User talk:Giano II/archive 11

So!

So what has happened in my absence? It seems Bishonen has been banned by some fool on the rampage, with no idea about what is good for the encyclopedia, and has now quite rightly and understandably absented herself. What is being done to rectify this regrettable state of affairs? Don't post here saying nice to se you back Giano! I want to know why this has not been addressed. Which Arbs are dealing with his matter? Giano (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's been any action by any Arbitrators regarding the three-hour block of Bishonen. I am curious what you think should be done in a perfect world right now. Bish has taken a step back from Wikipedia and the overall situation has calmed down. If you had the ability to do whatever you wanted, would you step in here and if so, what would you do? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would ensure that Wales was never able to mis-use his self given tools again. Tha man is a liability to the project and serves no beneficial use. He once had a good idea he is now a handicap to that idea's growth and development. Giano (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point regarding Jimmy blocking people. It never seems to help matters and often is seen as a "Jimbo block" instead of a block by a regular administrator, esp. given his Founder status. I think having a non-involved party raise this on his talk page would be good. An agreement between Jimmy and the community to not block users seems to be the best outcome here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, the only solution, that he will inderstand, is to remove the tools. We are grateful that he founded the encyclopedia, it was a good idea, but now like all Gods he needs to elevated elsewhere and like all Kings who abuse their powers - deposed. Giano (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the record, and not to take any outrage away, I'm not mortified that no arbs came to express outrage at Jimbo's block of Bishonen on Bishonen's page, because there was no arbitration in the works. I.e. without arbitration, arbs aren't any more involved than anyone else. That said, I think that a major consideration of who and what these people are would be in order, but I've thought that for ages.

The idea of a "CEO" is ridiculous in fact, and it is worse than ridiculous in image. Wikipedia is valuable real estate. I'll self-censor here and not say much, but the project looks to people at the project like a game, to people who began the project like a mission, and to everyone outside the project like a commodity to seize. When they hear "CEO," they don't think of anything other than John Thain-like individuals. The title does not fit any function here, and it does not fit any action here.

Jimbo Jones Wales cannot parachute into situations, having been appraised of what's going on by 10 lines of chat, and then say obnoxious things and retain the imagery that he has cultivated around himself. While a King Log is necessary, or a "Number One" (a la The Prisoner), it can't be a Baby Huey, and it especially can't be one who believes his own hype or who believes in the imagery of the CEO, the mythology of the Deciderer. In short, all of that Ayn Randian foolishness about the ubermenschen Willie Galt is laughable when transposed here, even if Willie Galt weren't very publicly showing all sorts of private vices as well. Geogre (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this "person" can call an editor, following one less than civil comment) of good character and long standing (God knows how many years) a "toxic personality" (yeah, I saw the half-hearted and grudgingly made clarification - which no one believed) I also saw the referral to his own "high standards" - I wish I could say words failed me at that - they did not. What cause word failure was the complete lack of anyone calling him out on the matter in public - I have heard whispers that things were delicately and politely said to him in private - well frankly, that is not good enough. Where were all those wonderful Admins normally so full of opinions on civility and behaviour? No where in sight! We have elected admins and Arbs supposedly overseeing the smooth running of the project - I don't see them - all I see is load of cowering wimps happy to block me at the drop of a hat for rocking the boat - well I have news for them, left with the current captain the boat is sinking into mediocrity. With Wales at the bridge surrounded by sycophantic social editors it will continue to sink. The time has come to throw him and the passengers overboard, raise standards and concentrate on high quality content - nothing else. Giano (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The gameplan, for want of a better word, is to ignore him as much as possible; if he says something sensible, like he did regarding flagged revisions for BLP's (but did not push hard enough on), then comment as you would any reasonable editor. When he goes of the deep end, as he did recently at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing in attempting to implement policy without consensus, then just carry on and discuss with those who will respect another's point of view (I sense you will be opposing my viewpoint in this matter, for instance, but that is fine because you will bring reasons into your discussion). It really does seem, as much as by the reasonable actions of the maligned ArbCom, that the community is beginning to mature and take responsibility - it is going to be both painful and likely neverending, but the opportunities appear to be there. You just have to stick around and contribute in the manner you feel is best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nope and double nope. He should not have the tools any longer. He has mis-used them once too often. The only way he is able to show his importance to the project is to repeatedly make bad blocks; this has made him a handicap to the project. He is now controlling Wikipedia only because he is able to block, and no one dares to stand up to him. There is a name for such people, and that sort of person should not be running the show, even in their imagination. Giano (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

George beat me to the punchline here. Jimbo does not speak for the arbitrators, and unless Jimbo is taken to RFAR, it is not our special duty to interfere with how he chooses to conduct himself on English Wikipedia. Until/Unless WP:JIMBO falls, he is allowed to do what he wishes, but if he constantly does things that annoy the community-at-large, he will provoke a tearing down of WP:JIMBO. The whole "god-king" concept make me want to puke. The comparisons to a constitutional monarch are also a bit silly; in other "open" communities, the benevolent dictator is the leader of the pack. That said, unless there is some flagrant abuse, the Arbitration Committee is likely to recommend that standard dispute resolution be attempted, which starts with direct discourse with Jimbo.

Arbitrator Cas Liber did mentioned to Jimbo on this talk page that his phraseology was not helpful/appropriate and Jimbo did clarify. Not surprisingly, Bishonen didnt feel the love. I am surprised she cares. A good many people want her back. I also hope she comes back, when she is ready to move on from this, or ready to talk to Jimbo about it.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk to Jimbo? Why the hell should she want to talk to Jimbo. He has labelled her a "toxic personality" and barely anyone gives a damm and you are surprised she cares. Perhaps she will return one day, perhaps even I might return to editing too one day, but it will be after Jimbo has had his tools removed. Giano (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Giano, it's not that no one cares, I for one am surprised that Bishonen gives a shit about what Jimbo thinks. I think it was a bad block and I'm sorry I didn't say that sooner. - Josette (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say she has to talk to Jimbo, but if anyone believes this is a bad block, and cares about it sufficiently that they want some corrective action, dispute resolution is required. I am not a big believer in the meatball theory of meatball:DefendEachOther, at least not in the extremes people take it to here. One of the often forgotten aspects of this is that unnecessary drama is generated when people defend each other when really no defense is necessary, such as when the attacker has hurt their own reputation and credibility.

But if Bishonen does feel that this block crossed an invisible line, making her no longer feel comfortable within the community she helped to build, she needs to have a chat with Jimbo without heckling from either side. I have asked her if she will engage in this at User talk:Bishonen#an audience with the king.

If she doesn't want to chat with Jimbo, perhaps others can think of a better way forward. Protests that nobody has done anything are just another way of doing nothing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! and welcome back. And please talk Bish into returning. Ya can't effect change while on the bench. Do let me know if you would like any work done on Palazzo Splendido. All da right people are getting my trade. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If Bishonen wants to return, she will (I hope she chooses to). GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work!

I love all of your featured articles on palaces and architects! If it was anything but an encyclopedia, Wikipedia would surely be in your debt. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but don't forget the bare knuckle fighters - they are far more telling Giano (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Yeah, I already saw your article on Simon Byrne, but not the others. Once again, great work.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A way forward?

Thank you Josette, Jack et al - I think a lot of people often wish they had said more, so I hope by me saying exactly what I think, it will encourage others to now speak out - we have passed the stage now, where criticising the self appointed God-King is going to get us banned for life - we now all know he is no better or worse than the rest of us. I was asked yesterday, on G mail, by an Arb what I wanted - a good question - I want a Wikipedia that is feasible and of a supreme standard - a Wikipedia where content counts above all else - a wikipedia where 100+ plus people cannot troop out of IRC to vote, as recently happened, for a prospective admin, who violates copyright in everything she writes - and then ban me for objecting. I want a Wikipedia where Arbs don't say privately that were not commenting on such things as (for example) Bishonen's block because they thought it was bound to come to arbitration, but do nothing to ensure it does because they live in fear of what? - Jimbo or their own position? Jimbo's a spent force, and editors need to see that. The time has come for editors to run the site without fear of being banned for a controversial view - Of course, there are those whose talents are not in editing, but have a useful role to play with a mop and bucket - but in RL the people with the mops and buckets are not running the show - However, here at Wikipedia at they are running the site, chatting on IRC and banning those that do write - the place has gone upside down. A new system needs devising, and it's a system that is truly democratic and a system with a constitution, a system that does not include a ridiculous self appointed God-king, his court and their private police - that system, a new system, is what we should be discussing now - that would be Wikipedia's peacable revolution - now if someone wants to realistically start that debate, I will listen and contribute because that is what I want! Giano (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Far too sensible an idea to get any, as they say, traction on here; those who wield the mop must be obeyed. As for Jimbo ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I’ve worked as “professional staff” as I expect many others on this site have. Typically there is also a custodial staff. Now I’m not dissing the folks that wield real mops — I was more apt to dis some of my colleagues; I got along fine with the clean-up crews. I once found a lost tee shirt from a custodial contracting firm in the men’s room and wore it to work a few times; a blue shirt with a yellow image of a guy w/mop and bucket and the firm name on the front. Those were interesting days.

Admins are servants of the project. They clean up messes, have keys to some of the locked rooms, and do work. They’re not the fucking cops and they don’t have any real authority. It’s about responsibility and clue. Anyone gonna listen to the janitor on a matters such as virtual functions (Dilbert’s garbageman is, of course, an exception;) or the design of the Winter Palace (which surely has locked rooms;)?

Adminship is a bunch of rights bundled together as a package. “The Button” is offered-up all over the interface for admins and too many seek adminship because of the block button — they see it as a badge in the whack-a-vandal game. These are the wrong people for adminship; sure, the obvious ones don’t make it through RfA but many did in the past and many are seduced by the precious.

Note that this is red and was never more than lulz or a goof. The notion of admin reconfirmation needs to be taken aboard this project — with an eye towards the issue of the rabble seeking to take down good admins for petty reasons. Maybe for every hundred new admins, we need to cut fifty pieces of deadwood/inappropriate mops. And any admin seeking to defend all current admins would likely be a good candidate for review.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Where has the reconfirmation of administrators been discussed? Surely such an excellent and obvious idea has surfaced before. Every two years might be a modest limit. Naturally, such a reform can't be presented to the admins themselves, for a self-reforming vote; it needs to be presented to all logged-in accounts as a referendum. --Wetman (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an idea that comes up from time to time, obviously a good idea, but one that's been rejected each time it's been suggested. In fact it's listed as one of the perennial proposals, a list the purpose of which is to stifle all debate. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I will say again, arbcom has been the traditional venue for review of admin tools and I figure we've been doing more of it this year - if more people ping arbcom, and then more people are more lenient at RfA, then we get greater fluidity. Not up to 20 RfA reconformations every week thanks very much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why your knee-jerk response that every administrator whose two-year term is over, for instance, would choose to stand again? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why an arbitrary two year term then? And even with (let's say) 10% of admins reconforming, that's still a wonderful timesink at RfA. Let's say someone is problematic with the tools, then two years is a long time to wait to address this. Then again, if there is a culture change of fluidity between admin and non admin aided by arbcom reviews and more leniency of RfAs, then the two year parameter is redundant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it's more important to you that an unreformed RfA process should not be cluttered up by administrators who, after having proven their worth or not over whatever period of time is considered reasonable, ask for the trust of the community to be reconfirmed. I live on a different planet, where my elected representatives are not elected for life. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No my planet isn't stuffed up to the armpits with bureaucracy - these are folks with a few extra tools and powers, not elected representatives. I'd rather a WP where alot of people had the tools and shared the usage, rather than only a few. Having now been privy to things like checkuser and oversight, one is grateful that alot of mischief gets dealt with quickly. I am happy if there are an extra 2-300 admins who only use the tools once in a blue moon (as long as they are not abusing them). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'll permit me to interject into this conversation: arbitrators refrain from getting involved with things that might come before arbitration so that they don't have to recuse from any case that does come. It's possible for one of us to bring a request for arbitration, and recuse from considering it, but that makes people nervous, and they question whether the rest of the Committee can be impartial in a case initiated by one of their own. Look at the response to the MatthewHoffman case for example.

It may be that, given we have more personnel this year, we can afford to have a few arbitrators recused every now and then. But ultimately people have to bring the cases to us. --bainer (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hoffman case isn't necessarily a good example, since it came to the Committee with zero attempts at prior dispute resolution. That made it a very unusual case on its surface, and a proposed decision going up twelve hours after the case opening made it even odder. If it had been a wheel war or some other emergency situation that would have been understandable, but the matter was non-urgent. Those of us who observed the case were alarmed by the way it unfolded. It did add additional layers of concern that the case was also filed by an arbitrator who shortly thereafter made personal attacks against various named parties on the case pages itself, then vanished on an unannounced wikibreak for a month: if he wasn't planning on remaining available then why had he pursued the matter with such alacrity in the first place? And why did he never retract the insults even months after returning? It did not go unnoticed that the Committee failed to even propose the mildest of findings against one of its own--under circumstances that would almost certainly have entered the decision if anyone else (admins included) had conducted themselves that way. Durova^Charge! 04:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It definitely did not go unnoticed. Thank you Durova, I still find myself not daring to save page on anything I type related to the Hoffman case. R. Baley (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, in order to discuss the issue of arbitrator recusal, then the thing to look at would be an otherwise regular case whose primary irregularity was an arbitrator's activity outside of the usual arbitrator role. The Hoffman case was irregular in many respects, and I thank the Committee for finally vacating it. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Giacomo, old friend, I came to most of the same conclusions as you over a year ago. After giving the matter much reading and thought (perhaps too much) I've come to the conclusion that getting rid of his royal Jimness is unfeasible. Yes, he is basically a poltroon, but even poltroons have been known to suddenly grow spines when cornered. He will not give up his gravy-train, and pretty much only thing in his life he has succeeded at, without a fight. He may not directly control the WMF board anymore, but he still does indirectly via his girl Sue. True, he is not the god king he once was, but he still has a large and influential following both inside and off WP. Which leads to yet another problem of who or what would replace him (no jokes please about a pound of processed cheese:). As you have pointed out to me so many times in the past, his replacement could be even worse. In the recent past I have suggested maybe James Burke. Though I have yet to contact Mr. Burke on such a possibility, nor do I see any reason to until it becomes possible. But a ghost can still dream, can't he?

No, a much more viable solution than getting Wales to step down, is getting him to step aside; To give up some of his special powers, such as appointing members of the arbcom, and special buttons so that he would be just another admin and therefore no big deal anymore. That is the arrangement we seem to be moving towards...albeit slowly. Greater power is devolving towards the community and Mr. Wales is becoming a mere figure-god-head, although he is not one yet, contrary to what the Jimbo don't matter crowd thinks. Of course this leads to the question of which part of the community will lead. You and I both strongly believe that for reasons both practical and moral, the writers and editors should be running the show. The trouble with that is twofold-A) Serious, talented contributors are far too few in number. B) We are, as a species, a cantankerous, temperamental lot, who cannot even agree amongst ourselves on all but the most basic of principles. We are cats...I've discovered this the hard way on many occasions when I've tried to herd my fellow felines. Our social and janitorial colleagues, on the other hand, are pack animals. They are more numerous and better organized. When one of their alpha dogs goes down, another simply rises up in their place. Whenever one of us cats, such as you, transforms into a tiger, they gang up and though some of them may get badly mauled, the pack wins eventually...usually. Sad but you know it is true. We do have something going for us, however- We are stubborn. Sometimes sheer, persistent stubbornness is all that is needed. To this let us add the ancient stratagem of divide and conquer. Set the packs against each other...let them play their petty power games, think that they matter, while we slowly, surely create new policies and institutions, encourage and win over talented new contributors, maybe even teach some of the pack members that writing and improving articles can actually be (gasp) fun. This may not be the counter-revolution that you are now looking for and I have been seeking since 2006. But it would be an improvement over the current sad state of affairs. Everyone has something to contribute...the trick is figuring out which roles they are best suited for, then convincing them to play them accordion accordingly. Cheers and caio and dare I say, welcome back:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said RDH. I was hoping the current ArbCom was going to have staged a palace coup by now and thrown the current, disfunctional Wikipedia governance system out on its ear. I thought that the ArbCom would be the only ones who could do it, because they're unbannable and undesysoppable by anyone except Jimbo. Obviously, however, it hasn't happened. Is there anyone else who can get things moving? Cla68 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Only me it seems! The problem is mostly that wikipedia has an erroneous idea of what constitutes a constitutional monarchy - this is mostly the fault of Wikipedia's king (in truth an autocrat) convincing himself and his subjects that he is a constitutional monarch. The Arbcom is no more than a chosen and appointed council of ministers who are hired and fired by the autocrat. However, our autocrat is week, indecisive and easily lead by whoever is playing court Rasputin on any particular day - it's an intolerable position that needs to be halted. There are two options. A: Create a constitution placing the real power in an elected body rperesenting all editors; or B: Put up and shut up. Naturally, I favour the former and believe it is high time we had a proper debate on how to reform the project's administration and set up a democratic and representative council to run the show.

I am quite prepared to start the ball rolling myself either in my use space or elsewhere - autocrats and absolute monarchs are now confined to history in all civilized corners of the world - Wikipedia should be no exception. I thank Jimbo for his ideas and contributions but now he needs to let go and allow the project to develop. Giano (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent words, but: who is to decide who counts as an editor, and who votes? How do you stop 100+ plus people trooping out of IRC to vote, as recently happened? And if you put conditions upon it such as quality of content, time served in the community, how do you stop the inevitable complaints that this is elitist, contrary to all Wikipedia founding principles, exclusivist, ganging up &c? Peter Damian (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, your question proves the need for a proper debate on the matter; I merely throw some loose balls into the court. The "100+ plus people trooping out of IRC to vote" is one of those problems urgently in need of honest debate. Giano (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm ready, let's go. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to raise this to a RFC discussion as it involves a matter that concerns Wikipedia as a whole. Not only will this allow for more people to give their opinion thus increasing the quality, but if a consensus needs to be formed it will be stronger if this is done public ally, rather then in a limited, non centralized scope :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You stand here, arguably one of the most intelligent editors of the place, with lance at the ready charging at the windmills while the millers look on unconcerned. You have all the rights ideas, but tend to go at them in all the wrong ways: adversarial and combative. If you would but try to work with the people around you, you'd find that change in governance is dear to many and you'd find allies and colleagues where today you find strife and adversaries.

You need to change tack. You need to understand that disagreeing with some (or even all) of what you see as Evident Truth does not make one a fool, nor make them fair game for attacks. You need to understand that what is seen or perceived as an attack depends on the beholder, and that disagreement on the matter needs to be taken into account when you choose how to behave.

But most of all, you need to understand that you may need to alter your objectives or opinions as discussion progresses. Right now, you are saddled with the unfortunate image of someone who unfailingly believes he is always right and that anyone daring to disagree with your pronouncements, however slightly, are idiots at best and part of a vast conspiracy to suppress you at worst. You've taken upon yourself the image of the Knight Templar who can do no wrong because God is on his side— and people will oppose you because of that.

Should you take the time to look around yourself, you'd find many who would support pushes for reform. Work with those of us who feel that Wikipedia needs to mature. I won't help destructive "revolution" for the sake of revolution. Help build a good governance system that can phase out the artifacts of Wikipedia's creation (and by that I don't mean Jimbo alone), and you'll get the support of many. Decry without aim, call for heads for the sake of (face it) a vendetta, and you've lost before you started. I work my ass off doing everything I can to help Wikipedia the best I can, and I know that this is your ultimate objective as well. Despite the amusing, if ridiculously self-important, WR claims most people aren't in it for power trips, or working under a delusion that this is a "game" to be won. I work from within, you feel the work needs to come from without. Chances are, both are needed. Will you at least try to work with us instead of opposing because we're part of the system?

Will you have read this message through the end despite my being one of the reviled members of the arbitrary committee, or reject it out of hand without consideration? Will you have listened to what I have to say, even if disagreed? I hope so. I've lost a bit of confidence in your desire to realize that someone can bring something positive without being a blind follower agreeing with everything you say— but not in your intelligence or capacity to do so if you choose to. — Coren ^(talk) 12:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• You say "I won't help destructive "revolution" for the sake of revolution." You are either misleading or misreading. A peaceful change of Government is not a revolution; it is something perfectly normal and often unexciting that happens in all democracies every few years. I neither ask, expect or desire any support or help or co-operation from the Arbitration Committee. That already members, such as yourself, are trying to dramatise the issues and aims in order to maintain the status quo is disappointing, if not totally unexpected. I know some members agree with what I say in private but are reluctant to commit themselves in public; that must be a matter for their own consciences. However, please don't cloud the issues with hysterical nonsense and drama. Giano (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• "members, such as yourself, are trying to dramatise the issues and aims in order to maintain the status quo is disappointing" This time it is you who misreads or misleads. I have no interest or desire for the status quo. I've stated so repeatedly, publicly. If your objective is peaceful change, then I expect we have a number of common objectives (though I also expect we disagree on the "perfect" form Wikipedia should ultimately aim for). I'm trying to defuse drama, by offering you a hand. This obviously doesn't mean I agree with everything you say or do — there are things I believe you are completely misguided about or just plain get wrong — but it means that you can get rational discourse and support from me.

  Certainly, you are free to ignore or refuse my help, even when our objectives align perfectly. But have you noticed how you simply presumed that my objective was to maintain status quo without so much as asking me where I stood? — Coren ^(talk) 13:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I have misunderstood you. Over the years, I have been given little reason to trust members of Wikipedia's higher echelons. My aims are perfectly peaceful, I have no desire to see Jimbo guillotined, shot or even exiled. My aim is for a transformation of power from one man to a larger elected body. I beleive it totally wrong that Jimbo feels able to descend onto a page and exact the wroth of a God-King. It should stop, it has to stop and it will stop. Now if you have ideas to further those aims this is the place to express them. Giano (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Priorities. I agree with you that Jimbo's role is, basically, obsolescent and that discussion on phasing that role out is legitimate, but I see more pressing governance problems at this time. The important point, at this juncture, is that you have my support that the discussion itself is legitimate and most certainly not verboten in any way. I'm not entirely certainly why you expressed doubt that you'd be "allowed" to do so, or why you thought that discussion would be suppressed — I may simply be missing some context — but I can assure you that there is no cabal intent on muzzling you.

If you don't intend to dedicate yourself entirely to that single issue for the time being, there may be other points of reform you might want to give input to in the medium term where your input would be appreciated. Inquire if so inclined, I shan't press the matter against your desires. — Coren ^(talk) 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I may be misconstruing Giano's intent, but I thought the idea was to see which issues of change the community thought were most pressing. If you have others (and others have been presented) please add them to the page. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am glad Coren feels that the debate so far is legitimate. My intent is clearly spelt out at the top of the page "The object of this page is to assess if there is sufficient feeling amongst editors, one way or another, to have a proper, honest and frank discussion as to Wikipedia's future management and administration." The arbitration committe, Jimbo and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all have had the last few years to address these issues (which I feel concern many) - they have not. I'm always told that someone is secretly working on them behind the scenes, but I never see any evidence or result of it. This is just an oppottunity to assess how others feel, and if it is worth going forward to implement some changes and reforms. It may be that the result is to raise Jimbo to the rank of Supreme-Emperor and Guardian of the Wikis - who knows? Giano (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd totally agree with that. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee is a welcome development. The trouble is getting anything changed is usually only after scandals of quite breathtaking embarrassment. A culture with a more pro-active approach aimed at improving the integrity of our institutions would be more welcome, rather than the pervasive "ain't broke, don't fix it - trust us" attitude that prevails at the moment. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The greatest obstacle to any change on Wikipedia is the amazing amount of inertia; scandals, regrettable as they are, have the property of (sometimes) giving enough force to push things over. "Trust me" when I say that this [beep] [beep] [beep]ing inertia is the source of infinite frustration to anyone hoping to improve things. — Coren ^(talk) 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely - so hop on and puuussssshhhhh :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this excellent statement Coren wrote. You stand here, arguably one of the most intelligent editors of the place, with lance at the ready charging at the windmills while the millers look on unconcerned. You have all the rights ideas, but tend to go at them in all the wrong ways: adversarial and combative

I do not believe this entire debate was created in bad faith, not do i disagree with the core reasoning of your statement. However, a vital flaw is that your statement is indeed rather vindicative, as opposed to being constructive. A statement is much more compelling if you write it as an argument. Ergo, wording such as "Structure outdated... Example of this can be found in the incorrect block located... Normal consensus works fine, is there a real need for a one person overrule?" would make a better statement as you are both reasoning and giving examples that support your claims. Currently the text almost reads as a pure complaint towards "The management" and this could stack voting against you for the way it was worded - which is actually a waste since the core message you are trying to convey is quite valid as an item of discussion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" has been peremptorily invoked consistently enough at Wikipedia that it has developed undesirable overtones to many content editors. If "normal consensus works fine", why, there is no pressing need to discuss a fundamental reshuffling of Wikopedia structure and procedure along democratic lines that favor the content of the reader's service it provides, rather than the process, and the unattractive maneuvering even the most sublimely unconscious editor is aware of.--Wetman (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

3 accounts?

You seem to have 3 (or more) accounts. Every time you get blocked you start a new account. Could you please stick with one account. It makes checking edits, block history etc. easier. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just who the hell do you think you are? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a rollbacker here and at SimpleWP (those are facts). Griffinofwales (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you do surprise us all - have been an expert detective for long? Giano (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aah, do you have to click three whole buttons to check his history? Poor thing. 92.12.205.147 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more than 3 buttons. I check edits through other websites. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was every time Giano made a new account every time he was rightfully blocked, then he would have only one account. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess 3 accounts is somehow worse than co-ordinated tag-team reverting, huh? – iridescent 21:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why yes it is, especially when the owner of the talk page told people to keep the letter of his talk page, and no, I'm not a detective, but I already knew you had the Giano II account when I joined, and I guessed that you had a Giano account before that, and so some quick research proved me correct. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, clicking clicking "What Links Here" is so difficult… ("Owner of the talkpage", eh? Remind me how that works, exactly?) – iridescent 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am allowed to remove anything I want from my talk page, and Jimbo can do the same. The 'What links here' page has too many entries, so I used my brain instead. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But the question is "can you remove what you like from Jimbo's page?" Unless you are the fabled destructive testing sock account of J.Wales, I doubt it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo said that he did not want the letter on his talk page, and that he did not want to be involved in the discussion. User:DavidShankbone and I were just following his wishes, but that had nothing to do with him being Jimbo. I would do the same for any other editor. Analogy: User vandalizes my user page. Somebody from Huggle will revert it. Why? Because they know I don't want it there (almost the same thing). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry one moment here? what on earth are you all talking about - I seem to have lost the plot; what letter on Jimbo's page? Finally, try clicking "User Page" at the top of this page - it is hardly a secret. Giano (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The diff that Iridescent provided was about a letter on Jimbo's talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanger's open letter to Wales, I believe. –xeno^talk 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear GoW, you seem to have missed something obvious in your little comment - neither time that Giano finished with an old account was he blocked. That does not inspire confidence in your detective skills. Giano has, in the past, attempted to remove himself from the project by scrambling his password; and then decided to return. For Giano, it was considered more appropriate to do it under a new username rather than request a new password (Giano is not the most computer savvy of editors - he rather concentrates on the content than the means of placing it upon the page). Furthermore, very likely the vast majority of established editors are fully aware of who Giano is - and his previous accounts. WP:Alternative accounts does allow people to have different accounts, and even allows them to be used at the same time (but not in the same places, usually) - it is the undisclosed use of multiple accounts, designed to circumvent Wikipedia policy, that is not permitted. I suggest that, when you start digging for information, you make yourself familiar with all aspects of a matter, otherwise you may find that the result of your excavating is that you are simply in a deep and dark hole. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Giano may own other accounts that I don't know about. There is no "disclaimer" on his user page listing his "alternative" accounts. 2. I clicked on your link and none of the reasons listed there apply in this case. 3. Giano should decide whether he is going to stay or leave or stop scrambling his passwords. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, get this through your head once and for all; you're starting to get disruptive. These are not sock accounts; none of them have edited concurrently. Check the histories. Even if they had, there's no policy against operating multiple accounts as long as it's not done disruptively. Enough. – iridescent 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I shouldn't be the least surprised - there is a vastness to your lack of knowledge that likely makes a dent in relativity. 2. Clean start under a new name seems to cover this situation, noting that the need to link accounts is only advisory and - anyhow - the vast majority of people interacting with this account are fully conversant with the history of this editor. 3. The person who sold you Wikipedia was very likely not Jimbo Wales, and you have even less authority than them, and it might be wise for you not to be telling long standing contributors what they may or may not do. Now, do you have something worthwhile to add to this discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Iridescent, I didn't say they were sock accounts, I was just saying that new people (like me and probably anybody else who created an account in the past 6 months) do not know that Giano has multiple accounts, and that Giano should stick to one account. @LHvU about #1, I agree with you. I do have a rather large lack of knowledge, but I'm not an admin, so it doesn't really matter. About #2, You are right but it is my 'opinion' that he should stick with one account. In my original comment, I was requested that he use one account, nothing more. About #3, I didn't get what you were trying to say in that one, but I understood the last 2 sentences. One, I started this discussion, so I should always have something worthwhile to say, maybe you should rephrase that to 'Do you have something worthwhile enough to waste my time on'. and Two, It was a request which I thought was legitimate, I wasn't demanding anything (if you notice I said please). Griffinofwales (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Computer help required

while performing my famous touch typing I have done something to my page, all I have now is a full screen with no browser on the top, or little tabs at the bottom listing the other sites I am looking at. anyone know what I have done - i think I touched the space bar and another key at the same time, but can't work out which - any advice appreciated. Giano (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Full screen mode? Try pressing F11. –xeno^talk 21:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! that worked!!!! You are clever. thanks. Giano (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem =) –xeno^talk 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously inderstand these things, I don't suppose you happen to know what it is I sometimes do, that suddenly makes the one letter I type suddenly start to swallow the letter in from of it - again its when I hit a wrong key when typing in the middle of a sentance. The only thing that cures it is logging out and starting again. Giano (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ah! I know this one (having been so plagued myself) - it's the button labelled 'insert' which is somewhere on or above the keypad on the right hand side of the keyboard - tap it once again and you'll be all fixed up! Privatemusings (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Most clever PM - thank you. Giano (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's cleared up this occasional anomaly for me, too!--Wetman (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dust settled!

Now that it's all quietened down I thought I would come and thank you for your assistance when I was blocked earlier this week. As you can imagine it is extremely frustrating when you feel you have been unjustly blocked. I wont witter one so I will just leave you with a heart felt thank you.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you VK; it was my pleasure. While my own block log is whiter than white, I can imagine the frustrations that you must feel in such circumstances. Giano (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent emails etc:

I have recently received this from the Arbcom:

Dear Giano,

The Arbitration Committee, with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales, is convening an advisory group, provisionally named the Advisory Council on Project Development, with members invited from across the breadth of Wikipedia. The Council will act as an advisory body to the Arbitration Committee and to the community; will consider various issues facing the project and develop ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it; and will serve as a forum for the sharing of best practices among the different areas within the project.

In light of your many contributions to Wikipedia, we would like to invite you to be one of the founding members of this Advisory Council. Please let us know whether you would be willing to be a part of this group; a response by Friday, July 10 would be greatly appreciated.

In addition, we would be very grateful for any suggestions you may have regarding a permanent name for this group.

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin

I am sure that Kirill will forgive me posting that email here, he like me, knows that some things are best on the open. I would like to all my peers to know, I have accepted this offer (as have some colleagues). I am assuming good faith, and look forward to presenting my views. If the whole thing proves to have been a silly ploy - then there is nothing lost - is there? Giano (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just time wasted, I suppose? I thank you for accepting. You are sure to have insight into a lot of important matters. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good for you, for you are one person who would not be constrained in continuing your public airing of grievances despite being a member of such a "focus group". LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A what? Prodego ^talk 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly? maybe. But silly meetings are better than meetings with the block baton battalion. Well done all around and may I add Right On!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is great; the idea, the offer, the acceptance. Cheers all around Jack Merridew 06:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, time will tell, no doubt - in the meantime you can read about it all here [1]. It would appear, I jumped the gun a little by mentioning it here first. Giano (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• As far as jumping the gun goes, it's no problem; it was a bit early, but it looks like the news was already out by that point. :-) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 11:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. -- llywrch (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD pages created

I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:

• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development
• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.

Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent events concerning ACPD

Amid all the noise and numerous pages concerning ACPD's formation; views are becoming lost and certain aspects ignored. What i find most amazing is that people are ignoring that "The Arbitration Committee, with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales" formed the council. Now his endorsement is imaterial to me, but some of those complaining so vociferously seem to be, by their own standards, comitting Lèse majesté. That is the aspect of this latest outcry that I find most interesting. However to those astounded by my appointment this is my stance:

I have no intention at all of resigning from this council until the first elections (so get that straight now) then you can get to have your say on me staying or going. This idea of an advisory committee may work it may not (it depends on how much notice the Arbcom choose to take), but it is better than what we have at the moment - nothing! We have had in the past (and for all I know, still do) secret committees/mailing list, so secret and off-wiki, than no one knew of their existence - (eg: the one where Slim Virgin, Jimbo & its other members were so disinterested that they failed to read Durova's memos - resulting in an editor being blocked for knowing German - do I have to go on because believe me, I can). The fact some people wish to rubbish those trying to rectify these gaping holes and failings in Wikipedia is to be expected. I have battled against them before - I expect nothing to change, but I'll bloody try. Regarding Arbs being on the committee, of course it needs a couple of Arbs - to say otherwise is ridiculous. It has to have representatives from the highest body or else it just becomes another group of editors opining to themselves - at least we will know Arbs are there and listening. Furthermore, it will need some intimation of how Arbcom view matters, how else is the committee supposed to gauge these things - clairvoyancy?

So there you are, if the ACPD survives the next few days, it will have me until at least its first election. Kirill was wrong to resign, you won't find me quite so easy to push over. Giano (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill, despite the other very fine quantities, has never been a trench fighter; you and quite a few of the invitees have been and are - used to floundering through the mud and bullets toward some lofty designated goal. I have hopes that Kirill will change his mind, because the experience of the last few days will likely be invaluable in his continuing participation in weighing arbitration matters, but I do sincerely hope the ACPD remains and attempts to fulfill its purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of Mike! I won't say anything, as I'm banned and all, because I'm so abusive, what with my long record of deceitfulness, except that this has to be noted. I'm thinking, at this point, that a mere discussion of the fact and overview of why Wikipedia cannot be more than an historical cul-de-sac is one thing, but I have to decide whether or not it's worth subdividing that point and explaining, analytically, the methods by which its historicity asserts itself over its function. This, though, is perhaps the best example ever seen of a type of death. It's like the People's Judean Front trying to decide how to memorialize Brian. Geogre (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were the Popular Front of Judea?!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw..

But this would be very relevant to many things you have to say, and I believe your input would be particularly valuable. → ROUX ₪ 18:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, it's fair enough, but lacks precision. I suspect we shall see a lot of "constitutions" appearing in the next few months, but unless there is a strongly expressed desire to see a new one, there is unlikely to be any change. Regardless of my own views, I have yet to see an overwhelming desire for a new and precise wikipedia constitution. Untill that happy day arrives and the principle is adopted, I don't see much point debating a hypothetical constitution. Giano (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Precision is more or less the major reason why I would value your input. → ROUX ₪ 19:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

When I see the community expressing a strong desire for a new constitution, then I will address it. Even I don't bang my head on a wall for pleasure. Giano (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright advice etc.Legal threats etc.

As I am now supposed to be (I believe) in an advisory capacity, here is some advice and food for thought that some non-American editors may want to consider. I beleive this may be being discussed elwhere on Wikipedia, but I suspect in a forum few of us visit.

I want you all to be aware that outside of the USA the famous Bridgeman case which puts photographs of old art into the public domain is not worth the paper it is written on. For example: If a British citizen, in Britain, uploads an image to Wikipedia that he found on another British website (without permission and/or payment of fees) he risks civil action by the copyright holder being taken against him in the British courts. Now before mass panic sets in - there has not been a test-case, but there are rumblings about one [2] - so perhaps all of us on this side of the pond should think twice about this subject. I don't think the foundation has considered the implications of this for British editors , in fact, their continued lack of guidance could be interpreted as misleading. My advice to the foundation is that they have a moral obligation to protect and advise those building the encyclopedia - there needs to be some strict guidelines, advice and warnings on this subject. Bearing in mind that British editors will be aware of the recent cases surrounding copyright music downloads etc, it is my advice that all museum photographs uploaded from the UK should be deleted, for the protection of British editors who made good faith uploads on the advice of the foundation. When there has been a test case, this can be reviewed, but I would imagine not many of us want to be the subject of that test-case, if only for financial reasons. Our personal views of the morality of ancient works of art and copyright are legally immaterial, and no part of this, wherever you are, the laws of your country take precedence over private opinion. So please no posting below - "I think the British law is unjust etc" because in a court of law your personal views on that are just that and count for nothing. Anyway, this is just something those concerned may like to think about, my advice is free, a case against you may not be. Giano (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that - all rather worrying, especially as it looks like the NPG having failed to get hold of the WMF have gone after the editor. As the editor was acting in good faith according to WMF policy "the servers are in the US, so US copyright applies" I hope the WMF will provide backing and assistance to him/her. There's some interesting 'test case' aspects to this - if the NPG hold works of art for the nation, can they assert copyright of the images they've had made of the paintings for profit? Is the WMF's position regarding copyright robust? Whatever your view on these matters, I'd rather we, as a charitable organisation, weren't the ones having to fight the test case to find out. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that this is something very important, as it affects all editors (it's an American currently being threatened with litigation). However, realistically, bearing in mind extradition precedents, it is those in the UK who have the most reason to be concerned. Perhaps, this is the first thing that the Whateveritscalled Council shopuld be advising and making people, arbcom and foundation aware of. It looks at the moment that nobody is doing much, and please, no-one tell me it is happening behind the scenes because I happen to know it is not because UK editors are probably uploading ancient works of art as we speak. Giano (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought the copyright issue would be civil, so unlikely to illicit an extradition although the accusation that 'security measures' were breached, may well be criminal. Regardless though, this is clearly a complex legal matter at heart and one for the foundation - professionally, we shouldn't be delving in to issues beyond our expertise, so unless we've got international copyright and 'hacking' lawyers on the team, I'd resist offering advice of that nature from our armchairs. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest people are merely made aware of the risks, at the moment many are not. I think it is matter that needs highlighting, at the moment it is not. Giano (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha - highlight the current legal 'risk' to UK editors - I'd get behind that. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of case where the typical UK editor, Piotr the Plumber, (and his American equivalent) suddenly finds they have to sell their house, wives and children to find $1000,0000. Not good! Giano (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the UK have some equivalent to the Fair Use Doctrine?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

UK has an analogous concept, fair dealing. Gimmetrow 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, thank you. In the United Kingdom, the application of "fair dealing" has always been the subject of dispute because statute law has not defined the exact number of copies and the amount of the original materials allowed. If so our beleaguered colleague might have a case...if he has the pounds for it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's written up In the signpost. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that is something of nothing. My advice to any British based editor, thinking of uploading, until this is settled, don't - The images are protected under copyright in the United Kingdom. Email one of Wikipedia's lawyers, in the USA, and ask them to do it for you. Giano (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Shamelessly seeking input at Advisory Council RFC

I've made a proposal on the talk page of the Advisory Council RFC in hopes of finding a constructive way forward. I'm shamelessly asking for input on it from you and others who have taken part in the discussion. Please see this section and contribute as you see fit. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 18:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please shamelssly post here as much as you like, but if I were you, I would not post sensible suggestions utill after all the usuals [3] have passed on to the next peanut butter fest. Giano (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a peanut butter fest? Sounds like something fun. Any chance I can fudge up an article on it?ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ever seen a dog eat peanut butter? Much moving of jaw, much flapping of gums, and nothing to show for it. → ROUX ₪ 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Except for that nummy nummy peanut butter taste, which always seems to leave them wanting more.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask whether it's an Advisory Council or if it might change its name to, oh, Guardian Council. The latter has a nice ring. The lack of clarity before hand seems...odd. Oh, well. We all know better than to listen to me, even I know that. Geogre (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to certain private allegations!

With the exception of Slim Virgin, I have spoken with no-one privately concerning Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development, attempting to influence their view. If anyone, other than Slim Virgin (who would like to put words into my mouth) has evidence to the contrary, they have my full permission to publish any private emails or correspondence. I have nothing to hide. Giano (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just want to be on the record based on this interaction with SlimVirgin on my talk that Giano and I mutually made NO attempts to influence each other, and in fact that conversation was very typical of all of our very rare chats with each other--total mutual befuddlement at whatever we happened to be looking at. This time, it was befuddlement over whether we'd deliberately stepped into a good and progressive thing, or whether we'd deliberately stepped in dog poop. rootology (C)(T) 20:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Council on Project Development

I have resigned from the above council because I accepted an invitation to be an advisor to the Arbcom, I did not accept an invitation to fight for a seat and enter into general mayhem - I have enough of that elsewhere. In its original form I though it was an idea with possibilities - however questions asked and answered before accepting the invitation made no mention of the complete lack of forethought and goal. I also believed it was a unanimous, or at least fairly unanimous, decision of the ArbCom, it now seems that was far from the case - certain Arbs now seem to be running about like headless chickens trying to appease all sides for what now appears to have been a monumental cock up - I also get the impression that other Arbs are sitting it out with a smug expression. I have tried to stick with it, but these factors, coupled with J Wales remarks about the council being so composed that "agitants" would be voted down - have led me to the view that it's not really my scene. I shall retain my opinions and always offer my advice, requested or not, just as I have always done in the past. In fact, my talk page has been a controversial, conspicuous "think tank" for years, why swap it for a controversial think tank without power? Giano (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. There are ways of marshaling the power of Wikipedians to understand the future and solve the problems at Wikipedia, but the worst way would be self-selection, the second worst way would be ArbCom selection by turns (the hilariousness occurring now), the third worst way would be votes. The group being floated now is hilarious, but this would be what happens if every member of ArbCom gets to pick its own favorite partisan and Jimbo gets to pick his agitants. (Oh, I'm sorry...are only people who disagree with Jimbo's fly-speck attention span agitants? Are only people against personal and opaque power agitants?) There had been a hope, back when all was vague. Now we're into the comedy of small minds and fragile egos trying to throw hammers at each other... again. An elementary school playground looks like the Academy of Athens in comparison. Geogre (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please stop personally attacking Durova. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Discussing Durova's persecution of innocent editors is not attacking her, wise up or shut up. Giano (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are personal attacks, they are not discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Tell that to the editors she drove off with her racist drivel and rubbish - or were you not here then? Giano (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Lord, not more "personal attacks" on Durova! Apparently, everyone is attacking her. I think the obvious answer is for lots and lots and lots of people to get blocked. We can't have personal attacks on Durova. Doesn't everyone know how important she is, how the site would crumble to dust without her? Geogre (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't want to see her pontificating as though an elder statesman of the site. To me it was only yesterday, that she first came to my attention because she had had banned one of Wikipedia's finst editors, who she deemd a dangerous sock - his crime was knowing German. she forwarded that knowledge to among others Jimbo and Slim Virgin - both later claimed not to have even bothered to read her evidence - However, the editor was banned - had he not been one of my close wiki-friends - she would probably have got away with it and the editor remained banned. As it was he has not returned and she still talks as though authorative - he was just ne of how many I wonder? Giano (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just FYI, I believe this was also raised here. –xeno^talk 20:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw dear old Slim Virgin on the war path again, must be tres difficult for her. Thanks. Giano (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Many of us avoid trouble by never mentioning the editor in question.--Wetman (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good advice, my late and much lamented Grandmother adopted the same principal to a cousin who shamed the family by entering politics. Giano (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the history, and thats what it is ..history, forget about your past grudges. Both of you would do well to look at yourselves instead of projecting onto others. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Only a fool turns his back on history. Giano (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Interjecting here: Durova holds a grudge like no one else I've seen at Wikipedia. She has been at me for years for a mild comment. She pursues "enemies" relentlessly and tirelessly and consistently tries to cause trouble. When I unblocked Peter Damian after a really stupid block and a really stupid misunderstanding of the blocking policy on AN/I, she came along to my page to cite an ArbCom finding at me pertaining to Giano from over a year back, as if I were under some dark, horrible restriction. It was the height of casting aspersions, irrelevant, illogical, and done with no purpose but to try to slander, that I could see. Hell, even I had forgotten about that ArbCom thing, but Durova kept a list of black marks ready to hand to use any time my name came up, it seemed. Well, keeping black lists is not appropriate. My personal experience shows her to be a personality-driven editor, and that is disruptive. Whoever Off2RioRob is, he's here suddenly upholding her honor. As for Georgewilliamherbert, he's, interestingly enough the person who did a block before on Giano for these things. Curious that Durova, who seems to remember that case so well as to cite it two weeks ago at me, is now defended by the same person who blocked Giano before.

The "personal attack" thing is utter nonsense. A personal attack would be on the person as a person. Well, there are no people at Wikipedia. There are screen names. An attack would be unprovoked and designed to harm. It would not be designed to defend Wikipedia against abusive behavior. When users are discussing allegations of abuse, the "personal attack" thing has to go out the window, else there is no way to charge people. Imagine having a law where anyone who brings a case of law can be put in jail for maligning the criminal. Geogre (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you think about history - the edit comments [4] [5] [6] are personal attacks, uncivil, and you've crossed the line.

That's enough. If you continue I will block you for personal attacks. You can continue to comment on the history without making abusive uncivil comments if you like. But no more attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You have the audacity to come here threatening me for saying what is the blatent truth. You are symbolic of... well we shall leave that for others to decide. Good evening and please do not return with your threats. Giano (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

As you spurned my warning and numerous others' criticisms about those comments ( [7] [8] [9] ) and un-struck the comments after another struck them out ( [10] ), as consensus has clearly established were hostile and violations of our no personal attacks policy, I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours.

As I said above - what you want to say about the historical record is of no concern. If you chose to say truthful things in a manner which violates NPA you are responsible for that action. You could have communicated your opinion and historical facts without crossing the line into insults - and chose to insult as well. That is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

What a funny little man you are George William Herbert. Giano (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was curious to see the last 500 edits made by this Georgewilliamherbert. They were rather as I had expected, only more so. Not viscerally encouraging, to put it diplomatically.--Wetman (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, that's what one finds. I beleive he is a profesional Admin. However, following my "invitation" to join the "think tank" I doubt my own humble efforts to content are any better. I have come to the conclusion on Wikipedia one either talks or does, the two combine are not compatable. Giano (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I unblocked you Giano. GWH indicated on ANI that his block was open to re-assessment. I left a message at ANI. I hope the turning of a new day has calmed a heated situation. Best regards -- Samir 08:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• I am interested in the block rationale of "prior blocks", because if that is maintained as appropriate then I shall immediately unblock Giano in future under the simple rationale of his extensive unblock log - or, you do get some muttheads coming out with the most ridiculously contrived rationales... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes well that's as may be, but it is getting even sillier now [11] Sandstein has now blocked RioRob, who had already blocked himself - (I am quite lost) - really if two grown men cannot have the ocasional swear at each other - the other was clearly not that bothered without all this nannying - then what is the world coming to? Giano (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob hasn't blocked himself because he isn't an admin, silly Giacomo. Though I agree he deserves to be, for his devotion to civility and truth! [12] Bishonen | talk 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

Well he said he was blocking himself, and had been talking about blocking everyone else; how on earth am I supposed to keep track of who is an admin and who is not, it seems most people are these days, at one time one noticed people writing pages and being arownd the place for a year or two and then they became admins. Today, one sees someone for the first time pontificating on ANI and the next moment they are on the ArbCom. Nothing surprises me here any more. Giano (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As you seem to be a technological marvel these days, you might try pasting in the code from here into your monobook (someone more techy than me can probably provide the link). It has the effect of turning all admin signatures a cyan colour, so you'd know if someone is just threatening or actually has the buttons. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I use User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js personally, but that only works viewing the actual userpage or usertalk. I can install either if you would like G. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes please, that would be a good idea and very useful, can I have the one that turns them cyan, it would be very handy to have them all flashing blue, then I could be nice and kind to them and tell them how clever they are - think of the drama it could save us all, not to mention all those peope who like to stay up all night to watch the drama unfold live while I'm in bed - I wonder why they do that, perhaps they only come out during the hours of darkness.

Y done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh you are blue too are you Julian? - how amazingly clever you are, to think that I know so many clever and important people all with true blue signatures, seems it's only poor old JC and me that dont flash blue - i suppose that in itself tells a story. Giano (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[Slightly threateningly.] No no little Giano! Little users not use or abuse cyan for admins! Is bishzilla uniquely handsome sig colour! bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

Oh you are here are you? I thought you had been humanely destroyed for sockpuppeting - this is my personal think tank and you are not an Admin - I only like Admins - such an intelligent race - monsters and the like are unwelcome. Giano (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiya doing, Zill? GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was under the impression one needed a licence to keep exotic pets, and that creature is unlicensed. I hate to say it, but sometimes one feels poor little Mrs Bishonen is not as responsible as she should be, in many ways Mrs Bishonen reminds me of my newest dearest friend Lucy she too had a penchant for the exotic, had we met and edited Wikipedia before our untimely deaths I'm sure we would have been a cause celebre - bringing lust to even the dullest admin. Whatever I am digressing, can the signatures be changed to royal blue? If so one of you many and dear Admins may nominate me to join your exclusive club - I feel the time is right for me to share myself Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have this talent. I take an evening off attempting to stir up drama on the 'Boards and abusing my sysop powers to rejig my archives - and someone decides to go through some sort of rite of passage by blocking Giano for one of his interchanges with other editors who are quite familiar with his usual discussive style... I think I was also previously engaged when Giano was blocked (since both Her Bishness and Ogre G E are disallowed from adminstering to Giano blocks, can this be entirely coincidental? I digress...) also. Should there be a next time it would be interesting to see if there is a pattern. Anyhoo, I have now moved all 12 of my talkpage archives into 1 rather long time loading very historical archive (over 1 GbMb of pleasant discussion and bewildered befuddlement, and a couple of good jokes) and started collating my more recent wibblings. I had wondered how I could advise the community of these epoch achingmaking events and, wonder of wonders, this happens. I call it a talent, but others may believe it a curse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  A 1 gigabyte archive would be a sight to behold. Yours are less than 2 Mb, though ;p –xeno^talk 19:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  Did I post gB? Oh, the shame - I meant mB. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts entirely Mr Van U, poor dearest Giacomo (my favourite and most dearest nephew) is just so put upon - how the good must suffer. Hence, I have decided to become an Administress myself, so that I can become his guardian angel and unblock him when necessary and save other the trouble - can I count on your support? PS: I'd sue that barber if I were you. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been long concerned over the relative lack of entirely discorporate shades of the once living persons who have been granted Administress status. My concerns, however, will not disallow me to engage upon enjoyable games of power manipulation and egregious abuse of community standing in contesting any such application, and I shall not hesitate in bringing up the Regrettable Cutlery Incident (where you callously used a 4lb lump hammer when dining upon crab claws at the Golden Jubilee Garden Party and Whist Drive at Kensington Palace) and the curious incident of the dog that barked in the night. Indeed, I encourage you to run! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, my beloved aunt is gong to be returned to her vault, whether she likes it ot not. One member of the dynasty in power [13] will be quite sufficient. So the natural selection process has chosen me, on account of me being alive and her dead. Giano (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jumpers, Lady Cate has outdone Harry Houdini, in terms of speaking from the grave. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

I lost track - where can I join the people crying "We want a constitution"? Novickas (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I rather think we have been smoked out in recent days. Giano (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some useless ruminations going on here. But I doubt anything will come of it at this time. Still, no harm in trying.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It'll be back. Thx for the link Ghost. Novickas (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants a suggestion for how to set up a council, I'm the man to see. I have a stunning plan that would, I think, be fair and avoid power. It's entirely reasonable, or as entirely reasonable as social objects can be ("Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing may ever be made," Immanuel Kant). It will, therefore, gather no support at all. Still, if anyone is thinking about getting a running start at this hurdle again, I have such a thing in the can. Geogre (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it involve robots?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, and that's another reason no one will support it. It won't allow for -bot generated policy approval or -bot generated policy ideas, with -bot votes by -bots for the consortium of -bots. Trust me: I actually use the impolite, "rude" revert on -bots. I figure that if there isn't a person, there aren't feelings, but I foresee a day when someone is blocked for incivility toward a -bot. "You have made a personal attack on a -bot, and now you will be blocked until you apologize to line four of its code." Geogre (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hepatorenal syndrome

Dear Giano, I would like to ask for your help. Please help me fix hepatorenal syndrome. My sleep deprived prose is now resembling that of lesser primates (i.e. grunting sounds, mashing the keyboard with non-opposable thumbs). It's up at FAC and is so close. I know you probably have a brazilian other things to edit (and this is outside of your usual sphere of interest) but I would so appreciate the help of the master of beautiful prose. Thanks so so so much. (In addition to my eternal thanks, I'll even send you a second goat to replace the one that was on your other user page!) -- Samir 03:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that one is truly beyond me, I am not good with blood and insides and things. My advice to anyone and everyone writing Wikipedia is to stick to a subject you undertstand. In an effort of collaboration. I did try to read it through, but when I came to this picture File:Esophageal varices - wale.jpg - I felt a little unwell myself. However, it is clearly very well written and informative and I think it is fantastic that someone with such a grasp of the subject, takes the time to write at Wikipedia - one page like that is worth a billions of some of the others. Congratulations and good luck, I'm sure it is FA standard already. Giano (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

God love ya. Thanks for peeking at it -- Samir 08:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, the other thing is that when I read medical pages, I start to think I have the same symptoms - I wonder of other people are like that. Giano (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on the last time you read a medical page; I felt a bit off colour last weekend - can you recall whether it coincided with your above reading habits? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. You're a funny guy. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

I thought I was the comic. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We're all in the funny papers. Geogre (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Polite distance

Giano, let's put this behind us. Have set aside other work to restore an architectural image and requested your early unblock. It is not acceptable to resume with these comments[14][15][16] before the term of the original block is even over. You don't need to give thanks or apologies. Just retract the accusation about "the truth" please, because the personal attacks you wrote last night were untrue. You may have believed them but you were mistaken. If you don't wish to accept an olive branch then let's shake hands and walk our separate ways politely. Durova²⁷⁹ 19:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Durova, as you have come freely and uninvited to this page, I will respond directly to you. Where I come from, olive sprigs are cheap and plentiful. I have no intention of giving thanks or apologies. The truth is you were 100% responsible for writing this. It is a foul, vile and lowly document full of lies, blatant mistakes, naivety and crass stupidity, while amusing many it caused immense distress to one editor and shamed the project, those who received it and those who ignored it. Had it been written by a child or teenager, 18 months later one could have forgiven and attempted to forget - it was not, it was written by you, an adult. No one asked you to write it, no one wanted you to write it - you just wrote it and then sent to God knows how many people (we have never been told the members of that secret Wikipedia group) and had that editor banned. Why you did that is a mater for your conscience alone, that you still continue to work in Wikipedia is fine, your work in images is remarkable. However, that you still like to talk in authoritative sagely tones, proffering your opinion all over the project is a matter for others to consider and evaluate, but I chose not to shake your hand or condone your opinions. Giano (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Concourse
• 
  Been having trouble uploading at full resolution, so these are compressed files. Will try to follow up with the full deal.
• 
  Restored.

The lengthy ANI thread re: your self

I've taken the liberty of now archiving this. No admin intervention is needed and a general air of misery is being created through well meaning intervention by others. Simply, it had its time. I felt it courteous to notify you. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with you, it was all getting rather tedious wasn't it. One wonders why poor Slim Virgin bothered to start it. Never mind, no harm done. Giano (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your email, my apologies for not replying - busy in that Real Life thing. Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Giano. If you have a moment could you review my post here. I'm not overly happy about getting forced into being the deal maker here, but I guess it's now come to that. You thoughts on a simple resolution would be, shall we say, helpful. Pedro :  Chat  23:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And Giano, for what it's worth I've just deleted basically the entire thread over on the talk page of the RfC. As I said at Durova's talk page: "I don't hold out much hope that somebody won't come and revert me, but you never know. I've done this without, I hope, suggesting any particular support for any "side" in this matter, but rather to provide a clean(ish) slate." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it didn't last. Oh well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am quite happy for it all to be deleted, but not just those parts of Durova's selection, so until that happy day I have re-inserted the missing section - as debate it is important [17] - That Durova finds it unpalatable is unfortunate, but when one makes public comment one should expect debate and opinion. Giano (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I had previously believed you incorruptible

However, your decision to remove my (well founded) allegations of the late Madame de Burg - or whatever, the names of the dead are difficult to recall - using tradesmens tools in the consumption of crustaceans appendages has sorely tested my beliefs! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• My table manners are impeccable. You are probably the sort of person who eats asparagus with a knife and fork while slurping noisily from the finger bowl Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Madame, you obviously mistake me for a juggler! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop it

Really. Your point is well taken, don't make it too pointy. Black Kite 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have only just started. I am not stoppng until he is blocked! Admins stared and ignored that post for hours - do you see me saying cockfucker? Just imaging Sandsttein, Herbert and their friends if I did - they would be racing to block and a thread half a mile long of others wanting the block extended. Giano (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have already made that point on the ANI thread. I would point out that stuff posted at that time on a Sunday morning regularly get ignored for hours - the US are out partying and the UK is asleep - just look at the backlog of ANI threads I closed this morning. You are going to achieve nothing by martyring yourself by edit-warring on the ADCP thread - so yes, you're right, take the moral high ground and keep it. Black Kite 10:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rubbish. They would be racing eacjh other for their names to be on my block log - it is like a super barnstar for them - and he is still not blocked - so that does not hold water. Giano (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• He's still not blocked because throwing in a block now would be punitive rather than preventative, and if someone had blocked you for something similar 9 hours after the event I would unblock you as well. Now please let it go while you're still ahead? Black Kite 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, tell me about punitive blocks - they don't noramlly seem to worry Sandstein Conolly and Herbert do they? Whats so different with you all now? Never have I seen Admins display their rank partisan biasednees so much before. Giano (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve here? You've already made your point - you are completely correct that DT's comment was out of order, I've warned him, it's been noted very visibly on ANI. Yes, I know it looks like double standards but you'll have to believe me on this one - if I'd seen that comment at 3.46am this morning I'd have blocked him, but I'm not going to now. And I'm pretty sure that goes for most admins as well. If someone else wants to drop in and block him now then fine, but it would be hypocritical of me to act differently on this one from how I would normally. Now can I unlock the thread and be confident you aren't going to keep removing Wehwalt's posting? Black Kite 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no need to a warning to mention my post which was informed and quite true. Giano (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If Wehwalt's warning is struck or removed, then I won't need to take matters into my own hands. Cock sucker is not in my vocabulary it is grossly incivil and insulting by anyone's standards. If you think it is OK it's for comments like that to stand then you are not the person I thoyght you were. Giano (talk)

OK, I've removed the entire sub-thread and unlocked it. That seems like a reasonable compromise. Black Kite 11:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it is pity I have to battle so hard to acheive what is quite reasonable. Now all that remains is to know the real reason why no admin was prepared to block an editor who refers to another edoror as a cock sucker [18]. Perhaps Sandstein, Connoly or Herbert or one of the numerous others would like to start the ball rolling. Giano (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You know how I feel. I think all of these fascination with "dirty words" is brain damaged. I think it's hypocrisy. I think it's absolutely right that you're pointing out the hypocrisy, and I even told Jimbo that the real joy he was going to have with his mandatory 3 hour blocks for any admin using a dirty word for a regular editor, which he said was policy, was that they were going to get to block each other. Of course, it would be delightful if the buffoons learned from this and tried, for once, to act appropriately. It would be delightful if they've repented and recanted. So, if they don't believe in an instant block for a word that the movie Bull Durham says will cause the instant ejection of any manager from a baseball game, then let's see some change of heart. That would be the really desired outcome: people to realize that "civility" is not words, and this fascination with words is an insanity that can only lead to witch hunts. Geogre (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My own personal civility policy only has three fairly easy to keep and simple rules [19] that post breaks three of them. In my book it was very uncivil and the usuak admins ignoring it was suspicious in the extreme. Giano (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BlackKite, nothing personal, but most blocks are punitive, not preventative, that are given because someone used a bad word with somebody. They're punitive because the blocking admin has no idea if the editor in question is going to use another bad word again within the next few minutes or not. Many other blocks are also punitive. That's one of the problems with Wikipedia's admin policies is that it forces our admins to distort things by saying that all of their blocks are preventative, when actually many, if not most, are intended to be corrective in nature, which is close to the same thing as punishment. I don't necessarily think that there's anything wrong with punitive blocks, but our policies need to be updated to address the issue so that our admins don't have to keep talking out of both sides of their mouth about it. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I just get tired of the rank double standards and pretence, certain admins just chop and change their stance depending on who they are dealing with and what their own personal viewpoint is. What it proves beyong doubt is that, in truth, they are not really in the least bothered about civility standards. They just use it as a convenient and handy weapon to silence those advocating opinions that don't fit with their own - which is what I have always maintained. Giano (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I think the point I was making is that I could've constructed a reasonable argument at 3.47am that such a block would've been preventative, whereas 8 hours later, with no intervening edits by that editor, it is not possible to do so. The problem is that since many admins issue such blocks depending on many other factors such as how egregious the insult is, whether it's a pattern of behaviour, and the context in which the comment is made, it's always possible for someone to say "X was blocked for this, but I found this example where Y wasn't blocked for exactly the same thing!". And it doesn't help that the text in WP:BLOCK which says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block" is basically contradictory. Black Kite 13:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Admns use civility to silence those whose opinions do not co-incide with their own. Today, that has been proved 100%. It has set an important precedent and left the civility policy in tatters and destroyed. Giano (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What "civility policy?" I don't care that I've said it before: it remains the case that the "civility policy" says that we ought to be nice. Heck, no one disagrees with that. We should be forthright, thrifty, and brave, too. The only part of the policy that has anything to do with blocking is that it says that in extreme cases a person might be blocked for bad behavior. Under any reasonable circumstance, it's easy to understand what that means. Heck, I was here at the time, so I know what it means. It's true that people weren't using many bad words back then, but it's also true that the policy was aimed at attack accounts. I.e. that clause was designed for trolls, for flame warriors. There is a gap of a few dozen light years between a contributing editor who gets upset and a flame warrior. In fact, many of the people going about looking for people they can call uncivil are flame warriors. Of course the enforcement is hypocritical, because the people involved are flame warriors using what's at hand, not people worried about the tone of conversations. In some cases, they may, in fact, be so allergic to free speech and have such antibodies to disagreement that they themselves can't see the difference between "makes me look bad" and "violates the law," but, in those cases, we're just dealing with immature people. We should never underestimate the number of those there are, no matter their ages. Geogre (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well put George! Just for that I won't report you to the Robot Council for your blasphemy earlier against our automated overlords.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I am glad that the matter has been settled, or at least finished with. I am now going to tell you - and the audience that I am fully aware of - why I did not block, warn or interact with Doc Tropics in this matter. The fact is, I am livid that anyone should use or consider the term "cocksucker" as a pejorative phrase - I have as friends many women and not a few men who are cocksuckers by choice and habit, to differing degrees of skill and enthusiasm doubtless. My reaction to Doc Tropics comment was a wish to block him indefinitely for homophobic hate rhetoric within a breach of WP:CIVIL; obviously I am not permitted to do that, because the ill defined policies and guidelines that gets you warned and blocked for making personal observations upon other editors/admins actions and comments yet not someone who uses despicable language that both targets one editor and denigrates the sexual choices of two different genders and orientations. Since I cannot block another editor for being ignorant of fostering hate in their stupid remarks I realised that I could not judge impartially (difficult enough when it involves you, anyway) Doc Tropics choice of words.
I do agree with you, though, that the non actions of certain admins who appear all too eager to hold you to the very smallest punctuation mark of whatever policy they deem that you have transgressed have done them no favours. That only I, and possibly a few others likewise who felt unable to act, are not even inclined to consider the potential damage to the community in allowing terminology that vicimises large members of it to pass unremarked is even more damning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we were to block for "uncivil language," and I do not believe in it, then it would apply to any term of opprobrium, and "cocksucker" is a longstanding term of abuse, even among populations for whom fellatio is not a practice held in contempt. I.e. the word is a term of abuse, whereas "blow job queen" or "queer" or some other explicit reference to homosexual or heterosexual fellatio is not. Gay men would use "cocksucker" as a term of insult. Therefore, being held back by that is overly refined, because it isn't a literal term. In fact, "cocksucker" has no more literal meaning than "fucker." Certainly, it's no insult to call someone a fucker? I should imagine that biology and society both conspire to endorse our all being fuckers. The same with being "jerk offs," to some degree, if a recent article in Slate is to be believe (msn.slate.com), which argues that masturbation is a compulsive behavior among all mammals and most animals. Therefore, it's inappropriate to look at the literal value of the term for discerning the social value of it. I should be proud of being called a "fucker," although I would, sadly, have to correct the record and say, "Alas, not in a while, but one remains hopeful." Geogre (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Truly, it's all in the context. For withering opprobrium, I've rarely heard anything to beat my late mother's delivery of "middle-class".--Wetman (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Wetman - as awithering goes that is pretty withering. As I say in my own essay on the subject of civility: [20] "Wikipedia has transformed nice pretty middle class genteel manners into a weapon which must be used to conceal the truth and bannish integrity and personal honour" except of course in this instance they did not even manage to acheive that. I objected to that term because, I beleive, it is grossly offensive, whatever one's sexual orientation and it was used with the intention of being grossly offensive. If we are going to discuss it's meaning, I think it is meant to denegrate homosexuals and in that instance to suggest that being homosexual as an insult - so you have a double whammy. Any Admin reading it would have been aware of that - I am just waiting for the next time one of the civility police dare to challenge anyone - I think it was a very dark day because it means anything can now be said and many are less robust than me and less prepared to fight back. let's have an end to it now - until the next time. Giano (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that I am alone in my concerns that certain prejudices are reinforced by casual reference to terminology that reflects negatively upon certain groups within society; yet somehow (polite) society has largely discontinued derogatory comments that might be considered demeaning to blacks, Jews, and women. Nevermind, perhaps I have been oversensitised by my exposure during vandalism patrol to those juveniles who think it the very apex of ridicule to infer that another is homosexual... That people do not consider an anti gay (or women, or Muslim) perjorative phrase to be anything other than a jibe designed simply to elicit an outraged response is part of the problem, but it is not one that Wikipedia has any role to play in resolving - other than a few people perhaps deciding to be more discerning in their choice of epithet. Never mind, the stars can wait while we search for pearls amongst the grime in the gutter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SHUN

The user who made the unfortunate remark to you has received his comeuppance. Could you please follow WP:SHUN and ignore him? Should he annoy you further, please make a follow up report at WP:ANI. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your comment

If you'd put half the same inventive effort into your editing, we might be further advanced in the poject.

However, be assured I am not in the least angry or insulted by you. Accordingly, though we do not seem to run into each other at Wikipedia, if I see you using language, however veiled, designed to provoke or anger others, or if it is brought to AN/I's attention, I will feel at perfect liberty to take appropriate action. Riot is illegal. So is inciting to riot. I tend to treat the two equally here on Wikipedia. And the inciter may find himself prevented even if the riot doesn't occur.

Happy editing!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The above post by an Admin (yes, you read me write, can you beleieve it?) is in response to this edit by me [21]. Sadly, he feels calling an editor a "cocksucker" is perfectlty acceptable. You can all evaluate that for yourselves, but at least he has his name on this page now, so he has acheived a certain fame - I hope it gives him satisfaction. If he replies here, would someone please just revert him or whatever...thanks.Giano (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He does seem very middle class! --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Frightfully mundanely so! Giano (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One reads you write or right good sir? Because the former is my prefered choice and the play on words worthy of the independent's cryptic crossword. Pedro :  Chat  20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so long as someone is paying attention, I'm happy. Bloody stupid language anyay, no wonder no one can speak it properly. Giano (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've been in one riot, only one, in 1984. It was caused by the police. In 2003, I was one of 500,000 marchers in Manhattan protesting the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq on Valentine's Day, and the police began using horses to stampede elderly peaceniks into the walls. Perhaps he means to block every patrolling poltroon? Then he would only need to block himself. The use of the vile, homophobic slur was simply putting the cart before the horse in trying to lead by example. A peaceful Wikipedia is a Wikipedia without contributors. Geogre (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, I think he's influenced by his friend. Anyway, let's move on, this is becoming rather dull. Wikipedia has the admins it deserves, someone must vote for them - so leave it be. Giano (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:SHUN, which was a new essay on an old technique. New Yorkers know never to fall into conversation on the subway with someone reading two books at once (I observe that one is invariably the Bible) and muttering "cocksuckers cocksuckers cocksuckers...". ---Wetman (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Architecture

Actually I was here for a different purpose. I've been thinking about how the architecture article might be salvaged from it's current incoherent ramblings. Half decent top-level articles are as rare as hen's teeth - Law is the only one I could find, it's a masterpiece of concision in my view, but the subject has a number of inherent advantages over architecture. Not least, it's essentially a ruleset and so comparatively easy to quantify and also the 'global scope' isn't as diverse as architecture. When I talked to the author (he's rather modest about his achievement in my view) and asked his advice he said getting the structure right was the most important thing - I'd kind of got that far to be honest. So I've been thinking about structure and wondering whether you or Wetman, or anyone really has any ideas?

1. Summary style - see Law, careful section headings required in order to be comprehensive. Architecture possibly lends itself less well to this approach, because of the nebulous and over-arching scope of its interest.
2. Chronological - danger it becomes the 'history of mankind', problems with point-to-point historic discussions
3. Technologically chronological - explores architectural history through technological invention - makes social ideas harder to structure
4. Geographical....fraught with too wide a scope.
5. Deal principally with the current state of major global architecture and practice as it is today with short summary sections for history etc.

I know we have Outline of architecture but it seems to miss the mark somehow - too much classification, too woolly ('essence of architecture?') - I've copied over a brief subject outline I did at CZ a while ago here, it needs some work, but might be a better start. Another start point might be to have a look and see what approaches other encyclopaedias have taken - any favourites?

Any thoughts, views, opinions? anyone? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re "Half decent top-level articles are as rare as hen's teeth - Law is the only one I could find" – can I just give mentions to the unlikely foursome of Poetry, Islam, Planet and Genetics (with honorable mentions for Bacteria, Evolution and Australia, too), as credit-where-credit's-due efforts to make genuinely good quality articles in the "nailing jello to the wall" atmosphere of the top level high traffic articles? – iridescent 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

oo - we have more than I thought - Iridescent - were you involved in any of these? Any advice on freeze drying the jello before application would be gratefully received. (off to read poetry....deep breaths)--Joopercoopers (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent is very good on architecture, it's how I met him - well I advised on architeture he did the page, he's what I call a do-er. Giano (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec, re to Joopers) Nope – if you want, I can give my standard lecture on why I think the top level articles are the least important part of Wikipedia (people can look up Architecture anywhere; there aren't many places you can find out about Ham House or Noel Park). (I don't really do that many building articles; most of my long articles are on bridges.) User:Fowler&fowler is the one you want to be asking about stabilising top-level articles. – iridescent 21:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right - but think of the children in Africa! re. Fowler. Thanks, will do. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with iridescent: the smaller the subject, the better the article: I thought Royal Entry was too much to handle, till Johnbod did it up so well. Ideally, History of architecture should be built up of concise summaries of smaller articles, linked to with hatnotes. But Architecture should be a report of published essays by architects, I'd think.--Wetman (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Some of us think that the big ones are the only real challenges. The giant articles are where you get to weave a line of organization and presentation that will help make sense out of the chaos. There is no greater joy than helping a naive reader put the big mess into a rational order. It's fantastic. A real research challenge, a real intellectual exercise. Then the "where is the citation to 'architecture is about building' instead of network solutions" people come along. Geogre (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• The only problem is that any decent book on architecture has to be transported in a wheelbarrow and most those are not comprehensive. My thought are that Architecture should realy be an index page. The other problem with an all encompassing page is stability, there will alwaus be Randy from Boise who knows that Boise's public library is worthy of a mention - not that that is a reason for not writing a page. I will think some more on this. Giano (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• These are all problems with such aticles - and it's undeniably easier to write and maintain obscure ones, but, as the Apollo missions are all over the telly at the moment, "we should do it, not because it is easy, but because it is hard".........Really high traffic'ed articles seem to end up semi-protected anyway which usually sorts out Randy. Giano - take a look at Law, it's practically a directory with a little commentary on each heading. The key is get the directory structure right. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see some analytical thinking on the subject of architecture. Half the problem, I suspect, is the confusion between architecture as existing artefacts (historic buildings and all that) and architecture as a creative practice, with most editors leaning towards the former. I'm an architect myself and just starting to look at the coverage of the subject, which is frankly poor on the practice side. It does worry me that as Iridescent says (loosely), children will look here and be inspired or not, and some of the content is simply incompetent, obviously written without any first real knowledge of the subject - "incoherent ramblings" is a kindest way to put it. I'm not prolific and don't have time for the intensive referencing needed to get anywhere near good article status, but interested in discussion and suggestions for contributions. ProfDEH (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a general suggestion for anyone who does decide to take on Architecture; you might want to ask User:DavidCane to take a look at whatever you come up with. As a quantity surveyor in real life, as well as the author of assorted architectural articles such as Senate House (University of London) and Charles Holden, he has a knowledge of the terminology and jargon of both architecture and Wikipedia, but brings a good "from the other side" perspective – I find he invariably spots at least one thing that was obvious to me but that the general reader couldn't be expected to understand. – iridescent 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, my view is I think that Architecture should be a short, punchy, clean and simple page pointing to various other pages. Perhaps I am just in a temporary minimalist mode. Giano (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha! yes. a good beginning to Architecture might simply provide an outline to flesh out: once on a time I did Spain in the Middle Ages (though it remains an outline to this day). Sort of a non-carbonated low-fat Portal. Such an outline will show up the sections (full articles themselves) that are still missing. --Wetman (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Architecture page needs to be different from the Outline of architecture, otherwise there is no point having both. A minimal page would be nice, but the scope would have to be strictly limited. Law for example succeeds not by being brief, but in fact by being comprehensive in scope, together with being brief on each topic.I'm not sure the current structure is all bad - it's the content of some sections that is the main problem? I suppose if Outline of architecture was restructured more logically, it could make sense to use the same structure for both articles. ProfDEH (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the function for an encyclopedia would be historical, and that's why most folks would go toward historical survey. Y'all are up against two important THOU SHALT NOT's, here. 1. Is an ancient one that may have been superseded by practice anyway: Thou shalt not have an hierarchical page (i.e. "no subpages"). 2. Is more fundamental but also tangential, and that is "Wikipedia is not a how-to." I realize that no one is suggesting otherwise on either of these. However, the best answer organizationally would be embedded sub-articles, which we can't do, and the temptation on the "practice of architecture" is to fall into the descriptions of ongoing practice that get close to Wiki-versity's realm.

From a topological point of view, you can break it down into architecture (study) and architecture (practice) to get at the classic logos/praxis divide. You can then take the former and go into materials, styles, -and society, -and geography. From the practical side, you can go into licensure, requirements for study, materials sciences, drafting, civil and commercial architecture, and design, as well as professional organizations that honor design. Something like that? My point is that a top level split between study/practice, and then you can get various historical matters relevant to each. Geogre (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are precedents for article hierarchies where the subject's just too big to cover in a single article – see the pyramid structure of United States → History of the United States → History of the United States (1849–1865) → American Civil War → Western Theater of the American Civil War → Atlanta Campaign progression, or the assorted subpages of Samuel Johnson, for example. – iridescent 15:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My award for daftest idea of the week

Goes to the ArbCom. Giano (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I second the nomination. Join those of us mocking this mockery if you wish.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

War is over, if you want it. It's a bag-in! (It's the apotheosis of drag queen slang is what it is.) Geogre (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, with all your comments about the lack of content contributions from admins, I would think you would be an enthusiastic supporter of the No Drama Days 2009 festival. Surely you can let yourself be caught up in the goodwill and spirit of collaborative encyclopedia building for a few days...? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not when the ArbCom struggles to cope with the workload it already has. Giano (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Back when I could contribute to Wikipedia, I could do that and have opinions at the same time. The problem is with people who take it upon themselves to be professionally opinion holders. Geogre (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article

I just finished reading this, and I wanted to let you know that I think it's a brilliant essay. I've written over 20 featured articles, yet I still found it extremely insightful and interesting. Thank you for writing that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I read it as well and I'm glad you mentioned Raul654's arbcom election. That made me quite mad too. Pzrmd (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think the whole thing is somewhat out of date now, but I suppose somethings never change. Giano (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment in the Geogre motion

Giano, luv--As I once said to Bish via e-mail, I am "a total Giano partisan", so please don't take this comment as nanny-nagging: That comment about Matisse is quite likely to get you into trouble with the WP:NPAers and the "Civility! Civility! Wait...there's an encyclopedia here somewhere?" set. *As you said your statement is common knowledge, there's no need for you to be the one to re-iterate it*. Let someone else say it; you KNOW someone will make a squawk if you're the speaker. (And re: my sentence above, the one framed by asterisks: by moving one comma and inserting a semicolon, it becomes a far more accurate statement of my own opinion. But that is not, at least not entirely, the point. :) Hang in there, friend--this place needs you!GJC 22:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This place needs me like a hole in the head and would probably rather have one. Giano (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A soft touch may be better right now. If you go in (correctly or not) aggressively, then it may look bad for Geogre, as you and he were involved in many of the same cases, and people look at current actions as applying backwards to previous actions, and assume that the company one keeps reflects on the self. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I rather think I know what I am talking about - I usually do. Being in any judicial position is knowing how to read between the lines - sometimes it is easy, sometimes it is hard. However, I have never seen anyone fails so abysmally as this present ArbCom. Giano (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Worried? Not hardly. Having thrown so many admins to the wolves over the years I didn't want anyone to think I'd gotten soft in retirement. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was nice to see you all back, who can forget how suspect socks were treated in your day, secret trials, evidence from Durova and the editor was blocked regardless of guilt. Oh happy days. Giano (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, we had an editor wrongly convicted and blackballed inside of two days, with time for a nice up of tea afterwards. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

...and too think that is just the one we got to know about - you are to be truly commended. Giano (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

When one looks at the punishments [22] your friends dreamt up for those who blew the whistle on the seekrit societies and blocks, one is indeed glad to live in modern times. The present ArbCom may not be 100% brilliant, but they are doing their honest best which is a lot to be said. Such a pity the gang of 4 (or whatever you are) have set out to undermine them. One can only wonder why, and let's be honest here, one does not have to wonder very hard. I will concede though Mackensen, you, personally, did what you believed to be right. Giano (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

MemChu

Giacomo, would you be interested in reviewing or working on this article? It needs architectural and copyediting review. Perhaps I'm too hard on it (married there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I will take a proper look, my brief cursory look just now saw no problems at all. It was very impresive. Less impressive was you being married, my life is wrecked, how can you be so cruel as to ask me to look at the church where this happened. Have you know feelings at all? Giano (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I said I was married there; I didn't say I was married, now did I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a God! Giano (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

But is He Catholic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, is he Italian? Giano (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure He must be ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right on that one. Right, let's look at this article. Giano (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so, flattery will get me everywhere! Now I know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're both only half right; God is Irish-Catholic. And if you were in the room with me right now, I'd give you both big sloppy kisses. --Christine (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I rather think you will find that St Peter came to Rome and found God, I don't recall him going to Dublin or Belfast - do you? Giano (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the sloppy kisses. Beautiful work, Giacomo: better already !! Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all fun and games until someone loses an "aye" (SV censorship on Arbitration comments)

This just in, hot off the press from the "we can dish it out but we can't take the slightest hint of criticism" commission.

Yes, you'd think that some of them were being called on the carpet, or were being put under some kind of special scrutiny for all the feathers flying. Honestly, it's all a bit of overkill if you ask me.83.76.6.80 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Put back again
• Geez
• Meatpuppet cleanup. (I apologize in advance for being crude, Giano, but....)

Slim. Honey. Strap on a pair. Where's the Chutzpah when the going gets tough? 83.76.6.80 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Images sizes

You are too naughty! You will have the MOS police crash down on our heads! Amandajm (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

something will be certainly be crashing, but it won't be on my head [23]. Giano (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. It's an ongoing problem which annoys me almost as much as those large cathedral info boxes with a place for the name of every single member of the chapter Amandajm (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Careful - too much interest in infoboxes leads to accusations of sockpuppetry. Do you know much German? Awful language, I understand. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Waugh quote re Brympton d'Evercy

Hi, I've put List of Grade I listed buildings in South Somerset up at FLC and been challenged to give a full reference for the quote "It has been described as the most beautiful house in England" about Brympton d'Evercy. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grade I listed buildings in South Somerset/archive1 for the discussion. This may be a long shot but I was wondering if you had the further details of the article in the Telegraph?— Rod ^talk 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

yes the reference is listed - a copy of country life from 1920something - I have a copy of the original, but Waugh did not say it, it wa said by Christopher Husey. Giano (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ah pehaps he did, I have the Telegraph cutting somewhere - I think Waugh was referring to Hussey. I'll dig it out. Giano (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

as is typical, I can find every cutting but the one I want: I see I gave the full quote in the conclusion "Last week we learnt that the most beautiful house in Somerset has been sold.....it is sad of course for the family who owned it who had made a valiant effort to keep it going ..it did not succeed as a showpiece: they had run out of money, the internal decorations were dreadful, and they lacked the proper kit to make it look like anything more than a prep school on open day. So now the most beautiful house in England will be a private family home once again.." along with a full reference. It is possible I mistranscribed, but not likely, especialy as the a lead fact like that I ould have double and treble checked. I don't see what further references onc can give for a columnist, writing his own column in a national newspaper - are back editions on-line or available anywhere? I will keep searching, it should ne here somewere. Giano (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking - I have similar problems with my filing systems. I presume the quote marks in the excerpt above are yours as they do not appear in the Brympton d'Evercy article which makes me think it may be Waugh original rather than quoting Christopher Hussey (but ref 27 is no more helpful than ref 1 for my search). The Rambling Man has found this which ascribes it to Hussey, maybe I'll just use that for now.

BTW have you thought any more about getting Brympton d'Evercy to GA/FAC?— Rod ^talk 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relax, I have found the cutting, I knew I had it somewhere. I am quite correct the quote is spot on - it os Page 17 of Monday, August 31. 1992. Daily Telgraph. Oh and the website is wrong - hussey does not say that at all - he implies, but does not say it. I have his article in full - the quote is 100% Waughs. Giano (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant I'll change it back again, but do you have the title of the article?— Rod ^talk 20:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The column is called Way of the World. The section header was "But life goes on." On a lighter note, I don't care for that website [24] and would certainly not consider getting married myself in a "refractory", however historic! Suggest you stick with my reference.Giano (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tis done. Thanks again. Do you want me to add the formatted cite to Brympton d'Evercy (as an inline cite)?— Rod ^talk 20:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• yeah, that would be a good idea, I don't want to have to upend the filing cupbaord again. Thanks. Giano (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Tis done - sorry to hassle your filing cupboard & thanks again.— Rod ^talk 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An article you may enjoy

Have you had a chance to read Christopher Hitchens' piece "The Lovely Stones" in Vanity Fair? I know you have a passion for architecture, and I thought of you as I read it. It's about the English plundering of Greek architecture during the colonial period, and the effects it still has today. Unitanode 15:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not seen; I shall have to buy a copy - is it this month's edition? Giano (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the July issue with Johnny Depp on the cover. Unitanode 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if it's still available - otherwise it has to be a wait for my dentist where all the old dog eared magazines are to be found! It will make a pleasant change from reading the out of date doings of Posh and Becks in Hello or overpriced houses sold six months before in Country Life. Giano (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Never fear, for I have found it online. It's regarding the mutilation done by the looting of Lord Elgin in 1812 of various adornments of the Parthenon. I think you'll enjoy it. I know I did. Unitanode 19:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good that new museum - reviewed in the Architectural Review as such a fine building it stands as a case just on its own for the return of the marbles. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens himself makes a similar case. What I don't understand is, why the holdup? Hitchens basically destroys the three basic arguments the Brits use to support keeping them. Unitanode 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Stanford

[25] - replied to the 'transept balcony' thing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Bishonen

Giano, you can't say things like this. "So in the interest of the project fuck off from this page and shut the fuck up!" is far from what is acceptable behaviour for any user here. If you don't like what someone has said, however provoked you feel, you need to express your concern in a much more collegial manner. The incivility you used in the above example merely lessens the impact of your words. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You should apologize immediately. Prodego ^talk 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

" Giano, you can't say things like..." What a ridiculous statement Ryan, I clearly have! What on earth has it got to do with you anyway - pure presumption - No, don't answer, let's not go there - too dull for words. If someone wants to reopen the whole Geogre/Utgard can of worms - that is quite fine by me, but if that is not th case, and I suspect it is, then shut the fuck up and I will do the same. Giano (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Arbom a couple questions that relate to you

I really think that comments like the one you left on Bishonen‎'s talk page are way over the line. I've asked for comment on the Arbcom talk page for their opinions. [26] Sucks because you used to be on of the editors I respected the most, but now it's just gone sideways somehow. RxS (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Itch

Do you guys have an utterly unconquerable itch to go on at Giano, no matter how many people have already done so? Look at his contribs. I asked him to stop, and he did stop. On the assumption that you're not actually trying to start him up again, it's time to let it go. Please. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Ah, well said Bishonen. I was here to ask about Stanford. You'll have doubtless noticed my masterpiece by now. G (which would normally be the West Porch/Facade but here faces north) I've notated as 'Arcade' per the brochure source, but it seems a little doubtful to me. The Arcade definitely stretches to the east and west from the façade, but the continuance of it under the building doesn't seem right. This seems a more latin american or perhaps southern European invention, presumably with climate in mind, to give respite from the sun. I wonder if it perhaps has a better name in these circumstances. Any ideas? --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I have just seen it; it's mega-brill, I wish i could do plans like it, but I'm limited by an inability to draw a curve to scale - they ought to make you an Admin for being able to do useful things like that. Giano (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, on the design, being Renaissance, I never quite got it, but if you read the disinfo box it is "American Renaissance" - which I expect covers a multitude of proportional sins. Giano (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't get carried away

Giano, it bothers me when you call a user darling knowing that she dislikes that form of address. Please, look up PM Forni (an Italian professor who lives in Baltimore) and see what he says about these things. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I can just image what PM Forni's students nickname his afternoon tutorials; I suspect it's not that civil. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, it seems a little love, harmony and humour is not wanted here; sorry you have all be so shocked by my use of these grossly offensive and unpolitically correct words. One man's dude is another man's darling, but whatever! All will be releived to know that I won't be arownd very much for the next few weeks - taking myself off somewhere for happy holidays, where I will be more appreciated. So now is the safe season for RFC and RFArbing me, my friends, relations or anyone whose page I may have posted on. Or even nominating certain people for Adminship or de-sysopping. However, beware, my self appointed holiday task is to learn to use this new little telephone thing that will keep me in touch with you all. Giano (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

iPhone? Feh, a toy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Update

All this time I thought the Minnesotans invented hotdish, but now I see the Italians have their own version in Timballo? Have you tried using Campbells mushroom soup as a base and adding tater-tots? Delish! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I make a tater-tot casserole on occasion. Fried hamburger meat with onions and peppers go on the bottom, cream of mushroom soup gets poured over it, put the tater-tots on top and cook until the tots are close to being done. Then cover in cheese and put back in the oven until it is melted. Very yummy! Tex (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - while my personal experience of cookery is limited to my famed and much discussed calamari with prunes, I don't see how a dish can be " pie, casserole, or soufflé" that's impossible. Giano (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing the souffle part. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That will be a relive to those few Wikipedians who ever stop editing for long enough to enjoy a good dinner. Giano (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI - your favourite place

Giano - I'm being discussed there to see if non-trivial action (don't sound too good, eh?) should be taken taken against me for something on an Ireland/British dispute poll (The poll, and the details would bore you s***less!). But you might look at it if you have a mo. Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Madam, (I dare not be more familiar) a link would be quite helpful! Giano (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I was out teasing the goat. This is where I'm being accused of mass intimidation. Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And this is where I'm being threatened with a bizarre ancient Arcom ruling. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And this is the ANI link. (They were busy while I was goat-chasing). Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not really been following that, I can't really just turn up there after you have posted here - I see you jave LHVU batting in your corner - so you should be OK - if not many others watch this page, I am not giving much time to Wikipedia at present, I am soon going away for a while and am planing a post elsehwere which is concentrating my time. I hope you understand. Giano (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck! Are you leaving Wiki?? Sarah777 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfair

Please slow down, Giacomo. It's completely unfair to say that desysoping Geogre gave NYBrad pleasure. Completely. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Is it my fault that the English language does not have a plural you? Giano (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Certainly. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Y'all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Very witty, I like that. Howver, If certain people choose to free four horses in a public space, they cannot be surprised at the results. Giano (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

God?

What is the story on an Admin (I now see) called User:SarekOfVulcan who appears to think he is God? (And I wouldn't delay too much in having a peep at events in ProjIrl if you want anything left to see). Sarah777 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought my 'now deleted' comment was hilarious. Anyways, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Digital Architecture

Given your interest in Italian palazzos, I thought you should have a look at this article that's up for deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems I am too late, what's wrong with digital architecture? Giano (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. It had a nice picture. I ddin't have a chance to investigate properly, so I'm having it moved to my userspace where I can have a closer look. I'll let you know what I find. I may yet need your expertise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deleted article User:ChildofMidnight/Digital Architecture. I couldn't make sense of it, but I threw something together at digital architecture. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

don't worry, I'm not an expert, but

I just reverted an edit of yours at Palladian architectureanyway. Some material appeard to have been marked as unsighted earlier today and it semed that you whisked it away shortly there after. i think the editor who postd that material, or anyone else for that matter needs more time to get their sourcing together. Make sense? Carptrash (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, it was the sort of information that is commonly accepted. If such information needs a citation then Wikpedia is probably unable or deserving to have it. Giano (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

British gentry?

Have you ever heard of an architectural style called British gentry? I'm reading about a unique house for this article, source is here, p. 81, that says the house in the article in question is similar to this style. I can't find a link and quite honestly, my forte is not architecture. I was wondering if it is known by another term, more common or more European, that has an article.

Thanks for any help or insight. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Cooper, Houses of the Gentry 1480-1680 (1999) would demonstrate that there is not one style in the range of conservative to progressive structures that housed the gentry. Gentry used as an adjective is terminally non-U: be sure to make your way round it. You'll want to read Ronald W. Haase, Classic Cracker: Florida's Wood-Frame Vernacular Architecture (Sarasota, 1992), which treats Kingsley Plantation, called a "wing-pavilion structure" (p. 59) and its tradition. The closest parallel vernacular is Bahamian vernacular wood-frame housing. The ambitious aspect of Kingsley is in the symmetry of each front. Don't be misled by the slick coat of modern white paint and the "Bermuda-grass" lawn that give the place its US Naval Base atmosphere. --Wetman --Wetman (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I got that page of Haase's book. I wish there were more than a photo caption. That gives as much comment about "wing pavilion structure" as Stowell does to "British gentry", giving me really no clue as to which is a more accepted term. I looked at an architecture database, finding nothing relevant. My library has several books on Florida architecture. I did not anticipate going this far into defining the style of the building. Instead, I get the impression it rather defies a single style. --Moni3 (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Over this side of the pond, I'm not aware of the term "British Gentry" style. Indeed Stowell doesn't actually use it either. He says "The houses bear similiarities in design to British Gentry houses of the seventeenth century." Wetman is quite right to point out the spectrum of styles that might have been used by the gentry. I'm only really aware of what they did in England though, you'd need better authority if they were building in the colonies in a specific 'gentry style'. Interestingly though, the footnotes gives some further examples of buildings within this 'style'. 1. Exeter Plantation in Berekeley, South Carolina 2. Kent House in Alexandria in Louisiana [27] and 3. various houses in French Mauritius. The odd thing is the website for Kent House says' its an example of French colonial architecture and Mauritius was avowedly French until we took them in the Napoleonic wars. It's difficult to see how these examples could be attributed to the design of the British Gentry, unless that was a French fashion (highly unlikely!). I'd ditch the term regarding British Gentry Style - no such thing unless you can find a good source. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have heard the term, but always assumed it was a mistranslation, my thoughts (with not one scrap of reliable reference) are that I suspect the problem is to do with social history. England has never had a proud "grand bourgeoisie" or "grande borghesia" who boldly developed their own often quite distinct architectural styles. The reasons for this are that in England the very moment a man made money his daughter was able to marry into the aristocracy, or he could purchase a minor title - In Europe this was rarely the case. So in Britain, the socially aspiringing aped the architecture of their betters, often with very successful results (see Architecture of Aylesbury and Brympton d'Evercy). It is this provincial architecture in the style of the great architects which, I suspect, could be called "British Gentry style." However, if I am correct in this assumption then "British Gentry" was a constantly evolving and changing style rather than a fixed one. If this style then crossed the pond, and I'm not sure it did, then it was because it was easier and cheaper to emulate and small provincial manor house than a Blenheim Palace or Versailles. yes, I know all about the houses, social standing and daughter of Alva Vanderbilt, but even she knew her limitations when it came to building. Giano (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I reworded to remove references to a gentry style, but this indicates that I'll have to do some researching about southern European-inspired architecture. It just won't do for me to look even more like an idiot. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, wait think about it, you are not an idiot, none of us know the answer. When comes to that which crossed the pond, somewhere in my subconscious this house always springs to mind Letheringsett Hall about which John Betjemen wrote one of my favourite melancholy poems, the precise words of which currently escape me, I'll go look. Giano (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: [28] it's the 2nd verse that relates to the house. Giano (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And for those not of a poetic bent this I suspect is the type of house (lived in by the British gentry) that inspired Kingsley Plantation. Giano (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. I haven't been in the house since I was a teenager. It's closed down now, unfortunately, to be restored when they get all the money to do it. I'll take a look at some Caribbean island and Florida architecture sources. I was looking for an easy "this is the style" sourced statements, but I imagine now it will be a conglomeration of influences. Or worse yet, each source I look in will identify it as a different type of architecture. --Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to stop by here and say thank you as well. I honestly appreciate your time. Cheers. ;) — Ched :  ?  00:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all Chad,I have replied here [29] the whole thing is antiquated and really rather silly, but it does hold a certain nostalgic charm and seemingly provides a complete obsession for some Wikipedians - as an immensely grand student I once shared a flat with said: "In the dark a ......." well I'm sure you can work the rest of the quote out, the only difference is that today, even immensely grand people know that the same holds true in daylight. I would read it the reply quickly because I suspect Bishonen is one of those who finds the whole thing ludicrous too. Giano (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that supposed to be in "the dark tea-time of the soul"? Little Toxic (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC).

No! Giano (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, though, reading Addy's soon to be deleted bio, I can't help being reminded of this [30] and feeling a little padding could be useful - I suspect Hans would not approve though - shame that particular article was much more interesting before it was de-POVed and made "encyclopedic". Giano (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. I'd completely forgotten about Sybil. Did her appearance really alter as she grew older? Bishonen | talk 23:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC).

Pardon the intrusion and my impudence, but I too appreciate the education on this most interesting topic. As for Sybil, I have a question as well, in view of her remarkable accomplishment in saving the Shetland Toy (sorry, can't make the link work) from extinction, may we infer that the ultimate fate of "Le Printemps" evidences some judgment made by the Lady with regard to those matters as to which she assumed patronage, or does the tragic yet undescribed event relate to the subject's "Bohemianism," as the heading under which the reference appears might imply? I for one am certainly left wanting in my efforts to understand in full measure the character of this most interesting potter (is that the right word?) Steveozone (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

She was indeed a remarkable woman, it will surprise no-one that she was a close friend of Wikipedia's own Lady Catherine (the real Lady Catherine actually existed, just had a name change to protect her victims and the innocent), but it may surprise many to learn that every fact in Lady Sybill's bio is fully factual and true (as are a great many in Lady Catherine's bio), even the quotes from her husband - it is sad that others have removed so much of that from the now existing version, which just gows to show that many people don't like fully comprehensive articles and that truth can be stranger than fiction. Giano (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Non parlo italiano....re Boletus edulis

Now my italian is nonexistent, but I think I would like to go here in the late summer or autumn and eat lots of Fungo di Borgotaro (i.e. Boletus edulis) - the google translation is a bit weird - is the page making out that they have registered the name "Fungo di Borgotaro" much like Parmesan Cheese? My knowledge of EEC naming practices rivals my italian :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr Casliber, I really cannot beleive you are so uninformed Fungo di Borgotaro is one of my oldest and most darlingest friends, I was one of those who became quite squiffy, on Dom P, the night dear old Fungo broke the bank in Monte Carlo in 1923. Do not be ashamed, my Italian too is nonexistant, however if one shouts garcon loudly, claps one's hands and screeches "uno cornetto per favore beaucoup" one can get anything one wants. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

eh

See here. That's your alternate account right? If not, I'll strike accordingly. –xeno^talk 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand Her Ladyship channels - or some other spectral architectual construct - through Giano. Or something. She is more respectable than some radio active breath emitting alternative voices used by editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My nephew, poor darlingest Giacomo, is away and left me in charge of his computer (one just can't believe the shocking things I have found in the history file). Mind you, he needs a holiday considering the way he is treated here. It's only his sweet nature that stops him becoming a very grumpy person and it's only me his beloved late grandfather's metaphorical Wesendonck that truly understands him. He'll be back soon refreshed and invigorated. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Have no concern, dear Lady Catherine, I have clarified all on WP:ANI and have covered your name and Giacomo's in glory, I hope. Mr LittleHeard, speaking of radioactive breath, Lady Catherine's greatest achievement may indeed be the imperious way she points Bishzilla towards her doggy basket—and is immediately obeyed! Bishonen | talk 00:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

Wowsers, talk about life after death. Cate is still ticking. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC nomination

You may remember that, after reading through Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford, you asked to be notified when Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford/archive1 was live. Any further improvements that you can suggest would be welcome. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bramall Hall

Hi G, you might remember this from 2007! I've been working on it for the past few days, and I'd appreciate your opinion on it. Thanks, Majorly talk 20:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember well, it was, and is, a good page. I have made a few minor changes (rv if you no like). I do think it is important to refer to it is a house and only refer to the building as "Hall" (as oppossed to its inner halls, which are halls) when preceded by it's full title because it is a house not a hall. I think, I would have put the family section later, but then we don't want all country house pages folowing the same format and being boringly uniform, so keep it where it is. Yeah, I see no problems with it. I will look again over the next few days. Giano (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A friend of yours?

Would the fellow below be a distant relation of yours? I was not sure if the art was PD, but figured the tag was good enough to make a joke about. MBisanz ^talk 20:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dear darlingest Giano, is far more talented than Giacomo Balla ever was, I can't think why anyone ever thought those ghastly daubings and splashings good, and he's certainly no relation of ours. Like an Italian version of that Picasso man, he was not very good either, once painted my portrait and I had to threatened to sue, so he gave it me for nothing; said no one else would want it - which just goes to show he was not very bright either. That plaque looks like something stolen from a crematorium garden, and we all know what sort of people are commemorated in those places <Oh shudder> Why people want to have their relations burnt to a cinder, I can't imagine, the sort who have "loved ones" I suspect. Want to hide the evidence, no doubt. Take my advice, beware of those who talk about loving their relations - usually they hate them to pieces, all a cover - so they have them burnt up to hide the poison. In my experience, The world is a very wicked place. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• You have mail, Lady C. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Oh I don't do emails dear, if it's not worth presenting on a silver salver it's not worth having, as Salome (my closest friend in heaven) used to say. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Emails"... ? Que? I meant you have chainmail, dear. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

Beat you

[31]: I told them over 2 months ago to look at this more closely, so I win. MBisanz ^talk 18:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah,sadly you don't, but we are entering an area that is about to become fascinating and Machiavellian in the extreme. Either way, it seems for reasons best known to the Arbcom, we were both ignored! Now why do you suppose that was? If only dear old Wikileaker was on the case.... Giano (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well in the last year I've brought evidence against 8 admins, with 4 being desysopped directly because of my evidence and the other 4 losing the bit subsequently, so I can only presume that arbcom did the math and figured that the odds of me being right a 9th time in a row were too small to be worth looking at. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, OK you win the "Giano Sword of Truth Award" (I'll begrudginlyfind a suitable sword and plonk it somewhere suitable) Anyway, more fun still - have you read the emails? Thrilling read - even I get a mention or two. Giano (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry abt asking stupid questions, and I'm just a passer-by with regards to all this hugest-pile-of-crap-I've-seen-on-WP, but: do they mention me in those emails? Just interested:) And one more stupid question: were those emails made available online by someone? Thanks for sparing your time reading and answering this:))FeelSunny (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Laughed so hard

RE: [32]

• User: Winky Winky: Hello is that Interpol?
• Interpol: yes, to whom am I speaking?
• User: Winky Winky: I'm User: Winky Winky, and my secret emails about User Russavia (which I sent to many) have been stolen and sent to the Arbcom.
• Interpol: I beg your pardon? This is Interpol - international crime busters, have you misdialed?
• User: Winky Winky: No, I want Interpol to spend $50,000,000 sending secret agents around the world to investigate this serious crime.
• Interpol: Yes Mr Winky Winky, and for how long have you been having these symptoms?

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		To GiacomoReturned, for being funny. Ikip (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Caveat: I am in no way condoning the behavior of the release of personal information. Ikip (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have definitively formed my opinion. Those concerned are in the mire up to their little necks. The only question following such organised and long term abuse, cabalism and manipulation of Admins and subsequently Arbcom cases is quite how one makes such an example of these people that no-one is ever attempted to be party such a thing ever agian. (Incidentally, for those wondering, Sandstein was not a member of this cabal, but one of those manipulated). My view is that the only option is making them all permanently banned users - The full extent of their actions will probably never be known, but their proven Wiki-crimes and the damage they have caused, and the innocent reputations permanently tarnished, is too severe for anything less. I don't think any other view is possible or any excuse plausible. Giano (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am confident the Arbitrators will take your opinions and statements on the issue into account when making their decision.

As an aside, this edit of mine may interest you given your previous edit to the page. If you think anyone else should be added to the list of parties, please email me or an Arbitrator.

Regards
Daniel (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Daniel (may I be so familiar, you don't appear to have a surname - always worrying; what was your mother thinking of?) that is most kind, I'm sure my nephew, Giano, will appreciate it, but I wish I was as confident as you because I am here to refute the serious allegations that I was a member of that disgraceful list, and indeed was the Mrs. Big of that clandestine operation. My relations with the former Soviet Union have all been completely honest and open. While it is true that my frequent visits to Moscow during the Cold War were misinterpreted by some in the more scurrilous section of the press; they were of a purely cultural and acquisitive nature. It is regrettable that my innocent "girlish" chatter at dinner with Mr. Brezhnev, concerning conversations with senior British cabinet ministers, was misreported, as was Mr. Brezhnev's subsequent very kind gifts to me, of some old second-hand enamel Easter Eggs and cigarette boxes. Equally distressing were the accusation that Mr. Brezhnev and I were anything other than dear and platonic friends, this has cause immense upset to my daughter (now Ivana Leonidovna, Duchess of Muncaster). I wish it to be known that anyone repeating these spurious accusation will be stabbed with a poisoned parasol and pursued relentlessly by Interpol and my plumber, Stanislas. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Vasili Bazhenov

Take a look if you would and comment and fix whatever you like ... maybe her ladyship might be interested in the events of her glorious days too (I somewhat shy approaching her directly). Perhaps a reshuffle of the pics as you did with poor old Niki's place. NVO (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has great possinilities. Howver, I am not realy in the mood for Russian pages at the moment, I'm sure you can understand why. I have always felt they should be writtne by thoes who know the country best. Seems that's not allowed. Giano (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violation of conduct policies at [33]. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  10:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This block is explained, and submitted for community review, at WP:ANI#Giano. If you would like to make a statement in that discussion, please ask another editor to copy it to WP:ANI using the {{helpme}} tag.  Sandstein  10:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see how calling someone a fool is appropriate, but there should definitely be a Fahrenheit 451 barnstar for Sandstein's approach to dispute resolution. Block first, ask questions later, with no effort to avoid all the ensuing disruption and drama. He also gives no consideration to resolving this type of situation in an amicable and reasonable fashion as common sense might dictate.
  And of course Sandstein has been in numerous disputes with Giano in the past so there is no possible way he can be construed as being uninvolved. This is a very bad block. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Giano's comment was inappropriate and ill-judged. As was Sandstein's one-week block. They've both been acting like fools, but only one of the fools get punished. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• This block is not appropriate. Sandstein had disputes with Giano multiple times. AdjustShift (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked, see my comment at AN/I for details. Please be more cautious of the tone in your future comments. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SB Johnny, I shall indeed attempt to be more prudent in my opinions in future when discussing Sandstein. I hope he has noticed he has less support on ANI when discussing matter not Eastern European - and no I do not control my owm mailing list, I may have more success if I did. Would someon like to sort the autoblock thingy? Giano (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Giano, cool. Welcome back. Please in future sit on your hands and keep it clean whatever the circumstances, you are more than intelligent enough to say it without rudeness. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Should be cleared now. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It works proven by a quality edit [34]. Giano (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of quality edits, your quality of writing is such that you must realise that calling actions foolish is one thing, calling someone an uneducated fool is rude and implausible. My strong recommendation is that you refactor your foolish remark to clarify your concerns instead of just insulting the person concerned. Thanks, dave souza, talk 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave has a good idea there. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I might have done if originaly asked. However, after the "Sandstein incident" and that editor's subsequent posts to ANI, I think it best to leave well alone. If I want drama, I can get it in far more entertaining form at La Scala. We can even have a few bouncing bodies there, far more fun. Besides which, Wikipedia is about to see the most drama it has seen for years, all without any help from me.Giano (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Still not really defensible. Are you willing to remove your bait now, or if not, any problems with me redacting the naughty bits? . . dave souza, talk 19:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh if it bothers you so, change it to what you like, it was only ever a sprat! Howver, that does not mean to say I didn't think it ;-) Giano (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thoughts can be more usefully expressed in explaining the relevance of behaviour to the topic of the discussion – assuming good faith in that you wished to express a view regarding the FAR. Will say no more about any metamotives. . dave souza, talk 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So I saw, indeed they can, and I'll say no more either, other than I have changed your edit already to something more precise and true. Giano (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A blunt instrument, but adequate. . dave souza, talk 20:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite - a good fisheman knows his bait and its prey. Had I been "rude", I would have been blocked by the wrong Admin! Giano (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein

I shall not be requesting an unblock from Sandstein because he had no right to block in the first place. Regarding the Eastern European mailing list, there is a very large bundle of emails concerned directly with supporting various of Sandstein's views and actions on ANI and elsewhere. This came to pass, and not only duped and manipulated him and many others, but also, it seems, served to boost his esteem and self-confidence. Why Sandstein's actions were so in tune with that mailing list is a matter for the Arbcom, and I won't speculate upon it here. However, while the case is in progress these facts should be noted when evaluating his actions in furure. In fact, it may be wise as an involved Admin, if he laid down his tools for the duration of the case. As I said here [35] whatever actions are taken against me, nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to detract me from seing fair play for all the many who suffered as a result of that mailing list's actions. Now, I shall return to my holiday and wiki-break and keep half an eye on the case. Giano (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein blocked you for a pretty dumb comment you made at an FAR. Why did you hand him the ammunition? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ammunition is a very good word indeed, I wanted to show Wikipedia who was bothered enough to stalk my edits, pick up the gun and then shoot themself with it. Incidentally, regarding that edit, the nomination of a perfectly good page was foolish, so it was an apt place to drop the gun. If anyone doubts the huge conflict between Sandstein and me, they can just check my recent edits, you won't have to search very far back. The man is obsessed with his own power, blocking people and deleting; he reminds me of someone in history, but I can't think who - can any of you? However, Wikipedia never bothers to learn from history - so don't bother trying to figure it out. My recent edits also show a gradual retreat from Wikipedia, I now no longer write pages, soon, I expect, I shall no doubt stop commenting on wiki-politics too, so you will all be stewing in your own sewage, with an Arbcom constantly retreating from the truth (as they have been doing for a year over this latest list) and other secret lists controling all pages on anything more interesting than a computer game character. Now that is very sad. Giano (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I did think it was a particularly unnecessary block for an unnecessary comment. The block obviously served to punish you, as it was placed a full 12 hours after you made the comment. Best not make personal comments when you know people like Sandstein are going to be following you around. Unless of course you don't mind being blocked. Majorly talk 13:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• The block is acceptable on principle, as editors are expected to discuss content disputes respectfully and with an eye on the content dispute itself, and not with an intent to personally disparage the person they are talking about. "This article is still feature quality because of A, B and C" is acceptable. "Shut up and go away" is not acceptable. However, the duration is excessive for the offense. Thatcher 14:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• So how will Sandstein be punished for his error? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Public flogging/Wikipedia:Administrator review/Sandstein? I must say the judicial processes on Wikipedia are rather barbaric. And there's still no sign of any leniency for Giano or other victims of overzealous enforcements. Are these latest developments some kind of ritual performance art or a pursuit of public humiliation that derives from a secret affinity to S&M? It all seems especially perverted to me when a simple act of contrition and a promise to do better would suffice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, from an editor being blocked for civility breach -to- the blocking Administrator being reviewed. This is great entertainment ya'll. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Too bad to see that at Wikipedia a review of a deeply-involved administrator's possibly vengeful "shut up!" actions are so extraordinary as to provoke a wowsers! from any passer-by.--Wetman (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Wetman, as always you have hit the ball firmly and squarely in the correct direction. Giano (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all entertaining though. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As the Russian NSFW anecdote says, "Why you're leaving so early... said the frog after the steamroller rolled over her... " NVO (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that anecdote may have lost something in translation. Giano (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole story is not as entertaining as it seems, but appears amusing from some vantage points. The RFC so far is a solid "consensus" approving S. (fine print below the poll does not count). Worse, it should not be run during arb case anyway. But it runs, the public is delighted. NVO (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, were you expecting something other? Take my advice, always expect the worst and you will sledom be dissapointed. Giano (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

My post concerning you was a reply to another's, and was not intended to get you blocked or have any other action against you. I rather resent that it was placed at the top of a section by itself. It was more meaning to say that you weren't as clever as usual, I meant to be wry, not accusatory. Hope you understand.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, but I was! So you got it wrong on both counts. Giano (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fortunately, I am wrong twice a day. So I am infallable until 12:01 a.m. Excuse me, I'm off to the horse track.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no hard feelings Giano, I'll respect your request to leave ya alone (-my last post here). GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary socks

Hi Giano,

I happened across an old thread discussing the time when Lady C ran for ArbCom, and all the complaints/blockings because "alternate accounts should not be in ArbCom". I was just wondering, what were your thoughts on the Sam Blacketer débâcle a few months back? Apologies if you already opined on the subject, I didn't see it if so. --Some no-name NPC (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am afraid that is a period of my life that is still too painful to discuss. Following the huge and overwhelming support I recieved in that election, I was wantonly and most cruelly murdered by David Gerard, a person of whom I have no knowledge and one must assume moves in an entirely different social milieu to oneself. Rather like the doings of the present British and Italian Governments (excluding poor Signor Berlusconi, who always atwinkles when we meet) the doings of the Wikipedia Government are wide open to question, worrying speculation and the most deepest and gravest suspicion, beyond that I am sure they are all perfectly nice people. They threw the chance to have me as their leader back in my face, just think where the project would be now with me at the helm guiding the ship into a calm,sophisticated harbour. As it is we seem to be cruising along with all the speed and foresight of the Titanic, while the leadership and Adminship attempt to turn us into the Mary Celeste. Where will it end one wonders? Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[The Bishonen Baby and User:Little Stupid join forces in a Baby Cabal and jointly upchuck on Lady Catherine. ] Little Stupid [enthusiastically]: Look! Throwing turnips back in her face, too! Epic win! Bishonen | talk 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

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

Aha! Little Mr Russavia down here, I was so sorry about the revolution; you have my sympathy, I was such a close friend of the poor dear Tsar, not so fond of her (very difficult woman), all such a great shame. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Spring cleaning

M'lud, now that the palace has had some spring cleaning, will her ladyship be thinking of giving it the honours it deserves?

• Oh, I don't know. I have rather lost interest in FAs of late; once made FAs they seem to attract a funny audience with too many rules and regulation to comply with, or to be precise too many people who want to comply with rules and regulations that are not even cast in stone. I'll think about it, anyway I still have one last page in the series to complete. Giano (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since posting, I have just learned of the small difficulties you are having at the moment. A great pity. I see all the regulars are conflicting each other with their opinions, so I'll keep mine to myself. stick around though, I like to see familiar faces about. Giano (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I was nearly going to use the corny line they always use in politics "I',m stepping down to spend more time with my family." and all that....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the one nastily attributed to Cecil Parkinson when he resigned over some extra-marital affair, "I'm stepping down to spend more time starting up some new families...", but I sense Casliber has more ethics than some politician - if not incapable of making poor judgements, regretably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I really wouldn't worry too much Cas. In half an hour or so, the whole socking caboodle will all be loved up again, back slapping and commending each other while hunting as a pack and screeching with united horror and indignation because I have called some idiot or other a fool. Funny old world isn't it? Giano (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, back to articles, I am sure Sandy and others would be very happy to see Winter Palace pass. Iwill double check to see if the mind-numbing minutiae have been attended to and alert you anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are hinting that you want a project, probably be good for you to have something to do, then nominate it and you can nurse it through (I have never personally never counted nominated FAs, everyone who matters know what I write - so I have no problem). However, don't be surprised if I get cross, when some idiot wants a beautiful image reduced to the size of a postage stamp, or great chunks of text removed because they can't be bothered or don't have the ability to read to the end - remember it is a very long page - and it's last FA atempt was very short, far from sweet [36] and having spent almost a year of my life writing it, the comment "I have not read this, but..." remains very much with me and has rather soured my opinion of the place! Giano (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering again... this article should not be a FAC, not even close. Inadequate sourcing. Imagine an article on a Roman topic based solely on Gibbon and Mommsen (and, perhaps, a few tourist guides). It seems that the last thirty years of research and tons of secondary academic sources (including books published in English at Cambridge and Harvard) just passed by unnoticed. History of the 19th century is more or less stable, but the 18th is still a black box that gives out its secrets piecemeal ... I might be biased, being interested only in design, construction and evolution of the brick shell and completely indifferent to the tales of their majesties... NVO (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your point? Whatever it is, I am not getting into an arguement about it. If Casliber wants to FAC it - he can, if he doesn't he doesn't. Personally, I think in the present climate anything Eastern European is perhaps best left a stub!Giano (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mattisse

Intro to thread:To anyone bored enough to wonder what on earth the thread below relates to, it's the result of snide attacks on Geogre (one of Wikipedia's better editors) who seems to have left the project as the result of a curious Arbcom case in which many, including Arbs, decided they were not only blind in one eye (as Geogre knew) but also suddenly developing collective amnesia. The snide comment came from one who is supposed to be under some form of monitoring and mentoring. However, the mentors are woefully incapable and seem to be under the charm of their charge. I needless to say have not succumbed to that charm; if she behaves in such a way again, I shall not hesitate to pint out the shortcomings - hence the threat below to block me made by one of the aforementioned mentors. I'm afraid, I don't respond well to intimidation. Funny place, Wikipedia, isn't it?

• This is a formal warning regarding your recent conduct. You and all others were specifically asked to cease and desist in your explicit violation of a directly given request of the above user to not engage that page to converse with others, and you explicitly violated that request. Frankly, Giano, if you actully want anyone else to stop trolling, then maybe the first thing you should do is to stop being a troll yourself, particularly given your own extensive history in that regard. And I would request you not attempt to carry this conversation on at my talk page as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your talk page? Why on earth would anyone want to go there? Regarding your point, such as it is, I have been asked nothing, absolutely nothing. What is more, I do not follow the antics of Mattisse and her tawdry entourage (I assume you are one of them?), so I have no idea what applies to her or any of her associates. However, if Mattisse wishes to attack my friends (on other friends pages) or indeed any driven off editor, unable to reply for themselves, then I will point out that, that is conduct unbecoming to any editor. Penultimately, be careful who you call a troll or you will be blocked yourself. Finaly, take your formal warning and stick it somewhere you feel to be most appropriate. I'm sure you don't need me to specify a place. Good evening. Giano (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Mattisse specifically requested here that you and others cease using her talk page to communicate with others, and you specifically and pointedly ignore that request here. That is, of course, a clear and obvious violation of minimal behavioral standards. And you, with your own remarkable record of being subject to blocks and arbitration, would presumably know that. If you should choose to continue to misbehave in the way that has gotten you in trouble so often before, however, then I think it only reasonable that you can expect the same sort of results. You should also note that one of the things that came out in the Mattisse arbitration was the remarkable misbehavior of others. I have every reason to believe that should such misconduct by others continue, they will be made subject to disciplinary matters as well. This would, of course, include you as well. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"You should also note that one of the things that came out in the Mattisse arbitration was the remarkable misbehavior of others." That is a gross distortion of the facts, and that you apparently believe it probably lies at the heart of why Mattisse's mentoring scheme has so far conspicuously failed. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You may beleive what you wish, but that will not make it true. Secondly, I will not have my posts transferred to pages upon which I would not be seen dead made to appear as though I have posted there. If Mattisse wishes to have numerous pages devoted to her problems than that is fine, but she should not expect others to indulge and visit them. Like us all, she has a perfectly good and adequate talk page for the purpose of communication. Thirdly, the standards of Mattisse's mentors seem too to be questionable, perhaps they should advise her to stay away from contraversial subjects and people. I have pointedly ignored Mattisse for some time, and unless she chooses to deliberatly step on my feet, or those of my friends, that is a situation I am more than keen to maintain. Finally, do not presume to come here again with your threats and intimidations again, they hold no water here, if you wish to intimidate and threaten I can name a better subject for you and I am sure that several Arbs will agree with me. I think that is all I have to say to you. Now think on. Giano (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. I wonder what a "formal" warning is. Or, well, I don't, because it's a bogus concept, there's no such thing. I see Mattisse has been quick to internalize it, though.[37] So she is learning something from her mentors! Bishonen | talk 21:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

Oh Bishonen, do take that ridiculous page of your watchlist - the only people remotely interested in it are Mattisse and her so called "mentors." I can't imagine anyone other takes it, her or them seriously. It will all end in tears, leave them to get on with it. So long as she confines her silly comments there she's doing the rest of us a favour. Giano (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that per this, Mattisse or any user is free to remove whatever comments they want from their talk pages. I'd ask you to respect that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert I added a comment to the sudden insults agains me there made by Mattisse and her mentors. As you obviously can't read: here it is:

"John Carter, would you please stop referring to me in this debate concerning your protegee. I avoid her as often as possible and have no wish to associate with the like of you either. That you can say "I agree people like Giano and others are treated with probably unearned kid gloves." about an editor who is no part of this matter or debate shows you are unfit to be either a mentor or an Admin. Mattisse and her "mentors" are becoming increasingly concerning. I suggest you concentrate your efforts on your protege and leave the rest of us out of these all too frequent skirmished that she causes." Giano (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Part and parcel of Mattisse's rights is a responsibility to quit dragging Giano's name into every discussion about her behavior. Giano's right to not have his name dragged into every discussion about Mattisse's behavior needs to be respected as well. UnitAnode 19:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we shall sort it this time officially. These mentors are completely useless and need changing. Giano (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to not start a case about this. However it may seem, several of Mattisse's mentors do seem to be breaking through the fog a bit with her. I know it's frustrating to have your name mentioned over and over there, almost as a deflectory tactic, but try to let it ride for a bit longer, if you can. That said, I totally understand the frustrated place you've reached, and why you're considering doing this. I just wish you wouldn't go there. UnitAnode 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)--you know what? never mind. after her recent contribs, if this goes to arbitration or whatever, I'll contribute evidence. UnitAnode 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

lawl

Are you getting as much amusement out of the eastern european mailing list case as I am? I certainly think that it's a huge mess that needs to be cleaned up, but at the same time, many of the posts in and around the case are highly humorous for various reasons. Jtrainor (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• To a certain extent, yes, but as the community's "drama seeking troll who knows nothing" it's coupled with an overwhemlming urge to say: "Yah boo sucks, I told you so." Too many good editors are driven off while Admins and Arbs concern themselves with nice pretty manners - and the delicate feelings of the less worthy affronted. Whatever the outcome, I doubt anything will change, but yes, there is a certain ironic humour there. Giano (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't noticed, proposed FoF and remedies are coming in -- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision -- all that is missing is the declaration of "boys will be boys" and the handing out of lollipops. What you wrote on my talk page is looking to be the best option every day this goes on. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean this edit of mine [38]. Regarding the proposed decisions: I rather gathered that was the way the wind was blowing, which is why I have dissengaged from the case and from members of the Arbcom. I am finding Wikipedia's rules, priorities and justice increasingly difficult to comprehend. One can be blocked for incivility with mass cries on ANI for permabans, but those that secretly plot to drive off the best editors and manipulate those same noticeboards are given an amnesty and slap in the wrist. One could ask why - but it's pretty obvious, at least to me. Giano (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant exactly that edit of yours :) Not even so much as a proposed principle dealing with harrassment, even after it was asked for, let alone some actual acknowledgement...even if it goes "Yes, Russavia, you were harrassed, and the community fucked up big time by ignoring you for 10 months." I would be happy. Or even just to simply have it acknowledged. Even that acknowledgement is beyond Arbcom it seems. They even seem to be going so far as saying that repeated accusations of editors being KGB without a shred of evidence are "Good faith". So yeah, it's pretty obvious why. You nor I really need to explain it to each other. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, I would advise you not say "fucked up" again, or Sandstein, an Arbs or Admin will come along and block you; and there will be no support for you on any of the noticeboards Giano (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

One can be blocked for incivility with mass cries on ANI for permabans, but those that secretly plot to drive off the best editors and manipulate those same noticeboards are given an amnesty and slap in the wrist.—well said. Offliner (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet, ironically, those admins that consistently block IP's pushing extreme racism, vandalising BLP's and inserting puerile rubbish into articles never get any thanks. As a Giano supporter I am getting more than a little pissed of with the "big bad admin" approach by many editors. I don't deny that we have issues with "admin abuse" and that some admins seem to think that +sysop is a shield of invincibility. But on occasion it would be nice for people to bother to note that actually the block button is not allways used abusively and that some of us use the tool to keep the place clean. Relentless ascribing of ill-motivation to all admins is at best tiresome and at worst will end up in no admins. And I don't imagine some of our best articles (a great many of which G has created) would look to bloody pretty after a couple of weeks without block or protect as tools to be honest. Just saying (and this is not directed at anyone, and indeed apologies to Giano for launching this on his talk) Pedro :  Chat  20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. The 10%(?) of bad apples shouldn't be allowed to taint the majority. Unfortunately though there's no realistic way of getting them out of the barrel. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• There will never be a shortage of people wanting to be Admins, and that is the problem; Adminship is handed to any Tom, Dick or Stanislas after a few weeks of being here on the mere say so of other similar people. So we have a collection of power-mad little dictators running about creating rules as they go along supported by their equally suspect friends. Having become Admins they then see themselves as having become members of some virtual, self supporting and massaging masonic lodge. Yes, there are some good Admins, many of them are friends of mine, but those that shout loudest are the ones that are noticd. Take your views to their pages, where it may do some good. Giano (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"I'd be more careful in you choice of words if I were you."

Kind of an ironic statement from someone who uses the edit summary:'Are you such a dick in real life?'. HalfShadow (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing that out, perhaps you would like to read the post (are you able) to which I am replying. Giano (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You have email

You have email. Ding, ding. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Blenheim

I am happy yield to your better judgement. I've been checking the "top" rated architecture articles and discovered quite a few problems that need redressing. For example, the writer of the Versailles pages has listed every single section as "top". The archaeological remains of Rome are all listed as "top" architecture; even when they are virtually non-existent they are given the same rating as the Pantheon. Every American architect (and-is-dog) and every early skyscraper is listed, But none of England's stately homes.

I have been ripping through this and demoting things, probably to the annoyance of others. After all, I have put only a handful of English Cathedrals up there.

What stately homes and other important buildings in the UK would you add as being of "incomparable" architectural importance? I notice that the Drury Lane Theatre is on the list. What do you know about castles? What Parish Churches are up there as incomparable works of architecture? Amandajm (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• One man's finest building is another man's worst - it's not my opinions that counts (sadly) Montacute House, Belton House and Easton Neston are all (in my view) excellent examples of their style, type and era, and so is St Pancras railway station in London. The parish churches are innumerable, but they have usually evolved dependent on the often questionable tastes of the local squire so charm and idiosyncrasies are often mistaken for fine architecture - the great provincial cathedrals are, of course, in a league of their own. No, I shall not presume to say which are the top or best examples. In fact, I don't see why anyone has to - here at least - it's not as though we are financing their upkeep with limited resources and having to decide which to save. It will only lead to some fool eventually wanting to delete some charming, delightful, but architecturally hopeless little building as non-notable. Giano (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Regarding Versailles: The Versailles page is an example of Wikipedia's worst. It starts with the arrogance and presumption of knowing better than the French and history over how to define the chateau (for that is what it is) and continues in the same vein. It is truly dreadful and horrendous. I started to re-write it in user space somewhere, but seem to have given up on it, when I realised that too many have lovingly added reams and reams of stuff to the original, and the warfare that would result from pasting in a new version would be carnage. Giano (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Westminster Abbey and Canterbury Cathedral I suppose would be topmost of churches spiritually but dunno about architecture-wise, Coventry Cathedral was an interesting case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Too tempting not to make a wish list......Saint Paul's Cathedral for the sneaky architectural conversion of the CoE to catholicism, Durham Cathedral for it's mass and age and the ven-bede, Liverpool Anglican Cathedral for its simplicity of surface and traditional form, a quick step away and Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral for a modern approach, I'm sure I read somewhere it influenced Niemeyer's Brazilia epic - (and Coventry for similar reasons). York Minster as the seat of the north.....as for churches, how about Church of St Mary and All Saints, Chesterfield with the crooked spire, All Saints, Margaret Street or St. Giles' Catholic Church, Cheadle (ooo stub expansion potential there) for the gothic revival, St Giles' Church, Wrexham - the 'seventh wonder of wales', (sure it was painted by turner, wonder why no mention), then maybe Wren's churches in London......etc.etc. I believe there's some great timber examples in East Anglia, very old, with roof construction directly related to shipbuilding, or this one as a rarity --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

...and of course one of my favourite beautiful old English churches, that of Saint Hump. When they had finished pinching our churches, they then excelled themselved designing their own - I don't think. Ho ho ho ho. Giano (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, that is an interesting church - looks like it was made with tangram pieces... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually quite like that one. Then again, I like the design of UEA as well. (One of the most distinctive buildings in the world, regardless of your opinion of the merits of the design, so naturally Wikipedia's article on it doesn't include a single picture of it.) – iridescent 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know German was the principal language in East Anglia...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! ha! I love St Hump! Amandajm (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My cathedral/abbey shortlist is Westminster Abbey, St Paul's, Canterbury, York, Durham, Lincoln, Peterborough for its facade, Gloucester for its east end, Salisbury of course. I'm tempted to add Winchester for its incredible nave and Wells for its west front and that pretty view of arches all set at different angles in the east end. Is that overdoing it?

My parish church shortlist is St Mary's Redcliffe, Long Melford, Grantham, Cheadle, St Stephen's Walbrook,

Oh blow, a horrible teenager is pestering me for dinner! I'll get back to this. Amandajm (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Ely Cathedral too? And Norwich? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How could I forget Lincoln! <slaps forehead> I was taken from the architectural wasteland that is Wales, to Lincoln Cathedral when I was a boy of 7. It changed my life, producing a lifelong love of buildings. Cheadle is so damn pretty - I really must go and get some pictures - presumably conversion isn't a requirement....... --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is only one cathedral, Wells! Giano (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, Wells is ugly; it looks like someone trying to recreate Notre Dame in puff-pastry. The smooth lines of Norwich and Southwell and the blocky dignity of Exeter are the English cathedral at its best. (The generally-ignored St. Magnus Cathedral is a remarkable survivor of Norse Romanesque amid the generally dour Scottish religious architecture, too.) – iridescent 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How could you have missed Guildford Cathedral, that symphony to 30s brick. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• No Guildford, is merely a pastiche of the greatest nuclear power station of them all. Giano (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow. Eat your heart out Battersea.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Informal FAR

Please see Talk:Restoration spectacular#4 years on (per Iridescent's suggestion). Simply south (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The opening phrase, by the objector: "Whilst i don't really know anything about this subject there are areas in the general critera that to me are of concern" tells me all that I need to know. For the time being, I think it kindest to leave him in his ignorance - don't you? Giano (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You do know that's me... Simply south (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it? How awful that must be. Giano (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But i was meaning that i don't really know much about the general article subject other than what I've read, but i guess whoever reviews other articles may not be in their general areas of expertise either. I was doing the review from a general reader editor POV. Love the humour btw Simply south (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, had you done your groundwork properly, you would know that, very sadly, I did not write it [39]. Surprisingly though, that does not mean it's a bad article. In fact, it is very good indeed and your time would be better spent looking through the numerous bad articles, but of course, they are not so easily listed for you to pounce on. Giano (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa; don't blame him for that one. I advised him to notify you as well as Bish (thread in question here); aside from Geogre you have the highest number of edits to it after Bish, and I thought it better for the pair of you to be advised than for you to think someone was trying to sneak it through behind your back. – iridescent 21:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I expect I was correcting Bishonen's spelling; her English is not so polished as mine. Giano (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I did read that review thank you, it was just Iridescent suggestion that you were a good person to see about a review. I have not said that you wrote it. Just your a reviewer. Good article or not, just as long as the info could be backed up a little more in the areas i have suggested and the problems over the citations i have said sorted. And i hope that saying this hasn't just made things worse. Simply south (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well the references are all listed, so go off to your local lending library, get them out, read them and reference the page to your full satisfaction. I'm quite sure you will find no problems. For myself, I am hapy to AGF and take Bishonen's word that it is all true. Giano (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Good one on the spelling here. Simply south (talk)

Apologies

My apologies for bringing your name in. I was just trying to illustrate to Vassyana what I meant about her comments - that some may read through and think it applies to those editors who express themselves in trenchant terms whereas M. and some of her mentors will apply it to everybody who dares raise issues. For what it's worth, my reading of the situation is that she pokes editors on her plague list.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks. My reading of the situation is that she has manipulated her mentors, and they are now in a reverse situation where she is the queen bee and they her courtiers and bodyguards - with the entirety suffereing a seige mentality. That a mentor has now dreamt up a comlaint application form that one has to fill in, as we are now no longer allowed to address her in the first person or post on her page any complaints, rather confirms that [40]. Quite what the Arbcom was thinking alowing this situation to develop, is beyound my comprehension. Now, that is my last word on the subject - I hope she and her court stay well away from me. Giano (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence against you at Arbcom

Hey mate, there's some "evidence" been presented relating to you at the EEML arbcom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Vecrumba#Giano_returns_from_the_wilderness. The editor in question advised Wales of the evidence, but doesn't seem to have done so for you. Anyway, as you aren't a party to the case, and in case you missed this, I thought I would let you know of it's existence, if only for the laugh factor. As you are now a member of the pro-Russia web brigade PMSL, can I ask how much you get paid per month? Just wanna make sure you aren't getting paid more than myself. And, I just noticed more, there's also some evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Vecrumba#These_proceedings_and_Russavia, and it's presented in a neat, table format to make it all official. How nice. Anyway, if you haven't seen this as yet, enjoy. Oh, and, welcome back from the wilderness, Messiah. I hope I have no reason to fear intimidation from you as a result of posting this. PMSL. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have not looked at that page for ages, I don't anticipate doing so in the near future. My views are known to the Arbcom. The last time I did look, the accused were all trying to bargain for softer terms, having finally realised that despite their initial denials and protestations of innocence that the game was up. I expect they are now using smoke bombs and anything to hand to deflect attention from themselves. Whether the Arbcom bans them for ever or not is now immaterial; as far as Wikipedia is concerned they are eternally damned - who would ever trust anything any of them ever said or wrote again? It's always embarassing to watch when the guilty squirm and become desperate. I shall not be watching the spectacle - I never have seem the entertainment vaulue of an auto de fé - quick and expedient execution of sentance is always preferable. Giano (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Passing query

Would you mind removing the redirect for your user page? I imagine it's a tad confusing for people who don't know your history, as your front-end is essentially displaying outdated contrib info and such. Moving the Giano II page to User:GiacomoReturned would work too, it's a pretty cool userpage design :) (Double-take before edit submit: Although apparently Root protected it, so I guess you can't do it yourself.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not something I have ever really thought about - life is just one long confusion these days, isn't it? Giano (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Giano/Things to remember

Hi, I've noticed that there are materials in the above subpage that seem to violate WP:UP#NOT. I'm sure you can figure out what they are. I'd be grateful if you could take care of this matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. They are merely things I don't wish to forget. If you or others want them removed - take me to arbitration and let the Arbs remove them. I think you will find, these days, the Arbs and their clerks, like myself, take rather a liberal view on these matters.Giano (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are arbs emails (I don't mean the email function, the email addresses themselves) generally available onsite? In addition, there appear to be matters negative to other users which you seem to be holding onto even though you are not using them in dispute resolution. And no, I'm not going to take it to ArbCom, I'd simply take it to MfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most of the arbs emails are, or were, on WP:ARBCOM. I wouldn't suggest an MfD Wehwalt, I don't think it would be worth the effort. Prodego ^talk 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the emails are there. I'm still concerned about what seem to be grudge-holding entries which are there when there is no apparent desire to use them in a dispute resolution proceeding.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made it abundently clear in many places that I wish to avoid Mattisse, and actively go out of my way to do so. However, her "mentors" should take note than any further ridiculous and unfounded allegations about me, from her or them, will be strenously and very vociferously reputed. In particular the unfouned, ridiculous and downright stupid allegation that I am publicising private information concerning Arbs. I suggest they concentrate their efforts on giving her the guidance she so desperatly needs. Giano (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you take the stuff regarding her off your page, as well as similar matters regarding Sandstein and others. The emails I suppose are fine as they are on the Arbcom page as pointed out by Prodego. I am not a mentor of Mattisse, but I would be willing to make the nomination at MfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Do what you wish; I shall remove nothing. Giano (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." The workpage isn't even a userpage, and is most unlikely to be noticed by any neutral observer. <!-- Personally, I find this bit of Wiki useful for personal jottings that need not exercise the perhaps meddlesome instincts of the random passer-by. -->--Wetman (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Wetman, my thoughts entirely. The page contains nothing more than a few exploded houses, that I may or may not combine for different sort of architectural page; as you know I have been thinking for ages about making an architectural page, that's not exactly child orientated, but explanatory for those who know little of it's domestic evolution and have clear simple diagrams. The page also has a few diffs that are readily available already on the site, and anyone who has ever searched for diffs at a alter date knows very well how hard and time consuming they can be to find. As for the "email" accusation that was nothing more than scurrillous trolling and defamation to divert atention from the shameful behaviour of others. Thirdly, it has a few memos for me. In short, it is my personal space for my personal use, I don't know how to check how watched a page is, but I bet before it was on very few, if any, watch-lists and now it is on many. Ridiculous. However, it seems Carcharoth and the Arbcom want to take this matter to a whole new level of hostilities [41], a playing field that I am oore than happy to play on. This matter, it seems, is not going to be happily resolved without another big case, Carcharoth has clearly ignored half the evidence and wishes to to have a big fight. Well, he can have one!Giano (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you've indicated elsewhere you are assembling a case for arbitration, I'll let the matter drop, I'm sure much to your relief, for the time being.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are nothing but an everyday manufacturer of disharmony, now please take yourself quickly and promptly elsewhere. Giano (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to stop looking in the mirror; I'll show myself out.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Given you are (a) in London, and (b) knowledgeable on architecture --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 Marsh Wall might be worth commenting at.

After all...a city hasn't reached puberty till it gets some skyscrapers :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I am not in London at the moment, but somewhere far less exiting. However, I'll still take a look. Giano (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"When one is tired of exiting London, one is tired of wife". Samuel Johnstone - Plaistow Fish Palace, 1977. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Old face

Hiya trouble, what you up to these days? -- role^player 01:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

still in trouble and trying to enjoy a wiki-break. Nice to see you returned to us! Giano (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey I'm more intelligent now, got an MA to prove it! Not as active oddly enough as I was while I was actually doing the MA, must be something there about diversion tactics??? Fancy writing some articles about theatres? -- role^player 14:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmm I'm not sure I know anything about theatres, in fact I know next to nothing about theatres - I'm very much a one trick pony. Giano (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not Giano, you managed to write something about that awful building I took a photo of in Aylesbury... -- role^player 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the actual theatre buildings, User:Kbthompson is the one you want to be talking to. – iridescent 2 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK cool, cheers! -- role^player 12:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

New section

Can anyone tell me, or make it happen, why does User talk:Giano II/archive 8 not have a table of contemts. i want to link to a section and cannot :-( Giano (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't figure out why it didn't have a TOC, but I forced one for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I looked into this matter, and it is indeed a peculiar case. The TOC operator was had been on the page in question for a long time, located about 1/3 of the way down (see the most recent archive diff where I removed it). That had the effect of forcing a table of contents in the middle of the page, not at the top. I have no idea why it was there, perhaps confusion with the archive order. In any event, once that out-of-place TOC operator was removed, the other TOC operator inserted by Floquenbeam became unnecessary. The table now is rendered naturally at the top of the page with no operators at all. A very interesting case for a formatting wonk such as myself. @Giano: I visited your page out of interest after our email discussion regarding the copyediting. I find that you live quite the exciting wiki-life.  :) Best wishes! —Finn Casey * * * 03:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very clever. I do even pretend ti undertand these matters. Giano (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Another great editor lost

Hey G, I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems that WP has lost yet another great editor. User:NVO has retired, and is gonna be a great loss to both the architecture project, as well as another project. Such a shame it is. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Biting my tongue (or sitting on my fingers, in this case) regarding all the exceptional editors we've lost lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are a lot of curious thing happening here lately. I sometimes wonder if it's because too many if us sit on our fingers rather than making them into clenched fists and fighting back in the same manner in which we are attacked, something I was always taught to do as a child. Today, the ArbCom seems to be treating those that are attacked as wet wimps to be despised and repecting the attackers. Irritatingly I accept, sooner of later, I am normally proven right, I expect these occasions will ultimately prove to be no exception. Giano (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot always "fight back", as it might compromise my neutrality at FAC. Sometimes I just have to watch in frustration, with my hands tied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is, others are keen and quick to take advantage of that - Oh well, not to worry, I am on hand and putting on the boxing gloves as we speak. Research has always been one of the things even my wiki and RL enemies complement me on, it's always painstaking and meticulous. I can spend weeks on something, going back 20 years, until I understand every tiny multi facet of it. Then fully equipped, I launch myself into the fray. If others object - too bad. The worst that can happen is they get me banned, and if things don't change who would want to be here anyway? It's time to stem the flow, so it looks like its down to me to stick something into the hole in the dyke. There's always the chance the Arbcom will stem it before I finish re-searching, but history does not suggest that may happen - does it?Giano (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not referring to one issue only: I'm referring to multiple issues. We lose good editors and good reviewers. Since my hands are often tied at FAC, the only way for this to change is for other other FAC and FAR regulars to bring issues to the FAC and FAR talk pages and work them out without intervention from Karanacs or me. An ongoing source of frustration for me is that I provided that (as a reviewer) for Raul, so that he could stay out of the scuffles (well, he was good at staying out anyway :), but other FAC and FAR participants don't always seem to be aware of the need for delegates to retain neutrality. On the specific, current issue, I should never have had to get involved: other reviewers did take on the issues at WT:FAC, and became targets as well; WT:FAC became a battleground; and reviewers and nominators left in discouragement and frustration, so it was time for me to speak up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely if your hands are in clenched fists it's harder to type? Don't you gnerally just break the keyboard??? -- role^player 11:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do get through rather a lot of them, however the last one was the caualty of a glass of wine rather then me. Giano (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Imposing grandeur

[Bishzilla considers moving into Buscot Park. Thinks: ] Zilla presence add imposing grandeur previously lacking! [Makes up her mind. Stuffs little Giano in pocket, pats him firmly down, slouches off towards Faringdon to take up residence.] Keep sharp eye out for Lady Catherine, little Giacomo! bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

Reading your patronising comment regarding my beloved nephew, a person of momentous stature, presence and capability one can only assume, that in common with certain other Admins, you have been partaking of noxious and illicit brain addling medications. Monsters, even badly behaved ones, do not add grandeur to anything. If that was the case beautiful smart people (like myself) would flock to Loch Ness rather than Lake Garda and Lake Maggiore - wouldn't they? As it is Loch Ness is a swindswept and rather murky pond with a monster of rather dubious credentials, rather like yourself. Now be off with you and remember this page is soley for the beautiful, smart and educated. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bishzilla shyly flutters her eyelashes at handsome ASCII Stegosaurus.

*...um, is there anyone who might advise this naturally addled sysop where one might procure these noxious substances? I do rather feel left out of these exciting experiences! However, if I have previously asked this question and been given the appropriate directions please accept my apologies and heartfelt thanks for the information provided - whatever it was. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here, apparently 92.8.57.239 (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[Bishzilla pats little Giacomo reassuringly, listens in surprise to tiny yelps of distress from pocket. When will she ever learn not to pat little users...? ] [Helpfully: ] Ignore scary lady, Giacomo! Hide and play dead! No yelping! bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

Now if you are going to engage in OT banter and invoke large critters, you can at least try and make something like this work of art while you're at it..:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[Bishzilla is struck all of a heap with handsome ASCII Stegosaurus, and abjectly tries to catch its attention. ]: Giggle! Titter! Blush! Flirt! bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

Er... Do 'Zilla's have eyelashes? I thought hair and follicles was a mammalian trait; perhaps you have a nictating membrane you can wash your eye with in a coquettish manner, or a display membrane you could erect, or... something. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like an eyelash to me. Anyway... aren't you a mammal, LessHair? Bishonen | talk 21:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

[Bishzilla ejects high-pressure green stomach content in a coquettish manner. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

[Looks down own top at nipples nestling among abundant body hair. Smiles. Continues gazing, wonders if navel also visible. Looks up suddenly.] Yes, I rather believe I am. [Ducks as pungent geyser erupts.]LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A little late

Hehe [42] - your post was three threads too late. The Chillum stuff stopped sometime early Sunday and was mostly just targetting me. This current thing was Jehochman imposing "civility restrictions" without community approval back in September and no one noticed until he started broadcasting I was under them. I asked for it to be removed because there was no consensus. Ncmvocalist wanted to start new consensus against me to have me restricted. Seems a tad unnecessary, seeing as how if I ever called someone "stupid", "childish", etc, I would be indeffed on sight. Speaking of that, how are you? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was following the thread, and am wise enough and old enough to know that all roads lead to Rome and back again. You should know that too and heed my advice. I am well, thank you. Giano (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a trend with Roman imagery as of late. Anyway, I just received notice that I am one step closer to finally getting my doctorate (i.e. that last big hurdle is now gone), so, I am not too concerned if I am unable to edit here because my academic/real life publishing career is just one step closer to being a lot easier. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, a title is always useful - if only to get a table in a restaurant. Giano (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. 95% of my Wiki Contribs were pulled from either my notes for various articles I was writing or lectures I had to give (I still have plenty more). Wiki was a nice way to organize my thoughts and force me to deal with what was already said instead of focusing on only what I currently say. The rest, however, well, that is part of the system that isn't as great. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Painters

Love the cute plan of Buscot Park, Giacomo! Hey, those painters... there are a lot of Carracci painters, and at least two Leightons. And you can imagine the mobs of Lawrences and Kauffmans. Who's being referred to, please? Bishonen | talk 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

It's my new way of doing plans, I've inserted them quietly into a few exosting pages; there are a few like it here. I'm not sure if people like them or not, there has no been no comment either way. I think people, who are not particularly architecturally minded, understand the layout and house more like that especially if there is a photograph of the same view immediatly next to it. The downside, is that they are less explicit than a conventional plan and I expect some would say more childish and less encyclopedic - if anyone has a view I would sincerely be interested to hear it, before I start to write that big page. Giano (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they look great, I like them. What software are you using? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem, it's not meant for what I'm using it for, it's called "3D Home Designer (Visual Architecture)", and obviously is intended for more modest and humble "homes" so I am having too scale everything down to munchkin size to get everything on. I don't think it can be very good, as one of my children bought it for my Christmas present last year, and I'm stingy with their pocket money, I know it can from the cut price basket! I still have not really figured out how to use it properly - it has amazing Tudor houses on the box, but I'm buggered if I can see how to make them.  Giano  18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Those depictions of the layouts look very helpful to me, especially with the rooms identified. Architectural plans are also interesting, but I don't think the technical and engineering info is more encyclopedic than a three-dimensional layout view with the rooms identified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So, if you were a lay person, more or les architecturally ignorant, would you find the 3D plan the easier to understand of the two when placed next to a photograph of the real thing? I want to write a page where disinterested people will say "Gosh, so that is why that is." I want to get people interested in the subject or at least wiser at what they are looking at. Giano  19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have 3D home designer, but found it quite difficult to use accurately, especially rooves and staircases. Majorly talk 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed, I don't do roofs, now you know why! I've grasped the staircases, but it's too complicated to explain, you have to stick with the mouse, then expand and rotate at the same time and then have several goes!  Giano  19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• OMG Giacomo! Suddenly you have a fancy sig! Aren't you ashamed of yourself??? Bishonen | talk 19:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

Ahhhhhh, yes....it is nice, isn't it? I felt it was time people noticed when I join a conversation - I have been a shrinking doormouse for too long. It's part of new image as Wikipedia's elder statesman.  Giano  19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Elder statesman"? Haha. Perhaps you should read The Jargon File more often. In hackerdom, such as in the encyclopedia that Slashdot built, there are two alternative correct terms for your new image: "tribal elder" and "old fart".[43]

It is quite natural, that one such as you, who because of my Admin-early-warning-system have a signature glowing and flashing in many hues of blue (courtesy of a popularity contest amongst the hoi polloy) should resent those such as ourself having signatures which reflect our God given status.  Giano  20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha. God-given by Jack Merridew, is it? Or who have you been suborning to code you a green sig? PS, how about those painters, Your Divinity? Bishonen | talk 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

If you can tear yourself away from not being very clever here, you may notice that the painters are done, you may also note that my very smart signature (entirely my own work) is in the Italian National Colours the symbol of the greatest footballing nation on earth (remind me, where exactly were Sweden placed in the World Cup?) Did you want anything else - or are you going now?  Giano  21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't start on the Italians being the greatest football nation on earth....need I remind you of the totally disgusting way that we were robbed in the Cup by some of the greatest worst actors on earth? :P --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you may like to update the Italian national team article with information from A simple World Cup fact: Diving is cheating and diminishes sport, Giano? ;) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I said "the greatest footballing nation on earth" such a pity, you lost and find it so hard to accept - better luck nest time - perhaps.  Giano  23:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• You made it yourself? That is clever. Does the green rectangle perhaps represent the billiard table at Palazzo Splendido? Bishonen | talk 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

• Oh still here are you? If all you can do is demine my attractive and rather distinguished signature, then that is rather sad. Now run along, see if you can find a famous Swedish footballer to write about - that's right, take a nice long time.  Giano  23:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

@Bish; as Giano clarified, it wasn't my idea; I mostly eschew cluttering up talk pages with meretricious sig code. I am saddened to see a font-element, though; they're *so* second millennium (try a span-element;).

—Sincerely, Sockpuppet First Class, Jack Merridew 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small>

  — like this ;) Jack Merridew 15:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Jack, but I can't honestly say that I can see any difference.  Giano  17:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's the point. More efficient/modern but looks just the same. Oh, and by the way I like those diagrams, I think they will add to the article. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

G, you want to get sketchup - I believe it's free in some form, I've got the pro version for work and it's like God's IT gift to architects. Goodbye awkward autocad (designed for engineers) hello easy to use 'push space, pull space, make it look nice with shadows 'n stuff'. Plans are of course generally better to understand the relative sizes of rooms, so those important but far away rooms still look as large. You could try an aerial 3D. I'd loose the trees, green background and chequered floor texture and try and limit the palette a bit, but just minor gripes really. Looking good. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not spending any money! I think the thing I have must be for engineers as I have to use the supporting wall option to make the scale small enough - I rather like the chequered floors I was even considering adding little fourposted beds and chipendale chairs and little ladies in crinolines! - I'l go to Computer-World and see what they have in the bargain basket, trouble is any more software on this computer and it will be completely staionary. Actually, I am very worried about this computer I have done all the things with the disc and the start up menu people tell you to do and it's still comatose in its speed - just one expense after the other, and Christmas presents to buy too...bah humbug.  Giano  07:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Free! - can't help with the PC - get a usb hard drive for Christmas and delete stuff. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Exciting times

The Doughnut Drive 2009 event is an international collaboration to bring Wikipedia's coverage of doughnuts up to standard. Given the shocking state of Italian doughnuts (Struffoli, Guanti, (Assisi) Bastoncello, (Calabria) Scaddateddi, Zeppole Spignesi, Chiacchiere [44], Lattughe (this may not be classifiable as doughnut, but it is fried pastry, in a Lettuce" style) Cenci, Donzelle, Frappe, Sfrappole, Bugie, Crostoli, Fritole, Ciambelli (Cocullo, Abruzzi) and Bomboloni), I know we can count on your assistance in this important endeavor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CofM, most kind to think of me - to be honest my knowledge of doughnuts, Italian or otherwise is less than minimal, I don't even really like them, that feeling of sugar stuck on your lips and having to surreptitiously swipe it with the back of one's hand, I'll back out of this one, sorry.  Giano  07:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Hopefully there will be enough of us lesser editors and common plebes without your refined tastes and interests to make it a big success. :) If you can think of anyone I can ask about the Italian subjects, please let me know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You could try Attilios; he's from Rome and probably enjoys a doughnut.  Giano  20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Far be it from me to state the obvious, but you might want to try WikiProject Italy... – iridescent 2 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I never knew we had a WikiProject Italy, that's fascinating - are they all like me? I don't think I'll join, I'm too much of an Anglophobe - it's a very good idea though.  Giano  21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• At this belated stage in the day, I would have thought that smacked of persecution rather than prosecution. I was asked by the Arbs to delay launching a case - I did. If Wikipedia's processes acted within a proper timeframe and in a structured consistant way most of Wikipedia's problems would be avoided. With half the Arbcom recused and the other half having angered those who have had problems with Mattisse, I don't realy see what such a suggestion is supposed to acheive. All we will have is a further re-hash and verbose reasoning from her "mentors" suggetsing further forms and reports (one feels in that RL they probably work in some obscure Governmental department), self pity from Mattisse and repeated anger from others. The Arbs failed to pick up the baton at the appropriate time and have allowed the moment to pass something that seem to be habbit forming with this Arbcom.  Giano  08:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano - I just came back to correct my spelling errors on "Mattisse". I actually know nothing about the case - perhaps your comment would be more useful at the motion discussion.Manning (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already quite clearly stated that I am done with that page and its subject [45]. That now over two long weeks later, the Arbs finally think, I was right is two long weeks too late. Those dealing with the case have shown themselves completely ignorant of the facts and unable to deal with the matter [46]. Later, Carcharoth asked me not to launch a case when the matter was current, and I did not. Those that have allowed this mess to continue can sort it and opine; quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time. So long as Mattisse and her retainers stay well away from me and my work, I shall be happy. I am well used to sorting my own problems out and it's something I do very well. It's a pity for those that will be plagued in future, but they can always fill in one of her mentor's forms and hope that eventually Carcharoth and the Arbs find the time and energy to read it - or whatever the convoluted procedure is supposed to be. I am having none of it, what others do is entirely up to them, but unless I am plagued again (No, I won't be filling in a form) my hands are washed of the matter, it's time I looked after myself and let others defend themselves from further attacks.  Giano  13:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cabal in action???

G; could you cast your eye at this midnight coup and tell me what you think of the "process"? Sarah777 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am already in discussion discretely "off-site", if I have no satisfactory answers there, then it will have to come "on-site." When I have formed an opinion, it will be very obvious to all.  Giano  11:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Well at least he can now edit his talk, so something fair has been achieved. Having looked at most of the "abusive" emails (all pretty harmless and sent because all other doors had been closed by RLevse) the best way for this to go forward is a full Arbcom case, so that everything can be aired and discussed properly and fairly (or as fair as an Arbcom case ever is with so much background noise) with Rlevse recused. I don't know if VK should be alowed to remain or not - I would like to see and study al evidence first, but he deserves to be judged by the Arbs not by an angry over vocal lynch mob hunting during the night.  Giano  16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

I've enabled e-mails now if you want to send me more details. Cheers, GiantSnowman 23:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Marked ANI thread partly resolved to note for the record that you did nothing wrong

I have marked partly resolved the ANI thread - I have not closed it (not trying to shut down discussion on the oversight error). But as you were extremely sensitive to the perception that this was an attack on your behavior, I wanted it on the record that consensus is that you had not done anything wrong in the edits leading up to the oversight. I am leaving the thread open until the oversight error issue is discussed and settled. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a perception, the log clearly stated that I had "made an edit revealing personal information". Thank you anyway for you clarity and consideration - I do appreciate it. It is a pity I have to make so much fuss to have such a grave matter addressed. I now know exactly what happened, and the checkuser (who is not even a Wikipedian) could not possibly have known there was the remotest, stupidist risk that I might have "made an edit revealing personal information" if he had not been told this by a very "Senior Wikipedian". I expect you know exactly what I am talking abouut GWH - so let's not discuss this further tonight. I shall resume this in the morning and each morning until I have a satisfactory answer as to what happened, and we may as well have that answer sooner rather than later because I assure you we shall have it one way or the other no matter how long it takes.  Giano  00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• At last people can see the "offending" diff: [47]. Now all you (I already know) need to know is which people (note plural) instructed this very young and obviously naive Oversighter from another project to remove it, and why it took so long for me to prove that I had done nothing wrong and have the post restored. (eventually in full, by Luna santin about half an hour ago [48]). There is far more to this than meets the eye, this I know for fact, and remembering, I only ask questions when I know the answers - I hope to see some resignations during the day, then we can all forget this unfortunate incident.  Giano  10:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arb?

What leads you to believe an arb complained about the RfB statement? Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

because it was an Arb, I thought everyone knew that. He shopped on IRC because none of our oversighters would do it. IRC, when will people ever learn about that place.  Giano  19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please post or email me logs/summary. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk)

I am being implored by several Arbs (well 3 actually) to wait, and let them deal with it. Belatedly, they suddenly seem interested. I want a resignation, I think the Arb has behaved deplorably to use that German kid like that.  Giano  19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please let others do their job

Giano, you are not the conscience of the wiki. The audit subcommittee is looking at this right now. You need to be patient and wait for the report (even if it takes days or weeks). AUSC was set up precisely to stop this sort of running around hot-headed and demanding action in relation to OS and CU matters stance that you are taking. Even when you are right about such things, that does not excuse the disruption you cause as a result of stridently demanding action, and trying to bully people into precipitous or forced action. If you continue with this sort of behaviour, the only thing you are likely to force us to do is block or ban you for your behaviour. I closed the ANI thread because all that needed to be said had been said there. If you have more you want or need to say, then click this link (WP:AUSC) and send what you want to say to the e-mail address there. Carcharoth (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced thinly veiled block and ban threats are likely to be productive here Carcharoth.... Either way I look forward to the audit sub-comittee neatly sweeping this under the carpet so there's probably not much point continuing with this is there? Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• <after conflict>I have already reverted one Arb, but you seem determined to poke - so OK here it is: How dare you come here? You lot have been bullying me (or trying to) for over 24 hours denying things that we already now know to be true. Arbs claimed to have no idea this had occurred hours after the event (I spoke to them), now Coren says "the Arb" told them instantly. Either way they are in the shit because they did nothing! Bloody nothing! I can well beleive you would like to block me - that would be very convenient. "let's all laugh it off shall we - have a pint" and forget how disgustingly and deplorably one of your number has behaved. He uses a kid, trashes my name and then sits silently - and the arbCom did not have the common decency to email me and avert all of this with a simple explanation, because there bloody wasn't one - was there? Now go away and plan your whitwash, but be careful or I may through another bucket of excrement over the nice clean paint. Now I am trying to work on a new page and unless you want me to loose the plot and plaster some posts all over the place, leave me alone to get on with it in peace, I have had quite enough or Arbitrators and admins and their antics for the last 24 hours.  Giano  20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Have to say I'm with Pedro on this, and I don't find your threats to Giano to be particularly seemly or helpful. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano, if I had a bunch of edits blanked like that, I would be rather upset too. It would be like a doctor cutting off the wrong leg and simply say "oops". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Of the 21 editors who had their comments accidentally oversighted, why is it that only Giano has decided to escalate the drama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.160.19 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Their diffs were blanked. Giano's comments were removed. There is a huge difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and people say the idea that strange events surround Friday the 13th is a myth--for the first time in my Wiki career I actually find myself agreeing with Ottava! This was a hot mess all around; I'm logging on for the first time in the past 2 days, and finding THAT was....um, galvanizing. I look forward to hearing, at the very least, the "official" version of events, though I'm sure the version Giano could share would be much more likely to keep me awake tomorrow at work.GJC 03:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is not the diffs and removal that has really angered me, nor the removal, or the accusation of "outing" (a wiki-crime which I would like to see carry an automatic lifetime ban) but the fact that a young Oversighter (I don't want to be mean) but whose English is not perhaps as good as ours (I'm not saying mine is brilliant), with very limited experience of English Wikipedia, was actively shopped for on IRC by "others" actively incited to do so by an Arb who was unable to get one of our own oversighters to do it. That cowardly Arb, then left eceryone else to carry the can. When I exploded with rage on ANI, I had to keep all that to myself, but even then I could not beleive the other Arbs and Oversighters were doing nothing. I was later told they did not know, now we are told the Arb concerned told them straight away - who do you beleive? I'm not so much angry any more as pretty disgusted, with the lot of them for trying to supress this. As for the report, well I think we can al guess what that will say, supression is probably habbit forming.  Giano  11:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Giano, I'm not disputing or confirming anything you are saying, but this is the wrong place to be saying these things. You need to click the link I gave you, find the e-mail address on that page, and e-mail your concerns to the audit subcommittee. By its very nature, the potential sensitivity of oversight matters, even mistaken oversight actions, means that public discussion on-wiki is not helpful, because there are other factors at play here that are best dealt with in private. Now, I'm not going to be around to reply to any reply of yours, or any revert you might do of what I've said, but please listen to what I'm saying. I don't say things like this lightly. We (ArbCom and the audit subcommiteee) are aware of this, and it is being dealt with. You have a place to e-mail your concerns to. Everyone (you, me and anyone else reading this) really needs to just go and get on with other stuff, while the audit subcommittee work out exactly what happened here. That's their job and they are doing it. Further commentary on-wiki is not going to help here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I have asked you so many time to go away and reverted your sad posts here, that it is just not true. You seem determined to poke and poke. I am quite sure you do feel this is the wrong place, and I am quite sure it is very embarassing for the Arbcom to have everyone reading how thet sat on an oversight abuse orchestrated by one of their own number for hours and hours while an innocent editor was accued of "outing" and protesting his innocence while fligts of Admins kept trying to close the thread and threatening to block. Had I not shouted for so long and so loud I would still have that brand against my name and the arbs would still be doing nothing. You wrongly protected one of your own and have been caught. As for using that kid like that, well if I need to explain what is wrong with that to you, then you are obviously little better than your fellow Arb and his friend who found the kid on IRC. Now accept that and go away.  Giano  13:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And what's more Carcharoth, following this to its natural logical conclusion, if an Admin had behaved like this s/he would loose his tools. So the Arbcom and the "Arb" should be grateful I am only calling for his resignation to prevent him sitting in judgement on others. Once his name is out, I can't imagine anyone placing a great deal of trust in him again - can you? No, don't answer that, don't bother to come back - yet again.  Giano  13:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and one final thing, just in case you are trumping up a charge of blocking me for threatening nehaviour. I have no intention of outing "Randy in Boise" now or ever! He has done a bloody good job of doing that for himself.  Giano  13:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

.....and here we are days later waiting for the Arbs who comprise WP:AUSC to state and find the obvious - that one of their own abused his position. No doubt they are hoping by the time they get around to asking him and his "powerful friend" the simple question and drawing the inevitable conclusion, we will all have forgotten about it. Giano  08:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So...

Are you going to run, or not? Think about it please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Boris, but I think I a can do more from where I am. Anyway, I'm rather fussy about the company I keep. There's a more trustworthy class of person down here.  Giano  09:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FW:Palaces

Don't worry, Giano, it's ok :). --Ketamino (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article

I notice your user talk page is listed as a Featured article. However, it does not seem to have sufficient in-line citations. Please remedy this situation or I will be forced to list the page at WP:FAR. Thatcher 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How long has that been there? The page has been protected for months, so I can't edit it; I wonder who put it there?  Giano  20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It comes from User:Giano II/Prologue which is transcluded on this page. You put it there when you created the page in May 2009, but I don't know where you copied it from or who put it there originally. Thatcher 20:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

God knows what that ever was, I have forgotten. You can move it if you want, seeing as I am unable.  Giano  20:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither this page nor User:Giano II/Prologue is protected, you should be able to edit them yourself. It's a fitting tribute, I was trying to make a joke about FAR. I'm not a user page enforcer, do whatever you prefer. Thatcher 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, the star is also on User:Giano II which your user page directs to and which is protected (I saw it on this talk page). I still don't care about it. I'll move it if you want, or unprotect your page if you wish. Whatever you like. Thatcher 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you can defeature it, and 10 out of 10 for observance.  Giano  21:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

what have you done Thatcher? You have killed poor Spumoni.  Giano  23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When I first removed the star, I was also having trouble seeing the bird, and the full image on your user page. But it's back now. I've checked with different web browsers, logged in and logged out. I think it must have been a server glitch with the images. The page was taking an unusually long time to load, too. I'll keep an eye and make sure everything is ok. Thatcher 00:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

One last time

Alright, one last attempt to try to make cool heads prevail.

You made a comment which could reasonably be read as a combination outing/attack by an arbitrator unaware of the meme status of the phrase. Said arb notices, and seeks to have this oversighted (as is absolutely normal in cases of outing). Same arb emails the committee to inform it of the perceived attack. No mention of oversighting is made. Some of us read that email, and notice the probable misunderstanding. We reply as such. As far as I can glean from the timing, other arbs have noticed the erroneous oversights shortly after and arrange to have them undone (Risker seems to be the first to notice, but was not able to undo them at that moment).

Then you explode, and start insulting everyone in sight. I feel obliged to point out that while you may have been correctly insulted at having been indirectly accused of outing, it is more than a little hypocritical to complain about your name being besmirched while, in the same breath, accusing people of being liars and cowards and being both dismissive and condescending to everyone involved. And your oft repeated assertion that nothing would have been done had you not misbehaved in this way is strictly an assumption or bad faith that has no basis in reality.

The original matter of the bad suppression is in the hands of the subcommittee. The edits have been restored. Nobody seriously thinks you have outed anyone, and whomever takes a minute to examine the situation will clearly see that it was a massive misunderstanding. Back off. Now. Wait for the AUSC report (which may take a few days still) and, if you are not satisfied with its conclusion, seek redress with the committee or Jimbo.

Now for the less pleasant part of this note: you are to stay scrupulously civil and respectful to everyone if you insist on discussing the matter further. This means no backhand sniping, no condescending monikers, no barely veiled caustic sarcasm, no accusations of lies or other sins of choice. If you do not feel you can discuss the subject with dignity, then avoid the subject entirely. I will enforce this with blocks as required. And lest you start hollering about how ArbCom is persecuting you, let me be entirely clear: this is normal, routine administrative enforcement of one of our founding pillars by "just" an administrator that refuses to be bullied or intimidated. But I will bring the matter to ArbCom as a party if you force my hand.

If history is a good predictor of future behavior, you'll revert or blank this note the moment you see it. I'll consider this as acknowledgement. — Coren ^(talk) 00:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you block Giano rest assured that I will seek redress such as having you desysoped for acting improperly where you have a conflict of interest. Your threatening behavior is highly uncivil and inappropriate.

It's clear that you don't take seriously accusations and threats made against common editors, and we've all seen the grotesque bias in how civility is enforced (or not, as the case may be).

That you fail recognize when you have a conflict of interest and are involved in a situation doesn't surprise me given the high level of incompetence and incomprehension I've seen from you as an Arb. You need to back off. An apology would be best. But at the very least you should take your trolling elsewhere. Editors are blocked indefinitely and for long periods of time all the time for lesser offenses than outing. So, Giano's frustration is reasonable even if you dont' share it. He's entitled to a full explanation and transparency, concepts our Arbs dont' seem very familiar with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we not do this? The incident is resolved. Threats and posturing are only drama-inducing at this point. Both of you, please calm down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's not resolved yet, because Giano has asked repeatedly for transparency on who made the IRC request and why. He may have other questions that he wants answered as well. So you're welcome to suggest patience or to give your perspective on the manner, but certainly threats and intimidation from an Arb are inappropriate and telling a well established editor that something they still have concerns over is resolved doesn't seem constructive either. I happen to agree it was a misunderstanding that has been blown out of proportion, but I wasn't the one who had their comments oversighted. If Giano wants more of an explanation or to be informed about who exactly was involved, I think that's entirely reasonable. I think the use of e-mail and IRC is very problematic because of the lack of transparency it provides and because it allows inappropriate teaming up and coordination without input from all parties. If and when you and Coren are interested in enforcing civility (or arbitration enforcements for that matter), please let me know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to repeat myself - threats and posturing are only drama-inducing at this point.

That is not a statement of disagreement with Giano deserving to understand what happened in all this.

But misbehavior in the pursuit of justice is not ok. Nor is threatening on the other side now, really.

I am both for the discovery of truth and for reasonable, civil behavior on the wiki, and less drama. I believe that the two are not incompatible. It distresses me that people are chosing the confrontational path rather than the alternative. I don't think it helps with the goal of discovering the truth, nor with the wider goal of helping Wikipedia work better.

To the extent that it's counterproductive I recommend introspection and self review. To the extent it's destructive to community I request that everyone step down and respond more thoughtfully.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read as far as "You made a comment which could reasonably be read as a combination outing/attack" and that is as far as I am going - how dare you come here while Brad is on G-mail asking me to be patient, assuring me he is trying to sort it out. I had just agreed with another Arb to be trust you all and be patient. Now you do this! while they are doing that here you are making threats. You Arbs are unreal in your desperation to protect one of your own. I am not even going to read this thread further, I am going to find out what this is all about. If just one of you thought I was outing you would have banned me instantly - and you know that's true, not one of you even thought the "outing" was serious enough to contact me. You want a fight Coren, you can have one - who was the person "the Arb" incited to shop for an oversighter on IRC - I won't say his name, but of of you Arbs is going to. That I ptomise you.  Giano  09:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this thread on Recent Changes—it is absolutely ghastly, putrid and foul, presents a vile image of Wikipedia, and I request that the three of you (particularly Childofmidnight and Giano, whose comments are the most inflammatory) to stop. It's really nasty. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Threatening people into silence is a very sad and poor thing to do, if that is what Wikipedia has now sunk to, then let peope see it.  Giano  09:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• If Coren is about to ban me it can be my final message. In five years I have never once outed anybody. I have never once threatened to out anybody. In five years I have been consistently know to turn on anybody who outs another. That inlcudes those who famously tried to out one previous member of the Arbcom and one serving member. (I would thought that serving memeber would have had the guts to post) That fact is well known to all members of the Arbcom. Now you people dare to threaten me with bans for being angry for my edits being sighted and labeled "outing". God you lot are unreal.  Giano  10:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• May I suggest a compromise: There was not outing in fact. Let's all drop it, and go work on some articles instead. Who can support that? Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, I am getting to the bottom of this, I would also suggest that this is not a wise place for Arbcom candidates to be because while my faith in the Arbcom is at an all time low, my cynicism is at an all time high. If it was thought I was outing an Arb on site I would have been instantly banned. If it was a genuine mistake, those concerned would have emailed instantly an explanation, and hopefully, an apology - to date nothing, and those Arbs aware would have immediately remedied the situation - also why the secrecy of over who went to find an oversighter in IRC? What's the secret? I know that I'M sounding like a parrot, but sooner or later we will have the truth, and all the threats in the world from a seemingly nervous Arbcom will not stop that or deflect me.  Giano  13:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing that would let cooler heads prevail is some fucking sunlight. Whoever made the IRC request should have come clean by now. How hard is it to compile a timeline and make it public? It's not the crime, it's the coverup, and all. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

.....because of certain other unconnected private matters, which I shall never disclose, the Arbs knew already that I am not an "outer" and never will be. Yet they did nothing spontaneously to remedy this situation, one of them even initiated it. Coren says they knew within minutes [49], but they did nothing. Now they are all closing ranks and saying "understandable mistake". It was not an "understandable" mistake or else I would understand it. Coren has now confirmed my justification for fury by even having the trolling cheek to insult me further by saying "reasonably be read as a combination outing/attack" That is a lie, it was not reasonable, and if he does not like me saying so, then he can block me because I shall continue to say it. There is no excuse for this secrecy, deceit and closing of ranks to protect one ARb and his "influential friend." They have now had more than long enough to cook up a plausible story - so let's here it.  Giano  14:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, Giano, it was pointed out to me that there may be an error in my post. I need to consider and revise. Thatcher 16:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that may be wise.  Giano  16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Randy's skeletons

Coren says:"You made a comment which could reasonably be read as a combination outing/arrack..." and I am hypocritical for saying people are liars; he then threatens to block me, so Can someone explain to me how saying "Randy in Boise" in the same post [50] as a man who posts, I now learn, not only his real Christian name, but also his real surname all over Wikipedia can possible "reasonably be read as outing." This same man, I now learn, is frequently referred to as Randy all over Wikipedia [51][52][53]. I have diffs to prove all of this as you can see, and so I suspect do the Arbcom. So why does this Arb who posts his full name [54][55] (there are about a billion more), suddenly want me oversighted for saying Randy in Boise? Interesting, isn't it? I wonder what it is that those who think he had the vaguest excuse for oversighting are basing their logic on. Are they planning on oversighting numerous diffs and posts by the man himself? I am posting these freely available diffs here before the evidence for my reasoning dissapears. Why did the Arbcom need to debate if it was an outing, like our wise oversighters, they knew it could not possible be. The irony is, I was probably the only person who did not know he was called Randy. Now you are starting to know why I think he should resign for dishonesty and Coren too, and of course we still need to know the name of the "influential friend" who went to IRC for the unwitting and poorly used oversighter. Giano  22:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

: )

"I think all the adjectives should be removed, they are all sort of descriptive. Adjectives are unnecessary and just make the page too long and hard to read" - Great stuff. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiEN-l mailing list

To the moderator of the above list (I assume it is a certain D Gerard): 3 hours ago you sent me the following email:

Your request to the WikiEN-l mailing list "Posting of your message titled "Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP task force meeting" has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "C'mon, Giano, drop it please." Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at: wikien-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

I have no idea why you have sent that. I removed myself from your subscription list over 15 hours ago, and have not emailed you since. I strongly dissaprove of the list being used to co-ordinate meetings about living biographies and Wikipedia policy on IRC as they exclude the majority of Wikipedia volunteers. So, following allegations on the list that I am paranoid (for feeling this) and your censorship of my retaliation to that and request that the logs of this meeting be published, I have permanently left your list. Presuambly, my calling Steve Bennett "pathetic" after I was called me a troll and paranoid, are the personal attacks that you are accusing me of?

Whatever, if you are still receiving emails from a "Giano" then please look elsewhere. Perhaps it is not I that am paranoid. Oh and really "Task force" you are discussing biographies, not retaking the Falklands Islands, so do try and get a sense or perspective.  Giano  12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[56] Don't worry Jack, I knew all the time!  Giano  20:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured that out ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Last Rites

Have you noticed? There isn't a single soul prepared to run in the ritual humiliation that is RFA. Perhaps you can breathe new life into the process. If you need a nomination, I'd be happy to oblige. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No thank you (kind as the thought is) I would not get in, I don't hold the necessary credentials. Whatever, I'm presently tired of Wikipedia (and not here much); it's a body that does not like being told the truth and likes too often to shoot the messenger and then goes shamefuly quiet when the blindingly obvious truth unfolds. I am sick to death of wincingly painful lower middle class civility taking priority over morals, ethics and honesty. So, thank you, but I truly beleive Wikipedia's "leaders" and "frontmen" are in a class of their own, I have no wish to join them.  Giano  08:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please

I have avoided this page for a long time but this is really kicking someone when they are down. David is not a "troll", and I don't appreciate you calling him that. You do great work around here, I just wish you did not occasionally throw a spiteful comment out in the middle of high drama, it is not helpful. I imagine you will simply revert my request for you to be more civil as you have done in the past, I will take that a acknowledgment of my message. ^Chillum 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

His message was trolling, I doubt very much that he loves me any more than I love him, or do you know something that I do not? He is also very far from "down" more riding on the crest of a wave, I would have said. I won't revert you Chillum as you are always welcome here to prove my points. If there is "high drama" then it is certainly not of my making. If you wish to block me for incivility then please do so, but my post (immediatly above this section) to the editor wanting me to be an Admin seems even more wierdly prophetic than when I posted it some days ago. I can see I day arriving, when I shall be implored to be on the Arbcom just to restore some confidence and trust; something currently in very short supply.  Giano  15:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not here to block you, it is not about policy even, it is about how we treat each other as people. I am trying to implore you to not do these things, person to person. Just treat people with a basic level of respect, even those who you are upset with, even those you disagree with. Trolling is when one intentionally attempts to inflame a situation by baiting an emotional response, there is some of that going on in that thread by more than one person but I sincerely think David is trying to deescalate the situation. ^Chillum 15:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Chilum, you are being even more simplistic and trusting than usual. This situation is not going to de-escelate and such posts as this should be causing huge clanging alarm bells to ring in your ears. As a person who only asks questions to which I know the answers, I recognise in John Vandenberg a similar trait. Interesting times.  Giano  16:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing that others are also making unhelpful comments. I have found my simplistic and trusting point of view has served me well over the years, it is a trait I am proud of. I agree these are interesting times for Wikipedia. Thank you for not reverting me, it is nice that we have both made this sincere attempt to communicate and to some degree have succeeded. Have a nice day. ^Chillum 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ah but we differ too much, you find John Vandenburg's comment "unhelpful" I regard them as as "enlightening." You want a backward looking Wikipedia ruled by a sinister authoritarian group banning people for uncivility and writing the truth, however unpallatable that may be, and I want a bright, light progressive and intelectual encyclopedia contributing to modern education. Have a nice day too, enjoy the sunshine, I suspect we are in for a some very dark clouds in the New Year.  Giano  16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Giano. Sorry to butt in. Does the David Gerard issue and the Arb resignation have anything to do with the mistaken oversighting of your comments a while back? What came of that eventually? Or this solely about comments posted elsewhere based on Gerard's using his checkuser powers and the events that followed that? I'm just trying to follow along.

There are interesting issues involved, but it's time consuming to try to keep track of it all.

I found your above comments very on target and insightful. Ultimately I think plodding along in article work and carefully picking battles to try and keep a few of the candles from blowing out completely is the best we can do. Rooting out the corruption, collusion, dishonesty, and abuse would be a full-time task, and then we'd be accused of failing to do article work and banned completely (an expectation that admins are immune from apparently). Anyway, take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea if they are connected, I would not have thought so, but who knows - my own experience of Arbs and Bureaucrats oversighting my edits remains (almost a month later) as unexplained and arrogantly ignored as the major questions in this current fiasco. The only thing I know for certain is that no one will press Gerard to answer this question [57] and that we have lost a very honourable and good Arb and Wikipedia is a poorer place for it. In January, we will have a new Jimbo-Picked-Arbcom who will re-instate Gerards "rights" and anyone who dares to question will be villified and/or banned. This is one of those rare occasions when I would love to be proved wrong, but I know I won't be - sad.  Giano  20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, these events are totally and completely unrelated. Prodego ^talk 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and the Bureaucrat who went shopping on IRC for an oversighter on RLevse's behalf is still unnamed and free to carry on. Anyway, I expect that has all taken second place now, it seems there's little to chose between them. Quite frankly, I'm not impressed by the Arbcom they all lined up behind JohnVandenberg and signed their names, then when the shit started to fly, he looked behind him and they had all disspeared along with their signatures. How can one respect anyone who behaves like that?  Giano  22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems incredibly poorly managed by them. Prodego ^talk 02:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It only goes to show that on those rare occasions when the AC actually does manage to do something right, they still manage to blow it by going about it in the ham-fisted, clumsy manner of a Keystone Court.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy the lulz

Hey G, you know the WP:EEML case, how web brigade members have complained about their emails being released into public domain. You may get some lulz out of this edit, in which a brigadier has copied their email into mainspace. Quite telling is Piotrus saying that FloNight has shown her true colours and other such nonsense. Well, I thought you would appreciate the lulz that these guys still don't get it. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Aparently an Arb has oversighted part of a message that was here. Nanny clearly presumes to know what is best for you all. Russavia is now blocked for a week, while the Arbcom refuses to block the leaders of the EE mailing list. What amazing Arbs we so sem to have.  Giano  19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was me, Giano. I'm not an arb (thank goodness :) ) - Alison ^❤ 19:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh Alison, I had never thought of you as Mary Poppins, an Arb told me that the oversight had taken place, of course we mere mortals have no way of knowing. I often wonder how much we do all miss through the many oversights which mow take place daily at the drop of a hat as Arbs play at being Dr Who. Nice to hear from you - incidentally, why have you the sillhouette of a vampire bat as part of your signature - anything yoy would like to tell me?  Giano  20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Giano. Yeah, just doing my job, is all. Sorry for messing with your page. FWIW, a link to an off-wiki archive site was posted which contained private emails & a complaint was made to the oversight list. Can you not see the oversight logs here? There should be a public record of these things so at least you know why it happened. As for the batwings, yeah - thought it was only fair to warn people about my insatiable thirst for blood ;) - Alison ^❤ 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not enjoying the lulz. I have switched off from that case because it is apparent that to this "Arbcom" harrassing Wikipedia's contributing editors into leaving through a maliciously a fix targeted ornanised, secret mailing list which then goes on to manipulate noticeboards and concencus through flattery of naive and vainglorious admins is a lesser crime than perceived cultural incivility seeking to improve the place. The same people that call for long bans for what they think is "incivility" see little wrong in such behaviour. That there are to be no long bans being handed out shows the rank hypocrisy of this in "command." However, as we now know that the ArbCom are little more than a theatre of easily influenced puppetts with strings jerked by God knows who, there seems little point in commenting on cases or even taking part in the latest charade, that is Arbcom "elections."  Giano  08:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That you showed up with your commentary as soon as the case opened rather demonstrates it is not a "charade." Q.E.D. (IMHO) Best regards.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Still here? Sorry, I am not quite so "trusting" or prepared to obliterate history as our Arbcom. In my view (expressed at the time) you and your friends would have been sent packing months ago.  Giano  09:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Alas, as I bulk read my mail every 3 or 4 days to a week and check WP throughout the day, my arrival and contributions anywhere have always been my own, list or no list. Feel free to come discuss any of my edits on its merits, provided I'm "still here." Then again, the entire planet now knows my Email address, although it wasn't secret to begin with, so I look forward to your morsels of wisdom in any event. You may find your Wiki-experience far more satisfying if you don't stick editors into camps based on your personal prejudices. Self-righteous cynicism from the pulpit (how yours comes across above) isn't going to steer the ship to a positive course. However if enough people vote for Kmweber, perhaps it will inject some fresh thought into exactly what it is that ArbCom does.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Italian translation?

I was tracing the final redlink in John Michael Wright which was to Congregazione dei Virtuosi al Pantheon. I tried to write the article, but came unstuck as all the sources were Italian (except for a French wikipedia article). I then discovered an en.wp article on Pontifical Academy of Fine Arts and Letters of the Virtuosi al Pantheon and so I've redirected the thing there. However, I'm not totally convinced by this title, which seems a terrible part translation. And should "Letteratura" not be translated "literature" rather than "letters". Given my inability to work with the sources I don't think I can do much here, but I thought it might tickle your fancy. If not, never mind.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes it does tickle me, so much so that I thought I had translated it years ago, I can't be sure, my name's not in the history either - must have been someting similar, I'll take a look some time.  Giano  20:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Google translate isn't doing an adequate job on Gianna Nannini's lyrics from Bomboloni. Do you think there are that are of significance and worth including in the bomboloni (pastry) article I'm working on?

I think I've got the last part "bomboloni (hot filled doughnut) bomboloni, hot bomboloni hot bomboloni down already. :) Here's the video [58].

Also, what does the "loni" suffix mean? What about "lone"? They seem to be open at the top where the filling is put as opposed to Berliner's where it's injected from the side. Are "ciambelle" just sugared doughnuts? And what are Bomboloni non tondi Castiglionesi? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Bombaloni means large bombs, you use the word bomb (or did) for a big stuffed confection in English and French too, I'm sure I have heard of a "Bomb Surprise" which I think is meringue stuffed with something. Loni (Lone singular) on nouns denotes a larger size, you see it again in cannelloni. I think your song probably loses something in translation and would have to have lots of words changed to be anything other than ridiculous in English - its realy rather "paroloni" (Don't bother to babelfish that - it won't translate either). I really don't know much about cookery, I thought ciambelle was baked cake with sugar on top, I'm sure you don't fry it like a doughnut; you have worried me now, perhaps it's not cake!!! I have no idea what "Bomboloni non tondi Castiglionesi" is supposed to be - is it anything? it sound like a phrase out of context, Italy has dozens of places with Castiglione in the name, perhaps one of them them has a dish that has to be differentitated from bombaloni by shape. Sorry to be so useless, I eat food, I have no ideea how to prepare it.  Giano  00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "Bomb Surprise". Thanks very much for your response and explanation. It's very helpful and I appreciate it. Manga, manga! (And I'm not talking about comic books) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well here you are, after consultation with Mrs G (who has taken the odd cookery class) it seems bombes are common in haute cuisine as a round stuffed desert - as proof here is a picture I have found courtesy of google [59] [60]. I think one of the problems is that many Italain dishes are taken to the USA, there, evolve into something completely different but no-one bothers to change the name.  Giano  09:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Are the words bomba for bomb and bombolona for a big doughnut related? Is there such a thing as a bombo (would it be a little filled doughnut, or a male bomb)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion bombola is a gas cannister! And Bomba was once a very good race horse!  Giano  23:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• On your behalf, certainly not mine, I have just had a look at some other sites, and our own page here. I was assuming they were pluralised in the same was as one eats profiterole never profiteroles (allthough now I think about it perhaps one does and it does have an "s" but being French one ignores it - whatever) its bombolone (is the fact the final "e" is pronounced - a source (sauce - sorry!) of confusion? Now the Italian Wikipedia [61] is not claiming this dish for Tuscany, but very generously giving it to Austria and Bavaria and goes so far as to say it is a "Berliner" although why something from Austria/South Germany should be called a Berliner is a path I choose not to pursue. It seems the Austrian on one of their invading trips into the Italian states left doughnuts behind to replace the pricelss treasures they carried off. Giano  23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There are several articles on English Wikipedia about the various filled doughnut incarnations. Some bold soul may at some point merge them, and I will suport that effort. But in the meantime, without an overarching Doughnut Union to structure them under a common umbrella, the Berliner, krafne, krapfen, jelly doughnut and sufganiyot will each have their independence. Do you miss the Lira? I always liked them, it was comforting to have so many thousands. Truly it seemed a very wealthy place in all respects: food, love and the denominations on your money. Euros seem a travesty of convenience and I wonder if Europe isn't pursuing modernity at all costs. I fear that soon the palazzos may be torn down in favor of more modern effiencies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have so many more questions. What is the difference between zeppole, zeppula, zippula? They just have different fillings? I am getting lost in all the Italian doughnut holes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A good translation of this page [62] might be helpful. The google translation I'm coming up with [63] has a lot to say about lies, rumors, gossip, and rags "washed down with alchermes or black pudding". It seems a very acquired taste to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And now I've come up with frittola, which doesn't seem to be very doughnut like at all. Hmmm... Maybe I should have stuck with La Bomba. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And Frittole. Now I know why we stuck with the pizza, calzone, and cannoli. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• What surprises me most about Wikipedia's interest in Italian cookery is that no one has yet written a page on the genetically modified pasta growing prairies of Emilia-Romagna, or about the secret EEC mountains or surplus pasta which are converted to bio-fuels and wines shipped to the USA, I was reading a scientific paper only yesterday about a new GM ravioli plant which can have up to 10 raviole on each branch - It's all very worrying.  Giano  08:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What does ricucinati mean? Some sort of cooking method? We only use microwaves and toaster ovens in this country. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It means re-heated.  Giano  21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

You're in a book User:Andrew Dalby/The World and Wikipedia/Editors whose work is mentioned in the book.86.150.103.107 (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh how exiting, I wonder if it will be a best seller. Is the book discussing the trouble people cause or their work, if its the latter there are quite a few missing. Come to think about it, if it's the former ............  Giano  12:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye and look at some of the names on that list...what distinguished company G...you should be honoured, you've finally hit the big time!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most flattering. However, I see NewYorkBrad is also mentioned, which reminds me, I wonder what has happened to that, much promised report into Rlevse's oversighting of my edits and Coren's threats to block me - surely it's not beining delayed until the close of the Arbcom elections and too late for people to change their minds - No, that can't be true....can it?  Giano  13:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh perish the thought old man! Tis mere Coinkydink, of course. The timing has absolutely nothing to do with politics whatsoevah. But it does further reaffirm my belief that Arbs should be required to lay down their admin and any other powers while they are on the committee.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It's obviously being delayed by something. Do you remain interested in making hay over the inproper oversighting? If so, I think the only method to do so would be the big-stink, as opposed to adressing the AFKudit comittee, which I will suggest be disbanded tommorow. Hipocrite (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, let them get away with it, I am beyond caring - to make a fuss means being a "dama whore" not to make a fuss means being labelled a "drama whore" for being angry at Rlevse's oversighting and Coren's nasty, bullying and frankly pathetic threats. You mention making hay, there used to be, perhpaps still is, something called silage that country children, especially near feral Italian ones, loved to play in - it was a form of hay but left those that played in it stinking like hell - there's a moral there somewhere. No I don't want to make hay anymore - people can form their own opinions - nothing changes anyway, no matter who is on the Arbcom the report would be a whitewash anyway. The Rlevse's and Corens always come unstuck eventually and then like Gerard are rehabilitated and worshiped again - no matter how many time s their friends have to protect them Wikipedia's powerful ones are on a roundabout of their own self-serving making. Let them spin  Giano  16:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of making hay, let's buy metal models of the doumo. They make great Christmas gifts!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to buy tourist tat to grab attention, now that the electons are over and people canot change their vote or opinions there is no reaseon for the report to be witheld any longer. However, as I expect Wikipedia will soon have martial law imposed, we may of course never see it anyway.  Giano  13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It could be worse; it could be marital law - the one for which you willingly sign up for, only to find that the parameters alter over time... Actually, that might be the one imposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good silage smells like scrumpy?[64] What does bad silage smell like? British cuisine. I must get back to my panettone and tea. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just read an advance copy of the report, I think I shall take a short break to recover my blood presure. when you do read it (it will take you all 30 seconds) just spare a thought for what it is not telling you rather than what it is. Why it took so long to produce such a pile of drivel is beyond comprehension, but the upshot is that anyone who mentions the word "Randy" from now onwards is likely to find themselves oversighted for attempting to out an Arb. If the Wikipedia oversighters say "no dice" then that Arb (who has been plastering his full and proper name all over Wikipedia for years) is justified in pursuading a Beaurocrat to secretly shop for other oversighters who have no comprehension of Wikipedia on IRC. This is the start of the secret Martial law we can come soon to expect. Complain and another Arb is justified in threatening to blck you, while other Arbs are cooking up AUSC reports to exonerate all Arbs concerned, carefully timed to avoid their friends elections. I'm having a break - this more than stinks.  Giano  23:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the report: "On 12 November 2009, during a discussion on Administrator noticeboard/Incidents, an editor posted a comment that included a reference to a Wikipedia critique from some years ago; this reference was incorrectly but reasonably interpreted by another editor as being an attempt to reveal personal details about the second editor. The second editor, aware that there is a significant time factor involved in suppressing edits to ANI, alerted both the Oversight mailing list (Oversight-L) and contacted another administrator on IRC to try to locate an oversighter for suppression of the edit that was mistakenly thought to be an outing attempt. While the request was being discussed on Oversight-L and the link to the Wikipedia critique article was identified, the administrator on IRC had contacted a steward and had requested suppression. The steward acted on the request for suppression, as per standard procedure. The suppression was reviewed on Oversight-L and, several hours later, was reversed by a Wikipedia oversighter.

The Audit Subcommittee finds that all parties acted in accordance with policy during the course of this event, but that several misunderstandings and gaps in practice complicated the situation."

What this cooked up kettle of lies fails to mention is that Rlevse orchestrated the entire fiasco from start to finish, while another Arb (Coren - your newly elected Arb) threatened to block me for being angry. Oh yes, and the mystery 'crat that Rlevse pursuaded to shop for an oversighter on IRC was User:MBisanz. Something else the "report" failed to mention. Now I am going on that break - good luck to you all. You'll need it.  Giano  00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there is discussion here, and for the record, I hadn't seen what you wrote above when I made my comments. EdChem (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Enough

To this day, you've had what amounts to an unwarranted carte blanche for your obnoxious and offensive behavior, given that many fear that holding you to minimal standards of civilized behavior might be viewed as suppressing dissent (as you repeatedly claim) rather than simply stopping a disruptive user. However, when you start delving in offensive smears towards other editors, only based on hallucinations of vast conspiracies and widespread corruption that exist only in your mind, you're stepping over a line that should not be crossed by anyone.

I am blocking you indefinitely for disruptive editing; specifically, refusal to engage in consensus building, harassing other editors, refusing or being unable to listen to community input regarding your offensive behavior, and persisting in that behavior over several years with no end in sight. You have driven away uncountable productive editors during your persistent campaign, who left either as a direct result of your attacks or simply disgusted at seeing you left to your destructive behavior unchecked for years. No amount of your otherwise excellent contributions can be worth this.

I will accept discussion leading to a supervised return to the community, under strict conditions (which would almost certainly restrict you away from project space for a significant period of time). I've left your ability to edit your talk page in the hope that you will entertain that proposal; if you abuse that in order to continue with ranting and foaming instead, it will just be ignored.

If the only reason you returned repeatedly from "retirement" is to hold yourself up as a critique against your own fantasies of corruption and vast conspiracies, then this is not the right place for this and you are no longer welcome. — Coren ^(talk) 23:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see Giano's wilder theories condemned by those he respects, than have him blocked in a way that will only confirm for him and others the otherwise incredible statements he makes. I'm not Giano's biggest fan, far from it, but I'm amazed that nothing has been learned from the dozens of previous blocks on Giano. Nathan ^T 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren this is ill-advised, and will not hold. We've been here done that. If you've got a case - take it to arbcom. If you weren't an arb, I'd unblock him immediately myself.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren, you're proving Giano's point more effectively than ever he could himself. You are causing, rather than preventing, disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This block shows Coren's incredibly poor judgement, and not for the first time. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd like to change my vote in the ArbCom elections, please. Blocking people for asking questions and challenging authority figures is a bad idea. It's particularly bad when it's the people in authority who do the blocking. "I will accept discussion leading to a supervised return to the community, under strict conditions". Wtf? WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Hans Adler 09:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Giano: I nevertheless totally disagree with your opinion about the AUSC report. It's curious that this particular problem (severe overuse of suppression due to misunderstandings and cross-wiki miscommunications) has first come up in connection with you of all people. But apart from that the report seems to be fine. You often jump to conclusions when you think something fits into the general pattern of the very real mobbing that is going on against you. You shouldn't be too surprised that Rlevse jumped to conclusions in this case, for reasons that obviously cannot be mentioned publicly in the AUSC report. I personally know one of them and guess there could be another, additional one. Hans Adler 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans, you are rather missing the point. I only likened Rlevse's behavior to that of a "Randy from Boisse" I later found out, much later actually, that RLevse has himself plastered his full name (surname - middle name and Christian name) all over Wikipedia. It's no secret at all. He was just miffed at being likened to Randy from Boisse - nothing more. That is what the report should have pointed out.  Giano  10:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This indefinite block is far from correct, where is the consensus for this? IMO this is wrong, and requires reverting or discussing by the community.There is no way that Giano deserves a indef for any of his actions, we need people of all differing viewpoints to be strong, who would want a wikipedia with automatons all of the same ilk, this need discussion or reversion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked. Giano, please disengage from WT:AUSC. There are plenty of others who are taking an interest in it, and your continued involvement there is not helping. I will reblock if you keep posting about this issue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you John, please consider John's words Giano, and take a step back and reduce the disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the unblock is wise John, thanks, but that the threat is not. I don't think Giano is involving himself to "help", but to demand answers - which he feels he is not getting. Having read the extremely opaque determination by the audit subcommittee, that doesn't really surprise me. I don't like the impression I'm getting that "the powers that be (TM)" are quite so keen for him to shut up. WJBscribe (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• The threat is unwise and also unnecessary. I have no need to post further; we have all the answers we need now. Form your own opinions - my job is done.  Giano  00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Giano's not a vandalizer, therefore he shouldn't be indef-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#The_facts. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• To make things clear; I very much disagree with John's unblock in this case. That Giano feels he's been proven "right" about his political theories of the Wiki is entirely irrelevant. Let him. I know I have blocked him within policy to prevent continuing disruption of this project, I believe that the block was both correct and justified, and that it was necessary. What he may imagine my motives to be is irrelevant, and should be irrelevant.

  It could be argued (and I indeed make the argument) that this unblock simply demonstrates my point that Giano has been given an effective immunity to sanctions because of his own cries of persecution — no matter how unjustified — and that people so fear "proving him right" that there will always be someone ready to unblock him regardless of the circumstances. — Coren ^(talk) 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Being proven right or wrong and writing good articles is not a pass to perpetually insult other users nor make gross personal attacks. In fact, it merely makes wiki worse place and drives good users away. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked Rlevse about the oversights on her talk page recently and she removed my question with no response. I believed that the oversights were simply a mistake, but the lack of tranparency afterwards, her rudeness, and Coren's desperation to crush anyone raising questions is troubling. It looks like I was wrong with my original impressions because the more digging that happens the more rot gets exposed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Moronic blocks like this, placed by users who have somehow achieved a position of power in the project, drive far more editors away from the project than anything Giano has ever done. John's unblock was good, and if there were some process to recall arbitrators, I'd start that process for Coren myself. UA 04:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And I'd support it. Coren has displayed consistently poor judgement for as long as I've been aware of his threatening presence here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I'm in the process of filing a case with ArbCom to settle the matter. Your statement is invited here. — Coren ^(talk) 01:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that people, and even I, have said this before...

...but you've really got to tone your language down. I did say a bit about minority opinions a few days ago, and it applies to you. However, you're someone with a minority opinion that I like. I don't like the minority opinion, but I honestly think that, unlike other people, your heart is genuinely in the right place. I don't want to see you banned because of the language you use. I'm not going to patronise you, but I want to remind you: disagree, disagree civilly, and disagree carefully. Play the game wisely. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to find a way of dealing with dissent and disagreement that doesn't involve blocking and banning, else it'll go the way of the Dodo. It also needs to wake up to the fact that the risible "civility" policy only exists to give administrators carte blanche to block anyone they take a dislike to. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I thought that flies were attracted to shit, not honey. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian flies exhibit an affinity for walls.[65][66] Durova³⁸³ 00:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but is that honey coated or shit smeared Walls? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: it actually has been observed that vinegar actually does attract more fruit flies than honey, and that watched pots do boil. I don't like the civility policy either, but honestly, I think you're deluded in that assessment. We don't block people for the simple act of dissent. If that was the case, I would have been blocked back in February for being a very vocal opponent of the flagged revisions poll (even taking it to AC). Indeed, we're so scared of blocking anyone who disagrees that we allow stalkers to continue editing because they "hold minority opinions". But this is getting into a digression. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that editors were blocked for dissent; I was suggesting that editors are blocked because they get on the wrong side of an administrator, who then deploys the civility weapon, something that it's really difficult to understand why others can't see. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The "civility weapon" — yup, that a fair chunk of it; bits of rough language are not the issue, they're an opening. There is far too much gameplay in these dramas; bright trip-wires set for the unwary. @Giano; I know you see them, and kick them over for what they are, and I believe you know what you're doing. Really, I see this as the biguns fighting amongst themselves to the detriment of the littluns in their care and it is a drain of energies that would be better spent dealing with the full-bore problematics that abound. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That, I can agree happens sometimes. That's the reason why I don't like civility as a policy; as a policy, it effectively forces someone to be civil. You can't do that; you can really only advise them to (like advising someone to assume good faith). And if you block someone for violating policy, it gets more legitimacy for a block for violating a guideline. The converse is another reason why civilty should be a guideline; civility blocks don't tend to work. That said, NPA should be a policy, as personal attacks are really not on. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No slur intended against Giano, but for some strange reason this comes to mind.

I've been saying that for ages, but the civility police don't listen. Beef up and rationalise NPA (and its enforcement) and there's no need for the childish civility stuff. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Flies are attracted to "Pig's head on a stick." All you *all* need to know about the endless shite on this site is in the Lord of the Flies. It's about tribes and hunting and sharp sticks. My user name is a means of holding up a mirror for the wiki to see itself for what it is. It's in trouble.

Giano, Will's right, you are going to have to bite your tongue a bit; but *only* a bit. I've had to do this and I've learned that it makes me more effective. I voted for Coren, and I voted for Rlevse; primarily because I see hard-ass approaches as helpful in some situations. Unfortunately, I'm not keen on their current choice of target; I see your voice as valuable and that you make yourself vulnerable by your too-sharpened sticks. There are plenty of others about with whom the hard-ass approach is warranted. It is endlessly exasperating to see reasonable people squabbling amongst themselves while other problems go unaddressed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I voted against both of them, perhaps because I'm psychic. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Are not everyone who takes Giano's viewpoint considered sidekicks? I voted support for both of them; they are generally good on the Arb pages - they just fall down in one or two areas (and I am writing in one of them) in my opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why nobody told you...

I don't know why nobody told you, or at least nobody is telling you on this page, but I see your last four edits have been oversighted. I can guess why, and I'm sure you can, too. But seriously, were you told of it? Well, if it's a secret, I expect this note of mine will be disappeared also. Anybody can see the oversight in your contribs, though. Ah me, I seem to understand less and less. (And it wasn't a terribly relevatory e-mail, as far as I could see... I read it before.) Oh, well, burble, burble. Goodnight. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

Curious bystander. What were his last four edits? Jack forbes (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

He posted an e-mail he had received from an arbitrator. I happened to read it before it disappeared, but I'm not giving any more information about it here (obviously). Bishonen | talk 00:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

It was mentioned on the noticeboard. Majorly talk 00:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Giano does know about it. He can tell you the rest. --Deskana (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When he gets up in the morning. I can't face excavating the relevant diff tonight. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

If Giano didn't know about it before it happened, Alison [67] deserves Michael Palin's role here. Hans Adler 00:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your concerns, but to be quite clear. I asked Alison to remove it. It was an email containing a spurious, unfounded and evil allegation sent to me by an Arb. I was horrified to receive it and posted it to show some of the things I have to contend with, but then realised, as elsewhere in the world, when you have an totalitarian regime anyone who attempts to enure the underdogs have a fair hearing becomes persecuted themselves. Remember it was my trying to ensure Vintagekits had a fair hearing that caused this current fiasco. In fact most of the allagations against me start because I have objecyted to a over zelous authority. So please no trouble for Alison,she was only doing what I requested.  Giano  10:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested

...in this discussion with Coren. It looks like he would rather admit that he abused his CU privileges than admit that I was right. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Good luck with your future endeavors. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Giano would also be interested in reading the IRC logs from November 2 2009, in which Ottava Rima claimed that Giano was at the centre of the "cabal" against him (apparently every block Ottava has received has been from one of Giano's friends). --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think I haven't? I don't fight every battle - you know. Only the serious ones that will acheive something to improve the project. Accusations against me are two-a-penny and in most cases roll off the duck's back, if I had a euro for every time I have an email showing me what someone has said on IRC, I would be a multi-millionaire. I pick my battles and only fight the ones worth winning.  Giano  10:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In international relations they say there are no allies, only interests.

There have been so many times an editor I have disagreed with strongly has come back and been a staunch supporter of something else in which I have an interest in.

Ottava Rima (and all of us, including myself) would be wise to be careful who they baselessly make accusations too, because we never know when that editor may help us later. Ikip 14:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Email

I emailed you on your Returned account. If you have a minute, a one second response would be ideal. Ikip 14:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick note...

You have an e-mail. GJC 04:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick note on tone, please denote all noted intoned contributions that in effect lowered the tone whilst being tonally correct.

The above request, is not. As such, a failure to comply is unlikely to be actionable. Any and all such inaction will be inertly swift. RMHED (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're just jealous that you don't get to see my sooper-seekrit e-mails. (And all inaction can be blamed on the eggplant.)GJC 03:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The welcome

Thanks mate! Also nice pic :) --TheBestPilarYouWillEverSee (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, welcome!  Giano  23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

To Giano, Who Stands Out: have a happy new year. NVO (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep! --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - and a very happy New year to all of you too, forgive me for not sending anyone Christmas cards this year - I donated the money to a worthy charity instead!  Giano  19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)