Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:12, 18 November 2009

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

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:

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (From Oct 2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (From Jan 2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (From July 2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (From Jan 2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (From July 2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (From Jan 2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (From July 2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (From Jan 2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (From July 2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (From Jan 2009)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 11 (From July 2009)

Essays and thoughts:

• A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles
• A few thoughts on Misplaced Pages (unfinished)
• One of the reasons I seldom make proper edits these days.

Please leave new messages below

Marked ANI thread partly resolved to note for the record that you did nothing wrong

I have marked partly resolved the ANI thread - I have not closed it (not trying to shut down discussion on the oversight error). But as you were extremely sensitive to the perception that this was an attack on your behavior, I wanted it on the record that consensus is that you had not done anything wrong in the edits leading up to the oversight. I am leaving the thread open until the oversight error issue is discussed and settled. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a perception, the log clearly stated that I had "made an edit revealing personal information". Thank you anyway for you clarity and consideration - I do appreciate it. It is a pity I have to make so much fuss to have such a grave matter addressed. I now know exactly what happened, and the checkuser (who is not even a Wikipedian) could not possibly have known there was the remotest, stupidist risk that I might have "made an edit revealing personal information" if he had not been told this by a very "Senior Wikipedian". I expect you know exactly what I am talking abouut GWH - so let's not discuss this further tonight. I shall resume this in the morning and each morning until I have a satisfactory answer as to what happened, and we may as well have that answer sooner rather than later because I assure you we shall have it one way or the other no matter how long it takes.  Giano  00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• At last people can see the "offending" diff: . Now all you (I already know) need to know is which people (note plural) instructed this very young and obviously naive Oversighter from another project to remove it, and why it took so long for me to prove that I had done nothing wrong and have the post restored. (eventually in full, by Luna santin about half an hour ago ). There is far more to this than meets the eye, this I know for fact, and remembering, I only ask questions when I know the answers - I hope to see some resignations during the day, then we can all forget this unfortunate incident.  Giano  10:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arb?

What leads you to believe an arb complained about the RfB statement? Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

because it was an Arb, I thought everyone knew that. He shopped on IRC because none of our oversighters would do it. IRC, when will people ever learn about that place.  Giano  19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please post or email me logs/summary. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk)

I am being implored by several Arbs (well 3 actually) to wait, and let them deal with it. Belatedly, they suddenly seem interested. I want a resignation, I think the Arb has behaved deplorably to use that German kid like that.  Giano  19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please let others do their job

Giano, you are not the conscience of the wiki. The audit subcommittee is looking at this right now. You need to be patient and wait for the report (even if it takes days or weeks). AUSC was set up precisely to stop this sort of running around hot-headed and demanding action in relation to OS and CU matters stance that you are taking. Even when you are right about such things, that does not excuse the disruption you cause as a result of stridently demanding action, and trying to bully people into precipitous or forced action. If you continue with this sort of behaviour, the only thing you are likely to force us to do is block or ban you for your behaviour. I closed the ANI thread because all that needed to be said had been said there. If you have more you want or need to say, then click this link (WP:AUSC) and send what you want to say to the e-mail address there. Carcharoth (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced thinly veiled block and ban threats are likely to be productive here Carcharoth.... Either way I look forward to the audit sub-comittee neatly sweeping this under the carpet so there's probably not much point continuing with this is there? Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• <after conflict>I have already reverted one Arb, but you seem determined to poke - so OK here it is: How dare you come here? You lot have been bullying me (or trying to) for over 24 hours denying things that we already now know to be true. Arbs claimed to have no idea this had occurred hours after the event (I spoke to them), now Coren says "the Arb" told them instantly. Either way they are in the shit because they did nothing! Bloody nothing! I can well beleive you would like to block me - that would be very convenient. "let's all laugh it off shall we - have a pint" and forget how disgustingly and deplorably one of your number has behaved. He uses a kid, trashes my name and then sits silently - and the arbCom did not have the common decency to email me and avert all of this with a simple explanation, because there bloody wasn't one - was there? Now go away and plan your whitwash, but be careful or I may through another bucket of excrement over the nice clean paint. Now I am trying to work on a new page and unless you want me to loose the plot and plaster some posts all over the place, leave me alone to get on with it in peace, I have had quite enough or Arbitrators and admins and their antics for the last 24 hours.  Giano  20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Have to say I'm with Pedro on this, and I don't find your threats to Giano to be particularly seemly or helpful. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano, if I had a bunch of edits blanked like that, I would be rather upset too. It would be like a doctor cutting off the wrong leg and simply say "oops". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Of the 21 editors who had their comments accidentally oversighted, why is it that only Giano has decided to escalate the drama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.160.19 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Their diffs were blanked. Giano's comments were removed. There is a huge difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and people say the idea that strange events surround Friday the 13th is a myth--for the first time in my Wiki career I actually find myself agreeing with Ottava! This was a hot mess all around; I'm logging on for the first time in the past 2 days, and finding THAT was....um, galvanizing. I look forward to hearing, at the very least, the "official" version of events, though I'm sure the version Giano could share would be much more likely to keep me awake tomorrow at work.GJC 03:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is not the diffs and removal that has really angered me, nor the removal, or the accusation of "outing" (a wiki-crime which I would like to see carry an automatic lifetime ban) but the fact that a young Oversighter (I don't want to be mean) but whose English is not perhaps as good as ours (I'm not saying mine is brilliant), with very limited experience of English Misplaced Pages, was actively shopped for on IRC by "others" actively incited to do so by an Arb who was unable to get one of our own oversighters to do it. That cowardly Arb, then left eceryone else to carry the can. When I exploded with rage on ANI, I had to keep all that to myself, but even then I could not beleive the other Arbs and Oversighters were doing nothing. I was later told they did not know, now we are told the Arb concerned told them straight away - who do you beleive? I'm not so much angry any more as pretty disgusted, with the lot of them for trying to supress this. As for the report, well I think we can al guess what that will say, supression is probably habbit forming.  Giano  11:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Giano, I'm not disputing or confirming anything you are saying, but this is the wrong place to be saying these things. You need to click the link I gave you, find the e-mail address on that page, and e-mail your concerns to the audit subcommittee. By its very nature, the potential sensitivity of oversight matters, even mistaken oversight actions, means that public discussion on-wiki is not helpful, because there are other factors at play here that are best dealt with in private. Now, I'm not going to be around to reply to any reply of yours, or any revert you might do of what I've said, but please listen to what I'm saying. I don't say things like this lightly. We (ArbCom and the audit subcommiteee) are aware of this, and it is being dealt with. You have a place to e-mail your concerns to. Everyone (you, me and anyone else reading this) really needs to just go and get on with other stuff, while the audit subcommittee work out exactly what happened here. That's their job and they are doing it. Further commentary on-wiki is not going to help here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I have asked you so many time to go away and reverted your sad posts here, that it is just not true. You seem determined to poke and poke. I am quite sure you do feel this is the wrong place, and I am quite sure it is very embarassing for the Arbcom to have everyone reading how thet sat on an oversight abuse orchestrated by one of their own number for hours and hours while an innocent editor was accued of "outing" and protesting his innocence while fligts of Admins kept trying to close the thread and threatening to block. Had I not shouted for so long and so loud I would still have that brand against my name and the arbs would still be doing nothing. You wrongly protected one of your own and have been caught. As for using that kid like that, well if I need to explain what is wrong with that to you, then you are obviously little better than your fellow Arb and his friend who found the kid on IRC. Now accept that and go away.  Giano  13:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And what's more Carcharoth, following this to its natural logical conclusion, if an Admin had behaved like this s/he would loose his tools. So the Arbcom and the "Arb" should be grateful I am only calling for his resignation to prevent him sitting in judgement on others. Once his name is out, I can't imagine anyone placing a great deal of trust in him again - can you? No, don't answer that, don't bother to come back - yet again.  Giano  13:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and one final thing, just in case you are trumping up a charge of blocking me for threatening nehaviour. I have no intention of outing "Randy in Boise" now or ever! He has done a bloody good job of doing that for himself.  Giano  13:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

.....and here we are days later waiting for the Arbs who comprise WP:AUSC to state and find the obvious - that one of their own abused his position. No doubt they are hoping by the time they get around to asking him and his "powerful friend" the simple question and drawing the inevitable conclusion, we will all have forgotten about it. Giano  08:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So...

Are you going to run, or not? Think about it please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Boris, but I think I a can do more from where I am. Anyway, I'm rather fussy about the company I keep. There's a more trustworthy class of person down here.  Giano  09:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FW:Palaces

Don't worry, Giano, it's ok :). --Ketamino (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon | 16:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article

I notice your user talk page is listed as a Featured article. However, it does not seem to have sufficient in-line citations. Please remedy this situation or I will be forced to list the page at WP:FAR. Thatcher 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How long has that been there? The page has been protected for months, so I can't edit it; I wonder who put it there?  Giano  20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It comes from User:Giano II/Prologue which is transcluded on this page. You put it there when you created the page in May 2009, but I don't know where you copied it from or who put it there originally. Thatcher 20:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

God knows what that ever was, I have forgotten. You can move it if you want, seeing as I am unable.  Giano  20:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither this page nor User:Giano II/Prologue is protected, you should be able to edit them yourself. It's a fitting tribute, I was trying to make a joke about FAR. I'm not a user page enforcer, do whatever you prefer. Thatcher 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, the star is also on User:Giano II which your user page directs to and which is protected (I saw it on this talk page). I still don't care about it. I'll move it if you want, or unprotect your page if you wish. Whatever you like. Thatcher 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you can defeature it, and 10 out of 10 for observance.  Giano  21:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

what have you done Thatcher? You have killed poor Spumoni.  Giano  23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

One last time

Alright, one last attempt to try to make cool heads prevail.

You made a comment which could reasonably be read as a combination outing/attack by an arbitrator unaware of the meme status of the phrase. Said arb notices, and seeks to have this oversighted (as is absolutely normal in cases of outing). Same arb emails the committee to inform it of the perceived attack. No mention of oversighting is made. Some of us read that email, and notice the probable misunderstanding. We reply as such. As far as I can glean from the timing, other arbs have noticed the erroneous oversights shortly after and arrange to have them undone (Risker seems to be the first to notice, but was not able to undo them at that moment).

Then you explode, and start insulting everyone in sight. I feel obliged to point out that while you may have been correctly insulted at having been indirectly accused of outing, it is more than a little hypocritical to complain about your name being besmirched while, in the same breath, accusing people of being liars and cowards and being both dismissive and condescending to everyone involved. And your oft repeated assertion that nothing would have been done had you not misbehaved in this way is strictly an assumption or bad faith that has no basis in reality.

The original matter of the bad suppression is in the hands of the subcommittee. The edits have been restored. Nobody seriously thinks you have outed anyone, and whomever takes a minute to examine the situation will clearly see that it was a massive misunderstanding. Back off. Now. Wait for the AUSC report (which may take a few days still) and, if you are not satisfied with its conclusion, seek redress with the committee or Jimbo.

Now for the less pleasant part of this note: you are to stay scrupulously civil and respectful to everyone if you insist on discussing the matter further. This means no backhand sniping, no condescending monikers, no barely veiled caustic sarcasm, no accusations of lies or other sins of choice. If you do not feel you can discuss the subject with dignity, then avoid the subject entirely. I will enforce this with blocks as required. And lest you start hollering about how ArbCom is persecuting you, let me be entirely clear: this is normal, routine administrative enforcement of one of our founding pillars by "just" an administrator that refuses to be bullied or intimidated. But I will bring the matter to ArbCom as a party if you force my hand.

If history is a good predictor of future behavior, you'll revert or blank this note the moment you see it. I'll consider this as acknowledgement. — Coren  00:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)