User talk:Giano/archive 29

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice what you told RexxS but too late, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Holkham Hall
Came across this rather wonderful Lord Leicester quote today; “It is a melancholy thing to stand alone in one’s own country. I look around, not a house to be seen but my own. I am Giant of Giant’s Castle, and have ate up all my neighbours - my nearest neighbour is the King of Denmark”. I think I shall see if I can work it into the article. Hope you are keeping well in these difficult times. KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lovely quote, I’m sure I’ve heard it before. One of those things that you don’t no you knew until you hear it again. Yes, do work it in. Giano    (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather reminiscent of Sir George Reresby Sitwell, 4th Baronet to Evelyn Waugh, when both were looking out over the view of the whole of smoky Sheffied from a terrace at Renishaw Hall, "In the valley at our feet, still half hidden in mist , lay farms , cottages , villas , the railway , the colliery and the densely teeming streets of the men who worked there . . . Sir George turned and spoke in the wistful, nostalgic tones of a castaway, yet of a castaway who was reconciled to his fate": "As you can see, there is no-one between us and the Locker-Lampsons".  Cheers both! Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wonderful Johnbod, strangely enough Sir George’s name keeps cropping up in my present nighttime reading. I requested one of my offspring by me Superior Person by Kenneth Rose for Christmas as I usually enjoy his books. This book, however, seems to be below par, but as it was bought with love and limited funds, I feel compelled to finish it. I have never slept so well and so quickly. Wasn’t Sir George even more mad than Osbert and Edith? I did have sympathy for Sacheveral, but have lost it as he seemed happy for his wife to have Ugandan discussions with Oswald Mosley. Weird family, rather like my own in some ways. Giano    (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've never read much about them (rather more by them), but wierdness abounds. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Wikidownload.jpg


The file File:Wikidownload.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes TheImaCow, the stupidity of you people is quite breathtaking and probably accounts for why people like myself hardly edit any longer. The fact that you are so ignorant of the importance of that image and why it might be useful says volumes about you and your lack of education. What in earth are you doing here? Giano    (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On occasion, Excellency, our wiki-gnomes get too enthusiastic about their efforts to tidy up every nook and cranny of the encyclopedia. It is not going to be obvious to all of them that the plan refers to the Winter Palace, so it's probably best to mention that explicitly (I know, I know).
 * I have, therefore, added a standard template (sorry) to the file description page which will hopefully work as a kind of talisman to ward off the evil spirits in future. I hope that meets with your approval. Yours etc. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How am I supposed to know that the map is about a "winter palace" if there is no description? By the way, there was no source for the "plan already uploaded to Wikipedia", so I could have tagged the file as WP:F4 (no source) for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There aren't that many Winter Palaces! Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * you make my point for me far better better than I could ever hope to. You are supposed to do due diligence before proposing a deletion. Some of us may recognise the plan as the Winter Palace; others may not, but that's not necessary. The author of the plan was clear, so what was the problem with asking him what the context was? – apart from slowing down your rate of nominations, of course. This is why experienced contributors can be so scathing of editors who restrict themselves to gnoming and sometimes fail to communicate or see the bigger picture. --RexxS (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rex, and Johnbod. One despairs, one really does! Giano    (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rex, and Johnbod. One despairs, one really does! Giano    (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

How very droll! Criticism can sting can’t it? Wikipedia hasn’t really changed since 2004 when it was openly run by bullying, narrow minded, undereducated morons. The only difference is the “BUMs” have become less open in their behaviour. Never mind. Giano   (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You were warned. You are more than welcome to criticize, but you are not welcome to be un-civil. Plenty of stinging, yet constructive, criticism has been levelled at WT:ACN today. But your commentary, and subsequent disruption to try to restore it after being told nicely to rewrite it, go well beyond the collegial standards of Wikipedia. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - On the same day you are obliged, under fire, to strike your own gratuitous and uninformed comments on other editors’ motivations, you roll up here to lecture on the need to maintain “collegial standards”. Hypocrisy, thy name is... KJP1 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , The difference is that I struck my comments promptly, after realizing I had misspoken. Giano instead edit warred in their diatribe repeatedly. The block was hardly mine to begin with, Primefac put in the initial block. I simply removed TPA when it became clear they were not going to stop. They have been warned about this issue before, and any admin would have taken the same action I did. In fact, I likely gave a more lenient action, they could have easily found themselves blocked a week or for good, as they have been blocked before for this exact behavior. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are completely the wrong person to come here and silence Giano. Please undo your removal of tpa. If Giano really needs to have access to this page removed, I'm sure another, uninvolved, admin will do it soon enough. This is a well-watched page. I have restored Giano's comment which was removed by another user as "trolling", as I find it within the bounds of venting by a blocked user. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC).
 * The only reason I did not pull TPA myself was that Eek beat me to the punch. I find zero reason to add another entry to the block log purely for the purposes of optics or whatever may be the case in this situation, so please consider the removal of TPA to be "mine" for all practical extents and purposes. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Optics are important (and recent developments have greatly reduced the load of rock climbers who wish to capture their views as images, e.g.) but this isn't about optics, no matter how you wish to present yourself. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 01:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * do you really think you're the right person to do this given your own comments and given that you literally just desysopped an admin over an interpretation of WP:INVOLVED that is much broader than is supported by the policy. Perhaps it would put it into perspective if somebody was to make an arbitration request over this then dig up a few diffs of ill-judged comments and actions from your past. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they're not the right person, in many aspects. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly not - enjoy the nice weather anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well said . It's been a while since an arb was hoist by their own petard and hoiked before their own committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may be talking about the arb that was blocked by Bishzilla in 2009, Kudpung? Technically, they weren't hoiked before the committee — Bishzilla was, and was admonished (ROTFLOL) — but the case turned into more of a review of the arb in question. Do I remember it right, ? The more recently disgraced arb I recollect was removed more discreetly, without any hoiking, around 2018. When it comes to their own, the committee tends to be all for avoiding public hangings. A bit of a hypermario problem, you might say. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC).


 * Maybe I'm missing something here. I make an intentional effort these days to not follow the goings on at ArbCom. But...If "vile" and "lacklustre" is the standard of civility we're enforcing, then we probably have a few thousand users we need to block post haste. I like Prime. We've worked together in the past. I actually met Eek once, though you probably don't remember me. I'm quite forgettable. Despite my name, I don't quite have the same dedication to a colorized theme as he and someone like OrangeMike. But I wonder whether ArbComs feelings really need so thoroughly defended. They're big boys and girls. I don't know that any of them are crying into their pillows over some pointed criticism. That's part of why they're elected to do what they do.  G M G  talk  12:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. If you missed anything, it might have been "bullying, narrow minded, undereducated morons" which some apparently think is reasonable. ——  Serial  12:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. Not saying it's exactly the paragon of enlightened debate we should all aspire to. But Arbcom is there to make hard decisions and maybe we should afford some leeway for decisions that someone is going to strongly disagree with no matter the outcome. How many of us could have been blocked under the same standard when the Fram debacle carried on for 100 years?
 * At any rate, it's been a while, and I haven't forgotten that drink you offered me some three years ago. I fully intend to cash in if ever I can make my way to the UK after the world stops ending.  G M G  talk  13:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, the block was not because of the language by itself, but the language combined with edit-warring to insist that it be included on the page. If it were just a case of "this is an offensive post", it would have been removed and we wouldn't be debating this here (because are exactly right in that we are adults on the Committee and can handle a bit of foul-mouthed criticism). Primefac (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , While it was a critical post, perhaps even harsh by some standards - I think "foul mouthed" is overstepping. — Ched (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point, struck. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I suspect that Giano got precisely the response he expected, perhaps even wanted. IMO it did make a point quite clearly.  Giano, if that was indeed your intent - well played sir. — Ched (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I think, too. It certainly would have been easier to reply to Giano with a rebuttal (there are all kinds of ways to do that, some of them quite sarcastic), instead of obliging him with an edit war and a block. I like personally (heck, I like Primfac and CaptainEek personally, too, and I even like Giano, although I've been told that it's difficult to pull that one off), but I notice that he marked his revert of Giano's comment as a "clerk action". Has he been demoted? (No offense to clerks intended.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 *  Wow!  You couldn't make this up. I really, really, really find it almost impossible to believe this. If we needed any further proof of what fools and bullies the present arbitration committee is, then it's difficult to think of a better way to get that proof than two members of the arbitration committee using their power to silence an editor who had criticised the arbitration committee for being bullies and, as he puts it, "morons". Really? They must have heard of WP:INVOLVED, and unless they are indeed morons they must be able to see that they should not have taken this action, whatever their opinions of the rights and wrongs of the case, in view of their conflict of interest. Also, unless they really are morons they must have known that what they were doing would be seen as bullying. Are we really to believe that they can't see that what they have achieved by their actions is to provide support and justification for the very charges made against them by Giano? That they are in fact proving his point for him?
 * ,, which of you is going to block me for this post? Or are you going to go the whole hog, and desysop me instead? JBW (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you don't need me to tell you that if you carry on much like this, you've pretty well fucked yourself already. ——  Serial  04:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Special:contributions/Serial Number 54129, would you please be so kind as to keep your gutter-like language off my page. If you can’t express yourself without it, I’m sure there are pages better suited to your intellect elsewhere. Giano    (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I have thought long and hard about this, and read and re-read this discussion several times, before coming to the following decision. There is a clear consensus in the discussion above that the removal of talk page access by an involved administrator was wrong. Several editors have indicated that they view it that way, including three administrators. (That's not counting, who has clearly expressed a critical view, but has not explicitly commented on the issue of an involved administrator taking action.) That being so, I shall restore talk page access. I have also seriously considered reverting the WP:INVOLVED-violating block. I have also seriously considered blocking both the offending administrators. ''In case either or  thinks that is some kind of joke, or a rhetorical exaggeration to make some silly point, I assure them it is nothing of the sort. Both of them have many times quite rightly blocked editors for much lesser offences than such blatant violations of the policy on administrator conduct, as have I.'' JBW (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons I quit ArbCom many moons ago was because of the idea that I could be called a moron (and worse), have my honor and good faith repeatedly questioned, and be repeatedly accused of joining ArbCom because I was power hungry. And expected to just sit there and take it.  Well, no, expected to interact with the people doing it in a polite and respectful manner.  All for volunteering to do the best I could to resolve disputes, despite never receiving any training to resolve disputes.  I do not have the personality trait of being able to relentlessly turn the other cheek like that.  I was not good Arb material.  With very few exceptions, I don't think we have many people who are good Arb material, yet we continue to want an ArbCom. I'm in the awkward position of liking and respecting everyone posting in this section, on both sides.  I'm aware that several of them have said or done something in the last couple of days that were, to varying degrees, major or minor errors.  It is possible to come to the wrong decision, or say something dumb, without being evil, and without being a moron.  It's also possible to say something in the heat of the moment, in defense of an unfairly maligned friend, without needing to be site blocked.  A clerk action should really only apply to ArbCom pages. Talk page venting should almost never result in removal of talk page access by the admin(s) being vented at. I think JBW's restoration of talk page access was the right thing to do.  I'm tempted to (symbolically, since there are only 5 hours left) change Giano's block to a page block from WT:ACN.  I won't, because I'm a chicken, and because I won't be around tonight to deal with any blowback.  But if there are any Arbs watching this page (well, there are probably several of them, what I mean is, if there are any Arbs watching this page who are willing to delurk and admit it), who are interested in de-escalating, I think either that, or a complete unblock, would be a good idea. I think considering blocking either Primefac or Captain Eek would not be a good solution to, well, anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I see that some relative newcomers have obtained advanced ops and decided that they must use them. Friends, a user is allowed to vent on their own talk page after being blocked, especially when the block is arguably bad practice. Was there was some sort of horrific oversighted content that I am not able to see?  If that's the case, please say so (without revealing the contents). Otherwise, please restore Giano's talk page access promptly, per our customs and policies.  Many thanks. Jehochman Talk 00:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering that the Arbs have just removed the admin rights of one of Wikipedia's most dedicated contributors for an alleged breach of WP:INVOLVED, it's astonishing that two of them have blatantly breached that very same policy by their actions against Giano here. Primefac and Captain Eek, you have both broken the trust we placed in you when we elected you to ArbCom, trust that you would uphold Wikipedia policy rather than break it yourselves. I think you should both stand down from the committee. I fully support JBW's comments and restoration of TP access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both blocks are bad. Primefac erred in applying the block in that the criticism leveled by this diff was not leveled at a particular user, but at ArbCom in general. Further, that Primefac is part of ArbCom they are directly involved, and thus this block was a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED. This is no different than if I were to block somebody who criticized me with a similar post. I would expect to be desysopped posthaste if I was so out of line as to pull a stunt like that., you are way...way...out of line on this. In the CaptainEeek case, I think CaptainEek says it well by themselves; "any admin would have taken the same action I did" . If that is the case, then why did it have to be you, a person directly WP:INVOLVED, who had to take this action? A post on Giano's talk page isn't going to end the project. There was no rush. There was no emergency. Giano wasn't madly pinging people to this page. Giano wasn't spamming unblock requests. They were posting criticism about the block and you didn't like it. That's the issue here, not disruption to the project. Please see Blocking policy; "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" Please describe, specifically, what damage to the project was happening due to Giano's actions on this talk page? Further, please explain how someone so directly WP:INVOLVED as you are had to act immediately to prevent further such damage to the project, and explain why this couldn't be brought to WP:AN/I so one of the "any admins" that would have removed talk page access could have been given an opportunity to do so? If you can't explain this, then at the very least you owe an immediate apology to Giano. Please note this isn't anything about me being a fan of Giano. I've never posted to this talk page before, nor can I remember Giano and I ever interacting before. It is to say the least ironic that Primefac and CaptainEek should so blatantly, obviously, and dramatically violate WP:INVOLVED when they both just supported FoF of RexxS abusing INVOLVED and Primefac voted to desysop. The actions taken here by Primefac and CaptainEek are deeply, deeply troubling. We now have a case of a person being blocked for criticizing ArbCom. Primefac and CaptainEek, you both owe direct apologies to Giano for the abuse of your privileges on this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you took ownership of the TPA block with this edit, both you and can explain how these blocks were not blatant abuses of WP:INVOLVED? Further, please explain what damage or disruption was being caused to the project by Giano posting criticism of ArbCom (however uncivil you care to construe it) when such edits contained no pings and no unblock requests? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hammersoft, for your eloquent summary. I don’t think criticising a ruling body online, unless ones uses obscenities, should be a blocking offence anymore than one is sanctioned in real life for criticising an elected Government. No doubt those supporting this block are fans of the Chinese, Russian and Banana Republics’ Goverments. That is something which Wikipedians should find deeply troubling. Giano    (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Bad blocks.  Excuse me, but wtf??? Prompt and appropriate responses to all the above needed! Paul August &#9742; 17:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse block Giano was being grossly uncivil, it doesn't matter that the administrators were involved per WP:INVOLVED In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Any administrator should have blocked Giano for his conduct. The fact that other administrators who suggest that this was wrong suggest that Giano severe personal attacks were within the bounds of acceptable speech, which is a disgrace to the encyclopedia. As a parting note, I suggest that Giano's description of Arbcom as utterly vile, miserable, lacklustre is a better description of his own actions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! is your Wikipediocracy account not working this evening? You’d better get back there, Beeblebrox is probably missing you. Have you thought about joining the Chinese Wikipedia? I’m sure they’d love to have you with your views concerning the criticism of Government.  Giano    (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and it seems User:Hemiauchenia, you are a liar. Giano    (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you are in good company, Giano. The same user just posted elsewhere that RexxS went around outing people. I'd say that attack on you was a badge of honor. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Explain? I have very strong views on outing people on anything from names to sexuality. Giano    (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's this: . Which I find a bit difficult to believe. But on the other hand, the user here was recently blocked for an outing violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Even more so because the user who Hemiauchenia claims was driven off WP by RexxS in 2015 actually continued to edit here for years after that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The nonsense about RexxS is about Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive931. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Am I to understand that someone, is pulling diffs from 4 1/2 years ago, over two years BEFORE the RfA?  If so, The lady doth protest too much, methinks — Ched (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And that's probably the least of it. See what Giano links to in the Rotten Fish section below (not to be confused with Tryptofish, who always uses underarm deodorant). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats all so interesting. I have, myself, given up Wikipedia many times. However, it’s rather like giving up smoking (tobacco!), one starts with the best intentions and then the brain, tell you “just one” won’t hurt, and then one’s back to square one, Incidentally, for anyone struggling against the demon tobacco, keep with it! Giano   (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy Fuck. I apologize to everyone for recommending calm and de-escalation.  The slur "RexxS outed and harassed LaMona" was up on the Arb's noticeboard for, what, 3 hours?  I notice no Arbs or Clerks felt the need to remove it, or block Hemiauchenia for that.  After all my good faith, it turns out that you only get blocked on WT:ACN for insulting the Arbs.  Giano, may I have special dispensation to use the F-word above?  And will you accept my apologies for not supporting JBW's suggestion of blocking Primefac and CaptainEek, and my apologies for not wheel warring with them about your block?  --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, the Arbs are beyond contemptible, it can only be deliberate. I had though better of One or two of them, clearly I was mistaken. Herculaneum or, whatever their daft name is, is currently repeating one of my posts (above or below) on Wikipediocracy, with the diffs showing them to be a liar edited out. Beeblebrox will join them there shortly to opine further. What a mess! Giano    (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, this is all very interesting. There are many thoughts which are prompted by various comments above, but here are just a few of them.
 * 1)  please don't put words into my mouth. I never said that "Giano [sic] severe personal attacks were within the bounds of acceptable speech". I said that the people involved in his criticism should not have blocked him, which is a very different thing. If you carefully re-read what I have written you will see that nowhere have I expressed any opinion whatever as to how acceptable or unacceptable Giano's comments were, and I suggest that you would be better not to speculate on what opinions I may hold on matters on which I have not commented.
 * 2)  you have now described an editor as "utterly vile" and "miserable". Would you care to revert that personal attack? If not, is there any reason you should not be blocked for it, since you have made it clear that you think editors who say things like that about other editors should be blocked?
 * 3)  I have no idea what your comment to me was supposed to mean, other than that you wished to make a personal attack against me. If you did intend your comment to actually convey constructive information, then I will be grateful if you clarify what that information is, and if not then please desist in future from making such meaningless remarks just for the sake of attacking editors who have said or done something you don't like.
 * 4)  I have come across you many times over the years, and as far as I recall I have always had a respect for you as an editor and an administrator. On this occasion, though, I think you made a poor judgement.  as far as I recall I have come across you only rarely, so I have less impression to go on than in Primefac's case, but I have no memory of ever having any reason to criticise anything you have done, before this. On this occasion, however, I'm afraid I think that what you did was more than just "a poor judgement"; I think you seriously erred. I have no way of knowing whether either or both of you still think you did not make any error, or whether all the above comments have caused you to reconsider. What I do know, however, is that you have seen a solid consensus of more numerous administrators than I can ever remember seeing all criticisng another administrator before. Two administrators have both explicitly requested that you respond to things that have been said here. Of course you are not obliged to do so, but it is inconceivable that you do not have any opinion on all this, and if I were the subject of a case like this I would certainly wish to express my view, whether it might be "I still think I was totally right, because ...", or "I think on the whole I was right, but I now see that ..." or "I now see that I was mistaken, because...", or "I don't agree with what has been siad here, but I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, so in future I shall..." or anything else. I actually find it puzzling why anyone would quietly ignore something like this, as though they couldn't hear what was being said.
 * 5)  It must be clear to you now that when you wrote "any admin would have taken the same action I did" you were very seriously misjudging the situation. I hope that your realisation as to how far out your judgement of what consensus among administrators would be may encourage you to be more cautious in future. JBW (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You say that Primefac and CaptainEek in regards to responding to this thread; "Of course you are not obliged to do so". This is inaccurate. As WP:ADMINACCT says, as administrators they "are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions". HJ Mitchell, Paul August, myself, and you have all pinged Primefac and CaptainEek to this page regarding this block. Neither Primefac nor CaptainEek have chosen to respond, though both have resumed editing at least after one of the pings. This is a volunteer project, and nobody is required to do something. But, if you DO an admin action and you are queried about it, you ARE expected to respond. If they knew they never would have time to respond, they never should have taken the action. But, since they both did take action and both did continue editing, there can be no excuse. They are now ignoring this conversation, despite being pinged many times, which places them in violation of WP:ADMINACCT. This is quite ironic since both of these administrators decided to vote in support of a principle about WP:ADMINACCT in the recent RexxS case. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed_decision. The fact that they refuse to abide by WP:ADMINACCT in this case makes their blocks all the more reprehensible. In the hopes that pinging them for the first second  third  fourth  fifth  sixth seventh time will result in them appearing here again;   please respond. Explain how your blocks were not a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED and explain how blocking Giano from talk page access saved the project from damage or disruption since Giano didn't use ping or spam unblock requests? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of order: re: ...Giano severe personal attacks ....  IIRC that is very much in error.  Giano's comments were directed toward a collective body (Arbom).  At no point did I see a single name mentioned.  People should not infer things that are not implied.  There was NOT any personal attack. THIS: Giano's description of Arbcom as utterly vile, miserable, lacklustre is a better description of his own actions is a personal attack.— Ched (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification: A personal attack can be levied at persons plural as well as a person singular. I'll just note in passing that as a climax to vile and miserable, lackluster is kind of, well, lackluster. I would have expected something more like despicable. (I'm speaking stylistically here, not saying this word applies to Arbcom. Really I'm not. Please believe me.) EEng 01:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Come now. Not like you can just insult a whole planet at a time using a giant loudspeaker. That would be silly.  G M G  talk  02:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with this statement. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see this discussion. Yes, I will reply. No more pings necessary. I have been very busy IRL today, and it will take me some time to reply to this with the appropriate level of care :) CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you are going to take some time to reflect on your actions, and how you might have done better. This is a good first step. Jehochman Talk 02:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You will have to excuse me for not getting back to this right away, I was finishing an important matter at work today and thus didn't have any spare time to reply. Trust me, I saw the many pings and was reading the conversation. With that said, expect no further replies from me on this matter.
 * With regards to INVOLVED: before blocking Giano, I had never heard of them or interacted with them. One does not become involved merely because an editor insults them or the body they are in. If that were the case, any editor could escape judgement by simply insulting the committee, or a particular admin, or admins as a whole, or CheckUsers as a whole, and so on.

Eek Justifying himself

 * With regards to the disruptive editing: Giano's initial block was warranted, as it was edit warring. I make no judgement as to whether Bradv made the right choice to remove the material. But Giano, instead of opening a dialogue with Bradv, chose to revert twice. Posting the same material repeatedly is disruptive editing and edit warring. They then chose to post the same to their userpage, which I removed and warned them that if they added it back they would have TPA revoked. At this point, multiple editors had indicated they felt Giano's comment was inappropriate. But again, instead of stopping and engaging in conversation, they once more posted their comment, in what I would call "poking the bear". So, as I had warned, I pulled their TPA, for a short 31 hours. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think saying "expect no further replies from me on this matter." is exactly congenial given the controversial nature of your actions. I don't feel your answer adequately addresses the realities here. However, since it is likely that I will be at least in part be repeating myself, I see no reason to belabor the point. From my chair, this was a clearly a serious breach of WP:INVOLVED, and by your own admission if any other admin would have performed the block you could have called in someone not on ArbCom to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:CaptainEek, your blustering self-justification does you no credit at all. You came to my page to exert your pompous authority, and when you found it wasn’t acknowledged, you threw a hissy fit and removed talk page access purely because you could. That multiple editors didn’t like what I said is neither here nor there, if that was a reason for taking action, this inept Arbcom would be dismissed and Rexx reinstated. I choose the timing for my engagements in dialogue, not you. If you find my level of criticism directed at a committee hard to deal with, then you are going to find adult life tres difficult. I suggest you round up your side-kicks and all go and play elsewhere.  Giano    (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: please do not feel the need to call me “ their.” My Christian name ends with an “o” which denotes I am happy to be a he/him or his. Giano    (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

So long Rexx

 * Wikipedia has gone mad. Stark staring crazy mad all over the site. And one of the few people I know who could de escalate, if he decided it was worth it, is RexxS.... but he's gone. What a colossal mistake and wrong! What a loss! What a mess! Littleolive oil (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * indeed Littleolive oil. The saddest thing is that no one in “authority” actually cares if people like Rexx stay or go. This has always been Wikipedia’s biggest flaws and it dates back to J Wales attitude from when the project’s authority was a one man band. If one didn’t raise very noisily attention to these departures they would be akin to a pauper going to an unmarked grave. From those in authority there is never one tear of regret or even a raised hand saluting that departure. That is what I find most pathétique and most unforgivable, I use the French spelling of pathétique as that is truer to my thoughts. A few will express regrets on his page and then in a year or so, it will appear on our watchlist because a bot will have posted there, and we’ll say, “Oh yes, dear old Rexx used to live there, can it really be three years?” Then we’ll resume our day to day editing. Someone who contributed hugely to the project is needlessly lost and Wikipedia couldn’t care less. Giano    (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Tchaikovsky's Pathétique is also a most beautiful piece of music, in a minor key that fits my mood right now. I don't blame the arbs, some don't know what this loss means, those who did showed that they did in their votes. And they are all caught in a system that is not enlightened. This project was not built by the beginning editors meant by the "anyone can edit" words. It was built and is maintained by editors like Rexx, and  he spent many years becoming that builder. Fatigue and frustration in a mature adult can be dealt with in a few remarks as the conversation between NYB and RexxS indicated. Editors deserve to be treated with respect, even the worst, otherwise the environment will be too toxic to work in, and an editor with RexxS' history of service deserves that respect and so much more. He cannot be replaced and I don't think he'll be back. In a sense, I am happy he has moved on as he seems to have done. I had a very hard time in the articles where our editing paths crossed and I always left to save my own health; he didn't, he tried to see those contentious discussions through. Doing so can be extremely taxing and those who have not edited in those areas do not know or understand the toll it takes. But someone has to do it or articles decay drastically. Expertise is often not understood or valued on Wikipedia. One reason I stopped working with my small innovative dance  company was because despite the lovely dancers/people I was working with they also did not truly understand the time it takes to really become expert, to respect the work/art form, and I couldn't rush what I was doing anymore or quality was gone. That is an aspect of the time we live in where much can be earned quickly... but  not all. It takes years to build a RexxS and we have let him go in a few days. Arbitration cannot be a sledgehammer as it is now structured. In Jimbo's day most people were new editors and there was more uniformity in ability and expertise, so a relatively non-nuanced, hammer approach worked well enough I guess, but not anymore. Do we want to reinvent the wheel everyday or can we be forward thinking enough to know we have to maintain expertise while we develop newer editors or this place becomes a kind of  | Ground Hog Day with a line draw between those who have the hindsight and foresight to change as Wikipedia needs to change  and those who don't see that need or understand it. Time teaches much; we just can't expect to all be experts with out the time learning actually takes. Anyway, hard times! Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid I do blame the Arbcom. We all make choices every day of our lives. Before making them, we weigh up the pros and cons and, hopefully, the likely results. To continue our musical analogy, one can either spend ones life listening to Pathétique, or one can stand up and learn to play Apassionata; I prefer the latter one cannot be walked over. Giano    (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I quite like the third movement of Pathétique (allegro molto vivace) actually, quite an uplifting piece. The Nice did a rock band arrangement of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Giano. I wanted to make a distinction between responsibility and blame. The arbs are responsible for whatever they decide. I delineate responsibility from blame since blame denotes for me a knowingness, an understanding. If the arbs in the RexxS case knowingly, and deliberately tried to damage an editor, then yes, they are to blame. I try to see arbitrations as situations where arbs are doing the best they can, with who they are and what they understand, with the platform they have been given where there is personal honesty, not always the case I know from my own experience, but I try to begin with this position. In this case, we had arbs with different levels of experience. Some I know from the past tend towards rigidity and will not move beyond a certain position, some were inexperienced, some experienced enough to have a larger picture, some behaved in way that inadvertently led to an erosion of trust. All of these people came together in a process that has an innate punitive platform, that is, punishes. Our arbitration process does not arbitrate. We look for fault and then we have a series of punishments that can be applied if the arbs think there has been fault. We do not attempt to avoid shame, or guilt, we do not deliberately attempt to hold on to editors-apparently they are replaceable-we do not attempt to understand anything beyond the few diffs the charging parties offer and in doing so we implicitly support vindictiveness. We do not seem to understand that to explain a diff doesn't take another diff but takes an explanation-sometimes long-and context, but editors are not given the space to present such extensive rebuttals. At one point in the RexxS case editors were informed that arbs would not look beyond diffs and evidence presented, in essence, would not look for context on their own. This is understandable on one level since arbs are volunteers too. But if the arbs come to the right decision with this kind of platform and process and with little to no context, it's accidental. Especially in this case, what was lacking was understanding and heart. We are living in unprecedented times. Never in the history of our known world have we experienced a pandemic that was not only  world wide but that could spread as fast as it it did in part because we have modes of transportation that move people quickly. Never were we able to document the times hour by hour in some cases as we do with internet and news. People have lived in isolation, in fear, having lost loved ones, with constant worry about loved ones, finances and on and on. Many like me may have come close to a breaking point. Some, unlike me, have suffered from the disease. We do not yet now how this disease will affect behavior in the future. Yet, in this arbitration only one arb had the experience to talk to the editor about concerns and despite that, the arbitration went right on ahead ignoring the times we live in and the enormous contributions of the editor in the arbitration. At so many points we could have turned back, but there was a cry for retribution. It's as if we presented the arbs with a square of paper divided up into multiple parts, in one corner one red part attracts attention. In focus on that one red piece we ignored the humane, the ability to reason, to talk, to discuss in a non- threatening environment, the knowledge that we don't know what impact this pandemic has had on people; we focused on perceived misuse of tools only partially supported, and some abrasive language. The parts of the paper representing an entire body of work was ignored for that one red square. In addition we had editors whom I had previously respected who said things that were so beyond reasonable that I will have a hard time editing here. I am no loss, but RexxS is, as is the work he did. This will happen again and again as long as we simply blame arbs, (but Giano I understand what you are saying), rather than fix the system and both train and select the arbitrators who will have the ability to arbitrate rather than punish. I have no doubt these arbs could have been this kind of arb with a different platform and training. I don't see changes as long as arbs are not trained, cannot admit to mistakes,  cannot  be allowed to correct those mistakes and exist in an environment where process and editors are valued over an end product which is some  need to acknowledge perceived wrong and perhaps punish. There's so much wrong with this model I don't even know where to begin. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Littleolive oil, thank you for articulating that so perceptively. That analysis of how the process went wrong is, in my opinion, the best that I have seen on-wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed! My experience of Arbitration is that a group of editors (I use the term loosely, as many don’t) promote themselves like Cinderella at a convention for advanced social climbers and become Arbs. Then with zilch knowledge of arbitration (the term actually means negotiating and compromising) see themselves as supreme judges. Later, during cases, they see a witness, and think, “Oh yes, I don’t like him.” They will then contact a mate on IRC (or Wikipediocracy) to dig up and present completely unrelated diffs to condemn someone’s behaviour at a time immaterial to the matter before them. Even I’ve just fallen into the trap, it shouldn’t be “before them,” but matters upon which they are supposed to be arbitrating. Little tin gods in a little tin heaven. Giano  (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * arbitration ... actually means negotiating and compromising – No, it doesn't. You're confusing arbitration with mediation. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ,Arbitration does not mean handing out Draconian penalties. That’s the prerogative of the law courts. Arbitration means finding a solution and agreeing to abide by it my mutual consent not by expelling one of the parties. Giano  (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can either follow the link I supplied above to an explanation of what arbitration actually is, or you can keep saying things that aren't true. (Or both, I suppose.) <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are quite clearly confusing arbitration and litigation and failing to understand the difference in remit and power between arbitrators and judiciary. Giano  (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're going with the "both" option, then. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Littleolive oil. I'm not sure whether follows this page. I hope he does, but I'm pinging him to make sure he sees Olive's post above. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC).

Font tags in sig
Hi, just wondering if you would be willing to update your sig to change the font tags to span tags? The reason is that font tags are deprecated and show up at Lint errors, so it's best not to use them for new content. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As you have given me a copy paste to do it, that puts it within my capabilities, although why people have to keep fiddling with things is beyond me. Giano (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe put half the effort into improving the search functions as they do in to tweaking little html tags ... just a thought. — Ched (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m lost. Giano  (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It's just that folks continually focus on updating our html tags (the things that make text big, small, red, blue, etc.), when there are so many other things that would really improve the project.  RexxS worked on a lot of stuff that made reading our web pages on different devices (computer, tablets, phones) much better for example - things that make a real difference to the readers.  In my opinion, trying to find something on Wikipedia is archaic, outdated to the point of nearly obsolete.  Whether your signature is made by saying or is really not something our readers would even see because we don't put user signatures on our text pages.  I know that WOSlinker is correct in what he says, it's just that I'd rather see some effort put into finding information on wiki through our "search" function.  I was just blowing off a little steam I suppose. — Ched (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I’ve not a clue what you’re talking about, but I’m sure you’re right, you usually are. I just wish things could be kept simple, I’m still only capable of using the ref system that starts, once we get to these “{}” things it all goes pear shaped for me, and then before I’ve finished the page, some know all comes along and bossily changes the ref system with a smart Alec comment. Editing Wikipedia is all to stressful and complicated these days, I only stay just to see what going to happen next.  Giano  (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)