User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:52, 24 December 2007

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at

[1]

Love the new image...

And merry Christmas to you, Giano! Mr Which ??? 20:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You violated the 3RR on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Continuing to edit war may result in a block. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked! (24 hours and rising - any advance?)

I seem to find myself blocked. Never mind, I am quite sure that Wikipedians are quite used to seeing me threatened and blocked for making them aware of what is going on. In short, a non admin in the #admins channel two days ago harassed, insulted and intimidated a female admin in that same channel. What he was doing there I have no idea. When I pointed out his behaviour was unacceptable it was unceremoniously removed [2] and the usual crowd of "men" from IRC accused me of personal attack [3] attempts to then mention that such behaviour exists in the Admins' private channel has too been reverted by admins [4] Finally, I stopped attempting to report fact after Jimbo interfered [5]. Now I am blocked [6] for adding a truthful codicil to Jimbo's statement and the truth once again is removed.

If any of you reading this are being discussed by Admins in #Admins, do you wish to have those Admins hectored and insulted by Tony Sidaway if they do not agree with his point of view? Do you want your admins to sit silently and listen to a female Admin being called a "bastard bitch from hell" and an "Arsehole" until she leaves the channel. As Tony (a non-admin) says on IRC in his own words "this is an admin channel and often admins are talking about problem users" - funny that isn't it? Merry Christmas to you all. Giano (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. Do we care so little for actual content creation as to let rogue admins behave in such a way? Amazing. Mr Which ??? 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano was blocked for a whole ONE HOUR for edit warring (not be me), not for comments about en-admins. Let's not make this more dramatic than it is. Were there unacceptable comments in #admins? Yes. Was editorialising and making comments on a particular case in an wikipedia essay and then edit warring the way to highlight it? NO. Please can we seperate the issues out. --Doc^g 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I look at the edit and I can understand the rationale. Frankly I have no idea what possible value there would be to reporting to Jimbo. He has no authority in the channel, he is not either the owner or the operator.Risker (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to know etc is here [7] they are obviously very concerned as I'm not just blocked they have protected the page as well [http://e

n.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIRC_channels%2Fwikipedia-en-admins&diff=179855921&oldid=179852899]. Very hard efforts to keep this one quiet - I keep telling them to be more careful in the channel - will they listen? - On No! Giano (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ECx2) The issues aren't separate. Bad admin actions are bad admin actions. Blocking Giano for any duration for the actions I saw at en-admins is way beyond the pale of acceptable actions in the circumstance. What about Sidaway? He dances along unscathed after the vile things he wrote? Now I'm back to work on actual content. Mr Which ??? 23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, please don't engage in conspiracy theories. "They are obviously very concerned" - who's 'they'? And about what? Since I'm included in they "they" I guess, let me be clear. Yes, I'm concerned. I'm concerned about incivility in #admins - people should not have impunity to be incivil there (just as they should not have it on wikipedia either). But I also reject your methods. I reverted you on the essay page because your method was inappropriate NOT because the concerns expressed should be silenced. Indeed I've done nothing this evening other than raise those same concerns via private communications to various parties. This is not a black and white, them against us, guys in white hats versus the evil cabal, issue. It is possible to take your concerns seriously whilst rejecting your methods (indeed your methods only serve to increase the noise, not the communication).--Doc^g 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, were you in the channel at the time - yes/no? Giano (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was. I have already been though this with bishonen. I stopped paying attention and did not catch the unacceptable remarks at the end of the conversation until they were drawn to my attention a few hours ago.--Doc^g 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I extended your block to 24 hours, because it's clear that a one-hour block isn't solving this problem. --Core desat 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What problem is it supposed to solve? Have you read WP:BLOCK recently? Blocks are given for certain particular reasons, not because "I don't like you", you know. Please divulge the reason for this one. And please put it on ANI for review, for goodness' sake. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That is unhelpful, please reverse this.--Doc^g 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good for you! and the funniest thing of all is that Sidaway is blocked from #Admins for half an hour for his attack! You must be real proud of yourselves in there. Giano (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the block to 1 hour(ish) as I found no evidence of any action or comment that hadn't taken place prior to the 3RR block, and for which there was no official warnings. I have commented as such at Coredesat's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting coincidence that at the same time Giano is blocked for this, and Tony appears to have gotten a short "cooldown" from #-admins, Willbeback has proposed that the proposed "private correspondence" policy should be approved because he perceives it to be accepted by the community. Risker (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well "others" seem to want it brought in fast too [8]

I have unblocked you. The block was unhelpful. Now let's try to decrease conflict and find real solutions.--Doc^g 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doc, most kind. I'm off for Christmas now, harnessing the goats up to the sleigh. Have a lovely time all of you. Giano (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC to Doc and LHvU) Good moves, guys. I had resolved not to get bogged in this kind of stuff, and to return to content creation, but with Sidaway blocked from #Admins for a freakin half hour for his "bastard bitch from hell" and related comments, and Giano blocked from editing the project for 24 hours, I was going to make a special exception to protest this at AN/I. Thanks for being a calming influence LHvU and Doc. Mr Which ??? 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still autoblocked

Giano remains autoblocked, could somebody please release him? The new autoblock thingy is a total mystery to me. (Is it supposed to be an "upgrade"? Grrr.) Bishonen | talk 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I tried, but the autoblock page doesn't list any current blocks for Giano II. ElinorD (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrr I hate autoblocks. Never did understand them.--Doc^g 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the autoblock either. I looked, but it's not listed. --Core desat 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I looked at this page, after unsuccessfully trying the autoblock tool, and I found a supposedly current block, which I've removed. That should work. ElinorD (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Elinor, your obviously a very skilled Admin! Giano (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas (?)

The very best of the season to you and yours, Giano...and the same greetings to anyone else who happens to stumble on this page over the coming days. My goodness this seems to be a popular place, you might want to consider setting up a little bar over in the corner, my friend! Risker (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am indeed very popular lately, albeit still blocked, an oversight I'm sure. Giano (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least pour yourself a drink while you are waiting. Shall I bring it up at AN/I to see if we can find someone to undo the autoblock? --Risker (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear they don't seem very skilled with their tools do they? Giano (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a previous episode where a user's known previous account was also blocked; perhaps that is the case here? Risker (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can quit bashing admins for no good reason now, you're unblocked. --Core desat 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon - you think that is no good reason? Well let me tell you, you have not heard the last of this ny any means. I was about to drop the matter following a private email from James Forrester but you want to make light of this - well lets just see what happens next, you are going to look very foolish indeed! Giano (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(to Coredesat) LOLOLOL (Can a guy be blocked for laughing out loud?) Mr Which ??? 00:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, I was laughing at your presumption, not with you.) Mr Which ??? 00:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Giano. Its Christmas, for goodness sake. Goodwill to all men and all that nonsense. Please don't prolong this further. And, Mr Which, provocation like that is not going to help matters either. Rockpocket 00:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was all prepared to drop the matter. Coredesat thinks it is nothing, well we will see about that! Giano (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coredesat did the "provoking" by extending the already bad block, and then by posting his last in this "happy Christmas" thread. I'm done here, though, unless Core decides to make any more contributions that are laugh-worthy. Laughing at foolishness is just common sense. I'll try to refrain from finding too much humor in his posts, though. And merry Christmas to you, RP! Mr Which ??? 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coredesat is a fool and I am going to bed. Giano (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you care what his opinion is? Clearly you have made your point, carrying it on as a WP:POINT because one editor dismisses it is not in anyone's interests. Now, are you still autoblocked? Rockpocket 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears, Rockpocket, that ElinorD managed to track down the autoblock and rescinded it. On behalf of Giano, who hopefully is sitting beside the fire with a nice glass of wine now, thanks for inquiring. Risker (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. Well, lets hope the glass is infused with some Christmas spirit! May you (and you both, Mr Which and Giano) have a peaceful and restful holiday. Rockpocket 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Giano! I see from the above you've been celebrating Festivus! I hope you have a happy holiday and a happy new year! Sincerely, Ripberger (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't this page ever stay clean for more than 20 minutes? Merry Xmas, by which I mean something horrible that deserves a good blocking. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I've been convinced through discussion that I was a little hard on you in reverting your earlier personal attacks on my talk page, and that the language I myself used was grossly inappropriate and tantamount to a personal attack. I apologise sincerely for that lapse. Your attacks were baseless, hurtful and untrue, but I should have ignored them or responded to them in a less provocative fashion. --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This apology invoking excused and such strikes me very much as a non-apology one. I still don't have a clue what is Tony doing at the channel in the first place. Giano acted like a gentleman here, speaking in the open and on the record and got blocked for 24 hours. Tony, who spreads his horrific attacks off the record, hides behind the dubious IRC privacy rules and gets a 30 minutes block for the channel. Wikipedia business as usual. --Irpen 02:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, Irpen. Tony's behavior was reprehensible, and the above strikes me as a classic "non-apology." You know, the kind where one says, "I was bad, and you caused it by being so awful, but I shouldn't have responded to your awfulness with badness." Nothing's going to happen to him, though. Now Tony's over at the Private Correspondence proposed policy page trying to shove through some really bad policy. Mr Which ??? 02:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I absolutely do not blame Giano for my lapse. His attack did not excuse my intemperate response. Act in haste, repent at leisure. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. And I looked at the diffs, and nothing Giano wrote was out-of-line. He called you on the fact that you called a female administrator a "bastard bitch from hell" (or something to that effect). Giano was completely correct in posting a note in her defense to your talkpage. Your hehavior is reprehensible. Mr Which ??? 02:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been repeatedly accused of calling somebody a "bastard bitch from hell" (I believe this accusation first surfaced well over six months ago). I have repeatedly said truthfully that I have no recollection of this, but offer my apologies anyway. The apology has been refused. In the circumstances, I cannot do more than I have done to apologise. The accuser has made it plain that nothing short of an admission, which I cannot give her, would be accceptable. Giano then launched an attack based on an unsupported accusation made on an IRC channel. --Tony Sidaway 03:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported, Tony? And where is an attack? Onwiki, I suppose? Cause I have not seen one and I checked the diffs. This is a noce thing, Tony, of speaking onwiki. --Irpen 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The attack comprised the making of an unsupported accusation of wrongdoing. Whether you agree or not, accusing someone out of the blue like that is de facto an attack. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. He was angry at your disrespect. That's not an "attack", except in your own mind. Mr Which ??? 03:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again you presume that the accuser presented evidence to support her accusation. I asked her to email me, but she has not done so. She made this accusation first many months ago, and I apologised then. I've no idea why she brings it up again. If I ever said those words (and I think it's rather doubtful) it was a long, long time ago and I have repeatedly apologised in front of witnesses. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duck. You act like one; you are as bright as one. Probably you are a duck. Ceoil (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unsupported accusation is just that. I succumbed to provocation for which I have apologised to Giano. That is that. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one "provoked" you. You acted like a jerk, and Giano called you on it. No provocation, just you being you. Mr Which ??? 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pity you do not learn from lapses, Tony. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, Giano had guts to say things in the open and what he said was not improper in any way. Tony, however, says things in secret forums and then tries to write policies that would give him impunity to continue doing so and removed the totally warranted posts as "trolling". This is devious and very ungentlemanly. --Irpen 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world, the action would be loose this person. I had a stream of abuse from him, its just not funny. Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not! Now Cordesat, please go and look at your IRC logs. Now were you and Tony Sidaway discussinh me on IRC last night. Were you discussing the prospect of pro-longing my block? What did Tony Disaway say directly after you said "is there a thread somewhere about this?" Thanks , just post it here if you are worried about copyright just translate from the Anglo-Saxon. Giano (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for you Tony. You have rather been relegated to the ground floor of the debate. You will be informed of the outcome. Giano (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't there when this happened. In fact, I'm rarely there at all nowadays. --Core desat 11:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coredesat, wasn't that you there yesterday, discussing with Moreschi the extension of Giano's block? Off wiki of course. Brave and noble. Please go write a page. --Irpen 11:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want I "present evidence", is it, Tony? OK, but please be aware that you're the only one who's obsessed with this. I did not bring it up again, you did. I have now suggested several different kinds of evidence on your page, since you insist. Good ones, though me e-mailing you isn't one of them. I simply don't want to have e-mail contact with people who speak to me the way you do. Keep it public, please. Bishonen | talk 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh I'm sorry Coredesat, I obviously have been sent some forged logs. Presumably iy is OK to publish them here as they cannot be copyright or damaging - can they? Could someone confirm that ASAP. Giano (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, Alex Bakharev (talk), award you this Defender of the Wiki in recognition of your brave actions in protection of English Wikipedia spirit and its policies from the abusers. Merry Christmas Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alex - most appreciated. Giano (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 You want I "present evidence", is it, Tony? OK, but please be aware that you're the only one who's obsessed with this. I did not bring it up again, you did. I have now suggested several different kinds of evidence [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=179937504&oldid=179910319 on your page], since you insist. Good ones, though me e-mailing you isn't one of them. I simply don't want to have e-mail contact with people who speak to me the way you do. Keep it public, please. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
+::Oh I'm sorry Coredesat, I obviously have been sent some forged logs. Presumably iy is OK to publish them here as they cannot be copyright or damaging - can they? Could someone confirm that ASAP. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 12:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 == Allow me ==