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)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (2008)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (2008)

• Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

Right reasons

Yes, I think that Rockpocket blocked <He is talking about me Giano (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)> for the right reasons. At the time, he believed that

• the comments he removed represented harrassment of another editor;
• he was acting within policy to remove those comments and warn against their replacement;
• he didn't think that the harrassment would cease without a block;
• a block in that situation was appropriate and well within accepted practice; and
• he was acting in the best interests of the project.

Was he correct in all of those beliefs? Nope. The result? Bad block, good reasons.

I assume the irony of yelling at me to "shut my ill-informed mouth" [1] and in the same breath warning me against creating further drama isn't lost on you. If you have something further to say to me, feel free to visit my talk page. There's no need for additional bickering in Rockpocket's userspace. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know? I really could not care less WTF you think. You are ill-informed and rather ignorant. It's a pity, but there is not a lot I can do about that. If you are hoping I am going to enter into debate with you, and thus create more drama you are mistaken. Now run along and find something productive to do outside in the nice fresh air. Giano (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility block

[2] is blatantly uncivil William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh great! I hereby predict that the ensuing drahmaz outlive the block duration. *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to civility blocks being issues for trivial reasons. They are the root cause of much of the drama and bad feeling and disruption to this project and it really is time to get a grip on the notion of 1,500 Admins out there all making up their own mind on what constitutes civility. Sarah777 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it civility blocks that are the problem, or just maybe the incivility itself? Hmm, tough question. Avruch 19:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Within reason, I think the blocks generate more passion and incivility than they stop - civility is such a subjective notion and we don't even attempt to define it yet it is one of the commonest tools/weapons used/abused by Admins. Drives us non-Admins (even polite folk like me), into frenzied anger. Sarah777 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I don't believe we've met before: but make sure that you think about what you type before you press "save page". Thinking about the impact and potential consequences of when you materialise your thoughts is intelligent. You clearly are, and we don't need any more discussion here. I hope you understand. Rudget (logs) 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly Rudget, you've lost me! If I wasn't hoping (however forlornly) of having some "impact and potential consequences" there'd hardly be any point in commenting. Sarah777 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how anyone could argue that writing I really could not care less WTF you think. You are ill-informed and rather ignorant is anything but uncivil. I ask Giano to please explain the remarks or retract them. If there's no explanation then the remarks appear to violate Giano's probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Although, like Wittgenstein wrote about definitions of words "We do not know the boundaries, because none have been drawn", the fact that the boundaries of what is and is not uncivil content remains fuzzy and even undefined, there are central core aspects that can be unambiguously placed into civil and uncivil categories. In this case, I think the words used in the link provided by William M. Connolley are definitely uncivil, as they are a direct attack, calling into question the capabilities of another editor.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"calling into question the capabilities of another editor" is not uncivil per se. If it was actually thought to be then we would need to build that into an iron-cast rule (like 3RR) and sanction all breaches. But we don't. Why? Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not, I agree. But there is a significant difference between saying "I believe you to be stupid and ignorant" and "You are stupid and ignorant". The first expresses a perfectly legitimate opinion, the second expresses a fact. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how saying that "I really could not care less WTF you think" is doing other than expressing a point of view, and in my book it is very far from uncivil. A block for that kind of nonsense is perhaps the kind of thing that Sarah was referring to, and quite rightly in my view. There are too many heavy-handed and incompetent administrators all too ready to press the block button for the slightest of perceived slights. I do though agree that it's difficult to interpret "You are ill-informed and rather ignorant" as being anything other than uncivil, as DDStretch I think was suggesting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano, you know that I am your friend but comments like this can't help anything. Saying such things like that is not helping anything even if they were true (upon which I make no comment). It actually hurts because it brings a cycle of posing and grandstanding like here and deflect us from addressing true problems, including with the user upon who you commented. Please take my friendly advise and avoid making such comments. --Irpen 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! I was replying to Avruch's sarcasm in kind. What a fuss! Giano (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Oh ho, or was it not sarcasm? Giano (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This one's got me baffled. A sarcastic response is often just a way of telling someone they don't understand, i.e. that they're stupid. How is it different than just saying "you're stupid"? Ah, the recipient of the sarcasm must have sufficient intelligence to recognize it, and the observers can chuckle about the brilliance of the sarcasm. Thus sarcasm is civil? Or, it's not civil, but responding in equal kind is - oh, gotcha, civility probation!

Avruch had the option of just letting Durova explain that she has been in contact with FT2, as she has done elsewhere. Instead Avruch chose to inject personal commentary, Giano rises to the bait, another admin steps in to correct the "Giano problem". How predictable. Franamax (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#IRC. Avruch 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I thought as much, among the edits the silly and sarcastic Avruch wants me banned for (see heading above) is this one [3], what a very silly and stupid, and out of touch person Avruch is. Giano (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I have just gone through his diffs, the idiot does not seem to realise that Counter Rev is history. Giano (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct in observing you're going down, guns a blazing? GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please avoid describing people as stupid, Giano? You're welcome to hold that opinion, but it is one of those terms that can be defined variably...kind of like "uncivil"... In any case, the WP:AE thread is closed and there is no discussion of extending this block. Risker (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Avruch tries very poor sarcasm, does not like the response so get some other fool to block. In the meantime Avruch digs up diffs for something on which he clearly has not the least comprehension amd feels this makes him very clever. I beg to differ. Giano (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that he does not understand the background behind several of the comments he linked to, their context, or their significance. That would make him unaware, or having failed to have fully informed himself, but "stupid" is such an undefined, nebulous, schoolyard term that it completely lacks the precision of language for which you are known. Risker (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone making an edit such as this to me [4] is either very stupid or knows exactly what they are doing - you may decide. In any case sarcasm (if that is what it is) deserves sarcasm. What a pity stupid Admins cannot see that without causing all this fuss. Giano (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility block, again

I don't understand you. You get a light block for incivility, and promptly put up [5] and others. So now you have a longer block. Please see sense - you just can't behave like this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have come across some foolish and daft Admins in my time, but truly you are the most naive, stupid and ridiculous appology for an admin I have yet to come across. Giano (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same Admin who made the previous block?? Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano, you are just going to get yourself blocked for months. You've turned from a producer of high-quality content to a high-drama magnet. Perhaps you should drop the tone and just work on articles, and save yourself some trouble? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not give a blind fuck. Avruch thinks he can be sarcastic, and then his friends block me for replying in the same tone. If that is the new Wikipedia then I am better off without it. Giano (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, make it 48h then. People are offering you good advice; take it. My advice is to walk away from you computer for a good while before you post any more William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano, please control your temper. Wikipedia wouldn't be the same, without you. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and it's ignorant biased crew of admins can fuck off! and yes Connolley go for 96 and figure you care for! Giano (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on William. You're sounding like you're talking to a child. "One more word and I'll send you to your room for 48 hours!" Just let Giano blow off some steam and calm down. He's not hurting anyone here on his own talk page. Just leave him alone for a while. Sheesh. Giano, it's OK, don't let them ban you. Nothing is worth letting them push you off this site. Tex (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, Tex. This is pretty apparently someone looking to block. This whole, "Don't answer back, or else" tactic has been used, from the days of the playground to the days of international politics, simply to ensure that someone replies. William's language is graceless and uncivil, because it is rhetorically designed to provoke. People who are civil seek to find ways to make sure that all sides are happy, not that anyone is silent. Trying to shove people through the door is the very definition of uncivil behavior. Block overturned. Geogre (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Block time adjusted back to original three hours. -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Get fucking lost Avi - if Avruch is such a precious little soul that he is allowed to use poimtless sarcasm but no one is allowed to respond, then take your encyclopedia and put it where it feels least comfortable. Giano (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano, your minders know perfectly the old routine. make a provocative comment, cry wolf at your response, raise the stakes, monger drama, wait for more comments from you, recycle. We know them but this is about you. Don't allow yourself to be played by this routine. --Irpen 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

B lock time restored to 48h. No, this kind of behaviour isn't permissable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See Giano? And what I told you? Please break this cycle and laugh them off. We can deal with it all later. --Irpen 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that it is now a 49 hour block, from when you first initiated it. I don't suppose the odd hour matters much in this stupid wheel war revisited scenario, but when "re-instating" a block it may be considered bad form (or poor arithmetic) to increase it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the initial 3-hour block started at 18:59; Giano's first edit after that was 19:51. The block was extended *by* 24 hours at 20:20 hours (i.e., it was now 25 hours 20 minutes) and then extended again by a further 24 hours at 20:27 (i.e., it was now 49 hours 27 minutes). After return to what remained of the original 3 hour block, it has now been extended by 48 hours to a total of 50 hours, 22 minutes. Risker (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, I understood the 48 hour block to have been imposed for the "continuing incivility" on these pages so I was counting from that timestamp - and I was taking to the nearest hour, rather than count the minutes - but this is semantics, I suggest, at present. :~( LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the first (perhaps debatable) block, is it true that the subsequent block extensions were imposed for incivility to the blocking admin? Weren't there supposed to be thick skins over on the admin side? Franamax (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators really shouldn't be WP:WHEEL warring over blocks. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Meanwhile, in these circumstances, strict civility would be good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protection

MZMcBride (talk · contribs) has protected your talk page for the remainder of the block due to repeated incivility on the talk page. If you wish to appeal your block, please email unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org or visit #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. I have a completely painless solution for people who feel that "incivility" has been here: DROP IT FROM YOUR WATCHLIST and ignore it. How hard is it for knuckleheads to get the message that they should be watching articles, not talk pages. Protecting a user's talk page is absolutely, 100% out of bounds, and I'm ashamed for you folks. Geogre (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The protection is reasonable. This was going nowhere good. Friday (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh? "You had better not answer me, Friday, with one more of your smarmy comments, or I'll block you."

.

.

Figure that works? You feel like being nice now? Or do you think that what I've said is, indeed, a way to make you say something unpleasant? I feel like the page should be protected from people coming to try to bully and threaten the user and tell the user what he must and must not say, but there isn't a button for that. Geogre (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. There was bad behavior on more than one account, yes. But there also comes a time when enough is enough.. that's all I'll say. Friday (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Final message from Giano.

I agree with Tex and Geogre: who is Giano hurting by letting off steam on his own page when he's blocked? Do you have to come here to be offended? What is that, some kind of compulsion?
Final message from Giano via Bishonen: Giano doesn't care about his page being protected. If Avruch can attack him and he can't reply—then he's not interested in posting on Wikipedia. Please don't revert this message, I'm un-breaking my wikibreak to post it. Bishonen 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems I can now edit my own page without cencorship, albeit for a very short time no doubt. What a pity, but then hardly surprising this whole very nasty incident arose from a comment concerning Durova and FT2 . Well my friends and foes you have the Wikipedia you deserve. Giano (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we do. Go well, Giano. Vaya pues, SqueakBox 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I hadn't known my name was involved in any way. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding that can be cleared up. Let's talk; maybe this can be worked out. (I don't know what comment took place, so feeling in the dark here). Durova^Charge! 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:FT2#FT2.27s_head_on_a_platter and subsequent now-removed edit. Franamax (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that what this is about? I mentioned basically the same thing on the AN subpage last night and nobody seemed to mind. (Going to look at subsequent and reverted edits to that thread). If there's an amicable way to settle things I'd certainly be glad to. Durova^Charge! 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just be a little darling and show some intersest in content (than none of these busy admins seem to have time for) and revert here [6]. Giano (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)