This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deskana (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 2 December 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:14, 2 December 2008 by Deskana (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)