Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:36, 16 January 2009

Certification

There is no evidence, yet, of trying to resolve this dispute. A request for arbitration was made and speedily rejected. Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution, not the first. Citing prior arbitrations as evidence of dispute resolution does not satisfy the RFC requirements. You need to come up with something much better or this page will be deleted at the end of the time allowed. Jehochman 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

which I expect will be the result, as there apparently was no prior attempt at dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua 00:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems a strained interpretation of the last year. To suggest that this is coming out of the blue and not following a well-wrought history of attempts by people to solve the problem seems... well. I do not think that is an accurate description of things. I would also suggest that the "referred by arbcom" nature of this RFC mitigates in favor of its retention, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not suggesting this is "coming out of the blue". Suggesting there was not an attempt by you to resolve this amicably with Giano. I very well may have missed it - I don't read everything on this wiki. I do note that the section Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute is notably free of difs. KillerChihuahua 01:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting this would be ridiculous. Does anyone deny there is a dispute here? No ruleslawyering please. Friday (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am so sorry to hear you say that deleting an Rfc which has zero difs for any attempt to resolve the issue is "ruleslawyering" and "ridiculous". It is something which has helped keep the number of frivolous Rfc's down to a tiny fraction of what they would be did we not "ruleslawyer". KillerChihuahua 01:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But this one is clearly not frivolous. Can anyone seriously claim it is?! Friday (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some attempts, I am adding some that I know of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see that. I am very sorry that Phil, who knows better, didn't see fit to do so. KillerChihuahua 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that trying to get this RfC closed down for lack of certification might be technically correct but not necessarily a good idea when viewed in the larger picture. ++Lar: t/c 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there will be some other discussions on giano's talk page where someone has asked nicely rather than a confrontation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its worth noting that Phil was directed here by ArbCom - and is distinctly pessimistic about it.--Tznkai (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As Phil has made a point of it on the Rfc page itself, I believe that's already covered - unless you had something else in mind? KillerChihuahua 12:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Outside view by Privatemusings

heh! - it's somehow very wiki to be engaged in a process even the instigator thinks is a bad idea... almost da-daesque Privatemusings (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I know. The situation makes me expect to see a herd of rhinos running past at any moment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

well I'll put out the chairs, maybe we should add 'sort out the meaning of life' to the desired outcomes? Probably be easier.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Casliber's comments

I am more invested in the issue of seeing the disruptive and destructive behavior than in the mechanics. However, it has seemed to me like part of what has overwhelmed past attempts at resolution has been the widening of the focus. Yes, Giano has written some fantastic articles. Yes, many of the situations in which Giano has made personal attacks have been ugly on all sides. However, I do not think that either of these facts removes the underlying issue - that his tendency towards personal attacks is destructive.

I mean, I'll proceed in whatever direction this goes, and I'll follow it through until the problem is solved. I'm committed to the issue. But I'm skeptical that a wide-ranging discussion will help. Still - whatever people prefer. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to get across is that a confrontational approach I fear will be bloody, drawn out and unproductive. The widening of the focus is necessary for understanding the context. Anyway, we'll see how it unfolds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano

Okay, I've never understood this whole situation. I've never dealt personally with Giano, but I know he comes up near-constantly on every noticeboard as causing problems. What is the net benefit from not blocking him? Can someone give some examples of the mitigating factors? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking a look at the merit of some of the 'causing problems' comments, shoe... personally, I see Giano as someone who highlights real problems elsewhere in the project, and a huge wiki asset. Privatemusings (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, he talks about real problems. Sometimes, he just rants about crazy bullshit things. He'd be far more effective if he'd reign himself in a bit. Friday (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Friday, would you consider refactoring that sentiment into a more genteel phrasing? If we want Giano to exercise greater civility it's imperative that the resto of us demonstrate it. Durova 03:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Giano's a big boy- I know he can handle frank discussion. I've replaced "bullshit" with "things", but I can't imagine this actually makes a difference. Friday (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano is one of en.Misplaced Pages's most prominent gadflies, although that description perhaps doesn't do complete justice to his actual contributions in their entirety. He has done some seriously good work in highlighting problems with Misplaced Pages's administration, such the IRC channels and the use of secret email lists to coordinate on-wiki actions. I personally don't agree with all of his actions. For example, I didn't agree with how strongly and dramatically he was pressuring FT2 recently. I have yet, however, to see him found truly wrong on any issue that he has taken on. Thus, Giano serves in the important and necessary function of helping prevent corruption, power games, and dishonesty from taking place in the project's administration. Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

heh... well obviously milage varies, Friday - I've not noticed any crazy bullshit rants, and isn't that the sort of comment that Giano seems to be getting in hot water over? - I've got no problem with you saying that, or Giano calling someone a worm - I think skins are thick enough really to handle it. (side note - I'm not sure anyone is actually asserting that they've been upset or hurt by giano's comments? Trying to apply consensus to a fictional third party interpretation is bonkers, I reckon.... which probably means it's what we'll spend countless hours doing! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, Privatemusings? Let's keep this on the appropriate level. Durova 03:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot help but think that Giano would be more effective in highlighting problems if he did not make personal attacks and, by doing so, poison the discussions. I have not closely followed the issues that Giano has highlighted - I have no idea of their legitimacy. However, I cannot imagine that his caustic style is the most effective form of advocacy that he could undertake. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ah don't sweat it, Phil - seems to me that Giano's effectiveness is primarily his own concern..... I don't see giano's caustic nature being released on the wiki-innocent and unwary really (just a simple way of saying that DG, for example, doesn't seem particular hurt, upset, or distracted as yet) - I'd suggest that the context of comments, which includes their legitimacy or otherwise, is very important - and would recommend you take a look.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot imagine a context that would legitimize calling someone a worm and declaring them revolting. I mean, that just seems to me totally outside the realm of useful discourse, and well past the line we've had set up since the beginning of no personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ah, well I'd still recommend you take a look - what are your thoughts on 'rants about crazy bullshit' ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The times I have tried to garner a deeper understanding of Wikidrama have usually ended with me taking lots of Advil. I'm very much dubious of the "he was right" defense. But if you would like to explain the beneficial consequences of any of the 16 personal attacks I cited in this RFC, I'd be interested in hearing it. All I see is situations that got escalated in more dramatic and hysterical ways than were helpful, and discussions that got poisoned. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, your words don't carry much weight when you only have eyes for Giano's behavior. Just yesterday I read David Gerard spouting; "Summary: this is an idiot tempest driven by a banned WR troll and Giano's wounded sensibilities. Just because the wiki's biggest smoke machines are furiously pumping out clouds doesn't actually imply there's a fire." David has been acting like this for years and you've never had much of a problem with him. From a post of mine almost two years ago objecting to frivolous 'civility' blocks; "So lets look at the last few days of edits by the person who added the "persistent personal attacks" to the block policy: ass clownery, delete nominator, Shut up and quit being a disgrace, Ah, I see you're a different attention-seeking pissant entirely. My mistake" --Duk 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can name dozens of people who have made personal attacks, but this RfC is about Giano. If you want to start one on David, I'd love to read the evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks, I'm not into manufacturing drama, or having hissy fits about other's perceived lack of 'civility'. --Duk 02:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK then. But as for why I started one about Giano... because that was the one where I knew of a problem, and felt like I should dig deeper. I've not felt that about David. If someone does feel like he's that bad of a user, they should do the work o deal with it. But this is an RFC about Giano. To use a shortcut created for another debate, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The evidence I put above shows you don't care diddly-shit about editors' egregious personal attacks and incivilities. You are just using it a weapon to bludgeon Giano with. --Duk 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm really going to go start an RFC over two year old comments. This is a tiresome distraction. This RFC is not about David Gerard. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Any yet 'civility' is a subjective and relative concept. You can't judge one's 'civility' in a vacuum. Further, If you have one set of standards for Giano while anything goes for your little buddies, then I question your ethics, intellectual honesty and character. This little dramafest of yours is a waste of time. --Duk 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't find civility particularly subjective. Certainly calling someone repulsive and a worm is not civil by any normative definition of the word. And I would point out that "no personal attacks" is the more relevant policy here anyway. But I reject this idea that to have any comment on one person's conduct some wide galaxy needs to be considered. What conduct on anybody's part is it appropriate to respond to as Giano does? How does a response like that help anybody or anything? Unless there are answers to those questions somewhere in this context, I don't see that the context changes anything. If there are answers, by all means present them. But "Why not make this RfC about David Gerard" is as on-topic as "Why not make this RfC about hamburgers." Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Why not make this RfC about David Gerard" -- don't put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. I merely pointed out that while vilifying Giano you have no problems with Gerard's potty mouth. I guess your idea of 'civility' requires a buddy map for calculation. --Duk 10:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Giano doesn't cause problems, he protests them. And if you don't believe me maybe you'll believe Kelly Martin, one of the first power administrators/Arbitrators to suffer his wrath. A year or so after leaving Misplaced Pages, Kelley reminisced about Giano, and while I don't fully agree with what she said, the main point is solid; Giano doesn't like the project being harmed by stupidity. And as Privatemusings says, he is a huge asset. --Duk 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:Giano is only a problem when other Wikipedians are being stupid. When people aren't behaving stupid enough to set him off, he's a perfectly productive (and in fact quite good) article editor.

• I'm all for people being forthright in the face of stupidity. Call a spade a spade. Disagreement is allowed. But I still think Giano has crossed the line of acceptable behavior many times. He should tone it down a notch. I believe that's the point here. Friday (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel that he would get the same results if he toned it down? Of do you think the ends don't justify his means? Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer to that would depend on what you consider his "results" to be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's the point here .. no, Friday, Shoemaker's question was why Giano isn't just banned outright. --Duk 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I used to have an adversarial relationship with Giano. One day I tried being nice to him, and he responded in kind. We've gotten along fine since then. Others might try this approach, and not only with Giano. Jehochman 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other editors who have made personal attacks, but on the other hand, do the editors who have hostile interactions with Giano generally manage to have hostile interactions with such a large pool of people? One of the things I find most troubling about Giano's behavior is the sheer number of people he has attacked. If there are other people with such a widespread tendency towards personal attacks, by all means, give me their usernames and I'll start crunching diffs for an RFC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm beginning to get a bit more perspective on the issue now. Sorry to be controversial, but in an unusual situation such as this, how else would I ever understand it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

no worries shoe - though I'd preach a little more caution in wondering if there's any reason not to block anyone! Privatemusings (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is worth noting that Giano had a long and productive history and was never even mentioned on the admin noticeboards until he was indefinitely blocked by Carnildo in the Pedo userbox wars of Feb 2006. And he is not uncivil to other article contributors, it's not like he has the keyboard version of Tourette's syndrome. He is uncivil in certain specific situations, generally involving poor decision making by admins, sometimes toward himself and sometimes toward other users. And he is almost always right on principle. I would just like Giano to know that he does not have to go quite as far over the top as he does in order to bring attention to a problem. Thatcher 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Right on principle, Thatcher? What principle was served when he interrupted my featured content drive to take potshots at me last summer? How is his content work more sacrosanct than other people's? I don't hold grudges for when he called me out and had a cause, but months afterward--what he threw was pure vitriol. Durova 03:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I said almost always. I'm not aware of the incident you are referring to, but if he was going after months later or for an unrelated reason that sounds like more of a problem. Thatcher 08:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it may be fair that he is often "right on principle" in that he is often pointing at genuine problems - but that isn't always helpful. (Off the top of my head example: telling a physically handicapped person a cripple is technically correct - but unlikely to help them) That having been said, its my observation that he holds grudges (or acts similar to someone who does) far beyond the original incident. If theres ever a time when the edit not the editor principle needs to be better applied, its with Giano (from all sides). --Tznkai (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I quite like this approach

Here's a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

1. You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
2. You will need to be abundantly clear as to how exact wordings is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
3. Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")

I'd really appreciate a protagonist in this situation running through this process... Privatemusings (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)this process isn't mine, of course - I suspect many will know where I knuck it from...

You want me to explain why calling someone revolting or a worm is incivil? (Though I'd note, the more important policy here is No Personal Attacks.) Are there any of the diffs I've cited that you think aren't personal attacks? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Cla68's view

I am NOT getting into the "giano question" here, but I'm very concerned about the policy implications of what Cla states, and the fact that a sitting arb (Casliber) has endorsed it. I'm asking Cla and those who have endorsed this to reconsider/reword.

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.

Taken separately, these statements are true. Taken together, they dangerously imply that incivility in project or discussion pages is somehow somewhat trivial. "Facilitating a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia" requires rational and co-operative interaction between project participants - thus we have WP:AGF WP:NPA WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL which are outworkings of that requirement. These need to govern all interaction between wikipedians regardless of the space. I am very unlikely to say "Phil Sandifer should **** off" in article space, I just might say it on an article talk page, but it is no less damaging should I say it on his talk page, on an arbcom page, or during an afd.

To suggest that incivility outside article space only "technically crosses the incivility line", implying that it is wikilawyering the letter rather than observing the spirit of WP:CIVIL if one complains about it, seems to me quite ridiculous and sets and unjustifiable and dangerous precedent. One of the concern is that, whilst Giano's activity is (with all due respect) a very minor part of wikipedia, the activities of prominent wikipedians tend to set precedents of large numbers of others. That's certainly an issue, but far more worrying would be for us, in an attempt to analyse Giano's behaviour, to set down a policy interpretation that could have very wide effects, and basically limit our requirement for good standards of user interaction to only apply to article space.

I am genuinely surprised that people are endorsing this. Of course, I may well have totally misunderstood Cla's meaning. But if it is my misunderstanding, can I ask for the view to be clarified to avoid that possibility.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you up to a point Cla68, and that point is this "Thus, in my opinion, he isn't getting much, if at all, in the way of building an encyclopedia." Building an encyclopedia is certainly why we are all (supposed) to be here - and some of us (Giano) produce better, and more content than others (me). That isn't the only way to be productive - but it is certainly one of the best. That all having been said, I think Giano has genuinely disrupted article writing on Misplaced Pages - if only because he is providing a major distraction to other contributors. Civility policy - in fact all conduct policy - is meant to stop personal human distractions such as emotion, ego, insults, grudges and the like from misdirecting productive discussion and the production of neutral content.

Since various editors have defended Giano as effective despite/because of his strident tone - I'd like to note that cuts both ways. It distracts from article work. Giano himself is probably the best example of this: since coming back from his retirement on the 18th of December Giano has edited in article space four times, and article talk space twice and spent the rest of the time making noise (best, most neutral descriptor I have at the moment) about FT2 (and responding to this RFC), and I think we'd be hard pressed to say he added a great deal to resolve the FT2 matter. (As a matter of full disclosure my own productivity numbers are far worse).

Giano and his incivility have time and time again disrupted Misplaced Pages - if only by distraction - and further could the matter at hand because we spend a lot of time talking about his incivility. Is that Giano's fault alone? Probably not - but if we accept that it is natural to be uncivil while defending ones self (a common defense of incivility) - we have to accept that it is natural to get distracted and irritated about incivility. Incivility generally, is a problem - and is more of a problem in article and article talk space, sure - but it is still a problem elsewhere. Giano's incivility isn't all that special inherently, its the length of time and collateral damage its caused.--Tznkai (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"The spirit, but not necessarily the letter, of the incivility policy is, in my opinion, to facilitate a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia." was what I liked, and one of the best summations I have seen of WP:CIV to date. Thankfully I spent little time involved in some of the antics that I have recently seen in running for arbcom. I have been embarrassed at the literal interpretation of civility at times, where baiting or harassing people (albeit "politely") on people's own talk pages, or comments with the thinnest veneer of politeness have been ignored, among other things. The policy is fundamental but is only a building block in the ultimate aim of building a 'pedia, and as I said in my candidacy statement, it is important to take any outburst in context; as some of these colossal time-sinks would test the patience of a saint. I will add more as I think of it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on View by Jehochman

I'm not sure its a good idea for us all to write in length our interactions with Giano, but I will oblige anyway. I have blocked Giano once (was overturned quickly for a combination of good and in my opinion, bad reasons). I have commented on his talk page during a few incidents, and I have been on the receiving end of of a few insults and foul language.--Tznkai (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Outside View by Durova

I'm sorry, but I have looked at all your diffs, and tried to figure out what Giano did that was so awful, and I just can't find it. I found his comment "Just be a little darling and show some intersest in content"; that is patronizing and mildly sexist. And I found his request on your user page to consider all victims of terrorism. That was an intrusion on your user page, but it does not seem like a big deal to me. He may not have known about the role 9/11 played in your life (I didn't, until today), and no one knows (because he reveals nothing personal about himself) what his experience has been of terrorism. If he had posted his comment on your talk page it would have been cause for nothing more than a brief response pointing him to your own prior statements on how 9/11 affected you, or even just ignoring it. I just don't see that either of these comments constitutes evidence of sanctionable incivility (unless simple rudeness is now blockable). Am I missing the real real meat here? Thatcher 12:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the 9/11 comment can be very easily read to be offensive with no fault to the reader. I'm having trouble putting it into words, but telling someone whose asking for dignity in remembering 9/11 that their appeal is too limited, and that their government was shamed by 9/11 into doing something about the Troubles... its just kinda mean. Maybe there is no mens rea here, but this is pretty damned insensitive - an excellent example of where less could have been much more. "Durova - there are many other victims of terrorism world over... perhaps you could expand your appeal?" would've been so much better, and thats just off the top of my head.--Tznkai (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me we are probably getting off the main point here:"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." I may be putting words into Durova's mouth, but Giano's unapproachable nature/reputation (certainly enhanced by, if not originating in incivility and personal attacks) makes resolving what may have been a differing point of view difficult - and gives it the potential to become an incident that causes bad blood.

In response to Giano's comment "In your part of the world it may be out of fashion, perhaps it was never in fashion - in other parts of the world the "endearing diminuitive"..." We could argue about whether that statement in context is patronizing regardless of cultural context (I can't think of a culture off the top of my head where the endearing diminutive is used without a requisite amount of personal familiarity first) - but I'd rather ask you directly: can you at least see why it would be reasonable to be offended, or at least annoyed by your statements here?--Tznkai (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will say, regarding the endearing diminutive, that a similar level of comment by me - one that was simply a poor choice of words that I quickly retracted and apologized for - was taken by many of those pillorying this RfC as grounds for a finding of fact about incivility and personal attacks on my part. The double standard is, to say the least, disappointing.

I would also suggest, to Thatcher, that "little dear" is something where it matters who is saying it. If, to pick a thoroughly uncontroversial user, Calsiber called someone a "little dear," we would probably overlook it. But when it comes from somebody with a long history of personal attacks, many of which are in no way ambiguous, it is much harder to overlook the borderline and marginal cases. This comes down to a matter of assuming good faith. It is easy to assume good faith in one who has not repeatedly demonstrated bad faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this does have to be said; I was hoping there wouldn't be a need. Giano had previously invited the only female arbitrator of the 2008 Committee to choke on his testicles. Durova 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know that. I am much sadder about this entire situation and the willingness of people to let it fester now. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As the above know very well edit 3 referred to the confusion over the meaning of edit 1. Where I clearly refer to emasculation and castration in a reference to the agricultural operation for quietening a wild animal. Which was the comparison made by me to one suggestion at an Arbitration case. I do not believe I have ever invited Flo Nite to choke on anyone's testicles. So criminally wicked, devious, malicious and false is Durova's assertion her, that I shall no longer be taking part in the ridiculous and lying RFC. Giano (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Geogre's view

I think Geogre has it wrong when he calls WP:CIVIL a "non-policy"--I went and looked at the page and saw a policy tag on it. We can't both be right. Seriously though, civility and "No personal attacks" are policies, for the real and good reason that a collaborative project depends on a healthy environment, one in which editors treat each other with respect--even if you don't think they deserve it. I think it's unfortunate that an administrator thinks that's bunk, but we've been over this before with getting anywhere. The policy doesn't say "no personal attacks in the article space, but roundly abuse those quisling administrators all you like." Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This has nothing to do with emotions. The reasoning behind WP:NPA is not that people's feelings get hurt - it is that introducing personal attacks to a discussion ensures that nothing productive comes of the discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding certification

I'm perfectly willing to remove my name from the certification. This RfC, it is worth noting, is a refiled request for arbitration that multiple arbitrators immediately (within an hour of it being posted) asked to go through RfC first. This left me a bit of a problem, as I was not an especially involved user, which is fine for a RFAr, but trickier for an RfC due to the issue of certification.

However, looking at the issue, it seemed clear that certification was, in this case, a technicality at best. The issue had been referred down by arbcom, and seriously, who was going to argue that there was no basis for a community dispute over Giano's behavior? The issue of multiple users trying and failing to resolve the dispute was, it seemed to me, very much evident. I listed the two RFArs (one of which I had no involvement in whatsoever) as examples of prior dispute resolution on this issue, and certified that a dispute existed. My reasoning was that the text of the certification section did not seem to specify that I had to be the one who tried to resolve the dispute - merely that efforts to resolve the dispute existed, and that multiple users were involved. So I presented evidence of past efforts, and certified that this was the case.

If anyone feels this reading of the situation sullies the RfC in a significant way, I'm happy to remove my name from the certification list. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of not having this issue overwhelm the actual issue, I've retracted my certification. As the RfC is still doubly certified, this changes little. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)