User talk:Giano II

Had enough of the bloody place - gone. Giano (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

:Ya don't seem the type, to pack'er in. Hope ya change your mind. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Chill, please? You do know that Theresa is an ex-arb, right? a just in case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to protect this page to stop more comments? Caulde 16:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My request: take a few days' break, and enjoy it. Then come back, clear-headed, and less prone to snapping. Be well. AGK 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for incivility

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility, in violation of your civility restriction. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

While finding yourself as collateral damage in an autoblock is not a nice situation, you are still expected to assume good faith. Instead you attacked the administrator who had placed the block, absent any evidence that she could reasonably have forseen collateral damage. Further personal attacks followed. While Teresa Knott should have obtained the consent of this Committee before blocking you, I find that her failure to do so was accidental and so her situation differs from that of SlimVirgin.

After Teresa's block was undone, you went after her in further violation of civility restrictions, and further attacked Elonka including without justification assuming that her block was "trolled". I note that you are quick to detect personal attacks on yourself; someone who knows what a personal attack on themselves is can be expected to know when they are making a personal attack on another user.

In accordance with the motion concerning enforcement, the block was debated on the Arbitrator's mailing list and endorsed by a majority of the committee. The initial proposal of one week was moderated to 72 hours. Supporting arbitrators were Charles Matthews, Deskana, Fayssal F., FT2, Jpgordon, Kirill Lokshin, and myself. No arbitrator opposed. The following arbitrators did not express an opinion, or were away at the time of the debate: FloNight, Jdforrester, Morven, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, YellowMonkey.

To verify the agreement of the committee please see this email from Arbcom-l and the preceding thread (former arbitrators with access to the list may wish to give independent confirmation of the committee's consent). I suggest that any appeal be directed to the committee. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sam, it looks like you have misrepresenting things. You say that Giano "went after her". Those diffs point to comments on his own talk page. Going after somebody implies following them to another venue, such as their own talk page, and posting hostile comments. A more correct interpretation would be, "after she went after you, you got pissed off and posted some annoyed comments on your own talk page." As an ex-arb, I think Theresa Knott has pretty thick skin by now, and I think Elonka does as well. These are not helpless little newbies who will wither at the first sign of a discouraging word. Why are you folks trying to drive Giano away or provoke him further? Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is incivility, regardless of where it is posted. I honestly cannot believe what I am hearing. --Deskana (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between being rude on your own talk page and crapping on someone else's. Giano was sorely provoked. Jtrainor (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The guy was blowing of steam on his own talk page after two unfair blocks, so now a third has been placed to make sure he becomes more calm and productive. O.o Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The civility policy makes no such exception. But since policy is descriptive, I propose that you change the civility policy to include these exceptions that I've never heard of before. Unless you're proposing there are special exceptions to rules for some people...? --Deskana (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No No No no noooooo! Getting caught in an autoblock is not grounds for making personal attacks on whatever admin happened to have performed the original block. The first block wasn't an unfair block it was the autoblocker. Many other people got caught by it too. None resorted to calling the blocking admin stupid. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but a better response would be to explain how the autoblock works, and help correct the problem and make sure it does not happen to any other users. Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Which i would have been happy to do had he not kept making the personal attacks. Oh well. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Johnathan, I concur with your comments—that Giano ought to have been offered a proper response—but would still note that, regardless of the situation, incivility is downright unhelpful. There are no two ways around that. Whilst in the case of seriously frustrating situations such as being autoblocked (neé "blocked") incivility is often allowed to slide, such a response is not prudent for an editor who is under a civility restriction. The message here is quite plain: "quit the incivility and keep your head; if you can't walk away from the keyboard." I'm glad to see there are no special exceptions being made for Giano, no matter how much I may support him as an editor and as a voice of, er, critical opinion. AGK 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He was blowing off steam on his talk page, sure, but also on AN, where there can be no doubt that he was being anything but civil and not showing GF. I know very little about the history of this or why people seem to tiptoe around him and treat him differently, but I've read his rant on AN and his calls to have people blocked/de-sysopped and am not surprised that he was given a 72 hour block. AGK is right. dougweller (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Um. I see at least two diffs in the report above that are not to this page; statements to the effect that Giano was just 'blowing off steam on his own talk page' are not accurate. There was at least one edit to AN, and one to Teresa's talk page. (I have notified Jehochman of the error in his statement, but I suspect he's offline.) Whether or not one believes extra leeway should be granted on a user's own talk page – personally, I think that we should carve out exceptions to WP:NPA and WP:CIV very carefully – Giano did consciously take his show on the road. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I echo my thoughts below, #Cut the drama out, eh?. We're not achieving anything here now. AGK 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am reassured that, at the third time of asking, that the conditions as set out by ArbCom were properly met when considering a block for Giano's assumed incivility - as such there is no possible way that this can be overturned or reduced/varied without further reference to the ArbCom, for which I am personally grateful. I will now attempt to do what I so foolishly said I would after the initial unblock and withdraw. (If anyone sees me getting involved again on one of the noticeboards, just chuck a 15 minute time out at me - ps. I have a UK isp so it may be best if autoblock is disabled - without any further reference). Now, if you don't mind, I have some vandal reports to review and act upon... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened here

(comic below was inserted by Jehochman)

• 
  "That's a vicious dog over there."
• 
  "Looks like just another dog, only kind of big, to me."
• 
  The "Neapolitan Mastiff" in question is writing articles and trying to get them right.
• 
  "It is vicious. Watch. I'll throw a rock."
• 
  The mastiff looks over.
• 
  "No, really! See? It's looking at me funny. I'll throw another rock"
• 
  "I dunno, maybe."
• 
  The mastiff growls and snaps at the rock thrower.
• 
  "See?"
• 
  "I don't know about before, but it's clearly being incivil now! I'd better throw something at it to calm it down."
• 
  The mastiff continues to snap at the rock hurlers.
• 
  "What the heck is that? I'll go get my gun and talk on my walkie talkie about this vicious dog."
• 
  "It isn't responding well to being clubbed! Get on the walkie talkie and call in more artillery!"
• 
  "We need to tase this creature, quick!"
• 
  "Yes, yes, yes, officers! I always said it was a vicious dog."
• 
  "What are you people doing? You're fools! You created this situation yourselves and want to punish someone for simply standing up against an attack!"
• 
  "We are doing a great job protecting the public from such vicious and unscrupulous users."

We have reached a point where the deceit and transparency of this Arbcom, IRC and JWales are such that I no longer wish to be associated with such a project. That Theresa Knott, a woman who when I came here, was an Arb who repulsively to me, but legitimately, signed herself "the snot rake" was almost enough to put me off the project at the time, I thought what sort of place is this? - but I persevered, I thought things would get better. I have been banned for condemning paedophiles, banned for exposing lies and deceit, and go to my Wikipedia grave knowing of far more deceit and lies than you can imagine. I have seen Geogre sanctioned for unblocking me, Slim Virgin de-sysopped for the same and this ex arb, T Knott commended for blocking me for showing anger on my own talk page. I want to cope with this no longer. The Arbcom want me to beg to be unblocked, I shall never do that. This morning I was working on a page, minding my own business - what a shame others were not.

Truly, I know longer care what you all get up to. If condemning an Admin, who is still blocking half of London four hours after she was first notified, as incompetent and stupid is wrong, then wrong it is. My mistake, today, was to challenge the bossy and school mistressy posts and authority of one of YOUR former Arbs. I wash my hands of you all. Frankly, the project is not worth the grief it causes me. Today, Wikipedia is a hard core of writers who are parasitically lived off by a group of Admins who are there to celebrate their authority; as the writers give up and are constantly replenished by new fools, the do-nothing Admins grow in number in order to hinder and harass. That is the state of the Wikipedia, that you have all allowed to be created. I want no more of it. I shall not return, but just remember once there was somebody who saw a huge potential for this very sad project. Giano (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an anagram of my name, I rotate them, they are not meant to be taken literally. And has already been explained Elonka didn't do any of the things which you have just said. None of it! All she did was block a person for 3RR. The autoblocker blocked you not elonka, she wasn't on Wikipedia and appears to have been sleeping. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• The problem was known for hours before it caught Giano. Why was it not fixed? If not by Elonka (assuming good faith that she was sleeping or AFK), then by someone? Why did it take a high-profile (and legitimately jumpy) editor being blocked to get the problem dealt with? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the autoblocker is its own master really. If the blocked editor used more than one IP address then the autoblocker may have blocked them both. Or the autoblocker may have blocked another editor who tried to circumvent the original block using a different IP. Who knows? It might not even be fixed now. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Giano's anger was understandable given he lost valuable work, and while individual admins and even the developers etc are not to blame the reaction to Giano's anger was completely ott. We cannot afford to lose such a good editor, clearly. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't understand his anger at all. Have you ever lost work at wikipedia? Of course you have, all regular editors have. But Geogre states on my talk page that Giano uses a word processor and then copies the edit over. So how can the work be lost? It's inconvenient to get caught in an autoblock, but it's not that bad, no one else got angry did they? Theresa Knott | token threats 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unhelpful to debate how warranted the incivility of Giano's comments were. The fact remains that he was incivil despite his civility sanction—itself a very clear "Keep It Civil" message hanging over his head. I hope Giano grasps that very soon; the longer we spend trying to stop his unhelpful comments, the less helpful we become and the less productively our time is used. AGK 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not blaming you or Elonka or anyone for the technical issue, I just don't think in this case Giano's anger justified a block that hopefully won't see him abandoning the project. Of course I have lost work on wikipedia for a variety of different reasons, such as power cuts, that is why in any major work I do to articles I press the edit button every 2 or 3 minutes. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut the drama out, eh?

I'm noticing a lot of circular discussion that is profoundly unhelpful. The Committee has blocked; the block seems warranted. Let's move on and do something else, and give Giano a bit of peace too. I think the "Giano: please be civil" message has been communicated loud-and-clear. AGK 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• He's done. Per some private discussions, he's actually out for good now. So yeah, the "message has been communicated loud-and-clear." No need for further worrying about whether G hurt someone's feelings or not. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. AGK 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was sorry to hear it as well, but unfortunately, I don't think that many in the current political structure of this ostensible writing project will care all that much. 24.177.66.130 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Putchica, as we say here. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm not speaking as a journalist here, since this particular incident doesn't cross the newsworthiness threshold. But it's an example of what I mean when I talk about how as a participant-observer, I'm fascinated by the dysfunctional group dynamics of Wikipedia. What counts as a forgivable minor infraction, what's a major sin - and who gets to define that? It's played out day after day -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not the place to discuss this.…

You might want to ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, if that's okay?

Thanks, AGK 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth, What counts as a forgivable minor infraction, what's a major sin?. The answer is: the arbitrary, rules-free, subjective (and often biased) POV of the Admin Community decides that. Is there a better way? If so, what is it? Sarah777 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I might also add that in the light of my own personal experience of Elonka's judgement, leaving the power to block "half of London" in her hands is careless to the point of moronic. Now if I were to call the United Arbs universally moronic (which despite their decision in a "Troubles" case some years back I don't) - would that be (1) a tad unvivil? (2) uncivil? (3) blockably uncivil? (4) long blockably uncivil? (5) Banably uncivil?

Who has the measuring tape, or is this decided by the Admin/Arb whose piles are the most irrirating at a given moment in time? Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this, Sarah? It sat on RfAr for 3 weeks, garnering only one comment (from Lar); Giano's posts were quite tame in comparison, and I can understand his frustration at all this. Anyone read what he was working on at the time? Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's basically the age-old problem of proper governing, and I claim no special expertise in the matter. Just an interest in this context because so much can be directly observed. And I'm very much against the hucksterism that sells Wikipedia as "magic", given what I see of how it really works. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Anyone who thinks that Elonka either deliberately or ignorantly "blocked half of London" is not well-enough informed about the situation to be worth listening to. The autoblock was the result of two conditions which Elonka has no control over whatsoever, (1) British Telecom deciding to route all wikipedia traffic through one or two servers, and (2) the decision of Wikipedia's founders many years ago to hide editors' IP addresses from each other. Even if Elonka had known that British Telecom was back to using a proxy server, she had no way of knowing that Ashley kennedy3 was editing from BT. If you don't understand that, you need to read the relevant AN and ANI threads, read WP:AUTOBLOCK and read User_talk:Elonka#Autoblock_school, repeatedly if necessary. Thatcher 03:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Within a few hours of hearing about this problem I dug into the details, found out what was wrong, found the IP address of the proxy and whitelisted it so that BT proxy users would not be affected by each others' autoblocks. I wish that the first admin on the scene had shown some compassion towards Giano for his difficulties and tried to help him. When a user is upset, it is best to understand why they are upset before sanctioning them for being upset. Jehochman ^Talk 03:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, break it up people. We have the village pump for general discussion. Jtrainor (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Alright folks, move along. Nothing to see here." SashaNein (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The purpose of someone's talk page is to communicate with them, and as Giano ain't here to communicate, general discussion is off-topic. Now, if I had advocated deleting the page, you might have some kind of point... Jtrainor (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Systemic problems that caused this situation

1. ArbCom is elected, but mostly incompetent. There are systemic reasons for this:
   • Self-selection bias: Only few competent candidates actually have the time for this full-time job. The best potential arbitrators never become candidates because they are not workaholics, have a real job, or a real family, or because they are not keen on drama.
   • Defects in the voting system: To get support votes, you need to be well known and predictable; the normal way to achieve this is by involvement in drama. Moreover, any editor who has what it takes to be a good arbitrator will have been involved in huge conflicts in the past and likely have amassed opponents on both sides; the current voting system favours candidates with no enemies.
   • No way for the community to get rid of the bad apples once they are identified.
2. Misleading "personnel records":
   • Every single unblock, whether for adjustment of a block or because the block was controversial, makes a user's block log longer and increases the chance of further inconsiderate blocks.
   • Positive information is routinely ignored. An editor who works hard on content 40 hours/week and gets reported to ANI once a month is notorious. An editor who does an hour of wiki gnoming every Sunday morning and gets reported to ANI twice a year is a valuable member of the community (especially if they also spend a few more hours every week voicing popular opinions in project talk space).
   • The notoriety of an editor is measured by the amount of drama, not by the effects of their behaviour. Therefore behaviour about which the community is divided is more likely to be held against an editor than behaviour that is clearly beyond the pale. Moreover, inappropriate behaviour can be wiped out by apologies and clear signals that the editor understood that they were wrong. The negative impression from something that was considered OK by more than half of the community cannot be discarded in this way.
3. Every admin has a de facto veto right against not blocking a user. This works well with the vast majority of users, since normally only a small number of admins look at a case. It does not scale well to prolific editors who get themselves into trouble occasionally.

I am deliberately posting this on Giano's talk page, because I hope that he will read this and any resulting discussion. Note that I am not denying that he also shares part of the responsibility. Mobbing victims are rarely completely innocent, because it's very hard to keep a cool head in such a situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)