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

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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.


 * 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 .  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 .  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)
Thanks, east. 718 at 14:46, 11/2/2007
 * 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?
 * 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 Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

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

5. Two recent cases, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and 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, 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? &mdash; H 2O &mdash;  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?
 * 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.   Thanks.  Rockpock  e  t  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. Rockpock  e  t  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-, , 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 (responded)
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 is 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 an 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 could 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?
 * One of the things we have to remember is that we are all volunteers many of us with outside lives. Hence I am always reluctant to make hard and fast demands on the times and energies that should be spent here.  I would rather see a responsible and respected Admin use CheckUser twice a year than a hot headed Non-Wiki-Admin use it recklessly and frequently.   As I say somewhere above there is a heavy demand for the service so sooner or later the numbers holding it are going to have to be increased.  To answer your question if someone appears to have left the project  - had an account which has not been used for a year or given an explanation for the disappearance then the rights could be rescinded but I don't really think there is a need to do so otherwise unless there has been a problem concerning trust. Giano 08:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Short answer. If all compromise and discussion fails - Yes.  In those circumstance because at the end of the day a decision has to be made to be able to move forward. Giano 08:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear (responded)
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear  16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have asked a very deep question and there's no short or easy answer. As the law stands at the moment. Wikipedia has to abide 100% by the laws of the host country of it's servers. That is paramount and unchallengeable; but wherever we are  we are subject to the law of the country in which we are located, even if we are not a citizen of that country.


 * Every country's laws differ. For example  if you live in England you can take a picture of any  person, anywhere, even lying topless by their own pool and upload it to the  Wikipedia servers in Florida and you will have broken no British law.   However  if you live, or that photograph was taken in some other European country  and you upload it you may  sued, in that country,  for breaching  its  laws of privacy, even if you are an American citizen who was on holiday at the time.  In some counties one cannot publish a photograph of a person, without their permission, however innocently taken, if that image was captured  on private property.  Generally though these laws  are applied only to celebrities and paparazzi type shots - but it worth bearing in mind the possibilities should a Wikipedia editor snap a film-star holidaying on a private beach.


 * So this is where the law becomes interesting. If  an American citizen breaks the law of another country while in that country he is subject to that country's law - but we in Europe, who are not subject to law of American law,  can upload from Europe something contrary to the law of USA so long as it is not contrary to the laws of the country we are uploading from.   However Jimbo and his company can be sanctioned by USA law for hosting our uploads.


 * Now this is where the law becomes complicated - what if we break another country's laws while in that country but are only detected after we return home? The result depends on extradition treaties.  In reality - It is often the case that American citizens found guilty "in absentia" of crimes in Europe are not extradited - even when extradition treaties exist.  The reverse however is very different, an English citizen subpoenaed by the American courts can expect to be put on the first plane to America and arrested on arrival.


 * So an Arbcom member must firstly and foremost comply with the laws of USA - then, in my opinion, they should examine the moral duty of care they have to editors outside of the USA - if an editor appealed to the Arbcom having realised that the  person he had photographed in Europe (thus breaking the laws of that country) had traced him and was threatening to sue him unless an image was removed that  he had legally uploaded to Wikipedia  from America - I would have no hesitation in recommending that image be  deleted even if an IFD hosted in American had voted to keep it.  To summarise - the Arbcom has a legal duty to comply with the law of USA and a moral duty to the laws of other countries.  With the proviso that that those other country belongs to the free democratic world.  To me the editors legal safety is paramount wherever they come from.  With that in mind Wikipedia should beware of encouraging editors from countries where internet communication is outlawed or severely frowned upon - or at least make them fully aware of the risks they are taking. The other thing one should remeber is that some American laws are far laxer than in other countries - so beware of downloading images that may be considered pornographic or indecent in one's own country, the fact the image is being downloaded from America will be no excuse in law if it is found on your computer in a country where such an image is ilegal.Giano 20:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from xDanielx (responded)
What is your opinion on the difference between private (i.e., consensus through arbcom elist) and public (i.e., WP:RFAR) ArbCom decisions? Should both be regarded as equally authoritative? Does the ArbCom have an obligation to make the former publicly accessible upon reasonable request (assuming no privacy issues are involved)?
 * Presumably both are the result of consensus or at least a majority agreement. At present the Arbcom has no obligation to make the contents of its mailing list public and  both are equally authoritative. Like all people who have never been an Arb I have no idea what is on the Arbcom mailing list, like most of us one hears the odd snippet of leaked information but for the most part none of us truly know. So a definitive answer to your question is not possible.


 * I have been a great advocate of freedom of information on Wikipedia so I see no problem if the debate which leads to decisions is freely available with the proviso that no legal or privacy concerns are broached.  I don't think  though one can have a blanket policy where the Arbcom mailing list is routinely made public. Giano 11:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus (responded)

 * 1) Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
 * Certainly not, there are so many cases going on that an Arb would not be able to give them all the attention they deserve and miscarriages of justice would become prevalent. Giano 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
 * Well if the Arb wants further information or clarification of a point then of course he must be able to ask.  However and this is a big "However" s/he must never in any way betray his own suspicions or show any partiality - in my view s/he may ask but not comment (if you see the difference) and certainly not give an opinion until the proposed final decision page when s/he should give his/her reasons for arriving at that decision. The reasons for this are manifold - people may become reluctant to give evidence if they feel it opposes the view of a popular Arbcom member, or hesitant or making a workshop proposal and many other factors in similar vein.  Were I to be elected I would be very questioning indeed, so you would probably see me on the workshop and talk pages quite a lot but in an impartial mode.  Giano 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?
 * No, time of registering is immaterial but we must remember unpalatable as it is to some we are all here first and foremost to write an encyclopedia - not to make new and exiting friends, find a partner or indulge in pointless chatter. So an editor who makes valuable edits to multiple pages over a number of years is more valuable to the project than one who merely trolls.  Having said that  we should all strive to be civil to each other, but we are multi-cultural and as such all have differing ideas of civility. I suspect we all agree with what is  gross incivility - using multiple expletives and profanities -  can never be acceptable. Similarly  attacking someone because of their colour, creed or sexuality must always be taboo.  But quite frankly two grown men (or women) having a spat over content and one calling the other a "bloody fool", "blithering idiot" or "recommending an optician" etc. does not excite me greatly. My view is grow up and sort it out, if that proves impossible then a responsible Admin can attempt to sort them out and following that the Wikipedia mediation process commences.  Too often I have seem a "too soon block" made which only serves to exacerbate a situation angering editors who already feel wronged further - FGS just protect the disputed page for an hour if necessary but  if an editor is so sensitive that he can not take a firm, if impolite, retort without immediately requiring an admin's assistance  - then perhaps that editor needs to wait a few years before editing.  Admins and the Arbcom will always be around for the editor who is genuinely bullied, attacked or in anyway whatsoever made to feel truly threatened in real life. To summarise certainly some editors are of great value to the project and it would be a pity if they were banned  because they can be bad tempered at times. Giano 19:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know editors - good content creators (responsible for creation of WikiProjects or Featured Articles), some of whom have never been warned about any policy infraction - that have left the project citing 'having enough of incivility from other editors'. That incivility was more or less exactly on the level of being called an 'idiot' (or a layer, dishonest, nationalist, etc.). They chose not to reply in kind. They chose to leave because they had no desire to spend their time in a place where they are subject to such personal attacks. When asked 'why didn't you turn to DR, and or ArbCom' they told me something along the lines "I don't have time/will to spend few weeks/month digging through edit histories and mud fight with the incivil editors". Don't you think the system as you describe it, and which you seem to support, fails them - and rewards the aggressive incivil editors who succeed in driving away those who don't have a "thick skin"?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do understand some of the problems you have experienced. I too know many good editors who have become very despondent following all the problems that you North European editors find yourselves in. There is no easy answer Piotrus, the former "USSR" problems are in their way similar to the "Troubles" Arbcom case that has just finished. I doubt any Arbcom will resolve very quickly the problems that the world's finest diplomats cannot. Giano 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?
 * --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it should not be, 3RR is usually clear cut and dried - for the multiple reasons I have given above civility issues seldom are. The Arbcom, or indeed Admins are not here to "enforce" but to ensure smooth running, now at times that will mean "enforcing" policies. Some such as profanity, creed and colour are easily dealt with others demand a degree of skill and maturity from those dealing with the problem, the only way Wikipedia can begin to address this is by improving the calibre of its admins.  Too many of them are too young and obviously inexperienced of the real world. Contrary to the belief of many teenagers they have not experienced the real world and they have a lot to learn - Many of Wikipedia's civility issues arise from deeply held beliefs resulting from generations of cultural education - often these "young people" turning up on an older editor's talk page and "teaching them to suck eggs" is not appreciated and makes a situation worse. Many of our editors have not grown up in the comfort of a secure political climate in a country providing them with material comforts some of these editors have seen terrible  things - it is better not to have seen.  The whole secret of this project is tolerance and an attempt to see others POV.  So to (at last) answer your question Civility issues can  be better enforced by Admins who have a degree of tact and experience of dealing with people.  That way we retain the editors and the encyclopedia rolls on.  This project is not  a social  event. Giano 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV? (responded)
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?-- David  Shankbone  18:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that the issues you mention have just arisen in the last year in my experience there have always been editors who feel very strongly and with a certain POV on many issues.  I think it us unavoidable that when an issue is controversial there will be two sides expressing opposing argument.  That is not necessarily a problem and is only a problem when facts are distorted to fit a certain viewpoint, and of course this will always be a charge levelled by those opposing.  The article can also become seemingly biased when one side is more eloquent (or louder) than the other.  To answer your question no it is not always a positive development bearing in mind what I have just said.  However is it actually a development? If Wikipedia were an ordinary published encyclopedia, and most are, only one person's explanation or narrative on any subject would be given and no matter how non POV that person attempted to be, someone will always disagree.  So Wikipedia is always able to show both sides of a coin and that has to be positive.  Yes, I do think it is educational anything that shows there are always two sides, or even a wrong side, to any argument has to be educational as it allows balance and logic.


 * I don't think there is a lasting solution to the disputes this causes, as the opinions of the more eloquent advocate will always triumph over those of the less well versed and persuasive. I don't think this is particularly any more prevalent in America than elsewhere is the supposedly free speaking world. I suspect you may be thinking of a specific subject, please ask further if this does not answer your question. Giano (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cryptic (responsed)
You recently called for the recall of your fellow candidate Durova as an administrator on this ANI subpage. In the event that both you and she are appointed to the committee, do you anticipate being able to work amicably and productively with her? &mdash;Cryptic 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While my powers of clairvoyancy are generally limited in this instance they are finely honed and tuned. That scenario just won't happen. Trust me on that one. So working with her is not something I have to worry about. Giano (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate (responded)
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The most recent? - This page "Prince's Palace of Monaco" which became a featured article 5 days ago is the most recent of my mainspace edits that I am quite pleased with. This page Little Moreton Hall which I re-wrote and expanded last week (or a day or so before) was also quite fun to do. I think those two pages are about it for the last week. Other matters have been pressing too. Giano (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Mathsci (responded)
You posted some extremely childish material on your talk page. Could you explain why? Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You will have to help me out with a diff there. The only thing I have seen recently on my talk page is a great deal of contraversial debate sincerely aimed, by all contributors, at improving the project. Giano 14:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was this episode: Mathsci 06:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check the history, I did not post that. Giano 07:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was posted by an anonymous IP, removed/restored by others and then restored by you . Sorry about the confusion. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Hoary (responded)
As a sane and intelligent bloke, how can you contemplate poring over long lists of diffs of other people's dreary feuds with anything other than horror or despair? -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How nice to know someone thinks I'm sane and intelligent. Poring over diffs does not fill me with despair - horror sometimes may be.  I do it, because I know if I do it, it is done by someone who wants to see the truth and justice.  However unwelcome that truth may sometimes be.  I think a lot of people on Wikipedia know that if I'm the one doing the poring no stone will be left unturned, nothing hidden and no favours given.  I'm tough nothing deflects me and I do it for the project about which I truly care. A project cannot be based on lies and cover up.  Sometimes for the good of the project an editor should be given the opportunity to go quietly rather than have dirty washing aired in public, if they won't go quietly then it is important that Wikipedia is seen to be doing its laundry.  Some cases probably are dreary and mundane and those concerned just need to be pointed to the correct path - everything is different so it all fascinating to me.  That is now I can contemplate poring over the those diffs.  Hope this answers your question. Giano (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Snickersnee (responded)
In your candidate's statement you complain that "troll" is too frequently shouted at truth-seekers - what word will you shout at them? Also, I don't know you or your history, and am ignorant of most issues - do you think it's ok if I still vote for you? sNkrSnee | t.p.  11:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm called a Troll all the time by those who don't like what I uncover. Wouldn't  it be dangerous if in a real court every time the man in the box was asked a question that he did not like he could shout at the prosecuting counsel "Troll" or in a politically influenced  trial the Judge told the defending counsel to be quiet because he was "trolling" - and then at the end of the time the counsel that had presented the most unpalatable evidence was sent to prison.  Fortunately that is not how justice in the civilized  world works. I won't be shouting anything at them, if I'm elected there will be a lot less shouting in Arb cases and a lot more answering.  I'm not sure what you mean by "do you think it's OK if I still vote for you?" - it is certainly OK with me - all votes welcome.  Giano (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Merkinsmum (responded)
If elected, will you stay Giano? Stay independent rather than cliquey/sychophantic in your mentality? This is an honourable trait people have seen in you recently, which no doubt will win you a fair few votes.Merkinsmum (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been "me" for an awfully long time. I have no plans to change one single thing about me.  Unlike you,  I'm less sure that being "me" will win me a "fair few votes", in fact I suspect that being "me" will have ensured I'm no longer around by December 3rd.  However, if I am elected to the Arbcom, while I doubt (realistically one man amongst several) there will be any startling changes overnight, I will do my very best to do the job  that those who vote for me want to see.  If they think I am failing them they can leave a message on my talk telling me "I'm a useless  waste of space" or whatever without fear of me shrieking personal attack and  troll and I expect there will be times when that happens.  I will try to earn respect as an Arb rather than expect it on appointment and I will also remember that an Arb and  is the servant of the editors not the other way around. Giano (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68 (responded)
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Giano (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from SGT Tex (responded)
Over the last week, you have received some remarkable criticism from the big man himself. I have a couple of questions about recent events:

(1) If you receive enough votes to be elected, yet Jimbo refuses to appoint you to ArbCom, what will your reaction be?
 * Well at the moment it all rather hinges on the big question rather than the big man " If you receive enough votes to be elected"?. I rather hope like all of us sometimes Jimbo presses the save button a little too quickly and realises that an instantaneous assessment is not always the best or correct one.  I would be disappointed for Wikipedia if he did not appoint me, I would not imagine that Jimbo wants an Arbcom just to say "Yes Jimbo", "You are quite right Jimbo". I would imagine he likes to be told it straight and how it is.  There is nothing wrong with heated debate so long as it is fair debate. Giano (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) If you are appointed to ArbCom, are you willing and able to let bygones be bygones and work with and/or in support of Jimbo, even though he considers some of your actions as "trolling"?
 * Of course, see above. Giano (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I ask these questions because as one of our best contributors, I do not want to see you lose your enthusiasm for this project and leave us just because some people do not see your contributions for what they are. I hope that you will stay here no matter what. -- SGT  Tex  04:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754(responded)
1:What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
 * Well first of all let me say I know nothing at all about the naming of state highways in the USA. The subject of any Arbcom case is actually rather immaterial it is the rules, laws and interpretation which apply to them that are important. The crux of that case  was move warring and  mass page moves  without consensus; and we all know that is not conducive to productive editing.  So editors who behave in that high handed fashion without reaching or attempting to reach a consensus have to be discouraged preferably first by warning and if that fails by blocking. It is better that they first take advantage of the talk page, and if that fails seek an independent view.


 * Regarding your second point, a poll is a very good way of gauging opinion and a majority view.  The problem is when people try to claim consensus from it.  Obviously  100:2 is consensus 55:45 id less easy and so along the scale as it then becomes necessary for someone to judge the attendant views and arguments and so one is immediately back to square 1. Giano (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

2: a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * A WikiProject is a great way to improve an article or a series of articles at the same time fostering a community spirit and collaboration which is a marvellous thing for the content of the encyclopedia. No they certainly do not own an article.  I often see a project template suddenly appearing on pages I have written and maintain here for example  and here  but I don't think that is claiming ownership any more than I own them. So that doesn't bother me and should not bother anyone.  I think we should all try to to achieve the highest standards, but no, not a set layout, each page is different one can't just type a page into a pre-set format or template. I loathe info boxes and tables in pages, unless strictly necessary, and seldom use them but if others want them on the pages they write then that is up to them we have to be allowed an element of choice and individuality.Giano (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

4: Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on sibling WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * I wish you were talking about a subject I knew more about, I would feel more confident in my reply to this. I can see why people perhaps think that pages on American roads need some uniformity, but having said that I don't think the pages in the areas I edit need to be completely uniform - but then roads are more uniform than buildings and people. At the end of the day I don't like to think of any editor producing a page he is proud of and then having an army of people coming along and saying "Oh no it has to be done this way" For me, so long as the page is encyclopedic, grammatically correct, with as near perfect prose as possible and has a clear easy to follow layout that is sufficient.  Once you enter the world of FAs then one has to conform to the standards required by the reviewers of the page simply does not pass - but then it is the authors choice to offer it to FAC. The whole problem is that very fine line between ownership (to be discouraged) and a little bit of etiquette and understanding to the principal author (to be encouraged). Giano (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

5:a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * Canvassing is a nuisance when people appear on one's page seeking support but it happens with various degrees of subtlety, and I've probably been guilty of it myself - hopefully with a great deal of subtlety, if a page has been slowly languishing on FAC I have certainly introduced it into conversation on a well read talk page in the hope of drawing attention to it. Fortunately the people I am friendly with do not dutifully troop out and vote for my pages any more than I do for theirs, and if comments are made they are as objective as the next man's.  So in that respect I'm  not bothered by it.  When people start producing templates and/or banners and/or spamming the pages of complete strangers then it is time to stop it.


 * Canvassing should not be happening on IRC and news letters should be written impartially. Giano (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

6: a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
 * Deliberate vandals give them one chance to see the error of their ways and then block on the second offence.  "The good faith but horrible edits" I know exactly what you mean and they irritate me to death too.  However because you and I don't like something does not mean it is horrible.   Generally I try to ignore such edits for a coupe of days and then re-write them or incorporate them better into the text.  Sometimes the editor who made them objects, usually for me someone wants to introduce trivia, such as details of a film that was made in a building and they want it in the architecture section - or they see the word portico so instantly feel the need to add details of another house in another country that has similar features, or just add a lot of  good information that alters the balance of the page.  For a primary editor it is bloody annoying.  However, we don't own the pages so if I have  really persistent editor with "horrible edits"  I try to give them their own section, or better still create their edits into a separate, but linked, page and if that does not work I'm afraid you just have to put up with it - because you don't own the page.  You cannot roll back good faith edits or sensible information or block good faith editors however irritating they may be, one must make full use of the talk page to air your views and accept that others have a right to input on any page. Giano (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I did make a mistake on question 3 - it should read as follows.
 * 1) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * No, I don't so long as they meet the broad criteria, I specified above regarding standards. Giano (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker(responded)
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I was looking at this the other day, I think it is quite a good suggestion. While no policy must ever be cast in stone neither does it  need constant tampering with.   Most policies need improving or updating from time to time but this  should be the result of long and careful deliberation and, at least an attempt at,  consensus.


 * I don't think I have ever edited a policy page but I have made my feelings know when I don't agree with something, and that is the way it should be and what talk pages are for. Giano (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Seraphimblade(responded)
Recently, you posted email correspondence on-wiki without permission of its writer. Would there be circumstances under which you would find it acceptable or necessary to post arbcom-l correspondence on-wiki without: a) permission of the email's author, or b) consensus among the arbitrators that such material should be posted? What about, as in this case, private correspondence which you gain access to outside of arbcom-l? Upon reflection, do you still believe this was what you should have done? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly let me say I think an Arb has have the discretion of a Catholic priest. However, at the moment I am not an Arb so I am free to use my own discretion.


 * Regarding the recent case I have no regrets what so ever. The document in question was not a private email but a post (referred to by its author as a "report") to a mailing list, who its members  are we are not permitted to know. ("roughly two dozen people received the report. Those included people from the Foundation, and some (not all) members of ArbCom, and some people who had checkuser privileges." ) The report pertained 100% to Wikipedia editors, its intention being to instruct in the detection of socks.  So flawed as a manual was that document it needed to be exposed. Remember it had circulated amongst the Wikipedia hierarchy for almost two weeks and no one had spotted its flaws furthermore an unjust block was made as a result of it. Would you rather it was still in use?  I can tell you categorically if anyone had ever forwarded to me, as an Arb, such a load of rubbish, the private reply I would have sent back would have incinerated their computer and that is just what those members of the Arbcom to whom Durova claims she showed her report should have done too - long before this scandal broke.


 * An Arbcom's correspondence is very different as it comes with clear confidentiality proviso and is forwarded to the arbcom under that proviso for their  deliberations.  As an Arbcom member I would be using that mail already to produce an opinion and for no other purpose. Giano (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Avruch (responded)
It seems clear that the current ArbCom is going to admonish you for your conduct (at a minimum) and perhaps impose restrictions on you (from a 90 day ban to a long-term or permanent restriction on editing the namespace). Can you speak to how you interpret this outcome? Does it effect at all your resolve to continue your candidacy? Is that resolve at all colored, additionally, by the apparent opposition of Jimbo?

Any restrictions will be suspended until after the ArbCom elections are complete, and lifted if you are elected, to be clear to anyone else reading this question. Avruch Talk 05:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I shall return to your question later today. Is it clear? You obviously have inside knowledge that I don't. Giano (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposed decision on admonishment is passing unanimously. Other remedies are passing as well, but with some opposition. See here. Avruch Talk 14:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When you have been here as long as me you realise an hour can be a long time in Wikipedia. I shall not be accepting any  sanctions  imposed in the current Arbcom case -  (dependent on the election result  or otherwise). To me any sanction will mean a complete ban. The facts of the case are very clear indeed and we all know exactly what is going on so let's not deceive ourselves.   By their recent actions  Jimbo and his Arbcom have made it transparently obvious they will not allow me onto that committee or indeed want any of you to vote for me.    I feel it is  up to the general editors to decide how they feel about that.  My arbcom candidacy will continue to run as I know many people wish to use it to signal their displeasure with the current state of affairs on Wikipedia - and who knows you may see me on the Arbcom yet. Giano (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Andplus (responded)
It appears here that you are being admonished for posting private emails on the site, with an implied recommendation that in similar cases in the future it would be better if such evidence was posted on an external site (see Mackensen's comment at 02.47). I see above that you are against "back-channel" communications being used to justify on-site actions, but what are your views on the extent of the authority of the Committee to address matters that occur off site when they can be tied directly to matters occurring on site (i.e., when those channels are used)? And would you feel inclined to take the advice offered if such a case came to your attention in the future? Andplus (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have sufficient tenure to vote or ask questions, I've been here a little over a month and find reading all the policies less than exciting, so please remove this question if it is in breach of some procedure. Andplus (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think sometimes it would be useful if the Arbcom could have the authority to sanction users over off-wiki activity when their actions bring Wikipedia into disrepute but it is not possible. I am a great believer in "in house", meaning a family or community can fight like hell in the living room but one presents a united front to the neighbours.  One does not air the dirty linen in public. Which is a bit odd as Wikipedia is very public but I hope you understand what I mean.  Anything I have to say I say here and I always have and I always will but on the Arbcom with a greater degree of discretion, but were I on the Arbcom now,  those Arbs in possession of that post, who did not check it even after the block would be very aware of my views albeit in private - as they probably are now.  Were I ever fortunate enough to be on the Arbcom, while people  may not hear me saying things I very much hope that they will believe  that I am  still the same person with the same convictions saying privately the same old things.


 * The problems with sanctions for off Wiki behaviour means there are not only legal implications but also the project opens itself to moral charges of  censorship. I do think though the Arbcom may consider off-wiki posts and behaviour when adjudicating on wiki matters if they are relevant - does that make sense and answer your question? Giano (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the Committee's jurisdiction here is entirely clear - you've given a fuller account of your position on this than anything I can find on theirs in the archives. Good luck with your candidacy. Andplus (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Thatcher131 (responded)
As a member of Arbcom you will have access to the archives of Arbcom's private mailing list.

1. Will you check the archives for past discussions about yourself. To what purpose? What will you do with that information?

2. If, while checking the archives, you find one or more messages that you believe bring discredit on a past or present Arbitrator, what will you do?


 * Asked and answered above. Sorry about that. Thatcher131 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where? Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There. Andplus (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He said he won't posting anything from the arbcom-l mailing list on-wiki. While that's related to Thatcher's question, it doesn't actually answer it. Giano, how do you plan to use the archives? Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If they have not been shredded long before I arrive, I shall use them for reference when they have created a preceden to evaluate that precedent, I shall treat them with discretion, respect and complete privacy. Giano (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, when I set up the mailing list, I was quite deliberate when I set it to archive past emails. While I have been criticized for this (by parties that shall remain nameless) I felt it was important for the sake of historical and institutional memory. I feel the reasons you give in your answer are exactly the kind that I envision when I set up the archive. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Yonatan (redponded)
Sorry if this has been asked previously but a brief search didn't turn up any results. Under what circumstances would you release information from the arbcom-l mailing list, if at all? Yonatan talk 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See above. Never! Giano (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rockpocket (responded)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of your recent publication of previously non-public correspondence is that your consider it justified as a form of whistleblowing (you say, above, "So flawed as a manual was that document it needed to be exposed.") It is also my understanding that ArbCom is the body the community it asked to go to, as a whistleblower, if one has evidence of serious misconduct or abuse. By "going public" with your evidence, it appears you chose not to trust ArbCom to deal with such issues non-publicly. My questions are:
 * Is that the case?
 * We were all told on Wikipedia that "roughly two dozen people received the report. Those included people from the Foundation, and some (not all) members of ArbCom, and some people who had checkuser privileges." . The matter was then trivialised by Jimbo Wales. I would hope that Arbcom members share important information with each other. If those Arbs in receipt of the information did not check their inboxes before the block they surely did after the block was made when the shit began to hit the fan.  Yet  still the affair was being trivialised, if I had not posted it that manual would still be in use now and innocent editors blocked.  So yes, I wondered what on earth the Arbcom were doing not vigorously denouncing Durova's methods. I still do wonder why they did not. Giano (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If so, why you wish to be a member of a body that you yourself do not have confidence in?
 * If I am on it everyone, including me, can hope to trust it. Giano (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you were elected to that body, would you encourage others to bypass a private submission to ArbCom and publish with impunity anything they considered "needed to be exposed."
 * I hope such events will never occur again, I think a lot of new ground has been broken here. Hopefully a lot of people have learnt from the experience including the Arbcom. Giano (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rockpock e  t  18:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Hal peridol (responded)
Given your statement that you will not be accepting any sanctions from Arbcom, do you believe that any or all editors should refuse to accept Arbcom sanctions? Would this remain true if you are elected? Hal peridol (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote. I will not accept any sanctions but regard them as a ban. That is the prerogative of every editor, and the last time I bothered to look the sanctions would disappear magicaly if I were elected. No don't try to understand it. Giano (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Would you regard a non-restrictive sanction in this way, such as the "Giano reminded" proposed remedy? Hal peridol (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am always more than happy to be reminded of anything anytime. Giano (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie (responded)
1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a very interesting question indeed. The Arbcom does not create policy that is created by the editorial body acting in consensus. The role of the arbcom as I see it is to interpret that policy and assist in its application. However, at times during the course of an Arbcom case it can become transparent that the policy is either flawed or impossible to enforce.  In that case the Arbcom can occasionaly give a ruling that contrary to policy in order to avoid an unjust ruling.  This is the true way in which an Arbcom case differs from a real live court of law.  99% of the time RL courts have by law to apply the law with no margin of discretion one is "guilty in law" or innocent.  At Wikipedia the Arbcom can, in certain circimstances, set policy aside and consider other factors.


 * Thus by occasionally ruling contrary to policy the Arbcom sets a precedent, this precedent should be able to alter and influence policy, thus in one way the Arbcom can make policy but it is very much through the back door and in an indirect fashion. Presenting for vote is not the Wikipedia way we strive for a consensus of opinion, even though at time this can seem like a vote. I see no reason why the Arbcom, as a body, cannot present a proposal for policy to the editors for their opinion - so long as it only becomes policy with the consent of the editors.


 * So I suppose in that way I will influence policy, but as an Arbcom member you will not see me on a policy page suddenly turning up and saying "I'm an Arb, and I think we must do this in a certain way" - I think an Arb has to be a little more distant and reserved in their views than a career main-space editor. The role of the Arb is to maintain a creative working environment for those editors, so an  Arb should listen to them rather then tell them. Giano 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Lsi john (responded)
Giano, I want to thank you for your candor thus far. I do have a couple of concerns and would appreciate your taking time to address them.

Though none of us have a crystal ball, based on historic evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that your candidacy is contentious and that it will not necessarily be a smooth and peaceful election cycle.

I have seen you state that you do not consider it possible that you will actually be selected to be on the committee by Jimbo, regardless of the outcome of the voting. You also made a statement that you are only remaining in the election because other individuals want you to remain.

1:If you truly believe that there is zero chance of being on the committee, and knowing the disruption that may well result from the election, it could be seen that you are simply making a point. Could you please respond to that concern?
 * "You also made a statement that you are only remaining in the election because other individuals want you to remain." I don't think I can find a diff for that statement. I certainly cannot read Jimbo Wales' mind, though some of his comments do seem to have been less than encouraging,.  I am also an eternal optimist so who knows what may happen.  It is my firm hope that a large number of people who support, what are now commonly known to be, my views will choose to endorse them by voting for me.  I also hope they will be in such sufficient numbers that Jimbo feels unable to ignore them.  That is not making a "point" it is a serious attempt to become a member of the Arbcom.  Where I feel my views and knowledge would make me a valuable member of that team. Giano 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, it was my interpretation of this from your talkpage:
 * "By their recent actions Jimbo and his Arbcom have made it transparently obvious they will not allow me onto that committee or indeed want any of you to vote for me. I feel it is up to the general editors to decide how they feel about that. My arbcom candidacy will continue to run as I know many people wish to use it to signal their displeasure with the current state of affairs on Wikipedia."
 * Lsi john 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

2:If you are not making a point, and agree that it will potentially be an ugly election, how do you reconcile the damage that will could result from the mud slinging against the contributions you would bring as an arbitrator. Lsi john 17:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope and pray it will not be an ugly election. It is a fact though that few Wikipedia elections are two neat columns of signatures - although as we have talk and discussion pages, I have never understood why a voting page cannot be just that.  It is to be hoped that those voting, either way, will confine their comments to civil points. As a candidate all I can do is request that if comments are challenged they are challenged in a civilized and peaceful way. I shall certainly be asking this of all those who do wish to support me. So I trust there will be no damage to the project from this election.  The project is strong it will survive come what may, I always believe that, though I may wobble at times.  The advantages to the project of having an Arbcom in which it can begin to regain its trust and belief will far outweigh a few scratches it acquires during the election. Giano 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork (responded)
How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing".  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone can and does edit Wikipedia all the time and that is how it should be but voting has to be serious and with gravitas.  If unregistered users were allowed to vote the system would not last five minutes and would disintegrate.  Vandalism, socks you name it they would be here.  Also the system has to be seen to be beyond reproach -so I would oppose anything that gave anonymity to voters, unless the developers can come up with some sort of secret ballot such as are held in RL but I don't understand enough about computers to know if that is even possible let alone feasible. Giano 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Lar (responded)
0. IF I may be so bold, I suggest that you be firm about factoring things off the voting page and to the talk page if they start getting messy, and yourself asking for calm if it comes to that. I think you can address one concern of some of your detractors, if you set the example of keeping things steady in this case. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We shall just have to play it by ear as and when things happen. I think all of us have had a very good opportunity to air our opinions lately - I canot think there can be a lot more left to say. Giano 14:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think so as well but I am usually wrong when I think that there is not much more to say about X. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Great answers to Blue Tie. A follow up on Blue Tie's question #2: How do you think the principle of the community setting policy squares with the occasional finding by ArbCom to the effect of "The community is implored to come up with a policy on X"? I see congruence, do you agree? Should ArbCom be doing that sort of thing more often? ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * a diff for the "community is implored" would be useful. Giano 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure they used "implored" in a formal statement but an example would be Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites ... ArbCom, in a remedy, states the "The community is encouraged to develop a policy compliant with Wikipedia's key policies regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked." ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure of the philosophy behind your question, or that I am understanding it correctly. I think it "squares" perfectly. Such things happen in RL all the time. It is quite common during legal proceedings that a loophole in the law is discovered, most often in tax and extradition laws. Therefore, that Wikipedia's policies should also be found to have holes or vacant areas is hardly surprising and it is most likely to be the Arbcom that discovers this. So long as the Arbcom only highlights the problem and advises on the solution then there is no problem. The problem would occur if the Arbcom took it upon itself to fill the void without consultation of the wider community.  I'm never quite sure what Americans mean by congruency (to me "congruence" means two things have the same shape, but a different size) but I don't think it matters a one jot who proposes a policy or a change in policy, as editors we are all equal, so long as it only comes into force with the consensus of the community.  However, like it, or hate it, the Arbcom is in a strong position to influence policy if only by their interpretation and application of it. Giano 14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is always the danger of imperfect understanding, but I think you understood my question perfectly, and that we completely agree that it is an appropriate practice, and the proper framing of where arbcom's remit starts and ends. (encourage the community to set policy, yes. Mandate the setting of it, or set policy themselves, no.) Thanks for another one of your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to skip the "do you think the arbcom should split to handle cases some of the time" questions I asked some candidates as most other candidates seemed to think it was unworkable. 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to answer your "unasked" question. Of course it is workable, but only with a great deal of aforethought. I would refer you to my answer here . The Arbcom could be split and the whole structure of dealing with cases altered with cases being graded according to their gravity. With less serious and more clear cut cases being handled by just 3 Arbs sitting alone. But such a restructure would not happen overnight and would have to be the result of a lot of long and meaningful discussions with the community. Giano 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a different division that I was thinking of, but perhaps actually a better one! ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen (responded)
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private. Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators-only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
 * Mailing list


 * The Arbcom mailing list and those given access to Arbs deliberations should and could be pruned, but that is not to say the Arbcom should be prevented from consulting former Arbs when they have knowledge of a precedent or experienced specialist knowledge of a particular subject. However, it should always be publicly announced that a particular former Arb has been consulted in each specific occasion. One has the right to know one's judges in all circumstances. I sometimes wonder if this is the case at the moment. Giano 11:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it  has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
 * Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators
 * There is nothing wrong with talking privately to an Arb about a case. However, unless it truly is a matter of life or death or national security (unlikely) then all charges made must be public and with clear reference to who has made them.  Similarly all defence to these charges have to be public.  Justice has to be seen to be done.  Private details of RL addresses, names and families should always be withheld at an editor's request. Giano 11:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
 * Recusals


 * I can only speak to myself. If a friend of mine, or a case in which I was involved or caused me COI came before the Arbcom, I would recuse. I would step back from all deliberation and not comment to any other Arb on the matter until the case was closed. Giano 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
 * Community oversight over the arbitration policy
 * I think I have covered the important points you raise here and here  tell me if there is anything nore you would like to know. Giano 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not forgotten your other questions Irpen, yours are the longets questions so I will tackle your them when I have dealt with RL today - OK? Giano 09:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from DS (responded)

 * You're not an administrator. What will you do if you require access to deleted material in order to properly reach a decision?
 * You can be forgiven for not spotting this above as it has just takem me five minutes to find it again.  It is getting to the pont where it will be easier to write things out again than find the diff. Giano 08:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you know about Encyclopedia Dramatica?
 * I have only once looked at it. When I did I did not like what I saw. I was looking at a page dedicated to a Wikipedia editor and quite frankly I thought it vile.  It went far beyond reasonable criticism and entered deeply into the realms of bad taste and beyond.   I have never edited any of the sites dedicated to criticising Wikipedia and have no plans to, although I see no harm in having a look at what they have to say from time to time, any project which  never reads its own bad press is burying its head in the sand.Giano 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I nearly forgot: arbitrators should have tact and an ability to deal with people, because by the time a dispute gets all the way to arbcom, the people involved are very upset. One strong indicator of tact is an ability to admit that one was wrong. Have there been any incidents in which you were wrong? DS 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a long time ago, once on the FAC page User: Tony1 and I fell out big time over prose, with hindsight I should have handled that better than I did. It was a page to which I was personally attached (another mistake) and while I did not have COI I truly thought I knew what I was talking about.   We were really angry with each other, furious - truly mad - real sparks flew he is far less verbose in his style  than me.  Since then I have very slowly come to respect his views and I think he has mine (I hope so anyway) and we are actually quite friendly now.  So the moral of the story is, try not to fall out with other editors, if you do stick with the project because you may find some common ground later and do admit mistakes - even if it does take a while to realise they were mistakes. Giano 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (responded)
I'm not being intentionally disruptive here - this is a valid question, and I have virtually no details of what you were recently involved in, nor have I read too deeply into your above questions - but don't you think that running for ArbCom this soon after whatever happened is going to cause more harm than good at the moment? Feel free to not answer if you feel the question is inappropriate, or direct me to a previous answer if you want. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think someone has explained on your talk page the simplified version of that case but basically my take on it is here.


 * I declared my candidacy long before the advent of the Durova Arbcom case, during and after the conclusion of that case I briefly thought of withdrawing, not because I thought it had lost me many votes (which it probably has - but it was still the right thing to do) but because I was concerned there would be divisive arguing on the voting pages. I intend to monitor this situation if it occurs, I hope all voters will be allowed to make their points in a calm way.  I have spoken further on the subject of why I am still running to another editor here. If you need to know anything else please ask.  You may need to jolt me on my talk page, as it is becoming very easy to miss an edit on this page here. Giano 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Snickersnee (round 2) (responded)
Many of those currently voting against you acknowledge that your actions re. Durova were justified and necessary, and that your motivations were honourable. Yet they still oppose your ArbCom nomination, and either feel that your approach to issues (regardless of merit) is too controversial for the position, or that your actions and principles regarding the presentation of (dubiously characterized) "private" correspondence undermine their trust in your future disposition of private information.


 * Can you explain how, exactly, an attitude of aggressively exposing injustice and process abuse might be an asset to ArbCom?


 * Regarding trust, I note your unequivocal promise here. Have you ever broken a similar commitment, or otherwise betrayed a trust in such a way as to cause voters to doubt your word?

Thanks, sNkrSnee |  ¿qué?  06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * sNkrSnee, I don't think I have ever broken a personal commitment I have made to anyone in RL or here or betrayed a confidence. Regarding other points. I am going to try throughout this election not to comment on amy of the oppose votes. All people are entitiled to their own views and have the right to express them. Giano 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Haukur (responded)
I'm asking the following of the candidates currently in the top 10 in the race.

ArbCom has the power to overrule any decision made by Jimbo in what he refers to as his "traditional capacity within Wikipedia". Under what circumstances would you overturn a decision made by Jimbo? This isn't meant as a trick question - I would be perfectly happy with a simple answer like "I'd consider overruling a decision he made if I thought it was a bad one". But if you'd like to go into more depth or consider some past Jimbo decisions as examples then I'm fine with that too. Haukur 16:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * God, am I still in the top ten? - I am not an Admin so I am not in a position to ever single-handedly overturn anyone's decisions but as you know I would have no problem telling Jimbo that I believed he has made a wrong decision and as Arb, I would have no problem adjudicating on one of his decisions if one was ever to be referred. As I say above, 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. This is my view is one of the Arbcom's greatest faults at the moment, they seem to look at the people before the evidence before them. So examining Jimbo's  conduct would be no problem but imposing sanctions would be interesting .  At the end of the day none of us are infallible Jimbo  included.Giano 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Mrs.EasterBunny (responded)
As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really NuclearUmpf, but no discussion on what got NuclearUmpf banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?

The above may not be the best example but it's one that I recently saw because I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases. On occasion, I have seen an editing admin block someone because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing and the block seemed questionable because there is no overt POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first crime excuse the second? Or is the second one crime much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy answer because excusing the first crime by the admin would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to do a lot with less oversight. However, excusing the second crime might seem to encourage socks). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I read your question several times before I understood it and then realised the answer is in the first line. I'm afraid the Arbcom as a body is not concerned with content. In theory the Arbcom exists only to adjudicate in matters of policy and interpretation of policy. That seems a pity doesn't it at first glance?  However, it is not really, if the Arbcom became embroiled in content then there would be no termination to any dispute, every Arbcom ruling would lead to accusations of COI by this Arb or that -


 * Imagine a very simplified and hypothetical case - two editors,  one editor had been edit warring with the other claiming Italy was not the cradle of civilization but it was in fact Idaho (no offence Idahoans - but we got there first) and the other editor is saying this was rubbish.  The Arbcom would have to rule that edit warring was wrong, even if it meant sanctioning the editor whose edits were correct if he had not gone through the correct procedure before edit warring.  That is how we keep order, there is not alternative but to follow guidelines to prevent friction. Now that scenario is very over simplified so you must try now and put in the context of something more serious but the rules for the smooth running of the encyclopedia have to remain the same.  Otherwise anarchy (or what passes for anarchy at Wikipedia) would follow.  So to answer your question, much as I rank content above all else, where the Arbcom and order is concerned policy has to come first, and that is why policies have to be drawn up with huge attention to minutiae of detail. Giano (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus (responded)
What is your position on the following?
 * A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.
 * 1) After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
 * Consensus is supposed to be achieved by the result of constructive debate during which a percentage of those contributing change their viewpoint as a result of that debate. Eventually if there are still two very distinct camps one looks at compromise, and then compromise again until a final solution is acceptable to all.  If eventually the matter has to be decided on a headcount in my view it should be 80% and above supporting a motion. Less than that then other alternatives and compromises have to be explored. Giano (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
 * As I say above I don't think 75% is consensus, but assuming consensus had been agreed it is perfectly acceptable for those admins who understand the policy best to protect it from immediate vandalism by those who objected contrary to consensus. There is nothing to prevent those who are unhappy with the consensus continuing their debate on the talk page.  However a line has to be drawn somewhere at some time Giano (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
 * Unless it within hours or days of the policy being ratified by consensus, it is not appropriate for any policy to be protected from change by anyone. Nothing is written in stone for all time. Giano (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
 * Sounds like a perfect solution and logical approach to me. Unless the policy has just been thrashed out in the immediate past. Giano (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
 * Policies can cover any aspect of Wikipedia so long as they are in clear, concise and specific language. Nothing should ever cover any subject without saying so. Giano (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?  wbfergus undefinedTalk 15:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I would not agree. This comes back again to the need for clear and specific language as mentioned above.  A "guide" is something "useful" that is helpful to see one through something, whether it be policy or a mountain pass.  A guide is to keep one on the straight and narrow - to keep safe and prevent from making mistakes. Such as a guide to filling in your tax form. One can choose to read the guide but the tax has to be paid whatever. On the other hand  "Recommendations" are advice that does not necessarily have to be followed.  Many of Wikipedia's problems are the direct result or unclear language in its policies.  In policy writing there must  be black and white there must never be grey.  That way it is clear and leaves no room for error. Giano (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt and courteous answers. wbfergus undefinedTalk 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pinkville (responded)
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is very structured which ought to be a good thing and it is important that there is a structure that is rigid without being inflexible, we all need to work in a disciplined environment. However, one of the chief problems that Wikipedia experiences is that the hierarchy that enforces that discipline is not first required to cut their teeth writing pages to expand the encyclopedia. If one has never suffered the pangs of having to let an article go, overcome the temptation to own a page, or even known the bloody hard and often quite boring  work of research then one is never going to understand where half the problems that Wikipedia editors experience when they come to Arbcom.  It often seems to me that many of those making and enforcing the policy that the contributing editors have to follow are "career advisers" rather than writers.


 * It seems very wrong to me that an anguished editor who feels his page is being vandalised can be often callously blocked for revert warring by an admin who has never been, or ever likely to be in that position himself. When that same editor attempts to remonstrate or voice an opinion which could improve the encyclopedia he is all too often called a troll or edit warrior by those same admins who have no comprehension of what it is to write a page.  What I'm trying to say is I feel the current admin system can impede the development of the encyclopedia - the very comments on the voting page that I cannot be on the Arbcom because I'm not an admin seem to answer your question. One does not need to be able to block people and delete pages to know what is best for the encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Pinkville (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)