User:Giano/Where do we go from here, this is not where we intended to be.

Comments on recent events

Note to those watching this page: My message below is posted with Giano’s permission, in response to his request that I address several issues that have arisen over the last few days. The words are mine, and any concerns about them should be addressed to me.

I was going to write a long comment with timestamps and chronologies and who said what to whom—actually, I did that, but decided it isn't what's needed here. Instead, I'll simply look at the effects of this particular block, executed on April 14 at 23.01, and the key events and realities leading up to it.

Effect on the Arbitration Committee

• The use of broad-brush remedies giving any administrator authority to carry out punitive actions to enforce Arbcom decisions has come under heavy criticism, particularly so-called civility paroles, in both the Tango/MONGO case and this block. There is no way that 1500 administrators are going to come to a common ground on what is and is not civil. While some uncivil remarks are obvious, many remarks that pass the civility test are extremely insulting. There is a huge middle ground, where context and interpersonal relations play a major role. There has been some discussion on the special ANI thread about having "spokespersons" for valued but hot-tempered contributors, creating special enforcement teams, and Werdna (showing a wisdom considerably in excess of his elders) has written an essay, Ignore personal attacks.

• Arbitrator FT2 seems to have taken on a crusade to try to have Giano behave "according to norms", writing long convoluted posts that several editors have found completely baffling; several of these posts appear to psychoanalyse Giano to the point of personal attack themselves. Most distressing to me, he has used a rape analogy to explain the harm of calling someone names. It was suggested he reconsider his words - so instead of removing the rape analogy, he changed the word "skirt" to "clothes". There's a problem when an arbitrator cannot see the huge gulf between sexual attacks on women, and using a standard on-wiki and on-IRC expression ("stalker") that is misinterpreted due to private information of which the speaker is unaware.

Effects on User:Kwsn

Kwsn is a young administrator, still a student. He made a bad block. It was a bad block because, for the very same behaviour, the person blocked had been both praised and warned already within the previous half-hour; he did not include any diffs for others to determine exactly what he found to be blockable; and due to real-life commitments, he was not available to discuss the block when it was immediately questioned. These were all poor decisions, but they were all essentially resolved by the unblock. (The drama wasn't, but we'll get to that in a minute.) Kwsn has perhaps taken this far too much to heart, as he first posted he was taking a wikibreak and blocked himself for a week; and then, after a misinterpreted attempt to set things right (the IRC transcript with DragonflySixtyseven), retired from the project. Giano attempted to reach out to Kwsn once he knew the facts late yesterday, but Kwsn may be understandably wary of him right now. I can only hope that Kwsn's friends will continue to reach out, and that he will return to the project in the near future.

A greater question is why Kwsn felt the obligation to review Giano's editing and make the block in the first place. He does not normally carry out arbitration enforcement and had had no interactions with Giano before the block. He was, however, in #admins-IRC when another administrator complained about Giano, said he was involved, and that someone else should make the decision, just not "per IRC."

Effects on Giano

First, a bit of history and fact-sharing here. There is no question that previous blocks involving Giano have been cooked up in IRC, and he continues to be a periodic topic of discussion there, despite the much-touted reforms of 18 months ago, and of March of this year; it should be no surprise that he holds it in contempt.

For a lot of difficult-to-quantify reasons, many people consider Giano a community leader, or at least a high-profile editor. He edits in a fishbowl that many of us cannot imagine. His talk page averages 175 hits a day—more than many of us (including many arbitrators) get in a month—and on Tuesday it went all the way up to 1200+. With the eyes of the wiki on him, any tiny misstep is magnified beyond all reasonable value, and the reaction is equally excessive. When he tried to make a joke about being wiki-stalked, he got blocked. It isn't just one admin stalking Giano's edits, though. He can't write anywhere on the encyclopedia without someone else showing up, be it an admin, an arbitrator, or another editor.

Right now Giano is angry. When he tried to work out his anger in a constructive way by writing a personal essay, he got a warning on his userpage. When he tried to express his opinion on ANI, his perceived personal attack was compared to rape. He is told that he is not conforming to community norms, when some of the things he is trying to bring forward within the community are exactly those norms and why they are not appropriate, a perception that is more widespread than many care to admit.

Effects on the community

The community has started to realise that its dispute resolution mechanisms are rarely effective in the way they are intended. User and admin RfCs, because they are non-binding, become attack pages that linger for weeks and months without resolution, and never really go away. Arbitration fails to resolve the root causes of the disruptions that bring cases before them, in part because they do not permit decisions related to content, but also because of the haphazard way in which evidence is developed and presented. There is often no analysis of issues that drive the case, and only rarely are serious attempts made to resolve them.

The result of this dysfunctional dispute resolution system is that almost every editor who is involved, often just to a peripheral degree, is damaged. There is no effective way to heal those wounds. Once tainted, their contributions are devalued, often without conscious thought.

We need to stop this cycle. We need to let people function in this community without every keystroke being scrutinized. We need to find ways of listening when questions are asked without assuming bad faith on the part of the questioner. We need to get back to the project's goals and leave the rest behind.

--Risker (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

the death of a thousand cuts

I wrote to an arb the other day to ask if its was the arbcom's intention to allow this situation to continue until the community is entirely polarised into the two intended camps - or whether other solutions were being thought about.

The answer was they're pretty much out of ideas. Giano is sanctioned to be civil - but as Geogre has so eloquently argued, civility is an entirely subjective idea, subject to constant flux, cultural values and at root, indefinable. Anyone seen Gordon Ramsey recently? Is our standard of civility on WP as subject to the US systemic bias as any article? Puritan at heart, middle class, young rather than old? People claim Giano trots out blaming IRC as a smokescreen for these subjective "civility" indiscretions - but equally, claiming Giano's supposed incivility is paramount rather than the issues he raises is equally a smokescreen. I live in the UK - home of Gordon f-in Ramsey and the The F***ing Fulfords, where "fuck off arsehole" can easily be construed as a term of endearment, or just a forthright challenged to explain yourself. We seem to have an awfull lot of shrinking violets here, but really I don't believe them. If you accuse Giano of gaming the system for whatever reason, then what of the poor, faux-injured offended? "Gnome like stalker", please - as Gordon would have it "Grow a pair".

Being offended has become a gambit - the possibility of offence is cause for warnings. So if you want to obscure the issues Giano has raised, what better way than to further exploit the notion of "normal standards of civility to your own ends". And what a sad bunch we are for claiming a false sensitivity as a gambit for empowerment - do we have no pride? But really - anything please rather than deal with the issues. Carchorath - I respect you quite a bit - but see how your offer to provide stats on blocking and who did it to established users, was eagerly picked up - they call that kicking it into the long grass. So instead of the divisive outright banning of Giano, which his detractors doubtless have argued for - he gets the death by a thousand cuts - any prat with a badge and an ill-formed sense of duty may block him at will, and that's just dandy by the community.

Well that's just daft as arseholes and twice as nasty - as my grandmother used to say - really, she was from the East-end, heaven forbid! she probably wouldn't be accepted into a 50's middle class dinner party, but this is the 21st century and we're a global virtual community - so rather than continuing to propogate our middle class exclusions, what's needed is a better formed view of cultural values - and some considerable latitude in the way people deport themselves - being offensive isn't criminal - threatening people with realistic harm, the sort of harm other than text on a computer screen, clearly is - let's get some perspective here - life, the world and certainly wikipedia can never be some blissful nirvana where we all strut around with flowers in our hair, people just aren't built like that - no-one is.

I'm completely fucked off with hearing about the technical intricacies of why IRC can't be brought under WP control - the simple truth is it suits all the vested interests to keep it that way - if our place to discuss BIO issues and concerted disruption attempts can't reform itself, the community will do it for it. Let's fuck off freenode and set one up we can be confident of, where we can post logs if necessary - or they can at least be routinely logged - let's have our IRC complaints board - on wiki. Let's have less faux offence and more fucking dissent please - from the moment Giano was endicted for the ludicrous 'hate speech' incident, we've had a process of increasing radicalization from both camps that now threatens to rip the community asunder. Let's have an end to the ridiculous voting system where someone gains the second place in the for votes in an election and yet gets no reward - controversialness shouldn't be a bar to power, it's representive of an opposing view and should be included. Giano isn't the problem here - it's a culture that allows ludicrous extremes of political correctness go unchecked. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For the process wonks amongst you I note WP:CIVIL is personally targetted behaviour - so unless you are user:process wonk - spare me the fucking civility warnings thanks.

Amen. People talking about "civility" seem to be doing so against the idea of a community and for the idea of control. The two are almost antonyms. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience— since September 2003— WP:CIVILITY has never been employed by any correspondent who has been displaying any. It is in each case a weapon of personal attack as Joopercoopers says, though to say so to the abuser of the guidelines is always countered with a reflexive cry of "personal attack". Editing Wikipedia, which should be like getting trapped in an elevator with an interesting cross-section, is too often like being trapped on a subway car. A New Yorker knows not to answer cat-calls: Giano's fatal flaw.--Wetman (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments, which were previously posted on this page, are now here. Please leave any comments on that page. Risker (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They're beautiful comments, too. Highly endorsed. (Can't say "amen" again.) Utgard Loki (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The obvious problem with calling Giano's comment incivil is that it appears that the ArbCom is applying the "incivility" standard so unfairly. The recent JzG RfC shows that established admins aren't held to the same standard. Also, the Zareaph and Mantanmoreland ArbCom cases illustrate that other admins (SlimVirgin among others) also have not been as heavily scrutinized as Giano. If the rules were being applied fairly and equitably, then there wouldn't be a controversy here. But, unfortunately, they're not, so sanctioning Giano is problematic. Take care of all the other existing issues consistently first, then put your eye on Giano. If the rules were being applied equally, then there wouldn't be a problem. Anyone disagree with me? Cla68 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that rather wonderfully exposes the Arbs actions to Giano - irritated by his pushes for reform, 'his manner' is the only thing they can hang on him - what a fraud! Perhaps we need to petition the Arbcom on his behalf to get this obscene sanction lifted, and while we're there - why they've done sod all about IRC? --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would JC - please try for the sake of us all. In the meantime, however, I am restored to you. I sincerely appolagise for reverting Risker and Doc last night, as I'm sure you can all appreciate, I just felt if I read one more word concerning me, I would smash the computer, so reverting them was the cheaper option. So, I am back - was I ever gone? - I had to feel I was, just to re-charge. I see FT2 is wiggling on now about faked logs - so I just posted on his page to inform him the current logs are proven genuine - poor FT2, poor Arbcom - it looks like I'm here to stay! Giano (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Sam Blacketer

Can I make a comment as an individual who happens to be an arbitrator? I do not "want to see the back of Giano". I want to see a lot more wonderfully detailed articles about glorious buildings. But at the same time I also want discussions about policy and about users to be carried on in a constructive fashion, and to do that the community has endorsed a policy on civility. Arbitrators apply community policy so even if I disagreed with the policy (which I don't) I would still apply it. Joopercoopers' argument above is a clear demonstration of WP:SOUP in action.

The problem, simply put, is that Giano often chooses to make his case in terms which are borderline incivil. The substance of the arguments put has no bearing on the civility of the terms in which they were put. The reason why there is a policy on civility, though, is that other editors who may have useful contributions to make will be put off if they think they will be insulted by those who disagree with them; also it is very easy to find the debate distracted from the substance of the argument into a discussion of the civility. Remember that all editors are volunteers.

As arbitrators we are explicitly tasked with another responsibility which is to look into "unusually divisive disputes between administrators". One consequence of the large number of editors following Giano is that almost every administrative action relating to him becomes unusually divisive. This is partly a function of the consistent skill which Giano has of making edits which are on the borderline of policy. I wish I could say this was a series of coincidences, but I do not believe it is. To speculate for one moment on why, it may be that causing administrative confusion is thought to help draw attention to the underlying issue; it may be a way of testing the water; and it may be a more simpler wish to discredit any administrator who is waylaid into taking action. Or it may be a combination of these reasons.

Whichever is the case, for the good of the project we must avoid a situation where one user gains acceptance of their views on policy issues by becoming a martyr by being blocked or sanctioned. Unfortunately I am afraid that this can become learned behaviour; leaving aside whether the outcome was right, Giano did succeed in having a block log entry erased, significantly advanced the desysopping of Durova, and put reform of IRC on the agenda, by causing a big fuss over the issue which got him blocked and then produced a meta-debate over whether the block was wise. Each time this happens the pattern becomes clearer and it's not the way things get done. There will come a point when causing this sort of fuss will be an active disincentive to act on the underlying issue because to do so is rewarding bad behaviour.

Can I finish by taking up one particular comments by Joopercoopers? We cannot ignore the 'technical intricacies' of proposals to reform IRC, because these details may quite easily render the proposal unworkable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam, I do understand where you are coming from. Giano can manage to infuriate his friends as well as his opponents sometimes; we usually take the option of hitting the "email user" button to tell him, just as most of us would for anyone else, which is why people don't see it on this page. Once again, though, you are talking big picture, instead of driving down to the root causes of the very issues you mention. So let's drill down on what actually happens in respect of this specific block.

At 19.14, we see Giano asking a discrete, perfectly civil question of FT2[2] about a very odd edit that FT2 makes to the checkuser policy[3], which FT2 blanks from his page, saying he will respond by email. Nothing happens for 2.5 hours; Giano does not go ballistic, he doesn't edit war, he behaves perfectly civilly. Giano only starts "edit warring" after he has received the email and pointed out that the information it contains should actually be on-wiki. And, rather than agreeing that reasons for changes to policy should at minimum be explained on-wiki, FT2 and Until(1==2) play hide-the-perfectly-legitimate-message. When Until(1==2) shows up, Giano writes those now-infamous words[4]. Now...as it turns out, after a few hours I remembered why 1==2 might find a very common on-wiki and on-IRC term to be so offensive, but Giano had absolutely no knowledge of that term being personally sensitive for 1==2. Why would he? Probably 99% of WP editors have no knowledge of it, even now. Finally, Giano de-escalates the edit war on FT2's talk page by posting his request at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser. At 22.38, Until(1==2) tells him that is a good move[5], Giano acknowledges and says he's going to edit normal pages, and that should be the end of it. Unfortunately, as we all know, a few minutes later 1==2 goes to IRC and talks about the remark he found personally offensive. Coren pops up at 22.52 and issues a warning to Giano for the behaviour that has already stopped, and Giano acknowledges the warning and says he is going to bed. Eight minutes after the warning with no intervening edits, Kwsn blocks Giano.

Now...who escalated the situation? Giano pushed, yes; a reasonable case could be made for a block for edit-warring, except of course that had finished some time beforehand, resolved with the apparent approval of an admin, and edit-warring is not implicitly part of the civility parole but would be covered under general blocking policy. But over the course of 23 minutes, he goes from being told by Until(1==2) that he made a good decision, to being warned by Coren, to being blocked by Kwsn, without any intervening edits except to acknowledge the comments of administrators. The problem is that three different administrators reviewed the same series of edits, and came up with three different responses, which they each implemented separately and serially, without any improper behaviour whatsoever in the interim.

Perhaps the most important thing to note is that precisely the same question that Giano posted to FT2 discretely on his talk page was being asked by SlimVirgin, also on-wiki, at the same time about the same edit. The information that FT2 removed was reinstated into the policy, where it remains as of this writing. Thatcher answered Giano's and Slim Virgin's questions on the talk page of the checkuser policy, it turns out there was no problem posting the answer on-wiki, and everyone was happy. Except, of course, for a little intervening block and several hundred thousand bits of nonsense that could all have been avoided if FT2 hadn't wanted to keep secret what could have easily been answered on his talk page, and if three different admins hadn't reviewed the same edits and decided to take different actions.

In my line of business, we have an expression about situations like this: we call it setting people up for failure. This problem doesn't just apply to Giano, it applies to every editor under a similar remedy; most of them run into similar trouble. The Arbitration Committee has established a remedy that implicitly encourages administrators (including those who have personal differences with an editor) to follow editors around, watching for the slightest misstep. The blocking policy is overridden by the remedy—not blocking when the situation is already resolved, or trying to de-escalate situations, for example. The learned behaviour is on both sides, I think. Treating any editor dismissively is, well, uncivil; and the imposition of what is clearly an unfair punishment ought to get a lot of people riled up, regardless of who the punished editor is. Nobody is coming off well in this case, and everyone has been set up for failure - the Arbitration Committee, the admins whose radically different interpretations of the same situation inevitably result in much drama, Giano, and most importantly, the community. We have to find a better way, for all our sakes, because this one isn't working. Risker (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a crystal-clear precis of what happened. Thanks for that, Risker. I would be interested to see Sam Blacketer's response. People will probably say that Giano was under an arbcom sanction and Slim Virgin wasn't, but that would be avoiding the larger "setting people up to fail" question, and the "learned behaviour" on both sides bit. Carcharoth (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well about the "setting up for failure" as well as the point about encouraging 1500some administrators, with varying degrees of animus, to watch for failure. That is why I think this proposal by Kirill Lokshin has a great deal of merit to recommend it even if it does set up a new stratification of sorts. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No way! They have all fought too dirty now, I have given them ample chance to rein FT2 in. They have refused. They should never have accepted IRC the case. The civility thing is unlawful. They voted to review IRC, they delgated it to FT2, who did nothing, so now I accept nothing.Giano (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't say as I blame you for feeling that way, not in the slightest. I absolutely agree that the way the IRC issue (clearly remanded to ArbCom to handle) got shuffled off into oblivion is... ahem... counterproductive (trying to be as nice as possible there). The civility thing isn't "unlawful" because there's no law, no due process, etc, here. It's just unworkable and not very well thought out. I'd like to see it lifted. I'd like to see the whole thing never to have happened... But I do think there's some merit in not having a vast army of admins all itching to block and authorised to do so. Fault me for that if you like but I often favour half a loaf instead of none. You perhaps are more principled (or less pragmatic) than I. Call me a damnfool for repeatedly trying to find ways to keep you around, because I really think the place will be far poorer without you. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• When the Arbcom passed that daft sanction I posted and told them it would result in every twitty little Admin from IRC trying to block me, and the disruption it would cause. Other Arbs told the stupid few that too, but they would not listen because they full of spite and thought I would go quicker. They knew that and passed the sanction with that in mind. They knew what would happen, they set me up for it. They had no right to levy the sanction. Now they can see that people are seeing how bad their decision was, they want to alter it, but ignore they had no right to pass it in the first place. So I accept nothing, but complete lifting of the sanction. Giano (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Statements to the effect that arbcom is "fighting dirty", is "full of spite", or "set you up" come across as assumptions of bad faith. The disruption here is not coming from arbcom; it's coming from your edits. Please stop. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't try and censor me! The Arbcom accepted a case, they had no business accepting, now they are paying for it - that is hardly my problem. Now go ask the why they did not review IRC as they promised and voted to! No the case was to get me, and they were too fightened to review IRC Giano (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the Giano only starts "edit warring" after ... phrase above. This sort of edit warring by Giano to make a point was one of the things that precipitated the IRC arbitration case. There, as above, some excused Giano's edits or blamed them on others (he "only" starts after being provoked somehow). If Giano wants to discuss Checkuser policy, he's free to do so, and nobody has argued otherwise. On the other hand, almost everyone who engages in an edit war believes they are right, which is why the edit warring policy doesn't allow being correct as a justification. Giano is not free to start an edit war if an answer or its medium is not to his liking, and the time when such behavior could be excused by that of others has passed.— Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That comment is either stupid or a lie. #1: The "edit warring" was the IRC case? If so, why was David Gerard not sanctioned with a "revert parole?" Why wasn't I? Why wasn't Bishonen? You actually mean to say that it was about edit warring? Were you unconscious during all of it, or are you trying to trick people now? The "edit warring" had happened before, too, but no ArbCom case. #2: You believe that the edit warring was "caused?" As I understand it, it takes more than one person to edit war. As I understand it, there is no "right version" at Wikipedia. As I understand it, page protection is not supposed to be used by an edit warring individual. #3: Did anyone, anywhere, at any time, say that Giano was "justified" to edit war? The only people I see saying it are jerks attempting to make strawman arguments. I do not see Giano saying so, and I have not, and Bishonen has not, and Jooperscoopers has not, and ... well, that list of "has not" is altogether too long. The only people talking about "free passes" are the enfeebled who cannot carry an argument and cannot provide a rationale for their desires that fits policy. That comment is a neutron star of nonsense. Geogre (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So will someone set out on-wiki rather than the obscure mailing lists alluded to on FT2's talk page, why the most successful online encyclopedia in the world finds it beyond its resources to host a private irc channel for 70 people which we can control to out own satisfaction without having a hand tied behind our back by the rules of freenode? - if there's a will there's a way. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam, to suggest that undefinable notions of civility has resulted in bad law is hardly questioning the nature of the universe as you imply with your alphabet soup. Lawyers earn big bucks attempting to make statute law clear in practice, so if you find an unusually divided admin community because of this issue, perhaps you should review the task you have set them - I'd start with the legal model - provide tests.--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing much for to add to the above, beyond I note I have "put reform of IRC on the agenda." - Good. Durova advance her own de-sysoping with her own ridiculous behaviour, but, let's not digress. I look forward to Sam's prompt respnses to Risker and JC. Giano (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam's comment is misguided. "Civility" is not a law. "Civility" is a guideline. "Civility" is undefined and undefinable at present, because none of the people interested in propounding it could figure out how. This is why it's not a "policy," but rather a guideline. We are to behave with civility in exactly the same way that we are to assume good faith. The two guidelines are identical in that both can only be understood by the individual editor. Neither can be applied. Neither can be taken by one individual and proven against another. We all know that "assume good faith" is the war cry of the troll. Some of us suspect that "was 'incivil'" is the war cry of the petty tyrant and the bankrupted intellect. I cannot prove that you did or did not assume good faith, and I cannot prove that you were or were not civil in your comments, because both of these go to state of mind, and no one knows what it is except the speaker. That's why it's good as a guideline: "While you're here, be civil" is good advice. "You failed to be civil, so now you can be blocked" is bullshit as a policy.

Furthermore, Sam's comment is also utterly counterproductive. No one has said that anyone gets a "free pass" (except for the strawman architects). What people have said is that it is civil and civility to be harsh sometimes. I maintain that, at least. I would argue that Freud was right when he said, "The first person who hurled a curse instead of a rock founded civilization." I would argue that it is perfectly right and good to protest abuse, to right wrongs, to maintain good order. I would further and most importantly say that the idea that dissenters must be blocked because their dissent is forceful is the mindset of corruption, the habit of decadence, and the harbinger of self-destruction. Sam seems to be not only apologizing for such a thing but, in the face of a massive set of voices dissenting, saying that they are all wrong. That's a bad, bad, bad thing. Geogre (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should be very slow to block under WP:CIVIL. But the issue at hand is not isolated incivility, which I agree should usually be ignored. One point that I think is overlooked is that the recent block of Giano was not based on [[WP::CIVIL]], it was based on the civility parole that Giano is under. Both FT2 and Sam Blacketer, arbitration committee members, have commented that the reason for the sanction was not a few passing comments but an established pattern of incivility over a period of years. The issue is not dissent - many people criticize Wikipedia and are not blocked. You have spoken against IRC for a long time, and are not under any sanction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If even a (presumed) friend of Giano can comment as above that he can "manage to infuriate", then we're all pretty much agreed, right? Giano might want to chime in here too. And most everyone would agree that Giano really needs to rein in the rhetoric and focus on the thoughts, where he can express himself quite cogently. And quite a few would agree that there is a need for ArbCom to step in and impose a remedy. But how do we go from there to open season on Giano, where every admin has a license to hunt, and if someone says they're offended, that's good enough for the next admin who comes along to slam down the block? Doesn't this set up a bad situation, where Giano is at risk if he's not perfect every second? Civility parole shouldn't mean "if I can find a way, I'm gonna block you mutha". Franamax (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• That an arbitrator (Blacketer) would not know the difference between policy and guideline is seriously disturbing. And if anyone ever wonders why valued contributors are leaving or curtailing their activities on the project, simply examine the above fiasco, as well as several other messes the arbcom has made for itself recently. Bellwether ^B_C 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  You are aware that Wikipedia:Civility is indeed a policy, not a guideline, and has been since at least the beginning of 2006? Kirill 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. Stricken per you. It's a terrible policy, then, open to misapplication, misunderstanding, and abuse by admins with an agenda. Bellwether ^B_C 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is just the latest in a series of Giano-dramas which have escalated because of Giano's own actions, and in which Giano then complains at great length of being a victim. In this case, Giano had a legitimate concern about FT2's conduct: possibly justified, possibly not, but not a frivolous complaint. The point at which it escalated was when Giano reverted FT2's removal of comments from his own talk page, and then made a personal attack on another editor, and ten once again reverted FT2's further removal of the discussion.
  Personally, I think that it's a great mistake that we allow editors to remove comments from their own talk pages, but that's how it is, and it is a practice very frequently used by Giano himself, so he is clearly very well aware of it. Giano has no excuse for edit-warring of such removals, or for making a personal attack on another editor who reminds him of that. This is not a case of Giano being "set up for failure", as claimed above, it's a Giano knowing full well that he is under civility patrol and nonetheless going ahead and creating a drama despite being aware of the consequences ... and then, once again portraying himself as a victim, with no sign of any acknowledgement from him that it was his choice to make a personal attack, and his choice to edit war on another editor's talk page. It was then his choice to escalate it into another huge drama by yet another you're-so-terrible-I'm-leaving-for-a-while post in this page.

Giano's comment at the top of this page opens "Such is the all consuming hatred and anger, I feel for the Arbcom and their condoning of the repeatedly bad behaviour in IRC#admins ...", and I believe that's an honest comment. The problem, though is that Giano's "all consuming hatred and anger" has rarely been hidden, and it has long been a destructive force in the community, polarising and embittering disputes. Yes, some of the problems Giano raises are real and serious (such as the IRDC-admin issue); but being right is no enough, and the manner in which Giano approaches these problems creates huge levels of disruption which are both unnecessary and — crucially — and impediment to a solution, because the substantive problems get lost. This anger and hatred are visible and corrosive, and unsurprisingly prompts action against Giano ... and that's what creates the drama. These dramas will continue for long remains consumed with contempt for other editors and with anger and hatred for admins and arbcom. Nobody can remain for long as part of any project which they view in that way ... and the question which we don't have an answer to is whether Giano can change his attitude and his approach to solving the problems he finds. If not, arbcom sanctions and admin actions will continue until such time as Giano either leaves or gets expelled. His departure would be a great pity, because Giano writes great featured articles, but if the price of those articles is the endless wikidramas arising from his anger and hatred, then there may come a point where that price gets regarded as too high.

I expect that this comment will be promptly deleted by Giano, just as he deletes anything else I have posted here about Giano's conduct, so I have left a more substantive comment on Sam Blacketer's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us all Brown Haired Girl (I'm surprised it's not grey after all the tribulations you have to endure from us all) as you can see I am back and the all consuming hatred message gone. It was as you well know, why I was not editing. Which is why it was mentioned at the top of the page. As I am editing, I think it is safe for you to assume, that the hatred and anger have gone, and my usual charming, delightful and sunny nature has returned to us all. Indeed, you are reverted normally here for the same reason you informed me on your page that you revert me there. I suppose it is a mutual dislike, (I do rather prefer black haired girls, but that is probably because blonds are thin on the ground where I come from). On this occasion I will allow you to remain, so long as you promise to be well behaved, civil and on your best behaviour. Giano (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano, besides a few people, I don't think many users here "hate" you or anything like that; I agree with you on many subjects (ArbCom notwithstanding), understand you're dedicated to making high-quality articles, and the like. But you, I, and the whole lot know you're divisive, and that any action against you, justified or not, would or will become a drama circus (I asked arbcom to try and address that issue with the IRC case, but it was apparently forgotten :\) Although it might seem like letting "the other side win", my suggestion is just to ignore the arbs and all that. Don't bait them with essays, don't bother with them at all and stick to the articles. I'm sure many of them have realized you're a valued editor while you were gone, just don't give them any ammo and don't complain in reply (thus giving them the "oh Giano is being a martyr again, let's sic 'em" tool.) I'm sure you don't like melodramas which would detract from Wikipedia's goal, and I think that you happen to leave in your wake a lot of them. (Sorry if my comment is a little incoherent. I've been working in the sun too long before this posting.) Oh, and while I'm on the subject, I forgot to apologize for blocking you that last time, I realized from the IRC timeline you prolly hadn't had time to see my message. That'll teach me to refresh my watchlists... Sincerely, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When you block me? I not see that? Snaaaaaaarl, snaaaap teeth bared.....beaware, my reputation go before me, you tell me now? Giano (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't bait them with essays??? Pish and tush. After articles, essays are some of Giano's best contributions. Have you read User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article ?? ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A simple question for Giano

Giano, I have a policy of not removing anything from my talk page other than to the archive, except for a few occasional incoherent comments whose meaning is utterly unclear, and even those I are nearly all kept. The only other exception has been Ryoung122, who used to post 20-screenful unformatted copy-pastes of discussions. As you know very well, I decided that I would in future revert you on my talk page only ten days ago, after months of you systematically reverting my rare comments on your talk page, and I made that decision only after you removed my complaint about your efforts to insinuate that I had somehow been involved in a sockpuppet attack, and reverted its one reinstatement. That was decision for the future — I didn't actually remove anything of yours from my talk — will be quite happy to give you a firm assurance that none of your posts will be removed from my talk page, if you will promise to stop removing my posts from your talk page.

However, the question of my talk page is a distraction. The point here is that in your dispute with FT2 you edit-warred over FT2's removal of your posts, and insulted Until(1==2) for pointing out such removal was permitted behaviour ... even though it is something which you routinely do on your own talk page. So that's why I want to ask you civilly to explain why you edit-warred over FT2's removal of your comment? You object to speculation about the reasons, which is your right, so it would be much better to hear your explanation of why you found it unacceptable for FT2 to censor his talk page as you censor yours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your view. I'm advised not to comment in anyway on FT2. Thank you. Giano (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2's behaviour

While I appreciate I generate a huge amount of interest on Wikipedia, comments and amateurish psychoanalysis of me by FT2 are now, in my view manically dangerous and are amounting to personal attack. I have posted this on his page "I think FT2 you have become rather fixated on me, your fixation is now bordering on obsession, and I'm wondering if it is healthy. I am beginning to feel mentally threatened and attacked by your strange behaviour and posts. Please stop." While I appreciate he is the Arbcom's appointed spokesman such introspection about me, by an unqualified layman which is then published to the internet is damaging not only to me, but to the project. I make no comment on FT2's mental state, but I want an admin or Arb to ask him to desist in his obsessive behaviour towards me. There are 15? Arbs, his interest in me is now beyond a joke, and I am feeling threatened and unnerved by him, not to mention his comments which are preserved on the internet for posterity. I have as much right to feel unthreatened here as anyone else. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on FT2's talk page to register my slight concern about this. These strange rambling monologues from FT2, stuff about 'the community' feels this and that, the lecturing that sounds like the house-master of a second-rate English prep school lecturing a naughty boy. E.g. "Giano has exactly the same standards as all others to live up to" sounds like something from a school report. Comes across as very threatening and strange. "If he cannot and will not find a way to change", "Users who disrupt are expected to change; sanctions and blocks are tools to procure that". etc. This is North Korean. (Apologies to any North Koreans reading this). This is no way to treat a distinguished contributor to this project. I have just come from another dispute where a distinguished prize-winning physicist got evicted from here for some imaginary civility transgression. Why is this being repeated here? Can this stupidity. Why don't you all get a life. That includes Giano too. The Rationalist (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rationalist, being a distinguished contributor does not confer on anyone a licence to be rude or disruptive or to drive other away. WP:CIVIL is a long-standing policy on wikipedia, and if you want it altered or deleted, the place to start is at WT:CIVIL. However, while that policy stands, wikipedia has standards of conduct for editors, just as exist in many other walks of life. In academia, on football teams, in in political parties, in workplaces, there are standards of conduct to which people are required to adhere as a condition of participation. Call it stupidity if you like, but it's the way a lot human endeavour is organised, and comparing action against repeated in civility with the antics of the North Korean regime is a bit like an updated version of a breach of Godwin's law. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. "Civil" is not a policy. It has no sanctions. It is not longstanding. Giano is longstanding. I am longstanding. Bishonen is longstanding. "Civil" is a vague idea poorly expressed. It does not license this school marmish finger wagging, and it does not allow Mary Whitehouse campaigns, and it does not sanction people driving off or blocking their argumentative opponents. It is the inane interpreted by the insane. Geogre (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is driven away? You come her on my page and say this - who is driven away! This your man here [6] you talk out of top of your hat. Giano (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for breaching Godwin (though I thought that was for, er, Nazis) but there is a strong analogy with the thought and behaviour control that seems rampant now. And of course everyone should be civil, but, first, being an excellent and skillful heart surgeon does not confer a licence to be uncivil. Nonetheless if I needed an operation I would choose the best surgeon, regardless of civility. Second, we are not talking civil, we are talking this made up CIVIL, as in the WP:CIVILITYCULT. This is a brand of civil that is highly selective and is aimed more at control of behaviour and people, than the content of an encyclopedia. Who here actually believes in building enyclopedias?The Rationalist (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Surgery is very different from Wikipedia. A surgery is managed by a very tiny and exclusive group working to do one clear and brief task; Wikipedia is an unimaginably vast and inclusive group working to do a limitless number of timeless tasks. Factor in the obvious pay and hierarchy structures inherent to the medical community, compare against the far more level and volunteer community you'll find in Wikipedia, and it's no surprise the needs of these two communities are quite different. My point here is probably rather vague, but I suppose it's that a penchant for pissing off large numbers of people (even when arguably justified or speaking truth) is less problematic in the surgical community, and that your comparison is flawed in some ways because of that. I do believe deeply that the encyclopedia is more important than the community, but I also believe we'd have trouble building any encyclopedia of worth without a bustling community. Obviously I think you do have a point, but I don't think it's a trump-all card. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit) BHG I've just realised you missed the North Korean allusion because it was on the ANI page. Guy explained Giano's action as being 'Italian'. I quipped that if Giano was Italian, the FT2 was 'North Korean'. So technically I don't see this as a breach of Godwin's law. The Rationalist (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, in this one matter

Is there any possibility that one of these people might be able to help? Obviously, it takes two to tango but... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediators in general are helpful, and it would be good to have more rational, calm voices in some of these areas; that said, I do think some of the issues we're looking at are too deep and too wide for any single person to adequately address them. It takes a village. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

email

You have mail babs. Merkin's mum 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2

I would've emailed you, but then I figured I may as well say what I've been thinking...maybe he'll take it to heart since I supported his ArbCom election. Maybe not. Up to him. But please, for everyone's good (especially yours), at least consider what I said. [7] Remember Why we are here...ignore the IRC stuff. We'll all be the better for it. Best regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not possible to ignore the IRC stuff, if IRC won't ignore you. I agree with Giano that the heat should be high on the subject. I agree with you that the heat needs to be persistence, and not vehemence. Geogre (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As an IRC regular who (I think?) manages to avoid most of this drama, I'd say I rather agree with Geogre on this subject. Oversight is not a bad thing. I for one rather appreciate it when people keep me honest with sanity checks or other constructive input and criticism. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Mary Whitehouse meets Amy Winehouse in a battle of the bans! :-) Geogre (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Geogre at the top of the page is not accurate. Civility is indeed policy, and has been so since December 2004. Users can be sanctioned for breaking civility policy by being blocked, placed on civility parole, or in extreme cases being banned. Anyone is free to argue against this policy and persuade the community to change it, but I wanted to make the true situation clear to anyone who might be misled by this quote. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As Sam well knows I was sanctioned for having the audacity to edit david Gerard's private page! Giano (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call some of the things you added "editing." Probably "baiting" is a better word. I have little doubt I'd be quickly tarred and feathered if I added that sort of material to your (or anyone's) userpage, and rightfully so... that assumes I agree that the page was DG's "private page," but that's probably a moot point. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam's quote is wrong. Civility is not a policy at all. The dimmer wits among our number assume that WP:CIV's being policy means that "civility" is a policy. Indeed, it is a policy that we be civil in our editing, but there is no definition of this term anywhere to be found (and, hilariously, Wiktionary's definition is at wild variance with print dictionaries, as someone must have found it convenient to win an argument by editing it) that can lead to anything like blocks. It would be well if the people using "civility" as a license for whim would read it at some point. They are free to try to change it to do what they want to do, but they have no foundation now and are shouting the name of a thing without reading, much less understanding, the thing itself. Geogre (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence?

Carl said: "Both FT2 and Sam Blacketer, arbitration committee members, have commented that the reason for the sanction was not a few passing comments but an established pattern of incivility over a period of years." - the problem here is that both arbcom cases involving Giano were not about Giano. There were evidence sections about Giano, but never a case specifically about Giano. I said, several times, that if arbitrators wanted to pass a sanction against Giano they should open a case specifically focused on Giano's behaviour, rather than as an adjunct to existing cases. I have also directly asked at least three times, and maybe more, for clear evidence to be presented concerning Giano's "established pattern of incivility over a period of years", but have never received a satisfactory answer. I'm not saying that Giano has never been incivil, but what I think has happened here is that Giano's behaviour has been inflated by others over the years to appear to be more than it is. Which is why I asked for direct and clear evidence, such as requested (and not provided) here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to quote in full from the link I provided:

"Drama vs disruption. I see drama as something people can walk away from and chose not to get involved with, and disruption as something more serious. Arbitrators are stating on the proposed decision page that Giano "will continue to cause major disruption for the project". Where is this major disruption? I'm serious here. I see drama, sure, but very little to no actual disruption. Does the definition of "major disruption" change to suit the arbitrators and the context of different cases? Please, if anyone answers this, no vague hand-waving or unclear references to past incidents - clear diffs and evidence of major disruption over and above that caused by other parties to this case, and an indication of the harm that the disruption caused (if it caused no harm, it couldn't have been major). Simply being the focus of several arbitration cases is not in itself being disruptive. If Giano left (or was banned) tomorrow, the disruption and drama would not cease - the problem here is not Giano. Disruption and drama have always occurred on Wikipedia - witness the drama caused by [example of poor choice of words omitted]. How are Giano's actions any more drama-inducing than [those actions taken by others]?"

So, I repeat, where is this major disruption? I don't see articles being affected. I don't see the community being affected more than is normal with any "drama". All I see is people claiming major disruption for, well, the reasons are unclear. An attempt to assert authority? Maybe. Carcharoth (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful commentary removed

[8] I've removed your comments because the only purpose they served was to cause more drama. If you don't like someone, that's fine, but try to keep it out of otherwise productive discussions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When I wish a comment removed, you will be asked to do so, until that happy day kindly mind your own business and don't be impertinent. If people wish to comment on drama that is fine, but they should not be surprised when it is pointed to them, that they are often the cause of it. Please do not return to this page until you have leart how to research and check facts! Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about my comment to 1=2 last night, but now I have started to think about it - and it occurs to me that if the Arbcom were ever brave enough to address the problem of "editors" like him causing disruption on Wikipedia by stirring the shit in the Admins private IRC chatroom, then the whole site would be a better place. Alas, the Arbs are not prepared to follow their own decisions and voting because as one of their number says they think "there is no problem." Do we all believe that? - No, but what happens? Ill-informed people like you turn up saying "don't talk to 1=2 like that! and there is the crux of Wikipedia's problems. Giano (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that you stop being combative for the sake of being combative. I know you're smart enough to know better, and it's very disappointing to see you attack someone in a very left-fielded way in a moderately unrelated discussion.

I don't care if you hate 1==2 (it's none of my business who you like and dislike), just don't make an issue out of your feelings in places where such feelings have no bearing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, well sadly some of us don't choose to frequent chatrooms, so we have to make out comments where every one can see them, honestly and publicly. Then the Arbcom can sanction us, unlike if we make them in a snide dishonest fashion elswhere, while in conversation with the same Arbs who sanction us here. Funny place Wikipedia isn't it? Giano (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I wasn't suggesting you not say anything at all, just that you not randomly attack users you dislike, which is in line with the mentioned ArbCom sanctions, as far as I know.
Anyway, my only purposes in posting this were (a) to inform you I'd removed the comments (which I did to all three of you), and (b) ask that you stop attacking people. (a) has been addressed, and as for (b)... well, I feel I've done that as well, though I have very little faith in seeing any positive results stemming from my attempt. At any rate, I'm done here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy against "drama"? It seems to upset the hyper-sensitive Admins almost as much as things they deem to be "uncivil"? Sarah777 (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)