User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:09, 27 March 2008 editGiano II (talk \| contribs)22,233 editsm Reverted edits by Doc glasgow (talk) to last version by Giano II← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:33, 27 March 2008 edit undoGiano II (talk \| contribs)22,233 edits I do not want FT2's name ever mentioned on this page again. If he comes here he will be removed.Next edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Essay:		Essay:

	== Protection at Vintagekits ==

	Just letting you know I've fully protected ] for three days. Since the talk page in this case probably isn't an ideal location for discussion, I started a thread at ]. Will leave everybody I see as involved in the dispute the same message. Feel free to comment. :) – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 09:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::The talk page is far from ideal, it's protected. ] (]) 10:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Are ==

	you on some kind of probation?
	--] (]) 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm sure you will find all you need to know on my user page. Yes, I am, but I regard the Arbcom as incompetent, spiteful and vengeful and altogether rather stupid, so I am ignoring it; and if you want to see further damage done by this apology for an Arbcom see here if they had one scrap of moral fibre between them, at least half would have resigned by now. It seems they don't. ] (]) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::*and as I said their poor judgement only leads to this sort of ridiculous disruptive waste of time , , but of course that is their '''determined intention'''. They really do need to be replaced. ] (]) 09:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::and two very accurate explanations of our Arbcoms miserable, pathetic and failed logic is here ] (]) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

	== London, or London, England ==

	Perhaps you want to talk it out on the talk page instead of calling it trolling. No Wikipedian should call a well made edit "daft", especially not one on civility parole. I have thick skin, but I hate to think that you might treat other Wikipedians with such contempt.

	I don't think it is a good idea to assume the reader knows the subject before they have read it. Sometimes people look things up in the encyclopedia because they are ignorant of a fact. ] 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::I suppose you will argue next that in 1789 the ] was errected in Paris, Illinois? ] is London! ] (]) 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Don't be silly... everybody knows it was ]. ] (]) 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

	::That isn't the point. IMO location by country should always be a priority in any article, and letting our readers (many of whom are hopefully uneducated third world children) know that is absolutely necessary and I wouldn't expect guillotine not to mention France in the opening either. Thanks, ] 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::*It is an Americanism to keep announcing precise geographical locations after every town, and it is certainly not needed after London, in a page referring to its great fire. Do we say in Europe "Washington, America"? - No we do not, so in a page about a major European city we credit the reader with minor intelligence. ] (]) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::: But we - the rest of the world - do tend to say ], though. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 04:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Ah Rockpocket, exrending your fields of interest I see. I had no idea you were interested in incendiary history. ] (]) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: I call them when I see them, Giano, and your talk page is such fun to read. As it happens, I agree with you that ] is not really required (why not ] or ]?) Our readers may be ignorant, but if they don't know where it is, surely they can just click on the damn thing and all will be revealed in the very first line. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::It is fun to read isn't it - I quite fall of my chair with mirth some evenings. ] (]) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: So "mirth" is what they are calling ] these days. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Well I don't agree, and I certainly don't think that if it is an American concept that that makes any difference. Do not underestimate the level of ignorance in the world, there is nothing more irritating that any article that fails to locate itself geographically, and I for one will keep editing to repair this wherever I find it. Mistaking one London for another is simply not the poiont. Thanks, ] 23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

	:::Just out of curiosity, isn't that why we do all that wiki-linking? So someone can click on "London" and find out all about where exactly London is? Isn't that one of the things that makes us different from a dead-trees encyclopedia? Oops, how presumptive of me. ] (]) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

	::::Actually, we get more precise than that, geographically speaking... we've got templates to add precise geographical coordinates so that you specify the latitude and longitude of the place you're referring to, to six decimal places if you want. That proves to be very useful for things like the new software for the ] that shows you WP articles relevant to your current location, as well as Google Earth's layer that shows clickable purple balls at spots that have an article on them. It's because of gadgets like that that I've become obsessed lately with getting those geo-coordinates in every article that they possibly make sense in... which in turn has gotten me out of the wikidrama rut I've been in for the last year or so and back to actually doing something useful to improve the encyclopedia. ] (]) 23:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::...and, seeing tonight's ''60 Minutes'' piece on the ] made me want to find its exact coordinates to get them in the article, but I see somebody's done it already... how accurate is the location given there? Will it be sufficient to let future archaeologists find it after some global catastrophe, if they have a dump of the Misplaced Pages article? ] (]) 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::London. Or in American, "London, period". ¶ I read: ''there is nothing more irritating that any article that fails to locate itself geographically'' There's no accounting for irritation: for me, what's most irritating is misinformation, and the likelihood that anything and everything in Misplaced Pages could well be ''wrong.'' ¶ As for talk of geographical coordinates to six decimal places, I do understand how this could be useful for "smart" bombing and so forth (and conceivably articles on specific buildings), but I look forward to its use for such entities as London (or "London, Britain" or whatever) as this will supply me with an extension of the (presumably unintended) amusement I derive from city populations specified to the nearest person. -- ] (]) 09:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I would have thought it perfectly obvious when linking to the fire of a ] city, presided over by ] which is linked to singularly as ] that one actually meant "the London", not some other obscure town no one has ever heard of, let alone been to called ]. Anyway the problem now seems tobe solved, hopefully to the satisfaction of out more geographically and historically confused American cousins. ] (]) 09:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Not a good way to read an encyclopedia though, having to click on a link to find out where London is. BTW the UK didn't exist in 1666. Thanks, ] 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::That is very true Squeeky, but London most certainly did. ] (]) 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::You know, it's ironic that there is another city called London not 200 km from where I sit, but here in Canada (and Europe, and Australasia, and Asia) when we say "London" we mean the one where the fire happened. When we want to talk about our local London and there is any chance the meaning would be ambiguous, we add modifiers. ] (]) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

	:It seems to me we had very much this same discussion at ] and ], in which ] had to be "Syracuse, Sicily" because otherwise the groundlings would ''assume'' Syracuse, New York, it was strenuously asserted. And I a New Yorker, too. Imagine how humiliating. --] (]) 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Ah Mr Wetman, but has that sorted the annomalies? I assume you are referring to ], shame I never saw that debate earlier, because where else would Syracusa be, but ].
	:::This proves my point, methinks, hbecause I certainly had never heard of Syracus in Italy or elsewhere till just now. Thanks, ] 21:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::An pray where did you imagine the first American to name a town Syracuse had found the name? I assume you had heard of London? (the large town in England)? Is geography not taught in American schools? ] (]) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I have no idea what they teach in American schools. I grew up ooh 25 miles from the origianl London, so I do know where it is, but the point is not confusing Syracuse or London with somewhere in North America but that I didn't know where any Syracuse was and I imagine I am writing for people who may not know where any London's are (especially when you consider that these articles maybe being translated into multiple languages). I am motivated to write for the ignorant not the already knwoledgeable23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC). Thanks, ]
	:::These geographic clauses following each plave name rather dfeat the pont of the blue link, I strongly feel that the original place names should be allowed to stand alone. However, don't worry, I'm not about to make a campaign of it, I have a much bigger fish to fry at the moment. ] (]) 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

	==Arbcom?==
	Interested in your views on Arbcom. They made a ruling in a case I was involved in - that terminology cannot be applied to a historical event unless the '''exact''' terminology was used ''at the time of the event'' (despite the terminology not existing back then) - even if the event meets precisely the modern definition of such terminology. you may or may not find interesting; though I guess you are forbidden to comment by the geniuses above at Arbcom. ] (]) 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Had a quick look, too late at night for my small brain to grasp, give it to me in a nutshell, and I'll take a look in the morning. ] (]) 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Had a quick look - ] sounds like something straight from ], or that boring book with the hobbits. In spite of ] being famously sceptered, I feel its monarchs and their relations are very well covered, and will survive without any help from me. ] (]) 11:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Nuance and understanding are not at the fore of ArbCom membership. Being selected is. Imagine the fun the people editing ] would have if they could not say "homosexual" because the word did not exist until the 19th century and the category did not exist until the 20th. It appears now there is a fishing expedition at ] to try to find some charge. Apparently, there is some kind of odd game of semantics making the rounds. Looks like he's ninety percent gone from Misplaced Pages out of boredom or disgust, and some people are mistaking that for weakness or disfavor. ] (]) 17:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

	== John254... ==

	I understand why you could be upset at john, but is a little disapointing. I saw it as some kind of threat - you should know that taking things elsewhere isn't what we do here. I personally have a lot of respect for you and I honestly thought you were way above this - just take a step back and think about things for a minute. ] 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::You have absolutely no respect for me at all so don't be so bloody hypocritical. By elsewhere I mean of course IRC, isn't that where you and all your buddies and the Arbs hang out, and where if we want to discover the truth concerning Misplaced Pages we are all forced to go these days? You see Ryan, I will get to the bottom of this, the very bottom, and if one way draws a blank, I shall go in another direction. I know the truth, all I have to do is prove it. ] (]) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Palladian vs Rococco architecture ==

	I was reading this evening and came across a reprint of a copper engraving of the ]. My first impression was that it was vaguely palladian in its style — the pillars, the portico-like entrance, the long narrow building — but it appears from our article on the palace that I was wrong, and it is ] (not one of our better articles, I'm afraid - very disorganized and somewhat confusing), which in turn appears to be an offshoot of ]. Having "followed the links" further, I agree that Winter Palace more closely resembles ], particularly in its ornamentation. What, besides the ornamentation, differentiates rococo architecture from palladianism? I have a feeling I am missing something rather major here that simply isn't clear in the articles. ] (]) 03:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

	:Speaking of which, the Winter Palace article is in such a dire shape. If Giano and Ghirla would ever be able to put aside some time and bring it to a decent condition. Maybe Ghirla would even consider a comeback, even a temporary one :( But seriously, I would help with Russian sources if Giano would be willing to work on the article and Ghirla would not join. But I know they are both busy enough. So, no pressure. --] 05:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I was thinking of doing a re-write of it ages ago - I's worked very well with Ghirlandajo in the past, but I suspect like me he won't want to. Especially, as it now seems pages are FARC'd if the author/s does not want to include erronious fact just so thay can have a cite . ] (]) 07:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Oh for pity's sake. The reference sources were crummy and not all of them were available for those working to ref the article; it won't be an issue for any articles you write today, because you're doing the inline referencing as you go now. Heck, I'd be happy if you just cleaned up ] so that it was understandable. Rewriting the Winter Palace article would be fantastic, though - something to keep you busy until Husond gets his hands on the Pena Palace books. ] (]) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Ah! I'd come here to ask that - is everything on hold until then? Giano that exploded cutaway is very pretty and interesting, but not very good for extracting floor plates from. --] (]) 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::*Think of Palladianism as a square plain fruit cake - Baroque as a round fruit cake with frosting and a few sugar roses - and Rococo as a round strawberry souflee disguised as a wedding cake. ] (]) 13:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm afraid if we can now only use references available to all 5 million editors, and every page has to be written by a committee in agreement on each fact then the future looks pretty bleak. Furthermore, I don't need keeping busy, I have a very omportant research job on go the moment. ] (]) 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hi Giano, remember me from my last FAC? Well now I have the above article in FAC. Tony1 objected to the prose and Taxman wanted more info on certian issues (which I am working on). If you are available, I think your experience will help in better organizing, presenting and polishing this article. If you are busy, can you point me to someone who could help me. I left messages for users: Awadewit and Willow, but with no luck. thanks.] (]) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Whoo hoo hooo, if Tony1 is being bloody on the prose, I shall take to the hills, but I'll have a look, but to be quite honest Kannada literaure...I don't suppose by any slim chance it's a mispelling of Canada? - No I thought not. ] (]) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

	:::Thanks.:)] (]) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


	== No Doc! ==

	No Doc, like so many in that channel, you misunderstand - I'm only nterested in those who are ex-admins and non-admins in the channel. Thanks for the info though. ,ost kind. ] (]) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't believe anyone has researched the list you're after, however if you check the access list against the admin log, you'll get there.--]<sup>g</sup> 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::You are behind the times, Ryan is coughing the names as we speak - well almost. ] (]) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Please see here ==

	You have been blocked for 31 hours for repeated incivility at ] and other locations in breach of the recent Arbitration ruling.

	Please see ] for details.

	] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::And you think this will keep my logs and questions under wraps - Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear. ] (]) 07:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::: (edit conflict) No, but it may reduce incivility on the wiki, which is necessary and appropriate, and which I ask you deeply to consider. Nobody - arbitrator, admin commenting, or bystander, has asked you to change views. The issue here is that the areas the community has strong agreement on, include civility. That's less about ''what'' you wish to say, than ''how'' you say it. Having strong views, is okay. Having questions (as you describe) - if asked appropriately and with good faith in your wording, and without gaming the system and trying to test the envelope, is self-evidently okay. But incivility - explicit, implied, or subtle - is '''not''' okay. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::No problems FT2, you don't want your IRC problems discussed here, we can all go to WR to discuss them - that is obviously your ill thought out plan - makes little difference to me. Flo was keen to preserve the Gerard's IRC page now she seems afraid to discuss it. I obviously should not have left the message at ] about concluding it today - obviously too much for all you Arbs to bear. What fools you are. ] (]) 07:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	I have copied the #wikipedia-en-admins access list into your userspace. See ]. Everyone on that list has access to the channel. Just to give one example entry:
	* -ChanServ- 20 5 Betacommand 3h 19m 55s

	This is the entry for ]. The number immediately preceeding his name (5, in this case) is his access level -- the higher the number, the more things he can do. A minimum of 5 is required to get into the channel (or, more precisely, to invite yourself into the channel). The time code following the name is the amount of time, in days/hours/minutes/seconds, since that user logged into the channel. ] (]) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	*Never mind all that, Flo announced her grand intentions of having uninvolved committee of editors looking at reforms in IRC, it was supposed the good thing to emerge from the IRC Case - and what has it all come to, what happened, what did Flo actually do? Daring to ask results in a ban, daring to be angry that nothing has happened results in a ban and further loss of content for the encyclopedia. Well I will keep on asking and asking and asking. You had better come up with the answer Flo and FT2 as to why that did not happen. Because the question will not go away. ] (]) 07:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	Here's the other list, the on-wiki one, back to normal sized print. See ]. The names in black are people who have not been in the channel for the past half year or longer. The bold ones are non-admins, but there are a few not marked that way. Not sure what bells and whistles you have in your preferences or monobook, but if you cursor over the names, you should be able to verify which channel name goes with which member; there are quite a few differences. ] (]) 08:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	Giano it doesn't matter how many times a paranoid man shouts "conspiracy", it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many times you say you are being censored for your opinions, it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many times you claim that your civility isn't arbcom's main issue, it is. Now here's the facts - the access list is open - and all the information you want is public. Has someone compared the access list to #en-admins with the admins on en.wp? Perhaps not. But then we have no paid civil service here - people research what interests them. If this interests you, do the leg work and make a list. As to "have major changes been made to en-admins?" The honest answer is no. And none are likely in the foreseeable future. It was debated at length (I believe) - there was no consensus for any major change. You are not going to like that, but there it is.--]<sup>g</sup> 08:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:*:::Doc - where is Flo's promised committee - where? why is not there regulating - just answer the question, can none of you quite see what the question is? A partial answer is here Now why should the Arbs want to suppress regulation and investigation of IRC, and why didi they not announce this when Flo proposed it, when the eyes of the community were upon them? You will answer there was nothing to investigate, which begs the question why propose it in the first place. Now I have logs showing incivility which would never be tolerated on Misplaced Pages happening in the immediate past - and some riveting discussions, one even with FT2 himself discussing Danny. So do I pretend these things don't happen, do I go to WR, or do I say I must be a good polite boy and say nothing, keep my head down and write pretty pages for the Encyclopedia. Well I'm very good at the latter but pretty hopeless at the former. Now I'm off to spend the day looking at the Terracotta Army at British Museum with my kids - a great deal more intelligent than the company here. So I shall leave you all to dwell on your naivity. I hope to see an improvement in behaviour generally from you all when I return. ] (]) 08:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Oh for goodness sake. You are obviously incapable of conversing without attacking. I have no knowledge of the ins and out of the history. But there's nothing doing on IRC reform. Period. No conspiracy, no abuse, just a no consensus to do anything. NO consensus that any particular change would solve any particular "problem". Flo isn't/wasn't in control of that, it is just what came out of discussions. And frankly, you talking about the incivility of others is just laughable. You are quite entitled to continue arguing for IRC changes. No-one will stop you or expect you not to. There's no censorship, indeed wikipedia is perhaps far far too tolerant of people banging drums, and climbing on the furniture to make a point. Nothing much is going to change. We are not dwelling on our naivety, but on your self-focussed paranoia. Giano, there are huge issues with wikipedia, huge structural problems with how we do things. A gaping lack of leadership. A total unwillingness to sort out BLPS and libel issues. And you would have us constantly straining on the gnats of your own obsessions, well, we've moved on.--]<sup>g</sup> 08:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	FT2: '''''What'''''' was "incivil" in Giano's comments. Please be specific. Giano has many comments on FloNight's page. There is a satire of her continued silence. Was that "incivil?" Was there a characterization of her motivations, mentality, words, etc. that was scandalous? I see repeated questions... well, one, actually... and continued "no one is going to answer because the answer is already somewhere else." Again, there is no basis of this block. Furthermore, 31 hours is a non-standard time. How did you arrive at that? Isn't the usual to begin with, perhaps, 12 or 24? I see no justification for this at all. If "any admin may block on any perception of incivility" is in force, may "any admin unblock?" Is there some magical force where any single administrator gets to determine for all others what is not allowed in speech on Misplaced Pages? Can we say, again and again, that pictures of David Shankbone's penis are perfect, because we're not censored, but this piece of speech (a question) must not be allowed? When that speech is interrogative and does not involve charges of real life illegality, etc. (no "you're a Nazi/Communist"), it cannot be instantly blockable. If you want to see someone merely trying to get anger, look at the bottom of my user talk page. Giano was trying to get a user to answer about why ''that user'' thought something was a good idea one day and a bad idea the next, and why the "resolution" of a case by ArbCom was abandoned without a word to the community. Those are legitimate, and it is poor service (what ArbCom is supposed to be about -- service, not power) to keep running away and blocking the questioner. ] (]) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:# See ] It may be you are in the minority who would not see the comments made as uncivil. I know some have very strict civility views, some very broad through to uninterested.
	:# In general any admin may block; if the block is improper or grossly unfair then there will in most cases be a rapid consensus to that effect. Realistically, most admins block light, not heavy, a lot of the time, and hope for change. I know I've done many more 24 and 48 hour blocks than 1 week/1 month/3 month blocks, for example, and I would imagine that's fairly typical.
	:# No. 12 is not a "usual" for gross incivility. See the (long), and text-search for blocks of civility. 24 - 72 and indef seem common; I hadn't checked but I guess it says something about judgement and consensus - by far the most common length (3 of the most recent 6 or so depending how you judge it) is 31 hours.
	:# The question is not censored. The manner of asking it with egregious ofence to others is. And ] applies to articles, not other pages.
	:# If this was about "power" I wouldn't have been racking my head to try and help Giano improve; I wouldn't be trying to explain so he can see the issue and understand what is asked of him; and I wouldn't be this approachable. Giano is a valued editor. However see my comment ] -- so are others, and so is the communal fabric of the project which in no way is helped by insulting others gratuitously.
	: ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 12:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	:I'm just wondering how long it is appropriate to wait for answers before one starts to be a bit more pointed in one's questioning. This matter was supposed to be addressed thoroughly quite some time ago, there was talk of committees and groups and the like, offered as part of the remedies, but I don't see much action on that score. Instead it seems there was a fair bit of buck passing, which Giano pointed out... and he got a "schoolboy" (31 hour) block for his trouble. I'd suggest that the use of 31 hours was deliberately insulting, but that would be a failure to assume good faith, so it must have been an oversight by the blocking admin. ++]: ]/] 11:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: Thanks for the assumption. My weighing up of the length was roughly this: The arbcom decision said "may be blocked briefly, and for repeated instances up to a week". That implies the first one is brief - probably 24 hours. However it was aggravated and repeated, so I did not feel 24 would be fair. Nor did I feel 48 was a suitable length for a first instance, although the circumstances and back-history warranted it, the enforcement was mild, especially for the first time. It is important not to be punitive. So I opted for 31, the usual length for "a day and a bit more". Oddly when I checked the log just now for the question above it turned out that 31 seems to be a quite usual length too.

	:: (edit conflict) As for the rest, Giano was not blocked for "pointing out" anything. he was blocked because he made uncivil/grossly uncivil comments to several other users on several occasions, when under a (repeated and very clearly emphasized) restriction to not do so. If you (or indeed anyone) have specific questions on IRC, may I suggest ] is a good place to post them?

	:: Last, as an arbcom member I'm fairly sure that I know what we have committed to do. ''"(6) Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee"''. Part of that has been done -- openly and without pressure it should be noted. (For example, I was discussing IRC changes with James within a week of arbship, in early Jan 2008, long before anyone requested it.) I suspect that more is yet to be done when we see how that's working out. No fixed timetable since we want to sort genuine problems from "hype" and see how it all beds in, what happens when real problems arise. And those don't happen to a non-trivial level very often. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 12:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	:::Brief is 15 minutes. It's the first choice in the drop down. I've given out 15 minute blocks before, they stopped editing that many viewed as problematic. 31 hours is not brief, in my view, it's verging into where some might view it as punitive for an editor that you're personally involved with. But more generally I don't see the incivility that you do, as I said at the AE page (after reviewing your lengthy summation first...) ++]: ]/] 12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::I also note you dodged the larger question, what happened to this wondrous IRC council/committee/task force that was supposed to be set up? ++]: ]/] 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::: You replied too fast :-) I was drafting that and adding it - got an edit conflict. Now added above. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 12:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks. It doesn't really address why what's been done differs from the way the case stated things, but ok. I personally have no concerns about IRC, other than that ArbCom hasn't come to grips with the issues that others raise. I don't share the view of some of IRC as a bad thing but if ArbCom says they are going to proceed in a certain manner, they ought to do just that. ++]: ]/] 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	Any time I think of actively contributing to the mainspace, I just visit this page. Thanks for helping me come to my senses, FT2, and anyone else involved in this game. ] (]) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	Doc g raises a good point about other issues being just as important, if not more so. Anyway, I've just been reading through what happened (though not in great detail). Giano was a bit aggressive with his questioning, but I would like to point out that the arbitration committee are ''also'' role models, and more so than Giano. What behaviours are people learning when they see the reaction shown here by arbitrators? Regardless of how people perceive their own behaviour, that perception isn't always what other people remember or learn from an incident (presuming that there is anyone actually watching all this). Some people will, wrongly, think that blocking for asking questions is now OK, or that extreme politeness is needed to avoid blocks (well, with some people it is). I think the best thing to do is for people to carry on talking constructively to each other, and for someone to produce regular updates on what is happening with IRC. I've been vaguely following things (I saw the subpage in Cbrown's userspace, and the list Ryan linked to is also good), and some progress seems to be being made, but not being on IRC I can't definitely judge how things are going in there (specifically in the admins channel). I would also suggest that the arbitration committee ''not'' overuse the magic panacea of forming subcommittees and task forces. Sometimes they just need to be decisive or restrict themselves and let the community deal with the rest of the problems. ] (]) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::
	::Oh and can someone point out to Thatcher, when he has finished his rant ] Flo has not been abused she has been questioned (there has been no incivility) because she was the one going to set the committee/working party up and throwing the sops to the community. Now she has to answer why all her grand ideas amounted to nothing, the very second the community was looking the other way. If the Arbs dod not agree with her, why let he carry on and pretend they did. The Arbcom is in trouble, and they had better get used to it. ] (]) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Giano, I am discussing Thatcher's comments with him, and I will point out what you have said. Might I suggest that now you have raised the issue, you let others question what has and hasn't happened? I don't want to see tempers flaring on either side, and I want to see everyone talking productively. Would you consider stepping back a bit for now (from your talk page) and from the whole issue for a few days (after your block expires)? ] (]) 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	*I don't understand the purpose of continuing to pester FloNight about IRC. She stated that she wanted to establish a working group but there was no support from the rest of the Arbitrators. She has made it clear that she has not been involved in recent discussions concerning channel operations. I'm sure you are aware that Freenode is separate from Misplaced Pages; the IRC channel operators have gotten together and had whatever discussion they had, separate from Misplaced Pages, just as Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are not determined by Freenode. The results of that discussion are in Cbrown1023's user space, the people to talk to about it seem to be Cbrown, RyanP and FT2. I know you wish things were different. I know Jimbo asked that Arbcom assume a stronger oversight role. I know Flo tried to set up the working group. Arbcom has apparently declined to adopt the oversight role that Jimbo requested, and did not support the establishment of a working group. What is the point of continuing to pester Flo about it? ] 14:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	**I think you raise an excellent point there, Thatcher. Rather than bugging one ArbCom member piecemeal, perhaps the entire ArbCom ought to be asked why they have declined to adopt the oversight role Jimbo requested (I actually read it as more of a mandate than a request, frankly). Maybe there is new information we are unaware of. Maybe ArbCom thinks they've discharged that mandate by delegating (informally?) to Cbrown, RyanP and FT2 ? I don't know. But I think these are valid questions to all of arbcom. That said, to this matter: Did Giano get snippy? Oh, yes, as per usual. Did he have a point? Oh yes, as per usual. Was it maybe made in not the most effective way? Oh, yes, as per usual. Is he still an awesome guy anyway, faults and all? Oh, yes, as per usual. :) ++]: ]/] 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::To "to Cbrown, RyanP and FT2" What is this FT2? has some form of responsibility for IRC and he dares to block me for raising an issue regarding IRC - WTF is goimng on? ] (]) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::What is going on is that we are all trying to calm down. FT2 blocked you for incivility, not for asking questions. If we all calm down, we will get answers faster. And sometimes you have to wait a day or so for answers to arrive. So calmness, communication and patience, please. If by the time your block has expired, answers haven't arrived and been documented, and linked from, somewhere other than talk pages and arbitration enforcement pages, then I will support further questions being asked. How about it? Just wait a few days, and see how things go. ] (]) 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Not my style, that FT2 person has set this whole thing back months. He has a plain conflict of interest, had I wished to comment incivilly on the Arbcoms deceitful U turn, beleive me I could have done. I had no idea he had any responsibility for IRC, obviously another one that can't live without his chatroom. Well he needs to realise this "was" an encyclopedia, not a place for socialising. ] (]) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Giano, I think FT2 fired a "warning shot" with his 31 hour schoolboy block. Think about what the next block will be--maybe a week, maybe a month, maybe indef. That is the effect of giving you a 31 hour block--next time the block will have to be more severe, for a respected arb issued the first one, and that could not have been in error! (!)

	:::I'm not surprised that a heavy user of the Admin channel would over react to Giano's questioning. That is probably seen as insanely disruptive by a heavy user of that channel. Let's face it, the community came pretty close to advocating the disbanding of the channel in the first place. For the rest of us that do not have a dog in this fight, forget that IRC exists and look at and ask the question: What is being prevented? I submit that the only thing being prevented is excellent main space contributions.

	:::But since Arbcom adopted the "keep Giano in a cage, where he can write FAs and not intrude upon our delicate sensibilities", ''none'' of this is surprising; I am suggesting that this situation is going to escalate,whether intended or not, if you persist in enforcing ]s on Giano (example: "gotcha! You said fuck...blocked for 1 week"). Clearly, the ability to hold Giano to bright line rules enables a "clean kill" and once again, the ''reaction'' to what Giano is saying is more disruptive and detrimental than ''what'' he is saying. ] 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Request for clarification in IRC case ==

	I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case ] and named you as an involved user. ] (]) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:You can probably ask to be unblocked to participate in this. ] (]) 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::*What and be blocked for having the temerity to address an Arb, who is so full of conflicted interest he would not know it if it jumped up and bit his own behind. You can ask FT2 (that independent Arb) exactly what in his discussions they had to say about a) RFAR:IRC; b)Tony Sidaway; c)Bishonen. They have done nothing! and that is what this whole unpleasant business is about. The second the spotlight was off them the Arbcom renegaded and wimped it. They must be kicking FT2 blocking me was the daftest thing he could have done. It is now clear they will do anything to shut people up from asking awkward questions. They made a huge error ever accepting the case, especially in light of who proposed it, and now they keep compounding their errors. This is going to lead to disaster after disaster. They thought they were so clever, from where I'm standing they are now looking far from clever. ] (]) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Two beautiful posts that show us all exactly what sort of Abcom we have: ] (]) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::*Now why could I not had this brief succinct and to the point answer last night without all the fuss and prevarication and disruption which FT2 has caused. Mmmmmmm? You do have to admire '''our''' Arbs - don't you? ] (]) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::*ummm, you pretty much did get that answer last night, you just wanted it from flonight, not ft2. I agree with you on nearly everything, so implore you to keep cool, please. It seems that ft2 is the only one dealing with the issue, so you will have to wait on him for answers. The others seem less interested in participating in reform of the irc system, so my view is that it's better not to bother them with it. --] (]) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::They voted quite clearly to adress the problem the second the community took their eyes off them they did a huge and very quiet U turn, when I started to ask awkward questions I was banned, and still am. You want to be ruled by a crew like that? I don't. ] (]) 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Giano, for what it's worth, I reviewed your block. I don't care much about IRC -- I'm rarely there, and I didn't follow the IRC ArbCom case at all. I also don't really care what questions you were or weren't asking FloNight, or even what the answers are. So please take this as a comment from an uninvolved admin. I still think that several of your comments over the last couple months have been uncivil, and that it was reasonable for a block to be implemented on your account, to restrict the flow of uncivil comments onto Misplaced Pages, and to enforce existing ArbCom sanctions. I do have a question of my own now: Whether or not you agree with it, you are under a requirement to ]. Do you plan to abide by it? --]]] 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Elonka, we had a brief exchange on my page that you may recall. I just wish to say that the "incivility" rule needs to be suspended because it is being applied across Wiki in a totally arbitrary and abusive manner. We need some '''very specific''' rules about what constitutes 'incivility' (akin to 3RR) - such power is simply not safe in the unregulated hands of 1,500 anonymous Admins. ] (]) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ''How tiresome'' ==

	]
	''My dear friend ],''

	] (]) 08:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)]]

	''I am feeling restless and unsettled today. I have been trying to read the writings of a Mr. FT2. Have you heard of him? Well, I must say, he tends to go on and on....and on, until I can no longer stand it. I feel I would rather clean the stables! I will be riding later this day if you care to join me.''

	''Your friend and neighbor, ]''

Revision as of 13:33, 27 March 2008

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The above decision was the work of: FloNight, Deskana, UninvitedCompany, Kirill Lokshin,Sam Blacketer, Morven and Jpgordon.

The "sop" to the community for this decision was that, huge changes would be implemented at #admins by healthy debate involving rank and file editors, the result of these promises was this:. Nothing changes, where the Arbonauts are concerned. One is now blocked for persisting in requesting an answer to why Flo and Arbs did a complete "U" turn. Giano (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at

Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles