Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:Zinvats uzher[edit]


User:DreamGuy numerous violations of ArbCom decisions[edit]

User:Levine2112 request[edit]


User:Xasha[edit]


ScienceApologist abuse of SSP[edit]


Rumiton[edit]

User:Parishan[edit]


VMORO[edit]


Giano II[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Yada, yada, yada, this is sooo boring...oh, and a block would be punitive now. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Temporary_injunction, Giano II can only be blocked with the consent of an ArbCom member, so I'd like somebody to take a look at diff 1 where Giano calls Chillum a "useless twit" and diff 2 where Giano tells MZMcBride to "stop stirring and trolling and get lost". As I understand it, the civility ruling under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC isn't officially suspended until the current case passes. ArbCom member Jpgordon (talk · contribs) advised me to file here. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 21:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh have this link too [27] the IRC logs are so amusing. Giano (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You must be joking. Ok, so you, apparently, don't think everyone's tired of Chillum pontificating all over the place. Good for you! It's nice to have friends! However, if you want to "win" your argument by invoking mysterious offenses against indefinable substances, then all it does is make you look petty, intolerant, and childish. There was no "violation" of anything, except good sense and decorum in someone trying to go on a "civility patrol." Chillum was all but trolling Bishonen's page, even coming back to say that he had gotten the message to not come back! Giano said that she wasn't the only one fed up with him, and Auburnpilot, a completely uninvolved person in every possible way, came here. Looks like a squabble to me, and the one amplifying and trying to create a very big stink where no stink had been is not Giano. Geogre (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Unlike you, Geogre, I haven't to my knowledge had any involvement whatsover with Giano or Chillum. Somebody under ArbCom civility restriction is expected to remain civil and refrain from attacking other editors (which includes calling them useless twits). - auburnpilot talk 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Appears a premature report, as giano and bishonen were only moderately overreacting to chillum's overzeaouls defense of elonka. no comment as to the underlying situation. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Without any more comment than this, no-one should be calling anyone a "useless twit" on Wikipedia. That's common civility, not WP:CIVILity. I'm not sure it's worth making a fuss over -- I sometimes wonder whether the most effective reaction to an insult from Giano is to pretend it didn't happen... Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Give me a freakin' break. I sure hope the "arbs" are seeing this. MANY people told them how stupid their "civility parole" on Giano was because every idiot on wikipedia will see "incivility" where it doesn't exist. "Chillum", or whatever his name is these days, has a habit of showing up wherever there is drama to be had. He likes it. Some people may think someone who shows up where he's not invited to egg people on are "useless twits". I might even be in that group. Are you going to block me? This is one of the worst uses of this board that I've seen. At least Giano wasn't blocked straight away. That's an improvement I guess. This place gets more unbelievable every day... Tex (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The unfortunate thing is that more and more people are plaguing this project with the belief that it is perfectly acceptable to be an enormous ass if somebody is an ass to you first. This freakish belief that it is ok to attack other editors because "He started it!" is ridiculous. I'm perfectly happy to accept it if an arb deems this un-actionable, but don't give me some diatribe about the unfairness of civility parole. Editors who routinely attack other editors and respond with nothing more than incivility are a far greater threat to this project than any vandal or troll. "Give me a freakin break" indeed... - auburnpilot talk 01:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"Some diatribe..?" Are you a native speaker? Bishonen | talk 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
"plaguing this project". AP, I don't get involved in much on this site, but I read it every day. I always thought you were one of the editors with a clue. Please see Giano's contributions and tell me how he is a "plague". And if you believe what I wrote above is a "diatribe", I don't think we have anything else to discuss. I can't say it's been enjoyable, but it's been something. Nice talking with you. Tex (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"Civility Patrol" as exercised here is a grotesque concept. WP:CIVIL is a flawed notion which is now out of control due to the utter refusal of the authorities to define "civility" (not least because it would snare half the Admin "community"). Civility enforcement is now largely a tool to allow Admins to suppress views they don't like; often with the active encouragement of Arbcom. We need to clean out the stables here and start again; we need a rules based authority, not an arbitrary police state run by the Wiki equivalent of the Sheriff and his Deputy in the Dukes of Hazard. Sarah777 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: editors are entitled to seek the same standard from Giano as they probably would from any other person with a history of rudeness and a civility sanction. Being gratuitously rude isn't heroic, nor praiseworthy, and it's not made okay by discussing what other people might have done. My own view on the harm caused to the project by bad social manners is elsewhere on the wiki. It applies as much for Giano as for any other person who is under a civility sanction. In that sense my view is completely impersonal. It could as easily be one person as another being discussed here. The decision made is that the incivility should end, and I'm not inclined to read into it, "but not if you are this special person or that one".

Geogre, Tex - if (as counter-argued) Chillum was out of line, then you discuss with Chillum, and if necessary you raise Chillum's conduct as appropriate. You do not use it as an excuse to dismiss issues of bad conduct by others.

Sarah - as Giano's been told on numerous occasions, it is his conduct to other users that is the issue, not his views per se. He has zero trouble whenever he speaks in a reasonable manner, and he hits problems when he decides his view on how he should be allowed to speak of others is sacrosanct. It isn't. People don't end up with civility sanctions for no reason, in fact they are not that heavily used, and only in cases of repeated well evidenced rudeness to others, brought to arbitration usually by other users in the community and evaluated by their peers elected to that role. It's not perfect (what is) but it is what we have. If you feel a better way exists, that the community would endorse more than the civility norm, then I urge you to develop the idea and propose it so we can use it. But until then, Wikipedia:Civility is what we have, and communally agree to, even if individually some don't agree.

Giano - you don't moon the jury. You come repeatedly to arbitration with a past record of incivility, and (in this case) a protective measure to prevent others picking on you for no good reason. Your response is while this case is being looked at, to head off and insult two more users. Not huge insults, it's true - worse get ignored - but you are also an incorrigible envelope pusher on this and I don't feel inclined to indulge envelope pushing under a sanction. If someone else were under a sanction, I would take that seriously too. You could have easily discussed the issue, rather than insult the person ("useless twits" adds nothing). Or you could have completely avoided presuming to speak for all "contributing editors" of the project, which you don't. This was uncivil, and you knew it. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I am not in the habbit of mooning anyone, least of all the Jury (if that is how the Arbcom now sees themselves), yet another of your clumsy analogies - in fact a double whammy this time. Now, take yourself off and just go and look at Chillum, and do whatever pleases you most. Go read his IRC comments from yesterday, assuming you were not already there! Regarding your final point, I am not under a sanction because you had no right to impose a sanction. Giano (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi FT2, you probably aren't aware so I'll declare that I've been in "civility" trouble myself and my experience, as someone who isn't often blatantly rude in the Giano sense, is that WP:CIVIL is abused in an arbitrary manner by the police. (Not unusual in the real world of course). And arbitrary is something that Arbcom can't run away from. They are not acknowledging the problem, let alone getting to grips with it. Far from saying anyone should be above the Law, I'm saying that justice must be done and be seen to be done. That implies standards of consistency and transparent rules. Rules which cannot be simply overturned by the majority masquerading as "consensus". Arbcom sets vague and poorly defined rules and then lets loose a posse of the good, bad and ugly to interpret and enforce them. There must be a better way! Sarah777 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a better way. Move past the idea that civility is a "law" that, if "broken", results in "punishment" from an authority figure. Is that how civility works in the Real World? Are you civil to people because you're afraid of being thrown in jail? If a random person says something rude to you, do you call the police? No: you probably just think to yourself, "What an asshole", ignore it, and move on with your day. Any "enforcement" of civility will always look arbitrary, because while the general concept of civility is widely understood, it's fundamentally subjective to decide whether a specific comment is "uncivil", "blunt", "direct", or what-have-you.

Do you care what Giano thinks of you? If not, then who cares if he calls you a "useless twit"? I have no idea if Giano would consider me a useless twit, or a "foolish and stupid person", etc, and I don't really care. Giano believes (and I happen to agree) that his civility parole is a joke, and he's currently endeavoring to prove that point. This behavior is, at bottom, attention-seeking. Giano gets much more attention for his shit-stirring than he does for his stellar article-writing. The solution is to ignore the shit-stirring and reward the article writing with positive feedback. Civility parole gets this equation back-asswards, and the results were and are predictable. I'm doing what I can to change the situation by refusing to enforce this, or any, civility parole. Other admins are welcome to do as they see fit, assuming they can parse FT2's statement and figure out whether he "consented" to a block per the injunction. MastCell Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't "move past" the issue of Law while Wiki empowers a host of Admins with arbitrary blocking power. The notion that in the Real World I could dump someone in jail for calling me a "stupid twit" is is bizarre - but that is exactly what happens here. If we must have civility rules (personally I think they are daft and a fundamental attack on freedpom of speech, but that's just my POV) then they must be based on some measureable objective standards, especially where blocking results. There is no avoiding this. This is a very serious issue - in the area I edit there is continuous potential for POV conflict (Britain/Ireland). What I see is that a whole strand of perspective is systematically supressed under the guise of enforcement of "civility"; by blocking or banning editors or forcing them out of the area. And I cannot forget that there is an outrageous and assinine Arbcom ruling still hanging over my head waiting for the some politically motivated Admin to enact. As was demonstrated when a recent block for reverting (based on a misunderstanding) in an unrelated area turned into a feeding frenzy by certain Admins calling for a total permanent ban. That was the equivalent of being assaulted rather than just insulted in Real Life - something which does lead to police sanction. Sarah777 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • FT2, I was actually starting to receive an improved impression of your activities on Wikipedia. This was because you have very properly abstained at one issue on the Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision page, and also made the helpful comment, at the proposal "Question remanded", that "The entire matter has come to us precisely because the community cannot presently handle that decision". (Well, in my opinion it would have been more proper still for you to recuse from the whole case, but I digress.) Anyway, I was assuming that you would surely to goodness have seen that because of your, particular, past history with Giano—let's say, your interest in him, your very great interest, in analysing him, commenting on him, returning over and over to repeating your views on him, swimming in passive-aggressive circles round him, notably on your own talkpage in April—that it would be a good idea for you to avoid being the particular arbitrator dispensing consent (or not) here, as indicated in the temporary injunction "For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee. Doesn't that make sense, now? There is a whole committe, and it has to be you...? I ask you for the sake of your own dignity and that of the committee (entities which are both getting a little threadbare) to let a another arbitrator, any other arbitrator, field this one. I appeal to other arbitrators to step in. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
You'll notice my comment starts with the word "Comment" (rather than "Endorse" or "Decline"). I'm sorting out the computer issues but not yet back reliably enough or caught up enough, for the full scale participation of something like this. This is also closer to the borderline than many other comments considered in the past. I would not oppose a strict application of expectations, which has been asked many times by many people in the past, because this was completely unnecessary and unhelpful. For that reason, I state a personal view that such conduct is very unnecessary, and impolite ('rude', 'uncivil', whatever). And it is. I've also commented on others' comments in the discussion. That said, I haven't taken a stance on any actual action. I would have done so without hesitation if it was a more barbed insult (endorse), or if the complaint had no good basis (decline). On this occasion, I've left it as "comment". FT2 (Talk | email) 11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, happy we, that FT2 has told us that Giano's comments, unlike everyone else's, are to be seen in pure isolation and never in context. There is this logical fallacy called the quiddity (hope that's blue): it's a hypothesized substance that's in everything, and once you hypothesize it, you can see it in everything. "Civility" is this quiddity here. FT2, do you believe that you can determine "civility" in a single response to a long conversation, with no consideration to the provocation? Just for the record, let's see what the provocation was, eh?
  • Chillum, on Bishonen's talk page, where he had been told off and asked off before: "I am not really aware of what sort of connection you and Bishonen have, if you could enlighten me to its nature I could perhaps be more sensitive to you in the future when speaking to Bishonen."
  • I'm not putting that in a diff, but rather quoting it. That kind of slimy insinuation would get a punch in the nose in person. It got a verbal punch in the nose on Wikipedia. However, like a tardy substitute teacher, FT2 seems to think that it's Giano who has the problem with civility. Gloria in excelsius, we have found the prophets and sibyls of Wikipedia! There can be no other explanation, because a normal human being would say, "Stupid, creepy thing said, and abrupt cussing out in return: normal" and go on. Not here, though, because, with no personal animus at all FT2 can find the quiddity, weigh it in a pan, and endorse. Geogre (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Bishonen, FT2 is a reasonable person, in my experience. Calm yourself. There's no chance of blocking Giano II at this point, because he's already calmed down and any block would be punitive, rather than preventative, at this point. I do a considerable amount of troll fighting. I don't think I've every blocked anyone for incivility. Disruption, yes, but not incivility. It is my experience that incivility is best handled by redacting incivil comments, slow reverting them, or counseling the involved parties. Sometimes people get heated over a content or behavior dispute. Rather than treating the symptoms (incivility), it is better to cure the underlying disease (the dispute), if possible. I hope this helps. Jehochman Talk 12:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll give you three guesses. I'm glad you've been so lucky in your encounters with FT2. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks all of you for the support, however, but by talking to those fronting "Chillum's" latest attempt to get rid of me, and bring attention to himself, you are also encouraging FT2, to comment further. He knows, as do the Arbcom, I do not like him even mentioning my name. Such is my extreme distaste for him. However, as he yet again attacks me and seizes, saliva dripping, this opportunity to attack me, I feel forced to respond, if only for the sake's of any new editors who may not know of him. As Bishonen says above, if he had one scrap of honour or dignity he would not be o this page at all. Most people see straight through him so I suppose it matters not. In his way, he is every bit as bad as the editor currently known as "Chillum," who having posted his lurid and vulgar insinuation for the titillation of his pathetic friends on IRC#admins, immediately ran to them bleating bleating when he got his well deserved punch on the nose. He did this in an attempt to repeat the previous block of me which he orchestrated on IRC#admins by User:Kwsn (The same #admins that FT2 assures us is properly regulated etc. etc. etc.) Following that block, FT2 even had the gall to use my having some edits oversighted oversighted to protect an IRC Admin, (member an Admin with oversight had to agree with me) as a pretext to attack me further. He truly is a person with no honour or scruples. I have no doubt he will come back here with some verbose diatribe, but the problem is now that every time the Arbcom drag me into one of their instantaneously accepted cases built on thin air and hope, they are more and more damaged. Every time FT2 open his mouth they are even more damaged. Everyone with half a brain now sees straight through them - and have they yet addressed the IRC problem? (hat they promised us all they would) No, of course not. Why? ....Because it is owned by one of their number, and they probably feel it is the only place that gives them the support to keep them where they are. In that respect, I dare say they are for once quite correct. Giano (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


  • I've been asked to comment here. Sometimes, unfortunately, the best response to a useless twit is to say they are so. Paul August 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Paul, but for how much longer are these twits going to be allowed to crawl all over Wikipedia from IRC behaving in this fashion. What is being done about it - is "Chillum" an Admin - is this the behaviour to be expected from an Admin? Giano (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Paul, that comment is out of line and you know it, especially from an arbitrator. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the Giano matter at hand, but come on. Wizardman 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
My apologies to Chillum, I did not mean to imply that he actually is a "useless twit". Looked at from a certain point of view — a view I hold — no human being can be appropriately described as such. But, there are certainly people who act badly, and sometimes saying so without mincing words is what's needed. I am not saying that this was necessarily called for in this case, only that in some cases it is. That was the point I was trying to make, if ineptly. And by the way in the spirit of calling a spade a spade, and in the interests of trying to offend all sides equally, Giano is perfectly capable of being a useless twit himself. Paul August 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The "call a spade a spade" philosophy falls over precisely because 1/ it aims at labelling not at resolving, 2/ because no two people will agree on whether the person is in fact a "spade", which is pointless to debate anyway since what we actually care about is their impact on the project and its other editors. This philosophy is just a recipe for bad feelings and future conflict. Saying someone acts badly -- and discussing actual examples and the effect of that conduct on the project -- is not the same as needlessly using epithets (I frequently find myself telling users very bluntly and without mincing words what their conduct is like, and their proximity to the block button, and I have never found it necessary to call them "twits" or any other epithet to so so.)
Ultimately all disputes that are not about legitimate content questions, are complete wastes of volunteer effort, and a distraction from adding to the encyclopedia. Gratuitously creating or encouraging dispute, calling people names -- whoever might do it -- or any of the other friction-stirring things we have communally agreed to try and avoid, is human... but so is bias, POV, and OR. If we keep our communal agreement that bias, POV and OR don't have a place (despite being very human traits), we can equally well keep the communal agreement that pointless insulting behavior that doesn't help the project doesn't have a place either, despite that being common. To say "people can't help it" is an excuse. They can, or they can learn to, every bit as much as people can learn NPOV and NOR or they will hit these kinds of problems. Yes, this will upset some who want freedom to act up and the right to act as they would off-site, and to call others names of their choosing. And yet it's a discipline that I believe helps the project if followed. More to the point, it's one we have all communally agreed to. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

An observation: Isn't it amazing how when an opportunity to have me blocked is presented or a kangaroo arbitration case held how quickly these things can be opened, but the second they appear to be failing to go in the required direction, they can be speedily archived and shunted off out of sight [28] truly amazing indeed. Wikipedia gets more like a third world junta every day. The arbcom and their IRC friends can't keep hiding the truth for ever. Giano (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

John Buscema[edit]


User:Lysy and User:Piotrus[edit]

ScienceApologist and water fluoridation: incivility and POV pushing[edit]

Jean-Thierry Boisseau[edit]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]