User talk:GiacomoReturned: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:21, 20 July 2009

The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

—Lore Sjöberg, from "The Wikipedia FAQK"

This, the funniest thing I have seen on wikipedia, was stolen from DreamGuy

Userboxes

PC-0

This user is politically incorrect.

File:Animalibrí.gif

Please note there is now a designated area for complaining about me here (I do check it from time to time). This talk page is now only for important and interesting matters. Giano (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old messages are at:

User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (From Oct 2004)
User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (From Jan 2005)
User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (From July 2005)
User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (From Jan 2006)
User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (From July 2006)
User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (From Jan 2007)
User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (From July 2007)
User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (From Jan 2008)
User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (From July 2008)
User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (From Jan 2009)
User talk:Giano II/archive 11 (From July 2009)

Essays:

A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles
A few thoughts on Wikipedia (unfinished)

I had previously believed you incorruptible

However, your decision to remove my (well founded) allegations of the late Madame de Burg - or whatever, the names of the dead are difficult to recall - using tradesmens tools in the consumption of crustaceans appendages has sorely tested my beliefs! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My table manners are impeccable. You are probably the sort of person who eats asparagus with a knife and fork while slurping noisily from the finger bowl Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madame, you obviously mistake me for a juggler! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

Really. Your point is well taken, don't make it too pointy. Black Kite 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just started. I am not stoppng until he is blocked! Admins stared and ignored that post for hours - do you see me saying cockfucker? Just imaging Sandsttein, Herbert and their friends if I did - they would be racing to block and a thread half a mile long of others wanting the block extended. Giano (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made that point on the ANI thread. I would point out that stuff posted at that time on a Sunday morning regularly get ignored for hours - the US are out partying and the UK is asleep - just look at the backlog of ANI threads I closed this morning. You are going to achieve nothing by martyring yourself by edit-warring on the ADCP thread - so yes, you're right, take the moral high ground and keep it. Black Kite 10:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. They would be racing eacjh other for their names to be on my block log - it is like a super barnstar for them - and he is still not blocked - so that does not hold water. Giano (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's still not blocked because throwing in a block now would be punitive rather than preventative, and if someone had blocked you for something similar 9 hours after the event I would unblock you as well. Now please let it go while you're still ahead? Black Kite 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well, tell me about punitive blocks - they don't noramlly seem to worry Sandstein Conolly and Herbert do they? Whats so different with you all now? Never have I seen Admins display their rank partisan biasednees so much before. Giano (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to achieve here? You've already made your point - you are completely correct that DT's comment was out of order, I've warned him, it's been noted very visibly on ANI. Yes, I know it looks like double standards but you'll have to believe me on this one - if I'd seen that comment at 3.46am this morning I'd have blocked him, but I'm not going to now. And I'm pretty sure that goes for most admins as well. If someone else wants to drop in and block him now then fine, but it would be hypocritical of me to act differently on this one from how I would normally. Now can I unlock the thread and be confident you aren't going to keep removing Wehwalt's posting? Black Kite 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to a warning to mention my post which was informed and quite true. Giano (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Wehwalt's warning is struck or removed, then I won't need to take matters into my own hands. Cock sucker is not in my vocabulary it is grossly incivil and insulting by anyone's standards. If you think it is OK it's for comments like that to stand then you are not the person I thoyght you were. Giano (talk)

OK, I've removed the entire sub-thread and unlocked it. That seems like a reasonable compromise. Black Kite 11:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is pity I have to battle so hard to acheive what is quite reasonable. Now all that remains is to know the real reason why no admin was prepared to block an editor who refers to another edoror as a cock sucker [1]. Perhaps Sandstein, Connoly or Herbert or one of the numerous others would like to start the ball rolling. Giano (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know how I feel. I think all of these fascination with "dirty words" is brain damaged. I think it's hypocrisy. I think it's absolutely right that you're pointing out the hypocrisy, and I even told Jimbo that the real joy he was going to have with his mandatory 3 hour blocks for any admin using a dirty word for a regular editor, which he said was policy, was that they were going to get to block each other. Of course, it would be delightful if the buffoons learned from this and tried, for once, to act appropriately. It would be delightful if they've repented and recanted. So, if they don't believe in an instant block for a word that the movie Bull Durham says will cause the instant ejection of any manager from a baseball game, then let's see some change of heart. That would be the really desired outcome: people to realize that "civility" is not words, and this fascination with words is an insanity that can only lead to witch hunts. Geogre (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own personal civility policy only has three fairly easy to keep and simple rules [2] that post breaks three of them. In my book it was very uncivil and the usuak admins ignoring it was suspicious in the extreme. Giano (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlackKite, nothing personal, but most blocks are punitive, not preventative, that are given because someone used a bad word with somebody. They're punitive because the blocking admin has no idea if the editor in question is going to use another bad word again within the next few minutes or not. Many other blocks are also punitive. That's one of the problems with Wikipedia's admin policies is that it forces our admins to distort things by saying that all of their blocks are preventative, when actually many, if not most, are intended to be corrective in nature, which is close to the same thing as punishment. I don't necessarily think that there's anything wrong with punitive blocks, but our policies need to be updated to address the issue so that our admins don't have to keep talking out of both sides of their mouth about it. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just get tired of the rank double standards and pretence, certain admins just chop and change their stance depending on who they are dealing with and what their own personal viewpoint is. What it proves beyong doubt is that, in truth, they are not really in the least bothered about civility standards. They just use it as a convenient and handy weapon to silence those advocating opinions that don't fit with their own - which is what I have always maintained. Giano (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I think the point I was making is that I could've constructed a reasonable argument at 3.47am that such a block would've been preventative, whereas 8 hours later, with no intervening edits by that editor, it is not possible to do so. The problem is that since many admins issue such blocks depending on many other factors such as how egregious the insult is, whether it's a pattern of behaviour, and the context in which the comment is made, it's always possible for someone to say "X was blocked for this, but I found this example where Y wasn't blocked for exactly the same thing!". And it doesn't help that the text in WP:BLOCK which says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block" is basically contradictory. Black Kite 13:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Admns use civility to silence those whose opinions do not co-incide with their own. Today, that has been proved 100%. It has set an important precedent and left the civility policy in tatters and destroyed. Giano (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "civility policy?" I don't care that I've said it before: it remains the case that the "civility policy" says that we ought to be nice. Heck, no one disagrees with that. We should be forthright, thrifty, and brave, too. The only part of the policy that has anything to do with blocking is that it says that in extreme cases a person might be blocked for bad behavior. Under any reasonable circumstance, it's easy to understand what that means. Heck, I was here at the time, so I know what it means. It's true that people weren't using many bad words back then, but it's also true that the policy was aimed at attack accounts. I.e. that clause was designed for trolls, for flame warriors. There is a gap of a few dozen light years between a contributing editor who gets upset and a flame warrior. In fact, many of the people going about looking for people they can call uncivil are flame warriors. Of course the enforcement is hypocritical, because the people involved are flame warriors using what's at hand, not people worried about the tone of conversations. In some cases, they may, in fact, be so allergic to free speech and have such antibodies to disagreement that they themselves can't see the difference between "makes me look bad" and "violates the law," but, in those cases, we're just dealing with immature people. We should never underestimate the number of those there are, no matter their ages. Geogre (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well put George! Just for that I won't report you to the Robot Council for your blasphemy earlier against our automated overlords.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I am glad that the matter has been settled, or at least finished with. I am now going to tell you - and the audience that I am fully aware of - why I did not block, warn or interact with Doc Tropics in this matter. The fact is, I am livid that anyone should use or consider the term "cocksucker" as a pejorative phrase - I have as friends many women and not a few men who are cocksuckers by choice and habit, to differing degrees of skill and enthusiasm doubtless. My reaction to Doc Tropics comment was a wish to block him indefinitely for homophobic hate rhetoric within a breach of WP:CIVIL; obviously I am not permitted to do that, because the ill defined policies and guidelines that gets you warned and blocked for making personal observations upon other editors/admins actions and comments yet not someone who uses despicable language that both targets one editor and denigrates the sexual choices of two different genders and orientations. Since I cannot block another editor for being ignorant of fostering hate in their stupid remarks I realised that I could not judge impartially (difficult enough when it involves you, anyway) Doc Tropics choice of words.
I do agree with you, though, that the non actions of certain admins who appear all too eager to hold you to the very smallest punctuation mark of whatever policy they deem that you have transgressed have done them no favours. That only I, and possibly a few others likewise who felt unable to act, are not even inclined to consider the potential damage to the community in allowing terminology that vicimises large members of it to pass unremarked is even more damning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we were to block for "uncivil language," and I do not believe in it, then it would apply to any term of opprobrium, and "cocksucker" is a longstanding term of abuse, even among populations for whom fellatio is not a practice held in contempt. I.e. the word is a term of abuse, whereas "blow job queen" or "queer" or some other explicit reference to homosexual or heterosexual fellatio is not. Gay men would use "cocksucker" as a term of insult. Therefore, being held back by that is overly refined, because it isn't a literal term. In fact, "cocksucker" has no more literal meaning than "fucker." Certainly, it's no insult to call someone a fucker? I should imagine that biology and society both conspire to endorse our all being fuckers. The same with being "jerk offs," to some degree, if a recent article in Slate is to be believe (msn.slate.com), which argues that masturbation is a compulsive behavior among all mammals and most animals. Therefore, it's inappropriate to look at the literal value of the term for discerning the social value of it. I should be proud of being called a "fucker," although I would, sadly, have to correct the record and say, "Alas, not in a while, but one remains hopeful." Geogre (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 I am glad that the matter has been settled, or at least finished with. I am now going to tell you - and the audience that I am fully aware of - why I did not block, warn or interact with Doc Tropics in this matter. The fact is, I am livid that anyone should use or consider the term "cocksucker" as a pejorative phrase - I have as friends many women and not a few men who are cocksuckers by choice and habit, to differing degrees of skill and enthusiasm doubtless. My reaction to Doc Tropics comment was a wish to block him indefinitely for homophobic hate rhetoric within a breach of [[WP:CIVIL]]; obviously I am not permitted to do that, because the ill defined policies and guidelines that gets you warned and blocked for making personal observations upon other editors/admins actions and comments yet not someone who uses despicable language that both targets one editor and denigrates the sexual choices of two different genders and orientations. Since I cannot block another editor for being ignorant of fostering hate in their stupid remarks I realised that I could not judge impartially (difficult enough when it involves you, anyway) Doc Tropics choice of words.<br>
 I do agree with you, though, that the non actions of certain admins who appear all too eager to hold you to the very smallest punctuation mark of whatever policy they deem that you have transgressed have done them no favours. That only I, and possibly a few others likewise who felt unable to act, are not even inclined to consider the potential damage to the community in allowing terminology that vicimises large members of it to pass unremarked is even more damning. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
+::Well, ''if'' we were to block for "uncivil language," and I do not believe in it, ''then'' it would apply to any term of opprobrium, and "cocksucker" is a longstanding term of abuse, even among populations for whom fellatio is not a practice held in contempt.  I.e. the word is a term of abuse, whereas "blow job queen" or "queer" or some other explicit reference to homosexual or heterosexual fellatio is not.  Gay men would use "cocksucker" as a term of insult.  Therefore, being held back by ''that'' is overly refined, because it isn't a literal term.  In fact, "cocksucker" has no more literal meaning than "fucker."  Certainly, it's no insult to call someone a fucker?  I should imagine that biology and society both conspire to ''endorse'' our all being fuckers.  The same with being "jerk offs," to some degree, if a recent article in Slate is to be believe (msn.slate.com), which argues that masturbation is a compulsive behavior among all mammals and most animals.  Therefore, it's inappropriate to look at the literal value of the term for discerning the social value of it.  I should be proud of being called a "fucker," although I would, sadly, have to correct the record and say, "Alas, not in a while, but one remains hopeful."  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] ([[User talk:Geogre|talk]]) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)