hee hee

impressively dumb!

(sorry DG, you're a pussycat, I know... but that was spectacularly useless!)

This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while. Not sure if you were in on the joke, David, but either way, well done. All talk of ousting David should be disregarded- he is the best parody of himself we could ask for. Friday (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday's opinion:

====Statement by [[User:Phil Sandifer]]====

I encourage the arbcom to accept this case. I cannot see any fault in David's actions here - to my knowledge "commonly known" is not a criterion in [[WP:SOCK]]. However, this adds to the laundry list of instances in which it is obvious that no sanctions can ever be made to stick on Giano regardless of their relationship to policy - even a block that is well-founded in existing sockpuppet policy is, apparently, grounds for swift reversal.

Given that the community has consistently failed to show any capability for regulating the conduct of this user, it falls to the arbcom to do so. I am prepared, should the case be accepted, to document the lengthy history of disruption and incivility on the part of Giano.

But I encourage the arbcom to accept this and deal with this situation for once and for all - either to put an unambiguous sanction on Giano that cannot be overturned by the circle of protection he has managed to gather, or to pass a finding noting that despite his incivility, the arbcom washes their hands of it and accepts that the community has consented to put him above the law such that his special status can be enshrined in policy and we can be done with this idiotic drama surrounding good faith efforts to deal with an uncivil user who serially violates policy.

It's getting better and better.

Wikipedia is rapidly evolving into a reality show.

What matters is the CONTENT and how Wikipedia, and "Wikipedians", are dealing with that CONTENT.

The interpersonal stuff - all the bannings and blocks and scraps and hypocrisy - can be an interesting sideshow and can act as a Soap Opera worth watching on occasion, but it is the product of the "dysfunctional social network" and has little to do with the stuff kids bring up on their google searches.

That's why some of Lar's questions were interesting to me. Because they addressed BLP issues, Flagged revisions, and hinted of WPs inevitable failure of "reaching a consensus" to move forward with these serious problems. Another crucial question asked whether people supported editor unaccountability / anonymity, and why? Lar's questions can be used as a survey to ascertain whether long term Wikipedos had learned anything over the past 3 years or so, and whether they are prepared to change, move forward, or at least set an example?

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens, and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.

I have a sneaky suspicion that all folks who run for ArbCom are checkusered (it makes sense, if you think about it) and that may be what's going on here.

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens, and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.

I think Wikipedia should seriously consider if David Gerard's continuing use of the administrator tools is something we really want. SirFozzie (talk)

Already a thread about it, just for your information

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21205&hl=

A bit hidden though.

None of these joke account sockpuppets should be allowed, and they certainly should not be allowed to run for ArbCom. Just before I found about about this incident, I was thinking about asking some tough questions on "Catherine's" questions page about the disruptive nature of the candidacy. On the other hand, this idea that it was a "good hand/bad hand" situation or that it was deceptive sockpuppetry is simply ludicrous, as there was clearly no malice or deception involved in it. Gerard just saw it as an opportunity to take Giano down a notch, to pursue the grudge, and his conduct (in this as well as many, many other instances) certainly warrants desysopping.

David Gerard was obviously trolling, but he's also in the clear in terms of abuse.


Q1:Did he abuse checkuser?

A: He CU'd a publicly undisclosed sock that was running for arbcom. Whilst his motives are strongly smelly here, there's no way he'd be sectioned sanctioned for that. He had "probably cause". The socking was obvious, and technically there's no way to dispute the contention Giano was either gaming or being disruptive. (I don't actually think he doing either - but Gerard's contention here is easily defensible enough to get him off the hook).

Q2: Did he breach the privacy policy?

A: No. No IP or personal information was disclosed. Linking to pseudonym accounts breaches nothing.

Q3: Did he misuse his admin blocking powers?

A:Probably the easiest charge to sustain, but also the least serious. Blocking was unnecessary, he could have removed the arbcom candidature with "checkuser confirms undeclared sock of established user". He could have e-mailed Giano and asked him to declare the sock (however, Giano had already blown off Thatcher's communique - so that was maybe pointless). Indef blocking a disruptive sock is standard policy, and although I don't see too much disruption the case can be made. So we are left with the 24 hour block of Giano - pointless really, and obviously for dramatic effect - but we've been here before.

Verdict: no sanctionable abuse, but he does get a "troll of the year" nomination. However the competition for the actual award will be tough.

I just don't like the thought of David Gerard knowing my name and address - he might want an invitation to tea or something. What would my wife think, if DG turned up on the doorstep? Saying: "Hello, I'm David a friend of Giano's?" All very worrying.

Giano

I just don't like the thought of David Gerard knowing my name and address - he might want an invitation to tea or something. What would my wife think, if DG turned up on the doorstep? Saying: "Hello, I'm David a friend of Giano's?" All very worrying.

Giano

I'm jolly glad you didn't ask any questions, Everyking - I've always quite respected you. The very funny thing is no-one seems to have noticed that she threw most of the questions out of the window, there was no way in hell she could posible have got onto the Arbcom or was serious candidate. I really thought everyone knew who she was, after the questions she asked on MBisanz's page even he must have known, it is inconceivable. As for the candidate statement.....Never mind the poor old thing is dead now - we shall not see her like again because parodying and satyring the Arbcom and state of Wikipedia is no longer allowed. Perhaps it never was. I doubt Gerard was allowed to do this without some form of permission from somewhere, but it will always be a secret who gave the go ahead.

Giano

I usually just go to Jimbo's talk page and ask him straight up why he doesn't help fix the darn thing, but that obviously hasn't worked very well.

..and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page!

...and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page! Will Beback is at his sphincter-clenching, humorless best as he attempts to present a defense of Gerard -- only to run afoul of his erstwhile Siamese twin SlimVirgin, who has a new axe to grind, namely that checkusers are bad.

Can you say how often and when you've checkusered CdB?

According to various posts of yours, you did indeed e-mail lots of people about it, or consult them in some other way. My point about this giant fuss that it's incredibly self-important, and it's this taking of yourself so seriously that triggers the authoritarian, bureaucratic, humourless, irony-free, heavy-handed reaction. I'm reminded of the characters in Solzhenitsyn's novels.

Also, Thatcher, please don't refer to me again in your posts, no matter how obliquely. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably Giano should have said that all the goth male foul-mouthed short-tempered English en-checkusers who are NOT stewards, are a disgrace. Then, he'd have been okay.

Annnd we have a block. 55 hours for calling Gerard a disgrace.

You are misrepresenting that conversation. I was directly referring to DTobias's remark, just above, and someone mistook that part of my remarks as referring to you. It did not. I referred to people who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your content contributions are voluminous, high quality, and much appreciated.

That doesn't change the fact that your behavior in terms of trolling and carrying on the way you do is unacceptable. You know this. And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173588881

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon.

Annnd we have a block. 55 hours for calling Gerard a disgrace.

Seen it before. Didn't like it then. Doubt I'd like it now... So I hope you're wrong.

I'm not trying to gloat, Lar, and I can tell you and others sincerely believe that Wikipedia can make a difference as a free, online encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia started out with the best of intentions and idealism, but there were missed opportunities at the start and things fell apart. The wounds and problems are just too deep. You can't do anything with others without trust and cooperation... and there's really no trust left in the Wikipedia community. Too many hurt feelings and too much grief.

I am shocked that the committee show no willingness to accept this case. This is a unique chance to make it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.

Some of these overusers of article space resources even go to great lengths to motivate themselves (and others of similar inclinations) by employing humour. This may be acceptable in some open source or open content projects, but not in Wikipedia. (A common misconception, resulting from the fact that not all infractions can be persecuted, is that humour is allowed within reason.) We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system. Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.

Checkusering as a means of intimidation is already a standard response to POV pushing and random article defacements. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a much more dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. It needs to be treated in the same way. I am concerned that Arbcom, unlike our checkusers, are not seeing the big picture. I urge the committee to accept the case and set an example. If the committee is afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it.
--Hans Adler (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

and SlimVirgin has unblocked.

(Block log); 04:12 . . SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (all this block achieves is an increase in drama; blocks should be prevent, not punish)

You know, all of a sudden, this cold doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Sure I've been in bed most of the day, and I can barely think straight, but it must be better then dealing with this?

and SlimVirgin has unblocked.

.. No. I don't agree with the block, but I wouldn't have done something that's going to blow up like this without discussing it first. This sucks. This absolutely sucks.

That's a power play if I've ever seen one. But, who cares really? I suggest that everyone start saving their favorite articles to their hard drives, so when en.Wikipedia finally implodes, or when someone starts a new wiki-project with acceptable governance processes, we can copy our saved articles over to it and move onward without looking back.

and SlimVirgin has unblocked.
(Block log); 04:12 . . SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (all this block achieves is an increase in drama; blocks should be prevent, not punish)

"I've unblocked in part because this is more of the humourless self-importance that caused the previous block, and in part because these IRC blocks of Giano have to stop."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253560725

I predict more of an exodus. ... It may take a long time for the exodus to affect Wikipedia; however, it eventually will.

I'm not trying to gloat, Lar, and I can tell you and others sincerely believe that Wikipedia can make a difference as a free, online encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia started out with the best of intentions and idealism, but there were missed opportunities at the start and things fell apart. The wounds and problems are just too deep. You can't do anything with others without trust and cooperation... and there's really no trust left in the Wikipedia community. Too many hurt feelings and too much grief.

Lovely comment on Giano talk page:


Oh yes and Adler knows his stuff. Many good contributions to articles on mathematical logic, which were in a poor state before he joined, and he is well known in the profession.