Misplaced Pages

User talk:Giano

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ghirlandajo (talk | contribs) at 07:27, 15 September 2006 (→Hi: opine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:27, 15 September 2006 by Ghirlandajo (talk | contribs) (→Hi: opine)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Campaign for less bull more writing
This user believes all admins should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article before being considered for adminship, and should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article per year or stand for re-election to retain their status.
We are here to write an encyclopedia
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano.

Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation

Please add your comments below, preferably at the bottom.




Old messages are at


Please leave new messages at the foot of the page

Unproductive comments on talk pages

Have one of these - it made me feel much better.
And Cecilia says "maa".

This comment, which you left on my talk page, is really quite unproductive and nominally offensive. Please refrain from leaving such unproductive, antagonistic comments on other editor's talk pages. Given your supposed campaign for "less bull", it seems quite hypocritical of you. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of posting here I recommend people read this comment here which rather sums up my feelings too. Ghirlandajo too has made this comment "There are more editors who buzz around than those who actually write stuff." . I have recently been threatened with a ban by the arbcom for my attitude to Eternal Equinox, who they felt they could not ban , she is now back trying to cause mayhem. Ghirlandjo is being set up on the Requests for arbitration . An arbitrator who could not be bothered to accurately assess what I had written left this message . In addition it seems to take longer each day to maintain the standard of pages I have already written from both deliberate vandals and the genuinely ignorant.
Those in authority here seem to care more about their own infighting and rules and regulations than encyclopedic standards and maintaining them. It seems to me the Kelly Martins and Tony Sidaways (and a dozen more just like them) of the site are on huge ego trips, and there is no-one here who cares enough to do anything about it. In fact quite a few people do care, but sadly they are the less strident and militant so in that way wikipedia becomes an "animal farm". I don't know if there is a solution, but I don't like the way things are going. Giano | talk 21:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
So does this mean Kelly won't be joining our WP:BULL campaign?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest not going gently into the good night, but rather raging against the dying of the light? Or at least registering with the Disgruntled Breakfast Club? There is some relevant discussion on User talk:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Go gently into the night? When have you ever known me go gently anywhere? No, I am just very unhappy about the whole feel of the place here at the moment, Carnildo's so called RFA did not help either, so when one has lost all respect for, and confidence in the Arb-com what does one do. That is the question I am deliberating in my mind. At the end of the day they are only editors just like the rest of us and they must be made to be comletely accountable, and stop behaving like a heavy handed junta, or they will have nobody worthwhile left to govern. Giano | talk 08:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Being of optimistic disposition, I'm sure the current bullshit will subside for while and then flare up again and onwards until things are changed or the whole project eats itself. In the meantime, I'm at least taking some pride from this . --Mcginnly | Natter 10:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree entirely about the place "feeling" awful at the moment. People suddenly seem to have become rather intolerant and trigger-happy, or perhaps it was like that all along, and I have only just noticed it. All I can think of at present is to stick with it and do what I can to try to stop things sliding into the abyss. Just look at the furore that has broken out at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know (of all places) at the moment.
Given the way things have gone in the past few weeks, I have serious concerns for the quality of the encyclopedia going forwards. Some people seem to treat this place as some sort of social rules-making experiment (the "bull" to which the banner refers) rather than seeing the rules as an aide to writing encyclopedic content. They also don't trust the ordinary editors to make the right decision about what rules will be effective in achieving that over-riding aim, rather seeking to impose their will on the people doing the writing, and they don't care who they piss off along the way, trusting that new editors will replace casualties who fall by the roadside along the way.
It has the feel of the retreat from Moscow, with the Cossacks, hunger and disease picking us off one by one... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed entirely. (Hi Cecilia) -- Samir धर्म 10:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not so much a retreating soldier as part of a "fickle and ill-informed populace." . Speeking of cossacks, I'm surprised he hasn't left a message here yet! Giano | talk 13:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

♪ Do you hear the people sing? ♪ Singing a song of angry men? ♪ It is the music of a people who will not be slaves again! ♪ -- ALoan (Talk) 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - literary uses of singular their, anyone? Caxton? Shakespeare? Jane Austen? Thackeray? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

sloppy blocks

Thanks for the link. On the topic, I actually wrote my thoughts on that which you may have missed. Please take a look at this and this (I have yet to respond to a latter). I don't see things as pessimistically though. All blocks I discusses were erroneous but honest errors. The problem with harassment by Tony I think is fairly recent. I don't think he's always been that way and things may yet cool down. Ciao! --Irpen 10:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mail

You have. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

So I see my little blossom flower thankyou:-).............G

Apropos, you mentioned on Bish-talk that my e-mail does not work. I don't understand why it does not work for you - I got the Plautus round-robin, for example. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A favour, if I may?

Hi Giano, Can I ask a big favour? I'm trying to get Intelligent design to featured article status, and I could really use your help. I'm pretty sure the first thing to do is work out in what ways it falls short? I know you've got a good understanding of what an article needs to have to qualify. Could you have a look at the article, and add your thoughts at Talk:Intelligent design#Featured Article? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I looked at it the other day and thought it looked very good, but you are going to have a hell of a job to get it stable enough - and as far as I am aware there is no precedent for a protected article to become featured. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Double standards

I responded to your observation on my talk and sent other comments by mail. You may have noticed that arbitrators do not converse with each other on talk pages, why should we? It is not safe to let one's thoughts shared and known, when even e-mails are not private here any more. --Ghirla 15:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a breath

Giano - I was going to unblock you, but FloNight beat me to it. I'd appreciate it if you could tone it down just a notch. Raul654 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

- .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The following is lifted from here

Tony, I beg to differ -- with courtesy but most seriously. All you have done in your comment is convince me that if you were a b'crat, I'd have to ask you to stand for recall. John Reid 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You could fucking whistle. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And you could tone down your comments. That was uncalled for. Even if John Reid was the most abbrasive person since Jack the Ripper, such comments as the one you just made are out of line here. Please calm down. --Durin 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway then removed my last comment with this startling edit summary . Seems there really is one law for some, and another for him. No one liftes a finger to stop him. So please some-one explain the difference Giano | talk 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I unblocked you because I do not think a block was needed. I'm not sure that you need to keep posting messages on talk pages, either. The messages are bothering some other users and that is not a good thing. FloNight 21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flo - medicine is always nasty, but one must always take a long term view (very liberal translation of an old Sicilian proverb) Giano | talk 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, I have been gainfully employed on other things. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, please take it easy. You are not here to run for RfA, RfB or god forbids, ArbCom, that is to satisfy your power instincts like someone who does nothing for encyclopedia development. You are the valuable contributor and we all treasure you. Don't let this nonsense let you down. Brush this off and please write another FA. Tony will either chill out dramatically or will run himself out of here. Misplaced Pages is smarter than him, you or me. Just write articles and rest assured that people here appreciate it. You know what I am going to do? I am so tired of this crap. I am going to find an article that needs my input now and will see what I can do for it. Just ignore Tony for a moment. --Irpen 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Irpen, and you too ALoan, and all the others on WP AN/I but I really think there has been far too much ignoring of Mr Sidaway and his masters for far too long, and I'm not sure I want to ignore them anymore - but then does one really want the bother of it all? I shall sleep on it, see you all in the morning. Giano | talk 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano has taken his concerns about the recent Carnildo affair beyond the level of reasonable discussion and has begun to make quite hysterical and false accusations . I've given him three hours to reconsider his words and cool down a bit. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a block was necessary here... I don't read anything that makes it look like there's any danger to the project, and it isn't obvious to me that the comments are designed to upset any contributors. Jkelly 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)-
I agre with Jkelly. I'm going to unblock, and leave him a message on his talk page asking him to be a bit cooler. Raul654 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hrm, Flonight beat me to it. Raul654 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the block, but Giano definitely needs to cool it. There's room for civil discussion, and then there's accusations of conspiracy, corruption, and cabalism. True or not, the latter doesn't help a damn thing. Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I think it had gotten far beyond the stage where asking him to cool it would have worked, though. We'll see how it goes. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for the delay in posting. Keep getting edit conflicts. Giano will not respond positively to a block so I unblocked. --FloNight 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I support getting Giano to return to the excellent work he has done in FA's and to try and let the situations outside of that become the past, as they should be. I also hope folks aren't going around undoing Tony Sidaway's admin actions, knowing that he cannot revert them since he is under an administrative 1RR ruling. Let's not undo others admin actions as this is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks.--MONGO 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"his is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks." Seems to me there are two ways to interpret that statistic.... —Nate Scheffey 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's here all week folks! Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony, the block was uncalled for, especially of an editor you hadn't even warned, that I can see. The block summary was even more so. "Hysterical" is untrue and a personal attack, and now it's there in the log for evermore. Please consider the formulation of block summaries with particular care, as they are extremely difficult to remove or change, and it's in practice never done. This was discussed extensively, recently, in relation to Carnildo's "hate speech" summaries, which still remain in several block logs—Giano's, as luck would have it, being one of them. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
Yes, the block was uncalled for (and particularly bad form). Better to risk a bruised ego by undoing an improper block than to let it stand out of some misguided notion of politeness. Friday (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this,Bishonen. Giano's accusations of skulduggery and malice are beyond anything that is ever acceptable on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well, you don't usually mince words yourself, Tony. A month ago you were accusing a fellow admin of "Pure, unadulterated malice. Disgusting." Haukur 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony weren't you also just fighting with Giano on the crat board? I notice you've also started doing more refactoring of those discussions after I asked you to stop. JoshuaZ 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And where is this "skulduggery and malice?" From the two diffs you provided, the editor disagreed with Taxman's re-promotion of Carnildo and discussed it. They didn't explicitly attack either Carnildo or Taxman with anything more than opinions. I don't think dissenting opinions deserve a block, and if something in the grey area like this does, it is better to discuss your problems with the editor first, especially if you've had problems with them before. There was nothing urgent or dangerous about this matter which required an immediate block. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not Giano but Tony Sidaway

I see a big problem here and this problem is not Giano (talk · contribs), but Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tony has turned the entire Misplaced Pages into a battleground between himself and anyone who dares to disagree with him. Tony has lately resorted to a more fiery methods of intimidation, including frivolous arbcom submissions and, most amazingly, blocks when the opponent is especially voiceful. His own recent activity ranged between foul language, personal attacks, intimidation and gross abuse. There is no single contribution into a single article in mainspace, which is also noteworthy.

Until Tony will stand in front of ArbCom for his contempt of everyone but himself, he needs time to chill out. I call on the community ro consider giving him a time to cool off. Perhaps a 1-3 day block will be enough for him to take a good use of a wikibreak, cool down and come back somewhat chilled out. --Irpen 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Again already? He got blocked just a couple of days ago as a naughty essay-deleter :) Haukur 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought it had been established that cooling-off blocks didn't do any good. Heaven knows there are howls of protest whenever one's proposed against a non-admin. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that sarcasm or do you agree that cooling off blocks do no good? —Nate Scheffey 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen them work, really, because it's difficult for someone to take a block in good grace. I don't blame you for asking, though. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
They work well if they're permitted to. I don't disagree with the unblock (all my blocks are subject to review and overturning with my implicit permission). I think we would have done well to permit Giano the time to reconsider the quite hysterical and false accusations of skulduggery and malice of his recent comments. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. This block would not have cooled Giano off. His comments were not hysterical. Saying so doesn't make it so. All of your blocks are subject to review regardless of your permission. —Nate Scheffey 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my impression is that he does post any potentially controversial blocks up for review, so I cannot see what you meaning is on this point.--MONGO 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Since he said "all my blocks" I'm not sure where you got "potentially controversial blocks" from. Regardless, my meaning is that on Misplaced Pages all of our actions are subject to review, no permission necessary. —Nate Scheffey 22:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony Sidaways' latest is another of those blocks that will obviously have the opposite effect of its stated intent. This needs to be addressed in WP:BLOCK. —Nate Scheffey 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Blocking isn't the answer. Furthermore, I'd encourage you to be careful with "voiceful" (I suspect you meant "forceful"). There's a very important line between arguing your point forcefully and trolling. It's often hard to tell the difference, and people have varying levels of tolerance. When in doubt, moderate one's language. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
(four edit conflicts) Agree that the problem is Tony. Disagree on the block. Other solutions are needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Giano may be more than a little upset at the way Tony responds incivily to a civil (and might I add hypothetical) statement, then, called on it, says "ridiculous threats deserve to to be treated with loud and resounding contempt." Noting that one would call for Tony's recall if he were a bureaucrat is not any sort of threat that I can discern. Tony is being incivil; he has been consistenty policing post-Carnildo discussion to what seems to me a disruptive point, and he should perhaps block himself for three hours for a calm-down, if he finds such blocks generally effective. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to discuss the blocking with Tony before reverting his action?--MONGO 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there was about as much discussion with Tony about unblocking as there was between Tony and Giano before he imposed the block. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi ho

If no one minds I'm going to attempt to stifle and censor discussion by proposing that this matter best be handled as dispute resolution between Giano and Tony Sidaway. Tony reported his block, the block has been undone. Nothing's going to be accomplished here save much grumbling and drama. We all know where the dispute pages are; we all know where to discuss the blocking policy. Administrative action isn't needed here. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing further to say on the matter. Hopefully Giano will calm down now that more eyes are on him. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) I see two issues here. If people agree that cool-off blocks do not work, why Tony is not yet reprimanded for the cool-off blocks against respected users who simply dare to disagree with him? I mean, some people cry foul loudly but since Tony does not care about the community's perception of himself, there is no consequences for him whatsoever. At the same time, he lately runs completely amok and that's not just me who says that. He needs not a cool-off period but a wiki-break. If he, like all of us, is such a wikiholic that he can't call a wikibreak by himself, the wikibreak must be called on him by the community. The disruption by Tony to an entire Misplaced Pages has become intolerable. Personally, I won't care if he blocks me. First of all, someone will likely unblock, and, second, I am here to write content and I will use the time to write an article or two on a hard-drive. But other users are more britle and take unfair blocks closer to heart. Tony's behavior drive out Wikipedians, and not those who like him spend their entire time chatting and lawyering, but those who write a FA once every 2-3 days. Users like the G-3 (Giano, George, Ghirlandajo), the Worldtraveller, 172 is hardly contributing. What the hell is happening? --Irpen 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
(Record number of edit conflicts) I strongly endorse the unblocking. I had been following the discussion on WP:BN today and Tony Sidaway was an active participant in it, disagreeing with several of the other users contributing. In the process, Tony made remarks that by his own admission on his talk page were uncivil and "over the top." Resort to the page history at BN is necessary because throughout the day, Tony refactored the discussion by deleting several comments that he disagreed with. Although BN is a project page rather than an article, Tony's blocking here was the equivalent of blocking to gain an advantage in an edit war, widely considered an unacceptable practice.
Under the circumstances, while I do not agree with everything Giano had to say, and I find that the ongoing debate on Carnildo's re-sysoping has become somewhat sterile, Tony certainly should not have been the blocking admin -- even had Giano said anything that could have warranted a block, which he did not. User:Giano is not some random troll to be driven away; he is a major contributor to the encyclopedia, who has had two featured articles on the Main Page within the past week, and is entitled to express his opinions on an administrative noticeboard, particularly where he is doing so more civilly than the person who chose to block him.
We are at the point that we have some valuable contributors who are living in fear of administrators will block them if they say something out of touch with the mood of the day -- not in an article, but in project space where meta-issues are supposed to be debated. A strong consensus should emerge from this that it's time for some folks to step away from the block button. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Who are the contributors that are leaving for fear of being blocked for speaking their minds?--MONGO 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up the BN and was thanked for doing so by several editors, including one bureaucrat. It doesn't matter what good Giano is doing elsewhere, his activities on use talk pages were inflammatory accusations of malicious skulduggery and he had been warned to stop. Newyorkbrad's false accusation of blocking to gain advantage in a dispute is unworthy of response. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, a relatively new editor, is also one of the most thoughtful commentators on meta-issues I have seen. You demean yourself by dismissing him thusly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thoughtful he may be, but when he's wrong he's wrong. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
He's not wrong. You are wrong. Dismissing his accurate and well reasoned objection as "unworthy of response" demonstrates conclusively that your civility issues need to be formally addressed. —Nate Scheffey 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Surely all opinions judged wrong by you are not "unworthy of response"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No. Only the clearly ridiculous ones. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on Two Users

User:Tony Sidaway is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Misplaced Pages as an administrator, as the ArbCom clerk (time-consuming and tedious I'm sure), and in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Tony has his rough edges: by his own admission, he is sometimes uncivil; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down; and he's acknowledged that he has a fiery temper, to the point that he is subject to restrictions not placed on any other administrator. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to vicious personal attacks off-wiki for his work here; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Misplaced Pages. User:Giano is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Misplaced Pages as a contributor to some of our best articles, and more recently to some extent in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Giano has his rough edges: when provoked, he sometimes skirts the edges of civility; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to inane block summaries and proposed (fortunately not enacted) ArbCom remedies; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Misplaced Pages. There is a place for both of these people here, and it's not sitting behind blocks. Newyorkbrad 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Jkelly 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that what Giano has been doing is far beyond incivility. It is clearly false accusations, without evidence, of malicious wrongdoing. He remains very, very worked up about this, which is a shame, because we'd all like him to cool down and stop adding this stuff to user talk pages and trying to whip up hatred against other Wikipedians. Those actions are real problems. We may differ on what to do about them, but they won't go away just because we ignore them. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If that's what is happening, and there is a real behaviour problem, it isn't obvious enough yet, given that a whole bunch of us here couldn't see the block as even a necessary evil. If there is a problem that goes beyond Giano's... level of emphasis, it needs a lot more spelling out -- an RfC level of spelling-out, I'd suggest. Jkelly 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

//sigh// Well, I was hoping that perhaps what I wrote would induce Tony Sidaway to acknowledge that Giano has his merits, and Giano to recognize that Tony Sidaway has his. Not working out that great so far, is it? Tony likes to write that he's "not one of life's mediators," and it looks like perhaps I shouldn't quit my day job either. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I keep encountering the above discussion all over the place. No wonder everybody involved is confused.

On the block, Giano, I do understand that you may feel that there is a justifiable grievance to express, but I really felt that you had finally gone completely overboard and started ranting hysterically and that a short time of reflection would have helped. Such statements as "I smell a rat" and "even Angela is involved, there are no innocents here" should really never, in my opinion, be uttered by one Wikipedian about another. I had hoped that by permitting others to deal with your problematic editing, which had--now admit it--gone on for weeks now, I would somehow enable you to get your bearings again. But when this didn't happen I thought I should give you a little reminder that we mustn't go around spreading hatred about people on Misplaced Pages. It just isn't what it's for.

Well it looks as if in taking that action I only encouraged your persecution complex--for which I apologise. I really don't know you from Adam, except that your behavior in promoting incivility and hatred has become a problem. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the most hyprocritical apology I've seen at Misplaced Pages. It looks like Tony still refuses to see what started it. Let me remind then. This all started with the significant outrage caused by Carnildo's RfA debacle. I don't know this old/new admin, I did not even vote, but we all saw that the outrage was significant and not some trollish whining of disgruntled losers or whoever. Tony, with his usual contempt started to intimidate the dissenters and went as far as blocking one of them whose reaction was strong but in no way fell under WP:BLOCK. This caused even greater outrage. After that Tony refused to apologize or even admit a controversy but instead went on crusade and highjacked a meaningless arbitration against the same user turning the ArbCom into a complete charade. Now unapologetic Tony even dared to repeat the same offense, throwing a block on a second user who was not intimidated to be afraid to oppose Tony's action voicefully. Outrage was even greater and now Tony comes and delivers this tongue and chick appology still refusing to admit any wrong-doing.
In all this time (or for months before) Tony did not make a single meaningful edit to an article space that makes me think that he sees the Misplaced Pages is some kind of popular forum with games for influence and respect imposed by sheer brutality of the words and actions. The two users above, unlike Tony, kept pulling FA level articles one after one.
Now this insulting "apology". Is there anything else I forgot? --Irpen 00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, please don't do this. You are feeding giano's paranoia by falsely claiming that I blocked Ghirlandajo in order to intimidate dissenters in the Carnildo RFA. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Giano does not have a paranoia. He is just stronger than me and more attached to the project in that he didn't dismiss the matter as easily as I was forced to do. Carnildo's RfA demonstrated to the community that "an editor can make the most gross and unfounded allegationsm, indulge in heinous abuse of admin powers, display no remose, not apologise, and then expect everything to be all right and become an admin again" (it's just a quote). Your blocks are far from helping to alleviate our fears; they display that even major contributors are viewed as a herd of sheep who are not supposed to voice their opinions in admin space. --Ghirla 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, please don't continue this. Attempting to dismiss others' legitimate concerns brought to your face as "paranoia" is insulting. My claim of your reasons for blocking both of them for simply fearlessly standing up to your intimidation stands.

Best yet, please leave alone the users who are here to create an encyclopedia in mainspace and let some sensible admins who actually write content talk with them when needed. Those admins know that their job is to create a best environment for content creation. Whatever games for influence you are playing here, keep the content creating editors out of them. --Irpen 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I dismissed the claim that I blocked Ghirlandajo in order to intimidate people I disagreed with because it's a flatly false and fatuous claim. I dismiss the claim that Angela and the arbitration commmittee and who knows else are guilty of some malicious manipulation as paranoid because it is clearly false, baseless and apparently made sincerely. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony I don't think Giano is alone in thinking that your block of Ghirlandajo was an attempt to intimidate. Do you consider yourself so beyond reproach that you think only the paranoid could question your motives? Paul August ☎ 03:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You're confused. I've described Giano's claims that Angela, the arbitrators and the bureaucrats are involved in some strange and malicious manipulation as paranoid. The allegation that I blocked Ghirlandajo in order to intimidate people in a matter of which I was barely aware at the time I blocked him is simply false and the precise circumstances are known to those who use the administrators' IRC channel. Making such false allegations, I warned irpen, feeds Giano's paranoia. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And now, for something completely different

Hi Giano. Does the bull have a name? I'm just curious and nosy. Also wanted to lighten up a very heavy talk page. I have suggestions if it doesn't. Take care -- Samir धर्म 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)