User:Giano/CS episode

Putting this here, copypasted from ANI because i know I will never be able to find it again.

Unusual hobbies and civility
One thing that amazes me about Wikipedia's admins approach to civility is that when confronted with true abuse and incivility from those who one must assume have limited vocabulary the civility police are strangly silent and reticent - or is it that when they are singing on behalf of Slim Virgin they are allowed to use the language of the gutter? Obviously those Admins so beloved of civility have varying standards when blocking will give them less kudos and publicity than blocking certaon others. Giano (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own comments weren't too nice, you know. Such words as "mob" and "maliciously" really do not improve the civility of Wikipedia.  And when you got bitten you ran over to AN/I.  Really, that's trollish behavior.  Cut it out, please, it isn't resolving anything or helping anything.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all, were I to use such language, I would rightfully be blocked. Such a word is not in my vocabulary or that of many other educated people. were I to use it Sandstein, Connolly and God knows who else would be racing and falling over each other to block. A comment such as yours displays a monumantal ignorance of what is actually going on here, with one law for one and another for another. Get real! I see you an Admin too, Wehwalt - what a poor one you must be.Giano (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback! I guess you saw the mop on my user page next to the dozen or so FA stars and GA crosses.  However, I don't let myself be drawn in that manner.  I will leave a comment in the thread asking both you and the other editor against provocative and strong language.  Administrators are not here to mete out justice, but to keep the peace so we all can build an encyclopedia.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fuck off Cocksucker! "That is obviously completely OK to say - is it, so I shall not hesitate to say it when confronted with things I do not care for. If you read my post there, you will see it is succinct and accurate, if you post anything to the effect that is it is inflamattory you will have such a fight on your hands here you won't know what has hit you. Giano (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate on the latter count. As I don't qualify on the first count, I will assume it is for dramatic effect and measure your maturity level accordingly.  All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and that is whay I think of your post Now I am quite happy to be blocked for objecting to being called a "cock sucker" and highlight the doubkle standards you Admins employ here. Giano (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not blocking either of you, but I don't distinguish between the "seven dirty words" and language otherwise phrased to get the same reaction. You've both been given friendly advice to cut it out and the thread over there has died.  I suggest we mark this resolved and move on to building an encyclopedia, which is supposedly what we're here for!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And ... stop. IMHO Giano is actually right here - whilst his posting on the thread was perhaps a little intemperate it wasn't aimed at any user in particular.  Doc Tropic's posting, however, was - and was out of line.  It ias absolutely correct that there are admins who would've blocked Giano in a heartbeat for posting something similar, and that smacks of double standards to me.  If I'd seen it at the time I'd have probably issued a short block for Doc (or anyone else for that matter), but I'm not going to do it 8 hours after the event - instead I'm going to drop a stern warning on his talkpage.  But Giano - this doesn't help either. Black Kite 10:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not stoppng until he is blocked! Admins stared and ignored that post for hours - do you see me saying cockfucker! Just imaging Sandsttein, Herbert and their friends if I did - you would be racing to block and a thread half a mile long of others wanting the block extended. Giano (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is that, Giano?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * your reply above is exactly what I have come to expect from Admins on this page. Giano (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Giano has a point that any incivility from him is usually met with a block, whereas this one wasn't. So this looks like double standards from his point of view, though I suggest it was more likely that no-one actually noticed it at the time, and probably wouldn't unless someone had reposted it here.  I have locked the ADCP thread for a short while however in an attempt to stop G getting himself blocked as a WP:POINT exercise. Black Kite 10:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rather be blocked that sit and look at the gross hypocrisy displayed by Wikipedia's admins on this page! at least, my actions would be honest! Giano (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's honest, and then there's futile, however. You can call me - or anyone else - hypocritical but there's no way I'd block Doc, you, or anyone else for a comment made 9 hours ago unless it was part of a repeating pattern. Black Kite 10:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And to call me hypocritical and make it stick would require you to show that I had treated you or other involved editors differently on another occasion. Good luck on that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted me and replace Wehwalt's ill conceived warning - well if you read my paost you will see it requires no warning. In fact I suspect we have a little partisan here. You will either gave to block me over this hypocrisy or keep that page protected for a very long time. As for you Wehwalt, we only have to look at your initial response here. Giano (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing further to do here. Again suggest we mark this resolved.  Thanks for your help, BK.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope it is far from resolved - if you think cock sucker is an acceptable term to be permitted, then you are quite wrong. Giano (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed Doc Tropic's personal attack and the sub-thread that led from it. Hopefully this will resolve the issue.  Now I'm going to do something more productive and go down the pub go to take some more photos to help get Brandon Marsh to GA. Black Kite 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it is pity I have to battle so hard to acheive what is quite reasonable. Now all that remains is to know the real reason why no admin was prepared to block an editor who refers to another editor as a cock sucker . Perhaps Sandstein, Connoly or Herbert or one of the numerous others would like to start the ball rolling. Giano (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see from the diff, he said as soon as he learned how to spell "cosk sucker", he was going to give you a piece of his mind. That is rather different from what you said.  Frankly, I'd consider referring to others' motives as malicious to be as bad or worse.  I know which would result in a bigger payday in a libel suit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you have finally read it. I think that you have displayed your ignorance quite enough for one day. Giano (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, seeing as you obvioulsy want to continue this, what is unacceptable as you say here . Think before you answer this timeplease, you may find I have right on my side. Giano (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling other editor's actions or attitudes "malicious" is horribly destructive of WP:AGF and inconsistent with the collegial atmosphere that we hope WP should have. And really, that is all I have to say about it.  Please feel free to respond at your leisure, I don't think there's more to be done here unless you hope that the admins you named will weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is a site that deals with facts it must therefore be incumbent on us to ascertain that you don't actually suck cocks before the statement can be construed as an insult. Should it be the case that you do indeed suck cocks then it is merely a statement of fact. -- Web H amster  11:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I confirm have never sucked anything more than a a peppermint. My own personal civility policy only has three fairly easy to keep and simple rules that post breaks three of them. In my book it was very uncivil and the usuak admins ignoring it was suspicious in the extreme. Giano (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're going to need diffs on that peppermint!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And Peppermint's surname is? Just for the files of course ;) -- Web H amster  12:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't say that I'm a fan of retroactive blocks, but obviously this comment should have caught attention sooner. Seems like it's been blanked, by now, and rightfully so. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Block resulting from the above

 * I have given a 24 hour deterrence block, retroactive to the time the comment was made.  There is no excuse for making derogatory and sexual remarks at another user. Jehochman Talk 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jehochman, obviously the usual members of the civility police are taking a day off. Giano (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A good block, in my view. Endorse. Note, however, that I've unblocked Doc ... I think he gets the point and is not likely to repeat the error or cause further disruption. He has a block on his block log forever more to remind him not to, as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor-in-question (Doc Tropic) has certainly breached CIVIL & therefore should have served out his block. Indeed, Giano has been blocked (and had them reverted) numerious times for 'colorful language'. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered about him being unblocked, so long after the event because today, we have seen the end of any pretence that Wikipedia's admins may have of being genuinely concerned about civility. The civility block is just a weapon to be used at random and for personal gain and whim. I'm glad Jehochman and Lar arrived belatedly on the scene, but as for the usuals! well contempt is to put it mildly, but at least we now know their true colours. If it had been me they would have been conflicting each other in their obscene salivatory need to have the block extended - what jokes they are, and we all know who they are - don't we? Giano (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only surprised that you seem to be surprised. The double standards that you're drawing attention to have surely been evident for some time? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you how surprised I am, I even checked to see who of the well known ones were editing during all of this, and 66% of them were. Obviously "Doc" was singing the right song - "cocksucker" indeed, I can think of few words more offensive to anyone. Giano (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I endorse the block, even coming late. But I also note that Doc spent some time thinking about why his approach was not a good one, and when pressed on the matter, gave an entirely satisfactory indication that there won't be a recurrence. I could be wrong, it was a judgement call, but the disruption that the block would be preventing is not, in my view, likely to recur now that Doc has had a chance to contemplate, reflect, and make assurances, giving his word. The word of another user should always be taken unless they have given us cause in the past to doubt it. I hope that addresses your concern about the unblock.
 * 'Tis the reason I could never be an Administrator. IMO, blocks should be (at least) equally punitive/preventative. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@Giano: I derived no personal gain one way or the other from either the block or unblock, to the best of my knowledge. But the wiki took a loss. Fortunately you are not such a delicate flower that the original comment had a chilling effect on your inclination to share your views, but this is just another (relatively minor) corrosive episode in a long series. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Giano. That diff should have resulted in a short block immediately—implying that someone is an "arrogant cocksucker" is not acceptable here. You are also correct that if it had been you, you probably would have been blocked. If I were a sysop, I would have issued a block when I saw it. Even though the block was issued late, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Hopefully the user in question won't do it again. Cheers, Firestorm  Talk 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Late to the party again, but I endorse Jehochman's block, which should indeed have happened much sooner. Administrators should also not be so quick to unblock users sanctions for uncivility.  Sandstein   06:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No sandstein, you were not late to the party, you failed to attend. Giano (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas, Wikimedia does not pay me well enough to weigh in on every ANI thread minutes after its inception. Should you really value my assessment of specific situations, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page the next time.  Sandstein   07:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just don't worry about it Sandstein - blocks etc concerning you are so much clearer now. It was a revealing 24 hours - very revealng.Don't let me keep you, you can resume your daily blocking now. Giano (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Recommended reading
I recommend Choosing Civility by P.M. Forni of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I was going to recommend Mutz D, Effects of "In-Your-Face" Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition, American Political Science Review (2007) 101(4):621-35. "Violating social norms... increased the intensity of affect among the opposition, but remaining civil did not intensify the positive feelings viewers held toward their own side. Civility appears to be the default expectation, and it is arousing and influential only when people deviate from it... When those holding differing views violate social norms by being uncivil and disagreeable right in viewers’ faces, it is all that much easier to demonize them along multiple dimensions." MastCell Talk 03:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend my own 4 rules regarding civility. Giano (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was three, per your above comment. And while we are on the subject, Giano, I'd recommend you consider adding some more, since you are in expansion mode.  For example, "Don't goad other editors by provocative language."  And "Take seriously the admonition on AN/I to try to work things out on their talk page before running here."  And "If you are offended by a 'dirty' word, there is no particular need to spray it all over AN/I."  And, "If you are considering whose rules for civility to adopt, examine the author's block log before deciding."  And lastly WP:AGF and all that it entails.  So far as I can see, you have questioned the good faith of almost everyone in these threads, other than those who did or supported what you wanted.  If there's nothing more to be done here, let's get back to building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinions here are now considered worthless. Some may even feel you are unfit to be an Admin. I suggest you slink away quietly and hope others forget your part in this disgraceful episode. Now let's just see which of the clockwork mice scurry here to offer an opinion on me now - having been so silent yesterday. Giano (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)