Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Ilyanep

Hi, I'm Ilyanep. I've been here since May 2003. I'm an admin and a bureaucrat, and have quite a bit of experience as both. The ArbCom has gone very far in the years since it's been created, but there are still some kinks that need to be worked out, and I decided to run because I'd like to be the one to help out.

ArbCom was almost unanimously and rightly criticised last year for its tardiness. I believe that there has been significant improvement, but the large caseload and burnout of arbitrators still remains a problem. I promise that if I am elected, I will try to help find a way to expedite cases while still allowing time for the arbitrators to compile, read, and decide on evidence, which I find very important. I also promise to stay on for my entire term, as I see myself as a person who finishes what he started. The ArbCom has also been accused of bias in the past. I commit myself to strict neutrality in all cases, and am able to see when I can not possibly be neutral, in which case I will recuse. I don't see that happenning too often, however.

I find that complete bans from Wikipedia are nearly impossible to enforce, and go against the spirit of the project. I would support more revert-enforced bans on editing certain categories of articles, mentorship programs, and, if necessary, more topical bans. These are more wikilike than outright bans, and are a step in the right direction in searching for more innovative ways to maintain order.

In the end, I believe that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and most people here are aiming for that goal. A negative experience shouldn't cause one to leave the project. As is said numerous times around the project: if an article is let to evolve, the good will filter through. I believe the community does the same. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the reason I'm not voting for anyone else is at the top of my userpage. —Ilyanep (Talk) 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: Well, I'm fourteen years old, as is stated on my user page. I am in 9th grade at a public high school. My current (academic) course list is:

• English 1 Honors
• Biology Honors
• Band (On
  Tenor Saxophone
  -- slightly academic)
• Spanish 2
• Geometry Honors
• Would have taken World History Honors, were it not for the fact that our school only allows 6 classes in a day!!!!

I also plan to apply to the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy this year. I'm told I have a good chance of getting in. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary: I will follow Redwolf24's example and state that I got a 1270 on the (old) SAT's at age 13 (640 math, 630 verbal) and am planning to get at least 50 more points this year per subject (and a pretty good score on the new writing section). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Added later) I just got this years' SAT scores...690 math/670 verbal/around 720 writing. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: I can't really put down an arbitrary number for you and tell you that that is enough. I think that however many hours an arbitrator needs to read the evidence, compile everything he needs, and make a justified decision is how many hours one needs. I really am willing to put in the time necessary to arbitrate fairly. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary: I am also on every day, and plan to remain doing so. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.

A: I have been involved in many aspects of Wikipedia policy and article revision. For example, a great percentage of my edits are in the wikipedia namespace. I usually follow policy rulings, many of which directly affect how article revision may work. Also, as an example for article revision itself, I started a collaboration of sorts on

. I have also gone around many articles and tried to work with the editors on the talk pages in order to achieve a consensus.

All this shows that I really do have the experience of an editor in addition to an administrator, both of which are necessary to arbitrate successfully. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: Only this one. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I adequately answered your questions. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [1][2] [3] Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really tell you anything off the top of my head, but I'll work on it. From what I've read in those discussions before entering the election, one that stood out to me particularly (and still does) is the one proposing circuits (or a queue perhaps) of arbitrators, thus increasing the amount of seats and decreasing the workload. As for some other suggestions, I'll list some when it's not 11 PM and I don't have to go to school the next day ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, I think the ArbCom really takes too many cases that it shouldn't. A lot of the cases need to be rejected and sent straight down to mediation, as they haven't been through all the stages yet. Also, a lot of cases end up sitting on the requests page for a month not being accepted or rejected. These need to be dealt with in some fashion. But overall, I think the idea that holds the most merit is having circuits of committee members, as this will increase the ArbCom's capacity for simultaneous cases and will most likely reduce burnout. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are an arbitrator, and before you is a case in which an editor has upset a lot of people from the start. You look at his actions and you can see that the reason is that he's a prolific editor but his editing isn't quite up to snuff. His edits don't always match the style guide, but he's obviously trying his best, his good faith is clear, and his edits are useful after being cleaned up, but that requires a lot of work and some editors who do this are upset. What remedies do you propose for this situation?

Like I said above, I definately would like to rule out bans from the start, unless it gets too out of hand. I'm not quite sure how such a case could have gone through RfC and Mediation and not had a useful outcome, but that's beside the point. What I would consider first is trying to get a mentor for this user. Someone who is experienced and willing to teach this user how the manual of style works and what he can do so that little or no cleanup is necessary for his edits. If that doesn't work, I would propose a temporary 'block' from this user editing the main namespace in addition to some sort of plan that might get this user to start contributing in a good manner. If no plans work then unfortunately we must go to the last resort and ban, but not for too long. Definately less than a month, maybe less than a week; simply a topical ban to get the point across. Hopefully by then, the user will understand. If not, then we may need to be more agressive. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The school system and being aware of politics. Period. :) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then

]

I tend to think about what would be more beneficial to the article or Wikipedia itself (depending on the situation). Usually, such contradictions can be solved by thinking about it instead of spouting off with knee-jerk reactions. In the end, I agree with Kelly Martin when she says "Use Common Sense" — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

Not any particular strong beliefs. I do delve into politics, but I wouldn't call my beliefs strong or biased. I might recuse myself if I do see a conflict of interest in articles that are very politically close to home (George W. Bush not being one of them). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

I'm willing to contest their decisions if I know what I'm talking about (or else I feel akward). Therefore, I will definately do a little bit of research first on the issue if I don't know much about it. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

No, definately not. All appeal mechanisms are there for just that reason. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

I agree that all parties involved should be investigated. Nobody signed an agreement stating that they have "diplomatic" immunity. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Victim of signature fascism 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 03:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As with any situation, one must look at both sides of the issue. I will ask of other arbitrators opinions first (note that you said 'another arbitrator' as opposed to 'other arbitrators'). Also, I will do research just as I might do when writing an article on a controversial subject. Almost all issues can be solved with the golden center if people would just see both sides of the issue.

I don't see myself as an easy person to dupe. I've been through a lot of this in other Wikipedia places, as well as in real life.

As for what you mean by our culture I'm not sure. If you mean the culture of the US, Britain, and the rest of the western world, I think it's nice to have a set of fresh eyes from (and don't worry I know quite a bit of it anyways). If you mean the culture of Wikipedia, I've been here for two years and have been heavily involved in the community. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) of Zulu culture. You are probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? --Victim of signature fascism 08:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee you know I never really thought about that. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the creation of a

]

It seems like a good idea, if it's implemented correctly, and not designed to keep the arbcom from performing its duties. The only downside I might see is that it's just another thing Arbitrators have to follow when they're busy enough already. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of

]

Only when it makes sense in the situation. IAR isn't meant to be a blanket to allow admins to do anything, but if there is an obvious need [which is to be worked out by the ArbCom and the community, of course] to ignore layed down rules, it should be done. Sometimes the right thing to do is to go against the rules (in fact, I'm sure that events in history can be cited that support that), but if you always go against them what you have is an anarchy. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
2. Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
3. What are your views on the proposed policy
   Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct
   ? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 09:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think that without
   WP:CIV
   , Wikipedia would collapse into a shouting match which would get more and more ruthless. Civility is a pretty important aspect in building our ecnyclopedia. While editors should be judged on their main namespace edits as well as their relations with other editors, if they are rude when talking to other editors they should face the consequences (whatever those may be at the time). If the editor is right they should be able to explain their position calmly without needing to be rude.
2. I do not have a specific academic background, as I am only just entering high school this year (see the first question on this page). However, when people sharply criticise me, I try to maintain my calm and tell the other person to calm down as well. Wikipedia may be important to someone, but it's important to all of us, and it's no reason to be rude. Generally, I try to calm down situations and bring them to an intelligent debate.
3. I agree with having an understood code of conduct, but I don't agree with making it a formal policy, because formal codes of conduct tend to have a way of preventing such committees from doing their proper duties. People who are wrong in a situation may well point to such a code of conduct to pretend that they're on the higher ground and to get away from their own actions (A Red Herring argument). Most of the code of conduct is simple common sense, so I'm not sure about the usefulness of it as it is, however. Also, I disagree with a few of the points provided, and I might list them later.

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support

]

It's useless instruction creep, and most of the points are covered in existing policy and common sense. I don't understand why all of these codes and bills are being pushed, specifically at the time of the election. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
2. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
3. To what extent would those projects be affected?

]

1. I don't know. I honestly can't tell you, but I'm pretty sure it would be the majority of my time considering the sheer bulk of work that the ArbCom has.
2. That's a tough question. I don't tend to spend a lot of time in one project or another, so I don't know if anyone would necessarily feel it that much, especially because I spend a lot of time in policy debates or maybe making minor changes to articles.
3. See above.

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

Yes, I believe that if the community has consensus to remove an arbitrator, they should be removed. The ArbCom should not be a set-in-stone committee that is not checked at all by the community, because that would be a scary thing. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

Yes, I think that that would be reason for removing an arbitrator from their position.

However, I find that this is sort of a subtle attempt to get me to say that Kelly Martin should be removed from her arbitrator position. I hope I don't need to remind you that all 150 don't agree she needs to lose her admin or arbcom positions, but merely say that what she has done is wrong. This isn't a black and white issue, there's a gray area. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if you let the 150 people cool down all they'd want is an apology from Kelly which is all that is reasonable here. In fact, as of now I see no signing. Oh, and Polls are evil.

Although the situation may apply to Kelly Martin, her appointment is infact only temporary until these elections are held, so the point is in her case somewhat moot. The question still stands, however, in general. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if we have a straightforward vote on whether or not the person should be removed, and the results turn out as such I would say the arbitrator should be removed. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is merely speculation, however, as I can't really be sure about what you're speaking but I have a hunch. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?

Unfortunately, I can't cite anything off of the top of my head, but I'll make an effort to go and do that within the next week. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't do so regularly enough? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unforutnately I don't. Usually, I try to insert things that don't contradict any point of view (jus' the facts). —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see how the community would see that as quite biased editing? How do you know what you think are the facts are in fact true? How do you think that would be viewed in light of your capability or otherwise of treating cases fairly rather than being heavily biased against the side you disagree with?--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my past edits, you'll find that I haven't POV-pushed and in fact, I have removed some POV pushing from articles. By just the facts I mean cold hard quantitative facts, which can be proven by a few reliable sources (and if you say that that is untrue then you're making a highly philosophical argument that no knowledge is true). —Ilyanep (Talk) 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at

?

I don't agree with a code of conduct that's formal (see #2), but I will tell you that I pledge to recuse myself if any conflict of interest is seen by myself or anyone who I respect. Most of those points are cases in which I would recuse, but I don't like a code of conduct (See answer to #2) —Ilyane<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black">p (Talk) 21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are there any parts of

that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

I don't agree with having a formal code of conduct, because it's instruction creep and it covers basic common sense. It can also be used as a basis for attacking arbitrators when it's not the right time (which is why the encyclopedia as a whole has

WP:IAR). An understood code of conduct is enough as long as all parties are semi-aware of it. However, the provisions inside basically follow common sense, and I agree with most of them. —Ilyanep (Talk) 21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

Again, pledge is not the right word in this situation. For all I know, I may be told some important information that may change my opinion vastly, but I can tell you that at the moment and barring any major epiphanies, I support adding seats to the ArbCom. —Ilyanep (Talk) 21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

I do recall voting on a few of the points that I felt semi-strongly about. If not, then I was planning to vote and decided that I had and didn't then :\. Let me list how I feel on the points:

• 1: No.
• 2: Yes, because it's simple and easy to understand for everyone.
• 3: Yes, we can't hold long vacancies in the arbcom.
• 4: Yes, it's a very good and well thought out idea. Perhaps change the numbers, but the general idea is good.
• 5: No, no point.
• 6: Ehh...I'd rather have the run-off election.
• 7: This or #4 are a good way to go.
• 8: Eugh...I'm not sure if I even understand that method of voting.
• 9: I'm not sure.
• 10: Yes, we do this on RfA and this is more important.
• 11: Same as #9
• 12: eh? why?
• 13: same as #12

—Ilyanep (Talk) 21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I hope I answered your questions adequately. —Ilyanep (Talk) 21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxers or briefs? --

]

This is a really tough one ;) I think I'd have to go with boxers. BTW, shouldn't it be hábleme? —Ilyanep (Talk) 00:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The infinitive is "hablar". --

estianpower ^háblame 11:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah but don't you want to use formal instead of informal? Either way, thanks for the little bit of comic relief here :) —Ilyanep (Talk) 18:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both are fine. Háblame is like you would say to a peer or friend, while hábleme is softer, like addressing formally or requesting something. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea when used properly (for example, in extreme abuse of admin powers). However, I still think it's a good idea to allow for people to run again or even force a community vote for desysopping. —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: some may argue that this is more of an unpopulartiy contest, but as per my candidate statement, I am of the opinion that the good filters out. We must first AGF of the community, which ties in with people opposing topical bans, etc. I think that, of course, if the user has proven they have no good faith it's pointless, but otherwise, why not give them a chance? —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general procedure in desysopping is allowing the user to run again at any time. If they feel they can get 80%, they could always run again immediately. Forcing a revote on the user is thus tantamount to desysopping them. What would you call "extreme abuse of admin powers"? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would really need to be determined on a case to case basis. It's hard to say what an extreme abuse is without telling someone to Not stuff beans up their nose, and anything I would say would end up having an exception. —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Nickptar: Hi, I would like to explain what I meant by that. By that I meant that for a little while I would only be able to devote time on the weekends [for the first quarter or so -- due to IMSA policies on IRN], and after that I will be able to devote time as well, but perhaps not for doing a lot of research on article namespace stuff. Either way, I'd be able to devote time to the ArbCom. —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I'd also only end up going to IMSA in August, so I'd be able to serve 3/4's of the first year 100% of my free time if needed. —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"we should have a secret vote" <-- Why? --JWSchmidt 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open votes are quite scary, in my opinion. They tend to create bad blood between different voters and candidates for a long time (and comes quite close to the disendorsements disaster from last year). For example, if a candidate votes for another one, they may be voted against by someone harboring a grudge against the latter candidate. Or if the candidate votes against another one, and both make it to Arbcom, it may cause trouble. As well as that, a candidate may be voted against but then make it to the ArbCom and the person who voted against the candidate is in a case.

Open voting was discarded almost everywhere for a few centuries now because of these problems.

Also, using a secret vote with software allows us to check for suffrage of accounts easily. —Ilyanep (Talk) 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with

NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [4]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]