Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Case Opened on 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Statement by John254
Giano II claims that Tony Sidaway made a personal attack on an administrator in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel. Instead of making a complaint via the dispute resolution process, Giano II choose to air his grievance via WP:POINTed disruption on, followed by massive edit warring. This type of disruption by Giano II needs to be stopped. However, a review of Giano II's block history suggests that any block placed against Giano II's account by an ordinary administrator would almost certainly be reversed. The Arbitration Committee is best situated to resolve this situation without starting a wheel war. John254 04:35, 26 December 2007
 * Update: After I filed this case, Giano II was blocked for 72 hours due to his edit warring on IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. I would therefore request that voting on whether to accept this case be delayed until Giano II has a opportunity to respond to the filing. John254 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Third-party note from User:Jouster: Giano has since been once again unblocked. John, feel free to remove this note.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 08:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sean William
I've been watching the situation deteriorate at IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins over the past two days, and it's not pretty. Respected editors and administrators (on both sides of the dispute) are pushing their own point of view and revert warring. This sort of behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and should be looked at carefully. Sean William @ 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I object to the name of this case in it's current form. Giano was certainly not the only participant in this matter. Sean William @ 05:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can and will defend my unblock when the case opens, if the proposed decision has anything to do with it. Sean William @ 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

 * I wouldn't consider myself an involved party, as I made a minimal number of edits to the page, and then attempted to end the dispute. As another side note, this paragraph was authored the last time Giano did this in June.

In recent activities on Wikipedia, Giano has been querulous when it comes to certain aspects of the project. Most recently, Giano took it upon himself to add aspects that he felt were not touched upon to. This resulted in an all out edit war that involved several administrators who primarily use the channel, as well as the administrator User:Geogre and user User:Irpen who have been staunch supporters of Giano's actions in past issues of disruption brought about by Giano's commentary outside of article and article talk spaces (the original discussion had taken place at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive260). Giano is a great article author (so I have been told), but when it comes to discourse in the project spaces (Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk), particularly the administrators' noticeboards, Giano is unable to discuss items civilly or act in a calm and collected manner, particularly when it involves IRC. Other users such as Geogre and Irpen have also voiced an opposition to the use of IRC for administrators to discuss things off-site.

In his long career on Wikipedia, he has been incivil in discourse with administrators, which initially lead to the first arbitration case, surrounding his discourse on Carnildo's most recent request for adminship. It may be necessary to restrict Giano as had been done to Everyking in Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please exclude this statement. As the author says, it was written in June, and it pertains to June.  It is inflammatory, accusatory, and flatly wrong.  Geogre (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like how you edited my statement without consulting me. I had added to this since I had originally wrote it, and it most certainly does not just pertain to the old tedentious editing in June. Giano should have never made such a fuss and edit warred either in this month or six months ago in June when I was initially planning on bringing his editing issues. If I am not to be included in this case as a party (as it appears you wish), then I most certainly want my opinion in this matter to be known. His actions just as yours have been concerning this have been equally as reprehensible. Your ideas about how administrators should or should not communicate off of the website should not preclude the fact that Giano is acting rudely, as have you concerning the page as this falsely leading edit summary shows.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Geogre
The supposed basis of this is that Giano II did not ... umm.... Apparently, he was supposed to use Wikipedia to redress a grievance of IRC behavior, even though David Gerard and James Forester have said repeatedly that IRC is not Wikipedia.  I believe that David Gerard even said that ArbCom had absolutely nothing to say about how things went there and that it was merely courtesy if JamesF decided to listen to anything it said. Therefore, "dispute resolution" is not via Wikipedia. Therefore, Giano II's actions in that regard can be sheared away instantly.

This complaint wouldn't pass muster at AN/I, and yet ArbCom is supposed to fall for it?

Ryulong's statement, above, seems to be entirely about some history that has him unhappy. His personal attack on me is something I will ignore. After all, he has me reduced to cheerleader and co-conspirator in disruption. As for this page that is supposed to be evidence of an edit war that needs resolution, the matter is simple, and it will explain quite clearly why we're here. After the rank, self-congratulatory state of the page got edited, an edit war broke out months ago. In light of the most recent instance, when Tony Sidaway called administrator Bishonen a "bitch" and an "arsehole" in en.admins, the smugness of the page was given spectacular lie. When people warred with Giano, when they said, "Oh, no, it has never happened," he sent them proof. He didn't post it publicly. It was all within the rules. He was allowing these people to lose their ignorance and come to their senses. After all, Tony Sidaway suffered only half an hour away from the en.admins IRC channel for his behavior (after he said that Bishonen was lying about what he'd said) and was still getting offered ops there.

Now, the "edit warring" that is supposed to have occurred is not something Giano II is particularly involved in. user:David Gerard is, on the other hand, heavily involved in it, as he has issued page protection to prevent edits (not vandalism), done so without request, and has refused to discuss the edits in any form on the article's talk page. Additionally, others have been reverting and rolling back (!) content edits by other users. In other words, I see WP:OWN violated in spectacular fashion by David Gerard and edit warring by those subscribing to his version of the page. They have not prevailed nor achieved silence, and so now we have vexatious and punitive arbitration attempts here and now (to which I was told I was an involved party). For my part, the illicit and childish attempts at preventing all edits to the page by David Gerard are the best argument I have heard for the page needing to be deleted (preferable) or entirely rewritten.

If anyone looks bad here, it's not Giano II.

The blocks have been overturned, incidentally, so let us make that part of the record. If only I were unscrupulous, I could manage to speak of all the people on the "other side" that I have blocked for edit warring (as it takes two sides to fight, and there is no right version), but, unfortunately, I am an experienced administrator who knows better than to block people for disagreeing with me. I believe Giano received well over 200 votes for ArbCom, and I think my own total was quite high, as well. Nevertheless, I'm sure that none of us should be allowed to edit a page that is written and wholly owned by David Gerard. If we do, we must come here. (Oh, and did the plaintiff here follow normal dispute resolution? Or is that only for the other guy?)  Geogre (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer
I blocked for 72 hours for six reverts in 24 hours and the involved deliberate violation of the 3RR. This block seemed utterly straightforward to me - Giano's edits were clearly intended to be disruptive, and he deliberately and knowingly violated the 3RR in making them. He has remained utterly unrepentant, noting that he would rather be banned than stop.

This block was overturned by Sean Williams. I am forced to conclude that John is right - the community is unwilling to apply even the most straightforward policy to Giano, and this matter needs to be elevated beyond the community immediately.

I further suggest adding Sean Williams as a party and looking at either desysopping him or curtailing his right to make unblocks - to unblock a clear cut 3RR violation in the way that he did is flagrantly and wholly unacceptable, particularly as he was previously involved in the discussion on the talk page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
Perhaps it's time to be a little more concrete and specific about what John calls Giano's "grievance". Tony Sidaway attacked me in the en-admins channel last week, calling me a "bastard bitch from hell" and an "arsehole". I will share the logs for this incident with any admin on request. (I've just noticed that Geogre mentions Tony's insults above, but I think I should post them here anyway, under my own hand. They're not very visible in the midst of Geogre's long statement.) Bishonen | talk 10:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Statement by Coredesat
After being called a fool (as part of various sarcastic remarks) by Giano on Monday night, I strongly believe Giano's behavior is/has become absolutely unacceptable. We should not be tolerating this level of incivility against other editors from anyone, regardless of background - there should be no exceptions to policy. I have seen too many valid blocks for edit warring get undone early by those editors on his "good side", and I have seen too many editors (including myself) get hounded nearly to the point of leaving the project by Giano and the various users he communicates with on a regular basis. Giano does not understand WP:CIV or WP:POINT, or that WP:3RR absolutely do apply to him; his conduct is unacceptable, and I believe this case should be accepted.

For the record, I did extend a one-hour block for edit warring on WP:WEA to 24 hours; this was quickly overturned with my consent within a few minutes. --Core desat 11:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AzaToth
My revert was mostly based on that I though it was wrong to remove a statement made by Jimbo in an ongoing dispute, though due to a crappy computer I was using at that moment, the edit summary was lost and something fishy happened (don't trust tabletop computers with vista on them).

After that Giano entered my talk page and threatened with a possible removal of my access to the channel, and that I could get blocked if I didn't cease immediately, so I made a joke about the real cabal channel, but it seems that some took that wrongly.

In my eye, Giano is trolling, and he has some sort of carte blanche to do so, some said he got some sort of immunity since the last arbcom, but I wasn't around at that time, so I can't really say. And about the channel, I think, and probably most there, that only admins (and above) should house there, but because of a technicality, it's difficult to remove non-admins, as the thing that easiest could be pointed to an admin account (the cloak) is only used for the invite, and not for the access list (please tell me if I'm wrong), and the channel is important, as it's a way to reduce risk of making wrong actions, as you can consult there in realtime, in a way you can't do onwiki, but off course, all actions must hold onwiki, but I don't think consultancy is required to be made onwiki → Aza Toth 14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
I wish again to apologise fully and without reservation to all parties who believe that I have ever called any of them a bad name. In particular, for my badly handled response to Bishonen's attack on me on IRC the other day. We need to put these by now very ancient grievances behind us and move on. It is now nearly 2008, not 2006. And yes, please be aware that there are faked logs around (I've had one quoted to me for verification). --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Doc
Merry Christmas. I really want nothing to do with this.--Docg 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard
The IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page was set up after the Giano/IRC-related arbcom case of late last year. The page is an odd one as "policy" pages go; I wrote it after the complaints of it being an undocumented private channel (complaints notably coming from ... Giano, Geogre and Irpen, the edit warriors this time around who say they now want the page removed!). Unlike the typical Wikipedia: policy page which describes a policy determined on the wiki whose power flows directly from the community, this describes a policy determined by the group contact (James Forrester), his designated agents for the purpose (me), Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee themselves (there being considerable discussion of the channel and how to keep it working on the AC list in late 2006 and early 2007). As such, there is such a thing as right and wrong edits to make to it - statements of reality that are not as determined by that small group.

That's why I locked it and edited it locked - it's not a general wiki policy page in the usual sense, but is present in Wikipedia: space as useful information. If the arbcom considers that unacceptable, then I ask them to keep in mind the circumstances of the page's creation, the origins of its contents and their own involvement therein.

Giano, Geogre and Irpen have recently tag-team trolled the page, trying to edit-war it into an attack page, showing the civility of junkyard dogs in the process. I've hardly seen such behaviour since the heyday of Mr-Natural-Health.

In last year's case, the ArbCom singularly failed to deal with Giano's odious interactions with others in project space (as I documented in a statement on the return of that case to RFAr a month or two afterwards when his behaviour continued). Then the arbcom singularly failed to deal with his odious interactions with others in project space a few weeks ago. Then he's kept going, trolling furiously and disrupting purely to make a point (as the arbcom has sanctioned editors for in past cases). Please, if he's such a great article writer, confine him to article space. His behaviour in Wikipedia: space does not help the project in any regard whatsoever.

Diffs to follow - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thebainer
I was the first to revert Giano; I did so with the edit summary "if you know of specific examples of this Giano, take it to the channel admins". Giano may well have legitimate grievances but he needs to use the available dispute resolution mechanisms to redress them; using this page to be snide and make a list of who's been naughty or nice is not the right way to do things.

I urge the Committee to accept so that IRC logs may be received into evidence. I know that the IRC channels are separate from the project, but if indeed admins have been undermining other admins in public or semi-public fora, I think that's very much an on-wiki concern and one that needs looking into. --bainer (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David Fuchs
I noticed Jimbo's revert of one of Giano's edits in my watchlist, and after noting that Giano was continually adding the content back in and several different editors were reverting him, I informed Giano that he had violated the three-revert rule. When Giano persisted in the edits, I blocked him for one hour. My reasons for such a short block were twofold; one, that Giano's pointy disruption seemed entirely focused on the IRC page, and only a short block would be needed to stem this disruption; and secondly, knowing that admins sympathetic to Giano would not hesitate to unblock him if there was a block of a longer duration (see his block log for the illustrated guide). Even with such a short block, which was later extended, several users angrily cried that other users should have been blocked for edit warring, and that Giano's actions were justified; one user in particular protested that I should have notified WP:AN/I of Giano's block immediately.

I personally have no interest in the IRC aspect. However, I would like to see some ArbCom ruling on block/unblock actions, specifically on the unique case Giano presents. With numerous admins willing to 'forgive and unblock' Giano for any transgressions, thus making enforcing any sort of block nearly impossible, the whole system is somewhat undermined. If some sort of clear-cut resolution could be provided to stop the wheel wars of blocking/unblocking actions, everyone would benefit. -- David Fuchs ( talk ) 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)

 * Accept. Such behavior from users and admins who should know better is unacceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I support renaming this case if accepted; it does not appear to be purely about Giano. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Good grief. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept, regrettably. Kirill 15:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A fitting welcome for the new arbs. Accept. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept to examine the behavior of all parties. And yes, the case needs a new name. FloNight (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Recuse; it would be as inappropriate for me to take part as for Jimmy to so do for an on-wiki complaint. James F. (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Wikipedians are expected to observe dispute resolution guidelines
1) Dispute resolution, a policy, provides a series of steps for the resolution of disagreements or grievances Wikipedians may have with one another. Airing a dispute on project pages in violation of this policy is disruptive and is prohibited.  Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, a guideline, states that illustrating a point through parody or a breaching experiment is, generally, disruptive.


 * passed 11-0 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reversion not a substitute for discussion
2) Reversion states, "Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods such as raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution." When disputes arise among experienced editors, consensus should be built and demonstrated using the talk page instead of through repeat reversion, even when the content in dispute is clearly problematic.  (See WP:LIVING for exceptions)


 * passed 11-0 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by administrators
3.2) Administrators act as role models for users in the community. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Even if no misuse of administrative tools took place, administrators whose actions are inappropriate and disruptive risk being desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.


 * passed 11-0 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pages are not owned
4) Ownership of articles provides that Wikipedia pages are not owned by particular individuals or groups. Even on those pages where relatively narrow conventions exist regarding who may edit, the community at large is expected to enforce the convention, not the individual or group who, by convention, edits the page.


 * passed 8-2 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decorum
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited.  Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * passed 10-0 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decorum: fair criticism
6) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats.  Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.


 * passed 10-0 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Provocative actions
9) Needlessly provocative acts can lead to disruption, in which the provoker must share a degree of responsibility for the consequences. Conversely, reasonable and mature self-management is expected even if provoked. Attempts by others to provoke should be ignored or dispute resolution sought.


 * passed 8-1 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Warlike behavior using administrative tools
12.1) Administrators are strictly and most seriously forbidden from engaging in warlike behavior using administrative tools, whether for desirable reasons or not. With very few exceptions, when an action performed using tools has been rejected to the point that a second administrator has reversed it (or similar related actions were reversed), then there is almost never a valid reason for any administrator to reinstate the same or similar action (or end result) again, without clear discussion leading to a consensus decison, and administrators who do so may risk desysopping for abuse of their access. As a corollary, reversal of an administrative action should also not be undertaken without good cause. The policy Wheel war describes this kind of behavior.


 * passed 7-2 with 1 abstention at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Blood
15) An administrator or other user who feels the need to comment on the actions of someone with whom they have bad blood or past fallings out, should seek impartial advice and allow others to handle the matter who have no such connection, in order for clear neutrality of handling. If no impartial uninvolved editor or administrator is evident, the matter can be passed to the administrators' incidents noticeboard for communal consideration which allows the originator to cede it to others.


 * passed 7-3 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy issues surrounding IRC
17) The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case.


 * passed 7-1 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Giano
4) was formally reminded less than one month prior to the events of this matter that "Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors. The Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions."  Despite this, Giano made a series of provocative and disruptive edits to IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins regarding comments made in the channel in September 2006 and on December 22, 2007 (see timeline).


 * passed 9-1 at 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Geogre
6), an administrator, made a provocative and disruptive edit to IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, shortly after Giano's edits. The following day, he reverted on separate occasions an attempt to protect the page and an attempt to delete it, thereby escalating the disruption (see timeline).


 * passed 7-2 at 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard
7.1), an administrator, repeatedly reverted IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins in violation of WP:3RR and WP:OWN, in a good-faith but mistaken belief that he had special dispensation to do so.


 * passed 6-0 with 2 abstentions at 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring occurred
13) Between December 23 and December 26, 2007, several editors, both supporters and detractors of the "admin" IRC channel were involved in an edit war at IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins.


 * passed 7-0 at 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Civility: Giano
2.2) is subject to an editing restriction for one year.  Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
 * passed 7-3 at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC
6) Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee.


 * passed 9-0 with 1 abstention at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

All parties cautioned
13) All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. The arbitration committee will take an unsympathetic view of any future failures in this regard.


 * passed 8-0 at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors are requested
15) Edit-warring is bad even when conducted on non-mainspace pages whose significance and status is unclear and in dispute. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid such actions and instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel.


 * passed 7-1 at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/IRC.


 * passed 7-0 at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

 * The above enforcement measure is currently restricted - refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin. PhilKnight (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * 1) Giano blocked for 31 hours, for incivility. (March 6 2008),  (March 18),  (March 25). Report . FT2 (Talk 23:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Giano blocked for 48 hours for violating Arbcom civility parole, editwarring, gaming the system, and disruption. Kwsn   (Ni!)  23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Giano blocked for 3 hours for violating civility parole at User talk:Bishonen and Bureaucrats' noticeboard and for disruption (unrelated to this case):    at Requests for arbitration/Completed requests   at this page. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Giano blocked for 3 hours by for . Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [Note: this block was applied for simple incivility. Had I known about this arbcomm case, it would probably have been for longer William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)] The above block extended to 24 48h, following further incivilty William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC) And shortened back to 24 by WMC.  .  GRBerry 22:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Giano blocked for 24 hrs for violating civility parole at WP:AN Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC) This block was overturned by Viridae based on the consensus in this discussion that a block was inappropriate. WJBscribe (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22:58, October 2, 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Giano II (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Incivility: Incivility on User talk:SirFozzie. Will unblock upon user's commitement to refactor/remove offending statements.)    23:08, October 2, 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (c'mon, for Giano this was very mild, and we can't bully people with blocks into writing more kindly)
 * 1) Giano blocked for 55 hours by FT2 for violation of civility parole, see this and subsequent edits and overturned by SlimVirgin on the basis that "‎ (all this block achieves is an increase in drama; blocks should be prevent, not punish)". PhilKnight (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Additional detail added by Fred Talk 16:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Block log

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGiano_II