Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II

Giano

I first edited properly in May 2004. I had a couple of short term names before finally settling on Giano - my childhood nickname. I'm not an Admin, and have never wanted to be. An arbitrator needs only to form a sound opinion.

I believe passionately that the Wikipedia project can succeed through high quality content. I think that all editors should be encouraged to contribute to main-space, if only through copy-editing or formatting, at least initially. As a chronic dyslexic I am always amazed at how helpful most editors are with copy edits and advice and this is one of Wikipedia's strengths. To me one of the greatest wiki-crimes are summaries such as this [1] to a new editor. Lack of linguistic and grammatical skills need be no impediment to editing Wikipedia. The lambasted editor in question there I suspect has an enormous amount to contribute if it can only be encouraged. We all have something to contribute but often is does need a little fostering.

My faults: I have strong views, and don't suffer fools, at times I am abrupt and tactless. Some of my doings have probably become exaggerated with the telling. For the record: I don't think IRC should be banned but kept in its place. I have used it myself. Admins should be given a dedicated, exclusive to them, page to discuss business openly rather than in the secrecy of #admins. From time to time some matters do need to be discussed privately but these are always affairs for the Arbcom rather than a general admin.

Regarding Arbcom deliberations many problems can be solved by common sense. Many wikipedia problems become confused by pile-ons and opinions from those not grasping the situation. "Troll" is frequently shouted at anyone persistent in seeking the truth. The result is often muddy water, impossible to see through. This has been the case some of the more notorious Arbcom cases. Other cases are avoidable, more understanding is required to see where controversial editors are coming from, and more use employed of talk pages - often compromise can be reached before an edit war commences.

I would be very useful to the Arbcom, I have more experience than many other editors at both writing content and the machinations of Arbitration. I see two sides of each coin.

• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Giano (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Questions for the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

Support

1. Strong support. The ArbCom needs more thinking out of the box and more spumoni. Bishonen | talk 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
2. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support Giano's RfC and Arbcom to help wrongly accused USer:!! was inspiring, bringing praise from a wide variety of editors who usually disagree. He would make a great Arbcom. Travb (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Paul August ☎ 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Tim Q. Wells 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Support ... for why, see User:Lar/ArbCom2007/Giano ++Lar: t/c 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Support absolutely. Giano is argumentative, disruptive, pompous, arrogant and spectacularly annoying, and I rarely agree with him on anything. But I'd far sooner have someone with his impressive ability to consistently say the right thing in the wrong way than one of those all-too-frequent characters who always manage to say the wrong thing in the right way. I trust his opinion; his sense of fairness; his ability to understand what the key issues are in a dispute & which editors are capable of being turned around; his ability to stay neutral in the face of trolling & provocation from both sides; his understanding of when the sarcasm should stop & the constructive comments start; and above all his understanding of where things are going wrong & dedication to keeping the project on course to what it could one day be, more than I'd trust any dozen "All hail to the wisdom of the glorious First Citizen Jimbo" self-appointed Defenders of the Wiki. — iridescent 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Strong Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Strong Support Because he speaks his mind about what is right and wrong and doesn't mince words. His 'moral compass' is aligned correctly. Being a member of the committee will ensure fair treatment for all.spryde | talk 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Strongest support ever. With no offense to anyone, Giano is a single most decent human being this project has. Placing Giano on the committee would be a single change that would have a greatest impact on the improvement of the climate of Wikipedia. --Irpen 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, Need a variety of opinions on the arbcom, says he won't publish private arbcom emails, good enough for me.Rayc 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Cla68 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
14. —trey(wiki) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
15. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Antics and attitudes are fundamentally incompatible with ArbCom. Kurykh 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Mr.Z-man 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose, sorry. I was all set to support, but Giano's refusal to accept policy on posting of private email, coupled with the appearance of grudge-bearing agains certain individuals, means I cannot have confidence in Giano maintaining the requisite level of discretion as an Arbitrator. Giano writes great content. That doesn't mean he'd be a great arbitrator. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)