Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Giano II 1.1 Eats, shoots, and blocks Giano: a classic IRC block cook-up 1.1.1 Onwiki vs IRC 1.1.2 IRC and the community: take action or it's only empty talk 1.1.3 Incivility blocks - personal vs community judgments 1.2 Flapper 1.2.1 Flapper, break 1 2 Let me get this straight 3 Worry

[edit] Giano II

I have unblocked Giano II per apparent consensus on User_talk:Giano_II and User talk:Kwsn. Please discuss my and Kwsn's action here Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Got to be just about the worst block I've seen in some time - explain yourself Kwsn. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one strongly agree with this unblock, and am surprised that after making what was clearly going to be a controversial block that Kswn made himself unavailable. AniMate 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a real shame the way Kwsn has been treated for daring to hold Giano to the same standards as anyone else. Protect Giano if you must but do not sling mud at those who don't.

But then, the civility policy does not apply to Giano, there are enough admins who seek to protect him from blocks at any cost to ensure that. Saying that blocking someone for engaging in a personal attack while on civility parole is controversial is just baffling. Poor Kwsn, you should be ashamed of lashing out at him for a block that would not have been given a second look if it was not Giano. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So, another one already? When is this going to stop? I knew it was an error not to pursue the issue of the block by Tango of MONGO - we really need to start purging Admins who can't handle their tools. Sarah777 (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm filing an arbcom case if he's not back here in 24 hours - until - you don't get to decide your offended over something trivial and get someone blocked over it, particularly when the edits had stopped.--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My response to double standard comments is MONGO. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

File a case and watch it be rejected. One bad block != arbcom. Majorly (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's starting to look like constructive harassment from where I'm standing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. I did not decide this block. In fact I decided to leave it to others to notice. He called me a stalker, and I don't have to be offended for that to be against policy. But I am offended, very. I'll tell you right now, the uncivil comments have not stopped, just wait there will be more. Not sure what you will put in your arbcom case, "Admin enforced WP:NPA"? _(1 == 2)^Until 00:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused, Until 1==2. You had just finished praising Giano for the very same action that resulted in, first a warning, and then a block. Risker (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not praise him for his personal attack. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there any adults here - or are we to pander to the most delicate of sensibilities? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can make a proposal at WT:NPA if you think personal attacks should not be actionable in egregious or repeated cases. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bless you - perhaps an attack of the vapours next? Perhaps I'll start with the shocking abuse of WP:BLOCK. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than spiralling into some more well-crafted recriminations, I would love this latest bit of drama to be nipped in the bud. At least until Giano has a chance to comment - he'll already have enough hyperbole to sift through, and probably chuckle at. Block made in good faith, not the best block however, given the lack of a warning and Giano mentioning he was signing off anyway, bad block undone, that probably should be it. It won't be, but it should be. Jooper, no more snark, please. Neıl ☎ 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok neil - nice de-escalation - pity there not more of you. night all. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Neıl ☎ 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. Kwsn - when you get back, care to explain your block and run please? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The lack of warnings is a red herring here; Giano is certainly aware of the civility sanction (which is here). Moreover, since the sanction is based on a long pattern of incivility, signing off for the evening isn't a factor. This diff is enough, per the arbcom sanction, for a legitimate block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not even close CBM. Excessive protection for the excessively sensitive. A bad block is the ultimate breach of WP:CIVIL - the Wiki equivalent of a violent assault; should be punishable by immediate desysop - no second bite. WP:CIVIL is increasingly being used as a weapon by many Admins to silence folk whom they don't like/disagree with. When the Admin community face up to this fact we might be able to concentrate on improving the project. Sarah777 (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just the basic rundown here (will expand when I get around to it): I blocked based off of warring on FT2's talk page. FT2 had commentted a comment by Giano out of his talk (with an edit summary saying he read it), and Giano kept on removing the comment tags. The "stalker" comment didn't help much. I probably would not have blocked except for the fact he was under ArbCom sanctions for civility. The "run" was because I had an appointment to take care of. Kwsn-pub (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Kwsn. I would say that it might be best not to have to leave right after making these sorts of blocks, it's just bound to cause trouble, so maybe don't do that again Kwsn? Giano probably shouldn't insist that things stay visible where he puts them, his own talk page is well trafficked enough he can make the points there, but while it's accepted policy that one can remove anything, I'm at a loss why FT2 kept removing this particular thing. Or why Giano kept adding it. Or why it was worth a 48 hour block, after Giano said he was stopping. I support Alex's unblock. ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This sort of editing by Giano - repeatedly reinserting comments with the apparent aim of criticism - precipitated the arbcom case that led to the sanction Giano is now under. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Doesn't mean that it was a good case or a good outcome, though. I wish Giano wouldn't do it. It gives ammo to his detractors. But oftentimes the questions he ask need answering. I wish he'd find a different way to get them asked and answered. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eats, shoots, and blocks Giano: a classic IRC block cook-up

• About an hour ago, Until 1=2 complained on the IRC admin channel that Giano had hurt his feelings, but that he had better not be the one to block, being the recipient of the insult. (Here's the insult itself: [1].) Several admins asked with alacrity if what Giano had said "could be counted as a breach of WP:CIVIL", and Until 1 =2 advised that he thought so, adding the warning "just don't use the reason 'per irc'". At that point I spoke up, to show I was in the channel and aware of what was going on, stating "no need to say 'per irc,' I can read". I was hoping to nip another disgraceful en-admins block cook-up in the bud, but was too late; my comment was immediately followed by Kwsn blocking Giano for 48 hours.[2] (Or indeed preceded by it—I can't tell, as my comment and Kwsn's block all happened during the same minute, per the timestamps.) Immediately after he blocked, Kwsn left IRC, I suppose either because he preferred not to face criticism from me head-on, or, well, for some other reason. In any case he hasn't been heard from since he placed a rapid block message on Giano's page, despite the extremely lively discussion, mainly protests, that immediately broke out on Giano's and Kwsn's pages.
• It's improper, to put it mildly, to place a controversial block and then make oneself invisible. (And this block, even though Giano is on arbcom civility parole, is obviously controversial, certainly in the sense that it's bound to give rise to controversy—indeed it already has. I would go so far as to call it disruptive behavior (not the block itself, that's always debatable, but the subsequent vamoosing).
• Worse: This is an IRC block of the purest water—an IRC fixup. I thought we were supposed to have gone past that. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Enforcing the arbcom sanction when informed there has been a violation is a fix-up? If the complaint on IRC came after Giano's edits, the violation was already in place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have intentionally taken me out of context, and mis represented my words. My exact words were "I think it is, but as the recipient of the insult, it is perhaps better left to others to determine". I specifically decided not to decide and to leave it to others just as I posted above. I did not engage in any dialog with Kswn. What is more the "per irc" comment was clearly a joke referring to a past instance where someone foolishly used that summary in a block. This block was based on policy and you can lump all the nonsense you want on top of it and that won't change anything. There is no need for a conspiracy when the person is in violation of their parole. In the future do not quote my off-wiki comments as I do not have confidence you can do so accurately. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• More drama. Bishonen, what is this intended to accomplish, other than furthering controversy? Note also Kwsn has commented above, so to state "he hasn't been heard from since" is incorrect. This subsection requires no administrative action, and so would be better off being taken to Kwsn's talk page, or to RFC. Neıl ☎ 00:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to think about getting over it a little. Seriously, it was barely an insult at all. — Werdna talk 00:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about that. I was clearly intended as an insult and it looks insulting. While it may not have been sufficient cause for a block it does merit a warning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's one question that I hasn't been answered (or asked). Why wasn't I asked before the unblock took place? Kwsn (Ni!) 02:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because everyone thought you were gone, and everyone thought there was consensus for the unblock? (guessing) ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that discussing it on Giano's talk page was never going to give a very broad range of opinion, especially since the unblock was only 46 minutes after the block. For blocks that are explicitly in line with an arbcom sanction, a little more deliberation before unblocking is warranted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Equally, discussing it on IRC was never going to give a very broad range of opinion either. So I think we can agree that IRC should not have been used to discuss this block. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Arbcom sanction doesn't require consensus for a block. It allows any admin to block Giano at their own judgment. These are not blocks under WP:BLOCK, and don't have its limitations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be more workable if a small group of administrators are nominated to enforce this sanction. Having any admin able to carry out a block will lead to block shopping and inexperienced admins getting caught up in all this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The sanction is what it is; the case was closed some time ago. The arbitration committee doesn't hand out this sort of thing lightly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How does that address what I said? Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It didn't. Doesn't mean that your idea doesn't have a lot of merit though, because it does. ++Lar: t/c 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Onwiki vs IRC

If the block can be discussed on wiki after it occurs then surely the block can be discussed on wiki before it occurs:

IRC discussion provides:

1. quick action
2. access to a subset of administators
3. privacy
4. a chance that Jimbo will stop by

On Wiki discussion provides:

1. time to reflect on the matter
2. access to all editors and administrators
3. openness
4. a chance that Jimbo will stop by

Why would anyone choose IRC discussion over on Wiki discussion in this case? Uncle uncle uncle 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because unlike around here, IRC is not used by most of the community, and discussions there are not archived for all eternity. Jtrainor (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, they probably are, but I digress. The point is that people think that, and so they feel freer to say things they wouldn't on-wiki. That is both good and bad. Carcharoth (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What can't be said on wikipedia that should have an effect on wikipedia, this not one of the minority of cases were privacy is needed to protect someone. Its just the usual calling on you mates to run an End around on wikipedia policy and the comunity that decides whatthat policy is. IRC needs to be banned, if privacy is required use email. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no end run around policy, as the block was fully compliant with the Arbcom sanction against Giano, and the discussion on IRC came after he had already violated that sanction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I shall be away for most of today, when I return I expect the matter to be sorted. I have 100% evidence that this block was called for and orchestrated on IRC#admins. I expect those admins concerned to no longer have access to IRC by 17.00 GMT today. If they are still there, then we shall have to discuss fully why, and what can be done to resolve these ongoing issues, but hopefully that won't be necessary. This is exactly the sort of disruption the Arbcom planned with their petty sanction, let's just see if they truly want to prolong this now regular disruption. I am in contact with one of the more reasonable Arbs, or at least one who seems anxious to calm troubled waters, so hopefully a solution is at hand. Thanks again. Giano (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  Don't demand anything or run to the arbitrators. You'll be ostracised more than you already are... Sceptre ^(talk) 10:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't concur with the description above. I find it disingenuous and misrepresentative. A number of Giano's complaints have seemed to me in the past to have this quality, looking in from outside, and it would be a good one to cease. A more accurate description would be that Giano had multiple reasonable answers, but despite these was unable to see the matter other than in terms of "bad faith". He was told to desist edit warring on the matter by administrator/s, and refused. He was then insulting or uncivil to an administrator, and showed bad faith, each of which is subject to Giano's ArbCom-imposed civility parole conditions. He also well knows that such conduct places him at serious risk of blocking and is seen as unhelpful conduct by many, and that the ArbCom ruling states "any administrator", and willingly chooses to run that risk. The "100% proof" appears to simply be a log showing an administrator asked for a sanity check and other's involvement, whether the conduct was reasonable in the circumstances or whether it met that threshold, in accordance with blocking policy (1/ "When in doubt... consult other administrators for advice" and 2/ if involved in the dispute themselves - as that admin was - administrators should "report the problem to other administrators"). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am not opening a debate with you FT2, I 've had quite enough of your prevarication and doublespeak. The block was organized and inspired on IRC, rather than in discussion here, as it should have been. I had already remarked on the the coincidence of 1=2 being constantly at my shoulder, with his clever comments, a couple of days before. My comment to 1=2 was in fact quite good humoured. This sort of troublemaking block orchestrated on IRC, will be the last such there. I am now completely resolved to see that pointless chatroom cleaned up or closed. You have had your chance, FT2 and informed us there was no problem. Well now we know you were either lying or mistaken, frankly it matters not which, in short you have blown your chance. We can all see now there is a problem, and if you won't tackle it, then I will. That also includes the foul mouthed discussion which took place there after the block. I have logs from three separate sources all identical. If you refuse to ban editors from IRC who abuse the chat room, then that chatroom must be closed for the good of the project. I will not be shiy up by Arbcom members such as you, trying to hide problem. Giano (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  The issue here is not IRC - the discussion there was after your edits were done. It isn't consensus - the arbcom sanction permits blocks by any admin based on their judgment. The issue is that you seem to have have resumed the sort of edits that led to the civility sanction in the first place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I repeat for the benefeit of those who do not understand yet again. The block was bad, it was orchestrated on IRC, IRC must now be reformed or closed. I am completely resolved on this, closed would be best. 1=2 and his sidekick need to be sent packing for a start. Many many editors now feel this, and that is what is going to happen, so all the whining from the IRC inhabitants on this page is not going to break my resolve to see that chatroom sorted. FT2 (I can't understand a word he says) needs to be dismissed as an Arb, for lying when he said there were no problems on the channel. There are and they will be sorted. Giano (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding to FT2: At the end of the day, Giano is not going to cease because administrators ask him. There are many uninvolved admins that could ask him that, but if he doesn't know them he is unlikely to respect them or what they say. You know the feeling when someone you've never heard of before comes along and gives you a warning? Some people are calm when that happens - others are not. This is not a personality flaw, but human nature. The other point is that, given the background to all this, raising Giano's conduct, or discussing a block of Giano in IRC, is never going to look good. No matter how innocent or justified it may be, the appearance is bad and Giano (and others) will point this out. I would even go so far as to say that some people may, following this incident (which seems to be a run-of-the-mill running to IRC case), deliberately raise things in IRC to provoke this sort of reaction (ie. trolling IRC to bait Giano). I would urge those who have any control over what is discussed on IRC to tell people who start discussing Giano to get out of the channel and discuss on-wiki instead. This is not trying to exert control over IRC, but merely to try and dampen the flames and avoid making things worse. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I reviewed the dialog (as have others). It's as described above. As with the wiki itself, no one person "controls" what is said. A number of users watch for inappropriate conduct, and having reviewed, my comment on that is as above. I decline to agree with two standards, one for Giano and one for "all other people", and doubt that a wiki which had such standards would be desirable by the community. In fact nobody "trolled" IRC, nobody "baited" Giano. The action in this case was his, and his alone, persistently engaged in knowingly and voluntarily, and well aware he had both dialog, reasonable response, and yet was acting in a way that others might see as inappropriate and which had got him blocked before. Under those circumstances, a sanity check by one admin who briefly reports it to other admins for consideration, is completely how WP:BLOCK suggests a sensitive issue be addressed (and in point of fact this is mostly a red herring since the block was executed by an admin who was not involved in giving feedback on that, and had evidently formed their own assessment which is what's required of them). If Giano acts up again, then it's likely the same will happen, and he knows it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I will be honest here. I have had the distinct impression, when dealing with bot-related matters in recent weeks, that bot operators and related people, are carrying on parallel conversations on IRC. This is intensely annoying to those who only work through the wiki - a kind of disenfranchisement if you like. It is the same with admin discussions. I don't want admins discussing blocks (of anyone) on IRC when they can do so on-wiki - it is as simple as that. It leaves a significant portion of the admin community out of the discussion. Let me repeat that - absent any privacy issues, no discussing of blocks on IRC - that is a reasonable request and one that I suspect would find a lot of community support. Do you really, really think that using IRC to discuss a block of Giano will help? Forget the talk of double-standards - if you want to help avoid this kind of thing in future, then do the thing that will avoid the drama and tell people with complaints about Giano (or anyone) that may require blocking action to take it to the appropriate place on the wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussions about IRC have go on and on; the rules for the "official" channel were recently tightened. But the block here is simply independent of IRC. The topic at hand is Giano's edits. Bishonen's and Giano's complaints about IRC in this situation appear to be an effort to shift accountability away from Giano for those edits, but in the end the accountability must stay with Giano. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's practical, or indeed desirable. To take the example you give, nobody has suggested that the blocking admin in this case did not review the matter themselves, and form their own view; nobody has suggested that the involved admin breached any communal norm in reporting a matter where they had personal involvement to other admins for them to consider and deal with if needed. Your point that you may feel disenfranchised if some of that seeking advice goes on off-wiki is a fair one, but I think unavoidable. As a community we've never assumed "everyone should be there". You are free to visit or not visit ANI, and if you don't you'll miss various admin matters. You are free to visit WT:NPOV and if you don't you'll miss a number of debates. You are free as an admin to visit IRC and if you don't then you'll miss a number of occasions other admins say "can someone look into this". Even if you were on IRC, you'd still not be around during your night-time and would have been "disenfranchised" if the matter had arisen and closed while you were asleep. You won't be there for every debate or block or seeking of advice, and that's how it is for everyone. We've never expected that. All we expect communally, is if you (as an admin) want to be, you can - you aren't excluded. And indeed, you aren't. You are free to be present or not as you wish. The fact others find it useful to seek advice that way and you don't, does not invalidate their usage to do so. In effect to say that a block is somehow invalid because specific admins were or weren't aware of it, and somehow this means the block is less valid, is completely against all Wikipedia norms. The IRC thing is a red herring. WP:BLOCK was followed, advice was sought, a different admin from the involved one reviewed and considered the block appropriate, and the block was given a rationale and discussed on-wiki. That's exactly what is expected. All you missed out through not being on irc was being told the situation was there and being asked for advice on it. The rest of this part of the thread is smoke. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"You are free to visit or not visit ANI, and if you don't you'll miss various admin matters. You are free to visit WT:NPOV and if you don't you'll miss a number of debates. You are free as an admin to visit IRC" - I agree about ANI and WT:NPOV, as they are both on Wikipedia. But IRC is not Wikipedia. The en-l mailing list is open and archived and anyone can read it, but IRC is a different animal altogether. I also take issue with people's impressions of IRC being filtered through others. We hear lots of different things from many people. Who are we supposed to believe? Giano? You? Lar? James F? Bishonen? I don't want to sift through what others say and think "are they really clearing stating what happened, or are they (maybe unintentionally) imparting some bias or spin?" And then the discussions go on and on about what people think about what happened. What I saw was 1==2 over-reacting (understandable given the history) to a caustic comment by Giano, and then (apparently) asking about it on IRC. It may have been with the best of intentions, but the "IRC crowd" may be biased on issues to do with Giano. I seriously don't think that asking about Gian's actions on IRC will yield a fair and proportionate response, whereas on ANI there would have been more balancing voices calling for calm on both sides. On a more general point, I generally ignore places like Wikipedia Review and the like. I'm thinking it might be best to just ignore IRC and get on with on-wiki stuff. FT2 - would you be able to still do everything you do if IRC vanished tomorrow? Would the time on IRC be better spent on-wiki? Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be common sense to agree that Giano not be discussed on IRC, and that no block of Giano should take place as a result of such a discussion — and that if it does, he be unblocked immediately. There has just been too much focus on him from that quarter, rightly or wrongly, and there's now an impression that he's being targeted. The only way to remove that impression is to remove him as an object of discussion there. That would protect him from feeling picked on, it would protect IRC from further allegations, and it would protect Wikipedia from drama, so it makes sense all round. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't make sense at all, to me. A block on Giano, for whatever reason or however justified, must be overturned if it was brought up at all on IRC? I say "brought up at all" because when you say "as a result of a discussion" you apparently include an instance where someone mentioned it, a couple other people chimed in, and someone not at all involved in the discussion took action - in a case where, explicitly per a case remedy, any administrator was free to act. Why should we set a much higher standard for blocks for Giano, when its clear that not only has he not earned such a higher standard... He has in fact earned a lower standard, evidenced by the remedies aimed his way? Avruch ^T 11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What a quite extraordinary thing to say Avruch. Giano (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, do you really think that by saying you are judging an editor by lower standards, you will ever, now or in the future, be able to justify a block of that editor without someone pointing out that you said you were judging them to lower standards? That is a downward spiral (initiated by your mention of lower standards) that only ends one way. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano is under a civility parole imposed by the Arbitration Committee - the result is that the standard for action against Giano is lower than against a contributor with a clean history and no restrictions. That seems clear to me. Even if the standard for a block on Giano is exactly the same as every other editor (which it isn't), there is absolutely no justification for making the standard higher. My credibility in justifying a block is irrelevant - I didn't block, couldn't have, and have no plans to do so in the future. Avruch ^T 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(←) I think that all that Avurch is referring to is the civility parole that Giano is under. Unlike an ordinary editor, Giano may be blocked whenever he edits in a way that a reasonable editor could interpret as a personal attacks, incivil, or assuming bad faith. To lift the block one must argue that no reasonable editor could consider the edits to fall into those categories - no other circumstances are relevant, and discussion before the block is not required in any way. This is a much lower threshold for blocking than for ordinary editors. It is also why the worry about the block being discussed on IRC isn't relevant - because the civility parole sets out a specific threshold for blocking. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I really must comment on just one thing: the claim from Neil, which I'm struggling to take in good faith, that I was "incorrect" about kwsn disappearing after the block. (It would have been becoming in Kwsn to clarify this point himself, IMO, and I hope he has, somewhere: the whole discussion is now pretty dispersed.) Writing my narrative, I did indeed keep checking kwsn's contribs to see whether "kwsn" had posted anything anywhere, and hoping that he would have. No, he hadn't. But it later transpired that the person behind the account was using two different accounts , kwsn and kwsn-pub (do you see kwsn-pub editing above, which Neil is presumably referring to?). Of course only the (non-existent) posts from kwsn could be found through kwsn's contribs—kwsn-pub couldn't. I can perhaps not be blamed for not knowing of this complication, and I'm a little surprised to see you, Neil, triumphantly waving my "incorrectness" like some wikilawyer. (Surely you, looking right at the different sig, saw the difference..?) Bishonen | talk 08:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

  • Bishonen, you can perhaps be blamed for not reading the whole of a thread you saw fit to comment on, which is where Kwsn had posted. Particularly considering it was only nine lines of text or so above your comment, which was castigating Kwsn for failing to respond. Pointing this out is hardly "wikilawyering" - you made an error; there's no good reason to resort to defensive name-calling. Neıl ☎ 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Nope, I can't be. You got it wrong, Neil. I opened a thread of my own; ANI looked like this when I did, with the thread "Giano II", the one you thought I "saw fit to comment on", four threads and some 100 lines of text above mine (not "nine lines"). I did look for existing threads, but stupidly missed "Giano II". A little later, Haemo moved my thread[3] to become a subsection of "Giano II", something I only discovered the next day. The issue is so minor as to be practically non-existent, and I wouldn't bother to contradict you if I wasn't surprised you thought it worth taking your mouth so full of superciliousness and lah-di-da over. I suppose that's a measure of how evil and duplicitous you think me. This site gets nicer and more full of good faith every day. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

      • I apologise for the nine-line comment - I didn't realise Haemo had moved your comment. Nevertheless, Kwsn had posted before you decided it was time to layeth the smack down on him for not responding. I've noted you continue to resort to name-calling, and so I think I'll leave it there. Neıl ☎ 17:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

        • A very fine apology, something for my collection. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

  • Another point you didn't mention above is that Giano was unblocked after 46 minutes. Kwsn was back in contact about 1 hour after the block. If kwsn had left for 24 hours that might be a point to criticize, but being gone for one hour isn't a fault. There would have been plenty of time to discuss the block with kwsn if the unblock hadn't been so hasty. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • • Point? Bishonen | talk 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC).
    • We have well over 1000 admins. Anyone contemplating placing a high profile block ought to commit to stick around for a while, I think... leaving right away, even if they plan to be back in an hour, suggests that they might not be the best person to place it, and someone else should be found. Since this was being discussed on IRC, why wasn't someone found who knew they'd be around for a while? That's just common sense, I would think (and is there anyone here who doesn't already know that placing a block on Giano is likely to be high profile? Rightly or wrongly, that's just reality. We select admins for their common sense. Or at least I hope we do...) ++Lar: t/c 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The alternate side of the question is why it was crucial to unblock Giano within an hour. The "discussion" on IRC was extremely brief, 10 comments in a 10 minute span (according to my logs; I wasn't active at the time), and it would probably be worthwhile getting permission to post the log here so everyone can see how thin the "it was a conspiracy" charge is. People there didn't know Giano had been blocked until kwsn said so after kwsn returned. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • • That misses my point ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He placed thre block purely because he was asked to on IRC, he was not even on wiki at the time, I wonder if he ever is. Just another of those thayt hang about in a chatroom and are a liability to the project. He had no idea what he was even doing. He needs to be de-sysoped, along with 1=2. Giano (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that there was no editing on your part to justify a block under the arbcom sanction against you? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• One point I think needs to be raised is that there are various levels of stalking. I think it is important that an accusation of following someone's edits (ie. Wikistalking, which is I believe what was meant by Giano's comment about 1==2), regardless of whether it was justified or not, should not be mistaken for a comment about real-life stalking. I believe that 1==2's sensitivities are heightened with regards to this kind of thing, but that is not something everyone would know. Carcharoth (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• One thing that is clear to me is that nobody on IRC demonstrated sound judgment in this matter. Sound judgment would have immediately told 1==2 that this was not appropriate to discuss on IRC and instead directed him to WP:AE. Heck sound judgment on 1==2's part would have led him to post there and never mention the issue on IRC. IRC is not a suitable forum for discussing blocks of established contributors or any other matter that requires the use of thought and judgment, because the nature of the medium is one that causes ill-considered and unconsidered responses. Unsound judgment is exactly what we should expect from IRC, and it is exactly what we got. In the case of Giano, this is even more true than generally, the en.admins channel should not ever be used to discuss his behavior given the history. GRBerry 14:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There was in fact, almost no actual "discussion" per se. An administrator who had been responded to uncivilly (as he felt it might be) and was involved, reported the post to other administrators rather than take action themselves, and asked their view on whether it was civil or not. A different administrator whether as a result or because they saw it on-wiki, reviewed the post, formed a view, and executed a block because in their view it breached Giano's ArbCom civility parole, but did not engage in any discussion. Each of those actions was entirely viable. The judgement that deemed the post uncivil, by the blocking admin, is a reasonable view (which does not mean everyone will agree), and Giano knew he was risking a block for acting in that way.

Regardless of how witty or "typical of Giano" it may be, the issue is simply whether calling someone who says to behave, a "gnome-like stalker" might be felt to be (for example) rude, belittling, or might be perceived as insulting, or might be considered as "disparaging" or "insulting" and "commenting on the post not the author". If might reasonably be felt to be any of these by a reasonable administrator, then Giano is in breach of his ArbCom parole. There is no other question at stake. Not IRC, not admin discussion, not where and how discussion takes place. If it is reasonable for "any administrator" to form a view that Giano had spoken in a way that breached these kinds of lines, then that is the result. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• The advantages and disadvantages of IRC versus on-wiki discussion are well known. This looks like an obviously bad choice for IRC discussion. By all means, everyone chat away all you want. But when it comes to doing stuff that's actually relevant to Wikipedia, please use the wiki. Friday (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are either good or bad, IRC doesn't come into it. You don't get to poison the well, and then complain about the water.--Doc^g 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to the lies and falsehood that FT2 tell us that there are no problems on IRC, there are huge problems. The whole place is an ungoverned rabble that is a liability to the project. It needs reforming or closing. Giano (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of your opinion, I disagree entirely. Alas, repeating it will not convince me. --Doc^g 14:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Go tell it to your mates in IRC Doc. Giano (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC comes into it. If there had been on-wiki discussion of this instead, it would certainly have gone down with less drama. IRC is the worst place you could pick for this; come on guys, we shouldn't have to tell you this over and over. It's only been said a thousand times already. It's getting harder and harder for me to assume mere incompetence in choosing that venue. Friday (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It was not incompetence it was deliberate, they knew there would bve no aproval for it here, as there was not. That's why they need de-sysoping and banning from that scurrilous and filthy chatroom.. Giano (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. The well has now being poisoned and any good faith discussion is quite impossible. If anyone wants to talk about their favourite bagel, my talk page is open and the coffee warm. And trust me that discussion will be more useful to wikipedia than continuing this. I'm through with drama queens on all sides (and with being one myself). Seriously, the coffee is warm. :) Peace, (or continue this thread if that keeps you happy -everyone has their idea of fun.)--Doc^g 14:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OH no, those daft little admins have trolled for this, they want to see some trouble well now they bloody well can, they have made one bad block too many in that chatroom. The Arbs can either sanction them and that ridiculous chatroom, or have a revolt from the editors who are sick of that nasty little chatroom. Giano (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano, please. You have useful things to say, I'm sure. Don't make your message unheard by also engaging in pointless sniping like that. Friday (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not pointless - I'm at the point where I want to see some fucking action about this sort of disgrace. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with the block, and I don't see why the folks who were so hot to unblock and complain about OMG IRC BLOCK! haven't commented on the very strong reasoning posted on this page by FT2 and CBM. Perhaps because they are right? If we're to talk about unadvised admin actions, perhaps we should raise the issue of why actions against Giano consistently get quickly overturned? I'd like to see that raised at WP:AE. Lets not talk around the issue - saying it was discussed on IRC does not make it a bad block, whether it was correct or not is entirely independent of who talked about it ahead of time (since in this case, no issue of "consensus to block" was raised or required). Avruch ^T 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is utterly ridiculous. The block was entirely valid. The discussion about IRC is a complete smokescreen; it was only the venue for notification. If 1==2 had brought up the issue on AN/I and had been blocked within minutes of posting, would Giano then be calling for the elimination of AN/I? howcheng {chat} 18:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Quite. I'm actually unsure as to how wise the block was. But then I thought the civility parole unwise. But it certainly wasn't off the scale of rationale blocks. As I've said, referring to it as an "IRC block" is simply a concious attempt at poisoning the well.--Doc^g 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, whether the civility parole was a wise decision by Arbcom is irrelevant. The fact is, this was the decision. If we are to respect Arbcom's rulings, then we have to abide by them, even if we personally disagree with them. howcheng {chat} 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howcheng! ... well, yes and no. ArbCom authority rests on enforcement by the community (of admins), not any special provisions or powers. ("consent of the governed" if you like, although this is not a government, the analogy is apt) Normally, if a single admin goes against that, a quick trip to Meta by an ArbCom member to have their bit removed resolves the matter. However if a large enough segment of the community removed their consent by choosing not to enforce ArbCom sanctions, I'm not sure how things would play out. We're nowhere near that point by any stretch of the imagination, thank goodness, but if a long string of decisions that the community didn't accept came to pass, who knows. If an arbcom member turned up at meta asking for 100 sysops to have their bits removed all at once it might raise some eyebrows. Removing consent of the governed is not a matter to be taken lightly so I agree with you... except in very extreme situations. Which this, however distressing, isn't. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a point there. Any individual admin can decline to enforce an Arbcom ruling due to personal disagreement with the ruling itself, but IMHO if any other admin decides to enforce it, those that disagree with the ruling should still respect the actions of the enforcers. I suppose a case where it was 100 against 1 (which is not this) would be something different, though. howcheng {chat} 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

a chance that Jimbo will stop by - jwales has never, to my knowledge, appeared on #wikipedia-en-admins in the entire time I have had access to the channel. --Random832 (contribs) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

He does join occasionally, but only for short periods of time. He was on the channel for 19 minutes on April 1, and I don't know that he has been on since then. It would be very easy to miss him given the irregular, short times he is on the channel. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC and the community: take action or it's only empty talk

Guys, the Arbcom didn't take action on IRC. If people are upset about it, to the point that it seems, nothing is going to happen unless an actual motion is begun to simply cut off IRC from the English Wikipedia, or make the discussion/action of blocks on IRC like happened here a sanctionable event. Before anyone reminds me that I vowed to avoid drama, I'll just say that I'm trying to head it off here. It's established that Jimbo and the Arbcom only have the authority we decide to let them have--not a whit more. If they want to make decisions about IRC, that's fine, but they only make them because we let them. If the community decides to supercede Jimbo and the Arbcom, and James Forrester and David Gerard, or whomever "controls" IRC, they can't do much but accede or fork. Arbcom has no mandate or authority to create policy, Jimbo gets to do what we allow him and thats that. If the Community decides to take action, something will happen.

It either needs to get done (post a link to your motion/proposal/whatever), or let's wrap up the discussion before it turns into yet another unfortunate flaming session that won't help anyone. Lawrence § t/e 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This block is not a "sanctionable event"; it was in accordance with an explicit arbcom penalty against Giano, for edits he had already made before any discussion on IRC. Regardless of how or where these edits were reported, the block itself needs to be judged based on Giano's actual edits and the wording of the arbcom sanction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. I'm making the simple point that unless the Community (final arbiter in everything) wants to make what happened going forward against the rules--that is, launching this sort of thing off IRC--this will just be a flamefest. IRC as a tool is allowed it's ties to Wikipedia at the pleasure of the community is the point--and the community if they have a problem with this need to do something to change that, not flame each other. Lawrence § t/e 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The community can't stop off-channel communication even if they wanted to. We've been through this, it is a dead end debate. Pass the cream cheese - I need another bagel.--Doc^g 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But it can make it socially less acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That was the other part of my point as written. The community obviously can't stop off-Wiki anything, but can cut it off from the wiki side if they feel like it in any number of ways. And yummy bagels. Lawrence § t/e 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

so, you'd rather have people discuss blocks in IRC channels where they can preclude the likes of bishonen listening in? Because that's what'd happen. (Indeed, it already does.) Much better to have a channel where 1500 people can enter if they want - much more likely to get sanity checks than in cabal channels of the likeminded. (You should hear what they say about Giano in those channels - plots to steal all Italian bagels). --Doc^g 16:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no easy answer. I'd prefer for there to be an IRC noticeboard and permanently recorded 24x7 IRC logs that the Arbcom could review unfettered. But alas, if wishes were fact, penguins would fly. Someone should file for a Bagel RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you open IRC logs, no one will use it for anything useful. They'll use other IRC channels with closed access - and that troubles me more. We've been through this already. The status-quo has some (mainly perceived) drawbacks - but no concrete proposal does anything other than give debatable advantages whilst undermining what the "open to all admins" channel is good for.--Doc^g 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"If you open IRC logs, no one will use it for anything useful." Perhaps we should give it a go. The problem is people are hiding behind the lack of accountability at IRC - or at least that's the perception - lets have jurisdictionary control over it. Maybe behaviour will improve, maybe the community will prefer it that way. Let's try it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The IRC "operators" can't be forced to make themselves accountable to the community for IRC, since the way the IRC arrangements are cleverly setup makes them independent of the WMF. Both sides get protection from each other that way under the current setup. Probably why the IRC is so popular, but I digress. Lawrence § t/e 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no--only opening IRC logs to the AC. I thought they already had that. Don't they? If they don't even have that, then all bets are kinda off unless the community does decide to just do something. Oh well. Lawrence § t/e 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Arbcom has any difficulty getting logs if they want to review them. Many people do keep logs, privately, and would provide them to arbcom upon request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) To confirm the above: ArbCom has access to IRC logs. So do many of the IRC channel ops and users. On several occasions I've looked into alleged IRC misconduct. However in almost each case over a 9 month period that was brought to me by non-IRC users, it turned out that cases were routinely misreported or misrepresented on-wiki, and/or related to matters (such as a single uncivil word) that would not get 1/10th of the attention if they had happened on-wiki. The number of cases with genuine issues has consistently been tiny compared to the wiki.

This case is one example. A user 1/ following norms and 2/ asking advice whether X edit is "uncivil". 3/ No request was made other than that one, and the one request asked is 4/ completely reasonably asked. In summary, where one user (an involved admin) asked one appropriate question and got two answers, both reasonable... becomes reported on-wiki as "conspiring to block". By the same person who has an interest in redirecting attention away from their own conduct.

Such misdirection can only go so far before one says "enough". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a kind of deeper issue at play here. I've read all the posts on this incident that I can find, and it's clear to me that each party / side believes in good faith that they are 'in the right'. The trouble is that both views can't in fact be right - unless we create a SchrodingerGiano account which will remain both blocked and unblocked! Personally I agree with the 'on-wiki' status quo - that the block was a bad one, and it was best lifted quickly. Rather than rehash the evidence, discuss interprestations of logs, and continue focus on an issue which seems resolved (Giano is unblocked), I'd say there's a need for some reflection on the part of those who feel such a block was clearly called for as to how they were out of kilter with the broader community.

There are complex wiki-socio-political answers, but the root answer is very simple and bears consideration; It was wrong to block Giano. the rest follows....... Privatemusings (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ps any bagels left? Privatemusings (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are wrong. The block was appropriate. Giano was being uncivil and assuming bad faith. He is on a civility probation that specifically calls for him to be blocked when he shows incivility or failure to assume good faith. However, the block was poorly implemented - a high profile block deserves on-wiki discussion before and after. While I understand that the blocking admin had to leave her computer, it'd be wiser to allow another admin to perform the block if one can't stay around to discuss it. I am concerned that Giano has shown further incivility on this very page. If it continues he will be blocked again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

we can agree to disagree about the block, Will - but I'm glad you concur that on-wiki discussion before was necessary. I would think that it would have followed a similar course to the on-wiki discussion which did occur afterwards, and in that sense, we can at least see what happened (Giano was, and remains, unblocked). I guess it remains unfortunate that that discussion which occured on-wiki didn't resemble the IRC discussion more closely, and in that sense, IRC can certainly be seen to be 'out of kilter' with the broader community. I still don't really know if that is systemic at all, but it is a shame..... Privatemusings (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On-wiki discussion is necessary only in the sense that in the previous block Giano was unblocked hastily because the blocking admin wasn't around. The reason that Giano remains unblocked is that, once a block is lifted, it is almost never reinstated. However, had a defense of the block been made before it was lifted, I think it is unlikely that it would be lifted. The criterion for blocking is whether a reasonable admin could consider the edits personal attacks, incivil, or assumptions of bad faith. To argue against it, one must argue that no reasonable editor could consider the edits to meet those categories; no other criterion for blocking is relevant to the civility parole. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"no other criterion for blocking is important" (Carl changed this here as I was writing this, but my comments still stand - mechanistic enforcement is not helpful) - this is (like FT2's step by step analysis) a very mechanistic way of looking at things. What happened to stepping back and looking at the bigger picture? Of trying to find a way to move forward without escalating? Trying to calm things down and be diplomatic and keep people productive instead of mechanistically enforcing rules? There are reasons why 3RR is a bright-line rule and civility is not. Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The situation we are in arose from a failure of diplomacy and dispute resolution, which led to multiple arbcom cases. The civility sanction is a reflection of arbcom's recognition of that. So I don't think that returning to the previous methods of dispute resolution is a viable option. For example, the recent block of Giano was precipitated by a question Giano wanted to pose to FT2 about checkuser; it seems that diplomacy was attempted and failed there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2, your simplistic and linear 1,2,3,4 rationalization is meaningless. The perceptions that dwell in #admins are different than the collective consciousness on-wiki. That's what you need to face. Someone went complaining/blockshopping on #admins and a block resulted. The community soundly rejected that block. What does this tell you? You describe the #admins sequence of events as "reasonable" but the community does not agree with the results. What does this tell you, FT2?

Will Beback, I disagree that the block was appropriate. I believe that many people are riled by Giano's comments. Not because they are incivil but because they strike a nerve, they carry some inconvenient truths, they come from a person who has undeniably earned his respect, they carry a message that deeply resonates with a large part of the community. For people on the receiving end of Giano's complaints, he must be very frightening - but not outrageously incivil, not compared to the daily behavior of many admins who I won't name. And this explains why Giano keeps getting bad blocks that invariably get overturned by the community. --Duk 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, Duk, it tells me you may not have read what I wrote carefully. At least two of those four were not assessments or opinions, to which the word "simplistic" might apply, but specific descriptions of actual events, which are whatever they are. The block has not been "soundly" rejected; rather, as can be seen above, views are divided whether it was jusified. The same may well have happened if the incident had been reported on wiki. I'm not seeing evidence it would have gone any differently. Those involved did exactly as historic norms suggest - consult and report rather then block if "involved", and review for oneself before acting on a report. If we've entered an era where admins may not take actions that others will disagree with, and will be attacked if they do (even if the action is reasonable), then we really have changed. But I don't think so. What I'm noticing is Avruch's comment, that there's all this talk about the locale in which the matter was reported to admins, but significant avoidance about whether calling another user a "gnome-like stalker" might be considered rude, insulting, disparaging, and the like by "an administrator". Do you think a reasonable proportion of people might form a valid view that such words might be.....? Not that "you might", but "a reasonable administrator might". Judging by the above, it's clear several administrators not only "might" do so, but do in fact would do so. Do you agree with that assessment? Not that they should or shouldn't, but that a significant number in fact would? Yes? Or no? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"If we've entered an era where admins may not take actions that others will disagree with" - part of the problem is that admins do take actions that it is clear that others will disagree with, and then instead of discussing it sensibly, they tenaciously defend their admin actions because to do otherwise would make them look "weak". There are cases where people have sensibly discussed an admin's actions with them, and the admin in question has changed their views and changed or reversed their action. This is helpful. There are other cases where the admins in question have hardened their stance in response to questioning, and refused to budge an inch, even in the face of clear and logical arguments, and have said things like "do not unblock" (effectively placing their judgment ahead of other admins and established editors). This is unhelpful. What is needed is a clear, drama-free way of getting fair reviews. I would suggest the unblock template and the unblock mailing list, but what is really needed is a way to track the stats for blocks of established users (they can be filtered out by age of account and number of edits - I requested this, but no-one has done it yet). We need be able to broadly survey the admins carrying out blocks and unblocks, and see if there are patterns emerging. Does someone consistently unblock established users? Does someone consistently block established users? And so on. And admins should always be open to questioning on their actions, and we need to reduce the drama which might in part be what causes the defensiveness, and get people discussing productively. Not philosophical ramblings. Not invective. But clear, actionable points, and clear answers instead of obfuscation. Carcharoth (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I like that. One question - do we really want to be using metrics to identify "doubtful judgement admins" whose actions routinely get more challenged, versus "good judgement ones" whose actions dont? And risk factors - would doing so discourage or chill admins from working in hard cases which arguably need it more, and where views may divide more. (And what happens to those who have hardened views by a group who are going to be significantly for or against them whatever their conduct, which will influence whether a block will happen or will be reversed?) But yes, concerns aside, there is a valid underlying question there, which parallels a matter I was discussing with James F last night, and that's not a bad question. I might come back to you or others on this, if that's okay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to admins "hardening" their stance, perhaps we've reached the era where wheel warring needs to be utterly defined, and nonsensical notions like an admin saying "do not undo my action" have as much value as my saying "do not undo this random edit to a page". Nobody--not an IP editor, not a logged in editor, not an admin, not the Arbitration Commitee, not Jimmy Wales, outranks the community. If consensus exists to undo whatever action anyone tosses out, the action is undone. We need to codify this point blank as non-negotiable. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem with requesting that an uninvolved admin look into an issue which is within their discretion on-wiki (e.g., linking to a vandal's contribs page and asking for a block). There is a big, big, big problem with making a block that requires consensus, and acquiring that consensus on IRC (e.g, discussing and deciding on a community ban on IRC). The two are incomparably distinct. The current situation falls into the former category, in my opinion. Any user who requests that IRC be 'banned' is, in all seriousness, dreaming. Regardless of whether or not such a 'banning' would be beneficial, there is no way to prevent contact with other editors through off-wiki means, and there is no advantage in doing so. Making such contact a blockable offence would never gain community approval, would excessively and unnecessarily interfere with users' right to speak their mind off-wiki, and would be damn near impossible to enforce. — Werdna talk 09:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To read the quoted comments, your description is a little disingenuous. "Queried whether an edit was 'civil'"? No, said "Should block, I can't be the one to do it though". Is my description biased? Perhaps. But it shows what I mean - it was definitely not "I just want to see other people's opinion on the civility of this", it was "Needs block, I can't do it, and don't say 'per IRC'" (although, apparently, AGF means understanding that this was obviously 'clearly a joke'). Achromatic (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As I already said, if the action is a discretionary action, I see no problem with asking an uninvolved admin to do it instead. This is, in fact, encouraged under normal circumstances. I see no reason to interpret the comment as anything more than that — and any suggestion that it was to deliberately sweep the block under the rug, or anything else, is unwarranted. When we have problems is when we form a psudo-consensus on IRC, and then carry it out on-wiki in place of regular consensus-finding. I am not aware that a consensus needed to be found here, and so IRC was picked as a venue to ask for an uninvolved admin, simply because it's quicker. — Werdna talk 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility blocks - personal vs community judgments

I'd like to repeat here that when judging incivility, it is important not to be swayed by the judgment of anyone who says they were offended by someone else's comment to them personally. The person who is offended nearly always finds it hard to be objective. The only certain thing is that the person was offended. The question that then should be asked is not whether you agree with the offended person, but what the best thing is to do to calm things down. There are at least two cases I remember where someone's comment did affect me, but instead of asking others if it was incivil (that should be a personal judgment, in my opinion) I responded to the person in question and let others comment if they wanted to. This approach, when established users clash in this way, is better, and assumes (as we should) that they can sort things out like mature adults (regardless of actual age). If someone starts asking other people if a comment was incivil, that becomes a leading question, turning it from a personal judgment to a community one. What matters more? Whether the community thinks a comment was incivil? Whether the person making the comment thought it was incivil? Whether the person the comment was aimed at thought it was incivil? Whether the friends of the person the comment was aimed at thought it was incivil? And what is more important? To be seen to react and do something, or to exercise judgment and respond in a careful and thoughtful manner? In my opinion, the correct venue for a community judgment would be a request for comments or a noticeboard thread, and not IRC (which is a small proportion of the community, both of admins and editors). Blocking is rarely helpful, as the aim should be to get both established users talking again and able to, if not work together, at least not disrupt the encyclopedia by their differences or personality clashes. This is of course speaking in generalities, but if it helps, the two specific examples I had in mind when talking about myself were here and here. I didn't ask others if those comments were incivil, but I did ask the person making the comments what they meant by the comments. Swallow the anger you may feel at the comment, and (politely, of course) call them on it and see what their response is, and give them a chance to apologise for things said in the heat of the moment, or explain themselves further. That is a surprisingly effective way of handling this sort of thing. Maybe we need a tutorial on anger management, diplomacy, and the art of apologising while editing Wikipedia, together with examples? Bishonen mentioned a collection of apologies above, and while this may not be quite what she meant, the idea is still an interesting one. Also, Durova started an essay, Wikipedia:Apology. I've since changed it quite a lot, but maybe others could contribute as well? Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That is very good advice. I agree the best reaction to occasional incivility is to simply ignore it. If it becomes chronic, some form of dispute resolution may become necessary.

One thing that I think is often overlooked here is that Giano's civility parole is not a dispute resolution process, it is the outcome of a dispute resolution process. The only criterion the civility parole requires for a block is that a administrator could reasonably consider an edit to be a personal attack, incivil, or an assumption of bad faith.

This is very different than the ordinary situation. If an unsanctioned editor makes a remark that can reasonably be considered incivil, he or she is unlikely to be blocked, and should probably just be ignored. If Giano makes such a remark, he maybe blocked without further discussion. There is no obligation to "resolve the dispute"; indeed, the situation with Giano only got to arbcom because of a long-term inability of involved parties to resolve similar disputes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the remedy was imbalanced. If others as well as Giano had had a civility parole imposed, then the outcome would have looked fairer. It takes two to tango, and the impression given is that Giano is the only one who required a civility parole. There was a voluntary one displayed for a while, but that was soon removed and quite frankly, I don't think anyone would have the gumption to enforce it. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very few people (on any side of the debate) were enthusiastic about the IRC arbcom decision; it is what it is. But regardless of personal opinion, everyone can agree that the case is closed and the decision includes a civility parole for Giano. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

but I don't accept it or acknowledge it! Giano (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We all can agree that the cased as closed contains such words. I've even seen Giano acknowledge that much. We can also conclude, as I have, that the decision was so terrible that no administrator should ever take action on it. Wikipedia would be better off if everyone chose to forget that this supposed remedy that is actually a problem instead of a solution exists. Should Giano do something truly problematic, it can be addressed without reference to that case. GRBerry 14:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you, and all administrators, are free not to act if you do not wish to. However, if another administrator does make a block that is within the parameters established by the arbcom decision, dislike of the decision is not grounds for lifting the block. The arbitration committee does consider appeals if anyone finds their decision unfair or improper. The arbitrators chose a particular way to try to resolve the previously intractable disputes in which Giano was involved, and I respect their decision. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear here. If the arbitration committee handed down a remedy that you felt unable to enforce, you would be happy ignoring it? This must mean that not only do you respect their decision, but you agree with it. Or is there some middle ground of not being in total agreement, but still on balance being willing to enforce the remedy? I agree that overturning a block due to not agreeing with a remedy is verboten. The arbcom would swiftly desysop in such cases of direct undermining of their authority. But reasoned disagreement and "striking" or ignoring, should be OK up to a point. And no, don't ask me where that point is. I still think the easiest way out of this is for Giano to show some productive editing minus the "problems", and then appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this question for me or Carl? Probably Carl, but I'll answer anyway. There are decisions I am unable to enforce, such as the discretionary sanctions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because on the most stringent readings of the case definition of an uninvolved admin, some of my spring 2006 editing disqualifies me. I have no concerns about such decisions, I just leave those to others who are uninvolved. There are decisions (e.g. "X is restricted to one account") that I am very limited in my ability to enforce, because I am not a checkuser - again, left to those who can enforce them. There are decisions, such as this one, which I consider to be harming the encyclopedia. I won't enforce them myself, and normally voluntarily limit my comments on whether or not particular behavior should be addressed thereunder. (For example, I've made no comment on whether this set of edits should have been sanctioned - I've merely pointed out the egregious stupidity of having any discussion about it on IRC - using IRC at all for discussing Giano is a rather clear demonstration that those who did so were not using sound judgment, and may even lack sound judgment.) 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)

Well tell that to the Arbs who dreamt it up, not me. I already know it. I thought at the time, and I still think, it was their cowardly way out, they thought I would go, and they would have clean hand. The alternative theory is that they wanted this disruption, they knew every half-wit on IRC would stagger out and try to block me, I would get the blame for the disruption et etc etc. To those who doubt they are half-wits just look at that ridiculous scripted log posted on my page this morning, who was that supposed to fool? - it's basically an admission of guilt. One thing I do know for certain is that the encyclopedia is being damaged by all this, and that content now ranks above socialising - and the responsibility for that lies firmly and squarely with the leadership of this project. Giano (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's leadership? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I did suggest at the time (or start to suggest) that if you had kept your head down, and edited productively, there was a good chance that an appeal after three months or so might have led to the parole being commuted to a lesser time period, or overturned altogether. My observation of this was based on the remedy only narrowly passing, and in the hope that the new committee would free itself from the influence of previous arbitrators. The latter may have indeed happened, but some of the arbitrators have nevertheless 'changed' somewhat and so the overall effect hasn't really been that great. Still, I think that if you show what you can really do, without overtly politicising or campaigning, then I think the arbitrators (who are reasonable people at the end of the day) might reduce the parole. The way you are heading, they might extend it or vote in more restrictive remedies. Opinion is fine, just don't be so abrasive when delivering it. And yes, I've seen the IRC conversation someone posted on your talk page, and no, I don't think it means much either way. Kswn self-blocking was a bit silly though. Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...but sadly for you all, many people agree with every word I say, and that is your problem. Instead of trying to realise I have some valid points you all think by silencing me the problem will go away. Giano (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, Giano, you could take the advice I and others have given you before, to let others make your points more effectively. For you to just take a deep breath, pause, and ask others for advice before escalating things on-wiki. And that applies to everyone (including me), not just you. Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK so what is your advice for dealing with those funny little IRC logs, posted on my page, showing the clearest witness coaching i have ever seen. If that was not an admission of guilt, what the hell is? Giano (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied to this above. Ignore IRC - let others deal with it, the matter is not going to be dropped (remind people privately if it looks like they have forgotten). Edit productively as you always do. Appeal in a few months time. See GRBerry's comment as well. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The goal is not to silence you. Many of the points you make are very valid. The arbitration committee rejected sanctions that would have more seriously limited your ability to express your opinion. The goal of the civility parole is to ask you to make your points in a civil manner, assuming good faith and not attacking other editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flapper

As I suggested to someone (on IRC, perish the thought!)... perhaps Giano needs a ... I don't know quite what to call it! A consigliere. A flapper. A mouthpiece. A press agent. Someone (or a committee of someones) who could take what Giano WANTS to say, and say it for him, but in a way that gets the message across in a civil manner. Any "attacks" can be made the way we "attack" real people... :) present the facts and let the reader draw the conclusions. Because, as Carl says, many of the points Giano makes are very valid. For this to work it would require Giano to acknowledge that there is something preventing his direct communication and want to work with this agent/team/whatever... I'd volunteer if my services were desired. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd volunteer my services as well. Giano is far too valuable content and insight-wise to lose. A project like this (any social group, or group of people, all the way up to a corporate/government level) needs dissenting voices and individuals who can and will tell the Emperor and his staff if they have no clothes on. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Consigliere sounds right. Did you mean flapper? And didn't I suggest this earlier? Oh, well, that doesn't matter - getting this resolved usefully (seeing as Arbcom and the admin community haven't had much luck - note the qualifier 'usefully') is more important. Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think he meant Flappers as originally used in Gulliver's Travels. For some reason, our article doesn't cover them. GRBerry 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Not something that could be imposed on Giano, I don't think... If someone wants to propose to be his interlocutor, who could argue with an arrangement like that - especially if it prevents more of these events? I'm not sure how ultimately effective it would be - even after ScienceApologist agreed to something similar, the problems associated with him speaking his mind didn't recede. Avruch ^T 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't SA's representative sort of self-implode and then vanish, though? I can't see myself, Lar, and maybe Carcharoth (?) all going postal at once. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The only representative for SA that I am aware of (there may well have been more than one) was trying to do after the fact revisions to his comments. That isn't a viable strategy, because the original comment has already been made and seen. GRBerry 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, we could all implode, but you have a point. I have too much respect for Giano to even think of any suggestion of imposing anything like this - any move in this direction will have to come from him directly (along with people talking to him privately if they can). For the record, I have suggested this in the past, and given advice, and am still willing to carry on doing so if Giano is willing to listen. But equally, Giano's detractors and those standing on the principle of the arbitration remedy would need to restrain themselves if this quasi-mediation is to have any chance of working (and yes, I think mediation is always possible, even after or during arbitration). Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just to be quite clear. I am agreeing to nothing. I am asking for nothing. The Arbcom created this mess, the Arbcom can solve it. They were told this would be the situation, they willfully ignored that advice. Now they must clean up their own mess. I shall continue editing in my normal fashion for as long as possible. If I am trolled, then we shall doubtless find ourselves here again and again and again. If, and when, I have an opinion I shall voice it. This whole civility is all very overated - do I make death threats, do I name people's children, no I merely point out unwelcome truths. That is all, nothing more. Giano (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have a hunch Avruch thinks he knows who I am, just for the record, if this is the case Acruch, you are quite wrong - I am not he!Giano (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea what you mean, actually. Sorry. Avruch ^T 16:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough (responding to your first bit). I do hope that you will continue to respond to advice, from anyone, even those you have never heard of before (this is a large place), in the spirit in which the advice is given. Just try and think twice or thrice before posting in anger. Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I always listen to advice, I may not heed it, but I always listen. Funnily enough, I seldom post in anger, yesterday was an exception, but a rare one. Mostly I am passionate about a cause so perhaps people confuse the two. What I find most peculiar about this, and perhaps even my sworn and undying enemies may agree, is the comple silence from the Arbcom, all of them, apart from FT2 (who I don't count) are so quiet. Have thay all abandoned ship and left him, or do you suppose he has murdered them all as they slept, it's all very strange, like that boat the Marie-Wotsit. They make a mess and then appear not to see it. Even the one who was on IRC discussing it, cannot bring himself to discuss it on wiki. I call that very odd indeed. Giano (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary Celeste, which shouldn't be confused with the Marie Celeste, of course... Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flapper, break 1

(Gulliver's Travels style) "Flapper" is probably the worst of those words I could have selected for the heading, because the intent here wasn't to control access, but rather to modulate the signal so it could be received. I want to apologise to Giano if he, or anyone else, took what I proposed as insulting. Wasn't supposed to be. Here's the thing. Giano is an articulate, intelligent, forceful and witty person. I personally don't see any of the recent blocks as justifiable, and I said so. I'll go farther, I strongly feel he "gets" the wiki way more than a fair number of other people around here do, and that he has many insightful and important things to say. I strongly supported him for ArbCom, remember? And I suspect that many of the hundreds of editors who voted for him feel the same way. But this path we all seem to be on... it's going to end badly. I view some of the stuff being said to him as almost baiting or trolling. And he's going to take the bait, get blocked again, and the cycle will repeat. But next time, one more block, one more layer of "see, he's a bad user, see now how many times he's been blocked" until eventually, everyone will be painted into a corner and we all lose. That's the path we are on, we all know how it's going to end if something doesn't change.

I could say, well it's everyone else's fault for baiting him (and by god, some of you do bait him, you know it). I could say, well it's Giano's fault for not giving in to the man and going along quietly. But I won't. I don't care about fault. I just want Giano around, contributing awesome articles, but more importantly, making this a better place with his astute observations. I'll try just about anything possible... Whatever it takes.

No one can make anyone else do anything they don't want to do, and certainly if Giano wants to go out in style, nothing I can do will stop that. (and be sure, he'll go out in far grander style than just about anyone else would... you know he's right about a lot of stuff, you know he's funny, you know he's able to craft statements that are breathtaking in their wit and perspicacity) But what a waste. So forgive me if I am flailing about trying to find anything... anything at all... that would prevent that loss. Not merely for Giano's sake, but for ours, because we really need to hear what he has to say. Really. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks about the mess of the IRC case, or its distinctly unsatisfactory outcome, you are clearly right about the trajectory here. At some point, without a change either in the remedies applied or the behavior demonstrated... Giano will end up with an indefinite block. I don't think anyone is hoping for this outcome, but we seem to be caught up in prevailing winds that are pushing us towards it regardless of the pressure exerted in the other direction. If Giano can't or will not make a change himself - what are the other options? Are there ideas about to solve this problem that don't restrict or alter Giano's ability to interact? Avruch ^T 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell it to the Arbcom, Avruch. They have deliberatly orchestrated and engineered this situation. Now they must solve it. Giano (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a well known term in legal work, that describes when a person has done something improper, and is called to answer for it, they blame others for effectively, daring to say "no, thats not okay" or "tempting them", or the like. "You made me assault you by wearing that short skirt", is a canonical example.

The issue here in simple terms is that a user gratuitously includes in their posts, rude, disparaging, insulting throwaway labels for other users. They do this habitually, regardless of being asked to stop over a long period of time. They have been formally asked to do so before, and then, they have been directed to do so. And then when they continue, and get forcibly prevented, the user says stridently, "they engineered it!"

No Giano. This isn't about valid or invalid points, but about freedom to speak them in an unacceptable manner. It's about a communal norm, and users who have been asked to rule that norm applies to you (and have done so). An elephant in the room. This is completely your choice. You know the norms every user is answerable to, and you know that you can say what you like, provided you remove throwaway insults, and other unpleasantries that don't add much anyway. You know you can; you choose not to. Take responsibility for your decisions and their outcomes, if you decide not to, as I do for mine and you expect others to for theirs. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm so pleased that you have now been appointed sole spokesperson for the Arbcom. I can assure you I have never done anything improper. So far we have seem a kid, who I am now told on my page has emotional problems [4], led by people who should no better in a chat room, to make what was a disruptive block. At the time in that chatroom one of your fellow Arbs was saying "I have to say, if I didn't know the roster, I would find it hard to believe sometimes that this is the administrators' channel." others were saying "don't mention IRC" in the block. Then you review the logs and tell us there was nothing wrong there. So, FT2 don't you dare lecture me or anyone else on improper behaviour. Go discuss it with your fellow Arbs, but spare me your long winded excuses. Giano (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See, and that's as an administrator why I am here. You have consistently sought to use tactics to avoid the genuine concerns and points made by the community, seek to blame others or deflect responsibility from your own actions, choose indignation and rhetoric which is a pretty poor crutch. It just doesn't cut it. Re-read my comment above, again. Not one of the points you make, speaks to your choice as described above. It speaks to evasion of the issue, and that's not the action of a person who is sure they are right. It's the action of one who is doing all they can, to not have to face the actual complaint and issue raised. "I want the issue to be about the clothes she wore, not about my actions and choices to act that way". And it doesn't need more than one person to say so.

Instead of distraction, re-read, and try facing the points made and seriously considering them. When you have, say so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying not to distract from your point here FT2, but I think, given the history here, a better analogy than "the skirt she wore" could have been chosen. Giano and others, please ignore that or give FT2 a chance to chose a better analogy, and please do directly engage the points FT2 is making. Things will progress much quicker if you do. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Will review in a few mins. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reviewed, minor edited. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Given that some of the (long) history around this involves at least two incidents where people got upset at analogies involving women and comments that could be misinterpreted, I think your choice of the phrase "the skirt she wore" was poor. Even "the clothes she wore" is not much better. But I am aware that I am now doing what I asked Betacommand not to do! So I will leave it at asking you whether you realised that some people, reading what you wrote, would think you were comparing this situation to a woman being judged by the clothes she wears? And given that, would you have chosen a less inflammatory analogy? (It is debateable whether the initial use of the analogy or my response to it is more distracting, but I think we can all agree that once this subtopic is cleared up, we need to go back to the main points being raised). Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the analogy. The issues here are Giano's conduct and the reaction of the community to it, and how to keep the same problem from repeating. Not whether FT2's analogy is both on point and unlikely to be misinterpreted. Avruch ^T 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are you sure you are looking at the same logs? Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano, Im getting sick and tired of your trolling, harassment and personal attacks, If you cannot behave in a rationale matter, I will file a AE and or further arbcom sanctions. β^{_{command 2}} 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rational, not rationale. But anyway, that's beside the point. The point, Betacommand, is that I am asking you to please not jump in here and escalate things with accusations of "trolling", "harassment" and "personal attacks". Be specific rather than trotting out a laundry list of complaints. Giano, you need to pull back a bit too and control yourself - I may not agree with everything FT2 says, but he is right that you need to take responsibility for what you say. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

please read Giano's posts, He calls good standing arbcom members are lying and countless other comments that should have gotten him a block for breaking WP:CIVIL β^{_{command 2}} 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should ask FT2 first whether he is offended by that comment. If he is willing to let it slide, then you should respect that and not stir things up further. And "countless other comments" is still too vague. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I had not commented on it, because it's an old Wikipedia principle that if something is a problem, others will raise it. We tell editors that same advice quite often, "if that article were genuinely problematic, others will turn up to edit it". As it happens, my focus is on Giano's treatment of others and the harm that it does. I have zero (personal) interest whatsoever in stooping to say that being called names does or doesn't offend. Both are forms of enabling and merely validate that game. The fact that one user can handle something or another cannot, is not a reflection whether that something is okay. I shall not ask any user to act for me, or not to do so. Administrators are expected to comprehend basics such as what is within norms, what is appropriate, or what is not, regardless, and form their own views. My interest is the impact of such a manner of speech on others and the community, ie, an administrative nature. Any comments to me, would be improper for me to pay attention to; admins correcting a users behavior must expect that user try and stop them doing so. That is not a comment on specific statements; it's more about a choice when acting administratively, to focus on the actual issue alone. Sometimes other admins will act too, sometimes they won't - it's happened both ways in different cases. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a really long comment - I read it several times and I still don't understand what point you are making. Kelly ^hi! 00:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

I suspect by the amount of times FT2 rewrote what he said (see the page history), that he wasn't entirely sure what he was saying either. I would like to pick up on one point though: "Any comments to me, would be improper for me to pay attention to" - does the same apply to 1==2's comments in IRC? That, to me, seems a pretty clear case of someone paying attention to a comment on themselves. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying? I agree that others should tell people that they are being incivil, but the way Betacommand did it was unhelpful and couched in threatening tones. A better approach is to ask Giano first if he stands by his comments or wishes to retract them - that way lies de-escalation. Betacommand's approach leads to escalation. And no, I don't think that the presence of an Arbcom remedy means that people shouldn't try and calm things down before escalating matters. Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually that's more likely to mean that I know exactly what I mean, but for whatever reason, I want to word it exactly to say what I mean. The one Carcharoth picks up on is an example why such tiny attention to detail is needed; people will often misinterpret otherwise. Carcharoth - please read that as "Any (unhelpful) comment (directed) to me..." Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2 you were arsked by the Arbcom (who should have done it themselves, as they voted) to review standards in the chat room, you said there was no problem. You reviewed the most recent logs, ignoring the views of another Arb in the chatroom, you said there was no problem. You now talk to us of short skirts and God know what. You FT2 seem to be part of the problem. The behaviour that night in the chatroom is now emerging as worse than problematic, it was dispicable. I'm now wondering if you are not part of that problem. They are now encouraged to think thay can get away with hell, and it seems they do. And as for Bettacommand's comments, well I have a long memory concerning IRC and its bad blocks, so I would advise him to but out. Giano (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend making any further comments on this matter now, here or elsewhere. I am truly disgusted and tired of it. That supposedly educated people writing an encyclopedia can condone the events of the last few days is more than concerning. When these events are repeated in the near future, as they will be, I hope the IRC Admins can produce some better reasoning and defence for themselves and their conduct. That's my final word on the matter. Giano (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're still avoiding the issue. And wilfully. You're excellent at reading English. You can have no doubt what my entire comment means, and yet you write "you now talk to us of short skirts and God know what". Is there any way to construe that other than wilful decision not to understand? If you make comments knowing there is a remedy, you must expect that remedy to be applied. If you make wild accusations that are visibly unfounded, you must expect others to consider your words to be mostly crying wolf. If you play word games and attack others in order to prevent addressing genuine points, you must expect others to notice. Simple and truthful. That is the point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, FT2, I am a native English speaker of a considerable number of years and I am having considerable difficulty parsing your comment above, so I can readily see why Giano would be having trouble parsing your comment. --Iamunknown 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let me get this straight

Giano called Until a stalker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.217.151 (talk)

From Wikipedia:HARASS#Wikistalking: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." This is clearly what Giano meant, despite him not using the exact term, not the other forms of stalking. I still think the unfortunate coinciding of this and 1==2's sensitivity in this area is a major contributory factor to how different people view this incident. Equally, the gnome comment was referring to Wikipedia:Wikignome. I'm not defending what Giano said, but trying to give the context and background here, as the IP seems to want to make this seem worse than it is. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happier if you did not speculate on my motives, there is entirely too much of that going on around here.

Misunderstandings do happen. Giano, and his friends, tend to assume the worst. Many people have sincerely tried to minimize the disruption to Wikipedia, but every time paranoia wins the day. I have seen Newyorkbrad attacked, and now FT2.

Carcharoth, I view you as a voice of reason. When Giano is misunderstood, you are very effective at explaining him. However, I have never seen anyone convince Giano that he has misunderstood someone else.

When FT2 chooses a poor analogy and mentions something about short skirts Giano is right there on him. But that doesn't change the fact that Giano also chose his words poorly, a fact that is getting lost in the noise.

I understand that Giano and his friends want to talk about IRC. But this is not related to Giano's poor choice of words. The two sides cannot even agree on what the argument is about.

There is no good faith left here. It was used up two years ago. --Slashem (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My post balanced yours, now yours balances mine. Eventually, we will agree and come up with a fair assessment of the situation. That should be how Wikipedia works. Apologies if I over-reached in speculating on your motives, and thanks for correcting me. Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worry

I worry... that more text has been posted on Giano than any other single subject in Wikipedia; that the meta-text of WP has far outstripped the text, which was the point of the exercise in the first place; that near-meaningless busy-work such as biography infoboxes, quibbles over -or vs. -our, and citation styles, etc. have overtaken concerns of content. Giano has contributed exemplary content on subjects most people know nothing about and that I, for one, couldn't possibly muster enough enthusiasm to create (though I work in an architectural research institute), yet love to read. Regardless of these contributions, he is the centre of a firestorm of such proportion... words fail me. Meanwhile, I regularly find WP editors who, untroubled, contribute sexist or racist slurs in the name of balance, pseudoscience in the name of NPOV, and plain crap in the name of "citable" over "true". Meanwhile, I frequently read that "Wikipedia is not a democracy"... as though that's a noble thing. It's despicable. Every human endeavour should be a democracy - or democracy should be strived for in every human endeavour. Giano has raised fundamental questions regarding the undemocratic nature of Wikipedia... actually, the facts hardly rise to the level of political theory, the discussion is overwhelmingly high-school in tone and content. For those who are offended by Giano's various hyperbolic comments, are you such lambs that you can be rounded up by his barking? More plainly, haven't you got better things to do? Pinkville (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If, say, WP:AfD were a democracy, nothing would ever happen. Wikipedia works on consensus, not votes, because voting can be overrun by mob rule, aka Tyranny of the majority. Consensus can be nearly as sticky, but the principle is that we agree to abide by a decision (whether that's policy, guideline or ArbCom). -- Kesh (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Equating democracy with mere voting is simplistic and reductionistic. In fact, real democracy - the full participation of every member of a community in the decision-making of the community - would operate by consensus, but not what we call "consensus" here on Wikipedia, which is, frankly, a mockery of the concept (and indistinguishable from voting anyway). Note that the Jimmy Wales quote cited at WP:NOT does not suggest the reduced equation: democracy=voting; Wales refers to the broad meaning of the term, saying: it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. We *are* a grand social experiment of course. I disagree with him, though. I think every human endeavour is an experiment in democracy whether some people like it or not - sadly, most are (at least partially) failed experiments. It's unfortunate that that quote should be misused to support the false assertions that consensus is not a feature of democracy and that democracy equals voting. And it's unfortunate that those false assertions are used to establish, support and maintain Wikipedia policy. Pinkville (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, but I'm afraid I can't agree. From our own article, "No universally accepted definition of 'democracy' exists," and "Majority rule is a major principle of democracy…"

That aside, I'm wondering what this really has to do with Giano at all? You might be better writing an essay than debating the purpose of Wikipedia on AIV. -- Kesh (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of my post was that - as with some other Wikipedia phenomena - too much time and effort has been devoted to discussions, sanctions, etc. on Giano. Pinkville (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)