User talk:FT2

Current discussion summaries

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic Motions 10 April 2024 0/0/0 [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024 Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing Motion (orig. case) 27 February 2024 Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 Motion (orig. case) 18 April 2024 Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing Motion (orig. case) 16 April 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open.

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive
  Closed topics are archived to approx. March 21 2008.

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Wikipedia:Canvassing | Contribs tool: [3] | plainlinks: 'Span style="plainlinks"'

User:Exxolon

Can you please review the above - looks like they were caught in a rangeblock following a checkuser, but I'm not sure if it's clear to unblock them. Thanks. _GB^T/C 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Trip_to_Sunderland#Unblock

Please can you review this unblock request? It concerns a range you Hardblocked yesterday. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

N/M it's been taken care of. Mangojuice^talk 02:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For your consideration

As requested.

[4] He questions others comments with bad faith assumptions. When clearly it's being pointed out here that those of us who work with images and suffer lapses of civility do not do so for no reason. It gives context in that we are often approached in an uncivil fashion.

[5] Unreasonable request with no evidence of why the current system is inadequate. This is, of course, a discussion that has taken place, at length, previous to this case. He also misrepresents me in this statement.

[6] Many others had left brief comments of support when I added mine, yet he only questions me, and in great length, requesting I clarify why I view BCB's contributions as invaluable. In his initial comment to this finding of fact or principle, he insults Betacommand and shows an overall assumption of bad faith.

[7] Once he's given evidence, as he requested, rather than accept it, he attacks the admin who presented it for not acting on it.

[8] Here he is on my case for responding to one of his comments where he details the specifics of BetacommandBot's enforcement of NFCC 10c. In his comment he devalues the Bot's work because it only checks for compliance with this one part of the policy. Then he says that I an another are criticizing him for simply stating what the bot does, and claims it examples how the bot is immune to any and all comment. Which is clearly not the case.

[9] Then he accuses me of giving a strawman argument.

[10] I'm not sure why, but he decided to drop this in reply to me disproving his argument that Beta has never shown civility when responding to requests. My example also showed his OptOut in use.

[11] Here he opposes for reasons not even in the text. It's not even close. Speedy deletion criteria is not even mentioned. His opposition in no way applies to what he's responding to.

[12] Arguing with me over my wording, attempting to force me into his POV.

[13] What I view as an unconstructive reply to Beta followed by an attempted summary of his proposed principle that I believe many find to be so poorly worded it's unclear what he's attempting to convey.

[14] He misrepresents my words.

He's making good contributions to the case, but it would be nice if someone could request that he fully read and understand proposals before commenting on them, to more clearly word his own proposals rather than get into lengthy, pointless arguments with those attempting to understand them, and I don't think he's harassing me, but I don't see a need in him questioning only my support in a widely supported principle, and at such unnecessary length. Regards, Lara❤Love 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to do the right thing...

...and give you a chance to explain why you failed to respond to the notice regarding me above. If you're going to hand out hard rangeblocks the least you can do is monitor your own talkpage to see if there are any innocent victims. You were notified at 0642 and subsequently edited for two hours later the same day and failed to address the issue. I eventually had to go to IRC to get this sorted. Exxolon (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Some explanation's already at ANI, so the specific answers extra I'll put here.

This was a highly problematic vandal block. Enough so that although experienced, I wanted to consult, myself, what was best (which I did). I also considered the problem sufficiently difficult to want to research, write up, and post a request for a fix to help your kind of situation at 8.42 [15], after my existing work on Piotrus/Tigershark. With that extra thrown in, I was pushed on time to fit it all in, so I didnt check my talkpage for the 2 hours I had to do all this. 2 hours isn't a long time to set aside new queries and focus on existing problems. Instead I checked it later. By that time I'd already long since been contacted on IRC, been informed, and said go ahead and reverse it, which I gather was done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. Sorry if I came off a bit OTT - if I have a failing it's I have a ferocious temper and sometimes let that get the better of me. You've been far more polite than I deserve :) Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth is, this guy had so many blocks on so many IPs its not true. I was just hoping that somehow the one or two genuine editors in all that range might not use it a while, like a day or 2, till I could get ideas if anything more could be done. Hence the unblock directions, in case it didnt work that way. Hopefully "something will be done" I gather. Not in my hands, thats a dev decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please correct

Hi FT2. With all due respect, you accused me of making personal attacks (on my Talk Page), when all I was doing was qualifying content ("Blatant untruth", corrected to "Obvious untruth"). You based this accusation on a falty reading of this exchange [16]. Could you kindly correct your accusation (<strike></strike>), so that my record can be cleaned in this respect? Regards. PHG (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you help?

Hi FT2. My 200k archives for the Franco-Mongol alliance were deleted (User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)). Instead, I would like to insert a small link "Long version here", so that people who access that page can still consult the older and longer version refered to from many Talk Pages [17]. I did it once, and although I am free to create personal User pages, I was attacked steneously for "recreating deleted content" (here). The accusation is untrue, as I did not recreate the 200k content at all, but, rather, inserted the small link described above. Since I am apparently under threat if I do it by myself, could you kindly put the link in the blanked page for me? Thank you for your understanding. PHG (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than undeleting the page, a better solution would be to simply update any existing links, to point to that diff instead of to the subpage. However, I have reviewed everything in the "What links here" list, and honestly couldn't find anything that really needed to be updated. In most cases where the link to the subpage appears, that diff is either already right next to it, or it's pretty obvious in context that if anyone really wants to see PHG's old version, they can just click on the History tab at Franco-Mongol alliance to see an older version of the page. If I've missed anything, let me know? --Elonka 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oddly I had already dealt with it before the above message.

What I have done, PHG, is, I looked at the pages linking to the deleted page. There were about 10 of them. Most were arbitration and MFD related pages (WP:RFAR and sub-pages, WP:AE and WP:MFD). These need no update - anyone checking the historic reason for a deletion (if anyone does) is likely to be looking at the deleted page from an admin perspective, not a content perspective, and these kind of pages often link to deleted material so it's not unusual at all. A second set of links are on users talk pages, oddly enough yours and mine, but 2 others. Again, these users are unlikely to refer back to old notes - I won't, you know where to look, and so on.

The remaining articles I have edited, to add clear links to the historic version, which I've done before when it might help, and glad to do here as well. See the two edits to Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance and Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 5. Those were the only two pages that probably need linking, though if anyone did review the arbitration matters or MFD, or Shell needed to see it, I'd be fine helping them. They'll ask if they need to though, whereas for the article talk archive it's more likely people will want to find the material and not know where to look, so there it counts more.

Thanks for asking. You did well. Glad to help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, GMTA. Thanks FT2, your solution looks reasonable, thanks for the quick work. --Elonka 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Hamish Ross vandal

Unfortunately, your unblock of User:Exxolon seems to have allowed this guy to start operating again. See here. I'm not good at rangeblocks -- anything you can do? NawlinWiki (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My main "something to do" is trying to push WP:IPEXEMPT along a bit - which will cure the problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano has questions about access to #admins

Giano has questions about #admins. Can you help him? FloNight♥♥♥ 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment

FT2, as I said before, you have all the rights to block Giano. I guess our opinions on the helpfulness of this block are differ. Lets hope the future will show you are right and I was wrong. My opinion is based on my experience in my corner of the wikiuniverse, but IMHO the main problem of this project is that we do not retain the best and brightest contributors particular those without the admin bit. They are not driven away by the incivility but by the all sizes fit approach there the opinions of an editor who basically created (by himself and by inspiration to other editors) huge sections of the project and who has an invaluable insight on the real-life inner work of the project is set to be equal in validity to any troll or POV-pushing newbie and infinitely less important than an opinion of anybody with higher level of editorial privileges. Some people literally give the project half of their live and talents and could not receive in exchange from people who are the official faces of the project even minimal patience and tolerance. Giano has a huge experience and insight with the ills of the project as well as the energy and desire to fix them. His methods are incovenient but I am not sure he would get the results using normal methods. It would really help to give him an ear and a hand rather than try to shut him up or teach him manners. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Users have tried, for a long time. It is hard to know what to do with someone whom you tell emphatically and repeatedly that "nobody has asked you to change views" and that "having strong views" and "having questions if asked appropriately" are all absolutely okay, and whose response is "do I pretend these things don't happen... or do I say I must... say nothing". It's dramatics. He knows what needs doing. He just doesn't seem to want to. He's had support from me, encouragement from others, to learn this. The views and concerns are fine, the manner of expression via gratuitious backhanded and borderlined incivility has to end. I know he doesn't want it to. But he needs to put himself in others shoes. As he says he despise double standards, so do others. The double standard he wants to invoke is "the community can reach agreement on civil speech regardless of viewpoint"... and he wants the right to opt out and make snarky asides and attacks to people, and assume the worst then attack them for it. I don't know what for. Its so unnecessary. But it's not okay. That's not our agreement here. I don't know how to say it plainer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we compromise and give him the same free pass on incivility that many admins get? —Random832 (contribs) 13:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2, one of the issues here is that it appeared, based on FloNight's remarks in the IRC case, that she was taking ownership of the effort to resolve the outstanding problems with Gerard's IRC. So, Giano rightfully went to her page to ask for an update on her efforts to implement some solutions. Instead, she referred him to you. Now, was anything ever publicly said stating that you were taking charge of the IRC cleanup effort? If not, then Giano was right to keep pressing FloNight for a response instead of accepting the "pass-along run around" that it looked like she was giving him. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A fair point, I've rechecked things. As best I understand it, FloNight suggested what might be done. But anyone can do that, of any problem. I've suggested approaches on case issues where in fact Newyorkbrad has actually done the work completely differently when it happened, and so on. As I understand it, FloNight said that her approach wasn't adopted by others, long ago.

By contrast ⁽¹⁾ I've formally posted on WP:IRC (where it was surely noticed) that changes had been made, where it's very clear I was writing up what went on. ⁽²⁾ On FloNight's page earlier this month I responded to IRC related questions from Irpen, and ⁽³⁾ on WP:IRC I responded to the issue raised there by the same user. A look at the page linked from WP:IRC for the en-admins channel info ⁽⁴⁾ has my name in many posts, and ⁽⁵⁾ Bishonen in the en-admins channel knew (due to a channel message) that I (and not FloNight) was the contact for the current changes there. ⁽⁶⁾ Giano therefore surely knew changes were up (from multiple sources) and that I was involved; he had ⁽⁷⁾ seen FloNights statement that her initative hadn't been adopted, and he had certainly ⁽⁸⁾ read FloNights specific statement (⁽⁹⁾ stated at least twice) that FT2 is [the] best person to contact for information about the #admins channel.

Despite that, his incivility was very evidently unproductive; he ⁽¹⁰⁾ asked questions of us, that included pointless "side of mouth" incivility directed to FloNight -- ie he was not talking to her, but insulting her whilst talking to others she'd referred him to and who had promptly attended -- and thus kept returning to taunt or attack her instead, even when I and others were ⁽¹¹⁾ actually talking to him on it and he'd also ⁽¹²⁾ been told explicitly FloNight is not in any sense a "manager" nor responsible for the user list management and then again (!) ⁽¹³⁾ FloNight doesn't know a specific count. Under these circumstances - yes Giano knew, and was doing exactly what he has done before: borderlining and gaming civility. In this case, including "on the side" attacks on A when talking to B, and doing it wilfully for zero productive purpose.

When a person's been told repeatedly that A doesn't know something, isn't the best person to speak to, wasn't involved in actual changes, had their initiative declined, others took the actual steps, and A has referred them to those others who are now in active dialog clearly trying to help, then A is clearly not the right person. None of which excuses gratuitous incivility :-/ FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case

I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for permission to quote you

Hi, FT2. Would it be all right if I quoted a few words onwiki from the long e-mail you sent me on 12/29/07 (for context, it was your response to my suggestion that you recuse from the IRC case). Literally a few words—for certain reasons, I'm trying to describe how the case looked to me at the beginning, and I want to be able to put actual quote marks round your words, to show that it's you talking, not me summarizing something you said. Not whole statements or anything like that, just single words and ... let's see... a couple of four-word phrases. OK? Bishonen | talk 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

I've rarely said anything in private I wouldn't ultimately stand by if public. My only concern would be balance and fair impression. Its easy to inadvertantly end up with text that misrepresents, even with the best of intentions, and this is a case with some people perhaps willing or even actively seeking to read whatever can be read into words to fit their specific view on things.

My email contained quite a bit of personal disclosure, and ended, "This is a bit of a ramble covering many points. I'd ask you keep it to yourself, but I would stand by what I say anyway." So the answer is yes, come what may you can quote from it. Up front, and without knowing at all what you want to quote, you can quote me on that email.

That said, a heads-up identifying which are the "few words" would be appreciated if willing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of preventing spacetime from collapsing onto itself, please also try not to b/reach three Elonkoincidences! (i.e. Ek≠FT²) El_C 01:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You have mail

Yes, FT2, I see your point (yours too, Commendante), and have ended up not quoting your e-mail at all. However, you now have mail, with another, MUCH simpler request: a speedy yes or no, here or on IRC, would be greatly appreciated. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

You had a reply before I saw this :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your posts

Please do not ever set foot on my page again. The message is quite clear here [18]. Kindly adhere to it. Giano (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I will try to avoid doing so, except as needed for administrative purposes, and direct responses to comments where I would be the natural respondent (eg, because the comment is directed to or about me, or to or about matters I am the more likely person to respond), or to note misimpressions in existing discussions that may lead to dispute. All avoidance is unlikely to be practical. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making the difficult decisions

First, thank you for welcoming me to your userpage. You have very good manners.I feel as if I have found my home away from home. I digress...

Our mailing lists are abuzz with praise for your challenging yet necessary actions in blocking Giano. His persistant misogyny, which Thatcher pointed out, is of great concern to us. This behavior must not be tolerated. He has run amuck for far too long on our Project, as his block log indicates. I blogged about this debacle here. I nearly quit blogging for good, but your actions inspired me to keep up the good fight. Thank you for defending the Wiki. Godspeed. The Defender of the Wiki (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to accept something like this, I can't. It wasn't done "for" anyone, or for any group, or anything like that. It was done because it needed doing. I wrote WP:DBF back in 2005 and it's still a good recap of things. Giano is a user, not a "challenge" or anything, and blocking is never anything to be celebrated or even done lightly. I wasn't aware of the "female" issue you and Thatcher picked up on, and I could care less on the politicking. An editor was under a remedy to be civil, and wasn't civil, chances got given, normal judgement and action follows, pretty much. That's really all. I don't agree with the strong words and portrayal in your blog (though I respect your right to hold them) and I don't feel Giano deserves all the bad names it states. The blog is more "hyped" on descriptions, than it needs to be, too, which will just encourage anger and escalation. The only aspect that needed thinking about was deciding if the line had been crossed where some formal action was appropriate (as opposed to deferring action) and if his uncivil conduct was harmful to the project, and that was not at all difficult.

The best defense of the wiki (and this applies to Giano as well) is to not provoke division and to step by step cut down on pointless unproductive bad conduct by editors to editors, so that we can all focus on content writing, and genuine content-related matters worthy of attention, more.

My main wish is just that Giano will remember to be civil to others in a way that his gifts and desire to help does not come in parallel with a wish to verbally hurt the efforts and motivation of others too. And -- welcome. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

REDUCED ACCESS FOR A FEW DAYS

I am away for much of this weekend, and have some catching up on-wiki thereafter.

To clear my backlog, I'll be "reduced access" until about midweek, giving me 2-3 days to catch up. Things I'm catching up on:

• BLP subject help work that was disrupted midweek - about 3 different blp areas
• An npov sort-out
• A long report on irc for arbitration
• A bunch of arb work
• ANI/RFC possible concern

(and Irpen - if you need your request followed up still, please let me know. I will if needed. You have an email which I hope you got also.)

Better to be honest about the workload and take a few days to clear it. It's been a bit of a heavy week. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For making outstanding efforts to work with users and alleviate conflicts, as exampled here, I hereby award FT2 the Barnstar of Peace. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyking

I realise this won't come as much of a surprise but I'm again really disappointed about the way Everyking has been treated by the Committee. The last comment on the request for clarification was NYB's that "I have concluded that it will be in the interest of actual and perceived fairness to offer new motions." You had said, "There's a lesson here on "block voting" alternatives which are similar but not identical. I'm happy to do it again more "item by item", simply because although I think it was closed according to intent, it's in a way, better to revote it than to have uncertainty." But no new motions were added, and I've just seen that Thatcher archived the thread as "stale" [19] a few days ago. I don't know what happened to actual and perceived fairness but, when editors in good standing bring up concerns about sanctions on longterm committed contributors, these threads being ignored until they become "stale" is a long way from how I would expect the Committee to behave. WjBscribe 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Naked Shorts "Domain Expert"

Hi, A while back Risker asked me to read over the naked short selling article and use my domain expertise to improve the article. He suggested at the time that you could act as a resource. Risker made the request a few weeks ago; I've been deliberately taking my time because I saw that this was quite a contentious article.

I have some suggestions for improving the article and I wanted to run them by you. Basically I think what's missing from the Naked Short Selling article is an explanation of the fundamental supply and demand issues at hand: How much can/do legal naked shorts increase supply and decrease demand? How much can/do abusive naked shorts increase supply and decrease demand?

I think if we steer the article more towards answering these questions then we can move away from a "he said, she said" conflict into an academic debate where there are some interesting unresolved questions. I hope that this would satisfy the various factions, but certainly a supply-and-demand focus would make the article much more interesting to economists.

(I could start to answer some of these questions myself, but WP:NOR, know what I mean?)

Let me know what you think about this suggestion. I must admit The articles I typically work on don't attract any controversy at all. I would love to have your assistance in improving this article.

Thanks,

Greg Comlish (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Often what helps is to stand right back and reconsider afresh, reliable sources and such from basics, and ask what an article on the subject might want to cover. Your comments above give some good ideas for that.

Most times you can spot the aftermath of a heavy edit war. two common features of edit warred articles: 1/ the text is a bit polarized and tends towards a "for/against" style when considered carefully, rather than being a characterized balanced overview, and 2/ you often have multiple cites where people tried to back up points against edit warriors by citing 5-10 times. It can also seem too descriptive in some areas (points people wanted to make) and skip others (things neither side focussed on or which were not warred over so much).

In this case for example people were fighting over the NSS controversy and NSS regulatory views; neither side was focussed particularly on NSS history, economic theory, or other aspects for example.

This search may help, it's Google on Naked Shorting, with Wikipedia-related or Wikipedia-derived pages mostly removed. It contains enough sources that would usually be considered reliable or credible, that one could rewrite the NSS article without reference at all to the old one, and that would perhaps be a good way to avoid all explicit or subtle bias, for or against any view or approach.

If you want to set up a working page in your user space for a draft, and see how it goes from there? The last collaborative article I did was Metric expansion of the universe; usually I redraft problematic articles solo, so it'll be good to do one again. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes this was actually my next question: how can I setup a draft in my userspace? Greg Comlish (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as you would create or open any page you want to. User:Greg Comlish/Naked Short Selling. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and the attachment theory

Dear FT2,

I was only reporting what I was told and I am glad you did not feel that your previous involvement precluded you from taking part in this case.

I should like to put the same question to yourself as Luna Santin;-

I have changed the disputed page on Michael Rutter to the original title "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory" as it was correctly cited in the first place. This is a very important change as it reinforces the fact they are not the same thing ie mothers are not naturally the best carers for small children.

I should be very grateful if you could tell me what I should do if Fainites changes it back again? (Please note this is not a matter of consensus but a simple case of right and wrong).

Would I also be correct in assuming that both you and Luna Santin are women, or neither?

Many thanks,

KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page, User_talk:KingsleyMiller#FT2_and_the_attachment_theory. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

g'day FT2

I recall that we've chatted a little bit on IRC - which I now appear in from time to time having proudly figured out how to use it! - I also noticed that you corrected the 'blpwatch' tag over at Giovanni di Stefano's article - an article I got into hot water editing. I'd love it if it were possible to find a time to have either a 'real world' conversation (perhaps Skype?) - or a textual (IRC or other realtime) chat if you prefer - both about that article in general terms - and if you've got 5 or 10 mins free to review, the three edits mentioned here and here. There's some information I'd like to share, and I'd also love some advice - many thanks in advance if you might find the time! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We've never spoken really, other than your saying hi in a public channel maybe once or twice, and I will admit to a fair lack of familiarity with this article. The Blpwatch tag was placed by others; my interest is as the proposer of BLPWatch with a view that we need an improved way right now, to watch BLP's for their subjects, against repeated issues. So I'm closely involved in its testing. I wish I had the time needed to do everything, but I may not. You're probably best to take it to discussion for that reason, if at all able. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Very difficult being an administrator

The comparison I was making is that Bowlby based his theory of 'maternal deprivation' on the sex of the parent! as you say it would be a terrible World if we could tell what people are really like by the way they look!

Hope this makes a bit of sense.

Thank you for your help with the dispute. This thread has nothing to do with 'attachment therapy' which was discussed some months ago and has nothing to do with me. This is 'attachment theory' a completely different issue.

Only if you have time I should be grateful if you would look at the discussion with Fainties at the bottom of my USER page and give me your thoughts.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to have this sorted out a bit. It's probably best I don't actually review it. I get the impression you are quite concerned about who may or may not get involved, and if I understand your talk page post, you've commented that you feel only people whose gender you are told, are to comment in this issue. I think that's mistaken, but it's more important you feel you have best input. Even if I took the time to read the texts by Bowlby and Rutter and form an impression, it's still probably best I keep out of it and neutral, in case you or fainites or anyone else there, ever needs impartial outside advice on dispute resolution issues on this (rather than the article contents itself). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hamlet_snip.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hamlet_snip.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

I was hoping someone could submit this on the Matt Sanchez Talk page. This information is a suggestion to change information on the blog that is untrue and not sourced:

According to self-published posts on his blog, Sanchez was an embedded blogger from May through July, 2007.[26] He first accompanied an American military unit that traveled from Kuwait into Iraq, then in July 2007 he joined a unit in Afghanistan.[27] Sanchez's blog is occasionally syndicated on WorldNetDaily.[28]

I recommend the following re-write:

Matt Sanchez was embedded in Iraq and Afghanistan as journalist for 8 months. His reports were printed in the National Review, The Weekly Standard, Human Events, before becoming the war correspondent for Worldnetdaily, where he files exclusive dispatches. He also produced the radio programs "In Their Own Words" and "Hometown Heroes." Sanchez has since begun to report on politics and is a re-occuring guest on Kiosque, where Matt, in French, discusses world events with other international journalists.

Source Radio programs

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/matt_sanchez_from_iraq_rinse_a/

War Correspondent and Afghanistan sources

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/19/bill-oreilly-shows-up-in_n_73228.html

War Correspondent/reporter and journalist sources, reporting on politics

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25185

Eight months source: http://michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452:rubs-at-long-last-justice&catid=41:rubs&Itemid=79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.156 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:'Anonymous' posting on a blog.png

Thanks for uploading Image:'Anonymous' posting on a blog.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Whoops - linked to Anonymous not Anonymous (group)! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration - Requests for clarification

Hi, I know you're very busy, but I'd noticed that you haven't posted anything at the new Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions page. Were you aware of the page split, and is it added to your watchlist? The page could definitely benefit from some more attention, as there are some requests which have been sitting there unattended for quite some time. Thanks, --Elonka 05:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Range blocking the University of Southern California

Have you tried contacting the uni's IT department over this abuse before resorting to range-blocking 128.125.0.0/16 and potentially an entire university? We're going to have an absolute field day at unblock-en-l and CAT:RFU over this once the school week is back in full swing. *sigh*

Could you either reduce it to a {{schoolblock}} (please make a note in the blocking comment that all account requests must be made from an @usc.edu email address) and email the USC's abuse department asking for assistance kicking the sockpuppeteers off their network. In the meantime, how should we respond on User talk:Mundhenk? --  Netsnipe  ►  06:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I'm going to see if there is anyway I can find out why USC isn't taking this seriously. I'm not sure if there is much I can do. I'm just a little guy at a big university. Maybe someone can bring it to the attention of the school paper:

The Daily Trojan

Mundhenk (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've left a message on your talk page. I've also checked again -- I blocked specifically account creation, not account based editing, or anon editing. Just account creation. It shouldn't disrupt editing, but would require use of account creation requests for new accounts. The schoolblock message is inappropriate since it states anon editing is blocked. I'll change the block message; let me know if that fixes it. I've also emailed the school's IT services. Thanks, FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I've undone this block - just blocking an IP or range from account creation only is impossible; what you actually did was block the anonymous range and prevent any named account from editing from that range (aka a hardblock). I've dropped it down to block anonymous users (cannot be avoided) and to prevent account creation, while directing affected people to the unblock list. east.718 at 01:31, April 15, 2008

I know people who could help track a troublemaker down at USC, if you're having no luck getting in touch with the abuse team there. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I've responded to your earlier e-mail. Regards, Rudget (review) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - responded! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

People are allowed to remove content from their own userpages, so it is probably not best to revert such removals. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah my little gnome-like stalker how are you? Giano (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you calling me a stalker, that is very offensive. I have had FT2's talk page on my watchlist for some time, so this really is not about you. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of AGF is to try to read others' comments in the best light possible rather than the worst light possible. "little" and "how are you" indicate a playful mood rather than a serious accusation. At least for someone who does not violate AGF. Just as making attacks is wrong, seeing an attack where there is none is wrong. Please try harder to AGF in the future. Please? WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking

This is not really a tweak. It is a substantive change that should be explained in the edit summary. Either that, or cross it out, or use the preview button. It is confusing enough trying to follow what you are saying without the tweaks and changes, and I say that as someone that does the same thing. Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What conduct was that?

Hello, FT2. I quote your post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II:

"A user 1/ following norms and 2/ asking advice whether X edit is "uncivil". 3/ No request was made other than that one, and the one request asked is 4/ completely reasonably asked. In summary, where one user (an involved admin) asked one appropriate question and got two answers, both reasonable... becomes reported on-wiki as "conspiring to block". By the same person who has an interest in redirecting attention away from their own conduct. Such misdirection can only go so far before one says "enough".[20]

Since it was I who reported the incident on the wiki here, it's presumably me you're talking about? I won't disperse attention by going into the omissions and misquotes in your account; I simply suppose you wrote in a hurry, and did not intentionally mislead. But I really must ask what you mean about my "interest in redirecting attention away from my own conduct." What conduct is that? "Conduct"? I do have a decent reputation for integrity in this community (still do, no thanks to the cavalier way the ArbCom has handled that reputation), and I must defend myself against vague and nasty slurs. Please explain what you mean. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

No, it wasn't in reference to you. More to the point, it wasn't in my awareness that you had or hadn't been a reporter of the matter, I hadn't been around much at that time. The post is a result of two things - a claim by Giano to have "100% evidence" of conspiring to block, contrasted with my own having a copy of the log which makes it pretty clear that this was more likely a misrepresentative, disingenuous statement. As a number of users pointed out [21], focussing on the locale where a user asked for advice, which is exactly what should be done, portraying that as a "conspiracy" when in fact advice only was asked, and the attempt to rather obviously game this as a way to distract from the actual issue - user conduct and validity of block judgement... this demonstrates an "interest in redirecting attention away from their own conduct".

It's good you check, since that lets me clear it for you by saying quite bluntly, it wasn't you referred to. This was a case where a user knew the issue was based upon their conduct and the judgement of that conduct as uncivil, who spuriously sought to use "IRC!" as an excuse even though by their own admission they had seen the log, a user who by inclination or accident misrepresented or at the least gave a bad faith interpretation of the entire prior debate up to that point also and continued to do so thereafter in loud tones even when pointed to prior dialog which evidence clearly their claims were unmerited, and who knew that the community takes a dim few of such behavior. There may be differences of opinion on a matter, but misrepresentation and what seems to me at least, to be dissembling, is never a way to handle that.

That said, I have now re-read your post again, and believe I see the mistake within it.

An admin is expected to be able to block for a matter if they consider it is appropriate to do so, which often includes for breach of an ArbCom ruling. That's their judgement, and their place. If an admin is themselves involved in the situation, then the norm going years back is, they ask another admin to review the matter and decide and act instead. For example, if admin X is in a 3RR dispute with user Y, then the best practice we have is admin X asks other admins to review the matter and explains their concern. Others reading the matter are obligated to review and form their own view, not just to act as proxy admins though. That's how it should work, and the complete norm on-wiki, in email, on IRC, or in any other way.

In this case an admin was in a revert dispute with a user, and they felt a comment by that user probably breached a sanction. They asked if other admins thought it was uncivil, and that was the extent of their question. In other words, reporting their concerns, and sanity checking their view on it. That is exactly what we try to drum into admins to do, as opposed to use tools themselves in a content dispute. Another admin who apparently saw the information, evidently formed the view after reviewing, that the post was uncivil, and enacted the ArbCom sanction. That sanction says simply that if any admin feels Giano makes an edit that is uncivil, they may block. Evidently the other admin felt the edit was indeed uncivil, and that a block was appropriate. That was his view, and apparently formed completely by and for themselves. It's also completely correct that this is the norm we expect others to follow, when an admin themselves is involved in a matter. They report it to other admin/s (without requiring or demanding others to block or not), and another admin forms a view and acts on their own cognisance. This, if followed, is what the community has always deemed good practice.

So long as the request would not stray into "canvassing a block" or "forum shopping" for a block, communal norms have not had a problem with admins passing along, for review and (if deemed necessary) handling, those cases they themselves would be involved parties in. It's clear this safeguard was scrupulously followed by both the reporting and blocking admin in this case.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me piping up here, FT2 (I responded in the AN/I subpage too....). What seems to me to be the heart of the matter is the feeling that the IRC channel doesn't really serve very well as a sounding board. This may or may not be true in general terms, but certainly it seems a poor choice in this case (astoundingly poor actually - I'm happy to go over why I think this is so, if asked), and the broader community view, per discussions, and Giano's unblocking, seems to be that it was an unhelpful block. I've never been into the #admins channel (I'd like to, actually!), but is there any merit at all in concerns that it acts as a prism in certain areas, and therefore that the views distilled therein can be somewhat distorted? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Long reply I'm afraid - hope it's helpful.

It's possible - no people are flawless. But in fact it very rarely happens. I've been asked to investigate about 6 or so cases this last 9 months, by Irpen, Giano, Bishonen, at RFAR, on ANI, and others, but in most of those - in fact all but one or two in a nine month period, the channel actually functioned exactly as one would wish it to. The one case it didn't, I myself reported in full to the community at ANI, with full summary of the IRC dialog, so that it was made public in detail (a blocked admin had sought an unblock on dubious grounds, another admin had unblocked trusting that without sufficiently checking for themselves).

The problem with using "IRC!" as a smokescreen is, those who go there know in fact it's extremely rare, so naturally it loses credibility and is seen as a way to further a "politicized" agenda, by those who have bad memories of IRC from years back. We have an agreed structure to address problems in the channel, yet "for whatever reason" those who feel there is a problem never actually come to me (or any channel operator) to have it resolved. They instead pass logs round, a move guaranteed to shed more heat, but not actually solve the problem. That to me says a lot; a person genuinely with a concern would ask to discuss it, and aim for resolution, just like any other dispute. These cases though are never used for dispute resolution, but only ever for dispute escalation. (Also often quite tenuous when examined.) That seems to say something.

As for your specific question, again, yes, it's possible. But unlikely. Administrators, who undergo a quite strict and probing debate over their conduct and understanding of wiki-attitudes, are quite a varied bunch. They include diverse views - Bishonen, Lar, Coren, 1==2, myself, Carcharoth, to name but a few at random in this context. Any and all admins can go to that channel, and some 60 - 70 users on average are regularly there at any given time. They cover extreme diverse views too - to the point that no one stance can get much if any of a toehold there if it isn't proper. There will always be strong voices around.

RFA candidates will not be "representative of the community as a whole". The community includes many vandals for example, under-represented at RFA, and many who understand policy well (probably over-represented at RFA). What is possible to say is, the users at #en-admins are probably representative of those users the community has deemed sufficiently trustworthy in judgement and clued in on wiki ethos, to use the tools. This shows in a few ways -- for example, an outburst by a user (rare in itself) will often be addressed by general refusal to endorse it, and letting one or two users speak for everyone, or resolving in private chat to actually educate people how to handle things better, and that works very well. On-wiki, you'd get more people inclined to shout than fix. En-admins as a channel tends to look to fix problems by resolving them. When problems are visible, they get addressed.

They're also rather long suffering and (I suspect) used to the idea that bad faith will exist no matter what they say or do, and used to having their words pored over in a manner that nobody else would expect on-wiki, and misrepresented if necessary to create smoke. That's not ideal. It's a bit dysfunctional, as it encourages others to stir up problems that have little to no merit, make a large noise over a tiny number of tiny matters (major drama, someone used a bad word once and then when corrected by others agreed it was wrong a few minutes later, for example), to shout rather than approach those who might help, and so on. That kind of foolishness and "hype" helps nobody.

Lastly, it's worth noting that critically minded users play a very valuable role in that they can approach channel operators if they have concerns, on the spot, or indeed speak up in the channel. When they do, if it's merited, it is usually supported, and would indeed be the best way to effect disapproval or correction. I strongly encourage this, because I greatly suspect the number of cases that would be raised and found genuine would be very small, and they should be raised openly in the channel when noticed. But they probably only happen extremely rarely. To take an extreme case, suppose someone is present, believes an action is wrong, but says nothing, does nothing, and instead complains to a third party (non admin) who lacks all knowledge, but whom they encourage in a belief they have been conspired against. And all the time not broaching it in the channel, nor to any of the channel operators who have made their names known for exactly this purpose last month. This does the community a disservice. Such matters should be named openly to channel users, or privately to channel operators, if they are felt wrong, not "shored up for future" or used as fodder for disputing.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

don't worry about the long replies - many a pithy one liner of mine turns into a much longer post than I intended, so I know the feeling! Couple of quick responses; When these things get a little heated, for whatever reason, I find the wiki process somehow tends towards conflation and obfuscation of the key issues (principles?) - I think that's regrettable, and I see it happening here a bit. I don't have an opinion on whether or not 'IRC!' gets used as a smokescreen, and I don't wish to attribute bad faith to any users involved - indeed I think it's rather a shame that the admin involved has headed off onto a wiki break, and I hope she or he comes back refreshed and happy after a short while. I think it's just important to note that there is a clear tension between the consensus which seems to have been apparent at the admins channel (or in the mind of the individual, I guess), and the consensus decision of the community - those supporting the former seem to be finding themselves in the rather difficult position of having to maintain that the community might be 'wrong'.

Actually - that's not a bad way to frame the central issue - an exchange occurred on the admin channel, which resulted in the decision to block, and an exchange occurred 'on-wiki' which resulted in the decision to unblock. Without wishing to turn up the heat unduly, it does seem relevant and important to me to examine if any of that tension is caused systemically. I guess the first step is providing a reasonable explanation for how a specific action (the blocking of Giano) was rejected by the 'on-wiki' community, and how the admin channel failed to accurately predict / represent that..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more likely to be due to the blockee than the venue. Giano's block log suggests the same happens regardless of the venue at which a matter is discussed. There have not been just one arbitration case about Giano's conduct brought by the community, but several in which a decision was made on this aspect of his conduct and he was told the community's view that it was a problem, was reasonably evidenced. At RFAR/IRC, an unprecedented statement was made by complaining admins, that Giano has been "in effect untouchable" for his incivility. By not just one, but four separate users. This is unheard of otherwise. This is not the usual complaint, and should not be shrugged off. That is in effect what has just played out. Since the same happens when the matter is on-wiki too, and the "discussion" at the admins channel was strictly reasonable (involved admin reporting to others to form their own view), I'm inclined to see IRC as a non-issue here. The sole question is whether kwsn reasonably formed a view that calling another admin a "gnome-like stalker" was rude, insulting, disparaging, or the like. I find that a quite plausible thing to believe. If so, then it was quite within his right to act, since the civility parole says that "an administrator" may do so. And yes it is that simple. ArbCom enforcement is not discussion or rights and wrongs, but simply "was a remedy breached". Kwsn obviously formed a view that it was, and I think that view, while not agreed by all, was agreed by enough others to demonstrated it was a reasonable and thought-through one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having just checked out Giano's block log - I think I understand your point.. but there is an alternative interpretation to the one you offer which is important to consider; that Giano's blocks have just never sustained community consensus. Further; that the complaining folk you refer to were just kinda 'wrong' therefore about their actions. I understand that from some perspectives, the 'gnome-like stalker' comment is beyond the pale (and it may be worth referring you to mention of 'shit-stirring weasel', or 'get lost' being perhaps problematic too....) but I think you do hit the nail on the head when asking if the decision was reasonable and thought through. Given that the outcome was that the decision was unfortunately in some way incorrect, it seems sensible to ask if the forum for that communication was in any way to blame for that. Maybe there's simply no bigger issue here than just the recommendation that any admin taking an action which could clearly be seen to be somewhat controversial should just ensure they drop a note somewhere 'on-wiki' before committing themselves, and that they also try to be available for a little while afterwards too. I reckon that would solve virtually all the problems, and it's likely a way forward which all could agree on! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked 128.125.0.0/16

It's too wide a rangeblock and too small a problem, I feel, to keep that big a range blocked for a long time even for account creation and anonymous use. I'll apply a narrower rangeblock if the idiots return. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Hi, FT2...I was cleaning up the OTRS categories, and I was wondering if, on your User:FT2/Userboxes page, you could please change Category:OTRS to Category:Wikipedia OTRS volunteers. I would do it myself but the page is protected. Thank you! Kelly ^hi! 15:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC suggestion

Reading some of the leaked comments and dialogue from the admins IRC channel, I'm surprised and dismayed by the sheer amount of profanity and coarse discourse going on there, apparently not adequately controlled. Although it may be debatable as to whether the channel is being misused for making admin decisions, it doesn't seem to be debatable that a lot of the discussion that goes on there is unprofessional and inappropriate and would never be allowed to take place on-wiki without some blocks being handed out. This doesn't reflect well on the project that we would officially permit this kind of behavior to take place. I would suggest, that instead of yourself and other arbitrators trying and failing to monitor the channel, that a better solution is simply to cast it off. Order it removed from Foundation servers and delete the IRC page. The IRC members can continue to chat on it, but as a privately run IRC hosted elsewhere. Before you're tempted to dismiss my suggestion, think in the long term, wouldn't this remove the problem of Wikipedia appearing to officially sanction the unbecoming conduct that is going on on that channel? Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A request

FT2, I know this may be something you find very difficult to do, but I think it is something very important. I know we're on a wiki, and anyone who's edited articles is used to being able to make all kinds of tweaks and rewordings and expansions and changes until the article is right. That doesn't work as well in conversational threads; in fact, the continued tweaking and modification of statements (particularly those that have already been responded to) is problematic. A few times in the past few days (and on previous occasions as well), I've noticed that your tweaks have included responses to comments made after your statement, or expansions or contextual changes in your posts. That serves only to leave the later reader wondering what the next person in the thread was going on about. I assume that this is only a reflection of your personal editing habits, but it isn't serving you as well when working in conversational threads. Please can I urge you, to either (1) preview and tweak before saving; or, when making changes after others have commented, (2) use strikeouts to identify what you've removed and bold what you have added, with a notation indicating the bold is text updated after a response. Thanks for considering this. Risker (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See #Preview above for Ryan P's humorous view on this and my reply. I do see the problem though, I will do what I can. In cases where one can expect every word to be picked over, the repeated reflection on every word to ensure it's saying what's meant and cannot be twisted or taken wrongly to mean other than as meant, is pretty unavoidable. I also recheck my words because of a respect for people who really do want to understand what's going on. It's widely seen as valued [22]. Re-editing is part of that process, and that seems just "how it is". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Double standards?

The page over there is getting a bit long, so I wanted to ask you whether you apply "a user gratuitously includes in their posts, rude, disparaging, insulting throwaway labels for other users" to other people or not? I'm thinking in particular of people that act like this but do so towards "vandals and POV pushers", but sometimes, to put it politely, miss their target. Merely because Giano is a high-profile case, should he be handled differently than, say User:JzG? (Of course, Giano's sometimes caustic and belittling comments are directed at people who annoy him, not people he thinks are vandals or POV pushers, but the same situation applies). From your comment at JzG's request for comments, I think you do apply this to other people as well. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2#Thoughts from AGK. More to the point, would a request for comments (which I believe has never been done for Giano) have more effect than an arbcom sanction? You could say the arbcom election was effectively a canvassing of opinion, but maybe a request for comments would actually work here? Carcharoth (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Longish answer I'm afraid, but hopefully a readable one.

It's ultimately about every person's use of language, that's not helping to collaborate, but used to attack, upset, undermine, or corrode. Its about a culture amongst some established groups and users (on different sides of things) that this is okay and somehow praiseworthy even if it adds nothing to content and discourages other users from involvement. It applies completely to other editors too, and you'd probably be surprised how much I work in the background saying "no, that's not okay, change or else bad things are probably going to happen if you don't change. Talk to me, get help if you need it, ask others to advise, but don't do it." A lot of the time people understand it's trying to help them. Those who can't or won't, it eventually ends up on-wiki as warnings instead.

I give hugely of time and effort to do this - I put hours that as a living being, I will have only once in my life, to try and coax and convey that such things have to change on Wikipedia. Admin standards, user standards, dialog standards. All matter. Not doing so brings unfair blocks, unfair harassment claims, hurt feelings, and many other dysfunctions.

I'm after improvement, not placebos. And yes I do and have spoken to JgZ in private, who tries to listen more than Giano does, and has fewer direct sanctions than Giano does, which is why I have not had to act on his case yet. I hope I won't have to, but he knows (it's no secret) that if my judgement was that I had to, I would. I also spoke several times to Giano in private too, and for the same exact reason, to try and defuze the matter. And many others. Which is why you'll see my arb election wasn't just supported by some "usual suspects", but by a wide range, including an exceptional number of well known "difficult" or blocked users (Rambutan/Porcupine, Jeeny, Vintagekits, and both ScienceApologist and Whig on both sides of the pseudoscience issue), even by users I'd warned or blocked or who had been sanctioned at ArbCom, and so on. I'm willing to put the work in myself to try and help those who find it hard, whilst I feel they might be willing to change.

It's part of my view that we can improve this project and that this will feed through into better content and proportionately less need for disputes (including less use of extreme measures like arbitration) over time. As others do bot work and vandalism patrol for the community, I try to help or deal with tough cases in the background. Sometimes one can, sometimes one can't. One can always hope and try.

For JzG, I have had occasion to talk with him. That's his and my private communication, as my email dialogs with Giano remain his and my private communication. Respect that. But yes, they exist, and on identical grounds. However Giano is at a point where the community has brought him to Arbitration. I didn't; no arbitrator did. The community did. More than once, for the same issues. That's not "pure chance". The latest request brought no less than an unprecedented four experienced users stating these problems were real ones. I take that seriously, as a sign that multiple users assess his conduct as not-okay. Reviewing, I agree.

Although Giano is popular and JzG less so, talking to JzG I find he accepts more readily if he does wrong, and at times has taken steps to avoid it - asking others, venting in ways that are less harmful to the wiki, and so on. I'm working to help, there. Talking to Giano I mostly find bluster, games, and denial. He's never once said "yes, if I have an unhelpful negative effect on others enjoyment then thats something I would like to learn to avoid". That is more of concern. Ultimately bad conduct drives others away and poisons the well (as Doc G says). It ripples out. For those reasons it's not okay. The communal norm says good manner from one to another, good dialog, collaboration not attack, is important. In the entire existence of the project not one edit has been communally adopted long-term to say that it's okay for some and not others.

Giano has had my comments, like you say. I don't even want to polarize this "about Giano"; that just makes him feel attacked. It's about all who treat others roughly verbally and all who shout when called to account. Thats many users, not just one or two. Giano's an editor who has been directed to treat others better; when he does I have no other interest in him. It's the community's right to say that certain conduct is not okay. He's had arbitration cases and expressions of concern since 2006 or earlier. Now it's basically, "do it, or accept that there are sanctions if you don't or can't". If you can suggest any way to help him not unhelpfully mishandle or bully others or do the harm he does by his manner of speech to other users, I'd jump at it. I'd put the work in myself (and have) if he'd wish it or show a sign he would change it.

But it has to work, not just be "empty promises", and has to address his style of speech to other users. Do that, however it can be done, and I'd be happy beyond belief. Don't, and further sanctions are probably inevitable. The time when that wasn't the case, Giano decided to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For years, not just months. God knows how many decent editors who didn't like that style, he drove off (hurt, discouraged) through his bullying tone and cleverness with borderlining and speech in that time, or how many were encouraged in the "let's attack others" habit from him. So that's now gone. Now months and years later, given that response to date, we're much more into "change or block". It's not okay, and Giano must finally deal with it.

Can we help him? Only if he lets us. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite a long response, so I can't reply to everything now, but you didn't answer my question about a request for comments and whether that would be helpful. In general, though, I find myself agreeing with parts of what you wrote and disagreeing with other parts or wondering whether you are over-stating the case. For example, you emphasize the time period and the "bullying tone", but from what I've seen there is not actually that much of that tone when you look through Giano's contributions. Not the amount that your reply here would seem to indicate. It is sporadic and, to my mind, no worse than other stuff that happens around here. Are we both missing something here? I've asked before (at the arbitration case) for diffs of actual unacceptable edits, but have only ever been met with comments about how his behaviour is unacceptable when viewed as an overall trend. Which I find concerning. There are lots of trends I could label as unacceptable, but the concrete evidence should be there as well (see JzG's RfC). There is also a hint of self-fulfilling prophecy and myth-making here. Giano's reputation (constructed by others, not just him) precedes him, and that makes it difficult for him. One more thing: I do appreciate your openness here, and the time you put into this, and your efforts behind the scenes. Thanks for that. Would you be able to do one more thing related to this and find that evidence, be it at an arbitration case or elsewhere? My main concern is that I have never found it difficult to work with Giano, and many others have equally been able to work with him, so what is really causing this? Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony is, I want to see him through this as much or more than anyone. But a person who brings the memories of the past as he does, is never going to see or handle that; for him it's "that person has role X so they must be an enemy, someone to be beaten, someone who will attack me if they can. And look, there they are! Must.. attack!" What a sad, pointless waste. And he's good at corrosive comments and then when called to account either claiming they weren't really uncivil, or loudly distracting by demanding people's heads ("the best form of defense is attack"). That's transparent power games and it's just got no place here. Which means inevitably those few who can handle his diatribes on behalf of other users, and will take in their stride being attacked, smeared or flamed if it happens, are the ones who end up doing so for others.

When the time comes he realizes I and others are actually on his side, but also there for other users too, he'll probably find it a lot easier. I'll come back to your other points in a bit, and will consider your question "what would most help" and links. For now whatever can be done, please do it. Because as said, right now it's pretty much at "change or block". The requests, reasoned posts, and pleas, by the community and many users to talk better, were there since 2006 and routinely rebuffed, ignored, denied. The thought of "if I have an unhelpful negative effect on others enjoyment then thats something I would like to learn to avoid" isn't there right now. Conclusion, asking and explaining doesn't work. End of the line on that direction of handling. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind both of you that when you speak of Giano that you are talking about a real person. I feel uncomfortable with the manner that you both are analyzing him. Debating about him outside of our normal dispute resolution process is not helpful to the situation, I think. My 2 cents. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FloNight - noted and to an extent agreed. I don't think ignoring that has been the case for either of us. If we didn't care about Giano as a person we wouldn't be recognizing the different sides of the matter and trying to help him and others in them. We're essentially in a way, trying to reach agreement and define the issues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point FloNight, and the same applies to JzG as well, though I would still appreciate input on whether a request for comments in Giano's case might work better than the current set-up. More generally, and not mentioning any particular person, why do we block and ban real people from Wikipedia who quite obviously can contribute constructively? At some level, that is a failure of the Wikipedia systems of dispute resolution, not the person who is blocked. Carcharoth (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because Wikipedia is a community and an encyclopedia. People who are one but not the other we can handle. People who are one, but damage or disrupt the other, aren't okay. The community is not just "those people Giano likes and who can handle his barbed sometimes-upsetting wit or anger". We have norms that say what is okay in encyclopedic content, what is okay for communal conduct. Giano knows these yet (in effect) my impression is, says "I could care less if I upset a few others, drive a couple of people off the project, give some users a bad time, demonstrate my command of English by finding ways to be hurtful that I can later claim weren't really bad or that you provoked me, make strident hyped-up demands and claims rather than consider my own impact and conduct, or add a negative tone that many people complain about. And if you complain, ***** you, you can be misrepresented and attacked too, regardless of merits of the case or reasonableness of tone". Unfortunately, it's very much not okay.

We need a fit both in content work, and in conduct work, or at the least, avoidance of significant problems in both areas. The analogy in business is "people-focussed or task focussed". It's a false dichotomy; you need both. An editor who is cordial but damaging to articles is a problem. But also, an editor who is great for articles but hostile to norms of conduct and constantly refuses to see the effects of their actions, can damage many many others' contribution. So the latter is not trivial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to apologise to Giano and Guy (JzG) if either of them read this and felt they were, to use FloNight's phrase, overanalyzed. We can do that too much sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Flo's right. Cut out the unlicensed psychotherapy, please. Let's be honest: people are wanting to see insults, or they're not. I've got a great idea, though: talk to Giano to find out about Giano, and if he doesn't want to talk to you, then you could refrain from feigning expertise. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Majorly transcripts

(To FloNight) Were those recent, leaked transcripts from the ArbCom mailing list about you all's discussion of Majorly's personality accurate? I don't remember if some of those biting comments on Majorly's personality were from you, but if they were, then you were doing much of the same thing that FT2 and Carcharoth are doing here, except that they're doing it in the open. Perhaps that's the whole issue here, that they should be having this discussion by email. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason the poster on majorly's blog went away was basically, that (unknown to him) what was said on arb-l in discussing majorly, was actually majorly's own candid self-assessment, which majorly had no issue with and which he told everyone (including arbs) who asked. It therefore wasn't exactly a surprise to him as he'd said those words himself.

When that came out, the poster tried to attack majorly a second time, by attempting (via a deceptive log) to show he had been considered for desysopping. These messages were posted with a message that majorly was going to pay, that majorly was going to be made to kiss his ass, that majorly would be coerced to leave Wikipedia, and so on. Since that log almost immediately was shown to be a deception, nobody was very impressed with it. After those two attempts failed, the person trying to rile majorly left his blog and didn't come back.

Stepping back a bit, that's the second faked log in a short time (one was a blatent fake, the other had the entire context removed to give one sentence in which an innocuous word was then "replaced" by "desysop"). Together with the faked IRC log of December it probably goes to show that if someone purports to have a log of anything in future, people're going to have to always check facts or ask what was really said.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If the leaks were faked, and I'm not going to dispute your word that they were, why didn't you all come out and say that immediately? Majorly even posted the leaked logs to his blog. If you all are forthright and honest in your communication of issues, that will head off a lot of controversy. If someone says, as I have, above, that the IRC is full of filthy language, instead of ignoring it, say something like, "the use of profanity on the admins IRC is unacceptable and I've accepted ownership for fixing the problem and am committed to exiling any admin who can't abide community standards there or anywhere else" or "if they don't clean up their act I'm going to throw the IRC off of Wikipedia and I don't care how mad it makes David Gerard" then you would receive some well-earned respect. Middling, avuncular claptrap isn't going to cut it, and I think you know that, because based on your responses to other questions, you carefully apply inductive and deductive logic to your deicisions and responses. So, please accompany your explanations with some decisive decisions. Whether they work or not, I think you'll be supported just because you're trying to do something. Cla68 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe FT2 did in fact post a comment on the blog that the log had been faked. Thatcher 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you. But, if so, something should have been said on-wiki also. And, something needs to be done about the juvenile behavior on IRC. FT2 has yet to respond to my concerns about it. FT2, if you aren't willing or able to stop it, then cut it off, throw the admins IRC off of the Foundation servers, be through with it, we don't need it. The logs are always subject to leaking, so the problem won't go magically go away. Will you always be willing and able to explain to anyone why we sanctioned such behavior on our dime? Cla68 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was said on-wiki. See my evidence on the IRC arbitration case. The majorly incident was (so far as I was told) on majorly's blog, and hence responded on there. As for the irc channel itself, that's separate from majorly's blog, I'll pick this one up separately if possible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The en-admins channel is on Foundation servers? I was under the impression that the Foundation has no direct control of these channels, and only fuzzy authority to react to conduct on them. If you want to kill the channel, best to address Jdforrester or, I think, Sean Whitton? Avruch ^T 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's confirmed that the channel isn't on Foundation servers, then I'm going to propose deletion of the IRC page immediately, no joke. It shouldn't be on here if it has no "official" status. No kidding. Cla68 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The channel is hosted by freenode, and the foundation is not responsible for it. Majorly (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) All of the channels are hosted on Freenode, I believe, and not operated by the Foundation. The rules for connections, nicknames, chanops, conduct, etc. are established by Freenode and the person who set the channels up with Freenode, Jdforrester. Avruch ^T 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Links for reference are here and here. Avruch ^T 18:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As this is a sub-section a paragraph concerning me, I feel an urge to comment - I will ignore your amateurish, insulting and attacking amateur psychology - rest assured FT2 in the unlikely event I ever need a shrink, you will be my very last port of call. Now to business: To make things quite clear, though I'm sure you, FT2, are not implying otherwise, the logs, now circulating showing 1=2 (or whatever he is currently called) complaining of my comments regarding him, the instruction for the imposing of the block including the phrase "just don't use the reason per IRC" and the subsequent disruptive actions which followed, are genuine. Three copies from three continents prove that. These same genuine logs include an Arb, in the channel at the time, saying "I have to say, if I didn't know the roster, I would find it hard to believe sometimes that this is the administrators' channel." are 100% genuine and accurate. These are the same logs which you, FT2, reviewed and, astoundingly, found no problems. an interesting viewpoint, but then of course you reviewed the whole of IRC recently and informed us all that there were no problems there. Remember also, it was me who first spotted faked logs in December, and sent them straight to JWales - I'm an expert on logs. I am pleased the Arbitration Committee currently has such faith in you, and does not question your views. That must be very reassuring for you. Giano (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As said, inaccurate. You're taking discussion after the block, and mixing it in with creation of the block. However a clear reading shows about 7 lines of block discussion.

1. The user you called a "gnome like stalker" states he has been accused of stalking. He doesn't ask for a block, he doesn't mention a name; he doesn't even ask "is this blockable". Just states "I've been accused of stalking".
2. A second admin reviews it, and comments/asks if it should considered uncivil, citing the wording of the civility ruling you're under. Amazingly, he also doesn't ask for a block, or seek to obtain one. That's all he comments.
3. A third admin opines yes, it's uncivil.
4. At that point (and only then), does the reporting admin states he also thinks it is (which view he evidently held back to avoid biasing discussion). He also "goes the extra mile" and states that as the involved party it is "better left to others to determine". He reminds people that if it is, then "per irc" is not acceptable, which we drum into all admins.

That was the sum total prior to blocking. You were then blocked by a separate admin who took no part in any of the discussion and who reviewed the matter themselves. It contradicts entirely the impression anyone reading your account would get. I'm sorry if you feel this was some conspiracy. It wasn't. It was your own wilful ignoring of your own civility ruling, nothing more. You were uncivil, the matter was referred to others who opined it was uncivil, and you were utterly reasonably blocked for it. Even if suspicious, note that on-wiki a significant number of admins - including some who never visit irc - agree with this view of your manner to others. Everything else you discuss followed your - frankly unacceptable - attacking and were (as best I can tell) stimulated by that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have to say, if I didn't know the roster, I would find it hard to believe sometimes that this is the administrators' channel." Thanks for that insightful view FT2, with your interests in facts and research, probably best that you have realised your potential on Wikipedia. Stmulated? What on earth are you talking about? No, let's not go there. Giano (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues. Maybe you can address specifically whether there is anything incorrect in FT2s summary of events on IRC above? Avruch ^T 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, FT2, you have exactly and precisely identified the problem. There was absolutely no reason for that discussion to take place on IRC, and plenty of reason for that discussion to take place on-wiki. We actually have a special page for those kinds of discussions—WP:AE. Are you suggesting it is acceptable for admins who participate in IRC to avoid community scrutiny of their discussions pertaining to blocks? That very same conversation should have taken place on-wiki, where someone might well have pointed out some of the relevant information before Kwsn made the block. Risker (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like he is saying the block was "utterly reasonable" and if that is the case... Does it matter where the discussion took place? Clearly there is no basis for an admin to assume that IRC discussions about Giano avoid community scrutiny, no one with any knowledge of the case remedies could believe that. Do we want admins to discuss controversial actions in advance so that we can critique their reasoning at some later point after a decision has been made, or so that they can get a reality check from those available to test ideas ahead of time? Avruch ^T 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - comment to Risker) If the discussion is proper, and fair, then actually it can take place anywhere. Our norm has always been for off-site matters, that whatever might be discussed off wiki, on-wiki matters must be justified on-wiki and not by reference to a consensus elsewhere. In this case, "any" administrator who feels Giano is uncivil may block him. That norm was upheld. Kwsn is an administrator, and obviously (and not unreasonably) formed the view Giano was uncivil. Admins may block users without discussion if they feel it merited - it's unblocking in fact that requires discussion. Whether you would have discussed on-wiki or not, in fact discussion was not needed to block at all. All that was needed was an administrator to form the view that this was uncivil, or bad faith. So questions of venue where the admin heard of the post, or whether or not it was discussed, are a bit red-herring-ish [insert: in the "not really relevant" sense]. There is no issue where they hear of it, nor obligation to discuss before forming a view "is that uncivil". There was no improper discussion that "avoided" scrutiny and in fact the sole discussion of a block was to affirm that blocks must be justified on-wiki. Kwsn should be held to the exact norms in blocking Giano that (for example) other admins face in blocking other users, and only a tiny minority of blocks are raised at ANI first rather than simply blocked by the admin making the decision. Had I been involved in that decision, I would have indeed advocated using, posted and explained at AE, but I'm not going to be a process wonk and suggest that the decision's merits revolve round where the note was placed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly in response to Risker. On-wiki actions should be justifiable on-wiki, and should be open to review by the community -- that's a useful mantra I try to follow. Off-wiki discussion is going to happen in a variety of forums no matter what anyone does, and is arguably a good thing in some circumstances, provided we keep studiously to the aforementioned ideal. In this case, the block was obviously open for community review, seeing as it was discussed and overturned on the wiki; I don't believe there's anyone claiming that the discussion on IRC was "final" or was ever meant to be so. I too would prefer an on-wiki post before or immediately after a block of this nature, especially in this case where the particular choice of forum is liable to create drama. Mixed feelings, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC server hosting

Could someone please tell me why the foundation, you know the one, that hosts the worst most successful on-line encyclopedia, can't host its own IRC server if it wanted to and why this wouldn't be a good idea given that we seem constantly to be butting up against this - freenode has its own rules so we can't change anything mantra? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For reasons of logistics, liability and responsibility that are quite different from hosting a website. These reasons have been discussed at length on other forums, particularly Foundation-l, and I'm sure you can track down the justifications offered by Brion Vibber among others. The decision is outside the remit of FT2, anyway, and any changes would certainly need a wider audience than his talkpage. Avruch ^T 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)11

I was asking the question for my personal illumination, and not specifically of FT2 as this appears to be a forum for discussion. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

are you saying that the logistics, liabilities and responsibilities of hosting a private irc space are more onerous than a public encyclopedia with chat threads on its talk page? I can hardly believe it - in fact I don't. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument and variations of it seem to be the main reason, yes. I don't know too much about how complicated it is to host a stable and high traffic set of IRC channels along with everything else, but Brion and others who have commented about it seem to know quite a bit. Avruch ^T 21:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet if we asked them nicely it could be done - certainly for en-admins apparently the most it ever has is 70 users - doesn't sound like high traffic to me compared to WP. I'd donate £10 to the server. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, I've also made that suggestion, back among my first questions when the community arb'ed me last year. If WMF can host the wikis on which people discuss, and the mailing lists on which people discuss, why not the irc channels where people discuss. In IRC terms the channels don't have unreasonable levels of usage, currently 130 or so text-only channels with 2000-2500 users (peaking at perhaps 2500-3000 at the moment). Reasons seem to be apparently in part a certain historic reluctance, plus also, who hosts the server possibly doesn't affect the dialog on them. Maybe there's other good reasons too that I didn't hear about. But FWIW I've asked too. Ultimately I concluded it doesn't actually make much difference though in practical day to day terms. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well for one thing - given that half of this thread has been about who's got legitimate logs or not - it would help. Furthermore, if we are to have community discussion about whether or not to have IRC reform, it would be good to not feel that we have one hand tied behind our backs by the rules of freenode. We need the independence. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's been much discussion of legitimate/illegitimate log concerns. As I've mentioned before, if there is ever a question, then getting accurate logs is easy. The issue's much more about whether irc is used as a coatrack. In other words, Giano has been asked numerous times about his actual conduct or had his approach to things criticized by multiple users - and yet his response to all these is to ignore the points others make in preference for a generalized "this is all a conspiracy!" claim, including claims that have been dismantled and then asked about (above) to which his answer is - no answer. And to strongly (perhaps ferociously at times) attack others.

This tendency itself is highly disruptive. To talk in a manner that uninvolved administrators might fairly form a view "that was blockable given the civility parole" is one thing. To then misrepresent the dialog as he does, then use that misrepresentation to holler about a conspiracy and abuse, to claim people are against him who have specifically said they are trying to help him..... to seek to avoid discussing the actual basis of his block, or conduct itself, which has now been discussed several times. Giano has exactly the same standards as all others to live up to, and these are outside them. If he cannot and will not find a way to change, then that's unfortunately going to be likely to lead to blocking or banning, is my assessment. because as a community we not only have a duty to help Giano. We also have a communal duty to prevent administrators being driven off the project for trying to assert norms that for all other users, are uncontroversial and everyday. In this case, norms are - civility parole is serious. Users sanctioned by Arbcom are expected to comply, change or will have the sanction enforced. Blocks need admin review but do not need wider discussion. Involved admins may report a matter to uninvolved admins however and wherever they like. Users who disrupt are expected to change; sanctions and blocks are tools to procure that. And so on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But you must see FT2 that the inherent secrecy of a closed channel is as much the source of conflict as anything Giano may or may not do, and when challenged to reform, the main stumbling block appears to be the rules we are obliged to follow imposed on us by freenode. We have a crisis of confidence in some of our institutions that is unrelated to Giano's provocations. Did Giano provoke the !! scandal with Durova? or the cooked blocks of "a clean kill". Quite regardless of how Giano may deport himself, to suggest that everything is fine and dandy in the channel can only be taken on trust - but that trust has been fundamentally shaken by such events. I've been around for a while, and generally kept my nose clean - but I've seen good contributors treated appalingly by our institutions, so trust here is a little thin on the ground, and I'm certainly not prepared to sit by and watch it happen any longer. Rather than trying to build confidence, the institutions respond by vilifying an outspoken critic for his delivery - and even then it was a pretty weak consensus to do that. I can only see a further polarised community as a result of this refusal to adequately reform and notions of conformity with social norms are fraught with inconsistencies and fundamental subjectivities that are impossible to adequately define and hence result in very bad law. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2, as I see you are online, would you care to pick up our discussion here?--Joopercoopers (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you speaking, immediatly above, on behalf of the Arbcom or as an individual editor? Please just answer simply, (a) On behalf of the Arbcom; or (b) On behalf of myself. Thanks. Giano (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In discussing this case I am usually speaking as an administrator who has in the past warned you on your conduct, sought to address your conduct in private by email, on one occasion already, blocked you for your conduct, and is now examining another administrator's block and the circumstances surrounding it and your responses to it. These are all statements and comments any administrator might make, and several have spoken similarly. The "We" refers to "the community" not specifically to arbcom. We (communally) have a duty to help you, but we (communally) also have a duty to prevent the kind of handling you require others to take, and we (as a community) are not expected by any norm, to have infinite patience for users who cause harm as you do for no good reason and then try to bluster out of it. Others have made the point that ArbCom sanctions are in place and what that means. The rest is my own observations and assessment of the situation as an administrator who has significant experience of this long-running case now. If you want to talk I've invited that many times, and will continue to do so. Less hostility would help though. But as an administrator, my job is to see through the "puff" to the actual words. What I see is complete denial in hand with aggression, breach of our norms, and other users being hurt by you - and you know that your words hurt others and continue to do so. You attack others who try to prevent that misconduct. That's not okay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As to your conduct... to quote others:

• "These comments are clearly uncivil and make an assumption of bad faith" (Will beback);
• "You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues" (Avruch);
• "I think it is a real shame the was Kwsn has been treated for daring to hold Giano to the same standards as anyone else. Protect Giano if you must but do not sling mud at those who don't. But then, the civility policy does not apply to Giano, there are enough admins who seek to protect him from blocks at any cost to ensure that. Saying that blocking someone for engaging in personal attack while on civility parole is controversial is just baffling." (Until 1==2);
• "The lack of warnings is a red herring here; Giano is certainly aware of the civility sanction (which is here). Moreover, since the sanction is based on a long pattern of incivility, signing off for the evening isn't a factor. This diff is enough, per the arbcom sanction, for a legitimate block." (CBM);
• "Unlike an ordinary editor, Giano may be blocked whenever he edits in a way that a reasonable editor could interpret as a personal attacks, incivil, or assuming bad faith. To lift the block one must argue that no reasonable editor could consider the edits to fall into those categories - no other circumstances are relevant, and discussion before the block is not required in any way. This is a much lower threshold for blocking than for ordinary editors. It is also why the worry about the block being discussed on IRC isn't relevant - because the civility parole sets out a specific threshold for blocking" (CBM);
• "Blocks are either good or bad, IRC doesn't come into it. You don't get to poison the well, and then complain about the water" (Doc glasgow).

To quote myself:

"...It's just got no place here. Which means inevitably those few who can handle his diatribes on behalf of other users, and will take in their stride being attacked, smeared or flamed if it happens, are the ones who end up doing so for others. When the time comes he realizes I and others are actually on his side, but also there for other users too, he'll probably find it a lot easier."

"...Giano's an editor who has been directed to treat others better; when he does I have no other interest in him. It's the community's right to say that certain conduct is not okay. He's had arbitration cases and expressions of concern since 2006 or earlier. Now it's basically, "do it, or accept that there are sanctions if you don't or can't". If you can suggest any way to help him not unhelpfully mishandle or bully others or do the harm he does by his manner of speech to other users, I'd jump at it. I'd put the work in myself (and have) if he'd wish it or show a sign he would change it. But it has to work, not just be "empty promises", and has to address his style of speech to other users. Do that, however it can be done, and I'd be happy beyond belief. Don't, and further sanctions are probably inevitable... Can we help him? Only if he lets us."

To quote the blocker:

"I blocked based off of warring on FT2's talk page. FT2 had commentted a comment by Giano out of his talk (with an edit summary saying he read it), and Giano kept on removing the comment tags. The 'stalker' comment didn't help much. I probably would not have blocked except for the fact he was under ArbCom sanctions for civility." (Kwsn)

To quote you - and lay bare the misleading descriptions you make of the case:

"He placed the block purely because he was asked to on IRC... Just another of those that...are a liability to the project. He had no idea what he was even doing. He needs to be de-sysoped" (Giano II).

I don't concur. Kwsn was not "asked" to block, nor would it be accurate that Kwsn had "no idea what he was doing". That sort of wild accusation of bad faith, personal attack and incivility, is precisely why we're discussing your social editing, here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Holler?

"Holler", is it, FT2? That's what the regular user over whom you, as an arb, have so much power, is doing, according to you? You should be ashamed. You're out of control. You seem to have worn out any common human decency you started out with. Have you quite forgotten FloNight's warning that these are human beings you speak of? Moreover, you're the one misrepresenting the dialogue in en-admins—not Giano. I have the log from April 8, and will share with any user in good standing who asks, to show that this is what happened, and to show who the real misrepresenter is:

1. [08-04-14 22.41] <Admin 1> "sigh, I just got called a stalker." Pastes link.
2. [08-04-14 22.46] <Admin 2> "could that be counted as a breach of WP:CIVIL?..."Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."
3. [08-04-14 22.47] <admin 3> "considering he is on a civility parole, was just blocked a couple weeks ago for violating it, yes"
4. [08-04-14 22.48] <Admin 1> "I think it is" Please note that admin 1, the original complainer, is telling people to find Giano's post a breach of WP:CIVIL two seconds after Admin 2 asks about it, and one second after admin 3 asks. You think there's a question of "review", at this speed, FT2? You think that "the reporting admin "evidently held back [his view] to avoid biasing discussion"? I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous. By ignoring the timestamps, you're misrepresenting who is requesting a block: it's Admin 1.
5. [08-04-14 22.48] <Admin 1> "but as the recipient of the insult, it is perhaps better left to others to determine" (same second again)
6. [08-04-14 22.48] <Admin 1> "just don't use the reason "per irc" Same second again. Obviously the last three posts have been typed out and are being rapidly posted one after the other.

Bishonen | talk 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

Comment, I corrected time stamps to UTC to make them easier to check and also to correlate with what was happening on-wiki before, during and after that. The format of these stamps are "yy-mm-dd hh.mm". Putting this together shows truly what happened. --Irpen 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't keep timestamps here. Only logs. Assuming those are accurate (which I'm fine doing) then wouldn't the better course of action have been to say so long ago and maybe ask those concerned for their comment? That's a specific point of fact that's capable of review long ago. It doesn't need to wait until this much is said, to suggest it. (Or did you only just notice it yourself, which sounds possible? In which case let's ask for comments on it.) First of all, just so there's no question later, can you double check one thing -- those look like "to the nearest minute" not "second" timestamps.

In other words the first two are 5 minutes, not 5 seconds apart; the last 3 took place within a 60 second frame not a 1 second frame, and it was April 15 not April 8. And "holler" means "To yell or shout. Informal. To complain". Exact correct usage for Giano's style of speaking, in the clause "holler about a conspiracy". The usage is precise; I've said before, I try to use words accurately. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just re-checked with Werdna, who had the same logs and logs to the minute, and pasted his version of them to me, showing these were dialogs taking place over a period of around 7 minutes, not 7 seconds. I think you must have misread them, Bish. (I've asked Werdna to comment so it's not just my word. Others probably have logs too). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that FT2 asked for, and received, an appropriate excerpt from my log. While my server's clock is 16 minutes slow, the logs did indicate that the discussion occurred over seven minutes, not seven seconds, and that the above excerpt is comprehensive, containing everything that was said on the matter at that time. — Werdna talk 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block, but I too can confirm this. krimpet✽ 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Update, I re-read Irpen's comment carefully. He too says these are hours and minutes, not minutes and seconds. It looks like you may want to rethink your assessment of the log, Bish. And probably, your assessment of my representation of it. Do you want to withdraw your views here, and I'll comment it out of my talk page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I can also confirm from personal logs (I wasn't online at the time) that the transcript above is correct. The timestamps are in hours and minutes, not minutes and seconds. There was no more conversation at all for 6 minutes after these remarks. Considering that, in a course of 13 minutes, only two people responded, with one comment each, it can hardly be characterized as a heated discussion. The two remarks, moreover, were explicitly about the civility parole. It's probably worthwhile to look at the actual comment Giano made, [23], when judging whether an admin could reasonably consider it incivil, which is the criteria for a block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this what substitutes for reasonable dialog, now? "You should be ashamed. You're out of control. You seem to have worn out any common human decency you started out with." Really - talk about avoiding any possible chance of commenting on what actually happened, or anything of relative importance. When you accuse someone of having run out common decency, and then inaccurately represent events in order to support your contention, your comments... well, lack credibility. Irrational conclusions, jumped to based on inaccurate facts, are what causes these issues to spiral out of control. Avruch ^T 01:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see you, Avruch, rush to the defense of the way FT2 abuses his power as an arbitrator to lord it over a regular editor, under cover of loftily laying down the law. I would have expected/hoped to see you ask if his speech is "what substitutes for reasonable dialog". But I suppose power is bound to find supporters. My disappointment is probably a measure of how far the community is riven by this issue.

About the timestamps, I did indeed make a stupid mistake, sorry: these are minutes, not seconds. The type of time indication is unfamiliar in my part of the world, and I misread. The discussion of the snippet of log wasn't my main point—that was the lack of common decency in FT2's way of speaking, plus my reminder of Flo's warning that these are real people—however, a candid assessment shows that my minute-->second error scarcely affects my criticism of the way FT2 reads the log. Let me rewrite the vital part of my description, with minutes instead of seconds:

• [08-04-15 00.46] <Admin 2> "could that be counted as a breach of WP:CIVIL?..."Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."
• [08-04-15 00.47] <admin 3> "considering he is on a civility parole, was just blocked a couple weeks ago for violating it, yes"
• [08-04-15 00.48] <Admin 1> "I think it is." "but as the recipient of the insult, it is perhaps better left to others to determine" (still 00.48), "just don't use the reason "per irc" (still 00.48) Please note that admin 1, the original complainer, is telling people to find Giano's post a breach of WP:CIVIL within two minutes after Admin 2 asks about it, and within one minute after admin 3 asks. You think there's a question of "review", at these speeds? You think that "the reporting admin "evidently held back [his view] to avoid biasing discussion"? And that he "went the extra mile" in leaving the blocking to others, after showing so clearly that a block was what he was after? Your miles sure are short as soon as Giano is in question. Please stop this petty bullying now. Bishonen | talk 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

I appreciate your disappointment, but what I wrote was not a defense - it was criticism. Criticism of a type of interaction that is unhelpful and contributes towards the degradation of the community. I'll grant that there is history I'm not aware of that might explain your interpretation of FT2s remarks, but the emotional hyperbole is never constructive. All this arguing has to have a point, somewhere - you must have an objective in mind, and I can't see how accusing someone of having lost all common decency as a result of anything on this page will get you closer to achieving that objective. Thank you for your note on my page - I'll have to continue to form my own opinions, and past events out of context probably won't help, but I'm not the sort to rush to judgment and I intend to keep an open mind. Avruch ^T 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes; easily. Five minutes pass since the original post, easily enough for review. I could click on a link and decide that "gnome-like stalker" was or wasn't uncivil in about 20 seconds (just tested). Double click, wait for page, read 10 words, no further research needed since (in and of themselves) they are either uncivil or not. Obviously 1==2 did indeed hold his view back; he posted the link, waited 5 minutes and said nothing in that time. Obviously he had a view, yet only after hearing back from 2 others, some 6 minutes later, did he comment it. Self evident.

So yes, I stand by my analysis. I'm sorry Bish, but your initial hypothesis was based on a misreading and I'm surprised to see you trying to make a revised case like this. It just doesn't work. When I make a mistake and my previous belief becomes untenable, I actually stop supporting the matter I was mistaken on and revise my thinking. Which is why I checked the timings, in case you were right and I'd been mistaken. As you can see though, the initial analysis stands. Five minutes to decide that one diff is or isn't civil, is ten or more times longer than an experienced admin would probably need.

• Try it yourself: here's a diff about the same length: [24]. Click and read. How long did it take you from start to end, to click on it and decide if that specific post was or wasn't civil? 10 seconds? 20? Maybe 30?

• Here's another: [25]. Click and read. How long would it take a patroller from start to end, to click on it and decide if that specific post was or wasn't vandalism and "form a view" whether to revert? 10 seconds? 20?

The link was posted. Five minutes later - not five seconds - an admin asked if it might be uncivil and cites the remedy from Arbitration. Up to a minute passes and another admin comments it is in their view uncivil. And only then - and up to another minute later - does the reporting admin give any view they may have. Do you now agree the log shows that as being the timescale involved? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know FT2, I keep reading your posts of ever increasing length, answering this, answering that. The Arbcom are indeed fortunate that you are their main Wikipedia official spokesperson, I hope they don't eventually decide to cast you aside. One person is very lucky you are Arbcom's front-man - Me! Not so long ago we were being told KWSN was not even in the channel when the block was discussed, but the logs show he was - what next are you going pull out of your magic hat, I wonder. Giano (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Bishonen's reply though. Please. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got back from wikibreak, and I really don't like what I am seeing here. I see the worst violations of AGF here that I have seen in my time on Wikipedia.

I don't know how someone can read "I think it is, but as the recipient of the insult, it is perhaps better left to others to determine" in any other way than "I think it is, but because I am involved someone else should decide". Frankly I don't see how it can be read as "Hey guys, lets all conspire!".

There was once a time where I could make an off hand joke on IRC without it being thrown into the drama mill. The "per irc" comment was a joke referring to an unfortunate edit summary used on a block some time ago, a situation where the edit summary was given more consideration than the events at hand. I think it is tacky that it is being twisted into some sort of cabal. I joke all the time on IRC, but I need to stop the levity now as it is clear that people are logging the channel in secret and will twist anything I say as out of context as they desire to match whatever point they want to make.

I have not much more to say on this matter other than I have the logs myself and will freely admit to anything I said on channel that day. If you truly think I was out of line then take me before arbcom, but blaming IRC is silly.

I will also point out that there is no policy that says an admin cannot enforce NPA when he is the recipient of the personal attack. I did not need to seek conspirators to make the block, I sought advice because I felt it was better left to someone else. Now if we are quite done inventing battles to fight, I would like to get on with Wikipedia. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Trees vs forest

The problem here is rather not the individual malfeasance of selected admins, but that it could come together only at IRC with it's specific bias of an admin culture. At AE it would be dead upon arrival more likely than not. 1=2 took it to IRC on purpose (I think) specifically after praising Giano on-wiki and after Giano's assurance that the issue is closed. Nevertheless that very minute he was at IRC resurrecting it. But even if I am wrong about 1=2's true intentions, his guilt is then in the distorted mindset of resorting to IRC for solving of problems that have to be solved onwiki.

Remember my post with examples of IRC malfeasances and your response devoted to their analysis? I figured, makes no sense to provide you with further details (sorry, I know it was impolite) simply because you judge this from the wrong end.

Reactions of Flo and you reminded me of Durova debacle and her afterthoughts. She was truly sorry and apologetic (and, note, I believe she was sincere) but for the wrong thing. She thinks that her only mistake (unforgivable by her own admission) was making a judgment error about !! rather than having a mindset that brought this all in the first place. She is very apologetic for making a bad analysis, she still does not see that a much bigger thing was wrong in her actions. Same here. This is a trees/forest problem. Who of us sees the trees and who of us sees the forest, we may never agree. This is where the community has to make its judgment but that judgment should hold rather than be brushed aside.

Later, I will post a detailed analysis of the on-wiki diffs interleaved with IRC entries (since log is now public). It will show the problem more vividly. In the meanwhile, I leave you folks here for several hours.

As a humble suggestion, I don't think it is a good idea for you to post to Giano's page even if the current dialog there seems in need of a comment. It is not that your opinion is not appreciated, it's just that Giano's page is not a good place for it. I would appreciate it though, if you post it here or feel free to email it. --Irpen 09:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To take the last point first, you'll see indeed I haven't. Not because I can't or shouldn't, but exactly the same reason you figured. Accomodating what can be accomodated; giving leeway with what can be given leeway. Hence readily agreed. As to AE - yesno.. 1==2 did not "take it" to IRC to "solicit" anything as best I can see. He reported it there because he felt it was unreasonable to be called a "stalker", a choice of words directly under Giano's control and nobody elses. He got feedback and reasonable opinions from two other admins that was a breach of civility, as others have since said openly on-wiki. If "an administrator" considers Giano to have been uncivil then he may be blocked. No action's validity changes depending on where it's initially brought to admin attention.

I think it's not so much wood and trees here. When people lay down defenses then one often has to address those point by point. The big picture I've given above is - Giano's conduct damages the community. Many users, over many months and years, have said to stop it; Giano's reponse to that is too often, to (as seems to me) attack, corrode, misrepresent, cite conspiracy theories and the like, rather than do what's actually asked of him - same content, different manner. He was already at Arbcom for doing this in 2006, and he's trying merely to continue doing it. It's now at "change or block" pretty much, because his approach is not "clever" or "witty", such comments do harm the community in multiple ways, and that's not okay. Many users have now been attacked simply for asking him to act as communal norms, consensus and standards applicable to others, require. Many administrators have been attacked for applying norms to Giano they apply to all others openly.

The response to that requirement is a huge number of smokescreens and distractions - that the venue of reporting is more significant than the action reported (never true elsewhere), that Arbitrators who have visibly said "just don't be uncivil to others is all thats asked" are trying to "attack" him, down to Bishonen's statement that 5 minutes is not long enough for the average user to click on a link of a dozen words and form a view if it's civil or not, hence it must be contrived. The reality is simple -- Giano's being held to the same norms as others, he doesn't like it, and he has adopted an apparent strategy that of trying to bluster, force, flame, distract, foul-mouth, and misrepresent his way, and to do it further, despite many users over many months saying "no, that's a problem for the project".

If Giano changes his style to avoid these things, he'll find nobody actually has any administrative interest in him beyond that and we can all get on with content. Until then it's for administrators to curtail him - forcibly if needed - when he cannot or will not do so himself. That was the request of multiple users at Arbitration and the decision of the Committee agreed it was reasonable as of 2008 for users to expect better conduct and to have sanctions set to help them obtain it if necessary.

That's the big picture - damage to the project. Driving away or discouraging of users. Encouragement of a style of dialog that can only make disputes less easy to reconcile, and result in time being wasted in argument (as it is now) than agreeing and moving on to content. That's the big picture. Not "which venue was a diff reported in". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think FT2 you have become rather fixated on me, your fixation is now bordering on obsession, and I'm wondering if it is healthy. I am begining to feel mentally threatened and attacked by your strange behaviour and posts. Please stop. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2, please don't stop.

I see no sign of any "fixation is now bordering on obsession", just an arbitrator standing up for the enforcement of community norms which have been the subject of repeated complaint and repeated arbcom cases.

Giano, If you feel "mentally threatened", the solution is in your hands. Start trying to be genuinely civil to those with whom you disagree, and to be quick to apologise for any offence which you cause, and then you'll find that there can be a rapid end to the endless discussion of Giano. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can see, you (BHG) and FT2 are far more political and adept than Giano. I'll be brutally honest here (with apologies to all), but Giano and Bishonen are sometimes rather naive in the things they say or the way they say them. You and FT2 are, in a word, much "smoother". But Giano's character comes across much more in his edits, which is probably one of the reasons he got so much support and opposition at the ArbCom election. I apologise for slipping back into "analytical mode" there, but one thing that should be pointed out is FT2's rather clumsy effort to include a "smokescreen" (as he calls it) posted by Bishonen (the minutes/seconds confusion) as part of his arguments about Giano. I do hope FT2 is not suggesting that Giano be censured for Bishonen's actions, or that the actions of others will impact FT2's views on Giano? And I might as well repeat here my request for evidence. See here. I have yet to see a clear statement anywhere of the evidence that Giano is "harming the project" (the most I have seen is vague handwaving and speculation), and I suspect that several arbitrators are talking themselves into this on the basis of past arbitration cases they may not have fully read. Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Need urgent help: suicide note

A suicide note was left by a registered user and some fellow admins and I are trying to do the right thing. Can you see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self-harm and continued at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide. I see you have access to checkuser. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. You can email me directly or perhaps you could contact the Australian Federal Police - www.afp.gov.au - +61 2 9955 4923. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Done - police contacted, all details given, original edit oversighted for privacy of the minor concerned. See WP:ANI. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think theres a link somewhere in the wp:ani thread with a name in it, maybe that should be removed also? --Apis 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's more than just a link, you might want to go over it. --Apis 02:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Done that too - thanks. Oversighted most of it as privacy breaching + minor, and checked the links at ANI. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

email sent

Email sent RE:suicide note. Viridae^Talk 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't arrived yet. Can you resend? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No its not useful anymore. I was asking for the details so I contact the relevant authorities - I'm in Melbourne. Viridae^Talk 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Message

		Thank you
		I would just like to say thank you for your efforts regarding the potential suicide thread on ANI last night. This may have been a poor taste message or hoax, but if it wasn't hopefully...... we may have made a real difference. So thank you and if ever there is anything I can do to help you in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. Khukri 08:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on Giano

Excuse me for dropping in on the Giano dispute - normally I only get involved in science-related debates, but I have a general concern about subject-matter experts (R Physicist was the last - see his note on my talk page) being driven away from Wikipedia by bureacracy, process, and an obsession with borderline civility issues (see the recent ANI on R Physicist). Giano does not edit science subjects but he seems like an excellent editor, and the quality of his writing seems to inspire many others. Altogether he seems like a credit to this project. It does not help when you make these long-winded, incoherent and often illiterate attacks on him here and elsewhere. Giano is not a danger to the project, but I believe you are. I have also looked at your edits which are mostly process and bureacracy stuff, and not particularly a help to the project. I would be grateful if you stopped these personal attacks on a distinguished contributor to this project. Many thanks. The Rationalist (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC) (adding) E.g. you say The big picture I've given above is - Giano's conduct damages the community. That is an extremely rude and unpleasant thing to say about such a distinguished editor. He is a talented editor, he is an inspiration to the project, and you should not be making personal attacks on him like this. The Rationalist (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you didn't spot the 100 or so articles I've written myself, prior to ArbCom then? Or the hundreds I've made other contributions to? Arbitration is a process role, so it isn't surprising that 4 months into it, I'm doing more than the usual amount of process. And yes, I do edit science subjects to a high standard (or are you trying to say that only content writers may validly criticize the conduct of other content writers?) You unfortunately didn't check back before ArbCom (Nov 2007), it seems, which is an understandable mistake.

Thank you I shall take a look at these science articles then. The Rationalist (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) (added) Sorry I can only find a handful of edits in March 2008 on the Metric expansion of space. Where is your actual scientific work in Wikipedia, then. Are you a scientist? The Rationalist (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a concern about all editors doing good work, or being driven away or discouraged, not just a certain select few. Verbal misconduct drives away dedicated contributors no less than any other problems. Giano is an excellent editor, I agree, but must now address how he relates to other editors when he doesn't agree with their views or approaches. Wouldn't it be easier to say "yes, Giano was rude, he slipped, he shouldn't speak that way again, now lets move on from it"? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Who has Giano driven away then? I am not intimately familiar with his editing or interactions, I admit, but he strikes me as one who does not suffer fools gladly, FT2, and the less fools on this project, the better, don't you agree? The Rationalist (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano drove me away. Thanks for calling me a fool. I'd say more, but I've been told that I'm not allowed the same freedom to speak out that Giano has. --66.234.217.151 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? I think you missed my point anyway. What articles did you write? What did you contribute to Wikipedia? Drop by on my talk page if you want. The Rationalist (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly do I have to justify myself to you? Why should FT2? Is one Giano worth all the people he has driven away? Who speaks for them? I don't think it is helpful to discuss what we have given to Wikipedia. When we leave, you get nothing. --66.234.217.151 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you said I called you a fool. Who are you? I'll take a look at your work and what you have contributed to the project. If you have, I will concede your point. The Rationalist (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what I contributed, and many people reading this also know. You don't need to know. I'm not here to score points, I'm here to explain why I left. People claiming that Giano has a right to speak while I do not was one reason.

The community expressed their trust in FT2 by electing him arbitrator, an honor that they denied Giano. And now you demand that he justify his contributions to you. Who are you? --66.234.217.151 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't 'explained' why you left. You said you left because of Giano: that is not an 'explanation'. With every kind wish The Rationalist (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to post a lengthy explanation. Carry on. --66.234.217.151 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, without a context your statement bears no credibility. I can register a new account (or log out) and start posting that I was a massive FA writer driven off this project by... even Newyorkbrad, who has a record of utmost civility and consideration to other editors. I would really like to see a single example of an editor whose valuable contributions are no more here because of Giano. On a separate note, I would like to apologize to FT2 for not yet giving a detailed analysis of recent events I promised to him another day. I had a wonderful day-off outdoors and did not want to interrupt it for this stuff. I wish everyone to remember that some RL fun is still around, especially in this great part of the year with great weather, trees in blossom, brooks brawling and birds singing almost violently. Best wishes to everyone. --Irpen 07:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(to your added comment) I would give as my view that calling people "gnome-like stalkers" is not going to help the community. In fact it'll actively harm it, long term, if that kind of conduct continues as it has. More to the point I don't think we want a wiki where people are generally doing that. Nor is misrepresenting people who try to help him as "spiteful". These aren't good things, Rationalist. The community has asked ArbCom to provide a means to stop them, and we have done so. If he stops his harmful manner of speech to other users, then oddly enough, no administrator has a further interest in him. He isn't the first person to wish to edit with bad conduct to others, and then complain heatedly when prevented. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rationalist, while I agree that it's better not to "psychoanalyze" Giano or anyone else, FT2's assessment of Giano's behavior that you quoted isn't a personal attack. It's the frank opinion of an arbitration committee member who has spent a significant amount of time deliberating on the situation. I recommend reading through Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC and its subpages to see the basis for the comment you quoted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Analysing someone in that detail is going to come across as a personal attack, and there is also a pompous air to it that many people would find annoying or irritating. Were it not for the rather amateurish nature of the psychologising, it would be quite intimidating to a lesser person than Giano. The Rationalist (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC) On 'gnome-like stalker' what is the problem with this? The Rationalist (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I also wondered who Giano did call a "gnome-like stalkers", which you said 'is not going to help the community'. This was the editor called 1=2 or some illogical thing like that - someone who can't even add up. I had a look at the first 200 edits of this guy, and he seems mostly to write about cannabis smoking. While this might explain the poor mathematics, I can't frankly see why he would be a great loss to Wikipedia, or why calling him a 'gnome-like stalker' would not in fact help the community. FT2, you seem to be the leader of this civility cult that seems to grip the place (to the extent that a prize-winning physicist was driven out of the place for remarks that were deemed to be 'inappropriate' or something like that. Incivility, if not extreme, has a place in this world, and sometimes fools must be told that they are fools, to discourage les autres. Do you agree, FT2? Sorry if this comes out as a bit extreme, and I suppose you will think it uncivil, but I am still annoyed about R Physicist. Did you have anything to do with this eminent scientist's departure, FT2? Did you try and prevent it? I put a lot of work into that (see my talk page). I didn't see any of you bureacrats around. The Rationalist (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think you're confusing the reasons why people leave.

Also, I don't think its completely consistent to begin a section by decrying personal attacks and then say what you just said about 1=2. I have no major opinion on the subject, but perhaps you should familiarise yourself with his complete history. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on someone's contributions is not generally a personal attack. Making disparaging remarks about them as a person generally is. Seeing as your comments about 1==2 add nothing to your case, please consider if they should be removed.

I'm also not sure why FT2 has to justify his contribution record to you. Even a cursory reading of his history shows he is a longstanding and valued editor. As is Giano and as no doubt are you. Your opinion of FT2 is clear in your posts above. Now that we've all noted it, what outcome are you seeking in continuing this discussion? Euryalus (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I was just asking why someone who appears to have no contribution record at all apart from one he mentioned, which happened to be mis-spelled, should be lecturing in this condescending way to Giano. I have simply asked what articles FT2 has contributed to (he mentioned he contributes to science articles). He hasn't actually demonstrated this. Does he have to demonstrate this? I think so, if he persists in making these virulent personal attacks on distinguished contributors to the project. Giano hasn't written anything further, so it seems that it is FT2 is disrupting the project. Why hasn't he been blocked? The Rationalist (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And why do my comments about 1=2 add nothing to the case? He appears to have contributed little of value apart from articles about cannabis, which we safely assume are of little value. So my comments add a great deal to the case. Here are two 'editors' on the project, FT2 and 1=2, who don't actually do much at all, as far as I can see, attacking an editor who has contributed a great deal. Seems to be a bit upside down. The Rationalist (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you do not know all of 1=2's history, so I suggest you tone that part of your criticism down. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(Offline a bit)

I'm losing draft posts through browser crashes and O/S instabilities, following a motherboard issue here. Some time this weekend, I'm likely to be reinstalling it. I might put some discussions and other matters on ice for a bit while that happens. Sorry :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine well let me know about those science articles you wrote when it's fixed. I couldn't find them. The Rationalist (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick update - the resident PC did die. Fully backed up though. Looking like a motherboard fault, we'll know more tomorrow hopefully. Just online to grab Memtest86 as it could be RAM also. Predictably it chose a Saturday to do this, the longest wait till customer support lines open :) May have intermittent access at friends and family till it's fixed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well fine, could we have a link to one of these science articles you claim to have written then? Thanks The Rationalist (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, motherboard is surely the problem; a range of diagnostic tests showed up red for an hour, then green , then red for an hour, and so on. It's going back under warranty for testing for a week. Luckily the old PC works, but it's slower. So effectively I'm hoping it's resolved. If they can reproduce the fault and replace it, I'll be offline a little while again, in a few days, to install its replacement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A request

I am finding your behaviour now seriously worrying and threatening. I ask you not to mention by name on Wikipedia, one more time. Thank you. Giano (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really something you'll get until you change your manner of speech to other users. Your fastest way to get that will be as said above: "If he stops his harmful manner of speech to other users, then oddly enough, no administrator has a further interest in him.". I strongly recommend that as the best route all round for everyone.

(The alternatives, "ignore", "block and don't discuss", or "Giano gets to flame and accuse others, but others must be silent and not rebut", don't really work in administrative matters.)

Engaging in behavior which is reasonably considered inappropriate by norms, doing this long term including under ArbCom parole, and then complaining that you feel "worried" and "threatened" that administrators seem to mysteriously not let you freely do so, is disingenuous.

I'm not much into playing; in fact I'm not into playing at all. The behavior for which you were sanctioned stops, or it's likely you'll receive more blocks. I would like that not to be the case, but you're the one who can - and must - choose it. So this is also, a further request to cease and accept the consensus norms of the wider community, and warning that it's not really negotiable long term. So far you've tried a wide range of strategums (strageta?) to avoid this simple responsibility, including attacking those calling you to do so. The conclusion is that administrators who wish to do so must expect and handle such attacks and diversions, and take them in their stride. The administrative issue stands. Please consider your manner to other users carefully, in order to avoid further issues of this kind, and avoid administrative attention and waste of all our time. And, ultimately, because if there are too many blocks, the maximum duration rises significantly to a month.

strategemata The Rationalist (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, the purpose of these is to encourage a necessary change to a less harmful manner in future, deter problem mannerisms from continuing, and thus protect the users and community who it may affect. If blocking cannot achieve those goals, then it may be that there is no way to communicate the necessity other than by removal. That is why you are being asked to change now (and have been many times by others), and to use your undoubted English skills in a way that does not contravene norms, parole, and expectations. If you honestly cannot do so, then ask for a mentor or say so. Take advice from friends privately. But don't bluster, or attack. It isn't going to help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that this has been brought to WP:AN/I. Avruch ^T 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It has? Can you provide a link? Carcharoth (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnyajohn redux

I strongly suspect that User:Johnyajohn/User:Octavian history has returned as 68.175.69.57, for reasons I have given at User talk:68.175.69.57. The IP is currently under a 1-week block. You might recall the RfAR 2 months ago that was eventually moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Octavian history. I am not sure whether the RfAR is still open or not, but if it is, I'm really not sure whether this warrants ArbCom's attention at this point. However, it is worth noting that the content that 68.175.69.57 added has also received media coverage (see also Talk:Marilyn Monroe#Sex tape section). I thought perhaps I'd ask about it here first, given your previous involvement with the user in question. Thanks in advance, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC and Freenode

All this time, I thought IRC was hosted on Wikipedia servers, which was why I thought that the channels had "official" status on Wikipedia with their own page. Now I find out that they're actually hosted on separate servers, called Freenode, which isn't part of Wikipedia at all. Knowing this, I don't see how these channels can have any kind of official status in the project. I'm planning on nominating the IRC page for deletion based on this inescapable fact, that how can something have official status that you don't have absolute, administrative, legal, formal, etc control over, which we apparently don't? Before I do that though, I'm posting here to see if there's an issue involved that I've overlooked and might persuade me otherwise. Cla68 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All Freenode IRC channels with 'Wikipedia' in the title (and more i'm guessing) are controlled by the Wikimedia community through the Group Contacts Jdforrester and Sean Whitton. Also, foundation gives financial support to freenode. The channels are an 'official' part of the Wikimedia community in almost every way, although certain people who want their own little kingdom and a convenient excuse to ignore complaints from the community, especially when it comes to #admins, will deny this. --Duk 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Some channels are fine, some are not. The point is that some processes have sprung up associated with Wikipedia where it is very hard to drive change. There is an immense amount of inertia in the system. Policy pages are one (but the inertia is a good thing there), bot operations is another (though things are changing there), and IRC is another (though again, hopefully things have stated to change here as well). Carcharoth (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Where has anyone indicated that IRC is considered official? John Reaves 06:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This page Wikipedia:IRC channels sure makes it look like it's an official part of the project. If it's not official, then it should be in someone's userspace, not mainspace. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, if it is official, then it belongs to the community, which means we can insist that it be run professionally. Judging by the profanity and vulgarity in the leaked logs, it isn't. I'd say that we need to hold Forrester and Whitton accountable for what goes on in there if they're willing and able to administer it according to community standards. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not official and moving it to someone user page would be kind of pointless. What about a soft redirect to Meta? As it isn't official, the group contacts are welcome to administer it however they want. It should be noted that IRC is out of the hands of the community itself but is in the hands of several members of the community. John Reaves 06:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you say these channels are officially not official, except that they pass the duck test with flying colors for being an official and integral part of the community. How convenient, all that influence but with no responsibility or accountability to the community. Hell, just look at that fiercely authoritative reference given here as proof; "The board did *not* at any time appoint IRC Group Contacts". Was the board even in existence when the first wikipedia IRC channels were started? --Duk 07:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how exactly do you intend to officially regulate e-mail and Skype? John Reaves 07:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the price of rice is definitely going up. --Duk 08:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Either the community takes ownership of the IRC and demands that it be run in a professional manner, or the page gets deleted or moved to userspace and the community makes no attempt to regulate it. Any middle ground will only allow more problems to occur because no one is being held accountable for running it according to our standards. Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. John Reaves 08:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Cla - first section at WP:IRC is WP:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to_Wikipedia?. I think that makes it clear what the relationship is. Wikipedia project pages describe many "unofficial" things that are of relevance to users, so unofficial is no real issue. The fact that the hosting is not done by WMF doesn't really affect their communal usage. Do you really think there would be any change (either way) to control or accountability, if the actual servers were/weren't hosted by WMF? This was one of the first things I looked at, on ArbCom. Conclusion - irrelevant. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, in one of the commentaries surrounding the endless series of IRC-related arbitration cases, UninvitedCompany wrote a lengthy and detailed essay on exactly how the community could in fact take over management of IRC. A brief and incomplete (but hopefully basically accurate) summary is this: Freenode will deal with one person as the official top level contact for all wikipedia-related IRC channels. Freenode would probably reassign group contact status to someone else if there was broad community consensus to do so, meaning in practical terms first a substantial policy change to make group contact an elected position, followed by the election of a new group contact. Presumably with elections the community could choose from among various platforms ranging from no change in management to actually closing the channels. However, no one in the community (notably, none of those most involved in raising IRC drama) have actually attempted to do this. I would strongly suggest not attempting to delete the WP:IRC page without thoroughly reading the Giano IRC arbitration case. However, if you think you can move the community to officially take over IRC, I suppose you are free to try. In the meantime, we seem to have recurring IRC drama that rises and falls with the tides (or perhaps the full moon) that tends to have as its components, 1/ rehashing of old problems that everyone agree were problems, 2/ magnification and misrepresentation of minor recent issues, abetted by 3/ logs that are either deliberate fakes or misleadingly edited by removing context, along with 4/ a few legitimate current complaints that 5/ get hashed out on Wikipedia with maximum dramatic effect.

FT2 and some other admins got together and said, essentially, "IRC regulates itself, but we are all admins who believe the channels should serve the project's goals, let's get together the admins who are channel operators and make some new rules for ourselves and our channel to help improve the situation." Finding that FT2 was not able to turn lead into gold overnight, there is now an effort to tar and feather him. This is reminiscent of the current situation on WR where certain parties have decided that even though Newyorkbrad is universally regarded as one of the "good guys", he hasn't done enough to address their pet complaints, and so he must be driven out. The approach hardly seems productive. Thatcher 12:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No Thatcher, it is nothing like Brad's current problems, and it cheapens you to suggest otherwise. Tha Arbcom voted and promised to address IRC review. They did not, they have not. Giano (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Several channel operators, one of whom happens to be an arbitrator, took it upon themselves to institute reforms. FT2 is now being battered because the reforms did not go far enough, fast enough. It seems to me that you should be talking to the arbitrators who voted for the principle but have not taken any action, and it seems counter-productive to be giving FT2 incentive to wash his hands of the whole affair. Thatcher 13:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher is making some good points here (and I'm sorry to hear that Newyorkbrad is having problems with WR). I too am disappointed at the way my request for clarification here got limited response (I'm grateful that Ryan and some of the arbitrators did respond, but it wouldn't have been too much effort for the other arbitrators to drop a note saying they were aware of this but were chosing not to respond or were happy to delegate to others). I did ask the arbitrators directly if they had delegated this to FT2, and Paul August confirmed that this was not the case. Thatcher, should I asked the other arbitrators again if they would like to say something, as I did here? I also see that Kirill has piggy-backed a separate motion on the back of my request - is that normal procedure? - but has not commented on the main request I posted. Does that count as not taking any action? Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The clarification request is still open at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions. You are free to ask the arbitrators any question in any forum you like. I don't know whether it will have any impact, however. The fact that FloNight's proposal to establish a working group fell flat suggests that there is not going to be a movement from within Arbcom to take strong action, despite any votes cast in the IRC case, but I am merely speculating. Thatcher 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the community elections for Freenode contact, I am prepared to initiate and help with the process, but only if (a) others help, and (b) there is some indication of support or interest in this from the Arbitration Committee. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one would be interested, but do feel a need to point out that ArbCom doesn't seem to have the authority to act, here -- the freenode group contacts claim to represent all WMF wikis, not just en.wikipedia. I say "claim to" because it's not yet clear to me how this authority was ever derived. To meta, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is that there is now a set of behavior guidelines] for the admins channel, which was written and ratified in March. I don't see that these guidelines would be any different if the channel was run by the foundation instead of being run by freenode; it seems likely to me that changing the IP address of the IRC server would have very little effect on the IRC channels themselves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was an internal matter. If anyone working on that had asked certain people first, they would have been told that the best way to avoid future conflicts would have been to involve more people in that process, rather than it being an internal process. Too late now, but do you see my point? Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the guidelines linked above would look significantly different if more people had contributed to them? In what ways? I think that some people who oppose IRC on principle are likely to oppose it regardless of the rules in place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but I do remember my feeling of surprise at stumbling across these new guidelines some weeks later. It's more a matter of the follow-ups being recorded somewhere on-wiki. For example, at the case pages? I've suggested this in the past, but there is only really a place for blocks and bans to be recorded, not other stuff. Post-case clerking is rather spotty at the best of times - for example, do requests for clarification get recorded back on the case pages? See below for something else I missed entirely. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention... (sorry, FT2, but as there is no real page to point out things like this any more, I thought people following this thread should know about what happened in the channel a few weeks ago (someone's access got removed and there was a big furore) - I presume it is still OK for people on Wikipedia to follow what happens in IRC?). Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WG experiment

Hiya, I've started a thread about my "Digwuren" experiment at WP:AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Since you were involved with the setup of WP:WORKGROUP, I wanted to let you know. FYI, Elonka 12:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bringing the threads together

Life is short. I've summed up below the main themes and responses to points raised above. What's obviously going to be unmanagable is

• Threads that sprawl and spawn endlessly without resolving (the aim is to narrow down and then hopefully resolve issues)
• Allegations made on bad faith (nothing can solve a problem if it's based on bad faith assumptions)

If a new topic needs raising please open a new subsection. if it's a response to an existing topic please consider the existing dialog there and take it into account.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility and good faith

In brief, this is a long standing issue raised by many users over time, and it shouldn't be necessary to argue whether one user is expected to act reasonably to other users when it's communally accepted to apply to all. A search through the block log and associated talk page notices, will show that

1. the prevention of recurrent or egregious incivility is indeed a widely held and followed communal norm,
2. incivility alone is routinely considered a problem even when there is nothing else going on,
3. admins routinely assess and deal with incivility on their own assessment, without communal consultation,
4. conduct that disparages, snarks, attacks and maligns other users is uncontroversially a matter for administrators, when others engage in it.

Additionally

1. The policy WP:CIVIL has never long term sustained even one edit to the effect that it applies to established users less than others, and
2. arbitration enforcement is a summary form of sanction; when it's said "any administrator who forms a view that X", it means exactly that. Cases come to Arbitration to form a decision, exactly because other forms of consensus-seeking on the matter have consistently failed.

The incivility policy goes back four years; its roots go back way before that. This revision from 2004 was fairly stable, and sums up the issue and damage done.

Incivility is not a "victimless" act. It drives users away. It encourages an atmosphere where attention is dragged to issues that don't directly support content writing. It discourages and disheartens people. It drives people away if repeated enough. It is routinely blocked for, warned for, and upheld at every form of dispute resolution as a problem if it persists. Users who cannot be civil, though they may have much to add, are undermining a foundation of the Wikipedia community that writes the project, driving away or discouraging future contributors, and ultimately do significant harm in this way.

The protective use of such blocks, and the damage caused by such conduct not being inhibited, is emphasized and re-emphasized in policy pages. In some cases it is possible to point to specific harm done, in other cases one must note the constant theme throughout the life of the project that incivility is not really acceptable and should be reduced in favor of collaborative respectful discussion of communal issues, and the wide range of users who endorse the policy in their words, warnings, and actions. If anyone feels that incivility is harmless and redundant, does no damage, that users who can't take witty, clever or barbed comments are somehow themselves at fault for it, the place to take all of that is Wikipedia talk:Civility, and see if a consensus exists. My impression is it does not.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Civility is something that, as of late, people don't seem agree on. What is civil, what is not? Admins are picked for their judgement, and are expected to use it. We should not tolerate any incivility here, as FT2 says above, it does drive people away and does cause a negative and / or hostile environment and nobody should have to deal with that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that it can be hard to find the line of civility, many uncivil comments can be seen as such objectively. I am reminded of this essay for some reason: Wikipedia:You spat in my soup!

The essay is about how people can use the idea that something is poorly defined as a defense, even when it is clear that the idea applies. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This specific incident

Carcharoth stated "Giano's character comes across much more in his edits, which is probably one of the reasons he got so much support and opposition at the ArbCom election...", asked for confirmation that Giano isn't being handled on the basis of Bishonen's (or anyone elses) comments, and a request for evidence of harm being done.

Dispute history/evidence - Giano got much support and much opposition in the arb election. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, ideally it should be quiet simple calm quiet writing of an encyclopedia. Whilst helpful criticism stated in a constructive manner is useful, other kinds are damaging. The supports and opposes are instructive; Giano received by far a higher number of opposes than any other candidate, and all pretty much saying the same thing - unnecessary drama creation, poor judgement, unhelpfully provocative (helpfully provocative would be different), uncivil, serious conduct issues, non-neutral in disputes. Barely 2 weeks later the IRC case opened, at which Giano was criticized by multiple users for breach of communal norms, and requests were made for his behavior to be contained. This was far from the first time, even back at Arbitration in 2006 the same type of issue was present ("Giano then, aided by a few others, entered on a campaign of political struggle"), with a similar request on behalf of the community ("He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat"). This was a different ArbCom, different users presenting evidence, same broad conclusion, two years ago. I look at Giano's words and manner now, and I agree, they are unacceptable by communal norms; users' fair expectations aren't being met; he's had two years and failed to do as was asked. To me, the repeated requests by users are an indication there is a problem; such volume is not at random and unlikely to be some "anti-Giano conspiracy".

We have norms about how users speak to each other, and any user is entitled to expect the community to back those equally across the board. My feeling also is that Giano speaks in a manner that a user could reasonably consider uncivil, bad faith, or personal attack; my observation is that many users do so, and that it harms the community. It drives users away, discourages users from believing we act fairly to all (if some can get away with it despite requests), encourages other users to do likewise, encourages an atmosphere that detracts from content writing, and so on.

Bishonen's issue - Bish made an honest mistake. Of course it's now come out that Bishonen originally misunderstood the log and thought it all took place in 7 seconds(!) But her handling is instructive; "out of control", lack of "human decency", "the real misrepresenter", and so on. When pointed out that in fact she'd misread the logs by a time factor of 60, and over 5 minutes had lapsed (not 5 seconds), she continued in the same vein. The questions I posed, which anyone could use to test the reasonableness of the timing, she ignored. I posted a request again; still ignored. Bishonen describes the original complainant as "telling" others to find it uncivil, but in fact anyone can read the snip and see that only after 2 others had opined did the reporting admin give any view at all on it. The actual communal norm, that any admin may make such a decision, is ignored completely.

The blocking admin, who was not even part of that dialog, was attacked to the point they semi-retired, for what was a completely correct action, namely forming an administrative view on an edit, and acting thereon. Communal norms always have been that it doesn't matter so much where a matter is brought to admin attention; what matters is that those who act, vote or edit on-wiki take personal responsibility for their actions and don't "block !vote" or use some nebulous "consensus" elsewhere to justify it. None of these took place. The civility parole (like all civility paroles and restrictions) states "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith...". That's a routine decision admins make all the time. Giano has it no different from any other restricted editor. If he doesn't breach this, then he'll find no administrator cares much about him any more.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Others' views

A summary of other user's comments may be found based on this diff [26].

As to Giano's conduct, it is clear there is a sustantial view that says Giano has spoken to others in a manner that's uncalled for. To quote others: "These comments are clearly uncivil and make an assumption of bad faith" (Will beback); "You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues" (Avruch); "I think it is a real shame the wa[y] Kwsn has been treated for daring to hold Giano to the same standards as anyone else. Protect Giano if you must but do not sling mud at those who don't. But then, the civility policy does not apply to Giano, there are enough admins who seek to protect him from blocks at any cost to ensure that. Saying that blocking someone for engaging in personal attack while on civility parole is controversial is just baffling." (Until 1==2); "The lack of warnings is a red herring here; Giano is certainly aware of the civility sanction (which is here). Moreover, since the sanction is based on a long pattern of incivility, signing off for the evening isn't a factor. This diff is enough, per the arbcom sanction, for a legitimate block." (CBM); "Unlike an ordinary editor, Giano may be blocked whenever he edits in a way that a reasonable editor could interpret as a personal attacks, incivil, or assuming bad faith. To lift the block one must argue that no reasonable editor could consider the edits to fall into those categories - no other circumstances are relevant, and discussion before the block is not required in any way. This is a much lower threshold for blocking than for ordinary editors. It is also why the worry about the block being discussed on IRC isn't relevant - because the civility parole sets out a specific threshold for blocking" (CBM); "Blocks are either good or bad, IRC doesn't come into it. You don't get to poison the well, and then complain about the water" (Doc glasgow). To quote myself: "...It's just got no place here. Which means inevitably those few who can handle his diatribes on behalf of other users, and will take in their stride being attacked, smeared or flamed if it happens, are the ones who end up doing so for others. When the time comes he realizes I and others are actually on his side, but also there for other users too, he'll probably find it a lot easier." "...Giano's an editor who has been directed to treat others better; when he does I have no other interest in him. It's the community's right to say that certain conduct is not okay. He's had arbitration cases and expressions of concern since 2006 or earlier. Now it's basically, "do it, or accept that there are sanctions if you don't or can't". If you can suggest any way to help him not unhelpfully mishandle or bully others or do the harm he does by his manner of speech to other users, I'd jump at it. I'd put the work in myself (and have) if he'd wish it or show a sign he would change it. But it has to work, not just be "empty promises", and has to address his style of speech to other users. Do that, however it can be done, and I'd be happy beyond belief. Don't, and further sanctions are probably inevitable... Can we help him? Only if he lets us." To quote the blocker: "I blocked based off of warring on FT2's talk page. FT2 had commentted a comment by Giano out of his talk (with an edit summary saying he read it), and Giano kept on removing the comment tags. The 'stalker' comment didn't help much. I probably would not have blocked except for the fact he was under ArbCom sanctions for civility." (Kwsn) To quote Giano discussing the blocker: "He placed the block purely because he was asked to ... He had no idea what he was even doing. He needs to be de-sysoped" (Giano II). Note the bad faith assumptions and attacks (emphasis added), especially in the context of the above prior explanation by the blocking admin. This is what's not okay.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Carcharoth asked for confirmation that Giano wasn't being "tainted" by the actions and statements of others.

It shouldn't need saying but glad to confirm. Indeed, Giano is only answerable for Giano's own posts and actions, nobody elses. The actions of others are not being cited in any way as being Giano's own conduct. Bishonen stated she had evidence of abuse, and this was immediately investigated - not just my own logs, but several other people's - before I noticed that Irpen himself had stated it was minutes, not seconds. That fact should be good evidence that when a credible claim was made, I looked into it seriously. I immediately asked for evidence from others to double-check if Bishonen was right, which would indeed shed a dark light on it. That alone should be good reassuring evidence the conduct of both sides is looked at neutrally. I was immediately willing to check if Bishonen was right. However the credible claim of Bishonen quickly turned out to be a misreading of the timestamps. Had Bishonen been right, there would be concerns and I'd have had some rather tough questions for a number of users. But Bishonen was mistaken as she admits ("The type of time indication is unfamiliar in my part of the world, and I misread").

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC and its ownership

As CBM says, "One thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is that there is now a set of behavior guidelines for the admins channel, which was written and ratified in March. I don't see that these guidelines would be any different if the channel was run by the foundation instead of being run by freenode; it seems likely to me that changing the IP address of the IRC server would have very little effect on the IRC channels themselves."

I've looked into this (stated above) - nobody has made even one concrete suggestion how the hosting service used would change the opeation of any channels. At present Wikimedia related IRC seem to host around 130 channels with 2000-2500 (peak ~3000) users, covering everything from technical support, to BLP protection.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If the WMF hosted the IRC channels on their servers, then actions there could have consequences on wiki, meaning that a person could be blocked on Wiki for their actions on IRC. Some would see that as a good thing. Right now, taking action on a person for deeds done or plotted on IRC is like blocking a person for something they did anywhere offsite. Blocks like these are sometimes done, but they are usually controversial, and there is always a gray area. Knowing that a person could face consequences on wiki for their actions on IRC would prevent some of this IRC drama, in my mind. How exactly sanctions would be handed down to editors in the hypothetical case of the WMF hosting IRC channels is another issue.

That said, there is a reason that the WMF does not host IRC on their servers--the WMF is a non-profit whose mission is to provide free content, not run IRC channels. I speculate that the WMF does not host IRC channels because of the drama any IRC channel tends to spawn. They want the "good" that can result from these channels without dealing with the "bad". Who can blame them for wanting to be in a position where they are not responsible for IRC? I certainly sympathize, but the long term consequences of this laissez-faire attitude on the project, such as driving off content contributors, should be considered before the WMF waives responsibility. daveh4h 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to block people for on-IRC comments we could do so now; freenode running the servers has no real effect on that. But I don't believe there is any sort of agreement that we should block people for on-IRC activity. Misbehavior on IRC alone leads to loss of access there; misbehavior on the wiki leads to blocking on the wiki. The two are essentially independent. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your points. There is currently no agreement that blocking (or desysopping) for actions on IRC is the right action. You are also right that one could theoretically be blocked here for actions on IRC right now, but as you also note there would be disagreement. However, the most recent IRC dramas boil down to people that have grievances that cannot be settled in an "official" way on wiki because the IRC channels have an unofficial status, as a result of them being hosted on Freenode. If they were hosted on WMF servers there would be less confusion over its status and there would be less disagreement over sanctioning a person on wiki for IRC actions. As it is now, settling grievances takes the form of edit-warring, posting IRC logs, and other disruption. As much as I hate to add more process, I wonder if setting up a way to resolve IRC disputes that spill on wiki may be the answer. You could not do that now because its status is unclear, at least to me. I'm not convinced that it is beneficial to the WMF in any way to host these channels, but I believe doing so would reduce the confusion of the admins channel status (in particular) and reduce disagreement over what action should be taken when IRC disruption spills on wiki. In short, disputes could be settled in a more efficient way by reducing the current confusion and hosting the IRC channels on WMF servers would be a good first step (again, I do not know if I endorse this, because it is not the job of the WMF to host an IRC network). daveh4h 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Making it absolutely clear: if I came across something I felt was a cause for communal concern, I'd raise it myself (and have done so). I might act myself also, or simply let the community know it. I'm serious about these things, and they are not said lightly. I've looked into every case brought to me, and a couple that weren't. There haven't been that many. One case that I judged did need to be brought to communal attention -- so I did so. So much for "secrecy". This case itself shows that when a user (even a hostile speaking user) says "here is evidence" that would overturn my understanding of the case, I'll go check that out for real, with tough questions and a likely ANI report if it turned out to be right. (It wasn't.) So much for conspiracy and bias. Almost all the cases I've checked, though, turned out to have been misreported or exaggerated on-wiki in some way, or lack judgement or full information/context, and in such cases, that's what needs bringing to communal attention.

See #Evidence that IRC issues are carefully investigated and fully reported, and... followed up below. See also #En-admins and #Explicit invitation below, too. If blocking, warning, or desysopping was appropriate (with communal discussion or however), so be it. The community and ArbCom have exactly the same ability to decide what to do for an IRC issue, as they would over any other off-wiki matter: - an email issue, an off-wiki harassment case, an admin who ran an "attack site" on the side, etc. We usually leave off-wiki matters "at the door" (don't bring off-wiki matters onto the wiki), but in some cases it's too big not to act on. Thats a decision we'd presumably make case-by-case when it happens. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

En-admins

I find myself noticing the frequency with which IRC issues are misrepresented or interpreted in bad faith on-wiki. People know there is a way to handle concerns over IRC yet seem to be avoiding it.

Every case brought to my attention has been thoroughly checked out, often considerably more thoroughly than by the complainant. I found one case where there was genuine wrongdoing, an admin had solicited their own unblock (which is fine, they could have done that via template or email too), but the unblocking admin failed to check the case for themselves. I reported the incident and (summarized) IRC dialog for the community to consider, on ANI, myself, even though it was not public and it would have been easy to not do so.

In this case when Bishonen stated the dialog took place in 7 seconds I also went to check for myself. If she'd been right, it would have looked dark and I'd have had some strong words to say and tough questions for a number of users. The fact I checked this immediately testifies to seriousness and neutrality - in that case a genuinely plausible basis of complaint is presented. As it happens Bishonen's reading was in error ("The type of time indication is unfamiliar in my part of the world, and I misread"). But before I realized that, I checked -- because I took Bishonen's statement seriously. The page above testifies to it.

What is unhelpful is this pattern: Someone who was present in en-admins feels there is wrongdoing evidently (else why leak a log?). They know there are 60-70 people in the channel who can be told "that's really not okay", if there is a problem. They say nothing in channel. They say nothing to any channel user. Instead they publicize an allegation on-wiki, bypassing everything else that might help. It's hard to credit that a case is not being presented merely for "drama", if the person concerned claims to be so concerned as to feel the need to leak it to others as a "see how awful it is", but when you look at the facts, they have actually done nothing to try and get it addressed or considered themselves, never even said a thing to the user on-wiki at the time. Forgive me, but I'm going to put this in big letters:

If you (or another user) have a concern over something you see in channel, say so. Say "that's not okay". Exactly like you would on the wiki, say something to the person themselves. That is the norm. Say so openly. I and others do that if needed to keep people's minds on standards; you can too. If you feel unable to, then ask a channel op to handle it or ask in the channel "Is that okay" and see what happens. If you can't find one who will, ask one of the higher level ops. If that still doesn't work for you, then post it on-wiki on the en-admins talk page and let people know you've done so. Do such issues get looked at? Yes - every time. The dispute with the admin unblock raised on ANI I looked into and was blunt and explicit in my report to the community that I felt there had been a misjudgement by an admin, and so on. The issue raised by Bishonen above where she believed the matter took place in 7 seconds and therefore was contrived, I went to track down "to the second" logs to check if so, with a view to acting on it, before realizing Irpen had made clear it was Bishonen's misreading of the timestamps. Other issues - the few times they arise - are routinely dealt with by other admins. Yes these things do get looked into, and when there is genuinely a fault, they get acted on. If users don't raise them, they won't be. Every user has all these options. Every admin (+/- explicit removals) has the right to visit the channel if they want to monitor it first hand. Then if it's ignored or inadequately handled, or there is a genuine issue, say "I don't feel happy about this, I'd like to discuss it more". Then consider a post on some suitable wiki page and we'll sort it out as a community. But do not ignore everyone and everything that's been set up in the wake of past issues to handle such things, only to breach privacy and lead others who weren't there to believe dubious gossip. That's unlikely to be productive, and to be honest it's pretty bad judgement.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

FT2 puts it well above. I'd like to add one clear point here, having been involved in similar problems in the past: Administrators in -en-admins should make independant decisions on any "requested" actions from other admins there. If somebody comes onto the channel and asks others to look at something, well, this is a good thing. However, administrators should be, and as far as I can tell are held accountable for their actions, and that should be the end of it. In a general sense, I do not believe that any administrators will act on anything just because somebody else tells them to. I've seen plenty of instances where an admin will ask something, and then get told by 6 other admins that they are wrong. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that the error is not at the side of the community who complains but at your side, who analyzes? This very much (I repeat this point) reminds me of Durova's belated reflections. She did not see the problem in the activity she undertook, investigating people secretly behind their backs, just like the IRC, but that she made a judgment error. The corrupt is the medium itself, not the individual actions or individual users. I've not been able to put aside sufficient time but I would like to provide an alternative analysis of those many incidents and an explanation that seems to me more plausible. Anyone can be wrong of course but this is for the community to decide. --Irpen 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're still not looking at the big picture. You've focused down on to minor issues such as one editor's incivility and each alleged bad comment on IRC. You should be looking at the over-arching flaw in the IRC channel: It is an exclusive channel set up solely for a privileged group, because of this it creates, inescapably, a "them-and-us" mentality. You cannot help build an inclusive community by engraining division. The problem is not one editor or the odd comment: the problem is the existence of the channel. The very reason it was set up in the first place (as a private means of communication between selected editors) is its great flaw. DrKiernan (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Explicit invitation

To this end I've gone out of my way to invite more than one admin who is an IRC-critic to visit the en-admins channel for a month (or two or three). I've gone out of my way to investigate reported concerns and have dissected them in full for the community so others have full information. (See below.) That's how sure I am of the mis-reporting that goes on, on-wiki, and of the overall quality of the channel.

I repeat the invitation again. I will be glad if a few users take it up -- if only to check for themselves rather than rely on hearsay. Either way it's a benefit to the project.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that IRC issues are carefully investigated and fully reported, and - if needed - followed up

Examples: [27][28][29][30][31][32].

Avruch comments on one of these to Giano (above), "You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues. Maybe you can address specifically whether there is anything incorrect in FT2s summary of events on IRC above?" [33].

Giano never replies.

Similarly when Bishonen's timing error became apparent, I asked her to evaluate based on two diffs, if the timing still substantiated her view. I asked twice [34][35].

Bishonen never replies.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Bishonen's reply...I asked twice...Bishonen never replies

I'm happy to repeat my reply: "About the timestamps, I did indeed make a stupid mistake, sorry: these are minutes, not seconds." How many times would you like me to say it? Please compare my comment on Avruch's page:

"I've come to the realization that most people simply don't have an eye for FT2's bullying. That's odd to me, but there you go. I could send you a list of his bullying manoeuvres—if you're interested—but I'd frankly rather not waste time on typing it up if you're not, so here's one of many test cases: I acknowledge very clearly that I misread the log timestamps: "About the timestamps, I did indeed make a stupid mistake, sorry: these are minutes, not seconds."[36] And in his next post FT2 demands I acknowledge it again: "Do you now agree the log shows that as being the timescale involved?".[37] If that's not bullying in your book, then, well, I certainly won't waste both our times by continuing to wave and point."

But that log quote wasn't my main point, the first three lines of my post were: "Holler", is it, FT2? That's what the regular user over whom you, as an arb, have so much power, is doing, according to you? You should be ashamed. You're out of control. You seem to have worn out any common human decency you started out with. Have you quite forgotten FloNight's warning that these are human beings you speak of? [[38] Please try to take that on board, it's seriously meant. Please take my reference to FloNight seriously, for instance. By doing that, I think you would interest people more than by your repetition of the untruth that "Bishonen neverreplies". BTW, my "most people simply don't have an eye for FT2's bullying" may be a bit harsh. Many people don't, indeed. But I think you may discover that most of them do. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

If there is evidence of FT2 bullying anyone then you should present that evidence instead of just mentioning it. I have not seen such behavior and if there is evidence then it should be investigated. I take such possibilities very seriously. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you? Then—I know it's a mouthful and a half to ask—but, then, read through this page. Nearly all of it is by FT2. Test your eye. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Yes, I do take such possibilities very seriously. If the content of this page is your evidence, then I must say that your eye can see what mine cannot. I have been watching this page for some time now and I am glad that the content of this page does not seem to support the argument that FT2 is bullying anyone. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to overwhelm someone by the force of your arguments. If done in an overbearing way, that is bullying. And no, I don't think FT2 has been bullying anyone, but I can, unlike you it seems, acknowledge Bishonen's point. Carcharoth (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, be nice. --66.234.217.151 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably can go both ways... used aggressively or with people who prefer few words or read slowly, it can have that effect, but more usually it's seen as a refreshing change that someone's willing to put the effort in to explain and discuss properly:

• "User:FT2 and User:Lar I admire, since they both go above and beyond and out of their way to explain the reasoning behind their actions, especially administratively and as an Arb, in the case of FT2" [39];
• "It is clear from your closing comments that you spent time considering the discussion. I appreciate your doing that. I was afraid that the closing admin would give a one-line close statement... instead we get this! Thanks a lot for taking the time to spell it out." [40];
• "The lengthy explanation at (article) was a good thing and you deserve a bit of recognition for making a tough decision. Even though my recommended course of action (weak keep) was not what occurred, I applaud your work." [41]; and so on.

In difficult disputes, which I've worked on a long time here, a longer explanation routinely pays off in terms of genuinely resolving the matter, even though unfortunately some people find it too much to read or discuss. It's part of being honest and transparent; if people ask one can try to genuinely answer. Unfortunately the length and revisions are a weakness of mine, but I figure it's still better overall than the alternative. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You said you accept the error. I acknowledged it immediately. (My statement above begins with "Bish made an honest mistake".) But actually... that wasn't the question I asked. What I asked was to let me know if it really takes an administrator 5 minutes to form a view on civility and vandalism on two sample edits of around 8-20 words or so. This was since you seemed to be saying that despite the mistake on timing, you feel that 5 minutes is too short a time to plausibly do so, and hence proves conspiracy of some kind. I asked twice to test that with a couple of sample diffs (see above) and let me know how long you took. No reply. Twice. (See the problem? I link to one thing with one question, your response ignores both and asserts I'm discussing a different statement.)

The rest of what you mention, I've answered above already, see there. The English speaking world considers "holler" to mean "to call out or complain loudly", which seems exactly precise. It's a neutral word in everyday speech in English. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary advice for Giano

In all this, nobody has asked anything of Giano himself except this: To speak with good manner and good faith, to and of others. To express concerns civilly rather than as he does.

He has that command of English. The rest is his choice. If he does so then he will probably cease to be of interest to any administrator. In view of his wish to that effect, I recommend he does so.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I find the message above unhelpful (sorry.) FT2, you don't have to respond but you may of course withdraw or rephrase it. --Irpen 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

Actually, this could be summed up very simply. Flonight has referred to the "civility police" and how she does not want to see administrators acting as the civility police for Giano or anyone (Flo, if I've misrepresented that, please correct me). FT2, what are your views on the "civility police"? Carcharoth (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think a discussion of the civility police is warrented. I also think that regardless of FT2's (and others) comments to the contrary there are differences in the way different users are treated. There are others who are/have been substantially less civil than giano and gotten little to no sanction, and defended vigourously by those who would like to tar giano as evilly disruptive. If MONGO, or JzG were blocked under the same standard discussed above, they would be not editing very much. Is commenting negatively in edit summaries better than disruptive questioning?

The question of IRC's relationship to en.wikipedia was NOT answered in the recent irc arbcom case. What was said what the the committee will look at what it should be. As far as I can tell the committee has decided that the relationship should stay the same. That is the good parts of irc are celebrated and included as wikipedia working together! and the bad parts are ignored or told off as 'out of our control'. It is I think important for the committee to make this a clear statement.

The other portion of this that bothers is that there seems to be a growing trend towards communication about wikipedia and it's policies, procedures, and operation being conducted through non-transparent means. I would like to encourage people to use those means for things that really are private, and put things that don't require that privacy on wiki. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Rocksanddirt - your question on JzG/MONGO, see comment above - others would get identical approaches. It's not about the editor but about their actions. Discussed somewhat, a few pages above. Your last sentence, can't say I disagree, a reasonable statement. I'm not sure it's achievable in full, but it's worth discussing whether it could go anywhere or not. IRC - lets deal with that under "IRC" and see how much we can agree on.) - FT2 19:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Civility police" is a newly coined term that's guaranteed to be less than helpful. (In a way, it's a close cousin of what they'd call here, "fighting words". Or on-wiki, "inherently POV") So I'll try to answer it but not using that term.

Civility is an old Wikipedia tradition. What it means is, with tens or hundreds of thousands of editors, we need to really require people to focus on content, especially if there's an argument. If there is a need to criticize or focus on others' behavior, users need to learn the discipline to do it in a way that's not gratuitously unhelpful. For example, it's sometimes necessary to say "X is tendentious" because they are, but to throw-away in discussing with Y, "I hope you won't be a tendentious jerk like X is" does nothing productive. Another example is using words and approaches that you've been told by others are not helping calm things, but you ignore that and keep doing it (thereby aggravating, taunting, goading, baiting, teasing, escalating, or whatever). That does nothing productive either.

I personally don't think "civility" is the best term. It's accurate but it's not the best term for it. The word implies to some people that if you're "nice", all problems might be solved. To others it's almost a meaningless word. Also the word suggests there's some kind of universal standard we could use. What's more to the point is, if you gratuitously stir up stuff when it's not needed, and you say things (like kids do) that you know are unpleasant, unhelpful but you can always say "Who? Me? Little old me?" if faced with it... that's gaming. We don't have time or need for that. We don't benefit by it. It heats up situations, makes simple disputes harder, harder disputes impossible. My role as an editor up till RFA was often, to try and remove from other editor's paths, things that got in their way in adding good content. As an administrator I do the same, helping resolve disputes that got in editors way, cleaning up policy and project pages that cause problems, and so on.

Nothing's changed. Things that get in the way of good content are best resolved, and unfortunately as people aren't robots, social friction gets in the way all the time. Avoidable social friction is a genuine problem to the project. As a norm, we've always been clear on that between us. That's what civility is trying to say, I think. Even if you think it's harmless, or "they should be able to take it", we have tens or hundreds of thousands of users here, each with different perspectives and views. Opinions that are stated unnecessarily brutally or rudely or snarkily, don't help, and in many cases the view is, they hurt. Users asked not to, or told their manner is not okay, probably should respect the request, since it's a communal norm backed by a strong consensus.

Users who are advised by others that something they've said is offensive (like the word "lynch mob" that came up a month ago) should try to address it and if they're able, also thank the others for letting them know. We actually want users to try and respect others' need for respectful discussion (where it's likely to be genuine, reasonable and not being gamed), not drive a Mack truck through it. Nobody is going to want to believe their manner to others is a problem, any more than POV pushers want to hear their lack of neutrality is a problem. But it can be. When it is, if numerous users say so, an appropriate answer is to accept it and work with them, not flame them.

Ultimately though, whatever I believe, there is a communal norm that says "not okay". Users have a right to expect established norms to be fairly applied, not having some users blocked, whilst others are given a wink and nod and approval. (And as an aside, we're - hopefully - trying to move away from cliques and "in-groups" and things of that kind, and "one rule for X, another for Y", not towards it.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not much more to add here (well, maybe more than I realised), though I would like to add that I do actually appreciate (most of the time) the length and clarity of your (FT2's) replies (do you have a collection of essays?). One things I did want to pick up on is the idea that you carry out these investigations into IRC complaints. It would be better if more people were available to do this than just you, and if you didn't get involved in all of them. Just in case some people would prefer to hear what others had to say sometimes. As for civility, I think people should lighten up a bit sometimes (actually, I nicked that from someone else who said that today) and talk to each other more about content (and collaborate on creating content) and just apply common sense, instead of strait-laced civility rules. Me personally, I'm always happy to put incivility behind us once people start working together again. It is a refusal to work with others that can be really corrosive. There are a few people who I've annoyed enough that I doubt they would work with me (and I regret that), and there are others who sometimes seem to ignore me despite occassional comments I make directly towards them. It might just be a lack of time to interact with the many people here, but sometimes being polite and saying "thank-you" and "sorry" and dropping my people's talk pages - being proactively polite and courteous, can have a much greater positive effect than merely insisting on formal civility. Of course, that applies when you first meet people, or if you haven't interacted with someone in a long time, but in my view if you work with someone on an article, or collaborate on anything, then you start to move beyond just being civil, and you start to build genuine respect for each other. Though keeping a certain 'barrier' in place on the internet is always a good idea as regards personal stuff, talking business (ie. the content and workings of the encyclopedia) can always be done in an enthusiastic and kindly manner. People talk about BLP and avoiding harm, and how Wikipedia needs to be "kinder" to the people it writes articles on (let's put aside for one minute whether that is valid or not), but the same applies to other editors. Don't just be civil to them. Be kind to them. Be helpful. Show them how to do things. Politely point out possible improvements to something. Be bold. Discuss things with them. Feel your way into a conversation. And so on and so on. There are many ways to interact nicely with people, and far less ways to annoy them. Always remember there is a human somewhere who typed the words you are reading. Try and empathise with them. Anyway, that was far longer than I intended it to be, and a bit rambling, so I should return to the direct question I had, which was are there others willing to devote the time you do to "managing" IRC issues? Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Moving my previous post down, since I guess it was invisible where it was. Note timestamp for context.) Acknowledging my point is kind, Carcharoth, as is making excuses for my naivety, but please don't put yourself out. I'm indeed not making the point that FT2 is overwhelming anybody "by the force of his arguments." As for his means of overwhelming, I suppose you've noticed that he remains blind to the point—made by FloNight— that he's talking about human beings? No matter how many times I enquire about it? [42] [43] [44] And still claiming that "holler" is in the context an inoffensive word? Is that the adeptness you ascribe to him? [45] Bishonen | talk 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I was talking more about the "restraint" kind of adeptness. When you and Giano get angry, that shows you are human, but it also provides weaknesses for people to latch on to. But I am consciously trying to avoid psychobabble since Flo's gentle reminder. The 19th century scientists are much more interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly there have been solid, consistent attempts to respect this. To discuss as a human being, to make allowances, to plead and try to help and to recognize strengths and weaknesses, constantly. Many users, not least myself since December. Problem's been they all got ignored. I stood back and did nothing, let others handle things this time. That got this and this. No recognition of human beings being hurt, and project members driven off. Compare and contrast that when Bishonen posts what looks like real evidence and says I'm wrong, I went immediately to check if she's right, and was completely prepared to take that concern up on her behalf if she's right and I'm mistaken. (She wasn't in this case, but anyone can make a mistake. It was in good faith.) That's what's overlooked; there's no sides in this. It's just that if you drive off or intimidate everyone else, then people who can ignore attacks will probably be the ones who step back in. I stepped back completely until I actually saw a user being driven off the wiki. Since other attempts had failed, it ends up as simply recognizing and addressing how his stance impacts the project. Understanding of the need is what's sought, that'll change everything, obviously. It's a bit like a sea-wall... whether the waves lap on the beach, or hurl themselves against it, the sea-wall isn't "attacking" the waves. It's just drawing a firm line. The harder Giano plays the more he'll bounce; the more he listens to the communal need the less he'll bounce (or even get any admin attention at all). The moment he can say to someone "please help me to avoid problems" or "is this a sensible post", and really wants to avoid them (or says "message heard" rather than leap to conclusions), he'll have all the help he needs. Simple equation. He has support, if he'd just listen to it. Unfortunately (and I wish it were otherwise), right now the situation is "personal appeals and explanations haven't actually worked from any user, nor has any form of appeal".

My word on it, if Giano can understand this, then none of this will be going on either. He has many friends who understand what's needed, maybe he will find one he can trust, who will explain people aren't out to get him, despite what he believes. We're not trying to remove him by a thousand cuts, we're (collectively, and especially ArbCom) trying to give him a thousand chances - to show he's learned a better manner with other users when there's possible conflict, and to leave some habitual mannerisms out of it.

The main thing being said, when all's said and done, is something I hope we can all agree on. There's tens or hundreds of thousands of users and two thousand admins who have the communally agreed right to reasonable dialog without unhelpful hostile assumptions, and barbed throw-aways, and they count too. Doing this for 2 years, driving away users, having repeated complaints as far as arbitration by multiple other users, then complaining at this constant history of conduct being taken seriously.... it just doesn't work. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You said "tens or hundreds of thousands of users" - actually, I doubt this, and your wide range from tens to hundreds shows that you are wildly speculating (as are all of us). The real figure you want there is the number of people who interact with admins, or whose activity rises to the level where admins get involved. Also, there is unseen damage, where people silently leave, and there is unseen activity as well, where people quietly edit and never need to interact with admins or even other users. I suspect that the active, interacting core of established editors is smaller than people realise. Anyway, thanks, as always, for your replies here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, nobody knows how many editors we have, nor how many any specific issue might affect. "A large but unknown number" is probably more representative. I'm glad you picked up on the silent leavers or people who are discouraged. Point is, there are other priorities I want to get to this year, like our new generation of "civil edit warriors and pov pushers", people who deter our best writers by making their editorial work frustrating rather than fun, faster forms of dispute and problem handling. Those I think would be widely desired, but today, right now, I'm on about day 9 (!) of arguing over a matter that could have been resolved from April 14 by Giano taking any one of the following measures:

1. Respecting others right to read and remove as he expects others to respect his, instead of trying to edit war.
2. Not calling the admin who said "don't edit war" a "gnome like stalker"
3. Dropping a note to the blocking admin (or on his talk page) saying "sorry, my bad, I was frustrated, It's dropped now"
4. Not responding by flaming the blocking admin off the wiki, which raised it to a whole new level of problem
5. Saying at any stage, "I understand whats being asked of me, and I'll avoid it next time"
6. Any one of a dozen other actions and words that would suggest change might be forthcoming
7. Any one of a dozen other actions and words that respond to the situation by de-escalating it or seeking reconciliation.
8. Recognition of what was being asked and the repeated statements that admins are not "against" him
9. Heeding the advice of friends (if he doesn't have friends who advised him to calm and cool it, or drop it, that's a different matter)

Any one of these. Just one. Any of them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think we've both made our points. The best way to de-escalate things might now be if we all step away. Repeating things won't help at this stage, and from what I can see, your continuing comments are not helping (and mine probably aren't either). If you really want Giano to calm down, please consider reducing or archiving or summarising the material currently on your talk page. To be clear, I'm going to make a conscious effort to step away, and I hope you and Giano do as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Teeny tiny comment

G'day FT - I've got two small questions which you're free to consider;

• I'd like to spend a short time in the IRC admins channel, taking a look etc. - I am curious - is there any way to facilitate this?
• Would you mind recommending everyone takes a bit of a time out from the IRC and Giano related issues? - say a week without bothering to continue it? I think everyone could do with a cup of tea, and rest!

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ps. I should also tell you that I had a chat with Tiptoety on IRC about this who was very helpful indeed, but consensus was to not admit me for a 'tour' at that point.... I think it may have been discussed on the channel at that point too, but am not sure... hope this 'disclosure' helps! - Privatemusings (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be an issue for the channel to decide, not Tiptoey (who isn't even an op and couldn't facilitate this). John Reaves 23:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure - just trying to give credit where it's due - Tiptoety was very helpful to me on the -en channel, and I thought it'd be nice to recognise that! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this one's being discussed elsewhere by now. Catch you round though! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:'Anonymous' posting on a blog.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:'Anonymous' posting on a blog.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE (IRC)

[46]. In other circumstances, one might hope that since you ignored this that others might as well. Since that seems unlikely, and I'd rather not see another event where someone blocks and discusses it anywhere with anyone whose heard of IRC, perhaps you can weigh in pre-emptively about Giano's edit to this page on WP:AE. Avruch ^T 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindness

When making a decision about the correct action, I've found that being as kind as I can be in a given situation is best. Since Giano is uncomfortable with the detailed comments, I think that archiving the comments about him is for the best. Kindness is almost always repaid with kindness, although the payoff is not always immediate. Could you remove the comments about him, right away? I truly think that this kind approach is for the best. Thanks, FloNight♥♥♥ 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

AE discussion closed

The new discussion thread on AE has been closed. I think (and others agree) that this is a continuation of the long discussion about the past block. There have been many questions and comments about the block/unblock. The continued queries about different aspect of the issue blended in with the block discussion kept the discussion going long past the time of an ordinary discussion about a block/unblock. In the future, it will be helpful if everyone posting can separate out the aspects of the discussion that do not directly related to the person blocked and have that part of the discussion on the policy page. And I hope everyone that asked a question will reflect on whether continuing the discussion was helpful or caused more stress. Less (from everyone) can be more... :)

I'm going to post a message on Giano's talk page, letting him know that we are aware of the problems that a prolonged discussion can cause and in the future plan to re-direct queries from his supporters to a different location. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)