User:Giano/The Mad House

bloody place
Had enough of the bloody place - gone. Giano (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Chill, please? You do know that Theresa is an ex-arb, right? a just in case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to protect this page to stop more comments? Caulde  16:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My request: take a few days' break, and enjoy it. Then come back, clear-headed, and less prone to snapping. Be well. AGK 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for incivility
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

While finding yourself as collateral damage in an autoblock is not a nice situation, you are still expected to assume good faith. Instead you attacked the administrator who had placed the block, absent any evidence that she could reasonably have forseen collateral damage. Further personal attacks followed. While Teresa Knott should have obtained the consent of this Committee before blocking you, I find that her failure to do so was accidental and so her situation differs from that of SlimVirgin.

After Teresa's block was undone, you went after her in further violation of civility restrictions, and further attacked Elonka including without justification assuming that her block was "trolled". I note that you are quick to detect personal attacks on yourself; someone who knows what a personal attack on themselves is can be expected to know when they are making a personal attack on another user.

In accordance with the motion concerning enforcement, the block was debated on the Arbitrator's mailing list and endorsed by a majority of the committee. The initial proposal of one week was moderated to 72 hours. Supporting arbitrators were Charles Matthews, Deskana, Fayssal F., FT2, Jpgordon, Kirill Lokshin, and myself. No arbitrator opposed. The following arbitrators did not express an opinion, or were away at the time of the debate: FloNight, Jdforrester, Morven, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, YellowMonkey.

To verify the agreement of the committee please see this email from Arbcom-l and the preceding thread (former arbitrators with access to the list may wish to give independent confirmation of the committee's consent). I suggest that any appeal be directed to the committee. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sam, it looks like you have misrepresenting things. You say that Giano "went after her".  Those diffs point to comments on his own talk page. Going after somebody implies following them to another venue, such as their own talk page, and posting hostile comments. A more correct interpretation would be, "after she went after you, you got pissed off and posted some annoyed comments on your own talk page." As an ex-arb, I think Theresa Knott has pretty thick skin by now, and I think Elonka does as well.  These are not helpless little newbies who will wither at the first sign of a discouraging word.  Why are you folks trying to drive Giano away or provoke him further? Jehochman Talk 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Incivility is incivility, regardless of where it is posted. I honestly cannot believe what I am hearing. --Deskana (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a world of difference between being rude on your own talk page and crapping on someone else's. Giano was sorely provoked. Jtrainor (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The guy was blowing of steam on his own talk page after two unfair blocks, so now a third has been placed to make sure he becomes more calm and productive.  O.o  Jehochman Talk 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The civility policy makes no such exception. But since policy is descriptive, I propose that you change the civility policy to include these exceptions that I've never heard of before. Unless you're proposing there are special exceptions to rules for some people...? --Deskana (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No No No no noooooo! Getting caught in an autoblock is not grounds for making personal attacks on whatever admin happened to have performed the original block. The first block wasn't an unfair block it was the autoblocker. Many other people got caught by it too. None resorted to calling the blocking admin stupid. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but a better response would be to explain how the autoblock works, and help correct the problem and make sure it does not happen to any other users. Jehochman Talk 21:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which i would have been happy to do had he not kept making the personal attacks. Oh well. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Johnathan, I concur with your comments—that Giano ought to have been offered a proper response—but would still note that, regardless of the situation, incivility is downright unhelpful. There are no two ways around that. Whilst in the case of seriously frustrating situations such as being autoblocked (neé "blocked") incivility is often allowed to slide, such a response is not prudent for an editor who is under a civility restriction. The message here is quite plain: "quit the incivility and keep your head; if you can't walk away from the keyboard." I'm glad to see there are no special exceptions being made for Giano, no matter how much I may support him as an editor and as a voice of, er, critical opinion. AGK 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He was blowing off steam on his talk page, sure, but also on AN, where there can be no doubt that he was being anything but civil and not showing GF. I know very little about the history of this or why people seem to tiptoe around him and treat him differently, but I've read his rant on AN and his calls to have people blocked/de-sysopped and am not surprised that he was given a 72 hour block. AGK is right. dougweller (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um. I see at least two diffs in the report above that are not to this page; statements to the effect that Giano was just 'blowing off steam on his own talk page' are not accurate.  There was at least one edit to AN, and one to Teresa's talk page.  (I have notified Jehochman of the error in his statement, but I suspect he's offline.)  Whether or not one believes extra leeway should be granted on a user's own talk page – personally, I think that we should carve out exceptions to WP:NPA and WP:CIV very carefully – Giano did consciously take his show on the road.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I echo my thoughts below, . We're not achieving anything here now. AGK 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am reassured that, at the third time of asking, that the conditions as set out by ArbCom were properly met when considering a block for Giano's assumed incivility - as such there is no possible way that this can be overturned or reduced/varied without further reference to the ArbCom, for which I am personally grateful. I will now attempt to do what I so foolishly said I would after the initial unblock and withdraw. (If anyone sees me getting involved again on one of the noticeboards, just chuck a 15 minute time out at me - ps. I have a UK isp so it may be best if autoblock is disabled - without any further reference). Now, if you don't mind, I have some vandal reports to review and act upon... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened here

 * (comic below was inserted by Jehochman)

We have reached a point where the deceit and transparency of this Arbcom, IRC and JWales are such that I no longer wish to be associated with such a project. That Theresa Knott, a woman who when I came here, was an Arb who repulsively to me, but legitimately, signed herself  "the snot rake" was almost enough to put me off the project at the time, I thought what sort of place is this? - but I persevered, I thought things would get better. I have been banned for condemning paedophiles, banned for exposing lies and deceit, and go to my Wikipedia grave knowing of far more deceit and lies than you can imagine. I have seen Geogre sanctioned for unblocking me, Slim Virgin de-sysopped for the same and this ex arb, T Knott commended for blocking me for showing anger on my own talk page. I want to cope with this no longer. The Arbcom want me to beg to be unblocked, I shall never do that. This morning I was working on a page, minding my own business - what a shame others were not.

Truly, I know longer care what you all get up to. If condemning an Admin, who is still blocking half of London four hours after she was first notified, as incompetent and stupid is wrong, then wrong it is. My mistake, today, was to challenge the bossy and school mistressy posts and authority of one of YOUR former Arbs. I wash my hands of you all. Frankly, the project is not worth the grief it causes me. Today, Wikipedia is a hard core of writers who are  parasitically lived off by a group of Admins who are there to celebrate their authority; as the writers give up and are constantly replenished by new fools, the do-nothing Admins grow in number in order to hinder and harass. That is the state of the Wikipedia, that you have all allowed to be created. I want no more of it. I shall not return, but just remember once there was somebody who saw a huge potential for this very sad project. Giano (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an anagram of my name, I rotate them, they are not meant to be taken literally. And has already been explained Elonka didn't do any of the things which you have just said. None of it! All she did was block a person for 3RR. The autoblocker blocked you not elonka, she wasn't on Wikipedia and appears to have been sleeping. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem was known for hours before it caught Giano. Why was it not fixed? If not by Elonka (assuming good faith that she was sleeping or AFK), then by someone? Why did it take a high-profile (and legitimately jumpy) editor being blocked to get the problem dealt with? S. D. D.J.Jameson 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the autoblocker is its own master really. If the blocked editor used more than one IP address then the autoblocker may have blocked them both. Or the autoblocker may have blocked another editor who tried to circumvent the original block using a different IP. Who knows? It might not even be fixed now. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano's anger was understandable given he lost valuable work, and while individual admins and even the developers etc are not to blame the reaction to Giano's anger was completely ott. We cannot afford to lose such a good editor, clearly. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't understand his anger at all. Have you ever lost work at wikipedia? Of course you have, all regular editors have. But Geogre states on my talk page that Giano uses a word processor and then copies the edit over. So how can the work be lost? It's inconvenient to get caught in an autoblock, but it's not that bad, no one else got angry did they? Theresa Knott | token threats 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's unhelpful to debate how warranted the incivility of Giano's comments were. The fact remains that he was incivil despite his civility sanction—itself a very clear "Keep It Civil " message hanging over his head. I hope Giano grasps that very soon; the longer we spend trying to stop his unhelpful comments, the less helpful we become and the less productively our time is used. AGK 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not blaming you or Elonka or anyone for the technical issue, I just don't think in this case Giano's anger justified a block that hopefully won't see him abandoning the project. Of course I have lost work on wikipedia for a variety of different reasons, such as power cuts, that is why in any major work I do to articles I press the edit button every 2 or 3 minutes. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut the drama out, eh?
I'm noticing a lot of circular discussion that is profoundly unhelpful. The Committee has blocked; the block seems warranted. Let's move on and do something else, and give Giano a bit of peace too. I think the "Giano: please be civil" message has been communicated loud-and-clear. AGK 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He's done. Per some private discussions, he's actually out for good now. So yeah, the "message has been communicated loud-and-clear." No need for further worrying about whether G hurt someone's feelings or not. S. D. D.J.Jameson 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. AGK 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was sorry to hear it as well, but unfortunately, I don't think that many in the current political structure of this ostensible writing project will care all that much. 24.177.66.130 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. Putchica, as we say here. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm not speaking as a journalist here, since this particular incident doesn't cross the newsworthiness threshold. But it's an example of what I mean when I talk about how as a participant-observer, I'm fascinated by the dysfunctional group dynamics of Wikipedia. What counts as a forgivable minor infraction, what's a major sin - and who gets to define that? It's played out day after day -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not the place to discuss this.…
 * You might want to ask at Administrators' noticeboard, if that's okay?
 * Thanks, AGK 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seth, What counts as a forgivable minor infraction, what's a major sin?. The answer is: the arbitrary, rules-free, subjective (and often biased) POV of the Admin Community decides that. Is there a better way? If so, what is it? Sarah777 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I might also add that in the light of my own personal experience of Elonka's judgement, leaving the power to block "half of London" in her hands is careless to the point of moronic. Now if I were to call the United Arbs universally moronic (which despite their decision in a "Troubles" case some years back I don't) - would that be (1) a tad unvivil? (2) uncivil? (3) blockably uncivil? (4) long blockably uncivil? (5) Banably uncivil?
 * Who has the measuring tape, or is this decided by the Admin/Arb whose piles are the most irrirating at a given moment in time? Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean like this, Sarah? It sat on RfAr for 3 weeks, garnering only one comment (from Lar); Giano's posts were quite tame in comparison, and I can understand his frustration at all this. Anyone read what he was working on at the time? Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's basically the age-old problem of proper governing, and I claim no special expertise in the matter. Just an interest in this context because so much can be directly observed. And I'm very much against the hucksterism that sells Wikipedia as "magic", given what I see of how it really works. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone who thinks that Elonka either deliberately or ignorantly "blocked half of London" is not well-enough informed about the situation to be worth listening to. The autoblock was the result of two conditions which Elonka has no control over whatsoever, (1) British Telecom deciding to route all wikipedia traffic through one or two servers, and (2) the decision of Wikipedia's founders many years ago to hide editors' IP addresses from each other.  Even if Elonka had known that British Telecom was back to using a proxy server, she had no way of knowing that Ashley kennedy3 was editing from BT.  If you don't understand that, you need to read the relevant AN and ANI threads, read WP:AUTOBLOCK and read User_talk:Elonka, repeatedly if necessary. Thatcher 03:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Within a few hours of hearing about this problem I dug into the details, found out what was wrong, found the IP address of the proxy and whitelisted it so that BT proxy users would not be affected by each others' autoblocks. I wish that the first admin on the scene had shown some compassion towards Giano for his difficulties and tried to help him. When a user is upset, it is best to understand why they are upset before sanctioning them for being upset. Jehochman Talk 03:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, break it up people. We have the village pump for general discussion. Jtrainor (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Alright folks, move along. Nothing to see here." SashaNein (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. The purpose of someone's talk page is to communicate with them, and as Giano ain't here to communicate, general discussion is off-topic. Now, if I had advocated deleting the page, you might have some kind of point... Jtrainor (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Systemic problems that caused this situation

 * 1) ArbCom is elected, but mostly incompetent. There are systemic reasons for this:
 * 2) * Self-selection bias: Only few competent candidates actually have the time for this full-time job. The best potential arbitrators never become candidates because they are not workaholics, have a real job, or a real family, or because they are not keen on drama.
 * 3) * Defects in the voting system: To get support votes, you need to be well known and predictable; the normal way to achieve this is by involvement in drama. Moreover, any editor who has what it takes to be a good arbitrator will have been involved in huge conflicts in the past and likely have amassed opponents on both sides; the current voting system favours candidates with no enemies.
 * 4) * No way for the community to get rid of the bad apples once they are identified.
 * 5) Misleading "personnel records":
 * 6) * Every single unblock, whether for adjustment of a block or because the block was controversial, makes a user's block log longer and increases the chance of further inconsiderate blocks.
 * 7) * Positive information is routinely ignored. An editor who works hard on content 40 hours/week and gets reported to ANI once a month is notorious. An editor who does an hour of wiki gnoming every Sunday morning and gets reported to ANI twice a year is a valuable member of the community (especially if they also spend a few more hours every week voicing popular opinions in project talk space).
 * 8) * The notoriety of an editor is measured by the amount of drama, not by the effects of their behaviour. Therefore behaviour about which the community is divided is more likely to be held against an editor than behaviour that is clearly beyond the pale. Moreover, inappropriate behaviour can be wiped out by apologies and clear signals that the editor understood that they were wrong. The negative impression from something that was considered OK by more than half of the community cannot be discarded in this way.
 * 9) Every admin has a de facto veto right against not blocking a user. This works well with the vast majority of users, since normally only a small number of admins look at a case. It does not scale well to prolific editors who get themselves into trouble occasionally.

I am deliberately posting this on Giano's talk page, because I hope that he will read this and any resulting discussion. Note that I am not denying that he also shares part of the responsibility. Mobbing victims are rarely completely innocent, because it's very hard to keep a cool head in such a situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Open election was hardly ever going to be good selection algorithm for an arbitration committee. It'd be like selecting a wiki tennis team through a voluntary round robin tournament that consisted of rocks-scissor-paper, a game of chess, russian roulette and then a boxing match. The winners would [probably] be physically fit and have decent co-ordination, thus would probably be better than average at tennis, but not anything like a decent team. What it has going for it is that our cultural ideology means that election confers legitimacy, thus although the arbs were never going to be the best available their occupation of these roles cannot be popularly challenged very easily (and, historically, most long-lasting institutions last because they produce stability rather than success). It's a recipe for disaster of course if the committee creeps more and more power exponentially, becomes judge and executioner (as with Giano), but perfectly safe if all they do is moderate some nuts. What we are seeing now is the committee using the power it was given to carry out its original function (desysoping, for instance) to extend its function (usurping the process of enforcement). This might be happening innocently I might add, and I don't attribute such powers of planning to many individual members of the committee, but that's what's happening nonetheless and this whole Giano business is allowing this to happen much more quickly than it otherwise might have. One either has to accept the power reality, like it or loath it, or else try to change it. Of course, as this needn't worry anyone except those who end up having some personal conflicts with people influential in such circles ... I needn't mention any names ... few people will try to change it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit late for this...
But I'm sorry for being snide towards you a few months ago. You're a smart, hard-working guy, and you sometimes go a bit underappreciated some times. I do think you may need to calm down sometimes, but I actually more concerned with people pile-on blocking you for minor instances of incivility that wouldn't raise an eyebrow if someone else did it. Then again, I think any blocks made solely for incivility are foolish (you can't force people to be civil, after all). I hope you come back refreshed, and hopefully a bit calmed down so people won't have even the smallest reason to annoy you. Sceptre (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Giano,

Hi. You always know how to find me if you want to chat. I'll keep this short. Cheers. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Again!
I sure wish someone could explain to me why admins are blocking people who vent on their own talkpage. I know that great latitude is permitted for userpages and respect the need to keep userpages as free as possible of bloggish nonsense, political diatribes and other items, but I simply can't see why so many get so frustrated simply because someone is pissed off and uses their usertalk page to vent. Perhaps when Giano was inadvertantly blocked he had a mass of material he was hoping to add to an article and he was disappointed that he lost that material...just guessing. But admins, arbcom and other editors familiar with Giano and those who do similar venting on their own talkpages should just maybe turn a blind eye and let it go.--MONGO 06:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they have nothing better to do, obviously. No way is there an encyclopedia to write, copyedit or stop vandals from trashing, oh no. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people get a thrill by exercising power over others. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And unable to do so in real life, for being young or being middle aged failures, makes said power especially attractive. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * wow. I'm glad I've pretty much quit participating.  I certainly don't need this kind of stupidity and power mongering in my life.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * MONGO, if you're on my talk page, can I call you a POS? I dont think that would be acceptable. The policy of no personal attacks applies to all over Wikipedia, including our own talk pages. Its disappointing that admins like Jehochman decide to go against ArbCom and support abusive users. Giano called admins stupids and idiots. Yes he writes articles but that doesnt mean he gets a free ticket to abuse people. If you dont think they should have blocked him, please give me permission to use these same abusive labels on you and I will be glad to do so. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice...looks like you're already helping with the escalations......notice my comments about usertalk and I meant one's own usertalk. I don't see anything of the kind you mention delievered by Giano to others usertalks...only to his own.--MONGO 11:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No use giving this guy feedback. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt57,
 * RE: "please give me permission to use these same abusive labels on you and I will be glad to do so"
 * I found that you can't simply argue "editor A called editor B a fucker, so it is okay for me to also". Instead, maybe you could link to an editor's NPOV violation.
 * So for example, instead of
 * Editor Jane is an idiot
 * Editor Jane is an
 * This quote and others got a free pass from other veteran editors.
 * Try it and see if it works, and let me know. I would be interested to find out. travb (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mongo, "only to his own"? Since when was it ok to call another user names like idiot and stupid on our own talk pages?
 * Travb, I dont know what you're talking about but I pose the same question to you and I want to know if WP:NPA is still valid or not. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I clarified my comments above.
 * NPA, like all rules on wikipedia are selectively enforced. travb (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Inigo Jones drawing
Can someone upload this Ingo Jones drawing for me please It is orignally drawn by Jones in 1638 so no probs with copyright. Giano (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would do it, but I don't understand the copyright situation fully. The question is whether the person who took the photograph or the person who digitised it acquired any additional copyrights in the JPG file. Probably yes, and I can't find a clear statement from the website that they have all the rights and how they give them away. Or do you want to use it under fair use? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done. I am taking Giano's word for the date of authorship because there's absolutely no reason to think otherwise. Ingo Jones died in 1652. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: You might want to remove the first line with the red link on your sandbox talk page. Jehochman was faster. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also done. You gotta be quick. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had done it before, but than Giano reinstated it. I preferred not to edit war with him. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bramall Hall
Hi Giano,

When you return from your block, would you mind having a look over Bramall Hall? You may remember around this time last year I attempted to get it to GA, but failed. After a year away from it, I can see it is in pretty poor shape, and I'm interested in polishing it up again. Your advice would be very appreciated :-) Thanks!  Majorly  talk  20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have it on good authority that he will "of course" look at Bramall Hall when he returns from his block. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Banqueting House, Whitehall
Not sure if that's what you meant in your edit summary, but I updated the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mundane requests and tasks I generally perfom daily

 * Don't bother to unblock - as not one of them has the courtesy to even contact me, they can leave such decisions to Cyde and Snotrake - who obviously deel with these things. Giano (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC) ✅


 * Could someone tell Majorly here Yes, of course. Thanks. Giano (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.  Syn  ergy 07:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Synergy - most kind. Happy to do th same for you one day! Giano (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ✅


 * Could someone mind informing the snotrake, it's not a decision for her - she is an ex-Arb, also she and her "comments" are not welcome on this page. Giano (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I must know. Did you know about this when you used to term snotrake?  Syn  ergy 07:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Horrible term, but if that's what she likes to be called, who am I to oppose it? Giano (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Giano, I hope you'll do what's necessary to remain active and in good standing on Wikipedia. You can't win every battle and they aren't all worth fighting.  Thank you for your efforts to promote accountability and transparency, but it's not for you alone to carry the load.  This place would be much the worse for your absence. All the best. Rome wasn't built in a day... ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC) (would someone mind moving this very kind post to my new talk - where others less interested in classical architecture writing an encyclopedia can study it. Thank you. Giano (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Could someone point out on the talk page of Ashton Court that the attribution to Inigo Jones is wrong - per Dunning page 21 - Thankyou! Giano (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected, although I found it on p. 117 in a snippet view – perhaps a different book? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, deff page 21, page 117 is all about North Cadbury Court - how odd. Giano (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * hey no, we are both right, you are using his Somerset and Avon, I'm using Somerset Country houses. so all is well. Giano (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ✅


 * Could someone very kindly ask User: Bandmeister if he would mind adding his very nice new page Fire in the Winter Palace to the {Template: Winter Palace}} while he is there he could add Cabin of Peter the Great - perhaps the template needs a section pointing out associated Winter palace pages other than the rooms. Thank you. Giano (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and somewhere there is picture of the fire, (I think) I uploaded that I never used, that would look very nice there too. Giano (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I told him there are messages here. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks brilliant. Giano (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ✅

Your block

 * Thread moved here from Giano's regular talk page at his request. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your 72 hour block has been reset after some obvious evasion by IP number editing. This is usual procedure after block evasion.

This matter has been discussed by the ArbCom. The decision was not unanimous. Some dissenting comments will be added here, shortly.

I'd like to add some comments of my own. Your editing is appreciated. In our discussion, some technical matters were raised, and they are offered here entirely in a helpful spirit. You can draft your excellent articles without ever saving them here, by using preview, and then copying all the wikitext across into a word processor. This copying procedure is also very useful, anyway, for anyone who like you drafts in longer editing sessions. This whole business is very unfortunate, and blew up it seems because you lost work through no one's actual fault. For myself, the old days still loom large, and I copy the text (very often) onto the clipboard before doing a big save. In fact working with a word processor open is an old habit (the servers regularly used to swallow my edits).

Well, I hope this helps. At least in future I hope we shall all get along better. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I dissent from this action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also dissent. This was my comment on arbcom-l when the extension was proposed:
 * Giano was compelled to ask for a temporary talk page to be set up separately at User:Giano/talk but had to log out in order to edit it because the block was on User:Giano II. In the circumstances I don't think a block extension would be in order; it strikes me as wikilawyering to say that editing a temporary talk page is block evasion. As for the single edit to User talk:Bishonen, that is block evasion, but only of the most minor and banal kind.
 * Recommend we send a stiff private email on behalf of the committee saying that we will spot these things, and it is considered block evasion, and that if it happens again there will be an extension of the block.
 * And yes, that is what I would do if the user concerned was not Giano.
 * The majority of the committee disagreed with this proposal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agreed with Sam that a warning about block evasion was more appropriate than a block. This is especially true since ArbCom did not respond to his unblock request. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold the phone. If The majority of the committee disagreed with this proposal, why was it enacted? It strikes me that it is in direct violation of the very motion that the committee itself approved.  Risker (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam means a majority of the committee disagreed with his proposal, and supported the action announced by Charles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, Newyorkbrad. And who were the supporters of the block, please, Charles or anyone else who participated in the discussion? I concur with Cube lurker below. Risker (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * NYB's unilateral further statement, was hasty, given the context of discussion. Those who supported the reset were Deskana, Fayssal F., FT2, James Forrester, Josh Gordon, Kirill Lokshin, Matthew Brown, and I. Those against were FloNight, NewYorkBrad, Sam Blacketer, thebainer and YellowMonkey. Charles Matthews (talk)
 * Thank you for providing that information. It's not apparent why you would feel Newyorkbrad's single sentence was hasty. Nonetheless, while you were all together, did you as a group encourage each other to respond to the two Clarifications and Motions cases currently on the WP:RFAR page? I see that you, Deskana, Josh Gordon, James Forrester, and Yellow Monkey have not yet voted on the Abtract motion, which has been posted since November 30th; and Deskana and Matthew Brown have not yet voted on the Peter Damien motion, which has been posted since December 9th.  Fayssal has not voted on those motions either, but his name does not appear on your list so I presume he was not a participant.  Shall we expect that those matters will all be addressed forthwith as well?  Risker (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that you added Fayssal F.'s name today saying "missed one name" in your edit summary. Did he participate in the discussion prior to the block, or afterward? You do understand that once an action is taken, there is no retroactive "voting"? and that adding his name in well after the fact without adding it in as a separate edit (given that hundreds of people have made comments about this block) does not meet our usual expectations for talk page editing? Risker (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Charles going to reveal the results of the proposed 1-week block extension for "block evasion"?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)' 
 * For the future could you all please post motions and vote on them publicly, and then ask a clerk to implement the decision. I think that will work much better. Jehochman Talk 03:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the proposer should, although they don't. But in any case it doesn't take a genius to work out who voted for what, even without leaks or official notifications.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No surprise that the first two on the support list are the arbs that poke him with a stick the most. SashaNein (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's important for the community to have the list of yay's and nay's on this so that we have accurate info come next years arbcom elections.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's important to keep that secret, see, as we plebians can't be trusted with such sensitive information. SDJ 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would very much want to see the names too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This might well be the worst block I've ever seen. This has the smell of a rejected arb candidate getting in some final licks before losing his seat. SDJ 17:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always stayed out of the Giano-block-wars thus far – but seriously, wth? No disrespect to Arbcom etc etc etc but this is starting to get silly. –  iride scent  17:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief just what is this supposed to achieve! --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See, someone else in London edited, so that's obviously block evasion by Giano! This is stupid, but let's remember that we all work for ArbCom.  They are our betters, our masters, and they need to give us all permission to be here.  I know that the taste of boot leather is simply delicious, and people from all over the world come to volunteer to lick boots.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see this Theresa Knott | token threats 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I was the reinserter there. In retrospect, I may well have been mistaken as to thinking that really was Giano. We were joking a bit, and I may well have misunderstood both the content and context of his joking. Reblocking based on that diff is beyond the pale. SDJ 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See Bishonen below. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So it is "no one's actual fault" that an admin blocked London from editing, which had it not occurred this would be a non-event? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Russavia and Utgard: That's a red herring. The "block evasion" is that one edit to Bishonen's talk. But of course a ridiculous decision to block for that, in my opinion. And since we are now told a majority of the Arbcom actually did not agree with the re-block, we ought not to be treating it as a validly decided Arbcom sanction either. It can be undone by any administrator like any other block, and I for one will volunteer to do so if supported by consensus. Striking after clarification above. Shit, shit, shit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No matter whose "side" you are on in this debate, blocking someone for "block evasion" for one (signed!) edit to a friend's talk page thanking them for doing something is beyond asinine. Deskana, FT2, James Forrester, Josh Gordon, Kirill Lokshin, Matthew Brown, and Charles Matthews must really be out of touch. Not only is re-newing the 72 hour block overkill and punitive, it reeks of vindictiveness. I'm glad many of those people will no longer be on the arbcom come January. Too bad Brad, Flo, Sam and the others could not impart their wisdom on the seven listed above. And poor Giano couldn't even finish his article because of all the edit conflicting going on! This would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Tex (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sheer idiocy. In my time as an admin I would never have extended a block for so trivial an offense.  And, having handled a majority of cases at WP:AE for nearly a year by myself, I think I know what I'm talking about.  I sometimes think about asking for my adminship back, and then stuff like this happens to remind me why I gave it up in the first place. Thatcher 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Be careful. Theresa Knott is watching this page. She blocked Giano for calling somebody else an idiot (albeit more than once).  Jehochman Talk 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You know very well that such innuendo does not help. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You know very well that what was said was not innuendo. She is watching this page, and she did block Giano for calling someone an idiot. Apoc, you've yet to make anything remotely resembling a useful contribution to any discussion I've seen you participate in thus far. Please stop. SDJ 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Readers may wish to be aware of Village pump/ACFeedback. DepartedUser (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I was there

 * Well, I know what happened, since I was speaking with Giano yesterday. He had just discovered he could edit if he was logged out, and told me "That can't be wrong, can it? It's not my fault I can edit!" So I explained it was wrong, that his IP simply stopped being blocked after 24 hours (nb, this was news to him as he has not been blocked more than 24 hours before), but that didn't mean he was allowed to edit. So he stopped. Calling this "evasion"... I mean, was it secretive, was it sneaky, was it altogether evasive in any sense of the word? He had even signed his edit on my page with "Giano. What's that--he should have known? Possibly. He's not good with technical stuff, let alone with the mysterious autoblocker, as the incident that led to the first 72-hour block showed. Come on. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Well, it appears our leaders have spoken, and we'd better just do what they say, before something terrible happens to us. SDJ 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on your own talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have the rest of ArbCom (with the possible exclusion of FloNight and perhaps a member or two who have no time) still not understood that Newyorkbrad is more intelligent than all of them together? The worst symptom of stupidity is not understanding the value of other, more intelligent people, and ignoring their advice. With every new incident like this I look at WP:BASTILLE to see whether someone has started writing it. I am dreaming of a time when this project will again be about writing an encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Without the Orwellian references, I think that the ArbCom should reconsider this. For just about anyone else who's been an editor on Wikipedia as long as Giano, the "I didn't know that editing as an IP was evading a block" reasoning wouldn't fly at all. In his case, no offense to Giano, but I can believe that. ESPECIALLY since this is the first block for any kind of evasion of remedies. In light of that, and the fact that Giano was doing what we (as administrators) wish EVERY blocked editor would do while blocked, and that's work on articles on his talk page, I suggest that the ArbCom commute the block to time served (especially since there was less then 4 hours left when it happened!) and a stern warning that there will be a harsher response if it happens again (I don't think it will, mind you). SirFozzie (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am actually inclined to agree that it's possible Giano didn't understand the technical limitations of his block, though I find it rather more difficult to trust that he was equally unaware of the intended effect of a block. In any case, a short extension (if not time served) would probably suffice for a one-off, first-offense violation of his block.  I suspect that the ArbCom would be receptive to reasoned, calm, polite, civil arguments.
 * That said, it should be noted that Giano's conduct during his block was not entirely ideal. Engaging in petty namecalling  just a few hours before the expiry of his block for incivility suggests that he has not fully grasped the gravity of his situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on a minute. Fair is fair, he is referring to an anagram of my name that I myself have used as a link to my talk page. He finds it offensive, but i do not. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When Arbcom took on the role of deciding any blocks, my own assumption was that we also took on automatically, the role of considering any unblock requests, or other mitigating circumstances. Bishonen's statement provides new information that raised such a circumstance. I forwarded it with comment for discussion, at 17:46 UTC, on seeing it. FT2 (Talk 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP before Morven on the assumption that it was probably an imposter. I did not think Giano would evade a block and sign his name.  That said, blocking the IP prevented any further evasion and Giano did not register sock accounts, he did not disrupt, nor did he engage in incivility with that IP.  In my judgment this is a good case for letting the original block expire, or at most, extending the original block for 72 hours from the time that the IP evasion occurred.  Jehochman Talk 19:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is bullshit. Unblocked. Matthews has no moral authority to be pulling these sort of stunts anymore. And since when did "no consensus" default to "block him for longer"? Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. This is (as you well know) not an "any admin may overturn" matter, or even an "any consensus of admins may overturn matter". History shows that in Giano's case all that happens is admins war over his account, and the problems are insurmountable by the community at this point with strong views both ways. Despite every attempt to leave it in communal hands, it's not viable at this point. See note on your talk page for more. Indeed, the review of Giano's block due to Bishonen's post and mitigating circumstances, was already in progress anyway. It is unaffected. FT2 (Talk 21:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Charles was acting on behalf of arbitration committee.Theresa Knott | token threats 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * May I point out that all this trouble could have been avoided by ignoring Giano's minor incivility on his own talk page. I suggest we mark this entire series of conflicts lame and just get back to writing articles. Please.  Jehochman Talk 21:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It was not a minor incivility is was repeated personal attacks against an admin who any fool can see didn't even do anything wrong. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano was frustrated. He was blocked for no good reason, and he was venting on his own talk page.  The "repeated personal attacks" were relatively minor expressions of pique.  Whether the other admin did anything wrong or not doesn't matter at all.  Did you try to explain to Giano what happened?  Did you show sympathy for his inconvenience?  Or did you pull out your baton and whack him over the head for being upset?  "Here, let me whack you on the head to stop you from being upset." Now let me ask, who's the fool? Jehochman Talk 21:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano was caught in an autoblock (like many others). He made multiple post all attacking Elonka (which no one else caught in that same autoblock saw fit to do) I went to his talk page to help. My first question was to ask what the block message was. I certainly would have explained the problem had he politely responded instead of making further personal attacks against a blameless admin. But no I didn't show sympathy for someone making such attacks and i certainly make no apology for that. If that makes me a fool, so be it. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend ignoring rants. What Giano was saying didn't really matter.  He was upset about a perceived injustice.  If you had explained the injustice and seen what could be done to fix it, that would have helped him calm down.  There are different ways to stop incivility.  You need to figure out which one works best in each situation.  As you can see here, the solution you chose has lead to a predictable, undesirable chain of events, including now wheel warring. In the future, I recommend using the least possible force needed to resolve a situation. If a block can be avoided, try. Jehochman Talk 22:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right about that. Had I not blocked him he may very well have calmed down, or maybe not, he certainly didn't calm down after being unblocked. However your comment about predictable chain of events means nothing to me. I have never interacted with Giano before (to the best of my recollection) and have not followed the years of problems. And I am not the only one. The next admin who isn't aware of the history also isn't going to know that he needs to be treated with kid gloves because he is "special" and so is allowed to be completely incivil and allowed to get away with it nor the next or the next. As for wheel warring, that is entirely the responsibility of any admin who does it. Wether your little gang likes it or not the AC does have the authority to take action against problematic editors and anyone who undoes an AC decision is wholly responsible for his own actions. I have nothing whatsoever to do with that. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any gang. Refactor your rude remarks, please.  You should hold yourself to the same standards you hold others. Jehochman Talk 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was out of order. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! I wish I had a gang... Jehochman Talk 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, no, no. Blocking like that would have been wrong with any other productive editor as well. Less patience with those who are here for the wrong reasons makes sense, but this was obviously not such a case. I guess you misjudged, thinking that Giano was knowingly attacking Elonka without good reason. But he quite obviously didn't understand what was going on. He seems to be quite clueless about many technical aspects of the site. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So...it's okay to attack a fellow editor if one believes that there's "good reason" to do so? I don't condone the ridiculous (and clearly punitive) actions that have followed, but I cannot agree with that logic either.  Personal attacks are never justifiable, period.  There's plenty of blame to go around for this unfortunate situation, and it begins with Giano himself.  Had he handled his frustrations in a civil manner, none of this would have happened.  —David Levy 23:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano was clearly in the wrong to attack Elonka, he did not understand what was happening, assumed bad faith, and lashed out, rather than listen to people who were trying to help him understand the situation. Whether that lashing out justified the first block is debatable, but the Arbcom-approved first block was not obviously idiotic or irrational and had some non-arbitrator support.  The extension for "block evasion" leaves me speechless. Thatcher 23:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad I didn't reply, because you said it better. I only wanted to make the point that in my opinion Theresa's block was a mistake. Of course it's not as bad as all the crap that's recently coming from Arbcom members. I should have made that clearer. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ye gods, 7 for:5 against and the block was extended? I'd have a hard time even calling that a majority.  Yes, it would be wonderful if Giano stopped pulling stupid drama-inviting crap, but stunts like this extension aren't helping the matter. Good unblock.  Shell    babelfish 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 has restored the block pending review. Please, everyone, stop yourselves from making any further block/unblock transactions.  The ArbCom has a chance to show their wisdom by correcting this situation.  Hopefully they will. Jehochman Talk 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Under the special Giano rules promulgated by Arbcom, Moreschi was wrong. That does not mean Arbcom was right; there are 3 names on the support list who I would have expected on to see on the oppose list.  There are worse things than losing your adminship for doing what you believe is right in the face of petty idiocy, if it comes to that. Thatcher 22:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I came through a place known for creating teachers. The necessary attributes for teaching were branded into my psyche.  If somebody is an "idiot" you need to patiently try to enlighten them and convince them to do the right thing. This is much more valuable than overturning them.  The beauty of teaching is that you can fail most of the time and still be successful.  Jehochman Talk 03:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While the block is (like all the efforts directed against Giano) completely ludicrous, I think the wisest tactic would be to establish a community consensus opposing the block, thereby pressuring the ArbCom to relent. If we take that route, it should probably take place on some other page. Everyking (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Members Who Do Not Have Support of the Community Should Not be Making Decisions for the Community
Two current arbcom members (Jdforrester 20.5% and Charles Matthews 27.4% support ) had significantly more opposes than supports in the 2008 arbcom election.  The community does not support their election to the arbcom starting 2009, but a reasonable man could infer that the community does not support their presence on the arbcom today. Why in the face of such a ringing non-endorsement of their performance do these members continue to behave as though they are acting with the community's support? They are long-time volunteers and it would be unkind to kick them on their way out (of arbcom), but likewise it is not very gracious of them to continue acting as though they have the support of the community. There is a difference between making hard decisions and making bad decisions and you don't get levels of support that low solely because you made the hard decisions ... now do you? Uncle uncle uncle 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And why is this being posted here? Valid points for sure, but curious as to the location.  Majorly  talk  04:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because further up on this page there is an example of a very bad decision that was passed 7–5 with these two being among the majority? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews just added another name in his list above, so now it looks like it was passed 8–5. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's worse, voting to approve it, or being the arb that comes in after seeing what's happened and saying "That went well, I support."--Cube lurker (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, Arbitrators are elected for 3 years and serve until the end of their term unless they resign. Wouldn't it be nice if we could set aside the actions of Presidents, members of Congress, governors, MPs and PMs who have demonstrably lost the support of their electorate but who remain in power as a result of similar statutory constructions? Thatcher 17:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be that nice, it would destabilize government and legislation, and it would foster populism (in the European, i.e. negative, sense). Wikipedia is not that kind of social and political community. Arbcom is not that kind of gremium. Companies and organizations, on the other hand, have quick and unbureaucratic means to make necessary changes when someone's position is actively harming the interests of share- or stakeholders. Firing is only one of many possible options, by the way. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)