Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive155

It's technically before the case has closed, however, in the event the remedy did pass, I don't think it will make a difference if we begin the discussion now or later. Although, I wonder if we will come to a consensus here.

Short blocks have obviously not been working in fixing the problem in the long term. Ban proposals seem to get the same negative responses from the same set of individuals on the public pages, while the more positive responses seem to be voiced in private (whether by email, or chat).

Civility is not an optional policy, nor are vested contributors exempt from following Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and norms. So...the question is simple: what ideas does the community have to deal with future outbreaks of such attacks? How should we proceed? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Geogre and William are both adults, they should be capable of understanding that a change is required in the way they interact. Both are clearly committed to the project of building a great encyclopaedia, so I doubt their differences are irreconcilable. Whatever, I don't see the need to discuss this in a vacuum: what current issue needs addressing? Guy (Help!) 09:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposed remedy 5.
    talk
    ) 09:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use the arbitration pages and spare the rest of us the farce. El_C 09:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think now I get it. El_C 10:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Make Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks policy. —Giggy 10:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a nice idea to an extent. But, although the page notes "People who make personal attacks do damage Wikipedia, and it is right that we do our best to prevent personal attacks from occurring here", it doesn't really help fix our issue in how to prevent them from occurring in the long term. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's the point - rather than try and prevent them, just ignore them. (And to rebut the inevitable response; read the third paragraph of the essay. I don't think most of the Giano civility drama comes as a result of egregious stuff.) —Giggy 10:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There are differing opinions on whether it's egregious. I think some of it is, with other bits not so much. In any case, I don't think it's unreasonable for any person to expect a standard of decorum; professional commentary and so on - when it isn't maintained, a lot of contributors are put off in some way or another. Creating a high quality free encyclopedia does not mean we become Wiki-Personal-Attacks-Central. I also don't think Giano is the only user who has made positive contributions to Wikipedia. I therefore don't see how ignoring them will be a net benefit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oh dear.
  talk
  ) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Stop Giano from contributing until he learns to be civil. I was for a stern warning originally, thinking that this has only started recently, but seeing as the proposed decision page highlights a chain of progressive stricter warnings dating back nearly two years... it's becoming a problem. While he does get a bit of lee-way for being a good article contributor, he's getting too much rope as it is. I'm frankly appalled at the admins who wish to give him more. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• What's wrong with using the standard procedure: if editors persistently engage in misconduct, ask uninvolved administrators to apply appropriate sanctions through
  WP:ANI?  Sandstein 
  13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, the standard procedure has been used several times - except, unlike usual circumstances where blocks escalate in duration, the same short blocks are applied (presumably because of being a vested contributor). That, and the fact the ArbCom remedy mandates it. Yet, the (mis)conduct still does not cease. That's why we're here - what can be done to fix it in the long term rather than the short term (in the event the community needs to deal with it yet again)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• If there is one thing I'm learning, it is pointless to initiate a drama based on something a single arbitrator says on a case proposed decision page. That is a level of support insufficient to be meaningful, and the drama never seems to have much effect on the rest of the committee's deliberation - which is a good thing.
  GRBerry
  14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• A little late in the day for that now GRBerry, you have all fallen into the Arb's trap tp create even more drama about me [9]. I just hope you are all ready for it.
  talk
  ) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just act like we would to any other user acting this way?

_{1 != 2}

14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we wait until the remedy actually passes? Right now there's just one arb supporting it, which doesn't mean much, especially in a case like this one. There's no point in starting an endless discussion that might turn out to be, er, pointless, anyhow.--Conti|✉ 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Waiting ehh? Okay I was thinking we could do something new and treat him like everyone else, but since waiting has such a long history of reducing immediate drama lets just keep doing that. It has worked to reduce drama for several months now, except when it has not. I do agree however that this is a moot discussion until the arbcom case is over because currently arbcom has passed a prohibition on blocking Giano, there really is not much for administrators to do about any of this.

_{1 != 2}

14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is to reduce drama, telling the community to deal with this really isn't the way to go. We have discussed this countless times before, and we couldn't find a consensus on what to do, and I dare say that this discussion won't end with a consensus either way, either. --Conti|✉ 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we don't find a consensus, then the remedy should not pass as it is ineffective and pointless (as you say). If we can find consensus, then there's no problems. So rather than sitting back with uncertainty until the case closes, we'll know for a fact (as opposed to imagine) if it's a tragic remedy or one that's worth considering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly would welcome a community consensus on this issue, but I don't see why one would form now. It hasn't worked in the past, which is why we had all these arbcom cases in the first place, right? So I don't think there'll be anything resembling a consensus this time, either. I'll be glad if I'm proven wrong, tho. --Conti|✉ 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I find the whole thing completely baffling. Giano is a prolific writer of good content for whom English is a second language (albeit his command of English is substantially better than that of many for whom it is supposedly their mother tongue). People persist in baiting Giano, and the result is never good. For some reason this appears to be blamed on Giano, as if Wikipedia is supposed to conform to some grade-school ideal of personal interaction. Wikipedia is not Usenet for sure, but the vast majority of supposed incivility I see from Giano is simply forthrightness, and many of the comments made to him are really quite remarkably rude. Teenagers would, in the real world, hardly be surprised if they received a trenchant response to a patronising comment directed at someone older and likely better educated than themselves. The plot appears to have been lost at some point - we should be educating people on how not to piss off people who do good work, as well as trying to help those who snap back, to resist the temptation. In any work situation this would be perfectly normal and hardly need saying; I guess the problem is that many of our less tactful contributors have little or no experience of the workplace. Giano has said nothing, as far as I can see, that would lead to disciplinary action in a workplace - at least not recently, if at all. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I know it's not RFC but who cares - I couldn't have said it better... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful with the generalizations - they may not apply as widely as you seem to believe. It may be down to a pure cultural difference in expectations, but many people view the comments in the opposite way you do - as hardly offensive comments generating quite remarkably rude responses. If my employees routinely called eachother ignorant and stupid, its quite likely that some disciplinary action would result.

^T

14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• A reasonable change to the civility policy might be limiting enforcement to those cases where incivility results in disruption - i.e. barring incivility with disruptive effect, rather than incivility by itself. Of course we'd get into long, philosophical debates about what consists of "disruptive effect." Clearly the remedy isn't having its intended effect, and clearly Giano represents a corner case where the civility policy as written can't be applied. Perhaps its because the policy doesn't truly reflect the will of the community - if we can't have a consensus on enforcing it, then it needs to be written into the policy that the enforcement bar needs to be higher than Giano-like conduct.
  ^T
  14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat of disruption

I'm sorry for pointing this out, and I'll no doubt get shot down hard for it, but this is a clear threat to disrupt the project - he's calling out for other editors to participate "in what is going to be Wikipedia's biggest punch up ever!" Then threats of bandishing around a few emails to finish it off - I don't like that, I don't like that one bit. Any other editor would be blocked for that, and I mean any. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has passed a prohibition on blocking Giano, you will need to appeal to an arbcom member, administrators cannot take action regardless of the appropriateness of the block.

_{1 != 2}

14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe he knows that. Wow, Giano taking advantage of his invincibility? Who'd have thought he'd do that? - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of Mario Bros, running through all the turtles with that cool music playing. Only problem is that it does not last long.

_{1 != 2}

14:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Until 1==2, let me be frank here. Some have accused Giano of a campaign. Even if his actions do amount to a campaign, things like IRC and ArbCom reform are broad targets. You, on the other hand, have made things increaasingly personal. Ever since (and maybe before, I haven't checked) Giano pissed you off with that comment, you have been commenting on him ceaselessly, with the above comment you have made being typical of your attitude. What does that tell us about you and your campaign? Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Er... if the "above comment" is about the Mario Bros one, I'm not sure what the deal is. The music in the game really doesn't last long... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really accurate, in fact downright unfair. You can see by my edit history that I have been perplexed as to why Giano is not blocked for his actions long before we ever conversed. The comment was rude and I was offended because I have been stalked in the past, but that has no bearing. The fact is that anyone who points out Giano's behavior is called bias. I think that if you do some real research you will see that I have only spoken to and about Giano regarding his behavior. I am not really upset with Giano, I am upset with the communities inability to deal with the situation, I think it stinks.

_{1 != 2}

15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that means what you think it means. I think Giano means that he's a victim of "what is going to be Wikipedia's biggest punch up ever". No? And then he will send some e-mails. What do you think he's threatening to do? Spam us all to death? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he's going to smear some of the committee in an email campaign - that's what it's implying - "to finish it off". I don't think you can honestly interpret the first part as Giano being the victim, he's trying to lead a vigilante mob. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wknight94, did you see the edit summary: "They want a fight - they got one"? The context is clear.

_{1 != 2}

14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but those of us who have been unfortunate enough to come across Giano have probably been subject to incivility and unecessarily heated discussion. Look at the state of his block log. In light of all this, why is he still being allowed to edit Wikipedia? Lradrama 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of Lradrama's statement: at some point don't people with chronic civility issues just need to be shown the door? –

talk

) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, Lradrama, it's because sometimes we have spines of wet spaghetti, and balls the size of raisins. I've always been baffled at how Giano can get away with so much. If someone adds a single penis picture to an article, they can be kicked to the curb without blinking an eye, but for someone that repeatedly showcases a severe disinterest in civility or positive collaborative contributions, we must bend over backwards and coddle them. Ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that basically sums up the answer. Have a guess why he hasn't been community banned.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason he hasn't been community banned is because most of the time he is civil, he collaborates, he talks nicely to people, he does good work. In fact, he spends more time doing that than engaging in drama (I wish I could say the same for some of the names I see popping up here). Giano does react poorly to baiting, but his incivility has long ago been blown up to be a problem larger than it is. I recognise some of the names here, and I can point to cases where they are in all likelihood harbouring an unsettled grudge against Giano. I'm not going to name names, as that would be unproductive, but I would urge everyone to examine their consciences and look at why they are reacting the way they are. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I have worked closely with the vast majority of the names in this discussion. You may have been refering to me, but I can confidently say that each of us engages in highly productive work on Wikipedia, and avoid drama at all costs (hence this debate). Most of us are administrators like yourself, and we got where we are through hard, hard work. Lradrama 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, do it: name names. Please, point to examples of why some of the people here harbor grudges. That would be far more productive than your subtle and blanket dismissal of people's attitudes. I've seen lots of statements about how people are biased, but none of those claims have been backed up with diffs or talk page archives or anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - 0 out of the 2 edits Carcharoth has made to this discussion have been productive so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it 0/3 then. About as productive as your edits here and here. Do you really think removing people's comments, or retracting and changing your comments, will help in a thread like this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreso than your edits so far, the latest which is no different to El_C's addition here. I don't expect Giano to understand the purpose of this thread (or anything else in relation to this matter), but several of us are keen on having the dispute (among many others) resolved in some way, with or (if you choose), without your/his participation, and currently, it has not helped in doing so. Stop casting aspersions, and instead, please focus on the matter at hand, if you wish to participate. NO ONE gives a toss about vague assertions - if you have issues, you should be well aware of

WP:DR. If you have personal concerns, use user talk pages and I'm sure you'll get a response when a user is ready to give you one. Please also do not reply to this message (unless it's on my talk page), as I will not respond further (at all) if you do. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk

) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! Let's see some evidence, instead of just calling people bias and dismissing them.

_{1 != 2}

16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup EVula put it well.

_{1 != 2}

15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You see, what none of you know, is that while you have all been putting the boot in to me, encouraged by the Arbcom adding me to the case, I have been quietly minding my own business, working on a page as an alternate account, with the full permission and knowledge of the Arbcom, only stopping when I became tired of outing myself (as a sock I'm not very good) you see no drama, no nothing. Then suddenly the strings are jerked and the jackals and hyenas enter the arena as prophesied here [10], Oh and Ryan, please do relax, calm down, you seem very jittery, you know how you re-act when you become over-exited, I can promise you any emails I post will have the full permission of their senders, unless of course they are one's I have sent to others. As for this being the biggest punch -up in Wikipedia's history, yes, it probably will be, that is not a threat, it is obvious to anyone who studies Wikipedia form and it's probably what the Arbcom want, then you can all say Giano is causing more drama. I suggest you look at those who started to promote this debate, rather than me. Now I will leave you all to bray and scream to your heart's are contented - I have a page to write.

talk

) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You know Giano, I've always seen you as a force for positive change. Always thought you were right more than wrong and a net gain for Wikipedia. I hoped to see you succeed in the effort you've put forth. But I think it's gotten to the point now that it's gone too far. I don't understand why you think you can talk to people like that...I guess it's fine for a while in a kind of IAR way but at some point we need to be clear about what's an acceptable way to speak to each other and what is not. I just think it's gone to far.

talk

) 17:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed probation on comments to Giano

Perhaps to stave off any problems the community should put comments to Giano on probation, so that any user or admin baiting him is subject to the same sanctions Giano may be subject to if he responds negatively. Poke a lion to get him to bite you, you get blocked as well. That would stop a lot of nonsense. Nothing else has worked, why not try it? If anyone baits any user they deserve no less, but in this case the benefit would be to stop troublemaking and drama.

Yes, and while we are at it nobody can revert his edits, or even have hurt feelings when he is nasty. If a policy gets in his way we should change it to allow for his actions. Surely there are other ways we could make his behavior cause less drama? How about no talking about him in the third person either?

_{1 != 2}

15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And when no one acts like an idiot and doesn't insult or bait Giano he vanishes into his user pages and spits out FAs. Would it be bad to rigorously enforce NPA in regards to comments made to and about him?

T

) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

FAs are not a currency that can be used to purchase exemption from civility. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone is a problem, why do we need to set up special rules just for them? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you shit on someone's head, it's understandable for them to get heated. I'm just saying we should apply the same standard to those passing their bowels. :)

T

) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, when you are not allowed to block them and those who are allowed to do not, you need to get creative. If he won't change and we can't block him we will just have to change everything else to make it work.

_{1 != 2}

15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments aren't helpful since you obviously have a problem with Giano. Maybe let others posit here, and less snark from ya would be helpful. You can step back now.

T

) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How about you provide some diffs showing that Giano's incivility is due to baiting?

_{1 != 2}

15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, surprise surprise, lots of people have a problem with Giano and his behavior. Maybe we should let those people posit, rather than telling anyone that doesn't like his disdainful behavior to stuff it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Enforce civility both ways for real, rather than half-assed towards Giano and eighth-assed at pokers? Might work ... WilyD 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's all I'm saying. If nothing else has worked, actually ENFORCE all civility standards evenly and see what happens.

T

) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else care to participate in mine & Xenocidic's query as to why he is still allowed to edit here? Why are we this lenient with such a disruptive editor? Why can we not learn, despite a block log the length of the River Severn? It's at the bottom of that sub-thread up there ^ Lradrama 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rootology, you seem to think I was being sarcastic. I am completely serious. If Giano will not change, and we cannot block him, and those who can block him do not, and disruption keeps occurring then we do need to take drastic steps to stop this disruption.

Wikipedia policy should be set by our best practices. Our current best practice for dealing with Giano is to hold him to a different set of rules, we have been doing that for months so lets just codify it. Lets make an alternate civility policy for him, restrict what criticisms can be made etc... otherwise this will just keep coming up. This is of course my third choice, my second choice being blocking him, and my first is him being civil. We cannot however keep this double standard hidden, if we are going to keep it lets make it official.

Dramatic, much? Beam 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Civility is overblown and abused in Wikipedia. Admins who have an issue with a user, rightful or not, abuse the civility policy to ban/block them. Passive incivility or borderline incivility shouldn't be a reason for a ban/block. I wish

Well, I definitely include you among those repeatedly baiting him. But I'm choosing not to take action.

GRBerry

15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuh-uh, that's a cop-out. The whole point of this sub-thread is that we hold both sides accountable. If you've got solid evidence of baiting, present it so that the baiting party can be held accountable. What you're doing is laying an insult at someone's feet and then acting like the bigger person for not doing anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you missed the part when I said diffs. I have seen lots of accusations, but no evidence. Come one, you just made a real nasty accusation show where I have baited Giano or remove your comment.

I didn't think it was necessary to post diffs because I believe almost everything you have said in this discussion constitutes baiting Giano. Anyone reading the conversation will have already seen your statements before they saw mine, because they were above them. If your really want me to go link 40% of your last 50 contributions, I'll go through the mechanical exercise of proving that you made the contributions in this thread signed with your username.

GRBerry

16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is the same as baiting? Really? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is what you call baiting then you need to take a second look. I support either he follow policy, we block him, or that we change policy to suit his presence. If that prevents him from following the civility policy then I can't take the blame for that. Sorry man, but that is a very weak evidence for such a nasty accusation. Please remove it or provide some real evidence.

You [11] know] well that Giano is sensitive to your comments about him. (If you really want us to dig up more evidence of this, it could be done.) Your seem unable to accept the criticism you have repeatedly received that your behavior here is a problem. Do you intend to change your behavior, or should I treat you as I would any other editor whose conduct is unacceptable?

GRBerry

16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A problem that arises when you try to push people into following policy is that those who ignore it see it as "harrasment" - even if they're totally in the wrong. POV pushers serve as proof for this. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• feh. 90% of this comes from the inability of folks to deal with the problems created through the use of IRC to hassle users and foster a culture of "us v. them". The committee has not delt with management of irc as they requested of themselves. Ban everyone who doesn't use irc, and the problem goes away (except then so do most of the users). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day...

At the end of the day, you can tell this will be one more of those situations where nothing changes, nothing gets sorted out, because no one can agree. There is a big divide of opinion here. Giano has plenty of supporters, as it is, many of whom are administrators like ourselves, and that means no action can really be taken. Which is really sad, and really depressing, because any one else would have been blocked indefinately a long while ago for behaviour like that, and it appears no resolution can ever be reached if we keep squabbling like this.

My view at the end of it all is this. Why must we change our policy to suit one, incivil, repeatedly blocked individual? Why? All the rest of us can cope, I think we'd be going out of our way to bend the rules for someone unable to work decently within our community. Surely we're not that tolerant of inhumane behaviour are we? Lradrama 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but reading that i seems you're just upset you're not getting your way, not that "the right thing" isn't getting done. Seems very selfish, honestly. Beam 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My own way? It wasn't even me who started the discussion. I'm just stating what myself and others think is right. But if this is going to cause yet another rift, then I'm not arguing it anymore. You try and improve Wikipedia, but more often than not, nothing is done. All that happens is people fall out. Lradrama 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of this discussion?

I am sorry but why are we having this discussion? It seems to me one overly divisive to have "just in case" ArbCom wipe their hands of the matter and refer it back to the community. I happen to think that would be a ridiculous step for it to take - ArbCom exists to solve conduct issues the community cannot, not vice versa. But can we not shelve this whole discussion until after we know what the ArbCom decision is? All this thread is doing is raising tempers and discontent. I think bringing this here now was a poor decision. WJBscribe (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No. If the community is unable to come to a decision now, we will not later. This is to make it clear, factually, whether we can come to a consensus eventually or not. It's futile and stupid to think it's even possible within a few hours, let alone a day - I was well aware that it would take a bit of time. I myself will archive this if the tempers and discontent remains. But it's too early, and once part of it has washed away, I think we can make a bit of progress; however little or great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano-bashing: vituperative rhetoric in order to harass perceived adversaries

I can't believe that this whole slugfest is posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard because one arbitrator has proposed "The question of what, if anything, should be done about Giano's continued public attacks is remanded to the community as a whole. The Committee asks the community to come to a consensus on how to proceed within a month of the closing of this case"? Ask yourself: how many individual propositions on the RFAR page generally get enough arbitrator votes to pass into the Final Decision? One in ten? Less? Much less, that's right. In the case I know best, RFAR/IRC, it was a lot less. And yet this vituperation, this character assassination, this blithe assumption that Giano makes public attacks, and Giano is in bad faith, is started on the noticeboard from a proposition signed by one single arb (Kirill Lokshin)? Started here, yet, before the case is closed, nor anywhere near being closed? Why this timing—could it possibly be because the proposition obviously is not going to pass? And if the Giano-haters were to wait for its close, there's maybe one chance in a hundred that they would get to have this kind of fun on the WP:AN? No, that can't be it, because I need to assume good faith—never mind that the amount of good faith people are here assuming from Giano wouldn't cover the nail of my pinky?
I suggest you apply another quote from Kirill, from the same Proposed Decision page, to what you're doing here, oh most noble Giano-bashers: "Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries."[12] OK? That's well put. ...rather than engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries. This thread is completely irrelevant on this board. And it's an utter disgrace. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

I think Bishonen makes sound points above. This is one of the more ill-advised discussions brought to a board where ill-advised discussions regularly abound. A proposal by a single Arb should not be enough to start something quite so introspectively self-destructive. If the point of this thread was just to prove to the Arbitration Committee that the community cannot resolve the matter I suspect it will succeed - though I would have thought the long history that has brought us to that point made it clear enough already. These flair ups reflect sadly on the ability of the community to manage itself when tough questions are asked. Until someone comes up with a solution, one likely to be acceptable both to Giano and those who find his conduct troubling at times, I am not sure what point there is in discussing this. If anyone is unable to sketch in advance an outline of how any discussion like this one will deteriorate, I would be astounded. WJBscribe (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary 1 & Part 2

As expected, the discussion has only gone so far. Sifting past all the incivility, irrelevant crap, and so on, we have the following suggestions so far. A suggestion that:

1. We should be able to Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks - but using that, it's applicable to WMC's initial block, but doesn't resolve the overall problem I think.
2. We should be able to treat problematic conduct in this case (should it occur in the future), no differently to problematic conduct by other users.
3. We should (in the future, if it occurs) treat users baiting Giano the same way as we treat his incivility in the same way we treat other users incivility.

I'll add any others to the list on request. Is there any disagreement with that summary of the suggestions relevant to the spirit of the thread? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. This is the summary as far as I can tell:

1. BBBBBBAAAAWWWWWWWWW GIANO BBBBBBAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW

There is no point to this as Scribe pointed out. Just drop it until there is a point, for the love of all WikiGods, drop it. Beam 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since the community has failed to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "Giano problem" (i.e. an approach that has broad consensus and avoids drama), the suggestion that Arbcom, "the final step in dispute resolution," would toss the issue back to the community is profoundly disfunctional. Until such a proposal is passed by a majority, it should not have been brought here for discussion. Thatcher 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I don't think there will be 1 Giano in the history of Wikipedia - if it happens again, at least we have some sort of place to follow up on rather than starting a bare discussion and going through the yearly cycle again. I'll be clear - I am not fond of this idea of ArbCom passing it back to the community. Nevertheless, why should it preclude our own discussion? Rather than imagining no consensus being formed at all, why not go through this properly instead of all of us raising our hands in the air and walking away, again and again? Let's focus on the issues and see where we can go - a little further at least, hopefully. Assuming the rifts and personal tiffs can be controlled or closed off whenever it starts getting out of hand, what's there to lose? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At the current time this is a waste, and can only lead to problems, imAWESOMEo. Beam 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on what 'problems' you're talking about? Or did you happen to miss the assumptions and the 3 genuine suggestions made amidst the discussion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OH ye of little good faith, I guess I care not to elaborate, as I do not care for your tone or assumptions. :) Beam 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too subtle earlier. But I, for one, find it revealing that Ncmvocalist, Kiril's favourd clerk-to-be, is so quick to consider his patron's single vote as the vote of the entire committee and is already on the remanded train. It all works to inspire little confidence in our future clerk. El_C 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider Kirill's vote to be the vote of the entire committee; indeed jpgordon explicitly opposed (and I agree with both the reason and the vote wholeheartedly). I've made it explicitly clear more than once here that this will either provide solid evidence of why the remedy should not pass, or if it is to pass, not to leave a 1 month limbo of what to do if it occurred again. Perhaps I was too subtle in not replying directly to your disruptive trolling the first time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also revealing how quickly Ncmvocalist's politeness facade cracks under the satire. Not a good sign. El_C 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Albeit for me to label his very first comment that started this entire thread as "trolling" — clearly, he has monopoly of the inflammatory. El_C 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This will be my last comment, as imo any further comment by anyone here isn't productive. I feel that Ncmv has an agenda to push and is masking it in "for the good of WP" bullshit. That's just me though. Beam 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• What a shameful disgusting and manipulated debate, in the history of Wikipedia, I think this is probably one of Wikipedia's most revealing and repulsive days. If this had happened to any other editor (Any) I would be defending them left, right and centre, no one deserves to be to be at the eye of such a contrived storm. Yet Not one Arb said, this debate is not what we intended or wanted, and that rather proves my point. You who have shouted here today, screeching for my blood, are nothing more than manipulated thugs. Well, I am better than you are, I am more moral, I am more just, and I am a better writer and contributor to this encyclopedia (remember it's an encyclopedia) and what's more, I am here, and I am here to stay. So get used to the idea!

  talk

  ) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The above was archived with this comment [13]. I think all who posted here are entitled to an explanation and an appology, or was the thread only for those who agreed with the thread's starter. Is this now what this noticeboard is now for?

Really, when it comes to this sort of thing, the only winning move is not to play. My thanks in advance to whichever party is able to be the bigger person and drop this first, regardless of how justifiable their grievances may be or seem. How about a nice game of chess? MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)