User talk:Giano II

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (2007)

Re: the autoblock User talk:!!

I'm replying here to prevent the fire forest to continue further on his page :). The autoblock was created with the block, but autoblocks don't reset when the blocks are manually removed. And since they are really hard to spot, Durova probably wasn't aware of its existence :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Some preople may feel it is a great pity Durova was ever allowed to have access to such tools in the first place. Giano (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see the message was left here because !! has gone on a long wikipbreak with his history deleted - typical. Yet another valuable editor driven off by sheer incompetence of an ill trained Admim. Many people know that !! was formerly one of Wikipedia's most valuable and respected editors who for his own private reasons wanted a change of account name - and why not? I do hope there will be a de-sysoping at the end of this. Giano (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

They won't. She works a lot and pleases the right people. This gives her immunity to treat other users as she sees fit. Sad for the project, of course.85.5.180.48 (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have something to say please feel free to say it here, but please don't hide behind an anon IP number - if people are too frightened to come out and express themselves honestly and openly then nothing will ever change here. Giano (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

More Mountfort

Hi Giano, I hope you are well. I took this photo recently, which I think shows the style of the Canterbury College buildings quite well. Sorry about the stupid "Open" sign on the right, but hey, what can you do? Take care - Gobeirne (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine never been better! Brilliant foto will add it later today - you could have vandalised the sign! Thanks Gobeirne Giano (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• For those questions about the timing of the wings, try the Arts Centre website. Damn! I've just read it myself, and it seems the Chemistry building shown in the photo dates from 1910! 12 years after Mountfort's death - sorry, what a dunce I am. - Gobeirne (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well I was right about it being later!!!! :-) I suppose it will have to go - pity it was a nice photo. I'm sure it can go somewhere, just not on Ben's page. Thanks anyway. Giano (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've added it to the Christchurch Arts Centre article instead :) - Gobeirne (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FAs galore

Congratulations on Prince's Palace of Monaco—another lovely FA to hang on your belt! What is it, your 16th? 17th? Bishonen | talk 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

• Thanks - no idea, I don't think it is quite that many though. The whole question is hypothetical though as the number seems set to ebb and wain dependent on the current whims and fancies of those who who choose to spend their time "reviewing" on the FARC page, I expect the merest mention of poor old Ben above will be enough to send him too to the Wiki gallows via the torture chamber. One cannot keep running backwards and forwards to the library every five minutes just because some editor doesn't know the difference between an controversial fact and an accepted fact, or someone has switched the goal posts. Anyway its nice to see another one born in order to occupy these people's time. Thanks for the kind words. Giano (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been a-simmer for quite some time, and the result is finely polished, Giano. I have one thought: that painted decor of "the Surrender of Alexander the Great" might be "the Surrender of Darius to Alexander the Great". If it were in a more private location one might imagine "the Surrender of Alexander the Great to Roxana"... --Wetman (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lawson

Thanks for the feedback re First Church photo. I don't have any other photos of Lawsons work at the moment but if there are some specific ones you'd like I can take a look. Knox Church could be quite good at the right angle / lighting. XLerate (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

All pictures connected with New Zealand's 19th century architecture are very welcome. Thanks. Giano (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please leave it closed. Take it to RFAR if you want, extending the shitstorm on ANI will have no productive outcome. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No if people are too frightened to sanction Durova they can ban me instead, and then I will publish all of her evidence, which incidentally is far from clever, mysterious or even imaginative. Any hausefrau in Dusseldorf could manage it. Giano (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Don't be silly. It's not worth a 3RR block. If people start in on Durova yet again then it will escalate to ArbCom - there are at least three admins who would probably come out of that very badly, and Durova is not one of them Guy (Help!) 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there? I didn't know that - Which 3? You should know by now I have never been intimidated by blocks if it means getting to the bottom of something? Giano (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well dear reader it appears that you are not permitted to see the evidence [1]. So it is lucky I posted it here as well [2]. Giano (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You have already reached the limit of 3RR on ANI today: [3] [4] [5] [6]. If you continue to edit war in this incident or future incidents you are likely to be blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Go and take your threats of sanction to Durova and while you are there give her some instructions on how Admins are supposed to behave, that is if you know yourself. Oh, and here is a little bit more for you [7]. Giano (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that 3 or 4 admins typically close down all discussion by "archiving" the threads on AN/I? What are they afraid might happen? It's all very 1984ish for my taste. I don't see why people aren't allowed to speak their mind. --SGT Tex 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neither do I SGT. for a short time only I suspect theories are being explored here[8] but do hurry. I am have been frightened into silence by the threat of a block. What it is to be cowered, timid and frightened I sit here trembling. Giano (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep it up, Giano, you're doing good work. Don't be discouraged by threats and continued cover-up attempts. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano, you and I haven't really interacted before. Let's suppose there's been a good faith misunderstanding. I made a mistake when I blocked an editor the other day. It was the culmination of several mistakes and I take full responsibility for them. I reversed the myself promptly, apologized, opened my actions to scrutiny, and pledged changes so that no mistake like that will happen again. If I understand correctly, this was someone you've worked with closely and respect, and if that's the case then he can be proud to have earned such loyal friendship. I can't turn back time. Can we talk? Durova^Charge! 22:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have just spoken to you here [9]. No you didn't reverse promptly, you were told within minutes of making the block by a very highly respected Admin that you had made a terrible mistake, you refused to beleive him. You should resign your tools. Giano (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mail

<ding> --Dweller (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RSVPd Giano (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

<ding> --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not helpful

Shrill comments like "a narrative of vicious and malicious lies written by yourself" bring discredit on the project.[10] Please tone it down. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more, perhaps though you are telling the wrong editor. Giano (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted 2x) Jehochman, please strikethrough. Giano has a right to be upset.

Giano, and it was about an hour before I received anything confirmable about my mistake. As soon as that happened, I acted promptly. I apologized immediately to the person I'd blocked in error and if your feelings are hurt also I'm very sorry. Durova^Charge! 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets take this the slow easy way, remember I know the answers already. How many minutes after the block did one of the encyclopedia's most respected editors tell you that you had made a serious mistake. What was the name of that Admin, and what was your reply? Giano (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I reversed the block on !! in 75 minutes. If you're thinking of someone else, here's my answer. 65 minutes. That was one minute after I saw the notification through normal channels.[11] Durova^Charge! 23:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not answering the question at all - are you? read it through once more and then answer it. Giano (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are proper ways of resolving these things, Giano. When approached in those ways things get settled swiftly and easily. You seem to be hinting at another recent instance where the individual chose to go about things very differently. Durova^Charge! 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember it was you who wanted to talk. One of the reasons I an successful in RL, and would be an asset to the Arbcom is that I always know the answers to questions before I ask them. I don't forget and I never give up. I'm hinting at nothing beyond the truthful reply that I had hoped you would make. Obviously that is beyond you, so lets move on to another question, who knew you were planning the block before you made it.?

I take full responsibility for my mistake in blocking !!. That's no one's fault but my own. I should have followed up better, and I should have looked at what I was doing from more angles. I thought I had dug far enough and may have had hubris from some recent successful sockpuppet investigations. It's a humbling mistake. If you choose to accept my apology I'd be grateful. If not, I'd rather bow out of this discussion gracefully. Let's let bygones be bygones? I hope to have productive interactions with you on other topics as colleagues on the arbitration committee. If we can't both be satisfied, let's agree to disagree. Very respectfully, Durova^Charge! 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I know the answers your explanations are actually superfluous to my requirements anyway. I just feel you should have the opportunity to explain for yourself and any mitigating circumstances. It is a fact that NewYorkBrad protested !!'s innocence within less than 9 minutes [12], he of course knew !!'s former identity and you replied to him and refused to beleive him. Do you want me to continue with this? Just resign your tools before you dig yourself in deeper. Giano (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I'm not going to wade in with who's wrong or right. I'm content in not giving a damn here. I may be getting the timezones muddled, but it doesn't look like the diffs you give support your hints. The account was blocked at 18:08 and unblocked at 19:13 (the 65 min). Durova posted at 16:48 (which I'm guessing is 18:48) - 40 min after the block. NYB then replied at 16:57 (18:57?) - and just 16 min later the block was lifted. Now, two things, that means NYB had only 9 min to investigate the block after it was reported - so his findings were very much preliminary. Second, the block was actually lifted very promptly after it became clear that respected members of the community were indicating disquiet. Now, it's quite possible I'm reading that wrong, and it is also possible I'm assuming too much good faith (but, heck, that's not always bad). Perhaps you can show me where I'm going wrong.--Doc^g 01:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, Doc. I think Durova blocked !! at 16:45 UTC, noted it at at ANI at 16:48 UTC, Brad commented at 16:57 UTC and the block was lifted at 18:00 UTC (63 mins after Brad's comment). The confusion comes from Durova linking to the wrong block log.

To be fair though, NYB didn't really protest !!'s innocence as much request a justification for the block. It is slightly disingenuous to suggest Durova "refused to believe" Brad. Perhaps she did, I don't know, but in her reply she directed his request to ArbCom, there was no dispute between them. [13] Plenty of others did protest his innocence soon after, though. Of course, if some of this occurred on IRC, then who knows what the time line was. Rockpocket 02:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Doc you are quite wrong, Rock you are quite right. The fact is that many were telling her she had made a huge mistake within minutes of her blocking. Or does she think NYB is machiavating on Wikipedia Review too. This whole obsession with the "Wikipedia Review" too in the evidence is worrying, from what I've seen of it, it is just a forum of attempts at wit and cynicism there does not seem to be an awful lot of substance to it. Giano (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did get that wrong - good job I'm not a pre-block private investigator. And WR is generally best ignored. Still, the sequence to me looks like this: 1) a bad block (how bad I'm not qualified to say - but a bad call rather than bad faith) 2) an immediate report on ANI by the blocker (good) with a refusal to offer public reasons (how legitimate that is I'm not qualified to say). 3) Several level-headed people express disquiet, but no-one unblocks (meritorious, given the circumstances - people talk rather than jump to the tools). 4) The blocker reverses themselves in just over the hour, giving full apology (that's a pretty short timescale - and apologies are too rare on wikipedia).

I'd say the only thing I'd like to see come out of this is a principle that if you are going to block on evidence you can't fully disclose, you get an uninvolved experienced and widely-respected member of the community to review and explicitly sign off on the evidence first - and by this a mean a member of the arbcom or one of about 6 other people who have that general level of trust. Blocks based on 'confidential' information need not have full public scrutiny, but they do need the type of scrutiny that checkuser evidence has (in those cases many checkusers can check the logs).--Doc^g 09:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am keen to see this through to the bitter end, no matter how bitter that end may be, is that we are told that is that a very similar procedure that which you describe was indeed followed. I have the evidence, I think all those who have seen it are astounded, that it is nothing but a collection of diffs of very innocent almost comical edits that have been given a malicious interpretation that is so staggering in its mistakes that it is impossible to assume good faith. People are emailing me asking not to post certain information, they fail to realise that if Durova does not resign it would be wrong of me to do anything which would allow such a situation as this to occur again. Wikipedia is not a secret society, it should not have a secret police. Wikipedia is a colection of volunteers attempting to build an encyclopedia in good faith. User: !! was one of those people, he and others like him need to be protected too. Giano (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is usually possible to assume good faith (see Hanlon's razor). However, if you have evidence that shows either such gross stupidity or clear bad faith that we can't possibly trust this admin to learn from one mistake, then I'd encourage you, for the sake of the community, to take it to arbcom. Durova has admitted a bad mistake - in the absence of evidence to the contrary we assume that's that. We don't desysopp as punishment. But if there's evidence to suggest that powers are likely to be used in a damaging way in future, then arbcom really must look at that. Threatening to post information that, for whatever reason, a number of experienced people obviously think would be damaging, unless someone resigns really isn't the way to go. Firstly, it looks like blackmail - secondly it smacks of the same type of 'using secret information as a means of power' that you are trying to prevent. We have arbcom precisely to strike the balance between thorough accountability for individual actions and the sometimes/occasional need for confidentiality.--Doc^g 11:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

but what if she has already shown it to some arbcom members? It is not secret because quite a few people have it now so there is no threat of blackmail - I'm one of many with it, so there is no way I can use it exclusively as a threat. It will all come out in the wash anyway eventually. I'm not sure I'm allowed to publish it in full here anyway. I'll email you a copy later if you want, I'm on a bad conection at the moment. Giano (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Giano...I see that User:!! posted on his talkpage[14] that he and Durova were having a private discussion and that the information would remain between them. However, I hope we at least learn if they reached some kind of an understanding, and if they did, perhaps we could all move on from this matter.--MONGO (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• That discussion is so far inconclusive. Giano (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not good to hear. Well, I have a lot of respect for you, Bishonen and Geogre as well as Durova...I would be more than happy to mediate since it would be advantageous to see all of you...and User:!! as well, try to reach some sort of remedy short of an arbitration case.--MONGO (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Mongo! have you been following this - mediate? with me? what on earth for? There is nothing to mediate I merely say what has happened black on white and dirstc to the obvious conclusion. Nothing more nothing less. Giano (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't mediation this requires. Unless the matter can simply be dropped, what it needed an ombudsman. Someone to review the evidence and state 1) if it needs to remain confidential 2) if it fits the 'cop-up - sorry - case closed' explanation. Giano evidently doesn't think it does, and he may be right (I've no way to know), but Giano would surely accept that his opinion of secret evidence cannot be the last word - else he's acting as judge jury and executioner just as much as Durova did. We can't have people condemned on secret evidence, without a process for that evidence to be reviewed privately but properly - that's surely the whole point. Arbcom is the only possibility here, and perhaps, to use the cliché, it's time to "put up or...".--Doc^g 14:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the situation if I post the evidence here? I have been asked not to, but I can see nothing that deserves such secrecy on it. Whereare all these highly respected admins and Arbs when I want some advice? Giano (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea. But if someone has suggested the evidence should be secret, then I think it inadvisable for one user to unilaterally rule that it doesn't need to be. It is possible that your interpretation is wrong and those saying it should be secret have a point. If you post it because "you know best" you are as guilty as those who block because "they know best" - both *can* be making mistakes in interpreting evidence. As a wise sage once advised the Scots "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken". If there's doubt ask for an independent review (arbcom, or some individual arb).--Doc^g 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oliver Cromwell a "wise sage"?? Words fail me! Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Listen to your enemy, for God is talking."--Doc^g 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

I've emailed you Giano, I'd appreciate it if you could reply when you have a spare minute. Thanks and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you students have any lectures early in the morning, it is midnight. Half these courses today could be condensed into two years if not 18 months, saving parents a fortune! Giano (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already got my degree, just doing another for the hell of it - the parents love spending money on their dearest only son, and I don't plan on stopping them any time soon! Ryan isn't in till 2pm so can stay up till whenever he likes!Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My wife always likes that Lakeland caravan stand at agricultural shows, quite why we have to travel hundreds of miles to buy a sandwich box is beyond me, funny though, perhaps she has met you? while I lurk outside sucking my teeth. Odd world ism't it. Giano (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting Giano, because I used to work on the agricultural shows for a few years so I most probably have met your wife (there were only six of us) - then Lakeland stopped attending the shows last summer. Now I'm stuck at the Manchester store whilst I'm at uni. It is a small world..... Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the sandwich boxes are of far higher quality then any you're likely to buy from your local shop - many are even made from teflon. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I did once purchase a very clever corkscrew there that was useful. I won't tell my wife they have a shop, once a year at Stoneleigh is quite far enough. Night! Giano (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• What Goddamn awful questions. That is not an interview but a rehash of stale questions which have all been asked in triplicate and answered on the Arb candidiates question pages already. Why not ask something interesting and new? Find out whay makes a person tick and think they way they do - get a true insight that is whay an interview is supposed to do. Giano (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

please contact me re Durova case

Hi Giano. Im the person who JeHochman tried to ban for making an edit to the Durova page. I have a story to tell, and I'd like very much to please be contacted by you at my safe email of why.not.relax@gmail.com, from which point I can properly identify myself. Thanks in advance.85.5.180.48 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NB:Incidentally, my initial edit was banned by JeHochman from the ANI page. I mentioned that I had a close encounter of the Durova kind and was willing to provide data on this. I was immediately indef banned by JeHochman (in fact an entire IP range was blocked, without possibly of even the ususal one line communication on the talk page). I no longer edit on WP, and so I had no means to login. Fortunately, Bishonen's complaints of JeHochman's bogus indef banning embarassed JeHochman, so he backed down and retracted (making yet another ridiculous false claim in the process, per next para). Wow. Im impressed by you guys. Admins with integrity. And brave ones, with 'guts'. Something new. Impressive.

JeHochman originally tried to claim I'd impersonated Durova, in my ANI edit. When challenged by Bishonen, JeHochman tried the Jedi trick of "don't you see it, what's wrong with you". Bishonen, and a few others kept at him, clearly in no mood for such antics. JeHochman backed down and erased the indef block, claiming lamely that I'd "blanked comments" (completely false). He was able to find some edit conflict, which I (possibly) overrode someone's edits (I didnt look at it very hard, since claim no.2 had nothing to do with his initial accusation, a point which robbed it of any credibility whatsoever). I pointed this out just-like-that to him on his talk page, suggesting that he was not only insulting his own considerable intelligence, but ours in the process. He erased the comment from his talk page, duly noting my suggestions. 85.5.180.48 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no no no, you have a message for me you can either post it here, or work out a way of emailing me - You are obviously not blocked and my wiki-mail is enabled. So create an account and register an email. I do not solicit information from anonymous IPs and their equally anonymous email addresses. I only ever look only at what is presented to me.Incidentally, you are wrong on one score, I am not an Admin so stand exactly the same chance of being blocked as you. Giano (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that again

You've made your point, the people at Wikipedia Review now have the full details of how to evade detection in future, for which I am sure they are most grateful, but posting the contents of private emails without the sender's permission is a pretty low blow and has resulted in ArbCom sanctions before now, not that I guess you give a damn.

I know you are upset and I know !! is upset, but seriously this has escalated out of all proportion from a 75 minute block for which the blocking admin has apologised. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not be so melodramatic and ridiculous, restore the section at onece or I shall. Giano (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you should try to startle them and see if they say something in German. sNkrSnee | t.p. 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is the viscious nasty language coupled with the crass stupidity I object to. If that is an example of a person you think should be allowed to block other editors then you are a fool JZG. Giano (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you really don't like Germans, huh? sNkrSnee | t.p. 18:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You can kiss my ass sNkrSnee! Giano (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't make me a cunning linguist. sNkrSnee | t.p. 18:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What is worrying is can we trust the German encyclopedia - I have translated pages from it including ine FA - is it reliable if written by an army of "Dutsche socken" Giano (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How about we start in our own back yard? [[15]] sNkrSnee | t.p. 18:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Jimbo. You want a loving encyclopedia - I for one do not find the paste below from Durova which constitutes her "evidence" as particularly loving - do you? I would advise everyone to be very careful of making even the most innocent edit. Giano (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So here it is the diffs are pathetic the narrative describing one of our respected editors, who I know well, repulsive. Happy with that are you Jimbo, you think an Admin like Durova will foster your happy loving encyclopedia?:-

About Durova's evidence

I suggest you post the "evidence" on WP:SAND so JzG can't delete it. Keep up the good work in any case! 79.101.144.21 (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Duvora looks like an idiot, everyone else like a dick. WR get to laugh at us for week. And that's that. Nice work if you can get it.--Doc^g 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We deserve to be laughed at - I can sing "The Lonely Goatherd" in German does that make me a sock too? Giano (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who's taking this seriously deserves to be laughed at aber nichts ist auf Deutsch lustig--Doc^g 18:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking this seriously is a right for me. I do not think it is funny; I believe it is, fortunately, the end of at least one form of corruption at WP. Durova type espionage work is not part of the project and she should take it to the streets, instanter. ErgoEgo (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, its hilarious, and very predictable. A whole lot of people will spend the next week working themselves into a melodramatic righteous rage, over what was simply a bit of 65 min idiocy. One side will convince themselves this is part of a cabal conspiracy and evidence of "institutional corruption" - the other side will scream that this is a huge set-back in the secret war with wikipedia review. Everyone will create the necessary monsters in their own imaginations. Then it will all blow over, and we'll go back to work. Best laugh at Mozart and move on.--Doc^g 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Be hushing Herr Doktor ozzervise vee vill be detected as spies and stockings of der Deutsche Vikipeedia. Giano (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Undt zen ve are compleeeetely lederhosed.sNkrSnee | t.p. 19:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going off to der bier keller fur eine halb stunde, um meine abendessen zu essen, ich hoffe ich bin nicht blitkrieged venn I kommen backen. No one is to mention der War! Giano (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please bring me back two egg mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Hermann Goering and four Colditz salads. sNkrSnee | t.p. 19:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, Giano, since I somehow doubt you are a member to this secret cabal of WRbashers, how did that case study come to be in your possession? Rockpocket 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just be patient we are far from finnished yet. Giano (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The bitter end is in sight

Right! We have had the laugh now let us stop yodelling to each other, take the combs from under our noses and cease goose stepping and ask the serious question. Durova had her chance above last night and blew it. I know the full answer and I'm reluctant to give it but it needs to be in the open, and it will be, so hopefully some one will come forward because we need to know. Who were the high ranking Admins and Arbs that Durova said reviewed that rubbish and OKd the block because any person who reviewed that was either very stupid or up to something. We are told the Arbcom are clean [16]. So who is fibbing? Either way I think you all know how this continues - but we do need to know. Someone is not being totally honest somewhere - who? Giano (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that Durova ever said that she sent that information to the ArbCom mailing list. So there's been no fibbing that I'm aware of. Paul August ☎ 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Giano_II needs to be blocked immediately.

Begin "Top Sekrit" double ROT13 encrypted transmission