Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II

Giano

Giano's comment I think steps over the edge of WP:NPA. He's usually more clever about dancing on the edge of the policy, but perhaps he tripped and fell over the line. As for tags and so forth, all articles are subject to them, and none, whoever wrote them, is immune. However, a tag should carry with it an obligation to set forth the problem on talk page, and to stay engaged. I agree that standards for FA are tightening, and that even FAs from 2004 or 2006 that have not deteriorated may need improvement to meet standards. Editors such as Mattisse are doing good work in that area.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you refer to "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" ([1])? I agree that this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The user at issue, GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously editing as Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has a long history of blocks for such behavior and should know better by now. I have blocked him for a week; we should consider an indefinite block on the next occurrence.

Since my last block of Giano triggered a remarkable drama, I invite community review of this block here (I have also added the "Giano" header above for ease of editing).  Sandstein  10:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you're feuding. Using the tools to feud is a serious offense. Jehochman ^Talk 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How am I feuding? I am not aware of being in a feud or some sort of editing dispute with Giano. (Sorry for inadvertently removing this reply with a buggy script.)  Sandstein  10:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the devious thing about feuds. Sometimes the participants don't see them as feuds. The signs to me are that you're over-reacting to provocation, your response appears emotional rather than rational, and Giano does not view you as a neutral party. This one week block of Giano will cause much more harm than good. Calling somebody a fool is pretty mild. The action here turns a molehill into a mountain. Jehochman ^Talk 10:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. My (limited) previous interactions with Giano were in a purely administrative capacity; if Giano has not taken well to them, that is not my fault. I would have sanctioned any other user with a similar history of past disruption likewise, and I do not believe that the disruption at issue is mild. I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator.  Sandstein  10:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just above you said, "Since my last block of Giano triggered a remarkable drama," and then you asked for input at ANI (here) a page watched by >4000 editors. Lighting the fuse and tossing a drama bomb is what I'd call that. Jehochman ^Talk 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it asking for community review of a potentially controversial action, which is advised practice for admins as far as I know. So far, it is not I who is generating drama.  Sandstein  11:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sysop tools are not to be used for controversial actions. When is doubt, ask for feedback BEFORE, not AFTER, acting. Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This was a non-issue to begin with, and it had gone away. Sandstein, as you admit your last block caused drama, it would be a good idea not to do the same thing again. Please unblock before this escalates. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that severe violations of our conduct policies are non-issues, and Wehwalt's report indicates that it has not gone away. I am simply reacting to a disruption report on this page.  Sandstein  10:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread was closed. It should have been finished business. It's classic, classic to the point of farce, for a closed thread to suddenly change topic to Giano and for him to be blocked. Just undo your action and start ignoring Giano. It will be best for all concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 10:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe any sense of déja vu is because of Giano's apparent persistent inability to observe our conduct policies? My job as an administrator is to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not to ignore it.  Sandstein  10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked for input, Sandstein, you're being given it, and it's good advice. Please undo. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I will do so, of course, if community discussion here - for a reasonable amount of time, to allow admins from all time-zones to participate - does not support my action.  Sandstein  10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, this was an insanely bad block, so much so that I'm wondering if we shouldn't block you for disruption. As JHochman points out, the thread was closed, your block was fueding / punitive which is exactly the kind of behavior which led to Jimmy having to "voluntarily" give up his block privileges. Poor judgment. Yes, there are those who are missing the point, below, who are supporting this block. They are viewing the post Giano made only. They are missing that you didn't prevent a damn thing; you've been involved in dramafests due to your quickness to block Giano before, making this block wrong even if everyone completely agrees Giano should have been blocked - as you were most emphatically not the person to do it - and of course, blocking on a very stale event which was provoked by one of the rudest people I've ever had to deal with, who started this mess by making threats and started the thread by accusing me and SV of "admin abuse" even tho no admin actions at all have been taken against her. This is pathetic; I agree with you most of the time, so it makes me even sadder to see your judgment go so thoroughly down the drain. Just don't do anything regarding Giano, Sandstein - you're not neutral and you're not following policy and you're causing problems not solving them. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not the person to do it? I'm just an admin doing my job, and we're not usually allowing disruptive editors to choose the administrators that they are comfortable with to block them, yes? As mentioned above, I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator. Unless there is community consensus that I am insufficiently neutral in this regard, I intend to do my job with respect to Giano just as I will do it with respect to other editors, with no particular favor or disfavor.  Sandstein  11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I don't think you are to judge on this block, since you first removed an imaginary personal attack from Collectonian, but then saw fit to reinstate the blatant personal attack by Giano[2]. For you to threaten other people with blocks for disruption in this incident is laughable.Fram (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If anything, KillerChihuahua should be blocked for reinstatijng the attack, but that is something I'll leave to another admin.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. Giano gets away with too much too often. It won't stick, of course, because the usual cheering section for Giano's outrageous treatment of other editors is loud and cranky enough that they cause disruption until they get their way. And of course that just enables Giano the next time he decides to start hurling invective. → ROUX ₪ 10:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Wrong person. Sandstein blocked stale, blocked late, and this is not the first time. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have no issue with this block. Giano stepped over the line, again, and was correctly blocked for it. Turning this into an ad hominem about Sandstein's theoretical feud with him (an argument I don't personally agree with) doesn't change the fact that Giano is still being seriously uncivil and one of these days he needs to actually stop doing that. ~ mazca ^talk 11:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Wrong person. Sandstein blocked stale, blocked late, and this is not the first time. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Adding a clear-cut personal attack (nothing behind the "keep" was an answer to the FAR rationale, it was only directed at the nominator) with a history of personal attacks is way over the line, I endorse this block. I hate blocking constructive contributors, and have no problem with giving them more leeway in some regards, but that doesn't include answering with a WP:PA to a good-faithed remark (And I don't think I ever commented on one of those before, so I consider myself uninvolved). Amalthea 11:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm also completely uninvolved. I see the block as fair enough. However IMHO if the previous block caused a drama then perhaps it would have been better to just put a notice on AN/I expressing your assessment to the community and let someone else take the required action. Regards Manning (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Precisely, thank you for looking at the larger issue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Judging from my limited experience, any block of Giano will cause drama, mostly generated by people who appear to be his friends. Leaving the blocking to somebody else, therefore, would very likely have generated the very same drama and no appreciable benefit.  Sandstein  11:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with block though in the interest of full disclosure I've had a run in with Giano in an editing capacity. I like to think the name wouldn't have mattered, that I would feel the same for any editor. Either way, I've given you my view and my COI which is why I took no action myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Which was a good call on your part; Sandstein should perhaps take note. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you want uninvolved opinion so you can have mine. "You fool", whilst certainly falling under WP:NPA, would often merit a warning for many many users - not a block. In addiiton the duration between the comment and the block is less than optimal. One week as a block length seems to be total overkill. Mostly however - block first ask questions late (knowing that any Giano thread get's everyone up in arms) would not have been the way I'd have gone about it. In short, whilst the block is within policy(ish) I think it would be very advisable to now unblock. This seems a bit too much like punitive than preventative. Pedro :  Chat  11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. The attack (completely unprompted, as far as I can tell) is not limited to "You fool" alone, and as to the length, it's just an escalating block, taking into account all the previous blocks (of previous accounts) from which Giano appears not to want to learn.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Look, there's very little value in starting a thread "inviting community opinion" when you clearly aren't prepared to listen to it when given.Pedro :  Chat  13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am listening. I'm not required to agree with every opinion that is expressed.  Sandstein  13:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that you've decided to listen only to those opinions you agree with, making this a pretty pointless exercise. Your judgement in making this block was clearly flawed, but that's not what you want to hear, so there's no point in reiterating what others have said. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• While the blocking admin may say he is neutral all he wishes, I don't see that is the case, especially as it deals with Giano. Stale block, arbitrary time for usage of the word 'fool.' I'd unblock, but I used my one unblock and can only handle one straight-to-arbcom complaint at a time. Sandstein acts like a robot, reading a manual, and implies that he's the real victim because he has the burden of doing this job. Apparently policy is so clear about each and every administrative 'obligation' that it simply merits no discussion, ever. Law _{type! snype?} 12:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as the remark is an attempt at intimidation to prevent other such articles from being nominated at FAR. It attacks the nominator for a good faith nomination. It is also an attempt to disrupt FAR which in the past has been disrupted during nominations of articles by the same author. Because Giano has gotten away with similar and worse behavior in the past is not a reason for trying to stem it now. If Wikipedia wants to keep and retain editors, than this attack culture by regular editors must change. —mattisse (Talk) 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• For those only reading the discussion and not the reason for it, the full PA was "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" A bit worse than just "fool", IMO. Fram (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the full context should be taken into account and that this was on an FAR page. Please read "Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin" above which involved attacks on the same editor over the same article. This is a pattern of abuse that occurs at FAR when articles by a specific editor are nominated by any editor. Often the abuse starts on the article talk page, as an editor seeks a simcere discussion of the article. —mattisse (Talk) 12:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• A week, for God's sake, and for a stale remark?! Gar, somebody shoot me already. "Excessive" is the only word that applies here. But what should I expect from this stupid website run by rulemongers, anyway? As usual, we waste our time with Da Rules instead of an encyclopedia. Anyone looking to fork? I'd be really glad of a website that is actually about articles and such. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The complete quote is: "Keep; get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" This is an utterly obvious NPA vio and certainly not falling within the standards of civility that one would expect to find on-site. Combine this with the previous remedies that have attempted to dissuade the blocked user from engaging in this type of discourse on-site, and there are reasonable grounds for a block of some sort. I don't believe the calls to completely reverse the block as null and void are justified at all, even if some of the voices are becoming predictable at these discussions. That said, any calls to keep the block duration as it is would not be justified either. Looking at the most recent of his block-log entries, I see two 24hr blocks (one in May [3] and one in July [4]) which appear to have been OK'd. In such circumstances, to progress to a 1 week block in September is overkill.
• In summary, reasonable grounds for a block of some sort, but the duration of this particular block should be decreased (if not by the imposing administrator, someone completely uninvolved if possible) - the duration should be one that is more appropriate; definitely not longer than 72 hours from when the violation occurred. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree with such an extensive block. Jehochman is correct, as far as I can tell; the block was issued after-the-fact, and does not apparently do anything to prevent damage to the project. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Julian: If Giano were to get blocked for his nasty behaviour--and more importantly, if those blocks would stick and not get overturned by a very small and very dedicated group--one might hope that it would have some chance of ameliorating his behaviour. As it stands, he has a free pass to say just about anything he likes, because he knows that within 24 hours, maybe a little longer, enough of his crew will scream and shout loud enough to get the block removed. And then he gets to do it again. And again. And again and again and again. Giano's blocks need to stick--he will not stop otherwise. And they need to start following a pattern: next offence, one week. After that, one month. Then three, six, 12. Oh blah blah blah, blocks aren't punitive--we all know that's a lie. But in this case they would prevent the guaranteed future personal attacks from him. We know they'll come, so no use pretending otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I fully agree that something needs to be done to prevent further incivility from Giano, but as you said, the dozens of blocks thus far have done little, if anything, to help. Therefore, blocking for one week for what seems a relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things is not the most appropriate course of action, at least in my opinion. Moreover, blocking under fairly controversial circumstances will in all likelihood do little else than fuel the flames, so a provisional stern warning might have had the same, if not more, effect. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The dozens of blocks haven't done anything because they are always reduced or removed. If they start sticking, Giano will be forced to realise he will be taking long timeouts for his nonsense, and at that point he will have to calculate whether it's worth more to be able to attack people or edit freely. As it stands, he gets both--not an acceptable state of affairs. → ROUX ₪ 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I take no position on the justifiability of blocking Giano for his comment. However, Sandstein should certainly not have been the one to take action. Giano has been commenting about the Eastern Europe Mailing List ArbCom, where there have been numerous comments about Sandstein having been manipulated by the mailing list participants. Giano's disapproval for the alleged activites of mailing list participants is clear, as is Sandstein's sensitivity to claims he has been manipulated, so it would be understandable if Sandstein's objectivity is a little off at the moment. I don't know whether thier mutual connection the case fits within the letter of WP:INVOLVED, but it sure makes me think Sandstein's claim of neutrality look tarnished. Added to the action being late, on a stale issue, and pretty harsh (even as an escalating block), I think this action looks extremely unwise. Sandstein, I suggest you reverse the block before someone else does. If the recent WMC case shows anything, it shows that ArbCom and "involved" blocks during a case are dangerous territory for admins. EdChem (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am not responsible for any edits Giano might have made with respect to me. It would be ill-advised to discourage admins from blocking editors who might have previously attempted to offend them, because otherwise a disruptive editor would only need to attempt to offend enough people in order to claim immunity from being blocked by them. (Maybe that's what Giano's trying to do here?) As said above, I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator.The mailing list matter was and is far from my mind here.  Sandstein  13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a rather interesting issue; I did not touch on whether Sandstein should've been the one to take the action, or otherwise in my review above. I'm concerned that a lot of claims are being made, while not enough evidence is being presented here to actually substantiate a lot of it. EdChem (or anyone else who can help), could you please provide diffs to the comments Giano made that related to Sandstein? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sandstein, you have misunderstood my point - please allow me to clarify. I am not suggesting that either you or Giano has made an emotional "diff" about the other. Whether it turns out to be true or not, the claim has been made that you have been influenced by those on the mailing list. This is not to say you have acted improperly - it could be about mailing list participants allegedly provoking others into unwise actions, which you then sanctioned without knowing there was deliberate tag-team provocation in the background. It would be natural and understandable for your judgement to be a touch off with all this going on. Equally understandable would be a dseire for the mailing list issue to just go away, seeing as you feel you have not been influenced in any of your administrator actions - or even maybe feel some anger about being caught up in the whole mailing list issue. Then, along comes an incident where Giano, one of those making a lot of noise about the mailing list, has arguably violated WP:NPA. It's stale, the thread is settled, and you've had a controversy with Giano over a block before - but you still decide to block, and for a week. Can you really be 100% sure you were acting objectively and neutrally, with no influence from any of the background? Also, can you see why it might look from the outside like a less-than-wise decision? Maybe I'm totally wrong and am seeing something that isn't there... maybe I'm not. In any case, I remain of the view that you were and are the wrong person to act in this situation - but you are the right person to undo this block and end this controversy. EdChem (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, some relevant background material that you (and others) might wish to consider...

• The Eastern European Mailing List ArbCom case was first raised at AN/I in this thread, which first raised the possibility that Sandstein had been influenced by mailing list members' activities. "They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies", according to the initial post in the thread. It is relevant to note that the thread was itself a spin-off from another thread, titled Massive problem with admin User:Sandstein.
• It is also relevant to note Sandstein's reaction to the claims made: "I do not take kindly to any attempts to be used as an instrument in any plots, and may need to check whether any of my recent enforcement actions in this area require reconsideration (though I do not believe that I have been influenced by anybody, and have as far as I know not communicated offwiki with any involved parties". This shows Sandstein was concerned about the possibility that he may have been influenced.
• The "massive problem" was a ban imposed by Sandstein on Russavia. Giano's view was clearly expressed here when he wrote "Sandstein, your bulying and threatening is now becoming a problem. I strongly suggest you back off, before others take action against you. You are too involved with Russavia now for your judgement to be sound or trusted. Please let others deal with these matters. You are only an ordinary admin please stop crediting yourself with airs, graces and powers to which you are not entitled. Russavia, you need to clarify your meaning."
• Following the opening of the ArbCom case, Giano commented to Russavia that "There is already more than enough evidence doing the rounds for you to be unblocked unconditionally. I think it would be a pleasant and concillitory gesture if Sandstein were the one to lift any sanctions against you. He has been, in a way, as much a victim as you. I hope he is big enough to see that." Sandstein was notified of this comment by Giano here.
• Giano's view of the mailing list issue: "Thank you. I have definitively formed my opinion. Those concerned are in the mire up to their little necks. The only question following such organised and long term abuse, cabalism and manipulation of Admins and subsequently Arbcom cases is quite how one makes such an example of these people that no-one is ever attempted to be party such a thing ever agian. (Incidentally, for those wondering, Sandstein was not a member of this cabal, but one of those manipulated). My view is that the only option is making them all permanently banned users - The full extent of their actions will probably never ne known, but their proven Wiki-crimes and the damage they have caused, and the innocent reputations permanently tarnished, is too severe for anything less. I don't think any other view is possible or any excuse plausible."
• This background information is provided without comment, simply for others to consider as part of what led to my comments above. EdChem (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers EdChem; that's clarified a lot for me. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• If the block dissuades abuse of editors for nominating such articles at FAR, the the block will prevent future damage to the project. As to length, that I do not know as there seem to be widely varying standards on such matters. —mattisse (Talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Christ almighty, this again? I'd like to note without amusement that this block has spawned a number of battleground behaviors assumptions of bad faith and outright nastiness. I congratulate all of you, with the deepest of sarcasm, on managing to collectively and completely bury the lead, making it impossible for a user to actually understand what is going on here.--Tznkai (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying hard to feel outraged, at either the stupid comment or the dumb block or the inescapable march toward pointless drama that followed. But I find that I just don't care anymore. I used to be firmly in Giano's corner, and in general, I still feel a bit more of a kinship with those who are traditionally his Friends, than I do with those who traditionally his Enemies. But lately, he seems less interested in what's Right and what's Wrong, and more interested in who's a Friend and who's an Enemy. His Friends will likely deny that; his Enemies will likely claim he's been like that all along; but I'm comfortable in my opinion. He's finally succumbed to just playing Wikipedia The Game with the rest of his Friends and Enemies.

  I try not to care what happens to those playing The Game. The only effect is has on the rest of us is keeping ANI up at the top of our watchlists, making Wikipedia look ridiculous to others, and wasting our time when we're weak and momentarily succumb to caring about The Game ourselves.

  But since I am weak, and have succumbed myself, I just want to register my disappointment in pretty much everyone involved. Sandstein: It's possible to communicate with other humans without jumping to the block button. Giano: Content-free insults? Is that what you're reduced to? Worse, inelegantly pedestrian insults?. KC: Inexplicable restoration of an insult, from someone who a few weeks ago asked me to remove a much milder "unhelpful" comment. Please, please don't tell me that you define "helpful" and "unhelpful" as "agrees with KC" and "doesn't agree with KC".

  Luckily, I can solve the "Giano Problem" for myself by unwatchlisting ANI for a day or two, until this either dies down, or you all get a subpage and go play there instead. I recommend this method to whoever has the willpower to do it themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm in complete disbelief you even considered, let alone posted, such a foul accusation against me. Did you bother to read my edit summary in that post? No? I didn't think so. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to question anyone's efforts here (WP:AGF and all), but I am wondering what the "heat to light" ratio is going to be in the end. All for a FAR? Just seems to me to be another drama chapter in the Wikipedia MMORPG at the moment though. At least in my opinion. — Ched :  ?  14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen different editors comment that the issue was stale, too old, or something similar. While I understand that you shouldn't block for things that happened months or years ago, I fail to see why a block of a regular editor for conduct that happened less than 12 hours before, and which fits in a regular pattern, would be a bad thing or too late. The core of our blocking policy is "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." Giano has (as an editor) long-term civility problems, some of it excusable, some of it not. This is a current problem (as in, happening in the last 24 hours), and he should be strongly encouraged to change his behaviour. A week long block may send the message that many editors are fed up with this aspect of his contributions, and that all the good he does and has done is no excuse for such remarks. It also indicates that if he does continue like this, his next block may be a month, and so on. That the remark came half a day before the block seems highly irrelevant to me in this case. Fram (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More reruns? Seriously, lets try adjusting the plot a little bit the next time this episode airs. Chillum 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

? Could you explain your reply? It's unclear what you would want to adjust and in what way. Fram (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread has happened on this page several times before. I was not responding directly to you, but rather to this thread. Chillum 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take more care with your indentations, then. Indenting like that made it appear you were replying directly to Fram, as I am replying to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, asking for inline citations is enough to push some people over the edge of civility. This isn't as bad as the "nuclear meltdown" of another user last week in similar circumstances. By now Giano got the message that his remark was inappropriate. Perhaps the block length could be reduced to a standard 24h one? Pcap ping 16:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If Giano has gotten the message and credibly apologizes for his personal attack, I'll unblock him at once. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this has ever happened in any of the past incidents that caused him to be blocked. At any rate, we can't know until he reacts to the block.  Sandstein  16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Demanding apologies for an unblock is what stinks the worst about this block, Sandstein. Such demands should never be made. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC).

One need not call it an apology, but I do think that Giano needs to understand - and say so - that the manner in which he interacts with those he disagrees with (generally through insults, it seems) is disruptive and will stop. That's a rather basic thing, and normal practice, to expect from blocked disruptive users.  Sandstein  19:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sandstein is DEFINITELY involved with Giano and they have been in repeated disputes in the past. This block also stinks beacuse there was no discussion or effort to resolve the issues in a reasonable collegial fashion. We must expect better from our admins. You're not here to add fuel to the fire, but to help resolve disputes so the content work and article creation can be aided. Bad block. Sanctions against Sandstein may be needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• ChildofMidnight (and Law, above) may be a bit cross with me at the moment because of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight, so I guess his comments may need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm still interested to hear what all these disputes are that Giano and I are supposed to be involved in, though. I remember none. I did block Giano (once, I believe), which led to a dramatic discussion much like this one, and since then, Giano has made disparaging comments about me whenever he seems to come across me; I have been ignoring that. I do not think that this makes me too "involved" to act as an administrator here.  Sandstein  16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• You can use as much salt (and pepper too) as you like, but when you note "Giano has made disparaging comments about me whenever he seems to come across me," that suggests that letting one of the many admins that DOESN'T have that history deal with the issue would have been the way to go. Have you considered that if one of Giano's friends had suggested he refactor the comment we might have been able to avoid all this drama entirely? And indeed it is very similar to your recent policy violating 30 day block against me which included numerous false statements and misrepresentation of my editing history and block log, when a simple request not to edit an article would have sufficed. More courtesy and common sense would result in a lot less drama. I know you're editing in good faith and that I've said some nasty things, but civility is a two way street Sandstein and you have to treat your fellow editors with respect and consideration. Otherwise you're not likely to get much in return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I entirely agree with that last sentiment and invite any user to show me a diff where I have not displayed proper respect and consideration to Giano or anybody else. (As to your block, that's currently under arbitration, so let's not discuss that.) But as to your first point, no. We can't let users game the system by allowing them to choose who may block them and who may not. If we consider an administrator to be "involved" just because he has been repeatedly derided by the user at issue (as I have), without ever reacting to these comments (as I have), we're allowing just that - and we're encouraging more personal attacks, too.  Sandstein  18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Did you suggest to Giano that he refactor his comment? Or better yet, given your history with Giano, did you think to drop a note off to Bishonen and/or Lessheardvanu that it would be good if someone asked if he'd be willing remove or refactor the offending statement? Wouldn't this have been a way to resolve the the dispute with the least possible drama and without the need for any blocks? PREVENTATIVE!!! Your actions don't show respect or consideration for your fellow editors. You refuse to make reasonable attempts to resolve disputes in a collegial way. Just because you can justify a block or argue effectively that an infraction occured doesn't make your enforcing actions right. Look at all this disruption and drama your actions have caused. You expect Law to discuss fixing another of your egregious blocks (and it looked to me like he did, but that you blocked and ran without sticking around to respond to questions), but you refuse to engage in any discussion regarding your own decision making process before taking action. Try working through disputes without using your tools. Even in article building you've ignored polite requests to discuss content. I have found you to be exceptionally rude and uncivil. Try collaborating for a change and stop shooting first and asking questions later. You do a lot of great work, but your approach is NOT civil or respectful to your fellow editors. This not a police state, it's a community where we collaborate to build an encyclopedia and Giano is one of our most distinguished contributors. Maybe after this is all blown over you can reach out to him and thank him for all his good work. He edits in good faith just like you do. You are both human and prone to make a mistake now and again. It's not fair to expect everyone to be perfect like I am.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Giano has a long history of incivility, so no, taking such extra measures of communication is no longer a feasible or productive use of admin time. Try to keep your beef with admins over your ArbCom case from spilling into unrelated issues, eh? Tarc (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Hmm, but at some point, all the good will and good-natured nudges to try and play nice have to come to an end. Giano is a big guy, does he really need his friends to suggest not making personal attacks? I mean, look at the block log, for crying out loud, hasn't he realized that by himself? Amalthea 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Are you running out of good will Amalthea? How sad. :) People make mistakes. Giano is a very valuable editor who is passionate about his work. It seems practical to try and get mistakes fixed when they occur instead of circling them, highlighting them, sticking them in peoples faces, and creating massive dramas so we can argue endlessly over them. No one has suggested it's a good idea to call each other fools (even though there are many among us). :) We are human. We make errors all the time. The beauty of a wiki is that we can work together to help each other and we can fix all the mistakes that inevitably happen. This approach makes editing collegial and collaborative and combines our strengths. Playing gotcha and busting each other when we mess up just puts everyone on the defensive and encourages a gangland and battlefield mentality where editors feel compelled to team up in order to get some protection. Disputes are often long over, while the arguing over the "incivility" goes on. What good does that do? Give peace a chance. (In a noble display of following my own advice I'm going to lead by example and refrain from commenting to or about Tarc ). ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Out of patience, rather.
  I don't see this thread as an end in itself. And seriously, are you expecting that this is the last civility thread about Giano? Is the underlying problem really resolved? Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with being blunt with vandals, POV-pushers, and other disruptions, or calling out bullshit in general. A certain confrontational nature is also required to get things moving here, so I welcome that. I like reading Giano's essays, for example, I like seeing him call out organizational issues on Jimbo's talk page. It stops with personal attacks directed at other constructive editors though. I can even forgive that a lot of times. It can happen, as you say. But I want to see an effort to try and avoid that, and I don't see that from Giano, not in this case (I realize he has an "away" message on his talk page, but reinstating the personal attack at the FAR says a lot), and I'm not aware of anything following recent blocks or threads here. An effort to oblige with WP:5#Code of conduct, to keep a collaborative and constructive atmosphere. In the long run, I think that's worth more than one exceptional editor. Am I asking too much there? Am I too naïve? Amalthea 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• As a general point, civility policy is not a rule made in a vacuum. First, it is a positive claim that we want editors to act with a certain amount of decorum and cordial behavior, for the mutual benefit of all. Second, and more on point, incivility, especially personal attacks, are distracting. They end to quickly sidetrack conversation from the point at hand (ideally content) to fights either wikipolitical or personal. The aim should be to avoid these tangential and ultimately pointless discussions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would support a block of Sandstein. The idea that he is only an admin doing his job rings hollow considering his COI with Giano. He should have gone to another admin to do any blocking. Good luck. --70.188.131.232 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Roux; it was blatantly a personal attack, and Giano has had a long history of them. Why should he be exempted from WP:CIV? 70.188.131.232 – don't be absurd, we don't block admins except in cases of genuine and serious abuse. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe in "civility blocks" on pragmatic grounds; they don't make the blocked party any more civil, and they make everyone else less civil (cf. this entire thread). I'm reminded of Loeb's Second Law of Internal Medicine: "If what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it." So I disagree with this particular action of Sandstein's. But perhaps we could disagree with a specific action without impugning the character of the admin in question? As far as I've seen, Sandstein is an excellent admin who does good work in some of the project's most troublesome areas. This isn't Mortal Kombat; we can disagree without going for the fatality. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Blocking Giano does nothing useful. Ban him, or do nothing. Prodego ^talk 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • I concur. If blocks are a preventative measure and not punitive, and in Giano's case they don't have the desired effect of halting his behavior, maybe stronger medicine is needed. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there is the possibility that he reacts to this block with an unblock request apologizing for his behavior and sincerely pledging not to do it again. In the case that he does not, I agree that further blocks are unlikely to prevent him from causing further disruption, so a ban would be the logical consequence.  Sandstein  18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems a reasonable block to me, this editor has a history of making personal attacks and has been instructed by ArbCom to "avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat." Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd love to see comparisons of byte counts of "content that Giano has contributed" verus "meta-wonkery Giano has inspired". His content had better be really fucking good for the megabytes of non-content stuff about him people wade through. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano hasn't contributed to this discussion at all. So to blame him for our decision to talk about it seems outrageously unfair. And yes, he does fabulous article and essay work. You should check it out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An admin's reactions to Giano's actions is usually what starts these enormous threads. Giano is the cause of these threads, even if they're fuelled by editor reaction to admin action. (Where's the meatball wiki VestedContributors link when I need it?)NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable as well. When a user keeps repeating the same actions that he's been warned of in the past, we shouldn't be just nicely asking him not to do it for the 9th, 10th, 99th time. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with this block. I don't think we will achieve anything because of this block, instead this block will generate more drama. And Sandstein had disputes with Giano multiple times. AdjustShift (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but, what disputes have I had with Giano?  Sandstein  19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• During the recent Russavia case, Giano and you had disputes with each other. AdjustShift (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Giano criticized your administrative actions during the Russavia case. It may have been better if another admin would have decided what to do with Giano. This is at least how I feel; others, of course, can disagree with me. AdjustShift (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• That he criticized my actions does not constitute a dispute. It takes two for that. As far as I know, I never reacted in any way to any of his criticisms. Besides, as a moderately active admin, I am criticized every day by the many users I take administrative actions against and by their friends (and socks), and by people who just have a different opinion (such as many in this thread); if I were not allowed to block any of them ever again if they cause disruption, I'd soon be pretty useless as an admin.  Sandstein  20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• There are plenty of very good admins who almost never block anyone. Admins who cease editing articles and become self appointed policemen can easily start to get a bit carried away with the authority issues. As you say, there are many in this thread that disagree with you. Your statement that you would be useless as an adin if you couldn't block anyone reveals a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that Giano is unable to ever let go of a perceived slight, and will continually (and sometimes continuously) complain about any admin who takes any action with which he disagrees, even if that action had no connection with Giano's activities, and even if that person ignores Giano's carping. What happens when Giano runs out of admins to complain about? There are a few admins who will always back Giano (and about whom Giano will never complain), but the rest of us cannot be expected to not block him when he misbehaves because he's bitched about us in the past. Horologium (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• The block is acceptable on principle, as editors are expected to discuss content disputes respectfully and with an eye on the content dispute itself, and not with an intent to personally disparage the person they are talking about. "This article is still feature quality because of A, B and C" is acceptable. "Shut up and go away" is not acceptable. However, the duration is excessive for the offense. Thatcher 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, this is precisely what I suggested when I restored Giano's comment - my edit summary was "please discuss with G". I was trying to prevent precisely this kind of nonsense. Instead of anyone noticing my advice to discuss the issue, as DR and common civility indicates, Sandstein opines I should be blocked as well - further reinforcing that he is moving towards the "block everyone who doesn't act like I think they should" mentality - and Floquenbeam actually states, for which I am still in shock, the possibility that I "side with those who agree with me" - clearly Floquenbeam has spent damn little time on Sarah Palin articles, or any articles I've taken admin actions on the editors of. This is so insulting I am beside myself with disbelief. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thatcher, I do not object to you reducing the block to whatever you think consensus here deems appropriate (while noting that the block, as such, has merit). But I would advise against it, because the discussion about what length of block is appropriate for which offense makes only sense if one thinks of blocks as punitive. They are not; they are intended to prevent continued disruption, and as such they should (as I have also argued below) last exactly as long until the blocked user credibly states that the conduct for which he was blocked will not reoccur. Since that is not yet the case (as Giano's reaction shows), reducing the block duration would be detrimental to the block's purpose of preventing the reoccurrence of such disruption. (Also, of course, I believe that even in conventional terms the block length is adequate when Giano's long block log for similar disruption is considered.) That said, if the community expresses that it considers my blocks in general to be excessively long, I will of course bring my blocking practice into conformity with community consensus.  Sandstein  15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Based on that logic, I would suggest that you indef yourself and leave, because you have caused far more disruption over Giano's comment than he has. You are the only disruption right now, and you have threatened multiple people against our policies. That is two fold abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the "blocks are preventative" theory is that someone who is blocked frequently for the same offense is likely to learn not to repeat the offense. If Giano were blocked 48 hours every time he told someone to shut up and go away, instead of discussing the merits of the issue, and if these blocks were stable and non-controversial, he would soon learn to stop saying it. Naturally the same block policy would apply to other editors who do the same thing, although starting at a shorter duration. I don't think that the "prevention" theory requires giving people long blocks which are reduced when they apologize, and I'm not a fan of coerced apologies. Thatcher 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that coerced apologies get the project nowhere and User Sandstein seems to have a developing self stated history of this type of block and also gets upset if another admin unblocks without discussion with him. (upset to the point of opening an arbcom case) Blocking someone excessively and then saying you will reduce said block if they come and apologise and promise never ever to call anyone a fool again is a bit of a no win situation (for the wiki anyways) people feel more upset if they feel they have been excessively treated and are actually less likely to apologise. As for the excessive block on CoM, here is a diff of someone who is (I think) a clerk, pointing out to Sandstein that he was taking action that was not in his juristiction and requesting he stay away in future. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, part of the "blocks are preventative" theory is that blocks are used rarely and have actual meaning. WP:NPA - "The appropriate response to inflammatory statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy". It does not say "block at the drop of a hat". The use of blocks in such a situation in such a wide spread way makes the idea of blocks meaningless. It also makes the policy itself meaningless. You have a few options 1. ignoring it, 2. stating that it does not help the issue, or 3. dealing with the issue addressed. There is no option 4 that states "if you have a conflict of interest, make an outrageously long block to ensure maximum drama on ANI". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

No Personal Attacks means to not comment on the real life identity. Saying "you fool" is a characterization of actions - "you are acting foolishly" is what it means. He did not say "you are stupid", he didn't say "you dumb Welsh/Jew/Black/Russian/etc", he didn't say "fuck off, you dumb prick", etc. To say that this is an egregious violation of NPA (which NPA and CIVIL both say it must be -egregious- to warrant a block) would be a misinterpretation of NPA and CIVIL. I think such blocks as above, especially for one week, further undermine both NPA and CIVIL, set a bad tone, and show a misuse of blocks as a whole. "fool" might be unpleasant discourse, but to give it such a reaction is to add to it what clearly does not exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, excessive blocks undermine the project and create a disrupted editing enviroment. This seems to be a recent pattern of excessive wanton big ban hammering, I support a reductiion of Giano's week block Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that you try to make out that there was nothing personal in what he said is a worry, Ottava Rima, particularly when what he actually said "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Block time is about right, shorter blocks haven't helped and the general route is to lengthen them when dealing with problematic behaviour. And what "you fool" means is >you< are a fool and certainly is a personal attack. Again, this isn't a one-off occurance. It's a pattern, so saying the block is too long is to ignore the history here. RxS (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just indef him if he is not learning by the punishments. (this is of course a cryptic comment) Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reread what NPA states. Fool is a behavioral characteristic. Race is not. Sexuality is not. Intelligence is not. Your clear misunderstanding is problematic and is not within either the spirit or letter of NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, someone being foolish is a behavioral characteristic. Your wiki-lawyering aside, calling somone a fool is a personal attack just about anywhere you go. Generally when someone starts parsing the rulebook this closely they know they are on thin ice or just taking a postition. Either way, the block was good and the length is about right. RxS (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the term "wikilawyer" is incivil and your use of it only verifies that you don't understand appropriate conduct. I suggest you stop before you dig yourself into a whole that you wont be able to climb out again. Grammar and language is against your false understanding. Consensus is against your false understanding. Tradition is against your false understanding. Right now, it seems like you and a few others against Wikipedia. I think you should read WP:POINT before you continue trying to promote a clearly disruptive and inappropriate belief. Our policies are not for you to suddenly rewrite to add what clearly is not there in order to promote such abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I said you were wiki-lawering, not that you were a wikilawyer. Comment on edits and not the editor. That's the baseline here. You don't seem to get that. And it's not a new concept....it's been here awhile. The rest of your assertions are inaccurate enough to not need any comment. I will say that accusing someone of wp:point because you disagree with them is a little disingenuous. RxS (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility does not need to differentiate between personal or actions. Your misunderstanding of the two is telling. This is also telling. I think our lax standards at the time is possibly how you attained Adminship while having a destructive understanding of NPA that goes far beyond what it states. The fact that you would try to claim that someone who exposes you for adding things to NPA which clearly aren't there as a "wikilawyer" is rather disturbing and telling. I suggest you put yourself up for re-election if you honestly believe you are correct. The swift amount of opposes and your quick failure will be enough justice. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor. Second sentence. You can (although you probably shouldn't in most cases) call someone's edits foolish, you certainly cannot call someone a fool. So I see no evidence that I have a "destructive understanding of NPA". Anyway, I don't have time for this and am unimpressed with your argument by abuse style. Take your last word and we'll be done here. I don't see any consensus forming against the block in question. RxS (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and think that you aren't being purposefully disruptive when you blatantly try to claim a response about an action is not commenting on the action. However, that does not excuse you from having a very dangerous misunderstanding of such a thing. There is no legitimate way for you to hold such a view, and if you continue to hold it and if you dare to bother to force that view onto others via block, I am sure you will find yourself desysopped fast. You are not upholding our views in the letter or the spirit, and your understanding shows either a complete misunderstanding of both grammar and how things operate, or a purposeful misunderstanding to push something you have no right to push. Either way, there is a major problem and you need to stop immediately. And your claim that there is no consensus against the block is laughably absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

comment - huh? 'wikilawyering' is uncivil, but "you fool" is a "characterization of actions"? i'm missing something here.
personally, i think the snide faux-civil sarcasm and baiting that seem to be the rule for many regular editors here is much more of a problem than either of those two comments, but i digress ... untwirl(talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is not WP:NPA. Why would you think that one is the other? They clearly are on two different pages, so it would be hard to confuse the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

from the civility page: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." a personal attack is automatically uncivil. is it your contention that giano's remark was neither uncivil nor a personal attack? or are you just quibbling over the semantics? this section should probably be collapsed due to drama. untwirl(talk) 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl - Please read - Calling someone a "Wikilawyer" is -rude- not an attack. Personal attacks are attacks on someone's sex, race, gender, religious point of view, etc. They are attacks on things that have nothing to do with Wikipedia and -only- on things that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Any characterization of any behavior on Wikipedia is not a personal attack and can never be construed as one. That is very clear from the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you accidentally miss the part about someone's education, Ottava Rima? 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that gender? Sexuality? Ethnicity? Things you can't change and have nothing to do with Wikipedia? No. His post was directly about Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Making unwarranted comments about someone else's personal education or (social) life is not directly about Wikipedia, and it certainly does not comply with acceptable standards of decorum on-site - including the spirit of civility and NPA. What was actually said: "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" While it's easy to concentrate on the issue that's most obscure ("fool"), evading the issues with the rest of the comment (and indeed, the comment as a whole, in its context) does not make it any more appropriate or justifiable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the very belated block, but I do think something should be done in addition to a strong warning. This is not the first time Giano has made such comments at FAR, and we should not handle these incidents in the same way every time. I would not be averse to a temporary or even indefinite topic ban from FAR should he make another personal attack / uncivil warning in FARs or related discussions. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• I support a block for violation of WP:NPA, and a duration of 72 hours. I do not recall any particular personal interactions on my part with the blocked or blocking editors. Giano's comments were clearly a personal attack. Per the above thread, previous blocks have been for about 24 hours by the time they were lifted, so a 3 day block would be the appropriate degree of escalation. IEdison (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you reread NPA as it clearly states that they are not. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you take your own advice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"...you fool..." would be a violation of WP:NPA, as you're referring to a personal trait as in "you are a fool." "...your foolish edits..." could be a violation of WP:CIVIL, depending on circumstances, even though they refer to edits, not the editor. What's the issue? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fool" is an action trait. Is sexuality an action trait? No. Is race? No. Please. Do you not understand that there are descriptives that deal with physical attributes and descriptives that deal with action based ones? This is basic English linguistics. "Fool", "Troll", etc, are all acceptable. Otherwise, ArbCom would be blocked for determining that certain people are "disruptive users". The issue here are people who want to expand NPA to justify really horrible blocks. The community doesn't accept it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am on neither "side" when it comes to Giano. I write for a living, so please, I took enough English to know a noun from an adjective from an adverb. "You are an X" (shortened to "You X") is and always and will always be a descriptor of "you". Basic 3rd grade grammar. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that people cannot use nouns when describing someone. There is no difference between saying "you are foolish" and "you are a fool". NPA is clear - you don't bring in things that don't apply to actions on Wikipedia - race, gender, sexuality, etc. Those are -personal-. Your behavior on Wikipedia is not -personal-. It is -public-. You can act snide by claiming that the above is "basic 3rd grade grammar", but you clearly don't understand these aspects of the English language, so you look really, really bad with your snideness. You have been proven wrong and arrogant, which seems to happen a lot with those trying to push an interpretation of NPA that isn't even close to reality. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Proven wrong and arrogant"? Neither has happened based on the discussion throughout this topic, but thanks for your own WP:NPA's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Disruptive user" describes behavior. "Fool" is character assassination. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See, there you go misinterpreting NPA. Keep up that attitude and you'll never be an admin, which is probably best for the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If we go by emotional reactions, which I think is the way to judge insults--rather than language --calling someone a fool is like calling him an idiot, and would I think generally be perceived as such, and is not something one can necessarily help. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Contrast

I really wanted to stay out of this, in the hope that sense (or my understanding, which may be biased, of it) would prevail... However I will direct readers attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff, which has been closed as "no consensus". On the page User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff two contributors (ArbCom members also, but contributors also) are termed "foolish", another one "rubbish", and further on one or more are called "cowards". The page itself provides little more than a summisation of the degrees of personal shortcomings of members of the arbitration committee. The difference is, that the page is not going to be removed unless by the authors wishes, and the author is suffering no penalty for calling people foolish, rubbish, cowards, and being generally unpleasant toward several individuals. I would note that while I argued for the page to be deleted (and was one of the very few to note the relevant policies) I see no reason for WMC to be sanctioned. Under that basis I cannot see why Giano is being sanctioned - for conduct in one instance that is less virulent than WMC.
I know, I am a "Friend of Giano" - but I am a friend of fairhandedness even more so. I think Giano has been blocked for far to long for one comment and, in reference to the accusation that he has been blocked many times, I would note the extensive history of unblocks in his log as evidence that this is a matter in which the community is not in agreement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard - it seems less that people actually believe NPA means what they claim and more of that they don't care that they are violating WP:POINT by promoting such a belief. It seems we will be plagued by these individuals until we create a desysop process and remove them. People should be more vigorous to ensure such individuals are never given power, as they clearly don't have any respect for either the spirit or letter of our policies, which allows for such hypocrisy to exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems sense is in short supply these days, LHvU. Blocking someone for a week for calling someone a fool doesn't make much sense at all, but apparently sense doesn't come into the equation when Giano is the blockee. Tex (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, I agree that these sorts of comments should not exist in userspace or elsewhere, but yours is a sort of WP:WAX-y argument. If disruption does takes place on one page, that is not a reason to tolerate it on other pages or from other editors. (There may be good reasons, however, to allow somewhat more latitude for criticism of officials. You'll never hear me complain about the reams of abuse I get on a routine basis for taking administrative actions.)

I believe Giano's conduct at issue is more virulently disruptive, though, than that of William M. Connolley. (Whether one should call it a violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLE or whatever is pure wikilawyering.) Look at the context of the edit, [5]. One person opens a (on the face of it, entirely reasonable) featured article review, and out of the blue, with no provocation, comes Giano with a slur that has no relevance at all to the subject matter. It is difficult to conceive of a conduct that is more disruptive to the culture of calm, rational, collegial discussion that we all agree to uphold. As long as I am an administrator in this project, I will seek to prevent such disruption, whether by Giano or anyone else, by whatever means are necessary - warnings, blocks or other sanctions - whenever such conduct is brought to my attention (provided, of course, that there is no community consensus to the contrary).

In this case, I think that discussions about the length of the block are beside the point, because blocks are not punitive – I will lift a block of any length as soon as the blocked user credibly states that the conduct for which he was blocked will not reoccur.  Sandstein  14:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is the excessive length of your blocks that is more disputed than anything else. Here about your (claimed to be excessive) one week block of Giano and also your one month block of CoM that was/should have been a week (according to arbcom restrictions) and on this page yesterday were you called for a indefinite block on another user here when another admin then gave a week. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you undermine any sympathy that you may receive that your block interpretation was simply a mistake by trying to dodge the issue by putting forth an -AfD- rationale. AfD and blocks go off very different arguments. Articles are not equal, but individuals' behavior should be. As such, to have different standards would be very problematic. Furthermore, as Lessheard points out, this flawed interpretation of NPA only exists as a way to punish certain individuals that are not liked. This only verifies the problem with administrators abusive our policy to make such vicious blocks. Now, your block was clearly punitive and was not the first time you've made such blocks. It seems that instead of trying to rationalize and pretend nothing happen, you should be apologizing to this community. Otherwise, it would seem that you cannot be trusted to keep the tools. You can start by apologizing to LessHeard about your use of an attack against AfD rationales as if it mattered here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And adding to that, on a personal note, Sandstein stated above that I should be blocked for advising discussion rather than more aggressive responses. This is beyond foolish - which I sincerely hope no one is actually block-happy enough to block me for, but I'm not going to be badgered or bullied into silence about my views on what constitutes foolish behaviors. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not object to you advising discussion, or even advocating your views. I have argued that you should be blocked for editwarring to restore a personal attack, and in fact I intend to block you should you do this again. Neither vested contributors nor administrators are exempt from our conduct policies.  Sandstein  15:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You should know better than to promote the removal of a consensus based point. You could ask for it to be struck, but to remove another person's comments when they have been involved with such FARs for a long time is unacceptable. You should know better. You probably do know better, which is why your threat is inexcusable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, KillerChihuahua did the exact same thing[6]. Why does he remove a (perceived but non existant) personal attack from an opponent, but restores a true personal attack from a friend against that opponent? That is true hypocrisy, and not becoming of an admin. See also his comment below: "You are not considering that removing another person's comments is often considered a blockable offense; ": coming from someone who did exactly that in the same discussion, it is beyond the pale. Fram (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned that myself, to contrast how I handled it vs. how Sandstein handled it: he edit Sandstein linked has the edit summary of "please discuss this with G." This is advising discussion, rather than removing another's comment. It is, as Ottava Rima had pointed out, restoring a comment which was arguably improperly removed. On that same page, I had removed a comment I thought was a personal attack; another editor disagreed and restored it. Sandstein did not block them. Nor did I, nor do I think a block would have been appropriate. His personal view is that the content in Giano's post is a personal attack. He is entitled to his option. He is not entitled to go running roughshod over everyone enforcing his personal opinion about what is and is not rude. So I suggested discussion on the post he thought was inappropriate, he blocked and suggested I be blocked when I restored the post; but I did not demur at all when the post I objected to was restored, but posted a comment regarding it. I have not been hypocritical at all; indeed, I've done precisely as I advised. Sandstein, however, never offered to block the editor who replaced the post I objected to, as his double standard is intact. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

re Sandstein: the edit you linked has the edit summary of "please discuss this with G.)" This is advising discussion, rather than removing another's comment. It is, as OR points out, restoring a comment which was arguably improperly removed. I removed a comment I thought was a personal attack; another editor disagreed and restored it. You did not block them. Nor did I, nor do I think a block would have been appropriate. Your personal view is that the content in Giano's post is a personal attack. You are entitled to your option. You are not entitled to go running roughshod over everyone enforcing your personal opinion about what is and is not rude. Blocking for personal attacks is clear: the attack must be "egregious" - like "You are a fucking whore and you shit out of your mouth every time you talk. If you try to edit this page again I will find you and fuck you over!". That is probably a comment people would not strongly object to blocking for. You are not considering that removing another person's comments is often considered a blockable offense; I did not block the person who removed the content,but advised they discuss it with him. so we have two comments which some find NPA violations and some do not. I submit to you that I dont' consider the person who restored the personal attack against me to have been edit warring, as there is room for disagreement on what constitutes a personal attack; that I blocked no one and threatened to block no one; and that you've done precisely the opposite. If you really want to see some drame, start blocking admins who restore comments and advise discussion - which is what you are threatening to do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, Sandstein has proven himself as disruptive. The Point violation of abusing blocking against the rules is egregious. His then labeling others as wikilawyering for arguing against it is dangerous. If anyone wants to claim that Sandstein is actually a decent admin, then I would suggest a block on Sandstein based on his account being compromised, because his actions as of late are 100% opposite and highly disruptive. KC - I would recommend you filing an RFC/U against Sandstein for the above comments, as they are not such things any admin should say, especially when that admin is making blocks that are completely unacceptable by our standards. There was a saying that Wikianarchists should be chased out for the sake of Wikipedia. As such, why is Sandstein still here? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I really wanted to stay out of this but you didn't. If I were to show up on an arbs talk page and call them a fool I'd expect to be blocked. As part of an analysis of an arbcomm case discretely hidden is another matter. Sandsteins block was good William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion; administrator review forthcoming

I can not currently ascertain a clear consensus about my block at issue, with many supporting it, many opposing it and many supporting it in principle but opposing its length. But probably I am too involved in this discussion to evaluate it clearly. In view of this, I do not object to any previously uninvolved administrator reducing the block to whatever length they think consensus here (if any consensus is to be found) deems appropriate, including time served.

On another note, I am concerned that many here, including editors that I respect, have expressed the view that they find my approach to others in general to be too harsh, authoritative, or otherwise objectionable. If that is so, I am interested to learn how I could bring my admin practice more into line with community expectations. To that end, I will open a Wikipedia:Administrator review thread about me and advertise it here.  Sandstein  15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll be the neutral admin: there's definitely no consensus here, but the block is problematic enough to reduce to "time served" IMO. I think it's very wise on your part to open the review, since having just read through this long thread, it occurs to me that there wasn't a lot of actual communication going on. Hopefully you'll get clearer input while not "under fire". --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your evaluation. All are now invited to provide advice at Wikipedia:Administrator review/Sandstein.  Sandstein  16:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, I'm not gonna read the whole situation, but wowsers - from an editor being blocked for civilty breaching to the blocking Administrator being reviewed? Phew!. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia

It's like Groundhog Day. You go away for a couple of months and come back to find that one of our best and most articulate content writers has been blocked yet again for being tetchy with someone who is nitpicking over trivial technicalities on an article that is immensely better that the FAs we get on comic book characters and other fancruft. I was wondering if Wikipedians might one day begin to realise that the US is not the world, but clearly not. I have news for you, people: Giano's comments would not even earn him a mild rebuke if uttered in a business meeting in Europe. I know a lot of people here are American, and it takes a while for those of us who are not to realise that the American use of language is different from UK, European, Australian and so on. Any Aussies here think Giano was blockably uncivil? Over here in Europe (that's the block of land the other side of the big blue bit on your maps, if you have a map that covers more than the USA), we think the US value system is odd. We think it's weird that you have apoplexy over a breast appearing on TV whereas you let people buy assault weapons. You think it's astounding that we allow women to appear half naked on beaches and that we don't allow people to carry a gun in the streets. These are good differences, they make the world interesting. But I'm deeply disappointed that Sandstein, who I always think of as having Clue, blocked Giano for failing to live up to American kindergarten standards of civility, especially when directed at what appears to be needless beureaucratic nitpicking on a very good, well sourced and readable article.

There, I've let off steam now, I will go and sing some Mendelssohn. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ToxicPersonalities and VestedContributors defending each other? Whatever next. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm European, and I consider his remark a clear and unacceptable personal attack. I also don't consider an almost complete lack of inline citations "nitpicking over technical trivialities". The current approach the article has is "we make tons of statements, and if you want to verify one of them, here is a bunch of books, it's somewhere in there, probably". Compared to many other FA's and even GA's, that's a very poor approach. You are free to defend an editor who deliberately insults one of our featured content writers in an attempt to bait an admin[7], but don't act as if us Europeans wouldn't blink an eye and would consider this behaviour acceptable. Fram (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The European sensibilites generalisation is of course a load of nonsense. Giano does that too oddly. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I do don't I, odd that, perhpaps Guy and I should be checkusered, I have long thought he may be my sock. If you are European, and think that offensive then you must have had a very protected upbringing. Giano (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Incivility by WMC

This shows that WMC is editing other people's comments, which is not acceptable. In doing so, he puts in an in-civil edit summary. This was a response to WMC saying that his attacks on others was acceptable because he hid them, which is rather hypocritical. His attacks in response are only further evidence that there is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI isn't for idle chit-chat or shit-stirring. OR should know better William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets see, you remove my edit which is directly forbidden and then use an incivil edit summary, and you say I am "shit-stirring"? This is very telling about your character. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing (not editing) other peoples edits is not forbidden. Your comment was an utter waste of time, as is this discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just suggest everyone moving on. If the attaqcks continue or progress yes bring it here. All it seems to be doing now is stirring up bad feelings. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:TPO "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC is correct though. He can remove any comment of yours off his userpage at any time for any reason. He can't rearrange the comments to misrepresent the stories.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the link. This was at ANI that he removed a comment. There is no right to remove other people's comments at ANI because you think they add nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok I just read the diff didn't realize it was an ANI comment. Do you think you could tone down your rhetoric though? This is a minor borderline comment, that could be considered to be an attack. As I say though it is extremely minor on the attack spectrum. Hell In A Bucket (talk)

WMC should not have promoted such a thing in any situation. His response to my pointing that out was completely inappropriate, which verifies that his whole purpose here was inappropriate. And Hell in a Bucket, there is no way to consider my comment as an attack in any kind. So please, don't pretend as if it was. If you really want to become an admin, I would focus on differentiating between attacks and normal responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you quoting TPO? This is ANI. Not that it matters: irrelevance can be deleted from talk pages too William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments at noticeboards follow talk page guidelines. Hence, you have signatures behind them. You were an admin, you should know this. And irrelevance cannot be deleted because you say so. There is no consensus for such a thing. Don't just make up rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My being here doesn't have anything to do with me wanting to be an Admin. It will be a cold day in hell whenever that happens, bur it's a nice goal to have. As with everyone you are free to take from my postings what you can. If you choose not to that's your deal. I was just suggesting letting things lie because your complaint is trivialHell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You may think it is trivial, but most people here know that WMC and Giano had a long past, and that WMC's actions here were iffy at best. He continued to practice outright incivility and disruption via removing other people's comments. He attacked me and claimed that all I do is stir up problems. When proven that I have done far more article work than he has, he removes it as bragging. This is a disruptive pattern and WMC should really stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary was uncivil. Not really actionable other than to say, please don't be uncivil in your edit summaries okay? Chillum 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is getting nowhere. No admin intervention is warranted or required. WMC whould not have removed Ottava's comments at ANI. Ottava needs to drop the WP:STICK. Can we just archive this and forget about it, or at worst could you guys take it somewehere else? Pedro :  Chat  15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's his talkpage, who cares? You have your userpage to trumpet the pages you edit and such. I do know WMC has a long history with Giano. That;'s why they took his mop no? So far he's been a target for a lot of people trying to even scores (not saying you are). Let it go. Unless you have something more substantial to warrant an indef block or userpage desecration, just be the bigger man. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've undone Pedro's close. He is blatantly partial in this [8] and I disagree with his assertion re removing comments. [9] is fun if you're OR and insist comments should not be edited William M. Connolley (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have long standing permission from Malleus to redact his comments that have crossed the line. I have never given you such permission. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you two insist on keeping this up a short block would be appropriate for both to stop the thread and pour encourager les autres. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is not the place for interpersonal bickering.--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've undo Pedro's blatantly partial close again. If either of *you* want to close it - thats fine by me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• For Goodness sake can someone else archive this to keep Connolley happy. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely, I will regret asking this, but what is the nature the purported bias?--Tznkai (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Criminy, I'll archive the thing myself. I could be accused of having an opposite bias to Pedro so with luck this will balance out, though the possibility of a brilliant fireball from the collision of opposing views is acknowledged. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Postscript

For the benefit of those who maybe didn't know already, and those who might be passing this way in months or years time, relevant comments like this one from Giano tend to have a habit of getting lost in the mists of time if you don't record them for posterity. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it's important that the post is very obvious, I should have posted somewhere more prominent, but I never have to worry about such things, my edits are always desperatly sought by a certain section of the community. Giano (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Power struggles can be messy. Blocking administrator -vs- blocked editor, is tricky stuff. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Another postscript

Note that my post at the top of the page was actually part of a thread in another topic in which the question of Giano's post had been already brought up. I've had my run ins with Giano but I felt we had come to a truce with mutual respect. My purpose was to comment on others' posts, not to seek action against him.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Of course you did, I'm sure no one thinks otherwise. It's always disconcerting when things don't go to plan isn't it? You have my sympathy. Giano (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(responding to Wehwalt) Nobody can predict the future with 100% accuracy. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I feel the time has come to say this (I supsect that some who don't normally agree with me, may break a life-time's rule and do so), you may not have noticed that I generally ignore you, but has it occurred to you that you could just possibly be banal and downright irritating? Ponder on it because you irritate me, and it's unlikely I am alone in that thought. Just something for you to ponder on. Giano (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're at liberty to ignore me here (I'm sure I'll get over it) & at your userpage. However, I shall give you peace of mind & no longer post there (at your usepage). If I should forget & post there in future, you may delete my postings. PS: There are those who find you irritating aswell (I'm not among them). As for here? simply don't respond to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

PPS: I do apologies for past irritations (sincerly), as -admittedly- my sometimes semi-seriousness & predictability can be counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• LOL ... I'm sorry folks, but I have to laugh here. Ya all got pawned. I haven't been here all that long, but I've seen enough to understand that some folks have their ways. Giano plays the whole site... he's a brilliant writer who laughs at the kids who get all bent up in "OMG blocks" and drama. Yea, some of the stuff is kinda rude .. G... stop that chit! Not that I expect you to actually listen, but geesh dude, ...meh .. I'd be wasting my time trying to convince anyone of anything. Giano, will you please quit doing that shit? — Ched :  ?  02:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe Giano is no longer blocked (since yesterday). I've tried (in the past) to coach him on his short temper, I may not have been successful. But, atleast I tried. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy amendment proposal

I'd like to propose an ammendment to several policies. At the very least, it should be made clear in WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:AGF that Giano is exempted from following those. And perhaps we should do the same for WP:BLOCK in general. Let's face it: that's how the system works, so why create more pointless threads about the situation? Fix the policy, end the dramu, move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad policy.--Tznkai (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)