Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:40, 3 December 2008

File:Animalibrí.gif

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)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (2008)

Essays:

• A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

• A few thoughts on Misplaced Pages (unfinished)

Interesting diffs

Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy "I'm reminded of the characters in Solzhenitsyn's novels."

Please do not leave new messages below

Gone! Giano (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of civility parole

Giano, you are once again in violation of your civility parole. Your comments here were unacceptable. As such, I have blocked you for 55 hours, not only for this violation of your parole, but the other violations that were pointed out to you by FT2 here. Please use this time to take a break, and come back with the high quality contributions we know you are capable of. --Deskana (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for leaving this comment here, contrary to the above request. I'd clicked "New section" before you'd posted it. --Deskana (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, can you link to the written permission required by ArbCom - per the SlimVirgin finding (I shall find a diff in a moment). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here. And he voted for it, so I'd assume he'd be aware. 96.15.152.244 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that is it. So what is needed is the diff to that discussion and written permission. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If Jimbo really did accuse Giano of involvement in an outing campaign on Misplaced Pages Review - something for which I have never seen any evidence, then I think Giano's response is understandable and the use of his civility parole to silence him inappropriate. I also agree with LessHeard, could you confirm that the committee is endorsing your block. Ideally this would have been done by a vote on Wiki, though I suppose it may have happened on the list. Which Arbs support this block? WJBscribe (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I was just dropping by to post the same, nearly verbatim. It would be difficult to remain civil in the face of an accusation of "outing" another editor. This block seems wrongheaded to me, especially given the fact that Giano has apparently washed his hands of the project. _D.D.J.Jameson 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pile-on agree. I don't think even Giano's worst enemies have ever accused him of outing editors on Misplaced Pages Review; if someone made an allegation like that about me, I'd be "uncivil" in my response, too. – iridescent 23:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Props to User:WJBscribe for speaking up while he is a candidate at election. Deskana, while technically correct, I think this block is going to produce exactly the opposite of the desired results. When there are accusations of impropriety, immediately sanctioning the messenger is exactly the wrong response. I say this as a PR professional. Jehochman 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Deskana, I'd like to see the written permission too. SlimVirgin 23:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. After having reviewed Giano's statement, I agree that it was an obvious violation of sanctions. Regardless of whether or not it was provoked, to respond with "stick it where the sun don't shine" is clearly uncivil. However, I also agree that the recent ArbCom ruling does require the approval of the Arbitration Committee. Then again, Deskana is an arbitrator, so my own good faith assumption is that Deskana is now consulting with the other members of the Arbitration Committee for confirmation of the block. If there is no consensus among the arbitrators about the block, then it should be lifted, and Deskana should be cautioned to not take further actions in regards Giano, without prior Committee approval. But pending other comments from arbs, I feel that the current action was appropriate. --Elonka 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jehochman. He speaks quite wisely, and his predictions may very well come true. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This evening in an email Wales has said that Giano "aggressively participates" in Misplaced Pages's outing campaigns. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I mean futher, I may have my faults but that is about as low as it gets, and I'm not that low. If he even bothered to look at WR I have even tried to protect his privacy there. My dislike of outing anyone is well known to several members of the Arbcom, this means that Wales is either a liar of fed by liars - so he is either a liar or a fool - I work for neither. Good luck to you all, but I'm out of here - Oh and Deskana you know what to do with block don't you? Giano (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that any assertion that Giano is involved in outing is bullshit and that all posts I have seen by Giano to WR have strongly defended the rights of users to edit anonymously. I suspect most of us would lose our cool if such an accusation were made concerning us. WJBscribe (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WJB. While giano's language may have been intemperate, he's not wrong to be extremely angry and frustrated by the blase lumping of himself with the 'outers' at WR. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Giano has as of this moment only 117 posts to Misplaced Pages Review. There is a simple and effective search tool that lets you see all posts by a given member. I'd challenge anyone to find Giano outing people there. rootology (C)(T) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano - Would there be any way of letting us know in what context the email was sent? Was he directly accusing you of outing people, or was it to a third party? Of course, the mere suggestion of you outing someone is ridiculous - your feelings are too strongly against users that mount those types of campaigns. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats the significance of this question? If Jimmy Wales issues a false statement about someone here, and it sticks, it's essentially a Wiki "death sentence". Even if Wales said that to someone else, or in another context, thats just not on. Even if he said it on the Arb list, it's still not appropriate if it's not true and Jimmy would be out of line for it. rootology (C)(T) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an important point. If he's making here say behind Giano's back, I think it's worse than if he confronted Giano directly about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rootology. The only recourse from Mr. Wales statement is an unequivical retraction/appology for it. Otherwise, it is a form of wiki lynching (imo), rather than a death sentence. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point by you Ryan. If it was behind Giano's back, that's not on at all, even less than a direct accusation. Wales has no special right to slag people falsely. rootology (C)(T) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo also posted here that Giano was involved in a campaign to out FT2, which is quite false so far as I know. However, in Jimbo's defence, I think this is a case of him being badly advised. I hope he'll explain who told him Giano was outing people. SlimVirgin 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

(4) of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin requires ArbCom assent to enforce a civility sanction that already has pretty much zero support, not the action of one Arbitrator (which was what created the need for the motion in the first place). An editor accused of outing is likely to feel aggrieved and act intemperately. I do not think this block is right or supported by policy. I have therefore unblocked Giano. WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For the love of compassion, is there any reason that this couldn't have waited for you to gather more than an hour's worth of consensus building or for someone to speak on behalf of the committee to unblock in direct contravention of the OTHER relevant part of that motion?--Tznkai (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

the approval discussion is supposed to happen before hand. the blocking admin was asked for a link to the discussion right away, and did not provide one. Hence, the assumption that the discusion did not occur. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole point of the motion was to require some sort of process before the block. What did blocking without following the motion do for encyclopedia building? The block was not valid without the approval, so I reversed it. If approval later arrives, Giano could be blocked again. I recognise, however, that ArbCom may now revoke my admin rights if they deem that appropriate, though I still think it right to undo an unjustified block. Do you interpret the motion as allowing them to remove my bureaucrat rights as well, or just the admin ones? As to encyclopedia building, I suspect that will benefit more from Giano's ability to write content than my admin tools. WJBscribe (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the question I asked. I understand you are standing on the principle that the civility restriction is bad for the encyclopedia, that you believe that said restriction has no support, that you think that the block was invalid. The question was this: why the hell couldn't it wait? Why use one motion and ignore the other?--Tznkai (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Any block outside of policy can be reversed by anyone under IAR, as blocks are not sacrosanct no matter who places them if they are improper. If Jimmy did falsely accuse Giano of some fictional malfeasance, then as WJB says there are extra circumstances at play here, making this (unfortunate) block nearly political and/or punative. As neither Jimmy nor any Arb nor the AC as a whole are empowered to do political or punative blocks, then this was a good move. Whats the point of letting a bad block stand? Admins don't serve at Jimmy's pleasure. rootology (C)(T) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats a lot of conjecture and assumptions and ultimately irrelevant. I just want to know why this couldn't wait for the Committee to speak up or for a genuine community consensus to develop. Why couldn't it wait? I'm hoping its self evident why such speedy unblocks need their speed justified.--Tznkai (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• WJBcribe, I have no opinion on whether the block was justified, having not looked into it. But the recent slim desysopping was all about a single admin setting himself/herself over the arbitration committee. An arb just blocked Giano, and I'm sure the committee would be informed and either undo or endorse. You setting yourself up as protector of process is precisely the type of loan-ranger admining we don't need. Well, congratulations, you just turned my probably election support into a strong oppose.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  I think looking into it would have been a good starting point. The whole point of the ArbCom sanction was to stop unilateral blocks to apply so nebulous a sanction (it would of course had been better had theyl ifted it altogether). And actually, I wasn't thinking of the election when I acted - it just seems to me that ArbCom set up a set of rules one day and disregard them a few days later. WJBscribe (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • As a practical matter, WJBscribe could reverse his unblock and wait for clarification. I think that would be a safe move and would not hurt Giano at all, because Giano told me he's AFK until tomorrow. Jehochman 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • (e/c)The motion was also was designed to prevent wheel wars and any user putting themselves above the community or the Committee without the clear backing of the community, a principle in any other case I'm certain all of us would at least grant reasonable credence to. I have every reason to believe you did this in good faith WJB, but I still expect an answer: why do the known and predicable damage done in rushing ahead? What good came from it?--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  Good unblock, Will, you made my probable into an immediate yes vote, you are jsut the sort of chap we need on the arbcom to turn it around. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't sit here and watch WJBscribe take flak for undoing my action when people really are assuming too much of me. I can admit when I was wrong, and I certainly was here. Regardless of whether or not the block was appropriate, I did not act with the prior approval of the other Arbitrators. I swear to you all that this was not because I count myself higher than anyone else on this project, but it was due entirely to me acting before I thought about what I was doing. I clicked "block" totally certain of my actions, then immidiately began to doubt what I'd done. WJB is aware of this as he contacted me shortly after I blocked Giano and I told him that I had not acted with prior approval of the Committee. So please, if there's someone to take flak here, it's clearly not him. I dismissed (unrelated) claims that people raised with me earlier about acting rashly and without any kind of prediction. I shouldn'tve done. --Deskana (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(I missed the opportunity to add "well done, Deskana!" here. That was a courageous post.--Wetman (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

If he hadn't been drama seeking, he'd have invited you to undo your own block. That would have been better judgement instead of this stunt. Did he invite you to undo it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I wasn't sure whether it was the right course of action or not, due to receving mixed messages from people. Acting rashly got me into the situation, and I wasn't about to act rashly again. --Deskana (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging this, Deskana. SlimVirgin 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So, let me see if I have the timeline correct. Deskana blocks, WJB notices, sends notice, Deskana pauses, WJB unblocks, doesn't say "because Deskana told me its OK" Deskana comes in and sets it all straight?--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's because I didn't tell him it was OK. I told him I didn't have a clue what to do. --Deskana (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, block, unblock, block etc. Ya'll are gonna give Giano whip-lash. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks? 70.254.46.118 (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if Deskana was wrong here, I hope others note his honesty in admitting his error. I think many of the processes that aren't working at the moment would benefit from people being more ready to do the same. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Without putting to fine a point on this: why didn't this entire episode gone like this:

• Deskana makes a block
• WJBscribe points out the Arbitration Committee permission required remedy
• Deskana goes "oops"
• WJBscribe unblocks with "Deskana made a mistake, nothing to see here, move along"

Why exactly, did we instead waste a great deal of time arguing the merits of the motions and the blocks and so on?--Tznkai (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I had known for sure it would play out in this manner, now doubt that's what had happened. The point is we did not agree, and I did not feel that a block made outside of the terms of the sanction that allowed for however long it might take for everyone to debate what should be done. Leaving a contributor dangling in such a manner is a sure way to make them feel unwelcome. WJBscribe (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Because some process and wonks always have to insert themselves in each debate revolving around anything Arbcom, rather than positively enhancing Misplaced Pages? Just guessing. rootology (C)(T) 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too subtle: this entire situation could have been avoided with an unblock message and summary that didn't attract drama and bring up unnecessary issues.--Tznkai (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Both WJBscribe and Deskana have acted responsibly. It might not be worst thing if everyone else did and said exactly nothing until tomorrow. Tom Harrison 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This should have gone better, as Tznkai said. But also it could have gone a lot worse. Deskana, thanks for the clarification.

I can clarify to the community where the intial issue appears to be. Jimbo, Giano and another user (who will name themselves if they wish) were in dialog. The other user asked Jimbo to verify and "comment on" some personal information. Jimbo's reply was to do so to that user (and this was appropriate and with consent) but to not copy the information to Giano, with the reason that he felt Giano "participates" in outing campaigns. Not "is involved in", and not "has outed anyone", but "participates in". If someone who's familiar with WR recently (in the last 2 months?) wants, they could confirm if it's accurate that Giano has or has not taken an active part in speculation or other debates that might be construed as "participation in outing campaigns"? Or could reasonably be perceived to? That would clear up what might be a simple issue of wording. Thanks. FT2  03:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I just checked Merriam-Webster, and its fairly clear that the two words mean basically the same thing:

• Participate- "1: to possess some of the attributes of a person, thing, or quality; 2 a: to take part"
• Involve- "1archaic : to enfold or envelop so as to encumber; 2 a: to engage as a participant" Cla68 (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jimbo, Giano and another user (who will name themselves if they wish) were in dialog." FT2 - if you were not one of the three (Jimbo, Giano, or the other user) - how were you involved with the dialog so as to be able to relate this finding? Uncle uncle uncle 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering. SlimVirgin 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This was an email from Jimbo to SlimVirgin, CC'ed to me because it was my information SV was asking about (and Jimbo confirming he knew beyond doubt). Unless it was BCC'ed, SlimVirgin can check her facts and not "wonder". I was not otherwise part of the dialog, nor copied or CCed any of the other emails in the discussion, so I can't comment as to context. FT2  11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed familiar with WR. And I can confirm that it is false to say that Giano participates in outing campaigns. And that it he can not reasonably be perceived to do so. What he did do is say that the notion that David Gerard would know anybody from Corsham is laughable. That this has been massively misreprented as FT2 and Jimbo have done is evidence that FT2 and Jimbo are either not competent at looking at the relevant evidence. GRBerry 05:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, check your facts please. If you feel even one word of my description is in error, please clarify. FT2  11:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked my facts relevant to my prior statement before I posted the prior statement. I stand by it. In addition, now that I am at the office and have checked the relevant emails from December 5-8 2007, (I was one of the administrators handling the situation then) I can confirm an additional falsehood in your description of the situation and history. Here you claim that "the oversighter took no action when the diff was linked, or for a time afterwards." That is also false. The diffs were not posted on Misplaced Pages - indeed the first block on Damian's original account was lifted by WJBScribe on 4 December 2007 with advice to Damian to "substantiate them with diffs", which Damian had not previously done. Damian never did so on Misplaced Pages. The first link to any diffs was two that were in a blog post made in the earl hours UTC on 6 December. WJBScribe reblocked. That blog post was deleted from the blog by Damian before 3:30 PM UTC on 6 December. By the end of the day on the 6th, WJBScribe and myself had largely gotten the situation under control - Damian had agreed to discuss only directly with the foundation, and WJBscribe had referred the matter to Jimbo and Cary Bass. Then on the 7th or 8th of last December somebody oversighted the only two diffs Damian had ever linked to. Damian discovered this on the morning of the 8th and lost all trust in the foundation. I can substantiate everything in this paragraph with diffs on Misplaced Pages or emails that I received or sent last December.

I read the diffs last December, and when I realized that they had been oversighted I was quite convinced that it was both a stupid move and a violation of the oversight policy. For me, the only new news on this subject this year is that Gerard was the one to do the oversighting. I have no idea how he became involved. My assessment of the situation for a long time has been that the oversighting is a "but for" cause of the entire FT2 forum over on Misplaced Pages Review - but for Gerard's actions this situation would have been dealt with by WJBscribe and others including myself last December without losing a good content contributor and without the threads Damian has started over there. I also believe that enough editors believe strongly enough in WP:NOT#CENSORED that an open discussion of the situation last December would not have sunk FT2's ArbComm candidacy - but the way that FT2, Gerard, Postelthwait, and others prevented meaningful discussion was a bigger problem than the actual substance of FT2's edits. GRBerry 15:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, GRBerry is hitting the nail on the head. Gerard has used Oversight foolishly, causing a ton of trouble and there should be a consequence. Those at the top need to listen to those in the trenches. Sometimes we have a better idea how to handle situations, because we deal with them every day. Jehochman 15:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Christ, this again? Is it possible that once, just once, someone will block Giano without it immediately being overturned, thus contributing to further drama? Also, is it possible that Giano isn't blocked nearly so often? This ever-recurring situation simply isn't acceptable. Presuming Giano's behavior is causing the blocks, having them stick would end up with this happening a lot less often, because Giano would actually be forced to modify his behavior. Or, if Giano actually is as innocent as a saint, there should also be fewer blocks, though for a different reason. --Cyde Weys 04:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• If the opinion of the project's administrators is required at any point here, or is at any point viewed as pertinent to the discussion, then let it be known that I agree with and support WJB's unblock (with the caveat that should Giano in future practice disruptive conduct the block would be restored). AGK 16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Related policy question

Please see: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration#Policy question: Undoing Arb blocks rootology (C)(T) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted to say hello. Back to the same ol place, the place that it seems like we are always in. I'm kinda glad that its you, not me. But we both know that if it was me, that 55 would be followed by days. Haha, that should cheer you up a bit. I will probably be blocked for this. Oh well. C'est la vie. I'll see you on the other side.

P.S. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness or your action, or any such thing. I just have compassion for the ol Wiki Dragons. We are a dying breed (but sometimes because of our own actions). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing Giano, you and I have definitely had our differences in the past (and maybe on through to the present), but everything I've ever seen you do or say left me with the strong conviction that you would never participate in any sort of outing campaign. I think Jimbo's criticism of you in this instance was a case of guilt by association (which happens to be why I don't hang out at Misplaced Pages Review). Maybe you could have approached your response to Jimbo as correcting a mistaken belief instead of accusing him of libeling you. Assume good faith and all. This situation definitely would've been better had you done so. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. I am rarely shy in offering my opinion when I (almost always) disagree with Giano. I feel it would be wrong of me to keep silent now, then. Giano has many faults, but he is not some one who would maliciously out another editor on WR. When I was having problems with WR participants publishing my personal information, Giano very generously offered to use his considerable influence to help me any way he could. I hope Jimmy will reconsider his statement and we can all get back to tar and feathering Giano for more justifiable transgressions. Rockpocket 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Having been in a situation like this myself, there is nothing worse than having the finger pointed and nothing to back it up. I honestly think this is becoming a very bad joke, and should really stop. Giano is one of the very best editors on this project, and I agree with Rock, Giano is not some one who would maliciously out another editor, any where. Since I'm not a player in this long running drame my opinion can be taken with a pinch of salt. However, if even I can see whats happening here says a lot. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And I might add that when Giano thought (mistakenly) that I was excusing a ('friendly') editor for attempting to "out" another editor he said that "outing" was a cardinal sin no matter who did it and that it was unforgivable - or words to that effect. Sarah777 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Giano

As JWales is standing by his allegation. Here is the truth: JWales and I had an email dialogue in early September 2008, which touched on FT2. I was concerned that allegations on WR, following hot on the Poetlister debacle were damaging to Misplaced Pages's international reputation. A view I still hold. My email to JWales began "I don't know if you have seen last weeks outing of FT2, on WR, nor do I know if the damaging allegations contained in that outing are true or not, and it doesn't really matter because it is only one small part of what appears to be a recurring overall problem." I obviously can't post JWales' replies but I can tell you that he did not agree that such allegations were damaging to Misplaced Pages and that was the end of the correspondence which consisted of approximately 6 emails.. I was not aware we had parted with any bad blood. In fact, 2 weeks later we had a perfectly reasonable exchange concerning an unwell, former Wikipedian attempting to damage the project - and we were in complete mutual agreement on handling that matter.

Last night, In an email to to third party (not FT2) JWales made the false claim that I (Giano) "participates in WR and aggressively participates in their outing campaigns." This has made me more than angry. Outing people has never been one of my interests, I deplore it. I frequently warn private email correspondents against giving out too much information. I know the RL names of many of those who don't agree with some of my thoughts, but I can say without fear of any contradiction, not one of them has ever worried I would out them. I have always protected everyone's right to privacy. Even recently on WR, that of JWales' own family. The only time I have ever asked for an oversight in one "my debacles" was because an adversary had inadvertently given away private info relating the Admin who blocked me. Editors RL privacy is paramount to me, no matter who they are. To those of you, (some from a surprising quarters) who have posted kind messages on my page - thanks it means a lot. I just want you all to know that I do have standards. Giano (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe you got mixed up with Damian or Brandt or something. Anyway, who received the email? If that person knew that you are not into outing, then he or she could have told Jimbo that and there would have been no problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo and Giano have a long history. He knows Giano's not "into outing", but he accused him of that anyway. That's the problem. _D.D.J.Jameson 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone is accused of having a history with Giano, and Jimbo is accused of having a history with everyone. Who received the email matters. If the receiver knows Giano is not into outing then no problem. Also, outing can be defined differently, from publishing real life names to doing anything that will lead to secret information about someone getting spread. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• You've demonstrated at every step that you don't understand the situation. "Everyone" isn't "accused" of having a history with Giano. However, many people do have a history with him, and JWales' history with him is long. This is my last post to you on this page, though, as it doesn't seem you're attempting to understand the situation in any way. _D.D.J.Jameson 13:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It strains credulity to think of Giano outing anyone. But if what he's said off site is to count as aggressive participation in outing campaigns, then what other wikipedians have said off site should be looked at as well. Tom Harrison 13:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Yet Wales is standing behind these far-fetched accusations, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's hard to fathom what is gained from alienating one of our best contributors (even with his warts, Giano remains that) with these kind of accusations, but I guess that's the road we're heading down. _D.D.J.Jameson 13:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has strongly disagreed with Giano, and even called for arbcom to be stronger in sanctioning him, I'd like to say that I find it inconceivable that Giano would deliberately be involved with any "outing". Giano and I have exchanged many e-mails and I would go as far as to say I'd trust him before I'd trust almost all others with my own private details. I could say many unpleasant things about his conduct on wikipedia, however I have no doubts about his personal integrity or concern for people's real life situation. Jimbo has clearly got this wrong. Having said that, I'd plead with Giano to try to assume good faith here, and assume that Jimmy has clearly made some form of dreadful mistake. For once, Giano, you have every reason to be angry, but please hold it in. If Jimbo has said (or implied) what Giano suggests, it is, however, imperative that Jimbo check his facts and make a clarifying statement or retraction and apology without delay. Wikipolitics is one thing, but this goes beyond it. Further, as someone who has posted to wikipedia review, I'd caution that there are some very unpleasant users there, and anyone involving themselves with them should exercise extreme caution, both for their own protection, and lest they get sucked into some less than ethical discussion. Misplaced Pages is one thing, but we do need to remember that there are real lives involved here, and real damage can be done. The hounding SlimVirgin and now FT2 is quite deplorable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott, for your analysis. My concern is that Jimbo may have also made some form of deadful mistake in banning Peter Damian and in accepting the explanations proffered to him from the ArbCom. This matter should be explained to the community before a clever reporter susses all the details and writes about it in the New York Times. Public opinion is not kind to those who appear to be engaging in a coverup (even when there is no actual coverup). Once matters leave our little universe, our rules no longer apply and there could be real world implications. People should come forth with their best explanations as soon as possible. I'd like to defend people, but I can't do it on faith alone. I need an explanation of their actions. The explanations offered thus far are neither complete nor consistent. Jehochman 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the banning of Peter Damian? Nothing too far out of the way, Jehochman. Just your common or garden miscarriage of justice with everybody jumping on the bandwagon without any notion of informing themselves first. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC).

Jimbo has apologised - albeit through clenched teeth by the sounds of it - but it's good nonetheless. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Something I thought was worth noting, while its touching and impressive that many respected wikipedians are coming out to vouch for Giano's personal integrity, I hope most of us persisted in never doubting it in the first place. Likewise, more than a few of us do not doubt Jimbo's personal integrity and commitment to the project either - and it'd be helpful if Wikipedians - especially those only peripherally involved could withhold their commentary, conjecture and soundbytes. I don't think I'm the only one reading who doesn't know the details of the whole gory situation - nor the only one who's observed most of you have already made up your minds about the "facts" and stopped trying to inform or persuade.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are trying to say something - then have the guts to say it, if you haven't - don't. Giano (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

More plainly? I never doubted your personal integrity and commitment to the project, nor Jimbo's, and no one else should either barring real evidence to the contrary. The pathetic state of affairs we have come to is because a lot of otherwise respectable Wikipedians spend a lot of time bickering and shouting at eachother with sensational rhetoric and conjecture instead of discussing (occasionally genuinely important issues) rationally with each other. For example, this Peter Damien thing: we've got a bald faced assertion a few paragraphs up that he was blocked because of a miscarriage of justice - and not a bit of actual information. No attempt to inform or persuade - just empty rhetoric, and its useless for those of us who want to make up our own damn minds. That kind of dialog is common in the drama that surrounds you - and even if it isn't your fault, I think you should do a lot more to control it. Is that any clearer?--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is - I shall now go and look for your for your equally candid comment on JWales's page. Giano (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, ever since I've seen this comment pop up, I've been mulling over what you might be expecting me to say to Jimbo or his talk page audience, and similarly what I think I should say - and I'm still not sure. Any chance you could clarify what you might be looking for, I'm really quite interested.--Tznkai (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no chance at all because I am becoming very tired, and not a little irritated by your continued presence on this page hectoring and lecturing. When I want your advice and opinion, be assure I shall ask for it, but until that happy day perhaps you would care to find alternative employment elsehwere. Thank you. Giano (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Giano; for awhile, I thought you'd retired. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Scribe

Oh you are a card! --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am astounded by my own wit sometimes. Giano (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the alternative to shooting admirals straight out, is to promote them (then shoot them later). Either way you stop them sailing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, Giano's unblock garnered 10 supports vs 3 opposes for WJBScribe...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I for one supported simply because it seemed he did it in spite of what might happen at ACE2008. I hope you weren't impugning his motives with your last comment. _D.D.J.Jameson 13:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hell no, given the hearty discontent with teh dramaz all round and recent outcome of SV, it would have suggested that unblocking was a bad move. Personally I agreed with the process resulting in an unblock, and one of the things about civility issues is the subject of context and when/how editors lose their temper, which seems to be underexamined to date. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Casliber, you seem to be doing very nicely in the elections as it is, without having to come here, dauys after the event, making uncalled for pointy comments. I am pleased that an Arbcom candidate showed not only huge guts but also so a lot of common sense - and I am delighted others have noticed it too. This was a very exceptional matter, even by my standards, it called for exceptional action, and it got it. If other candidates are sore becasue they did not get here first, well that says more about them than it does about WJBScribe (who incidentally I was going to vote for anyway). The current elections seem to be proving that the editorship is justifiably sick and tired to death of the old Arbcom. It looks like you will be on the new Arbcom, Casliber, so I hope thoughtless comments are not an intimation of how you are intending to go on. Giano (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)