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

General questions

1. Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
   • (a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
   • (b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
   • (c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
   • (d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
   • (e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
   • (f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
   • (g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
   • (h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
   • (i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
   • (j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.

   A: My chief interest will be "reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions." I am not very good at drafting, I tend to get things round the wrong way. I won't have CU or OS access myself, but I do have opinions on the sort of people who should have those rights. I will also comment on appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users. I would very much interacting with the community on public pages - I intend to remain very much part of the community - aloofness is not my style, although I will have to be more restrained and keep my opinions for voting and motions.

2. Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?

   A: I don't intend to have to deal with "outing." Email thrreats and rubbish I have dealt with for years, that's why we have delete buttons on our email. General stress, one just takes it and hopes for the best. Everyone has a breaking point, one learns from experience where that is (I have) and learns to walk away for a few minutes and then come back - recharged.

3. Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
   • (a) "Private correspondence"

     A: see below

   • (b) "Responsibility"

     A: see below

   • (c) "Perceived legal threats"

     A: see below

   • (d) "Outing"

     A: I'm not answering these questions. Principles are fine things for those that can afford them, and I very much hope I have a few. However (here and in RL) I have seen far too often common sense, justice and fairness defeated by principles. My single unwaverable principle is to treat all people fairly and equally.

4. Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?

   A: I'm a great beleiver in allowing people to attempt to change. What I will not tolerate is realy frightening harassment, bullying and stalking - people who indulge in that are generally unable to change. So leaning towards lenient with the former and strictness with the latter.

5. ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.

   A: I disagree. At times, Arbcom if behaving fairly and logically, is forced to set precendents, once a precedent is set, that has to become policy - that's the way an organised legal world works. It has to be.

6. Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?

   A: That's quite a difficult question because some Arbs are dedicated to content and understand how to write impartially, and other Arbs don't have a clue even how to research a page. So I suppose, and I say this reluctantly, as a body the Arbcom should not rule on content. Arbs, though, could rule as impartial referees weighing the balance and thus helping those who do understand content to reach a concencus, but again, it would help if that was an arb with experience of content.

7. Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   A: I have always strongly beleive that once a case is fiished it should remain in its grave, dragging up old editors misdemenours ect, is not part of my goal here.

8. Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

   A: I would like to see the Arbcom set up small courts for the more minor cases - adjudicated over by just 3 arbs. These pages would hear only from the "defendant", "agreived" and "closely involved" all others would be excluded from comment to shut out the background nice, something of which we have far too much generaly. This way the more trivial matters could be dealt with swiftly and efficiently. "How would I work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?" Daft question, one attempts to pursuade and prove a need. How else?  Giacomo  12:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Individual questions

This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:

• be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
• be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
• not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format:

1. Question:

   A:

---

Question from User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Question from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: You mention that you won't have access to CU, OS, or the ArbCom mailing lists. How will you view evidence that needs to remain private, and how will you make sure that your actions are accountable? Disclaimer: I'm also running as a candidate, so please don't answer if you feel I'm asking an inappropriate question.

Answer: I shall view it in exactly the same way that "secret imformation" is handled in all fair and just European courts - by regarding it as inadmissable to those adjudicating (me). We are dealing with people writing an online encyclopedia not attempting to bring down the Third Reich. I think an overflated sense of importance and self-worth has been a problem with some Arbs in the past.  Giacomo  12:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Grondemar

Question: If you were a member of the Arbitration Committee when this motion was presented before the committee, how would you have responded, and what reasoning would you have provided to justify your position? –Grondemar 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer: By and large I would have supported the motion. I would have probably tried to tweak one or two of the finer details. This "removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included" is spot on. My reasoning is if something is worthy of inclusion and true, good references are easy to find, if it's the stuff of the tabloid press then less easy and that's how it should be. I think that has to be the guiding, cast iron policy with BLPs.  Giacomo  15:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Moni

Question: Do you think Arbs have a responsibility/inherent character trait to be sober and considerate, prioritize issues to focus on what is most important (to let issues of lesser importance fade), and treat members of Wikipedia with respect even when it's often clear that they may not deserve it? Are you able to communicate in a professional register even when you are not addressed in such? Do you think it's important to do so especially to continue to attract high-quality editors and because news on the site appears in the media? --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer: Arbs certainly have to be sober, but I don't think that means they have to be sombre or super-human. Yes, everyone (not just Arbs) has at times to prioritise issues to focus on what is most important, however, in doing so, one should try very hard to not overlook the seemingly trivial. Everyone who comes to the Arbcom does so because something is worrying them sometimes the loudest people are not always those with the biggest problem; all comers should certainly be treated with respect.

Yes, when necessary, I can communicate in a "professional register," and I have another great ability not noticeably given to some Admins and Arbs here, I am able to do so in a non-pompous and patronising way. I am able to communicate with people of all abilities, ages and social classes. That, I think is an essential attribute for an Arb. If elected, I do accept I will have to make a greater effort to suffer fools, something that as an ordinary editor has not always been the case, but I suppose we all have our faults.

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.  Giacomo  17:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Shooterwalker

Question: You mentioned that ArbCom might be able to help editors come to a consensus about content issues. Envision a case where an RFC about content has fallen into "no consensus", and the fall out are a lot of conduct problems as a result of having no systematic way to handle that topic area. How do you think ArbCom can help the community hash out a systematic way to handle a topic area (such as a guideline or policy), without directly making a decision for the community? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer:I said (or at least hope I said) an experienced content writing Arb could referee in content disputes over the way a page should be written. However, in other areas, when concencus really cannot be ascertained (and it does hapen) then someone (and I mean one appointed person, not an entire committee) has to be be given the undesirable job of reading the lot, making a tough call and proposing a motion for those involved to vote upon - otherwise one has stalemate and things continue to go on a divisive fashion. You would be surprised how often in real life, once such an action is proposed how quickly opposing sides can reach agreement. I don't anticipate being an Arb in a long running popularity contest.

Question from Rockpocket

Question: Hello Giano. Its been a while, so I trust you are well. Your past involvement in some of the more notorious and lengthy disputes, means you have—as they say—"history" with many editors. Would you arbitrate cases involving such editors as participants, and more generally, how would you deal with COI's (real or perceived) pertaining to your record on Wikipedia? Good luck in the election. Rockpocket 18:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer: I am very well; that's the easy question over. To be honest, I have not been involved in many lengthy and/or notorious disputes lately, allthough I have certainly seen some lively debate. If an editor says s/he "has history with me" I will evaluate that and then make a decision - do you have any particular editor in mind? I certainly will recuse where my close friends are concerned and with anyone who is obviously in dispute with me. Regarding COI, I cannot imagine such a case - architecture has very few disputes, but if one arose - certainly I would recuse.  Giacomo  20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from TreasuryTag

Question—In your view, what is the probability that you will be appointed an Arbitrator if you refuse to identify to the Foundation?

Answer. I have no idea, I'm not a gambling man, the only time I gamble heavily is when I play bridge in no trumps and I'm certainly not holding any trump cards at the moment.

Follow up question and answer have been moved to the related discussion page.

Question from Coren

Question: If you are elected (and appointed despite your inability to access private information), how will you be able to manage having to work and collaborate with the rest of committee, most of whom you have qualified of liars or worse at some point in the past?

Answer I am so pleased somebody has asked that because it is one of the most liberating things that could have happened. It will allow me to assess and view each case with complete impartiality and without hindrance. I will be able to cross examine, and follow every hunch and whim to get at the truth, and more importantly every editor watching me (you see it will all be open and above board), will know that whatever I say, or whichever way I vote is not the result of something cooked up behind the scenes. More important still, is that those who like to work back channel will have no idea which way I am going to vote, as a result I expect to often have the casting vote on cases on which I am adjudicating. Everybody here knows that I am my own man, by not being much in contact with other Arbs, they will continue to know it.  Giacomo  20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Sven Manguard

Question Considering that you have six blocks for incivility and how you beheaved at User talk:Rlevse less than a month ago, what assurances can you give the community that you have the capability to behave in a civil manner and cooperate with others on a regular basis? Note: I was asked to change the wording of this question by another editor, however I had done so after the question was answered. In the original question, I did in fact use the word "appalling" to describe what I believed to be the editor's badgering of a user that had already apologized and permanently left the project. Giacomo's quoting of the word is accurate.

Answer: Is it only six? I thought they had cooked up a few more than that. I was rather hoping that Mr Levse's name would not be bandied here, but as you have introduced him: You see the difference between you and I is that I don't think that it was my bahaviour which was "appalling" in the Rlevse matter. I expect Arbs to know the difference between right and wrong. I am quite sure, if you spend a year or two sifting through my mainspace edits you will find a something similar to something written in a reference book I used - I hope not, but I expect that if you use 16 books to reference one subject (as I sometimes do [1]), there's a chance you and another author will hit on the same turn of phrase, however, what I do know is that you will not find chunks of text copy-pasted from websites and instantly offered upto Wikipedia for rewards and accolades. So please take your charges of "appalling" elsewhere.  Giacomo  20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note: above I am actually replying to this [2]  Giacomo  21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from ScienceApologist

Question Would you ever endorse sanctions on someone for violating WP:CIV or WP:NPA? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, I would saction for incivility and attack. I believe incivility and attack is going out of one's way to pursue and insult people and cause them distress for no good reason. There is no excuse in any argument to insult anyone's race, colour, creed and lawful sexuality. There is also no excuse to insult anyone's person using the worst language of the gutter. Threatening and intimidating behaviour is unacceptable too as are remarks of a seriously meant sexual nature. So yes, I do beleive we have standards to adhere too, I am just a little more liberal than some.  Giacomo  21:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from SarekOfVulcan

Question: How does Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names fit into your view of what Arbcom should be, and how you see yourself acting on it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer: Oh Hell! I have friends on both sides of that, and I certainly did not envy the Arbcom their deliberations. It's far too big and complex a subject to discuss and explain here; it's one of those that goes to the roots of Wikipedia and its problems. I was once very closely involved in trying to find some remedies to the problems there, and in a way i think I may have dome some good, but in such a mire - who knows. I think you are going to have to ask me something a little emore specific there. I will commit myself though, to say I thought the Arbs disregarded the right and proper name for the country according to the Irish constitution.  Giacomo  21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Tony1

Question: If you can put on your predictive hat, how would being an arbitrator change you, both as a project participant and on a personal level?

Answer: Well I am a great prophet. I shall have to become a little less vocal and keep my opinions more to myself. Not being on "The list" or having access to secret information means I am going to have to ask a lot more questions (cross examine if you like) I would not want people tellng me what it is they think I want to hear so my mouth will have to stay a lot more zipped (that prediction alone ought to get me a few votes). I predict that those that follow cases will appreciate being able to follow a train of though, rather than suddenly see the arbs plonk their votes down "en masse" after secret deliberations on "The List." However, as you know, I am not easily influenced and usually go my own way so I doubt I will change very much on a personal level; I have always found pomposity very amusing and I expect I will encounter a lot more of that, so I shan't be short of private laughs. Regarding mainspace I usually try to produce two or three long and heavily researched pages each year - that is a relaxing hobby that helps me unwind - I don't see that changing at all.  Giacomo  08:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from BorisG

Question: If you disagree with a particular Wikipedia policy provision, are you prepared to uphold it as an Arbitrator? An answer with an (hypothetical) example would be great. Thanks. - BorisG (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about this. On the whole I agree with most of the policies, it is the interpretation of them that can be argued about. However, when adjudicating, an arbs job is to apply the policies and uphold them, otherwise no one would know where they stood. I'm not very good at hypotheticals, and prefer to deal in reality. However, there are several core policies which though fine and splendid ("ownership of articles" springs to mind), in which I have a sneaking sympathy with those who often stand accused of breaking. It must be very hard for editors spend ten weeks writing a page and then someone comes along and wants to insert some information into it, which the primary author feels is unecessary, but sympathise as I might, the core policies are here for a very good reason, and arbs have to uphold them t maintain stability. That's not to say an arb cannot argue for a softening or relaxation.  Giacomo  21:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from MLauba

Question: For the two years I've spent on Wikipedia, I've always witnessed you as extremely critical of administrators as a group, to the point of perceiving that your default stance is to assume bad faith of any admin until convinced otherwise. How will you ensure admins party to a case will get a fair hearing from you? And how will you further ensure that they will also have a matching perception? Thank you. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, is that how things seem? Well many of my best wiki-friends are Admins and one or two are even arbs (or have been in the past), and quite a few admins I beleive will be voting for me in this election, I have an immense amount of wiki-friends from right across the spectrum. No, I don't always assume bad faith, but very little fools me. I know intuitively when something is not quite right. Here, today, [3] is a classic example of a very serious matter, I had suspected for a couple of years. I loathe deception and can't abide liars; I can see straight through people, so perhaps I come across as a bit scary. I won't sit back and let something that's wrong be swept under the carpet. If I ever get to be an Arb, I think you will see that people will be treated very fairly whoever they are. The only way they will get that "perception" is by seeing it - I think it will be quite obvious - I won't be recomending 5 year bans for admins caught smoking in the bykeshed.  Giacomo  23:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from TML

Question: On several occasions, you have announced your "departure" from Wikipedia in response to being blocked, and you've even abandoned two of your previous accounts in the process. Yet on each of these occasions we eventually found out that your "departures" didn't last. Are you really here to stay or not? TML (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I am here to stay, largely because over the last few years, I have managed to assist in some great changes for the better. I used to be incredibly frustrated that Wikipedia was run secretly from the IRC Admins channel, you would not beleive how many times one used to read "Following discussion on IRC I have blocked......." An admin who wrote that today, would be very unpopular and criticised. At times, that frustration used to bubble over and I would walk off for a few days (seldom longer than a week). Also the Arbcom has changed, it's no longer a hand picked loyal crew owing its allegiance firstly to Jimbo. Sometimes it may still seem that way but it's nothing like as bad as it used to be, and I think some of the campaignes of which I have been a catalyst are largely responsible for that. Wikipedia Review, once regarded as a site whose name must not be mentioned arose largely because people were too frightened to make constructive criticism here, that was incredible repressive, frustrating and at times frightening atmosphere. Nowadays, we see even Arbs comemtating on WR and people feely able to make criticism of Wikipedia on Wikipedia rather than off site. It;s a much healthier editing environment and one I will uphold whether I'm elected or not, but I think i have earned a position on the Arbcom as a result of six years of battling to improve the place, now I want to maintain it and continue to improve it.  Giacomo  11:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Kittybrewster

One question to each editor. Extras have been moved to the talk page.

• Question: Would you block a person who accused a blackhairedgirl of playing the sex card when she says she has experienced sexual harrassment?

What a curious question. If by "black haired" you are trying to find out if I am racist the answer is most definietly no. Nor am I tolerant of any sexual or religious bigotry, you may remember the time I came across some mild anti-semetic ignorance from an editor who describes himself as "an old mucker of Kittybrewster"? If your question is not loaded and genuine, then it's impossible to answer hypotheticaly, one would have to take a look at the history, situation and context of the "black haired girl" and the other editor and the validity of any claims. If I am elected, I will be taking nothing at face value, you can be assured of that. Giacomo  13:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Alpha Quadrant

• Question: What is the purpose of Arbitrators? What authority do they have over the project? Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A: The purpose of Arbitrators is to uphold, apply and interpret Wikipedia's policies. They should also attempt to see fair play. Their authotity begins and ends there. Simplified, Arbitrators are the judiciary not the police force or the law makers. The lawmakers are all the editors.  Giacomo  21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow up question and answer have been moved to the related discussion page.

Question from Teinesavaii

Question:You are obviously neither young (nor dyslexic), although youthful perhaps, by nature. By your guise, whether true or false, or a game you play, Giacomo sees themselves as already alienated, opposing in principle and outside of what this voting is for - to be a member of ArbCom. How can the community trust you to take seriously your role on ArbCom and work together with the other members, in considering cases that truly need arbitration when by your (apparent)philosophical outlook , you already see yourself as to be always on the outside, a champion rebel perhaps, a voice of dissent, already at odds with ArbCom as it exists now. Can the community trust you to consider properly each case, with due measure, and make fair decisions on cases, rather than they becoming instances whereby Giacomo may exercise and act 'opposite' just for the sake of it? I do appreciate your sense of humour! teinesaVaii (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not exactly ancient, but I am very dyslexic, but that has nothing to do with being an Arbitrator. I mention it in my statement because people do tend to wonder about my spelling and the number of posts I make. Yes, I know all about "preview", but for some reason preview lies to me. My "philosophical outlook" is to realise that everything other than death can be overcome and sorted, that includes Wikipdia's problems, but that does not mean I trivialise themm but threat them with perspective and candour. Be assured, I will give each case the depth of gravity it deserves.  Giacomo  16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. teinesaVaii (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from Carcharoth

Question: I've assembled a set of questions for the 12 candidates listed here. The questions are intended to see how you would respond to situations you will probably encounter if elected. I've picked one question for each candidate listed at the link above; the other questions can be seen here. Please feel free to answer only the selected question below, or all of them if you chose. Your question is what would you do in the following situation?: "You fall out with a fellow arbitrator and have a big argument with them". Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Answer:It is unlikely to happen. It has been made very clear to me that I will be given none of the normal access of private comminication with other Arbs, so unles an Arb chooses to discuss a case on my talk page, I don't see how an arguement can occur. I have made it very clear elsewhere, that if elected, I will keeeping my opinions very much to myself, and then voting as a result of questions openly asked. If elected, I shall be operating as an Arb purely on my own judgement and questioning. Throughout the election period it has been very obvious to me that many people are voting for me becasue of this independance from the private back chats and influences. If an another arb were so ill-advised as to pick a fight, I think the freeze treatment would be my chosen option. So I won't be falling out with anyone.  Giacomo  19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)