Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:15, 16 January 2009

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

• Giano II (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Desired outcome

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

Description

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

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

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. The issue has come up in multiple requests for arbitration. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC are the two most recent.
2. section on Giano's talk page with Ottava Rima asking for calm. (added by Casliber (talk · contribs))
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had few if any dealings with Phil Sandifer. I have no recolection of ever addressing a remark to him in any form - perhaps I have, but I seriously do not remember it. Giano (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. I was one of the active commenters and parties in the IRC arbitration case, and in the course of doing so attempted to find some resolution on the matter of Giano's incivility and personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I have engaged in extensive communication with Giano II, both on- and off-wiki, over a period of I think two years (and been much abused for my pains). I doubt whether anything useful will come of this, but I'm willing to be proved wrong. Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes, there is a dispute here. See my evidence below for examples of attempting and failing to resolve it. Durova 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. --Elonka 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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

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

Outside view by Privatemusings

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I wish I disagreed. I think deferral to RFC was a poor choice on the part of the arbcom, or I'd have made this my first venue. But with four arbitrators swiftly saying to take it to RFC, I figured I ought oblige. Still, I'll note my dislike of this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. KillerChihuahua 00:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Majorly talk 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Will cause lots of drama inevitably.
5. Endorse --Duk 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
6. SlimVirgin 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Very bad idea indeed. Giano (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Casliber

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Admirable sentiment, but I'm not sure what Giano's article work has to do with it. If we want comment on Giano's article work, we head over to the Featured Article pages where it's all on display. We're here to talk about how he treats fellow editors, idiots or no. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Majorly talk 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Sam Blacketer

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

Users who endorse this summary:

#:I would be very happy with such an outcome. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) On second thought, I think that lowering this to primarily a WP:CIVIL issue misses the point. Giano's behavior violates WP:NPA, which is a far more serious issue.

1. Yes. I know he does good work- that's not the issue. The issue is that this is a collaborative project, and editors need to display reasonable social skills. Friday (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Tiptoety 01:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. The need (requirement?) to be civil to other editors (contra Cla68's view) does not stop outside the article space. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Majorly talk 01:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Theresa Knott | token threats 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
7. also true. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Exactly. --Elonka 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Durova 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
11. A reasonable request, but I think that Giano already has said quite a bit about civility at User:Giano/On civility & Misplaced Pages in general. The challenge is defining what civility means. Jehochman 04:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Agree with this as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
13. To just blatantly crib: "Yes, there is a dispute here" but "I doubt whether anything useful will come of this". I love Giano dearly, his article contributions are superb, and much leeway should be given. But leeway has limits, there are no free passes. At some point the snarkiness interferes with the message, however important the message might be. This probably will be a replay of the last factionalism but we'll get to see what the new alignments are, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 05:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
14. We'd like Giano to be civil, whist applauding his article work, and respecting his right to air any and all grievances. It is simply stated, and I don't understand anyone who says otherwise, or why we need an RfC.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Cla68

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2.  – iridescent 01:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Majorly talk 01:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Endorse --Duk 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. SlimVirgin 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
6. my limited experience supports this view. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Everyking (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Jehochman 04:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Andrwsc

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Majorly talk 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Tiptoety 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Theresa Knott | token threats 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
6. The "free pass" style of handling things has been common, but it should be clear by now that it's unhelpful. Friday (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Strongly endorse. Policies need to be applied fairly, and if there is uncivil language which would result in a new user being blocked, then there should also be consequences for the same incivility from an established editor. We should not have one set of rules for new users and a different set of rules for those who have been around for awhile. --Elonka 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Experienced Wikipedian should uphold the highest standards, rather than become exceptions to baseline conduct. Usenet is thataway. Durova 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
9. "Free pass" should be stricken from the language along with "bailout," but yes. Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Giano is a great contributor, but his pitbull-like tendency to snap at people who he feels, rightly or wrongly, to be causing him grief - and the conspiracy-theorist-level attacks on the ArbCom and administrators - are teeth-grinding annoying even for people even on the outside of any discussion. If he violates WP:CIVIL, he needs to be treated just like anyone else on Wiki - we must not make him a special case. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Nobody should be above the rules, regardless of their contributions. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
12. I support this generally, but this of course should not be taken to apply just to Giano - many editors admin and non admin, have been given "free passes" because of their various contributions.--Tznkai (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

View by Durova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Mackensen (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2. These details are new to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Goodness me. Giano's comments, while often harsh, are not this harsh as I've seen them. Sometimes it can be amusing to poke fun at the "administration" if people mess up, but such comments are completely off the mark, and not like the Giano I know. Majorly talk 05:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how responding to Durova's appeal to "Fellow Wikipedian" with what is basically a polite message pointing out that "fellow Wikipdians" come from all over the globe, and that she could be a little more inclusive with her sympathies, is as she points out elsehwere "Pure Vitriol." Incidentally, it has been inferred in other RFArbs that I'm pro Irish-terrorism or anti-British, yet another manufactured fallacy - many of you have fallen for. I actually have a very politically global outlook and comprehension of the world. Please do not refacture this comment to the talk page, if I am going to partake in this RFC, I want my comments here and prominently so. Giano (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you settle for putting your comments in the "response" section or on the talk page and using inline links for easy navigation? (Like WP:Requests for comment/Giano II#Response to Durova or something similar)--Tznkai (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

View by Jehochman

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

Endorsed by:

1. Jehochman 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Strongly agree. Everyking (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Majorly talk 05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
4. That is fair. To my knowledge, I have no substantial dealings with Giano outside discussion of this specific issue, which took place previously in the IRC case, and may have taken place elsewhere, but I don't recall it if it did. That said, one of my great secrets on Misplaced Pages is that I am absolutely awful at remembering people's names, who they are, and when I've interacted with them, so it's entirely possible that there's something I'm forgetting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. I agree with Jehochman's view. Someone raised a RfAr, or was going to and here we are. Who was that? I think the above comment may be more than a little disingenuous. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

An apology from SlimVirgin

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

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Very gracious of you, SlimVirgin. Thank you. Durova 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I also must thank Slim for this. I think it's a classic example of a situation where what should have been a minor affair exploded. All I ask is that Giano either take responsibility for his overreactions, or be held accountable. His words sting unnecessarily. Mackensen (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. For what it is worth, this was not caused by Giano's attack on David in any direct sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Majorly talk 05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Good on you for apologising and trying to defuse things. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 06:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Echoing the above - but noting that no, this is not your fault at all - although it is admirable of you to accept responsibility as if it was.--Tznkai (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I email from several addresses - some give more personal information than others. I had no idea which address I may have emailed from. The email in question, which I deleted as trivial over a year ago ago (6 December 2007) and had long forgotten, has now been returned to me, it in no way condoned Gerards' oversighting of perfectly valid edits, in fact it was written the day before the oversight and does not mention Gerard. The email was in response to one from FT2 asking for my advice and help. Something incidentally many people do from Arbs to newbies - they all get a reply, even if not always the advice or help they would like. I stand by every word in that email today, and would write exactly the same to any editor who asked me for help today. Gerard it now seems, only knew of excerpts, from that mail, which were sent to the Arb's private mailing list (a questionable knowledge some may feel). Sent by FT2 incidentally. His behaviour throughout all of the "FT2 affair" has been less than satisfactory. Giano (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Observation by Daniel

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Daniel (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2. One of many reasons I didn't advocate use of this process. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. That's the nature of the beast with conduct requests for comment. They're my least favorite form of dispute resolution. Still, they have their place. All RfCs and all site discussions should be read with a critical eye--perhaps this more than most. Durova 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Agreed. Giano, and some of those who routinely support him, have shown a tendency to long memories coupled with a desire for vengeance. On more than one occasion I have had people tell me privately that they don't want to get involved with Giano-related matters, because it's like trying to grab the third rail, aka political suicide. --Elonka 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   In fairness, to clarify my initial statement, there's also the reciprocating effect of being considered "one of them" if you do support Giano on this. It goes both ways, in my opinion, although you may disagree. (Sorry to butt in and reply in this manner, but I didn't want my initial statement being accidentally misconstrued as to suggest one "side" was the sole causation of this "I-have-no-balls" effect.) Daniel (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Cribbing from myself: This probably will be a replay of the last factionalism but we'll get to see what the new alignments are, anyway. Hope I'm wrong. ++Lar: t/c 06:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Finally an option #3 to supporting or opposing. MBisanz 06:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

View of Phil Sandifer's certification by Bishonen

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bishonen | talk 05:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC).
2. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Geogre (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I'm glad Bishonen said it, because I kept thinking, "Dispute? All I see are three or four people saying that they had been upset by a user." Being upset is not a dispute. A dispute requires a subject and two or more points of view on that subject. All this has been is, "I think he's not complying with CIVIL," "Me too!" "Oooooh, and me!" Please! Is the "dispute" that Giano understands that non-policy a different way than some of the politeness police do? Sorry. Otherwise, just revenge by Snowspinner is all I can see. He didn't like something, and the revenge is to try to bog down what he may regard as a "group" of editors by poking at Giano again. Let us rise to a position of maturity, or, failing that, discuss that idiotic misuse of WP:CIVIL. An RfC on that would be appropriate.

Outside (aye right!) view by Scott MacDonald

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

What is happing is:

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

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

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

Mea culpa.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside Question by Geogre

What is the dispute?

Seriously: what is being argued, here?

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary (aren't really needed, I guess):

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.