User talk:Giano II - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giano II (talk | contribs) at 12:16, 18 May 2009 (→Time now for 2groups of editors each with their own Admins.: In a few hours we will have yet another IRC-Admin -why?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:16, 18 May 2009 by Giano II (talk | contribs) (→Time now for 2groups of editors each with their own Admins.: In a few hours we will have yet another IRC-Admin -why?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The Misplaced Pages philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

—Lore Sjöberg, from "The Misplaced Pages FAQK"

This, the funniest thing I have seen on wikipedia, was stolen from DreamGuy

Userboxes

PC-0

This user is politically incorrect.

File:Animalibrí.gif

Please note there is now a designated area for complaining about me here (I do check it from time to time). This talk page is now only for important and interesting matters. Giano (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Old messages are at:

Essays:

A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles
A few thoughts on Misplaced Pages (unfinished)

Apology

I know you told me to stay away from here, but I do want to apologise, and I want to do it without the chance that I might only be doing it for personal gain. I don't intend to run for RfA again (I have been mulling it over, and might, but it certainly won't be soon if such a thing occurs), so that is out of the picture. I did intend to email you, but it seems that you have it disabled.

I am sorry for what I implied and otherwise stated about you on the blog. It was wrong of me to post such utterly defamatory comments over an editor which I evidentially knew so little about. I wrote those comments in ignorance, mostly of your excellent work in content creation, but also in ignorance of your good interactions with the community -- unlike I suggested, the number of entries in your block log certainly does not correlate with your demeanour (which, after reading through a good few pages of your archives, seems to be rather good). I did not think. That is not an excuse, not a justification, and certainly not a reason, but it is what caused it. I was stupid in making the comments in such a prominent place, I was stupid even thinking of making such comments anywhere, and I was stupid to believe the comments to be appropriate in any way, shape, or form.

I am sorry that you thought I lied about talking to you about this earlier. I had thought that I had talked to you about this back in March, but that appears to have not been the case. Again, not an excuse, but I have a memory disorder that sometimes leaves me muddled with my memory, sometimes to the point where I remember events that never happened, and don't even remember recent events upon triggers. It was clear that it had not been on-Wiki (because I did check my contributions from around the time that I believed that we had discussed the issue), and I'm not sure where I thought it had been, and now my memory of that is practically gone, so I guess it never occurred. I will mail the Telegraph later to have the offending comments removed, hopefully in light of the nature of my comments they will oblige.

I don't want there to be bad blood between us. I'd really like to put this behind us and get along. What I wrote there is certainly not what I think about you now, and I don't even think it was what I thought about you then, to be honest. I like you, both as an editor and as a person.

If you want to continue this discussion in private, feel free to mail me at neuro.wikipediagmail.com, or just drop me a message back either here or at my talk.

Thanks for your time reading through this wall of TLDR. :) — neuro 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that I had my email disenabled, I must have done that without realising it - I thought life had been more quiet than usual. I hope you can sort things out with the Telgraph blog, however, I rather suspect they will regard the subject as yesterday's news, which indeed it is. Thank you also for your appology; it is accepted. Regards Giano (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've sent them a mail, I'll tell you if I get a reply. — neuro 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

While I accept you apology in the spirit given, no way will I support the RFA of a person who was prepared to swear black was white and reprimand me for pointing out certain truths - just to see you sysoped. Flying Toaster was at best naive at worst..well let's not go there. I have firmly opposed sich an unsuitable candidate. Giano (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To think I thought the days of IRC all stopping chatting to vote one of their own onto Adminship were over - how wrong I was! Giano (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I have to agree with you on this one. I originally supported – I don't think her failure to know what Neurolysis was doing on another website can be held against her, and I think a lot of the "no content contributions" opposes are unfair as she does seem to have written a number of articles – but I can't recall any "request for …" (with the exception of a couple of AFDs on bands where a fan club has rallied fans to vote) where the "IRC pile on" effect has been so blatant. I don't necessarily hold it against Flying Toaster – it's entirely possible that someone else is canvassing on her behalf and she has no control over it – but it all looks very iffy. – iridescent 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but her insistance that Neurolysis had appologised (when he had not) and her pompous reprimands of me for insisting he had not, coupled with Neurolysis surprise and belated apology (above) the moment she launched her own candidacy - well.....! Quite frankly, I was not born yesterday, even if the 100 or so IRC supports and those that run this site think I was. This candidate has acheived little here and the days of IRC conspired Admins should be well and truly over. Giano (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else may happen, I swear to you, this apology and her RfA have absolutely no connection. I swear it to you. — neuro 13:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To put your mind at ease, looking through IRC logs for the last few days I do not see any discussion on this topic. Ah, after reading your other post on WP:AN I see you are perhaps talking about the public Misplaced Pages channel, I was referring to the private admin channel. Chillum 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Time now for 2groups of editors each with their own Admins.

I think the time has now come for us to have two forms of editors - those that support and abide by IRC placed Admins, and those who refuse to acknowledge them, but continue to write the project. This IRC problem has gone on for too long. We are repeatedly told it is sorted and monitored, yet, once again, the Arbcom have failed to act, it's time to sort it ourselves before we are overrun with "Boriss" and her likes. I for one am not going to abide by the actions or decisions of any Admin promoted by IRC in future. Comment here Giano (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors should be forced to choose. Either they participate on Misplaced Pages 'or' IRC (not both). If this isn't done? IRC should be abolished. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No it's far more simple, there will in future be editors who wish to be ruled by a IRC Admins and editors who wish to be ruled by Misplaced Pages Admins (ie: Misplaced Pages Admins being those who have proved their value by editing Misplaced Pages in a worthwile way), one simply declares one's stance and that is that. If such as Flying Toaster are promoted I shall not acknowledge their status, that is all that need to be done - I'm sure a user box or something can be created - even attached to a sig to avoid confusion. One merely selcts one's police force. This has been coming for ages, the Arbs claim to have looked at the problems and failed, now it's just time to ignore them and go it alone. Many of us are sick to death of IRC and its machinations. This way IRC is happy and those writing the project are happy. Giano (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never been to IRC, but I've heard alot of bad things about it. I agree, a potential Misplaced Pages Administrator's qualifications should not include his/her participation at IRC. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afrais as long as the Arbs rely upon it for supprt and Jimbo frequebts it (only when he wants to know something) it's always going to be a problem. That does not mean that the ordinary rank and file editor has to supprt the status quo. Giano (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope, for Misplaced Pages's sake. The rank & file don't divide the Administrators into legitimate & illegimate. Such a schism on Misplaced Pages, would be very damaging. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It has already happened amongst the Admins, the rank and file now need to recognise tha and decide which camp they want to be in. I will not be ruled from IRC others can make their own choice. Giano (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I'd like to comment on the matter as someone who uses the wikipedia IRC channels. Now, I've only used it for a few months, but I've yet to see any cabal-like behaviour like vote-rigging or canvassing. To be honest, I first joined the channels to see if complaints like yours were true, but after several months I can only conclude they can't be. Crikey, I usually log off after a few hours, as conversation (if it can be called that) usually consists of people asking for admin help in dealing with vandals, and apparently dozens of users logging on, then off, then on again. It gets boring, frankly. I've certainly never seen any canvassing about...well, anything really, and the one time someone started bitching they were firmly told by an Op to stop or be booted. I hope you can take this comment in good-faith, and don't see it as that of a member of some kind of IRC Cabal. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That the chanel is for the banal is not in dispute, the problem is when the banal decide they are bored there, and having done little on wikipedia, decide it would brighten their day if they became an Admin, then chattering chipmonks break off from IRC for 10 seconds to all vote support, which is what has happened here. Admins are suposed ot be people wirthy of respect - people who have proven their worth and commitment. Commitment to Misplaced Pages not a chat room for the inane. So the time has now come to sau enough. Giano (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

From a practical point of view I think this is already happening. There's a large number of administrators I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire, but a still significant number whose opinion I do take seriously when it's offered. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are not a ruling class anyways. Chillum 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can think of more than a few who fit The Ruling Class... --Alf 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't talk rubbish Chillum, of course they are, if not why do some many of the IRC lot want to be one. Giano (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous Giano. Prodego 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You can block me Chillum, but I can't block you, so you're clearly talking rubbish. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(jumps up and down and waves hands in the air) does anyone listen these days? Have we or have we not been reviewing admin conduct at arbcom lately? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno! Have you? I think everyone has been too busy chatting to notice. I certainly have had more pressing things to think about. Has it made any difference? Giano (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Reviewing" clearly isn't good enough, when some arbs think that poor admins deserve chance after chance after chance to stop abusing their position, when they have no intention of stopping. Majorly talk 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The only two I can think of are Aitias and Jayjg, both of which concluded with "it doesn't matter what they've done, we can't take their precious admin button away from them". Which are you thinking of, Casliber? – iridescent 21:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is tired and folorn, when we have admins supporting prospective Admin's with comments like this perhaps it is time to pack up and go home. Giano (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Connnolly ought to be taken to task for that comment, but we all know that he won't be. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

~~@MF - huh? which comment?~~ @iridescent - have a look at some of the completed requests this year - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny are two older completed ones, in addition to oneo ther open case looking at admin conduct . Also note that if a person has not been desysopped, it does not mean there have been no sanctions, and obviously past history will be taken into account with future cases. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(facepalm) ...sigh. I see. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt the Arbcom imagines it is doing some good, maybe even it is, but the thing to do is tackle the problen at source. In a few hours we will have yet another IRC-Admin -why? Geogre explains here and only a small handful care. That is truly sad. Giano (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Big Hug

I love you too darling William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I expect you probably do. Giano (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)