It must not have gone unnoticed that the very recent cases of "admin abuse" accusations regarding the blocks of Giano and Mongo are (more than superficially) similar in many respects - but that some people who supported or opposed the block of one took the opposite view of the other.

More than a couple of editors who pointed to MONGO's many thousands of good edits were unimpressed by Giano's contributions when it comes to enacting Arbcom Enforcement, while there are those who noted MONGO's penchant for incivility over the years were more relaxed about Giano's testing the limit of his Arbcom sanction.

Mind you, what is most interesting is Giano's support for MONGO - well, more the opposition to supposed admin abuse by Tango - and the numbers of MONGO's support team who have turned out in decrying Giano's block. There are a few names that may have been a surprise to some outsiders, but careful consideration should provide an obvious answer; very few of the political players of WP are stupid, and most would have instinctively realised that they could not oppose one party and support the other without appearing hypocritical. Of course, an argument can be made for supporting the block of MONGO and yet seeking the lifting of one on Giano - but it would likely involve a argument phrased in subtleties that would have been drowned by the noise and heat currently being generated.

I would also like to advertise my services as a fortune teller - about my second or third comment on the MONGO block was that any tariff of more than a couple of hours was going to bring about the usual pro-MONGO and never mind what the rules say crowd - and probable non-consensual lifting of the block.

I'm not altogether unrelieved that that the Giano block and resultant debate kicked off just as I was retiring for the night.

Who do you like in the World Series this year?

A rather astute observation, all in all... the similarities were not lost on me.

My take on the issue - some people take civility too far against some users

I do think that civility is important, but I don't think that someone being under "civility parole" should mean anything more than harsher consequences, or that "probation", should mean anything other than being closely watched - for things that are ACTUALLY CONSIDERED UNCIVIL from others.

In other words, I don't like the attitude that something can be called incivility coming from one person (I think it was ScienceApologist at the time I spoke on this issue on-wiki a few weeks ago) when it would not be if it were coming from someone else.

This phenomenon is common enough that the word "hypocrisy" exists to denote it.

This might be too cynical: it is often enough that, upon recognizing the similarity and analogy between a cause they already support, and one which is subsequently presented or re-presented to them, are moved to support the second, even changing their minds.

Most fair-minded people who takes a close look at these block will see the pettiness behind them, and conclude them wrong, and unbecoming of administrators who would like to be considered mature adults.

I don't see why lifting blocks should be "consensual" re the blocking admin. Who came up with this? I don't recall it ever working that way, but somewhere along the line, a consensus of administrators developed that reverting another administrator's block - "wheelwarring"- was some kind of class betrayal. Supposing the block was wrong, the only damage is to the blocking administrator's ego…but then, fragile egos are exactly why Giano and MONGO are getting blocked to being with.

MONGO talked back to me, an administrator! How dare he! Giano questioned an Arbitrator, then he called me a "stalker-gnome"! Who does he think he is? A block will teach him!

Pathetic.

It's worse than pathetic - it's Wikipedia 2008.

Giano

When I was a young child, I can recall my mother speaking of manners and hearing adults use words like polite and rude. No one ever bothered to clearly define these words, so their meaning was something of a mystery, especially since their usage varied from one adult or teacher to the next. Later, I also became aware of words like civility, tact, and diplomacy.

Many newspapers of the day carried a column called "Miss Manners" which competed for space with "Goren on Bridge". It occurred to me that if adults were reading these columns on a daily basis, they must be about something that takes a lifetime to learn.

When I graduated from school, they gave me a piece of paper called a diploma which I gathered was something a diplomat would need in order to practice diplomacy. In New York City, I learned that diplomats rode in limousines with DPL plates, which gave them license to double park, avoid paying traffic fines, and get away with other rude behavior on the public streets.

I eventually learned (quite late in life) that there was a subject called Politeness Theory that one could learn if one wanted to practice the art of being polite, well-mannered, tactful, and diplomatic.

Who knew?

I think I remember that discussion - without raising an opinion on what SA had supposedly said (or done) I commented that SA had likely violated the terms of his civility parole, which I tend to think as a permanent last/final warning. Where some accounts may have had a warning, even "only" the minimum good faith level one, someone on a civility parole can be considered as exceeding that "last chance". Supposedly that is what SA had done, and got the subsequent block.

As I remember, I withdrew from that discussion soon afterward as it appeared to me that my explanation of what may have happened was being taken as condoning it. It wasn't, but I sensed that few people were interested in such detail.

Ever since his first block for "harassment" (telling an editor that Wikipedia could do without open pedophiles) Giano has made it his business to stand up for all sorts of things that he perceives as admin abuse. He is often right, the problem is his manner. So it is no surprise he would stand up for a bad block of MONGO.

There is the problem in a nutshell - for someone who supported the block of MONGO (albeit for a far shorter duration than was initially or subsequently applied) and who is happy to have missed the excitement regarding Giano's; MONGO's block wasn't bad, IMO, and even some of those who thought Tango was inappropriate to have levied it agreed with the premise that there was a violation.

Giano, indeed is often right, and the problem is his manner - but MONGO is often (not always, or even mostly) wrong, and his problematic style makes it more so. Giano targets ArbCom, and those he feels allows them their excesses, and abusive admins. MONGO targets trolls and troll enablers and considers anyone who dare criticise him or those who act similarly - or is otherwise what MONGO considers he is not - to be that very thing.

The big difference was MONGO was warned, and showed his contempt for the warning and the fact that the whole damn world is sick of his incivility. Giano wasn't warned, but was de-escalating the confrontation anyway. And once acquainted with 1=2's history, I'm sure he would have backed off from the stalking sentence as well. It was supposed to be funny-irritated. Mongo was just saying "piss off".

There's no hypocrisy:

1) MONGO is part of the establishment.

2) Giano is villified by the establishment.

Giano getting blocked is - and continues to be - a response to him fighting those powers. MONGO getting blocked is because he's a dick.

The last two times MONGO was blocked, by Krimpet and Tango respectively, it was for blanking warnings from the blocking administrator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...page=User:MONGO

I'm not sure what definition of "the establishment" you can propose that doesn't include administrators.

He was blocked for telling someone to 'get lost' as I understand it from reading the admin noticeboard.

Both are true: Tango blocked him for telling him to get lost while removing his warning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204721651