Jump to content

User talk:Giano: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→March 2021: Primefac, CaptainEek: Prompt and appropriate responses to all the above needed!
Line 80: Line 80:
* {{u|Primefac}}, {{u|CaptainEek}}, which of you is going to block me for this post? Or are you going to go the whole hog, and desysop me instead? [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) 20:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
* {{u|Primefac}}, {{u|CaptainEek}}, which of you is going to block me for this post? Or are you going to go the whole hog, and desysop me instead? [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) 20:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{reply|JBW}} To be fair, you don't need me to tell you that if you carry on much like this, you've pretty well fucked yourself already. [[Special:contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#960303">'''——'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:blue">'''S'''erial</span>]] 04:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{reply|JBW}} To be fair, you don't need me to tell you that if you carry on much like this, you've pretty well fucked yourself already. [[Special:contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#960303">'''——'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:blue">'''S'''erial</span>]] 04:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
::@ [[Special:contributions/Serial Number 54129]], would you please be so kind as to beep your gutter-likelanguage off my page. If you can’t express yourself without it, I’m sure there are pages better suited to your intellect. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Giano|<font color="blue">Giano</font>]]</span> [[User talk:Giano|'''(talk)''']] 18:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I have thought long and hard about this, and read and re-read this discussion several times, before coming to the following decision. There is a clear consensus in the discussion above that the removal of talk page access by an involved administrator was wrong. Several editors have indicated that they view it that way, including three administrators. (That's not counting {{u|Ched}}, who has clearly expressed a critical view, but has not explicitly commented on the issue of an involved administrator taking action.) That being so, I shall restore talk page access. I have also seriously considered reverting the [[WP:INVOLVED]]-violating block. I have also seriously considered blocking both the offending administrators. ''In case either {{u|Primefac}} or {{u|CaptainEek}} thinks that is some kind of joke, or a rhetorical exaggeration to make some silly point, I assure them it is nothing of the sort. Both of them have many times '''quite rightly''' blocked editors for much lesser offences than such blatant violations of the policy on administrator conduct, as have I.'' [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) 22:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I have thought long and hard about this, and read and re-read this discussion several times, before coming to the following decision. There is a clear consensus in the discussion above that the removal of talk page access by an involved administrator was wrong. Several editors have indicated that they view it that way, including three administrators. (That's not counting {{u|Ched}}, who has clearly expressed a critical view, but has not explicitly commented on the issue of an involved administrator taking action.) That being so, I shall restore talk page access. I have also seriously considered reverting the [[WP:INVOLVED]]-violating block. I have also seriously considered blocking both the offending administrators. ''In case either {{u|Primefac}} or {{u|CaptainEek}} thinks that is some kind of joke, or a rhetorical exaggeration to make some silly point, I assure them it is nothing of the sort. Both of them have many times '''quite rightly''' blocked editors for much lesser offences than such blatant violations of the policy on administrator conduct, as have I.'' [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) 22:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


Revision as of 18:11, 29 March 2021

This user misses RexxS.



Old messages are at:

Icon This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 7 months and 11 days.
This user misses RexxS.

Centre

Please leave comments below:~

March 2021

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Primefac (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How very droll! Criticism can sting can’t it? Wikipedia hasn’t really changed since 2004 when it was openly run by bullying, narrow minded, undereducated morons. The only difference is the “BUMs” have become less open in their behaviour. Never mind. Giano (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were warned. You are more than welcome to criticize, but you are not welcome to be un-civil. Plenty of stinging, yet constructive, criticism has been levelled at WT:ACN today. But your commentary, and subsequent disruption to try to restore it after being told nicely to rewrite it, go well beyond the collegial standards of Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek - On the same day you are obliged, under fire, to strike your own gratuitous and uninformed comments on other editors’ motivations, you roll up here to lecture on the need to maintain “collegial standards”. Hypocrisy, thy name is... KJP1 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, The difference is that I struck my comments promptly, after realizing I had misspoken. Giano instead edit warred in their diatribe repeatedly. The block was hardly mine to begin with, Primefac put in the initial block. I simply removed TPA when it became clear they were not going to stop. They have been warned about this issue before, and any admin would have taken the same action I did. In fact, I likely gave a more lenient action, they could have easily found themselves blocked a week or for good, as they have been blocked before for this exact behavior. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek, you are completely the wrong person to come here and silence Giano. Please undo your removal of tpa. If Giano really needs to have access to this page removed, I'm sure another, uninvolved, admin will do it soon enough. This is a well-watched page. I have restored Giano's comment which was removed by another user as "trolling",[1] as I find it within the bounds of venting by a blocked user. Bishonen | tålk 22:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
The only reason I did not pull TPA myself was that Eek beat me to the punch. I find zero reason to add another entry to the block log purely for the purposes of optics or whatever may be the case in this situation, so please consider the removal of TPA to be "mine" for all practical extents and purposes. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optics are important (and recent developments have greatly reduced the load of rock climbers who wish to capture their views as images, e.g.) but this isn't about optics, no matter how you wish to present yourself. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 01:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek do you really think you're the right person to do this given your own comments and given that you literally just desysopped an admin over an interpretation of WP:INVOLVED that is much broader than is supported by the policy. Perhaps it would put it into perspective if somebody was to make an arbitration request over this then dig up a few diffs of ill-judged comments and actions from your past. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not the right person, in many aspects. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not - enjoy the nice weather anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Harry. It's been a while since an arb was hoist by their own petard and hoiked before their own committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be talking about the arb that was blocked by Bishzilla in 2009, Kudpung? Technically, they weren't hoiked before the committee — Bishzilla was, and was admonished (ROTFLOL) — but the case turned into more of a review of the arb in question. Do I remember it right, Newyorkbrad? The more recently disgraced arb I recollect was removed more discreetly, without any hoiking, around 2018. When it comes to their own, the committee tends to be all for avoiding public hangings. A bit of a hypermario problem, you might say. Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Maybe I'm missing something here. I make an intentional effort these days to not follow the goings on at ArbCom. But...If "vile" and "lacklustre" is the standard of civility we're enforcing, then we probably have a few thousand users we need to block post haste. I like Prime. We've worked together in the past. I actually met Eek once, though you probably don't remember me. I'm quite forgettable. Despite my name, I don't quite have the same dedication to a colorized theme as he and someone like OrangeMike. But I wonder whether ArbComs feelings really need so thoroughly defended. They're big boys and girls. I don't know that any of them are crying into their pillows over some pointed criticism. That's part of why they're elected to do what they do. GMGtalk 12:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. If you missed anything, it might have been "bullying, narrow minded, undereducated morons" which some apparently think is reasonable. ——Serial 12:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong. Not saying it's exactly the paragon of enlightened debate we should all aspire to. But Arbcom is there to make hard decisions and maybe we should afford some leeway for decisions that someone is going to strongly disagree with no matter the outcome. How many of us could have been blocked under the same standard when the Fram debacle carried on for 100 years?
At any rate, it's been a while, and I haven't forgotten that drink you offered me some three years ago. I fully intend to cash in if ever I can make my way to the UK after the world stops ending. GMGtalk 13:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, the block was not because of the language by itself, but the language combined with edit-warring to insist that it be included on the page. If it were just a case of "this is an offensive post", it would have been removed and we wouldn't be debating this here (because you are exactly right in that we are adults on the Committee and can handle a bit of foul-mouthed criticism). Primefac (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, While it was a critical post, perhaps even harsh by some standards - I think "foul mouthed" is overstepping. — Ched (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, struck. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that Giano got precisely the response he expected, perhaps even wanted. IMO it did make a point quite clearly. Giano, if that was indeed your intent - well played sir. — Ched (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    • That's what I think, too. It certainly would have been easier to reply to Giano with a rebuttal (there are all kinds of ways to do that, some of them quite sarcastic), instead of obliging him with an edit war and a block. I like Bradv personally (heck, I like Primfac and CaptainEek personally, too, and I even like Giano, although I've been told that it's difficult to pull that one off), but I notice that he marked his revert of Giano's comment as a "clerk action". Has he been demoted? (No offense to clerks intended.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! You couldn't make this up. I really, really, really find it almost impossible to believe this. If we needed any further proof of what fools and bullies the present arbitration committee is, then it's difficult to think of a better way to get that proof than two members of the arbitration committee using their power to silence an editor who had criticised the arbitration committee for being bullies and, as he puts it, "morons". Really? They must have heard of WP:INVOLVED, and unless they are indeed morons they must be able to see that they should not have taken this action, whatever their opinions of the rights and wrongs of the case, in view of their conflict of interest. Also, unless they really are morons they must have known that what they were doing would be seen as bullying. Are we really to believe that they can't see that what they have achieved by their actions is to provide support and justification for the very charges made against them by Giano? That they are in fact proving his point for him?
  • Primefac, CaptainEek, which of you is going to block me for this post? Or are you going to go the whole hog, and desysop me instead? JBW (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: To be fair, you don't need me to tell you that if you carry on much like this, you've pretty well fucked yourself already. ——Serial 04:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ Special:contributions/Serial Number 54129, would you please be so kind as to beep your gutter-likelanguage off my page. If you can’t express yourself without it, I’m sure there are pages better suited to your intellect. Giano (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought long and hard about this, and read and re-read this discussion several times, before coming to the following decision. There is a clear consensus in the discussion above that the removal of talk page access by an involved administrator was wrong. Several editors have indicated that they view it that way, including three administrators. (That's not counting Ched, who has clearly expressed a critical view, but has not explicitly commented on the issue of an involved administrator taking action.) That being so, I shall restore talk page access. I have also seriously considered reverting the WP:INVOLVED-violating block. I have also seriously considered blocking both the offending administrators. In case either Primefac or CaptainEek thinks that is some kind of joke, or a rhetorical exaggeration to make some silly point, I assure them it is nothing of the sort. Both of them have many times quite rightly blocked editors for much lesser offences than such blatant violations of the policy on administrator conduct, as have I. JBW (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • One of the reasons I quit ArbCom many moons ago was because of the idea that I could be called a moron (and worse), have my honor and good faith repeatedly questioned, and be repeatedly accused of joining ArbCom because I was power hungry. And expected to just sit there and take it. Well, no, expected to interact with the people doing it in a polite and respectful manner. All for volunteering to do the best I could to resolve disputes, despite never receiving any training to resolve disputes. I do not have the personality trait of being able to relentlessly turn the other cheek like that. I was not good Arb material. With very few exceptions, I don't think we have many people who are good Arb material, yet we continue to want an ArbCom.
    I'm in the awkward position of liking and respecting everyone posting in this section, on both sides. I'm aware that several of them have said or done something in the last couple of days that were, to varying degrees, major or minor errors. It is possible to come to the wrong decision, or say something dumb, without being evil, and without being a moron. It's also possible to say something in the heat of the moment, in defense of an unfairly maligned friend, without needing to be site blocked. A clerk action should really only apply to ArbCom pages. Talk page venting should almost never result in removal of talk page access by the admin(s) being vented at.
    I think JBW's restoration of talk page access was the right thing to do. I'm tempted to (symbolically, since there are only 5 hours left) change Giano's block to a page block from WT:ACN. I won't, because I'm a chicken, and because I won't be around tonight to deal with any blowback. But if there are any Arbs watching this page (well, there are probably several of them, what I mean is, if there are any Arbs watching this page who are willing to delurk and admit it), who are interested in de-escalating, I think either that, or a complete unblock, would be a good idea. I think considering blocking either Primefac or Captain Eek would not be a good solution to, well, anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that some relative newcomers have obtained advanced ops and decided that they must use them. Friends, a user is allowed to vent on their own talk page after being blocked, especially when the block is arguably bad practice. Was there was some sort of horrific oversighted content that I am not able to see? If that's the case, please say so (without revealing the contents). Otherwise, please restore Giano's talk page access promptly, per our customs and policies. Many thanks. Jehochman Talk 00:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the Arbs have just removed the admin rights of one of Wikipedia's most dedicated contributors for an alleged breach of WP:INVOLVED, it's astonishing that two of them have blatantly breached that very same policy by their actions against Giano here. Primefac and Captain Eek, you have both broken the trust we placed in you when we elected you to ArbCom, trust that you would uphold Wikipedia policy rather than break it yourselves. I think you should both stand down from the committee. I fully support JBW's comments and restoration of TP access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both blocks are bad. Primefac erred in applying the block in that the criticism leveled by this diff was not leveled at a particular user, but at ArbCom in general. Further, that Primefac is part of ArbCom they are directly involved, and thus this block was a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED. This is no different than if I were to block somebody who criticized me with a similar post. I would expect to be desysopped posthaste if I was so out of line as to pull a stunt like that. @Primefac:, you are way...way...out of line on this. @CaptainEek: In the CaptainEeek case, I think CaptainEek says it well by themselves; "any admin would have taken the same action I did" [2]. If that is the case, then why did it have to be you, a person directly WP:INVOLVED, who had to take this action? A post on Giano's talk page isn't going to end the project. There was no rush. There was no emergency. Giano wasn't madly pinging people to this page. Giano wasn't spamming unblock requests. They were posting criticism about the block and you didn't like it. That's the issue here, not disruption to the project. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy; "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" Please describe, specifically, what damage to the project was happening due to Giano's actions on this talk page? Further, please explain how someone so directly WP:INVOLVED as you are had to act immediately to prevent further such damage to the project, and explain why this couldn't be brought to WP:AN/I so one of the "any admins" that would have removed talk page access could have been given an opportunity to do so? If you can't explain this, then at the very least you owe an immediate apology to Giano. Please note this isn't anything about me being a fan of Giano. I've never posted to this talk page before, nor can I remember Giano and I ever interacting before. It is to say the least ironic that Primefac and CaptainEek should so blatantly, obviously, and dramatically violate WP:INVOLVED when they both just supported FoF of RexxS abusing INVOLVED and Primefac voted to desysop. The actions taken here by Primefac and CaptainEek are deeply, deeply troubling. We now have a case of a person being blocked for criticizing ArbCom. Primefac and CaptainEek, you both owe direct apologies to Giano for the abuse of your privileges on this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Primefac: Since you took ownership of the TPA block with this edit, both you and @CaptainEek: can explain how these blocks were not blatant abuses of WP:INVOLVED? Further, please explain what damage or disruption was being caused to the project by Giano posting criticism of ArbCom (however uncivil you care to construe it) when such edits contained no pings and no unblock requests? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Hammersoft, for your eloquent summary. I don’t think criticising a ruling body online, unless ones uses obscenities, should be a blocking offence anymore than one is sanctioned in real life for criticising an elected Government. No doubt those supporting this block are fans of the Chinese, Russian and Banana Republics’ Goverments. That is something which Wikipedians should find deeply troubling. Giano (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forward to the past

Thank you all for the kind support by email and here, especially JBW. I won’t say too much for an hour or so and see if the Arbs themselves decide to look and sanction for this block themselves. I’m not bothered about the edit warring, that achieved its purpose. However, removing talk page access was a trifle naughty wasn’t it? Or are we in some Totalitarian state where any criticism of the Government is forbidden? I don’t think we would have many politicians left in the free world if such descriptions were imprisonable offences. Now, while I’ve always known that Arbcom cases were often initially cooked up on IRC; it’s disappointing to see a current Arb on Wikipediocracy trying to incite others to cook up cases - especially disappointing, when against me! In fact, should our Arbs be posting disparaging comments about any editor on Wikipediocracy at all? It rather demeans the office, doesn’t it? Anyway, let’s give it a few hours and see what the Arbs have to say themselves, surely they’re not all as described above - are they? Giano (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS:Primefac, when you leave the nursery, you will realise my comments were far from “Foul Mouthed.”
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano&oldid=1014907613"