User talk:Giano II/archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 3RR warning for User talk:FT2

You are in danger of violating WP:3RR, further reverts will result in blocking[1][2][3]. (1 == 2)Until 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's most kind, thank you for pointing that out. What a sad day when we can no longer ask one of our Arbs a straight, honest and civil question. When exactly were you promoted to the Arbcom 1=2?, or are you just some form of staff? Giano (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I know from history that you endorse the fact that Wikipedians are allowed to remove content from their user talk pages, this is also accepted by the community at large. I would grant this courtesy to any user who was having a message repeatedly reverted back onto their page against their will. You have done well to chose a neutral and topical venue to re-post your concerns, your posting at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser is a perfectly reasonable way to pursue these concerns. Thanks. (1 == 2)Until 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fear not, I shall only edit proper pages for the rest of the evening, you may return to your editing unworried. Giano (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable behavior

I'm sorry, Giano, but calling other editors stalkers and such failure to assume good faith is exactly what you have been warned against by the arbitration committee. Combined with edit warring on another editor's talk page and trying to bring a disruptive dispute elsewhere; this behavior will have you blocked swiftly unless you desist immediately. — Coren (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing that out - Have you read the message immediatly above this? Bonsoir, I'm going to bed now. So I can be bright and perky in the morning. Giano (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • While the ft2 stuff was maybe inappropriate, the comments at the checkuser page seem fully appropriate and not "a disruptive dispute". I have some of these same concerns, especially as folks seem to be trying to control 'drhama' by hiding questions about things that are mostly non-issues that we just havn't dealt with yet. So, I disagree with the characterization that giano is itching for a block for these questions, it's really just getting them to the right place. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 48 hours

Reason: Violating Arbcom civility parole, editwarring, gaming the system, and disruption. If you want to contest this, use the {{unblock}} template. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This is inappropriate coming so shortly after a warning and giano's statement that he's done with editing for the evening. Please unblock or change to token notice block. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I just find it confusing that the same action brought praise from one admin, a warning from a second, and a block from a third. Is there any wonder why people are concerned at the broad-brush remedies being established by Arbcom? One can never tell how something will be interpreted. Risker (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
reply to risker. I'm no admin....just a nosy user. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Kwsn, he had just been warned and responded positively to it by moving the question he was asking to an appropriate place, and by saying he was going to bed. Please undo the block. SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Support unblocking. How is it preventative? Please reconsider. Lawrence § t/e 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm inclined to agree with SV here. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption and right now, I'm not seeing how this block has achieved that given 1) he'd already stated he was done for the day, and 2) he wasn't sufficiently warned IMO - Alison ❤ 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Kwsn, you didn't even provide a diff to try to support your improper block. Please unblock. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please unblock. He responded positively to the warning and had stopped editing. Kelly hi! 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A 48 min block may be appropriate in this case but not 48 hours, IMO, given his comment on dropping the issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(ecx8!)Risker is spot-on. Can we have some consistency, please? At least note that he was praised for lowering the temperature by someone else and contact the other fellow to see what you might be missing...--Relata refero (disp.) 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This user has made no effort to show regret at calling me a stalker. What is more he has a history if civility violations and shows no sign of stopping. This block is preventative. Simple pointing out that he stopped edit warring is no justification for personal attacks. This is a valid block, here is your diff[4]. Being called a stalker really sucks, consider I have been stalked in the past. Sometimes I think the defense of this user is automatic, and not based on circumstances. (1 == 2)Until 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
He definitely shouldn't have said that to you, but he had gone to bed. This is unnecessary escalation. SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with SV. The purpose of discretionary sanctions in this case is to lower drama. Relata refero (disp.) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, except this user has been uncivil so long that he has been given an arbcom ruling that he needs to stop. He will be uncivil again. The block is not unnecessary, per WP:BLOCK block may be user to "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated". This is a perfect example of that. Giano was not unaware of the rule, he just does not want to follow it. (1 == 2)Until 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you remove Giano's other comments to FT2? [5] Whose really acting improperly here? Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
FT2 removed them, and Giano was edit warring to put them back. FT2 is allowed to remove comments from his own page. Giano stopped just short of 3RR. (1 == 2)Until 23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That diff shows you removed them. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) My response to this concern is MONGO. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit summary from the diff YOU provided : "m (Reverted edits by Giano II (talk) to last version by Until(1 == 2))". Editted by YOU. Please don't fib. Minkythecat (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that I had, myself, hesitated about blocking outright rather than leaving a stern warning. Giano is under an Arbcom civility parole, and is very much aware of the behavior he must not engage in— in effect he has a permanent warning attached. While the timing is regrettable, the block itself is quite defensible. I am neither endorsing the current block nor calling for an unblock. — Coren (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
One sign of stopping was his announcement that he was going to bed. And one circumstance was the frequency which the "1 == 2" username had turned up to make tut-tutting comments. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Giano's stalking comment was his way of saying that 1==2 seemed to be following him around Wikipedia - ie. wiki-stalking (I don't actually think that was the case, but those with large watchlists sometimes give that impression). This is, of course, completely different from being stalked in real life. When 1==2 said "consider I have been stalked in the past", I am unclear what type of stalking he is referring to - wiki-stalking or real-life stalking? Anyway, as a compromise, I suggest that someone set the block to expire before Giano gets back. Might avoid drama all round. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki stalking occasionally turns very nasty and I am sure Giano knows Until and that he has undergone some very nasty stalking. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This really is becoming f'in farcical - if trigger happy admins want to polarise the community and transmogrify previously civil editors into irate factions this is a frickin great way to go about it. I'm starting to feel like a few more of us should start being as vociferous as Giano. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked Giano II because it seems to be a consensuns what the block was improper Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex. SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thank you for unblocking. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Alex; sleep well, Giano! -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for listening, Alex. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss mine and Kwsn's actions on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Giano_II Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tut, tut. Looks like Kwsn broke the rule. ➪HiDrNick! 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks all of you

Thanks all of you, friends in need are friends indeed! I shall be away for most of today, when I return I expect the matter to be sorted. I have 100% evidence that this block was called for and orchestrated on IRC#admins. I expect those admins concerned to no longer have access to IRC by 17.00 GMT today. If they are still there, then we shall have to discuss fully why, and what can be done to resolve these ongoing issues, but hopefully that won't be necessary. This is exactly the sort of disruption the Arbcom planned with their petty sanction, let's just see if they truly want to prolong this now regular disruption. I am in contact with one of the more reasonable Arbs, or at least one who seems anxious to calm troubled waters, so hopefully a solution is at hand. Thanks again. Giano (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Giano, thanks are due to you. It's great to see a prolific, great writer able to cut through the bull and actually have the principles to stand up for what's right. The abuses perpetuated by kiddies / social inadequates need addressing before this can ever be called an encyclopedia - keep up the good work! Minkythecat (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I turn my back for ten minutes, and all hell breaks loose again. Sheesh. You know what occurs to me... just as a thought...? Maybe, just maybe, blocks should be for emergency situations. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Too late - I think all pretence of following the rules has broken down - our God king has declare Giano a Thomas a Becket and there's more than enough idiots around to rid him of his troublesome priest. Still on the plus side we'll have a martyr for the praising.--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Utgard, very succinct as always. I have just posted the following on ANI, but i think things are more read here, si I will ost my views here too:

I am not opening a debate with FT2 on the block - it was wrong - end of story. I 've had quite enough of his prevarication and doublespeak. The block was organized and inspired on IRC, rather than in discussion on Wiki, as it should have been. I had already remarked on the the coincidence of 1=2 being constantly at my shoulder, with his clever comments, a couple of days before. My comment to 1=2 was in fact quite good humoured, any fool could see I was clearly not suggesting that he is following me about in Ragusa with a poisoned unbrella. This sort of troublemaking block orchestrated on IRC, will be the last such there. I am now completely resolved to see that pointless chatroom cleaned up or closed. They have had their chance. A couple of weeks ago FT2 informed us there was no problem (remenber he had to block me to prove the point for asking). Well now we know he was either lying or mistaken, frankly it matters not which, in short he has have blown his chance. We can all see now there is a problem, and if he and the Arbs won't tackle it, then I will. That also includes the foul mouthed discussion which took place there after the block. I have logs from three separate sources and continents all identical. If the Arbs refuse to ban editors from IRC who abuse the chat room, then that chatroom must be closed for the good of the project. I will not be shut up by Arbcom members such as we have, trying to hide problems. Giano (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They can't prevent admins from running their own, private IRC if they want to, it just needs to be taken completely off wiki, like SlimVirgin's and JzG's cyberstalking and investigations email lists. If the admin IRC can't be policed properly, as Giano points out, then the admin IRC page needs to be deleted and the IRC needs to be run privately, off-wiki. And any admin decisions made there, of course, will still be subject to valid, intense recrimination on-wiki. Cla68 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Intense recrimination cannot be made when IRC is used to discuss "evidence" privately. After all, it's easy enough for people to get their stories straight privately. Of course, if there was a Wikipedia Review IRC, would be interesting to see some admins views on that... Minkythecat (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Admin decisions made, canvassing, complaining about other editors, and lobbying have all been shown to have occurred on the IRC and the "private" (secret) mailing lists. We can't prohibit people from organizing and participating in privately-run IRCs and mailing lists. It's their own business. But, when we find out that the members of those lists have been using those forums for monkey-business, and the Durova incident shows that they have, then we take them to task on it and perhaps even desysop some editors. But, how do we prohibit them from organizing their own private/secret chat rooms or message boards? Cla68 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that is not going to happen. We have the weakest ever Arbcom in Wikipedia's history, who seeks only to humour and please IRC. The fact their promised, and voted for, review or IRC reform was delegated to the worrying FT2 who decreed "no problems" rather confirms that. Wikipedia has a huge problem, and it "aint" me! Until an Arb, or J Wales, has the guts to stand up and say publicly -"What is happening here is wrong" as some do in private, nothing is going to change. Just make sure you vote Giano in the next election, and hope there are some writing editors left. Giano (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe Ainsworth is still banging on about those mailing lists! They were irrelevant back then and they are probably even more irrelevant now, for all I know, having unsubscribed months ago. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As you write this, please remember that if you make edits that are personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith, you may be blocked, per the arbcom sanction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do what you feel is best for the project! Giano (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone comes to the conclusion that blocking Giano over a userspace essay is best for the project, my already flagging faith in this community will probably hit a record low. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Because you care about what people say about you on IRC: a discussion about blocks

  • <kwsn> I love how he says "there's the truth"
  • <Dragonfly6-7> what?
  • <kwsn> as to what happened
  • <kwsn> he says I did it based on other people's comments
  • <Dragonfly6-7> but he got the sequence wrong
  • <Dragonfly6-7> you did it based solely on the arbcom decision, correct?
  • <kwsn> Yes
  • <kwsn> otherwise I would have warned
  • <Dragonfly6-7> and then you came on the channel and talked about it
  • <Dragonfly6-7> and someone made a snarky comment,
  • <Dragonfly6-7> right?
  • <kwsn> yup
  • <Dragonfly6-7> Tell him that's what happened, and say that you're sorry if his feelings are hurt.
  • <kwsn> I can't
  • <kwsn> remember?
  • <Dragonfly6-7> No
  • <Dragonfly6-7> Clarify.
  • <kwsn> blocked myself for a week
  • <Dragonfly6-7> Ah
  • <Dragonfly6-7> at his request?
  • <kwsn> and the way it seems, he won't accept anything less than me handing in my bit
  • <kwsn> no, my own will
  • <Dragonfly6-7> Are you okay with me giving him a log of what you and I have just discussed?
  • <kwsn> yes
  • <Dragonfly6-7> thank you

It had nothing to do with what was discussed on IRC. DS (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


  • <Dragonfly6-7> wait, wait
  • <Dragonfly6-7> were you okay with me providing the information on Giano's talkpage?
  • <kwsn> if you wanna cross post it to the ANI thread, you can
  • <kwsn> in otherwords
  • <kwsn> yes, it can be posted on WP
  • <Dragonfly6-7> kwsn - I posted it on Giano's talkpage, and it was reverted
  • <Dragonfly6-7> my point is that Giano is often very concerned about information not being public
  • <Dragonfly6-7> so I want this to be where everyone can see it
  • <Dragonfly6-7> which is why I didn't e-mail it
  • <Dragonfly6-7> is that reasonable?
  • <kwsn> yes

(okay) DS (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is a stage managed converstion, in what is clearly a desperate attempt to redeem themselves. It fails. Giano (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further incivility

  • Giano II is subject to an editing restriction for one year.. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

These comments are clearly uncivil and make an assumption of bad faith.[6][7][8] Can you give a reason why you should not be blocked for making them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Will, civility blocking promotes incivility and drama. A better plan is to remove or refactor incivil remarks, slowly if necessary (like "slow revert"; would we call this "slow refactor"?). Jehochman Talk 02:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to the ArbCom, who imposed this probation. If you'd like to appeal their decision you're welcome to do so. In the meantime Giano should respect the project nd his fellow editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just ban him, already? It's quite obvious there's enough co-conspirators that can do whatever they please to silence his dissent. One man can only be sniped at so many times by an organized group that can play in the toolbox before he just can't take it anymore. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be some sort of stupid sick game where drama is encouraged from those in charge, but that's what it has become. SashaNein (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano, again I ask you: Do you have an explanation for why you shouldn't receive a block for what appears to be intentional incivility, and assumption of bad fatih? You seem to have gone out of your way to express yourself offensively. Surely you don't think that doing so is appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It rather looks like I have decided not to respond to your behaviour. Giano (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope Giano is smart enough to ignore it per below. --Irpen 06:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A very plausible explanation that I can't escape

I just can't get over the impression that the recent set of escapades at this page by some above is nothing but trolling in the purest form of the distressed editor. I was looking for any other explanation and could not find it. I am not supporting everything Giano, although I think his heart is in the right place on most issues, but even with his mistakes I can't make sense of what is happening here.

Just two recent examples. Giano created a placeholder for an essay at his talk. No content yet and CBM plants this. Does this look helpful by any stretch?

Next, ANI thread several hours old seen by hundreds of admins. Seems to have cooled down and suddenly this. Or is it just me?

I am trying hard to find any other reasonable explanation and I can't. Is it possible that this is so simple? I know that "trolling" is a strong word but that I am not alone in seeing this activity as such makes this unpleasant explanation ever more plausible.

Sigh. I doubt it was the ArbCom's intention to sanction that kind of activity. Or was it? No, can't be. But why then the arbs don't react? --Irpen 05:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I really hope it is not like this, but I am also failing to find good faith explanation of those strange edits Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to warn all relevant editors against provoking and biting Giano as well as Giano against being easily provoked Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This situation is exactly what the Arbcom planned, and just as they planned it. I forecast hundreds of little Admins leaping out of IRC anxious for their moment of fame - and here they are. Well done Arbcom, a brilliant victory, except the sanitised stage managed log above reads more like a fantasy than anything any of us know as an true IRC log. They are in it up up their necks, we know it, and they know it. Giano (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I am not that interested that happen in the heads of other editors and at any rate I would not put it to wiki per WP:BLP and WP:OR. I hope if some lowlifes planned dark plans you will be smart enough not to fall into their trap. There are a lot of work to be done (to me for today it will be some work for my employer first). If you allow me, I will archive all that nonsense Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You can put those "edits" in any plave you feel most fitting for them Alex. I expect I can probably be banned for archiving these days. Thanks. Giano (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)