Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:49, 21 September 2006

	Campaign for less bull more writing
	This user believes all admins should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article before being considered for adminship, and should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article per year or stand for re-election to retain their status.
	We are here to write an encyclopedia

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano.

Please add your comments below, preferably at the bottom.

Old messages are at

• User talk:Giano archive 1(2004)
• User talk:Giano archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano archive 5 (2006)

Please leave new messages at the foot of the page

And now, for something completely different

Hi Giano. Does the bull have a name? I'm just curious and nosy. Also wanted to lighten up a very heavy talk page. I have suggestions if it doesn't. Take care -- Samir धर्म 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hercule pronounced as in Hercule Poirot Giano | talk 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That fits... he sort of looks like a Hercule. -- Samir धर्म 08:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Happenings of last night

Now everyone is a little more calm in the best Agatha Christie style I shall now explain the events of last night to you all, first for the benefit of all the new editors we have to have a little history, months ago I made two comments (follow it all from here ) regarding the wisdom of allowing known paedophiles to edit. For this I was immediately banned for "hate speech" by Carnildo, of course that was ridiculous and Carnildo was immediately de-sysoped. We then fast forward to Carnildo application for re-sysoping , I was one of the chief opponents because Carnildo had never apologised or expressed understanding of how bad for wikipedia his actions had been.

Then we had the Eternal Equinox arbitration fiasco, and it was indeed a fiasco, Arbitrators felt in spite of her atrocious behaviour they could not ban her, but would ban me for one month for annoying her, not three hours, a week, but a month! Everyone was incredulous, I don't think anyone could really believe it was a serious proposition, yet strangely two Arbitrators supported it, one with the famous words, "pour encourager les autres". One thought is that it was to encourage Carnildo to re-apply for adminship, or was it already known he was going to apply on a certain date - how convenient it would have been if I were safely out of the way for a month.

Well I wasn't banned I was there and very vocal. The RfA went against all tradition and set a new precedent of promoting without consensus, this could not have happened if all members had not been fully consulted. The inevitable fall out would have been assessed and a mode of dealing with it decided in advance. (If they truly thought there would be no fall-out, then they are so out of touch they should all resign en masse). Hence I posted . Which is exactly what the arbcom is doing, they have been repeatedly asked by the editorship to come forward and explain, but they do not, we are treated with silent disdain - there are many of them - where are they? All we have is Kelly Martin (arbitrator emeritus as she terms herself) informing us we are a "fickle and ill-informed populace." . Still a resounding silence so I posted this . Of course that was far to close for comfort, so I was immediately blocked by Tony Sidaway the arbitrator's clerk.

Tony Sidaway is permitted by the Arbitrators to be their unofficial mouthpiece, for ages I thought he was an arbitrator so confident are his pronouncements. He is allowed a latitude permitted to no other editor. Through him they judge the mood of the encyclopedia. The problem is for the Arbcom now, is that they have permitted the guard dog to reply to the mail and answer the telephone for far too long - never a good idea.

I still have ""hate speech"" on my block log, Carnildo has never once contacted me or apologised so I feel slapped in the face in by the Arbcom. However, more importantly by riding rough shod over the views of the ""fickle and ill-informed populace"" they have insulted us all. They have bought this on themselves.

The Arbcom have altered without consultation the whole ethical ethos of the encyclopedia - they should at least explain as a united body - why? Does the view of the editorship count or has consensus gone out of the window. The Arbcom needs to come down from on high (all of them) re-assure editors they are valued, and get the place back to writing an encyclopedia, unhindered by minor buzzing admins who contribute nothing. Then they need to examine themselves and decide where they want the encyclopedia to go and how.

I thank all those who have been friendly to me, also the ones who doubt the validity of what I am saying; and I ask those who think I am paranoid to just have a hard think for five minutes. For anyone who may be wondering/hoping: No, I have no wish for personal power here, not even to be an admin and I have no intention of leaving at all, not of my own free will anyway. I just want to write an encyclopedia and express a legitimate view when necessary. Giano | talk 08:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

HI Giano...I sent you an email.--MONGO 09:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, yesterday I opined that Tony Sidaway's blocking you was not right. Today I'll risk incurring your wrath by opining that your theories are ill-founded. There have been mistakes made in recent weeks, but you take matters way too far with your theorizings and it really is time to reduce the level of venom.

The idea of banning you for a month -- a genuinely stupid idea, and your and my paths first crossed when I posted to the arb page and said so -- was proposed by Fred Bauder. It received one other vote, Charles Matthews', in support. Four arbitrators specifically voted against it, while the other five never registered views one way or the other as the case sat on the shelf well after its sell-by date had expired. I find it simple enough to explain the proposal on the basis that Fred and Charles Matthews misjudged the nature of your comment to EE and reacted badly -- and lost the vote. They accomplished nothing except to get you angry. There is no connection readily inferred between this and Carnildo's situation, and I doubt very much that Charles Matthews was a key decision-maker there. How the ArbCom's voting down a ban furthered some master plan is not clear to me.

There are other objections to your suggestions of yesterday, but I'll stop there, for I suspect my words thus far will already be ill-received. I am reminded though of the old saying that we should not impute to malice what can be readily understood as error, or even disagreement. Newyorkbrad 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're sanitizing the old saying, Brad. Bishonen | talk 10:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

Well, there is always the chance that it was a horrendous cock-up (oops - personal attack and profanity there). Forgive me for asking, but is there any evidence for this wide-ranging conspiracy? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, you're expecting a level of generosity and courtesy that is simply inappropriate in this context-- more to the point, have you any tweaks to offer Jockey-Club de Paris? --Wetman 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As per your suggestion I've thought about it for 5 minutes. My God Giano, I think ALoan, Bishonen etc. need to sit you down with some more Port and soothing words before you completely lose the plot. Without any evidence to the contrary I'm definitely in the 'cock-up over conspiracy' camp. Accusations of incompetence we could probably sustain, but this? Really? Doddery old User:Fred Dibnah made a mistake I think, Charles Mathews was positioning for his candidacy at the board and you were unfortunate collateral damage, but a wide ranging conspiracy that it was all engineered to keep you out of the way of Carnildo's RfA? Why just you and not EL_C too if that were the case? Come on man, sit, take the weight off, pour yourself a glass and we'll go and shout our lungs out at the footie referee from the safety of the terrace, but not this. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My dear foolish friend Giano, the footsie thing has gone to your head. While the conspiracy theory you propose hangs together just enough for a nice plot for a made for TV movie, I suggest using Occam's razor to cut your grand conspiracy into a little pile of unconnected cock-ups. I do like the "guard dog" bit though. And as for Angela please read this. Paul August ☎ 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• While you are all speculating the possibilities of my grand (possibly hypothetical) conspiracy theory, I note no-one is so keen to address what is in fact hard fact. The arbcom refusing to answer why they ignored consensus, and why Sidaway is allowed to get away with so much. Efforts by many others to ask these questions are currently being very rapidly archived and deleted her . I should hurry before you miss the show, just look at those diffs and edit summaries they go on over two pages. Fascinating stuff. Just look how busy Mr Sidaway is archiving and deleting away. Giano | talk 11:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with ALoan and others that we don't have enough evidence of a wide-scale conspiracy and nothing good will come of unfounded accusations on talk pages. I was also misled by Tony Sidaway's habit of regular posting ArbCom's decision on "behalf of the Arbitration Committee" and his confident pronouncements into assuming that he is a former arbitrator or that his actions are somehow sanctioned by the ArbCom. When I was blocked by him, I even applied to one of the administrators for explanations, erroneously believing they work in tandem. We have since been told that this may not be the case. If so, I don't think a community block is a solution. If the community feels that Tony's behaviour is beyond the pale, the issue should be settled using the proper dispute resolution procedures. Sulking and pouting is unlikely to sanitize the climate here. --Ghirla 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• He had been editing almost continuously (largest gap about 3 hours) since 17:24, 13 September 2006. I think has gone for some sleep - he has been gone for 4 hours now. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, spoke too soon - the usual polite conversation with User:Friday. Perhaps I should remove his talk page from my watchlist - the amount of traffic makes me feel a bit like a wikistalker. Anyway, I thought his favourite article was interesting. But it is a pity that he does not want to write Janet and Jane, don't you think. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Giano - I withhold judgement on the conspiracy theories (ok, I don't really believe them to any extent but do acknowledge that behind-the-scenes politicking has a bigger impact on goings-on than anyone could wish for) but I must say something to you that has needed to be said for a long time now. Ready? Bureaucrats and Arbitrators are two different groups of people, with some overlap. You keep lumping them together willy-nilly, and it's a little hard to follow. Now, some of the 'crats apparently did consult with the at least some of the Arbs prior to the Carnildo promotion, so it's understandable that you do so, but I have become worried that you don't realize there is a difference at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I've walked into a real mess. People setting editors against admins, attacking the arbitration committee, and generally behaving in a way that I've never seen Wikipedians behave before. I think a few people taking wikibreaks wouldn't be a bad idea. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you volunteering, Tony? Giano tells me that the fugu in Japan is really most enjoyable.

Tell you what - if you don't edit for a week, I won't either. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Tony has gone on a week-long wikibreak. True to my word, I will do likewise. Have fun. (My latest FA will never get finished at this rate - I have had to renew the books for the second and last time. See if you can spot which one it is from my edit history - there will be a prize for the best addition when I get back.) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that is a funny way to take a week long wikibreak. I was looking forward to some time off... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A triffle

Could someone help me - I'm looking for a diff regarding the Tour de France (I think) illustrating some jaw droppingly amusing parochial ignorance about France that had me giggling the other day - I thought I'd seen it posted here but I can't find it - any ideas?--Mcginnly | Natter 12:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

I have left. I shall not be returning. Giacomo.

This is a tragedy. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a break. I went through a really rough patch in early June. Over time my feeling changed enough to enjoy editing again. Hopefully a few days off will help. Take care, FloNight 19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just have no words! Maybe it's a dream? --Irpen 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I also left, due to me being mistreated (in my estimation) by a long-term user who would not apologize or promise to refrain from blocking or reverting me in the future. Eventually, I came back. I did so because the goal of the encyclopedia is worthwhile, and is more important than the flawed personalities involved. I truly hope you reconsider and return. You are highly valued here. – Quadell 19:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It would indeed be a tragedy if you were to stay away, Giano. Without good editors like you, no encyclopedia. All the rest is fluff. SlimVirgin 19:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very sad to see this, but for those who are urging his return, I should point out that this edit said that he had scrambled his password, and he seems to have disabled his e-mail, so unless he left his preferences so that Misplaced Pages still has his e-mail address but that other users can't e-mail him (I'm not sure if that is a valid option), he may not be able to return as Giano. An absolute shame. Perhaps he might, in his own time, choose to register another account. I'm sure many people would welcome him back. Giano, if you're reading this, thanks for all the work you did for the encyclopaedia. AnnH ♫ 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am second to AnnH. Pleae return. This project is to valuable to leave it in the hands of (Personal attack removed) . I am sure the account retoring thing is somehow a doable thing for the developers. abakharev 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck! Paul August ☎ 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Everyone is a human being and good contributors are valuable. Sometimes, in the bizarre politics of this place, that gets forgotten. Take care. Jonathunder 04:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is very dispiriting. --Wetman 04:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Giano/Giacomo, Please don't leave! To be honest, I was amazed by the various controversies. My perception of you from when I joined and first started writing was as a knowledgeable and witty person and I was surprised to see all the aggro and controversies bedevilling your talk page. I am sure you don't need to be in any of those, and that you should be doing what you do best (ie, producing FA's).

You must be aware that Misplaced Pages is not the same without you. "Plis, Missus Anna, do not leave us in darkness!" (as whined by the Siamese children at the end of The King and I).

By the way, on a completely different topic, do invest in Georgian London, by John Summerson - tremendous on architecture as well as history. On the other hand, you probably have it already. And just think, where could you get such light relief from colleagues such as -- FClef (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC

I sincerely hope you will come back, although I can understand that you're taking a step back after the disgusting things that have been happening here. Be well. — mark ✎ 20:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To a friend I did not know I had, don't let the awfulness that is the present Arbitration Committee get you to leave the joys of article writing to other, inevitably less knowledgable and less helpful, writers. Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. David | Talk 20:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad. I just got to know you and read your exceptional FA's on the main page. In the spirit of leaving ruminants on talk pages, here's a water buffalo. He also wishes that you come back -- Samir धर्म 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, hope you like the barnstar here I have left you for your wit, generosity, knowledge and fortitude. Least one can do. -- FClef (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this project, but the Citizendium may be a project that will better suit your temperament. Given your penchant for writing Featured Articles, I would imagine that you would rapidly become a valued and respected contributor there. Captainktainer * Talk 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Giano has left. I hope he returns with another name if he feels like it, but I can think of one, and only one, reason to do so. Prior to our participation, the world wide web had nothing on some major topics, and now, whatever faults any of our articles might have, people have access to information. Before I started here, a Google search for "A Tale of a Tub" turned up nothing germane to Swift's greatest work. Now, it turns up my maiden FA in the top 10 hits, and readers of that essay will have some background that was unavailable without investing in a rare book (the 1920 and 1958 Oxford edition) and a professor with some interest in the material (the synthesis of decades of reading on the work). The people, though, are secondary, if not tertiary. I don't like people in general, and I like e-people generally less. I am only back from strike because I have decided that the monkeys who are committing absurdities on the site are genuine when they say that they've never heard the names of the major article contributors, that they're sincere when they confess to never reading anything longer than a stub, that they are puffing up like fugu to enact their adolescent desires for attention. Their interests in the project are mainly confined to personal admiration, personal vexations, and Aspberger's-like obsessions with boxes and filing things. Since they have demonstrated an inability to read and understand what is said to them, since they boast of having no time for reading books (or articles longer than stubs), there is no point whatever in trying to communicate with them. I have decided that I will IAA (Ignore All Assholes). If they don't seek consent, much less consensus, then they needn't be heard when they speak. If one of them sarcastically says, "Then I should be blocked, too!" I will block him. If one of them says, "Then you should probably delete the Facebook, too!," I will do so. Generally, though, I will simply not look at nor respond to those incapable of having a conversation and I will not concern myself with the opinions who are only interested in their own. A purely altruistic motivation means genuinely egotistic behavior where the egoists are concerned. They have prevailed by breaking the rules and knowing that their opponents (the ones in favor of the rules) won't do the same. Therefore, they are to be ignored. Geogre 02:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, all that remains is the hope for divine intervention. I can think of a few more putrid "boils" that need lancing. From a great height. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What's this? Leaving! Surely not - I departed on Friday to London for the open building weekend, thinking I'll take some pics and offer them to Giano to cheer him up a bit - I come back, You've bloody left! Well here's the Staircase of the Queen's House in Greenwich and I'll keep the rest until you return. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back Giano! the place just isn't the same without you. True to my word here's another London Photo.

I would urge people who care about this situation to add your voice here. Perhaps some good could come of this yet. SlimVirgin 13:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Slim but the above thread seemed to relate to a lot of other issues and users unconnected to Giano, Ghirla etc. I've started a new thread at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#ArbCom_confidence If anyone would like to contribute. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just back for a quick gasp!

Thanks for all the kind words (those of you who have said kind words anyway) much appreciated, but I realise there are still things here I need to do, for how long though I'm unsure, it all depends.

My attempts to give up wikipedia appear at the moment to be as successful as my many attempts to quit smoking, so I hope this edit will prove to be just one quick gasp. I think one thing we all agree on is that Misplaced Pages has a big problem, apart from me, that is. There is a haemorrhage of quality editors who feel belittled and undervalued by the treatment they receive here by an overbearing and sinister arbcom, and too many little buzzing admins. The only way to rectify this is to allow those valued editors a voice, and a very loud one too. There are many editors, all valued, and contributions range from boring (to me, categories) to writing front page articles, or numerous 500 word pages. There is one chap in wikipedia's basement (I will not embarrass him here, but I'll email his name to anyone who asks) who should be lauded and barnstarred for his work in categories, but I doubt many of you have ever heard of him.

The arbcom are now teetering on the edge of losing control - as demonstrated by the bizarre attitudes and sayings here of J Forrester and Kelly Martin (James don't ever join the army - your men would shoot you in the back if you behaved like that - you are an officer here, behave like one). As for Kelly Martin her unpleasant veiled threat to Geogre is despicable. In my view her repeated overbearing pronouncements make her unfit for the sensitive office she assumes.

At the moment the arbcom have lost touch and need to be re-ordered. This can be achieved simply and painlessly: J Forrester and K Martin who have shown their majestic lack of appreciation of the mood of the encyclopedia, should resign immediately, in Martin's case also all sysop and any other rights she may have. This will immediately prove to the editorship that there is change is in the air. Tony Sidaway needs to be prevented from arbcom clerking permanently, and as for Carnildo, whose RFA began this whole affair, well not much can be done there - he is once again an admin - so leave it alone.

Following the resignations (dismissal if necessary) of J Forrester and Kelly Martin a selection of highly valued and respected contributing editors should offer themselves in an extraordinary election to the arbcom, with two of them being elected. Geogre, Bishonen, ALoan immediately spring to mind, but their must be many others in other corners of the encyclopedia, the net should not be confined to admins but to the rank and file, one does not need a block button to have a worthy opinion - even here.

I would advise debate on this now, but not for too long, the arbcom can save itself or throw itself on the mercy of the encyclopedia - the encyclopedia being its editors. Giano 20:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I protest!!! Not a qucik gasp, but rather take a long break, then return to us. Giano, rise above the idiocy and dont let the bastards win. I don't much care how many quotes and sayings I've hacked together, I am attempting to express what I find I do not have words to adequately express - my horror that you are leaving. Reconsider. KillerChihuahua 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't suppose you have a light do you Killer? Giano 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... you're not planning on torching anything are you? KillerChihuahua 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, with oil Don't suppose you are an admin are you Killer? I've nevr taken much notice of who is or who isn't, but these things seem important to some people. Giano 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I had missed that - good news. Not the smoking, the wikiholism. Yep, I'm an Admin, do you need something adminny done? KillerChihuahua 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Or I'm guessing you are asking me to consider endorsing your position on AN? Let me think about this... KillerChihuahua 23:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No not at all, I would never be so vulgar as to ask anyone to join my cause, I think I'm on the right track and that is enough for me. Ms Martin, Mr Sidaway and their like have bullied and belittled for far too long, and now I'm going to stop them, single handedly if necessary. No I was just wondering who in fact I knew who were admins, it seems most of the people I know, which is odd isn't it - what is it about me that attracts the attention of so many admins, my fine physique, tanned skin and dark good looks I expect! Giano 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that confrontational attitude isn't going to get you anywhere - all that's likely to happen is that the ArbCom and the rest of the senior admins will close ranks, and somewhere along the line Jimbo or the ArbCom will call you a troll, and that will be that. While I think a large proportion of the Misplaced Pages population would agree that change is absolutely necessary, I'm not at all convinced that barging head-on into the bulwarks of power is going to get you anywhere; in fact, I think it might harden the hearts of your "opposition." Think of it this way - how would you effect change in a large professional organization that has not totally and utterly collapsed? Would you go around making accusations, even if they're true? Or would you lay out your objections to the current status quo, assemble a coalition of other interested parties, and act using the processes that have already been established?

I say all this because I agree that we have deep and systemic problems at Misplaced Pages. We have lost so many experts - Kim van der Linde, yourself as a contributor of content (judging by your Giano II contributions), just to name two- and the experts are those whom we should be trying to recruit. The fact that Larry Sanger has managed to get roughly a thousand people - many of them experts, some of them previous Misplaced Pages contributors - to sign up for his Citizendium listserve is telling. Being that I am absolutely convinced that the long-term effect of Citizendium will be harmful to Misplaced Pages and to the openness of information itself (Daniel Brandt is already posting that he'll be holding his own bio hostage and making legal threats against anyone who expands it, which will be aided by the real name requirement), I think it's vital that we bring the winds of change to Misplaced Pages in a forceful, effective, reasoned manner, without tilting at windmills. At present, though I agree with many elements of your platform, I hesitate to support you because of the way in which you are pursuing your goals.

I truly, strongly urge you to reconsider the manner in which you are lodging your protest, and would hope that others would join in calling for reasoned, effective action. Captainktainer * Talk 13:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to the above, only one thing has brought a smile to face today, (and I mean no offence Captainktainer) it is "how would you effect change in a large professional organization that has not totally and utterly collapsed?" - the reason I smile is because an expanding encyclopedia that does not value academic exellence is not an encyclopedia, as an encyclopedia it has collapsed around our ears, as Sidaway and Kelly chase off the contributors. I'm not quite sure quite what Misplaced Pages is now but I'm sure a term will come to me later. I look at them answering the secret summons to arms, signing in on the WPAN and I could weep for them. Giano 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just lodging my appreciation for your taking the torch up for this. I'm a lowly nobody too, but you have my support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do not put yourself down we don't recognise "lowly nobodies" on this page. We all started of "nobodies" and some would like to see us return there. Fame/notoriety on wikipedia is a very mixed blessing indeed, believe me! All editors who contribute are equally valuable, just the work of some receives more recognition than the work of others, and sadly those who seem to want to control the place do not want the inconvenience, and disruption to their chatting, of writing an encyclopedia which is kinda sad, don't you think? You are not a nobody you are a contributor to Misplaced Pages which makes you here a rare commodity. Keep up the good work. Giano 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint ...

I'm afraid I'm not an admin any more. I did run for the ArbCom in January and actually outperformed Fred Bauder (who was appointed). David | Talk 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

you are spot on,

and I hope people will listen to you. I've just voiced similar concerns, and I realize it might already be worse than I thought. The problem, exactly as in real life, is that the editors who are here to write an encyclopedia wouldn't dream of accepting an arbcom position and be bogged down in politics (I know I wouldn't). But this is no excuse not to look for ways (policies) of protecting the prolific ("protect the prolific!", how is that for a slogan to call for change?). Just imagine... turning this back into an encyclopedic project. all the best, dab (ᛏ) 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am just reading up on all this. O my, I don't understand at all. Why is Carnildo an admin again? It is completely indefensible to promote somebody based on a 61% majority. We used to demand 80%, with arguable exceptions for majorities as low as 75%. But 61%??? I would like to object in the strongest possible terms, whatever happened to the Misplaced Pages I knew and respected? We do not need any conspiracy theories in the face of this, we just need to address the obvious cock-ups. The bureaucrats involved were clearly not acting on behalf of the community, whatever their reasons. This is simply not the way to do it, and it now seems that finally (after years of empty allegations), a "cabal" has formed, meaning eminences grises that are here for hierarchy, not encyclopedicity, and who have managed to find nooks and crannies where they can not be easily dislodged by the mere sanity of the community. Further, I share your impression that it is exceptionally bad style for the arbcom to cultivate a lapdog, sorry, watchdog to communicate with the hoi polloi. WTH?? This just reeks of aristocratic pretensions ("The Government of Misplaced Pages"). What the hell is going on here? I've been happily fighting trolls in my corner of Misplaced Pages, thinking no evil, and now I seem to wake up to the realization that Misplaced Pages has been pulled from under my arse? Giano, I am very grateful for your striking up some noise about all this. This calls for reforms. We need fresh air, even if that means tearing down much of the encrusted power structure. The alternative is an exodus of actual editors (like you and I daresay me). dab (ᛏ) 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This here encyclopedia

I know you're very unhappy with some officers here, but please don't let this thing burn out of control. I happen to think you were wrong in suggesting self-identified paedophiles should be banned, and I think it was wrong for you to be blocked for it. I would have voted for Carnildo's re-adminning, but I think he shouldn't have been promoted without clear consensus. I think TS was wrong to block you for a "cooling off" period, and I think your aggressive edits on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard were out of line, and I think Tony was wrong to "archive" the comments he didn't like. There's plenty of unpleasantness to go around from all quarters.

It's very unlikely that anyone will be demoted over this, regardless of what you do. Nothing good will come out of pressing the issue. From here, a good outcome would be if you and they simply agreed to hate each other, and went on working on Misplaced Pages as separately as possible. A bad outcome would be if you left, due to a grudge, and they stayed. If you stick around, you'll delight some of us, and maybe it would disappoint others. Isn't that enough?

All the best, – Quadell 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

oh yes good will come of it. Giano, for all I can see, is not pursuing personal grudges, he is defending Misplaced Pages. There may be a time for de-escalation and hushing up, but it seems that this is a time for rising a stir until the things that have been allowed to get as far beyond acceptibility as they have are addressed. If there is one editor who can channel his anger towards productive results, I think it is Giano. dab (ᛏ) 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You reackon that do you Dab? I think the place just becomes sadder by the moment . Giano 21:55, 20 September 2006

(UTC)

Not a mutiny but preservation

I think it is now time for a long hard think about the future of Misplaced Pages, and where it is, or is not going, and what happens to all the articles etc when it is gone. No one in authority seems to have the slightest care that this ship is charted into the eye of a storm. The captain seems to have delegated, to the first officers, who are all having a cocktail party in their cabin and the crew (who the officers regard as revolting) are being served by a steward they have attempted to throw overboard so the question is is it wise to jump ship or go down with her. That is what I am thinking. Giano 08:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. Not waving, but drowning. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I think the time has come to quit painting disaster scenarios and plot a course forward. What has to be done next? I am confident we can give a lot of weight to a petition, for once shamelessly emphasizing the weight of our contributions. You spew out FAs. I estimate that I oversee about 0.1% of all of en-wiki; both Ghirla and me are among the top 100 contributors in terms of mainspace edits. I do think that we should not be shrugged off as hysterical clients. If we say that we think something is seriously wrong, I do think that we (meaning you, Geogre, ALoan, RDH, Ghirla and probably a fair number of other senior editors) should rightly be given a serious and fair hearing. But I think you need to cleanly separate the objective cock-ups and blatant nepotism that has already occurred from mere scenarios of bad things that may yet happen, or speculations of goings-on behind the scenes. Let's focus on what has in fact happened and what we want to do about it. I for one want to get rid of admins considering themselves the government of Misplaced Pages. We have many people with seriously skewed perceptions about their own role. Admins who concentrate on admin tasks are janitors, they do important menial labour, but that shouldn't give them much weight in a meritocracy. Janitors in my university have the right to throw people out and to tell me off for littering, but they wouldn't dream of assuming an air of running the institution. Arbitrators are handed some judicial powers which they should exert with utmost care and a willingness to listen to community feedback. They should ideally be replaced often (if there are willing and competent candidates). So, what are our complaints, and what do we want to see changed? I should say that scheduled expiration of bureaucrat and checkuser rights (re-apply after a year if you want to keep them), clear guidelines on how to deal with serious bureaucrat cock-ups (which sadly seem to occur now; this was not necessary in the past), no 'emeritus' or 'clerk' court positions, as well as a reasonable de-admining process would be steps in the right direction. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think we need to make the transition from "plain" editor to admin less sharp. Pretty much nothing an admin does is irreversible, and many hands make light work. It needs to be easier for editors to become admins, and easier to remove admin abilities. The default should be that any editor in good standing can be an admin. Any admin candidate should be promoted if they meet simple criteria (and I think we cannot avoid setting a time limit, like 3 months, and a edit count, like 1500 edits in main space) unless serious concerns are raised by objectors (and by serious I mean actions that are not conducive to fostering a happy working environment and so producing an encyclopedia). We must trust bureaucrats to make that decision, but they must explain which issues that think are serious and which they think are not serious when making the decision.
• On the other hand, we must have a mechanism to provide feedback on admins who are causing problems, and remove their buttons where there are serious concerns. I would suggest that if, say, 5 admins petition for recall of a particular admin, then we should have a "discussion" as to whether the person should keep the admin buttons. Again, the question is not consensus, nor even a majority, but whether there are serious concerns, and again we should trust the bureaucrats to make that decision, explaining which issues they think are serious.
• I think we need to deprecate extra-wiki mechanisms. Fine, people talk to people outside Misplaced Pages by e-mail or IRC or even face-to-face (gosh!), but former members of ArbCom should not be participating in an ArbCom mailing list nor on the ArbCom IRC channel. If ArbCom want to ask for anyone's help or opinion in a specific instance, so be it, but non-members should not routinely read and contribute to their internal discussions.
• I think the setting up of "unofficial" positions, such as "clerk" and "arbitrator emeritus", which give some patina of power over "lesser" editors, must be deprecated. No-one elected the clerks, no-one elected "emeritus" arbitrators (as far as I am aware, "emeritus" means someone who has kept the fancy title, either as a sop to their ego or to establish their "authority", but that is all - otherwise they have retired from their front-line position; it does not mean someone who used to have a role and keeps doing it despite having lost the job). Fine, the arbitrators need help with shuffling their papers, and some people want to help them. Let them; but they don't need a fancy hat and shiny badge to do so.
• I think we need more transparency in processes - bureaucrats need to expain what they are doing and why (I have had a private communication about the Carnildo RFA that I will not discuss here, save to say that it would have helped if the relevant people had expressed their concerns openly at the start, without trying to conceal the relevant issues).
• Finally, I want people to fully and frankly explain their views, but we need more civility, dammit, and fewer personal attacks. Full and frank discussion can take place without swearing or denigrating the others contributing to the discussion. That can only operate on a personal level, as a matter of politeness and etiquette - and you can't impose politeness at gunpoint. Imposing blocks for breaches should be an absolute last recourse. In particular, "cooling down" blocks have a habit of heating things up. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)