Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Giano II/Questions for the candidate

Questions from Majorly (responded)

These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)

1. How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
2. Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?

Thanks for your time. Majorly (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1: I try (I don't always succeed) to keep a sense of humour and persective. I also have a huge conscience, I hate seeing people bullied or down-trodden merely because their repartee or editing skills are less able than those of some others.

2: I make a point of never discussing my "real life" on Wikipedia. I do have experiences but you will have to take them on trust, I'm afraid. Giano 13:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from xaosflux (responded)

1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)

1: Oversight has to be in safe hands. In my view should be the prerogative of admins of very long standing. However, there are very strict guidelines as to when it can be used, and often it needs to be used in a hurry to protect private information. So it is essential that quite a few people have it here are the current holders [1].

2:Checkuser concerns me more. The owners of checkuser have to be 101% trustworthy no ifs and buts. There are already very strict and new rules concerning eligibility to have checkuser rights see here [2]. In addition to these rules, In a perfect world, I would like to see it confined to Arbcom members only who by their position have been given the community's mandate and trust. It is certainly not necessary for all Arbcom members to have it, and certainly not necessary for former members to have it. However, this is not a perfect world though and there is heavy demand for the service in order to counter the ever increasing damage caused to the site. So my idyllic few with the privilege would not be enough people to fulfil the increasing demand for the service, so a thorough vetting and consultation with the community as a whole needs to be in place. I think the rules as of April this year have gone some way towards re-assuring me and others who have concerns on the subject.

However, there are loophole in most rules and the CheckUser rules are no exception. What I find concerning regarding current checkuser use is that an ordinary non-admin on Wikipedia can have checkuser rights on Commons - I assume they do have to be an admin there. These people are then in a position to abuse their checkuser powers by using checkuser on Wikipedia editors, on matters unrelated to commons, even though they are not admins here or been granted checkuser rights to do so. Here is a list of those with CheckUser rights on Wikipedia [3]. On a very recent occasion a rogue Checkuser published an editors IP on Wikipedia, in order to discredit him on his RFA page - a candidate incidentally who was nominated by a runner in this present Arbcom election (not me). Few seemed to find it the slightest bit odd or worrying. I find it very worrying indeed. A true Wikipedia CheckUsers should never do that - we hope. They are given the tools to use because it is thought they have a strong respect for people's privacy. I think this is a problem that should be addressed promptly - it is not something we should be tolerating. This is the sort of thing I would like to see changed at Wikipedia. Giano 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc (responded)

Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not subject areas, I am very open minded. If a close wiki-friend was heavily involved in a case, of if I had been involved myself in anyway in events leading to that case then of course I would recuse. If a subject was very technical on a subject about which I knew nothing then perhaps I would not choose to become involved in that case. For example two editors warring over American Tax law, or a Scientific treaty. Content though is not really an Arbcom problem but sometimes I think a slight knowledge of the subject is perhaps useful. Giano 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718 (responded)

1. Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
2. Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?

Thanks, east.718 at 14:46, 11/2/2007

1: I'm not so conceited as to think that I will change anything overnight. No I don't think they take too long to close cases - it far better to have a full evaluation and time for thought than to have regrets at leisure. I'm sure as with any catalogue of enquiries if one researched heavily there would be occasions when a case has closed too soon. Sometimes varying facets of cases do probably fail to grab the attention they deserve. To ensure this does not happen the Arbitrator would have to be juror and detective rather than just to assess the evidence presented. I'm not sure it would even be fair to consider evidence not presented the most important quality for an arbitrator is to be impartial and seen to be impartial. I do sometimes wonder how carefully some Arbitrators read the workshop and discussion pages relating to cases. Were I am arbitrator I would read everything available on the subject and not be detracted by screams of "Troll" at others trying to do the same but from a lesser vantage point. I could only suggest other Arbs do the same, and draw their attention to anything I feel they may have overlooked.

2: I think it would be wrong to single out specific cases. It would be unfair to those involved who have moved on. I see Arbcom cases more as opportunities to clear the air than as courts to dispense punishment, although inevitably sometimes sanctions have to be taken. In generally I think too much is left to Fred Bauder who at times writes some Draconian proposals - fortunately these are generally modified. On the whole I don't feel the Arbcom is currently vengeful and Fred I suspect is just a motivating catalyst. He surprised me recently when he altered his initial views almost 100% when an editor many thought would be banned for a very long time was reprieved on Fred's suggestion - it was a long and very complicated case and the Arbs did do their best to be fair, although inevitably there were some who did not feel this. I found myself reluctantly cast on the role of defending barrister to the accused, never an easy role and no doubt I trod on some toes and ruffled some feathers. The important thing is though that the result was just. I don't think it is possible for the Arbcom to please all of the people all of the time. One case I did feel was a failure and a spectacular waste of time was the notorious "Giano case" sadly named after me but not entirely about me. In retrospect I think the Arbs did their best to help those concerned out and solve problems but the case was breaking too much new ground and there was too much behind the scenes wrangling over what was admissible and what was not. The full complexities of that case did not emerge until after it had been accepted. At the time I was upset about it - but life goes on and one forgets and hindsight is a marvellous thing. Giano 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from TML (responded)

Why have you "departed" so many times (including abandoning your former account), only to come back soon after each time? TML 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Frustration and addiction Both of these will have been experienced by long term heavily involved editors such as myself. I almost think of them as an occupational hazard. Perhaps others have better ways of dealing with them than me. Sometimes when the going gets tough it is better to just walk away for a few days than keep pressing the save button and regretting it. My walking away from the project has hardly been a weekly happening - I think perhaps three times at most.(If is is more I apologise in advance) I left the "Giano" account by scrambling the password because I refused to have a block log branded with "Hate speech" even though I had been completely exonerated of such a crime by the arbcom and the admin concerned de-sysoped by Jimbo himself. Had my real life identity ever emerged it would have been damaging to me to be so labeled. Ironically after I had "abandoned" that account the block log was wiped clean, I think this is an almost unique happening in Wikipedia. I think my experiences of "life at Wikipedia" have more than educated and equipped me to be a member of the Arbcom. Giano 16:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern (responded)

My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1: I hate the label "edit warrior" often they are quite normal editors who just happen to feel passionately about a particular subject - sometimes for historic, national or political reasons. These are the ones who have to be treated with kid gloves in the hope of not being driven away, or made to feel the encyclopedia is partisan. The problem is this type of "warrior" is often warring with an editor of the same calibre if in an opposing vein. If a compromise on a talk pages is ultimately impossible and attempts to reason and explain the necessity of compromise fail through email on a one to one basis (which I have often found works - people become human-beings and more reasonable in an email) then obviously sanctions have to be implemented on a graduating scale. If an editor fails to follow editing restrictions and parole then a complete ban may be necessary but I don.t think very long term bans should be imposed without ratification from the arbcom. Other edit wars are easier to solve where it is clearly (and I mean clearly to a group of several Admins) that an editor is just adding rubbish for the sake of antagonism then a short term block can be immediately imposed and if necessary extended if the editor re-offends.

2: Obviously the severity of the attack should determine the sanction. Incivility and personal attacks are two different things. With so many races and cultures all editing together what is an attack or incivility to one race can be a gentle jostle to another. A clear insulting attack using profanity always needs to be addressed. Threats and innuendos involving real life to me are the most severe and should carry the most severe penalty. Other attack are often little more than regrettable sarcasm, or signs of overwrought exasperation. I have certainly been tactless and thought after hitting the save button - "Hell, it would have been better to walk away from that". I often think that half of the incivility problems are that many of us edit late at night after a hard day's work, and some I suspect after more than a few glasses or relaxing wine. Nothing will solve that on. Giano 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3:Once in office Admins (and for that matter Arbcom members) have to be beyond reproach, whiter than white. If an admin fails to live up to the trust and responsibility placed in him/her then they must go. I don't like suspensions at all. A failed admin should be de-sysoped and a variable time limit set placed for re-application . Giano 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

4: When a noticeable amount or reputable editors are aking them to review it, or if reliable/new evidence is presented to them that the ban may not have been sound.

5: Has this situation ever occurred or is it hypothetical? Whatever, I have a tendency to see things through to the bitter end, no matter how bitter that end may be. An Arbcom member has to take the rough with the smooth, and I suspect it is mostly rough. I don't want to join the Arbcom to make new and exiting friends but to do a job that needs doing. Neither do I want to join the Arbcom to be involved in "cop outs", nor shall I be. Giano 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Bishonen (responded)

Giano, arbitration cases need to be speeded up by people who have time to get them done, not slowed down by overburdened arbitrators. You are widely considered one of our best content contributors,[4] and I happen to know that you're a very busy man IRL, too. Will you really have time to be an active arbitrator? And if you take on the burden of arbitrating, won't it be at the expense of your article-writing, which is one of the jewels of our house ? Bishonen | talk 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

I think this may be a wind up! - I'm not sure you are correct that I am so considered. One of my great problems is that I seldom read pages that don't interest me. Last year I was doing one of my kids homework assignments, (yeah I know but he was upset, and the sun was shining and his friends were playing football outside) and I had to consult a chemistry page, it was amazing, truly amazing almost all the answers were there, I emailed the author for the one that was not, and he kindly wrote me a paragraph which I transcribed and wow next morning "little Giano" had a detention for obviously cheating. (That is a true storey) What I'm trying to explain is that there are thousands of good writers but we only notice those who interest us - or who are the most noticeable. Hundreds of fantastic editors refuse to go anywhere near the FA process so remain in relative obscurity. The main page does amazing things for one's reputation but we must not forget the many who write very good and informative pages while also being very avtive admins etc. I am thinking of several well known admins instantly all of whom are known for their admin skills rather than their writing which is a pity. Lar is one who immediately springs to mind.

Anyhow, I probably don't write as much as you think. I hardly write on riveting subjects - boxing and architecture have a limited interest value. However, any one who follows my works in progress knows it can take months before I release a page from User space into the wild the daily time time I spend writing is actually quite small and very spasmodic and dependent on my enthusiasm at the time. I might knock out a couple of stubs a week but the real pages that I suspect you are thinking about are probably no more than one a month at most. I've not had a new FA for ages. However, I will always have time for a page that interests me.

You are correct I am busy in real life always but that is by choice, I'm one of these horrible hyperactive people who only require about five hours sleep a night. My RL relaxation is Wikipedia, boxing (sadly, more sparring these days) and playing rugby. (I tried golf but I can think of better ways of humiliating myself - like this Arbcom nomination) Basically, I am turbo-charged. So yes the time will be there and more to the point if necessary it will be at the expense of my content writing. I am well aware that editors are frustrated by the length of time cases last, and the solution of that problem has to be a priority for all new and existing members. Giano 19:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57 (responded)

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

Thanks, Wanderer57 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest I have not followed that many, and I have never been involved with one. So I would hate to put a figure on it. The last one (very recently) I looked at was not fair as the mediation process had not been concluded, and the "Accused" was doing his utmost to solve the problems. Others I have looked at have been completely justified, and I am surprised they have been allowed to reach such a state of contention before greater action has been taken. Giano 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Veesicle (responded)

• Do you feel that your status as a non-admin will affect your work for ArbCom [being unable to see deleted revisions for one]? Will you apply for admin tools should you be elected? User:Veesicle 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Would you request oversight/checkuser abilities? User:Veesicle 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I have done very well without admin powers for the last 3 and a half years and I will continue to do so. One does not need them to edit, revert vandalism and generally help arownd the place. In fact I feel not having admin status will be an advantage. I will be able to see things more clearly through the eyes of those on the factory floor, from where I intend still to be regularly editing content. There is nothing special about me now, or will there be in the future. I will just be an ordinary editor who is able to proffer his opinions and views on arbcom cases based solely on my longtime experience as a rank and file editor. I'm sure if there is something on a deleted page that I need to know about some other Arb will tell me or it will be mentioned on the mailing list.

Regarding your second point, I don't think I can have oversight abilities without being an admin, and I have no wish to be an admin now or in the foreseeable future. Never is a long time but I certainly have no plans at present to be an admin or to apply should I be successful. I have never heard of a non-admin having check-user abilities, and as I guard my real life identity very zealously I think the rules would prevent me having check user rights, I have no desire for them anyway. I want to be on the Arbcom to do some good with my experience not have glorious and mysterious powers. That is not my style at all. Giano 22:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Cool, thanks :) One other aspect I am concerned about is that ArbCom chooses who gets checkuser and oversight rights, and it would seem odd for someone who has not actually passed an RFA to have the power to decide. But I suppose that if you win the elections, passing an RFA is irrelevant anyway. One more thing: can you show me any specific examples of dispute resolution you have participated in not as the subject? A lot of other candidates have been involved with MEDCAB and the like; do you have any similar experience?

I think if the community gives one the OK to be on the arbcom then that is a sign of trust and confidence. I have not been directly involved in mediation but have often participated in arbcom cases putting forward views and evidence which may be overlooked. Most recently in "The Troubles" case which was as you probably know a very complex business not easily understood but which received what I thought was a satisfactory outcome. I don't think it made me any friends but the point was to see fair play and that was achieved. Giano 23:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman (responded)

In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've often thought that too but of course none of us really know how much time an Arb spends deliberating or reading all relevant information. Were I to be elected I can assure you I would read it all. However, the only evidence you would see of that would be the questions here or there asking for clarification or more information.

You use the word "all" an awful lot in your question. I can't promise that "all" will be done always. I can only say I will do my best to see that "all" is done. I would only be one Arb - and a very new one at that. All thatone Arb on his own can do to is make sure that the evidence as presented is comprehensive and understood by fellow Arbs. This is done by questioning those both presenting and those adjudicating the evidence. I'm experienced at assessing and presenting evidence. I also have no qualms at presenting and emphasising facts and evidence that others may find unpalatable or wish to shy away from. In the past I have been accused of trolling - because I can smell the truth and I don't give up until I get it even when a lot of people are becoming nervous. The truth is often only the tip of an iceberg. In an Arbcom case there can be no favours or friendships, as an Arb you would probably find me cold and detached but very fair. That is how I would attempt to see fairness and all issues addressed. Giano 10:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Dihydrogen Monoxide (responded)

What's your opinion on Jimbo's desysop of Zscout370? — H₂O —  00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I have never wanted to be an admin was because once one is an admin someone can take it away. Hence the actions and speech of an admin are often tempered by that. On occasions I have criticised Jimbo in the past but I think his good deeds far outweigh his bad. Having said that on this occasion he was in my view slightly heavy handed and probably acting on the spur of the moment. However, let us not forget Jimbo is the boss. Nothing any of us do and say will change that. In all situations it is never a good idea to seriously upset one's boss and Zscout knowingly did that. We are all volunteers here, we come here and do our bit in full knowledge of the set up. It is our choice. So at the end of the day complain about something that can be changed. Giano 10:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Anonymous Dissident (responded)

By submitting a candidacy for the December 2007 Arbitration Committee Elections, you are indicating your commitment to Wikipedia, and your belief in its continuance and worth as a project. What do you personally see for the future, both near and distant, of Wikipedia as a collaborative effort to bring free knowledge to the planet, and what are your feelings in regards to the Arbitration Committees relation to the successful endurance of the quality and credibility, among other aspects, of Wikipedia, and of Wikipedia itself?

Good question. In the past I have had very wobbling doubts about the project and its future. At the moment I am very buoyant in my thoughts on the future. Let's face it - it is working as a collaborative effort. There are hundred of thousands of truly fantastic pages written by real experts. One does not often research an academic or truly encyclopedia subject here these days and meet a stone wall. If this was not true there would not be so many other mirror sites etc. I know there are also thousands of dreadful pages that need to be improved these and vandalism will always be a concern. Whatever one reads anywhere one should always double check facts and in this Wikipedia is no exception.

Over all I think the future is promising. There is a huge global press out there salivating for bad wikipedia stories - if you think about it, they don't often get one. However, when an editor knowingly and wittingly publicly brings the encyclopedia in disrepute (content or conduct on Wiki or in RL) that editor has to go fast and publicly too. That should be a priority of the Arbcom. Wikipedia has to be seen to be upholding the highest standards. For the project to succeed the public has to be able to feel they can trust the content, that will only happen if they can trust those providing it.

In addition to the above the Arbcom's role in the successful future of the project is the retention of valuable editors whether they are working in admin, bureaucracy or content. Academics, as a breed, can be notoriously difficult egocentric people often a hindrance to the smooth running of any organization. However one cannot write an encyclopedia without them, so this site like any educational working place will always be bumpy. So the Arbcom's chief aim has always to be the smooth running of the site - achieved by attempting to smooth ruffled feathers rather than imposing Draconian or humiliating sanctions. That is all a little Utopian and impossible to achieve but not a bad aim or philosophy. I very much want to be part of securing the project's future. Giano 10:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz (responded)

Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am extremely verbose, I don't do one word answers, but especially for you I will confine myself to three words - "perception", "research" and "tenacity". Giano 09:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I (responded)

• What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process? This includes anything related to the Committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current process? Speed, caused by lack of human resources. Too many cases and not enough Arbs with the time. The only one of those factors which can be changed is the Arbs. If an elected Arb is not pulling his or her weight then they should resign and be replaced by one with the time and commitment. The Arbcom is not a rest home for an elite - it should be a place of work for the dedicated. (That is not to say an Arb cannot take a break after a difficult case or a holiday). There are a number of potential solutions - the number of Arbs could be enlarged to reflect the increasing workload and/or fewer Arbs could be required to oversee each case. The British magistracy system functions very well with a panel of three. Cases should be assigned to Arbs on a first come first serve basis, as an Arb finishes a case the next one arrives. This happens in many national legal system to keep the process rolling and to stop Judges being too picky and choosy. Obviously there would need to be exceptions to this when a specialist knowledge case arose and a particular Arb had that knowledge. I have heard of Arb cases being held up in the past because former Arbs still on the mailing list were insisting on their input in the behind the scenes debating. There is no need for these people to be on the mailing list or their opinion weighed. I would not have the power to change anything single handedly but the above would be some of my proposals. Giano 11:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wentideas (responded)

Are you willing to reveal your real life identity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wentideas (talk • contribs)

No. I have been here long enough to have a wikipedia-identity, that should be enough for people. Anonymity should be a matter of choice and I choose anonymity for a variety of reasons. One being that I live and work in a very conservative society where public display and revelation of one's views and beliefs would be very frowned upon, like many others here I have to earn a living in a environment where I am expected to conform. I know other editors who are bound by employment contracts that prevent them from publishing their works and views elsewhere. So there are many reasons for keeping quiet about one's identity many of then very valid. Giano 08:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Geogre (responded)

Several times over the past twelve months, ArbCom and the Administrators noticeboards have come face to face with the practice and consequences of "back channel communications" between users (communication by private means or non-Wikipedia means). Do you believe that administrators and users "need" to have private conversations? If they do not need them, do you think that media that cannot be transported over to Wikipedia (IRC, instant messageners) have a proper use? Do you think that media that should not be ported over to Wikipedia (e-mail) because of the expectation of privacy inherent in them have a proper use for non-Arbitration purposes? Geogre 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes we all need some privacy and space. I certainly have private conversations with friends that I would not want repeating on Wiki. However I also have conversations in public forums where I know there is a more than sporting chance they will be passed on and repeated, so I more guarded in what I say. That is common sense.

If a group of Wikipedians are talking on a wikipedia matter in a channel dedicated specifically to wikipedia or its Admins and it is not a private tab then that is in anyone's book a common forum and I see no reason why it cannot be repeated on Wikipedia for the benefit of all. There may be times when Admins want to discuss something without input from other editors but it is important that the community as a whole can see how a decision was reached. For this a specially designated Admins page could be created - visible to all - but only Admins permitted to edit it. There should not be an exclusive secret admins channel such as #admins.

Many Arbcom cases are concerned with Admin decisions. It is imperative to justice that the basis and logic of those decisions can be easily scrutinised. It would be impossible to stop human beings gossiping but Admins have a responsibility to, not only, be just but to be seen to be just. That cannot happen if decisions are made as the result of secret conversations. The famous words preceding the announcement of a block "Following discussions on IRC........" Should be confined firmly to the past. I think this is now slowly happening but not fast enough. Giano 12:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from User:Secret (responded)

• What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? This is a Secret ^account 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If people want an alternative account to amuse themselves or others, or to write in a completely different vein to their main interests and topics then that is their own business. What is wrong is when they use them to clearly deceive and influence any wikipedia process. Giano 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret ^account 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes me laugh. I have my hair cut in an old fashioned barber's shop in London, while waiting there is always a wide range of down-market tabloids and "tit n' bum" magazines to read. One looks around to see if anyone is looking and then picks one up with an ostentatious look of disdain. Then with an exagerated and concentrated expression of disgust one reads it avidly - Minor politicians caught with their trousers down, starlets and porn stars, one has never heard of, detailing their lives. All this coupled with the writings of those who are bitter and disillusioned gratuitously reporting the more exiting lives of others. Wikipedia Review? Read it, have a laugh and treat it with a pinch of salt, but don't have it delivered to the house. Giano 02:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from User:Rockpocket (responded)

• Hello Giano. I'm impressed by some of the ideas you propose in your statement and intend to give your candidacy plenty of consideration. You state "I have strong views, and don't suffer fools, at times I am abrupt and tactless", and have made similar comments on your user and/or talk page previously. How do you intend to reconcile these characteristics with our policies, specifically WP:CIV and WP:NPA, assuming members of ArbCom should be expected to adhere to the policies they enforce? I ask with respect to these recent edits. [5] [6] [7] Thanks. Rockpocket 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In real life Rockpocket I learn to bite my tongue with 100% success. If elected I will do so. Whatever my private thoughts. I understand that you were very disappointed with the Arbcom decisions on a recent Arbcom case where I presented the evidence. You wanted a sentence passed which would have been based on potential bad behaviour at a possible date in the future. That will always be unjust. Sanctions can only ever be based on misdemeanours that have already taken place not on those that may or may not in the future. That is how justice works in the civilized world.

Regarding my recent edits which you cite, I believe, as do others, that you have been making a little bit of a nuisance of yourself since the case finished, popping up on talk pages where you have been repeatedly told you are unwelcome, trying to provoke that bad behaviour which you prophesied. The word obsessed has been used concerning you. A wise admin would leave well alone and accept the Arbs decision as final. My advice to you is your current behaviour will attract some far more angry comments than mine if you persist in what is becoming to look like a persecution. Giano 07:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• You turned that around like a true politician, Giano. You will go far! Good luck with your campaign. Rockpocket 07:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss (responded)

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nasty question Ragesoss most tricky so far. I know when to use the terms metaphorically not so sure I can explain the origins so well which is necessary to explain the context of the meaning on Wikipedia. I think, neutral point of view refers to widely accepted facts and theories. Scientific point of view obviously is most usually applied to subjects relating to the sciences where all is not sometimes as it seems and is sometimes contrary to the seemingly obvious, but based on sound research. I suppose the most easy example is NPOV once told us that the moon is flat a round like a dinner plate, because before scientific research there was no reason to doubt that. However, SPOV tell us that the moon is in fact a round ball or a globe but from where most of us view the moon it is flat but we accept the SPOV. NPOV and SPOV are both terms which can both be used idiomatically in non scientific forums. Such as is found on Wikipedia. In my view the SPOV are facts which are not obvious (and should be cited) as they are likely to be the most debated.

Having made this bold statement, I will add that I am probably Wikipedia's most unscientific editor so if I have gone off completely on the wrong track then you will just have to write me off as an ignoramus. If anyone is considering coming here with questions on chemistry - just don't. One question though for you Ragesoss (you can answer when the elections are over) When does SPOV become NPOV? Giano 08:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Sarah777 (responded)

Would you bring the same wonderful humane sense of fairness that you display regularly in various Wiki situations to bear if you got an Arbcom position? Or would you let an excessive fetish for legalism destroy your common sense? (Sarah777 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

I've been a very legal person for a very long time and I hope I have still retained my common sense. If elected to the Arbcom the semi-alto-ego that is "Giano" (who often says what we would all like to say) will have to be curbed somewhat while an ordinary editor can just about get away with calling someone a prat an Arbcom member cannot. A well known Arbcom member did once refer to a group of editors as "idiots" but I think he lived to regret it. So you may find me less human but, I hope, as humane as ever. Giano 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68 (responded)

First of all, I just want to say that I admire the featured content that you've contributed to the project and hope that you will continue to add more. I have to ask, though, since an arbitrator probably needs to observe an appropriate amount of decorum in going about their duties, do you feel that these comments- [8], [9], [10] were appropriate and helpful for the situation in which they were made? Cla68 07:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to mention individuals on this page but since you raise the subject. Ms Martin does seem to bring out the worst in some people doesn't she? I believe she has left now following a failed attempt to regain some of her former powers - proof that numerous editors share my views. Ms Martin uses an off-wiki blog to malign and attack Wikipedia editors safe in the knowledge that the arbcom cannot sanction her for such comments. My views concerning Ms Martin (which you cite) were made openly and honestly on Wikipedia, in a forum inspired by Ms Martin for the purpose of discussing her. They appear not to have been so bad they were of interest to the Arbcom. Neither are they the comments of a sitting Arbcom member. You are correct, an Arbcom member does indeed need to maintain decorum and if elected I can assure you I will do so. Were any sitting Arbcom member to fail in maintaining the decorum expected of a committee member I would expect them to resign immediately, in this I would be no exception and indeed I would do so.

You kindly mention my contributions to the content of the encyclopedia, I think they are important too, as sometimes (rightly or wrongly) the non admin, prolific content editors feel undervalued and unconsidered by the more powerful and political editors who move in the higher echelons of Wikipedia and such circles as Ms Martin's - a circle incidentally which is not without considerable influence. While if elected my stronger views will, for decorum's sake, be well concealed from them the ordinary contributing editor will know there is a man on the Arbcom who is strongly advocating their rights and views. I'm not sure this is something they feel at the moment. Giano 09:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (responded)

Thank you Giano for offering your services to the community. If the following questions seem familar, it is because I believe they are pertinent and deserve reiteration:
1: What do you feel has been your principal contribution to the writing of the encyclopedia, or have you in the past been more concerned with administration and policy?

I was initially only concerned with writing and contributing to articles. However, the longer I was here the more aware I became that there was also a political side to the encyclopedia. I discovered that if one did not like or approve of something one could argue/debate for it to be changed or at least weigh in one's opinion. My principal contributions have been in the field of architecture. Sometimes I have written a non architectural biography if the subject has caught my attention, but I think it is true to say it is architecture that I am known for here, at least in the main space section. Giano 08:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

2: Many editors like to discuss their action and work frequently on IRC, if elected would you consult on IRC. Do you feel your arbcom work would be hindered by your not having access to the IRC's admin channel? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I suppose the correct answer should be: No, not at all - why should it? I have no problem with editors talking on IRC, I have very recently begun to use the Veropedia IRC channel myself. However, we all know what is behind your question. I am perhaps the editor who was best associated with the struggle to kerb the long running mis-use of the #admin channel. As a non-admin I have no right to be there so apart from seeing the odd log I have no idea what goes on there today. One of the sitting Arbs (I think it was) Mackensen took it upon himself to attempt to clean the channel up and I am told the mis-use that was once so prevalent no longer takes place. Let us all hope that is true. I fully expect some of the die-hards to troop out of that channel when the voting starts and that will be a good indication of what happens there now. I very much hope as a secret power it is a spent force. However, if elected I won't be hampered by ignorance of chatter in IRC channels one looks at the evidence openly presented and only considers private evidence in special circumstances, and I believe that arrives by email. Giano 09:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718 (responded)

1:In the past you've seemed far more interested in creating content than in getting involved in the other sides of WP. Am I wrong? And if not, why the change of heart?

Well you are wrong on one thing, my interesting in mainspace content is not in the past nor will it be, as we speak I am nursing a page through the FAC process. That interest will always be there. There has been no change of heart more a gradual awareness of what is going on in the areas which support the written content. I've thought several times about standing for the Arbcom but decided against it, recently though I was a non involved participant of "The Troubles RFArb" and I realised I had an awful lot to contribute to the process but I was hampered, if one asked a pertinent and searching question and pressed the point people would scream "Troll" one suggestion from an involved party was to ban me for God knows how long because they did not care for the valid evidence I was producing - others wanted certain sanctions imposed on others because some one may do something in the future. Eventually I thought this is ridiculous, this is not the way to investigate the truth, this is justice by who can scream loudest. I need to be on the other side of the fence. Courts and enquiries can be very rough places at the best of times at Wikipedia they often seem to be mayhem - I want to see the best possible results achieved in the most sane way. So that is why I'm here. Were I to be on the Arbcom and a miscarriage of justice occur I can promise it will not be because of negligence to examine evidence, or temerity to do so, on my part. Giano 09:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

2:Without identifying yourself, can you give us a rough idea of age and work/study situation? (to ascertain stability for a 3-year term)

I am at that horrible age when old ladies no longer refer to me as "young man" and while my wardrobe still has amazingly fashionable clothes they attract more looks and sly glances than when I first bought them. My academic education is way behind me and I have reached a stage in my career where if not exactly resting on my laurels I no longer have to work quite as hard as I once did. I usually have one weekday free generally making most weekends last for three days. If working in my office I usually have wikipedia open in a tab. So I have the time. Having said that I am sometimes accused of being a workaholic who seldom takes long holidays, so I'm usually around. Unless I am murdered or run over by a bus I anticipate being here in three years time. Giano 09:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

3:Thinking of your response to Heimstern (above), you describe dedicated and hard-opposed editors (perhaps in relation to a national conflict) and indicate that these editors (and their opponents) should be handled carefully and not driven away. What sorts of conduct would you accept in these cases that you wouldn't accept elsewhere? Or just a little more leeway? The question is real, as national conflicts make up a significant chunk of the ArbCom workload.

That's impossible to answer each case it different, each editor is different. That is why the Arbcom does not have blanket sanctions relevant to prescribed misdemeanours. What is sauce for the goose in reality is seldom sauce for the gander. I'm not trying to dodge the question but it would be easier to answer what behaviour would be completely unacceptable - real life threats - continual and habitual use of severe and profane bad language - refusal to enter into debate while constant edit warring to name just a few. Giano 10:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

4:Would you feel uncomfortable examining Jimbo's conduct, if he referred an action of his to ArbCom for review? Jd2718 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom should first look at the evidence and having made a final decision on its validity only then when considering sanctions and solutions consider the individual and his history and personality. So examining his conduct would be no problem - imposing sanctions would be interesting - No I would have no problem with it at all. Giano 09:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe

A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.

1:Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?

My first instinct was to reply - "Yes, of course there should be" but then on reflection how on earth would one fairly legislate for such a happening. The very threat of such a possibility could be enough to prevent Arbs from taking an unpopular stance even if they thought it was the correct stance. Alternatively a group of editors could band together off-wiki and orchestrate a campaign for an Arb's dismissal because he was perceived to be a threat to their causes - what I'm saying is that it would be very difficult. I don't see why there cannot be (if there are not already) a list of guidelines defining expected Arb behaviour that if an Arb fell short of could result in his dismissal. Likewise if an Arb appears to have fallen asleep there is nothing wrong in asking him publicly to wake up if he wishes to remain. The most obvious way of removing in Arb that I can see is if the Arb committee themselves lost confidence in one of their number then I'm sure if they did not have the powers themselves they cab ask Jimbo to remove him - don't forget the Arbitration Committee should always be aware of the feeling on the factory floor - it again all boils down to the smooth running of the encyclopedia. Giano 08:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

2:ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required? 3:Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy? Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)