Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 27 March 2008

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The above decision was the work of: FloNight, Deskana, UninvitedCompany, Kirill Lokshin,Sam Blacketer, Morven and Jpgordon.

The "sop" to the community for this decision was that, huge changes would be implemented at #admins by healthy debate involving rank and file editors, the result of these promises was this:. Nothing changes, where the Arbonauts are concerned. One is now blocked for persisting in requesting an answer to why Flo and Arbs did a complete "U" turn. Giano (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at

• User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (2004)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (2005)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (2006)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (2007)
• User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (2008)

Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

Thoughts

In October 2006, you were at arbitration.

Finding: "Giano... post a series of over the top comments which condemned Misplaced Pages's power structure as corrupt. Placed in the context of the comments of other objectors to the decision Giano's comments, while inflammatory, do not stand out. Giano then, aided by a few others, entered on a campaign of political struggle based on a theme of institutional oppression."

Outcome: "Giano... is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat."

In November/December 2007, you were again incidentally involved at arbitration.

Finding: "Giano's conduct... exceeded the bounds of fair criticism. Areas of particular concern include personal attacks... a refusal to assume good faith, a lack of respect for project norms, and an unwillingness to resolve disputes utilizing the dispute resolution mechanism."

Outcome: "Giano is reminded that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors. The Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions."

This was the backdrop for January/February 2008 where you were also at arbitration, which said simply, and multiple times, that ("requests", "reminders" and "asking" having failed) asking nicely on civility hasn't worked, and you were placed on a formal requirement to be civil, not stoop to personal attacks, and avoid bad faith assumptions, instead. You breached those several times.

The recent discussion at AE pivoted purely on one issue - were you uncivil - and my view (which was broadly upheld) was yes, you had been. I know you don't agree with civility as a communal norm. Like any norm one objects to, it may be objected to strongly... but with full awareness of consequences if breached, so long as it stands. You know the norm, you know how others see it; your 'surprise' at being required to comply is to my mind unlikely to be backed by any real surprise.

(And your ominous emails of the sky falling in and arrival of the four horsemen are unlikely to indicate any genuine collapse of the troposphere or end of the world.)

To reduce the chance of further misunderstandings, I would like to explain that incivility can be implied or indirect, not just explicit, and those may well be considered blockable by other admins. This is said (as most things I have said) to help you better avoid future avoidable problems. The aim here is simple. You may have views, you may express or discuss views fully (in an appropriate venue and manner), and you may protest or criticize communal norms and seek their change (in a reasonable way). You may criticize people or groups, if it's done with reason and in an appropriate way. Anyone can do those things, freely within communal norms and conduct, and many do. But you may not be uncivil, launch personal attacks, or accusations and assumptions in bad faith any more, and claim necessity for those. They are not needed nor wanted.

What is not okay is having the intelligence and wit to make snarky comments and attacks on other users, both openly and subtly... and then to claim you are somehow surprised and offended when they are identified as such. Cause and effect exists here as anywhere.

FT2  17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)