Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giano II


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Desired outcome
Ideally, I would like to see Giano recognize the unproductiveness of his approach to discussions and resolve to change. Barring that, some community consensus on how to ensure that his incivility and personal attacks are moderated.

Description
Giano is a user with a lengthy and documentable history of egregious personal attacks and incivility. I have included diffs below. However, dozens of similar diffs exist. This behavior violates WP:NPA, a nearly seven-year old policy that exists because of the toxic effects personal attacks have on discussions. Giano's tendency towards them repeatedly reduces serious discussions of policy to dramatic flame wars, and prevents development and progress of Wikipedia's policies and processes, and by extension of the project as a whole. To quote NPA, "Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." And further, "Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration, such as being subjected to a community ban." This phrase - "users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks" - describes Giano's behavior to a tee.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * The following diffs show unambiguous personal attacks against multiple users:.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:NPA
 * WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * The issue has come up in multiple requests for arbitration. Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley and Requests for arbitration/IRC are the two most recent.
 * section on Giano's talk page with Ottava Rima asking for calm. (added by Casliber (talk · contribs))
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had few if any dealings with Phil Sandifer. I have no recolection of ever addressing a remark to him in any form - perhaps I have, but I seriously do not remember it. Giano (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * Diffs above such as post-date both arbcom cases, showing that the behavior has not ceased.
 * response to 3 above

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * I have engaged in extensive communication with Giano II, both on- and off-wiki, over a period of I think two years (and been much abused for my pains). I doubt whether anything useful will come of this, but I'm willing to be proved wrong. Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a dispute here. See my evidence below for examples of attempting and failing to resolve it.  Durova Charge! 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * --Elonka 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sticky Parkin 02:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Privatemusings
why oh why oh why oh why? This is a bad idea. Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I wish I disagreed. I think deferral to RFC was a poor choice on the part of the arbcom, or I'd have made this my first venue. But with four arbitrators swiftly saying to take it to RFC, I figured I ought oblige. Still, I'll note my dislike of this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  Majorly  talk  01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Will cause lots of drama inevitably.
 * 5) Endorse --Duk 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Very bad idea indeed. Giano (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Dreadful idea, second only to allowing the situation to continue. So, if anyone can suggest a better one I'll endorse that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes. Giano matters have become, de facto, primarily a conflict vehicle for strengthening and building social bonds, group formation, and the achievement of personal accreditation in certain wikipedia circles. In so many actions regarding Giano the main explanation is usually that someone other than Giano is trying to achieve a social or wiki-political goal (such as approval from certain users, increased fame, etc) by latching onto this old bandwagon, and this often leads to the escalation and always to the perpetuation of a bunch of issues that otherwise would have disappeared a long time ago and distracts for another bunch of issues that need more attention. Hopefully persecution of Giano is getting boring now and will disappear when that badly considered civility ruling expires in the near future, but we'll see. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) per Scott Mac (Doc).  Eluchil404 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11)  Nancy  talk  14:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) MikeHobday (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Deacon is correct. Moreschi (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Per Deacon.  YellowMonkey   ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Casliber
We felt this might be better for a more "round table" discussion and community-based. The adversarial approach will be bloody, and how long before lines are drawn on both sides (yet again). The RfC as it stands does not recognise (a) Giano's article work or (b) some of the material slung every which way (especially on days like yesterday), and (c) the context/provocation. This is an unusual situation and much more suited to round-table talks rather than more head-butting. Let's all try and get on the same side here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Admirable sentiment, but I'm not sure what Giano's article work has to do with it. If we want comment on Giano's article work, we head over to the Featured Article pages where it's all on display. We're here to talk about how he treats fellow editors, idiots or no. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Majorly  talk  01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Time to lay aside the battle mentality, and try to solve this. However, it is also time to insist that vested users (on any side) don't get free passes, so I don't find X*FA so relevant, even though I'm happy to acknowledge Giano's sterling work..--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Fat chance. But yes in theory. Moreschi (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  YellowMonkey   ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Sam Blacketer
I would like Giano to acknowledge that WP:CIVIL does include him, and that incivility makes it difficult for the community to work together. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * I would be very happy with such an outcome. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) On second thought, I think that lowering this to primarily a WP:CIVIL issue misses the point. Giano's behavior violates WP:NPA, which is a far more serious issue.
 * 1) Yes. I know he does good work- that's not the issue.  The issue is that this is a collaborative project, and editors need to display reasonable social skills. Friday (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Tiptoety  talk 01:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) The need (requirement?) to be civil to other editors (contra Cla68's view) does not stop outside the article space. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  Majorly  talk  01:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Theresa Knott | token threats 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) also true. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Exactly. --Elonka 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Durova Charge! 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) A reasonable request, but I think that Giano already has said quite a bit about civility at User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general.  The challenge is defining what civility means. Jehochman Talk 04:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Agree with this as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) To just blatantly crib: "Yes, there is a dispute here" but "I doubt whether anything useful will come of this". I love Giano dearly, his article contributions are superb, and much leeway should be given. But leeway has limits, there are no free passes. At some point the snarkiness interferes with the message, however important the message might be. This probably will be a replay of the last factionalism but we'll get to see what the new alignments are, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 05:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) We'd like Giano to be civil, whist applauding his article work, and respecting his right to air any and all grievances. It is simply stated, and I don't understand anyone who says otherwise, or why we need an RfC.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) That'd be nice. --Conti|✉ 11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) I believe that Giano would be even more effective at pointing out when the emperor has no clothes if he did so civilly. So I endorse this.  Some Wikipedia observes believe the contrary, that only drama produces results.  Unfortuantely, there is a lot of evidence in their favor, so those who read the places that Giano posts should probably also change their behavior with respect to all who post in those venues.  GRBerry 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Sticky Parkin 02:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Yes. Unfortunately too many of Giano's targets are not interested in working together. Moreschi (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Crystal whacker (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Yes. I am just an editor, not an admin. He attacked me for posting a suggestion on the  talk page of one of his articles, Buckingham Palace. It is very intimidating as  admins seem to  protect him, yet if an editor like me suggests that may be happening it is considered a "fantasy" and used as "evidence" against me in an RFC by Casliber posting an outside view above.   &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) --Hfarmer (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) --Yes, although how likely is it? DGG (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Stifle (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Cla68
The spirit, but not necessarily the letter, of the incivility policy is, in my opinion, to facilitate a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia. As I see it, the major part of building an encyclopedia takes place in article space, not admin or userpage space. As far as I know, Giano has never (or at least rarely) crossed the line in article space. He takes writing articles seriously and works well with others, even when he disagrees with another editor's viewpoint.

Where Giano technically crosses the incivility line is in dealing with admins or other editors who are actively involved in project administration. Does this excuse his behavior? I think it mitigates it to some extent. If Giano was insulting or bullying newer editors because they make edits he doesn't like to one of "his" articles, like some other editors do, I would be one of the first urging his banishment. As far as I know, he doesn't do this. Thus, in my opinion, he isn't getting much, if at all, in the way of building an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be our mission here.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) –  iride scent  01:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  Majorly  talk  01:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Endorse --Duk 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) my limited experience supports this view. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Everyking (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Jehochman Talk 04:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Fritzpoll (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Sjakkalle  (Check!)  10:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Cube lurker (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Achromatic (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Tex (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) —  Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Endorse - Shot info (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Mathsci (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Hoary (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 21)  Nancy  talk  14:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) MikeHobday (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Crystal whacker (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 24)  YellowMonkey   ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Andrwsc
The quality of any editor's contributions should not give them a "free pass" in violating core policies like WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. Editors who refuse to abide by community standards should not be allowed to continue to do so, even if the effort involved in dealing with them is substantial.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Majorly  talk  01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Tiptoety  talk 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Theresa Knott | token threats 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) The "free pass" style of handling things has been common, but it should be clear by now that it's unhelpful. Friday (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongly endorse.  Policies need to be applied fairly, and if there is uncivil language which would result in a new user being blocked, then there should also be consequences for the same incivility from an established editor.  We should not have one set of rules for new users and a different set of rules for those who have been around for awhile. --Elonka 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Experienced Wikipedian should uphold the highest standards, rather than become exceptions to baseline conduct.  Usenet is thataway.  Durova Charge! 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that is what you were doing when you drove User:!! off with your peurile and downright stupid slanders. (That is not uncivil because that's exactly what they were) Giano (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wrong then, Giano. No doubt about it.  I apologized, owned up to it, endeavored to set it right, and took my lumps.  We all err.  How do you address your mistakes: by stepping back or by compounding them?  Durova Charge! 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "Free pass" should be stricken from the language along with "bailout," but yes. Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Giano is a great contributor, but his pitbull-like tendency to snap at people who he feels, rightly or wrongly, to be causing him grief - and the conspiracy-theorist-level attacks on the ArbCom and administrators - are teeth-grinding annoying even for people even on the outside of any discussion. If he violates WP:CIVIL, he needs to be treated just like anyone else on Wiki - we must not make him a special case. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Nobody should be above the rules, regardless of their contributions.  rdfox 76 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I support this generally, but this of course should not be taken to apply just to Giano - many editors admin and non admin, have been given "free passes" because of their various contributions.--Tznkai (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) --Conti|✉ 11:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) This fits with my previous critique of vested-user over-tolerance.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Eluchil404 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) . --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely.  And the effort involved would only be the click of a button or something. Not dealing with things firmly is leading to a protracted situation that's harder work. Sticky Parkin 02:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Agreed that this should apply to everyone, not just Giano. --Kbdank71 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes; this particular RfC is dealing with this editor, but there are others about whom a similar comment would apply. DGG (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Stifle (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

View by Durova
Some people say that Giano only speaks the truth to power, harshly but justly. I disagree. A few examples follow. An arbitration case happened last summer. There had been a wheel war on Giano for civility which, ultimately, had arisen from his reaction to a post I had made as a courtesy to a fellow Wikipedian. Giano hadn't paused to ask for the circumstances before construing mischief and I hadn't even known the full context until the next day: the person I had been speaking for was attending a family funeral.

I had been offsite when the wheel war erupted--working on a featured picture restoration--that got interrupted when I found out about the wheel war and tried to patch up the problem. More insults resulted; it was too late to prevent an arbitration case.  I was accused of blackmail for requesting that Giano withdraw just one of several insults--the one that reflected on my gender.  That request hadn't been for my own sake; I was thinking of another lady who had turned to me for help not long before--she was an ordinary editor hardly anyone knows--who had to go to the police over sexual harassment both onsite and offsite that arose from her volunteer work at this website. If any ArbCom members are reading this they'll know what I'm talking about: she wrote to the Committee. Her problem had nothing to do with Giano directly or with anyone who knows him, but senior editors set the standard. Things go downhill from there. That young Wikipedian quit editing several months ago; I wished I could have done more to help her.

During that time the main feature on my user page was a photograph of the World Trade Center rubble, with the caption Asking fellow Wikipedians to honor the dignity of 9/11.

Giano came along shortly afterward and added his commentary--not to user talk but to the user page itself:


 * Durova, many American citizens subsidised the terrorism in Northern Ireland for a great many years, until the 9/11 crisis made it too embarrassing for your government to allow it to continue. Perhaps you could include all victims or terrorism, worldwide, in your appeal for dignity. Thank you. Giano (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to let Giano's post pass without comment, and given strong hints that he never backs down. By contrast, when something along those lines came up yesterday from another direction and with a different Wikipedian it was easy to resolve.


 * Please reconsider. It is no secret that my father's brother survived 9/11 from a high floor. He was one of the last people out of the building. I went to war because of that day. It's not a turn of phrase I'm much familiar with outside of that context, and not a good thing to be devising variants of Godwin's Law. I'd like to get to the bottom of my first cup of coffee in the morning without being reminded of the armed watches I stood at oh-dark-thirty, moored to the pier of a Muslim country while the Abu Ghraib scandal unfolded, wondering how I had signed up for the right reasons and joined the wrong war. Would you consider a strikethrough please?  Durova Charge! 16:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been perfect either; everybody knows it. I stepped up and took ownership of my mistakes, and apologized and did my best to set things right. I was heartily sorry for my errors. Those errors don't give Giano carte blanche to be rude. Either Giano recognizes when he's crossed the bright line and pulls back, or else he isn't worth taking seriously.

Here we are all volunteers for an educational charity. Last month I found a high resolution digitized manuscript of eighteenth century Italian architectural designs. Neither the architect nor the structure have an article on English Wikipedia. In a better world I would be collaborating with Giano, restoring those sketches to make them featured pictures that illustrate new featured articles. Giano can make that happen if he wants to. Where this goes from here is up to him. Durova Charge! 03:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Mackensen (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) These details are new to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Goodness me. Giano's comments, while often harsh, are not this harsh as I've seen them. Sometimes it can be amusing to poke fun at the "administration" if people mess up, but such comments are completely off the mark, and not like the Giano I know.  Majorly  talk  05:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how responding to Durova's appeal to "Fellow Wikipedian" with what is basically a polite message pointing out that "fellow Wikipdians" come from all over the globe, and that she could be a little more inclusive with her sympathies, is as she points out elsehwere "Pure Vitriol." Incidentally, it has been inferred in other RFArbs that I'm pro Irish-terrorism or anti-British, yet another manufactured fallacy - many of you have fallen for. I actually have a very politically global outlook and comprehension of the world. Please do not refacture this comment to the talk page, if I am going to partake in this RFC, I want my comments here and prominently so. Giano (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you settle for putting your comments in the "response" section or on the talk page and using inline links for easy navigation? (Like WP:Requests for comment/Giano II or something similar)--Tznkai (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, the name of the war was Global War on Terrorism and I earned its expeditionary medal in one of the eleven overseas countries where I served. Durova Charge! 15:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth has your private life got to do with this? I am not interested in your off-wiki activities, for all you know I may have been beside you. Quite frankly Durova, your relations, their experiences or your career has nthing to do with Wikipedia, and I am rather tired of hearing about it from you. Giano (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what she's saying is she might have done more for countries closer to us than the States, than you implied. Sticky Parkin</b> 01:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Calling female editors (or male ones for that matter) little darling went out of style last century, and thank you Durova for the courtesy of not pointing out I was the "different Wikipedian" in the incident cited above but it was I - and it was peacefully resolved.--Tznkai (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In your part of the world it may be out of fashion, perhaps it was never in fashion - in other parts of the world the "endearing diminuitive" (see it even has a name) is used in common daily speech, especially where I come from and when asking a favour - it means little more than "I will love you if...or I would be grateful; secondly, taking "the interest in content" I was asking her to perform, was a favour to revert something on a page on my watchlist - not a reflection on her content editing - or me expressing an interest in her becoming "my darling." You see, you all love to judge everything by what you want to beleive rather than the truth. Giano (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * response
 * 1) Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC) - the incident was distressing enough, but the arb case that came out of it was a mess that didn't help.
 * 2) Well you know what I think.  Certain people are fond of bullying and intimidation. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 01:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I heartily agree with this. Commenting on a user page, or calling a unknown woman little darling, are not cool.  It really irk's me though to see so many people want to privileged Giano due to their contributions.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Jehochman
Yes, Giano's civility could be better, but he provides an invaluable service to the project by preventing the formation of a power cabal. Giano has been an outspoken critic of various people, usually when they have done something wrong. His actions have led to resignations. Some of those who were forced to resign (or otherwise made uncomfortable) have posted (or supported) critical opinions here. I'd be much happier if those folks provided full disclosure of their past interactions. Dispute resolution should not be used for payback over disagreements; it should be used to solve problems and provide forward-looking advice.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Jehochman Talk 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly agree. Everyking (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  Majorly  talk  05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) That is fair. To my knowledge, I have no substantial dealings with Giano outside discussion of this specific issue, which took place previously in the IRC case, and may have taken place elsewhere, but I don't recall it if it did. That said, one of my great secrets on Wikipedia is that I am absolutely awful at remembering people's names, who they are, and when I've interacted with them, so it's entirely possible that there's something I'm forgetting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with Jehochman's view.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree that Giano's criticism to those with power roles is in and of itself a valuable contribution to the project.  When the emperor has no clothes, the person who says so is more valuable than an unlimited number of sycophants.  GRBerry 16:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree roughly, though Giano's achievements so far have been more in reducing the impact and strength of power "cabal"s rather than in preventing them entirely. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Would help the situation. Endorse - Shot info (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Mostly endorse, although I'm not convinced about the 'payback'; some of the people to have been dressed down by Giano have since come to appreciate him (Kelly Martin, to some extent) or acknowledge they share some of the blame for their fate (Durova), and FT2 hasn't participated here. To be more precise, I think the 'payback' Jehochman mentions comes more from aggrieved groups  rather than aggrieved individuals, although individuals make up a share. There is definitely a mob mentality every time one of these disputed occur. I enthusiastically agree that Giano provides an invaluable service to the project with his ability to protest serious problems. --Duk 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Moreschi (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

An apology from SlimVirgin
I feel in part responsible for this, because I think this RfC was triggered by Giano's comments to David yesterday, and they were partly my fault.

David had said he was going to arrange for Giano's e-mail(s) to FT2 to be posted onwiki, if Giano agreed, complete with headers. I think the point was to show that Giano had told FT2 the oversighted edits weren't so bad. The mention of headers was puzzling, because none of us is in a position to confirm from headers whether an e-mail is genuine or not. Giano wondered what David meant by it.

The only thing I could think of was that David was saying the headers would include Giano's IP address, which might make it awkward for Giano to give permission to have them published. I mentioned this to Giano as a possible reason that headers were mentioned, and he was understandably upset. It was shortly after this that he made his remarks to David; I think he called him a worm or some such.

It was only later that I realized Giano had probably used his gmail address when he wrote to FT2 (assuming he did write), and therefore no IP would have been visible, because gmail doesn't reveal IPs. So I was wrong to suggest that might be what David was saying. I still don't know why he mentioned headers, but it's unlikely it had anything to do with the IP.

So, David, I apologize to you for my failure to AGF and for not thinking the issue through properly. And Giano, I'm very sorry that I inadvertently misled you and triggered the worm response. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Very gracious of you, SlimVirgin. Thank you.  Durova Charge! 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I also must thank Slim for this. I think it's a classic example of a situation where what should have been a minor affair exploded. All I ask is that Giano either take responsibility for his overreactions, or be held accountable. His words sting unnecessarily. Mackensen (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) For what it is worth, this was not caused by Giano's attack on David in any direct sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  Majorly  talk  05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Good on you for apologising and trying to defuse things. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 06:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Echoing the above - but noting that no, this is not your fault at all - although it is admirable of you to accept responsibility as if it was.--Tznkai (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I email from several addresses - some give more personal information than others. I had no idea which address I may have emailed from. The email in question, which I deleted as trivial over a year ago ago (6 December 2007) and had long forgotten, has now been returned to me, it in no way condoned Gerards' oversighting of perfectly valid edits, in fact it was written the day before the oversight and does not mention Gerard. The email was in response to one from FT2 asking for my advice and help. Something incidentally many people do from Arbs to newbies - they all get a reply, even if not always the advice or help they would like. I stand by every word in that email today, and would write exactly the same to any editor who asked me for help today. Gerard it now seems, only knew of excerpts, from that mail, which were sent to the Arb's private mailing list (a questionable knowledge some may feel). Sent by FT2 incidentally. His behaviour throughout all of the "FT2 affair" has been less than satisfactory. Giano (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Achromatic (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) "Endorse" is a funny word; it always brings to my mind nasty things that, amazingly, I've managed never to have done to my driver's licence. But I think I know what it means hereabouts. If it does mean what I think it means, then I don't see how anyone can "endorse" an apology such as this. What I can say is that so far as I follow the details, I understand it; and that it seems to be a gracious and entirely unsolicited apology, for which I'd like to thank its author. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Observation by Daniel
Meritless or not, this RfC is not something I feel many editors will feel safe touching even with the longest stick, for fear their presence on-wiki will become unbearable by taking a strong side in this, a very polarizing dispute. Therefore, any RfC on the topic is likely to fail to achieve an accurate representation of the community's opinion of the matter, as it is unlikely that the cumulative "balls" of both sides will be equal.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Daniel (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) One of many reasons I didn't advocate use of this process. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) That's the nature of the beast with conduct requests for comment. They're my least favorite form of dispute resolution.  Still, they have their place.  All RfCs and all site discussions should be read with a critical eye--perhaps this more than most.  Durova Charge! 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed. Giano, and some of those who routinely support him, have shown a tendency to long memories coupled with a desire for vengeance. On more than one occasion I have had people tell me privately that they don't want to get involved with Giano-related matters, because it's like trying to grab the third rail, aka political suicide. --Elonka 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In fairness, to clarify my initial statement, there's also the reciprocating effect of being considered "one of them" if you do support Giano on this. It goes both ways, in my opinion, although you may disagree. (Sorry to butt in and reply in this manner, but I didn't want my initial statement being accidentally misconstrued as to suggest one "side" was the sole causation of this "I-have-no-balls" effect.) Daniel (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Cribbing from myself: This probably will be a replay of the last factionalism but we'll get to see what the new alignments are, anyway. Hope I'm wrong. ++Lar: t/c 06:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Finally an option #3 to supporting or opposing.  MBisanz  talk 06:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed. Although I've never seen this apply to people who have supported Giano on occasions.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes; but to me it's more clear cut than that. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Daniel is correct, and Elonka has a point. Her point works just as well, though, if we start with "Those persecuting Giano...". Moreschi (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

View by Bishonen (Phil Sandifer's certification)
No, seriously. It's too Kafkaesque to see Phil Sandifer certify the basis for the dispute by claiming to have "tried and failed to solve the dispute"... and to see him state that as "one of the active commenters and parties in the IRC arbitration case"—of all places!—he "attempted to find some resolution on the matter of Giano's incivility and personal attacks." Hello..? Phil..? That was supposed to be "resolution", not "inflammation". You can't have read it right. What you attempted to find on the IRC workshop and related pages was means of flaming Giano. You were the single editor most responsible for raising the temperature on that case, for taking it the farthest into the waste land of the battleground. The most hostile, the least constructive. No contest. Come on, per Wikipedia: Don't be ridiculous, please remove your signature in that place, Phil. Please. Or, of course, try to find a diff from the IRC case where you're actually not flaming Giano, but I think you'll find that tougher. Meanwhile, as a minor lawyering point, this RFC remains uncertified, as neither you nor Durova have "tried and failed to solve the dispute." (Durova doesn't claim that she has. )

P.S., adding diffs: it's been suggested to me that I need to amplify this view with examples, so that people can tell whether they want to sign it or not. I'm a little reluctant to do that, since nasty examples are no proof that there weren't also examples of nice, reaching-out, resolution-oriented posts by Phil; but, well, there weren't. Anyway, since it was requested, I have added some examples from the workshop here:       These are all remarks about Giano by Phil. The temperature-raising comes also from nasturtiums Phil casts at Geogre, but those are not any too relevant here. As for Giano's input on the IRC workshop, it's minor and generally mild. I see a few angry outbursts (about IRC, not Phil), but in almost all sections, Giano is simply not there, even though he (not IRC) is persistently the subject of them.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Bishonen | talk 05:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC).
 * 2) Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Geogre (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I'm glad Bishonen said it, because I kept thinking, "Dispute? All I see are three or four people saying that they had been upset by a user."  Being upset is not a dispute.  A dispute requires a subject and two or more points of view on that subject.  All this has been is, "I think he's not complying with CIVIL," "Me too!" "Oooooh, and me!"  Please!  Is the "dispute" that Giano understands that non-policy a different way than some of the politeness police do?  Sorry.  Otherwise, just revenge by Snowspinner is all I can see.  He didn't like something, and the revenge is to try to bog down what he may regard as a "group" of editors by poking at Giano again.  Let us rise to a position of maturity, or, failing that, discuss that idiotic misuse of WP:CIVIL.  An RfC on that would be appropriate.
 * 4) Having reviewed the diffs provided here, and the total lack of evidence provided by Phil, agree that Phil's certification as false..  GRBerry 16:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) There's a dispute here? Tex (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Thank you for providing those diffs.  In my opinion, they don't show a reasoned, respectful effort by Phil to resolve his dispute with Giano. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Achromatic (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Endorse - Shot info (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) --Ghirla-трёп- 15:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Endorse --Duk 18:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) endorse-ish but why resort to having a go, again? Make an RfC on Phil if you have a problem with his behaviour.  But I agree, the certification doesn't seem quite right.<b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 02:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16)  Nancy  talk  14:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Moreschi (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) I see Phil trying to get someone he doesn't like kicked out of the project. Is that "dispute resolution" these days?" Grace Note (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

View by Scott MacDonald
My observation would be that the basic problem is not so much that Giano has violated WP:CIVIL (although he certainly has). It is that a great number of long-standing vested users (and I should include myself here) regularly and with impunity violate WP:BATTLE.

What is happening is:
 * People are entering dispute resolution without any intention of "resolving" the dispute, but merely fighting the next round of the war.
 * People are construing comments as to assume the worst in their opponents and then use the comments against them.
 * Outsiders who criticise are simply dismissed as part of the conspiracy or as lackeys.
 * There is a tendency to power cliques who always defend each other, or those who are out of step with their perceived opponents, regardless of the rights and wrongs. Too few people rein in their friends.

In this wider context, Giano both enjoys impunity because those who agree with him on some issues or who are aggrieved with his critics for other reasons, defend him whether right, wrong (or right but unnecessary provocative). On the other hand, he is also sometimes targeted by those who see him as centre of some massive problem.

I have no solution, except everyone (yes including Giano) needs to start admittting the part they've played in creating this unhealthy atmosphere. But wikipedians love pointing out the errors in others, and denying any from themselves or their allies.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Mea culpa.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) This is battleground mentality is certainly happening - although I'm not sure if pressed, I could list names. I see it more as something that is affecting judgment across the board - without most of us realizing its happening. Some of the Wikipedians I respect the most occasionally fall prey without noticing it.--Tznkai (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) RxS (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Well said, this is a problem all over Wikipedia.
 * 7) The crux of the matter -- "People are entering dispute resolution without any intention of "resolving" the dispute, but merely fighting the next round of the war."   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) A very fair point. The problem is, though, that too many users/admins are just not open to compromise, which in turn leads to battleground-style reaction. Moreschi (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Yup. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) The only statement besides my own I could endorse here. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside question/view by Geogre
What is the dispute?

Seriously: what is being argued, here?

A behavioral RfC usually requires specific acts against specific persons that are unrepentant and which require community input. Sanctions on general behavior of users is something for AN and AN/I. Has everyone forgotten this?

I can supply some answers for what I suppose is being disputed, but I cannot supply any answers that would be appropriate for arbitration or even a request for comment.

I urge everyone thinking about commenting to read WP:CIVIL again. Unless people have changed it recently, it is a policy like Assume (edits are made) in Good Faith: something used as a club but never actually read or understood. A comment on the misuses, limitations, and meaning of that policy (which is moderately clear) could take place, except that it would not affect those who so desperately wish that it meant "behave with deference toward administrators" that they are presently misusing it. I cannot see an instance of "Civil" violation that requires comment, and I would strike all of the comments above that are "Giano's been mean before." Vague "some time in the past" elements are not proper for an RfC on conduct.

The actual subject, I suspect, is emotional. Emotions of users are not something anyone may control, limit, or satisfy. If Snowspinner feels upset about something, then I wish him peace. If people feel that they were stung by Giano, then I wish them peace. None of these feelings are appropriate for discussion. Non curat lex in these cases.

Users who endorse this summary (aren't really needed, I guess):
 * 1) Geogre
 * 2) Endorse.  And this is also good reading.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) --Duk 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Exactly. There's no current dispute.  The FT2 RfC had a bit of the same air about it (though not entirely), as Phil is going on about Giano's actions in the IRC arbcom.  That was what, a year ago?  He should have made this RfC then, anyway it was already at the arbcom stage, that part of the issue has effectively already been through an abcom. Like the RfC on FT2, it's ending up as an accumulation of someone's sins spread over the years; like an even blacker version of Requests for Adminship.  That's not what a RfC used to be like- it was usually about a specific issue/recent set of issues.<b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 02:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Shoemaker's Holiday
This is kind of a devil's advocate view. I've looked the evidence provided and such, but have had no personal experience with Giano. Hence, this view is not really meant to describe Giano, but the consideration of these points might bring out aspects that could be useful to settling the debate.

In my experience, there's three major types of editors who end up with a similar history of dispute resolution to Giano. One of them - a single-purpose POV-warrior - is not worth considering, as there's no evidence that Giano comes into that category whatsoever, so let's move on.

The first of the two remaining types is an editor who started off reasonably productive, but began pushing the boundaries, and got worse and worse as he got more and more second chances, leading him or her into worse and worse behaviour, as they discover that noone is willing to enforce rules on them. The interesting thing is that this sort of editor is produced by failure of the community, as attitudes and behaviours that, if they had been kept in check by occasional enforcement of the rules - short blocks and so on - effectively become the problematic editor's rights in his eyes.

The second type has a tendency to seek out difficult situations, dealing with the worst parts of Wikipedia, and trying to make rules stick. This leads to editors of the first type, and the aforementioned single-purpose POV-warriors, to attack him. After some time, the us-versus-them mentality, sometimes combined with rather bad baiting and attacks on said user, leads to breakdown in civility, and over-sensitivity outside of the situations, leading to further incivility.

Giano, from what I've read, seems to lean more towards the second type, but there may be some weak elements of the first type in how bad the incivility has gotten.

It may be necessary to make some minimum standards stick, perhaps using 24-hour blocks, even though it's probably best to let a lot slide. Or not. As I sad, this is the devil's advocate view, presented from glorious ignorance.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This is largely accurate.  The fraction of the community that is upset about Giano's behavior is also a significant cause of the behavior that is complained about, and this mess will only go away if both sides change their behavior.  GRBerry 17:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse the first three paragraphs fully, waffling on the last two. This is an excellent taxonomy of "long term problem users" (for lack of a better term. I quibble with GRBerry above that I'm sure there are plenty of plenty of people reasonably upset by Giano - who had nothing to do with upsetting him.--Tznkai (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I think this is a fair and perceptive assessment. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Generally speaking, yes.  Coming from the third group myself, and having candidly blown one call, I've wondered since then what (if anything) would reestablish trust with a measure of the second group.  Durova Charge! 02:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Endorse - Shot info (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

says fuck...
... here we go again; Giano is a problem, and one that will only go away when everyone learns to avoid commenting on the editor and only on the encyclopedic content - if you have a problem with the any other content then you can ignore it, argue against it, or say (and this is a common internet/wiki expression) "what the fuck?" This is Giano, and he is a special case because every so often there is some big melee between two groups of editors over what Giano did or said outside of article space and appeals to ArbCom, huge sprawling debates on Admin noticeboards, blocks/unblocks, warnings etc. on Giano talkpages, that has spawned a situation where action is not going to solve anything and talking about it only creates sufficient heat to solidify peoples positions further. So, I have an idea - ignore Giano! Let him suggest to Jimbo that so and so (a volunteer!) should be "sacked", let him call someone an "idiot", let him state that he is leaving and not going to waste any more time on the project, let him then make some good quality edits to various articles, let him decry the practices and procedures of WP that do not comply with his standards, allow him to vent his frustrations, and in the meanwhile... let us do something useful. Like... oh, I dunno... improve the encyclopedia. Work on an article (fuck knows I have done precious little of that these last 2 years!), review and comment on some matter where it might make a difference, revert a little vandalism, '''just. ignore. Giano.''' Try it, it certainly can't be worse than the alternative!

Users who say "Fuck it, that bollocks might even work (but I wish he wouldn't swear like a shit)!"
 * LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Sounds pretty good, actually, though I still think that special cases are problems in the long run. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, once ya seen the same movie multiple times, it becomes boring. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not sure I completely agree with the analysis, but LHvU's solution is one I've wanted to see used more often for a long time. I'd also like to suggest that this should go far beyond Giano: apply it to other editors who are being uncivil, too. Civility blocks don't work unless the blocked user is doing nothing but trolling. Ignore incivility. Let it punish itself by driving people away from the uncivil person. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Common sense solution.  Nancy  talk  14:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Who's Giano? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Fuck it all, let's just build an encyclopedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Intercourse, yes. -- Hoary (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

View from Grace Note
Who cares? There's an encyclopaedia and a game. Giano is mostly great for the encyclopaedia and great for the game. You wouldn't even notice he was around if you didn't play the game. The only thing to regret here is that people who could be spending time making a really good encyclopaedia waste so much of it in drama and politics.

Obviously, no process is going to have the outcome Phil wants because Giano's here to play. Phil, if you don't like it, just don't play with him. And let's face it, if Giano's pissy temper tantrums really upset you, you need to get out more. Grace Note (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse:


 * Ha, yes. The game is of course a war game. Ideal we'd all say "it's a Giano" and ignore it, and ignore those that defend it. Unfortunately, that's not human nature, and when people join in and start playing in the corridors of the encyclopedia it tends to obstruct the workers.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it only obstructs those who enjoy playing the game, Scott. It's not like anyone involved runs around forcing other people not to edit other articles. Grace Note (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes surely there is a political and I would add pseudo legal game played on here.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

View from Phil Sandifer
WP:NPA exists not to prevent hurt feelings, but to prevent discussions from being derailed by drama and anger. However right Giano may be at times, and whatever positive contributions he makes, he has an unfortunate tendency towards personal attacks, and this tendency results in drama that derails discussions.

This, at least, is unacceptable. The solution is not for the community to "toughen up." The reason we have NPA is because in such cases, the person making the personal attacks is the problem, not the community.

Whatever else may be said about Giano, the personal attacks have to stop.


 * Phil, could you supply diffs for the occasions that Giano has said things that have been attacks against your person? Do you accept that there is a clear distinction between being disrupted by someone calling you a fucktard and being disrupted by someone calling someone else one? And I thought the reason we had NPA was to allow people to beat each other over the head with it, so that even the passive-aggressive get to play on Wikipedia?Grace Note (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never said he has made personal attacks against me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse:


 * 1) As a user who has to my recollection never had to deal with Giano I can relate to his accusers. I find myself in a similar situation with another user.  One who I think, has simply been given a pass so many times that he now thinks personal attacks and incivility are his right.  Like Giano he has contributed profusely. I don't see how that matters when it comes to policy.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly endorse. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside View from Bigtimepeace
If you really stop and think about it for about thirty seconds, this is all unbelievably boring. I mean, like, mind numbingly boring. My view is that everyone should step back and think about how bored they are by this situation because, trust me, though you may get distracted for 20 minutes or maybe even an hour and accidentally come to think that this is all somehow very interesting, deep down you are bored by it. Very bored. I mean bored in that French way that really gnaws at you at an existential level. Bored? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who are bored:

Outside View from Pharaoh of the Wizards
I have had no interaction with the users involved but came across these edits right after his block got over on December 17 Giano II cames back from a block and removes the comments made by another user Spartaz right from the Requests for arbitration page and makes 4 times reverts Spartaz comments within 10 minutes   and despite being Warned and told that every user has a right to his comments. I am surprised ,I have seen many users being blocked for doing less right back from a block and some cases even being indef particularly if the user has multiple blocks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Users who can't make head or tail of this view:
 * Hoary (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Pocopocopocopoco
From what I can see Giano isn't uncivil when it comes to article creation or article improvement. In fact he is the model wikipedian when it comes to article creation or improvement. He is only uncivil when it comes to some cryptic wikipolitical goings on that I have neither the time nor the inclination to follow. In my view this is not a big deal as wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and not the dramawhore social club.

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC) - except that I disagree that it's not the dramawhore social club.

Outside View from Goodmorningworld
Editors (and editors who are also admins; especially them) should go to Nannypedia if they can't stand the heat. PseudonymA said a bad word to PseudonymB, for crying out loud SO WHAT? YOU (i.e., the person/vegetable/dog/simuldroid behind the Pseudonym) have NOT BEEN INSULTED… NOBODY KNOWS WHO THE HELL YOU ARE. The real hatred on Wikipedia is not the occasional outburst from an editor blowing her fuse, it's the creeps and weirdos single-mindedly pursuing their ethnic hatreds and bigotries, their foam-spittled superstitions, their insane wikilawyering and dramamongering, however civil they manage to be about it.

And for those editors who registered using a real name. Listen, it CUTS BOTH WAYS. When you registered using your real name (and we're making a small leap of faith here, assuming there is such a person and that it is you), you made the statement that you were willing to stand behind your postings with the name inscribed on your driver's license. In a discussion, this automatically gives you a leg up over anonymous or pseudonymous editors because any claims to expertise, degrees, qualifications can be VERIFIED.

The downside is, when someone is uncivil to you on the Internet, the whole world (or the 30 people who happen to read it) sees that. But, you knew the risks. Remember, sticks and stones. Grow thicker skin.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Inside View from Ottava Rima?
I'm listed in the evidence (what? shouldn't I be notified?). Don't we have wikiquette for this? The simple fact that this went to an RfC and then to an ArbCom makes it seem like something is off. Regardless.... meh.... Giano is a good content editor. However, he really doesn't like when people exert their authority in a manner that gets in his way. I don't either. Many people do not. Some of the "personal attacks" are calling for people to be removed because of seen abuses. If that is a personal attack, then I guess any criticism is a personal attack. However, NPA suggests that you comment on the actions and not the individual. Citation one is rough, but is a response to a threat and a rather mild one especially to the level of the threat. Citation two is calling of "troll". If this is a personal attack, then many admin who have called me such really should be banned. So, lets dismiss that one out of unrealistic application. Citation three isn't much of anything. Citation four is troll talk again. Citation five deals with actions ("appear incompetent" is not a personal attack). Citation six is dramatic but not a personal attack. Asking someone to resign is not a personal attack. Citation seven is characterizing a comment, not a person, thus failing PA. Citation eight characterizes actions, thus failing PA. Citation nine says "ordinary admin". It is a stretch to even call this an attack, let alone a PA. Citation ten uses "disgrace", which characterizes actions. Citation eleven characterizes words, not persons, thus failing again.

I could go on, but it seems clear that people are confusing Personal Attacks with rudeness (and rudeness, afterall is something purely subjective). We have wikiquette for rudeness. We have mediation for rudeness. Drama like this only provokes future rudeness, and drama is a form of rudeness. Why not just deal with it? Was it rude that I was listed in evidence but not linked? Yes, but I don't care. Why? Because I can deal with things. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Giano is here to build an encyclopedia. If you are more concerned with drama than building an encyclopedia, you probably don't belong here. Stop provoking the wikidragons already. We are already a dying breed as is, we don't need the constant provoking, harassment, or dramamongering unless you want the bulk contributors to no longer have the ability to continue. There are thousands of pages needing to be created or worked on in just -my- tiny area. Without specialists like Giano, Geogre, myself, Malleus, etc, then these pages would never be worked on, and yet we are treated like crap. Thanks for that. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For fairness sake: responses to this entry can be found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

View by recently involved Xasodfuih
I don't care if Giano swears like a drunken sailor or engages in subtle irony. What I do care about it that he's ignoring our content policies and guidelines, and he is willing to edit war to keep articles the way he likes them. Worse, he is supported in this line of behavior by other highly partisan old hands who ignore all rules for scoring yet another point is some political wiki battle at the expense of contents.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Xasodfuih (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.