Giano got banned by Georgewilliamherbert for 24 hours, because of a comment that he made about Stifle :



He was unblocked a bit later by our very own Viridae, but the fact that this GWH person blocked him in the first place is really quite stupid.

I don't know why he bothers to deal with the nutcases over there! Giano, get outta there and go over to Knol!

Hey I just put that on the 'Epistemic Theory' thread! Giano was commenting on my blocking following Stifle's actions. The whole thing really is too mad.

Geogrewillianherbert is dumber than a box of rocks. His personality is akin to instant oatmeal that has been over seasoned with artificial vanilla and sweeteners. He's a big fat stupid lazy slob. Oh, and guess what - he doesn't actually create content.

There is one more question, and I can't answer it, perhaps someone here can - Does Geogrewillianherbert hang out a lot on the IRC admin channel? I'm guessing yes.

By the way, did I mention that Geogrewillianherbert is a fucking moron?

Anyway, here's an old link that's worth revisiting.

He was involved in this rather ridiculous incident.

he blocked him. That's not a ban. Blocks are rather common.




From WJBscribe. Notice anything?

Horrible block. I looked through GWH's other recent (this year) blocks of named users and aside from Mackan and Bagadani none jump out as bad. But his bad ones are doozies.

And WTF, he insisted that Mackan send a passport or something to the WMF as an unblock condition?

Yes, Stifling - I thought that rather witty.

There are times when even I am amazed by the total incompetence of some of those appointed to rule/Administrate Wikipedia. I know I seem to spend my whole cyber life saying something has to be changed at Wikipedia so one would think I would expect it - but no, the sheer monumental incompetence hits me each time like a rock out of the sky. Such was the scale of stupidity of this particular block, I don't even feel it proves my point about civility being used as a weapon. However, will Wikipedia do anything about it? - No. They will allow such people to continue harassing those writing the project (who don't show due deference to the Admins) because it is more important to maintain collective Admin dignity than write an encyclopedia.

I still think if I keep going and repeating myself on and on, people may one day realise what I'm saying is correct - but Christ, it's a bloody hard long battle.

Giano

Easy now. That could apply to, er, any number of editors.

I notice that WJBscribe reads the Wikipedia Review:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125013
Or, he may be reflecting Bishonen's earlier comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235255693

"Silence, troll, lest I smite you with my +5 banhammer!"

I'm wondering if it's going to get ignored for not following the DR process.

Despite the common sense that it shouldn't.

Sorry - point noted. And if you substitute obnoxious for fat, I've been all five of those too. Just not all at same time, and for months on end ... jeezzz

But I'm still waiting to hear, Is GWH a regular on IRC's super secret admin channel?

No, I don't think he is an IRC regular.

Giano

Moderator' Note: Moved some posts from this thread into this one -Derktar.

Now at RfAR, courtesy of Moreschi.

[edit] ...and that's what Derktar's linking to directly above.

WP - where 'players' pose
WR - where the truth comes out

I've never seen him in the IRC admin channel.

I vaguely recall seeing him in -unblock at times, though I may be mistaken. He certainly is active on mailing lists though.

I got in touch with Mackan79 that time. We chatted for almost an hour on the phone and I was able to identify him in RL (like, 100%). I then went back to ArbCom and stated that I'd verified his RL identity and could guarantee that he wasn't Wordbomb. They accepted that and thus, never did find out his RL details, as far as I know.

I think i missed that one. Mackan was block as wordbomb?

Worse again. He was actually blocked as a sock of "Judd Bagley / Wordbomb" Note the RL name used indelibly in a block log. Not good at all, and on a number of levels.

Yes, apparently he "self identified as Judd Bagley." Absolutely ridiculous of course.

According to that block log I didnt miss it at all. Whoops - WP has so much DRAMAZ that its hard to keep track.

reading his talk page brings us the classic recall question from our very own Random832.

... and, errm, a "cockpuppet", Viridae??

Unfortunate typo - I believe that was the one caused by having my python (the reptile kind) wrapped around my wrist.

I think that's code for "he said something that our finely honed linguistic skills told us was evidence for sockpuppetry".

Gesh. What would Giano do if he had my level of admins "waiting to block"? The poor guy wouldn't be able to breathe.

This thread comes to mind.

As we all know, there are one or two people whom certain admins would love to block.

There are one or two, Taxwoman, who should be blocked!

Giano

Bleh. Your wrist, eh?

More than one or two. However, they are probably not the ones who will be.

I'm torn about the Giano block: on one hand, the unblock enforces my viewpoint that some cantankerous editors are treated more fairly than others (i.e. any block on Giano won't last), but it was a bad block, to be honest. It is not uncivil or a personal attack to call a spade a spade, unless that spade happens to be one of the seven dirty words. But I digress.

Edit: I don't mean cantankerous as an insult; you are "difficult or irritating to deal with". Most of this comes from your attitude, Giano. If you showed a little bit more restraint in your comments, there would be no reason for people not to like you. But you have to say, you do shoot yourself in your foot sometimes. While it may not be your nature, you have to dance around the maypole to edit hassle-free.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....2F3.2F0.2F3.29

From the RFAR page, 3-3 now, yowza:



Bold emphasis his, italics/underline mine. He also didn't accept Brad's proposal unless it addresses IRC as well.

Which just means nothing will happen at all. Fayssal's accept reducecd it to a net zero, it still has to get to +4, and Brad's motion looks to not have much chance.

yeah, I don't see this one being accepted.

I've been thinking about Giano quite a bit recently. I think it's evident that the civility sanction, or in fact any civility block, really doesn't work. Instead, the community, or the committee (whichever) should lay down the following principles and remedies:

1. Brief civility blocks are manifestly "cool-down blocks", and as such inflame tempers.
2. Long time and esteemed article writers/vandal fighters are not exempt from policies and guidelines; instead, they are given more leniency (e.g. while a new user would be banned for constantly edit-warring, experienced users would be given 1RR sanctions).
3. Giano fits in the description of "long-time esteemed article writer". His attitude leaves more to be desired, but his experience has proved he is an asset to the encyclopedia. However, this does not afford him immunity from blocks or banned.
4. Instead of blocking Giano, which tends to annoy him, several esteemed and neutral administrators should help or mentor Giano (hopefully, with his consent) into showing more decorum and, eventually, reform his permanent attitude to be a lot less snippy.
5. Preferably, any discussion of Giano should take place on a high visibility page on-wiki, or in an IRC channel where he is present, to preclude any notion of clandestine activity.
6. If Giano's attitude is consistently as negative six months after mentoring begins, he may be liable to be banned for any amount of time.

What does everyone think?

This is confusing. Are you saying that established editors should not be exempt from policies, or that they are not, but should be?



Giano dislikes the whole concept of mentoring, as being patronising.

Perhaps you are missing the whole point here, which is that Giano does not consider his behaviour uncivil at all. Nor do I. The problem is the narrow-minded conception of civility that is being forced by North Americans upon those who do not belong to their culture. Read his essay on civility.

Giano's behavior is not the problem.

The real point of civility is to prevent people from being a dillhole just for the sake of being a dillhole. Giano, JzG, and whoever else's chronic incivility is tolerated do not really fall into this category, so there is no widespread objection. Giano should shape up, but his enemies need to realize that if they want to beat him, they need to take the high road. I would not wager on that happening though, as it would be more paperwork than merely burning my money.

Established users are not exempt, but should be shown leniency.

I'm not saying he's uncivil exactly, I'm saying his attitude (on-wiki) leaves more to be desired. People can be civil and negative, and vice versa; the two descriptions aren't mutually exclusive (one of my favourite examples of this point is Churchill's famous "terminological inexactitude" quote). Whether he is civil or not, he can be a lot nicer; instead of saying "AC are incompetent", say that you "think that the AC consistently pass poor decisions". They mean the same, but in such a bureaucratic and collegiate system, it's necessary to use flowery language to make such a strong point; again, look at Churchill.]

Regarding mentoring, I added "hopefully voluntary". Giano, even if he doesn't believe himself to be uncivil, annoys a sizeable proportion of Wikipedians, and he really needs to come to terms with that. I don't think he's intentionally annoying people; he always came across to me as a very angry person. His behaviour, and certainly his language, has to be less extreme to, at the very least, get people off his back. Maybe it will be done by people pushing him in the right direction, maybe with some introspection.

No just say "AC are incompetent". This is where English and American culture part company. Well Giano's Italian but he acts English as they come. Be forceful and blunt where you need to be forceful and blunt.

I gave the epitome of Britishness and you consider it to be American culture?

Yes, sometimes bluntness should be used, but only when absolutely necessary. When it isn't, people should conduct themselves like they're in the House of Commons, at a bare minimum.

The whole thing is arse about face. Firstly, those who in some way represent the face of Wikipedia, whether it is as long time users or as administrators should be given no quarter on unacceptable misbehaviour.

But first, there needs to be a far more rational understanding of what is misbehaviour. You can game anyone into making a quote that can be used against them. You can be very politely abusive. One little game I played, when a group of editors were being harassed by someone who claimed civility was very important (more important than writing an encyclopedia it seemed), was to chase around their reverts and tell them to take it to talk to politely point out at their every move that they were doing things wrong. After 4 or 5 hours of me being excruciatingly polite and quoting policy to the letter, politely refuting his arguments without ever referring to him personally, he more or less flipped out, raged on ANI, and indeed not long after was never seen again. The point was to game the gamer and it worked that time.

Now in the wider context, the point is that civility has become a game and sometimes it will be used as a weapon, but very inconsistently: "provoked - so that is alright" or "I am not going to look at the context as that diff gives me all I need" and further the punishments vary wildly from "ban on sight" to "well done for saying that, it was the troll that wos to blamet, gov, honest."

What needs to change is attitude, not rules. Everyone should treat each other with as much courtesy as is possible, and at the same time have as thick a skin as possible. Admins can manage that change in attitude by setting the right example, and if they are not prepared to set the right example then they should not be admins. The same goes for those who want to be considered Wikipedia's finest contributors. These are not new concepts, there is nothing inherently different about Wikipedia that needs a new social code inventing.

Won't happen, because it is all a game, not an encyclopedia.

Sorry, what are you talking about. Either you are not English or you have never worked for any amount of time in the English company. I have worked for both English and American companies and I think I know.

Americans talk loudly and swear a lot but deep down are intensely respectful of authority and amazingly politically correct, at least in meetings and so on. English business culture is completely anarchic.

Just an aside from my experience, to contrast, American business meetings except in the most glum of topics can be jovial and often chatty and jokey to the point of irrelevance (except in crap companies), but nearly always are at the same time respectful and courteous swearing aside and "get the job done". We're Americans, we just fucking swear and joke a lot about shit. OfuckingK?



Will isn't old enough to have experienced the crushing weight of full blown proper business meetings yet.

And no offense to Will on that--consider yourself lucky.

Oh fuddle duddle.

Unless you are being ironic, that is my experience. Americans, superficially informal, deep underlying respect. The English have no real respect for corporate culture, at almost any level.