User talk:Giano II - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lar (talk | contribs) at 04:58, 26 December 2007 (→Block: offer to unblock if you'll stop revert warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:58, 26 December 2007 by Lar (talk | contribs) (→Block: offer to unblock if you'll stop revert warring)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at

Love the new image...

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

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 Misplaced Pages spirit and its policies from the abusers. Merry Christmas Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Merry Christmas

--Doc 15:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Christmas to you too Doc! Giano (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

File:Albero di natale.gif

Merry Christmas, Giano, and thanks for your help through out the last few months. SirFozzie (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a joyous Christmas, Giano! --Wetman (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you also. Try not to let others on Misplaced Pages grind you down. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a very happy one, Giano! Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm more likely to wish you Merry Chrifsmas than Merry Christmas :) , here's wishing all the joy of the season (and none of the credit card bills) to you and yours... ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you, Giano! Mr Which ??? 18:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! The tone of this page has improved remarkably. Let's try and find a pretty pic somewhere. Hey, look, instead of looking for an existing picture, I went an uploaded a new one and added it to an article! Who would have guessed things had changed so little in 159 years. Carcharoth (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Giano! Have a shot on me. east.718 at 20:31, December 24, 2007

Le gach dea-ghuí i gcomhair na Nollag agus na hAthbhliana - Sarah

Buon Natale

File:Nissen-2155 ubt.jpeg

Feliz Natal e Próspero Ano Novo! Húsönd 18:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Babbo Natale (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad. Por un año nuevo mejor, eh. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Someone told me you were collecting these--Santa (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that you don't know

You've broken 3RR at WP:WEA. Cease these tedentious and retaliatory activities now, or you will be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the dreadful and shocking truth that #IRC Admins are terrified that ordinary Wikipedians will find out . Three times in one evening it has been removed and denied. "The Arbcom has no control over #Admins!" Giano (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have something constructive, or just more yellow journalism? If you have issues, go ask Jimbo, as he specifically stated to contact the arbcom or him with your greivances concerning the channel.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is like talking to a child "The Arbcom has no control over #Admins!" that was the finding of a long and laborious Arbcom case. Wake up! Now please revert yourself and put that back in the relevant page or I shall. Giano (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you have something more constructive to do rather than edit a project page? Like prepare for Christmas dinner or write an article? You are an article writer, but whenever IRC comes up you resort to mudslinging.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

christmas dinner is long eaten in this part of the world, now rush up back to your precious channel and cook up with your friends some more ways of deleting truthful fact. Who lnows Tony may be back and recomending some more films for you all to watch. Giano (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, when did you, Ryulong, write an article for the last time? --Irpen 21:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. That's all I'll say. Mr Which??? 21:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- One of the last articles I was the primary editor for was Control of fire by early humans. I was assigned by my professor to write something in the style of a Misplaced Pages article on the topic, and I went further and actually worked on it solely on-site (with some minor edits from a few other editors for quality check). I am also involved in the writing of various articles for Japanese television programs that I am interested in. The most recent articles that I have been working on such that they contain factual material are Kamen Rider Kiva and Engine Sentai Go-onger. I am involved in the authorship and upkeep of these and other similar articles such that they contain factual material and remain within Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. I find it a real assumption of bad faith that you, Irpen, have suggested that I am not an article writer.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  - I find it incredibly bad faith that you threaten a block on a page you're directly involved in. Mr Which??? 22:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    - I didn't say I was going to block. I just say he would be blocked if he continued to edit disruptively.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      - And, I'm guessing--and this is just a guess--that you'll find the "uninvolved" admin to block him on IRC. Is that correct? Mr Which ??? 22:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
        That, is once again, an assuption of bad faith. I would utilize WP:AN3 to seek an uninvolved party.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
        I was simply taking a guess. I've had a bit of experience in the matter, and I would say it's not uncommon for admins to do just that. Not an assumption of "bad faith", more an guess using "common sense." Mr Which ??? 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
        No it was a ridiculous assumption of bad faith on which you were rightly called. If it was a "guess", it was a cynical guess of bad faith that you'd have best kept to yourself.--Doc 22:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
        A cynical guess, I'll give you. But it was "cynical" based only upon past experience. Mr Which ??? 23:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits to IRC-related page

Hi,

I wish I didn't have to write this but I do.

In the course of 12 hours today, you have edit warred twice via 3RR on the page Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Your activities:

You reverted three times in 4 hours, one edit which you disagreed with: 11.35 11.47 15.28
You added four times a statement about Arbcom in the space of 9 minutes: 20.55 20.59 21.01 21.03
You were uncivil at least twice.

Giano, this pains me. But you know completely and well, what standards are expected. You know fully and well, how to handle disagreement, and the norms the community expects and aims for. You, like all of us, experienced users all, choose to make our point well or poorly, and these are made poorly. They are disruptive, they are uncivil, they may or may not be truths as you feel it, but we all at times have seen text become accepted we don't necessarily agree with - often strongly. We work to try and bridge gaps, but this is not bridging, this is disruptive and seeking (in famous words) to make a point.

Your first series of reverts were reverts of John Reeves, and then a re-revert of the same section added by Coredesat and Azatoth (with a removal in between). Your second series was additions despite the views of Ryulong and Betacommand. You may disagree with these, and it's widely accepted there are problems in that area (hence the discussion). Others may well be at fault or uncivil too. But 3RR (the reason for this note) is a bright line rule; its aim and spirit is to firmly quench certain forms of revert war behavior no matter who was in the right, in favor of other approaches, and you know this as well as everyone. You know also that this must lead to some form of response more than mere words, if it were not to cease. Please, in friendship and respect, accept my hopes it will not happen again, because however valuable you are, this is not a style of action that will help the project you wish to improve. Shouting, disruption and name-calling rarely are. You probably should have just walked away instead, as you stated at the arb' elections.

I don't plan to enter the drama, which is well established. I'm more than willing to discuss by email if productive. But these issues of 3RR, civility, personal attacks, and the like, mustn't repeat, on that page or others. They will get nowhere except to cause you and the project harm, and they won't gain any positive side-benefits which couldn't have been gained equally in other ways too.

I ask you this as a collaborator and colleague whose work on content I'm in awe of. I also ask you it as an admin who has the tough decision that if this isn't okay for a newcomer or "ordinary" editor (whatever that might mean), or an admin, it's ultimately not going to be okay for you either.

FT2 21:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(And that said, Merry Christmas, which is much more fun to wish people! - FT2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, so you think "The Arbcom has no control over #Admins!" should not be allowed there either - is it untrue? Or are you leaving these curteous advisory messages on Aza Toth's, Ryulong and other's pages too, or are #Admins allowed to edit war, something us mere mortals are not? Giano (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I made no comment on the page or its contents (as text), but only on today's conduct issues - that was deliberate. I have little knowledge of what was written, except to have checked briefly for myself that 3RR was breached and who by. The revert warring via breach of 3RR leading to page protection of that page, was the sole reason for the note. You breached 3RR. I also had a word with one other experienced editor who came close to breaching 3RR (3 reverts, one refactor), and told them the exact same, for the exact same reason. 3RR applies whether right or wrong, and you know this. Debating the issues you mention is less productive than simply agreeing edit warring is wrong, and that mistakes were made that shouldn't be made again.

As for your last question, per my final comment, "this isn't okay for a newcomer or "ordinary" editor (whatever that might mean), or an admin". The last three words, underlined by arbcom rulings on admin conduct, were not accidental. FT2 00:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Words and practice are almost always different on WP. That's something I've noticed on many occasions. Mr Which ??? 00:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly you're right, I've seen that happen too. But again, that's off the topic of this specific item. We can discuss that separately as a general point. Also, with many issues going on, a person is always open to criticism for dealing with X but not with Y, and some things take time to get to. Eventualism, I guess. But today's issue, here and now, is not Misplaced Pages in general, or conduct in general, but one specific small instance of edit warring via 3RR that caused a page to need protection. FT2 00:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's about a lot more than "one specific small instance of edit warring via 3RR." A lot more. Which has been Giano's point--as I see it, anyway. Mr Which ??? 00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We have clear directions for newcomers and editors who are being edit warred against, or gamed against. Seek dispute resolution, raise it at RFC or 3O or ANI, ask an uninvolved party with experience to help or mediate, talk to an administrator, walk away a while, discuss... but its unhelpful to edit war just because one feels one's right, or others are acting wrong. It's sometimes slower at times - and yet, it's how we've agreed communally to handle strong disagreements. FT2 01:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And when you're being tag-teamed by a group of like-minded admins? What then? Oh yeah. I forgot. You're just about "conduct", even when the tag-teaming is pretty clear. Mr Which ??? 01:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I would rather be banned for ever than sit idly by watching Misplaced Pages produce such rubbish as that page. Yes I have reverted, but how many times has #admins reverted. Do you think it is just coincidence they take it in turns like that? Get real. I see the page owner is now editing the page, go and give him some advice. I'm not editing it ay more tonight anyway because I have other fish to fry. So why not re-instate my statement yourself, is it not true, are you afraid of #admins or are you more interested in me than the accuracy of information? Giano (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the concern. But that's the wrong way to handle it. Mistakes happen; don't make them again. The things above come under the heading of "don't do them again". If people act civilly and constructively on all sides, then legitimate issues will still remain but we might tackle some of them better. I'm not inclined to agree that because there are legitimate issues, we should therefore accept illegitimate ones like edit warring, too. "Because IRC isn't being agreed we should throw out 3RR that is" doesn't seem sensible. If team tagging is going on, tackle it like any other group tagging issue, or problematic editing; don't edit war in response. FT2 01:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the "tag-teaming" as well. They can accuse me of "bad faith" all they want, I call it like I see it. Good luck with this Giano. You're going to need it. Mr Which ??? 00:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Is #admins really something to be afraid of? If not, then why the big fuss? Is it growing in power again? Have the moderators gone on holiday? Has it become cliquish again? Better to address the root of the problems, rather then edit warring over what a Misplaced Pages namespace page says about the channel. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the moderators may well have gone on holiday. Information is always the root of solving a problem. No luck needed, informing people of things they need to know is very simple and requires no luck at all. Eventually they all become careless and can't resist bragging a little when they think they have one over me. Giano (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth- What do you mean "has it become cliquish again?" Oh well everyone, at least there are no real animals to take advantage of on the internet lol:) Merkinsmum 00:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, really, I don't do any IRC stuff at all, so I shouldn't really speak of what I don't know, but the impression I get is that it is not really anything properly related to Misplaced Pages, and is a private channel involving people with an interest in Misplaced Pages who sometimes happen to be admins, and where it is sometimes helpful to request speedy admin assistance (though there are other places to do that). As such, the name "#admins" is a bit misleading really. I suspect a rename of the channel would deal with a lot of the problems, and a different channel for requesting admins for on-wiki emergencies could be set up (avoiding the #admins name to avoid confusion). But that would take a deal of time and effort, and inertia works against radical changes like that. There is a lot more history as well, though I don't know how much people are aware of. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Giano_II. John254 04:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

Due to your egregious violation of the 3RR on Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and your past disruption on the page, I have blocked you for 72 hours.

Lest any accusations of cabalism or IRC coordination come up, please note that I have not logged into IRC in a week and a half. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it kosher to block someone named as a party in a proposed ArbCom case before they have had a chance to make a statement? Shouldn't they be given an opportunity to address the other parties' concerns? Also, his last edit there seems to have been several hours ago. Is this a punitive or preventive block? Videmus Omnia 04:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano: Are you willing to undertake not to revert war about this? I realise that this topic is important to you, I think you're making some vital points as well, but using the discussion page may be a better approach. If you are, I'm willing to unblock you... I'd want to get some semblance of consensus for it if I could, but blocking you seems very counterproductive. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)