User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair

-
 * This is a pastiche of the now deleted User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, which in turn was a pastiche of of the very much undeleted User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair

Are you implying that Rlevse's retirement was actually a controlled demolition?-- K orr u ski Talk 16:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Desist at once!
There is fnord no conspiracy. Please report to your neighborhood reeducation fnord center for processing. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it you who "helped him draft" the parting statement Coren?  Giacomo   16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Help! I've wandered in to HHGTTG and can't get out! However, I've fairly certain this is not...ooh look, a bunny. Shell  babelfish 16:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, seeing as Arbs want to take part here: I will rephrase for Shell Kinney? Which member of the Arbcom assisted in the drafting of Rlevse's parting statement and by implication endorsed its views? I really would stress that denying any Arbcom member did may be reprehensible.  Giacomo   17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something here. If "helped him draft" is a quote, from whom is it a quote, and when or where? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm asking the questions? I know the answers, but I'm asking them never the less. By the way, you are doing very well, having 2 arbs here, so long as they are prepared to answer questions it should be interesting for you.  Giacomo   17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giano, your paranoid delusions are taking a turn for the worse. I'm hoping this blows over soon before you cover yourself with ridicule, because your contributions (especially in architecture) are valuable; but you are quickly expending what little credibility you have left by insisting that the windmills are giants. The only place there is a conspiracy is in your own overactive imagination. You're being confused by a consuming grudge over an imagined slight to the point of twisting everything that happens into self-fulfilling confirmation of your delusion. And, to prove the point, you'll now deem me part of that conspiracy (if I wasn't already) for pointing this out. Take a break away from Wikipedia for a few months and do something else to clear your head, or go and discuss things with a health professional. "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed." &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that a yes or a no? Just be clear.  Giacomo   17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's mu. I have done no such thing, but I'm not going to say "no" because you're begging the question that any such help existed at all.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid clever answers are not required. We'll take that as "No, it was not me who helped draft RLevse's parting statement." Thank you that was most helpful. Would you like to name the Arb in question?  Giacomo   18:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you may not take that to mean exactly what I specifically said it does not. The simple answer, since you don't want to deal with clever ones, is "Your question is incorrect because it is based on a false premise."  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you know it to be a false premise or you beleive it to be a false premise? I would try and answer more simply this time; it's easier for you.  Giacomo   18:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "[...] for he was spurred on by the conviction that the world needed his immediate presence: so many were the grievances he intended to rectify, the wrongs he resolved to set right, the harms he meant to redress, the abuses he would reform and the debts he would discharge." &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sancho, you will find the ground very hard when you fall off that donkey.  Giacomo   18:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On the substantive matter, I have been reminded that, for some egregious interpretation of "help draft", an answer might be "Roger". Rlevse did thank him for copyedit help.  I wouldn't want you to think that I've been trying to mislead you; but I'm pretty sure that copyedits isn't what you have in mind when you make your accusations.  Which reminds me, who are you accusing of doing what, again?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm so pleased that you have started to think perhaps it will happen again.  Giacomo   19:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if suspected conspiracies were true, how would one ever un-cover them? GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, but that's not the point of all this, is it? One guy making a mistake in an area that apparently (if you read the various discussions) confuses the vast majority of the community has very little to do with Giano's goals here.  He knows that if you repeat an accusation enough times in enough places, the random editor who couldn't care less about the politics of the situation is bound to see it once or twice - and that's all you need.  Regardless of a lack of evidence or even common sense, if you play the game well, you can influence a large portion of the community because they won't look at the details, they'll just remember the accusations were made and discussed at length.  It does an excellent job of distracting from any of the real issues here, such as: what exactly are the pack of editors at FAC really doing during these article reviews if something so apparently obvious is completely missed, how many of our "featured" articles are in similar shape and what do we do, as a community, to change this?  Skewering someone, especially in a perceived position of authority, neatly avoids having to take a hard look at the processes that got us here with the added bonus of putting another notch in the "drove this person off the wiki" belt.  In the end though, it matters little - despite all the scheming, Giano is still just the king of multi-player notepad. Shell   babelfish 19:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh Shell, you do sound unhappy and bitter. So it's skewering is it? Did he jump on it or was he pushed, or is there just possibly a little bit more than you in your ivory tower, that is arbcom are prepeared to see. I seen some ignorant and incomptetent posts from arbs before, but that is the most ignorant ever. God help any victim in a case you ever hear. You are a disgrace to the Arbcom.  Giacomo   21:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well thank you, I certainly couldn't have asked for a better example of my point. I am a bit disappointed that ignorant was the best you could do though. Shell   babelfish 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ


 * What I'm getting at though is this: There's no mechanical way to proove if arbitrators/administrators or any editors have been apart of any cover-up. There's no way to make Rlvese return to Wikipedia. As a result, what's the point of persuing it (other then mere curiousity). GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. I'm not sure why Giano is so interested in who wrote the statement, but I would expect better behavior from arbcom members than questioning Giano's sanity (Coren) and blaming everyone except the one who was wrong (Shell Kinney). I think it might be time for arb members to stop circling the wagons. If there's nothing to this, then let Giano rant all he wants. There's no need to belittle either him or the problem. Tex (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by blaming everyone else. The concerns about copyright have been handled as they would for any other editor; there's a WP:CCI open and contributions are being systematically reviewed.  The discussions about how to educate the general community and whether or not a more thorough review of Featured Articles needs to happen have stalled in a number of places, often due to calls for someone's head - seems a bit silly to ignore the forest for the trees if you ask me.  If you think attacking another editor at every turn in various places and claiming (but not providing) super secret evidence of a conspiracy is appropriate, then I suppose we disagree there. Shell   babelfish 18:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell, I suspect Tex interpreted "what exactly are the pack of editors at FAC really doing during these article reviews if something so apparently obvious is completely missed" as blaming the FA reviewers/delegates, or at least questioning their competency. If that's not actually what you meant, you may wish to clarify to prevent further misunderstandings. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to think it's what Shell had in mind, but several people involved with FAC were entirely happy - exultant, in fact - to refer to those involved with DYK as "a pretty incompetent bunch" well before the issues with the Grace Sherwood article were discovered. They made comments like that repeatedly, seemingly hoping to have the maximum impact and maximum disruption - and they succeeded. When there is a suspicion that the exactly equivalent implication has been suggested in the other direction, suddenly there is a need for clarifications? Giano is right, it is indeed interesting for me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Without downplaying who did what actual copying here, you do realize there was a co-author, several reviewers and the entire group at the FAC review who looked over the article and either missed or misunderstood the copying issue? That's a pretty large group of editors who are working on what are supposed to be Wikipedia's best articles - it's enough to seriously concern me that we may have a much bigger problem than anyone's willing to admit. What I haven't been terribly impressed with is the unwillingness to discuss those issues and the resorts to attacking other editors as a means of distraction. Shell   babelfish 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that. Editor error can occur anytime, deliberate or not. Anyone can edit, after all. This case has pointed up a more serious failure of process in that the problems were not detected, and that's the thing to get excited about. pablo 20:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)