:::I don't think Stifle was sent by anyone. I suspect Thatcher, Ryan and Sam Korn realised that the situation had calmed down and that blocks wouldn't help. Stifle is perfectly capable of assessing the situation on his own. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think Stifle was sent by anyone. I suspect Thatcher, Ryan and Sam Korn realised that the situation had calmed down and that blocks wouldn't help. Stifle is perfectly capable of assessing the situation on his own. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:Oh dear. I thought that it was a bit strange that no-one had blocked Giano for those edits. In some ways, I suppose Thatcher, Ryan Postlewaithe and Sam Korn not saying anything at the time might mean something, but maybe they were just trying not to respond themselves, while still not standing in the way of anyone else who might decide to block. Stifle, I have one question - are you trying to show that the sanction is unworkable (as in that people can come along later and block even if the people initially involved don't seem that bothered - Ryan and Thatcher used page protection, and Sam didn't seem to object to the language being used), or are you trying to show that short blocks create less drama? OK, that was two questions. The block probably expired while I was writing this... [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:Oh dear. I thought that it was a bit strange that no-one had blocked Giano for those edits. In some ways, I suppose Thatcher, Ryan Postlewaithe and Sam Korn not saying anything at the time might mean something, but maybe they were just trying not to respond themselves, while still not standing in the way of anyone else who might decide to block. Stifle, I have one question - are you trying to show that the sanction is unworkable (as in that people can come along later and block even if the people initially involved don't seem that bothered - Ryan and Thatcher used page protection, and Sam didn't seem to object to the language being used), or are you trying to show that short blocks create less drama? OK, that was two questions. The block probably expired while I was writing this... [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::Carch, you are rather missing the point, the sanction is there to allow me to be blocked the second I ever start posting the truth - that is how it works and why the whole daft case was cooked up and accepted. The problem is everyone now knows that is how it works, so each time I am blocked the Arbcom appears more ridiculous than the last - everyone except the Arbcom can see that - which rather proves my point. If they weren't so devious one would pity them. Like some third world Junta. Probably planning to have me bimped off as we speak - buried in concrete or something. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::Carch, you are rather missing the point, the sanction is there to allow me to be blocked the second I ever start posting the truth - that is how it works and why the whole daft case was cooked up and accepted. The problem is everyone now knows that is how it works, so each time I am blocked the Arbcom appears more ridiculous than the last - everyone except the Arbcom can see that - which rather proves my point. If they weren't so devious one would pity them. Like some third world Junta. Probably planning to have me bumped off as we speak - buried in concrete or something. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Good to know you think I’m reliable enough. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
The Featured Article Medal
For all your contributions to featured content, especially the articles related to New Zealand architecture. Thanks for all your work. Shuddetalk 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this, a free use rationale has been added to the image page. Risker (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Recent Rfa
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've written this article as an attempt to introduce the articles on DNA, Gene and Genetics in a completely non-technical and approachable way. I was looking for some good editors with no background in science to look this over and advise me on how it could be improved. Would you have time to help with this? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you?
Where are you, Giacomo? Bishonen | talk 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, where are you? Tex (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever a regular editor is telling the self-important that they're wrong, Giano will be there. Wherever editors work for months, spending fortunes to get resources, and then have arrogant children with high school diplomas tell them that the pictures have been deleted because tags have changed, Giano will be there. Wherever a guy just tries to get by, making good articles, and the IRC channels begin buzzing with how he needs to be banned forever, Giano will be there. Geogre (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire... Giano - Rockpocket 18:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who you gonna call....Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on
It's a factual recitation of the outcome; dispute it elsewhere if you must. Thatcher 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, your edits to arbitration pages are getting disruptive now. If you remove sanctions from a closed case again, you'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you doing this? You know that it'll get reverted and you'll be asked to stop. I'd really like you to be free of restrictions as soon as possible but that needs you not to go on disruptive crusades. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought that this was too broad...especially the part about assuming bad faith, which is so open to misintepretation that it is bound to be problematic. But one thing I do know is that the majority of arbcom has a lot of respect for your work overall.--MONGO 15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was always the intention of the above mentioned that I be plagued by irritants from IRCAdmins to such an extent that I stopped editng - which I more or less have since then. Cowardly way of going on, really. Giano (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that IRC stinks, but what can we do? I tend to use the preview button before I post a comment since my original comments are full of things that might make some whine that I am not being nice.--MONGO 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno what we can do Arbs/IRC can one trust any of them, is there in fact a difference - let's face it they had no business accepting the case in the first place - it was a cook up between them all from the first moment. I think most people know that. Indeed, have they yet acted on their decision to reform IRC? - No! The only decision they were remotly interested in one was the on to "get " me. Even the other Arbs knew it was a bad move but FloNight, Deskana, UninvitedCompany, Kirill Lokshin, Sam Blacketer, Morven and Jpgordon wanted me out and were determined to pursue that goal. They are liars. The arbcom was deceitful about this case from the very moment it started Giano (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am but a peon, you have my support as always. I have long believed that those who are emotionally charged such as you and I are at times, should be accepted as being sometimes prone to making bold/strongly worded/passionate comments at times. I was always hoping that the arbitrators, who are probably less likely to respond passionately to various things, would understand that not everyone is as calm or as composed as they are. I think I should consider myself lucky that I have not had a civility restriction placed on me...but what many might refer to as my incivility, is actually just me being earnest and frank.--MONGO 16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. You don't think Cla68's comments should be cut the same slack? Ameriquedialectics 17:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Giano and Cla68 as definitely two different editors with two different agendas. Prior arbcom cases involving Giano do not show any evidence that he is vendetta driven or has been engaged in hounding, baiting and wikistalking other ediotrs for protracted periods of time.--MONGO 03:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know little about Cla68's case beyond what very respected editors are emailing me from both sides. The one thing I know for sure is that I don't trust the arbcom to fairly adjudicate it - so I will loook into it. Giano (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recognize the ridiculous civility restriction, it was dreamt up by the devious for application by the chattering stupid. Anyway those particular Arbs are not cool and composed, they are simply devious, or perhaps they just wanted to please Fred Bauder - who knows. Whatever, sadly, the other Arbs are too weak to rein them in; but at least 1=2 was firmly ignored on IRC this afternoon, so there are some changes for the better - at least some people are learning from their mistakes. I just hope those same Arbs will not be allowed to behave in similar dishonest vein on another current arbitration case. At least the community is starting to see through them, albeit very slowly. Giano (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without any comment on the decision itself (since I have never been totally convinced either way), it is not right that you edit this page. Firstly, your conflict of interest (and I do not refer to the policy by that name, which is irrelevant here) is obvious: even if it were to be removed as a sanction by community or committee, it would not be your role to mark that removal. Secondly, the fact of the committee's having made the resolution (which is what that page marks) is beyond question and does not rely upon its being accepted. I don't quite know why you are making the edits: is it because you think it makes an effective change or because it winds up members of the committee? Sam Korn(smoddy) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, please don't. You're just giving your enemies an opening. Kellyhi! 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My enemies don't need an opening they need firing! Most intelligent editors now completely dismiss "the committee" - or at least the "Gang of 7." They are regarded as people not to be trusted or admired. In short, the 7 should be sent packing. It is not only that the decision was plain wrong, the case should never have been accepted in he first place, whether it was the "Gang of 7's" agenda to be rid of me, or just plain toadying to Fred Bauder, perhaps they even thought it would stop me telling the truth about them! Whatever, I neither know nor care. However, most people accept it was one of the those reasons. So if the committee are too cowardly, and inept, to do anything about it, then others must - that is why I edited those pages. Why should we have to look at evidence of these incompetents' spite and malevolence. So untrustworthy are they, I would not want to see them judging a singing canary.
We see this so called arbitration committee making mistake after mistake and no one lifts a finger about it. They strut about receiving just about enough support from the few remaining fools and henchmen on IRC to remain in power - while most of the serious editors just ring their hands in despair or simply disappear. It is like watching the antics of a deluded self serving third world junta in the final days before an implosion. The "Gang of 7" wanted rid of me, and they may get their wish. Thanks to their efforts, I no longer see the point of editing, but I won't be going quietly. Wikipedia deserves and needs better than these sad, but vicious apologies for Arbs. How many more have to be driven off just to protect their cosy little nests and egos. They don't need me editing their decisions they need firing! Giano (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the first part of your statement. I think that those who would like you gone will be forced to stoop to baiting you, if you don't do it for them. The project is amazingly tolerant of poor behavior (see the cla/sv/fm arb case for acres of text on admin and other poor behavior). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
French chateaux anyone?
I see from the above section that things are heating up again round here. Should I go and upload some pictures I have of French chateaux, or should I go read about the latest developments? Sorry if this strikes the wrong tone, but coming back from a holiday and seeing the same old disputes going on is rather tiresome. Maybe Arbcom should be limited to behavioural disputes that affect article content, rather than disputes that are just interpersonal disputes and don't affect articles? I'm as guilty as many of typing far too much in project space and project talk pages and noticeboards, but the old saw about "writing an encyclopedia" is as true now as it was then. Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may have escaped your notice, the so call bunch of imcompetents known as the Arbcom are not interested in content, I doubt they even know it exists! Giano (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to avoid even looking at, let alone editing, in the Wikipedia namespace since I got back. <checks> Oops. I see I edited a WP:FAC and a WP:TFD. Will have to WP:TROUT myself. Seriously, though, both the chateaux I visited had spiral staircases. The Francis I spiral staircase at the Château de Blois, and the even more famous double helix staircase at the Château de Chambord. I distinctly remember reading something someone wrote on Wikipedia about spiral staircases. Was that you? Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was me, but what the fuck does that matter? i'm just the uncivil bastard who disrupts the place, while the Arbcom lies its head off. Giano (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find the article where you wrote something on spiral staircases. I found imperial staircase and Stairway#Spiral and helical stairs, but the former is not the right article, and the latter is not yours. Can you remember the article I am thinking of? About Arbcom, I've been away for a bit. Is there something simple to point to that I am missing? Something that happened in the past week? I know things were never really satisfactorily concluded, but sometimes you have to be realistic and consider that you might not get what you want from all this. You and others know that you are not what still others make you out to be, and surely that is the important thing? Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember either, I know the one you mean, there is something here [1], there may have been some more on Renaissance architecture, but that has changed a lot since I was last there. I can't rmember. On the Arbcom thing - No, nothing n the last week - it's just I don't want to live with their lies and deceit - they are a bunch of bastards - that is their problem not mine. Giano (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A spiral staircase can take you up as well as down. Let's see some good edits, whenever you're ready to make them. -- Hoary (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Neorenaissance#Features of the Neo-Renaissance is what I was thinking of, thanks. I thought that the picture there was of the Henri II staircase by the chapel (built later), but I see it is in fact the Francis I staircase by his royal apartments on the other side of the Chambord chateau. By the way, on a complete aside, Grand Staircase is a geological feature. Is there enough at Grand Staircase of the Titanic and Grand Staircase (White House) to warrant a separate article about grand staircases? Is it a distinct architectural term, different from imperial staircase? Anyway, this guidebook I have is talking about how the architectural style varies around this Henri II (or chapel) staircase from early Renaissance pediments to classical pediments on the final bits from 1685. I had to look up dormer (they seem to be talking about the windows on the wings either side, rather than the staircase), but I see what they mean. Is a tourist guide book a reliable source for this kind of thing? Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it will always tell you "their's is best" when often there are better examples elsewhere. Grand staircase, it just a meaningless grandiose term from the French - meaning the great, largest or principal staircase in a building. The term is not worthy of a page, as any form of staircasdee could be the "grand staircase" and frequently is.Giano (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'll stick to clear factual stuff and cross-check with other sources. I'll drop back here when the pictures are up, just to let you know so you can look at them and critique my efforts if you want. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About your recent frustrations, may I recommend either a sustained period of content editing or a proper break? I find a complete break for a week or two really does help, and so does content editing. I wouldn't worry too much about your reputation or that of arbcom. Well, when I say that, I mean that your reputation is the only one you can really affect, and I wouldn't worry about those people who are too inflexible to change their minds. Better to let your (editing) actions speak louder than words for those who are prepared to change their minds, and to let arbcom do their work - no-one can agree with all their actions and decisions, but specific (and calm) criticisms are better than generalised and hurtful comments. It is clear by now to anyone watching that you disagree with their decision in your case, but at some point you have to let things go. That's my advice, anyway. Talk to it about people off-wiki as well, including arbitrators as well if you are still prepared to talk to them - I think you will find some of them (including some of those that you are maligning) are more approachable off-wiki than on-wiki (it is understandable that many arbitrators are more formal on-wiki, and some are just, to be frank, overworked or no longer interested, from what I can see). Hope that helps for what it is worth. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it
Thatcher, how do you mean "dispute it elsewhere"? Where would that be? As Ryan points out, it's a closed case. Seriously, where are you advising Giano to dispute it? Mmm? Bishonen | talk 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
If the argument is that the AC should be ignored, then anywhere that isn't an AC page would be more appropriate. If a statement that a remedy is to be ignored must be made, I would suggest a user page as the appropriate location. Sam Korn(smoddy) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like here? Giano removed that with this edit. Should he really have to put it back? Maybe I should go and catch up with what has been happening, or is this just more of the same? Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please Carcharoth just ignore them - they are not worth it. There is little to choose between the lot of them. We shall have Florence of Arabia, her sidekick on the horse and that man with his organ here soon, all full of wronged righteousness. The Arbcom is now surplus to requirements, ignore them - I do. Giano (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have to do anything. I'm merely suggesting that that would probably be the place to put it, if you really do have to make this kind of protest. I personally would not put it in that big box because I think coloured boxes of this sort are ugly, but that's beside the point.
I was attempting (seriously) to answer Bishonen's (serious) question. Sam Korn(smoddy) 19:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No, Giano doesn't have to do anything, and nothing he does is of interest to the AC; hence presumably his frustration. If, against appearances (with your colored boxes), you're interested (seriously) in any (serious) discussion I might offer, here is my shot at it. It's in fact on a userpage (this one). I bet that was widely read ! <sarcasm>. Only one arbitrator (Paul) has even spoken to me (in private e-mail) after the case. After Kirill called me a "problem user" during it. I'd be ashamed if that indifference was mine. I expect it's such selective deafness that is provoking Giano into editing arbitration pages the way he is. It seems to be the only way to stop our top brass in the middle of a yawn. It does not become you to take the attitude you do, Smoddy. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I am not going to issue a further block but your existing one should be considered as concurrent for the same duration for this. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete rubbish! The liars on the arbcom accepted a case they had no business accepting, they intended it purely to try and "get me", and they failed. Their position is untenable, they are a walking disgrace to the project. Morally they are no better than Daniel Brandt! - at least one knows what side he is on! So take your block and stick it where the sun don't shine!God what a project! The lying bastards can't even do their own dirty work! Giano (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on... expressing an opinion on a talk page that he doesn't like a process (without naming anyone) is a blocking offense? I'm no great fan of Giano, but aren't admins - let alone arbs - supposed to be more thick skinned than this? I've had worse abuse today alone and haven't felt the need to block anyone. Have any of the Arbs actually taken offense at any of this? — iridescent 16:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously yes they have, or they would not have sent Stifie round would they? Giano (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey, Giano - just because they're all out to get you, it doesn't mean you're not paranoid! Take a break from it all; all the best, Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Stifle was sent by anyone. I suspect Thatcher, Ryan and Sam Korn realised that the situation had calmed down and that blocks wouldn't help. Stifle is perfectly capable of assessing the situation on his own. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I thought that it was a bit strange that no-one had blocked Giano for those edits. In some ways, I suppose Thatcher, Ryan Postlewaithe and Sam Korn not saying anything at the time might mean something, but maybe they were just trying not to respond themselves, while still not standing in the way of anyone else who might decide to block. Stifle, I have one question - are you trying to show that the sanction is unworkable (as in that people can come along later and block even if the people initially involved don't seem that bothered - Ryan and Thatcher used page protection, and Sam didn't seem to object to the language being used), or are you trying to show that short blocks create less drama? OK, that was two questions. The block probably expired while I was writing this... Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carch, you are rather missing the point, the sanction is there to allow me to be blocked the second I ever start posting the truth - that is how it works and why the whole daft case was cooked up and accepted. The problem is everyone now knows that is how it works, so each time I am blocked the Arbcom appears more ridiculous than the last - everyone except the Arbcom can see that - which rather proves my point. If they weren't so devious one would pity them. Like some third world Junta. Probably planning to have me bumped off as we speak - buried in concrete or something. Giano (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
