Old messages are at

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (2007)

[1]

I will begin doing so. Unfortunately, I've just gotten a very "nice" note from JzG regarding my lack of edits, and how they probably indicate that my voting for you and then going on a "blue strike" from editing would be no great loss to the project. After all this, he still can't figure out why I might have taken such an interest in !!'s case. Not every account is what they seem... Anyways, I'll do my best to ignore both him and Rockpocket, and get back to editing the project. Thanks for all you do. Mr Which^??? 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Guy is one of the guys I've always liked and respected, and I refuse to let what I consider to be atrocious behavior in this case to shake my belief that he's a reasonable person and a wise one. I think, however, that he has allowed "the terrorists to win," as it were (said with rueful irony, not accusation). The objective of the people at BADSITES is to destroy Wikipedia in revenge for perceived slights they have suffered. Whether consciously or not, they are finding the success that terrorists find: by getting the target to be afraid, by getting the free society to clamp down, by getting the society to fear each member as a potential spy or villain, real damage is done -- damage that no attacker could possibly have achieved. I am sure Guy understands this process as well as anyone who has gone through 9/11 and 7/7 does (if not those who studied the Popish Plot, the Gunpowder Plot, and the Gordon and Porteus riots), but what has happened with the BADSITES is that people have become extremely emotional about it. Additionally, they are having their very livelihoods threatened. The consequences of some of these people could be extremely dire.

I completely agree with them that the BLP and privacy intrusions of people upset about this or that must be handled definitively, with a sharp blade and a quick stroke. There is no excuse, ethical or medical, for what they are attempting.

It's merely that no threat can allow us to destroy ourselves with fear of the threat, and we cannot abandon our prior principles due to the severity of them. We cannot chase shadows of villains.

I do not know why Guy is remaining at such a high pique over this particular matter, and I don't want to speculate. However, the loss of any contributing voice is silence on all of us. Even the loss of the loudest dissent is the loss of our most critical principles. The loss of people going beyond the rules, attempting to harm, attempting (not potentially attempting) to betray and put at play things more than merely pixels on a screen and bytes on a server, is necessary and laudable. We have no precogs, though, and auditions for the role are a sad sight. Geogre 14:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't totally agree with you here, Geogre, although I think in other posts lately you've shown some great insight and perception. There is a hostile atmosphere in certain areas of the project if you take a contrary view to that of certain user accounts. Also, I've seen that the "rules" aren't always applied fairly and equitably. In those situations, it seems like the same few admins/editors are always involved. I contend that if those few admins left the project, the hostile atmosphere I speak of would evaporate immediately and the entire project would be for the better of it. Cla68 14:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Cla68, are you talking to me or Geogre?).

Geogre, clarified above. Cla68 14:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to talk past Giano here. However, I see more fallibility than evil in most of the people who are here so angry. I absolutely agree that some folks have been and are wrongheaded, but I also think that this case has been unusual in that a fair number of folks have been acting out of their character, out of their long time habits.

Let's put it this way: if a person is acting because of a power trip, that person is a problem. If a person is doing it because she is "right" and the other side is "too stupid"/"new"/"trollish" to be spoken to, then that's a problem. If a person is doing it because he is "right" and has reasons that can't be revealed, because they're only for the initiated, then that's the philosophy of the Apocrypha, not Wikipedia. If a person is behaving that way because he or she is simply too tired of going over the same old ground, has many cases already supporting the position, etc., then that is a person whose emotions are compelling her to post, and some more impersonal body needs to speak, or the person needs to hand off the case to someone else. In those cases, the participants need to set out true arbitration ("this is the minimum I can accept, and this is something I simply can't accept; this is what I would like to see, and this is what I think would look bad; this is what I want to say, and this is what I don't want said at all"), where those who will never compromise in matters where there is no policy are going to be the losers.

My concern is when anyone is convinced -- often by experience and private discussions and private knowledge of the other person or fears of what the other may be -- that he or she is so right that it's time to assert power.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a hypocrite. I assert power, too, in my own way. I bluster. I shout. I make the mistakes everyone does. I do not use the block button, though, and I may have hit the "protect" button awry twice or so in ... 4 years? That's not because I'm good. It's because I stay away from the vandal/protect/defend stuff and concentrate on articles. I do that because I know myself well enough to know how I'd fall, otherwise. I wish others would rotate more frequently, "recuse" more often, and hand off. Geogre 14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre, the reasons and motivations for the power trips that these certain editors/admins are on are probably as varied as the number involved. The end result is the same, a hostile environment for people who don't agree with them and make their disagreement known in certain forums. Cla68 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The words 'drama' 'create controversy' and 'disruptive' all seem to be used with similar intent as 'troll'.Merkinsmum 14:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, very true, but let's keep the message simple as Troll seems to ecompass all of those things also. Giano 14:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drama? Drama? Drama? Drama? Let me get my gun. Geogre 14:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is rhetoric from the leadership of a community that tells the community what words designate people who are to be attacked: Witch, Jew, Communist ... It is not the word so much as the implicit approval by leadership of a process that amounts to substituting who is making a claim for objective evidence of a claim. WAS 4.250 15:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first (and intended to be only) comment to that behemoth ANI thread that started with !!'s block came five days after the events, when a fresh-faced admin who'd been active in the entire conversation said he not only wanted the thread closed, but deleted as an "attack page." I simply said that it should be treated as any other ANI thread - closed in the usual process and archived - and that a good chunk of the drama was from people saying the thread was an attack page and should be closed and deleted. For that, I was told not to troll. I wonder if that admin had any idea that some people might be a tad ticked off at being called a troll, and instead of skulking away or having a verbal pissing match, might actually be moved to constructive response. See, Giano...it wasn't you that dragged me into this mess, it was Mercury. He's the one who made me realise that the secrecy, usurpation of power, patronization, and devaluing of individuals within the community was making Wikipedia *not fun*. It wasn't your actions that emboldened me to write an outside opinion in a high profile RFC - it was being called a troll.

I'll be getting back to my usual routine of vandalism reversion in my handful of articles, my bits of wikignoming here and there. And yes, I'm developing an article that I should manage to get into mainspace in a week or so - it's a little article, as is appropriate for a little editor to write. But I am far less likely to sit on the sidelines and hold my tongue in the future. Thanks for caring enough about the encyclopedia and its community to put yourself on the line. Godspeed - and good luck in the election. --Risker 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to cry.........Giano 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smartass. Note to Arbcoms - really, it's just friendly banter. Risker 15:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I thought Mercury was going to get remedies aimed at him or her. That individual's actions certainly were beyond politeness, civility, and proper execution of the role of administrator. Furthermore, had his attempted wielding of power not been frustrated, he would have warranted a separate case. That's just my opinion, but let's be clear: who among the "one side" used buttons to enforce its will and who among the other did? Bad, bad, bad scene and an even worse omen. (I'm going to go vandalize blank space by filling it in with words! Not today, though. Something has given me a migraine. I wonder if I can block someone for it?) Geogre 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Mercury was warned, he didn't use his admin tools again in relation to the case, which is probably why he wasn't named in the arbitration case. Crum375 "courtesy blanked" the original discussion on ANI and I thought the reasoning that it was to "protect !!" was a little weak since most other discussions involving other editors on ANI aren't "courtesy blanked." Carey Bass blocked Giano over Durova's email which was probably inappropriate since he was apparently on Durova's list. The arbitrators later ruled that only uninvolved admins should block editors in that situation. That's all I can think of. Cla68 20:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crum375, that is a name I keep hearing lately time after time it crops up on and off wiki. Funny that. Interestingly Mercury now seems to be "Nathan" [2] not sure I would want a name change on the eve of the election. Giano 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a way to sign my RealName here on wiki. Sounds more serious and less playful. I'm going to have to change it up a little more later tonight. I don't think the election will hinge on my signature, or at least I hope not. Regards, Nathan 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix it later if that is preferable. Mercury 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, who semi-protected the ANI page during the incident? That was unprecedented. Cla68 22:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Durova [3] and Mercury [4] were involved with protection of ANI and ANI subpages. Uncle uncle uncle 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really would go back to Mercury if I were you! Giano 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've also seen discussion indicating that two admins were administering invitation-only email forums (and their names were immediately removed from the list pages after becoming "public") in which the participants apparently complained about productive editors that they had personal animosity against and possibly discussed on-wiki admin actions. Although arguably not against any rules or policies, I think most of us can form an opinion on the merits of this type of behavior and the ethics of those who would participate in it. Cla68 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova (talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we can all live without needing to be reminded of this strange series of events too often. A motion pased 6:3 is far from unanimous (For the case, there were 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes were a majority in this instance one abstained) The case has certainly made us all re-evaluate our thoughts [5] I hope now we can all be allowed to move on. Giano 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Barnstar of Integrity & Goodness
		For bravery, integrity, and service to Wikipedia and the wider public with these qualities. 85.5.180.9 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Seconded. edward (buckner) 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. (Every time you archive the last barnstar on your talk page, it's the cue for somebody to give you another one!) *Dan T.* 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we had better leave this one here for a while then but they are not archived they go onto my user page. Thanks to you all though. Giano 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Durova arbitration has closed, with you still unsanctioned, and still dancing on a tightrope over the Niagara Falls. Congratulations! For your awesome balancing act for the benefit of Wikipedia, you are hereby awarded the Tightrope Trophy. It represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Falls. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. The best part of of the case being over is that you have returned, the worst part is that !! no longer wants to be here and has gone. So this stupid and needless affair has cost us both a friend and Wikipedia a great editor. Giano 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It don't matter. !! will be all around in the dark - !! will be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, !! will be there. Wherever there's a syop beatin' up a guy, !! will be there. !! will be in the way guys yell when they're mad. !! will be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build - !! will be there, too. - WAS 4.250 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

Thank you for sharing that with us all WAS. Giano 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please all admire my efforts at User:Merkinsmum/Homages. Merkinsmum 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive. Hey, what do you all think of User talk:Lar/ArbCom2007/Giano? Can an arbcom election be this exciting? :-) Carcharoth 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, perceptive and flattering of Lar ! Well I've got the 100 votes I wanted to personally feel I was doing the right thing, so I can relax and enjoy it now. "Better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all" as my Granny used to say to me each miserable school exam results day. Giano 09:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:200

Did you ever expect to get 200 supports and be added to WP:200? :-) Having said that, with some recent withdrawals, you are now officially the candidate with the most number of oppose votes (currently 155). Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got there first! — iridescent 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I didn't think it opened for another 50 minutes - and I'm not "pompous". Giano 23:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha [6] I was right - gives you time to re-write it. "Giano is a kind and thoughtful person who loves children and animals and helping people" Giano 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy the "loves animals" part, I guess... :) Give 'em hell, Harry! ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - forgot that we're now on GMT and an hour off UTC. I'll strike the "pompous", but the "arrogant" definitely stays — iridescent 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a moot point, as it appears to have fallen victim of the new "remove comments I don't like" policy. I'm sure there's a reason why elections for the relatively trivial post of admin are allowed to become lengthy discussions of the pros & cons of a candidate (this is a particularly fine example), but when it's actually a vote for something important, a new "no discussion" policy magically appears from nowhere. Not that it will make any difference, since Arbcom elections are decided on a one-man-one-vote basis, and I think we all know which way the one man's going to vote. — iridescent 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not noticed, I am deliberatly trying not to look more than three times a day, relying on Gurche's page for the odd update. Far more interest than I ever thought, and I'm realy pleased there are so many supports, I was frightened there would be 100s of opposes and about 4.5 supports. Giano 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following things a little bit more closely. I hope you don't mind me pointing out that Raul has just overtaken you in the support column. You are still in front at the top of the oppose column, though. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How very re-assuring. Giano (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are ahead of Raul again (support column only). This is actually quite exciting. I get the feeling this could be a long two weeks. I've just realised, to my horror, that I will be away the final weekend and may only be back in time to catch the final few hours of voting. :-( The only question is whether to cast my remaining votes then or now. BTW, loved the spaniel comment. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at it. You are 8th in the net supports column, but 11th in the percentages column. Though the 7th guy in the net supports column is nearly 20 ahead of you, it isn't impossible to suppose that you might get a net increase of 20+ supports over the remaining days of this election. I don't think anyone really knows how long Wikipedia's tail of voters is. Carcharoth (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this rambling about usernames and trolls and elections. Your fame comes from your writing and editing skills. So I'd appreciate your editorial comments on this article I've drafted before I send it off into the world to be suitably vandalized[7]. Anyone else reading this, feel free to jump in... --Risker 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I'm here... "a poignant song describing graphically the horrors of war" needs to go, you couldn't get a purer piece of original research if you tried. Other than that, looks fine albeit still a bit stubby. — iridescent 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh thanks for that, you're right. Probably better to use a description from a professionally written review. Still stubby yes, I think it will get fleshed out better after the full release (I have the date but it is not from an acceptable source). Risker 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your copyedit assistance and advice, you can now see it at James Blunt: Return to Kosovo. With a little luck I'll get the image uploaded in a day or two, now that the article is in mainspace and I can add a fair-use image. Risker (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me I'm the cavalry asked you a question on your arbcom candidate question page. I took the liberty of providing him with the Readers Digest version of the case here[8]. I hope you don't mind. Risker 05:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just answered him too, so he should have a good view of the situation now. It seems though are combined efforts were not enough to convince him he has opposed :-( Giano 09:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look at it this way. One treats people decently, one answers them honestly, and one doesn't kick them when they're down. Integrity demands a terrible price, but its reward is being able to hold one's head up. And you, sir, can certainly hold your head up. Risker 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate heads-up on a different matter, just in case you weren't following [9]. Risker (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied (and made a separate section for our little conversation) at User talk:SebastianHelm#Giano. — Sebastian 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. — Sebastian 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[10]. Risker 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy man. I see where you're coming from on the whole Wikipedia:Private correspondence proposal, but don't get too worked up yet. The whole Durova fiasco was rather unique. I think the general principle behind what you did there should be addressed, but I'm just not sure your wording was the right way to go. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nor worked up at all. I have dropped the matter. Policy is best worded explicitly or not at all. Giano (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, guess I misinterpreted your mood there. I personally think policy needs to clearly spell out the principles before getting into specifics, though. Have a good one. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the canvassing issue as resolved, and (at Risker's suggestion) placed the discussion behind show/hide tags. The discussion is there for the record, and I don't feel comfortable archiving it during the election - but, this way, the casual voter won't see canvassing and go ZOMG Conspiracy! without seeing the Resolved tag and actively clicking through anyway. I hope this works as an alternative to actual archival. Good luck with your candidacy, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean "archive", I maeant archive box things, my fault. I'm sure it's fine. Giano (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...regarding who posted what when on your talk page. If it helps, I think this [[11]] was the first time that document was added; it was then removed as vandalism and trolling, and you then observed it was neither and restored it. Hope that helps. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People often ask me about mailing lists. I only subscribe to one. I discovered this list a few weeks ago, it is truly amazing what one can learn. I strongly advise you all joining it, no need to give your user name any email will do. Well worth the effort. Giano (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading it for a long time. I've been putting off subscribing because I know I would spend more time typing out long replies instead of, um, doing the same here. No, I mean editing articles. Um. <looks at contribs list> Hell. It's election season. Who writes articles then? Carcharoth (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but what is so nice about is it is a public list. All email sent to the list is available in public archives, both on and off Wikimedia servers. Those that do not wish for people to come across their emails, email addresses or real name on search results are warned not to post. Giano (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we need shorter election seasons, then. Or put them all together into one season (instead of having the board be at a different time). SOMETHING anyway to reduce the impact on article production. OK, now, everyone, back on your heads. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have you know that, as soon as I figure out how to do dates properly in my references, I will have started *and* completed my first article, and that during election season. And read and posted to wiki-en-L, which I subscribe to using my "Wikipedia only" gmail email address. Doesn't trace back to anything but my Wikipedia account, for which I have a username I don't use anywhere else, and a password I don't use anywhere else. What would give you the idea I've been on the 'net for a while? Risker (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello. You all probably hate me for the position I took on FT2. But it was done in good faith. There is a lot of nasty bullying going on. This refers. If you could help to stop this. I have offered to delete the offending page and do the rest by email. Best edward (buckner) (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to do something about this. edward (buckner) (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on I am looking now. Giano (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Heck! Well! there is lot to read there isn't there. This seems to be a very controversial field indeed, I think it would be be very wrong for me as a candidate in the current election to pass comment. Since declaring myself as a nominee, I have asked no questions of other candidates or cast any votes. I don't want to pass any comment on any other candidate. I hope you understand. Giano (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. Quite understand. I have contacted the relevant organisations. edward (buckner) (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I left the message here because a number of 'good' people drop by your page and it seems relatively safe to me. On the other hand this issue has completely redrawn the idea of 'good'. My idea of good you can find in my new animal rights section. Sorry for the term, sounds like swampy the eco warrior and all that. I'm not into the black balaclavas & all that. But do believe in English decency to animals and all that. Hope that remark doesn't earn a block. Best edward (buckner) (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I have a spaniel licking my feet under the desk as we talk and a worn out labrador sleeping in its basket (dreaming of "fesy wesants") as I type. Giano (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of promoting sweetness and light, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Chocolate Chip Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Have this award, said to have been created by the Joan of Arc vandal- wierd!Merkinsmum 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm leaving now. Cannot believe what has happened, and the threats. About to scramble password - can you please ask that my IP not be blocked, for reasons at least one of the administrators will understand. Bestedward (buckner) (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hang on don't go, there is very little on Wikipedia that cannot be sorted out. Think again before you go, they can always email you a new password. Relax take a deep breath, have a couple of days away and then think again. Giano (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I haven't scrambled the password, because didn't know how to set new password - you have done this once, I believe? edward (buckner) (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. I think you need a wiki-break. I would take it if I were you. Attacking editors for any reason on an outside blog, as you have done, is very much against all my Wiki-principles. At least here they have the right of reply. However, the allegations you are making are very serious indeed, I strongly advise you to be 101% sure of your facts before repeating them anywhere at all.Giano (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% sure of the facts. edward (buckner) (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]