy with that? It's a rhetorical question as I'm going to bed now - Have a nice evening all of you. Giano (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't silence somebody, then you can discredit them. You'll notice that I used the conjunction "or" meaning one or the other: "silence or discredit". If you can't make somebody shut up you can try to convince the world that they are not to be believed. JehochmanTalk22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be extremely surprised that a low-traffic, high-sensitivity log such as the oversight log would be allowed to expire, considering the legal ramifications oversight actions carry. The checkuser logs are purged because they are traffic logs, so they get extremely large very quickly. Oversights are less rare than deletions, yet we log all deletions anyways, so unless there is a different reason the oversight log is pruned, I don't see why it would be. Somebody needs to contact a developer to confirm that, as I don't see anything on Extension:Oversight mentioning anything about log expiry. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That the logs expire doesn't imply that the information is lost – it's just no longer available online. After a year it's unlikely to be needed, so it's not normally a problem, and not having sensitive information online has obvious advantages. (This opinion is not based on any inside knowledge.) --Hans Adler (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, an edit FT2 made to Zoophilia was oversighted. This caused it to appear that substantial changes made to the article by FT2 had been made by an IP editor. I can vouch for this as I saw the diffs before and after they were oversighted.
Much later (summer?) I inquired of an Arbitrator (not FT2) as to who did the oversight. At the time the question was not answerable, as the oversight log was broken. I believe the log is now fixed.
Fred Bauder has confirmed that Gerard oversighted the edits.
It is my understanding that the oversight log shows that a revision was deleted and if a reason was given, but that once removed, the content can only be viewed by a developer. Therefore someone investigating alleged misuse of oversight can verify the fact that something was oversighted, but can not independently determine what it was. As Avruch says, this makes it difficult to have meaningful review of the oversight function.
On Giano
Giano had no involvement that I am aware of in the dispute between FT2 and The Land Surveyor, although Giano and The Land Surveyor appear to be on good terms with each other.
David Gerard blocked Giano for entering his sockpuppet Lady Catherine deBurgh in the arbcom elections.
FT2 blocked Giano for incivility, largely for comments Giano made in reaction to the Gerard block.
Everything else is speculation and conspiracy theories. Obviously a significant number of the upper echelon (present and former arbitrators, mostly) have tried to coerce Giano into changing his behavior. I do not believe this is due to his support for The Land Surveyor or his knowledge of the oversighted edits. I also do not think Surveyor's opposition to FT2's candidacy would have swayed the election if the edits had not been oversighted. The whole "wikipedia is not censored" thing carries a lot of weight with most people, and just because Surveyor objects to much of FT2's content editing does not mean his objections would have carried weight with the voters. But those are just my opinions. Thatcher23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Thatcher, for helping Wikipedia get back to work. I am satisfied with that explanation. Others can make of it what they will. I have no further questions. JehochmanTalk23:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What explanation? Was the oversight per policy, or were embarrassing edits 'disappeared' by Gerard to aid his buddy's arbcom candidacy? It's starting to look like the latter. --Duk00:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a matter of opinion, I was sticking to facts (as I believe them to be true) to clarify some of the misunderstandings above. I don't pretend to have all the answers. And the opinion that matters is Arbcom, since they hand out and can remove oversight access. You might want to address your concerns to the candidates, and to Arbcom itself (although I doubt they will address the broader issue of who oversights oversight until January). Thatcher00:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have another question. Giano says "A week or so ago I obtained positive proof that Gerard had indeed tampered with FT2's edits during the election with an invalid oversight reason outside of policy" (my italics). Assuming he means that literally, and it is not bombast, that would appear only to be possible if one had direct access to the oversight log. Since the issue is alleged misuse of oversight privileges, it concerns me that Giano has access to them. The question is: if Giano is telling the truth, which person with oversight capability is providing him with logs? Rockpocket00:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.
Thanks for the details, but I still have a couple of unanswered questions about the facts:
1) Did the oversight follow the [wp:over] policy?
This feature is approved for use in three cases:
Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
Removal of copyright infringement, on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
2) Did the reason given for the oversight match with the oversight itself?
3) If the oversight did not follow policy, what rationale was given for it?
My question is this: with the facts what they are, separated neatly by Thatcher from conjecture, how are these series of accusations not libelous? Look at the entirely predictable public hoopla. This kind of behavior is against relevant norm and policy we hold dear. Irresponsibly attacking other editors' reputations, as Giano has done here is not, and can not be tolerated. --Tznkai (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think different observers could come to different conclusions about that set of facts. For people to get along, they need to tolerate ambiguity. JehochmanTalk01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith means withholding one's opinion on such matters, especially while an editor sleeps. It may be that Giano believes all that he has asserted. Let's see how well he supports that and whether the evidence relates to his blocks. Last year the most pernicious part of the drama was a series of blocked and banned users who popped up to spread FUD. It should have been obvious enough then. It's obvious enough now: when an account only two weeks old makes accusations of this nature, either massive corruption and conspiracy have occurred or else this is a troll with a grudge. Fellow editors may browse the following and decide for themselves which way Occam's razor slices.[111][112][113] A year ago I was wrong. I was perfectly willing to admit the full extent of my errors and atone for them; I could have been persuaded to relicense the e-mail I had written in the interests of full disclosure. The one thing I would not do is bow to coercion. FUD got in the way before. It's time to learn from that and do better. Today Jehochman tossed potato chips down the bridge in the hope that a better glimpse of the green rubbery creature beneath might reveal a chip-eating bunny rabbit. Not a good idea; it's usually the other species. Giano will wake up soon enough and bring forth whatever evidence he has. He's a very articulate person; let his presentation stand or fall on its own merits. DurovaCharge!02:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Giano could have and I assume did, act in good faith to reveal what he felt was important corruption. He did it in a way that marred reputations or threatened to, fueled by a rumor mill, based all on conjecture. Even with good faith, this was negligent behavior. Malice is not required to cause damage.--Tznkai (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a brute force method of obtaining the material in Oversighted edits. It requires a lot of foresight and patience. Very few people bother to do it and it's an open question how trustworthy they are. If I were a betting woman, I'd estimate Giano has obtained information from some such person, and may challenge its comparison against the stated Oversight policy. That's pure conjecture, though. It remains to be seen what he actually has or what will transpire. DurovaCharge!04:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could simply obtain an archive from before the oversite was done, convert it to an SQL file, import it into mysql and then note any differences in the archive history of the zoophilia article from July 2004 with the current history of the zoophilia article from early July 2004. But that work would not be necessary as Fred Bauder has confirmed that David Gerard did in fact oversight the edits, and user Thatcher recalled seeing the diffs before and after they were oversighted. The movie Phantasm scared the hell out of me when I was younger, but I have no reason to doubt the word of Fred Bauder in this matter. Uncle uncle uncle05:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I prefer not to give away the show by spelling out the details. But it's not too hard to guess how these things can be done. Fred Bauder confirmed that an Oversight occurred; that's one fact. The oversight happened at a hot button topic. And let's be frank: FUD spreads more readily at any hot button topic. Now how much evidence has come forward to substantiate anything else that's been alleged? DurovaCharge!05:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was done can be confirmed. Why it was done seems to be left to the land of conjecture, unless somewhere in David Gerard's unsealed psychological profile is the line "compulsively uses access permissions to rig subvert Wikipedia democracy." Seriously, casting aspersions on the motives of editors, especially with the tabloid worthy supposed salacious details is irresponsible and unwarranted. If you like the editors so accused, you'll be skeptical. If you hate them, you'll feel vindicated. Other people in the middle will just gossip. The only probable consequence of these actions was the harm to reputation, and as irresponsible as accusing a teacher of sexual harassment based only on your dislike of that teacher.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems simple enough to ask what reason for the oversight is given in the log, and to ask if another oversighter can confirm it based on what was removed. Tom HarrisonTalk21:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that thr reason given was against policy, and furthermore that for the guardian of the Arbcom 's private mailing list to be tampering with a Arbcom candidiate's (and close friends) edits during an election is in my view more than unethical. Giano (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, by being the one to make these very serious allegations it becomes very fitting for you to substantiate them. These matters involve checkuser and the ArbCom mailing list--areas in which individuals you name are not at liberty to comment. A few months back another longstanding Wikipedian made serious allegations in a public forum regarding the ethics of someone who held a position of trust and was not at liberty to respond. In that instance an arbitration case resulted. Your misgivings about the Committee are well known. So if it's possible to resolve this on a community level please do so. Otherwise there are limited alternatives. Fiat decision by Jimbo? Perhaps an ad hoc panel appointed by the Foundation board? Please select your preferred venue and proceed there. DurovaCharge!22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, I think your concern is misplaced. Edits were oversighted -- I saw them. They were oversighted by Gerard -- Fred confirmed it. I would like to see Giano not advance wild conspiracy theories that his various blocks have been part of some scheme to target him due to this secret knowledge. But the oversights were made. I hope Arbcom is discussing Gerard's checkuser and oversight status, but I don't expect to find out about that for a while (if ever). Thatcher22:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the log give a reason for the oversights? Really, who would the community trust to tell the truth about this, if silence or a lie looked more useful to the project in the short term? Tom HarrisonTalk22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Not sure what concern you attribute to me, Thatcher. I haven't expressed any doubt of Fred's assurances. Quite the contrary; I've speculated how independent confirmation may be in Giano's possession. The concern I have isn't over whether Oversight occurred, but the importance Giano attributes to its use--specifically the allegations of conspiracy and coverup. DurovaCharge!22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one knows how these things come into my possession and no one ever will, for the simple reason if they did, they would soon stop coming and then the rest of you would soon stop knowing! Does that make sense. If an Arb or Oversighter (whatever they call themselves) gives you the reason, I will soon tell you if they are lying. OK? Giano (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking people to stop trusting others based on evidence you have, which you will not attest to in detail or source, and simply trust that you are telling the truth and you are doing so in good faith. This is of course immediately after you've declared how little you trust everyone else. Its hard, for me at least, to trust those so unwilling to do the same.--Tznkai (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to forget that both Fred Buader and Thatcher have since confirmed it is the trth. Were it not, I would not have posted it Giano (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not optimal, but based on recent en.wikipedia conspiracy history (Naked short selling, etc.]], I'm inclined to give giano the benift of the doubt at this time. It also appears, unfortunately, that we need this manner of gadfly intervention into the quiet processes that manage privacy, or appearant and actual abuse of the system goes on completely covered up. Skewing articles, driving away contributors, and making for an unpleasant environment for folks who enjoy this hobby. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does the naked short selling dispute lend itself to that conclusion? There wasn't a conspiracy. It was one rather clever and heartless sockpuppeteer who lied to everyone. And one of the reasons he retained the benefit of the doubt in some quarters as long as he did was because the tactics that were being used against him inspired division and distaste. Once the community settled down and tried our dispute resolution processes properly, real resolution occurred. Regular DR didn't achieve an instant and perfect solution, but it fared much better than two years of cloak-and-dagger. DurovaCharge!02:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the administrators who set off the 'drama instigator' had listened calmly to his concerns rather than blocking and protecting his userpage at the very first, then threatening and blocking everyone who tried to look into the dispute....it would not have taken two years to sort it out. It was pretty clear to me, even without reading the crap at the 'crazy people forum of whining and bad jokes' wrote that a coverup based on personal assurances was going on. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rocksanddirt, you have a point. Some of the administrators who were involved in that case from the early days have a habit of being quick to form an opinion and are not easily persuaded to revise the view afterward, even when weighty evidence is forthcoming. That has been very frustrating in other situations too. Haste and stubbornness may be personality flaws, but they aren't the same thing as corruption. MM was intelligent enough to figure out who to manipulate, and it sinks him further in my view to have seen how far he rode their reputations and how much grief their misplaced trust brought them. DurovaCharge!23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, I had been revising my opinion of you, but "It was one rather clever and heartless sockpuppeteer who lied to everyone." I will confess ot being "rather clever" but the rest is not true. And are you really the best person to be lecturing me on secrecy and evidence? Giano (talk)
Yes, I was referring to Mantanmoreland. Allow me to elaborate. Last fall a group of Wikipedians got into communication to do something about cyberstalking. I joined principally because at that time a website was displaying a recent photograph of my 74-year-old uncle captioned with his real name and a not very subtle hint to harass him in real life if I didn't stop editing Wikipedia. Mantanmoreland got in to that discussion about cyberstalking and both MM and his sock were demanding everyone else's attention and assistance. Several people had suspicions about his honesty. When confronted, he lied even more. One of the reasons people continued to extend good faith was because real issues of malware and IP harvesting surrounded his complaints. I wasn't involved in his case from the beginning--only from late summer 2007 onward. Yet I never saw deliberate conspiracy by anyone else. That man exploited a forum where people had real problems. We were there to protect our families--and MM lied to us all to further his business dispute. That is what I mean about clever and heartless. You are a very different person, Giano, and by no means was that phrase intended toward you.
FWIW, when I did see more credible evidence that MM may have been pulling a fast one, it was very easy to get a lot of cooperation in getting to the bottom of the matter. No one threatened to lock me in a crypt beneath Wall Street for breaking with The Cabal. And the evidence itself pointed to a single sockpuppeteer--the sock investigation during his RFC and arbitration all pointed to one guy, acting alone, who was rather good at socking and getting better. And rather skilled at blowing smoke and pushing buttons. DurovaCharge!22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, I am delighted to hear it. However, I am keen to archive this page because just up there above you is a long blue quote which I beleive amongst other things mentions safe sex with animals etc, and to be honest I would rather not have it here and am keen to archive. I know nothing of the Mantanmoreland case so will not be commenting on it. OK? Giano (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have emailed me asking why I rescinded acceptance of the apology offered by JWales - I know at least one speculative rumour is taking hold and I always believe the best way to deal with a rumour is clarify it or kill it. Here is the reason: The day after he apologised I received an email from JWales saying as he had apologised, I should to, to FT2, for spreading "vicious lies" about him. I wish it to be known this is completely untrue. I drew JWales attention to a thread on WR pointing out such allegations, true or not, were damaging to the project., and needed to be dealt with. A view I still hold. I shall not be apologising to FT2 so JWales may have his back. Most of us read that WR thread, that it took so long to be denied is/was rightly a private matter and decision for FT2, but that a huge rumour mill grew from that thread is not surprising and should have been anticipated. Belatedly dealing with it by wildly throwing out false accusations of spreading "vicious rumours" is unacceptable behaviour. I am not responsible in any way for the thread on WR and I have not spread rumour concerning FT2. The phrase I used in my initial email to JWales on the subject was "Whether it is all true or not, it needs sorting - and publicly sorting, fast." I stand by every word of that. I will not apologise to FT2 for drawing JWales' attention to a WR thread. If Jimbo and his colleagues are looking for a scapegoat, they must look elsewhere. If JWales and FT2 want rid of me, they must find just reason to ban me, I will not be driven off. Giano (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you are once again in violation of your civility parole. Your comments here were unacceptable. As such, I have blocked you for 55 hours, not only for this violation of your parole, but the other violations that were pointed out to you by FT2 here. Please use this time to take a break, and come back with the high quality contributions we know you are capable of. --Deskana(talk)22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Jimbo really did accuse Giano of involvement in an outing campaign on Wikipedia Review - something for which I have never seen any evidence, then I think Giano's response is understandable and the use of his civility parole to silence him inappropriate. I also agree with LessHeard, could you confirm that the committee is endorsing your block. Ideally this would have been done by a vote on Wiki, though I suppose it may have happened on the list. Which Arbs support this block? WJBscribe(talk)23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just dropping by to post the same, nearly verbatim. It would be difficult to remain civil in the face of an accusation of "outing" another editor. This block seems wrongheaded to me, especially given the fact that Giano has apparently washed his hands of the project. S.D.D.J.Jameson23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on agree. I don't think even Giano's worst enemies have ever accused him of outing editors on Wikipedia Review; if someone made an allegation like that about me, I'd be "uncivil" in my response, too. – iridescent23:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Props to User:WJBscribe for speaking up while he is a candidate at election. Deskana, while technically correct, I think this block is going to produce exactly the opposite of the desired results. When there are accusations of impropriety, immediately sanctioning the messenger is exactly the wrong response. I say this as a PR professional. JehochmanTalk23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the block. After having reviewed Giano's statement, I agree that it was an obvious violation of sanctions. Regardless of whether or not it was provoked, to respond with "stick it where the sun don't shine" is clearly uncivil. However, I also agree that the recent ArbCom ruling does require the approval of the Arbitration Committee. Then again, Deskana is an arbitrator, so my own good faith assumption is that Deskana is now consulting with the other members of the Arbitration Committee for confirmation of the block. If there is no consensus among the arbitrators about the block, then it should be lifted, and Deskana should be cautioned to not take further actions in regards Giano, without prior Committee approval. But pending other comments from arbs, I feel that the current action was appropriate. --Elonka23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This evening in an email Wales has said that Giano "aggressively
participates" in Wikipedia's outing campaigns. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I mean futher, I may have my faults but that is about as low as it gets, and I'm not that low. If he even bothered to look at WR I have even tried to protect his privacy there. My dislike of outing anyone is well known to several members of the Arbcom, this means that Wales is either a liar of fed by liars - so he is either a liar or a fool - I work for neither. Good luck to you all, but I'm out of here - Oh and Deskana you know what to do with block don't you? Giano (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any assertion that Giano is involved in outing is bullshit and that all posts I have seen by Giano to WR have strongly defended the rights of users to edit anonymously. I suspect most of us would lose our cool if such an accusation were made concerning us. WJBscribe(talk)23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WJB. While giano's language may have been intemperate, he's not wrong to be extremely angry and frustrated by the blase lumping of himself with the 'outers' at WR. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano has as of this moment only 117 posts to Wikipedia Review. There is a simple and effective search tool that lets you see all posts by a given member. I'd challenge anyone to find Giano outing people there. rootology (C)(T) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano - Would there be any way of letting us know in what context the email was sent? Was he directly accusing you of outing people, or was it to a third party? Of course, the mere suggestion of you outing someone is ridiculous - your feelings are too strongly against users that mount those types of campaigns. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the significance of this question? If Jimmy Wales issues a false statement about someone here, and it sticks, it's essentially a Wiki "death sentence". Even if Wales said that to someone else, or in another context, thats just not on. Even if he said it on the Arb list, it's still not appropriate if it's not true and Jimmy would be out of line for it. rootology (C)(T) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rootology. The only recourse from Mr. Wales statement is an unequivical retraction/appology for it. Otherwise, it is a form of wiki lynching (imo), rather than a death sentence. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point by you Ryan. If it was behind Giano's back, that's not on at all, even less than a direct accusation. Wales has no special right to slag people falsely. rootology (C)(T) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo also posted here that Giano was involved in a campaign to out FT2, which is quite false so far as I know. However, in Jimbo's defence, I think this is a case of him being badly advised. I hope he'll explain who told him Giano was outing people. SlimVirgintalk|edits00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(4) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin requires ArbCom assent to enforce a civility sanction that already has pretty much zero support, not the action of one Arbitrator (which was what created the need for the motion in the first place). An editor accused of outing is likely to feel aggrieved and act intemperately. I do not think this block is right or supported by policy. I have therefore unblocked Giano. WJBscribe(talk)23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of compassion, is there any reason that this couldn't have waited for you to gather more than an hour's worth of consensus building or for someone to speak on behalf of the committee to unblock in direct contravention of the OTHER relevant part of that motion?--Tznkai (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the approval discussion is supposed to happen before hand. the blocking admin was asked for a link to the discussion right away, and did not provide one. Hence, the assumption that the discusion did not occur. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole point of the motion was to require some sort of process before the block. What did blocking without following the motion do for encyclopedia building? The block was not valid without the approval, so I reversed it. If approval later arrives, Giano could be blocked again. I recognise, however, that ArbCom may now revoke my admin rights if they deem that appropriate, though I still think it right to undo an unjustified block. Do you interpret the motion as allowing them to remove my bureaucrat rights as well, or just the admin ones? As to encyclopedia building, I suspect that will benefit more from Giano's ability to write content than my admin tools. WJBscribe(talk)23:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the question I asked. I understand you are standing on the principle that the civility restriction is bad for the encyclopedia, that you believe that said restriction has no support, that you think that the block was invalid. The question was this: why the hell couldn't it wait? Why use one motion and ignore the other?--Tznkai (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any block outside of policy can be reversed by anyone under IAR, as blocks are not sacrosanct no matter who places them if they are improper. If Jimmy did falsely accuse Giano of some fictional malfeasance, then as WJB says there are extra circumstances at play here, making this (unfortunate) block nearly political and/or punative. As neither Jimmy nor any Arb nor the AC as a whole are empowered to do political or punative blocks, then this was a good move. Whats the point of letting a bad block stand? Admins don't serve at Jimmy's pleasure. rootology (C)(T) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a lot of conjecture and assumptions and ultimately irrelevant. I just want to know why this couldn't wait for the Committee to speak up or for a genuine community consensus to develop. Why couldn't it wait? I'm hoping its self evident why such speedy unblocks need their speed justified.--Tznkai (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WJBcribe, I have no opinion on whether the block was justified, having not looked into it. But the recent slim desysopping was all about a single admin setting himself/herself over the arbitration committee. An arb just blocked Giano, and I'm sure the committee would be informed and either undo or endorse. You setting yourself up as protector of process is precisely the type of loan-ranger admining we don't need. Well, congratulations, you just turned my probably election support into a strong oppose.--Scott Mac (Doc)00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think looking into it would have been a good starting point. The whole point of the ArbCom sanction was to stop unilateral blocks to apply so nebulous a sanction (it would of course had been better had theyl ifted it altogether). And actually, I wasn't thinking of the election when I acted - it just seems to me that ArbCom set up a set of rules one day and disregard them a few days later. WJBscribe(talk)00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a practical matter, WJBscribe could reverse his unblock and wait for clarification. I think that would be a safe move and would not hurt Giano at all, because Giano told me he's AFK until tomorrow. JehochmanTalk00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)The motion was also was designed to prevent wheel wars and any user putting themselves above the community or the Committee without the clear backing of the community, a principle in any other case I'm certain all of us would at least grant reasonable credence to. I have every reason to believe you did this in good faith WJB, but I still expect an answer: why do the known and predicable damage done in rushing ahead? What good came from it?--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good unblock, Will, you made my probable into an immediate yes vote, you are jsut the sort of chap we need on the arbcom to turn it around. Thanks, SqueakBox00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't sit here and watch WJBscribe take flak for undoing my action when people really are assuming too much of me. I can admit when I was wrong, and I certainly was here. Regardless of whether or not the block was appropriate, I did not act with the prior approval of the other Arbitrators. I swear to you all that this was not because I count myself higher than anyone else on this project, but it was due entirely to me acting before I thought about what I was doing. I clicked "block" totally certain of my actions, then immidiately began to doubt what I'd done. WJB is aware of this as he contacted me shortly after I blocked Giano and I told him that I had not acted with prior approval of the Committee. So please, if there's someone to take flak here, it's clearly not him. I dismissed (unrelated) claims that people raised with me earlier about acting rashly and without any kind of prediction. I shouldn'tve done. --Deskana(talk)00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he hadn't been drama seeking, he'd have invited you to undo your own block. That would have been better judgement instead of this stunt. Did he invite you to undo it?--Scott Mac (Doc)00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I wasn't sure whether it was the right course of action or not, due to receving mixed messages from people. Acting rashly got me into the situation, and I wasn't about to act rashly again. --Deskana(talk)00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me see if I have the timeline correct. Deskana blocks, WJB notices, sends notice, Deskana pauses, WJB unblocks, doesn't say "because Deskana told me its OK" Deskana comes in and sets it all straight?--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Deskana was wrong here, I hope others note his honesty in admitting his error. I think many of the processes that aren't working at the moment would benefit from people being more ready to do the same. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without putting to fine a point on this: why didn't this entire episode gone like this:
Deskana makes a block
WJBscribe points out the Arbitration Committee permission required remedy
Deskana goes "oops"
WJBscribe unblocks with "Deskana made a mistake, nothing to see here, move along"
If I had known for sure it would play out in this manner, now doubt that's what had happened. The point is we did not agree, and I did not feel that a block made outside of the terms of the sanction that allowed for however long it might take for everyone to debate what should be done. Leaving a contributor dangling in such a manner is a sure way to make them feel unwelcome. WJBscribe(talk)00:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because some process and wonks always have to insert themselves in each debate revolving around anything Arbcom, rather than positively enhancing Wikipedia? Just guessing. rootology (C)(T) 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was too subtle: this entire situation could have been avoided with an unblock message and summary that didn't attract drama and bring up unnecessary issues.--Tznkai (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should have gone better, as Tznkai said. But also it could have gone a lot worse. Deskana, thanks for the clarification.
I can clarify to the community where the intial issue appears to be. Jimbo, Giano and another user (who will name themselves if they wish) were in dialog. The other user asked Jimbo to verify and "comment on" some personal information. Jimbo's reply was to do so to that user (and this was appropriate and with consent) but to not copy the information to Giano, with the reason that he felt Giano "participates" in outing campaigns. Not "is involved in", and not "has outed anyone", but "participates in". If someone who's familiar with WR recently (in the last 2 months?) wants, they could confirm if it's accurate that Giano has or has not taken an active part in speculation or other debates that might be construed as "participation in outing campaigns"? Or could reasonably be perceived to? That would clear up what might be a simple issue of wording. Thanks. FT2(Talk | email)03:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked Merriam-Webster, and its fairly clear that the two words mean basically the same thing:
Participate- "1: to possess some of the attributes of a person, thing, or quality; 2 a: to take part" [114]
"Jimbo, Giano and another user (who will name themselves if they wish) were in dialog." FT2 - if you were not one of the three (Jimbo, Giano, or the other user) - how were you involved with the dialog so as to be able to relate this finding? Uncle uncle uncle03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was an email from Jimbo to SlimVirgin, CC'ed to me because it was my information SV was asking about (and Jimbo confirming he knew beyond doubt). Unless it was BCC'ed, SlimVirgin can check her facts and not "wonder". I was not otherwise part of the dialog, nor copied or CCed any of the other emails in the discussion, so I can't comment as to context. FT2(Talk | email)11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed familiar with WR. And I can confirm that it is false to say that Giano participates in outing campaigns. And that it he can not reasonably be perceived to do so. What he did do is say that the notion that David Gerard would know anybody from Corsham is laughable. That this has been massively misreprented as FT2 and Jimbo have done is evidence that FT2 and Jimbo are either not competent at looking at the relevant evidence. GRBerry05:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked my facts relevant to my prior statement before I posted the prior statement. I stand by it. In addition, now that I am at the office and have checked the relevant emails from December 5-8 2007, (I was one of the administrators handling the situation then) I can confirm an additional falsehood in your description of the situation and history. Here you claim that "the oversighter took no action when the diff was linked, or for a time afterwards." That is also false. The diffs were not posted on Wikipedia - indeed the first block on Damian's original account was lifted by WJBScribe on 4 December 2007 with advice to Damian to "substantiate them with diffs", which Damian had not previously done. Damian never did so on Wikipedia. The first link to any diffs was two that were in a blog post made in the earl hours UTC on 6 December. WJBScribe reblocked. That blog post was deleted from the blog by Damian before 3:30 PM UTC on 6 December. By the end of the day on the 6th, WJBScribe and myself had largely gotten the situation under control - Damian had agreed to discuss only directly with the foundation, and WJBscribe had referred the matter to Jimbo and Cary Bass. Then on the 7th or 8th of last December somebody oversighted the only two diffs Damian had ever linked to. Damian discovered this on the morning of the 8th and lost all trust in the foundation. I can substantiate everything in this paragraph with diffs on Wikipedia or emails that I received or sent last December.
I read the diffs last December, and when I realized that they had been oversighted I was quite convinced that it was both a stupid move and a violation of the oversight policy. For me, the only new news on this subject this year is that Gerard was the one to do the oversighting. I have no idea how he became involved. My assessment of the situation for a long time has been that the oversighting is a "but for" cause of the entire FT2 forum over on Wikipedia Review - but for Gerard's actions this situation would have been dealt with by WJBscribe and others including myself last December without losing a good content contributor and without the threads Damian has started over there. I also believe that enough editors believe strongly enough in WP:NOT#CENSORED that an open discussion of the situation last December would not have sunk FT2's ArbComm candidacy - but the way that FT2, Gerard, Postelthwait, and others prevented meaningful discussion was a bigger problem than the actual substance of FT2's edits. GRBerry15:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, GRBerry is hitting the nail on the head. Gerard has used Oversight foolishly, causing a ton of trouble and there should be a consequence. Those at the top need to listen to those in the trenches. Sometimes we have a better idea how to handle situations, because we deal with them every day. JehochmanTalk15:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet Christ, this again? Is it possible that once, just once, someone will block Giano without it immediately being overturned, thus contributing to further drama? Also, is it possible that Giano isn't blocked nearly so often? This ever-recurring situation simply isn't acceptable. Presuming Giano's behavior is causing the blocks, having them stick would end up with this happening a lot less often, because Giano would actually be forced to modify his behavior. Or, if Giano actually is as innocent as a saint, there should also be fewer blocks, though for a different reason. --Cyde Weys04:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the opinion of the project's administrators is required at any point here, or is at any point viewed as pertinent to the discussion, then let it be known that I agree with and support WJB's unblock (with the caveat that should Giano in future practice disruptive conduct the block would be restored). AGK16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say hello. Back to the same ol place, the place that it seems like we are always in. I'm kinda glad that its you, not me. But we both know that if it was me, that 55 would be followed by days. Haha, that should cheer you up a bit. I will probably be blocked for this. Oh well. C'est la vie. I'll see you on the other side.
P.S. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness or your action, or any such thing. I just have compassion for the ol Wiki Dragons. We are a dying breed (but sometimes because of our own actions). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing Giano, you and I have definitely had our differences in the past (and maybe on through to the present), but everything I've ever seen you do or say left me with the strong conviction that you would never participate in any sort of outing campaign. I think Jimbo's criticism of you in this instance was a case of guilt by association (which happens to be why I don't hang out at Wikipedia Review). Maybe you could have approached your response to Jimbo as correcting a mistaken belief instead of accusing him of libeling you. Assume good faith and all. This situation definitely would've been better had you done so. --Cyde Weys04:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. I am rarely shy in offering my opinion when I (almost always) disagree with Giano. I feel it would be wrong of me to keep silent now, then. Giano has many faults, but he is not some one who would maliciously out another editor on WR. When I was having problems with WR participants publishing my personal information, Giano very generously offered to use his considerable influence to help me any way he could. I hope Jimmy will reconsider his statement and we can all get back to tar and feathering Giano for more justifiable transgressions. Rockpocket07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having been in a situation like this myself, there is nothing worse than having the finger pointed and nothing to back it up. I honestly think this is becoming a very bad joke, and should really stop. Giano is one of the very best editors on this project, and I agree with Rock, Giano is not some one who would maliciously out another editor, any where. Since I'm not a player in this long running drame my opinion can be taken with a pinch of salt. However, if even I can see whats happening here says a lot. --Domer48'fenian'09:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I might add that when Giano thought (mistakenly) that I was excusing a ('friendly') editor for attempting to "out" another editor he said that "outing" was a cardinal sin no matter who did it and that it was unforgivable - or words to that effect. Sarah777 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As JWales is standing by his allegation. Here is the truth: JWales and I had an email dialogue in early September 2008, which touched on FT2. I was concerned that allegations on WR, following hot on the Poetlister debacle were damaging to Wikipedia's international reputation. A view I still hold. My email to JWales began "I don't know if you have seen last weeks outing of FT2, on WR, nor do I know if the damaging allegations contained in that outing are true or not, and it doesn't really matter because it is only one small part of what appears to be a recurring overall problem." I obviously can't post JWales' replies but I can tell you that he did not agree that such allegations were damaging to Wikipedia and that was the end of the correspondence which consisted of approximately 6 emails.. I was not aware we had parted with any bad blood. In fact, 2 weeks later we had a perfectly reasonable exchange concerning an unwell, former Wikipedian attempting to damage the project - and we were in complete mutual agreement on handling that matter.
Last night, In an email to to third party (not FT2) JWales made the false claim that I (Giano) "participates in WR and aggressively
participates in their outing campaigns." This has made me more than angry. Outing people has never been one of my interests, I deplore it. I frequently warn private email correspondents against giving out too much information. I know the RL names of many of those who don't agree with some of my thoughts, but I can say without fear of any contradiction, not one of them has ever worried I would out them. I have always protected everyone's right to privacy. Even recently on WR, that of JWales' own family. The only time I have ever asked for an oversight in one "my debacles" was because an adversary had inadvertently given away private info relating the Admin who blocked me. Editors RL privacy is paramount to me, no matter who they are. To those of you, (some from a surprising quarters) who have posted kind messages on my page - thanks it means a lot. I just want you all to know that I do have standards. Giano (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe you got mixed up with Damian or Brandt or something. Anyway, who received the email? If that person knew that you are not into outing, then he or she could have told Jimbo that and there would have been no problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo and Giano have a long history. He knows Giano's not "into outing", but he accused him of that anyway. That's the problem. S.D.D.J.Jameson12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is accused of having a history with Giano, and Jimbo is accused of having a history with everyone. Who received the email matters. If the receiver knows Giano is not into outing then no problem. Also, outing can be defined differently, from publishing real life names to doing anything that will lead to secret information about someone getting spread. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've demonstrated at every step that you don't understand the situation. "Everyone" isn't "accused" of having a history with Giano. However, many people do have a history with him, and JWales' history with him is long. This is my last post to you on this page, though, as it doesn't seem you're attempting to understand the situation in any way. S.D.D.J.Jameson13:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It strains credulity to think of Giano outing anyone. But if what he's said off site is to count as aggressive participation in outing campaigns, then what other wikipedians have said off site should be looked at as well. Tom HarrisonTalk13:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Yet Wales is standing behind these far-fetched accusations, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's hard to fathom what is gained from alienating one of our best contributors (even with his warts, Giano remains that) with these kind of accusations, but I guess that's the road we're heading down. S.D.D.J.Jameson13:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has strongly disagreed with Giano, and even called for arbcom to be stronger in sanctioning him, I'd like to say that I find it inconceivable that Giano would deliberately be involved with any "outing". Giano and I have exchanged many e-mails and I would go as far as to say I'd trust him before I'd trust almost all others with my own private details. I could say many unpleasant things about his conduct on wikipedia, however I have no doubts about his personal integrity or concern for people's real life situation. Jimbo has clearly got this wrong. Having said that, I'd plead with Giano to try to assume good faith here, and assume that Jimmy has clearly made some form of dreadful mistake. For once, Giano, you have every reason to be angry, but please hold it in. If Jimbo has said (or implied) what Giano suggests, it is, however, imperative that Jimbo check his facts and make a clarifying statement or retraction and apology without delay. Wikipolitics is one thing, but this goes beyond it. Further, as someone who has posted to wikipedia review, I'd caution that there are some very unpleasant users there, and anyone involving themselves with them should exercise extreme caution, both for their own protection, and lest they get sucked into some less than ethical discussion. Wikipedia is one thing, but we do need to remember that there are real lives involved here, and real damage can be done. The hounding SlimVirgin and now FT2 is quite deplorable.--Scott Mac (Doc)13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Scott, for your analysis. My concern is that Jimbo may have also made some form of deadful mistake in banning Peter Damian and in accepting the explanations proffered to him from the ArbCom. This matter should be explained to the community before a clever reporter susses all the details and writes about it in the New York Times. Public opinion is not kind to those who appear to be engaging in a coverup (even when there is no actual coverup). Once matters leave our little universe, our rules no longer apply and there could be real world implications. People should come forth with their best explanations as soon as possible. I'd like to defend people, but I can't do it on faith alone. I need an explanation of their actions. The explanations offered thus far are neither complete nor consistent. JehochmanTalk15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the banning of Peter Damian? Nothing too far out of the way, Jehochman. Just your common or garden miscarriage of justice with everybody jumping on the bandwagon without any notion of informing themselves first. Bishonen | talk18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Something I thought was worth noting, while its touching and impressive that many respected wikipedians are coming out to vouch for Giano's personal integrity, I hope most of us persisted in never doubting it in the first place. Likewise, more than a few of us do not doubt Jimbo's personal integrity and commitment to the project either - and it'd be helpful if Wikipedians - especially those only peripherally involved could withhold their commentary, conjecture and soundbytes. I don't think I'm the only one reading who doesn't know the details of the whole gory situation - nor the only one who's observed most of you have already made up your minds about the "facts" and stopped trying to inform or persuade.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More plainly? I never doubted your personal integrity and commitment to the project, nor Jimbo's, and no one else should either barring real evidence to the contrary. The pathetic state of affairs we have come to is because a lot of otherwise respectable Wikipedians spend a lot of time bickering and shouting at eachother with sensational rhetoric and conjecture instead of discussing (occasionally genuinely important issues) rationally with each other. For example, this Peter Damien thing: we've got a bald faced assertion a few paragraphs up that he was blocked because of a miscarriage of justice - and not a bit of actual information. No attempt to inform or persuade - just empty rhetoric, and its useless for those of us who want to make up our own damn minds. That kind of dialog is common in the drama that surrounds you - and even if it isn't your fault, I think you should do a lot more to control it. Is that any clearer?--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, ever since I've seen this comment pop up, I've been mulling over what you might be expecting me to say to Jimbo or his talk page audience, and similarly what I think I should say - and I'm still not sure. Any chance you could clarify what you might be looking for, I'm really quite interested.--Tznkai (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no chance at all because I am becoming very tired, and not a little irritated by your continued presence on this page hectoring and lecturing. When I want your advice and opinion, be assure I shall ask for it, but until that happy day perhaps you would care to find alternative employment elsehwere. Thank you. Giano (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I for one supported simply because it seemed he did it in spite of what might happen at ACE2008. I hope you weren't impugning his motives with your last comment. S.D.D.J.Jameson13:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no, given the hearty discontent with teh dramaz all round and recent outcome of SV, it would have suggested that unblocking was a bad move. Personally I agreed with the process resulting in an unblock, and one of the things about civility issues is the subject of context and when/how editors lose their temper, which seems to be underexamined to date. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, you seem to be doing very nicely in the elections as it is, without having to come here, dauys after the event, making uncalled for pointy comments. I am pleased that an Arbcom candidate showed not only huge guts but also so a lot of common sense - and I am delighted others have noticed it too. This was a very exceptional matter, even by my standards, it called for exceptional action, and it got it. If other candidates are sore becasue they did not get here first, well that says more about them than it does about WJBScribe (who incidentally I was going to vote for anyway). The current elections seem to be proving that the editorship is justifiably sick and tired to death of the old Arbcom. It looks like you will be on the new Arbcom, Casliber, so I hope thoughtless comments are not an intimation of how you are intending to go on. Giano (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm...(big breath) I didn't mean it to be pointy, to clarify, I thought 'scribe was brave to make the call - if that is not clear in my above comment then I apologise for not being clearer. I have taken more of an interest in these events since becoming involved in all this especially with the whole civility headache. Anyway, back to article writing and I will unwatch the page. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I was distressed to see Jimbo question your integrity. I said so, and called for him to apologise. Maybe he didn't do that so well.
However, when I reflect on it, I don't really care whether you accept that apology or not. I don't really care whether Jimbo is self-effacing and contrite or if he's a stubborn pigheaded shit. It doesn't really matter whether you can't stand him, or worship the ground he walks on. It's just all soap opera nonsense. Further, I don't care what FT2 does, or does not do, with his sexuality, and I don't care whether Gerard covers for him or not. I don't give a stuff about whether a user is gay, straight, trans-whatever or, indeed, likes fluffy bunnies. There are users on wikipedia I'd not let my kids near, and others I'd probably cross the street to avoid. But I don't care who is what on wikipedia. I don't care what SlimVirgin's real name is. I don't care if MONGO works for the CIA. Same as I don't give a toss if Cary Bass is a Scientologist, or if Bishonen's a spokesperson for Europeans Against Clean Air.
I can no longer be bothered following who is in who's clique, or why there's eternal animosity between this one and that one. It is boring, nonsensical, and quite irrelevant to building an encyclopedia. I don't even care too much who is on arbcom, arbcom impacts on .001% of our content anyway.
Sure, I've been involved in some of this garbage, but I've decided not to care any more. And, you know what? I think you should stop caring too. Let's care about neutrality; let's care about prose; let's get angry about butcher's comma's, split infinitives, and the factual accuracy of pokemon stubs.
I just don't care about the rest. Nor should you. If I want to fall out with people, I've got plenty of relatives.
If it's exitement you are all after, I suspect you have come to the wrong page - blood and guts out in the open is not the chosen style. Giano (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it indeed? - I happen to think it is very important that one gives a toss, in fact a very large toss (the Scots have such a way with words). It is paramount that the project is creditable, that can only be achieved by first rate articles and first rate PR. A great many successful companies spend a very large amount of money on PR - they do not do it because they have money to throw away. Wikipedia's PR is not first rate, in fact it appears to me it has no PR whatsoever. The fact that anyone can possibly agree with Mr. MacDonald intimates a certain naivety and ignorance of running a successful project of any description in the 21st century. Giano (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's PR is indeed in somewhat questionable hands. However, outside the wikibubble, no one actually cares about the personality politics, IRC, arbcom or any of the internal crap that obsesses us. (I personally doubt even most users have heard of arbcom - only a tiny percentage bothered to vote.) Outside wikipedia's myopic soap opera, the world cares about our article content, they care about people being maligned in articles, they care about accuracy, they care (as we've seen this weekend) about censorship versus "Kiddie porn". But that's really it. Giano, for such a bright guy, I've never understood why you wasted your time on such internal micro drama - which is so marginal to the impact and running of this project. We should really all learn to shrug more.--Scott Mac (Doc)19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, whenever something happens that affects Wikipedia negatively in the media, there is a rush to squelnch any mention of it on Wikipedia itself as quickly as possible. Jtrainor (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually it is pertinent, because it is as much censorship as that horrible record cover, but that was the PR of it's day, designed to sell - and it did. We may not approve, I don't approve, but it happened, it's social history, so one cannot apply a law retrospectively to re-write the past. One employs PR to write the future. However, talking of PR, I almost choked on my cornflakes this morning as I heard "Wikipedia and Wikimedia UK volunteer press spokesman" and whom may I ask appointed this spokesman? Giano (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that Jtrainors comment is pertinent. At least one user was banned for trying to bring this issue up (now I'm not saying that the user should be 'unbanned' based on additional activities, but the reason for the first blocks and bans). The reason to be all fired up about the internal politics, and stupidities of irc, etc. is that the folks who are currently in a position to provide Wikipedia generally, and en.wikipedia specifically, with good PR are all caught up in those items, wasting their good efforts and, through poorly thought out coverups, creating situations that will look bad from a PR perspective. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard has been the UK press contact for quite a long time. At some point it became part of his work with the United Kingdom chapter of the WMF, but it isn't solely related to that connection (it appears that when WER dissolves, he will continue in that role). There is a page somewhere that lists official press contacts, in the UK I think he shares the distinction with Alison Wheeler (User:AlisonW). Avruch T 21:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that David Gerard "acts as a spokesman for Wikipedia volunteers in the UK - though he is not employed by the Wikimedia Foundation". [117] Now, I'm guess that's a spokesman for Wikimedia UK or "Wiki Educational Resources Limited" which is "currently being wound up"[118], or is it for the new chapter yet to launch? Additionally, his userpage here invites "Wikipedia and Wikimedia UK press enquiries:", so it is more than enquiries about the chapter (indeed he as speaking about more than chapter issues on the BBC today, and using the "we"). So maybe we was speaking for the Foundation? Not sure? This seems a bit of a tangled web, and maybe worth asking David about. It might be good if he had some form of community mandate, as I do suspect that the community would agree with what he was saying (although I don't - but I'm in a minority of people who like censorship). Shouldn't the community have some form of endorsed spokespeople, beyond chapter reps. I mean most UK wikipedians probably know little or nothing of the chapter.--Scott Mac (Doc)21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is a UK press contact for the Wikimedia Foundation itself. (That is, he works with Jay Walsh on the Foundation staff to coordinate his activities, and is listed by the Foundation on its official press contacts page.) Avruch T 23:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Giano, I noticed you voted oppose on my ArbCom candidacy. What concerns do you have about my candidacy? Is there anything I can do to address them, or possibly clarify any answers I may have given or statements I have made? Thanks very much! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember why I don't like you, but I clearly remember at the time hoping you would drink one of your martinis, so I'm sure there is a very good reason - it will come to me in time, do you really want to know, if it does? Giano (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, here it is the famed IRC role of honnour I've been emailed to say: "He was very green at the time, and I think you forgave him nicely. If I'm remembering right" which knowing this particular correspondent they probably are - so we'll say no more about it, but I'll stick with oppose. Remind me next year - could you? Giano (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember that now. It was a stupid rookie mistake on my part and I apologize for it. As far as reasons to oppose go, "this guy unfairly blocked me once" is about as good as it gets. I'll be sure to notify you next year as I'll probably be running again in 2009 unless there's a massive voter turnaround in the next few days. Thanks for replying, and happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having sensed early in 2004 that an administratorship really wouldn't do for me, I can't imagine that anyone might block someone so casually as not to remember and then approach them on their own Talkpage, asking them to justify their negative vote. I hasten now to add my own negative vote, with the request that I not be contacted by this person. --Wetman (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Giano block was almost two years ago. I apologize for not having an eidetic memory. I wasn't asking him to justify his vote, I was just wondering what his concerns were and if I could do anything to clarify or address them. I'm tired of having mandarin arbitrators sit in their ivory towers and avoid talking to people. If we're to survive as a community (much less as the encyclopedia we're all supposed to be building), we need to be able to talk to one another. I'm just trying to establish a dialogue with voters; I think that's one of the benefits of our voting system is that it gives us the opportunity to discuss our differences. I also like knowing why people oppose me, since it gives me the opportunity for reflection on my positions and the chance to learn from my mistakes. Since most of my oppose voters don't give rationales for one reason or another, I often have to ask them directly. The current ArbCom's lack of dialogue with the community and inability to learn from its mistakes are two of its greatest flaws. That's why I'm running for a seat, and that's why I'm doing everything in my power to avoid their isolationism and rigid orthodoxy.
Please understand that I did not seek out Giano in malice, antagonism or hostility. I just wanted to understand his rationale and establish a dialogue. I'm sorry that you've decided to vote against me Wetman, but I respect your request and will not contact you further than this reply here. Happy editing to both Giano (to whom I apologize for the unintentional hijacking of his talkpage) and you. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the only Italian-speaker I can think of here, in the unlikely event that you ever have a moment when you're not busy, can you have a look at Tomb of Liliana Crociati de Szaszak and double check my translation of the poem there? Although there are English translations on the internet, they seem very inaccurate, so I did this one myself with a combination of half-forgotten Latin and Spanish, and additional help from Babelfish, and consequently there's an extremely good chance I'm totally wrong. (Yes, I know the article is fairly wretched, but there's only so much one can say on the topic…) – iridescent21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is probably as good as it gets without altering the melodic flow and idiom. Horrible poem though isn't it - I wonder what appened to the poor bewidowed honeymooning husband, only half a story there I suspect. Pappa is spending a fortune on the tomb and writing poems, Mamma is designing the mausoleum, but what about the next-of-kin. That intrests me? Giano (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sinister statue (our earlier photo of her resembles an outtake from a zombie film, complete with stray cat) and doggerel poem aren't even the worst of it; inside the tomb is an "only in the 1970s" cell-shaded oil-painting of her. Unfortunately, the shadow from the windows was falling directly across it when I was there, so I couldn't get a usable photo – if any of your fan club are in Buenos Aires, please do go get a photo… Should you ever be in Argentina, I'd thoroughly recommend La Recoleta Cemetery as a strange day out – like a museum of peculiar architectural styles, in miniature. The door-knockers on the tombs are a particularly odd touch. – iridescent21:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing you better your story; for architecture, I reccomend Highgate Cemetery, where there is, in all reriousness, a vault with a sign saying "entrance". Sadly, it does not have an "exit." Giano (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No leave it, it does no harm, just someone with an opinion. Having been treated the way that I have by IRC, I'm not so sure I would do it all openly again either. Subterfuge seems to be the wiki-way these days. Giano (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I see you have now blocked my new best friend as a vandal account. I don't actually see any vandalism - I suspect it is a known editor just afraid to say what he thinks openly on Wikipedia - that should be a cause for concern rather than blocking. I would gave thought. Giano (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, this was due to the IWF action (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action) and was one of the transparent proxy IP addresses used by British ISPs (in this case, BT). We had no choice but to block all the proxy IPs indefinitely until the situation was sorted out, because we had no way of differentiating vandal accounts from productive edits whilst all edits from ISPs appeared to be coming from the same IP address. Thankfully, it looks like it's been sorted now, so once the ISPs pull their fingers out the users should no longer be routed through the proxy servers. Black Kite20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to your second post, in this case it just happenened to be me that was about when this particular proxy popped up. Various other admins have blocked the other addresses. Black Kite20:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because BT haven't taken off their filtering yet. When they do, you'll automatically go back to your "correct" IP address and all will be well. Black Kite22:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not pretend to understand it, so I shan't try, I shall go to bed instead, I don't like the idea of being "filtered." I could uderstand it if I fiddled about with some of the odd pages this encyclopedia has, but I don't. Giano (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complaining to BT is your best bet at this time, methinks, as its an efficiency not a blacklist issue. they were the last to blacklist and appear the last to unblock too, and unblocking the ips would be an invitation to vandalise, which wikipedia is already plagued with (more than the "everything gets reverted in a few mins" glib public line of Jimbo). Thanks, SqueakBox22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I am going to phone up British telecom, at vast expense as it seems to be based in Kolkata these days, and tell them I want to edit a dodgy site - I should bloody cocoa. No fear. I shall wait patiently and see what happens. Giano (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Undercroft was originally designed as a drinking den for James I and a place where he could escape the rigours of public life. The King would come here to savour a glass of wine from his extensive cellars, or simply enjoy some private time with his favourite courtiers.
K-Meleon? It's relatively similar to IE (assuming that's what you use), more lightweight than FireBloat, and I've never had it had it lose the contents of a text box on me. --NE216:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I donn't know, but whenever I have a conflict or anything like that it always says your text is here or there, yet it never is - never ever ever. Plus the fact i always have wikipedia open twice and it's always the oneI have fiddled with ongest that gets lost - perhaps I am just an exxentric editor! My mind does not seem to work like other peoples. :-( Giano (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would one of you mind copyediting the above, you keep conflicting me. I can never see my own spellings and grammars. I am very keen to get finished, it just needs a little more expansion to the conclusion and wraping up which I can do when it's copedited. perhaps you would all like to take your discussions to the desinated place, while the copyediting is done. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOOK ABOVE: There is an inuse tag on this page. It means someone is writing a page, please (for the second time) could you take your deliberations elsewhere - my shiny new talk page for instance. Copyeditors welcome! Giano (talk)
I think we have to try and stay on subject, I only realy mentioned the double cube at Wilton because I stumbld on the ref and it seemed a shame to waste it. Giano (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No, I have a feeling Soane was involved, which should thrill the man that keeps pesterimg me to write about Soane, but i can't find a ref, buyt I'm sure in my subconscious I have read it somewhere. Giano (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coo, that's ineresting, it's coming back to me, i think he was the one who allowed the refacing in his position as Clerk of Works - I have looked through all the books I have here and cannot find where I read it. Giano (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The architect James Wyatt was directed to provide additional seating for more than 2,000 soldiers, necessitating the building of a second gallery (later removed). At the same time, Wyatt rebuilt the northern annexe, which contained the main entrance staircase. The Times of March 1815, recorded that the 'new alterations and the new organ by Elliot attracted a crowded chapel'." Strangely, our article on him doesn't mention it. Here's a nice historical overview from the same site. [121] My books draw a blank on the banqueting house, but my book on Greenwich makes it clear Jones was at court both because of his study of palladianism in Italy, but more importantly, because of his collaboration in the masques with Johnson.--Joopercoopers (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on I remember writing some red links for Bishonen years ago about Carolean drama, I think Jones may have designed fantastical stes with moving scenery, or was that someone else - Bishonen will rmemeber. Giano (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Giano, I kind of hoped you would be unblocked by this morning. Guess my optimism was misplaced. :( Thanks Apoc for the merging. the wub"?!"18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! May all your celebrations be festive and joyous. Enjoy the rest of 2008. I look forward to a brilliant 2009 and your spirited contributions. Please delete this if it distracts in any way from the glorious picture you've put on your page.ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping to make 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me. I've found the comments on this page to be amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which ones were which!
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone here and on Wikipedia and on all the earth.
O magnum mysterium,
et admirabile sacramentum,
ut animalia viderent Dominum natum,
jacentem in praesepio!
Beata Virgo, cujus viscera
meruerunt portare
Dominum Christum.
Alleluia.
Dear Giano,
I am trying to work out some tweaks to handling situations like these before they escalate into the usual. At this point, if an admin (or friend) had reverted and/or deleted this last and a couple of other comments where you were clearly annoyed, and written a short conciliatory note along the lines of, "I know you are upset...but look let's try to keep this positive...genuine mistake...etc." and tried to keep things upbeat, would you have been ok with that at that point and let it go?
As an example, Brenneman did something like it here to me when things began to get heated here, and then noted it here.
You have a new message at your old talk page, which I've just removed, as no-one should add messages to talk pages that are just redirects. I fully protected your old talk page some time back to reduce the likelihood of inappropriate messages coming through (see the recent page history for many examples of people running semi-automatic tools writing on your old talk page about, mostly, image tagging problems. This is not their fault - people writing these messages are not aware that they're writing them into a black hole. Regards, Graham8714:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed that you selected my fair city of San Diego as the source for your holiday fireworks display. It happened that I was finishing a restoration on an eighteenth century Italian print at the same time. Here's to strange coincidences, and best wishes for 2009. DurovaCharge!21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lists.wikimedia.org or visit #wikipedia-en-unblock connect. Thank you. MBisanz talk 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
now erroniously deleted (whicj should be the one, taken by myself) is quite different.Giano (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Done
![[28]](http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1289/747107767_921089bae7.jpg){kind=link}
![[51]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_12#Image:Mentmore_towers_from_below.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg){kind=link}
![[81]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Imperialista#Image_Tagging_Image:Palazzo_Ottolenghi_scalone.jpg){kind=link}
![[82]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brympton_stables_1928.gif){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg)
_barchart.gif){kind=link}
_piechart.gif){kind=link}
. -- Avi (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
