you'd probably be surprised how much I work in the background saying "no, that's not okay, change or else bad things are probably going to happen if you don't change.

Which is why you'll see my arb election wasn't just supported by some "usual suspects", but by a wide range, including an exceptional number of well known "difficult" or blocked users (Rambutan/Porcupine, Jeeny, Vintagekits, and both ScienceApologist and Whig on both sides of the pseudoscience issue),

It's part of my view that we can improve this project and that this will feed through into better content

Although Giano is popular and JzG less so, talking to JzG I find he accepts more readily if he does wrong

Ultimately bad conduct drives others away

Now months and years later, given that response to date, we're much more into "change or block".

Longish answer I'm afraid, but hopefully a readable one.
It's ultimately about every person's use of language, that's not helping to collaborate, but used to attack, upset, undermine, or corrode. Its about a culture amongst some established groups and users (on different sides of things) that this is okay and somehow praiseworthy even if it adds nothing to content and discourages other users from involvement. It applies completely to other editors too, and you'd probably be surprised how much I work in the background saying "no, that's not okay, change or else bad things are probably going to happen if you don't change. Talk to me, get help if you need it, ask others to advise, but don't do it." A lot of the time people understand it's trying to help them. Those who can't or won't, it eventually ends up on-wiki as warnings instead.
I give hugely of time and effort to do this - I put hours that as a living being, I will have only once in my life, to try and coax and convey that such things have to change on Wikipedia. Admin standards, user standards, dialog standards. All matter. Not doing so brings unfair blocks, unfair harassment claims, hurt feelings, and many other dysfunctions.
I'm after improvement, not placebos. And yes I do and have spoken to JgZ in private, who tries to listen more than Giano does, and has fewer direct sanctions than Giano does, which is why I have not had to act on his case yet. I hope I won't have to, but he knows (it's no secret) that if my judgement was that I had to, I would. I also spoke several times to Giano in private too, and for the same exact reason, to try and defuze the matter. And many others. Which is why you'll see my arb election wasn't just supported by some "usual suspects", but by a wide range, including an exceptional number of well known "difficult" or blocked users (Rambutan/Porcupine, Jeeny, Vintagekits, and both ScienceApologist and Whig on both sides of the pseudoscience issue), even by users I'd warned or blocked or who had been sanctioned at ArbCom, and so on. I'm willing to put the work in myself to try and help those who find it hard, whilst I feel they might be willing to change.
It's part of my view that we can improve this project and that this will feed through into better content and proportionately less need for disputes (including less use of extreme measures like arbitration) over time. As others do bot work and vandalism patrol for the community, I try to help or deal with tough cases in the background. Sometimes one can, sometimes one can't. One can always hope and try.
For JzG, I have had occasion to talk with him. That's his and my private communication, as my email dialogs with Giano remain his and my private communication. Respect that. But yes, they exist, and on identical grounds. However Giano is at a point where the community has brought him to Arbitration. I didn't; no arbitrator did. The community did. More than once, for the same issues. That's not "pure chance". The latest request brought no less than an unprecedented four experienced users stating these problems were real ones. I take that seriously, as a sign that multiple users assess his conduct as not-okay. Reviewing, I agree.
Although Giano is popular and JzG less so, talking to JzG I find he accepts more readily if he does wrong, and at times has taken steps to avoid it - asking others, venting in ways that are less harmful to the wiki, and so on. I'm working to help, there. Talking to Giano I mostly find bluster, games, and denial. He's never once said "yes, if I have an unhelpful negative effect on others enjoyment then thats something I would like to learn to avoid". That is more of concern. Ultimately bad conduct drives others away and poisons the well (as Doc G says). It ripples out. For those reasons it's not okay. The communal norm says good manner from one to another, good dialog, collaboration not attack, is important. In the entire existence of the project not one edit has been communally adopted long-term to say that it's okay for some and not others.
Giano has had my comments, like you say. I don't even want to polarize this "about Giano"; that just makes him feel attacked. It's about all who treat others roughly verbally and all who shout when called to account. Thats many users, not just one or two. Giano's an editor who has been directed to treat others better; when he does I have no other interest in him. It's the community's right to say that certain conduct is not okay. He's had arbitration cases and expressions of concern since 2006 or earlier. Now it's basically, "do it, or accept that there are sanctions if you don't or can't". If you can suggest any way to help him not unhelpfully mishandle or bully others or do the harm he does by his manner of speech to other users, I'd jump at it. I'd put the work in myself (and have) if he'd wish it or show a sign he would change it.
But it has to work, not just be "empty promises", and has to address his style of speech to other users. Do that, however it can be done, and I'd be happy beyond belief. Don't, and further sanctions are probably inevitable. The time when that wasn't the case, Giano decided to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For years, not just months. God knows how many decent editors who didn't like that style, he drove off (hurt, discouraged) through his bullying tone and cleverness with borderlining and speech in that time, or how many were encouraged in the "let's attack others" habit from him. So that's now gone. Now months and years later, given that response to date, we're much more into "change or block". It's not okay, and Giano must finally deal with it.
Can we help him? Only if he lets us. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why you'll see my arb election wasn't just supported by some "usual suspects", but by a wide range, including an exceptional number of well known "difficult" or blocked users

I would like to remind both of you that when you speak of Giano that you are talking about a real person. I feel uncomfortable with the manner that you both are analyzing him. Debating about him outside of our normal dispute resolution process is not helpful to the situation, I think. My 2 cents. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point FloNight, and the same applies to JzG as well, though I would still appreciate input on whether a request for comments in Giano's case might work better than the current set-up. More generally, and not mentioning any particular person, why do we block and ban real people from Wikipedia who quite obviously can contribute constructively? At some level, that is a failure of the Wikipedia systems of dispute resolution, not the person who is blocked. Carcharoth (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise to Giano and Guy (JzG) if either of them read this and felt they were, to use FloNight's phrase, overanalyzed. We can do that too much sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some links and context here? And shouldn't this be in the Editors forum?

Can we get some links and context here? And shouldn't this be in the Editors forum?

...and isn't the simple summary: "The current dispute resolution does not work, whether you are for us, or against us."? It alienates both the editors who get frustrated with the control systems, and the admins who get frustrated by their inability to manage a difficult range of problems.

In fact I'd cast it wider. Wikipedia has thrown together some arbitrary systems to deal with certain issues. They may be good enough for their purpose, such as IRC, but even so they are not beyond (constructive) criticism.

Wikipedia needs to understand that changes to the quirky little systems like RFCs and ArbCom and means of communication are required:

- because their very uniqueness makes them exclusive of users;
- functionally they are suspect. The major ArbCom cases are not providing resolutions satisfactory to any party.
- with a very large (dis)organisation, audits and openness are a fundamental requirement to allow proper control and accountability.

WMF would do well to sit back and ask the question: "How do we support editors when things get difficult?"

- What is the content resolution process? Who can be arbiters when content goes astray, rather than letting individual editors or admins hold the fort and become entrenched and paranoid?
- When disputes arise, how can we fairly handle them, without allowing groups to manipulate the system?
- How can we encourage a friendly environment, over the increasingly toxic, politicised environment that is evolving?
- Are the current policies in place, evolved and controlled by a subset of the community, part of the problem, and should these policies be the remit of the WMF rather than the community to protect them from abuse (assuming that you believe that a post-Jimbo WMF could be a more functional group than the "community" at large)?

I'm sure there are others. I'm rather tired of Wikipedians claiming that the current systems work, that policy works and so on. These things are fixable, but not if there is some fable-based misconception that there are no problems, only trolls and disruptors. Why not get a clean sheet of paper, someone with experience of successful online communities, and work out a fresh set of policies and procedures - ones that make sense to real people, not student dropouts. Isn't that what the WMF should be doing?

I had not commented on it, because it's an old Wikipedia principle that if something is a problem, others will raise it. We tell editors that same advice quite often, "if that article were genuinely problematic, others will turn up to edit it". As it happens, my focus is on Giano's treatment of others and the harm that it does. I have zero (personal) interest whatsoever in stooping to say that being called names does or doesn't offend. Both are forms of enabling and merely validate that game. The fact that one user can handle something or another cannot, is not a reflection whether that something is okay. I shall not ask any user to act for me, or not to do so. Administrators are expected to comprehend basics such as what is within norms, what is appropriate, or what is not, regardless, and form their own views. My interest is the impact of such a manner of speech on others and the community, ie, an administrative nature. Any comments to me, would be improper for me to pay attention to; admins correcting a users behavior must expect that user try and stop them doing so. That is not a comment on specific statements; it's more about a choice when acting administratively, to focus on the actual issue alone. Sometimes other admins will act too, sometimes they won't - it's happened both ways in different cases. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a really long comment - I read it several times and I still don't understand what point you are making. Kelly hi! 00:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect by the amount of times FT2 rewrote what he said (see the page history), that he wasn't entirely sure what he was saying either.

Actually, FT2, I am a native English speaker of a considerable number of years and I am having considerable difficulty parsing your comment above, so I can readily see why Giano would be having trouble parsing your comment. --Iamunknown 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another piece of rambling disconnected nonsense.
<snip>
But now I suspect people are beginning to catch on to what's happening.

Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my analysis of FT2?

I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even exclusivism. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why FT2's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that he wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to tell FT2 where he can stick it. The facts are in: FT2 is begging the question when he says that his sentiments will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society.

Although Giano is popular and JzG less so, talking to JzG I find he accepts more readily if he does wrong, and at times has taken steps to avoid it - asking others, venting in ways that are less harmful to the wiki, and so on. I'm working to help, there. Talking to Giano I mostly find bluster, games, and denial. He's never once said "yes, if I have an unhelpful negative effect on others enjoyment then thats something I would like to learn to avoid".

I'm rather tired of Wikipedians claiming that the current systems work, that policy works and so on. These things are fixable, but not if there is some fable-based misconception that there are no problems, only trolls and disruptors.

Another piece of rambling disconnected nonsense.

I have zero personal interest in whether or not a certain administrator does or does not follow the basic forms of personal speech. My interest is the focus of where other administrators will act, as sometimes they will and other times they will not. I will not ask any adminstrator to act for me in ways which reflect on another administrator in context, whatever that context may be. I have a brown fudgie in my underwear. This is not a choice that administrators have when acting to pay attention to specific statements; more, it is a view which will be shared by editors....

Couldn't agree more, dogbiscuit.

An interesting comment added by Cla68 (link)

Arbitrator FT2 seems to have taken on a crusade to try to have Giano behave "according to norms", writing long convoluted posts that several editors have found completely baffling; several of these posts appear to psychoanalyse Giano to the point of personal attack themselves. Most distressing to me, he has used a rape analogy to explain the harm of calling someone names. It was suggested he reconsider his words - so instead of removing the rape analogy, he changed the word "skirt" to "clothes". There's a problem when an arbitrator cannot see the huge gulf between sexual attacks on women, and using a standard on-wiki and on-IRC expression ("stalker") that is misinterpreted due to private information of which the speaker is unaware.

Right now Giano is angry. When he tried to work out his anger in a constructive way by writing a personal essay, he got a warning on his userpage. When he tried to express his opinion on ANI, his perceived personal attack was compared to rape.

Effects on the community

The community has started to realise that its dispute resolution mechanisms are rarely effective in the way they are intended. User and admin RfCs, because they are non-binding, become attack pages that linger for weeks and months without resolution, and never really go away. Arbitration fails to resolve the root causes of the disruptions that bring cases before them, in part because they do not permit decisions related to content, but also because of the haphazard way in which evidence is developed and presented. There is often no analysis of issues that drive the case, and only rarely are serious attempts made to resolve them.

The result of this dysfunctional dispute resolution system is that almost every editor who is involved, often just to a peripheral degree, is damaged. There is no effective way to heal those wounds. Once tainted, their contributions are devalued, often without conscious thought.

We need to stop this cycle. We need to let people function in this community without every keystroke being scrutinized. We need to find ways of listening when questions are asked without assuming bad faith on the part of the questioner. We need to get back to the project's goals and leave the rest behind.

--Risker (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

odd, Riskers comments aren't on the talk space anymore, and nothing in the history mentions them being removed...

# (cur) (last) 22:54, 17 April 2008 Giano II (Talk | contribs) (837 bytes) (I can no longer stand the fucking place!) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 22:49, 17 April 2008 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) (10,652 bytes) (→Hear Hear: a long rant) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 22:19, 17 April 2008 Privatemusings (Talk | contribs) (7,863 bytes) (→Hear Hear: fix sig) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 22:19, 17 April 2008 Privatemusings (Talk | contribs) (7,788 bytes) (→Effects on the community: I agree, for what they may be worth.....) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 21:59, 17 April 2008 Risker (Talk | contribs) (7,743 bytes) (adding) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 07:14, 17 April 2008 Giano II (Talk | contribs) (837 bytes) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:31, 16 April 2008 Giano II (Talk | contribs) (empty) (Enough for one day!) (undo)

Here it is...

I can't help thinking what a pity that some of those with such time on their hands, and skill at typing and commenting don't expend half as much energy on writing a page as they do on me. This is all too long now, it is beginning to look like one of FT2's posts, so I'll stop.

Thanks for the moral boosting you do here.

Giano

it was actually the battered wife comment here, that made me think for a moment, but that implies self-pity, something I hate.