Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Giano II

Certification
There is no evidence, yet, of trying to resolve this dispute. A request for arbitration was made and speedily rejected. Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution, not the first. Citing prior arbitrations as evidence of dispute resolution does not satisfy the RFC requirements. You need to come up with something much better or this page will be deleted at the end of the time allowed. Jehochman Talk 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * which I expect will be the result, as there apparently was no prior attempt at dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems a strained interpretation of the last year. To suggest that this is coming out of the blue and not following a well-wrought history of attempts by people to solve the problem seems... well. I do not think that is an accurate description of things. I would also suggest that the "referred by arbcom" nature of this RFC mitigates in favor of its retention, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not suggesting this is "coming out of the blue". Suggesting there was not an attempt by you to resolve this amicably with Giano. I very well may have missed it - I don't read everything on this wiki. I do note that the section Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute is notably free of difs. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleting this would be ridiculous. Does anyone deny there is a dispute here?  No ruleslawyering please. Friday (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry to hear you say that deleting an Rfc which has zero difs for any attempt to resolve the issue is "ruleslawyering" and "ridiculous". It is something which has helped keep the number of frivolous Rfc's down to a tiny fraction of what they would be did we not "ruleslawyer". KillerChihuahua?!? 01:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But this one is clearly not frivolous. Can anyone seriously claim it is?! Friday (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some attempts, I am adding some that I know of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see that. I am very sorry that Phil, who knows better, didn't see fit to do so. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that trying to get this RfC closed down for lack of certification might be technically correct but not necessarily a good idea when viewed in the larger picture. ++Lar: t/c 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect there will be some other discussions on giano's talk page where someone has asked nicely rather than a confrontation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its worth noting that Phil was directed here by ArbCom - and is distinctly pessimistic about it.--Tznkai (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As Phil has made a point of it on the Rfc page itself, I believe that's already covered - unless you had something else in mind? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Outside view by Privatemusings
heh! - it's somehow very wiki to be engaged in a process even the instigator thinks is a bad idea... almost da-daesque Privatemusings (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. The situation makes me expect to see a herd of rhinos running past at any moment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * well I'll put out the chairs, maybe we should add 'sort out the meaning of life' to the desired outcomes? Probably be easier.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Casliber's comments
I am more invested in the issue of seeing the disruptive and destructive behavior than in the mechanics. However, it has seemed to me like part of what has overwhelmed past attempts at resolution has been the widening of the focus. Yes, Giano has written some fantastic articles. Yes, many of the situations in which Giano has made personal attacks have been ugly on all sides. However, I do not think that either of these facts removes the underlying issue - that his tendency towards personal attacks is destructive.

I mean, I'll proceed in whatever direction this goes, and I'll follow it through until the problem is solved. I'm committed to the issue. But I'm skeptical that a wide-ranging discussion will help. Still - whatever people prefer. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What I am trying to get across is that a confrontational approach I fear will be bloody, drawn out and unproductive. The widening of the focus is necessary for understanding the context. Anyway, we'll see how it unfolds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano
Okay, I've never understood this whole situation. I've never dealt personally with Giano, but I know he comes up near-constantly on every noticeboard as causing problems. What is the net benefit from not blocking him? Can someone give some examples of the mitigating factors? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend taking a look at the merit of some of the 'causing problems' comments, shoe... personally, I see Giano as someone who highlights real problems elsewhere in the project, and a huge wiki asset. Privatemusings (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, he talks about real problems. Sometimes, he just rants about crazy bullshit things.  He'd be far more effective if he'd reign himself in a bit.  Friday (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Friday, would you consider refactoring that sentiment into a more genteel phrasing? If we want Giano to exercise greater civility it's imperative that the resto of us demonstrate it.  Durova Charge! 03:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Giano's a big boy- I know he can handle frank discussion.  I've replaced "bullshit" with "things", but I can't imagine this actually makes a difference. Friday (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano is one of en.Wikipedia's most prominent gadflies, although that description perhaps doesn't do complete justice to his actual contributions in their entirety. He has done some seriously good work in highlighting problems with Wikipedia's administration, such the IRC channels and the use of secret email lists to coordinate on-wiki actions.  I personally don't agree with all of his actions.  For example, I didn't agree with how strongly and dramatically he was pressuring FT2 recently.  I have yet, however, to see him found truly wrong on any issue that he has taken on.  Thus, Giano serves in the important and necessary function of helping prevent corruption, power games, and dishonesty from taking place in the project's administration. Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * heh... well obviously milage varies, Friday - I've not noticed any crazy bullshit rants, and isn't that the sort of comment that Giano seems to be getting in hot water over? - I've got no problem with you saying that, or Giano calling someone a worm - I think skins are thick enough really to handle it. (side note - I'm not sure anyone is actually asserting that they've been upset or hurt by giano's comments? Trying to apply consensus to a fictional third party interpretation is bonkers, I reckon.... which probably means it's what we'll spend countless hours doing! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Privatemusings? Let's keep this on the appropriate level.  Durova Charge! 03:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot help but think that Giano would be more effective in highlighting problems if he did not make personal attacks and, by doing so, poison the discussions. I have not closely followed the issues that Giano has highlighted - I have no idea of their legitimacy. However, I cannot imagine that his caustic style is the most effective form of advocacy that he could undertake. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ah don't sweat it, Phil - seems to me that Giano's effectiveness is primarily his own concern..... I don't see giano's caustic nature being released on the wiki-innocent and unwary really (just a simple way of saying that DG, for example, doesn't seem particular hurt, upset, or distracted as yet) - I'd suggest that the context of comments, which includes their legitimacy or otherwise, is very important - and would recommend you take a look.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine a context that would legitimize calling someone a worm and declaring them revolting. I mean, that just seems to me totally outside the realm of useful discourse, and well past the line we've had set up since the beginning of no personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ah, well I'd still recommend you take a look - what are your thoughts on 'rants about crazy bullshit' ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The times I have tried to garner a deeper understanding of Wikidrama have usually ended with me taking lots of Advil. I'm very much dubious of the "he was right" defense. But if you would like to explain the beneficial consequences of any of the 16 personal attacks I cited in this RFC, I'd be interested in hearing it. All I see is situations that got escalated in more dramatic and hysterical ways than were helpful, and discussions that got poisoned. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil, your words don't carry much weight when you only have eyes for Giano's behavior. Just yesterday I read David Gerard spouting;  "Summary: this is an idiot tempest driven by a banned WR troll and Giano's wounded sensibilities. Just because the wiki's biggest smoke machines are furiously pumping out clouds doesn't actually imply there's a fire."  David has been acting like this for years and you've never had much of a problem with him. From a post of mine almost two years ago objecting to frivolous 'civility' blocks;  "So lets look at the last few days of edits by the person who added the "persistent personal attacks" to the block policy: ass clownery, delete nominator, Shut up and quit being a disgrace, Ah, I see you're a different attention-seeking pissant entirely. My mistake"  --Duk 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can name dozens of people who have made personal attacks, but this RfC is about Giano. If you want to start one on David, I'd love to read the evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, thanks, I'm not into manufacturing drama, or having hissy fits about other's perceived lack of 'civility'. --Duk 02:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, OK then. But as for why I started one about Giano... because that was the one where I knew of a problem, and felt like I should dig deeper. I've not felt that about David. If someone does feel like he's that bad of a user, they should do the work o deal with it. But this is an RFC about Giano. To use a shortcut created for another debate, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence I put above shows you don't care diddly-shit about editors' egregious personal attacks and incivilities. You are just using it a weapon to bludgeon Giano with. --Duk 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I'm really going to go start an RFC over two year old comments. This is a tiresome distraction. This RFC is not about David Gerard. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any yet 'civility' is a subjective and relative concept. You can't judge one's 'civility' in a vacuum. Further, If you have one set of standards for Giano while anything goes for your little buddies, then I question your ethics, intellectual honesty and character. This little dramafest of yours is a waste of time. --Duk 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find civility particularly subjective. Certainly calling someone repulsive and a worm is not civil by any normative definition of the word. And I would point out that "no personal attacks" is the more relevant policy here anyway. But I reject this idea that to have any comment on one person's conduct some wide galaxy needs to be considered. What conduct on anybody's part is it appropriate to respond to as Giano does? How does a response like that help anybody or anything? Unless there are answers to those questions somewhere in this context, I don't see that the context changes anything. If there are answers, by all means present them. But "Why not make this RfC about David Gerard" is as on-topic as "Why not make this RfC about hamburgers." Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Why not make this RfC about David Gerard" -- don't put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. I merely pointed out that while vilifying Giano you have no problems with Gerard's potty mouth. I guess your idea of 'civility' requires a buddy map for calculation. --Duk 10:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

":Giano is only a problem when other Wikipedians are being stupid. When people aren't behaving stupid enough to set him off, he's a perfectly productive (and in fact quite good) article editor."
 * Giano doesn't cause problems, he protests them. And if you don't believe me maybe you'll believe Kelly Martin, one of the first power administrators/Arbitrators to suffer his wrath. A year or so after leaving Wikipedia, Kelley reminisced about Giano, and while I don't fully agree with what she said, the main point is solid; Giano doesn't like the project being harmed by stupidity. And as Privatemusings says, he is a huge asset. --Duk 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for people being forthright in the face of stupidity. Call a spade a spade.  Disagreement is allowed.  But I still think Giano has crossed the line of acceptable behavior many times.  He should tone it down a notch.  I believe that's the point here.  Friday (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that he would get the same results if he toned it down? Of do you think the ends don't justify his means? Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to that would depend on what you consider his "results" to be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that's the point here .. no, Friday, Shoemaker's question was why Giano isn't just banned outright. --Duk 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to have an adversarial relationship with Giano. One day I tried being nice to him, and he responded in kind. We've gotten along fine since then. Others might try this approach, and not only with Giano. Jehochman Talk 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are other editors who have made personal attacks, but on the other hand, do the editors who have hostile interactions with Giano generally manage to have hostile interactions with such a large pool of people? One of the things I find most troubling about Giano's behavior is the sheer number of people he has attacked. If there are other people with such a widespread tendency towards personal attacks, by all means, give me their usernames and I'll start crunching diffs for an RFC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm beginning to get a bit more perspective on the issue now. Sorry to be controversial, but in an unusual situation such as this, how else would I ever understand it? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * no worries shoe - though I'd preach a little more caution in wondering if there's any reason not to block anyone! Privatemusings (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to play devil's advocate. Otherwise a lot of evidence on one side never gets presented or evaluated. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth noting that Giano had a long and productive history and was never even mentioned on the admin noticeboards until he was indefinitely blocked by Carnildo in the Pedo userbox wars of Feb 2006. And he is not uncivil to other article contributors, it's not like he has the keyboard version of Tourette's syndrome. He is uncivil in certain specific situations, generally involving poor decision making by admins, sometimes toward himself and sometimes toward other users.  And he is almost always right on principle.  I would just like Giano to know that he does not have to go quite as far over the top as he does in order to bring attention to a problem. Thatcher 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right on principle, Thatcher? What principle was served when he interrupted my featured content drive to take potshots at me last summer?  How is his content work more sacrosanct than other people's?  I don't hold grudges for when he called me out and had a cause, but months afterward--what he threw was pure vitriol.  Durova Charge! 03:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I said almost always. I'm not aware of the incident you are referring to, but if he was going after months later or for an unrelated reason that sounds like more of a problem. Thatcher 08:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it may be fair that he is often "right on principle" in that he is often pointing at genuine problems - but that isn't always helpful. (Off the top of my head example: telling a physically handicapped person a cripple is technically correct - but unlikely to help them) That having been said, its my observation that he holds grudges (or acts similar to someone who does) far beyond the original incident. If theres ever a time when the edit not the editor principle needs to be better applied, its with Giano (from all sides). --Tznkai (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd be glad to set aside the past if it were reasonable to suppose Giano would do likewise. Risker wrote a scathing opinion at my RFC, yet Risker got my support at the ArbCom election.  I located and restored a high resolution illustration for one of Giano's articles when he was having trouble getting free license material, and informed him of some of the best quality archival architectural plans I had located.  Last month I went ahead and restored a 200-year-old floor plan for the White House.  Durova Charge! 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The display of Durova's refinement and genteelism in this section is getting a little OTT. "Friday, would you consider refactoring that sentiment into a more genteel phrasing?" is pure Jane Austen. I'm not crazy about having testicles intrude on my respectable tea-table either, but it's never occurred to me that a proper delicacy demands that they "[interrupt] my featured content drive" at every appearance. Wikipedians have all sorts of different sensibilities and speech cultures, in fact. What does inhibit my efforts is seeing a rhetorical figure like the claim you "were hoping there wouldn't be a need" to quote something rather rude (and then briskly quote it)—it just sets my teeth on edge. It's very nice if wikipedians can work together, but your insistence that Giano must work with you on images and be grateful isn't appropriate. Not when you know why he doesn't want to. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Note the OED top definition of "genteel": "Having the habits characteristic of superior station; that ranks or claims to rank above the commonalty on the ground of manners or style of living. In early use: Polished, well bred (obsolete). (Now chiefly with sarcastic implication.)" [/me goes off to create the essay Wikipedia is not genteel ]) Bishonen | talk 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC).

Bishonen, everyone knows you're an excellent writer and researcher. Of the things you could have picked up on in my words, the project would have been better served if it had been this. It's a three hundred year old architect's sketch and the whole notebook is digitized with two dozen more images like it, all in lossless TIFF files over 40MB each. Restoration wouldn't be the work of a day, but I've seen the trouble Giano has had getting illustrations of any sort for his articles. So far there's only one archive that digitizes material to this level of technical standard. We've got people talking to more places in other countries. Those doors are beginning to open and this could be a presentation that changes things for the better. The catch is this redlink: Francesco Muttoni. The illustration needs an article to go with it. Giano refuses to work with me so if someone else wants to write the biography that's fine too. We're here to build an encyclopedia. And Bishonen, not everyone who says change your ways, please is an enemy. Durova Charge! 15:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I quite like this approach
Here's a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
 * You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
 * You will need to be abundantly clear as to how exact wordings is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
 * Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")

I'd really appreciate a protagonist in this situation running through this process... Privatemusings (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC) this process isn't mine, of course - I suspect many will know where I knuck it from...


 * You want me to explain why calling someone revolting or a worm is incivil? (Though I'd note, the more important policy here is No Personal Attacks.) Are there any of the diffs I've cited that you think aren't personal attacks? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * not really, Phil - take another look if you fancy, because I think you've missed some bits - although if you don't find merit in it, don't bother - it'll all come out in the wash.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Cla68's view
I am NOT getting into the "giano question" here, but I'm very concerned about the policy implications of what Cla states, and the fact that a sitting arb (Casliber) has endorsed it. I'm asking Cla and those who have endorsed this to reconsider/reword.


 * 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.

Taken separately, these statements are true. Taken together, they dangerously imply that incivility in project or discussion pages is somehow somewhat trivial. "Facilitating a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia" requires rational and co-operative interaction between project participants - thus we have WP:AGF WP:NPA WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL which are outworkings of that requirement. These need to govern all interaction between wikipedians regardless of the space. I am very unlikely to say "Phil Sandifer should **** off" in article space, I just might say it on an article talk page, but it is no less damaging should I say it on his talk page, on an arbcom page, or during an afd.

To suggest that incivility outside article space only "technically crosses the incivility line", implying that it is wikilawyering the letter rather than observing the spirit of WP:CIVIL if one complains about it, seems to me quite ridiculous and sets and unjustifiable and dangerous precedent. One of the concern is that, whilst Giano's activity is (with all due respect) a very minor part of wikipedia, the activities of prominent wikipedians tend to set precedents of large numbers of others. That's certainly an issue, but far more worrying would be for us, in an attempt to analyse Giano's behaviour, to set down a policy interpretation that could have very wide effects, and basically limit our requirement for good standards of user interaction to only apply to article space.

I am genuinely surprised that people are endorsing this. Of course, I may well have totally misunderstood Cla's meaning. But if it is my misunderstanding, can I ask for the view to be clarified to avoid that possibility.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you up to a point Cla68, and that point is this "Thus, in my opinion, he isn't getting much, if at all, in the way of building an encyclopedia." Building an encyclopedia is certainly why we are all (supposed) to be here - and some of us (Giano) produce better, and more content than others (me). That isn't the only way to be productive - but it is certainly one of the best. That all having been said, I think Giano has genuinely disrupted article writing on Wikipedia - if only because he is providing a major distraction to other contributors. Civility policy - in fact all conduct policy - is meant to stop personal human distractions such as emotion, ego, insults, grudges and the like from misdirecting productive discussion and the production of neutral content.

Since various editors have defended Giano as effective despite/because of his strident tone - I'd like to note that cuts both ways. It distracts from article work. Giano himself is probably the best example of this: since coming back from his retirement on the 18th of December Giano has edited in article space four times, and article talk space twice and spent the rest of the time making noise (best, most neutral descriptor I have at the moment) about FT2 (and responding to this RFC), and I think we'd be hard pressed to say he added a great deal to resolve the FT2 matter. (As a matter of full disclosure my own productivity numbers are far worse).

Giano and his incivility have time and time again disrupted Wikipedia - if only by distraction - and further could the matter at hand because we spend a lot of time talking about his incivility. Is that Giano's fault alone? Probably not - but if we accept that it is natural to be uncivil while defending ones self (a common defense of incivility) - we have to accept that it is natural to get distracted and irritated about incivility. Incivility generally, is a problem - and is more of a problem in article and article talk space, sure - but it is still a problem elsewhere. Giano's incivility isn't all that special inherently, its the length of time and collateral damage its caused.--Tznkai (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "The spirit, but not necessarily the letter, of the incivility policy is, in my opinion, to facilitate a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia." was what I liked, and one of the best summations I have seen of WP:CIV to date. Thankfully I spent little time involved in some of the antics that I have recently seen in running for arbcom. I have been embarrassed at the literal interpretation of civility at times, where baiting or harassing people (albeit "politely") on people's own talk pages, or comments with the thinnest veneer of politeness have been ignored, among other things. The policy is fundamental but is only a building block in the ultimate aim of building a 'pedia, and as I said in my candidacy statement, it is important to take any outburst in context; as some of these colossal time-sinks would test the patience of a saint. I will add more as I think of it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not giving Giano a free pass. I'm saying that circumstances mitigate his behavior.  How?  I'll explain.
 * I believe that incivility and personal attacks in "article" space, including article talk pages and article edit summaries, are completely unacceptable. Here's an example of one directed at me by a Wikipedia admin, who definitely should have known better  [see the bottom edit in that diff].  For acting like a jackass to a new editor (I was new at the time), I then let that admin "have it"  and that succeeds in getting his attention and adjusting his behavior somewhat .  I believe that admin was being rude to try to drive me away because he didn't approve of my edits to "his" article.  Completely unacceptable.


 * Giano doesn't act like that in article space. In article space he is building an encyclopedia, which is what we're here for.  In admin space, however, he tries to adjust the behavior of admins and/or editors involved in Wikipedia's administration who he perceives are being abusive or acting like jackasses, or else get someone else who is able to step in and clean up the situation.  Most, if not all of the targets of his disapproval are experienced participants, like the admin who insulted me in the diff above, and therefore should know better than to be engaging in the behavior that they're engaging in.  Therefore, Giano comes on strong in order to get their attention, and the attention of the community, because he is trying to get results.  The ends do justify the means to some extent here.  Giano sometimes makes me uncomfortable with his methods, but as long as he keeps getting results and keeps being right, then I say his behavior isn't completely unnaceptable, because he's helping build a better encyclopedia. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked before, but I'll ask again - what, exactly, are the results of Giano's personal attacks? When, for instance, he calls David Gerard repulsive and a worm, or when he tells an arbitrator that they can choke on his testicles, what, exactly, is the end result? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you remember the !! block controversy? Let me be clear, I now greatly respect Durova's contributions to the project.  But at that time some serious abuse of the wiki was taking place by a number of Wikipedia admins who were apparently using a secret email mailing list to coordinate an orchestrated suppression campaign against editors that they didn't approve of (yes, this is my interpretation of what was going on).  Giano almost singlehandedly made sure that the issue was successfully addressed, by refusing to be intimidated by admins who were trying to cover it up by threatening him with blocks for his efforts to expose it.  He was strong because he needed to be strong in order to get results, and he got them.
 * Because of Giano's efforts, the current ArbCom is going to assign one of its members to monitor the IRC . He had to fight hard to get the "authorities" to tackle this issue, but he was successful (and note that the IRC admins are still trying to fight it ).  I believe he used some strong language during this campaign, but it seems to have worked. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - but why do the personal attacks help? Couldn't he accomplish the same thing - perhaps even more effectively - if he did not make personal attacks? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we do not have a parallel universe (where the attacks did not occur) to compare with. Yes, diplomacy is more helpful often, but not always, this is why we have blocks/bans/and all sorts of rules/ways to deal with problems that arise. Unfortunately I do know more on some issues that I can't discuss. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For that matter, an RfC is a case in point as an act that can be interpreted as hostile (but necessary depending on viewpoint) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cla, there is no such thing as "admin space", it is project space - and working in it is essential to the project that is building an encyclopedia. All aspects of this project require good collaborative working by all. Those that can't work collaboratively, can't work on a collaborative project. The suggestion that it is OK to to be uncivil as long as it is in project space strikes me as special pleading of the worst nature. And the notion that the way to communicate strong objection, or to respond to someone abusing power is by incivility is also nonsense. Anyone articulate enough, and having having a grasp of language enough to complete high-end content work is quite able to get their ideas over without resorting to name-calling and playground rhetoric. I'm actually really shocked that Casliber is defending this craziness. The problem with saying that people can be uncivil in order to be heard is that it simply creates a noise level that encourages more shouting. What if I think that Giano is the one abusing power? (And power = influence not just buttons) Can I then be even more uncivil back, so that I am heard? That simply ends in flaming. If you really want to restrict WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE to article space, then please propose that as a new policy. Thankfully it is not, and never has been, policy on wikipedia. And, to reply to Casliber's last point - the dispute resolution process (of which RfC is a part) IS policy and IS the way that any editor with a grievance should proceed. Because, if they are out on a limb, the community will tell them so. Using dispute resolution is always preferable to responding with hostility, incivility and heated rhetoric elsewhere. I can't believe you are questioning one and defending the other!--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Giano has gone too far sometimes. I remember on one occasion (sorry, I don't feel like searching around for the diffs right now) in which Giano was heatedly criticizing the ArbCom and NewYorkBrad responded by saying something like, "Giano, your comments are starting to get offensive."  When as good faith of an editor/admin as NewYorkBrad starts to feel offended, then I agree that Giano is going too far.  So, I'm not excusing all of his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a mistake to suggest that the main reason for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is so that people do not get offended or have their feelings hurt. It is because personal attacks and incivility do not move us closer to consensus. Which is, I think, the big problem - Giano's involvement in situations guarantees drama and divisiveness? Why? Because Giano creates a divisive, dramatic atmosphere when he makes personal attacks. Even if we're all big boys and girls and can take it, the personal attacks still impare discussion. And that's the thing - even as Giano "gets things done," his methods for doing so are deeply problematic and destructive. Giano's preferred method of dispute resolution on policy matters is pouring gasoline onto fires and trying to make things into battlegrounds. It's unhelpful. There are no positive results that can be credited to calling someone repulsive. None. That sometimes situations Giano involves himself in work out well is not evidence of Giano's efficacy. Correlation does not imply causation unless you can point to some sort of reason why it would. Why does calling someone a worm lead to good results? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on View by Jehochman
I'm not sure its a good idea for us all to write in length our interactions with Giano, but I will oblige anyway. I have blocked Giano once (was overturned quickly for a combination of good and in my opinion, bad reasons). I have commented on his talk page during a few incidents, and I have been on the receiving end of of a few insults and foul language.--Tznkai (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that Giano provides a "valuable service" in the prevention of power cabals - taking Scott McDonald's view as a counterpoint Giano has essentially formed his own cabal and its rival - those who agree/are friends with Giano versus those who are not - the endless battle of vestedusers perhaps - or what more than a few Wikipedians have called the soap opera. I think the person involved here who has been the most effective in reforming and addressing power roles has been Thatcher, and he did so, at least from what I have seen, with perfect civility. I have little doubt he helped the case. Others who have been pointing out the absence of proverbial clothing, also do it civilly. As GRberry noted in his endorsement of Sam Blacketer's view drama is not the best way - although there is an unfortunate amount of evidence that it might be. Criticizing power is not inherently helpful - nor is agreeing with power a one way ticket to sycophancy (or to those familiar with Imperial Chinese politics - eunuch-hood).

Comment on Outside View by Durova
I'm sorry, but I have looked at all your diffs, and tried to figure out what Giano did that was so awful, and I just can't find it. I found his comment "Just be a little darling and show some intersest in content"; that is patronizing and mildly sexist. And I found his request on your user page to consider all victims of terrorism. That was an intrusion on your user page, but it does not seem like a big deal to me. He may not have known about the role 9/11 played in your life (I didn't, until today), and no one knows (because he reveals nothing personal about himself) what his experience has been of terrorism. If he had posted his comment on your talk page it would have been cause for nothing more than a brief response pointing him to your own prior statements on how 9/11 affected you, or even just ignoring it. I just don't see that either of these comments constitutes evidence of sanctionable incivility (unless simple rudeness is now blockable). Am I missing the real real meat here? Thatcher 12:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the 9/11 comment can be very easily read to be offensive with no fault to the reader. I'm having trouble putting it into words, but telling someone whose asking for dignity in remembering 9/11 that their appeal is too limited, and that their government was shamed by 9/11 into doing something about the Troubles... its just kinda mean. Maybe there is no mens rea here, but this is pretty damned insensitive - an excellent example of where less could have been much more. "Durova - there are many other victims of terrorism world over... perhaps you could expand your appeal?" would've been so much better, and thats just off the top of my head.--Tznkai (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me we are probably getting off the main point here:"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." I may be putting words into Durova's mouth, but Giano's unapproachable nature/reputation (certainly enhanced by, if not originating in incivility and personal attacks) makes resolving what may have been a differing point of view difficult - and gives it the potential to become an incident that causes bad blood.


 * In response to Giano's comment "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"..." We could argue about whether that statement in context is patronizing regardless of cultural context (I can't think of a culture off the top of my head where the endearing diminutive is used without a requisite amount of personal familiarity first) - but I'd rather ask you directly: can you at least see why it would be reasonable to be offended, or at least annoyed by your statements here?--Tznkai (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will say, regarding the endearing diminutive, that a similar level of comment by me - one that was simply a poor choice of words that I quickly retracted and apologized for - was taken by many of those pillorying this RfC as grounds for a finding of fact about incivility and personal attacks on my part. The double standard is, to say the least, disappointing.


 * I would also suggest, to Thatcher, that "little dear" is something where it matters who is saying it. If, to pick a thoroughly uncontroversial user, Calsiber called someone a "little dear," we would probably overlook it. But when it comes from somebody with a long history of personal attacks, many of which are in no way ambiguous, it is much harder to overlook the borderline and marginal cases. This comes down to a matter of assuming good faith. It is easy to assume good faith in one who has not repeatedly demonstrated bad faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently this does have to be said; I was hoping there wouldn't be a need. Giano had previously invited the only female arbitrator of the 2008 Committee to choke on his testicles.  Durova Charge! 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. I didn't know that. I am much sadder about this entire situation and the willingness of people to let it fester now. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As the above know very well edit 3 referred to the confusion over the meaning of edit 1. Where I clearly refer to emasculation and castration in a reference to the agricultural operation for quietening a wild animal. Which was the comparison made by me to one suggestion at an Arbitration case. I do not believe I have ever invited Flo Nite to choke on anyone's testicles. So criminally wicked, devious, malicious and false is Durova's assertion her, that I shall no longer be taking part in the ridiculous and lying RFC. Giano (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, regardless of Durova's description of the comments, I'm unable to figure out a context where saying "The community has the truth, the old Arbs subterfuge is open for all to see, and I still have my balls which must be very hard for the them - lets hope they never get to get to choke on them - for choke they surely will" is appropriate. I mean, do you really believe that saying that improved the situation, furthered discussion, or helped anything? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, on Elonka: stupid woman. Giano, on Theresa Knott: bossy and school mistressy.  It gets harder to explain away as the pattern grows.  And it's about as civil as passing out fried chicken and watermelon at an NAACP meeting.  Durova Charge! 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I talk with Giano frequently and look through his contributions on a regular basis. I do not think that it is accurate to say or imply that he is a misogynist or he makes misogynistic comments. When he is angry he makes heated comments that are specifically directed at individuals so they are personal in nature. I would prefer that Giano take a break when he gets fed up with Wikipedia and not engage in heated quarrels, and I tell him so. But I think exaggerated claims of the nature or intent of them is not helpful feedback for him, and will make ending the conflicts more difficult. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is not whether or not he is misogynist; it's what this inures people to. When I politely asked Giano to withdraw the pet name, a steward stepped into the conversation to tell me how he calls waitresses by pet names in restaurants. The young woman I was trying to help around that time had gotten actively hostile responses from fellow Wikipedians while she was trying to get assistance for a problem that drove her to the police and eventually drove her off the site. And a couple of weeks before Giano's words to me, I had opened an FBI case over a different man who had been sending elaborate threats of rape, murder, and disfigurement--and who lived within driving distance of my home. Also due to Wikipedia volunteer work. We wouldn't tolerate this situation if the target references were race or religion--regardless of the speaker's internal frame of mind that's socially unacceptable. I don't excuse this either. We're a charity, and we're allowing certain volunteers to drive away others for reasons that have nothing to do with the organization's mission. Durova Charge! 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Inures"? So, pls clarify - Giano calling someone "dear" or some other pet name, or becoming irate and calling someone whose actions he finds objectionable names, will somehow make people desensitized, so that when a real life stalker or harasser goes after someone, they won't care? Are you certain you have thought this statement through, Durova? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As sad and incredible as it may seem, yes. That was also the opinion of the young lady who quit editing last summer.  She was very eloquent about it, but unfortunately for this conversation her best statements occurred offsite and I can't quote them.  She didn't want to draw more (negative) attention to herself.  Is it too much to ask our senior editors to withdraw a pet name when requisite familiarity really doesn't exist?  I think not.  Is it too much to ask our stewards to respect the culture of the recipient of such an address, or at least suppose she might object in good faith?  I knew I'd take heat over this assertion, but I respect other women and want to see more women editing; I do make it.  Durova Charge! 00:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My issue with Durova's outside view is one of mountains and molehills. I am well aware of the testicle comment, having called Giano on it at the time.  In comparison to that, and to the "Gerard is a worm" comments, "little dear" is rather mild.   And I don't see any material difference between Tznkai's generic terrorism wording and Giano's specific NI comment.  Either one is a case of, "Pay attention to my problem, not just yours" which may be inappropriate to say to someone else, but is also hardly a blockable thing by itself.  I was wondering if there was some element to Durova's complaint that I had overlooked. Thatcher 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally, a conduct RfC resolves problems in a broader sense without binary block/unblock thinking. The question is whether certain actions are harmful to the project, and I believe these are.  It's entirely possible that this perception is shaded; that caveat is sure to come up and it was because I feared that fingers would be pointed at me in particular that this reaction remained silent to low key as long as it did.  But in addition to the effects of a history with Giano and some rather bad stuff unrelated to him, it's also colored by being one of the individuals people turn to for help.  When an unknown editor gets targeted for bias harassment and male volunteers rebuff her, she looks for an experienced woman to confide in.  This is a hostile working environment, and Giano's actions contribute to the site's working norms.  More so than most editors because he's so prominent.  Durova Charge! 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, however if we could get rid of the testicle chewing and the fuckwit comments, we could probably live with an occasional "little dear" or at least deal with it through calm conversation rather than an RFC. Thatcher 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thatcher, there's a broader angle. Most of this thread has focused on one example, but really there were three and one of the others led to a wheel war and an arbitration case which could and should have been avoided.  Giano supposes bad faith and acts aggressively in situations where good faith is actually operative and easy to discover, and once the aggressive stance is taken there may be no way of getting him to step back from it.  This can cause unpleasant dilemmas for the people caught on the brunt of it--like the fellow who logged in to discover a wheel war had erupted while he was attending a close relative's funeral.  Something's wrong when fellow volunteers' response amounts to 'take it on the chin; he's done worse.'  Did Giano realize that in two lines he had managed to insult my family, my country, and my military service?  He does now, and he takes offense that I view this as a problem.  Durova Charge! 18:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thatcher, I agree that this isn't something that is blockable - but I still think there is a problem. The problem here is that Giano's comments, sometimes in part, sometimes as a whole, have created a hostile environment around himself. Rightly or wrongly, people find him difficult, unpleasant and unapproachable - and while that isn't a problem always best solved by administrative intervention (rarely so, really), its a real problem that he has created with his comments. If we accept on face the idea that Giano is only rude to "those who deserve it" there is still a chilling effect created where less and less people will want to work with Giano - and those who work with him. Is this a wiki-wide problem? God I hope not - but the real meaty problem found in Durova's view is that someone stepped in and said "don't bother talking to Giano - he's too stubborn and unpleasant" (paraphrased). I don't think we can blame Durova or that unnamed steward for thinking so either.--Tznkai (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Geogre's view
I think Geogre has it wrong when he calls WP:CIVIL a "non-policy"--I went and looked at the page and saw a policy tag on it. We can't both be right. Seriously though, civility and "No personal attacks" are policies, for the real and good reason that a collaborative project depends on a healthy environment, one in which editors treat each other with respect--even if you don't think they deserve it. I think it's unfortunate that an administrator thinks that's bunk, but we've been over this before with getting anywhere. The policy doesn't say "no personal attacks in the article space, but roundly abuse those quisling administrators all you like." Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This has nothing to do with emotions. The reasoning behind WP:NPA is not that people's feelings get hurt - it is that introducing personal attacks to a discussion ensures that nothing productive comes of the discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whereas witchhunting really moves things along, particularly if you pick on productive article writers. Grace Note (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding certification
I'm perfectly willing to remove my name from the certification. This RfC, it is worth noting, is a refiled request for arbitration that multiple arbitrators immediately (within an hour of it being posted) asked to go through RfC first. This left me a bit of a problem, as I was not an especially involved user, which is fine for a RFAr, but trickier for an RfC due to the issue of certification.

However, looking at the issue, it seemed clear that certification was, in this case, a technicality at best. The issue had been referred down by arbcom, and seriously, who was going to argue that there was no basis for a community dispute over Giano's behavior? The issue of multiple users trying and failing to resolve the dispute was, it seemed to me, very much evident. I listed the two RFArs (one of which I had no involvement in whatsoever) as examples of prior dispute resolution on this issue, and certified that a dispute existed. My reasoning was that the text of the certification section did not seem to specify that I had to be the one who tried to resolve the dispute - merely that efforts to resolve the dispute existed, and that multiple users were involved. So I presented evidence of past efforts, and certified that this was the case.

If anyone feels this reading of the situation sullies the RfC in a significant way, I'm happy to remove my name from the certification list. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the interests of not having this issue overwhelm the actual issue, I've retracted my certification. As the RfC is still doubly certified, this changes little. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A Question
It has been put forth that Giano is something of a Dr Jekle/Mr Hyde type on Wikipedia and I was curious about how well that characterization holds water. Basically on one hand you have a prolific editor with many supporters of his good work. On the other you have a vitriolic tongue-lasher who attacks admins/arbs/'the establishment' with many detractors of his bad work.

I was wondering if people could provide diffs of his bad behaviour that followed these rules.

1. It has to be related to article work. (I.E. he called a fellow editor a bad name because he disagreed with that persons article contribution, obvious trolls exempted.)

2. It cannot be in response to an 'administrative action'.. be it a banning or a warning. (I.E. telling someone to bugger off cus they gave them a civility warning)

3. It cannot be a wikipolitics discussion. (I.E. Calling arbs worms or disparing the admnin chat line. anything from wp:ani or wp:rfar)

4. It cannot be directed at someone who can be described as having a 'grudge' against him (I.E. someone that repeatedly try's to get him RFAR'd or Banned or something.)

This is NOT intended to be a justification/admonishment of his actions. I do NOT want to hear arguments about how wikipolitics should still be civil. I just want to investigate the paradigm that he is some kind of movie star that is blacklisted as a commie for critisizing the government.198.161.173.180 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a few instances of incivility that I've seen outside of administrative actions. is the first one that springs to mind - calling an editor a "complete ignoramus" and a "fuckwit" for trying to use a Commons version of an image, and marking the Wikipedia version as a copy to be deleted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Fuckwit' certainly seems indefensible on its face. I have to say I am torn, though.  This is where the infamous 'grey areas' show up.  I see reasons why this doesn't quite fit my criteria, and I see reasons why it does (I would rather not get caught up in debating every single instance but I will if pressed).  More would be helpful, and thank you for your efforts.198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c)Please log-in, it would respect the rest of us who are taking responsibility our Wikipedia reputations and history.--Tznkai (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All one has to do, is refrain from using colorful language (unless it's meant in a joking matter). GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no log in and declare under no uncertain terms that I am not anyone that has ever had a login name at Wikipedia (in case someone feels this is a socking issue). It is my right and my risk to not have a login name.198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice for Giano
Giano, if someone asks you to change the wording of a comment, please just do it. It doesn't mean you are backing down from whatever the issue is, it is not a sign of weakness. There are two good reasons to do this.
 * 1) Out of respect for others.  If you want to be treated with respect, you need to treat others with respect.  Sometimes you do not intend to be disrespectful but are so ignorantly or accidentally, because people invest your words with meaning derived from their own experiences and feelings rather than yours.  In an environment like Wikipedia, respect is not a two-player zero-sum game.  Other people who have never interacted with you before may decide how to treat you by watching how you treat others.  Even if you don't respect the person whom you are confronting, refactor your comments out of respect for your friends.  People who may be willing to defend you for calling someone "stupid" or "ignoramus" over an article photo or infobox probably cringe when they see you calling editors worms, loathsome, or fuckwits.  Don't put them in that position.
 * 2) When you call attention to a problem or react to a situation with inappropriate language or insults, you trade a short-term gain for a long-term loss.  Yes, people start paying more attention to the problem, but the focus of attention shifts to your behavior and away from the actual root problem.  People are only willing to devote so much time and energy to a problem before they move on to something more interesting or fulfilling.  Effort spent dealing with inappropriate comments by you is effort that can not be spent to deal with the underlying complaint.  Put another way, your outbursts often call attention to significant problems but they distract people from solving those problems. Thatcher 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find some consensus
Looking through the various comments here one thing is clear to me - this RfC isn't just about Giano but has a host of issues surrounding it - it may be as simple as battleground mentality, cabals shadowboxing, or genuine disagreements. To that end I want to try to find some sort of established ground where most of us will at least agree before moving onto Giano himself.

Content is king
 * All policy and processes on Wikipedia are designed with the end goal of of creating an effective, informative, neutral, well written encyclopedia. Be we primarily writers, copy editors, vandalism reverters, or even administrators, we're all volunteers trying to apply our talents and abilities to try to make Wikipedia better - and if any of you aren't this isn't the right place for you.

Good Wikipedia governance ls important
 * Better policy, and better application of policy creates better content. Content policies control the quality of our content, conduct policies should control contributors so they remain focused on content instead of eachother.
 * This is where good administration comes in - administration is supposed to reduce disruption, help forge consensus, encourage productive conversation, do boring work, remove problem users and otherwise protect the editing environment. Problem users can range from vandals to genuine stalkers. Those focused on administration should do so with the intent of getting problems, distractions and themselves out of the way of people who are doing the writing, research, and maintenance of articles (and images).

Editors are human beings
 * We have human frailties and strengths. We make mistakes, we hold grudges, we cast aspersions, and we get angry and frustrated. We respond poorly to insults, perceived or real.

Civility works better than incivility
 * Generally speaking, civility works better than the alternative. Making things personal distracts from the substantive issues. Editors should be focused on the issue at hand, not by insults, bad language and other unpleasant beahviors.

Civility processes and policies have been abused
 * Conduct policy is not a road map to banning for administrators - it is advice, guidelines, and expectations. Conduct policy has - and likely will continue to be - abused by grouchy admins in furtherance of personal or political feuds. This extends to the abuse of proccess by non-admins as well, but and the end of the day, the buck stops with the people clicking the block link.

There is such thing as a reasonable disagreement
 * This is the most difficult part, but intelligent good faith Wikipedians will disagree - and disagree dramatically - about what needs to be done about a situation. We give into the temptation to say "I'm right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, knows they are wrong, and they are being wrong for Evil purposes." This is the very reason the assumption of good faith is important.

Good criticism is important
 * Disagreement may well be the foundation of Wikipedia process: everything is built with the assumption that people start out in disagreement and work towards consensus. Nothing improves unless the flaws are pointed out, not personal behavior, not articles, not Wikipedia governance.

I apologize for the length.--Tznkai (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate it when you're right about stuff, you know. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest posting this as a view. Not everyone is going wade through the talk page to get to this.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have - but it doesn't say a thing about Giano - nor what should be done. I'd feel somewhat useless saying "here are some Wikipedia truisms: go forth and do likewise"--Tznkai (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fuck Giano, put this up at some proposed policy page or something... There is an important message here; incivility is not the use of of BADWORDS (apologies to both Dan T and Guy) but a culture of disrespect, and good faith comments however couched in bad language should not be disregarded because of the packaging. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More likley this will end up in a never finished essay somewhere in the bowels of my userspace along with this--Tznkai (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LessHeard, would you consider a refactor? In an RfC where civility is paramount, the avoidance of hot button terms does help.  Durova Charge! 01:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you understand the meaning of his post? The use of a particular set of words "naughty words" is less offensive to many people than comments that use bland words but agitate other users. In most situations asking people to rewrite there comments is going to annoy them and it should be avoided unless it is needed to calm down a situation. I'm quite sure that Giano has heard the word "fuck" and I would be very surprised if he more offended by LessHeard vanU's remark then other comments on this page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova may be pointing at BADWORDS - I'm not sure. Either way, my point is that while good faith comments spoken rudely are not to be dismissed they are generally less productive than good faith comments spoken politely. --Tznkai (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the meaning of your post. The point is that disrespect comes in many different shapes and sizes. Most people are offended by hypercritical comments whether delivered in soft word or vulgar language. To claim the high ground because you nice words often can be more offensive than spewing vitriol. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is true, but scarcely a good defence for the person spewing vitriol.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a surprisingly aggressive response, FloNight. At RFC it's important that fellow Wikipedians demonstrate the behavior they wish to ask of others.  At heart here is civility; therefore we exercise civility unambiguously--or else undermine the purpose of RFC.  At the Mattisse RFC it's AGF; therefore we take extra caution to assume good faith there.  A poisonous thing in the long chain of events that led up to this RFC is due to this little nuance this person I do like was civil, then due to that little nuance this person I don't like must have been baiting, which ends up becoming a great waste of time and distraction from the site's main goal of providing an encyclopedia to the public.  Every vulgar word is a cliché: unless one's intention is to shock or offend there are always politer alternatives.  Durova Charge! 02:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova, I don't know if you meant it to or not, but that reads as though you think people behave better when attention is on a particular trait or behavior, and that you think that is not only a good thing, but also that you recommend that type of approach as a conscious choice. Is that what you meant? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conduct RFC is a difficult type of dispute resolution. The attention is on the person and it isn't pleasant to have one's shortcomings spotlighted by one's peers.  There's a strong temptation to spot the inconsistencies and think who are these people to judge me?  That impulse cam overwhelm all other reaction and make an RfC self-defeating.  So the odds of getting useful resolution improve when fellow editors make extra effort to demonstrate best practices.  It's a way to minimize the distractions and keep the appropriate focus.  Durova Charge! 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (response to Durova's first comment)Had I seen your comment at the time I think I should have amended (rather than refactor, since the intent needed to be evident) the terminology, but the matter has since progressed and to change it now would render some later comments as peculiarly oversensitive. FloNight makes the point well; bad faith commentary should not be considered more appropriate because of the neutral language and smattering of bland adjectives than more robust discourse utilising "hot button" terminology delivered in good faith.
 * I would, however, admit that I was not as considered in my use of words last night as I hope I am usually; I forwent my normal few bottles of beer for an equal quantity of wine and was consequently more than usually coarse when presenting my opinions... I do hope that I had not offended anyone by my manner, nor indeed by the content, and am grateful that persons with a more careful vocabulary were able to carry forward the argument. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. It's an excellent effort you've made with this search for consensus, and obviously not easy to attempt.  Durova Charge! 17:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that LessHeard - and thank you further for striking upon one of the problems. If we can agree to my largish post above - and further agree that there is such thing as good faith criticism given meanly (for lack of a better word) - and that it shouldn't be ignored, it brings us to certain questions.
 * First, is there ever a point where the way something is said or done is too offensive or disruptive to be acceptable? (and stickier, if so, where is that line drawn)
 * Second, why does good faith criticism spoken meanly get ignored? (because often, it does) With the assumption of good faith all criticism should appear to be done in good faith - but we know that the reader often sees bad faith as a result. How much of this is due to the choice of language? how much is due to the criticism? Is the criticism truly being ignored? If someone demands I do X about problem P, and I do something Y - am I ignoring criticism? Where does compromise and consensus fit in? I have my beliefs here obviously, but I am ready to be persuaded otherwise
 * Third, and probably most problematic is good faith criticism spoken roughly ever of more value, and thus appropriate, in any particular situation? I don't know - my instincts say rarely if ever, but again, I'd like to hear arguments otherwise.
 * I'd appreciate it as a personal favor if we could avoid meta arguments - I'm very interested in finding out what people think about the questions I raised.--Tznkai (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the first point, I should say that there is a fairly simple line where the way something is said that is so disruptive or offensive as to negate the points raised, and that is to show disrespect to the other party - and that is something beyond the type of words used. In general discussion a lapse into vulgarity is permissable, especially when it is a known mannerism, but tailoring ones responses to the situation is imperative. Durova steadfastly demurs the use of what she considers profane language, yet I would not feel constrained in the use of "mean terms" in her presence if addressing the community - but I would be both disruptive and offensive if I were to use them in addressing her, knowing her dislike for it. The content as well as the language may be the same, but one instance is permissable yet the other crosses the line.
 * To the second point, without the visual clues and being able to hear the tone of a comment nearly all vulgarisms appear aggressive (as vulgarisms are based in aggressive behaviour, while body language can modify it). The usual response to aggression is the fight or flight instinct, and this primal response does not usually allow for a considered response to the content being conveyed in this manner. Criticism, which is most usually negative, of itself may incur an aggressive response, and to have that attack addressed in vulgar terms likely leads to a response that relates to the perceived tone rather than the content.
 * Lastly, once in a while a sharp adjective may draw attention to a point that may otherwise be missed if presented blandly (or at considerable length) but it does not, in my opinion, make the point raised any more worthy. What is more, overuse of vulgarity is just as ignorable as overly bland language. So no, the content of a point is not made more valid through the use of profanity - and the reactions to said profanity is as likely to have the content ignored as it is to bring it to anothers attention.
 * In most cases the use of vulgarisms is counterproductive, but it shouldn't be a reason for it to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone is repeatedly making personal attacks with the intent to badger the other person in to leaving the discussion or Wikipedia, then we should not tolerate it. But other times we should overlook the colorful or heated language itself and instead dwell on the meaning behind the words. When people react in real time in conflicts they are often upset and speak with more candor than they would at other times. If we dismiss their comments at that time because they are too heated, then we miss the opportunity to listen and fix the issue in a timely manner. Often in a discussion/conflict more than one person is upset and communication breaks down because neither person is listening, but instead talking. I don't have time for a fuller reply now. More later. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to describe why we are forgiving of isolated instances of personal attacks. I am less certain of why we are forgiving of a user with such a clear pattern of personal attacks. Certainly nothing in our policy sets up such forgiveness, and I can find no other example of a user who so regularly makes personal attacks against so many users that we are willing to overlook. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FloNight, sometimes the "meaning behind the words" is badgering and public humiliation. Now, its difficult (though not impossible) to satisfactorily discern intent, but looking for the "legitimate grounds for criticism" is often a red herring, because it isn't the "legitimate grounds for criticism" that caused the nastiness to spring forth. There is agency here, and the so called "candor" is often thinly disguised meanness. Getting to the relevant point - this comment seems to fall quite nicely in the category of genteelly spoken meanness - with the intent to publicity castigate and badger - at the very least that is a reasonable interpretation. We all here seem to be agreed that vulgarity is not required for an attack to be personal - and certainly we are all agreed that personal attacks can be a problem. I've yet to hear a justification for this one that doesn't devolve to a kindergartner justifying bullying another kindergartner by saying "but she IS stupid!" We have to draw the line somewhere - I don't remember signing a dotted line under "and by doing this on Wikipedia, you become fair game for all matter of insults."--Tznkai (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A way forward?
OK, the fact is that attitudes to Giano are so tied up with parties and polemic that this RfC is unlikely to resolve anything. A look at the endorsements quickly shows the usual suspects lining up in each direction. If this RfC is a precursor to arbitration then I suspect we are also heading for another futile RfArb - because the committee is probably as divided as the community.

So where do we go? How do we actually get everyone working together to improve the atmosphere, so that when the next crisis comes along, things are handled better?

My observation would be that Giano isn't really the issue. People's response to Giano is pretty much symptomatic of the larger problem, which is that when the inevitable disputes happen, a group of established editors (on all sides) line up to refight old battles, rather than trying to solve the dispute in hand. The problem is that we've simply ignored WP:BATTLE.

A modest proposal I propose that some of the participants (on all sides) along with some of the arbitration committee, and experienced neutrals who are sickened by it, might work out a "Code of conduct for established wikipedians in disputes" (Code of dispute conduct for advanced users?). A sort of established user code for those from whom we should expect better behaviours not worse. A Geneva convention that won't stop wars, but might eliminate some of the most unhelpful ways of fighting them. A lot of this code will neccessarily be pretty general principles and common sense - nothing new. But we might agree a few "electric fences", things that would be better not done because although not the root of the problem, never help. (A suggestion could be an agreement NEVER to comment on other users in edit summaries during disputes - always keep them descriptive. I can think of a few other suggestions too). We might also spell out things like "Socratic responses" to apparently inflammatory statement - that's where you ask a user to clarify - rather than simply assuming the worst intention during a debate. We could also spell out when Dispute resolution should be sought. Rather than used as a weapon, people might say "Hey, we've obviously not agreeing here. Do you think we can solve this by further discussion/mediation/third part comment? Or shall we agree to go to arbitration?".

The code would not be a solution for policy problems (those are for the whole community), but my thought is that once this behaviour code is worked out, experienced users would be invited to voluntarily subscribe. However, by subscribing they'd also be instructing the arbitration committee to take a very prejudicial view of breaches during heated debates. Neutral users could also remind people who are breaking it (although one of its terms should be NEVER to remind someone you are in dispute with, or have a history of dispute with, about the code). It might also be that in future established wikipedians who cause BATTLE problems could be instructed by the arbitration committee to adhere to the code, even if they don't subscribe.

Now, I realise there's a hundred reasons why this is futile, but I can't think of any other way forward. At the moment everyone seems to think there's a win to be had here, but is there? I can see no endgame here, and certainly none that helps the project.

I'm up for this, if there are a few arbs and some other old warriors of different perspectives that would like to help.

--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no problem, with adopting a code of conduct. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that WP:NPA is written with the expectation that people will not rise to bait, but also that those that repeatedly bait will be stopped. Thus this "rise above it, just ignore it" approach seems to me to be both wrong in terms of policy and naive. Yes, if people didn't get distracted by vicious personal attacks, vicious personal attacks would not be problematic anymore. However, people do. Hence we prevent the attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Except we don't.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the way forward is if we start doing so then. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As you well know that's not going to happen.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly not on this RfC, yes. Especially since Giano appears to have abandoned it and given up on it. Which is unfortunate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Truly. But this horse died many months ago. As unfair as it might be, it is pointless pursuing it. It is as it is.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a side point
I removed my certification of the RFC when Bishonen's summary had four endorsements. Since that time, 13 people have endorsed a summary criticizing an endorsement of the RfC that had already been taken down.

What am I missing about why this is still an issue? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see Bishonen accused you of entering into the IRC RfArb as a "means of flaming Giano" and "taking it the farthest into the waste land of the battleground" and not trying to resolve the dispute. My problem is that this is a huge assumption of bad faith. Involvement in an RfC or RfArb is involvement in the "dispute resolution" process, where all are supposed to be there find a resolution. We need to start by assuming that the other side is interested in one, or we rather doom it from the start.


 * In my comment, I noted that pretty much everyone involved with this run of disputes has violated WP:BATTLE. I think WP:BATTLE is a good starting point for us all to reflect on what is going on, and why there is no resolution here. As I said "People are entering dispute resolution without any intention of "resolving" the dispute, but merely fighting the next round of the war." WP:BATTLE is a really good starting point for self-reflection. Unfortunately, one has to stop battling to engage in that reflection, and if people simply use WP:BATTLE as another brick to throw at their opponents, assuming bad faith on their part, whilst insisting on their own self-righteousness, the potential in that analysis is also rather doomed.


 * To pinch someone's metaphor, I simply wish wikipedians could occasional see the log in their own eye..... I wonder if the devs could find a way of replacing a dispute resolution page with a virtual mirror?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Ottava's section

 * Since we are parsing these, I suppose the relevant portion of each edit should be specified. In citation #1, I see no threat in the comment Giano is responding to. #2 the problems are "revolting" and "pathetic. #3, "troll" can be a personal attack - it's context-dependent. Certainly it is difficult to paint declaring an administrator and long-time user as "nothing but a troll" in a light where that is a reasonable claim. No comments in particular on whether you're a troll, as I don't know you. "Appear incompetent" is, I think, a personal attack. In #6, "Have you been drinking" is, I think, a clear personal attack. While #7's ostensible subject is a comment, "monumental stupidity, naivity and ignorance" is, I think, well over the line. But the real problem with #7 is calling another editor an "aging old fool." #8, "completely useless and incompetent" does not describe actions. #10 clearly calls the editor a disgrace, not the actions. And #11, I think, can at best be characterized as blending comments on content and contributors.


 * However, there is ample precedent for extreme vitriol that is ostensibly targeted at content to be taken as a personal attack, so this hair-splitting seems like pointless rules-lawyering at best. Let's ask this - can you honestly tell me that any of the diffs cited above do not add toxicity and hostility to conversations with no productive results? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've stated, they can be rude, but most are not "personal attacks". The distinction is extremely important, especially when you are using NPA. Now, you are responding -within- my entry at RfC, which is bad form. In combination with my belief that this RfC was better suited at Wikiquette, and that I feel that you got a lot of the characterization wrong, this is three strikes against you. Sorry Phil, but you are just reinforcing my initial view of you. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving this. Most admin respond to such a complaint by issuing ban threats. So, that means that you are still thinking rationally about this. That is a good sign. However - why RfC and not Wikiquette? You should know the level of drama that RfC produces and that ArbCom produces. Do you really want that? What is the point? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the sequence was RFAr, RfC, and then RFAr again, where it's being rejected largely on the assumption that Giano will stick to editing articles and not make further personal attacks. But the logic, basically, was that the arbcom referred it to RfC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See, that's what I don't like. The easiest way to do something is through informal approaches without the possibility of sanctions. This is a simplistic behavioral problem - you feel that his language is inappropriate. It will only cause problems by taking it to the area where people get desysopped or banned as an option. Remove the extreme results and try to get to an area to just talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ottava, I should have let you know I placed your note here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Goodmorningworld's section
I think there should be a distinction between incivility that's in article talk space and incivility that has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. We don't want consensus achieved by the people who are best at insulting the people that they are in dispute with. On the other hand, the incivility that Giano is being accused of seems to have stemmed from disputes between wikipedians that have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia and hence are not a big deal. That is what I described in my view above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how incivility can be "not a big deal". Suppose somone was incivil and personally attacked you right here right now? This does not have to do with making an encyclopedia as you say.  So it would not be a big deal if someone insulted you then would it?  Would it really still not be a big deal? :-/ --Hfarmer (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it would not.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this thing ever end?
Or is this a permanent feature on Wikipedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm...yeah it does. I sorta forgot it was open actually. It has had a trickle of activity but has petered out a bit. Shall we close it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is doing any good or, for that matter, any harm. Arbom suggested it, so if arbs are satisfied that "all righteousness has been fulfilled" then close it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having been emailed to take a look at this page: I see it seems to be in recent weeks little more than a permanent blackboard for every aggrieved troll on Wikipedia to scrawl their name. Or perhaps,  it's therapy for them, as it is for those who draw decorative art on the walls alongside European railway lines, some sort of inner release - the difference being the graffiti is actually quite diverting and may one day be considered to be of cultural use. I shall not be commenting on this RFC again; it's not on my watch list. I prefer to help write the project. The Arbcom wanted and required this RFC, I hope it has served their requirement and that now  they have their desired response. I trust they will now, very wisely, close it, further debate, I assure you will only feed the trolls. Giano (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Closure in progress.--Tznkai (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)