Misplaced Pages

User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:46, 30 October 2008 editRyan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Domer48: c← Previous edit Revision as of 19:18, 30 October 2008 edit undoGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits →Domer48Next edit →
Line 106: Line 106:
*No, that is not the same thing as "outing" at all Ryan. I have now been sent quite a lot of information and it seems to me what happened was that in the interests of a level playing field Domer emailed an Admin who was taking part in an ANI discussion with other Admins (who had more information at their fingertips) and said something to the effect of "You do know account A is account B right?" That is not outing at all, but quite different. I have certainly received and sent such emails myself in the past and expect to continue to do so, some such emails have been sent to me by very important Wikipedians indeed. One example springs immediately to mind when such actions finally brought to an end an entire POV army of socks and clones - Admins and checkusers were quite happy for such speculation to be emailed on that occasion. As usual some Troubles' Admin has jumped the gun again. If something soon isn't done to supervise The Troubles, its admins and editors the pages may as well be deleted - all of them. I for one don't know what to trust and believe in them, I expect others feel the same. I hope some Admin reading this will now have the sense to unblock Domer - and bash some heads together. ] (]) 14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC) *No, that is not the same thing as "outing" at all Ryan. I have now been sent quite a lot of information and it seems to me what happened was that in the interests of a level playing field Domer emailed an Admin who was taking part in an ANI discussion with other Admins (who had more information at their fingertips) and said something to the effect of "You do know account A is account B right?" That is not outing at all, but quite different. I have certainly received and sent such emails myself in the past and expect to continue to do so, some such emails have been sent to me by very important Wikipedians indeed. One example springs immediately to mind when such actions finally brought to an end an entire POV army of socks and clones - Admins and checkusers were quite happy for such speculation to be emailed on that occasion. As usual some Troubles' Admin has jumped the gun again. If something soon isn't done to supervise The Troubles, its admins and editors the pages may as well be deleted - all of them. I for one don't know what to trust and believe in them, I expect others feel the same. I hope some Admin reading this will now have the sense to unblock Domer - and bash some heads together. ] (]) 14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:I can assure you it was far from being as simple as that. There was far more to it than what you've suggested and there could have been serious RL consequences for the editor involved. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC) :I can assure you it was far from being as simple as that. There was far more to it than what you've suggested and there could have been serious RL consequences for the editor involved. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::So why is something so frightfully important being handled by an ordinary admin like you? ] (]) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


==Re Admin IRC== ==Re Admin IRC==

Revision as of 19:18, 30 October 2008

He has a dream


This editor believes it is wrong that Misplaced Pages is policed from an external Admin's channel over which it has no control.


Police Misplaced Pages from Misplaced Pages



File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at:

Essays:

Nasty things:


Please leave new messages below

reverted

G'day, I have reverted . Whether you like it or not, Proposed decisions pages are not just any ole page. If you have an issue with a comment on there by the arbs, tough :-) More seriously, .. there are other forum for discussing this ... if your concerns about that post were reasonable, surely you could convince another arb to do that action for you. If they are all broken, then your best bet is to vote well this year. John Vandenberg 13:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you were anyone else, I would block you for that. Unfortunately, it would create more drama than I am willing to deal with. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And if it were anyone else removing the hectoring, patronizing, and secrecy-endorsing comments that were written by anyone else, you would never care to block for that. Funny how the world works, isn't it? Utgard Loki (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would block them for disruption/vandalism. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The whole arbcom case has the same problem; the removed comment is par for the course. If someone had of blanked the page then I might have giggled a little more when I clicked revert. The fact remains that these pages are, by policy, strictly a working area for the committee members, and direct interference by the general community isnt healthy. If it were anyone else, I would have blocked the user before commenting here and Stifle had a chance even consider it. But, if Giano II wants to register his dissent in this manner, fully aware of the likely result, he has earned that right in my books. If he had of coupled this with over-the-top incivility I would have had to think hard about it, but this was mild edit summary, so both he and I are reprieved, this time. There is little more than needs to be said by other parties, except there are millions of red links, and if you cant find them, start here WP:LOMJ. John Vandenberg 14:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Giano, you knew better— proposed decision pages are off-limits in general and this particular case even saw the talk corresponding talk page placed under a strict restriction. Your displeasure with the Arbitration Committee in general, and with this case in particular, is well known but altering the committee decision isn't acceptable and you are quite aware of that.

I make no judgment about your specific intent in this case, but there are better fora for registering your displeasure and further editing of the proposed decision page (or, unusually, its talk page) will result in a block. Go work on mainspace a bit, where your contributions are universally viewed with favor. — Coren  14:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there are 1000 more people who trust my views on this subject than those of this disgraced and failed Arbcom. I shall always remove comments that are foolish, trolling, inflamatory and ill conceived wherever they may be. Giano (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter Giano, you know fully well only arbs and clerks can edit the PD pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The present Arbcom are a complete disgrace, they are unworthy of our respect in every way. Seeing Jimbo's recent comments on his talk page today that they have to approve any candidiate before appointment is going to present a problem for him. No decent person would serve with them. They and you can play at arbs and clerks as much as you like, but without the respect, it is a meaningless farce - they are as chidren drilling tin soldiers in a sand castle. Their latest actions and antics have proven them a joke in bad taste. Giano (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of them no doubt do their best, Fred. But some are determined to stick up for their IRC mates ahead of any other consideration, or to do down people they don't like regardless of the facts. And some of them do nothing at all, which means that those who want to work don't have time to do it properly, so they come out with decisions that clearly show they've not read the evidence. It's always been like that to some extent, but it looks worse now than it's ever been. In addition to that, though, we have this new imperialist dictator thing, where some of them genuinely believe they can go around changing policy, and blocking good content contributors who really haven't done much wrong — while not allowing them to file RfArs and telling other admins not to unblock them. If we've had this before to any great degree, I certainly don't remember it. SlimVirgin 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And just where was your passion for openness, fairness, lack of censorship of evidence in dispute resolution, and no star-chamber railroadings back when it was your clique of friends who were doing the railroadings and evidence suppression? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What some people are objecting to on this page is FT2 deliberately posting on the evidence page a statement casting aspersions on Slim Virgin while deliberately ignoring confidential evidence which has been submitted to the Arbcom. People are anxious not to see a white-wash and under the carpet sweeping exercise. I personally am furious that the Arbcom have allowed this potentially damaging situation to arise, rather than deal with it in a quick professional and confidential manner. To put all of the evidence in the public domain would serve no one well and hurt the innocent, but to pretend it does not exist is dangerous and damaging to the project - and unjust to many. An Arb not only has to be impartial, s/he has to be seen to be impartial. This is not happening. Giano (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It is based on fact, and fact that I have in my possession. At the moment you will have to take my word for it. It's quite a while since I posted "evidence" on wiki, but I have in the past - as you may know. This time is different, as I have no wish to harm the innocent, but ultimately if one beleives truly in fairness, honesty and justice one has to make tough choices and not flinch, whatever the cost; I would hang my own mother if she was guilty. That's how any society must be governed. Hopefully the Arbcom will find some long lost courage and address the situation in a discrete adult fashion and save us all a great deal of trouble and hurt. Giano (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Does Lar have it in his possession (in the real world there's this thing called "right to be presented with the evidence against you"; don't know if that exists on WP or not)? Has he had the opportunity to respond to it? Do you have his response in your possession? Remember, Lar, not SlimVirgin, is the one 'on trial' here. --Random832 (contribs) 19:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sadly/fortunatly for Misplaced Pages I am not an Arb. I emailed them offering some advice, they have declined to reply to me. So I cannot really comment on what they have seen fit to offer/deny him. Giano (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
So that's a "no" in response to the third question (do you have his response in your possession). Ever consider that maybe when you've only heard one side - particularly when the side you've heard is that of the prosecution - that it may be worthwhile to withhold judgement for the time being? --Random832 (contribs) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You have no idea what you are talking about, and there is no reason why you should. This is the problem that results from the Arbcom failing to act in a responsible manner for the good of the project. Giano (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think I agree that there's something strange about the way Arbcom is handling this case, and I don't think it's good for either party. --Random832 (contribs) 22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Russian page..

More?

.. has been gutted. From 80,000 to 65,000 bytes. More? Shall I let my flesh-eating pet loose on the rest? Or hang my head in shame at this Bolshevik rampage? Bishonen | talk 07:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

Fine, I think, because some of the removed can go to User:Giano/The Private Rooms of the Winter Palace, but we have to lose some pictures too, as they now appear cluttered. It's much better isn't it...? Hold on fo now, while I have a proper read. Giano (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, probably there are too many pics—I didn't take them into account, I'm no good with layout anyway. As for whether the text pruning is an improvement, don't ask me. I'm just about the last person on wiki to have an eye for it at this point, sorry. Your "proper read" should be the thing! Bishonen | talk 12:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC).
Yes, I like it, but I am going to smuggle one or two very eeny weeny tiny pieces back in, or you sure you don't like the vommiting guests, I'm not sure what I can do with them elsewhere? Glad the jewel encrusted lavatory has remained, I suppose I shall have to write a page easing stool as the subtlty may be lost on some. Giano (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The charm and wit of the vomit isn't architectural, though. I figgered the guests aren't interior decoration—unlike the bathroom fittings, which are. But I agree it's difficult to structure it, because there's the historical background, and there's the architecture, and you clearly need them both. Maybe those guests usefully illustrate life in Saint Petersburg ("the bog" as Nicholas called it—now that's funny, though maybe only to British people?)? Or illustrate Peter the Great's idea of typical Western civilization—hmm—yeah, I guess the mice pies and the vomit are funny, in that sense. :-) Bishonen | talk 16:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC).
I've restored the palace bomb as it's relevant to the reasons why the palace was unsuitably insecure for future Tsars. Otherwise - I think we are done! Thanks a lot you have done a terrifis job. Giano (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know if there's a ruling on mainspace pages linking to user space pages otherwise it's going to be ages before WP goes live? Giano (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You're not supposed to, as far as I know. But I can't find it as a written rule anywhere. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC).
I can't find any rule either. Perhaps nobody ever bothered to state the seemingly obvious? The implicit assumption is quite certainly that content linked from the main page is in the form of articles. Some of the pertinent regulations also refer to articles, not pages. Kosebamse (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh well leave it, it has waited so long a while longer will make no difference. Giano (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Close stool

I've fitted you up with a close stool as requested, Giano. Tonight I have found my long-lost copy of Alan Valentine, The British Establishment 1760-1784: An Eighteenth-Century Biographical Dictionary (1970), but vol. II is still missing. So ask me about any member of the George III Establishment— as long as the name begins A-H... --Wetman (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh... You guys will be in a lot of trouble with dear Lady Catherine if you aren't careful. Remember her closely-argued objections to aspects (anatomical aspects) of the old page User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder? What can I say, except that she was quite right? Let us all join hands, dear fellow page guardians, to keep the lovely Toilet Paper Holder page free of the taint of the human (or apish) drift which strives to pull down the most pure-hearted of artistic endeavours to its own level. I blush to propose a study of the History tab at this point, but in fact it's the place where you will catch the more gruesome parts of human anatomy sneaking in if they get half a chance. For example, this recent diff summarizes the problem. Lady Catherine, if you came (understandably) to carp, I can only hope you will stay to help the outnumbered defenders of the poor page's artistic integrity. Bishonen | talk 03:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC).


Putting the Tour into Tour de France

I throughly enjoyed the new article on Henri Pépin. Does the reference to the aristocratic sound of Pépin need an enlightening footnote?--Wetman (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunno! Nice page on "toilets" by the way! Weren't the "Les Pépins" all something to do with Charles Martel and his crew?. Let me give it some thought, I suppose I can't interest you in adopting a room of the Winter Palace can I? Just take one as you leave, user space or main space just help yourselves. Giano (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer48

Giano, I don't know if you know this editor but he has been blocked indefinitely for allegedly trying to "out" another (unknown) editor. Nobody is offering any explanation amd D48 states convincingly that he is innocent. What is the procedure here? Can they block someone based on alleged emails that nobody will cite? Surely they could replace the names with "x" and "y" if they don't want to risk "outing" someone? This stinks, frankly. Sarah777 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Sarah777, yes, people can be blocked for using Misplaced Pages to publish or distribute private information about people. That includes using the "Email user" feature. Remember that "indefinitely" doesn't necessarily mean "forever". It can also mean "until this is all straightened out", and I believe that is the intention in this case. Risker (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything (much) about this situation. In general, I find the "Troubles Admins" to be very territorial, confrontational and high handed concerning the Troubles and those they see as the "Troubles editors." To such an extent that the Troubles has become a project within a project with its own rules and rulers. I have said before (somewhere) that The Troubles needs a set of three independent, non-Irish connected, highly respected Wikipedians to oversee its pages, its admins and its editors, but I suspect that won't happen so what can't be cured must be endured - which is this seemingly permanent, farcical squabbling.
Regarding outing - I have no idea what Domer has or has not done, but in my book of rules, outing is a cardinal sin, every editor has the right to anonymity and anyone who breaks that is in big trouble as far as I'm concernd. There is no need for Editors, Admins and Arbs (all this talk of highly confidential material and trust is pretentious, and a result of them having ideas abover their station) to be known to anyone. Checkusers (too many of them) are a different matter as is the Board. If someone emails me what Domer is supposed to have done I'll take a look at it, but if he has threatened to out someone - don't bother. Giano (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. Not much I can email you as I have no idea what Domer is supposed to have done (or how) but he denies everything and not a shred of evidence has been offered. There are infinite ways around risking exposing an editor while still giving an account of Domers "crime". All I can see is that an established and productive editor who does not share the majority opinion in the whole "troubles" area has been deleted from the debate - just like that. And he isn't the first; no wonder the votes (not mythical !votes) keep going the same way when the NPOV side keep getting disenfranchised, blocked and banned. Sarah777 (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Lest there be any doubt, in my book too, outing is a cardinal sin. If for no better reason that I wouldn't fancy it myself and it wouldn't take Sherlock to figure out who I am. Sarah777 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sarah, this has absolutely nothing to do with the way Domer edits - there are a few problems, but nothing really significant to warrent a community ban or an indefinite block. The reason why Domer is currently blocked is because he was offering RL information about other editors via the email function - that's bad, it really is. One of the worst things you can do here is out other editors, especially in a highly contentious political area such as the troubles. As Risker said, indefinite doesn't mean forever, but we do need assurances that this won't happen again. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No, that is not the same thing as "outing" at all Ryan. I have now been sent quite a lot of information and it seems to me what happened was that in the interests of a level playing field Domer emailed an Admin who was taking part in an ANI discussion with other Admins (who had more information at their fingertips) and said something to the effect of "You do know account A is account B right?" That is not outing at all, but quite different. I have certainly received and sent such emails myself in the past and expect to continue to do so, some such emails have been sent to me by very important Wikipedians indeed. One example springs immediately to mind when such actions finally brought to an end an entire POV army of socks and clones - Admins and checkusers were quite happy for such speculation to be emailed on that occasion. As usual some Troubles' Admin has jumped the gun again. If something soon isn't done to supervise The Troubles, its admins and editors the pages may as well be deleted - all of them. I for one don't know what to trust and believe in them, I expect others feel the same. I hope some Admin reading this will now have the sense to unblock Domer - and bash some heads together. Giano (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I can assure you it was far from being as simple as that. There was far more to it than what you've suggested and there could have been serious RL consequences for the editor involved. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
So why is something so frightfully important being handled by an ordinary admin like you? Giano (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Admin IRC

Please could you..would you.. try and provide a hopelessly confused editor with a condensed overview of this issue? Has the foundation ever funded it? If not, why? Is it really gone? Novickas (talk)

Yes; not applicable; only in the dreams of a quarter of the project (those that write - the other three quarters are Admins chatting and block shopping on IRC). I assume you are referring to this proposal I'm afraid the Arbs say these things, but time has proved they have no intention of ever putting their actions where their mouths are. Giano (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no "funding" of it, because the organization involved is Freenode. There are some crazy suggestions of money having changed hands, though. The thing is that, as a not-Wikimedia, not-Misplaced Pages, not-non-profit entity, Freenode is not under the control of anyone associated with Misplaced Pages. It's just an IRC collection. Somewhere or other there are histories of how this particular albatross got hung about our necks, but the important thing is that the overall community wasn't in favor of creating an administrators-only channel, the channel that developed never was just administrators (but the exceptions seemed to be matters of favoritism, childishness, and cliquishness), and the exclusiveness of the channel was used as a screen for misbehavior. Since the channel also became the only real time pipeline to Jimbo, and since idiots continue to insist that CEO's are wise and that Jimbo is "in charge," and since Jimbo himself picks ArbCom based on whatever criterion he chooses at the moment (or whichever is expedient), being in that channel was the only hope of getting "power" for the people who believed in power. Being popular there was vital, and being popular meant going along with whatever the spirit of the moment was. Hence, increasing social pressure to be social, decreasing interest in the encyclopedia, decreasing accountability to the community, and the ArbCom being composed of persons beholden to the channel itself for their status. Ask them to make a change there? Not likely. Utgard Loki (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite right Utgard, except for the fact money has changed hands on at least one documented occasion (there's a link somewhere) No matter what this current collection of Arbs claim to think and want, they have no intention of upseting the people who keep them where they are - they have proved this time after time. My opinion of the Arbcom is well known, I know longer expect anything of worth or value to come from them, that way one is never dissapointed. Giano (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, I went ahead and plunged into the history of the thing. (It's no use trying to avoid plumbing metaphors these days if you live in the US. They just keep bobbing up). Learned a lot, but haven't found the reference to money changing hands. Which I think should be made more public if it's true. Sunshine and fresh air. Altho it's fun to watch Drāno in action. Nice chatting with you guys. Novickas (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, here's one. A $5,000 donation to Freenode in 2006. . Long since spent, no doubt. I don't suppose there were any flies on the wall when they discussed further donations. Novickas (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)