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)