User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

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)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (2008)

Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

Au contraire - this is the much more light-hearted original cirteria, as Billy Joel is a much better judge of core articles than Wikipedia:Vital articles....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? As in we didn't start the fire? lol - really? Heavens! --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Sorry, I have nothing to do with Wikipedia any longer, or any thoughts concerning it. Giano (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you will reconsider and return soon. You have no restrictions placed on you that keep you from being able to fully participate in Wikipedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, I've left this message on your talk page, but perhaps it is best to put a copy of my thoughts here as well.

I too wish that Giano would stay and continue to participate in Wikipedia. From the perspective of the encyclopedia, he is an incredibly valuable contributor; from the personal perspective, I have learned a great deal about editing and greatly value the encouragement he has given me. Giano's mainspace edits are legendary, and his contributions on the meta side have significantly improved content and behaviour with respect to "The Troubles," addressing paedophilia-related activity on this site, abusive blocking and transparency here on Wikipedia. His meta positions have been supported by the wide community despite his sometimes excessive zeal; many who "opposed" Giano's election to Arbcom commented that he had the right ideas but his approach wasn't suited to being an Arbcom member. It is difficult to know whether the changes in Wikipedia culture could have been made without Giano's rhetoric and focus on issues. Let's compare the defense of !! and the granting of rollback to non-administrators: Both involved walking very fine lines and pushed the community hard into a new direction, with high-flying rhetoric and violation of WP conventions. Giano got warned for being rude and violating unwritten rules (which remain unwritten, as the community cannot come to a consensus on what those rules are); Ryan Postlethwaite was invited to join a special Arbcom subcommittee.

Just about anyone can make the list of administrators who would be watching every word written by Giano, ready to whack him with a block, whether deserved or not. One snippy comment in a FAR. One snotty response on his talk page. Another Eurocentric allusion that goes over the average American's head. "Obscene trolling: knows German" may well be the standard. Heck, there are several statements in his essay - a poignant and humorous final gift to our community - that would incite some admins to block him. And no AN or ANI discussion, just another report to WP:AE that nobody questions or reads. And if someone does question the block, then we're back to the drama that nobody needs - not the community, not Arbcom, and not Giano either. From that perspective, with such a huge "kick me" sign pinned to his back, who can blame Giano for walking away? Hundreds of others already have. Risker (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well said, Risker. Why would anyone want to participate here after being singled out and insulted this way? When I look at how other people insult Giano, and how Giano often takes it on board (look at, for example: User_talk:Giano/Exploding_Houses#Sorry where Giano calmly and patiently explains matters after being insulted) I think the charge that Giano is the big problem here (as evidenced by being the only person mentioned by name in the ArbCom decision) is ludicrous. Any "refocusing of enthusiasm" is likely now to be to Wikipedia's detriment. As for the suggestion that Giano was impeding rewriting a policy page, I find that laughable. That page was the way it was for what, a year? It could have been rewritten at any time, and in fact that is what Giano was trying to spur. Could he have done it better? Sure. But let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't see the arbcom decision as being the last thing to happen in this little affair and I think (as I said on my own talk) it's going to end badly. Which is really unfortunate. Will WP persevere without Giano's contributions if he doesn't come back? Yes, but article space will be a poorer place, and we also will miss out on the thoughtful and insightful comments in metaspace. Will Giano get on with life without WP? Probably, if he can actually manage to stay away (it's hard, WP is so addictive). But both WP and Giano will be the poorer for it. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that now that the case is closed that Giano will take the Committee's feedback seriously. As someone that has supported and defended Giano in the past myself, I found myself no longer able to do it because it was becoming a chronic pattern of conduct. Lar, I hope that Giano will follow the example of users like yourself that purposely choose to moderate their language and conduct on site to match our policies. My main concern was that Giano did not indicate that he planned to modify his conduct in the future, and in fact never acknowledged that it was a problem while most other involved parties did so. His choice to continue making provocative edits such as edit warring during the case and like putting the Proposed Decision page up for deletion) are the reason that the case closed with a finding against him and not others. I hope that you and others that he has listened to in the past will encourage him to come back as I feel he has much to offer. Thanks for your thoughts. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The choice was his to engage in highly provocative behavior that is well outside of policy and in my opinion has impeded the Community from writing a reasonable IRC guideline. Wikipedia is based on the idea that decisions will be made through calm collaborative discussion. It is impossible for that to happen when several editors raise the level of discourse to the point that most thoughtful people give up and walk away. Giano has a history of doing this. My goal is to re-focus his enthusiasm toward supporting our dispute resolution processes to achieve his goals. I opposed remedies that would stop his participation in Wikipedia policy making as I do value his opinion. As a high profile editor he needs to lead by example. Please encourage Giano to return as I feel that Wikipedia will be a better place with him here. Thanks for your thoughts. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, the problem with this remedy is that it paints a bullseye on Giano's head, when he arguably already had one on it, hence half the problems with the insults and the various blocks (some justified, but some definitely not). In my view -- and I'm sure Giano will not thank me for saying this -- a block would have been preferable, if any sanction were needed, because at least the block would be served then done with. But to leave a poorly defined parole hanging over him for a long time is humiliating, and it's the humiliation that has driven him away, as it was bound to. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee made the decision that we thought overall served the best interest of the Community. The majority of the Committee felt that it was the best of several options. It is hard to make a Finding like this against someone that you respect and agree with about many things. But I feel that Giano left us no other choice. Plese encourage him to return. Thanks for your thoughts. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee thought this decision served the best interest of the Community? The Committee was wrong. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Remedy arbcom passed was always a poor one. I've criticised attempts to put Giano on civility parole before. The problem with it is it would allow hotheads to block Giano, and at the same time allow Giano (if he chose) to push at the bounds in search of the the drama of an unjust block. The remedy made Giano's departure unfortunately inevitable, and the only thing to do is to give Giano credit that he chose to leave like this, rather than waiting for the drama of being dispatched by a poor blocking decision in the future, which would have been far more disruptive for the community. However, neither will I be too hard on arbcom. Whilst there is an idiotic community minority on one side who want Giano gone or silent, and a minority on the other for whom Giano can do no wrong, most sane people badly want Giano to stay, and will defend his right to express his wiki-views, however, they don't want any more "Franken-Giano"ism. By that I mean Giano's tactic of: 1) using heated and polarising rhetoric 2) painting everyone who doesn't agree 100% as part of the problem 3) assuming that everyone critical of the methods and tone wants to silence the message 4) never admitting any wrong on his own part 5) assuming bad faith of anyone that dares to be critical. Basically, we need Giano to remember that the aim in every dispute is to seek some form of dispute *resolution*, not to wage perpetual warfare. Now, there is simply not any arbcom remedy that can compel that, that can leave Giano free both to edit and to comment, but compel him to comment in a different fashion. So arbcom can either do nothing (which has been what they have done up till now) or pass some unsatisfactory remedy that will doubtless result in him leaving. The only person who could have given a way out here was Giano. Had he indicated at any point that he'd reflect on the widespread criticism of his tactics (a criticism shared even by many who agreed with his messages) I would immediately have called for the case to be closed without sanction and sang "Alleluia". Even now, were Giano to even hint at a desire to proceed a little differently (or just to start doing it), I'd call for arbcom to remove the sanction immediately. Giano, if I can help you find a way back, you only have to ask.--Doc^g 16:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Doc said. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I probably have no business weighing in here, since we've never been close, but that Southern Belle has an awfully large waistline and eyebrows in desperate need of a serious shaping and waxing, so I have a vested interest in seeing you stay around to replace that picture. How come Raul gets a great physique, and I get bushy eyebrows?  :-))

I went through a singularly unpleasant experience one month ago in an ArbCom case, and as horrible as that experience was (do you 'spose the Arbs understand how awful it is?), I know it was nothing compared to what you've been through. From my read of things, you ended up there partly for defending Bish's honor; it's sad that should be necessary.

I'd really hate to see Wiki lose your writing and your presence. After what happened to me, I doubted for many weeks I would even want to return to Wiki or could find the restored enthusiasm and energy I used to enjoy here. I knew I couldn't come back unless I could find a motivation to continue with joy. Two things made a difference for me and brought me back in spite of the serious shortcomings we all have to deal with on Wiki: friends and a forced break. The bottom line is that, no matter how bad it can be, there are some really fine editors here on Wiki and they enrich my life. I hope the thought of interacting with other editors like Yomangani, who also took a long break and returned with enthusiasm, will help you find a way back to us. Because I was traveling to remote areas with limited internet access, I had a semi-forced break after the ArbCom closed, and that time off was crucial in helping me regain my footing. So please consider seriously taking time off to reconsider, and while you're thinking it over, you may find that the exceptional people you know on Wiki may come to mean more to you than the unpleasant things about The Way Wiki Works. You can always use the WikiBreak Enforcer to give yourself a pre-determined amount of time to think things over. Whatever you decide, I hope you'll be happy and be well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may entice you, even though the little start I've made hardly sketches the outlines of the subject. Was a gabinetto always a close-stool or necessary? Was it ever a studiolo? --Wetman (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just placed this quote on my userpage:

Not all, or perhaps even most, of the powerful accounts (admins, arbitrators, etc) in Wikipedia are unreasonable people. But, as the Essjay, BADSITES, IRC, Weiss/Overstock.com [3], and other episodes have shown, the few who are unreasonable and in positions of authority, and who seem to enjoy using "private" mailing lists and IRCs to further their personal agendas, often cause immense problems for the project and to those editors who are actually here to try to write quality articles or measurably improve article space in some other way. Giano is helping fight this and is often successful in doing so, to the great benefit of the project.

Notice I said "is" helping fight this, not "was" and I hope that this is still the case. Cla68 (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thesis, but I'm not sure it is correct. It's "strength comes from a vast number of people making small changes" - now, I think there was some evidence to show that was NOT the case, that the bulk of our contributions (excepting vandalism) was actually by 3-4,000 regulars. I'd also point out that whilst passers-by might fix typos or occasionally contribute an article stub on something they care about, almost all our quality work (GA FA etc) is done by a regular core of "experts". Could this just be that you done like one perceived regular core, because you belong to another perceived one? I say perceived, because I think it is a myth to assume that there are two distinct camps of "writers" and "admins 'experts'". There are certainly some admins that seldom write, but in fact of the influential ones do. I note, for instance, that nearly ALL people that get elected to arbcom have made high-end content contributions.

Why I'm being slightly critical here, is that I think everyone has been far too fast to shout "THEY are the problem" and then engage in rhetorical flourishes to show why, supported by a few meagre anecdotes for evidence. Now, it may well be that we do have a group of people whose net contribution is negative (or more likely could be more positive), but before anyone rushes to that prognosis, I'd suggest some careful and objective research. "my understanding of" is perhaps a poor basis for making sweeping statements, when those statements tend to further polarise the community. And I suspect, admittedly not on clear evidence either, that rhetoric that tends to polarising the community is perhaps the most destructive feature of the recent disputes. Just some thoughts.--Doc^g 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't agree totally with the quote either. I think it was more true a year ago than it is now. I'd say that the group of Wikipedians that this applies to is small and growing smaller, thanks in part to Giano's and others efforts. But, it still exists to some degree. Also, what the quote doesn't address, and this applies to your statement that all of the ArbCom members have high-end content contributions, is that some of the "obsessive" Wikipedians aren't seeking personal prestige. They're seeking influence so that they can push their personal POVs easier. There are several admins, at least one of whom is a former ArbCom member, who have developed quite a reputation for pushing and protecting certain POVs in certain subjects. Cla68 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. I've no doubt that there are some people "seeking influence" to push POV, and the example you cite is particularly notorious (I will not defend that individual). However, I think you are still using anecdote as justification for sweeping generalities and assuming bad faith. Are you really suggesting that most "obsessive" wikipedians are either power-hungry POV pushers or non-writing and problematic? Where is the evidence? As for the assertion that Giano has reduced the number of wikipedians that fall into whatever "problem admin" category you envisage, can you explain how Giano's activity has helped reduce this? Logic? Evidence? I'd say, that one of the problems is that we've had far too many sweeping generalisations that attempt to caricature some problem "group" from a few anecdotes and bad experiences. I'd say that part of the solution is to avoid polemicist rhetoric and stick to calm, balanced, analysis of any problems, explaining why we think this is a problem and assuming that most people want to work to minimise any problems we can specifically isolate. I think we've had enough of divisive partisan paranoia based on poor evidence and analysis with logic jumps.--Doc^g 19:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of my favorite works of Ludwig Van's. It seems highly fitting and appropriate considering it is about one gallant hero's struggle against tyranny. Bernstein and the Vienna Philharmonic did it justice, quite unlike what the ArbCom did for you. I hope it helps inspire you to continue the fight in whatever manner you see fit.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meglio un giorno da leone che cento da pecora. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.0.99 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been natural for once in my life
Now I'll have to swallow some pride
Know that I should never give advice
But it's too late now to say goodbye

Be natural don't want any friends
Be natural come on and hit me again
Be natural I'm repeating myself
Be natural is there anything else

Hiding T 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Giano. I was asked to write a signpost tutorial about how to get an article to featured article. This is my first draft. It is based on my own page: User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA. It is today during writing the tutorial that I first read your own essay, which impressed me I must say. I would be grateful If you had the time to check the draft, offer any comments you would like, check the prose, and propose me any improvements you regard as useful. Thank you in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a bit ...late.--Wetman (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, there is a "consensus" being manufactured in this critical article (it defines Wikis handling of inbuilt systematic bias). I strongly feel you should read the talk pages; look at the history and I'd appreciate your views on how to proceed or other advice. Regards, Sarah777 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think Giano is no longer with us at wikipedia - see IRC. I think Giano didn't take kindly to being shot as the messenger. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Nor would I. I see Derova and Ioeth both have roles in the Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars - wonderful news for anyone expecting an improvement! Sarah777 (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, maybe you should add prophet to your resume. You saw this coming like global warming too. Yet another example of why you should be sitting on the ArbCom instead of driven away by it! So many of Wiki's problems could be avoided by heeding your sage words. But, alas, being a voice in the wilderness is one of a prophet's occupational hazards.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perchè non vieni qua a scrivere, se questi idioti rompono le balle? Super Giano (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you may not be around to read this, Giano, but I wanted to share with you (and who ever else happens to stumble on this page) that Kosebamse has taken a look at the IRC case and posted a very astute analysis at his/her talk page.[4] You are missed. Risker (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll come back to us soon, Giano. Raul654 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.. please come back. Cant believe you can give up like this and walk away. The project needs you more than they need a dozen trigger happy admins. Please please come back. Take a break if you want.. but please come back. You cant let them run you off like this.. not for wikipedia's sake. Sarvagnya 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You speak truth to power; We are less for your absence. I wish you well. --SSBohio 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one deserves the abuse that Giano went through. If he comes back, there will only me more malicious and organized efforts from those with tools to stop him from actively contributing. I support him leaving. Wikipedia is a heavily flawed project that is well on the path to self-destruction. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but leaving the field to the bad guys doesn't help those of us who want Wiki to work. The notion that a vote of 60% is consensus but not a vote is the kind of intellectual cretinism that is dooming this project. Too many Arts Grads and not enough scientists is you ask me! (Apologies to Giano) :-) Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An over-preponderance of arts grads? really? you must be joking?--Joopercoopers (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I joke! Sarah777 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Giano II. I'm not sure if we've met before, but alot of editors here seem upset about your pending departure. I'm curious, who are you & why are you leaving Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....an interminable silence follows that question.....Heuston, we have a Godot situation! Sarah777 (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, I just responded on his talk page. Risker (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you've worked extensively on, Matthew Brettingham, is up for FAR. See here. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Giano, it is shocking and surprizing to see you have decided to go away. Please re-consider your decision, and do come back. - KNM ^Talk 01:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief visit to check the page, thanks to all of you for the very nice messages above. Kosebamse sums things up perfectly. I'm very sad that Bishonen, and Geogre are not/barely editing, and strongly urge them to return, I appreciate their support, but their absence is damaging to the project, and it would please me to see them return, far more than does their absence. I never doubt their loyalty and belief in me, they don't have to prove it. Bishonen has been shamefully treated, but I would love to see her and her style returned.

Sadly, I shall not be returning myself so long as the Arbcom's vicious, spiteful, petty and, above all, planned and manipulative sanction is imposed on me. The very second I even commented on something I did not agree with every squeaking little Admin on IRC would be breathing down my neck hoping for the chance to block - and would do so, at the slightest hint of my ire or displeasure (some of them would even be provoking it) - This would then lead to maximum disruption (as certain Arbs well know, anticipate and hope for). I am as angry, still, as I was a month ago, at the way this project is managed. Most people, at least privately, accept the Arbcom case was a stitch up, from its over rapid start, to its overdue finish. I seriously do not think my behaviour and actions have in any way damaged the project [5], in fact, over the years, quite the reverse. I think the behaviour or certain others achieves that goal far more successfully. I just ruffle a few over preened feathers of some very vain birds, and, of course, point out some unwelcome truths to some other birds with their heads firmly buried in the sand. However, the truth will always emerge eventually, no one can stop that, not even the Arbs.

So, thanks for all the support and the emails, I think I have finally answered them all - Keep on writing, the content of this site is still brilliant and can't be bettered anywhere, and it continues to improve. Who knows - one day I might even be on that bloody Arbcom! Giano (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I won't edit while Giano is under a humiliating and unreasonable restriction, but I'd like to get it on record that that is not the only reason I've withdrawn from editing at this time. It's only one out of three. The others are what I consider the corruption of the RFAR/IRC process (per User talk:Kosebamse and the dissenting opinion and other commentsof arbitrator Paul August); and also the disrespect and indignities with which the arbitration committee, bodily and in many cases individually, treated myself and my friends. Examples:

• Corruption: Is there any form of "unseemly conduct" described in the final decision principle "Decorum" that Fred Bauder has failed to perpetrate during the process? Such conduct, "including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system, is stated to be "prohibited", and presumably liable to be sanctioned in some way; but clearly not if an arbitrator is doing it. I wrote to Fred Bauder and upbraided him, but received no reply; a non-responsiveness intolerable from a regular admin, as has been determined in many RFAR's, but, apparently not at the top.

A more significant piece of corruption, because it put the parties in startlingly unjust positions vis-a-vis one another, was that one party to the case, David Gerard, had free access to reading the arbitrators' secret mailing list, and thus knew what they were discussing, what they thought important, etc.; the other parties did not. The collection of excuses that were made for this was a cringingly feeble thing. I wrote an e-mail to arbitrator Paul August, of whose good faith and interest I had hopes, protesting the inhumanity and injustice of this and other aspects of the proceedings. I hoped he would pass it on to their mailing list, but have no means of knowing whether he did (his reply was brief and cool to the point of nullity).

• Disrespect: This was what the intensively studied "Proposed decision" page looked like for weeks on end. Not a lot like the tidied-up final decision, as you can see. Note the way Giano, Geogre and I are locked in its stocks by UninvitedCompany and by means of various careless, thoughtless, incivil comments from arbitrators who call over and over for "civility" from the parties, and pity themselves for being "sick, sick, sick to death" of having to do with these rude users; yet few of them extend a smidgeon of civility to these users. As for empathy, forget it, bury it, and dance on the grave. This protest from a well-known user gives some perspective. Not least in the reaction of (then) arbitrator Mackensen, who calls it a sample of a "hypersensitivity". Doc glasgow, of all people, hypersensitive?--does some frightening petrification of the imaginative and sympathetic faculties happen at the moment users join the arbcom? It looks a bit like it. (They surely shouldn't be on it for three whole years if that's the case.)

Not editing is not merely, or mainly, a demonstration to show my loyalty, Giacomo. Two thirds of it is that, finding myself kicked from the calm waters of "respectable admin" to the maelstrom of "problem user", and having seen from the inside how the top proceedings of our dispute resolution can be conducted, I just never seem to feel like editing any more. I know that you still value, and in some ways, love, the project. You're not really disillusioned about it like me. Well, we both have room to change, possibly.--Bishonen | talk 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I think you did the right thing. I hope you come back.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for doing the right thing and standing up for what is right. Oreo Priest 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a great deal, thank you. Giano (talk)

You will probably despise me for making the comparison, but in my opinion, yourself and JzG are among the elite Wikipedia editors for a simple reason: when you're not going off the deep end over something that tickles your bonnet, you both have the ability to take a dispassionate view, distill the essence into a very few words, and cover all the points in a readable discourse.

Congratulations on your excellent analysis. I would only have been able to muster "Yawwn" as a comment, you have done much better. Here's hoping you'll be back in force soon - but a calm force. A much wiser 'pedian pointed out to me that if you are getting emotional about something, it's probably better to let someone else deal with it. Again, my great respect for your contributions to Wikipedia, and looking forward to more of the same... :) Franamax (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first instance you are quite correct. If you check my history you will see I am completely consistent, always. It is transparently obvious to anyone with half a brain that Wales is innocent as charged, someone just needed to point it out.The charity world can be a very uncharitable place. Nice to see, the loyal Arbonauts, our leading Wikipediams, as usual when required seemed to be conspicuous by their absence, no doubt pre-occupied chatting elsewhere. Giano (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the "first instance" - does that mean that you do in fact despise me? :)

I have checked some of your extensive history, as I do for all those editors I've found respect for. You are certainly consistent. I think my point about emotionalism still stands.

As regards the "loyal Arbonauts" (and certainly any establishment eventually has "members of the establishment"), their lack of response could be down to another aphorism - "keep your powder dry". Alternatively, they are feeling emotional about the issue, and are heeding that wise advice to let someone else deal with it. In any case, you have taken the lead and pretty much said it all. What more could anyone add other than "what he said!"? Franamax (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sadly, that is not the loyal Arbonauts usual response to one of my pronouncements, never mind, I'm sure thay have their agendas. No, I don't despise you, I'll forgive anybody a monumental faux pas - once! Giano (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the first step was an intentional pas-en-merde, I'll accept your forgiveness and run off now with head and neck still connected. :) Franamax (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your post on Jimbo's talk page and it certainly is a exeptional analisis, I wish half of the admins could present such honesty when posting their opinions. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, bang on the money. Seriously, if this was an employee in my company it would not make the HR department's radar. Very small beer, and not at all uncommon as growing pains for a tiny organisation whose profile has escalated beyond all imagining in such a short time. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second'd. An excellent analysis, well said. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, it was an attempt to prove publicly how as an body we are capable of sorting, knowing and undertsanding our own problems, without cover up. When this is permitted one often sees the problem is not quite as bad as painted.This is certainly the case here. Then just as I think we are one step forward, we go two steps backwards [6]. Giano (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think you've got this one right. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am really unhappy...what is wrong with Australian Chardonnay??? XD [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As you know being a key part of that crowd, the discussion was started, restored and is being continued by long running ax-grinders with Jimbo. Don't think others don't see through this. Transparently using 'concern' as a reason to air Jimbo's dirty laundry and create drama is by definition disruptive editing. For that reason alone it can and should be ended and archived. You want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios? This isn't the place for it; do it offsite. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a vicious assumption of bad faith, have you actually read Giano's contributions there? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No assumption needed on my part, Giano's history of having an ax to grind on the topic is a matter of record both on and offsite, easily enough found. And having read his comments is why I archived the discussion and why I'm here. Ever hear the term 'oblique attack' or 'damning with faint praise'? Wikipedia is not the place to air anyone's dirty laundry. Period. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people disagree with you FM (see two threads above) but apparently that does not matter. I would note that so far you seem to be the only person reading Giano's statement as "damning with faint praise" and you might want to consider whether you are merely misinterpreting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of strong Jimbo supporters are also involved in the thread, and indeed I thought that 2 known Jimbo critics, Giano and Cla, were being very supportive and constructive in the thread, sure Bram was being less so but that is not sufficient reason to throw out the whole thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any reasonable person could consider Giano's airing of Jimbo's dirty laundry and the thinnly-veiled gloating of those two can be seen as being 'supportive and constructive' much less "very supportive and constructive." FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I read yesterday on one of the mailing lists a very well known and prominent lady editor bewailing the fact that Wikipedia no longer has a community spirit, she is correct the community spirit that it had when I cam here 4 years ago is all but gone, or at best vastly reduced. The reason for this 100% is that too much is now said off wiki which could, and should be said, on wiki. The last time, I looked the much overdue debate concerning J Wales was amounting to a vote of confidence. He needed to know how we all felt, and we needed to now how we all felt - so what is wrong with that? You Felonius Monk would rather everyone was bitching in some secretive corner - well then you are a fool. Giano (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]